Far From Truth

„Fear” ignores the history of Polish-Jewish relations and the Jews in communist Poland. There is only a distorted account of misdeeds committed by the Poles. 

The book was published in 2006 in the United States and at that time aroused a lot of controversy, since the diagnosis presented in „Fear” is shocking. Gross believes that anti-Semitism in 1940s was driven by the fact that Poles universally, in various ways, participated in murdering and robbing Jews during WWII. The „Fear” of responsibility for these crimes and threat of Jews regaining their property (thus the book title) became a source of animus and aggression against Holocaust survivors and drove Poles to commit subsequent murders. Gross writes: „we have to recognise that there existed in Poland an unwritten social contract that suspended the norm „thou shall not kill” with reference to the Jews”; murdering Jews „did not lead to social sanctions”. 

Gross’ book contains many more equally shocking statements. „The presented theses in the book are not up in the air,” writes Woźniakowski, “they are illustrated and supported with evidence, research of historians and brilliant argumentation”. He hopes that the book will stir up a national debate similar to that caused by „Neighbors”. Though Woźniakowski mentions that „Fear” contains controversial threads, however, they are supposed to reinforce mainly the book’s value: „In this painfully brutal or provocative character of the book one should be able to notice not only illuminating and educating values, but also therapeutic value”. 

Although our knowledge about the post-war fate of Jews may be inadequate and distorted to a large extent and some shocking therapy may be required, before we proceed to such therapy, it would be worthwhile to check the advisability of such operation, viz. to verify major theses of the book in question. Because in fact only the research techniques rather than any „brilliance” or „therapeutical value” allow us to determine „Fear”’s credibility. In other words is the treatment proposed by Jan Tomasz Gross going to cure the society or is it going to turn out to be harmful? 

Away from archives 

The research performed by the author raises serious doubts. In the bibliographical notes at the end of the book Gross mentioned 11 archives that were supposed to be covered by his research. The trouble is that two of them, the archives of the Ministry of Public Administration and the archives of Central Committee of Jews in Poland, do not exist at all. Out of the remaining six archives that are in Poland Gross researched only the documents of the Jewish Historical Institute. The book reveals that no other serious research in the remaining archives was carried out. The same goes for the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN). I managed to establish that Gross examined several files in the city of Rzeszów, whereas anywhere else he most probably did not carry out any significant research at all. 

For Gross what counts is not the reliability of a source, but birth certificate of the witness. All non-Jewish sources are not only inferior, but irrelevant for establishing the facts. 

This is highly significant. In the IPN archives, as well as in the archives at the provincial level (Białystok, Wrocław, Szczecin, Gdańsk, Kielce, Bydgoszcz, Rzeszów, Łódź, and Katowice) there are important collections of records, which play a key role in establishing the whole picture of this period in history. These include the files of provincial authorities, county people’s councils, other government bodies and organizations operating in Poland as well as the files of the Secret Police, Citizens‘ Militia, courts of law and prosecutors’ offices. Generally speaking Gross does not have a clue about the content of the aforementioned records. If the preliminary research on a nationwide basis was too difficult, then he might have examined a significant body of documents at the Archiwum Akt Nowych in Warsaw. But Gross failed to carry out any significant research there. This fact shows in a peculiar light claims about the attitude to the Jewish question of the Citizen’s Militia, Secret Police, and Polish Workers’ Party and other bodies of the communist state. Gross writes, for example, that the stance of the Polish Workers’ Party and the Ministry of Public Security was „neutral” toward assaults on the Jews and that the issue of anti-Jewish violence is “absent or underestimated in the official correspondence on the national security status”. Similar statements of „Fear”’s author are deprived of any scholarly underpinning and are totally false. 

If Gross had carried out serious research in the archives, then he would have quickly found documents disavowing major theses of „Fear”. Gross’ visions diverge from the basic facts and realities of the era. August Grabski from the Jewish Historical Institute: noted „thus [in the book] there is no talk about completely exceptional status of the Polish Jews amongst the national minorities in the first years of the Polish Peoples’ Republic, about the enjoyed national and cultural autonomy, since thanks to the network of provincial, county and urban Jewish committees, along with institutions and organizations operating there, the Polish Jews enjoyed actual national autonomy until 1949. The autonomy comprised: freedom of association including also the activities of political parties, separate educational system, publishing activities, separate health care system, aid of Western organizations (including in particular the Joint), own co-operative head office, possibility to emigrate, and even own armed self-defense unit in the form of Special Commission of the Central Committee of Polish Jews. We should remind that most of other national minorities were allowed to associate only in 1956. Gross does not mention either the equal rights of the Polish Jews and the Poles of Jewish origin who could without any major problems occupy the highest posts in the government administration, judicial system, ruling party, educational system, which was not possible in the Second Republic. Finally the author does not analyze at all the propaganda efforts of the Polish Workers‘ Party in fighting anti-Semitism both during and after the war”. (Jewish History Quarterly 3/2006). 

Inconvenient authors do not exist 

„Fear” can also be measured against other scholarly works on this period. Gross purposefully overlooks the books of the authors inconvenient for him. They are not mentioned in the narrative and are missing in the bibliography. This fate was shared by Marek Wierzbicki, Ph.D. and his book Polacy i Żydzi w zaborze sowieckim. Stosunki polsko-żydowskie na ziemiach północno-zachodnich II RP pod okupacją sowiecką 1939 – 1941 (Poles and Jews in the Soviet Partition. Polish-Jewish Relations in the North-Western Lands of Polish Second Republic under Soviet Occupation, 1939-1941) (2001) whose findings undermine the credibility of Gross history. „Fear” also lacks references to the work of Polish-American historian Professor Marek Chodakiewicz. His books Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland 1939-1947” (2004), „After the Holocaust (2003, Polish debut was last Friday) or Żydzi i Polacy 1918 – 1955. Współistnienie zagłada, komunizm (Jews and Poles 1918-1955. Co-existence, Extermination, Communism) (2000), should be fundamental references for this topic. The names of neither author is even mentioned in the personal index. A similar fate was shared by Polish-German historian Bogdan Musiał, Ph.D., and his book Rozstrzelać elementy kontrrewolucyjne! Brutalizacja wojny niemiecko-sowieckiej latem 1941 roku (Shoot Counter-Revolutionary Elements! Brutalization of the German-Soviet War, Summer 1941) (2001, German edition 2000). These books contain extensive factual material that nullifies many basic statements in „Fear”. