Talk:Jedwabne pogrom/Archive 2

Pogonowski is not a reliable source
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski is an amateur historian and the abstract of his report (http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org/events/jedwabne/pogonowski.text.htm) is not a reliable source per WP:RSN. Deleted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Times link is dead
Eg. http://www.consortentertainment.com/news-details.aspx?newsID=15615 Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Absurdity?
Does anyone else see the absurd and far fetched information being presented and linked in this article? From Rosa Luxemburg to the Latvian SS, to the Walther P38? Somehow it's missing the inclusion of the Big Bang theory. Maybe that could further obfuscate the atrocity, which seems to be the agenda here. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The only solution is to move all general information to some mother article (either to some article about Jewish-Polish relations during WWII, or to the article about persecution of Jews in Europe in XX century), leaving only concrete facts here. Otherwise, the article simply gives an alternative views of pogroms in Europe and becomes a WP:FORK.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this is an attempt to dilute the article with huge amount of details marginally relevant to the event itself, and thereby to distract a reader's attention from the fact that some Poles murdered civilian Jews.
 * Obviously articles about bad Poles obtain relatively more care here than similar ones about other Central European nations. Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point is not clear for me. Clearly, the only way to diminish Polish guilt is to put a part of it on someone else: on Nazi, on Communists or on Jews themselves. The article seems to follow all these three ways, and it is not always justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Xx236, "Obviously articles about bad Poles obtain relatively more care here than similar ones about other Central European nations"... has nothing to do with this thread "Absurdity." What does Rosa Luxemburg have to do with the Jedwabne massacre, or the plethora of other absurdly unrelated links? If such articles "obtain relatively more care here" the question is who is giving them more care? This is an Encyclopedia. It's not about "Polish guilt" or "Soviet guilt" or German guilt. It's about producing a factual, unbiased, article about a historical event. Currently that is not what this article represents. It needs to be culled of a lot of unnecessary unrelated information. It's not that hard to do. What happened at Jedwabne is pretty much clear to anyone doing even brief research on the subject. That is what the article is supposed to do, state the facts in an biased fashion. Sure, mention that there is disagreement regarding certain details. That's fine. But to be sure the Latvian SS has nothing to do with Jedwabne, neither do countless links making the article deserving of a "non-neutral tagging" if it's not corrected. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you may simply remove all this stuff per WP:BOLD. And I support that in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Background section is very clearly overweight with lots of relatively trivial information that should be moved to some other article or deleted. While article obviously should shortly describe Jewish situation before massacre and relevant WW II events, it should do it in readable form.--Staberinde (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of this obviously irrelevant information as well. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Staberinde and Jayjg here that there's just a ton of stuff in this background section that does not belong.radek (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it increasingly disconcerting to observe a growing list of participants with a long-standing anti-Polish bias (some, with dreadful history of related disruptions) irking to criticize the work of others, while the editors with genuine interest in Poland-related articles remain silent. That's why I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Chumchum7 for his remarkable effort at expanding this article beyond the bare bones of old stereotypes. Please, keep up the good work. Nothing you do is trivial to me. --Poeticbent talk  03:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Poeticbent, either name the "participants with a long-standing anti-Polish bias", so that they can take appropriate action, or remove the comment. Talk pages are for discussing article content: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can talk about any anti-Polish bias here. However, again, the article pays excessive attention to the explanation of murderers' motives. Every human act has its own motives, so if we decided explain that the Poles killed Jews, because they believed the Jews were pro-Soviet, then we will have to explain why the Jews supported the Soviets. Maybe the reason was that Poland was "a new "jailhouse of nations,' similar to that of tsarist Russia" (Source: Stanley W. Page. Reviewed work(s):Poland and Her National Minorities, 1919-1939: A Case Study by Stephan Horak Geschichte der Polnischen Nation, 1916-1960: von der Staatsgrundung im Ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart by Hans Roos The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1962), pp. 462-463)? And, as soon as we started to explain the nature of Jewish pro-Soviet sentiments, maybe we need to tell something about the motives of the Russians (obviously, they were not intrinsically evil; definitely, their behaviour and their atrocities also had some rational explanation). And, finally, we, probably will need to tell something about the motives of the Germans... Note, I do not propose that seriously. I used this reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that at some point explanations become an apology. It is unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Poeticbent, please get to work on the article and help everyone out. The Rosa Luxemburg and Latvian SS links are only the tip of the iceberg. The article needs to address the historical facts, not hide them in a subterfuge of links that link to nowhere (as far as this article is concerned). Are you able to sincerely help and do this? Maybe it would even be cathartic for you. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is always tricky - to strike balance between providing an adequate background for the reader and not straying into irrelevancy and apologia. A similar problem has plagued Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. The way to deal with it I think is to ... stick with reliable sources. If a source discusses something as a "motivation" or "background" then it should be included. Otherwise, there's no point in it. This would mean that stuff like Rosa Luxembourg or Katyn Massacre would go, but there would still be some mention of the motivations of some of the Poles who were guilty of this (in fact, my understanding of it is that at least some of the "leaders" of the pogrom, like the Laudanskis were common criminals who had been released from prison by the Germans). So perhaps a first step would be to compile - here on talk page - the quotes relevant to the "Background" from the reliable sources.radek (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing tricky about it. Irrelevant links having nothing to do with this atrocity need to be removed. The link to Rosa Luxemburg and the Latvian SS are garbage and examples of what needs to go. So are many other links. I think you've already stated as much, so let's just do it. It would be cathartic for you too, Radeksz. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan disagree...:)..did you read Radekszs comment Dan?--Jacurek (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. It's actually the basis for my response to his comment. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cut the "it would be cathartic for you" crap out would you? It's basically baiting. Discuss content not editors and what would or would not be good for them.radek (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chumchum7 here. I'd like to personally thank Dr. Dan and Poeticbent for the supportive comments you have made on this page. I take full responsibility for adding much of the background section, from a first paragraph which I pasted on this Talk page for all of you to see and review, to my continued additions and the later much larger section that now stands. If editors find this is now Too Much Information, please go ahead and chop it to pieces or alternatively move it to the bottom of the page. I added Zydokomuna, prewar Antisemitic attacks, Polish and Jewish politics, census change and migration, because I felt it was relevant. It's fine by me if editors feel material is irrelevant and want to reduce it. To set the record straight on one detail, I added that hundreds of Jews were killed at Katyn, and that 300,000 Jews were deported to Siberia: these facts were added to support the mention of Zydokomuna. They're also important foils to clichés of Gentile and Jewish separation. I added Rosa Luxembourg and Felix Dzerzhinsky together in one sentence - as evidence that there were plenty of high profile communists from both communities, again facts supporting the mention of Zydokomua. I repeat, you may find this irrelevant and that is OK. I'd disagree that I have tried to create a smokescreen around the Jedwabne Pogrom, and I don't appreciate the suggestion after what has been quite a lot of hard work to try to establish consensus. Now, my personal taste is to add as much material as possible so that readers can look at everything for themselves and form their own conclusions - that's not to everyone's' understanding of Wikipedia standards and I entirely understand that, so go ahead and delete it or move it. But I implore you all - please let's try to cut down on our own stereotyping of each other. This is the definition of prejudice. We could examine our own prejudices first. Myself included. We must try to avoid prejudiced allegations of anti-Polish sentiment and prejudiced allegations Polish nationalism. We all get hot and bothered from time to time, myself included - but let's not fall into the ugly trap of sarcasm, finger-pointing, name calling, taking offence, perceiving malice and stereotyping of each others' motivations. It doesn't help Wikipedia, it doesn't help Gentile Jewish relations and it certainly doesn't help our understanding of the Jedwabne Pogrom. Thank you for reading. Chumchum7 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chumchum7, I appreciate your attempts to improve the article. However, as you can see, many editors are concerned that much of this material isn't actually relevant to the pogrom. As it stands, the "background" material comprises almost 1400 words, whereas the actual description of the pogrom and subsequent exhumations etc. comprise just over 300 words. Surely you can see that this is heavily imbalanced. I suspect that real issue here is that of original research; that most of the background material isn't actually relevant to the Jedwabne pogrom. How can one tell? It's quite easy, actually. If the sources used in the background material discuss that material in the context of the pogrom, then it's probably relevant. If they do not, then the material is almost certainly original research. It's not actually up to Wikipedia editors to decide which "background" material is relevant to the topic of an article; instead, we rely on reliable sources to do so. I hope that's helpful. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I took out some stuff that didn't have refs and that was clearly only marginally related. I think it's not so much a problem with OR as much as SYNTH. I agree that some more trimming would help things. I also *generally* agree that unless a source talks about something in relation to this pogrom then it shouldn't be included. There are some exceptions to this I think though - basically in the background, it does in fact make sense to present a general picture of Polish-Jewish relations on the eve of WWII and after its break out. Some of the material in such a presentation is going to be general in nature so I think it would be fine if there *some* stuff which is cited to works not specifically about this pogrom remained.radek (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is a specific kind of WP:NOR. Please note that it's a sub-section of the NOR policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Chumchum7 did a great job that is, however, relevant to some other article. I don't think this text should be deleted, it would be desirable to move it to some article that would serve as a mother article for this one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the lengthy discussions here, above, and below, regarding the need to clean up the Background section, I have discovered, to my astonishment, that Poeticbent removed the cleanup-section tag from it, with the edit summary "again, no go → ongoing talks". If these are not "ongoing talks" about the need for cleaning up the section, then what on earth would qualify? Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The crucifixion of Jesus?
This piece of text:
 * "Both Polish Jews and Polish Gentiles had nationalist movements of their own. Revisionist Zionism had a following among Polish Jews, who also experienced the revival of the Hebrew language and a growth of the idea of Aliyah. The Polish nationalist Endecja movement and the National Radical Camp were openly anti-Semitic despite being anti-Nazi. Some Polish politicians wanted Polish Jews to emigrate. Some Catholics expressed the opinion that the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus."

is too general. (Especially the reference to the crucifixion of Jesus). In addition, any mention of even alleged Jewish guilt in the article about a massacre of Jews looks like an awkward attempt to justify the massacre.

In connection to that, I propose:
 * Remove all texts of that type to some article about Polish-Jewish relations.
 * Decrease the amount of Polish sources. That would help to avoid accusations in non-neutrality: it is quite natural to expect that national historians cannot be neutral when they write about such a sensitive subject. (That is true for all national historians, e.g. for Russian/Soviet historians writing about Great Patriotic war). I believe this concrete article will benefit if Western sources are used instead. In this concrete case that fully warrants neutrality because western scientific community has no prejudice against the Poles, and no Cold war stereotypes affected their perception of this concrete subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't perceive "any mention of even alleged Jewish guilt" in the above quote from the article. I find it useful as general background, which is what was lacking in the first place. The Crucifixion reference is about one Anti-Semitic myth. I also find that useful background. Chumchum7 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think this to lead to a dramatically different picture in this particular case, however, that would help to avoid accusations in national bias. To demonstrate that thesis, let me point out that right now I am reading all reviews on Gross' Neighbours I was able to find. Many of them support Gross' theses, some of them argue, and none of them present the Poles as the nation in negative light. And, although some non-Polish nationalist can question a neutrality of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, it would be problematic for him to throw similar accusation against the article in "Slavic Reviews".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As to Polish sourcing lacking neutrality, we're running into serious difficulty of generalization if we start saying Americans, Brits, Canadians or Danes are in some way superior and unbiased. Surely no human being is devoid of bias or at least perspective? Where does one draw the line on who has the right to comment on history? What about 'Western' Polish American Historians? Are they unbiased or do they have particular sentiments for their nation? What about 'Western' Jewish American historians? Are they unbiased or do they have particular sentiments for their nation? What about Jan Gross, who was born in Poland, who grew up and was educated in Poland, whose mother was a Polish Gentile, and in the Holocaust helped saved the life of his father, who was a Polish Jew? Do we throw out Gross's material because he is Polish? Or do we rule he is neutral because he got an American passport? What about Norman Finkelstein, who has made a very aggressive attack on Gross about 'Neighbours', accusing it of bias and contradiction, sensationalism and exploitation? Finkelstein was born in America, which according to some definitions makes him more American (and apparently more neutral) than Gross. Further, both Finkelstein's parents were Polish Jewish survivors of Auschwitz - which according to some definitions, makes him more Jewish than Gross too. One argument would be that Finkelstein is an American Jew while Gross is a Polish Gentile. Should we throw out Gross and rely on Finkelstein? Sorry, we're going to have trouble with these generalizations about national identity and judgements about whether or not something has clouded the perception of a whole ethnic group. Let's all be mindful of our own prejudices, myself included. Chumchum7 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "As to Polish sourcing lacking neutrality, we're running into serious difficulty of generalization". Incorrect. I never stated the American sources are superior. My point was that, in some cases, especially when national feelings are affected (e.g. in this case), it would be better to use a third party sources.
 * Yes but why should Wikipedia give in to non-Polish or any other kind of nationalist? IPN is a perfectly reliable source (and one praised by Gross) so the fact that someone with an axe to grind can question it should not be an argument not to use it - somebody somewhere at somepoint's going to question almost any source (including Slavic Review). Of course, it would be nice if there multiple independent sources that can be used to ref the same piece of text.radek (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone would seriously question the Institute of National Remembrance's results, especially that the investigation itself was very detailed, and methodically sound, and the Institute's prosecutor in charge of the investigation was Jewish. --Lysytalk 12:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) This is getting way too bogged down with a lot of different "opinions". It is my general understanding that most of the commenting parties agree that the article need to be culled somewhat in order to become more relevant to the historical events as they took place. Far fetched "links" should be the first to go. This should not be that difficult, since it has already been largely agreed to. Line by line, would be the best way, rather than in one swoop so that pertinent objections can be addressed here on the talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "historical events as they took place ?" How many version of what happened do we have ? The pogrom is primarily the matter of historiography today. --Lysytalk 11:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The breaking down...
I don't understand why the fragment:
 * "In total, the Soviets took over 52.1% of territory of Poland (circa 200,000 km²), with over 13,700,000 inhabitants composed of 5,1 million ethnic Poles (ca. 38%), 37% Ukrainians, 14.5% Belarusians, 8.4% Jews, 0.9% Russians and 0.6% Germans"

and similar information is relevant. The only things that should be mentioned in the article's background section are: I believe that a short section reflecting these theses would be quite sufficient for that article. Other background information should tell about some local facts only. All other details telling about Polish-Jewish relations, Soviet and German occupations, collaborationism (both with the Soviets and Nazi) should be moved to history of the Jews in Poland, Jewish Polish history during the 20th century, Occupation of Poland and the Holocaust in Poland articles. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) At the beginning of WWII Poland was divided between Germany and the USSR (the link to the Occupation of Poland article)
 * 2) Jedwabne was conquered by Germany but was transferred soon to the Soviets.
 * 3) Soviets immediately started a sovetisation policy that included mass arrests and deportations of alleged "anti-Soviet elements", positive discrimination etc.
 * 4) In Polish gentiles' mass psychology, Soviet occupation was associated with Jews, partially due to their actual collaboration with new authorities (positive discrimination), and partially due to pre-war anti-Jewish prejudice.
 * 5) Additional factor that bolstered anti-Jewish sentiments was Nazi German propaganda plus systematic attempts of Nazi authorities to prepare and organize anti-Jewish violence in newly occupied territories in such a way that they would have a visibility of spontaneity.

Indication?
The sentence:
 * "One indication of this is that at the 'decapitation' of the Polish elite in the Katyn massacre, the NKVD executed some 600 Jewish Polish Army officers, including Major Baruch Steinberg (Krzyż Niepodległości), Chief Rabbi of the Polish Army. Around 130,000 Polish Jews served in the Polish Army during the September Campaign, defending their country both against the Nazis and the Soviets."

is not supported by the source. The source tells nothing about the exact number of Jews killed in Katyn. The source tells nothing about connection between the alleged tolerance of Poland towards Jews and the service of Jewish officers in Polish army. This sentence is WP:OR. And, the connection between that and Jedwabne is unclear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

German presence at massacre aka as vandalism - part 2
I love how about an hour and a half after Chumchum posts the translation of sources used in the article on the talk page wholesale, Bobanni responds with a tag! Either somebody's got a malfunctioning time machine here or is just playing jokes.radek (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right Radeksz. Chumchum spent a lot of time entering all of that information on the talk page and was ignored. It's not right that he should be ignored after putting in all of that heartfelt and relevant information, although it was a new thread and had nothing to do with the "absurdity issue" being discussed earlier. Perhaps that explains it. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nazi role. I believe the below quote may be helpful:
 * "The Nazis were determined to see their anti-Semitic ideology played out in practice. Already in the summer and fall of 1939, the Nazis planned pogroms with their Lithuanian and Ukrainian sympathizers. The attack against the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 was accompanied by a series of instructions that made it clear theJews would "pay" at the hands of the local populations for inciting the world to resist the Nazis. Richard Heydrich developed a plan for the "self-cleansing" actions (Selbstreinigungsaktionen) against the Jews by the local, native populations. He wrote to the Einsatzgruppen on 2 July 1941: "In no way should one hinder the self-cleansing attempts of anticommunist or anti-Jewish circles in the territories that will be newly occupied. On the contrary, they are to be encouraged, to be sure without being able to trace it [spurenlos], so that these local 'self-defense' circles could not later on point to orders or to political assurances that were given." Even before the invasion, Heydrich wrote (6June 1941) that "local pogroms" would take place only in the initial phase of the occupation and would be sparked by the work of a specially prepared Vorkommando of knowledgeable policemen. The self-defense groups would not be allowed to organize on a long-term basis; instead, they would be encouraged to take out their frustrations about the Soviet occupation on the Jews during this one crucial period."
 * (The Nazis and "The East": Jedwabne's Circle of Hell. Author(s): Norman M. Naimark. Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 476-482. Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3090297)

However, it is necessary to note that Polish-Jewish relations during WWII were more complex then contemporary Polish scholars tend to present. The following quote demonstrates that:
 * "A report submitted by church authorities to the Polish government in London in summer 1941,just before the Nazi German administration was about to launch the "final solution of the Jewish question," stated: "As far as the Jewish question is concerned, it must be viewed as a special sign of Divine Providence that the Germans, regardless of the many injustices they have inflicted and continue to inflict upon our country, did well to demonstrate that it is possible to liberate Polish society from the Jewish plague and to show us the path that we should follow unrelentingly, albeit in a less cruel and brutal fashion. It is clearly God's will that the occupiers themselves have contributed to the solution of this burning question, because the Polish nation itself, weak and unsystematic, would never have taken the energetic steps that this matter demands.""
 * (Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II. Author(s): Klaus-Peter Friedrich Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 711-746 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649910)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kolaboranci w kraju bez Quislinga, 2003. Klaus-Peter Friedrich doesn't have any idea.Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that all "contemporary Polish scholars" aren't able to describe the Polish-Jewish relations under German rules? Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who were the "church authorities" mentioned above? The primate August Hlond  lived in southern France and  "had always consistently condemned the Nazi persecution of the Jews and had been openly opposed to all actions hurting Jews materially and physically" (from the article). Bishop Adam Stefan Sapieha wasn't anti-semitic.
 * just before the Nazi German administration was about to launch the "final solution of the Jewish question," - Those Poles, they should have known, why haven't they asked Adolf Hitler, what were his plans? Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be more helpful to ascertain if the report was actually submitted and, if so, who the church authorities were who wrote it. Neither Hlond nor Sapieha are good examples to corroborate your point, Xx236. Both have pretty poor track records when it comes to Polish-Jewish relations. Hlond, in his own words...""There will be a Jewish problem as long as the Jews remain...It is a fact that the Jews fight against the Catholic church, they are free-thinkers, and constitute the vanguard of atheism, bolshevism and revolution. It is true that the Jews are committing frauds, practicing usury, and dealing in white slavery. It is also true that in the schools the Jewish youth is having an evil influence, from an ethical and religious point of view, on the Catholic youth." As for Sapieha, after the Kielce pogrom he implied that the Jews had brought a pogrom on themselves. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The contemporary Polish scholars tend to present the Polish-Jewish relations during WWII as not complex ? Where did that come from ? --Lysytalk 18:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Do you mean that all "contemporary Polish scholars" aren't able to describe the Polish-Jewish relations under German rules?" & "The contemporary Polish scholars tend to present the Polish-Jewish relations during WWII as not complex ? Where did that come from ? " To answer these questions, as well as the question about Nazi-Polish collaboration in general, let me reproduce another quote:
 * "Klaus-Peter Friedrich asks why Poland has witnessed recurring debates about collaboration. My impression is the opposite: Poles do not consider collaboration in World War II to be a topic.' On a visit to Warsaw several years ago I attempted to provoke historians in the Institute of Political Studies (Polish Academy of Sciences) by asking who among them was investigating Polish collaboration with the Nazis. Without permitting himself the briefest pause for reflection, one of the historians answered: "No one is working on that, because there was no collaboration.""
 * (Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris. Author(s): John Connelly. Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 771-781. Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649912)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Institute of Political Studies isn't a historical institute, and the historians don't study WWII. Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC) The Polish Center for Holocaust Research was established on 2 July 2003] Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Published in 2003
 * Published in 2004


