# Talk:Stanisław Kot

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stanisław Kot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050101013836/http://www3.uj.edu.pl/alma/07/28.html to http://www3.uj.edu.pl/alma/07/28.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I am done with the expansion; all other sources (cited in bibliography) are I think available only through a physical trip to a library in Poland. As for the other sources, a number are open access; I located Soroka in the Library Genesis, and as for Brock and Pietrzyk, I received a copy from an editor who had access to it (my university did not); it is partially visible in Google Preview and if anyone wants a copy, send me an email. Some sources are in Polish but most are OCRed and therefore can be machine translated if anyone wants to verify some facts. PS. I want to thank User:Nihil novi for his copyedit, the article reads much nicer thanks to that! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. How would you feel about additional content covering his role in Polish-Jewish relations? Understandably the Hebrew version of this article has plenty. It seems generally noteworthy to me, especially in connection with Anders Army Jews and his visit to the BM of Palestine. Israel Gutman's 1970s academic paper here may be worth adding [1] and Kot is discussed several times in Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust by Michael Fleming (historian) (2014) which describes allegations of Kot's anti-Semitism - see Google Books. Also, is there a rationale for not including War and Diplomacy in East and West by Mieczysław B. Biskupski (Routlege,  2017) found by K.e.coffman over at Paradisus Judaeorum? Both Biskupski and Fleming discuss Kot proposing a new Pale of Jewish Settlement in Eastern Europe. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, user:MyMoloboaccount has added to "History of the Jews in Poland" information about the prewar Polish government's military and diplomatic assistance to the Jewish Zionist movement, which may reflect some light on some of Kot's reported views.
Nihil novi (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chumchum7: There is room to expand this article, my only concern is WP:UNDUE. No biography of his I reviewed (and cited) discusses his role in Polish-Jewish relations, nor did I find anything in the offline bibliography (cited here too) that suggests anyone has dedicated an article to this (whereas there are dedicated articles about his WWI time (Florkowska-Francić), ambassador career (Duraczyński), or about different dimensions of his scholarship (Śliwa, Borowski, Dybiec, Okoń, Urban)). Should Wikipedia have a paragraph about a topic that does not have one in any dedicated biography of his, nor is there any indication any scholar so far has considered it significant enough compared to others? Still, if anyone can draft a sentence or paragraph, we could review it. I'd note that Biskupski's accussation of antisemitism seems fringe, as we have three other sources that explicitly contradict him: 1) Bernard Wasserstein (1 December 1988). Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945. Institute of Jewish Affairs. ISBN 978-0-19-282185-0., page 124 ". Kot (who was not regarded as an anti-Semite)". 2. [2] by Lech Szczucki: "Do Kota garnęli si również studenci pochodzący z mniejszości narodowych: profesor był zdecydowanym przeciwnikiem nacjonalizmu i antysemityzmu" [Kot was popular among the students from ethnic minorities: he was a strong opponent of nationalism and antisemitism] and 3.Peter Brock (historian) and pl:Zdzisław Pietrzyk [3] "From his high-school years on, Kot rejected categorically the anti-Semitism that Poland’s integral nationalists were now propagating with increasing vigour." (p.409). Also from from [4]: "The civilian administration under Ambassador Stanisław Kot was much more open and helpful to the Jews" [compared to Polish military authorities]. It would help if you would cite quotes or at least pages from Fleming that are relevant. I found on p. 96 : "British were advised of anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland by Stanislaw Kot" and page 87 "his assertions in conversations with representatives of British Jewery in France in 1940 that  the majority (two-thirds) of JEws would have to leave Poland after the war, a position fo which Kot was later criticized" British were not averse to using Kot's statement for their own purposes... Perlzweig's discussion of 'the ant-Semitism of Polish vice-premeier in exile Kot, who spoke of resettling all Polish Jews..."  established his credibility [witht he American Jewish Congres]". I will note here that Fleming does not call Kot antisemite, but quotes Nicholas Cull (1955:55, Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign against American "Neutrality...) see [5]; in either case this description is attributed to Maurice L. Perlzweig, a Jewish Zionist activist (notable, we need to stub him) of the war period. A major problem I see is that all of accusations of Kot being antisemitic are backed up by a single comment he made during one meeting. As far as I can see from the sources, Kot's scholarly works have never dealt much with Polish-Jewish topics, nor was he ever criticized for bias in them. In his capacity as a politician, during a single meeting, he made a controversial comment, that has been described as anti-semitic, but we also have three assessments of his life cited above which note he was not an anti-semite, and even an opponent of antisemitism. I am really not sure how we can discuss it without having an UNDUE paragraph. My best idea is that we could add a note in the diplomacy section, that "In Spring 1940 Kot made a controversial comment later described as anti-semitic by Biskupski that most of Polish Jews would have to leave Poland after the war; at the same time Wasserstein noted that Kot "was not regarded as an anti-Semite", Brock and Pietrzak stated that Kot "rejected [it] categorically", and Szczucki wrote that Kot was in fact a "strong opponent" of anti-semitic sentiments. Kot's administration was also described as more helpful to the Jews than the Polish military administration." I am still not sure if this addition would be DUE weight here, but I guess it wouldn't hurt, as long as is kept brief. Still, really, all we have to do is a passing mention by Biskupski, who for some strange reason generalizes from this one remark to conclude Kot was an "aggressive antisemite". Given the research we did so far, I lean towards the simple conclusion that he made a mistake, likely taking Perlzweig's WWII propaganda comment (see Fleming / Cull for the context, it seems obvious that Kot's single comment was exaggerated in front of the ACJ to built sympathy) at face value, and I don't think it is DUE enough to be included. I mean, do we need to mention that one scholar made a passing assessment that three others contradicted? But if there is consensus we do, ok, I summarized the sources we found in the proposed text above. PS. Since you mentioned Churchill earlier, would it be due weight to discuss his antisemitic comments in the article? Given [6] and the assertion that before WWII antisemitic comments were common in British press or political debates. As was true for pretty much all of the West. If we were to add a sentence that 'politician X' made antisemitic comment, it would have to go to a good chunk of biographies about politicians active in the first half of the 20th century... Likewise, I wonder if [7] and such should be used to add the accusation of antisemitism to FDR's article, I think that's another famous Western politician you mentioned. PPS. I started Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Antisemite since there is a lot of literature about FDR's relation with the Jews, and that article, GA, should mention it in more detail - right now it does not do so sufficiently, IMHO (whereas, I'll stress, the relation between Kot and the Jews gets only few passing mentions here and there0. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It is not unheard-of for an individual's pronouncement to be misunderstood; or for one individual's remark to be mis-ascribed to another individual. Could one of these things have happened in Kot's case?
Nihil novi (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there is any reason to question what Kot said, the thing is, sources suggest he said it once. To call someone an "aggressive antisemite" because of a singe remark in an era where they were commonplace is rather unfair. So yes, I think we are dealing with a major misunderstanding here. As I said, relevant policy is likely WP:UNDUE; we don't add WP:FRINGE criticisms or such to articles, not unless they are common. Which does not seem the case here. (Quoting policy: " an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea"). An idea that Kot was an antisemite is "not broadly supported by scholarship".  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's abstract the this case to others. Probably none of us would be surprised that Picasso's or David Bowie's visits to Warsaw get omitted from some of their biographies, but that sources about Warsaw bang on about both. WP would likely be willing to incorporate those sources about Warsaw into articles about those people. But I agree, there would be editorial assessment of how much of such material is WP:DUE, because every city in the world would like a mention. By the same token, specialists on say Italian history might want this article to mention Kot's role in Italian-Polish relations. But as far as I can see from Fleming, the Polish-Jewish relations aspect to Kot is pretty important in connection with the roots of the creation of an entire country - the state of Israel. And there are some fascinating trivia out there, such as that he had a functional enough relationship with Jewish groups in the BM of Palestine for them to offer him military support in the form of commandos to be inserted into occupied Poland - he declined, explaining that they wouldn't stand a chance, because the Polish Resistance ones being airdropped in were getting wiped out already. Fleming (and possibly Gutman) also show Kot was at the centre of a dance the Poles and Jews were in with the British, who were activity attempting to block Jewish emigration from Poland to the BM of Palestine while the Poles were in favor of it; as well as the Soviets, who were trying to fill the Anders Army being formed in the USSR with Jews from the Gulags. As to his alleged antisemitism, that's not the only aspect to his role in PJR: afaics the Hebrew article doesn't even mention it, and afaics Fleming doesn't assert it in his own voice, but notes the allegations of it. This brings us to Wikipedia's standard WP:NPOV technique of incorporating controversies, and that's "It has been said that X is a Y" instead of us saying "X is a Y". Wikipedia doesn't ask us to parrot what sources say in its own voice (whether fringe voices or otherwise) but it does ask us to point out any controversies. Personally I'd place Fleming as the most useful on the three sources on all this, with Gutman coming a close second. I won't propose content in a hurry, and would ask you both to read the Gutman PDF and Fleming's sections on Kot available in Google books. As to Kot being misunderstood; well, we can only say so if it's verifiable in a WP:RS; but editors could take into account that it's verifiable that promoting the creation of Israel and actively supporting that struggle militarily was something that certain antisemites and Zionists had a very close alliance on, albeit for opposite reasons. A complex, nuanced subject as well as a volatile one. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Piotrus, to answer your question, based on the WP:RS yes I do support Churchill's antisemitism being included in his article - within the context of the worldwide antisemitism of the 1920s and 1930s and alongside his Zionism and horror and fury about the Holocaust (on which I think the record shows he had a better record than Roosevelt). It's also worth noting Churchill threatened to court-martial the Duke of Windsor, the former King Edward VIII, in connection with the latter's well-documented Nazi sympathies. For that matter, I'd also support inclusion for Edward's brother King George VI, father of Queen Elizabeth [8] Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I geneally agree with all what you say. While waiting for others to chime in, if anyone will, I just want to note that while reading on a different topic ([9]) I noticed a passing mention of Kot by Richard C. Lukas, who refers to him as philo-Semite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the sources I recommended? Both are available online. They show that Kot's alleged antisemitism is an omission from this article under WP:NPOV. Lukas doesn't change that. Sources differ on the matter and we are required to say so. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chumchum7: Could you tell me which two sources? You do mention/link several. Ideally, could you quote from them re relevant paragraphs, and / or propose a text you would like to add to the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm referring back to my comment above: How would you feel about additional content covering his role in Polish-Jewish relations? Understandably the Hebrew version of this article has plenty. It seems generally noteworthy to me, especially in connection with Anders Army Jews and his visit to the BM of Palestine. Israel Gutman's 1970s academic paper here may be worth adding [1] and Kot is discussed several times in Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust by Michael Fleming (historian) (2014) which describes allegations of Kot's anti-Semitism - see Google Books.
As you can see in the PDF, Gutman writes:

I'd suggest at least a line summarizing this. It's not the only thing he writes about Kot. In order to build WP:CONS, please read the paper in the PDF I've linked for you. Please also search for Kot's name in Fleming at Google Books. It provides a somewhat more distanced depiction, describing allegations rather than misdemeanor itself. There's no conflict here with Lukas etc, we include all perspectives per WP:NPOV. I'd suggest it goes into a comprehensive paragraph or a section headed Kot and Polish-Jewish relations. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fleming writes on p.86/7: Eleven months after the Karski report, the British were advised of the anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland by Stanislaw Kot... There is also the possibility that Kot wanted to justify his assertion... that the majority (two thirds) of Jews would have to leave Poland after the war, a position for which Kot was later criticized. Fleming then shows that allegations of Kott's anti-Semitism were exploited by British diplomatic maneuvering. Citing Nicholas J. Cull (1995), he says the British sent Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig to America with info about British appeasement of Arab nationalists and - Fleming quoting Cull - of allegations about Kott's anti-Semitism including his idea to resettle Jews in southern Russia. This was to worry the American Jewish Congress into lobbying Washington to enter the war; and so Kott's alleged antisemtism is noteworthy as an element in great power diplomacy. On p.96 Fleming shows Anthony Eden received info from Kot about the 1941 Jewish famine conditions in the Warsaw Ghetto, and of Polish fears that Jews were becoming "communistically inclined."-Chumchum7 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I recall the latter quote, not sure if I read the first one, thank you for citing them. I am still unsure how to reflect this in the article in a way that wouldn't run afoul SYNTH or UNDUE, but I am open to reviewing any proposed text. Correct me if I am wrong, but all those quotes and sources refer to the same single meeting and a single statement Kot made, right? Outside Gutman, I think, who mentions some report. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

While questions from the above discussion bear consideration and resolution, I believe this article meets the six criteria for WPBiography B class. Carter (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed a comment by personal acquaintance, much of the article is using eulogies by friends as sources. I returned the section on antisemitism that uses detached historians as sources. Kot is described as "aggressively antisemitic" and ignoring eulogies by friends, is mostly covered in history for his firebrand politics.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, new user (registered in February). How did you find out about this discussion? It seems to lie a bit far from your pandemic interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Chance, it is listed. I looked you up now, TBH I googled you and Kot, and found that on your user page way back when you wrote this page you wrote: [10] "Stanislaw Kot - a diplomat. A patriot who died exiled from his country....". You think he a patriot? You approve of him?--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


### Sources
#### SarahSV
I'm leaving here what was discussed on the review page. It needs to be summarized in the article carefully and in context, and not just in one or two sentences. A search should be made for other sources.
1. Mieczysław B. Biskupski, War and Diplomacy in East and West: A Biography of Józef Retinger, Taylor & Francis, 2017, p. 157:

 ... Retinger orchestrated a series of meetings between the Polish exile government and British Jews. This was a particularly sensitive topic because Polish-Jewish relations had become severely strained in the last years of the Sanacja regime [1926–1939], and antisemitism had been growing alarmingly. The agent decided to discuss these issues with Stanislaw Kot, a devotee of Sikorski, but poorly chosen because of his aggressive antisemitism. In his closing remarks, which must have left the representatives of the British Board of Deputies of British Jews flabbergasted, Kot suggested that the Jews be relocated somewhere between the Baltic and the Black Sea, a new pale of settlement. The Jews understandably rejected the notion.
2. Joshua D. Zimmerman, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 111–112:

Meanwhile, the London government's Council of Ministers received a report from the Polish ambassador to Soviet Russia, Stanisław Kot. Dated November 25, 1941, Kot's report, "News from the Homeland," took up the theme of Polish-Jewish relations. ... Another cause of Polish-Jewish antagonism, as Ambassador Kot stated, was ... [that] Poles "hate [the Germans] with a passion" and "hold their heads up high" while working for the future of a sovereign, free state. But, according to Kot, the majority of Jews had not devoted themselves to the Polish cause. Speaking of Polish perceptions, he stated that "in contrast [to Poles], Jews usually break down as soon as they can crawl to the occupier, [even] serving as Gestapo informants, etc." ... Kot maintained ... [the Poles now believe] "that the Jewish element was, is and will – unfortunately – always be foreign ... [because] they lacked a common spiritual basis with a higher moral value than the material one." ... The most disturbing aspect of Ambassador Kot's analysis was his portrayal of general Polish views on the Jews. Tapping into age-old stereotypes of Jews and money, Kot wrote the following:
Polish society is terrified of excessive Jewish influence. It is afraid that the need to import foreign capital into a decimated Poland would give the international financial Israelite magnates excessive power in the country, and that this might, in turn, enchain the country to "an economic Jewish slavery." Unease exists around the growing question in the country of whether or not the London circle, under the philosemitic Anglo-Saxon influence, will successfully resist Jewish influence in Poland, a fervent wish of the Polish nation.
3. Michael Fleming, Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust, Cambridge University Press, 2014, p. 87: 

The British were advised of anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland by Stanislaw Kot, minister of the interior ... In January 1941, Kot received a report from Prince Janusz Radziwill, a Polish aristocrat and leading figure in the nationalist and anti-Semitic Conservative Party during the 1930s ... Kot secretly passed the information on to the [British] Foreign Office's Frank Savery on 9 January 1941 ... [Radziwill said]: "the last broadcast of Minister Stancyk ... contains a promise that in liberated Poland, Jews will have equal rights with Poles. This speech made a disastrous impression in Poland even amongst the workmen belonging to the Polish Socialist Party. ... When the war is happily over, the Jewish question will not cease to be a question of extreme actuality in Poland ..."
Kot's motive in passing this information to Savery was probably to advise the British of some of the tensions the Polish Government in Exile was trying to deal with. There is also the possibility that he wanted to provide justification for his assertion, in conversations with representatives of British Jewry in France held in spring 1940, that the majority (two-thirds) of Jews would have to leave Poland after the war (Michlic 2006: 148; Stola 1995: 73), a position for which Kot was later criticized.
4. Joanna Michlic, Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present, University of Nebraska Press, 2006, pp. 148–149:

[Discussing citizenship legislation] ... politicians who officially represented the government made contradictory statements to the effect that the majority of Polish Jews would have to leave Poland after the state had regained its independence. In early 1940 Stanislaw Kot 1885–1975), minister of information, and Edward Racynski (1891–1993), the ambassador of the government-in-exile in London, presented such a proposal in separate conversations with representatives of British Jewry in France. In his memoirs, S. Brodetzky, one of the members of the British delegation, captured the nature of such contradictions: "Professor Kot gave a long history of the Jews in Poland, which, he said, had treated Jews well for centuries. But Jews were a foreign body in Poland; they did not even speak Polish ... He said that there were too many Jews in Poland, Hungary and Romania. About a third of them could remain, the rest would have to go elsewhere."
SarahSV (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent scholarship, Sarah. El_C 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
El C, many thanks. I appreciate the feedback. SarahSV (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
How, pray tell, would you like to summarize it will maintaining WP:UNDUE? Go ahead, make an actual suggestion. And of course I would like to you answer the question asked 10 times or so, which is how do you explain that no biography of Kot considers this minor incident relevant enough to discuss? If they don't, why should we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "minor incident" is being referred to here. I'm seeing multiple mentions by reputable scholars in reputable publications, which may be enough in addressing due weight concerns. If existing biographies say nothing about antisemitic tendencies by the subject, that may simply be because of their failure to remain detached (for example, these consisting or containing elements of a hagiography). I'm not saying this is necessarily so, I'm not familiar with the material enough to be certain, one way or the other. But as for summarizing the sources above, that ought to be achieved through the normal means of editorial collaboration — again, there's no shortage of scholarly talent in order to accomplish this. El_C 04:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Would you like to help draft a sentence that uses such sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a question of adding one sentence. Kot was a politician during the Holocaust who became involved in several interesting and contentious issues. So far we've found five historians who've discussed this. The issues have to be described carefully and in context. We need a sub-section about the Holocaust/WWII. The books will have to be tracked down so that we're not relying on Google Preview; Fleming, in particular, discusses Kot in several places. SarahSV (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What you are proposing would be WP:UNDUE in its extreme. You want to add a section on what not a single scholar writing up a biography of Kot's life has considered even worthy of discussing in a single sentence. Few passing remarks in off topic sources (not about Kot) about a minor incident are not likely to warrant even a sentence, through I am still open to reviewing whatever people propose. You have cited sources, now please use them to draft relevant content. I don't feel like I am able to do anything with them that wouldn't violate UNDUE, FRINGE and SYNTH, but you are welcome to try. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the minor incident? You argue that this material is UNDUE, FRINGE and SYN, because the sources you checked don't refer to it. That raises two questions: (1) Why is it not in the sources you checked? And (2) why did you check only those sources? SarahSV (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have checked and clearly cited every single in-depth biography of Kot that is online. I'll stress that I have found and cited every single in-depth English source about him. If you think I missed anything, you tell me what did I miss? Which leads to a simple answer to your question (1): it is not in them because it is a minor, trivial incident that is considered, by every single scholar who decided to write in-depth treatment of Kot's life, not relevant to it. Coincidentally, would you like to answer how many of those in-depth biographies of Kot (English and online) have you read?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the minor incident you keep mentioning?  You can't argue that it's trivial because it's not in your sources, but then also argue that it's not in your sources because it's trivial. SarahSV (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Suuure. The difference is that "my sources" include in-depth analysis of his life, and "your sources" are off topic and mention him in passing. You seriously don't see a difference in the subject matter between a biography of a person and a book about Polish-Jewish relations that mentions the subject in passing in a very niche context? Said context being the overview of his life. Which is what this article is about. This is not an article about Polish-Jewish relations in World War II. You are welcome to add that incident there. Or, let me define it differently: "a trivial incident in the context of a biography of a person is an incident that is not mentioned in a single biography about the subject". I asked you many times: which biography of Kot mentions this incident? Can you cite a single one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
5. Gil S. Rubin, The Future of the Jews: Planning for the Postwar Jewish World, 1939–1946, Columbia University, 2017 (PhD diss), p. 47.
I'm not suggesting using a PhD thesis as a source directly, but its sources on Kot can be used, namely (a) Selig Brodetsky, Memoirs: From Ghetto to Israel, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1960, p. 198, and (b) "Will Emigrationism be Resurrected?" The Jewish Chronicle, 12 April 1940, which said Kot supported disenfranchising Jews by nationalizing the economy and by Jewish postwar emigration. Rubin has a book coming out by the same name.

Yet the initial hopes of Jewish leaders over the commitment of the new Polish regime to Jewish equality quickly waned as they learned that leading members of the government had been advocating for the ‘evacuation’ of the majority of Polish Jews after the war and sought the support of Zionist leaders for their plans. ... In a subsequent meeting between Brodetsky [president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews] and Stanisław Kot, internal minister of the Polish Government-in-Exile, Kot insisted that only about a third of Polish Jews would be allowed to remain in Poland after the war and sought Brodetsky’s support for the resettlement of the remainder of the Jews outside Poland.88
Footnote 88: Kot in fact suggested that such an emigration scheme would apply also to Jews in Hungary and Romania [quoting Brodetsky 1960, p. 198]: "We spent several hours with Prof. Kot. It was an amazing conversation. Prof. Kot gave us a long history of the Jews in Poland, which, he said, had treated the Jews well for centuries. But the Jews were a foreign body in Poland; they did not even speak Polish. Many Jews had come to Poland from Lithuania. He said there were too many Jews in Poland, and Hungary and Romania. About a third of them could remain; the rest would have to go elsewhere. ‘Where?’ I asked, ‘Palestine?’ ‘No, not Palestine,' he said, 'The Arabs are against it. We could take an area around Odessa from the Russians after the war, and settle the Jews there.' We said we could not consider it."
6. "Polish Government Has Submitted Proposals to Halt Nazi Extermination of Jews". Jewish Telegraph Agency, 8 December 1942:

The Polish Government has submitted proposals on means of halting the Nazi slaughter of Jews in occupied Poland and is making every effort to see that these proposals are carried out by the United Nations, Prof. Stanislaw Kot, Polish vice-Premier, declared today at a press conference here.
Vice-Premier Kot expressed regret that public opinion in the democratic countries is not ready to believe the extent of the Nazi atrocities in Poland. He emphasized that the Polish Government has been informed that the extermination of the Jews in Poland by the Nazis has assumed “tremendous dimensions” and declared that his government is in constant contact with Jewish organizations in England and America conveying to them the information received.
7. "Polish Statesmen Stress Future Poland Must Be Free of Anti-semitism". Jewish Telegraph Agency, 21 January 1943:

Similar sentiments were voiced by Stanislaw Kot, former Polish ambassador to Russia and a member of the Polish cabinet, speaking at a reception in his honor in Tel Aviv yesterday ... Prof. Kot said that he shared "his government’s conviction that after the war Poland must be a democratic state, free of anti-Semitism, in which we will welcome the loyal friendly cooperation of all Jewish citizens, who will have equal rights, and we will support your national aspirations to develop Palestine."
Prof. Kot told his audience, which included leaders of the Yishuv, that "not a single Jewish refugee in Russia has been denied aid." He added: "I take this opportunity to thank American Jewry for rushing aid which was distributed without discrimination." Chief Rabbi Herzog, David Ben Gurion, Mayor Israel Rokach and other Jewish leaders also spoke.
8. Yisrael Gutman, "Jews in General Anders’ Army In the Soviet Union". Yad Vashem Studies. 12, 1977:

The surge of Jews to the ranks  of  the Polish Armed  Forces [forty percent, according to Stanislaw Kot] aroused  suspicion  and  dismay. ... In a letter to the Polish  Foreign  Minister in London on November 8, 1941, Kot writes that "the Soviets delayed by various means the release of the Polish element who were in better health and spirits, sending instead the handicapped and the Jews." ... Kot, too, writes  in  his  report  to  the  Foreign  Minister  in  London, that "the  Poles  feel  very  bitter  towards  the  Jews  for  their  behavior  during  the  Soviet occupation — their enthusiastic welcome of the Red Army, the insults which  they  directed  towards  the  Polish  officers  and  men  who  were  under  Soviet  arrest,  offering  their  services  to  the  Soviets,  informing  on  Poles,  and  other acts of the sort." This one-sided accounting, listing only injuries to Poles and  reminding  Jews  of  them —  injuries  for  which  the  Jews  were  collectively  blamed — and the total disregard for Poland's anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish policy between the wars, in particular the violence and organized persecution of  the  late  thirties  was  but  the  first  in  a  whole  series  of  claims  invoked  to  "justify" discrimination against Jews serving in the Polish Armed Forces in the Soviet Union.Another claim that recurs in the Polish sources is that the Jews, by and large, are  physically  inferior  and  are  not  suited  for  active  military  service.  This  is  what Kot wrote:The  liberation  of  Polish  citizens  in  accordance  with  the  agreement  was  greeted  by  the  Jews  with  great  enthusiasm.  The  decent  ones    among  them    rejoiced  at  Poland's achievement,  while the inferior   element   sought   to   cover   up   their   past   behavior   by vociferous identification with Poland. It was  from  this  element  that  large  numbers  streamed  to  enlist  in  the  Armed  Forces.  Not  knowing  what  to  do  with  themselves,  they  decided  that  it  was  obligatory  to  join  the  Armed  Forces,    and  once  having  joined  they  almost  always  became  a  burden.  They  were  found  unfit  for  military  service  or  they  were  deferred  for  a  time,  and  meanwhile  they  would  noisily  demand  that  the  relief work be continued.

There is more about Kot in Gutman, too much to quote. For example: "Kot  explained  that  from  the  Polish  standpoint  all  citizens,  regardless  of  ethnic  origin  or  race,  enjoyed  equal  rights, and this equality applied both to the amnesty being granted and to the privilege  of  enlisting  in  the Polish Armed  Forces." Some or more of the above is also in Norman Davies, Antony Polonsky, eds., Jews in Eastern Poland and the USSR, 1939–46, 1991, p. 361ff. 
SarahSV (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

9. Dariusz Stola, "Ignacy Schwarzbart's Lost Battle with Emigrationism", in Andrzej K. Paluch, Sławomir Kapralski, eds., The Jews in Poland, Volume 2, Jagiellonian University, Research Center on Jewish History and Culture in Poland, 1999, p. 192:

There is much evidence that the year 1939 did not fundamentally change the view of Polish politicians on the matter. On the contrary, we have plenty of statements made as early as a few months after the new government's formation, testifying to the persistence and the influence of emigrationist theories among Polish politicians in exile. For example, Minister Kot told a delegation of the Board of Deputies of British Jews that there were too many Jews in Poland, that "the surplus will have to emigrate" and the rest assimilate like Jews in the West. Several times he emphasized that the Jews had to leave Poland and that a suitable area had to be found for them, preferably on the Black Sea. The meeting with the Polish home affairs minister produced, to put it in diplomatic language, considerable misgivings among his interlocutors.
SarahSV (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Saul Friedländer, The Years of Extermination, HarperCollins, 2007, pp. 456–457:

In the late fall of 1942, Stanislaw Kot, a former minister of the interior and ambassador to the Soviet Union, as well as a close political ally of Prime Minister Sikorski, arrived for an extended visit to Palestine.
Given the contrary agendas of the Polish government-in-exile and the Jewish leadership in Palestine, their negotiations did not turn into helpful exchanges between the victims of a common enemy. Kot accused the Jews of Poland of lacking loyalty to their homeland and at some point threatened that if the issue of Polish anti-Semitism was not dropped, the Poles would publicize the brutal behavior of the Jewish police and possibly the callousness of the councils toward their fellow Jews.
11. Jan T. Gross, Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, New York: Random House, 2006, pp. 199–201:

The December 3, 1941, conversation between Polish and Soviet statesmen—Prime Minister Sikorski, General Anders, the Polish ambassador in the USSR, Professor Stanisław Kot, Vyacheslav Molotov, and Stalin—has a permanent place in history books ... The [following] brief exchange ... came up later during the same meeting ... ... General Anders proceeded to describe in detail the supply and manpower problems he encountered while organizing the Polish army. ... "Anders: Perhaps there are even more of our people, but that includes a substantial Jewish element ... which does not want to serve in the army. Stalin: Jews make poor soldiers. Anders: Many among the Jews joining the army are speculators or convicted smugglers; they will never make good soldiers. ... Stalin: Yes, Jews make poor soldiers." ... ... To be labeled collectively as poor soldiers, or as people shirking their patriotic duty, cast the Jews to the bottom of the emerging Soviet status hierarchy. ... One month after the conversation with Stalin, Ambassador Kot filed a dispatch informing the Soviet Foreign Ministry that "the NKVD was a source of suggestions that Jews are the worst element in the military, cowardly, always complaining, and that it would be desirable to get rid of this element." Constantly attuned to what Stalin desired, Soviet institutions immediately picked up on his moods, and proceeded ... "to work towards the Führer."
Gross 2006, p. 200 footnote: being in the Army gave you access to food and healthcare and some freedom from the Soviet state. This "was systematically denied to the Jews, to their great chagrin". For the exchange with Stalin, Gross cites Kot, Listy z Rosji Do Gen. Sikorskiego, 1955, p. 204.
12. Jan T. Gross, "A Tangled Web", in Deák et al., The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and Its Aftermath, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 119, n. 18:

Karski's report can be found in the Hoover Institution archives ... Karski was instructed, as he told me when I queried him about the document, to draft a sanitized version, omitting his description of the anti-Semitism prevailing in the Polish society, by a close confidant of then Prime Minister General Władysław Sikorski, Professor Stanisław Kot. Polish raison d'etat vis-à-vis the Allies required that the matter be covered up, he was told.
SarahSV (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
13. Judith Tydor Baumel, Walter Laqueur, "Rescue", The Holocaust Encyclopedia, Yale University Press, 2001, p. 537:
Too much to quote. Kot visited Palestine in early November 1942. He told David Ben-Gurion and other Jewish Agency leaders that the "biological destruction of the Jews is taking place in Poland".


#### Pestilence Unchained
I add:
1. Antony Polonsky, "What made the massacre at Jedwabne possible?", The Polish Review, 2001, pp. 415–416:

 Others were more unbridled in their condemnations.... Stanisiaw Kot, the Polish Ambassador to the USSR, and a close confidante of Polish Premier General Wladyslaw Sikorski, expressed similar views:
... the Poles feel very bitter towards the Jews for their behavior during the Soviet occupation - their enthusiastic welcome of the Red Army, the insults which they directed towards the Polish officers and men who were under Soviet arrest, offering their services to Soviets, informing on Poles and other acts of the sort.21
It is not possible here to discuss at length the truth of these allegations, (we have done so elsewhere and have attempted to show that they are at best half-truths, reactions to national humiliation and to the sense that it would be very difficult to re-establish the Polish claim to most of the territories incorporated by the Soviets.)22 Rather, attention should be drawn to the  widespread acceptance of the stereotype of the pro-Soviet and anti-Polish Jew, which certainly widened the gulf between the two communities.
--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


#### MyMoloboaccount
1. David Engel, Facing a Holocaust: The Polish Government-in-exile and the Jews, 1943-1945, The University of North Carolina Press, 1993:

Thus far, however, the Western Allies had given no more indication of sensitivity to the outcry of the Polish people for salvation from German terror than they had of support for Poland's eastern borders(...)Critical Polish interests were indeed being threatened and the immediacy of the threat called for a bold and imaginative response.Within this context the Jewish demands for action to rescue Polish Jewry were received by the government-in-exile in London(...)Thus the idea began to circulate among some Polish officials that the best way to respond to the Jewish demands might be to offer the Jews of the free world a straightforward political deal:the Polish government would take action along the lines put forth by the various Jewish organisations provided that the same organisations would use their supposed influence in the West both to advance the Polish cause on the diplomatic front and to encourage Allied action not only on behalf of threatened Jews but on behalf of threatened Poles as well.This approach had first been tried by Stanislaw Kot—apparently on his own initative—during his discussions with Jewish leaders in Palestine. In response to the Reprezentacja's demand that the government ... instruct Poles in the homeland to come to their aid of their Jewish fellow citizens, the ambassador had suggested that Jews ought to issue a public declaration for the return of Lwow and Wilno to Poland. He had also insisted that the Jews cease publicising allegations of Anti-Jewish discrimination in the evacuation of the Polish Jewry from the Soviet Union—allegations that the government-in-exile felt might seriously damage Poland's image in the West and thereby strengthen Soviet hand. Later he had told Yitshak Gruenbaum that the Polish government had certain demands of its own vis-a-vis the Jews, including one regarding organised Jewish support for Allied reprisals against the Germans and for Poland's territorial claims in both the east and the west....The initial Jewish response to Kot's demand had been negative.None of the Jewish leaders with whom the Polish diplomat had met, had indicated any willingness to consider striking a bargain along the lines he had suggested(...)Indeed, Polish officials in the Middle East were aware that the Soviets had recently intensified their own efforts to win Palestinian Jewish public opinion to their side in their dispute with the Poles.In considering their response to Jewish demands for rescue then Polish leaders needed to balance their hope that Jews would intervene diplomatically on Poland's behalf with their sense that the Jews weren't likely to do so and with their fear that the Jews might even publicly support the Soviet side. In this situation Kot, for one, appears to have been willing to make a favourable gesture towards the Jews ... In a cable to London dispatched on 2 February 1943, he stated that he had "devoted much time and patience to Jewish matters, hoping to alleviate the constant suspicion and ill feeling" that prevailed toward Poland in Palestine as well as "to remove the troublesome suggestions that go forth from here to America" and he hinted that he would be transmitting to the government a number of recommendations about how it might be possible to secure Jewish cooperation in the future ... The most important of these recommendations, he declared, was to accede to the Jewish demand for the government to assure neutral countries that the Polish Jews who found asylum in them would be readmitted to Poland once the war ended. He also expressed his support for the creation of a special bureau of Jewish affairs within the Polish prime minister's office ...
Engel later describes how these proposals were adopted (in short: some rejected some accepted) by Government in exile, but it doesn't directly mention Kot and I believe it is suitable for place about Polish-Jewish relations during WW2, rather than here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've shortened the above because it was too much re: copyright and also unreadable. But if you don't think it's suitable for this article, why are you posting it here? SarahSV (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I re-aded some of the context which is needed. As I understand the final shape of the article is still being discussed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
2. David Engel In the Shadow of Auschwitz: The Polish Government-in-exile and the Jews, 1939-1942 on pages 65-66.  

Kot was not known for any personal hostility towards Jews, nevertheless he apparently saw in the Black Sea scheme an escape from a dilemma in which Poland had been placed by virtue of its alliance with Britain.

3.Michael Fleming Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust page 327

Kot framed the postwar movement of Jews out of Poland by referring to the concentration of Jews in certain economic activities and the economic problems in pre-war Poland. Kot noted that following the economic crisis of 1929, anti-Semitism in Poland took a reaL(rather than theoretical) form, The discussion also mentioned possible Jewish settlement of Palestine. Kot suggested that the war offered various options for Jewish emigration from Poland including to southern Russia along the Black Sea. Kot did not completely alienate the British Jews he spoke to(Selig Brodetsky, Leonard Stein and Adolf Brotman) as Brodetsky wrote to Kot on 16th July 1940 wishing to renew the friendly discussions which had the pleasure of having you at Angers and invited him to lunch or dinner.
4. "Pan ambasador mija się z prawdą!" Odpowiedzi na "Memoriał" Stanisława Kota do Gen : Andersa z lutego 1943 r. Rutkowski, Tadeusz Paweł Zeszyty Historyczne / Instytut Literacki. Z. 151 (2005), pages 95-135

[11]

Kot nie posiadał uprzedzeń w stosunku do Żydów i faktycznie zatrudniał wiele osób narodowości żydowskiej w aparacie opieki Ambasady i jej delegaturach./ Kot held no prejudices towards Jews and actually employed numerous persons of Jewish ethnicity in care apparatus of the Embassy and its outposts.


