"Pogrom" in Jedwabne – let the Germans apologize to the Jews for their crime!

Ignatiev on IPN maneuvers: Replica for IPN message

Krzysztof Janiewicz

On 09.07.2002, the online edition of “Gazeta Wyborcza” published information about the conclusion of the IPN investigation into the mass execution of Jews in the town of Jedwabne, which took place on 10 July 1941.

On the same day, “Gazeta Wyborcza” besides included the IPN Communication, Anna Bikont's interview with the prosecutor conducting the investigation, Radosław Ignatiew, and a brief commentary by the historian, prof. Tomasz Strzembosz, on the results of this investigation.

After reading these materials, a fewer questions arise about the reliability and the way the investigation is conducted.

First of all, erstwhile will it appear loudly announced after the parliamentary gathering of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights 30.01.01 by Prof. Witold Kulesza of IPN, the alleged "White Book" of the Jedwabieński investigation? And will specified a book always be published? In the communication of the IPN, there is no mention of this, and let us remind that prof. Kulesza described the request to print the White Book more than a year ago, which was widely commented on by the media.

– At the end of all investigative activities, we are considering the anticipation of publication of the White Paper

– A public presentation of the accounts of all surviving witnesses to the event is necessary, for in this case everyone has the right to have an opinion.

– There is no another way to establish the results of this investigation – Kulesza said.

Also the president of IPN, Kieres, said at the gathering of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights on 30.01.01:

– If the state and the terms of the investigation allow, then we want to print the White Book, in which the evidence of witnesses to this crime or another persons questioned will be found."

So this publication, which will be an highly crucial document, is now to be expected due to the large controversy of the full issue. It would be good for curious journalists to start asking Prof. Kulesza appropriate questions about the White Book he announced. Investigators of the Jedwabne incident, independent of the IPN and another government organizations, should have access to all the material on which Prosecutor Ignatiew relied in determining the course of events in Jedwabne on 10 July 1941, in order to verify final conclusions.

Secondly, the question is besides raised to what degree the results of the investigation conducted by Prosecutor Ignatiev were dependent on external influence. In another words, to what degree the result of the investigation was influenced by waiting for a certain top-down result. The rule mostly adopted in the planet is that, as long as the investigation continues and the court's case has not been completed or the judgement declared, the defendant's guilt (or later the defendant) should not be publicised. This is peculiarly actual for those highly placed in the social hierarchy and for those in charge of the investigation, as their comments suggesting a "desirable" consequence can be read as an effort to influence the rulings of the court or a resultand investigation, which is widely considered unethical, and in any countries may even be criminal.

This condition is not met in this case. Already over a year ago, at the very beginning of the investigation, there were comments from high-ranking state dignitaries in the mass media – e.g. president Kwasniewski or Prime Minister Miller, president of IPN Kieres (direct head of prosecutor Ignatiev), as well as any representatives of the Episcopal – prejudging Poles' guilt. They, without waiting for the result of the investigation, suggested the consequence by appearing with public apology and statements which clearly suggested that the book of John Gross was credible... that Poles were guilty of execution on Jews, and the Germans were simply passively looking at it, and, at most, inspired by their presence – although, according to the evidence of any witnesses, even these Jews defended it!

So what conclusions could prosecutor Ignatiew have reached? Are the results of his final investigation free from the human desire to delight his superior or even the head of state itself? After all, if the results of the investigation were fundamentally different from their comments, a highly awkward situation would arise. They would simply look like idiots, and the further career of D.A. Ignatiev would be greatly questioned. If you could even talk about any later career. possibly that is why the results of this investigation are so different...

In my discussion of the results of the final investigation – in the absence of the White Book – I can trust only on the authoritative IPN Communication, i.e. on the analysis of the full evidence collected and on the interview that D.A. Ignatiew gave to Mr. Annie Bikont.

Thus, in the first sentences of the IPN communication, prosecutor Ignatiew states:

(... )Analysing the full evidence collected in the course of investigation S 1100/Zn, the likely course of events was established on 10 July 1941 in Jedwabne.(...)

