Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Some numbers

Antony Polonsky in [1] provides some interesting numbers (here's a translation of p.10): Files of the Central Committee of Jews in Poland - CKŻP, main Jewish organ in post-war Poland, show that 20,000 Jews survived on the Aryan side. This number is obviously too low, because many Jews either kept their new identity or, for other reasons, did not register with CKŻP. Rather, these figures should be doubled or even tripled. This would give a figure of 40-60,000 Jews who survived thanks to Poles aid (between 1.2% and 1.8% of the Jewish population in 1939 of about 3,300,000). Not all hidden Jews survived the war because of denunciations or because they were discovered during random searches. Teresa Prekerowa estimated that only half of those who crossed over to the "Aryan side" survived until liberation. She also tried to assess how many Poles were involved in saving Jews. According to her calculations, taking into account the fact that more than one Pole was needed to save one Jew, in order to reach the number of Poles involved in saving Jews, one should multiply the number of survivors by two or three. This gives a figure between 160,000 and 360,000 Poles who, risking their lives and the lives of their family members, helped save Jews. Some did it for economic reasons, but others did it out of pure altruism. We do not know how many Poles died for trying to save Jews. Yisrael Gutman assesses that this digit is counted in "hundreds".. The above text has some footnotes (sources) I did not reproduce. This might be worth adding to the article, if it is not already there, assuming the source is reliable (I think Polonsky is a reliable scholar, but the work itself is published by a minor Polish outlet). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

My comments on the objections made by Grabowski and Klein to this article

I decided to take a brief look at Grabowski's and Klein's article, and one by one verify and comment on their objections to the article "Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust".

3 million non-Jewish Polish victims

‘Of the estimated 3 million non-Jewish Poles killed in World War II, ’claims the article,‘ thousands were executed by the Germans solely for saving Jews.’ Both figures are false. The estimate of 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims of World War II was pulled out of thin air in 1946 by Jakub Berman, head of the Polish security apparatus, in order to establish Polish and Jewish losses on par. According to historian Gniazdowski, officials at the time presented an equal proportion of losses among Poles and Jews, although according to the contemporary, and to subsequent estimates, Jewish losses were higher.’ Evidently, he explained, they were fearful of issuing an official estimate which would indicate that Poles were less impacted by war than the Jews.’ It was one of the first examples of a phenomenon that historians today call‘ Holocaust envy.’ In contrast, the 1945 official Polish estimates put the number of Polish victims of World War II at 1.8 million.

p. 7-8

1. In general, Grabowski and Klein are correct that the figure of 6,028,000 victims (half each of Polish and Jewish) was top-down by Jakub Berman after the war. It is true that lower estimates operate in the literature, lowering the number of ethnically Polish victims to as many as 1.8 million. However, the 2 million given is not "the most recent estimate," since it dates from 1994. The most recent estimate is the one made for the 2022 Report on War Compensation for Poland, which puts the total number of Polish losses during the German occupation at 5.2 million. But already the 2008 work Poland 1939-1945: Personal Losses and Victims of Repression under Two Occupations estimates Jewish losses at 2.7- 2.9, and ethnic Polish losses at 2.77 million, after adding 0.15 million victims of Soviet crimes and 0.1 victims of Ukrainian nationalists, we are approaching a similar figure. In fact, no one knows the true numbers and there will probably never be a certainty. This does not change the fact that giving 3 million Polish victims is not manipulation or the result of deliberate misrepresentation. Such numbers function in the literature. The article World War II casualties of Poland explains it very well, presenting various estimates. In conclusion, the exact number of Polish victims is not and will not be exactly known. Rather, 3 million is the maximum possible number, but using it is not manipulation, it is confirmed by contemporary estimates. Marcelus (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, "Of the estimated 3 million..." was removed from the article here. I support the removal. Looking at the two sources you cite:

1. 2022 Report on War Compensation for Poland, I assume, refers to Poland's claim for war reparations from Germany. I can't find the actual report, but I hope we can all agree that Poland's claim for war reparations is not an WP:RS?
2. Poland 1939-1945: Personal Losses and Victims of Repression under Two Occupations I guess is this book by IPN. Is it an RS? Is IPN an RS in 2009? I don't know. But I'm not seeing this report's figure of 2.77 million ethnic Polish losses being cited very often even though it's been 14 years [2]. This German review appears to criticize it as unreliable (but: for being too low, I think? I don't speak German). I'm not sure how much WP:WEIGHT should be given to this source.

Ultimately, though, I think I agree about not mentioning numbers; this isn't an article about Polish losses in WWII. Levivich (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The report's Volume 1 consist of series scientific articles about Polish loses. Chapter 2 Poland's population loss caused by Germany during the Second World War was written by Konrad Wnęk, historical demographer. I see no reason why it shouldn't be considered RS. Same goes for 2009 book. They are as RS as Łuczak, qouted by Grabowski & Klein. IPN is RS in general, even Grabowski and Klein are qouting in their article several IPN books. Marcelus (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

IPN is a RS in general? Are you sure about that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Yes - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the Institute of National Remembrance known for spreading conspiracy theories and fake nationalist history? Is this not particularly true when it comes to the Holocaust[3]? Is there a period before which they actually are reliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No. And can you please not phrase your questions in a "have you stopped beating your wife" style which tries to automatically assume its answer? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

They are rhetorical questions because the answer is in the WP:RS provided. Its true, the Institute of National Remembrance is known for spreading conspiracy theories and fake nationalist history about the Holocaust. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't ask rhetorical questions since that kind of approach does not facilitate constructive discussion. If you wish to make an assertion than say it rather than posting it as a rhetorical question or you will likely be misunderstood. So now that your meaning is clear, no, you did not provide an RS. Since these articles are under sourcing restrictions, and since we are indeed discussing sources, it's probably not a good idea to try and cite a "multi media presentation" by a "multimedia journalist" as a relevant source. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Coda Media is a WP:RS. Multimedia journalism is no less valid than any other form of journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly not an RS for this topic area which is subject to stricter sourcing restrictions. Volunteer Marek 00:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(even in general terms it is only RS for factual reporting - this and this happened - not for opinions, which is what this is) Volunteer Marek 00:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Its generally reliable, there is no relevant topic area restriction in the consensus. It doesn't appear to be opinion, it appears to be reporting facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow. I just finished reading the source and putting aside the fact that it is not RS for this topic, it doesn't even say that "Institute of National Remembrance known for spreading conspiracy theories". You should refrain from making claims such as these, even on the talk page, since this can be understood to mean that you are misrepresenting sources.