 * It's fascinating how you mix anti-Semitism with collaboration and anti-Semitism with the Holocaust. Polish anti-Semites (endecja) were radically anti-German, some of them helped Jews under German occupation, as the result some of the Polish anti-Semites were murdered by Germans as Jewish allies. One has to know facts rather than to look for a tool to bash the Poles in few lines and few spare minutes.Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to get the hint. How is this relevant to the complexity of the Polish-Jewish relations during WW2 ? Nobody can seriously think that "all Poles were anti-semites" or that "no Poles were anti-semites" but this seems too obvious, does not it ? --Lysytalk 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the German police presence, why is it so important to have it mentioned in the article ? As if we would expect that if there were any Germans present during the pogrom they should have saved the Jews from Poles or what ? Frankly, this seems nothing more but a rather pathetic apologetic approach. --Lysytalk 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There are such "details": who ruled Jedwabne at that time, who had guns and the right to use them at that day? As far as I know Germans ruled Jedwabne and the only "Pole" who had a gun, joined later the German police and was called a Volksdeutsch. Local Poles collected guns during the 1939-1941 period but didn't use them during the pogrom. Why? Because they didn't know how to shoot or rather because they weren't allowed to use their guns? By whom weren't they allowed to use their guns? Not by the Soviets, the more not by the French.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand, the question of the German police presence is important because, if that was the case, it would imply that the pogrom was directly inspired by the Germans. Taking into account the above quote, that is highly likely, and, from the same quote it becomes clear that the German role is hard to confirm, because special precautions were taken by Nazi to present Eastern European pogroms as "spontaneous" .--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However, although I will support introduction of such a statement in the article, I will also oppose to presenting the Poles as intrinsically anti-Nazi nation that did not collaborate with Hitler and took every effort to save Jews. Based on the sources available for me I conclude the Poles were pretty anti-Semitic during WWII and they did collaborate with Hitler, especially in extermination of Jews.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's something new that "Poles collaborated with Hitler". They obviously didn't and Hitler despised and hated the Poles. Some Poles collaborated with local German authorities, with Hans Schmidt, to obtain some goods, to survive, to be not expelled to Germany for slave work. A small group of Warsaw politicians tried to "collaborate" in 1940 and they were arrested and murdered by Germans, so beware what are you writing here.

Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More quotes from about Hlond, Sapieha, Polish clergy and Jews:
 * "In Polish historiography one encounters the opinion that the clergy did not fulfill the authorities' expectations that they contribute to main- taining order in the GG. "Out of unknown motives," as Czeslaw Luczak states, a few priests were ready to partake in Nazi propaganda campaigns by, for instance, exhorting their community to hand over stocks of natural produce. But by their moderate attitude and mitigating sociopolitical activity, the overwhelming majority of the Catholic clergy in the GG stabilized the situation to a degree that is not to be underestimated. Like teachers and civil servants, priests had to take notice of the occupiers' official announcements and were also obliged to read aloud their decrees from the pulpit (including the anti-Jewish ones). In the annexed western part of Poland, about one-tenth of the priests had themselves registered as ethnic Germans."
 * "The aged and experienced archbishop of Krak6w, Adam Sapieha, was the only noteworthy Polish opponent of the General Gover- nor and was held in high repute among the Poles. Other members of the hierarchy were subject to a rapid diminution in their prestige. The Polish primate Cardinal August Hlond had left the country all too quickly at the beginning of the war."
 * "Hlond had come to the fore in the 1930s with ambivalent statements on the "Jewish question" while warning of the "radically anti-Jewish ethical standpoint imported from abroad that is not compatible with Catholic ethics." From October 1940 to April 1943 he sojourned in exile in France, from whence he tried to inform the west on the situation in Poland. As regards the murder of the Jews, though, he kept silent. Apart from interventions in favor of so-called Jewish Christians, the Roman Catholic hierarchy officially did not meddle in Nazi 'Jewish policy.""
 * (Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II. Author(s): Klaus-Peter Friedrich Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 711-746 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649910)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul Siebert, you wrote: Based on the sources available for me I conclude the Poles were pretty anti-Semitic during WWII and they did collaborate with Hitler, especially in extermination of Jews. Do you mean some Poles were anti-Semitic and some Poles collaborated with Hitler? Surely, racial stereotyping has gone out of fasion and we need to write in an extremely precise manner about this? Chumchum7 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat: I implore you all - please let's try to cut down on our own stereotyping of each other. This is the definition of prejudice. We could examine our own prejudices first. Myself included. We must try to avoid prejudiced allegations of anti-Polish sentiment and prejudiced allegations Polish nationalism. We all get hot and bothered from time to time, myself included - but let's not fall into the ugly trap of sarcasm, finger-pointing, name calling, taking offence, perceiving malice and stereotyping of each others' motivations. It doesn't help Wikipedia, it doesn't help Gentile Jewish relations and it certainly doesn't help our understanding of the Jedwabne Pogrom.Chumchum7 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I meant exactly what you write, namely, that some Poles were anti-Semitic and some Poles collaborated with Hitler. The only question is the degree of collaboration and anti-Semitism. Both Communist and contemporary Polish historiography seems to underestimate it, so my deliberate exaggerations are aimed to compensate for that bias. And, finally, everyone may disregard my conclusions provided that the facts presented in the quotes are taken into account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To my mind the 'deliberate exaggerations' you speak of may not end up compensating for bias at all, but quite the reverse: it could entrench existing bias and even make it more extreme. If I may make a suggestion, I think you'll achieve your goal if you steer a steady course with fairness, accuracy and inclusiveness - no matter how strong that crosswind hits you.Chumchum7 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I believe it is clear from my posts (if not, I repeat that explicitly) that these deliberate exaggerations have been made only to demonstrate a point, not to offend anyone. In addition, again, I wanted mostly to present the quotes, not to express my opinion. Everyone is free to completely disregard my comments if he dislike them. However, the sources cannot be ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You weren't successfull - I feel offended by you. If your goal is other than hate speach against the majority of Poles, you have much to learn.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC) "This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals" - my goodness... I believed you were an amateur "researcher" of Polish vices.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Believe me, had this article been pronoucedly anti-Polish, I would insist on adding more materials about Polish resistance and their attempts to save Jews. (BTW, you probably noticed that I objected against removal of any mention of German participation in the pogrom, and even proposed the source supporting the thesis about a hidden role Nazi played in organisation of "spontaneous" anti-Jewish violence). Again, I see no reason for you to feel offended.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "I believed you were an amateur "researcher" of Polish vices." You are right, I am an amateur historian. My speciality is not humanitarian sciences, and I do not pretend to tell something new about "Polish vices". Frankly, I even have no intention to focus on "Polish vices". The only thing I object against is a redundant romanticizing or idealizing of the Poles. Were the Poles severely affected during WWII? Yes, but Belorussians suffered almost equally. Did they collaborate with Hitler? Yes, although many other nations collaborated much more enthusiastically. Did the Poles resist to Hitler? Yes, but some other European nations, e.g. Yugoslavs, fought, probably, even more bravely. Did the Poles save Jews? Of course, but other Poles betrayed them, and many others looked indifferently at the process of extermination of Jews. Were the Poles anti-Semites? Definitely, but in no greater extent than other European nations were.
 * So you have a problem - you offend people and you aren't aware.
 * Wikipedia isn't a forum or discussion club. This discission should be limited to the Jedwabne pogrom. It's a strange place to oppose "redundant romanticizing or idealizing of the Poles".
 * It's not a right place to discuss Belorussians.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "So you have a problem - you offend people and you aren't aware." I am, however, I do not understand what concretely in my post was offending. That the Poles (as I already specified some Poles) collaborated with Hitler? That they did help Nazi in their efforts to exterminate Jews? Did I understand you correct that, according to you, the Poles did not collaborate and did not help to persecute Jews? (Again, to avoid any misinterpretations let me repeat again that I fully realize that they collaborated with Hitler in lesser extent than many other European nations did.)
 * Re: "Wikipedia isn't a forum or discussion club. This discission should be limited to the Jedwabne pogrom." Correct. The discussion about the effect my statement (supported by reliable sources) had definitely do not belong to this talk page. We can continue on my talk page if you wish.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact check. #2
'The Jedwabne pogrom (or Jedwabne massacre) took place in German Nazi occupied Poland on July 10, 1941, when a mob of Poles, in the presence of German police killed at least 300 Polish Jews"

There are two references


 * http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=en&dzial=55&id=131&search=5667
 * This points to a web page for the Polish Institute of National Remembrance with absolutely no reference to German police


 * A communiqué regarding the decision to end the investigation of the murder of Polish citizens of Jewish nationality in Jedwabne on 10 July 1941 (Komunikat dot. postanowienia o umorzeniu śledztwa w sprawie zabójstwa obywateli polskich narodowości żydowskiej w Jedwabnem w dniu 10 lipca 1941 r.) from 30 June 2003
 * This points to a web page for the Polish Institute of National Remembrance(in Polish) with absolutely no reference to German police

Hence reference in the presence of German police must be removed!

Bobanni (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Download the pdf.radek (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Or read the text that I pasted for you above: I already hunted down that PDF, downloaded the PDF, made a text conversion and pasted it here, especially for Bobanni. It may interest others too. --Chumchum7 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sloppy references are no excuse for incivility and absurd claims of vandalism. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you cannot find the info on pages that you provided the material cannot be verified. If you really want to include the PDF as a reference use: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=2&id=558

Bobanni (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Thank you for the more radical accusation of this project. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Incorrect. Of course, WP must contain only true statements, however, not all true statements can be supported by reliable sources. Therefore, I would say:


 * "The threshold for inclusion of true statement in Wikipedia is its verifiability".
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Again, based on the Naimark's article (quoted above) we can write in the article, that, although the presence of German police during Jedwabne is a subject of dispute, the existing evidence suggest that special efforts were made by the Nazi authorities to inspire anti-Jewish violence in newly occupied territories and to create a visibility of their spontaneity. I believe it would not be OR because the quote was taken from the article about Jedwabve.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the presence of German police is in dispute: Another controversy surrounds the role of the Germans who were present in Jedwabne on July 10, 1941. The available sources show there was a total of between ten and twenty Germans (gendarmes and Gestapo functionaries). (and I believe the IPN report came out about 4 or 5 years after the Naimark source). What is in dispute is the role that the German police played in the events: As a result, it is impossible to determine conclusively just what the German role actually was in that last, most tragic phase - the burning alive of Jedwabne's Jewish residents in the barn. The sources present contradictory and imprecise descriptions of the Germans' behavior, and historians' assessments also vary greatly.. The source also goes on to discuss the role of German police in the broader area and in greater context.radek (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Establishment of German police presence is quite relevant. Jewabne was a village, amongst thousands of Polish villages that had been under Soviet control after the events of 17 September 1939. The event took place only three weeks after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. It's hard to believe that there was a German police presence in every Polish village with a comparable population at this time. Was this police presence in Jedwabne stationary or mobile, visiting different villages from time to time? Was this village unique in some way? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that conducting some OR is quite tempting ;). So, some facts: (1) Jedwabne so small a village, actually it was quite large for the area; (2) Operation Barbarossa progressed at a great pace in its first weeks, so 3 weeks was quite a long time (3) German Einsatzgruppen were closely following Wehrmacht and conducted many other massacres in the area - many of them with active Polish participation. --Lysytalk 03:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your perspective. No, OR shouldn't tempt any one here. In fact, if any additional information concerning German complicity for this atrocity can be established, although it too would need to be reliably sourced, it should be included. Just for clarification, were the Einsatzgruppen in any way claimed by any one to have participated in the massacre? We hardly need a new WP:Fork. There's enough of those already as the article stands. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course. Particularly Einsatzkommando 8 of Einsatzgruppe B, which organized other pogroms in the area, particularly in the adjacent villages, was also accused of initiating the Jedwabne massacre. Although, very few documents of the Einsatzgruppe operation survived, most of the evidence relies on eyewitnesses account, e.g. the Einsatzgruppe B commander recognized by Jewish survivors of the pogrom in Radziłów. But, regardless of whether Germans were present in Jedwabne or not, the pogrom has been carried out by Poles, many of whom arrived to Jedwabne from other villages. Even if there were Germans there, would you expect them to object ? --Lysytalk 11:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Whether they would have "objected" or not is not the basis for my objection to including the Einsatzgruppen in the article. As you correctly have stated ..."very few documents of the Einsatzgruppe operation survived" and since we have none concerning Jewabne, putting the group into the article seems undue. Maybe some distant connection to them can be argued, probably more than including Rosa Luxemburg in the article, but it boils down to the same argument. Neither Rosa nor the Einsatzgruppe belong in the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says that Jedwabne was a town, why to call it a "village"? Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Call it a town then. What was it's population in 1941? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lead Once More
After all that has been discussed on this talk page, the lead remains in sad shape. More information concerning the atrocity is in order. As it stands, we get what the communist authorities did about it after the war. We get that it received wide attention on its 60th anniversary. We get Jan T. Gross praising the IPN's finding. And of course how the massacre contrasts with the rescue of Jews by Poles during the holocaust. Finally we get how Poles were shocked by the details of the pogrom. All of this in the lead and very little about the massacre itself. Seems way out of whack in terms of balance and presenting the information concerning the events on that day. The rest of this stuff should be moved down into the article, unless it gets removed as irrelevant by consensus. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored part of the summary from a September version, and moved more detailed discussion that does not belong to the summary down to individual sections. how about that ? --Lysytalk 12:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still kind of awkward. Although better and more concise than the original version, I still think more information regarding the massacre instead of the side shows would better serve the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact check. #1
"''Between 1933 and 1938, around 25,000 German Jews fled Nazi Germany to sanctuary in Poland, which did not have a fascist

I don't think the reference to Fascism is relevant here, because (i) Fascism (Italian, Spanish, etc) had no direct relation to Holocaust. Jews were persecuted by Nazi, not Fascists. (ii) Some (western) books describe pre-war Poland as semi-Fascist regime. (iii) the source doesn't claim Poland had no Fascist regime.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean Jews were persecuted by Germans or by "Nazi" ? I'm always amused about these mysterious Nazis appearing to occupy Germans, and then mysteriously disappearing immediately after the war. Some even claim that the Red Army liberated Berlin. As to the Jews, some of them were actually expelled to Poland before WW2. --Lysytalk 09:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Nazi" is more precise, because not every German persecuted Jews. In addition, during last 60 years Germany made every effort to apologize and compensate for the crimes German Nazi perpetrated, they have the most strict anti-Nazi legislation, and, I believe, probably, we gave to distinguish between Nazi, German Army, and the Germans. As to the Jews, I do not question the first part of the sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Nazi, I don't think German officers or clerks should be called Nazi. For instance Wehrmacht war crimes were the crimes of German army, not Nazi crimes. However, "Nazi" should be used when we speak about death camps, SS crimes, NSDAP etc.
 * How abot "anti-semites" intead of "Poles" ? not every Gentile Pole of Jedwabne participated in the pogrom, only a fraction. BTW, I disagree with the myth that "during last 60 years Germany made every effort to apologize and compensate for the crimes German Nazi perpetrated" or that "they have the most strict anti-Nazi legislation" or that "we gave to distinguish between Nazi, German Army, and the Germans". First of all, during the cold war era, Germany denied committing many crimes, and admitted mostly to the Holocaust and the atrocities in Soviet Union. Only in the very recent years German historians start to be ready to research the other crimes, and German society remains mostly unaware of them. Secondly, I don't think that Germany has the most strict anti-Nazi legislation, with existing Nazi official organizations and parties like NPD, or where, contrary to many other countries, trading "Mein Kampf" is legal. Compare it to anti-Nazi legislation of other countries, including Poland. As for distinguishing between "Nazi, German Army, and the Germans", let me just state that the Nazis had an overwhelming German support, both in the 1930s and during the war (until Germany started to loose it, that is), and that the first war crimes and atrocities were commited in 1939 by Wehrmacht. --Lysytalk 11:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also often bemused by the insistence on the terms "Nazi" or "Nazi Germany" instead of "German" or "Germany"; it's as if aliens landed in 1933, replaced the native Germans, ran an entirely new country until 1945, then vanished, replaced again by Germans, leaving only a few seed-pods which eventually hatched into the equally alien "neo-Nazis". Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Nazi and the Germans weren't the same even during 1933-45. There were many Austrians, Sudetes Germans, Soviet Volksdeutsche, even repatriated Americans among Nazi. If we equate Nazi and the Germans we thereby recognize legality of Anschluss, occupation ov Czechoslovakia etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Be my guest - "Germans and Austrians" instead of "Nazis" is O.K. for me. You attack "Poles" rather than specific groups of the Polish society. Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like every enlightened European, under "Poles" I mean those citizens of Polish state who does not express a desire to be explicitly associated with one or another ethnic minority. For instance when Władysław Szpilman (The Pianist's) was asked by Polish solders: "Why are you?", he answered "I am Pole". Therefore, for me he is Pole, not Jew.
 * Telling "Germans and Austrians" instead of "Nazis" is probably O.K. with you, however, in majority cases it would be inaccurate and even false. I am not aware if "Germans and Austrians" were in Jedwabne, however, I am absolutely sure that a series of massacres in Eastern Europe was organized by Nazi.
 * Re: "You attack "Poles"" You seem to refuse to get the point. Telling that the Poles (i.e. some Poles) collaborated with Hitler is not an attack against the Poles, similarly to that the statement that the Russians (i.e. some Russians) killed more than 20,000 Poles in Katyn forest is not an attack against the Russians. Both statements are the facts, and facts cannot offend anyone.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The state was "Deutsches Reich", not a "Nazi Reich".
 * Yes, I refuse to get your "logic", that Polish criminals were "Polish" but German officers or clerks were "Nazi".
 * "Russians"? Which source proves the killers were "Russian"? They were NKVD officers. 08:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Deutsches Reich". It was the self-name of the German state. "Nazi" is used to what was related to NSDAP, SS, etc.
 * Re: "Yes, I refuse to get your "logic"". Well, let me explain again. Since all educated people in Europe under nationality mean citizenship, under "Poles" I mean all citizens of Polish republic. By doing so I recognize it territorial integrity and its modern (not empire-type) organization. BTW, you probably know that many educated Jews considered themselves Poles, not Jews in Poland (and, interestingly, the same was true for pre-Hitler Germany: the Jews remembered their ethnic roots, but considered themselves Germans). Therefore, I use "Poles" because it is correct.
 * Re: "They were NKVD officers" Every NKVD officer had nationality. Obviously they were Russians as a rule. NKVD's Jews preferred to speak Russian and didn't consider themselves Jews. We have to agree that Katyn massacre was committed mostly by Russians, however, that is not more insulting for the Russians as the nation then Jedwabne for the Poles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that nationality is about citizenship. The victims at Jedwabne were Polish citizens and the murderers were Polish citizens. Consequently we should stick to the massacre of "Polish Jews by Polish Gentiles" phrasing. Saying it was a "murder of Jews by Poles" would be like saying the Colfax massacre was a "murder of blacks by Americans". Chumchum7 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most sources would say pre-war Poland was a stratocracy rather than semi-fascist. The fact that Poland was on balance more tolerant than Nazi Germany and the USSR is vital to this article, and we can either use the word 'not fascist' or 'relatively tolerant'. This is absolutely not to make Poles look like nice people and not whitewash any strains of nationalism in the society. Firstly, it is to explain that (unlike e.g. Denmark) Poland was a destination for Jewish refugees, especially non-assimilated Jews. This represents socio-cultural change and a medium-term issue that not all Poles (neither Jewish nor Gentile) welcomed the newcomers. Secondly, it provides the opportunity to see that Jedwabne and the other pogroms of 1941 may have had several short-term causes. There has to be a reason why the pogroms happened when and where they did, ie in Kresy in 1941 rather than e.g. in Poznan 1938. It would be WP:OR to assert why the pogroms happened when and where they did, and I am not saying we should do that. But the reader benefits from having facts at his disposal, including facts about the pre-war situation in Poland, and what changed. Certainly, history students will find this useful, given their task is often to search for causes of events, martial evidence and only then to assert a thesis. --Chumchum7 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A useful text.
I suggest everyone to look through this balanced and very vise text. I believe, the article should be modified to reflect a Wojciech Roszkowski's opinion. ''Polish-Jewish controversies, like the one involving Neighbors, paradoxically stem from both sides adopting the assumption that they have been the innocent victims of history. Zealous Poles claim that in view of all the misfortunes and suffering they bore during World War II it is unfair to mention any wrongdoing by any Pole. Zealous Jews claim that the Holocaust has been such an unprecedented tragedy that any mention of Jewish guilt is horrendous. Moreover, extremists from both sides tend to become furious if their misfortunes are compared. This Polish-Jewish rivalry for first place in the hierarchy of suffering is regrettable. It is even worse when it leads to groundless, unjust accusations. Scholarly fairness and simple honesty should prevent our making such accusations, based on the pars pro toto principle, and should ensure that everyone measures the scale of events and moral meaning by universal standards.''" --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "This brings us to a very emotional question often raised during the debate over Neighbors: the guilt or innocence of nations. Although major discussants on both sides reject collective responsibility, many still tend to apply it to the opposing side. But this is absurd: there are no innocent nations just as there are no guilty nations. When Poles endeavor to present the "context of the situation" in Jedwabne or in similar cases, the Jewish side usually treats this as a Polish profession of "innocence" or as "Operation Whitewash." The same refers to Polish stereotypes of the Jews. The Jews struggle with the problem of the Jewish ghetto police force under the Nazis, but no sound and sane Pole can claim that the existence of this group implies a Jewish collaboration in the Holocaust. Nor should all Jews be blamed because some Jews participated in the Communist Party and in the security apparatus under the Soviets. With reference to the question of Jewish responsibility for communism, Gross argues in a manner quite similar to the extreme Polish nationalists. While the latter groups fear a pars pro toto generalization and claim that those who took part in murdering Jews were not Poles but bandits, Gross argues that Jewish communists were not Jews but communists. He also argues that "a vision of Sovietization of the Eastern Borderland of Poland after 1939," and of Poland itself after 1944, "with the help of the Jews is false." This is a very imprecise statement. By denying an extreme and unfair generalization, Gross tries to prove that there was no Jewish participation in communism whatsoever. Reality is always more complicated than a simple statement that "Poles" or 'Jews" are either to blame or are innocent.
 * (After "Neighbors:" Seeking Universal Standards. Author(s): Wojciech Roszkowski. Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 460-465. Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3090295)


 * Yes, Wojciech Roszkowski is an excellent source and a great historian. He is also a Member of European Parliament, for the Law and Justice party, which the Labour Party (UK) accuses of Polish Nationalism and anti-Semitism. This is mentioned in our 'relevance' section at the bottom of WP: Jedwabne Pogrom. Allegedly, that accusation of anti-Semitism forms part of a smear campaign with a political agenda: http://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/20818/analysis-kaminski-our-friend-a-smear-campaign --Chumchum7 (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs and Discussion Forums are not Reliable Sources
Blogs and Discussion Forums are not Reliable Sources and may be deleted.Bobanni (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Information in the Lead
Briefly stating what happened at Jedwabne, that day, in the lead, is not only desirable but necessary information. That is not a detail. As it stood there was more information regarding all types of tangents concerning the event than the actual event itself. The details are found in Circumstances ... section. Maybe there should be a section devoted to the massacre, rather than the "circumstances" surrounding it. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it is not necessary, murder is murder and how it happened should be described in a appropriate section below.--Jacurek (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The section about the massacre proper should be created, and the details should be removed from the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, murder is murder and how it happened should be described in a appropriate section below. The section about the massacre proper should be created, and the details should be removed from the lede.--Chumchum7 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Belarusians welcoming the Soviets relevant ?
How is the fact that some Belarusians welcomed Soviet forces in Poland relevant to the article about the pogrom of Jews in jedwabne ? Were there many Belarusians in Jedwabne ? Did they participate in the pogrom ? Different time, different people and different place. --Lysytalk 11:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lysy, the subject has been already discussed. There were almost no Belarusians in Jedwabne to welcome the Soviets in 1939.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this. I understand and respect your view but I have a differing perspective on this, which I shall try to explain. Most editors agree that if we mention that Jedwabne may have been a reprisal, logically we should explain what the reprisal was for. The explanation would be that some Jews may have collaborated with the Soviets, and/or there was a perception that some Jews may have collaborated with the Soviets. It would not be fair to assert that Jews collaborated with the Soviets without saying that many groups collaborated with the Soviets. Indeed there weren't any Belarusians in Jedwabne; but as one example, many Belarusians collaborated with the Soviets too. One could then ask, were there massacres of Belarusians, too? If not, could that mean Antisemitism was the only cause and it wasn't really a reprisal after all? If there were massacres of Belarusians, could that mean the prime cause was anti-Soviet sentiment rather than Antisemtism? In general, understanding of any event can be increased by contrast: we know someone is tall because we know someone else is short. We know what is dark because we know what is light. By taking a passing glimpse at Belarusians of Kresy, we may better understand the Jews of Kresy, not to mention the Poles. This sentience is only relevant for purposes of contrast. Hope that helps explain the reasons for my contribution. Thanks again.--Chumchum7 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that the pogroms were spontaneous people's reprisal for Soviet collaboration was brought up by the Nazi propaganda but I doubt if you would find this supported by any serious academic research sources (other than some Polish nationalist activists who are hardly serious research and hardly academic). I don't think we need to deal with this in an encyclopedic article. Also, bringing comparative arguments to suggest a point seems to be a blatant piece of OR. The talk page may be an appropriate place for such discussions but not the article. This said, there may be a number of explanations why Jews were murdered and not Belarusians (other than there were not Belarusians there), like that Germans promoted/provoked/allowed killing Jews but not Belarusians. --Lysytalk 13:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I suggest all these details to be moved from the article to mother articles (see above). The background should be few sentences long, the links to relevant mother articles should be there, however no details about Jewish collaboration (real or alleged) with the Soviets, about Soviet occupation, etc should be there. Only immediate pre-history of the pogrom, a description of the pogrom itself, post war trials, and post-war controversy over the pogrom itself, not over Polish-Jewish relations in general should be in the article. Otherwise, the article would become apological.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Most editors agree that if we mention that Jedwabne may have been a reprisal, logically we should explain what the reprisal was for. The explanation would be that some Jews may have collaborated with the Soviets, and/or there was a perception that some Jews may have collaborated with the Soviets." It is exactly what one of the sources cited in the article called " historically false and morally untenable " approach ( Contested memories By Joshua D. Zimmerman, Rutgers University Press - Publisher; page 67-68 ).
 * Chumchum7, do the sources used directly tie the actions of the Belarusians to the Jedwabne pogrom? Jayjg (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, the sources do not. Chumchum7, while you are a newer editor on WP, Lysy is not. I go back a few years with interacting with him. To be sure we have butted heads on more than one occasion, but nevertheless are able to analyze different POVs and try to resolve disagreements. In fact his preference to adhere to reasoning (with sources), rather than to edit war was probably why the group being evaluated at the EE mailing list made it a point to exclude inviting him to join them. Probably didn't think they could trust him. Anyway Belarusians aren't relevant to this article. And OT, Lysy still owes an apology to LT contributors on WP for his remarks about "historical" support of their western occupiers. Very harsh and untrue. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. I don't think there is huge disagreement between Lysy and me here. We'll get there in the end. I think you'll all find the following source is a compelling read, and it will show you what I am trying to get at: Chapter 2, "The Russian Occupation", in Nechama Tec's 'Defiance'- http://books.google.com/books?id=tM9EeN01rvYC&lpg=PP1&ots=MKhRKjb_06&dq=defiance%20nechama%20tec&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q=The%20Russian%20occupation&f=false It is by an Americanized Polish Jew and seems a perfect background explanation to the pro-Soviet attitude of Polish Jews in Kresy in 1939 and the Gentile resentment that caused. It seems devoid of stereotyping and is rational. I have found it extremely enlightening and have a hunch it is going to be extremely useful to WP: Jedwabne Pogrom. It describes an area about 120 miles east of Jedwabne. But it is in the same region and is at the same time. See what you think. --Chumchum7 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussed part of the book is called "Russian occupation". Soviet Union wasn't Russia. Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you know that many scholars and even world leaders refer to 'Russia' when they mean 'The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' just as they refer to 'England' when they mean 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'? The book is a great source, undiminished by its use of a colloquial shorthand. By the way the author is a Holocaust survivor from Poland and knew exactly what she was doing when she used the word 'Russia'.--Chumchum7 (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolerant?
The fragment:
 * "Still, according to some scholars, Jews preferred to live in relatively tolerant Poland rather in than the U.S.S.R., and continued to integrate, to marry into Polish Gentile families, to bring Polish Gentiles into their community through marriage, to feel Polish and to form an important part of Polish society. "

is not clear for me. Firstly, I failed to find a direct confirmation that the source does contain such a statement (no page number is provided, and direct search gave no results). Secondly, the sentence implies that the USSR was not tolerant towards Jews, that is obviously false: there were no anti-Semitism in the USSR before 1939, moreover, even some positive discrimination took place in the early USSR. Thirdly, I do not understand how all of that is relevant to Jedwabne: did the Jews killed there arrive from the USSR?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, you forgot about positive discrimination of Jews in early USSR, separate anti-anti-Semitism laws, and, importantly, a strong tendency among educated Jews to break any ties with Judaism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jewish religion was banned, at least partially, in the SU, like any other religion, except of the Stalin/Lenin religion. It was a form of anti-Semitism.Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement is self-contradictory. If Judaism was banned like any other religion we cannot speak about anti-Semitism (i.e. selective persecution of Jews).


 * So if all minorities were in some way persecuted in pre-war Poland, we cannot speak about anti-Semitism.
 * You support anti-Semitic/Nazi theories connecting Jews with Communism. Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this 'strong tendency among educated Jews to break any ties with Judaism' and the 'positive discrimination of Jews in early USSR' are the core ideas behind the stereotype of Zydokomuna. --Chumchum7 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "So if all minorities were in some way persecuted in pre-war Poland" I do not discuss anti-Semitism in Poland here. My questions are (i) where the idea that "Jews preferred to live in relatively tolerant Poland rather in than the U.S.S.R." come from (source), and (ii) if true, what relation does it have to Jedwabne?
 * Re: "You support anti-Semitic/Nazi theories connecting Jews with Communism." I am just telling truth, namely, that Jews were not persecuted in the early USSR, Jews occupied many leading positions in the USSR (obviously, emigration of Russian intelligentsia opened a huge number of vacancies for active and educated persons, i.e. young educated Jews), and there were strong anti-clerical and atheistic tendencies among those who were considered Orthodox of Jews in former Russian Empire.
 * Re: Zydokomuna. In actuality, these two ideas are the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So would you also say the Jews of Jedwabne received positive discrimination from the Soviets as they already had done in the Soviet Union? Would you say the Jews of Jedwabne also had a tendency to break with Judaism in favour of communism when the Soviets arrived? If you say the ideas of Zydokomuna are actually facts (rather than Polish nationalist slurs), isn't that relevant to the article? Or could it be that the Soviets treated the Jews of Jedwabne differently to how they had treated Jews in the USSR before 1939? This seems like an important issue. --Chumchum7 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote, I agree with Zimmerman who considers all attempt to make strong connection between Soviet occupation and Jedwabne historically false. In actuality, this section discusses a single sentence that seems odd and unsources for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The content of that sentence is all in Nechama Tec, writing about Jewish life in Kresy. Its a great read, by the way.--Chumchum7 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There existed basic connection between the Soviet occupation and the pogrom - the deportation and extermination of Polish leaders and police, which opened the space for former criminal Karolak, former KuK sergeant and others. Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a flick through Zimmerman and I can't see that he is adamant that mention of Soviet occupation is taboo. Lets distinguish between the murderers' motivation and any unreasonable or nationalistic excuses people may have made for them. (1) There's no excuse for murder. (2) Murder is motivated by something, it takes place in a specific place and at a specific time because of certain factors. (3) Many scholars agree that the Soviet occupation is one of several causal factors. --Chumchum7 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand Xx's point correctly, the connection between the Soviet occupation and the pogrom, is NOT that the Poles were pissed off at the Soviets so they took it out on the Jews, or that Jews welcomed the Soviets or something like that, but rather that the Soviets deported/killed all the Polish intellectuals and community leaders, so that by the time the Nazis took over the people who were placed in charge were common criminals like the mayor Karolak and the Laudanskis. I've seen something like this in some of the sources but probably stated somewhat differently.radek (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another possibility is that the survivors returned and described the massacres according to German propaganda as "Jewish". Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) http://books.google.pl/books?id=L4Qcd6i45PcC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=juden+nkwd&source=bl&ots=Vnva-PPVmj&sig=emn_uxe54OyllDTR6QqTMUXzGTU&hl=pl&ei=NureSs_AHZTd-Qafx8g7&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CB0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=juden%20nkwd&f=false


 * Well absolutely this is relevant - the fact that the educated or upwardly mobile Poles of Jedwabne had been deported, leaving a vacuum for opportunistic Polish criminals to fill. My last post was really to Paul. I was trying to explain that putting the pogrom in the context of Soviet occupation can explain why the murders took place, without excusing the murders. And I don't think Zimmerman would object! --Chumchum7 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Background material - paragraph 1
The "Background" section contained the following paragraph (I've made the references explicit for convenience): As the largest Jewish community in the world, Polish Jews did not represent a homogeneous group, and there were a vast array of Polish Jewish conditions, beliefs, desires, experiences, identities and relations with Gentile neighbours. While the Jewish community in Poland, or Polin, had enjoyed a 1000-year tradition of acceptance and partnership with Gentiles unparalleled anywhere in the world, Polish-Jewish divisions increased and relations deteriorated on several - but not all - fronts in the 20th century. Jews were sometimes not considered Polish nationals and some did not think of themselves as Polish nationals; an issue shown by the anti-assimilation trend in national censuses between 1921 and 1931, and the widening cultural divide between the two. According to some scholars, this was coupled with the influx of Ukrainian Jews escaping persecution in Petlyura's Ukraine during the period of the Russian Revolution and the Polish-Soviet War, when up to 2,000 Ukrainian pogroms took place and an estimated 150,000 Ukrainian Jews were killed; and in the aftermath of the Schwartzbard trial. In 1921, 74.2 percent of Polish Jews listed Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language, but the number rose to 87 percent by 1931, resulting in growing tensions between non-assimilated Jews and the Gentile majority. This material, while relevant to the History of the Jews in Poland, does not seem specifically relevant to the Jedwabne pogrom. As far as I can tell, none of the sources used tie this material to the Jedwabne pogrom either. Can anyone provide sources that tie this material specifically to the Jedwabne pogrom? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is as ridiculous as if, e.g. the Battle of the Somme contained a huge section about German imperialism as one of the causes of World War I. The section sould be shrunken to one sentence telling that the Jewish community in Poland was the largest in the world, and, although Polish gentiles and Jews coexisted peacefully for many centuries some tension existed between these communities. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul here.--Staberinde (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Polish gentiles and Jews coexisted peacefully" - this phrase simplifies the reality. "Polish gentiles" consisted of several groups, including szlachta (landowners, sometimes non-Polish, eg. "Lithuanians") and serfs/slaves. Many Jews were between the landowners and slaves. Rich Jews converted and joined szlachta. "Tensions" existed between Polish landowners and slaves, the slaves murdered sometimes their masters, see Kostka-Napierski Uprising, Jakub Szela. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration
When is this nonsense going to end? Just step back and read this line..."it has been established by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance that the crime was committed directly by a group of Polish Gentiles but inspired by the Germans". Inspiration? Is this simply not being familiar with the nuances of the English language or more OR? The German presence "inspired" these peasants? This definitely needs to be rewritten. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While some may consider your personal opinions valuable the basic question here is whether or not this reflects what the cited source says. At the moment I have no idea. If there's talk of "inspiration" in there, then it should be in here. If there's something else in the ref, then we should have something else here as well. It's pretty simple.
 * I'm not sure what the point of asking the provocative rhetorical question "When is this nonsense going to end?" is. It seems to me like good faith editors have been working on this article and have managed to agree with each other. As a result, excess fat from the background section has been trimmed, the text in sources has been clarified, unsourced text has been removed. There's been no edit warring on the article and in fact so far this has been a case book example of how consensus is supposed to be worked out. Why try and start a conflict where there is none? Unless, a conflict is what some people might wish for here, and if so I hope you appreciate the fact that you might just be accidentally playing into their hands.radek (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe, inspiration should be in the article, because at least one reliable source (Naimark, the quote can be found on this talk page) states (in his article devoted to Jedwabne) that Nazi did organize "spontaneous" anti Jewish violence in occupied Eastern Europe. However, I am not sure if it is belong to lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "inspired by the Germans" was an attempted solution to the issue of German 'presence', 'possible involvement' or 'authority' of the Germans - all phrasing that has been controversial. I think "in the presence of Germans" is best, because it is verifiable (indeed I took the trouble to make sure it is). 'Presence' also points to debatable hypotheses of inspiration, coercion and collaboration. I agree that 'inspiration' may be OR. I also agree that it is worth just taking a step back and using double strength tact when negotiating changes - not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is most persuasive and therefore the most effective thing to do.Chumchum7 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On topic, here is an interesting recent essay by British Jewish historian David Cesarani, precisely about dialogue and Holocaust studies:

Stephen Fry's Auschwitz blunder

A few careless remarks about Poland show that history is too serious a matter to be left to comedians and politicians

o David Cesarani o guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 October 2009 16.30 BST ''We are going through another of those odd periods when corners of our daily newspapers look as if they are reporting things that happened over 65 years ago. There are rows over what the Latvians did or did not do in the second world war, arguments about why the German Luftwaffe bombed Coventry and, most recently, Stephen Fry has upset the Poles with a careless remark about Auschwitz. What all of these spats show is that history matters.''

''Versions of the past remain central to a country's national identity and how its citizens think about themselves. The way that history, especially national history, is told and taught is a matter of public policy, and hence inevitably a political issue. It can even intrude into international relations, as demonstrated by the response of much of the international community to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's proclivity for denying that millions of Jews were systematically murdered by the Germans and their allies between 1939 and 1945. The saga of the Bloody Sunday inquiry cannot be disentangled from the resolution of the conflict in northern Ireland and the long-term future of the province.''

''Fry's remarks, however, reveal something more specific. They exemplify the time lag between scholarship that demolishes historical myths and the more slowly shifting public understanding of the past. Fry, who admits to knowing "a little history", seems to think that Auschwitz was in wartime Poland and was, in some way, connected to "rightwing Catholicism". The camp was, in fact, in a part of Poland annexed to Germany and was a German creation. Before it was expanded and adapted to include a death camps devoted to the mass murder of Europe's Jews, tens of thousands of Catholic Poles died there. The camp's initial function was to terrorise the Polish population.''

''Fry also seems blissfully unaware of the research into Polish-Jewish history that has transformed our knowledge of that conflicted and tragic relationship. Over the last 20 years, beginning roughly with the debate over Claude Lanzmann's film Shoah in 1985-86, Poles have confronted the history of Polish antisemitism and the stance of the population towards the persecution of Polish Jewish citizens during the German occupation. There are now flourishing centres for the study of Polish Jewish history at several Polish universities, and a major Jewish museum is under construction in Warsaw.''

''Many Jewish historians, meanwhile, have shown the closeness between the two communities and challenged the stereotype that Jews and Christians on Polish soil lived in separate worlds. Relations between them, especially in small towns and villages, were more cordial and intimate than was once thought to be the case. The knowledge of the slaughter of the Jews in Poland and the bitter aftermath, including the attacks on survivors by rightwing Poles in 1945-7, created a distorting lens through which the past was viewed for decades. Fry is, evidently, still squinting backwards through these blood-coloured spectacles.''

''The truth is far more complex. Relations between Christians and Jews in Poland deteriorated in the 1920s and 1930s. But they were not exactly good anywhere in Europe, while Poland was subject to severe social, economic and political tensions. The anti-Jewish nationalists, the Endek party, had a disproportionate impact on public feeling, especially in the cities where there was intense economic competition between communities. This must be contrasted to the existence of liberal elements and a large socialist movement that eschewed all forms of racism. The large and influential Jewish workers' party, the Bund, stood should to shoulder with Polish socialists and trade unionists.''

''These links persisted into wartime and were essential to the survival of thousands of Jews in hiding as well as the emergence of the Jewish resistance. Perhaps more could have been done and sooner, and less grudgingly, but thousands of Poles from all walks of life and every political stripe aided Jews in defiance of draconian Nazi laws. After the great deportation of July-September 1942, over 20,000 Jews escaped from the Warsaw ghetto and found refuge on the "Aryan side". This would have been impossible without help from Christian Poles who risked their lives in the process.''

''It is true that only a few hundred Jews emerged from the ruins of Warsaw when the city was liberated, but this was partly because they had surfaced, prematurely as it turned out, during the uprising of August 1944. The Polish rebellion was fought over the cellars and hiding places where Jews had been concealed. Had it not been for this catastrophe, the survival rate for Jews in hiding in Warsaw would have been similar to the survival rate of Jews in hiding in the Netherlands.''

''Conversely, the myth of countries that were "good to the Jews", such as Denmark and Italy, has taken a battering. Historians who have looked carefully at the number of Jews in Italy in 1939 and compared it to the number deported to the death camps have worked out that fully one quarter of Jews on Italian territory perished. This was a "kill rate" on a par with that of France, which has always had a less benign image. Large numbers were rounded up by Italian fascists with little or no prodding from the Germans. Denmark was able to evacuate its Jews from danger in 1943 partly because they were few in number and well assimilated, characteristics that had been ensured by closing Denmark's borders to Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution between 1933 and 1939.''

''Of course, if these facts are not well known beyond academic circles the historians have no one to blame but themselves. There is an element of good sense in the UK government's current efforts to ensure that scholarly research is assessed in terms of its social impact before it gets funding from the taxpayer. On the other hand, it doesn't help when politicians and celebrities make careless remarks in such way that ethno-nationalists feel compelled to defend the honour of their nation, reiterating versions of the past that have been disputed or even discounted in their own countries. History may be too serious a business to be left to comedians and politicians, but the historians have got to try harder too.''

--Chumchum7 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Which IPN text contains the word "Inspiration"? I have checked the abstract by Machcewicz, he writes "Germans encouraged".Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of those things where "encouragement" from the source might have been changed to "inspiration" simply to avoid verbatim copy vio.radek (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but inspire and encourage are not synonyms. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/encourage --Chumchum7 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it might be on that list but, it's more a question of the best fit, and the nuance of the word "inspire"  and it's primary meaning. Your list also contains "embolden". Do you think that would be better? That the debated German presence emboldened the townspeople to act in a way that they wouldn't have done had the Germans not arrived? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the most empirical clause would be "in the presence of Germans". It is also the only really verifiable clause. 'Presence' still allows for the debatable hypotheses of emboldening, inspiration, coercion and collaboration. N.B. 'possible involvement' and 'authority' of the Germans has already been controversial and edited out by someone. German 'presence' is uncontroversial but very relevant. --Chumchum7 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically this one is a storm in a teacup. "Inspired" is close enough to "encouraged", the two are synonyms, and we can't quote sources verbatim or it's a copy vio. Nothing much to this.radek (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase is better known as a "tempest in a teacup", and it is precisely the question concerning nuances of language that I'm concerned with. I can understand Radeksz's desire to want to avoid copy vios. We've discussed that before at Talk:Białystok pogrom, under WP:Plagarism. "Inspire" has connotations, in English, that I don't think is the best choice here...": to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration." But I won't let it spoil my day, if everyone else thinks it's appropriate. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni's latest edits.
I don't find Bobannis latest removal of information constrictive at all[][]. Sorry Bobanni, this is just my honest opinion. You are very wrong removing these lines. Perhaps you could at least try to explain to us why you think this true information should be removed.--Jacurek (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically Bobani is right. But this article should be accompanied by a number of more general articles (I have described my position before). Now this article and this talk page are misused as some kind of court or forum. Many subjects (Soviet occupation, collaboration with arriving Germans) are similar as in Kaunas pogrom or Lwow pogrom (and several others non-existing articles).Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jacurek on this. Lets talk it through first.--Chumchum7 (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"many Poles were shocked by the details"

 * Now that the lede has been slashed down, why is this clause in it? It sticks out like a sore thumb. The IPN details came out around 2003, which is 6 years ago. Is that apparent "shock" really relevant to the lede in 2009? Besides, this "shock" is the opinion of some commentators. That the commentators' opinion existed six years ago is verifiable, but I don't see any verification of the alleged 2003 "shock" here. Moreover, this article is about a massacre, it is not about alleged shock at the results of the investigation into the massacre. I suggest we move that line down into the article. --Chumchum7 (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, restore the deleted link about Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. The Rescue and the Shock are two sides of the same coin. It is PPOV to present one side of the coin. Either throw the whole coin away or keep the whole coin.--Chumchum7 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Chumchum that the present wording doesn't quite make sesne/is unclear, w/o a link and mention Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust.radek (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK Chumchum7 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

could have been fired
I believe that the IPN informed later that the bullets were older than 1941. I don't have any sources at the moment.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC) http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje29/text18p.htm Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Background section - part 3
The Background section contained the following material (I've made the references explicit for convenience): "One estimate puts the Polish death toll in the NKVD prisons at up to 30,000. There may be as many as 100,000 victims at the Soviets hands as they retreated." This material, while possibly relevant to the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), or perhaps World War II crimes in Poland, does not seem specifically relevant to the Jedwabne pogrom. As far as I can tell, the source used does not tie this material to the Jedwabne pogrom either. Can anyone provide sources that tie this material specifically to the Jedwabne pogrom? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely, the information on 30,000 executed Poles could not be available to the participants of the Jedwabne massacre. Should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Background material - paragraph 2
The Background material contained the following material (I've made the references explicit for convenience): "Between 1933 and 1938, around 25,000 German Jews fled Nazi Germany to sanctuary in Poland. Both Polish Jews and Polish Gentiles had nationalist movements of their own. Revisionist Zionism had a following among Polish Jews, who also experienced the revival of the Hebrew language and a growth of the idea of Aliyah. The Polish nationalist Endecja movement and the National Radical Camp were openly anti-Semitic despite being anti-Nazi. Some Polish politicians helped the Zionist movement with its goal of creating the state of Israel, and armed and trained Polish Jews in paramilitary groups such as Haganah, Irgun and Lehi. Particularly after the death of Poland's anti-nationalist leader Józef Piłsudski in 1935, Jews faced discrimination in education and in some professions. From 1935 to 1937, 79 Jews were killed and 500 injured in anti-Semitic incidents. Still, according to some scholars, Jews preferred to live in relatively tolerant Poland rather in than the U.S.S.R., and continued to integrate, to marry into Polish Gentile families, to bring Polish Gentiles into their community through marriage, to feel Polish and to form an important part of Polish society. Around 130,000 Polish Jews served in the Polish Army during the September Campaign, defending their country both against the Nazis and the Soviets. Unlike the Vichy French or the Norwegian Quisling regime, Poles did not form a pro-Nazi collaborationist government. Further, Poles did not form collaborationist Nazi units such as the 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS RONA (1st Russian). The wartime continuation of the Second Polish Republic, the Polish Government in Exile, included Polish Jewish representatives: Szmul Zygielbojm and Ignacy Schwarzbart. Poles established one of the largest anti-Nazi resistance movements in Europe, the Polish Underground State and its military arm, the Armia Krajowa, and its Jewish units: the Jewish Military Union and the Jewish Combat Organization." This material, while relevant to the History of the Jews in Poland, does not seem specifically relevant to the Jedwabne pogrom. As far as I can tell, none of the sources used tie this material to the Jedwabne pogrom either. Can anyone provide sources that tie this material specifically to the Jedwabne pogrom? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * None of it it specifically tied to Jedwabne, but it is background. It was created in response to a general Talk page request for background - including pre-war trends of anti-Semitism. That is the only reason why it is there - response to editors' requests. I agree it may now slow down the top half of the article. Why not simply move it so that it becomes the penultimate section? It is still useful background. Chumchum7 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It simply needs to be more effectively summarized. Something like "Between 1933 and 1938, around 25,000 German Jews fled Nazi Germany to sanctuary in Poland. Some Polish nationalist movements were anti-semitic, while some Polish politicians supported Zionist movement. Although Jews faced discrimination in education and in some professions after 1935, according to some scholars they still preferred living in Poland to USSR. Around 130,000 Polish Jews served in the Polish Army during the September Campaign, and Polish anti-Nazi resistance movement included Jewish organizations. Jews were also represented in Polish government in exile." (this is just example).--Staberinde (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Vital additions to this would be: the 130,000 Polish Jews fought in the Polish Army in the September Campaign against the Nazis and against the Soviets; Also the detail that 600 Polish Jewish officers were executed by the Soviets at Katyn; and that 300,000 Polish Jews were deported by the Soviets to Siberia 1939-1941 along with about 1 million Polish Gentile compatriots. This is important, because it deals with two pervasive myths around Jedwabne: firstly, that all Polish Jews and Gentiles lived in separate worlds and all hated each other, secondly that all Polish Jews had a great friendship with the Soviets. The reality is far more complex. --Chumchum7 (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That who invaded Poland, how it was divided, and following Soviet repressions on both Jews and Poles seem to belong to paragraph 3 of backround material(which should get some more effective summarizing too).--Staberinde (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being correctly understood here. Let me try again; it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what "background" is appropriate here, even if an editor on the Talk page makes a request for specific topics to be covered. Rather, Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say is relevant background material. Any material in the background section that uses sources that do not tie it directly to the Jedwabne pogrom is synthesis, a type of original research. Start with sources about the Jedwabne pogrom, and see what they say, and then write an article based on that. Do not start with an idea of what you want the article to say, and then find sources unrelated to the Jedwabne pogrom to back it up. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Let me re-iterate this point as I see it. If some source telling about Jedwabne pogrom provides some background information, this information is relevant to the background. All other facts, found elsewhere, cannot be included. In addition, I believe, if some Jedwabne source explicitly states that, e.g. some pre-war events had no relation to what happened in Jedwabne, that also should be mentioned in the background section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These guidelines – originally meant for new and inexperienced users, are hopelessly flawed in the hands of cunning old timers capable of twisting and bending the rules to fit their own needs i.e. their personal agendas. And here's why. The background to this one particular incident, which gained world-wide notoriety in recent years, includes elements of history of Polish-Jewish coexistence. – Any editor can google Polish-Jewish relations in quotation marks and access an array of relevant sources which will not mention Jedwabne. Does this mean that we cannot add "Polish-Jewish relations" here without the presence of the magic word in the source? The magic word, as if any book without the verb Jedwabne had no place in the reference section of this article. This is like trying to write an article about an elephant's tusk by carefully avoiding any source that speaks of tusks without the magic word elephant. --Poeticbent talk  03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Poeticbent, all sources about elephants tusks would mention elephants too, so your analogy fails. A more appropriate analogy would be if someone wrote an article about the elephants tusks, and included in it a lengthy background section about elephants tails. Both are indeed related to the elephant, but are they specifically related to each other? Not without a reliable source tying the two. In fact, an even more apt analogy would be if the article on Abner Louima had a lengthy "Background" section, longer than any of the rest of the article, discussing the Haitian community in New York, with a particular focus on Haitian crime rates. As for the "guidelines" you mention, actually they are policies, and another important one is No personal attacks, which says in its second sentence "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If your comments here again refer to contributors, I will ensure that this issue is addressed administratively. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, lets see it how it should be.--Chumchum7 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chum, it's not about going ahead, but taking a step back and looking at the article as it stands. Jayjg is 100% correct..."Any material in the background section that uses sources that do not tie it directly to the Jedwabne pogrom is synthesis, a type of original research"... Let's not lose sight of Paul's correct earlier analysis either..."this is an attempt to dilute the article with huge amount of details marginally relevant to the event itself, and thereby to distract a reader's attention from the fact of what happened here, and the event itself (my paraphrasing of the point made)". Dr. Dan (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and show us the solution.--Chumchum7 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a series of pogroms during the Summer 1941. There is no article containing synthesis of the pogroms.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What "solution" is required, other than removing the original research? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do it.--Chumchum7 (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better for the author of the OR to "do it"? Unless their belief is that it is not OR and appropriate and relevant information. Would seem to be the better way of handling it. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Dan, sometimes it is not easy for the author to remove his own text. In addition, people may disagree about what is OR and what is not. Please, remove the text you believe to be OR, and let's see if other authors will agree with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan, you said there should be background in the first place. You didn't provide background yourself. I tried to help by providing background, mostly borrowed from other well sourced articles, including links to Zydokomuna and data on pre-war anti-Semitic murders, among others. You didn't like the background. You then implied the background section is some kind of whitewash rather than OR. Why not take positive steps to find solutions to the problems you identify? You have my full agreement to delete all my contributions and come up with your own background section. I also respectfully ask you to cut the sarcasm, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. By the way, "tempest in a teapot" is an Americanism. There was no need for you to correct anyone about "storm in a teacup" - which is British English usage, and arguably the more common phrase. Lets agree this is a storm in a teacup and I bow out to see your positive contribution to this article.--Chumchum7 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Chum, like I said, of course there should be "backround", you're right about that. Whether I provided irrelevant back round is not the issue. You did. You're correct that you whitewashed the article and inserted lot's of OR, in my opinion. Yes, I do have a problem with that. Therefore why shouldn't you make the adjustments and corrections, instead of asking others to take the positive steps to find solutions to the problematic edits that you inserted? Furthermore, your remark..."the sarcasm, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith".. strike me as too similar to some other editor's unsubstantiated claims, and unusual for a newer editor like yourself to conclude. Could you give me some examples of them concerning this page or the article.? Naturally, I acknowledge my error of including "Americanisms" like "Tempest in a Teapot" into all of this crap on the talk page (not the article), instead of "British English". But regardless, let me tell you in all honesty, you won't find many Americans substituting "tempest" for "storm" in any colloquial conversations in the U.S. in the 21st century. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Background section - part 4
The Background section contained the following material (I've made the references explicit for convenience): "Another estimate puts the total at 120,000 prisoners killed before their flight from eastern Poland. Altogether, the Soviet NKVD was responsible for the mass deportation of up to 1.5 million Polish citizens including up to 300,000 Polish Jews to Siberia, in less than two years, with some local people collaborating with them. The Soviets conducted a policy of positive discrimination, and gave deportees' former jobs and property to people who might not hold particular allegiance to the Polish state, such as the working class, communists, non-Catholics and people who considered themselves non-Poles. There were instances of Jewish Communists denouncing ethnic Poles to the Soviet NKVD." This material, while possibly relevant to the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), or perhaps World War II crimes in Poland, does not seem specifically relevant to the Jedwabne pogrom. As far as I can tell, the source used does not tie this material to the Jedwabne pogrom either. Can anyone provide sources that tie this material specifically to the Jedwabne pogrom? Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

