The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGilad Atzmon Archive
British Historian Norman Davies Reveals How the Anti-Polish Narrative of the Holocaust Began
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In my book The Wandering Who, I delved into the fascinating and well accepted notion that historical thinking is foreign to Judaic thought. It is a recognised historical fact that Jews didn’t produce any historical texts for almost 2 millennia or more precisely, in between Flavius Josephus (37 CE – circa 100 CE) and Heinrich Graetz (1817 [1] –1891). Within the context of Judaic Rabbinical discourse, the religious text effectively replaces historical and temporal thinking. The present and the future are realised and interpreted in the light of the Biblical canonical narratives. Hitler, Stalin and Corbyn for instance, are reduced into ‘Amalek figures.’ Those western leaders who serve Jewish interests fit nicely with the Judaic notion of the “Sabbos Goy.” From a Judaic perspective, Jewish suffering is regarded as inherent in Jewish destiny and experience, it is implied by the Biblical narrative and it is, to a certain extent, accepted.

In 19th century Europe, following the rapid process of Jewish emancipation that resulted in vast secularisation and the decline of the hegemony of the Rabbinical authorities, assimilated Jews felt a growing need to understand their past, present and future within a historical context. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues, this process involved, inter alia, a lot of imagination: the Jews invented large parts of their past. This creative tendency was not practiced by Zionists alone, it is actually a crucial part of every Jewish Identitarian narrative. The Zionists invented the notion of a ‘historical right’ to other people’s land, and their so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist foes have been at least as duplicitous. When they preach to us in the name of ‘Jewish universal ethics,’ they are just fibbing, albeit in an institutional manner, as there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish universal ethics’ (moral philosophy). Judaism replaces ethics (a mode employing cognitive moral judgment) with Mitzvoth (a legalistic moralist apparatus that replaces judgment with obedience to rules). Judaism also replaces universalism with racially oriented tribalism that is largely chauvinist if not supremacist.

it is crucial to add that inventing one’s past is not solely a Jewish domain. An element of creativity is present for most people and probably all nationalists when they construct a narrative of their pasts. In his book Heidegger and “the Jews,” French Philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard points out that – history may claim to tell us what really happened but what it does in practice, most of the time, is the opposite. History conceals our collective shame in an aggressive, and institutional manner.

Americans have been hard at work concealing their genocides by peppering their cities with Holocaust museums. The Brits are no different, they have made their Imperial Wars Museum into a holocaust monument. For obvious reasons neither the Americans nor the British Holocaust shrines chronicle the embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugee s at the time of the Holocaust. History serves to conceal our shame rather than address it.

But Jewish history goes beyond mere concealment of Jewish shame. Jewish history often appears as a unique intellectual domain that seeks the participation of everyone else in the concealment of Jewish shame. Not only do Jews build their historical narrative in a fashion that prevents Jews or anyone else from the crucial study of what it is that makes the Jewish past into a chain car accident saturated with colossal tragedies, pogroms, expulsions and shoahs, ‘Jewish history’ is often a ‘system of thought’ that recruits others to participate and sustain the Jewish concealment apparatus.

The following article is an English translation of a Polish piece that appeared on BritishPoles.Uk a few days ago. It describes how Israeli History Professor Yehuda Bauer “taught young British historians how to describe the Holocaust.” as recounted by British Polish Oxford History Prof. Norman Davies in his recent autobiography.

As far back as 1974, Bauer, according to Davies, instructed British historians to refer to the Poles as merely “observers” rejecting all references to Polish suffering and ignoring the fact that Poland is the country that suffered most during World War II, losing over 17% of its population. The Israeli ‘historian’ referred to the Poles as “bystanders” despite the fact that Poles make up more than a quarter and more than any other country of the 26.793 Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem. More than 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as punishment for saving Jews.

Assuming that Prof Davies’ account is true and I have every good reason to believe it is, then what motivated Prof. Bauer to depict the Holocaust and the Poles in such a misleading light? Presumably, truth seeking wasn’t his prime motivation. Even more telling, if Prof. Davies account is accurate, then it is reasonable to assume that the Israeli historian wasn’t at all interested in uncovering the truth, instead he was investing in the concealment of truth and seeking support for his project from the British historians.

Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power. Similarly, Jewish history, can be seen as the attempt to conceal the fact that Jews actually have a history. Everything that is happening to Jews now, has happened too many times before and will keep repeating itself as long as we are too shy to unveil that which Prof. Bauer attempts (presumably) to conceal.

 

Norman Davies reveals how the anti-Polish narrative of the Holocaust began:

Source: https://www.britishpoles.uk/

Norman Davies described in his autobiography how an Israeli historian instructed British scholars to classify Poles as “observers” during the Holocaust.

ORDER IT NOW

80-year-old historian Norman Davies described in his recently published 800-page autobiography the way Professor Yehuda Bauer taught young British historians how to describe the Holocaust. In 1974, Prof. Bauer met with over 30 historians at the Israeli embassy in London and instructed them to use the “perpetrators-victims-observers” divisions to describe those involved in the Holocaust. The term ‘observers’ was reserved for Poles. All references to the fact that Polish citizens were also victims during World War II were rejected.

“It was a closed meeting for professional historians. Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli historian, was the main speaker. They were to be workshops on teaching about the Holocaust, and the beginning of a large campaign promoting knowledge about the Holocaust in the world.The diagram prof. Bauer presented was clear: former perpetrators – Nazis (not Germans), victims – only Jews, and witnesses – Poles, “ said Professor Davies in Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

“Professor Bauer clearly outlines the historical pattern. It was based on the fact that during the war, in Poland, because it all took place in Poland, there were performers, there were victims and there were those who looked at it all passively, the so-called “Bystanders”. The performers are Nazis …” said Davies.

The British historian emphasized that the word “Germany” was never used, only “Nazis” or “Nazis”.

Professor Davies said that Poles were presented only as observers and one is not allowed to mention Polish victims and suffering: “The probable result of this meeting was to show that Poland was historically the center of anti-Semitism and describing Poles as anti-Semites was justified. I said: I’m sorry, my father-in-law, a Pole, he was in two concentration camps during the Holocaust (…) I was talking about the father-in-law who survived Dachau and Mauthausen. I was shouted down. I heard: “Sit down!” And “Polonofil!”.

According to prof. Davies, in the ’70s and’ 80s Poland’s role in the scheme was as an “observer”, and that became the dominant narrative. “Unfortunately, this pattern was adopted in the West not only at universities, but as common knowledge and dominates the narrative of World War II, ” said Norman Davies.

The Oxford historian also described how he was refused work at Stanford University under unclear circumstances after the selection procedure was completed. After completing all formalities, a university official contacted him and said that he would not get a job.” After a few weeks, I was told that the matter concerned Jewish issues, namely my writing about Polish-Jewish relations,” said Davies.

Norman Davies, born in 1939 in Bolton, is the author of several books on the history of Europe and Poland, the most famous of which is “God’s Games”, first published in 1981.

From the editor:

Poland is the country that, in proportion to its population, suffered most during World War II. We lost over 17% of our citizens – about 6 million, including up to three million Polish Jews murdered by Germans. Poland is still demanding compensation from Germany for these terrible losses.

Poles constitute the largest national group among the Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem. So far 26,793 people have been commemorated. Over 25% of them were Polish. You can read more on the official Yad Vashem website. We must remember that during the German occupation of Poland many Poles risked their lives – and their families – saving Jews from Germany. To date, 6992 Poles, mostly Christians, have been honored by the State of Israel with the title of ‘Righteous Among the Nations.’ This is more than from any other nation (only 616 in Germany). The entire list is available here. Given the harsh punishment that threatened the rescuers, this figure is impressive. Polish citizens lived in the most extreme conditions in all of German occupied-Europe. Occupied Poland was the only territory where the Germans enacted the law that all help for Jews would be punished by the death of the rescuer and his entire family. At least 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as a punishment for saving Jews.

(Republished from Gilad Atzmon by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 55 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Wally says: • Website

    “From the editor:

    Poland is the country that, in proportion to its population, suffered most during World War II. We lost over 17% of our citizens – about 6 million, including up to three million Polish Jews murdered by Germans. Poland is still demanding compensation from Germany for these terrible losses.”

    – A load of self serving nonsense.

    There is not a bit of proof for:
    1. the general “holocaust” narrative
    2. the absurd claim that “up to three million Polish Jews were murdered by Germans”, absolutely none / The claim is simply impossible, has been easily debunked.

    – And then, without fail, the real motive is revealed … the quest for other peoples money.

    It’s no wonder that free speech on the “holocaust religion” is banned in Poland and elsewhere.

    Only lies require cesnorship.

    • Agree: 2stateshmustate
  2. There is a theory that at the beginning Germans peacefully ‘invited’ the construction of ghettos by selling it to Jews as a fulfillment of a long-cherished Jewish dream about ‘autonomy’ and ‘exterteritoriality’. This is why inside ghettos were essentially garrisoned by Jewish police, neither Germans nor Poles. What is now depicted as the perverse necessity of the time – Judenräte and their Jewish police – originally was seen by Jews as a PRIVILEGE, a kind of liberation from Poland and its laws, autonomous goverment at last… Jews did have autonomy during the long period of the constitutional, elective monarchy in Poland (Rzeczpospolita: res publica), but weren’t granted a similar status in the Second Polish Republic (1918-1939) despite their wishes.

    Later, of course, Jews realized that the German candy wasn’t sweet at all. Unfortuantely, they had already eaten the candy….
    This is an interesting theory which at least explains some paradoxes of Jewish “willing victim attitude”, but it is of course a fringe theory of a Polish historian, Ewa Kurek, since one of it premises is that Jews, at least at the beginning of German occupation, did not act under duress. The theory is somehow supported by Ringelblum archive, where there is not much trace of Jews ‘waiting’ for Polish help (since they did not want to live with Poles, they do not wait for their coming). One of theory unwelcomed corollaries is also the impression that Jews – sort of – were duped by their own culture, the culture of slavish obedience to their “Elders”, so to say. The theory also explains – sort of – Polish passivity towards Jewish suffering: the Jews brought that, literally, upon themselves, by having eagerily jumped on German propositions. It is too much to expect that Poles were to save Jews from themselves if Jews willingly built their own walls…. In this sense, Poles weren’t even simply ‘observers’ but rather ‘accidental observers’, since Jews willfuly disappeared behind their walls, so what was to observe actually…? But of course many Poles did have compassion for Jews, as showed by the famous poem of Czeslaw Milosz, Campo di Fiori. Now, how many poems on Jewish or Slavic suffering were written by Germans during the Third Reich? Not a one, which does support thesis about the exceptional selfishness of Germans, as well that that Germans are tacitly convinced that they are the final measure of the things.

    The entire Ringelblum archive, the archive of Warsaw ghetto, has recently been published in both Polish and Jiddish, with some parts available in English, too (the English translation project is going on, albeit much more slowly than the previous translation from Jiddish to Polish) – this is a mine of what daily living in a ghetto was like, in thousands and thousands pages. In short, enforced cheerfulnees with confusion & anxiety everywhere as a subtext. This is an archive not only of official documents, but above all, documenting cultural, political and economic life of ghetto, discussion about Palestine and Jewry and Soviet Union.
    There were cabarets, theaters, restaurants, political parties, newspapers etc…. the ghetto social life was rich. Its founder, Emmanuel Ringelblum was a librarian in his pre-war time, and decided to continue this collecting activity in ghetto, with a team of helpers.
    However, American donors do not seem to be very interested in bringing out this treasure of the wartime Jewish social life (the only of this kind) into English, the only full editions up to date being the Polish one and the Jiddish one, the latter only in the electronic form. A bit strange, I would say; so much Jew trashing around and here thousands and thousands of pages of REAL ghetto documents, completely unlike some Eli Wiesel-like memories. The online versions of documents have been recently taken down, too.

    https://www.jhi.pl/en/ringelblum-archive/book-series-rigelblum-archive

    Not entire Ringelblum archive was found after 1945; there is a legend that missing parts are somewhere over the vast area of the Chinese embassy in the very center of Warsaw. The question: who did allocate this vast post-ghetto estate to the Chinese?

    I really think that Jews should give a pass to Poland: the Polish saved the highest number of Jews, the Polish did help in those very few instances when ghettos took upon arms (two, Warsaw and Bialystok) and started to shoot at Germans, the Polish commemorated Jewish suffering in literature, the Polish pretty early did inform the Allies about the Jewish plight, the Polish undergorund state did create a special department charged with helping Jews (Żegota), the Polish underground state did shoot at Polish collaboreteurs and schmalcovniki; well, compare that to the joyful Arisierung in German lands. It was Arisierung as der Wirtschaftsfaktor (economic policy) that was the main vehicle of persecution of Jews by ordinary Germans since Arisierung policy created interest in persecution of Jews on the side of common Germans. Arisierung is still almost total tabu in Germany and Austria, since the majority of arianized assets has never been returned; this is why German Vergangenheitsbewältigung propagates the picture of SS-crimes, and maybe of Wehrmacht (from time to time) but totally sidesteps ordinary Germans, since acknowledging Arisierung would go against the standard idea of Germans ‘temporarily getting mad between 1933-45’ since Arisierung was a policy of creating economic gain for ordinary Germans through Jews persecution.
    In the context of Arisierung, NOT naming Nazis as Germans or Austrians can be only interpreted as a sign of the undying Jewish love for Germany, a thing which is both mysterious and disgusting, a Hassliebe …?. I suggest a separate article on that, Gilad. Is it Stockholm Syndrome or what?

    Ewa Kurek book, ‘Beyond the Limits of Solidarity. Polish-Jewish Relations 1939-1945’

    Milosz poem:
    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49751/campo-dei-fiori

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryanization

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu
    , @nymom
  3. utu says:
    @Another Polish Perspective

    Iirc, I have read in Ringelblum which was published in English that in Warsaw when Germans were conducting random round ups of Poles frequently Poles were escaping to the Jewish Ghetto and some enterprising Jews were selling armbands with the Star of David to them to help them in their disguise. So by carrying an arm band with the Star of David in your pocket one could be saved from being sent to the forced labor to Germany or to Auschwitz where Poles were sent before any Jews were sent there.

  4. I’ll make a couple of points.

    First, about the willingness of the Jews to cooperate in building their own ghettos, it has to be recognized that the Germans themselves weren’t too clear what their policy was going to be; there was even talk of a ‘Jewish reservation’ to be created somewhere around Lublin.

    At the time, the Germans were sure they wanted to drive Jews out; whether that was to be accomplished by segregation, expulsion, or extermination was still unclear, and wouldn’t be fully resolved until the end of 1941. So that Jews in 1939 would cooperate with German schemes apparently aimed at mere segregation is hardly peculiar. The Jews were supposed to make the Germans realize segregation wouldn’t work?

    Secondly, the Germans had also overrun Poland in World War One — and they had been markedly less anti-semitic than certainly the Russians, and I imagine the gentile Poles. Indeed, since Yiddish is basically a dialect of German, Polish Jews had found themselves at an advantage relative to gentile Poles in dealing with the new German overlords when they had last appeared.

    The Holocaust was not anticipated. There’s no particular reason the Jews of Poland in 1939 should have reacted with unreasoning panic. Obviously, Nazi antisemitism wasn’t good news, but life would go on…or such, I imagine, was the assumption.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @AnonymousUkr
  5. @utu

    Well, I suppose it testifies to the fact that at the outset of the German occupation Jews had a sense of being privileged….
    Relatively low interaction with Germans, as a self-governing community, could be such a ‘privilege’.
    In a sense, Jews had their collaborationist goverment (Judenräte), whereas Poles did not.

    • Agree: utu
  6. nymom says:
    @Another Polish Perspective

    I think some of your points speak to Steve Sailor’s column about how many billionaires are Jewish in every society. I thought it might be evidence of a higher IQ running through Jewish genes.

    This is the first time I’ve seen mention of how high income and assets were owned by Jews in Germany and how ordinary Germans benefited from appropriating them.

    Jealousy, envy and attempts to confiscate the assets of Jews probably explains the constant persecution of them throughout the centuries. We are experiencing some of that now in the West generally as others attempt to latch onto our success for similar reasons…

  7. nymom says:

    We should probably do a similar investigation of how many Jewish assets were confiscated from them periodically in Muslim societies as well…I am sure the numbers are not low…

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  8. utu says:
    @Colin Wright

    “.. ‘Jewish reservation’ to be created somewhere around Lublin.” – It was created but it was soon abandoned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lublin_Reservation
    On 23 March 1940, Hermann Göring with Himmler’s approval put a hold on the Nisko Plan, and by the end of April, final abandonment was announced by Krüger.[12][29] Reasons for the abandonment included Frank’s refusal to accept further influx of deportees into “his” General-Government which he viewed as overcrowded, and the fear the Nazis would lose international reputation due to the international press reports.[12] The rationale of the abandonment was not one of principle, but a pragmatic one, and deportations continued though at a slower pace.