(ec) No, this topic area is under special source restrictions and yes for most part this is an opinion piece. Volunteer Marek 00:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad you're not contesting that the WP:RS says they spread fake nationalist history about the Holocaust, that at least is some progress. Where is it marked as opinion? Also if as you say this topic area has extra strict sourcing requirements why in the world would the Institute of National Remembrance be usable and Coda Story not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

HEB, you just falsely claimed that a source said that "IPN was known for spreading conspiracy theories". You might want to drop this. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not dropping it, you are free to escalate this to RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow. Again. The source doesn't say the IPN "spread fake nationalist history about the Holocaust" either (and once again you worded your comment to make it appear as if I said something I didn't). Horse... this isn't good. Misrepresenting sources by claiming they say things which they don't say is usually quickly sanctioned. Not sure if RSN is the appropriate venue in this case. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok let's try something different, what do you think the source says? What is a fair summary of what the Coda Story article says about the Institute of National Remembrance? Trying to see your side here but nothing is indicating that they're a reliable source for the subject... Nor is there anything which indicates that Coda Story isn't (we have consensus that Coda Story is a WP:RS, we don't seem to have that same consensus for the Institute of National Remembrance). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You just made another attempt to misrepresent yet another source [4] but then removed your comment with the edit summary "org and tighten". I'm not sure how that makes sense. Since you just managed to make three false claims about what's in sources in like ten minutes and are refusing to back down from at least two of them, I am going to try and step away from this conversations for your sake, before you dig your hole any deeper. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should see what RSN has to say about Coda Story in this topic area and IPN. Agreed that the two of us aren't going to be able to hammer it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

With whom you want to ''"hammer out" fix RS's again Horse Eye's Back? GizzyCatBella🍁 00:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to exclude you. What do you think of the Coda article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You want to do it with me @Horse Eye's Back ? 🙂 How about you explaining this first? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Does hammer it out have a sexual connotation where you're from? That edit is me correcting Volunteer Marek's placement of his comment between my two previous posts which were at a lower indent level making it appear as though one was a response to his comment when it was in fact not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The German review criticises the 2.77M figure as too high, saying that it has been known for some time that it includes Poles who stayed put in the East when Poland was moved westward. It expresses disappointment that the work fails to reflect more recent research results that were known as far back in the 90s and had led to scholars realising that there was a problem with the figures. It argues that estimates ranging from 0.6 to 1.7 million (Tych) or 0.5 to 1.4 million (Dobroszycki) are more likely to be accurate and expresses regret that this school of thought is not represented in the work. Andreas JN466 10:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Levivich (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record: I don't know Tych's estimates, but I've read Dobroszycki's work, and he doesn't make his own calculations but quotes authors who made their own estimates. He does not provide any range. And the figure of 4.4 million comes from the work cited by Dobroszycki by Stefan Szulc, who puts the number of people killed in " old" Poland (that is, central Poland, without the lands lost to the USSR, and without the lands taken from Germany after the war) at 4.4 million, of which 2.28 million were Jews. It does not include the eastern lands, where Jews alone lived about 1.16 million (most of them perished). I am reporting this because I am familiar with the matter.

Returning to the matter at hand, as I said, the information about 3 million dead Poles is not in itself a manipulation, because such a figure functions in the literature. However, it should be understood as the total non-Jewish losses of the Second Republic. Even Czesław Łuczak, quoted by Grabowski and Klein, puts the number of Polish victims of Nazi Germany at 1.5 million, Poles who died in the east (at the hands of the Soviets and Ukrainian nationalists) at 0.5, so a total of 2 million. The losses of Polish Jews at 2.9 million, and of other minorities at about 1 million. The total is 5.9 million in overall losses. For me personally, this estimate is the most likely, even with the margin of error of ethnic Polish losses between 1.8 and 2 million. Marcelus (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Thanks. Klaus-Peter Friedrich writes in a 1998 review of (then) recent Polish and German literature titled "Juden in Polen während der Schoa": "Independent specialists estimate the number of non-Jewish victims of the occupation at between 500,000 and 1.4 million" ("Von unabhängigen Spezialisten wird die Zahl der nichtjüdischen Todesopfer der Okkupation auf eine Größenordnung zwischen 500000 und 1,4 Millionen geschätzt"), citing Dobroszycki's Polish historiography on the annihilation of the Jews of Poland in world war II: A critical evaluation". (He also gives the same numbers here, again citing Dobroszycki.) So, Friedrich asserts that the specialists quoted by Dobroszycki produced estimates ranging from 0.5 to 1.4 million.

Now, I note the World War II casualties of Poland article you mention leads with the old 3 million figure for ethnic Poles. Is this inappropriate in light of the more recent research? Friedrich notes that even Władysław Bartoszewski, speaking in Bonn to mark the 50th anniversary of 8 May 1945 (which itself is now nearly thirty years ago), put the figure of non-Jewish Polish victims at "2 million" in his speech. (Friedrich says nationalist elements of the Polish press attacked him for not saying 3 million.) Would it be better to lead with the 2-million figure today? Andreas JN466 23:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that Klaus-Peter Friedrich makes a rather dishonest use of Lucjan Dobroszycki's authority. First of all, as the title of Dobroszycki's article itself indicates, he does not make any new calculations; he is merely critical of how Polish historiography of the post-war period (the article is from 1993) treated the number of victims, and sees a tendency to equate the martyrdom of Poles and Polish Jews. Most importantly, Dobroszycki does not give any specific range of ethnic Polish losses, so quoting him as "independent specialist estimating the number of non-Jewish victims of the occupation at between 500,000 and 1.4 million" I consider to be manipulation.

Dobroszycki cites two independent researchers who calculated a different number of losses than the one given officially. The first is Stefan Szulc, who in his 1947 article gave, as I mentioned, 4.4 million casualties in the lands of "old" Poland (of which 2.28 million were Jews, giving us 2.12 Polish casualties, with Szulc pointing out that he does not know the number of casualties in the east, where Jews alone lived 1.16 million). My guess is that Klaus-Peter Friedrich concluded that if he subtracted 3 million Jews from 4.4 million, he would come up with 1.4 million Polish victims. If he did so, this is manipulation.

The second researcher Dobroszycki cites is Andrzej Maryański, a Polish geographer who calculated Poland's total losses at 4 to 4.5 million people. Dobroszycki also cites a speech by Ryszard Juszkiewicz and Stanislaw Biernacki at the International Historical Convention in Brussels, where they stated that the losses of Poles and Polish Jews were about 3.5 million. However, I am not aware of any printed work in which they give or explain this calculation. My guess is that Klaus-Peter Friedrich drew the figure of 0.5 million Polish losses from this. Putting everything aside, knowing the course of the war in Poland, such a low number is untenable (losses among soldiers on the battlefield alone are 150,000, in the Warsaw Uprising some 150-180,000 people died, in the Volhynian genocide 100,000, in Auschwitz 75,000, etc.).

The World War II casualties of Poland states 3 million losses, marks them as doubtful, and states 2 million by Łuczak and 2.8 million calculated by the IPN (which cannot be ignored). I believe that this is a fair stance. Marcelus (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Thank you for looking into it. All of this sounds plausible. I don't follow your conclusion though. The article leads with the figure which everyone, even the IPN, agrees is too high. It would make more sense to start with the number most widely accepted today. This should be followed by a range of estimates that enjoy credible support today. One might then add comments on how and why this range has changed over the years, if indeed it has.

(One comment on Friedrich: Friedrich does not say that Dobroszycki is an independent specialist who has produced the estimates in question. Friedrich says that according to Dobroszycki, independent specialists (plural) have produced such estimates. I take what you say about Dobroszycki's work and numbers on faith. Taylor and Francis don't make the paper available through the Wikipedia Library.) Best, Andreas JN466 14:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I just got a copy of Dobroszycki. And I have to agree with Marcelus that nowhere does he claim, nor does he claim someone claims that the losses were "0.5 to 1.4 million" afaict. Marcelus' analysis of what Klaus-Fredrich did is probably spot on. Here is a quotation of a footnote where Dobroszycki put this:

Following the demise of Communism, a discussion of wartime losses in Poland has begun. At the International Historical Convention in Brussels Drs Ryszard Juszkiewicz and Stanislaw Biernacki, the head and research director respectively of the Main Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against the Polish Nation, stated that the wartime losses of Poles and Polish Jews amounted to approximately 3.5 million. This statement aroused a heated polemic in the Polish press. Dr Jacek Wilczur, another member of the Commission, writing in Prawo i Zycie on 30 January 1993, accused Juszkiewicz and Biernacki of reducing the number of victims almost by half, from 6,028 million to only 3.5 million. Wilczur argued that the statement by Juszkiewicz and Biernacki was 'a deceit and insult to historical truth . . . ' , and that it 'supported only the most extreme falsifiers of the history of the Nazi era during World War II and the Holocaust.'Wilczur's article led to an exchange of letters in the weekly Polityka (see the issues of 19 December 1992 and 19 January 1993).

It seems that Wilczur was objecting to the others for lowering the OVERALL number of victims. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Yes, I'd read that the same way. Would you have the number of the footnote? Andreas JN466 22:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

31. And just in case someone (obviously not you) tries to misuse something here let me be clear that I did not quote the entire footnote. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466 Ok, so you are referring to the 6 million number. It's not necessarily wrong because it refers to all Polish citizens (so Poles and Jews, but also Germans, Ukrainians etc.) But I guess you are right, it could be a range of the most widely accepted numbers. But I think we should move this discussion to the proper talk page, it's now off-topic to the matter at hand. As for Friedrich in the second link you provided he is straight up saying that these numbers were estimated by Dobroszycki. Marcelus (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the 3.0 million number for ethnic Poles in the sentence that starts the second paragraph of the lead: The official Polish government report on war damages prepared in 1947 put Poland's war dead at 6,028,000; 3.0 million ethnic Poles and 3.0 million Jews not including losses of Polish citizens from the Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnic groups. That is the first number mentioned for ethnic Polish dead. (You're absolutely right about Friedrich in the second source.) Andreas JN466 16:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I've tracked down the page where Friedrich reviews Tych's findings. It's page 182 of Die Destruktion des Dialogs: zur innenpolitischen Instrumentalisierung. He cites (1) a 16 June 2001 Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) interview with Tych (I wouldn't view a newspaper interview as a particularly solid source) and (2) p. 91 of "Facing the Nazi Genocide: Non-Jews and Jews in Europe", edited by Beate Kosmala and Feliks Tych, European Science Foundation, 2004. I can see neither source at the moment, but from what Friedrich says, it seems in both cases he arrived at the numbers himself. Tych was talking about the percentage of ethnic Poles that were killed, saying in the interview it was "probably no more than five to seven per cent", and then writing on page 91 of the subsequent book, according to Friedrich, that it was "three to four per cent", which Friedrich himself translates into "an order of magnitude of 600,000 to 800,000", claiming Tych was using an estimate of 20 million ethnic Poles. That is obviously not a very rigorous way of arriving at a number of people killed.

Tych's concern seems to have been that people might perceive a false equivalence between 3 million Polish dead and 3 million Jewish dead: false because Polish Jews were almost completely annihilated, whereas the vast majority of Poles survived. Hence the recourse to percentages.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would be against citing Friedrich's summary of Tych or Dobroszycki anywhere in Wikipedia. I've written the above just to show where and how he says he got his numbers, given that I'd mentioned them above. Best, Andreas JN466 22:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the effort. Ending the Friedrich topic, I would just like to point out that the assumption that only 20 million ethnic Poles lived in Poland in 1939 is quite arbitrary. It is difficult to estimate, because the Polish census did not ask about nationality, only about language (69% of Polish speakers), and the number of Polish speakers was also inflated. It is usually estimated that the real number of Poles was between 64 and 69%, which in 1939 with the country's population of 35.1 million gives between 22.5 and 24.2 million. So losses of 5-7% would have been between 1.1 and 1.7 million. Assuming that the Poles were 64% then the losses are between 1.1 and 1.57 million. So, they do not differ much from those accepted in the literature. In this case, of course, Poles living outside Poland are not counted (there were 200,000 of them in Lithuania alone, most of those who survived left for the new Poland after 1945). Nonetheless I agree with you that we should not cite Friedrich anywhere. Marcelus (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue of IPN's reliability can be hammered out at RSN. If no one has a problem with the removal of the 3 million figure, then I think we can {{ctop}} this subsection and the next one (which is about the same line), and focus on the others? Levivich (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. Because the issue here isn't just whether we should remove the 3 million figure or not - personally I support removing it for the reasons mentioned above, although at the same time I don't see the inclusion of the number of Poles killed by Nazis (whatever # that is) as a big deal either as it provides some relevant context. However, the issue here too is whether or not the inclusion of this figure constituted "Holocaust distortion" as Grabowski and Klein allege. Or even more - does it constitute "Holocaust distortion" by the editors they blame. Those remain pertinent issues even if we remove the 3 million text and should continue to be discussed.

So let me continue. First, Marcelus has already shown that this wasn't a "distortion" but rather a number that is indeed present in the literature, even if there have been revisions to it. Second, and just as importantly, the number was added by User:Jjaggeropen [5] in 2009. I don't think anyone has any clue who that editor was. They are not mentioned at all in Grabowski and Klein. So the question arises - why are Grabowski and Klein trying to blame the presence of this 3 million number on OTHER Wikipedia editors? Volunteer Marek 15:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant to us and certainly not an issue that's appropriate for this talk page. You care about it because you have a COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither of these issues are issues for this talk page. However, they might be issues for the arbitration case that was just opened. Because I'm a party, I'm going to stop editing in this topic area while this case is pending, as I assume all the other parties will do. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion have an impact on the content of World War II casualties of Poland? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The number of Polish victims killed for aiding Jews

The most recent estimates put the ethnic Polish losses at closer to 2 million, still well below the Wikipedia claim. Moreover, the number of Poles executed by the Germans solely for helping the Jews was not in the thousands, as the Wikipedia page claims. Research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that the number of Polish victims killed for aiding Jews was closer to 800. More recently, historians reevaluated these estimates downward still.

p. 7-8

2. As for the number of Poles murdered for helping Jews, in fact, the Institute of National Remembrance keeps an "Index of Poles murdered and repressed by the Nazis for helping Jews," which includes certain stories and names of people who were certainly repressed and murdered for helping Jews. The list includes some 500 names. The actual number is probably 2-3 times higher. Writing about "thousands" actually seems inaccurate. However, this is very new research, the results were published in 2019, in English a year ago. Not surprisingly, they have not penetrated to Wikipedia.

As you point out this concerns mostly two related questions - 1) newer research vs. older research and 2) the number of people that have been verified by name to have been killed vs. the overall number estimated with broader methodologies. The second part is similar to the usual difficulties with estimating casualties that frequently arises (for example in estimating civilians during the recent Russian attack on Ukraine we have numbers for civilians who were killed who we know by name, a lower bound on the estimate, and then we have evidence from morgues, hospitals, reports, witnesses that tries to come up with a comprehensive number. The second is usually more imprecise but also more accurate). Volunteer Marek 13:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Polish collaboration with the Germans

Wikipedia also downplays the scope and nature of Polish collaboration with the Germans. The Wikipedia article ‘Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust’ claims that ‘less than one tenth of 1 percent of native Poles collaborated, according to statisticsof the Israeli War Crimes Commission.’ Historians have no way of making such an estimation, which depends on how one defines ‘collaboration.’ Some early work by the Israeli government estimated the number of people directly and institutionally engaged in organized killings, but the number of individuals who contributed indirectly to the Jewish catastrophe remains unknown.

p. 9

3. First of all, it is difficult to make certain estimation, as Grabowski and Klein are saying, because it all depends on the definition of collaboration, in Polish historiography, collaborators usually include primarily szmalcowniks or voluntary Volksdeutsche, etc., the emphasis is primarily on voluntary cooperation and harming others, supporting the system of terror. For example, the Blue Police has always been a formation with an unclear status, membership in it was not voluntary (all pre-war policemen were called up by force, but on the other hand, many people enlisted in it later, because it was a steady job), and their main occupation was simply maintaining order. Grabowski's research, among others, goes in the direction of emphasizing the role of policemen in the liquidation of ghettos (in large ones their role was secondary, but in smaller ones they often acted directly), as well as in the subsequent persecution of Jews in hiding, often without German initiative. While he showed convincingly that such situations did occur, more often than was commonly perceived, it is impossible to relate it to the scale of the entire country, or a formation of 15-20 thousand people. As for szmalcowniks according to Gunnar S. Paulsson in Warsaw alon there was some 3,000–4,000 people acted as blackmailers and informants. As for the Volksdeutsche, about 100,000 people who signed the list in the General Government voluntarily were considered traitors. However, this was the Polish perspective, many of them identified themselves as Germans before the war, and this entry simply sanctioned this. Here, too, the situation is complicated.

In general, I would advise against giving any specific numbers, as the margin of error is too large and definitions are vague. It seems to me that the information that the collaboration in Poland or rather the collaboration of Poles was smaller than in other countries is sufficient and well documented. Marcelus (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Just noting "less than one tenth" was recently removed here, and I agree with the removal for the reasons you state (and in Gitz's edit summary). I agree we shouldn't get into numbers of collaborators here, especially because this isn't an article about collaboration. Levivich (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this "less than one tenth". Volunteer Marek 13:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Karski and Pilecki reports

Still more exaggerated Polish heroism appears in the article ‘Rescue of Jews by Polesduring the Holocaust,’ which claims that‘the Home Army (the Polish Resistance) alerted the world to the Holocaust through the reports of Polish Army officer Witold Pilecki, conveyed by Polish government-in-exile courier Jan Karski.’ Nearly everything is wrong here. First of all, as we know today, the report regarding the destruction of Polish Jewry was delivered to the Polish authorities in London, not by Jan Karski (nowadays celebrated in film and popular literature), but by another courier. Second, Pilecki wrote his report in the summer of 1943, by which point the vast majority of Polish Jews had already been murdered, and Jan Karski, the courier, had left Poland in the fall of 1942. Karski (or any other courier) simply could not have carried abroad a report written nearly one year after his departure. Finally, Pilecki’s 1943 40-page report (the so-called Report W) described the situation at Auschwitz I main camp, but barely mentioned the ongoing extermination of Jews in nearby Auschwitz II–Birkenau and instead focused on the Polish camp resistance movement.

p. 10

4. First: it is a wrong to write that Karski transported Pilecki's report. Karski had long been in the West (he left Poland in September 1942) when Pilecki wrote his report. Although I consider the remark by Grabowski and Klein that Karski is not rightly celebrated by books and popular literature to be wrong, and the tone as disrespectful to this man. What we call "Karski's report" was created in November in London on the basis of two microfilms, one of which was brought by Karski via Germany, the other via Budapest by an unknown courier. Both microfilms were deposited in France and delivered via Lisbon to London in November, where they formed the basis of the Polish government's November 24 report on the extermination of the Jews. Karski arrived in London two days later. It is true that the main part of the report was based on microfilm that traveled through Budapest. However, it is not true that Karski did not carry important information on this matter (he was carrying, among others, a letter from Leon Feiner, the leader of the Bund). After that, he talked about it with many people, including Anthony Eden and President Roosevelt. Presenting him as an impostor is disgraceful.

I agree that these should be split up. Really quickly on one point - feel free to move this comment if this gets split up - regarding Karski and Pilecki. The "confusion" in this regard, which, to put it politely is "glossed over" by Garbowski and Klein, is between THE "Pilecki Report" which was indeed composed in 1943 after Karski had left and Pilecki's reports, that is, the earlier reports he composed while in Auschwitz. THE "Pilecki Report" was the final one but it was preceded by several others (Pilecki was in Auschwitz since 1940). Usually when authors write about "the Pilecki Report" or "Witold Report" they are referring to this last and major ones. But authors will also state that the earlier reports informed Home Army intelligence assessment and it looks like this is what this article is referring to. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(comment moved and partially "smalled" by me) Volunteer Marek 21:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It is true that there were earlier reports by Pilecki from the camp that spoke directly about the situation in the camp and the extermination of the Jews in Birkenau (I know of two from mid-1942, i.e. before Jan Karski's departure to the west; one was given by Lt. Wincenty Gawron, the other by Lt. Stanisław Gustaw Jaster [still red links!]), but these reports were not directly carried by Karski or the other "Budapest" anonymous courier. Perhaps they became part of reports already compiled in Warsaw or transmitted to London by radio. Although I know nothing about this. In conclusion, while your interpretation is as possible, writing directly that Karski transferred Pilecki's report to the West is an oversimplification and consequently misleading. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, the sentence The Home Army (the Polish Resistance) alerted the world to the Holocaust through the reports of Polish Army officer Witold Pilecki, conveyed by Polish government-in-exile courier Jan Karski is not supported by sources. Can we add an RS to support the claim? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

(Reply to both Marcelus and Gitz) I looked at the history of this piece of text in the article and it seems that originally it was more precise in the sense of distinguishing the contributions of Pilecki and Karski but copy editing or rewording over the years led to them being linked directly. As far as the sentence mentioned by Gitz6666, the first clause of that sentence - The Home Army (the Polish Resistance) alerted the world to the Holocaust - can be easily to sourced (to Joshua's Zimmerman's The Polish Underground and the Jews for example. Zimmerman devotes quite a bit of attention to this). The link between these things though - see the first part of this comment. Volunteer Marek 14:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to Zimmerman's The Polish Underground and the Jews. That book, however, doesn't mention Pilecki at all. It mentions Karski at pp. 73 ff.: Shortly after Sikorski’s speech, the ZWZ-Home Army’s first comprehensive report on the situation of Polish Jews appeared. The underground courier, Jan Karski, was the author. The Karski report (February 1940) is not relevant here: it did not "alert(ed) the world to the Holocaust", as the article claims, but reported on widespread anti-Jewish sentiment in German-occupied Poland. According to Karski, the German "final solution" was creating a narrow bridge upon which the Germans and a large portion of Polish society were finding agreement. Industrialized mass murder of the Jewish population started between December 1941 and July 1942, and the Home Army alerted the world with the March 1942 letter of the Jewish Labor Bund written by Leon Feiner (pp. 145 ff.). Based on this source, I'm now removing the challenged content. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Death penalty for Poles aiding Jews

In another instance of inflated claims about Polish aid toward Jews, the same article states (once again citing Lukas),‘The imposition of the death penalty for Poles aiding Jews was unique to Poland among all German-occupied countries and was a result of the conspicuous and spontaneous nature of such an aid.’ In fact, the death penalty did not apply specifically to Poles, but to all non-German inhabitants of the General-government, including millions of Ukrainians, Belorussians, and other minorities living on prewar Polish territory. Moreover, the obvious explanation for the introduction of the death penalty for aiding and abetting the Jews was that Poland housed the majority of European Jews, and it was in Poland where the Germans decided to implement the ‘final solution of the Jewish question,’ namely, the physical extermination of European Jews. Furthermore, the death penalty was introduced in October 1941, long before any signs of conspicuous and spontaneous help’ could have manifested themselves.

p. 10

5. I don't understand this comment, it's just picking on details that don't really matter. Yes, the ban applied to all residents of the General Government, it needs to be stated more precisely, but it does not change the main information, which is true. It is not clear to me why Grabowski and Klein believe that there could be no 'spontaneous help for Jews' in October 1941, since in the district of Galicia, incorporated into the General Government in mid-1941, the Germans organized mass hunts and executions of Jews. Jews were also hiding outside the ghettos in central Poland even then. Moreover, the decision to mass exterminate Jews in the General Government was made at the Wansee Conference in early 1942.

Agree with Marcelus' assessment. Volunteer Marek 13:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess the problem here is not so much with the "details" (the death penalty was not applied exclusively to Poles and was not unique to Poland) but rather with the kind of causal explanation put forward by Lukas: ...a result of the conspicuous and spontaneous nature of such an aid (to Jews by Poles). Grabowski and Klein say that an alternative explanation is "obvious", which suggests that Lukas theory might be FRINGE. Is there any evidence of other RSs advancing the same explanation as Lukas? Doesn't that explanation strike you as WP:EXTRAORDINARY? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To turn this around, is there evidence of other RSes advancing the same explanation as Grabowski and Klein? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 @Piotrus To my knowledge, the General Government was the only territory under Nazi rule where there was a law punishing helping Jews to hide with death (in the Third Reich, aiding Jews was not punishable, punishable were "attitudes friendly to Jews" usually with a fine or arrest), in other territories (in the East and Serbia afaik) such ordinances were introduced locally, mainly during the liquidation of ghettos. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, in the Czech Republic and Norway, for example, several people were sentenced to death for helping Jews by special courts.

As for the reasons for the introduction of the death penalty, different authors give different reasons, Grabowski himself in his work Hunt for the Jews writes: In order to find the rest [of the Jews], the Germans needed new methods and a new strategy. From the German standpoint, this phase (which was to last until the end of the war) required significant involvement of the local Polish population. To achieve their goal, the Germans developed a system of prizes and penalties, and combined it with a constant barrage of propaganda, making the Poles even more sensitive to the “Jewish threat.” The system of penalties for hiding Jews has been discussed at length in the historical literature. First and foremost was the penalty of death... and The Poles involved in Judenbegünstigung had no guarantee whether — in case of arrest — they would face prison terms, or be executed together with their families, but they had to assume the worst.

The Germans also gave their own reasons, for example, on September 21, 1942, the SS and Police commander of the Radom district issued a circular stating: "The experience of recent weeks has shown that Jews, in order to escape evacuation, are fleeing precisely from the small Jewish residential areas in the communes. The Jews have certainly been taken in by the Poles. I ask that all mayors and aldermen be ordered as soon as possible to make it as clear as possible to the residents of their villages that any Pole who takes in a Jew becomes guilty according to the Third Restriction Ordinance of the General Government of October 15, 1941. Those Poles who, while not giving fugitive Jews shelter, give them food or sell them food are also considered their helpers. In all cases these Poles are subject to the death penalty."

An important context is that the death penalty in the territory of the GG was applied universally, threatened for, for example, failure to provide mandatory food supplies for the army, damage to German equipment, generally for all activities that caused harm to the German population, illegal possession of weapons, listening to foreign radio, insulting officials, etc. Marcelus (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As for the reasons for the introduction of the death penalty, different authors give different reasons. There might be be an ambiguity as to the type of reasons we are looking for. Here you're using the world "reason" as a synonymy of "motivation" (German motivations: forcing the civilian population to help them and preventing the Jews from escaping). However, if I'm not wrong, here the controversial issue is more about "reason as (causal) explanation": why did it happened that the General Government was the only territory under Nazi rule where there was a law punishing helping Jews to hide with death? Two explanations have been given so far: 1) the Poles were exceptionally eager to help the Jews, so the German had to come up with something new and more coercive (Lukas 1989); 2) "Poland housed the majority of European Jews, and it was in Poland where the Germans decided to implement the ‘final solution of the Jewish question" (Grabowski and Klein 2023). The first explanation sounds dubious to me and is at odds with what one reads in Zimmerman (ed.), Contested Memories: Poles and Jews During the Holocaust and Its Aftermath, Rutgers University Press, 2003. By the way, I found the reading of the first essay in that volume ("Changing Perceptions in the Historiography of Polish-Jewish Relations during the Second World War" by Joshua D. Zimmerman very informative and topical to this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, the decisive factor was the peculiar legal status of the General Government, which had some characteristics of a sovereign state (e.g., separate legislation) and yet was completely dependent on the Germans, especially the SS and police. The nature of other occupied territories was different. But undoubtedly the fact that most Jews lived in the GG mattered, as did the aforementioned system of rewards and punishments that discouraged aid. In any case, this is irrelevant at this point, since the motivation of the Germans is not mentioned at this point in the article, and I don't think we should specify it. Marcelus (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Denunciation

Furthermore, the Ulmas were denounced to the Germans by a Polish policeman. In such a way, most of Markowa’s Jews were delivered for execution to the Germans by their own Polish neighbors, some of whom continued to look for the Jews even after liberation. This entire context is tellingly absent from the discussed article.

p. 11

6. Article doesn't hide it, it clearly states: The response of the Polish majority to the Jewish Holocaust covered an extremely wide spectrum, often ranging from acts of altruism at the risk of endangering their own and their families lives, through compassion, to passivity, indifference, blackmail, and denunciation. This section list the most known cases of the Polish people executed for aiding Jews, Wikipedia isn't hiding the full context, which is presented on Józef and Wiktoria Ulma article.

Agree with this assessment. Volunteer Marek 13:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Białka massacre

It is true that the Germans executed men in the above mentioned village of Białka. It is not true, however, that this act of terror in any way stemmed from villagers helping Jews. The German crime was an act of reprisal for the assistance that the peasants were thought to have given to the local communist and left-wing partisans. The presence of these partisans (and there were some Jews among them) is well-documented in historical literature. It was only recently that attempts have been made, within the framework of the Polish ‘history policy,’to link the mass shooting in Białka to the alleged help offered to Jews by the local population.

p. 11

7. This is not true. Several hundred, even up to a thousand Jews who had escaped from the ghettos were hiding in the forests of Parczew, there were also Soviet prisoners of war who had escaped from the camps, Poles, and partisans were active. Białka was massacred for helping these groups hiding in the forests. The version that the inhabitants of Białka were shot for helping Jews has not appeared recently, but it has been around since the war.