(... On Thursday morning, residents of the surrounding villages began to arrive in Jedwabne with the intention of participating in a pre-planned crime of murdering judaic residents of the village. On the evening preceding the events any judaic residents were prejudiced by friends of Poles, that collective actions against Jews were being prepared.(...)

In an interview with Mr. Annie Binkot, however, he says:

Witness evidence is so divergent, it was impossible to verifyOne message with another. So I did it on the basis of alleged evidence.material findings, exhumation findings, procedural records, field inspection, shell casings.(...)

(... By the remains, everyday objects were found, like a box with nailsszewskiy to gel shoes, but besides many gold coins and an astonishing amount of keys from locks and doors. It looked like these people, leaving homes, secured their property.(...)

(... On the day of the crime in Jedwabne there were definitely judaic people who took refuge there, among others, from Wizna and Kolna.(...)

So the very beginning of the communication in comparison with the interview suggests the following doubts:

If witness evidence is so divergent that the intent of determining the course of events should be to mention to material evidence, how does prosecutor Ignatiew know that the peasants have already come to Jedwabny due to the desire for execution and robbery? If so, Ignatiev should present these "material evidence" supporting his thesis of the arrival of peasants possessed by murder. (By the way, how did he find this on the basis of material evidence?) Or was it a marketplace day, and the peasants just drove down to Jedwabny for the fair? Naturally, assuming that they were coming at all, due to the fact that the accounts on this subject mainly come from the incredible “witnesses” of Gross.

Ignatiew besides claims that an astonishing number of keys and everyday items were found with the corpses, which propose that these people were securing their property, and thus expected to return to their homes. If you accept that On the evening preceding the events, any judaic residents were warned by Polish friends that collective actions against Jews were being preparedHave you warned others about the murder? Especially since even then there were refugees from Wizna and Kolna in Jedwabne, who may have already assumed what the next day's action might be threatening. No attempts to escape the night before the execution? The Jews expected them to return to their homes from this supposedly planned execution by Polish peasants? How did it happen that despite the existence of these expected plans for the extermination of all Jews by Poles, and despite the expected execution of this extermination by Poles, about 200 remaining Jews from the full number 564 lived peacefully in Jedwabne until the following year, erstwhile were they deported from Jedwabny by Germans?

On the another hand, a certain amount of valuables specified as jewelry, gold coins, and watches found in the pockets of the victims seems to be overwhelmingly overturning the speculations of prosecutor Ignatiev about the reasons for the robbery (I presume here that the exhumations were not completed due to spiritual protests by Jews; the corpses were not violated, so it was simply a "discovery" of pseudo-exhumation, which prevented forensic experts from carefully examining the remains and determining the origin of death).

Perhaps Polish residents of Jedwabny had no plans collective action against Jews So there was no reason to inform anyone about anything, and no hebrew from Jedwabny preceding the night?

Except for what the prosecutor's mouth says a probable event...?

Was it as he put it This Prosecutor Ignatiew, wasn't there? How about samelikely Was the course of events completely different? possibly the Germans by force, under the threat of death, gave distant those alleged 40 inhabitants of Jedwabny and ordered them to banish their homes and watch over the Jews? Like it happened in Tycocin? In court, the prosecutor besides states that the suspect probably. Did he commit a crime? What Does It Mean to Court probably.? Either the D.A. has conclusive evidence that, beyond any doubt, points to the defendant's guilt, or their prosecutor is not. If they're not here, don't let him make an accusation based on likelyevents.

Next, the IPN’s communication mentions the case of flammable material utilized to set fire to the barn. Prosecutor Ignatiew states:

After closing, the building was most likely covered with kerosene coming from a russian warehouse.

Could he present any "material evidence" for the usage of this kerosene? He may know this only from witness testimony, and these – according to his own opinion – are not worth much due to the fact that they deny each other. After all, there are besides witnesses who claim that gasoline was utilized to set fire to the barn, not kerosene. Why, then, does it give religion to witnesses who usage kerosene as flammable material utilized at the time, alternatively than to witnesses who say that petrol was utilized for this purpose? besides a well-known historian, who seems to be highly hard to think of as “awesomeness”, Prof. Tomasz Szarota, stated in an interview given to “Week Powszechny” on 17.04.2012:

It is improbable that specified a large barn fire (witnesses saw an detonation and a pillar of fire) could be caused with 8 liters of kerosene or oil. It must have been gasoline, and this 1 was most likely delivered by Germany.(...)

In the following part, Mr. Prosecutor is referred to the evidence of a man named Awigdor Kolov (a.k.a. They are very fond of having several, minimum 2 names; in any cases it may even be useful – if, for example, in 1 place Nieławski says 1 thing and in the another place Kolov says something completely different, then everyone thinks that they are 2 different people. So what did that Kolov-Nieławski say to the prosecutor:

Note that before leavingpeople, from the marketplace were committed by single murders. He talks about them, among others, the injured Awigdor Kolov, who was at the time on the market.

Could it be the same Nieławicki, whose evidence was so widely publicized, from tv through “Rzeczpospolita” to “Der Spiegel” as a evidence of an alleged eyewitness to events in Jedwabne? He preached in everything and in view that the perpetrators of the execution were Poles and – beating even Gross and Wassersztajna – he claimed that judaic victims of Poles in Jedwabne were more than 2 thousand. (And all this he preached after this pseudo-exhumation, in which bodies from 150 to 250 victims were counted.)

Kochaw-Nieławski himself had already been exposed as the author of a fabricated slander about alleged corruption by a delegation of silky Jews of the bishop of Łomżinski, Stanisław Łukomski, to whom Uncle Nieławicki, along with another Jews, was to deliver to Łomża a silver lichtar, which the bishop had, according to the evidence of Nieławicki (the Neighbours), p. 52-53, in exchange for this bribe to halt the pogrom in Jedwabne. Gross and Kolov-Nieławicki are divorced over this perverse nature of the bishop, father divorces! Only that the bishop of the hare of the Jews surely did not take, and not only for moral reasons, but purely method reasons. He was simply not in Łomża due to the fact that he had been hiding from the Soviets since October 1939, and returned to Łomża only in August 1941, that is, after the fact. For this simple reason, this notorious, silver-litary delegation and the visit alone could not have taken place.

It would so be appropriate to ask prosecutor Ignatiev here whether, in his opinion, the witness caught twice in the lie is simply a credible witness, and whether the remainder of the witnesses on which the prosecutor's evidence is based the results of the investigation are as credible as Awigdor-Wictor Koszw-Nieławcki.

With the witness subject and their testimony, the bias of the investigating prosecutor is evident. In an interview, Mr Bikont stated:

Some of the people I interviewed came from the families of those tried after the war for their engagement in the crime. It may affect what they remember, what they consider to be facts, but it's not the same as the suspicion of committing a crime of false testimony.

So these witnesses in his opinion are instantly becoming unreliable. On the another hand, there are credible witnesses specified as Kolov-Nieławcki, whose lies have been proven. Interesting approach to witness credibility... And did prosecutor Ignatiew think that witnesses slandering Poles could simply propose themselves with the book “Neighbours”, the anticipation of gaining material benefits or simply simple hatred towards Poles for suffered or imaginary harm?

It is so highly crucial to print the "White Book" of the Silk case, which would let curious parties to learn about the materials on which the findings of the investigation were based. It is about the evidence and names of witnesses whose evidence was rejected, along with the justification; the names of the witnesses on which the evidence was based, including the justification; and all the archival papers on which the prosecutor relied. It is known that in the State Archives in Łomża there are about 28 accounts submitted in 1947 by 19 witnesses, including 9 Jews, which clearly indicate Germans as perpetrators of the crime. According to these documents, 3 Poles were besides among the victims of the murder. The reports presented by Daria Nałęcz from the Łomżyn archive were found in civilian cases files held in front of the Łomżyn Grodzki courts in 1946-49. [PAP coverage, 28.03.01]

The IPN communication besides states:

In this state of affairs, it must be stated that it is reasonable to attribute the meaning of the largo of this crime to Germany, in the legal judgment.

The perpetrators of these crimes, as perpetrators of stricto meaning, were Polish residents of Jedwabny and surrounding areas – men, at least 40.

We request to take a closer look at this German act largo and Polish conduct stricto.

Professor Strzembosz's commentary, besides published in “Gazeta Wyborcza” on 09.07.02, reads:

For ‘100 % reliable"he considers the evidence of a female who, as a small girl, had fun on 10 July 1941 in Jedwabne. As Ignatiev revealed, a German soldier – taking the kid as judaic – wanted to take it to the marketplace in Jedwabne. The mother's intervention prevented it.

I talked to this lady. The relation is 100% reliable and speaks clearly about the active participation of the Germans," said Strzembosz. According to him, from the accounts of witnesses – about whom Ignatiew did not mention – it is clear that the Germans forced any Poles to go to the market, from which they were forced to convoy Jews to the barn where they were burned.

So there's a immense question mark here about what D.A. Ignatiew knows and what he's not telling us... Well, he knows, and considers it credible that a German tried to take this miraculously rescued kid to the market; he besides knows about the active, not only passive, participation of Germans, who forced Poles to go to the market.

And yet he's not telling us... On the another hand, he speaks about the participation of Poles of meaning stricto.

Such active participation of the Germans would besides point to the evidence of any defendants in the 1949 Łomżyń Process. If D.A. Ignatiev finds the conviction of the Stalinist court credible, the evidence of witnesses and defendants should besides be considered credible, as the court has given these defendants faith, as stated in the message of reasons:

Stanisław Zejer – born 1893: ... Yes, I confess that in 1941 in Jedwabne, going to the hand of the German government (This is simply a constantly utilized expression associated with the fact that the alleged August decree of 1944 was accused here) under the command of Mayor Karolak and Gestapo I have led...

Czesław Lipinski – born 1920: I explain that on a critical day erstwhile I was standing in my yard a German came to me and took me to the marketplace with him to watch over the Jews...

Władysław Dąbrowski – born 1890: ... the critical day erstwhile I was at home came to my flat gendarme with Mayor Jedwabny Karolak and told me to go to the marketplace to watch the Jews. due to the fact that I didn't want to go and tried to escape the German hit me in the head with a weapon (confirmed by respective witnessesAnd with his hand he struck me in the face and struck me with a tooth...

Felix Tarnacki – born 1907: (...) Mayor Karolak Marian came to me and the secretary of the Vasilewski Magistrate did not know the name with the Gestapo and drove me to the market...

Roman Górski – born in 1904: (...) I was approached by Karolak Marian, who was the mayor and German MP, who kicked me and took me to the Jedwabny Square...

Justification for the judgement of the Łomż territory Court, May 16-17, 1949 (Fragments)

I. Bolesław Ramatowski, Stanisław Zejer, Czesław Lipiński, Władysław Dąbrowski, Feliks Tarnacki, Józef Chrzanowski, Roman Górski, Antoni Niebrzydowski, Władysław Miciura, Józef Zyluk, Marian Zyluk, Jerzy Laudinski, Zygmunt Laudinski, Czesław Laudski, Wincenty Gostelski, Roman Zawadzki, Jan Zawadzki, Aleksander Łojewski, Franciszek Łojewski, Eugeniusz Śliwecki, Stanisław Sielawa and Karol Bardoń, were charged with the fact that on 25 June 1941 in Jedwabne, territory of Łomzyński – going to the hand of the German State, they took part in the designation of about 1,200 people of judaic nationality who were massively burned in the barn of Bronisław Śleszyński.

... This execution was attended by Germany in the number of dozens (St. J. Sokolovska) including the same Gestapo 68 and local population who were dragged into action by violence. ...

... The local population, that is, in this number and the defendants were taken to participate under terror, as it is seen from all explanations of the accused, wherever they were filed and from evidence of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the accused. The force applied by the Germans to the accused results in a large amount on which on that critical day they appeared in Jedwabne and from the fact that the Jews had to be dragged out of the dwellings into the collection site, which Germany itself could not accomplish due to the comparatively tiny amount of them. ...

I. Charles Bardonia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As the witness Sokołowska testified, the suspect was employed in the police service at the time. ...

So if you say "a" you gotta say "b", Mr. Prosecutor... Otherwise, “grossowszczyna” begins, or selective selection of materials, which confirm the thesis at the very beginning, that it was Poles from their own and unforced will that murdered Jews, for which they should now be chiefly apologized. On the another hand, all evidence and witness evidence indicating that the defendants acted under panic is rejected. If it is based on the results of the investigation and the validity of the 1949 judgement of the Łomża territory Court, it should besides be regarded as appropriate grounds on which that court relied by specified alternatively than another judgments.

If it's claimed that...

... Based on the archive material of criminal trials in 1949 and 1953 and another evidence verified during the current investigation, it should be assumed that they were actively active in the murder, armed with sticks, orbs and another tools. The actions assigned to them as a consequence of this investigation fulfil the non-submissional characteristicsthe limitation of the crime described in Article 1(1) of the Decree of 31 August 1944, which states that he is subject to a life conviction of imprisonment, "who, by going to the hand of the German State's authority... was active in the killings". Of the forty people whose names, as perpetrators, were mentioned in the case files, any were judged validly. ...

... it should besides be considered that, on the basis of the evidence of witnesses and defendants from this trial, as well as the ruling of this court, the convicts acted under the coercion of the Germans, being terrorized by them. Most people in Poland, who survived the German occupation, know well what was threatened by the refusal of an order issued by the Germans, especially (as the convicts testified) of an order supported by a kick, a punch with a fist or a butt of a gun. Isn't there a full fresh image here on 10 July 1941 in Jedwabne, where supposedly 40 citizens of this town became force and panic forced to follow German orders...? The orders have been executed, not everyone has a proponent for a hero and is willing to sacrifice his life for the life of his neighbor. possibly among these expected forty were any who actually avenged the Jews for alleged or actual harm suffered by themselves or their families under russian occupation.

By the way, until the circumstantial names of the alleged 40 people are determined, it cannot be claimed that there were so many. Moreover, it cannot be claimed that specified persons existed at all. The order of action must be completely opposite. First you request to find precisely who, and then number how many. Operation with magic numbers is not acceptable to a prosecutor who, without a tiny two-year investigation, is inactive incapable to give any concrete findings.

In the light of the above, there is simply a different moral aspect, as well as a criminal aspect, of the act itself. It's rather different from the speculation of your prosecutor that from morning to morning, the local peasants would come to Jedwabne, possessed by an unexplained collective amok and a desire for execution on Jews. possibly this prosecutorial act of Poles should be reclassified stricto For making sense largoand attributable to the Germans largo Explain justly for the sake of making sense stricto...

From the interview given to Mr Bikont:

... The proceedings will be dismissed. I didn't identify any surviving perpetrators who wouldn't have been tried before. In witness statements, there were mostly no fresh names but those known from archival materials. ...

If there were no fresh names and 12 people were convicted by the court in Łomża (the another defendants were acquitted due to deficiency of evidence), where did the prosecutor get 40 perpetrators? [Bravo!] Let us not forget that Gross in his book, besides based on the evidence of “obvious” witnesses, gives the number of over 90 perpetrators!

The IPN message besides states:

... In the course of the ongoing investigation, insufficient evidence has been gathered to identify and prosecute the surviving perpetrators. ...

So now it turns out that D.A. Ignatiew didn't find adequate evidence to charge the surviving perpetrators. There's not even adequate evidence to identify the another perpetrators...

On what grounds, then, he accuses an anonymous group of people of criminal activity, without having adequate evidence and giving them (potential defendants) a chance to present their own version of events in court. It's not an accusation, it's a slander! It is not lawful to accuse anyone without presenting conclusive evidence of his guilt, for there is simply a rule of presumption of innocence!

I fishy that the evidence collected by D.A. Ignatiev might not withstand the rigors of the court, and in peculiar the careful questions of the defenders. Prosecutor Ignatiew is well aware that, in view of the conflicting evidence of witnesses and the content of archival documents, he actually has no evidence to support his accusation, or, in fact, no ruling already issued. He is thus "grossing" and one more time giving evidence that the institution set up to disclose historical fact stands firm to defend political interests having small to do with Polish interests. It is in the Polish interest to full and uncompromisingly explain the Jedwabny affair, to scope out to historical facts, and to discover all manipulations taking place in this full affair.