### Discussion
It would indeed be helpful, as SarahSV writes above, to track down the books and articles from which the above quotations are taken. 
Quote 5, from Antony Polonsky's article in The Polish Review, no. 4, 2001, pp. 415–16, is badly mangled.
In quote 2, from Joshua D. Zimmerman, when Kot is quoted as saying, "Unease exists around the growing question in the country of whether or not the London circle, under the philosemitic Anglo-Saxon influence, will successfully resist Jewish influence in Poland..." it would be helpful to get access to Kot's actual wording in Polish, as "the country" is likely a metaphrastic (over-literal) rendering of "Kraj" (which, in this context, would be a sort of metonym for "Poland"); while I would expect "the London circle" to more accurately be "London circles" (koła londyńskie).
Quote 3, from Michael Fleming's 2013 book, quotes not Kot but Janusz Radziwill, and probably mistranslates him to boot, when it has him say, "When the war is happily over, the Jewish question will not cease to be a question of extreme actuality in Poland ..." What is rendered as "actuality" was probably, in the Polish original, "aktualne" – which in English would be "topical", not "actual". 
One wonders what other errors, mistranslations, and misinterpretations appear in this and other sources.
When someone is ready to venture to the appropriate libraries and archives, perhaps we could be given access to all the pertinent Polish- and English-language sources?
Nihil novi (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You're assuming there are errors and mistranslations, but you haven't shown it. Quote 5 isn't badly mangled; Pestilence Unchained used a blockquote that didn't show up in read mode, now fixed. And re: Radziwill, quote 3 clearly states: "Kot received a report from Prince Janusz Radziwill ... Kot secretly passed the information on to the [British] Foreign Office's Frank Savery ... [Radziwill said]: "the last broadcast ..."
Why would you assume "the London circle" to be "London circles", as a matter of interest? It could be either in this context.
As for "perhaps we could be given access", I've been trying to find a copy of Kot's report, with no luck so far. Regarding the books, the best thing is for you to get hold of them yourself. I can type up a few lines, but I don't have them all, and anyway the context has to be read. SarahSV (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Quote 5 still is not "fixed". Kot's first name is misspelled. More substantially, the below-boldfaced is missing:
"'... the Poles feel very bitter towards the Jews for their behavior during the Soviet occupation – their enthusiastic welcome of the Red Army, the insults which they directed towards the Polish officers and men who were under Soviet arrest, offering their services to Soviets, informing on Poles and other acts of the sort.'"
Fleming quotes Radziwill (another gratuitous misspelling), then offers speculation about Kot's motives in forwarding Radziwiłł's information to a British Foreign Office functionary. It would be well to find something more substantial about Kot's motives.
As to Zimmerman's rendering of Kot's expression as "the London circle" (another metonym): the Poles in wartime Britain, and their Polish government in exile, were not an ideologically homogeneous entity – and, in fact, their government included Jews. Kot's expression is typically used in the plural.
Nihil novi (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
(a) Pestilence Unchained mistyped; it's not a spelling mistake; (b) there's no bold in that quote; (c) that's Fleming's view, and there are other sources discussing Kot's opinion that two-thirds of Polish Jews ought to leave the country; (d) whether it's "the London circle" or "London circles" makes no difference to the meaning in this context. SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
"Stanisiaw" is Pestilence's misspelling.
I added the boldface so that you could readily see what Pestilence omitted from quote 5.
Certainly not all Jews felt alienated from Polish society or behaved in the way that Kot is quoted as describing. Adam Pragier, of Jewish descent, among other Polish Jews, served in the Polish government in exile alongside Kot.
Nihil novi (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
During World War II, three Polish Jews served on the National Council of the Polish Government-in-Exile in Great Britain: Szmul Zygielbojm, Ignacy Schwarzbart, and Emanuel Scherer. It would be interesting to see whether any of them left recollections of Stanisław Kot.
Nihil novi (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Emanuel Scherer has been stubbed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for additional sources, which also show, among others, that Kot was involved in informing the Allies about the Holocaust, criticizing them for insufficient aid to the Polish Jews, and for helping the Jewish refuges in USSR (see also [12]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


### NPOV tag
Note: see the nine sources quoted above.
Nihil Novi and Piotrus have three times removed the tag without resolving the issues. [13][14][15] The article should cover the following (it currently doesn't even mention the word "Holocaust" apart from the citations):

Kot's meeting in 1940 in France with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, in which he suggested that two thirds of Polish Jews ought to leave Poland after the war and be relocated to an area between the Baltic and the Black Sea;
his report to the British government dated 25 November 1941, "News from the Homeland," in which he described Polish-Jewish relations and fears of "international financial Israelite magnates".
any efforts on his part during the Holocaust to make known what was happening in Poland, e.g. his press conference of December 1942;
his support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, e.g. his speech in Tel Aviv in January 1943.
SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As discussed above, the problem is that focusing on this would make the article warrant an NPOV tag, or to be specific, {{undue}}. I have attempted to address your concerns by adding a sentence about his his activities in some aspects of the Polish-Jewish relations, despite the fact that not a single biography of his mentions this. Nor do they mention The Holocaust, since Kot's role was very marginal when it comes to it. The article needs to strike a balance between being a comprehensive and between not being a book and not having room to discuss minor incidents. Bottom line, not covering few minor incidents is not the same as being not neutral. Do tell us, what POV is the article promoting (or not) by not discussing those issues? Undeniably, The Holocaust is a major element of human history, but it does not mean it should be mentioned in every article. Again, the simple test is to look at what is written about the subject in biographies of his life. Do they mention The Holocaust? No? So neither should we. Per WP:UNDUE. PS. The last tag removal concerns the tag being re-added by an already indef blocked sockupppet ([16], [17]). I find such 'support' for your position rather inappropriate and intimidating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Template:POV says:Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view ... An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. ... You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:Kot 
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
I'd appreciate it if we could follow that. SarahSV (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is blown out of proportion. Kot was a great scholar, diplomat, and patriot. These are just minor incidents with the Jews that he also helped and rescued, despite the Jewish alliance with the communists against Poland. Focusing on FRINGE Jewish criticisms of this great man is UNDUE. --Szymon Frank (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure. "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." -> This is the case here. I asked you above: "Do tell us, what POV is the article promoting (or not) by not discussing those issues?" Please articulate first what is non-neutral here. Clearly you have failed to convince others that there are neutrality issues in play (well, outside of a blocked sock, whose support for your position I asked you to address above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: From what I see your only argument for {{undue}} is that these events aren't mentioned in the biographies you found online. Thing is, Sarah found multiple highly respectable RS that do mention them, and there's nothing in WP:NOTABILITY that says that lack of inclusion in a biography should be given equal weight to inclusion in a different kind of RS. Am I wrong? François Robere (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You are not wrong. It is just that I question whether adding those sources won't compromise the neutrality of the article. If a certain incident is committed from all comprehensive biographies of the subject we found, why shouldn't we assume it was done so for a reason, and not as a mistake? It is fair to consider that at least some of the scholars writing Kot's biography knew about this incident, and they decided it is too trivial to warrant inclusion. Why should we go against their judgment? Adding irrelevant detail to the article, one that casts aspersions on the subject (antisemitism, etc.), seems to me like the very definition of a problem that UNDUE tries to address. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
So basically you're guessing. François Robere (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Or you are guessing when you assume its important. Fact is, not a single in-depth biography addressed it. Why assume it's an accident? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not guessing anything, I'm following policy. We have ten RS on this, so WP:DUE is satisfied. Nothing else to it. François Robere (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, you can repeat this, and I can repeat that none of the in-depth sources discuss this, and we can keep doing it ad infinitum. What's the point? How about you take a page from the book about WP:BUILD and edit the article directly if you think some sources are not represented correctly? I've been trying to address the issue in the last week, and most of the sources you mention are now added as references. I still think this creates, not addresses, the UNDUE issue, but that's for others to chip in.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
You want others to "chip in", so I "chipped in". Why turn this into a PA? François Robere (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The NPOV concerns have not been addressed. Instead of using real scholarship, anecdotes have been peppered though the article to show Kot the scholar in a positive light. WWW2 sources have been mangled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 08:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Right. Please stop adding irrelevent anecdotes to the article like you did here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Piotrus, please restore {{POV}} until there's consensus on this page or NPOVN to remove it. You've removed it at least three times (03:00, 28 April, 14:16, 28 April; 00:39, 9 May), and Nihil Novi once (00:16, 25 April). SarahSV (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, I can restore the POV tag if you wish, could you tell me what the remaining POV issues are?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Two examples from above:
1. "Kot's meeting in 1940 in France with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, in which he suggested that two thirds of Polish Jews ought to leave Poland after the war and be relocated to an area between the Baltic and the Black Sea". It half describes this, but leaves out his suggestion of a new Pale of Settlement. Do we know why he was meeting them? What was their response? What was the context?
2. Details are needed from his report of 25 November 1941, rather than wasting words describing it as disturbing. The material needs to be written clearly.
In addition:
3. The material that has been added has been hidden within unconnected issues so that it barely makes any sense.
The article is obviously not neutral. WP:NPOV is a core content policy, so this is not a minor issue. Please restore the tag. SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "World War II" section contains an unclear sentence: "this incident aside the civilian administration under Stanisław Kot has been described as 'much more open and helpful to the Jews' compared to Polish military authorities." Could we get clarification, please? Nihil novi (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how to clarify this, but the source in question is [18]. It is available from Library Genesis (ex. sci-hub.tw/10.1080/17504902.2012.11087314 - can't hyperlink as it is on a spam blacklist), so you should be able to check the source, which discusses the Jewish Question in the context of WWII Polish politics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to raise the text you cite.
Was the unclear sentence supposed to read "this incident inside the civilian administration under Stanisław Kot..."? That would still leave the rest of the sentence unclear: how could the "incident" be "'much more open and helpful to the Jews'..."?
Nihil novi (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry - blame some wiki copyright paranoia activits for preventing the use of direct links here. But all you need to do is to copy "sci-hub.tw/10.1080/17504902.2012.11087314" and paste into your browser URL bar and it should take you to the LibGen archived copy of this article. In general, to access text in library genesis, you can go to their website and user their search engine (but for this particular article the medtadata is messed up so you have to search for DOI link). It's a very useful tool, requires no registration or software, and I highly recommend learning how to use it (LibGen). PS. Regarding that sentence, I wanted to note that while Kot has been criticized for saying in this one meeting that most Jews should leave Poland, his administration has been assessed as being helpful to Jews (or more so than another branch of Polish gov't in exile). As far as the requests above to put in a wide assessment of Kot's attitude to Jews in WWII, it is the best we have (outside two contradictory claims on whether he was or wasn't an antisemite, both referring to the same singular incident, so not very good for generalizations). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It finally dawned on me that the major problem was a missing comma. For clarity, I have supplied the comma, and have slightly modified the remainder of the sentence.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


