Talk:Jedwabne pogrom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

IPN Final Findings 2002-2003

On July 10,2002 IPN published the final findings of its investigation. In a carefully-worded summary, IPN stated its principal conclusions:

--- The perpetrators of the crime sensu stricto were Polish inhabitants of Jedwabne and its environs; responsibility for the crime sensu largo could be ascribed to the Germans. IPN found that Poles played a ‘decisive role’ in the massacre, but the massacre was ‘inspired by the Germans’. The massacre was carried out in full view of the Germans, who were armed and had control of the town, and the Germans refused to intervene and halt the killings. IPN wrote: “The presence of German military policemen.....and other uniformed Germans.....was tantamount to consent to, and tolerance of the crime.”

--- At least 340 Jewish victims were killed in the pogrom, in two groups of which the first contained 40 to 50 people, and the second group contained about 300. The exact number of victims could not be determined. The figure of 1,600 or so victims (cited in ‘Neighbors’) was ‘highly unlikely,’ and ‘was not confirmed in the course of the investigation.’

Other sources gave somewhat different estimates.

---‘At least forty (Polish) men’ were perpetrators of the crime. As for the remainder of Jedwabne’s population, IPN deplored ‘the passive behavior of the majority of the town’s population in the face of the crime.’ However, IPN’s finding of ‘utter passivity’ shown by the majority of Jedwabne’s population is very different from the statement on page 7 of ‘Neighbors’”that ‘one half of the town murdered the other half.” The majority of Jedwabne residents were ‘utterly passive,’ IPN found, and they did not participate in the pogrom.

--- A number of witnesses had testified that the Germans drove the group of Jewish victims from Jedwabne’s town square to the barn where they were killed (these testimonies are found in the expanded 203-page ‘Findings’ published in June 2003). IPN could neither conclusively prove nor disprove these accounts. ‘Witness testimonies vary considerably on this question.’

---‘A certain group of Jewish people survived’ the massacre. Several dozen Jews, or according to several sources approximately one hundred Jews, lived in a ghetto in Jedwabne until November 1942, when the Jews were transferred by the Germans to a ghetto in Lomza, and eventually died in Treblinka. The seven Jews hidden by the Wyrzykowski family were not the only survivors.

In 2002 IPN published two volumes of studies and documents concerning the Jedwabne pogrom under the title 'Wokół Jedwabnego,', Vol.1 'Studies' (525 pp.) and Vol.2 'Documents (1034 pp.). These are available only in Polish.

A greatly expanded version of IPN’s Final Findings, in 203 pages of Polish text, was issued by IPN on June 30, 2003. The July 10, 2002 version appears as the concluding five pages of this document. Pages 60 through 160 contain summaries of the testimonies of numerous witnesses interviewed by IPN. The full 203-page Polish text detailing IPN's investigation was published on IPN’s website. [1]

On June 30, 2003, prosecutor Radosław J. Ignatiew announced that the investigation of "the mass murder of at least 340 Polish citizens of Jewish nationality in Jedwabne on July 10, 1941" had discovered no living suspected perpetrators in the Jedwabne atrocity who had not already been brought to justice, and hence the IPN investigation was now closed.

Edits dated July 10, 2012.

The edits dated July 10, 2012 by User: Billyshiverstick have been reverted.

A prerequisite for editing a Wikipedia article should be some knowledge of the subject of the article. These edits exhibit no knowledge. Instead, by making changes using words chosen carelessly, the edits introduce errors:

--- "...the massacre became a frequent topic of discussion in Polish media, generating over 130 articles in Polish documented in a list compiled by Rzeczpospolita....." WRONG. The list published by Rzeczpospolita listed only articles published in Rzeczpospolita, it was not a list of all Polish articles. All Polish articles on the Jedwabne Pogrom numbered far more than 130.

--- "The Polish Parliament ordered the full IPN investigation." WRONG. The Polish Parliament ordered an investigation. Whether it was 'full' or not, depended on how IPN carried out its mandate.

--- "....an English translation of an extensive collection of articles ....(was published under the title 'The Neighbors Respond.') WRONG. This wording means that a collection was compiled, and then translated into English. There was no such earlier collection. And the edit carelessly states that the English translation was compiled, whereas it's the collection of articles that was compiled.

The remaining edits add no information.

Is it too much to expect that contributors should edit articles to add new information, and not just to clutter Wikipedia servers with inaccurate and trivial changes of wording? Prospero10 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Debate

Just to let you know, I'd like to create the suggested section Debate and add a couple more books on top of Neighbors, such as The Neighbors Respond by Michlic/Polonsky and (more importantly) Polish-Jewish Relations by Wierzbicki to better illustrate the scope of the Polish debate. It was the local controversy within Polish society and mostly among Polish historians (including Gross), that led to the government investigation, not the Wasersztajn account emphasized in this version of our article somehow, even though it cannot be perceived as reliable in the postwar reality of communist Poland... or by our own wp:rs standards. The major importance of Neighbors is undeniable, but from the purely historical perspective, it was the reaction of IPN that made the ultimate difference. Poeticbent talk 01:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned

The Jedwabne issue is an artificial created propaganda point, the article which supposed to be of encyclopaedic value quotes biased and very partial resources. although it refrains from quoting a most reliable resource that is a former head of Institute of Jewish History in Poland, a Holocaust survivor himself and a Holocaust researcher for more than 20 years Mr. Szymon Datner. He after investigating Jedwabne concluded that there is no evidence in existence to prove that perpetrators were Polish neighbours of the massacred Jewish populace. The recent development on subject pointing toward Poles is barely hidden propaganda that has its roots in financial demands made in between others by Bronfman family on behalf of what prof. Norman Finkelstein a Jew of Polish background himself, called Holocaust Industry. It is sad that this article shows all the weak points in wikipedia system. But it is as well educational. The truth will prevail if not now than in eternity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.46.150 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

GENERAL COMMENT TO THE SOURCES: in this paragraph sources 51, 52, 53, 54 are either falsly ascribed or falsly used e.g Bogdan Musiał. Third reference is made in a spirit of pure hutzpah as it leads to the press articles by only two Polish historians connected with the part of WIKIPEDIA where apprisal by Polish Historians for Gross is mentioned, and both of them are very critical of Gross's method and ability to conclude. They both Strzembosz and Chodakiewicz, vehemently disagree with what Gross puts forward as facts. They both insist that Gross has got not only the right to arrive at his conclusions with the material he poseses but that he has got no right to claim to be objective academitian. --86.6.46.150 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Familiarize yourself with WP:TALKNO, or you will be blocked. – Datner is mentioned in the article and i-linked. It is common knowledge that his article "Eksterminacja Żydów okręgu białostockiego" published in 1966 by Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego (Bulletin of the Jewish Historical Institute in Poland) used passive, rather than the active form. All other historians (mentioned above) are referenced and discussed as well. What else do you want?Poeticbent talk 17:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Should there be links to pogroms or massacres where people were burned in barns ?

Maybe there should be a separate website dedicated to the method of execution, there is already too much see-also links here so I put that cases here for now: (I mean not only cases of WW2 violence, or specially against Jews, but any cases from the history when group of people was thrown to a building and burned by a mob or organized military. Not sorely cases of ethnic hatred.)

• Gardelegen massacre - perpetrated by SS during WW2. Troops forced 1,016 slave laborers into a large barn which was then lit on fire.

pwjb (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

PROPOSED REVISION, October 20, 2011

OBJECTIVES OF THIS REVISION:

1. CORRECT THE CHRONOLOGY, as already discussed on ‘Talk’ page (IPN started its investigation a year before Kwasniewski’s speech, not after it).

2. VAGUE STATEMENTS are replaced by SPECIFIC, CLEAR STATEMENTS. (“IPN confirmed most of Gross’ account:” What is ‘most’? This phrase invites mis-interpretation. Which parts of Gross’ account did IPN confirm ? Where did IPN disagree? This Revision gives a clear, specific description).

3. ORGANIZE REFERENCES, MOVE REFERENCES to sections of text where they are relevant.

(THIS TASK HAS NOT YET BEEN CARRIED OUT – it’s a laborious process, I HOPE TO INSERT THE REFERENCES IN THE NEXT WEEK).

A number of references in the existing article do not relate to the sentence, or the section, to which they are attached. This might be due to editors who don’t read Polish inserting Polish-language references, not knowing that the references don’t say what those editors think they say. The References are well chosen, but they need to be moved to places where they belong.

4. OBJECTIVE, CLEAR AND DETAILED PRESENTATION. This proposed Revision is considerably more detailed than before. The Jedwabne Pogrom, and discussion thereof, has been the most important topic in Polish-Jewish relations in the decade since 2000. It is clearly an important subject for both Jews and Poles. Information on it should be objective and clear. It deserves to be described in adequate detail.

PROPOSED REVISION, 20 October 2011, follows:

NOTE: Please do not edit this text, but add your suggestions for changes at the end - see note at the end of the proposed Revision
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prospero10 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Neighbors, 2000–2001

Main article: Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland

Public awareness of the Jedwabne massacre was increased by two documentary films by Polish director Agnieszka Arnold: Gdzie mój starszy syn, Kain? (Where is my older son, Cain?) in 1999, and Sąsiedzi (Neighbors)' in 2001.

The Jedwabne pogrom became a topic of intense discussions in Poland in May 2000 when the Polish-American historian Jan Gross published Sąsiedzi (Neighbors), a Polish-language account of the Jedwabne pogrom, taking the title from Agnieszka Arnold’s film.(REF 38). Because of the public demand, the publisher made the Polish edition of the book accessible free of charge on the Internet. The next year, the book was published in an American edition, titled Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland., German, French and Hebrew translations were also published.

In ‘Neighbors’ Gross gave a gripping account, containing horrifying scenes of Jews being assaulted, rounded up and killed, describing how on "one day, in July 1941, half of the population of a small East European town murdered the other half - some 1,600 men, women and children." Gross concluded that the Jews in Jedwabne had been rounded up and killed not by the Germans as had previously been assumed, but by a mob of their own Polish neighbors.

Gross recognized that German forces were in Jedwabne during the massacre: 'There was an outpost of German gendarmerie in Jedwabne, staffed by eleven men. We can also infer from various sources that a group of Gestapo men arrived in town by taxi either on that day or the previous one." And Gross recognized that German occupying forces had control of the town:

'At the time, the undisputed bosses over life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. No sustained organized activity could take place there without their consent. They were the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews. It was within their power also to stop the murderous pogrom at any time....'

Nevertheless, Gross concluded that the massacre was carried out entirely by Poles from Jedwabne and the surrounding area. As for the German role, he wrote, “the only direct German involvement was........taking pictures”

Gross emphasized that Polish perpetrators were not coerced by the Germans: “the ‘’Einsatzgruppen,’’ German police detachments and various functionaries who imjplemented the “final solution” did not compel the local population to participate directly in the murder of Jews.......the so-called local population involved in killings of Jews did so of their own free will.” (p.133) On the broader topic of Polish-Jewish relations during the Second World War, Gross wrote that “Poles hurt the Jews in numerous interactions throughout the war.”

Gross’ principal sources were first, an account which Szmul Wasersztajn, a Jewish survivor from Radziłów near Jedwabne, had filed in 1945 with the Jewish Historical Institute (żydowski instytut historyczny, ZIH) in Poland; and secondly, the investigation depositions and trial records of the 1949-1950 trials. But Wasersztajn was not an eyewitness of many of the events he described, since he had spent the day of the pogrom in a hiding-place near Jedwabne (REF, page --- in “The Neighbors Respond”, Musial ). And in the 1949-1950 trials a number of witnesses gave testimony during the investigation which they recanted at the trial, leaving conflicting testimonies.

‘Neighbors’ sparked a controversy in Poland. Some readers refused to accept it as a factual account of the Jedwabne pogrom.(REF, Pogonowski) While Polish historians praised Gross for drawing attention to a topic which had received insufficient attention for a half-century, several historians criticized ‘Neighbors’ on the grounds that it included accounts which were uncorroborated, and that where conflicting testimonies existed, Gross had chosen that account which presented the Poles in the worst possible light.(3 REFS, Musial, Strzembosz, Chodakiewicz).

‘Neighbors’ was enormously successful in provoking an intensive two-year debate in Poland on Polish-Jewish relations. In response to ‘Neighbors,’ the Polish Parliament ordered an investigation of the Jedwabne pogrom, the IPN investigation which is described below. From May 2000 onwards, the Jedwabne pogrom became a frequent topic of discussion in Polish media. A list compiled by the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita listed over 130 articles in Polish on the Jedwabne pogrom. (REF). The Catholic periodical ‘Wiez’ published a collection of 34 articles on Jedwabne pogrom, ‘Thou shalt not kill: Poles on Jedwabne’ available in English.(REF) In 2003 an extensive collection of articles from the Polish debate, in English translation, was compiled by Joanna Michlic and Professor Antony Polonsky of Brandeis University and published under the title ‘The Neighbors Respond.’ (REF) (NOTE: there is a proposal to create a new Section, ‘Debate on the Jedwabne Pogrom.’ If such a Section is created, much of the preceding paragraph could be moved there)

(COMMENT: on the second paragraph ‘’Neighbors’ sparked controversy.: this is not intended to plunge the Wikipedia into the controversy, but to point out that THERE WAS, AND AMONG MANY PEOPLE STILL IS, A DISPUTE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL FACTS)
— User:Prospero10 18:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Among credible debaters, only in minor details. As far as ultra-nationalist deniers go, their controversy is unimportant. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

IPN investigation 2000–2003

In July 2000, prompted by the publication of ‘Neighbors,’ the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, IPN), then a recently created independent successor to the Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland, commenced an investigation of the Jedwabne pogrom, as its first project. A major task assigned to IPN was the promotion of historical research on topics on which discussion was not permitted during the 1945-1989 period of Communist rule, and anti-Semitic pogroms were such a topic.

IPN interviewed 98 witnesses, mainly from Poland but also from Israel and the United States. One third of IPN’s witnesses had been eyewitnesses of some part of the 1941 pogrom.(REFS) Since the event had occurred 59 years earlier when most of the witnesses still living were children, their recollections varied. IPN searched for and examined documents in Polish archives in Warsaw, Białystok and Łomźa, in German archives, and at Yad Vashem in Israel.

In May-June 2001 IPN conducted a partial exhumation at the site of the barn where the largest group of Jewish victims perished. The scope of the exhumation was strictly limited by religious objections against disturbing the remains of the dead embodied in Jewish religious doctrine. IPN’s forensic examiner, based on a similar exhumation at Katyn where Stalin’s aides had murdered 20,000 Polish prisoners-of-war in 1942, estimated that the burial site in Jedwabne contained between 300 and 400 victims.

Leon Kieres, the President of IPN, also met in New York with Rabbi Joseph Baker (formerly Józef Piekarz) who had emigrated in 1938 from Jedwabne to the United States.

In January 2001, during a visit to New York, IPN President Leon Kieres made public that IPN had accumulated enough evidence to confirm Gross’ basic thesis that Poles were indeed perpetrators in the Jedwabne massacre. The IPN evidence was presented in reports by IPN to the Polish Parliament (REF) and in other public statements. While the IPN investigation continued for two more years, as of early 2001 the Polish involvement in the Jedwabne massacre was public knowledge in Poland.

Kwaśniewski's speech 2001, and Polish public opinion

In July 2001, on the 60th anniversary of the pogrom, Polish president Aleksander Kwaśniewski attended a ceremony at Jedwabne where he made a speech stating the murderers were Poles whose crime was both against the Jewish nation and against Poland. He said the murderers had been incited by German occupiers, but they alone carried the burden of guilt for their crimes. While ruling out the notion of collective responsibility, he also sought forgiveness "In the name of those who believe that one cannot be proud of the glory of Polish history without feeling, at the same time, pain and shame for the evil done by Poles to others." The ceremony was attended by Catholic and Jewish religious leaders and survivors of the pogrom. Most of the locals of Jedwabne boycotted the ceremony.

Awareness of the Jedwabne massacre among the Polish public was very high. A March 2001 poll conducted by the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita found that one-half of Poles were aware of the Jedwabne massacre; among Poles with a higher education the proportion rose to 81 percent. 40 percent of respondents supported Kwaśniewski's decision to apologize for the crime. A majority condemned the actions of the Poles involved in the Jedwabne massacre.

(NOTE: if a new section “Debate on the Jedwabne Pogrom” is created, the paragraph immediately above could be moved there).

References

— User:Prospero10 18:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jedwabne pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://myinternetarchive-recovery.blogspot.ca/2011/04/polish-neighbors-and-german-invaders.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.warsawvoice.pl/WVpage/pages/article.php/2968/article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION

Despite the past editing history of this article, I have concerns about its neutrality. Perhaps inadvertently, the article reads like a veiled critique of Jan T. Gross's Neighbors and the scholarly consensus on the Jedwabne pogrom, rather than a neutral account of the event and its historical analysis.

On neutrality, see article "Wikipedia: Point of view" under the section "Explanation of the neutral point of view," last bullet.

Several portions of the Jedwabne pogrom article present this danger. These will be documented below.

Parallel with the concerns about neutrality are concerns about the sources. See article "Wikipedia: Point of view" under the section "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance".

Some specific ways in which the article's neutrality is problematic, among many that could be cited:

1. Source selection

Among the sources most relied by the Jedwabne pogrom editor to draw specific conclusions are Tomasz Strzembosz (article footnotes 1, 54), Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (fns 55, 58, 59), Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski (fn 22), and Bogdan Musial (fn 52). All of these scholars have been widely criticized for chauvinistic (in the original sense of the word: ethnocentric or seemingly biased in favor of one's own national people) treatment of the Jedwabne pogrom. Evidence for this charge may be found in work by J. Michlic. Michlic doesn't merely critique their scholarship; she charges that they constitute a revisionist take on the entire question of shared Polish responsibility for atrocities against Jews from 1941-44. As the title of the article makes clear, she charges them with anti-semitism. Michlic's judgment is backed up by a variety of professional historians quoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization that monitors hate groups and extremists.

2. Alleged German role in pogrom

" The involvement of German paramilitary forces of the SS and Gestapo remains the subject of debate, ..." Among a small minority of researchers, true, but the vast majority refer to the lack of hard evidence that the Germans played any significant role in the planning or execution of the pogrom.

Section "German investigation of 1960-1965"--article states that "the German prosecutors found no hard evidence implicating Birkner, but in the course of their investigation they discovered a new German witness, the former SS Kreiskommissar of Łomża, who named the Gestapo paramilitary Einsatzgruppe Bunder SS-Obersturmführer Hermann Schaper as having been deployed in the area at the time of the pogroms. The methods used by Schaper's death squad in the Radziłów massacre were identical to those employed in Jedwabne only three days later, suggesting their specific involvement in that pogrom also." This is a terribly weak claim, with absolutely no sourcing, and commits a logical fallacy to boot:

The German paramilitary slaughterers of Radzilow did A, B, C, etc. The perpetrators of the Jedwabne pogrom also did A, B, C, etc. Therefore the perpetrators of Jedwabne WERE (were probably? were possibly?) the same as those of Radizlow.

3. Alleged factors mitigating Polish responsibility

" According to some later commentators, many people were shocked by the findings, which contrast with the rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust." The rescue of Jews by Poles as a general fact with hundreds of documented instances is undisputed, but it constitutes a red herring in this discussion.

Section "1949–1950 trials" is a one-sided account of the legal findings. J.T. Gross (in the first twenty pages of Neighbors) and A. Bikont are two among several researchers who assess the relative value of the various types of evidence on Jedwabne. Both argue that the beatings applied by Soviet authorities to Jedwabne defendants never went beyond the pro-forma treatment any defendant in any trial would have faced in that time and place. Furthermore, Gross and Bikont suggest that the investigation was perfunctory from the start. The Jedwabne pogrom article fails to mention these challenges to the charge of defendant maltreatment.

4. Selective and potentially misleading quotation of sources

To back up their fallacious argument about the similarities between the Jedwabne and Radzilow pogroms, the Jedwabne pogrom editor quotes work by Holocaust / World War II scholar Alexander B. Rossino. But long ago--in 2001, only months after the publication of Gross's Neighbors--Rossino disavowed such use of his scholarship :

Although the essay was intended to supplement the depiction of events provided by Gross in his book Spsiedzi, I learned recently that my work is deliberately being used to discredit Jan Gross's conclusions about Polish responsibility for the killings in Jedwabne. This distortion of my work is not acceptable. Let me state my position plainly. I think satisfactory documentation exists to suggest that in the summer of 1941 the SS deliberately instigated violence against the Jews in all the areas that comprised eastern Poland prior to the Soviet occupation in late September 1939. Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Poles then joined in carrying out attacks on Jewish communities. I see considerable indirect evidence that the SS incited a killing action in which local Poles helped the Germans commit murder! Convincing evidence of direct SS participation in the massacre is still not available, however. Recent information regarding the bullets that investigators found in the exhumed mass grave refutes my earlier hypothesis that Jedwabne's Jews were killed by the SS during a shooting action. (quoted on Gross's pages 485 and 486)[2]

In another seeming distortion, the Jedwabne pogrom editor cites Michlic's co-edited book The Neighbors Respond on the uproar concerning Neighbors, while never adverting to the fact that her article in that volume impeaches many of those sources. Reading Polonsky and Michlic's co-written introduction to the volume also makes it clear that in no way do they seek to endorse a particular critique of Gross's book, simply because they reprint a published discussion in their volume. In the section of the Jedwabne pogrom article titled "The Neighbors Respond, 2003," every entry of the Polonsky and Michlic volume mentioned is a problematic and possibly anti-semitic source, making it seem as if the volume were completely, instead of partly, a collection of critiques of Gross's Neighbors.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately the whole tenor of the Jedwabne pogrom article is much like a 2014 letter to the editor of the New York Review of Books that appeared many years after that publication's review of Gross's Neighbors. In essence the letter writer, representing the Polish-American Congress, was using a review of a 2014 book to refight the battle over responsibility for the Jedwabne pogrom. Louis Begley's reply to the letter writer could function just as well as a critique of the Jedwabne pogrom article, changing the identifying information when needed. (Along the way Begley too impeaches the credibility of Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who as noted above is a crucial source used in the Jedwabne article.)

A Wikipedia article on the Jedwabne pogrom should not have the same effect as Black's letter.Ralphie72 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

---

I disagree with the above opinion of User:Ralphie72. His assessment is based on highly selective sources which in most part lack the encyclopedic balance and are considered controversial. To quote a remark by another Holocaust historian specializing in Polish matters: — "Michlic is also not above manipulating facts and making baseless charges with her characteristic rancour and self-aggrandizement. Indeed blatant misrepresentations abound in Michlic’s scholarship, which, in this respect, is reminiscent of Yaffa Eliach’s."[3] Also, when I discovered that the quoted text from Rossino is available online but the external link has been intentionally left out by User:Ralphie72, it became clear to me that the user builds his case by wp:cherrypicking and by omitting the inconvenient parts of the quoted material. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 21:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://myinternetarchive-recovery.blogspot.ca/2011/04/polish-neighbors-and-german-invaders.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Education Minister Anna Zalewska

There has been some edit warring over the following paragraph:

In July 2016, Polish Education Minister Anna Zalewska raised the concern of Jewish organizations when, during a television interview, she made comments attempting to downplay Polish participation in the 1941 massacre. Though Polish courts convicted Polish nationals of complicity shortly after the war, Minister Zalewska indicated her belief that only Nazis performed the killings. Jewish organizations protested, with some calling for the minister’s dismissal. Meanwhile, the Mayor of Jedwabne called for the exhumation of remains on grounds that it might help ascertain who, precisely, committed the killings.

References

I invite the editors who have been involved, Beagle16, Poeticbent, and 68.192.217.181, to discuss the merits of this paragraph instead of continuing to edit war over it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Minister Anna Zalewska said nothing of significance. The 11:19 minute interview – complete – about the projected education reform in Poland is available online, with written commentary by magazine FAKT24.PL. Minister Zalewska was questioned by TV personality Monika Olejnik about a lot of things such as class sizes and the ministry's budget, including historical subjects covered by the new curriculum. Zalewska said that she is not a historian and she does not aspire to know what actual subjects would be included in the new textbooks. The broadcast is not available where I live, however, Minister Zalewska was interviewed about it again by Agnieszka Burzyńska. The interviewer (8:20 min) brought up the subject of Jedwabne asking if Jedwabne would find its way to the new curriculum. The Minister said that the schoolbooks usually include confirmed historical facts without going into surrounding controversies among scholars. Burzyńska pressed on, that the Poles burned the Jews, and that that is a fact. Zalewska replied: "that's what Mr. Gross says"; change of subject. Please note, twice in her interview Zalewska insisted that she is an administrator – not a historian – and that she has no say in the matter. In my personal view, the fast-pace exchange between these two women has grown into a classic Tempest in a teapot. Please note, the TV series hosted by Monika Olejnik is titled "political storm" (hence the type of questions asked by her). Poeticbent talk 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you, Poeticbent, for your reply. Unfortunately I don't understand Polish, and Google Translate is doing a god-awful job on those two pages, but I get the gist of what they say thanks to your comments. I'm not convinced this kerfuffle is important enough to include in this historical article, and WP:ONUS says that just because reliable sources have written about something doesn't guarantee its inclusion in the encyclopedia. My mind is still open, though, and I'm looking forward to hearing from one of the supporters of including it. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: I came across a very similar, but worse written, paragraph in the BLP of Anna Zalewska. I removed it per WP:BLP and WP:ONUS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide input here, after editing the relevant section at Anna Zalewska - but I don't think the issues are the same. AZ's comments may not be important enough for the historical article about the pogrom, so I am not opposed to removing them or describing them only very briefly here, but they ARE highly important in an article about HER, given the public outcry they generated. Impact Hub (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jedwabne pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114125013/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/ftp/pdf/jedwabne_postanowienie.pdf to http://www.ipn.gov.pl/ftp/pdf/jedwabne_postanowienie.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/gazeta/wydanie_010331/publicystyka/publicystyka_a_2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipn.gov.pl/ftp/pdf/jedwabne_postanowienie.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Background

I believe that two facts should be mentioned:

• The burning of the Great Synagogue, Białystok by Germans on June 27, 1941.
• The return of the survivors of the NKVD prisoner massacres. B. Musiał "Konterrevolutionäre Elemente sind zu erschiessen": die Brutalisierung des deutsch-sowjetischen Krieges im Sommer 1941. Berlin: Propyläen, 2000-2001. ISBN 9783549071267

Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the following could be incorporated into this article? "On July 10, 1941, Christian Poles hunted down, clubbed, drowned, gutted, and burned alive 1,600 Jewish men, women, and children—all but seven of the town's Jews." --http://www.worldpress.org/article.cfm/the-jedwabne-massacre

(Maybe update the article on Marcin Malek? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcin_Malek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8500:9221:E9B3:E4D8:940C:6B81 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jedwabne pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716185512/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/J/ to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/J/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620004217/http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/komunikaty/komunikat-dot.-postanowienia-o-umorzeniu-sledztwa-w-sprawie-zabojstwa-obywateli to http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/komunikaty/komunikat-dot.-postanowienia-o-umorzeniu-sledztwa-w-sprawie-zabojstwa-obywateli
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423051426/http://www.senat.gov.pl/k4/dok/sten/090/22.HTM to http://www.senat.gov.pl/k4/DOK/sten/090/22.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620004217/http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/komunikaty/komunikat-dot.-postanowienia-o-umorzeniu-sledztwa-w-sprawie-zabojstwa-obywateli to http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/komunikaty/komunikat-dot.-postanowienia-o-umorzeniu-sledztwa-w-sprawie-zabojstwa-obywateli
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716185512/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/J/ to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/J/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231629/http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/21michlic.pdf to http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/21michlic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jedwabne pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629200110/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/search-all/classroom/J/Mach.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/search-all/classroom/J/Mach.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=en&dzial=55&id=131&search=5667
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723073420/http://www.polin.org.pl/cities/241/info/ to http://www.polin.org.pl/cities/241/info/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629200110/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/search-all/classroom/J/Mach.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/search-all/classroom/J/Mach.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230602/http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=1573 to http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=1573

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust sidebar

@Poeticbent: There's a nav bar on the bottom. We typically place the sidebar on the side as well, and barring objections I am going to restore it to the side - as is done in most other pogroms.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Date Formats

This article has strong national ties to Poland, a country that uses the dmy date format (see: Date format by country). Though Poland is not an English-speaking country, I believe the date format for this article should be changed to dmy. The translated quotations of the memorial inscriptions have been changed to myd. The 2001 memorial definitely uses a dmy date format (I can't seem to find a picture of the pre-2001 monument, but it most likely used dmy, as well). I feel at the very least these quotations must be changed to dmy.VladJ92 (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No texts were copied from other wikipedias

Poeticbent, no texts were copied from other wikipedias--Slav70 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Anna Zalewska quote