<hr width=50%>I’m sorry for all the effort put into this article by Chumchum7 only to be subjected to relentless criticism by three editors with no connections to Portal Poland, no interest in Polish history in general (see relevant contributions) and no knowledge of Polish language (detrimental to understanding of government sources). Meanwhile, most previous participants with a knack for writing have already moved on in distress. By the look of the most recent posts by Chumchum, he’s beginning to want to just give up, unable to defend his own sense of right and wrong. I sympathize with you sir. I would also appreciate if user Jayjg stopped threatening me with sanctions every time I write something here. It is disingenuous, considering your heightened interest in promoting your own point of view (with cut and paste assertions which look like talk-page spam). No reasonable person could assume that the killing of prisoners by NKVD went unnoticed in eastern Poland with 120,000 victims massacred by the Soviets throughout the region. That’s why adding this information (along with numerous other facts, such as the ethnicity of the mayor) matters, because it explains the local sentiments caused by NKVD collaborators and their militia assisting in Polish deportations, including the brewing desire for revenge. There’s no need to hide any of this information from the background. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  16:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your theory that the "killing of prisoners by NKVD... explains the local sentiments caused by NKVD collaborators and their militia assisting in Polish deportations, including the brewing desire for revenge" is quite interesting. Do you have any reliable sources that make that argument as regards the Jedwabne pogrom? And, regarding my "threatening" you, please take this seriously: if your posts again make any negative comment whatsoever about any editors on this page, I will ensure that appropriate administrative action is taken. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More importantly, in my opinion, this edit... and this one, specifically this part,...("A month later, on the morning of July 10, 1941, by the order of a Polish-speaking German mayor Karolak)"... are not true. Both are unrelated to to the reality of what happened on that day and more attempts to obfuscate who the guilty parties were. No "Volksdeutche", and no "German" Mayor. I'll accept Jayjg's advice and not comment on the contributor. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Except you are commenting on the contributor through innuendo and by including that sentence about 'attempts to obfuscate" - where you directly refer to someone's supposed motives (having read their mind or something) right before you "cover your ass" with "I'll... not comment on the contributor". Which you just did.
 * Oh and I think Jayjg's comment is a lot more important and constructive then yours.radek (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, will you ever stop teasing me? I’m asking you, why did you call my statement of fact about the brewing desire for revenge a "theory" and piped it to NOR? I’m NOT commenting on you simply because I don’t know who you are, but are you aware of the true spirit of your replies to my posts? Please stop questioning everything beyond what’s reasonable. Read the following passage from The neighbors respond: the controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland By Antony Polonsky, Joanna B. Michlic; Page 396: Karolak and his men were not only murderers but also traitors, who collaborated with the enemy to the detriment of their fellow countrymen. Their motives for committing treason—ethnic hatred, desire for revenge, or booty—are of secondary importance. By cooperating with the occupier against their Jewish neighbors, they clearly violated the fundamental laws of the Polish Republic and disobeyed calls of the legitimate leaders of the nation. Now, please read it again. Do you see a phrase "desire for revenge" in there? Please, do not make fun of my efforts to moderate this discussion or I will be forced to ask for a third party opinion in dealing with this matter. I don't want to be bothered with stuff from other users right now.--<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  04:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Poeticbent, I am not "teasing", or anything else. Do not again refer to me in article page comments. Comment on content, not on the contributor Regarding the quote you have brought, it does state that one of the reasons "Karolek and his men" acted was because of "desire for revenge". However, it nowhere explains revenge for what. Does the source indicate for what they imagined they were getting "revenge"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Karolak thing is not Jayjg (I think), it's Dr. Dan doing his "usual".radek (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right Radeksz, it's Dr. Dan doing his usual "thing". Objecting to the inclusion of the Volksdeutche as the perpetrators of this massacre, objecting to the attempt to insinuate that Marian Koralak, mayor of Jewabne, was German. Yep, that's my thing alright. Why? Because neither is true. And Radeksz, as for ..."I'll... not comment on the contributor," which you just did. That's never been a problem. Doesn't bother me in the least. Been going on for a long time now. Just keeping my fingers crossed that you get your well deserved amnesty. What ever would I do without your pity observations and comments about me? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Polish-speaking German mayor Karolak
Where does this stuff come from? Marian Karolak was German? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He was a Polish criminal (former prisoner) from Warsaw. The secretary was a former Austrian sergeant, who joined German police.Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So then Karolak, was actually the Polish speaking Polish mayor, not the Polish speaking German mayor of Jedwabne. Poor English skills, or slight of hand being employed? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it comes from the source that was given? Maybe being a Polish criminal and being German are not mutually exclusive categories, particularly for that time and place? Your last statement: a straight up attempt at creating battlegrounds or a obvious display of bad faith?

BTW, check out article on Ron Klinger.radek (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe being a Polish criminal and being German are not the same thing at any time or place. It's my impression that many people in Poland believe there wasn't any Polish collaboration in WW II with the Germans. That's neither here nor there. Who told you that I play a mean game of bridge? Not that sore loser Omar Sharif, I hope. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And some people outside Poland believe that Poland collbolarated like local people did in Channel Islands, France, Bohemia or Hungary. They didn't because the Germans didn't allow such collaboration. Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the degree of collaboration, Xx236, but about some people's denial of any collaboration. This article in itself should debunk that myth. Besides, your inclusion of Hungary makes little sense. It was a member of the Axis powers. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Let's explain this again. Being a Polish criminal and being German are not the same thing. But neither are they mutually exclusive. And it's nice you have "impressions", I have some too, but they're completely irrelevant to this article. As you say "that's neither here or there". Except apparently you bring it up "here". Anyway - how about "German speaking Karolak"?radek (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. How about "German speaking Karolak"? Was he Polish or German? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unclear. I think there was a source which called him German but it's a dead link now. The fact that he was "German speaking",and that this was part of the reasons why German military put him in charge of the town, can still be found in the sources.radek (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the "Volksdeutch" - in Poland the word is pretty much synonymous with "traitor, collaborator" for anything that refers to the occupation, even if the traitors or collaborators in question weren't 100% blond haired blue eyed Aryans or of German extraction (or Kashubian or whatever). Since Karolak and the others obviously were collaborators it's possible that the word is used (in the article and in the sources) in that way. In fact, it's pretty obvious that Karolak himself was a "Volksdeutch", though I have no idea as to the others involved (like the Laudanskis).radek (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A "mayor" is a person elected by the community. Karolak was a smart person, a criminal from a big city, who declared himself to be a mayor. (I know from Hollywood movies that in the USA John Wayn arrives to such town and kills the criminal. We Poles should learn from Hollywood movies.) Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC) http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_193.html T. Strzembosz about the "mayor" and his "government".Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC) According to Gross Bardoń spoke fluently German which made him useful to Germans. Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC) http://niniwa2.cba.pl/niee.htm - this, very critical toward the Poles, text explains in the last paragraph the context in Eastern Poland and Lithuania.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, regarding your statement concerning the Volksdeutsche..."in Poland the word is pretty much synonymous with "traitor, collaborator" for anything that refers to the occupation"... is rather strange for two reasons. First this is English Wikipedia, and second the word "Volkesdeutsche", which is actually ideologically tainted, has a completely different meaning in English. It has a definition and it's definition has nothing to do with...""traitor, collaborator" for (sic) anything that refers to the occupation of Poland." If you claimed that in Poland the word kogut was pretty much synonymous with "traitor,  collaborator" and the German occupation, it wouldn't be easily accepted as fact on English WP, without a RS backing it up. Cutting to the chase, the Volksdeutsche were not involved in this pogrom. And Radeksz please, Marian Karlolak was Polish. Why is that unclear to you? Dead link? Does trying to make him German exculpate the guilty parties, who were Polish, who perpetrated this horrific event? Calling him German seems like another attempt to do that. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the term "Volksdeutsche" also carried overtones of blood and race (from Volksdeutsche). Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ergo, "ideologically tainted". Dr. Dan (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Karolak" is a Slavic, specifically Polish name, actually. See, for example, Wojciech Karolak. In any event, if there is no reliable source describing him as "Polish-speaking German" then Wikipedia certainly cannot do so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare with the following page in German: Namen-Suche / Bedeutung / Personen-Suche für Nachname "Karolak" : "Karolak ist in der Rangreihe der häufigsten Nachnamen bei yasni auf Platz 464." Babel Fish Translation from German: "Karolak is in the rank row of the most frequent surnames [..] at place 464." --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. All the Karolaks on Wikipedia are Polish; here's another. Now, which reliable sources say that Karolak was a "Polish-speaking German". By reliable sources, we mean historians and the like. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that Poeticbent has a point with his link. We've gone through this with Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski before, and Jan Dzierzon too. Where does Dzierzon rank in the survey? It's not the name that's an issue. Just the same, it seems that others here have conceded the fact that this Karolak was Polish and was a collaborator, and agree that he was not of German ethnicity. A more pertinent question would be why Poeticbent placed the edit that he was German into this article. Just source it, or remove it, and we can move on. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)