    And I read somewhere that some of the Jews form Nisko settlement were allowed by the SS to cross the border to the USSR.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  9. ‘… the crucial study of what it is that makes the Jewish past into a chain car accident saturated with colossal tragedies, pogroms, expulsions and shoahs…’

    Is that what it is? Is the Jewish experience really that distinct from catastrophes inflicted on any people?

    Things are tough all over. Let’s take gentile Poles. They were presumably abused by the Huns, then decimated in a Mongol invasion or two, suffered brutal and bloody invasions by various parties in the seventeenth century ‘deluge,’ obviously bitterly resented Russian rule in the nineteenth, mounting at least two major insurrections, suffered horrific losses at the hands of the Germans, and were finally driven by the the Soviets out of the eastern third or so of historical Poland entirely, and forced to settle in what had been German lands since the Middle Ages.

    …or, to pick another example, let’s take France. The French have really been spared quite a bit that other peoples have undergone, but we’ve still got Julius Caesar’s apparently virtually genocidal conquest, the ravages of the Vikings and others, the Black Death, and a century of British depredations in the Hundred Years War. Then the French did manage to suffer the highest per-capita losses of any major combatant in the First World War, a fact that marked French history for the rest of the century.

    Of course one can compose an even more ghastly catalogue of Jewish travails — but it will tend to conflate the sufferings of all Jewish populations. For example, yes, the Jews of Spain were expelled — but they missed out almost entirely on the Holocaust. Sometimes, Jews even escaped the travails of their gentile neighbors. See, for example, the ‘Holomodor’ — visited on gentile Ukrainians rather than Jewish ones. English Jews were expelled in the Middle Ages, but what have they suffered since? Social snubs?

    To be fair, one probably coulddemonstrate that most Jewish populations have suffered more than most gentile populations, but it really is questionable if it’s been one long, unrelieved trail of tears. Haven’t most Jewish populations also enjoyed centuries of reasonable prosperity and physical security?

    Is it all really all that different from the history of other groups, or is that sense of unending persecution and deprivation an illusion created by (a) the paradigm imposed by the texts of the Jews themselves, and (b) the horror of the relatively recent Holocaust? Khmelnitsky’s Cossacks decimated not just the Jewish population of the Ukraine, but also the Polish. The horrors of Babi Yar are surpassed by those of the Rape of Nanking, or for that matter, the calculated nightmare inflicted on the Germans of East Prussia and Silesia by the Russians. One hundred thousand German civilians were still in Königsberg when it fell to the Soviets. When they were finally expelled two years later, only twenty five thousand were still alive.

    Some like to demonize Jews. I’m inclined to think they’re no worse than the rest of us, but also no better, and then too, if they have had a rough ride, so have many of the rest of us, off and on. If their experience has been worse, it hasn’t been uniquely worse. That’s self-indulgent fantasy.

    • Replies: @AnonymousUkr
  10. Poland is still demanding compensation from Germany for these terrible losses.

    Old maps should perhaps be outlawed.

    Or alternatively, it should be heeded that a screw actually comes terminally loose when overtightened beyond its strength.. History might be shown to include examples for this phenomenon.

  11. @utu

    ‘… Reasons for the abandonment included Frank’s refusal to accept further influx of deportees into “his” General-Government which he viewed as overcrowded, and the fear the Nazis would lose international reputation due to the international press reports…’

    There’s a decided irony there. It’s also striking how far the Germans were from even visualizing the Holocaust. Of course 23 March 1940 was still the phoney war. The hope presumably was that things would die down and peace would break out. A massive exile of all the Jews to the wastes of Eastern Poland might keep Germany from getting that invite to the 1940 World’s Fair.

    It’s interesting to contemplate the extent war was necessary to the Holocaust. Could the Germans have staged the outright extermination of every Jew they could find in any other context? It may be why Hitler moved — and I’m convinced it was Hitler who decided to move — when he did. He may have realized that except in the context of total war, genocide just wasn’t going to be politically feasible.

    This relates to another interesting fact about the Holocaust; it was never conducted in functioning states. Even Romania did not kill the Jews in Romania proper — only the Jews in recovered Bessarabia and Moldavia. Jews were not killed in the obvious place — where they were — but shipped off to the destroyed states of the east and killed there. Hungary insisted on protecting its Jews until that state, too, collapsed. The Jews were not killed on site in France, Holland, Slovakia, etc. They were almost invariably sent east first.

    It’s odd. The argument that’s advanced is that the most basic function of the state is to protect its inhabitants from being killed. A state can’t kill its inhabitants — not wholesale. Ergo, any mass killing has to be conducted outside the state.

    It sounds dubious, but it does fit the facts. Peace — and organized, peaceful government — rendered genocide psychologically impossible. The act had to be performed elsewhere, in lands not at peace, without government.

    • Replies: @utu
  12. Dube says:

    Old maps should perhaps be outlawed.

    There’s more at issue than colors on a map, byrresheim. Surely you’ve heard?

  13. utu says:

    How Norman Davies was denied the promised tenure at Stanford and his legal challenge:

    https://polandin.com/44733436/british-historian-unveils-how-antipolish-holocaust-narrative-was-initiated
    The Oxford-based historian also described how he was denied a position at Stanford University in unclear circumstances after being completing a selection procedure. After completing all the formalities, he was contacted by the University official and told that he would not get the job.

    „After a few weeks, I have been told that the case has to do with Jewish questions, namely with my writing about Polish-Jewish relations,” said Mr Davies.

    SCHOLAR SAYS HIS VIEWS ON JEWS COST HIM A POST AT STANFORD
    https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/13/us/scholar-says-his-views-on-jews-cost-him-a-post-at-stanford.html

    Stanford Upheld in Rejecting Historian
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-06-mn-1885-story.html

    Norman Davies is innocent by Anne Applebaum
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/normandaviesisinnocent

  14. utu says:
    @Colin Wright

    “This relates to another interesting fact about the Holocaust; it was never conducted in functioning states. “ – Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands makes this point over and over again. An ironical corollary of it is that Jews were worst off in states which fought Germany and best off in states allied with Germany. For instance Jews till now resent Hungarians for thinking of what was good for Hungary by trying to break the alliance with Germany in 1944 which lead to Wehrmacht and SS moving to Hungary and Eichmann doing his job.

    One exception is Slovakia which demonstrated more eagerness in getting rid of its Jews than any other functioning state by urging Germany to take their Jews and paying Germany for the transportation costs to concentration camps in occupied Poland.

  15. UmHello says:

    I never heard an “anti-Polish” narrative of the Holocaust. I thought it was ANTI-NAZI. We all know individual Poles hid or otherwise helped Jewish people. We all know about the terrible tortures, the “medical” experiments, the wholesale slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally deficient or physically deformed individuals. We know about the abuse of German women as “breeders”.

    I think this complaint of an “anti-Polish” narrative is a Straw Man. The Nazi murderers were not all Poles, and again not all Poles were hateful racist Nazis. Take a deep breath. 🙂

  16. ‘I never heard an “anti-Polish” narrative of the Holocaust. I thought it was ANTI-NAZI. We all know individual Poles hid or otherwise helped Jewish people…’

    Lately various Jews have taken to vilifying the Poles. Their claims are half-truths — to which the Poles respond with half-truths of their own.

    I’m inclined to sympathize with the Poles. As it was, the Poles resisted the Germans to the point of national suicide. The Germans killed about one out of every ten Polish gentiles. The Jewish position sometimes seems to be that the Poles should have resisted even more energetically.

    One wonders just what level of collective self-sacrifice would have satisfied them. This becomes the more irritating when one realizes there never seems to be any thought that the Jews should have helped the Poles when the shoe was on the other foot; as, for example, during the Russian occupation of eastern Poland from 1939 to 1941.

    • Agree: Miro23, ivan
  17. allis says:

    “Judaism replaces ethics (a mode employing cognitive moral judgment) with Mitzvoth (a legalistic moralist apparatus that replaces judgment with obedience to rules.”

    Isn’t this the difference between evaluating what is said versus who says it when evaluating truth? The difference between what is done versus who does it when evaluating actions?

    Perhaps this distinction is what makes those of us who remember an earlier American culture detest identity politics.

  18. It is a recognised historical fact that Jews didn’t produce any historical texts for almost 2 millennia or more precisely, in between Flavius Josephus (37 CE – circa 100 CE) and Heinrich Graetz (1817 –1891).

    “Benjamin of Tudela was a medieval Jewish traveler who visited Europe, Asia, and Africa in the 12th century. His vivid descriptions of western Asia preceded those of Marco Polo by a hundred years. With his broad education and vast knowledge of languages, Benjamin of Tudela is a major figure in medieval geography and Jewish history.

    “The Travels of Benjamin is an important work not only as a description of the Jewish communities, but also as a reliable source about the geography and ethnography of the Middle Ages. Originally written in Hebrew, his itinerary was translated into Latin and later translated into most major European languages. It received much attention from Renaissance scholars in the 16th century.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_of_Tudela

    “Joseph ha-Kohen was a historian of the 16th century. His second chronicle is an extract from his world chronicle of items concerning persecutions of the Jews.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_ha-Kohen

    But none of this matters. People see what people want to see.

  19. Judaism replaces ethics with Mitzvoth. Judaism also replaces universalism with tribalism that is chauvinist if not supremacist.

    The most astonishing aspect of these articles is that Mr Atzmon does not care whether he is right or wrong. He writes whatever he wants, without thinking about repercussions.

    And though it is not hard to check his claims – took me a minute to find two Jewish historians, – he does not feel that he should bother himself with such a commonplace concern. A strange approach for a philosopher: correctness does not matter.

    Mr Atzmon, Judaism does not replace ethics with commandments. The commandments follow from ethics. And it does not replace universalism with tribalism. Judaism has both of these.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

    • Replies: @utu
  20. utu says:
    @Dr. Moreau's Biographer

    Excerpts from: “Civilizational” Boundaries in Christian-Jewish Relations by Andrew K. Wise, Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, Volume 5 (2010), Published by the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College. (to get the pdf google the title)

    Koneczny placed special emphases on Jewish ―legalism, which is evident in Mosaic law. He believed that the ―contractual agreement between them and their god meant that Jews placed law before ethics. Koneczny found that ―over the course of centuries there emerged here and there apriori law. It imparted sanction not to existing circumstances and was not created in a natural manner, but it was imagined, invented…Mosaic law was a prototype of apriori law. Koneczny believed that this focus on apriori law is a fundamental feature of Judaism, and consequently Jewish civilization. He stressed that ―[a]mong Jews…law is not based on ethics, but precisely the opposite: ethics are based on law. He theorized that this sacralized law became the regulator for all aspects of Jewish life, leaving no room for the development of ethics. An ―elephantiasis of law‖ thus emerged: ―the more law the better!

    Another important factor for Koneczny was the notion of Jewish ―chosenness. He concluded that this special relationship with God and the ―faith that all must end with the Jews ruling the world was the most immutable, distinguishing characteristic of Jewish civilization. Koneczny thus identified an ―ethic of exclusivity that ―generated contempt, then hatred, for foreigners. In all of universal history, Jews have developed hatred to the highest degree… This all highlights the ―defective nature of Jewish civilization. This ―collective predestination reflects Jewish emphasis on the collective, rather than the individual, and precludes a personal relationship with God that is found in Catholicism.

    Koneczny posited that even while Jewish civilization embraced the ―ethic of exclusivity, Jews have been forced to live among other peoples, to live within other civilizations. Ac- cording to Koneczny, ―Jewish civilization experienced significant changes among other nations,‘ but what is most in- teresting is that the changes occurred for the better: the upplement of a defective civilization in many directions and lifting it to a higher level in each case. For example, Jews embraced other languages in order to express a higher order of abstract thought, since Hebrew was itself ―a language able to facilitate civilizational development only to a certain level, be- yond which it becomes a brake on higher development.

  21. anon[394] • Disclaimer says:

    At least 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as a punishment for saving Jews.

    That figure sounds pretty fake. Thousands of Poles were certainly executed for saving Jews, but “at least 50 000”? Is there a credible source for that, or is it something one is just supposed to accept, because Polish nationalists say so?

    • Agree: utu
  22. @utu

    Feliks Karol Koneczny (1862 – 1949) was a Polish historian and social philosopher.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliks_Koneczny

    Koneczny claimed that in the Latin civilization, ethics is the source of law. If some laws are not ethical, then they are changed.

    The Jewish civilization considers the law most important. The law is the source of ethics. The law cannot be changed.

    He must have never come across this wonderful book – Malleus Maleficarum. “But, if the prisoner will not confess the truth, other sorts of tortures must be placed before him, with the statement that unless he will confess the truth, he must endure these also.”

    Ethics comrade is a philosophical discourse about morals, and it depends on the predisposition of the philosopher, who can be a wicked man. Ethics is not a natural law.

    And of course the Jewish law can be changed, and has been. For example the rules of Darchei Shalom, the paths of peace, cancel out a lot of the Talmudic regulations.

    According to Koneczny, one of the elements of Jewish civilization is a belief in the superior role of one nation or race. Communist states, despite their atheism, are also products of Jewish civilization.

    Not true. Communist states were built more like the Christendom, when it was under the Catholic Church. Despite the participation of Jews in the beginning there was nothing Jewish about it in the end.

    Koneczny claimed that civilizations cannot mix, and any “synthesis” of several civilizations leads to the victory of one over the other, lower moral standards, or to a state of “un-civilization.”

    Nonsense! Mixed nations produced rich and bright cultures, whereas his own pure tribal nation has nothing to show. From the birth of it and up to the present time Poland has been a cultural wasteland. Boring and proud.

    Koneczny considered racism something alien to Latin civilization, which he considered the highest type.

    • Disagree: Colin Wright
  23. ivan says:

    As a historian with great narrative verve Norman Davies is probably the best that the UK has among academics out there. I say this after only a cursory reading. But early on he had put on record that the Nazis had killed Poles, Soviet POWs and other Untermenschen along with Jews. But that was unforgivable blasphemy to the keepers of the Holocaust religion, notwithstanding Ms Appelbaum’s defence or even if Richard Pipes had spoken up for him. Such is the academic playing field for historians these days.

  24. Why Poles do not so eagerly demand reparations from Russia as from Germany?

    Well, let’s start with the fact that there has never been such a strong feeling that Russians despise Poles like Germans or Ukrainians do. Even Adam Mickiewicz, the national poet of Poland, spoke “do naszych przyjaciół Moskali”/ to our friends Moscovians, where Moskal is a derogatory term for a Russian, but przyjaciel still means a friend. So it was kind of oxymoron, which pretty well describes the Polish-Russian relationship.

    In a case of atrocities, Russians have been seen more as savages, who treat all conquered people more or less in the same way. For Poles, WWII is a story of atrocities commited mostly by Germans and Ukrainians. As a counterpoint, Germans did treat Western European populations (French, Belgian, Norwegian, Danish) markedly better than most of the Slavic peoples.
    And if you look upon it from the territorial point of view, the Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia, which were acquired by the Soviets by the law of conquest, were given to Poland by the Soviets in exchange for former Polish east provinces. So at least there is a sense that Russians did exchange lands, even though they forced this exchange upon Poland. That the Russian gift to Poland was a former German land is a matter to settle between Russians and Germans, not Germans and Poles. And yet, Germany is not China, Russia is not UK, and Silesia is not Hong Kong (but maybe Kaliningrad is). So from this point of view Germans still did not pay their due, or, to be more precisely, have never expressed their remorse/atonement in deed.

    The Soviets even did a favour to Poland when they forced the exchange of nationalities – majority of Ukrainian nationalists found themselves under the watchful eye of NKVD: you can sense that Stalin really didn’t like Ukies; and Poland hardly managed with deportation action “Wisla”, so it was actually a positive decision from the Polish standpoint. Poland has never had a successful tradition of forceful integration/polonization, so if left, Ukrainians would be a headache at the latest after 1989.