Malik, for info I can fully support your edit, short of the word 'denied'. I agree that her comments are indeed strange, twisted, inappropriate and immoral; but WP:SAID tells us: "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability." This makes the allegation that the person denied something a WP:BLP issue: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." A lawyer can argue here that while she did equivocate about the subject, she never specifically denied anyone's culpability; therefore Wikipedia would be liable to compensation for damages to the reputation of this living person. That the journalistic source editorializes by using the word doesn't justify our use of it, because in policy terms WP:BLP overrides WP:V. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Were this a denial about her own actions, or party actions, or anything contemporary - you might have a point in that per WP:SAID this implies culpability. However since Anna Zalewska was born in 1965, some 24 years after the pogrom in 1941, there is no way that her statement implies any culpability by herself. Her stmt, rejecting the scholarly consensus that there was a Polish pogrom as a "viewpoint" (along with other things she said in the interview, was clearly a denial - and this was reported as a denial by WP:RS. We do not have to go into a full analysis of each point she made in said denial - what is interesting for an encyclopedia is that this is a denial. The BLP provision in SAID is irrelevant as no culpability is possible for a BLP born 24 years after the event.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, thank you for engaging in discussion. I understand your point, and my position remains the same. So I propose we take this up at the BLP noticeboard. To expand my point further, she is saying that anti-Semites committed the murders, instead of saying that Poles committed them, the latter being the generally accepted reality. (It seems that a loose parallel might be an American politician saying racists, not true Americans, undertook the black lynchings of the Deep South). It's a bizarre, quasi-intellectual point, but it is not the same as pinning the murders on Germans, or anyone else, or denying the murders happened. Moreover it is the newspaper's editorializing commentary that says she denied it, but Wikipedia does not treat newspaper commentary the same as a reliable source: per WP:RS at WP:NEWSORG... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Therefore we can lift her quotes from the source, but not the newspaper's commentary about her quotes, unless we identify this commentary as the opinion of the newspaper rather than as a statement of fact. All newspapers have an agenda. By the same token, Wikipedia doesn't treat the New York Times as a reliable source for statements of fact about what Donald Trump denied; but it is fine to lift his quotes as reported in that newspaper. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well clearly anyone who kills Jews for being Jews is anti-Semitic, and she is not denying the existence of the pogrom but rather Polish participation. This would be an interesting point for BLP/n - I'm disagreeing on the applicability of SAID her as this isn't any admission or denial on her part - this a pre-birth event and she isn't denying the event but rather is "only" denying any Polish participation in the event. Another option is perhaps to skirt around deny and use has questioned as per for instance: Museum Concerned Over Polish Education Minister’s Remarks on Jedwabne Pogrom The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is concerned over recent public statements by the Polish Education Minister, Anna Zalewska, questioning that Poles participated in the murder of hundreds of their Jewish neighbors during a Holocaust-era pogrom in Jedwabne.. Here too - [4] - they don't use deny, where here - [5] they are saying "appearing to deny". I think I'll be BOLD and modify this to "expressed doubt" per the language here [6].Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your great efforts. To my mind the most universally acceptable and accurate rendering is from Reuters - that she "refused to openly admit Poles’ complicity in the pogrom" [7] -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thats from a week later and after some backtracking in a subsequent stmt, and is more focused on calls for a an apology than the stmt itself. If we were to use that we would definitely have to cover calls for an apology... In a paragraph that is aleeady longish (and which should probably be summarized/shotened).Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments and your edits to the article. While I relied on the wording ("denial") from Haaretz, please note that Wprost says that she described the assertion that Poles burned Jews in a barn in Jedwabne as "a theory repeated by Tomasz Gross" and that she said other historians believe it to be "biased" (their quotation marks, not mine).[8] It's hard not to describe that as a denial, but the current wording is acceptable.
As far as the idea that she was differentiating between antisemites and "true Poles", I understand the point but see No true Scotsman.
Finally, Chumchum7, could you please clarify what you meant when you wrote "the continuity Polish resistance state"? "Continuity" doesn't seem to belong there. Did you mean that it was the consistent policy of the Polish Underground State to execute people who murdered Jews? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Malik, Happy New Year. Let's be careful not to jump to conclusions. I'm well aware of the point about no true Scotsman; please note that I never said I buy or support her point. Note that I have referred to it as 'quasi-intellectual' and 'bizarre', so there's no need to persuade me that what she said is inappropriate. Understanding a point is not the same as endorsing a point. In any case, we mere Wikipedians are meant to represent what the sources say, our wishes to express our feelings through the sources should be irrelevant, per WP:NOR. By 'continuity' I am not emphasizing anything about its policies, I am clarifying for the reader who has never heard of the Underground State that it was a continuity organization from Polish prewar government that went on operating in defiance of the German occupation. 'Continuity' belongs here as the commonly understood political term "continuity of government" per e.g. Continuity IRA. For the record, I'm well aware that some representatives of the Polish Secret State murdered Jews, and that this is yet to be properly accounted for. If you can find a source that says that in connection with Zalewska's comments, then please add it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year to you, too. Thank you for your reply. I had never heard that use of "continuity" before, but now I understand. Also, I didn't mean to imply that you supported the argument about antisemites and "true Poles", and I apologize if my message seemed to suggest that you did. Thanks again. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Polish senate hearing as a source for historical fact

A senate hearing can not be used as a RS for history. It is not peer reviewed and is politically biased. It contains statements both from the state-run IPN (which has its issues in and of itself - particularly in a setting that wasn't peer reviewed) as well as statements by Polish politicians (which were actually used in our article to source historical fact). Such a hearing may be used for attributed statements, to the speaker, relating to the IPN investigation (so - for section 5) - not for historical fact - and it is probably preferable to source to a published report and not the hearing unless you are sourcing the reception of the report by the Polish politicians at the time.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The testimony of the head of the IPN at a senate hearing is a reliable source, just as a report from the IPN is. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Beyond WP:BIASED issues with IPN and the Polish senate, An academic speaking in a non-peer reviewed setting is not a RS - see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - and at the very least should be attributed (it is reliable as a WP:PRIMARY that the academic said something - not that that something it true). Furthermore, the senate hearing also includes other speakers, such as Tusk and Senator Jadwiga Stokarska, which generally would not be considered an authority on history at all - and in the version you are reverting to they are being used to source statements being made in Wikipedia's voice. There is no lack of academic journal papers and books covering Jedwabne - there is absolutely no reason to use a Polish senate hearing. Certainly will be an interesting spectacle at RSN trying to defend the use of such a source for history.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is a statement from the head of the IPN (I'm guessing Kieres - and no, BIASED does not apply), then it's reliable. If it's a statement from Stokarska (who's a farmer), then no, not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

There was some of both (Kieres & Stokarska) throughout the article. Kieres if sourced from the hearing (as opposed to a peer-reviewed publication) would need to be attributed - there's a marked difference between a peer-reviewed paper (or book published in a reputable publisher) and talking in a setting that is not peer reviewed (where you have a notable opinion, but not RS for facts) - that's the standard used elsewhere on Wikipedia for WP:SCHOLARSHIPs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

POV

The article, as presently construed, relies heavily on Polish nationalist sources and heavily promotes (going as far as stating this as fact) two highly disputed theories that allegedly reduce Polish culpability:

1. The German forces were actively involving (as opposed to being passive in the area).
2. Victim blaming by overemphasizing alleged Jewish cooperation with Soviets, framing the Polish actions as anti-Soviet (and not anti-Jewish) - assigning collective responsibility to Jews due to said alleged collective support for Soviets. This discourse, one should note, was initially promoted by Nazi propogana in 1941 upon invading the Soviet area.

Sourcing in the article relies heavily on supporters of Polish nationalism over mainstream Holocaust scholars. There is also an overemphasis of coverage of various internal Polish inqueries (whose result varied across the years) instead of covering the actual event. Tellingly the article presents in Wikipedia's voice in several places the low-ball IPN estimate of around 380 victims and not 1600 as Gross estimates (and one should note that Gross is highly cited). Pre pogrom atrocities by Poles (e.g. burying alive a group of Jewish men, or throwing Jewish women with their babies into a lake are omitted). All in all - this seems to be translated from a modern Polish nationalist source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What you are doing is Historical negationism - "Polish nationalist sources" - IPN is not nationalist source also research was conducted durring social-liberal rule.
two highly disputed theories - there are not disputed. maybe by Historical negationists
was initially promoted by Nazi propoganda in 1941 upon invading the Soviet area. - Ok that is just disgusting - you are denying fact that jews colaborated with soviets and pushing it into nazi propaganda. Sourcing in the article relies heavily on supporters of Polish nationalism over mainstream Holocaust scholars. - So only jewish sources are mainstream ? Or maybe gross is? what hipocrisy.
low-ball IPN estimate of around 380 victims and not 1600 as Gross estimates - and gross is not highly reliable, his book is only historical fiction maked for money and publicity, he is anti-polish and this estimates (pre war information about number of jews living at jedwabne shows there wasn't even so many jews in first place - and don't forget tat we talking about 2 years after war - nkvd sources show that in 1940 there was only 540 jews linving there ) show why he should not be used as source.
(and one should note that Gross is highly cited) - and not rightfully so.