The supporting source is Zajączkowski (1988), Martyrs of Charity. Part One, pp. 123–124, 228. Are there other sources on the Białka massacre? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The Białka massacre is not questioned, the issue I think is to what extent we can say that it was related to some locals helping Jews. At first glance I'd concur that Zajączkowski (1988), Martyrs of Charity is not an academic-level source (amateurish research, I can't find much about Wacław Zajączkowski, and even less about the publisher - St. Maximillion Kolbe Foundation?). Seems "Mark Paul"-ish. More digging required. Note this claim is repeated in Białka, Parczew County; one source is online but looks low quality, I'll look into the other sources later. The Białka massacre (zbrodnia w Białce) is likely notable and needs its own article. PS. In Białka article, I've removed the claim that they were executed for aiding Jews. Here's a more recent and academic article that discusses this very issue, and states that the documents do not support the claim the execution was related to helping Jews, but only partisans. Note that there are more sources to check, maybe some RS will disagree. We need to dig more into sources. Once this is expanded, the claim of aiding Jews should likely be mentioned - but possibly as one that has not been proved satisfactory by the sources? (I wonder if this could be a hoax, as in, a narrative invented in low quality Polish right-wing sources, like with WCC?). Yet another reminder (including to myself) to stick to only academic sources in this TA. PPS. Actually, the academic article by Dariusz Libionka is a review of the more dubious-work cited (which is, however, not that bad if it got an academic response; one of it's co-authors is a notable academic: Edward Kopówka). Overall, I think reliability and publication outlet-wise, Libionka > Kopówka. Oh yeah, here's a link to the Kopówka's source which I removed from that article for now: [6]. PPS. Sigh, I am having trouble untangling who is more relialbe here (maybe b/c I am way past my breafast time). According to Kopówka's article, he is associated with Treblinka museum, an expert on that geographical/historical area, and Antony Polonsky, a scholar endorsed by Grabowski, wrote a preface to Kopówka's book? Did I remove a source that is reliable after all? Help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 @Piotrus Unfortunately, the footnote provided by Grabowski and Klein to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos leads to a blank page; neither Białka nor Parczew appears in the Encyclopedia's index.

The Parczew Forest was an important center for leftist partisans. A detachment of escaped Soviet prisoners of war under the command of Fyodor Kovalev was active here, and in July 1942 they joined the People's Guard (GL, a formation of the Polish Communist Party) and formed the Adam Mickiewicz or Jozef Bem detachment, which numbered 200. Their encampment was called "Bazar." Also active in the area was the Jewish unit of Chyla Grynszpan, who was also a member of the GL and reportedly an escapee from the Parczew ghetto (liquidated in August 1942). According to some sources, this unit was not formed until the spring of 1943, according to others earlier.

Christopher Browning, in his work Ordinary Men, describes the hunt for Jews in the Parczew forests, but without mentioning Białka: The “Jew hunt” took many forms. Most spectacular were two battalion sweeps through the Parczew forest in the fall of 1942 and the spring of 1943, the latter alongside army units. Not only Jews but partisans and escaped Russian prisoners of war were the targets of these sweeps, though Jews seem to have been the primary victims of the first one, in October 1942. Georg Leffler of Third Company recalled:

"We were told that there were many Jews hiding in the forest. We therefore searched through the woods in a skirmish line but could find nothing, because the Jews were obviously well hidden. We combed the woods a second time. Only then could we discover individual chimney pipes sticking out of the earth. We discovered that Jews had hidden themselves in underground bunkers here. They were hauled out, with resistance in only one bunker. Some of the comrades climbed down into this bunker and hauled the Jews out. The Jews were then shot on the spot... the Jews had to lie face down on the ground and were killed by a neck shot. Who was in the firing squad I don’t remember. I think it was simply a case where the men standing nearby were ordered to shoot them. Some fifty Jews were shot, including men and women of all ages, because entire families had hidden themselves there... the shooting took place quite publicly. No cordon was formed at all, for a number of Poles from Parczew were standing directly by the shooting site. They were then ordered, presumably by Hoffmann, to bury the Jews who had been shot in a half-finished bunker."

Other units of the battalion also remembered discovering bunkers and killing Jews in batches of twenty to fifty.11 One policeman estimated the total body count for the October sweep at 500. By spring the situation had altered somewhat. The few Jews still alive had for the most part been able to join bands of partisans and escaped POWs. The spring sweep uncovered a “forest camp” of escaped Russians and Jews who offered armed resistance. Some 100 to 120 Jews and Russians were killed. The battalion suffered at least one fatality, for Trapp’s adjutant, Lieutenant Hagen, was accidentally killed by his own men. Marcelus (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a typo in Grabowski and Klein: re Białka, the reference in footnote 49 should be to volume II instead of volume I of Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945. "p. 692", however, is correct. I copy and past the relevant text and provide the exact reference.

Before the ghetto’s liquidation, a number of Ostrów Jews escaped to the Parczew Forest. Only a few survived the more than 18 searches the Germans conducted in the forest beginning in November 1942. Most joined the Parczew partisans, a Jewish partisan and family group subsequently associated with the Polish Communist underground’s Gwardia Ludowa (People’s Guard). The partisan Josef Cynowiec mentions in a frequently cited Yad Vashem testimony that the antisemitism of prominent Ostrów Poles, including the local Roman Catholic priest, diminished chances for Jewish survival. Perhaps for this reason and also likely too because the Germans retaliated against the local population for aiding the partisans, most notably in Białka village, where all 96 men were killed in December 1942, and for partisan attacks, Ostrów’s Roman Catholics sheltered just a few Jewish children
— Crago, Laura (2012). "Ostrów". In Dean, Martin; Hecker, Melvin (eds.). The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum encyclopedia of camps and ghettos, 1933-1945. Volume 2, Ghettos in German-occupied Eastern Europe. Part A. Bloomington: Indiana University Press in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. p. 692. ISBN 978-0-253-00202-0. OCLC 776990144.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I found an account by Jerzy Górnicki, who was a partisan in the Parczow forests: At the quarters we asked the hosts for meals, usually we ate one larger meal a day. We had certain rules - we were not allowed to take anything without the host's permission. Of course, many partisans broke this rule, but in our squad it was obeyed. I remember only one story, when a partisan from our squad stole a watch from the host. The host told the platoon commander about it, he found this partisan, ordered him to disarm and expel him from the squad. He stipulated that if he breathed a word about our actions, he would be shot. Some villages were afraid to quarter partisans for fear of being attacked by the Germans. An example of such a tragic story is the village of Białka, where 96 people were killed for this reason. It was an eminently partisan village, the Germans knew this, so they carried out such a crime to scare people into not helping the partisans anymore. We, probably two weeks after this pogrom, quartered in this village for one or two nights, then people were already reluctant to us, they were afraid of the consequences. It unequivocally suggests that the reason for the crime was to help partisans.