    Katyn and, above all, the refusal to give a hand to Warsaw Uprising in 1944 are Stalin’s crimes against Poland, but otherwise he tended to decide in favour of Poland, and against Czechs, for example (whom he thought to be cowards, since there were no partisans there. Even the massacre of Lidice happened because Czech goverment in exile wanted to prove to Stalin that Czechs ‘fight’ Germans; however, due to lack of local fighters, they had to be parachuted from England, which finally ended in the massacre of Lidice. Should you like to call it a Czech tragicomedy, I suppose you would be right). Slovaks, who collaborated with Germans much more eagerly than Czechs, were often seen as traitors to Slavic brotherhood (together with Croats and Ukies), and sometimes treated as badly as Germans. In 1939 Slovak army attacked Poland together with Germans, maybe in a gesture of insolence to their former masters, Hungarians, who refused passage to German army, but still – it was an armed aggression without any Polish provocations against Slovaks. Unlike Slovaks, Czechs kept quiet. Nothing to fear, however: Slovak army turned out to be almost as bad as Italian, and Poland managed to halt the Slovakian offensive on its southern border, similarly to France in 1940, which did stop the Italian offensive (Nizza back to patria!, France- la sorella ladrona).

    The Czech-Slovak mistrust lingers to this day, Czechoslovakia partitioned pretty fast and now Czech TV and radio stopped broadcasting in Slovak language, which has already resulted in the end of bilinguality in the Czech republic (during the Czechoslovak times, public broadcaster had to observe a fixed time ratio of 3:2 (if I well remember) for Czech and Slovak languages.)
    So, among Slavic nations under Russian leadership Poles were treated better than Czechs, who were treated better than Slovaks, who were treated better than Ukrainians (at least until Chruschov).

    It may reflect both the Polish and Russian megalomania, which allows a honorable place only to Czechs, once upon a time the mightest nation of Slavia, and on the frontline of the fight with Germans (I suppose this is why Serbs did not qualify, they always loose; it is ok to loose (like Czechs), but not always). According to this view, only Poles, Czechs and Russians are “real” nations, everyone else is a secondary/derivative artificial nation out of the 19th century “distillation” pot (in contrast to the American “melting” pot). Because Slovakia is such an “unserious” nation, Poles do not really have a grudge against Slovaks for 1939, but against Russians, yes, they do.

    There is a legend that all Slavs started with three brothers, the Pole, the Czech, the Russian (Polak, Czech, i Rus) who went in three different directions of the world. The legend conspiciously omits the fourth side of the world – probably the author knew that the fourt side had already been taken by Bulgarians 😉

  25. Sean says:

    Judaism replaces ethics (a mode employing cognitive moral judgment) with Mitzvoth (a legalistic moralist apparatus that replaces judgment with obedience to rules). Judaism also replaces universalism with racially oriented tribalism that is largely chauvinist if not supremacist.

    Morality is different to ethics I think. Ethics is like Kant in which anything is permissible as long as it’s done consistently ‘veil of ignorance’ style. One can be ethical without being moral is what I am trying to say.

  26. @nymom

    In Germany today ‘Geschwister Scholl’ are the only celebrated resistance to Hitler. If you come to Germany for a summer language course like me, you will probably get an obligatory screening of the film about them (another obligatory screening was ‘Die Feuerzangebowle’, which was much more fun). In Poland we make films about successful attacks against SS-henchers like Franz Kutschera, in Germany they make films about some youths producing leaflets.

    For the curious: the list of movies I was shown during my summer language course in Göttingen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Feuerzangenbowle_%281944_film%29
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Wei%C3%9Fe_Rose_%28film%29
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solino
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alles_auf_Zucker!

    The last one is about Jews in modern Germany. They spoke very bad German there, too.

    However, Geschwister Scholl are very useful, since due to their youth and naivety, they do not convey any political message, only the vague ‘moral resistance’. In a way, such an approach delegitimizes any resistance based on interests, denying the very essence of politics. This is very consistent approach: declining to talk about ‘Arisierung’ allows to avoid the subject of German ‘interest’ in persecuting Jews. Such an approach may be actually favourable to Jews too, since it reinforces the ‘mad/crazy’ narration of antisemitism. And yet it puts aside the fact that Germany actually did not return the majority of “arianised” assets back to Jews after 1945.

    This approach of “politics without interests” is one of the reasons why politics in Germany looks kind of ‘strange’, at least if you come from abroad. You will have to make your judgment on your own: Germans do not discuss politics eagerly. I discussed German politics more often with the French than with Germans. The last time I discussed it with a German, a former DDR citizen, I was criticized for voting for a direct democracy party in EU elections; this is a kind of arguments about politics you can expect from Germans: arguments centered around some vaguely moral ‘ideal’ (here: democracy). Germans seem unable to grasp that real democracy is dirty, filthy and without any aesthetic appeal, being full of accusations, scandals and prosecutions.

    However, in reality, AH was opposed, albeit not effectively, by at least 4 different groups with distinct politcal agenda/interests:

    1) communists

    2) liberal German aristocracy, especially so called Hochadel, like Helmuth von Moltke. They really were the last remnant of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The group had some backing in German officer corps.
    Caveat: von Stauffenberg and Ernst Jünger were not part of this group. Those were junkers, lower military nobility, always backing ‘Bismarck’ line, whereas Hochadel, with prince von Eulenburg, were more on the side of pro-English Kaiser Wilhelm.

    3) the rich, cosmopolitans burghers of Hamburg, who contested national socialism through their mocking ‘Edelweisspiraten’ movement. In essence, it was a lifestyle opposition. It is instructive to see the low electoral NSDAP results in Hamburg (courtesy of communists as well) immediately surging after crossing the border to Schleswig-Holstein. Hamburg was a contested area, ‘lacking national feelings’, something like Hong Kong today.
    Propaganda movie ‘Hitlerjunge Quex’, a story of communists-persecuted Hitlerjugend, takes place in Berlin, which wasn’t so much pro-NSDAP too.

    4) catholics around ‘Zentrum’ party in Rhineland. The Catholic Church hierarchy and extensive structures, as often, proved to be relatively effective structure to build up opposition to the goverment (likewise in Poland during 1945-89 period). Now you understand why NSDAP regime preferred protestants.

    It is interesting to notice that each of these groups had ‘foreign’ orientation: communists towards Moscow, aristocrats towards UK (the offer to dispose of Hitler in 1938 was directed at the English, not the French), rich burghers towards USA, Catholics towards Vatican. Which essentially backs the thesis that NSDAP was indeed a party of petty bourgeoisie.

  27. Stan says:

    “Americans have been hard at work concealing their genocides by peppering their cities with Holocaust museums. The Brits are no different, they have made their Imperial Wars Museum into a holocaust monument. For obvious reasons neither the Americans nor the British Holocaust shrines chronicle the embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugee s at the time of the Holocaust. History serves to conceal our shame rather than address it.”

    Spare us the bullshit. Jews in America and Britain demanded holocaust shrines in the respective countries to guilt trip whites into backing the Zionist project in Palestine.

    • Agree: Zumbuddi, Colin Wright
  28. Robjil says:
    @Dr. Moreau's Biographer

    Poland was the center of world Jewry for centuries. It is odd that you dislike Poland so much.

    https://www.polin.pl/en/wystawy-wystawa-glowna-galerie/paradisus-iudaeorum

    Paradisus Iudaeorum (1569–1648)

    Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of the largest states in Europe that was ethnically and religiously diverse, became a home to the majority of world Jewry. It was here that Jews enjoyed the autonomy they had not known before, and the most eminent rabbis resided and taught.

  29. @Colin Wright

    during Khmelnitsky there were 40 000 Jews there most escaped. also Polish and Cossack armies consisted mostly of local Ukrainians and Ukrainian civilians were way more decimated than Jewish and Polish maybe. for one instance two towns total 60 000 were slaughtered by Polish army.

  30. @Colin Wright

    Ukraine Belorus Estonia Latvia and Lithvania lost more in percentage than Poland in WW2.

  31. @Robjil

    The Council of Four Lands, about which the article is existed from 1580 to 1764 and it doesn’t make even two centuries. Let alone, there is no reason to consider the Polish diaspora a center of the Jewish life in that or other period either. Yes, those were good times for the Polish Jews, so what?

    More so, how does it connect to the theme discussed above? Poland sucks!

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Robjil
  32. @nymom

    This is the first time I’ve seen mention of how high income and assets were owned by Jews in Germany and how ordinary Germans benefited from appropriating them.

    Really funny, and provides evidence of Gilad’s opening statement:

    It is a . . . well accepted notion that historical thinking is foreign to Judaic thought.

    My first exposure to Jewish -(German) history was through an 1881 article in Eclectic magazine, which recounts that, although Jews had lived securely and prosperously among the Germans for 700 years, once German unification was achieved in 1871,

    “with the unfolding possibilities of the new empire, the children of Israel abiding within her borders should have sent news of the glad tidings of good things to be picked up to their brethren of the ten tribes in distant countries. The looked for contingent made straight for the Land of Promise, and Berlin speedily became a sort of new Jerusalem. . . .”

    The author proceeds to describe how the pattern whereby indebtednesses of the monarchs and princes was resolved by Jewish money-lenders, drifted downward to the peasant class, until

    “In all the seaport towns of Northern Germany the Hebrew race had long since taken a leading commercial position. The immense grain trade of the shores of the Baltic was in Jewish hands. Wool, butter, corn, rape, hemp, oil, cattle, were but the counters with which the game was played, and the German system of peasant proprietorship threw the very soil into the hands of the usurers. Long before any prophet had arisen to foretell the miraculous success of this miraculous people, the peasant groaned in the spirit over the extortions of his tormentor..”

    In other words, dear nymom, the “high income and assets . . . owned by Jews were acquired from the German peasants through usury, and “ordinary Germans” who “appropriat[ed] them” — if, indeed, such there were, did so not as a benefit but more out of equity and justice.

    The system of accounting developed by the Italians — debits weighed against credits — is a rudimentary display of equity.

    Have you, nymom, performed such an exercise of weighing the benefits Jews extracted from Germans — among others, not least Americans — against the assets you seem to think they have appropriated from Jews?

    Does the vaunted Jewish sense of seeking Justice ever compel you to balance the scales more equitably, even if it is not “good for the Jews?”

  33. @Colin Wright

    There is a brewing conflict in Poland between the local Jews and USA ‘parachutists’ (as they are nicknamed in Polish). It is also increasingly hard to understand why the Polish Jewish community is still being led by an American rabbi (Mr Schudrich), 30 years after 1989….?

    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/court-orders-landlord-to-reopen-krakow-synagogue-to-chabad-1.489332

    https://www.jta.org/2019/07/03/global/a-clash-between-jews-in-krakow-highlights-growing-acceptance-of-chabad-in-europe

    Chabad has not fared well in Poland; for some reasons, maybe its home-and-privacy centered attitude (rural Arcadia being the ideal), the Polish culture has always been rather lukewarm towards missionaries (interestingly, no famous or controversial theologian comes from Poland), so there has been no re-birth of Hassidism in Polin. In this respect, Poland is unlike America, despite the superficial perception of Polish ‘religiosity and piety’ by foreigners..

    Unless they are B’nai B’rith members, Polish Jews are much more reserved in their criticism of Poland than their American cousins. Well, Roman Polanski has never said a bad word about Poland, a country that saved his life.
    France may have saved his freedom, too, the French citizenship increasingly looking like a kind of ‘Isreali light’ citizenship: the principle of non-extradition, based upon the ancient right to be not tried by foreigners, in essence a derivative of civis Romanus sum, may be one of the last true vestiges of sovereignty (interestingly, the Hong Kong conflict has its origins there as well). And yet, it is the expression of supremacy of tribal morality over universal ethics. So now we have civis Judaeorum sum, kind of.

  34. Gilad Atzmon: For obvious reasons neither the Americans nor the British Holocaust shrines chronicle the embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugee s at the time of the Holocaust.

    [embedded link, The Atlantic: When the US Closed its doors on Jewish Refugees ] “But last night they dreamt up the St. Louis Manifest, a Twitter project sharing the story of some 900 Jews who fled Nazi Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which planned to stop in Cuba and then continue on in an attempt to gain entry into the United States.

    You’re twisting yourself in knots, Gilad, and revealing that you are still very much a Jew, in that you still pray your Credo to the sacred holocaust.

    Which, incidentally, did not occur in 1939, nor any date before that.

    Because of that simple, unavoidable, chronological reality, coupled with the extraordinary efforts zionist Jewish leaders made, beginning as early as Feb. 14, 1933 (nb. NO HOLOCAUST in Feb. 1933) to
    a. frighten “587,000 German Jews” into leaving Germany for Palestine, where their wealth and skills were desperately needed, lest the entire project fail;
    b. gin up fear and loathing of “the Hun” among Americans in order to gain their acquiescence to war, an effort that was rather unsuccessful until Pearl Harbor, 8 years later (but still NO HOLOCAUST);
    c. the actions of key zionist leaders — Brandeis, Weizmann, Frankfurter, Wise, etc. — to manipulate British, American, Russian, Polish, Ottoman and German leaders toward war fever —

    ALL point to the irrefutable reality that the desire of European Jews, especially Russian Jews, to migrate from Russia, Poland, etc., to Palestine and to other prosperous western countries (see my comment to nymom, above), had about it more of economic opportunism that was resisted by the western states to which Jews sought to migrate; therefore, incendiary conditions were created that forced the issue.

    Jewish arsonists set fires that western states were forced to battle, and to take in those Jews who had deliberately burnt themselves out of homes where they no longer wished to dwell (i.e. the cost of remedying asbestos was too high —).

    THAT is how the chronology forces the rational person to view the events: Jews forced their way out of Russia – Europe and into Palestine and the United States.

  35. @ivan

    Norman Stone is quite readable, too. Early in his career, he did research upon the academic dimension of German Drang nach Osten, namely all those Ostforschung establishments.

    However, unlike Norman Davies, he has finally chosen Hungary as his home 😉

    ‘As it happens I was able to bolster my arguments with some background information derived from a recently published work, Hungary: A Short History, by Norman Stone, a distinguished English historian and one-time Professor of Modern History at Oxford. Stone has taken the trouble to learn the very difficult Hungarian language and now lives there permanently.’

    https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2019/06/07/hungarys-history-helps-explain-the-current-problems-in-the-west/

    I will give it to the Brits – they are not so self-centered like the French, and do not always outsource their work of knowing to immigrants, like the Germans prefer to do. In Germany you will find a couple of German professors teaching Arabic, but almost none who would teach the Polish language and culture. I suppose it testifies to an internalized German ‘Weltbild’. At least Goethe wrote on Orient…

    • Replies: @anon
  36. anon[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Another Polish Perspective

    Norman Stone died last June, see Richard J Evans’ brutal obituary of him:
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/25/norman-stone-obituary

    namely all those Ostforschung establishments.

    Have you read Michael Burleigh’s Germany turns eastwards? Might fit right in with your interests/obsessions.

  37. What autobiography? The article mentions that Davies recounts the incident from his “recent 800 page Autobiography” a visit to his official website, Amazon, and Google show NO AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

    What is its title? Who published it? And when?

  38. @anon

    I appreciate your timely reference.

    This obituary is a reminder how spiteful (when not ironic) the Brits can be.

    I suppose the obituary was a kind of revenge for Stone’s obituary of Carr (which is referenced by Evans).

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v05/n01/norman-stone/grim-eminence

    My own history teacher said that you can essentially divide historians into two groups: those, who destroy; and those, who create.

    I suppose this a good demonstration of the problem.

  39. @Dr. Moreau's Biographer

    ‘… Poland sucks!’

    It is hard not to notice that this is the attitude of Jews towards Poles.

    And yet, for some reason, they feel Polish anti-semitism is an outrage.

    • Agree: Robjil
  40. anonymous[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    If you were wanting to avoid being sent west, ie. to Germany, it was possibly effective. But it could result in being sent east – to Auschwitz or Treblinka or some other place. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

  41. anonymous[356] • Disclaimer says:

    Norman Davies is readable but in my view excessively pro-Polish in his judgments.

  42. anonymous[356] • Disclaimer says:

    Stone was pretty uncritical of Turkish state policy until the failed coup of 2016, after which he left the country.

  43. Robjil says:
    @Dr. Moreau's Biographer

    It was about a 1000 years starting in 1025 that Jews were invited in Poland.
    That 1580 to 1764 was the last century and half of the time of rule by the Polish Kingdom. Lithuania joined in that time too, so it renamed the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Russian Empire took over this area in 1764. It then became to be known as the Pale of Settlement, where Jews had to stay, not move to other areas of the Russian Empire.

    Here is one of the famous laws promoting Jewish independence in Poland in 1264.

    https://wn.com/statute_of_kalisz/wikipedia

    Statute of Kalisz

    The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Boleslaus the Pious on September 8, 1264 in Kalisz.

    The statute granted Jews unprecedented legal rights in Europe, including exclusive jurisdiction over Jewish matters to Jewish courts, and established a separate tribunal for other criminal matters involving Christians and Jews. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III of Poland in 1334, Casimir IV of Poland in 1453, and Sigismund I of Poland in 1539.

  44. Anon[883] • Disclaimer says:

    This really is such nonsense. Anyone who’s had any contact with Poland or Poles knows that ‘anti-semitism’ was / is rife there.

    And given that the Chosen Ones wanted to segregate themselves from the Poles, why would that be a surprise?

    I note that he elides Poland’s role in mistreating its German minority, refusing to be reasonable about Danzig and actually believing it could win a war with Germany and push its borders out to the Elber.

    As for the ’embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugee s at the time of the Holocaust’, err, no. Laurent Guyenot has already shown that the leadership of American Jewry wanted them kept out: https://www.unz.com/article/a-holocaust-of-biblical-proportions/

    Why do you live in Britain, Gilad, if it has such an awful history?

    • Replies: @utu
  45. Anon[883] • Disclaimer says:
    @nymom

    Or perhaps the Germans were simply claiming back when had been stolen from them during the hyper-inflation period when Jews, thanks to their connections with Jews outside Germany, were able to buy up 30% of the nation’s wealth despite being only 1% of the population.

  46. Vojkan says:
    @nymom

    I have another explanation for Jewish wealth: tribalism, nepotism when they’re in a position of power, scheming, usury, and a total lack of the slightest qualm with regards to means to achieve their goals. I have become acquainted with a lot of Jews in my lifetime, not a single one has ever struck me with his smartness, many have struck me with their propensity to blather and mythomania, and with their lack of moral sense. That said, Jews aren’t the only people I know beholding such traits. Montenegrins are oddly similar in character. I’m half Montenegrin by blood. I am much more proud of the Serbian half of my blood, in spite of all its imperfections, and of my French education. The Old Testament really can do damage to some brains.

  47. Dube says:
    @anonymous

    Norman Davies is readable but in my view excessively pro-Polish in his judgments.

    Examples, please.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  48. utu says:
    @Anon

    “Anyone who’s had any contact with Poland or Poles knows that ‘anti-semitism’ was / is rife there.”

    Poles speak what they think. They do not censor themselves as much as people in other countries where the conditioning and the obedience school of political correctness was much more intense. Poles are more resitant in general to any BS imposed form outside as their history shows that they are not easily subjugated, e.g. resistance to communism, Solidarity, etc.

    Now, how this ‘anti-semitism’ is measured? ADL hires some polling companies to ask people questions in different countries like for instance in recent ADL report the following questions (agree/disagree) were asked:

    Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the country they live in
    Jews have too much power in the business world
    People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave
    Jews have too much control over the U.S. government
    Jews have too much control over the global media
    Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust

    And Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Russia came on top. See Haaretz article
    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-adl-report-poland-south-africa-ukraine-and-hungary-most-anti-semitic-countries-1.8156819

    What does it tell us about Poles, Hungarians and Russians providing that the polls were done honestly? That Poles, Hungarians and Russians are well informed about the reality, that they must be perceptive, that they refuse pressure, i.e, they see what they see and and not what they are told to see and that they are truthful, they re not afraid to speak what they think. Conversely people who score low on this “anti-semitism’ metric like Sweden and Canada must be not well informed, are likely of low intelligence and/or are calculating liars.

    I do not believe however that this ADL report is honest. It is politically motivated because if they wanted to present Poland and Hungary more favorably a sit wa sin the past they would use metric that is based more on attitude to Israel which in countries like Poland and Hungary is much more positive than in Western Europe or South Africa.

    Note also that Greece which historically was labeled by ADL the most ‘anti-semitic’ in Europe is absent from the list.

    So what is the possible political motivation behind this poll? In case of Poland it is most likely because of the pending escalation of Jewish demands for the restitution of Jewish heirless property form Poland. The stakes are very big. The organizations from the Holocaust Industry Complex (HIC) estimate that Poland should pay them from $60mld to $300mld.

    Heirless Property Belongs to Poland’s Treasury
    https://warsawinstitute.org/heirless-property-belongs-polands-treasury/

    Polish far-right supporters protest against restitution of Jewish property
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-israel/polish-far-right-supporters-protest-against-restitution-of-jewish-property-idUSKCN1SH0HA

    Poland has no law for the restitution of confiscated private property located within its current borders.
    https://wjro.org.il/our-work/restitution-by-country/poland/

    New Push For Polish Property Restitution
    https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/new-push-for-polish-property-restitution/

    Polish PM: Paying Holocaust property restitution would be ‘victory for Hitler’
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-pm-paying-holocaust-property-restitution-would-be-victory-for-hitler/

  49. anonymous[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dube

    My overall impression of God’s Playground, a history of Poland. For specifics, he played down the harshness of the Bereza Kartuska camp operated before WW2 in which the inmates were predominantly suspected Communists and Ukrainian nationalists.

  50. @nymom

    Golly! If Moslems and Christians are just consistently that unfair to Jews, one wonders why the Jews continue to live almost exclusively in Moslem and Christian countries.

  51. jsigur says:

    “Americans have been hard at work concealing their genocides by peppering their cities with Holocaust museums. The Brits are no different, they have made their Imperial Wars Museum into a holocaust monument. For obvious reasons neither the Americans nor the British Holocaust shrines chronicle the embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugee s at the time of the Holocaust. History serves to conceal our shame rather than address it.”

    Here is Jewish misdirection. First of all, the holocaust was a scam. Gilad acts as if is-was fact, the more notable when many a time Gilad calls out Jewish lying (but doesn’t here).

    This then is pure intentional misdirection. IT goes further by implying all Americans and Britain had turned away Jews which is false because Jewish power wanted fake Jewish sufferers left in Europe to sound the alarm on after the war (thus the reason for the policy).
    The only way we can confront Jewish power is to challenge Jewish narratives and explanations which are all self-serving for the Jewish agenda and against the interests of the locals

  52. @anonymous

    I cannot really say since I don’t know many histories of Poland written by foreigners. But he is not such a great lover of Poland, and sometimes ruffles Polish sensibilities too. During his lecture on the Univeristy of Warsaw on the occasion of granting him the honoris causa doctorate, a lecture I personally listened to, he called the Russian tzars in 19th century, the kings of Poland, and he even stressed that, so listeners would know that he said it deliberately! Formally, Russian monarchs were indeed kings of Poland, Poland and Russia being joined in a personal union, but Poles never call them that, thus implicite refusing them legitimacy. Listeners were quite shocked, and the lecture hasn’t been finally printed, so you have that from me 😉 Also Davies popularity in Poland has already slowly waned.

    I wondered whether Davies remark had anything to do with his Welsh nationality. He used to say that he likes Poland, becasue, you know, “I am from UK but I am a Welsh, ruled by the English”. His pro-Welsh allusions have never found resonance in Poland, since Poles really know nothing about Wales, imaginging that UK is only the English and the Scotts. So maybe because of that, this time he was kind of passive-aggresive, since it was like saying, “you haughty Poles, you are like us, the Welsh, duly under your foreign [Russian] kings too!”

    Also I can say that Davies depiction of history of Poland is a bit distorted, since he focused mainly upon military and cultural history. But he does not really have a grasp of tedious parliamentary politics. Already the title of his main work on Poland, “God’s Playground”, does not confer too much agency on Poles themselves. It may be that such a perspective – especially for a foreigner – kind of self-imposes itself due to the fact that, starting from wars with the Teutonic Orders, replaced by wars with Ottoman Empire, then by wars with Russia and Sweden, since 14 th century Poland was essentially almost constantly at war, so much that it was the second state in Europe which introduced professional army (first was Spain, I think). Nevertheless, unlike Spain, Sweden or ancient Rome, Poland was not a military empire, and you will not really understand Poland studying only the Polish army, even though it is interesting in itself. For example, in comparision to the Spanish one, Polish miltary relied mainly on combining cavalry with artillery, whereas Spain mainly on infantry and artillery. But Polish husaria had never confronted Spanish tercios, so we don’t know who was superior; if anything can be assumed from the battle of Nördlingen 1634, where tercios were confronted by the Swedish, but Polish-style fast moving, regimental field artillery (the Swedes grasped the concept during their earlier wars with Poland around Baltic coast), it may have been a draw.