there is no way that we can reach consensus with person who want's remove all polish sources (as he tried and failed) and instead of using reliable historical research of IPN want's create some sort of historical fiction based on gross books which are not reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.136.20 (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. I removed (and this will go - RSN will resoundedly reject such a source for history) a single source - a Polish senate hearing. Outside of Poland, where it has been (and will be) legal both the crticize the communists and the nationalists, there are plenty of reputable Holocaust historians who have wrote on Jedwabne. The Polish IPN (run by a political appointee) is by its very definition of a lustration/investigative institue against Nazi and Communist crimes, a biased source with a clear agenda. Polish gvmt funded research before the 90s portrayed the communists as saints and Nazis and nationalists as villians. Since the 90s this has flipped (still villifying Nazies) to anti-communism and veneration of previous nationalist organizations (some of whom have a clear antisemitic record). We should not remove all Polish sources, however we should primarily rely on sources not affiliated with a Polish government (past or present) - of which there are plenty. Using reputed sources to reflect consensus, in this case worldwide consensus, is what we do on Wikipedia even if is allegedly "insults the Polish nation"[9] due to bringing up the uncomfortable past.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding casulties, Anna Bikont has estimated 900. The IPN figures are very the bottom of the range and not a mainsteam figure.Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Anna Bikont- oh great, daughter of editorial member of "People's Tribune" (comunnist propagnda outlet) who works in 'Gazeta wyborcza' ( which had controversy with "whitewashing former communists" ) - great source. Polish gvmt funded research before the 90s - IPN was established in 1999 . what you telling about was communist research done by diffrent people, a biased source with a clear agenda. - that is yours POV not consensus. however we should primarily rely on sources not affiliated with a Polish government (past or present) - maybe we should not use jewish sources instead which have clear agenda of vilifying Poles? - that is based on your exact point. veneration of previous nationalist organizations - source? Using reputed sources to reflect consensus - this is yours POV not consensus. due to bringing up the uncomfortable past - here is problem, you think that you have right to deny evrything because everyone is antisemite - no you don't have because these sources are NOT anti-semite, just accept the truth already and stop writing this Israeli nationalist negationists aspersions. There is consensus here, and you are not needed medling and trying to rewrite history. maybe you think that you can change past to reflect yours ideas - there is nothing to change here, and stop forcing your pov on neutral sources - this is vandalism. is what we do on Wikipedia even if is allegedly "insults the Polish nation" - this is about history here and you are vandal nothing more (no we don't remove sources because "they are writen by people of diffrent nationality" - this is propaganda not information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.136.20 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean IPN - headed by a Sejm political appointee whose stated goal is to prosecute crimes by communists. We have Gross, Bikont, and yes - Jewish and non-Jewish sources from outside of Poland - who have no particular reason to villify/venerate Poles over other national groups (and who treat the situation in Ukraine, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, etc. quite critically). The reason to remove the senate hearing was not nationality but due to this being a non-peer reviewed source (WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Though perhaps IPN should be rejected for non-attributed statements (in light of the new suppression legislation - it should definitely be rejected for publications after 2016 or 2018, quite possibly before) When we have multiple source who disagree - we need to reconcile and reflect the diversity of opinion - not fill 90% of the article with what one source (IPN and researchers affilated with it) says.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

---

• Please start your own blog if you wish to continue. IPN is not "a modern Polish nationalist source" that "should be rejected"" according to your own personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — Poeticbent talk 18:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  I said perhaps, and post 2016. We have multiple sources for what happened in Jedwabne. The article should reflect what historians such as Gross have written and not take IPN's line where there is significant disagreement between sources. The article, as written, currently does not reflect consensus among mainstream Holicaust historians and engages in quite a bit of victim blaming.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, thank you for raising this. First of all we need to get back to Wikipedia basics. Source-based content is the basic foundation of Wikipedia. The threshold for including sourced content in Wikipedia is the reliability of the source, and its verifiability. If you feel that a verifiable source is not reliable on the grounds of its nationalism, then please take it up on the reliable sources noticeboard, as you may have a case. Our trouble is that the allegation "nationalist" is a matter of opinion, and can be used in a pejorative way to reduce the credibility of a source. Most history books are written by people with a bias; how is the great Max Hastings not a nationalist? And is E.H. Carr not a reliable source because he is a Marxist? The Wikipedia solution is to use a plurality of views, asserting that none of them are fact.

I'm not clear what you mean by "allegedly reduce Polish culpability". That would mean someone has made an "allegation" that culpability has been reduced. But it's not an allegation, it is perceivably an attempt. So I think you mean "two highly disputed theories that appear to attempt to reduce Polish culpability".

So please point out which verifiable, reliable sources support the assertion that it's a "highly disputed theory" that German forces were actively involving (as opposed to being passive in the area)? From the sources I've read, my understanding is that there was nothing passive about the German occupation of territory in Operation Barbarossa. That in no way reduces the culpability of murderers, whether they were Polish or anything else.

Jan Gross in 'Revolution from Abroad' points out that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland 1939-1941 aggressively set classes and ethnicities against each other. Jews and Poles seen as undesirable were deported to Siberia, shot and caused to flee even to German-occupied territory. Jews and Poles seen as useful to the Soviet terror were given jobs. It's generally understood that Jews preferred Soviet occupation to German occupation while there was little difference for Poles; it's on the historical record that a disproportionate number of Soviet officials in Soviet-occupied Poland identified as Jewish; this gave the false impression that the overall Jewish population was pro-Soviet, this fed latent antisemitism. This is historical context - none of this is "victim blaming" nor does it reduce the culpability of the murderers.

There has been twenty years of international and local modern academic research into Jedwabne. Gross was at the vanguard, and by his own account did not have all the information; he opened the topic up for future research, including forensics. By definition, this means Gross is not the last word on the topic. For example, he did not know that there were German bullets in the skeletons of Jewish children buried at Jedwabne, which were only found during excavation of the crime scene, which only happened thanks to Gross opening up research. Gross praised the findings of the IPN, and other sources, some of whom found that German death squads were in the area thanks to archival research in Germany. That doesn't reduce Polish culpability.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies on the overuse of allegedly. Regarding German involvement in the atrocity - there are a variety of views here. Recent nationalist Polish literature attempts to portray a very active role (with town folk being present and mainly passive). Other sources, such as Gross, portray the German role as one of encouragement (whether by creating a general atmosphere, or inciting). I would suggest that Gross (who is by far the most cited here) be more widely used, perhaps Bikont as well. In general - while we should present the modern Polish nationalist narrative - I would suggest reducing the amount of Polish based sources used (including expat Polish-Canadian TV interviews). In terms of academic literature - I actually do not see all that much that is widely cited post-Gross (in fact - it would seem that there is more scholarly coverage of the debate in Polish society instigated by Gross's publication than of the massacre itself). Blatman, Daniel. "Were these ordinary Poles?." Yad Vashem Studies 30 (2002): 51-68. provides an overview from a non-partisan to the issue.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

For your initiative to gain support, including potentially mine, I'd recommend you specify whether your issue is with WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT.

We've also got to watch out for our own prejudice. Who says what constitutes (i) non-partisan and (ii) nationalist literature, and why? Who says Polish or Polish-Canadian sources are inferior, and why? Who says Daniel Blatman is a superior source, and why? I'm all for adding more of a plurality of sources, and I agree that there are too few post-Gross and non-Polish sources here, but throwing out the reliability of a source based on national identity could be open to allegations of racism. This is not in keeping with the ethos of Wikipedia. If you feel that a verifiable source is unreliable, the onus is on you to take it up at WP:RS/N.

For the record: Alexander B. Rossino, a research historian at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. wrote: "while Neighbors contributed to an ongoing re-examination of the history of the Holocaust in Poland, Gross' failure to examine German documentary sources fundamentally flawed his depiction of the events. The result was a skewed history that did not investigate SS operations in the region or German interaction with the Polish population." (Alexander B. Rossino, "Polish 'Neighbors' and German Invaders: Contextualizing Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa"; Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Volume 16 (2003))[10]

-Chumchum7 (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jan T. Gross is regarded by the historical profession as the most authoritative source on this pogrom, and on the history of and teasing out culpability for other attacks and massacres of Jews in Polish lands in this period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I had thought so too, but if you read the academic paper from the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum linked above, it would appear to disagree. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My reading of the sources is that that there is a range of opinions here. Gross himself is surely notable and well cited - much more than other sources. The opinions range from (in simplistic terms) - "the Germans did most it, some townfold or collaborators joined in or were forced, the Jews themselves were in cahoots with the communists and hurt the Poles during 39-41, and casulties are on the low side" (which is what IPN and related modern Polish sources are pushing) to "The Poles did it, Germans mildly encourgaed this or did not prevent it, and casulties are on the high side". And there are sources that are in between these two views. Our article, at present, violates WP:WEIGHT in that it heavily tilted to presenting and using sources that promote the first view, instead of presenting the breadth of views. There are also RS issues as some of the sources used were not published in a peer review setting or by reputable authors in the field - which is something that should be preferred for history. I am not saying we should throw out every Polish source - but that there should be a balance and that we should reflect scholarly consensus which is different from the view of Polish government associated institutions.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there are a range of opinions. This said, we must not inadvertently confuse progress or change of research across time with a range of opinions. Gross endorsed later research which had different findings to his, namely the IPN's 2003 findings. The IPN is an internationally respected umbrella organization of historians and archives, so I disagree with the characterization of it as the representative one homogeneous case or fixed agenda.

I agree that Gross is notable and well sighted. He is effectively the 'father' of the research subject, which others then built on, adjusted and sometimes contradicted, such as Rossino, more of which should be added. Gross is not a sacred cow among academics - he broke the ground, but his initial work was slim. I agree that too much weight is put on the 2013 finding - it's also no more of a 'breakthrough' than any other finding so the word in subheading is inappropriate. Again, please take up your RS issues head-on, at RS/N, as I have recommended above.

A side note about nationalism, neutrality, reliability and prejudice. Just because an institution or person is Polish, that doesn't make them nationalist. It's inconsistent to say the IPN can be thrown out because its Polish historians are imbued with nationalism, while Israeli sources can be included with the assumption that Israeli sources are immune from nationalism. Nothing makes an Israeli academic such as Blatman non-partisan or non-nationalist by virtue of his Israeli nationality alone; I assume you're aware that some Israelis, particularly on the liberal left, argue that their nationalist compatriots have a vested interest in inflating European anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial. (Fwiw Anne Applebaum has touched on the role of Israeli nationalism in the recent Polish controversy, here [11] )

Please be careful not to conflate the IPN with the controversies around the new Polish government, which has been in place for about 2.5 years whereas the IPN was been around for 20. The IPN is an archive and an umbrella group of academics with varying opinions, it is thereby comparable to Yad Vashem, the USHMM and UK National Archives. Gross has worked with the IPN, and endorsed them.