### Page numbers
We need page numbers for the sources. The current page ranges are too large: e.g. 95–212, 93–112, 95–118, 37–58. SarahSV (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I believe we discussed elsewhere, while I agree using smaller page ranges is better, I believe page ranges like this are commonly acceptable for academic journals; in my experience, this is certainly accepted at GA level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
We need page numbers to verify the material. You've left them out for books too. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Err, which books don't cite page numbers? This certainly needs to be fixed. Anyway, if you need any of the documents used, send me an email and I'd be happy to fwd any relevant pdfs to you. I think most Polish text are OCRed so they can be machine translated too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Brock et al. (2006) is a book chapter. Fitowa 2001 is a book. It's missing author(s), chapter title and page number(s). But I'm requesting page numbers for the journal articles too. See WP:CITEHOW. SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC); 02:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Fitowa is cited just for the linked blurb (quoted book summary), so I am not sure how to format the ref further. I do think you are right re Brock, and I'll add this to my to-do list. I am still not convinced that our policies cited require specific pages for the journals, and so I don't think {{page number}} for journals is justified here. Again, I see no problem with being specific, but I think page numbers for journals are above and beyond our referencing requirements, and so adding those templates to the article is Wikipedia:Tag bombing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


### School
Before I edited it, the article said: "He attended elementary school in Rzeszów", and didn't say anything else about his schooling. This was sourced to:

<ref name=":6">Brock, Peter; Pietrzyk, Zdzisław (2006). "Stanisław Kot (1885–1975)". Nation and History: Polish Historians from the Enlightenment to the Second World War. University of Toronto Press. pp. 407–428. ISBN 978-0-8020-9036-2. JSTOR 10.3138/j.ctt1287ttg.</ref>

First, that citation is missing the names of the three editors and the page number; 407–428 is too large a range. I've fixed the citation and introduced page numbers using {{sfn}}.
However, that source didn't say he attended elementary school in Rzeszów. It said he attended high school in Rzeszów, so I changed that, but given that he went to university, he probably attended gymnasium. The blurb in Polish from his USHMM archive page says that he attended gymnasium in Rzeszów and elementary school in Czarna and Sędziszów. I don't know whether that's a good source. It's an unsigned blurb that accompanied the digital images of his papers, which are held in "Zakład Historii Ruchu Ludowego" in Warsaw. But it's more specific about his education than the other one, so it should be used until a better one is found. SarahSV (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, the same source is cited again with the citation written differently. This time the author and chapter title are omitted but the three editors are named, and there is a page number but no page range:

<ref name="BrockStanley2006">Peter Brock; John D. Stanley; Piotr Wrobel (1 January 2006). Nation and History: Polish Historians from the Enlightenment to the Second World War. University of Toronto Press. p. 422. ISBN 978-0-8020-9036-2.</ref>
SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If there is a different author, I certainly agree we should add info on the chapter title and author. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. I think that we can trust the ZHRL entry for this (pl:Zakład Historii Ruchu Ludowego - seems like a minor Polish research institute, that even publishes a minor academic journal pl:Roczniki Dziejów Ruchu Ludowego), particularly given that it is hardly a red flag claim. PS. The only issue is that it may be next to impossible to figure out which Czarna is the correct one, there are at lest three in the same modern region of Poland... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Re: [19] It's better to place the source after the text it supports. Brock et al. (2006) doesn't say where he went to elementary school. It's the blurb on the USHMM site that does. If you don't want to do that, the references should at least be ordered in the way they support the text: in this case, USHMM first. SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but I think Brock still supports the Rzeszow high school, so is a secondary source for a part of that subsentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised that this article doesn't mention Kot's involvement in Ehrlich and Alter affair. It was a considerable international diplomatic event that is covered by number of scholarly sources.
The Erlich‐Alter affair  Shimon Redlich
Soviet Jewish Affairs, 9(2), Volume 9, 1979 24–45.
Erlich's and Alter's contacts with Polish and British representatives in the USSR also throw light on the outcome of their plan and their personal fate They had never considered themselves under the sole custody of the NKVD and had established contacts with foreign diplomats and
journalists, first in Moscow then in Kuibyshev. They became part of the small international colony moved in mid-October from Moscow to the
temporary capital on the Volga. Their closest connections were, naturally, with Polish Embassy staff, especially Ambassador Stanislaw Kot. Less than two weeks after their release they submitted to him, orally and in writing, a declaration of their beliefs and intentions. They made it clear that they considered themselves representatives of the largest Jewish political party in Poland and as such had an immense stake in Poland's future. They stressed their triple allegiance — to international socialism, Poland and the Polish-Jewish population. A focal point of the declaration was an appeal to Polish Jews in the USSR to join the Polish Army, then being formed on Soviet territory. As for the future Polish state, they considered one possibility only — that of complete independence and true democracy. Although they spoke of the necessity of social reconstructionand criticized the pre-war capitalist Polish regime, they made no reference whatever to any future Soviet influence.
(...)
In his written response, Kot stated that there was no need for assistance in recruiting for the Army, since there was already a steady
flow of volunteers. He assured the two Bundists that Jews were treated as equals in the Polish Army by soldiers and officers alike, including Commander-in-Chief Anders. He promised there would be no discrimination against Jews in terms of material assistance provided by the Embassy to Polish refugees in the USSR.20 
(...)
 Kot asked them to be extremely careful not to let the NKVD win over Polish citizens against their own government. Initially, he expressed reservations about Erlich's and Alter's cooperation with the Soviet security apparatus and advised them not to involve themselves in the planning of Soviet propaganda activities.21  However, after further discussion, he reported to London that, although they were occupied organ
 ising a Jewish Anti-Hitlerite Committee  this was "completely loyal to the Polish Government".
(...)
Only in the afternoon of 5 December was the first Soviet official statement on the arrest issued. Ambassador Kot sought to convince Vyshinsky that the re-arrest of Erlich and Alter would be damaging both for the Soviet Union and Poland. He warned of the certain negative reaction of Jewish public opinion in the US, an argument he used again and again. Vyshinsky's reply was a total surprise to Kot — Erlich and Alter were
accused of working on behalf of Germany, a version to which the Soviets would cling in the years ahead''
From January 1942 onwards, the arrest of Erlich and Alter became a test case for the Polish citizenship issue. The Soviets and the Polish Embassy reiterated their respective interpretations. The Poles referred constantly to the fact that Erlich and Alter had been released in September 1941 as Polish citizens, and that this was never questioned even in the first weeks after their arrest. The exchange of notes ended in April with a curt Soviet announcement that the Soviet Foreign Ministry considered the Erlich-Alter case "closed".52  On the eve of his departure from the USSR in mid-1942 Kot attempted to convince Vyshinsky, somewhat naively, that the arrested should be allowed to leave the Soviet Union with him; Kot would assume responsibility for their behaviour abroad. In reply to Kot's argument that there could be no question as to Erlich's and Alter's Polish citizenship, Vyshinsky remarked cynically, "Warsaw will get along without Erlich and Alter".53
There's much more of course but I don't want to copy more from the source text.
I would suggest to dedicate a separate section for the Henryk Ehrlich and Victor Alter affair-it was a major notable diplomatic and international event involving numerous actors(Masaryk,Eden,Breckinridge Long and even Roosevelt himself) in which Kot was actively involved.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Thank you for sharing the information. It might need more background information about Henryk Ehrlich and Victor Alter.
Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I think one sentence should suffice, but then I was overruled about it before. I'll see what I can add soon. But WP:BEBOLD, you can add this to the article yourself at any time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added a little paragraph about the incident. It throws interesting light on Stanisław Kot, this supposed advocate of the "Jewish-communism" theory who fought tirelessly, if ultimately in vain, to save the lives of two Polish-Jewish members of the Second International. At the time of their NKVD re-arrest in December 1941, they had been staying in Kot's Polish Embassy.
Nihil novi (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: History is rarely white or black indeed. Related reading: [20]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mind this had an important political context. From the source:
As the most prestigious Jewish personalities among the Polish refugees in the USSR the two Bundist leaders were consulted by the Polish officials on Jewish affairs. They also became involved in the recruitment of Jews into the Polish Army. Both Poles and Soviets sought to use this issue, each accusing the other of discriminating against Jewish volunteers...
Another crucial issue on which the Bundist leaders took an unequivocal stand was that of the Eastern Polish territorities annexed by the USSR in 1939. Kot attempted to use the Jewish refugees, particularly those from the annexed areas, for political purposes. He considered them to be the most pro-Polish minority in those territorities: The Polish Government-in-Exile was interested in gaining the support of public opinion outside the USSR against changes in the pre-1939 Polish-Soviet borders; in this respect Jewish public opinion in the USA and other Western countries was regarded as highly important. Alter was convinced that his and Erlich's support could significantly assist Polish claims...