So let the Nation be pleased, due to the fact that he was kindly released from collective work and pointed to any alleged 40 Poles. As a result, we should take a breath of relief, but – as the above analysis shows – it doesn't make sense... The president can remainder due to the fact that he “did not apologize for nothing”... “We have shown work as a nation” and “we have looked the fact in the face”...

“Now” we can arrange unbroken relations with our judaic friends, due to the fact that “we have stood on the occasion.” All we gotta do now is look at another episode of this hucpa entitled “Fighting about the inscription on the monument” ... Then the next episode entitled “Indemnifications” ...And then.... Well, time will tell, but it seems alternatively uncomfortable to us.

Silk’s White Paper

Leszek Żebrowski

The mountain gave birth to a mouse

For almost 2 and a half years, i.e. since the beginning of Jedwabny’s “affair”, “Our Poland” informed readers about everything that was applicable to this case. We were 1 of the first to print documents, to uncover the inconsistency of the investigation, a selective approach to sources. The voice in the NP was taken by various people, mostly oriented in preserved documentation, indicating sources unknown to the IPN. We have demanded the disclosure of all, I repeat – all – of papers relating straight and indirectly to the Jedwab case, knowing its global consequences. There was no response. We were all reassured that there was an investigation going on, that there was a secret, that after it was finished, we would know the full truth.

Things Missed

The final was expected to be White Paperthe publication of which has been translated from period to month, which may have shown that it lasts Further improvement or that the IPN is counting on public opinion fatigue, and if we get not necessarily what was announced, nothing will happen.

And so it did. W Books – in fact, in “Books”, due to the fact that the full (in 2 volumes) has about a 1000 pages of papers and respective 100 pages of analysis, introductions and articles, both historical and legal, there are no contemporary things: evidence of witnesses and materials collected for the purposes of the investigation. Therefore, we do not know why certain statements have been completely ignored and considered unbelievable, and otherwise. On what grounds the prosecutor ruled that on the Polish side respective twelve people were active in murdering Jews, not, for example, several. Why was the function of the Germans brought only to inspiration, and erstwhile they discreetly "removed" from Jedwabny, although there was a group of Gestapo there this morning? There are no results of pseudoexhumation or expertise on what legal basis it was abruptly discontinued. quite a few things we inactive don't know...

Kieres misses the fact again

The president of the IPN Prof. Leon Kieres announces in the preamble that the books contain “all knowledge” about Jedwabny. This is not true: apart from the deficiency of papers produced in the investigation (and their publication by Prof. Kieres repeatedly) there are besides no another papers that the IPN did not scope for any reason. There is so no survey (from 1949) by Waldemar Macholla of the Białystok SS (Chief of the 4th A3) on the activities of German peculiar groups in Białystok in the summertime of 1941. There is besides no account of Ryvka Kajzer (located in the judaic memorial book of Sokoły in 1962), who was on the marketplace in Jedwabne on July 10, 1941. According to her, they committed a crime. Germany with the aid of local peasants. Rabbi Baker utilized her communicative in 1980, drawing up the judaic book of Jedwabny, but someway he did so? – he did not truly stick to the first and the function of the Germans omitted.

There is no information on how to treat the alleged "rescription" of Szmul Waserstejn's account prepared for the purposes of the 1949 investigation by the judaic Historical Institute in Warsaw, containing more data than the original. There are besides no clear decisions as to whether his relation (both, although excluded in detail) is credible at all, due to the fact that even the IPN indirectly considered that he was not a witness to events.

Interpretative layer – depreciation of Polish relations

The publication of papers (even not all of them) is indeed an event: with all the above-mentioned conditions, this extends importantly our cognition and allows us to make a judgement that can be supported by origin material. This cannot be said about the explanation layer, that is, articles and analyses in the first volume BooksAnd it's like I said, over 1,000 pages. Paweł Machcewicz, author of a substantive introduction announces that Book is an effort – partial and preliminary – to present phenomena that have been overlooked so far by silence, It's like it's never happened before. If so, specified an attitude obliges. And we have the phenomenon of depreciation (of course in “white gloves”) of all the relations, papers and assessments of the Polish side and simultaneously emphasising the function of judaic sources, although many times it has emerged that they are hurtful, biased and can be completely false.