The significance of German involvement at Jedwabne is not necessarily a Polish whitewash, and at the same time German involvement doesn't reduce the culpability of the Polish murderers. I have still not seen evidence that German involvement is a "highly disputed theory". Gross supports it. Rossino supports it: have you read his paper that I linked for you?

As you rightly say, the answer is a plurality of views, judicial use of reliable sources only, and fair weight. We include the IPN historians, we include Gross, we include Blatman and Rossino and many more. The more the merrier.

Per BOLD I am hereby going to cut down down the 2013 section, add some Rossino and remove the banner. I will then support greater balancing of views from other editors. Unless it's already been done, there is also a place in the article for the so-called Holocaust Law controversy, in which Jedwabne has been brought up. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: Working with you has always been a pleasure; we go a long way back. But the Rossino bit was in fact a balancing view (as you say) and nothing would justify its removal. The real challenge here is to separate history from ideology ... and focus just on history and nothing else. Reading about the Holocaust bill is troubling because of an incredible amount of backlash it received. But that's ideology, not history. We cannot allow ideological agendas and partisan political interests (expressed by the various angry editors also), take precedence over our core content policies such as the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Poeticbent talk 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. Unfortunately I don't accept your rationale. Having made an attempt at reaching consensus, I'm recommending the issue here gets outside involvement either through (i) messaging relevant noticeboards or (ii) by approaching administrators - both of which I have done in the past and am prepared to do again. Unless in the nick of time someone here can attend to the concerns that were raised. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of Jedwabne pogrom victims

I have seen the number of the Jedwabne pogrom victims being given as 1,600; and as 360.

What is the correct number?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no correct number. There are estimates, which produce a statistical range. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Second that. The low end is the IPN (which is around 360). The high end is Gross (which is 1600). There are also numbers in between (e.g. Bikont estimates this at 900 I believe). The existence of a modern political debate between an "innocence version" and "guilt version" complicates matters.[12]. Further complications are assessments of the Jewish population in 1941 (as opposed to the pre-war 1939 population) As the Soviets expelled Jews (as well as others) to Siberia during 1939-41. Only 7 Jews (out of a pre-war population of 1600) survived until the end of war [13] - they did however give testimony [14] and wrote a yizkor book in 1980 [15] - and claim that most of the Jewish population died at the hand of the Poles (they claim all Jews, except for 7 survivors hidden by a Polish family, perished in the massacre and place the number of dead at 1440 [16][17]). Many of the Polish townfolk reject this and place responsibility in the German hands, however given the issue of restoration of Jewish property (held by the town folk) and potential criminal culpability of those alive at the time there are some WP:BIASED questions here.[18] The Jewish survivors have no particular reason to accuse the Poles over the Germans.Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be racist of us to treat sources of one ethnic identity as better than another. Jews, Poles and Germans are equally capable of lying. But more importantly, according to Wikipedia policy it's not even our place to debate the motivation of primary sources, we leave that to the secondary sources and use a plurality of them. Bikont's commentary has a place in this article, as she is a recognized secondary source. The 2003 IPN estimate is not around 360, the 2003 IPN estimate is at least 360 because its investigation was empirical: it found evidence of 360 different bodies and knew there were more, but further excavation was stopped in agreement with the Rabbi that it was working with, out of respect for Jewish religious practice at burial sites. Gross endorsed the IPN findings. We could all read up about this more, in order to avert prejudice. Myself included. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally, yes. In terms of WP:BIASED - often no. For instance - for Israel/Arab issues or India/Pakistan one often attempts to use non-partisan sources - and the same for other conflicts - when such sources are available - particularly when sources associated with an involved party are addressing culpability - my comment wasn't in regards to Polish sources in general, but rather regarding the overuse of them for this very particular topic and would apply in general to any involved source X saying that "X was not responsible (or had diminished responsibility)".Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't accept that rationale. First of all, this is not the Arab/Israeli conflict - and even in articles on the Arab/Israeli conflict, there is disagreement between Israeli sources on the same subject, there is no homogeneous opinion aligned with DNA; that's notwithstanding the fact that both Arab and Israeli sources are indeed used on the Arab/Israeli conflict in Wikipedia due to the fact that everyone takes a position, including Americans and Brits of every political stripe. Second, in this case that rationale could be used to undermine the use of nearly all of the sources used - including Jan Gross, who is Polish born and has a Polish Christian mother, who helped save his Polish Jewish father's life in the Holocaust, and who was deported in the Polish communist anti-Semitic purge of 1968. Any pseudo-psychologist could try to argue that he has both an axe to grind against his 'righteous' mother and a grudge against Poland. And it would be nonsense. The over-weighted inclusion of a single primary source that is at odds with scholarly consensus is good enough rationale to have it cut down. For Wikipedia purposes, there is no justification for making it about race. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Using Polin to work towards consensus

POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews says 340-350 were killed in the barn and that it is estimated that "several hundred people" fell victim. [19] This can be cited in the lede. It pretty much chimes with what the IPN says and appears to be consensus.

Polin adds: "Germans were present during all of the events, both members of the SS and military policemen. According to some witnesses, they were issuing orders to the Poles." This should be paraphrased in the lede.

Note that the same source also cites the IPN saying it was part of a wider murdering of Jews by Poles in 23 localities. Those were: Bielsk Podlaski (the village of Pilki), Choroszcz, Czyżew, Goniądz, Grajewo, Jasionówka, Jedwabne, Kleszczele, Knyszyn, Kolno, Kuźnica, Narewka, Piątnica, Radziłów, Rajgród, Sokoły, Stawiski, Suchowola, Szczuczyn, Trzcianne, Tykocin, Wasilków, Wąsosz, and Wizna. This should be added to the lede.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If we are going the musuem route, yad va shem or USSMM would be better. This NYT review in 2015 (and we should asssume they fact checked) says estimates vary from 300 to 1600 and that whatever the figure few Jews survived in the town.[20] Stating the range of figures, rather than one figure, would be simpler.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would any of these musuems be better than another? Fwiw the USHMM has it pretty much the same as POLIN: On July 10, 1941, Polish residents of Jedwabne, a small town located in Bialystok District of first Soviet-occupied and then German-occupied Poland, participated in the murder of hundreds of their Jewish neighbors. Although responsibility for instigating this “pogrom” has not been fully established, scholars have documented at least a German police presence in the town at the time of the killings.[21] -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Further primary source witness testimonies

There are further witness testimonies in a documentary posted on Youtube here [22] and here [23] and presumably here [24]

What's the rationale for not including these, but including the one from 2013?

I'm hereby giving notice that I'm preparing to take this matter up the dispute resolution pyramid. If any editors here have experience of sanctions, I suggest you take this window of opportunity to fix this article before the administrators arrive. I have seen it all before during my many years at Wikipedia, and my observation is that this project has run out of patience for partisan and therefore disruptive editing on Eastern Europe topics in particular. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The 1980 yizkor book (which is actually cited by several other sources) also includes testimonies (an online translation to English is here). The relevant chapter is this. There is also this 1945 testimony which is also cited [25].Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Also interestingly the Wyrzykowski family which has been recognized in 1976 (well before the modern Polish discussion) as rightous amongst the nations for saving the sole seven survivors (per non-IPN sources) is mentioned in our article only in the context of IPN attempting to refute other sources that claim the complete destruction of the Jewish community (by claiming there were survivors who were subsequently killed by the Germans after 1941).Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Did anyone ever interview Aleksander and Antonina Wyrzykowski, who sheltered the 6 Jedwabne Jews after they fled their home town, then the Łomża ghetto; or others who might have had concrete information about what happened at Jedwabne?

Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

See this 2001 WSJ interview [26]. They were recognized in 1976 - so quite possibly there are pre Gross interviews as well (possibly in Hebrew - tricky spellling). They are in the 1980 yizkor book (accounts of them, not by them).05:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

If the murders were committed "by Polish inhabitants of the town", why did they need to be "summonned to Jedwabne" for the purpose?

Nihil novi (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead has bigger problems (such as accepting the IPN's version as fact, while alternatives have the townfolk instigating the whole affair, as well as treating IPN as "official", andnthe IPN's estimates of only 40 perps) - I assume however the use of summoned (which is not in the ref cited) refers to calling in of outlying villagers as well as field workers from the town.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The IPN findings were praised by Gross, as stated in the article. If you have seen any evidence that he has taken issue with the IPN findings, point it out now. (Given that the IPN disputes the Gross figure of 1600 victims, his endorsement would suggest he accepted the downward revision - so any recorded later discussion of this by him is essential for our purposes.) -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