Ambassador Kot sought to convince Vyshinsky (Andrey Vyshinsky, senior Soviet functionary. -FR) that the re-arrest of Erlich and Alter would be damaging both for the Soviet Union and Poland. He warned of the certain negative reaction of Jewish public opinion in the US, an argument he used again and again.
François Robere (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In the article's "Historian" secton, the first sentence in the final paragraph,
"Wacław W. Soroka writes that, while those who knew Kot considered him a great scholar, commenting on his scholarship is difficult due to his politics."
reads like a nonsequitur – especially since the article already states that Kot did not allow his political views to influence his scholarly writings.
Unless the sentence can be usefully revised, I would prefer to see it dropped.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I am ok with this being removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

[21]
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, might be good to add to external links. Can you find a landing page that is above the pdf? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Here[22]
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

[23]
 W roku 1933 został pozbawiony katedry z powodu zorganizowania w roku 1930 protestu profesorów Uniwersytetu jagiellońskiego przeciwko aresztowaniu przywódców tzw. Centrolew
In 1933 he was stripped of his position at the university due to organizing protest of professors of Jagiellon University against arrests of leaders of so called Centrolew
Also his Polish biography mentions that he was attacked by Endecja movement as philosemite 
Stanisław Kot, 1885-1975: biografia polityczna, Volumes 1885-1975, Tadeusz Paweł Rutkowski, page 96.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The first fact is in the article. The second is interesting. Do you have access to the book by Rutkowski?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Your source is a biographical brief from an archive inventory list? François Robere (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Trudno się temu dziwić, ponieważ wielu wybitnym polskim naukowcom pochodzenia żydowskiego, z przyczyn, jak stwierdzają biografowie „pozanaukowych”, utrudniano awans. Jeden z najwybitniejszych  historyków, Józef Feldman, z trudem przebrnął przez habilitację, ponieważ jeden z profesorów przygotował złośliwe pytania, na które nie sposób było odpowiedzieć (sytuację uratował prof. Stanisław Kot, oświadczając, że jeśli Feldman nie dostanie habilitacji, on zrzeka się katedry, ponieważ także nie zna odpowiedzi na zadane pytania)28
Page 100
Syn bedzie Lech... Asymilacja Zydow w Polsce miedzywojennej  2006 by Anna Landau-Czajka[24], Anna Landau-Czajka is a historian specializing in Polish-Jewish relationship and history at University of Warsaw.
Can I ask Nihil Novi to translate?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

English translation of the above:
"[M]any outstanding Polish scholars of Jewish descent, when up for promotions, ran into difficulties for 'extra-scholastic' reasons...  One of the most outstanding historians, Józef Feldman, had trouble getting through his habilitation because one of the [examining] professors had maliciously prepared questions that were impossible to answer (Prof. Stanisław Kot came to [Feldman's] rescue, declaring that if Feldman were not given his habilitation, he [Kot] would resign his own [professorial] chair, because he did not know the answers to the questions either)."

Nihil novi (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
On a side note, our article about Józef Feldman does not mention at all he was Jewish. Polish Wikipedia article doesn't do this either but it does have Polish Jews category. I wonder if this oversight is more common and if this is because until late 20th century, Polish sources tried to gloss over the Jewish origins of some people, and likewise, Polish Jews didn't want to stress their Jewishness due to fear of discrimination? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia likewise lists a "Polish Jews" category. And, of course, the above text specifically addresses the situation of many notable Jewish-Polish scholars. Perhaps Feldman's Jewish descent should be added to the articles about him.
Nihil novi (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It lists it becasuse I've just added it :) And yes, Feldman's article needs expansion, and his Jewish ethnicity is likely a relevant piece of information pertaining to his background etc. PS. Of more releance here is the question on whether this incident should be mentioned in the article here. PS. I wonder who was the " one of the [examining] professors had maliciously prepared questions that were impossible to answer"? PPS. The source cited is online open access at [25]. It would be nice if such links were provided so others like me wouldn't need to spend few minutes (at least...) looking to verify them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the book's online link. I've added it to the reference information, on introducing the Józef Feldman incident into the article's "Historian" section.
Nihil novi (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Relevance? It's literally one sentence in the entire book. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As has been noted by User:MyMoloboaccount, the sentence,
"The civilian administration under ambassador Stanisław Kot has been described as endorsing the Żydokomuna stereotype of the pro-Soviet, anti-Polish Jew."
that appears in the "World War II" section, in paragraph 3,
does not accurately reflect the text in Antony Polonsky's Polish Review article, and is at best original research and synthesis. It should probably be deleted.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It was explicity requested by the GA reviewer few threads above that our articles has to summarize Polonsky source, or the nomination will be failed. If you think this sentence should be reworded, please do so. If you think the source is not relevant, and the entire sentence should go, I recommend saying so directly in the relevsant section of the GA review above, since IIRC the reviewer said they won't follow the discussion elsewhere on talk in much detail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
For the OR-synth. sentence, I have substituted a direct quotation from Antony Polonsky's Polish Review article.
Nihil novi (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
See Engel below. Apparently Kot brought up the stereotype on several occasions. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

David Engel describes in more detail the Black Sea idea In the Shadow of Auschwitz: The Polish Government-in-exile and the Jews, 1939-1942 on pages 65-66.  
It wasn't invented by Kot but proposed by Roman Knoll. About Kot Engel states, I quote, Kot was not known for any personal hostility towards Jews, nevertheless he apparently saw in the Black Sea scheme an escape from a dilemma in which Poland had been placed by virtue of its alliance with Britain. He mentions that it was rejected Brodetsky and Leonard Stein and afterwards it wasn't further pursued. He does mention that Poland sought emigration of Jews and established close ties to Revisionist wing of Zionism movement.

He later goes into discussions about cooperation between Polish government in exile, Jabotinsky and Zionist supporters(creation of Jewish unit in North America, support for emigration etc) but it doesn't mention Kot directly.
The only thing that might be of relevance is that he mentions split between Revisionists and British Jews in regards to emigration issue, with Revisionist resigned to creating a state in Palestine and accepting Poland as an ally, while British Jews were sceptical on both points-again this is what David Engel states.
To be fair, I am not sure this is something that we should cover in more detail. The section about Polish-Jewish relations and Kot is already substantial and other important aspects of his life and political activity are missing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Page numbers please? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
65 is the page with information on Kot 'Kot was not known for any personal hostility towards Jews,  and there is a footnote 87 at the end of the sentence where Engel states Lewis Namier, the distinguished historian and Zionist activist held Kot in high regard, noting that he had been deprived of his chair in history at  University of Krakow, "because he had organised a protest against the ill-treatment of political prisoners" on page 239--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Have the David Engel book, above, and the Saul Friedländer book (source 11 quoted by Sarah) been used in an article about Polish-and-Jewish relations or history? If not, if they are vetted as reliable sources, maybe they should be used in another article more completely dedicated to these relations?
Nihil novi (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I suggested this before. Such details are not relevant here, but in the article on Polish-Jewish relations during WWII. This is why biographies of Kot don't mention this, his involvement in this was mostly procedural and is of no interest to any biographer (or biography). UNDUE etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Engel also notes that Kot had "undeniable anxiety over the high percentage of Jews in the new army", but strove to incorporate them better (p. 134); that he harbored a "you should be thankful" mentality towards them (pp. 150-152); and that he viewed news of the Holocaust as "a lever for extracting from the Jewish leadership the concrete political steps that the Polish government had long sought" (pp. 154-155). All in all seems consistent with the view that "Jews aren't part of the Polish nation" that we've seen elsewhere. François Robere (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Pan ambasador mija się z prawdą!" Odpowiedzi na "Memoriał" Stanisława Kota do Gen : Andersa z lutego 1943 r. Rutkowski, Tadeusz Paweł Zeszyty Historyczne / Instytut Literacki. Z. 151 (2005), pages 95-135
[26]
Among others statesKot nie posiadał uprzedzeń w stosunku do Żydów i faktycznie zatrudniał wiele osób narodowości żydowskiej w aparacie opieki Ambasady i jej delegaturach.
Kot held no prejudices towards Jews and actually employed numerous persons of Jewish ethnicity in care apparatus of the Embassay and its outposts.
przez odmawianie obywatelstwa polskiego mniejszościom narodowym. Wielokrotnie uświadamiałem czynnikom wojskowym niebezpieczeństwo , jakie  grozi interesom polskim, jeśli Wojsko z powodu swojego rozgoryczenia o zachowanie mniejszości pod okupacją, czy też pod wpływem odruchów nacjonalistycznych pójdziena lep machiawelskiej polityki Sowietów(...)Zachowanie czynników wojskowych wywołał9 wzburzenie i protesty wśród polskich obywateli z mniejszości nie tylko u Zydów, co było natychmiast przez agentów NKWD wykorzystane przeciwko Polsce jako wyraz nie tylko antysemityzmu polskiego--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