Rafał Drabik (FYI is a historian affiliated with the national right, writing in Glaukopis) writes: We do not know exactly what was the reason for the pacification of not only Białka, but also the camp. The Germans did not indicate the source of information about the village's assistance to Jews and Soviet prisoners of war. According to one hypothesis, the Germans, during a manhunt in the woods, caught one of the Jewish women, who not only pointed out the shelters in the woods, but also the Poles helping them. According to Polish witnesses, one of the Germans said that the reason for the execution of the Poles was that they had given aid to partisans (this was about Jews and Soviet prisoners in hiding) and that these partisans had killed 7 soldiers for them during the manhunt in the woods. This was, of course, about the manhunt for hiding Jews and Soviet POWs. According to one witness, the Germans reported at the end that "they had to kill these men, perhaps many innocently, for having recently killed several Germans innocently." It is difficult to judge today which version is true. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If Zajączkowski 1988 is not reliable (Piotrus says "Mark Paul"-ish) and the only source we have is a passing mention to "hiding Jews and Soviet POWs" by Rafal Drabik (affiliated with the national right, no academic qualification AFIK), then on the balance of sources (Grabowski and Klein, but also Jerzy Górnicki, provided by Marcelus, and Laura Crago) the following sentence is dubious and IMHO must be removed:

In the villages of Białka near Parczew and Sterdyń near Sokołów Podlaski, 150 villagers were massacred for sheltering Jews.

The immediately preceding sentence is also not supported by sources

Nazi death squads carried out mass executions of the entire villages that were discovered to be aiding Jews on a communal level

The source now provided is: Robert D. Cherry, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska, Rethinking Poles and Jews: Troubled Past, Brighter Future, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, ISBN 0-7425-4666-7, Google Print, p.5. I avoid adding the tag:failed verification in case there's any active editors on this page who have a supporting reference at hand. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

What about [7]? The source confuses me w/ regards to its reliability. Any thoughts on whether it can be used or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

At p. 127 it says Po zamordowaniu znacznej części ludności Białki za pomoc Żydom i partyzantom... (After a large part of Bialka's population was murdered for helping Jews and partisans...). I also don't know if this source is reliable with regard to this reference to Jews. If editors consider the above sentence to be verifiable, it is still necessary for the reference to the Jews to be supplemented with that to the partisans, otherwise it would appear that helping the Jews was the only motive for their actions leading to the massacre. A source must also be found for the previous sentence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Drabik is a trained historian, has a PhD, and works at the Lublin IPN. I don't know if we can simply dismiss his opinion, which is, by the way, very vague, he says that actually it is not known what was the cause of the crime. In principle, I agree that Białka should rather be removed from the article until better sources can be found. Although, in my opinion, the correlation of the pacification with the great manhunt for Jews in nearby forest is hardly coincidental. Marcelus (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I keep thinking we should just start an article on Białka massacre and move this part of the discussion there, and elaborate on this tragedy and claims about it in the article. This tragedy is notable, IMHO. And in that article we can mention that there are disagreements between historians regarding whether some of villagers helped the Jews or not and whether it was related to the massacre. And yes, I think the mention can be removed from this article as it is obviously disputed by RS. Btw, Marcelus, have you seen Libionka's article, which criticizes some primary sources cied by Kopówka? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I read Libionka's review is quite devastating. I think we can give up on Kopówka's book as the main source, especially since what is valuable there is certainly copied from more highly regarded works. (Although it's worth noting that Libionka praises the use of Church sources, which are underutilized, although he questions how they were used). Marcelus (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Jewish and Polish collaboration

In such a narrative, Poles faced threats from everyone, Jews included. ‘Polish rescuers [of Jews] faced threats from unsympathetic neighbors, the Polish-German Volksdeutsche, the ethnic Ukrainian pro-Nazis, as well as blackmailers called szmalcowniks, along with the Jewish collaborators from Zagiew and Group 13,’ states the article ‘Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust,’ adding, ‘The Catholic saviors of Jews were also betrayed under duress by the Jews in hiding following capture by the German Order Police battalions and the Gestapo, which resulted in the Nazi murder of the entire networks of Polish helpers.’ In reality, the activities of the collaborationist Group 13 in the Warsaw ghetto (whose members had been arrested by the Germans in April 1942) had no bearing on the fate of Poles hiding the Jews after the liquidation of the ghettos.

p. 11

8. It seems to me that it is rather clear that the mentioned "neighbors" and "blackmailers" are Poles. Although it should actually be written directly, especially since Ukrainian and Jewish collaborators are mentioned. Group 13 (actually the Office for Combating Usury and Speculation) was formally dissolved in August 1941, but members now as the Emergency Service continued to function. Also, the murder of the group's leading activists in the spring of 1942 did not end its activities; many, including leader Gancwajch, hid on the "Aryan side", where they continued their activities (some were implicated Hotel Polski affair, such as Adam Żurawin). Gancwajch was killed in April 1943, so after liquidation of ghetto. Marcelus (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The strange part in this one is that our article doesn't say anything about before or after the liquidation of the ghetto. Even taking Grabowski and Klein's claim that "(Group 13 had) no bearing on the fate of Poles hiding the Jews after the liquidation of the ghettos" at face value, this doesn't contradict our text here at all. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Thank you for this analysis; do you mind splitting it into separate sections for each of the 8 (or however-many) topics? I think it's worth trying to come to a consensus about each of these issues. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Done Marcelus (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Marcelus! I hope you don't mind, I will add your signature to the above sections when I reply, so it's clear who wrote which part. Levivich (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Some scrutiny

[To add.] TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Citations to "Przemyśl" & "Słonim". Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. Vol. 2.

Regarding the recent additions, there are some clarifications needed. The added contents included:

• 568 Christians from the town Przemyśl and its environs were murdered for attempting to help Jews. diff.

This was originally correctly cited to the "Przemyśl" entry, but there's appears to be an important omission. The source reads: "A number of Poles and Ukrainians, however, lost their lives for helping Jews, due to betrayal by neighbors, friends, and even family members. According to postwar investigations, 568 Christians from Kreis Przemysl were murdered for attempting to help Jews." (emphasis mine). In the context of this page (Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust), "Christians" is likely to be interpreted as "ethnic Poles", while the source does not make this assertion.

In the next edit diff, the citation for this contents is changed from "Dunagan, Curt. "Przemyśl" to "Dean, Martin. "Słonim"", which I assume is an oversight. This could potentially confuse ppl attempting to verify this information. Vol II of the Encyclopedia comes in two books, Vol IIA and Vol IIB. The "Przemyśl" entry is in Vol IIA, while "Słonim" is in Vol IIB. Citations need to include page numbers and the exact volume, A or B.

References

• For helping Jews, Father Adam Sztark and the CSIC Marta Wołowska and Ewa Noiszewska were murdered on 19 December 1942 near Slonim, along with 84 representatives of the Polish intelligentsia. diff.

I searched the Vol IIB which contains the "Słonim" entry, but was unable to locate a mention of "Adam Sztark" or "Sztark". Please clarify.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ad 1. Thanks for pointing that out, I mindlessly copy pasted ref initially and changed it to Słonim, didn't realise that the "Przemyśl" ref will also change. As for Christians it's a broad category that encompasses both Ukrainians and Poles (and others).

Ad 2. I added source that clarifies Sztark's role. Marcelus (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the "Przemyśl" cite.

