Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust

Relevant data

Couple helpful sources (my translation).

Number of Poles aiding Jews:

The exact number of rescuers and rescued will never be known. What is known is that the helping attitude in Polish society was rare and did not meet with universal approval. Thousands of stories of help are known, but we will never know about many rescuers. Difficulties in documenting the history of aid are due, among other things, to the secretive nature of the rescuers' actions, the concealment of the fact that they were helping for fear of social ostracism, the post-war migration of the population and political conditions. These factors determined the disproportion between the cases of aid that were able to be confirmed by irrefutable testimonies and the likely larger number of people who were involved in this activity. 6,992 Polish women and men have been honored with the title of Righteous Among the Nations (as of January 1, 2019). The award is given by the Yad Vashem Institute in Jerusalem to people of non-Jewish descent who gave selfless help to Jews during the Holocaust. Estimates of the number of Poles who sheltered Jews are scarce, especially those based on specific calculations. In the 1980s. Teresa Prekerova indicated 160-360 thousand, assuming that the number of Jewish survivors was 40-60 thousand, and that each survivor received support from 2-3 people. In 2002. Gunnar Paulsson estimated the number of people helping Jews in Warsaw at 70-90 thousand, and those seeking refuge at 28 thousand. Referring to Mordechaj Paldiel's assessment, he surmised that the number of rescuers in Warsaw was ¼ of the total, giving a national figure of 280 to 360 thousand.
— sprawiedliwi.org

Number of saved Jews by Poles:

The number of rescued reported by Datner [80-100,000] is not confirmed by the research of other historians. Shmuel Krakowski estimated that about 300,000 Jews escaped from the ghettos and camps, while about 30,000 survived on the so-called Aryan side. Michał Borwicz, on the other hand, calculated that 40-50,000 Jews survived on Polish soil. According to Teresa Prekerowa's estimates, 60-115 thousand Jews survived the occupation of Polish lands, of whom 30-60 thousand on the Aryan side, 20-40 thousand in the camps, and 10-15 thousand in the woods or in the partisans. Lucjan Dobroszycki estimated that with the help of Poles, about 30 thousand Jews survived the occupation. Similar figures were given by Philip Friedman (20-30 thousand) and Israel Gutman (30-35 thousand saved this way). Grzegorz Berendt indicated that the number in the occupied territories of the Second Republic did not exceed 50,000. The already mentioned Stankowski and Weiser estimated that about 15-20 thousand Jews were saved by Poles.
— Grądzka-Rejak, Martyna; Namysło, Aleksandra (2022). "Prawodawstwo niemieckie wobec Polaków i Żydów na terenie Generalnego Gubernatorstwa oraz ziem wcielonych do III Rzeszy. Analiza porównawcza" [German legislation towards Poles and Jews in the General Government and the lands incorporated into the Third Reich. Comparative analysis]. In Domański, Tomasz (ed.). Stan badań nad pomocą Żydom na ziemiach polskich pod okupacją niemiecką (in Polish). Warsaw: Institute of National Remembrance. pp. 109–110.

Marcelus (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Marcelus. Do you think that "sprawiedliwi.org" is reliable? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is, the site is run by Jewish Historical Institute and Museum Polin, but I don't think it should be our direct source, since they giving the name of the researchers Marcelus (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews provide the name of the researchers, but no references to their work. We shouldn't report "Teresa Prekerova says so", if we don't know where and when she said so. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello Volunteer Marek, a few remarks to recent edits:

1. With regard to this edit [1], We should take a closer look at the sources. 1) The quotation from Paldiel 1993 in footnote can be completed with the immediately subsequent sentence: These coercions came not only from strangers, but also from next-door neighbors and members of the rescuer’s family, who were infuriated at the rescuer for risking the lives of his family, of neighbours, and the local community ... all for the sake of the “despised” Jews. 2) The same applies to the quotation from Zimmerman 2003. After the text quoted in the footnote, Zimmerman quotes Tec (also in the footnote) and the testimony (reported by Tec) of one rescuer: My husband hated Jews ... Many Poles feel the way he did. I had to be careful of the Poles. One can read this also in Tec 1986 at p. 54. 3) Most of Tec 1986 is devoted to understanding the phenomenon of the antisemitic rescuers; however, the book cannot be interpreted as claiming that antisemitism did no hamper the rescuers. E.g., The environment in which Polish rescuers lived was hostile to the Jews and unfavorable to their protection (p. 58, already included in the article).
2. With regard to this edit [2], perhaps we could restore Blonski and qualify him as "intellectual"? He is mentioned in the quoted source (Friedrich 2005). Do you think we should modify the opening sentence of Jan Błoński: a Polish historian, literary critic, publicist and translator?
3. With regard to this [3], apart from the WP:WEASEL word "several", the content looks dubious/contentious to me; perhaps we shouldn't address this controversial point here on this article but rather at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. I suggest we remove this text from this article:

   Several scholars have stated that, unlike in Western Europe, Polish collaboration with the Nazi Germans was insignificant

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Re 1 - the point here is that there were lots of different motivations for why people turned away Jews. Some out of anti-semitism, some out of fear, etc. The direct passages that are being quoted refer to and imply the threat of death as the cause. Pulling that together with other footnotes or passages from the text which discuss anti-semitism appears to be WP:SYNTH. In the lede, I think we should just leave it general like this since the quotes don't explicitly provide a reason.

Re 2 - sure, "intellectual" is fine. And the Blonski article should be modified as well.

Re 3 - "looks dubious" is not really an argument - one could say that about any piece of text one doesn't like. Collaboration and anti-semitism aren't the same thing though, so again, this is WP:SYNTH. As far as Tanini goes (in fact she stresses that distinction repeatedly through out her article), I think this might have been discussed some time ago (like years). Anyway, here's some relevant quotes: Unlike in Belarus and in Ukraine, where the Nazis sought (and found) collaborators, no Poles were given positions of authority. This policy ruled out any kind of legal collaboration at the political and economic level. and the ease with which the Poles created a split reality, where the occupiers were circumvented and ignored, was not due to specific anthropological qualities of the Poles, but to their experience of foreign occupation in the nineteenth century and Collaboration with the Nazis is still considered a marginal issue by both Czesław Łuczak and Tomasz Sztrzembosz, two of the leading experts on the Second World War in Poland, while Andzrej Paczkowski reminds readers of his recent History of Poland that the Germans found people willing to work with in all the countries they controlled and that Poland was no exception.1 (Iread that sentence as saying, yes there was some (Paczkowski) but it was marginal (Luczak and Sztrembosz). And Gross concludes that ‘there was no suitable structural collaboration in the Generalgouvernment’ Volunteer Marek 05:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Re 1, I see no WP:SYNTH. Quoted sources are entirely explicit about antisemitism being a risk factor that the rescuers had to face; at most, the point is whether a reference to Polish antisemitism is DUE there, e.g. Polish rescuers were hampered by the German occupation, potential betrayal by local population and widespread home-grown antisemitism looks fully verifiable to me.

Re 2, since I'm not familiar with Blonski, I won't modify the dedicated article myself, but I'm now restoring the reference in this article.

Re 3, this is an important discussion - perhaps this t/p is not the best venue for it, but let's start it. On many articles I've noticed a serious distorion with regard to "Polish collaborationism". Yes, up until the 1980s Polish historiography firmly denied the existence of anything like that; and also today, I guess, nationalist historians deny the existence of Polish collaborationism. But we need to be clear about what's the subject of controversy. As the quote from Tonini makes clear (and I could provide other sources, e.g. Friedrich's essay), in Poland there has never been what she calls "legal collaboration". What does she mean? The point is that, contrary to other European countries, in Poland the Germans had set out to complete crush and annihilate the nation. They didn't want to have a Polish state, not even a puppet state. "Legal" collaboration means institutionalized cooperation by representatives of the Polish nation: that was impossibile because the German did not even try to create a collaborationist government. They had to use the local police, yes, but that's basically all the collaboration they needed (and obtained). Our articles often present the absence of Polish legal collaboration as a moral/political choice. Yes, it was also a moral/political choice, and the Poles loathed the German occupiers and created one of the strongest resistence movement against Nazism. But there were collaborators in Poland - obviously there were, as anywhere else in Europe. This must be said clearly, because there's plenty of historical evidence to support that - e.g., the role of the Blue Police cannot be denied. Moreover, there was also widespread antisemitism. Jan Karski himself reported at the beginning of 1940 that German persecutions against the Jews were creating "a narrow bridge upon which the Germans and a large portion of Polish society are finding agreement" (Zimmerman, The Polish underground and the Jews, p. 75). So I think that Several scholars have stated that, unlike in Western Europe, Polish collaboration with the Nazi Germans was insignificant over-simplifies and is UNDUE in this article; the topic is complex and requires more space and better sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024