See [27], Gross in 2012 - Gross defended his account of how many Jews were killed in the massacre, saying that the exhumation was "the only aspect of the Jedwabne investigation handled carelessly." .... According to Gross, the number given by the IPN was announced rashly based upon a casual remark;. So no, he does not endorse the IPN death count.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This 2013 report also contrasts the two [28] Although the inquiry agreed with Gross that the killings and related tortures were carried out by Poles, it ascribed a decisive role to the Germans for inspiring the massacre. Whereas Gross had asserted that half of the population of the town murdered the other half, the IPN concluded that a minimum of 40 Poles actively participated in the killings, while the remainder of the non-Jewish population displayed utter passivity in the face of the crimes..Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Your citation from 2012 states: According to Gross, the number given by the IPN was announced rashly based upon a casual remark; an archeologist expressed the belief that the grave contained the remains of 250 people maximum, and this message was relayed to the Polish Justice Minister Lech Kaczynski, who quickly announced the estimation. Leader of the Jedwabne team Andrzej Kola was agitated by the hastiness with which the estimation had become "fact," and later amended the count to 300-400 bodies, Gross says. That's Gross saying 250 was rash, and that it was revised up to 300-400 bodies. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And yet the source says "Gross defended his account of how many Jews were killed in the massacre". It also says "IPN Chairman Professor Leon Kieres said to BBC during the course of the investigation: "The crime is the same whether 200 or 250, or 1,600 people were murdered. I am talking in both moral and legal terms.". As of 2012 Gross stood by his number. Note the same report also says "Expert international observer at the site William Haglund said an accurate estimation could not be made from the work done there, meaning that the precise number of victims will likely never be known. " (it seems the IPN was not not thorough in its digging - leading to a lower bound - and them saying "at least" per the body estimates they reached on the partial work).Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the point you wish to make in this last paragraph. If you're saying there's actually little point nitpicking about the numbers in a mass murder, and no revision changes the wrongness of it, I happen to agree. If you're saying that this article should tend towards saying the precise number of victims will likely never be known, that would chime with the Polin phrasing of "several hundred" victims. Saying Gross stands by his account is not the same as him standing by his estimate. As far as I can see Gross is supporting the IPN estimate of 300-400 here. Gross has consistently been extremely supportive of the professionalism of Kieres and the IPN, for example from 36:00 [29]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We're reading JPost differently - I read it as Gross standing by the 1600 figure and not accepting the 250 hastily revised up to 300-400 afterwards. JPost does say he endorses the IPN report in many other respects. (And looking at the youtube intervoew you linked above he expresses admiration for Kieres accepting Polish responsibility while suffering personal flak (which he then contrasts with later PiS appointed IPN personnel)). Gross was not the first to cite a number in this range. The 1980 yizkor book said 1440. And I think there are other pre-Gross sources here (e.g. the 1976 Yad Va Shem righteous gentile bestowal was based on something) - Gross sparked a debate in Polish society, but the event was studied prior to him. I think the safest thing is to state a range (at least 340 to at most 1600).Icewhiz (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read that the victims' disinterment was not completed due to the objections of a cooperating rabbi, thus leaving the number of victims in doubt.

I understand that all, or nearly all, the victims died in the burning barn. According to at least one witness, the barn was small, so small that little children had to be packed into it over the adults' heads. How large would the barn have had to be to accommodate 1,600 victims?

Nihil novi (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, again I don't quite understand a point you wish to make: "...he expresses admiration for Kieres accepting Polish responsibility while suffering personal flak (which he then contrasts with later PiS appointed IPN personnel))." Please could you explain why you are telling me this? -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nihil novi, in fact Gross does not insist on the victim count of 1,600. In his 2002 edition of Neighbors, therefore post-IPN, he adds a postscript: “The character as well as moral and historical implications of the Jedwabne mass murder remain exactly identical, no matter whether 400 people or 1600 were killed there” (p. 121). -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

How would 40 Polish perpetrators manage to murder 1,600—or even just 340—victims, on their own, without a pretty substantial number of Germans carrying firearms (which the Poles themselves did not possess, as Poland was not blessed with an American Second Amendment)? Nihil novi (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please forgive me for not wanting to participate in this exchange since my insistence on adherence to historical facts falls on deaf ears, but be advised that, after prolonged beatings and confessions extracted through torture, the Stalinist court in Łomża still reduced the number of convictions to ten (10), not twenty ... and not fourty. Individuals pronounced guilty and sent to prison included: Karol Bardon, Jerzy Laudański, Zygmunt Laudański, Władysław Miciura, Bolesław Ramotowski, Stanisław Zejer, Czesław Lipiński, Władysław Dąbrowski, Roman Górski, and Antoni Niebrzydowski. The rest were either pronounced innocent and sent free (10) or no longer living in May 1949. Józef Żyluk and Feliks Tarnacki were pronounced innocent the following year. Szmul Wasersztajn (who named them) was never interviewed by the police, the prosecution, or the courts. (Strzembosz). Poeticbent talk 21:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So perhaps the 40 figure, by IPN, is a lowball figure? Read the Jewish accounts (the 1945 testimony and Yizkor book). Note that the 1600 (or 340) included women, old folk and infirm, and many children - the proportion pf able bodied men would not be that high. I am not sure that the 40 number is a definitive IPN number - it might be an atleast number (e.g. those they could determine had comitted a crime), and might not include those who herded the Jews (by assembling around them), but did not actually strike fatal blows. Other pogroms in Eastern Europe were carried out without guns - which the massacred population had even less of (illlegal guns exist and existed without the 2nd amendment).Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nihil there is scholarly consensus that there were many Jewish woman and children who were victims of the gang of Polish murderers, there is also testimony that non-Jewish villagers feared they would be next at the hands of the gang. There is scholarly consensus per USHMM link below that German police were present at the massacre. Forensics found German bullets at the exhumation, prompting speculation that the German police backed up the Polish murderers in a collaborationist event, and may have shot some of the victims who the Polish gang put in the barn. Obviously that in no way diminishes the moral implications of the massacre. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The following content in the lead is more about methodology and details of sourcing rather than the event itself, so it ought to be moved down into the body of the article to be in keeping with the rest of Wikipedia: These were the official findings of Poland's Institute of National Remembrance, "confirmed by the number of victims in the two graves, according to the estimate of the archeological and anthropological team participating in the exhumation,"[3] wrote prosecutor Radosław J. Ignatiew, who headed the 2000–2003 investigation ordered by the Polish government.[4][5] Previously, in 1949, the communist People's Republic of Poland had launched a treason and murder trial which was later condemned as a miscarriage of justice because suspects had been tortured during interrogation.[6] After the fresh investigation concluded in 2003, Poland's Institute of National Remembrance stated that the pogrom had been committed by Polish inhabitants of the town[7] with the complicity of the German Ordnungspolizei. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur, especially since, right now, there is a good deal of repetition of the same information between the first 2 paragraphs. Nihil novi (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

in the presence of eight German paramilitaries, who shot those who tried to escape.

I have removed this content [30] because, using Google Translate, I could not see it in the citation given. If someone could either point it out to me or provide a source that supports the content, I will restore it appropriately. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

References

2015: Victims of hostages - off topic

@Nihil novi: - this section, I believe, is off-topic here as the German regime of terror (and hostage taking in villages) was not in place in Eastern Poland when this happened. This pogrom occured while the Germans were taking over, and actually in the context of a lack of German control. Grabowski and Stola are talking about Judenjagd - which began circa summer 1942 when German control and terror were asserted on the ground. We are talking in this article about the summer of 1941. (regardless - if we are to mention hostages - I do not think the 2015 year is necessary - but I think in this case that the sources provided (from Judenjagd) are not relevant).Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Chumchum7 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed. This probably could go into a number of other articles - just not this one.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The series of pogroms

The pogrom was a part of a series. It is popular because Gross' book is popular. It wasn't however the first nor probably the biggest. We should create a general page Podlasie 1941 pogroms, which would describe common context and list the pogroms. There are plenty of souces - The IPN 2 volumes, Bikont's book, Tryczyk's book.Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Strange if it hasn't been done up to now. Nihil novi (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We should probably create an article for each one - they are individually notable, though an list/overview article also makes sense in addition. Note Jedwabne was written about before Gross in 2001 (for instance - the yizkor book dates to 1980 IIRC) - Gross revealed very little that was not known - bit did so in Polishh (rather than English, Yiddish, or Hebrew) - bringing the debate to Poland (outside of Poland, these were not much of a focus of debate - but rather accepted fact - but a mere sidenote to the main Nazi crime - receiving minor attention. Gross was notable for provoking the discussion inside Poland).Icewhiz (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

German crimes don't seem to deserve individual pages, eg. the burning of the Great Synagogue, Białystok. We are editing an encyclopedia, not a Man bites dog (journalism) newspaper.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Would such article cover all of the Einsatzgruppen methods of operation in Podlasie or just the unclear ones named pogroms now?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:148B:D27:EC07:81A0 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I would think all of it should be included.

What about the deportations, expropriations, and killings of other ethnic groups? Would that necessitate retitling from "pogroms" to "massacres"?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

We have many pages for individually notable German crimes - and possibly need more. As for pogrom vs. massacre - it is really a matter of COMMONNAME of the event(s) in question - and it varies. Pogrom is E. European specific, just as lynching seems to be mostly North American in terms of common terminology.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Questions regarding the Stalinist court-case, Łomża: 16–17 May 1949

Summary of articles in Polish (for the benefit of English readership)

One of the more important elements of the postwar history the Jedwabne pogrom, namely, the circumstances surrounding the Stalinist court-case against the 22 individuals accused of participation in the massacre, is not mentioned in this article. Seeing the bigger picture: – Between 1945 and 1949 the communist security police, both Soviet and Polish, conducted bloody roundups of the anti-communist resistance movements in the area. – Article by Krzysztof Sychowicz @ HistoriaLomzy.pl (Henryk Sierzputowski, ed.). As of July 17, 1945 some 727 members of Armia Krajowa and 69 members of Narodowe Siły Zbrojne were jailed in Łomża. The roundups continued for three years ... and only intensified after the fake amnesty announced on 22 February 1947. Many cursed soldiers were sentenced to death in Łomża, others simply bludgeoned to death. The false charges of killing Jews were common, and so were the extortions by the Stalinist functionaries, coupled with wayward claims of ownership of Jewish real-estate (including in Jedwabne). Prisoners had their teeth knocked out; they were being hanged upside-down from the ceiling with water pumped into their nostrils; some were subjected to staged executions with blank ammunition, and most of them beaten with truncheons for hours. (Sychowicz)

Such were the extant circumstances surrounding the arrest of the first 15 men from Jedwabne in January 1949 by PUBP in Łomża. During prolonged beatings, the confessions of their involvement in the Jedwabne massacre were extracted from them in prison. – The May 1949 court-case of Bolesław Ramotowski and 21 men accused of killing Jews lasted for just two days. No one confessed to actually killing Jews. Their confessions included long phrases based on a form letter. – Prof. Tomasz Strzembosz (Rzeczpospolita, Nr 77/01) and Piotr Gontarczyk (IPN), copy of 1949 final judgement (by Wlodzimierz Kaluza), as follows:

1). Bolesław Ramotowski confessed to helping collect Polish Jews from their homes and said, that he does not know who burned them. He also named 41 men who allegedly helped him along the way. – Here's where the number of forty Polish perpetrators comes from. (Strzembosz) He was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

2). Stanisław Zejer confessed to bringing two Polish Jews to the square. He went home after that, and saw nothing else. Sentenced to 10 years in prison.