There are still concerns about the omission of "Ukrainians" from the statement about "568 Christians". If this were an article called Rescue of Jews by Poles and Ukrainians during the Holocaust, then using "Christians" would not be an issue. But this article focuses on ethnic Poles, to the exclusion of Poland's other ethnicities. It would be easy to fix, such as for the article to read: "568 Christians (Poles and Ukrainians) from the town Przemyśl..." or similar.

The are new issues with the Adam Sztark content. It now reads:

For helping Jews, Father Adam Sztark and the CSIC Marta Wołowska and Ewa Noiszewska were murdered on 19 December 1942 near Slonim, along with 84 representatives of the Polish intelligentsia.

References

The Fr. Sztarek content is not supported by the Encylopedia entry since it does not discuss this incident. What is the purpose of this cite? Separately, "84 representatives of the Polish intelligentsia..." fails verification. 84 victims of the same massacre are mentioned but not "Polish" intelligentsia. From the reading of the sprawiedliwi.org.pl source, at least some of the victims were Jews. The sentences is constructed in such as a way (along with) as to potentially suggest that the other 84 victims were also massacred for sheltering Jews. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Passing remark: some Jews were part of Polish intelligentsia. Maybe the sentence would be more clear if it said something like "86 representative of Polish intelligentsia, including a number of Polish Jews, were murdered... . Among the victims were AS and MW who aided Jews".? Would this represent what the sources say better while reducing confusion? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia in this case further confirms that the execution took place. The ref can be removed. If you have any idea how to write it so that it is clear that the other 84 people were not killed for helping Jews then suggest it please. I wanted to avoid that, but also add the information that they were killed in a mass execution. But maybe out of two evils it is better to omit it in this article. Marcelus (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I added "(Poles and Ukrainians)", which I thinks resolves the "568 Christians" issue? On the Slonim issue, my comment is: we should say more about the Poles who rescued Jews, and less about everyone else. For example, we can be more specific than "helped Jews", e.g. that they were killed because the Nazis found prescriptions signed by them on captured Jews. For another example, maybe mention the Righteous Among the Nations or beatifications. I think we can write something more informative than just numbers. That they happened to be killed with 84 others seems to me to be far less important when compared with the reason why they were killed, and it also seems to me that the RSes treat it as less important -- it's just one passing line in one source (sprawiedliwi) and apparently not in the other? Levivich (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Poles and Ukrainians wasn't an issue here, Christians is informative enough Marcelus (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised by this edit [8], removing "Poles and Ukrainians" after this information was added by Levivich. This edits takes a reliable source (Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos) and selectively quotes it to create an impression that only ethnic Poles were killed. At the risk of repeating myself, this is an article that opens with "Jews were rescued from the Holocaust by Polish people...", i.e. ethnic Poles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The source clearly states: "According to postwar investigations, 568 Christians from Kreis Przemysl were murdered for attempting to help Jews," if we are referring to postwar investigations, the categories used by the investigators should be used. This is why the Encyclopedia wrote about "Christians" in this sentence, and not "Poles and Ukrainians." Marcelus (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Previous version before my verification was saying: Altogether, in the town and its environs 415 Jews (including 60 children) were saved, in return for which the Germans killed 568 people of Polish nationality, so as you see I moved away from implying they all were ethnic Poles

We say what RS say, if source states: "According to postwar investigations, 568 Christians from Kreis Przemysl were murdered for attempting to help Jews" then that’s what is. Where did that unsourced WP:OR (Poles and Ukrainians) come from again? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to what I posted at the top of the thread, with the full quotation from the Encyclopedia:

This was originally correctly cited to the "Przemyśl" entry, but there's appears to be an important omission. The source reads: "A number of Poles and Ukrainians, however, lost their lives for helping Jews, due to betrayal by neighbors, friends, and even family members. According to postwar investigations, 568 Christians from Kreis Przemysl were murdered for attempting to help Jews." (emphasis mine).

"568 Christians from Kreis Przemysl" is clearly the continuation of the same information about "Poles and Ukrainians" in the preceding sentence. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

..it’s not clear if the source talks about the same people (exact number 568 murdered Christians versus a number (unknown) Poles and Ukrainians). But I’m also unsure it’s not talking about the same folks. Maybe it is. IDK here. GizzyCatBella🍁 09:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but it seems to me that there is a reason why the author of the Encyclopedia entry referring directly to the post-war investigation chose such a wording and not another. Following his lead, we lose nothing, since the category of "Christians" includes Poles and Ukrainians (as well as others, such as Czechs or Germans, who also lived in the region). Marcelus (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more fruitful to trace the number 568 to more reliable, in-depth sources? Does the Encyclopedia... cite a soruce for this datum? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no footnote, it's possible that the source of this information are the investigation files, so WP:PRIMARY. Marcelus (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, trace the source used by thew E-dia (good idea), meantime use Christians in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit break (Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos)

Revisiting this: the statement "568 Christians from the town Przemyśl and its environs were murdered for attempting to help Jews." is problematic in this article because it's not named Rescue of Jews by Christians during the Holocaust. It becomes a coatrack to include it here because the article's focus specifically excludes Poland's other ethnicities. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should change the name of the article to Rescue of Jews by Christian Poles during the Holocaust? Marcelus (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Christians" doesn't make sense here and, as others have noted, in the context of this article implies that all the victims were Polish. We should say "Christians (Poles and Ukrainians)" or simply "Poles and Ukrainians" (the source uses "Christians" to denote "non-Jewish"; we know nothing about their religious beliefs and it's likely that there were individuals without religious beliefs among them), or "Poles, together with Ukrainians". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

We were over this once, Encyclopedia is qouting postwar investigation, it clearly uses the terminology from said investigation, we shouldn't change that. Also Christians doesn't imply here "ethnic Poles" for the very reason it doesn't use word "Poles" but "Christians". Nonetheless most Christians in the region were Poles. Not to mention that the Ukrainian people living in and around Przemyśl were Poles. Marcelus (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the mention of "Rescue of Jews by Christians during the Holocaust" was to highlight the coatrack problem; I'm not suggesting the page be renamed. A simpler solution could be just to remove the statement as problematic in the context of this article, as it focuses exclusively on ethnic Poles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In re: Not to mention that the Ukrainian people living in and around Przemyśl were Poles. -- this article is about ethnic Poles, not Polish citizens. The article opens with: Jews were rescued from the Holocaust by Polish people, i.e. ethnic Poles. Hence the coatrack issue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification in the article: [9]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit break (Sprawiedliwi.org.pl)

Revisiting this contents:

For helping Jews, Father Adam Sztark and the CSIC Marta Wołowska and Ewa Noiszewska were murdered on 19 December 1942 near Slonim, along with 84 representatives of the Polish intelligentsia.

References

Citation to Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos should be removed because this material is not addressed in the Enclyclopedia, making its presence here look like citation padding.

The Sprawiedliwi.org.pl source says: "There were 84 other people with them. Among them, the dentists Kagan with her daughter." "Polish intelligencia" is not supported by the source. Suggest rewording to: "...were murdered on 19 December 1942 near Slonim in a mass execution". We don't know what the other people were murdered for, and this comes across as coatrack. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good change Marcelus (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Revised -- please see diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

All good, thx Marcelus (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)