In the Bibliography, please remove the errant ref tag after the listing for Friedrich, Klaus-Peter (2005) 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

POV template

This article has been the subject of a Peer-reviewed article which identifies many problems of bias, which I feel still remain. It particularly understates the degree of Catholic Polish people's collaboration with the nazis in the extermination of their Jewish countrymen. A complete rewrite with more focus on this aspect is necessary. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"Co-founder in 2003 of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, in Warsaw, Poland, Grabowski is best known for his book Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (2013), which won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize."

Though the author of this article represents a particular view in academia that merits acknowledging, it seems difficult to diesntangle his own career accomplishments and interests from a baseline neutral historical perspective. 12.52.139.133 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, in both the linked article (which, to me, reads more as polemic rather than systematic review as claimed) as well as other publications, Grabowski has betrayed a certain personal investment in how his scholarship is represented on Wikipedia. My understanding is that he is currently appraised to be a well respected but nonetheless controversial historian in his field of study. It would seem convenient for him to be able to frame his critics as well as Wikipedia editors exclusively as disgruntled Polish nationalists. 12.52.139.133 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

which, to me, reads more as polemic rather than systematic review as claimed

Frankly, this is not for us to say in mainspace purely on the basis of our own estimations. If other reliable sources have criticized it as such, we may instead note that, in proportion to the relative prominence of those sources.

Grabowski has betrayed a certain personal investment in how his scholarship is represented on Wikipedia

This is, once again, entirely irrelevant to the question of whether and how to present a scholar's work on Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia policy that says a scholar's investment in his own representation on Wikipedia is anything we should take an inherent interest in, whether for better or worse, and certainly no policy saying this is a reason to minimize the amount of ink we expend expressing the views of this scholar.

My understanding is that he is currently appraised to be a well respected but nonetheless controversial historian in his field of study.

Solely going off your source, he is appraised to be politically controversial—a direct quote from the third sentence of that very review. This is not the same as being controversial in his field, which is history. While the review yourself cites some examples of historians—almost exclusively Polish, mind you—who have taken exception to his work, the review itself is generally quite positive about his work, noting that what few errors the work may have are doubtless marginal, and However, the thrust [of Grabowski's critics] here is political, because it is more about discrediting some overall statements and conclusions through criticism of details. This is a popular defamatory discourse strategy along the lines of: ‘If footnote 1376 is incorrect, everything else must be wrong as well’. Bringing attention to a few minor corrections, he is hasty to note that all of this is more of a nuisance than a reason to doubt the key findings of this impressive work. To the extent this review disagrees with the main thrust of the book at all, it isn't to minimize the Polish contribution to the genocide at all, but rather to emphasize the sheer banality of Polish collaborationism: Of course, genocide on this unprecedented scale would not have been possible without the participation of the occupied and the collaborating nations. It is certainly necessary that this be said for the political education of responsible European citizens. However, the basic requirements – the perpetrators and their actions – must not be pushed into the background. In all of this, the overwhelming German responsibility must be clearly stated. Somehow, I doubt this is a view that you wish this page emphasized. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion Fair analysis. Just a side note, since this is undue here, but it would be good if our biography of him cited this and reflected this. Perhaps you could stop by that page? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll stop by when I find the time. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an incoherent argument that would have us disregard the views of all historians, including those already cited in this article, because all historians build their careers on writing about, well, history. Or perhaps you are emphasizing specifically the fact that he won awards for doing history, which would lead us to the even more absurd conclusion that we should include historians as sources, but only if they don't do history too well—so well that they win prizes.