    At the sea, Poland relied on the Dutch navy, which kept the sea route to Danzig open, efffectively countering the Danish or the Swedish fleet, as needed; for example, in 1657 admiral de Ruyter lifted the Swedish naval blockade of Danzig. The fact that Poland was actually a part of the Protestant trade network – a kind of symbiosis you may call it – was one of the reasons of Polish neutrality during the 30-years war, neutrality in spite of incessant prodding by Habsburgs and popes. The ideology of antemurale Christianitas was created, which also meant that Poland does not move, in any direction…. Since Poland together with Ottomans run Moldavia as a condominium, any direct intevention on the Hungarian/Habsburg side was also avoided – especially after the disaster of Varna in 1444 – help was denied to Habsburgs until Vienna 1683; the “agreed” theater of war between Turkey and Poland being Ukraine and the Black Sea coast, at least until Turkey broke this rule and officially annexed the Polish province of Podole (it was run as the Ottoman wilayat for 30 years). In fact, Poland ran her policy towards the Ottomans on the modus vivendi basis, much more like Venice than Habsburgs (which may have something to do with the fact that since the 16th century, Italy was the most popular place of study for the young Polish nobility). I point all that to stress that Polish foreign policy was, in fact, much more based on pragmatism than ideology, and already then was run on the basis of “keeping the equal distance to all neighbours” concept (exactly like the Polish politics in the interwar period of 20th century), instinctively grasping the danger of falling prey to the famous Richelieu-style policy of “paying others for fighting your wars”

    .But all that were just fireworks in comparision to the muddy Polish politics, with a weak king being a lynchpin of balance of power between Senate and Sejm. The king, however weak, was necessary, as both the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania, only he was wielding the levers of power in both states.
    So, for example, in his books, Davies only shortly mentioned the so-called execution movement (ruch egzekucyjny) of the 16th and 17th century (from ‘execution’ of judgement, the problem appeared beacuse the rich landowners started simply to flaunt royal courts), which was a movement of Polish gentry againt the great aristocratic landowners. You could compare it to Cromwell’s party in England, the differenece being that the Poles wanted to make a king stronger, stronger against the aristocracy, of courese, whereas Cromwell was fighting both the king and the aristocracy, AFAIK. It must be mentioned that the Polish parliament actually had 3 chambers: king, Senate (organised similarly to the House of Lords), and Sejm (members elected through local county parliaments (known as “sejmik”, sejmik being a little sejm), plus some royal cities). The Polish parliamentary records, due to the long interval 1795-1918, may not be so extensive like the British Hansards, but they are as much as old, the oldest parliamentary records being from the 14th century. AFAIK, there are only 4 examples of long-running, pre-Enlightment parliamentary goverments: Poland, UK, Venice, the Netherlands. Only UK has survived, Poland and Venice disappeared, and the Netherlands strangely evolved from the republic to the kingdom. Incidentally, all these states treated Jews pretty well, with some exceptions for UK.

    However, why USA Founding Fathers decided to erect a Senate, is beyond my comprehension: cursory look over the goverments of Europe would have clearly provided them with knowledge that Senate aka the House of Lords was always a stronghold of oligarchy and its interests. Pure democracies, like ancient Athens (and here, I don’t mean slaves or women, I mean citizens) have only one chamber + courts. No president, and no senate, too. Sicne it presupposed the unity of the goverment and the governed, it was a pretty straightforward setup: the people rule, and when the people have been deceived, the matter is to be invenstigated before the courts. So if you look at the USA goverment with some knowledge of history, you realize that it was actually designed for oligarchy, not democracy. What USA Constitution really offered was a tradeoff of the Bill of Rights for an oligarchic structure of goverment. And it is those rights that are constantly under attack, not the oligarchic structures of goverment. Think about that, USA cititzen. Why Senate, when you supposedly don’t have have aristocracy?

    And it was the defeat of the execution movement which set Poland on a dangerous path towards the dominance of aristocratic oligarchy, and the anarchy which finally destroyed Poland, despite the famous liberum veto (which was initially sold as a safeguard against oligarchs, but finally it immobilized Sejm, and not the Senate, which was the real stronghold of oligarchy).

    Unlike its neighbours, Poland had a pretty sophisticated parliamentary structures, especially the living traditon of local, provincial parliaments was pretty unique; the mystery of Poland’s long resilience was that the country was actually run by the multitude of local goverments, and not really from Warsaw (or Krakow). The only things in common were: foreign policy, royal courts (even for Jews, they were directly under the king), with the Supreme Crown Tribunal in Lublin at the head, and army (that did not meant draft, but the national army tax), which being constantly in the field, became pretty good. It was an attractive model, especially for trade-based communities; the German cities of what was to become the royal Prussia province, in order to become the part of Poland (Hansa not being a serious alternative anymore) financed the Polish military during the gruesome 1454-1466 war with the Teutonic Order; the Russian city of Nowogrod Wielkij also wanted to become part of Poland: but this time Poland refused, fearing outstretching in the vast spaces of Russia. During the smuta period in Russia, even the Russian boyars were eager to accept a Polish-styled goverment, the only condition for Wladislav IV Vasa to become a tzar of Russia being his conversion to Orthodoxy. The Polish Parliament didn’t agree, though, fearing of establishing seconda genitura in Moscow (a second branch of Vasa dynasty in Moscow which could later lay claims to the Polish throne).
    Today, however, among its former parts, the positive memory of Rzeczpospolita has been only preserved only in Latvia (former Kurlandia province), Estonia (former Inflanty province), Belarus, and Moldavia (they sent a delegation to the 2010 celebration of the 1410 Grunwald victory over the Teutonic order). The guest list of the 2010 Grunwald celebration was a pretty good look over the legacy of Rzeczpospolita in Central Europe. Some countries, like Belarus, even released commemorative post stamps and plaques 😉 Israel did not send a delagation, though.

    The most popular vision of the fall of Poland, stressing the misbehaviour of Sejm, discounts the role of Senate. The matter was deliberately obfuscated by substituting Sejm for the entire parliament in the later historiography, whereas in the Polish context, parliament = Sejm + Senate + king. This composition wasn’t anything unusal, you have remanants of that even in UK, when the monarch still OPENS the parliament and an act of parliament, to become a law, need a royal agreement, however ceremonial this stamp may it be now.

    There is a Scott, Robert Frost, who seems to becoming Norman Davies’s heir, you may read him. Unlike Davies, he is duly focusing on parliament.

  53. I wonder about Roman Polanski…. what did he do wrong RECENTLY?! Why is he intimated?

    He is now in Poland and has recently cancelled a planned meeting with students of his alma mater, Lodz Film School, due to “threats”. Police appeared at the scene and confiscated “multiple megaphones and loudspeakers”. It must be painful to him, in his case it could even be truly like a reminder of the days of Holocaust, which he did live through, and which would be like the grand brackets in his case, “from Holocaust you came, to Holocaust you shall return”. So far he has not been left in peace in USA, in Switzerland, in France, and now not in Poland. Should he go to Israel, or what?

    Polanski is not Weinstein, after all. Or is he…?!

  54. @Dr. Moreau's Biographer

    “From the birth of it and up to the present time Poland has been a cultural wasteland. ”

    That is obviously untrue. Already mentioned here, Feliks Koneczny was a Polish voice in the discussion about patterns of human civilization, on par with German Oswald Spengler, English Arnold Toynbee or French Ernest Renan. It is also a proof that Poland generally stayed in the mainstream of European civilization, unlike Norway or Finland, for example.

    Strangely, it is Scandinavia, with the exception of Danemark (Tycho de Brache, Kierkegaard, Niels Bohr), which is Europe’s cultural wasteland. However, they carefully avoid this realisation, granting upon other nations Nobel prizes 😉 There has been an increasing number of Swedes, coming to study in Polish art schools (like Lodz Film School) due to the fact that “Swedish cultural landscape is rather sterile”. Sweden, the perfect country that was: well, it is good that after foreigners realised that Sweden has been becoming more and more ridiculuous, Swedes have started to realise that too…

    And if Poland did bring nothing to the world civilization, it surely refers to the Polish Jews as well. Why “Jewish genius” did not explode in Poland, despite the numerous Jewish community living there under the Jews-desired almost perfect autonomy? Why Kopernik wasn’t a Jew? Aren’t Jews so good with numbers? Isn’t astronomy saturated with mathematics? Why does Kabala have not much common with astronomy, or even astrology?

    What about that Poland gave Israel Ben Gurion and Golda Meir?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Gilad Atzmon Comments via RSS