Paweł Machcewicz considers Polish relations so: They are characterized by subjectivism, emotions, frequently contain information heard, false, which is an expression of the circulation (or even stereotypical) courts. Further, the author claims that they are a very crucial origin to reconstruct the moods of the Polish population, including assessment of judaic behaviour (let us remember this – these are only “assess” and “senses”, so as a origin of cognition about events and facts are already worthless?) and immediately re-reserved: Surely there are many wrongful or even hurtful generalizations. In the face of judaic relations and memories, he is no longer so suspicious: Jewish relations... are marked by emotions, which are otherwise full understood... any are a evidence of the collective cognition of respective people... They contain many inaccurate information... which is completely understandable.... The fact is, how nicely and "politically correct" can 1 get out of an awkward situation erstwhile dealing with stereotypes and false information? This can simply be “fully understood”, that is, in fact, accepted without reservation... It is simply a pity that Machcewicz does not apply the rule of equality here. What is Simon Datner's "relationship" based on the "remembrance" of persons or persons who... did not witness events?

With this approach, they become understandable, unscientific and unsupported claims contained in detailed analyses. Paweł Machcewicz, for example, claims that in the summertime of 1941 a ban on the sale of food products to Jews was introduced, which was to be a mention to anti-Jewish actions from the 1930s. However, there are adequate strong judaic relations and memories that specified action took place, but from judaic traders towards the Polish population in the autumn of 1939. specified reasoning can be called turning a tail, not a reliable historical analysis.

The collaboration of Jews with the Soviets is simply a figment of imagination
Poles

Jan Milewski discovers that judaic collaboration between 1939 and 1941 she didn't stand out for anything special, And in fact, she was a piece... imaginations of Polish residents. What do the witnesses of past say, those brought out in cattle carriages who were denatured by local Jews (neighbors!) coming with red armbands, with rifles, accompanied by NKWD? Is that their morbid, anti-Semitism-saturated delusion? And who robbed the material goods exported? It's not just Polish imaginationBecause there are many judaic sources. I – are there cases known that Poles came to aid the NKVD-zists in the deportation of Jews, or vice versa?

Raising statistics

Marcin Urynowicz, author of a highly learned demographic analysis, concludes: At the turn of June and July 1941, the judaic community in Jedwabne, most likely about a 1000 people, seems to have been enlarged by an unspecified number of refugees from surrounding towns.. Finally, he softens his bloated reasoning, writing that The number of 1,600 Jews... seems to be inconceivable in the light of today's knowledge. What is expected to “seem” – after all, for a long time we know that in the full Silky region there were only 1,200 Jews (in turn, according to judaic accounts, until... 1500 were to be killed only in Radziłów, and where were another towns?). From Jedwabny, with little than 600 Jews, any of them escaped with the Soviets, any of the young men of the Soviets called into the army, the judaic refugees in 1941 were in Łomża and another towns, after 10 July 1941 more than 100 remained in Jedwabne. Something about that balance is not right... Well, statistic aren't history, there's no way to pull it. In addition, data from the necropolis contained in the book of Jedwabny was completely omitted, but even those who survived it, like Israel (Joseph) Grądowski, were there among the victims of the war.

Priests are anti-Semites.

Dariusz Libionka, a peculiar lover of the Catholic Church in Poland, gives untested accounts of anti-Semitic attitudes of individual priests as if they were facts proven scientifically. Jan Tomasz Gross besides “provided” that the bishop of Łomzyński Stanislaw Łukomski was expected to take ransom from the Jews (gold, candelabry), although he was not there at all.

Finally, another “determination”: Andrzej Rzeplinski, an otherwise reliable researcher, questions the evidence of the arrested people that they were forced to extract them. present we know adequate about that period, so we can surely say otherwise: the arrested were beaten and tortured even erstwhile it was not essential at all. That was the regulation of conduct of UB investigators.

German participation not established

The conclusion of Paul Machcewicz remains: the precise function played by Germany in the 10 July 1941 events was not determined, which was specifically inspired by them. So – we inactive don't know what's most important. Why, then, is there a large amount of effort and resources to analyse and think that not only does not bring us closer to the truth, but they are most frequently misleading? Have we waited long adequate to see for ourselves that the mountain can bear a mouse?