Here I must note that in modern history and historiography, the idea of a "neutral baseline" is generally discarded as not useful. All historians and histories are biased. Importantly, bias is not a synonym for false. It isn't enough to point that out; it says nothing useful.

Now Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not a historian, nor a part of the community of historians, nor is it the job of Wikipedians to act as historians. Wikipedia takes a different view re: WP:BIAS in that we actually do try to avoid bias, however successful or unsuccessful anyone may judge us to be in that regard. The key here is in how we define and avoid bias. Simply: ee recognize that bias exists in the real world, but rather than trying to avoid biased sources ourselves as a matter of principle, instead, in writing articles, aim to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources, as noted by WP:DUE. In other words, we don't exclude biased sources, but rather try and include all reliable sources in proportion to their prominence, not bias.

Thus, in fact, the writings of a historian decorated for their work in history, which has been widely discussed by historians, should receive greater, not lesser coverage on Wikipedia compared to a more obscure work of history, even if, in your estimation, the latter were less biased.

Now your own comment acknowledges that the author of this article represents a particular view in academia that merits acknowledging, which makes one question why you bothered to write the rest of the comment at all, since none of it is even relevant here per Wikipedia policy. It seems like a textbook case of casting WP:ASPERSIONS, except with regards to a reliable source rather than other editors. If your intention was merely to idely muse about this subject, remember, talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

By counterexample, it would be equally inappropriate to render undue focus on Polish rescue of Jews in the article "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland." For this reason as well, the existence of Grabowski's publication does not merit a complete rewrite as opposed to simpy ammending the article with occasional counterexamples when appropriate and perhaps a link to the equivalent Collaborationist article in the "See Also" section. 12.52.139.133 (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've linked to that article (Collaboration in German-occupied Poland). It is quite possible this article here needs some c/e to ensure it is not too apologetic or hagiographic, but we need to discuss specifics, not generalities (particularly coming from a rather problematic essay. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not how writing Wikipedia articles work. By and large, they should be self-contained entities, and it is not the case that one article is "allowed" to be biased simply because another article is biased in "the other direction". Each and every Wikipedia article, taken alone, must strive to fairly represent the views of all reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of those views in those sources, and the relative promimence of those sources. While articles should remain focused on their subject, it is inconceivable that you could rationally argue that Polish collaborationism with Nazi Germany and the rescuing of Jews by Poles in Nazi Germany are completely unrelated subjects. Both articles must necessarily speak about both subjects, obviously stressing one, but never failing to ignore the other, and in particular, not ignoring the general historiographical discussion about the relative importance of each. Otherwise, exactly in which article do you propose this discussion be included? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion Well said, but of course, what is WP:DUE or not is in the eye of the beholder... This reminds of some old discussions (quite heated, to say the least) related to our articles on various Jewish ghettos and whether they should mention information on the rescue; the point of contention was that USHMM Encyclopedia of Ghettos generally does mention this topic (rescue of ghetto inmates or other efforts to aid them by gentiles) at all. Our articles, on the other hand, tend to discuss this topic at some length... Personally, I believe this makes our articles better as more comprehensive (WP:NOTPAPER), but not everyone agreed (and presumably, agrees). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide concrete parts of the article that have problems with POV. Also take into the account that this is article about rescue not collaboration, which is only a context for the former. At this moment I'm removing the template, which shouldn't be misused. Marcelus (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The template has been restored, the details of criticisms of the article are found in the article linked above.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read what @Marcelus wrote above. Your current rationale is too generic, that one article was critical of this is not sufficient - we need specifics, and we need a consensus that they are due. Have you linked the extensive critical analysis of the paper you mentioned that I linked, or any of the two others substantial critiques of it - all should be linked through PubPeer. PS. To be clear, I do agree this article needs improvement, but it is not Featured or Good, it is just a mediocre draft that needs much work (expansion, better sourcing, and quite possibly some minor fixes for neutrality here or there). But there is no need to drop an copyediting template on it - it is sufficient that it as assessed as B-class here (if you would like to downgrade this to C-class, I would not object). Lastly, for any parts in the body you think are not neutral, rather the not-very-helpful top level NPOV template, I encourage you to use {{npov-inline}}, or just rewrite them._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)