These are given in sidenotes, and the latter is WP:PRIMARY (by Kot himself), correct? François Robere (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ping User:Nihil novi: I noticed some text quoted in references is not translated from Polish. Would you mind...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now translated the Polish text in note 34 (Fitowa).
I have previously wanted to translate the text in note 6 (Wałęga), which moreover contains several typographical errors; but I have not been able to locate the actual text, in order to correct and translate it. How could I get a hold of it?
Are there any other Polish texts requiring translation into English?
Nihil novi (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I've now found access to, and Englished, the Polish text in note 6 (Wałęga).
Nihil novi (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Katyn Massacre and Polish-Soviet Relations, 1941-43  George Sanford  Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 95-111
 The London government accepted the official Soviet figures of over 9000 army officers and 181,200 soldiers detained in the USSR. It rejected the claim by the Soviet ambassador in London Ivan Maisky that only 20,000 Polish PoWs were held on Soviet territory by the summer of 1941. Stanislaw Kot, the newly-appointed Polish ambassador to Moscow, was instructed to work for the rapid release of all Poles held in Soviet prisons and camps as well as to protect all Polish civilians throughout the USSR by establishing a network of consulates."7
Kot only received a confused and embarrassed reaction to the question: 'What happened to 7500 officers?', which he raised directly with deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Vyshinsky for the first time on 7 October 1941.24 Vyshinsky was better prepared the second time on 14 October, when he cited the figures of 387,932 Polish citizens confined in the USSR, 71,481 in prisons (sentenced or under investigation), 291,137 deported (in four great waves during 1939-40) or held in special settlements, and 25,314 detained as PoWs.By 1 October 345,511 had been released leaving only 42,421 still detained.25 Kot bluntly refused to accept the accuracy of these figures as most of the 9400 officers held in the USSR had not been accounted for. The Polish record states that 'the discussion became loaded with irritation'.26 
After these preliminary skirmishes Kot met Stalin for the first time in the Kremlin on 14 November(...) The charade played out by him and Prime Minister Viachyslav Molotov when Kot asked for the release of all Polish soldiers according to the Supreme Soviet amnesty and pointed out that not a single officer had returned from Starobelsk is well known. Pressed directly by Kot on the obvious existence of detailed lists of the missing officers from the three camps - the Poles had learnt by now that each officer had been interrogated individually - Stalin phoned, or pretended to hone, the NKVD to ask them whether all the Poles had been released!
The Establishment of Communist Rule in Poland, 1943-1948  Krystyna Kersten writes on page 44 that as condition for negotiations about creation of new Polish government Stalin categorically demanded removal of General Kazimierz Sosnkowski and ministers Marian Kukiel and Stanislaw Kot--
I believe his role in Katyn Massacre revelations need to be emphasised more, the article currently lacks several important aspects of his life, this being one of them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanisław Kot/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Biruitorul (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. I’ll be reviewing this article imminently.


### Immediate Failures
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - no
It contains copyright infringements - no
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - no
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - no


### Prose
#### Lead
Suggested second sentence: “A native of Austria-Hungary, he was early attracted to the cause of Polish independence.”
There may be a WP:CITELEAD issue. Unless that statement is controversial (doesn’t appear to be the case), the citation should be transferred to the appropriate point in the body.
”communist takeover of Poland”: link, say, History of Poland (1945–1989).
Infobox: Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria after Ruda?
Alma mater: Lviv or Lwów?
”studies about the Reformation in Poland”


#### General
”gymnasium in Rzeszów”: Gymnasium is, I believe, a common noun; no need to italicize.
”student socialist movement”: Link socialism in Poland, socialism or the name of the relevant political party.
”ethnic-Ukrainian”: hyphen probably not needed; link History of the Ukrainian minority in Poland?
”1908–12”: spell out 1912.
”Lviv (Lwów)”: which goes first? Polish subject, more of a Polish city back then.
“married Ida Proksch”: We hear nothing more about his family life. Is it mentioned in any sources? Did he have children, for example? Also, given his field of study, did he express any religious beliefs?
Neither of these issues were discussed in any sources I can recall. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
”Switzerland, and Belgium”: use of the serial comma is noted. Of course, it’s not necessarily incorrect. On the contrary. But there’s one point where it was skipped. I’ll see if I find it.
”Wiadomości Polskie (Polish News)”. I looked into this, and it seems the proper style is to italicize both the Polish and the English. So unless you find otherwise, I would do that for all instances.
”strong opponent of nationalism”: perhaps link Polish nationalism, which seems more relevant, unless he had an aversion to all nationalism.
I think the sources don't clarify this so I'd rather leave it more ambiguous. I doubt he supported others and not just Polish, so he likely disliked all of them, although obviously he saw and health with Polish the most... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
”member of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences”: can be shortened to Academy, as it just occurred in the previous sentence.
”while despite the disruptions of World War I”: rearrange as follows: “while he produced substantial scholarship in the decade between his 1909 Ph.D. degree and 1919, despite the disruptions of World War I, his...”.
”In 1933”: rearrange: “In 1933, the Sanation government controlled by Józef Piłsudski was mistreating political prisoners at the Brześć fortress. In response, Kot was one of the main organizers of a protest by university professors.”
”suppression of University autonomy”: link academic freedom.
”British Jewry, Poland's Jews“: link British Jews, Polish Jews.
”In 1942 he cofounded in New York City”: “In New York City in 1942, he cofounded”.
”between Poland and the Soviet Union”: follow this by: “(severed upon the Soviet invasion of Poland)”.
”substantial Polish armed forces”: link Polish Armed Forces in the West.
”new communist authorities”: link, say, Polish Workers' Party.
Any word on what he did in Italy?
Outside being an ambassador? He was criticized for his activities, which I think is mentioned somewhere else, but nothing specific. There is, I believe, an entire article about what he did, mentioned in further reading, but it is not online and I am not in Poland so I can't go to the library for further details (if this ever goes for FA, those sources should be consulted first). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
”on 26 December 1975”, add “soon after turning 90”.
partisan prejudices'." — the punctuation in this section, specifically the quotation marks, is all over the place. Be sure to review and make it consistent.
”relieved Władysław Sikorski of his army command“: mention why this is relevant, i.e. add “Kot’s ally Sikorski”, or something like that.
95 "major studies: I’m not sure the quotes are needed: the claim is cited, and the wording is nothing special.
”A number of his scholarly”: reword: “Particularly after World War II, a number of his scholarly articles were...”
”Select bibliography”: should be “selected”. And needs some cleanup: publishers, cities published, italics, etc.
”See also”: such sections are generally outdated, and I don’t quite see the purpose of this one.
”External links”: lowercase letters for the first one, per MOS.
Categories: more are needed. Here are a few I can think of: Category:Jagiellonian University alumni (and remove Lviv, as he didn’t graduate), Category:Polish magazine editors, Category:Reformation historians, Category:Polish activists, Category:Polish anti-communists, Category:Historians of education, Category:Historians of Poland, Category:Cultural historians, Category:Polish refugees, Category:Polish schoolteachers, Category:Polish newspaper editors, Category:Polish people of World War I, Category:Polish people of World War II, Category:Polish biographers, Category:Stroke survivors
Added all except anti-communists, I don't think this is in sources, not all people who opposed the communist regime and emigrated were actively anti-communist; anyway, I think this would need an attribute cite in the text. Best not to dilute such categories with 'mild opponents'. Also I added 'Literary historians' instead of cultural as I think it is more specific and correct. For Polish people of World War I I wonder if Category:Polish legionnaires (World War I) wouldn't be better, but I cannot confirm he held a military rank. Was he a civilian administrative supporter? This is probably answered in the offline sources I can't access. I'll replace Polish people of World War II when I create some categories for Polish politicians of the gov't in exile and related (to do soon). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Images: they look fine. Maybe the infobox one could be captioned “Kot while university professor”. “Stalin signs the Soviet-Polish declaration”. “Kot (front left, in dark suit)”.
@Biruitorul: Thank you for the extensive review. I have done all that you asked, I think, through see a few replies/comments above. Please let me know if there are any further outstanding issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


### GA Review
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Closing comments
It’s my pleasure to pass this article, now that Piotrus has taken care of a few small issues. The writing is fluent. As to sources, while I have not verified most of them (these being either offline or in Polish), the article does reflect what I have been able to check; as for the rest, I trust Piotrus’ research abilities. The article deals with Kot’s life while situating him in context, and does so neutrally. There are no issues with the images, and the current version is stable. - Biruitorul Talk 12:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)