3). Czesław Lipiński, confessed to bringing one Jew and two Jewish girls to the square. He run away from there after just 15 minutes, and saw nothing else. Sentenced to 10 years in prison.

4). Władysław Dąbrowski confessed to being forced to guard the Jews at the square, he was hit in the face by a German and lost a tooth; escaped from there after two hours and saw nothing else. Sentenced to 8 years in prison.

5). Feliks Tarnacki, confessed to being forced to guard the Jews at the square. He escaped after 15 minutes, grabbed a bicycle and rode to Kaima village to hide; he returned to Jedwabne under the cover of night. Sentenced to 8 years in prison.

6). Roman Górski, confessed to guarding Jews at the square for 3 hours, and said that Sobuta and Wasilewski were humiliating them there. In court, retracted his confession entirely as extracted from him through torture. Sentenced to 8 years in prison.

7). Antoni Niebrzydowski (age 48), confessed to guarding Jews at the square, and opening storage room with kerosene, as ordered. Went home after that. Sentenced to 8 years in prison.

8). Władysław Miciura (age 47), confessed while in prison to guarding Jews at the square, and on their march to the barn. In court, retracted his confession entirely as extracted from him through prolonged beatings. Sentenced to 12 years in prison.

9). Józef Chrzanowski, during pretrial beatings confessed to guarding the Jews on their march from the market square and guarding their entry into the barn. While in court, retracted his confession entirely. Pronounced innocent for lack of further incrimination.

10). Józef Żyluk, confessed to picking up a Jewish man, Mr Zdrojowicz, from the flour mill. He let him escape on Łomżyńska Street. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. In a letter to the court of appeals he wrote that he saved 8 Jews after that and Mr Zdrojowicz is his witness. Pronounced innocent on appeal and released.

11). Jerzy Laudański, former prisoner of KL Auschwitz #63805. Sentenced to 15 years in prison.

12). Zygmunt Laudański, brother of Jerzy. Sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The indictment listed 22 individuals of whom 12 were pronounced guilty including: Karol Bardoń (death sentence, commuted to 15 years in prison), Jerzy Laudański, Zygmunt Laudański (brother of Jerzy), Władysław Miciura, Bolesław Ramotowski, Stanisław Zejer, Czesław Lipiński, Władysław Dąbrowski, Roman Górski, and Antoni Niebrzydowski.

Pronounced innocent and sent free (10) in May 1949 without recompence: Józef Chrzanowski, Marian Żyluk, Czesław Laudański (see above: father of Jerzy, Zygmunt, and Kazimierz Laudański), Wincenty Gościcki, Roman Zawadzki, Jan Zawadzki, Aleksander Łojewski, Franciszek Łojewski, Eugeniusz Śliwecki and Stanisław Sielawa. – Józef Żyluk and Feliks Tarnacki were pronounced innocent the following year. (Strzembosz)

Kazimierz Laudański (son of Czesław Laudański), took Jan T. Gross to court for defamation of his family, after the publication of Neighbors. In the December 2008 court-case, Jan T. Gross admitted to have made an honest mistake – by attributing the confessions of his sons to their father – and subsequently, removed it from the second edition of his book. Judge Katarzyna Polańska-Farion of the Warsaw Court of Appeals declared in her final statement that under the freedom of scientific research Gross had a right to make controversial claims, and possible mistakes weren't intended by him. – Law Society Gazette @ gazetaprawna.plPoeticbent talk 17:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Another aspect involves the recruitment of the Polish participants, as presented in Tomasz Strzembosz's analysis [31]: In most of the cases that Strzembosz discusses, Jedwabne Mayor Marian Karolak and a "Gestapo man" or a "German gendarme" came to the reluctant individual and ordered him to participate in guarding the Jews; in most cases, the individuals thus recruited left their assigned posts as quickly as they could. Such details are crucial to an understanding of the course of the Jedwabne events, as they speak to the question of motive, which is key to the investigation of any crime.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Most historians give little weight to statements of participants in violent events that attempt to diminish their responsibility in subsequent interrogations - as there is usually a clear interest to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Polish authorities of the time—who investigated and prosecuted—accepted the recantations of the accused and set most of them free. Nihil novi (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Karolak was not a Mayor. He was a criminal. He wasn't elected. Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Germany has not punished thousands of Nazi crimminals, doctors or people with university education. Comparing to them the Jewabne criminals were illiteral idiots, imprisoned in Nazi-like conditions, sometimes for the third time (Soviet, Nazi, Polish-Communist), probably tortured, because it was a standard.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Hostages" section

Do the sources say the hostage system was a motivation for the Jedwabne pogrom? If not, this content must be cut and moved to articles on Poland in the Holocaust, Polish collaboration, etc. Per WP:NOR. Chumchum7 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Judenjagd" is about General Government, 1943. Jedwabne pogrom took place outside the GG in 1941. Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the Jedwabne incident took place on 10 July 1941, 19 days after the start of the Germans' 22 June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Judenjagd program began in 1942.

It would be nice, hwoever, to know when the Germans first introduced their Polish-hostage system. Some sources are suggestive of its already having been used at Jedwabne.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I have read many texts about Jedwabne and never met any mention of hostages. The leaders Karolak and Bardoń din't oppose. Bardoń was a Volksgerman, he had a gun, probably the only armed local person.Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In most of the pogroms that occurred in the initial days of the Nazies invading east in 1941 Barbarossa - the Germans hadn't actually asserted themselves on the ground yet (they may have instigated and incited, they may have sent a squad in or a passing unit, but in the large part - all/most of Eastern Poland was in a state of semi-anarchy - the Soviets were expelled (with some local pockets of resistance/control remaining), the Germans were heading east, and basically authority fell to local authorities and to whomever asserted himself). The German occupation (Gestapo, actual administration) - came later. The Germans raced past Jedwabne - in early July they had already won Battle of Białystok–Minsk - and were in control of Minsk some 365 kms east. Szczuczyn pogrom is telling in this regard - Jewish Women actually asked for help from a Wehrmacht unit who stopped the massacre (in June) - then the Gestapo took control in August - and killed some 600 Jews (the rest being placed in a ghetto, and eventually shipped to Treblinka). Hostages and other German control mechanism (e.g. Judenjagd) were only relevant later - in June-July - the Germans were busy advancing east as fast as they could, and they had a lot of new ground to administer (with tougher "pickles" to tackle further eastward - e.g. taking control and establishing order over major rail junctions, large cities (such as Minsk) - various small backwater towns (in Poland and in Belarus and Ukraine) - were usually very low on their priority list.Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, there are plenty of texts about German instigations and the impact of the instigations is hard to measure. What is the source of your knowledge? The Abwehr organised its network in the area disguised as Polish underground. The network was studied by Tomasz Strzembosz, who only later found the Abwehr connection. Bardon, a Volksgerman, was the only armed person in Jedwabne, he certainly wasn't democratically elected. He wasn't local, the same Karolak.

The semi-anarchy was controlled, any anti-German act was punished with death.

The semi-anarchy was the result of Soviet crimes - the extermination and deportation of educated people. No other nation in Europe was mistreated this way to comapare, so Poles are bad because they lost their leaders, priests, teachers and criminals ruled. All policemen in Soviet zone, who were able to control the mobs, were already dead in 1941.

The Szczuczyn pogrom was different, so your generalization is biased. Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Each of these pogroms was different - what actually happened in each one of them varies by a wide margin. The Germans definitely incited - against communists and against Jews. However - the common thread between all of these pogroms - is that the Germans didn't effectively administer the territory yet - there was a state of semi-anarchy (which led not just to pogroms - but to wide spread looting, strong arming, robbing, etc. - and not just against Jews). Things varied quite a bit by locality - in some localities the mayors, local police, residents, etc. maintained law and order - and in others - not. You might want to read Kopstein&Wittenberg (a number of different works) - [32][33][34] - With the Soviet army retreating, the German army advancing, and government authority collapsing, civilian populations across hundreds of villages and towns stretching from the Baltic states in the north to Romania in the south committed atrocities against their Jewish neighbors... The 1941 pogroms are a particularly interesting instance of ethnic violence for two reasons. First, they happened under conditions of state collapse. Many who study ethnic violence emphasize the key role of state elites in orchestrating conflict (e.g., Brass 2003; Gagnon 2004; Lambrozo 1992; Wilkinson 2004). But state actions cannot explain the 1941 pogroms because the Polish state had all but collapsed by the time they occurred. The Germans invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 but did not establish full political authority on Polish territory until at least September (Zbikowski 2007: 315; Snyder 2008: 96). In the period between Soviet ˙ and German rule there was no central government in Poland. To the extent anyone was in control it would have been the Germans, but as we argue further below they did not function as a de facto state elite. Although the Germans did try to incite pogroms, they met with only limited success. Pogroms occurred both with and without the Germans being present.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And your source is?Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The links to Kopstein&Wittenberg I provided above - this is quoted from the first chapter of their book.Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"the mayors, local police" - the Soviets deported educated people and created Soviet administration. The administration run away. I know only the case of Jedwabne, where Karolak and Bardon took control, noone knows how.

any Pole with a gun would have been shot by Germans. Only Bardon had a gun in Jedwabne, he was a Volksgerman from Teschen, not a local pOles. There was a group of men travelling around and murdering Jews, I wouldn't call them police.Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality banner

This article is now much improved. I hereby propose removal of the neutrality banner at the top. Comments please. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A Mayor?

Please prove that Karolak was a mayor. That some people believed he was a mayor didn't make him one. He was a brother-in-law of the former mayor. Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)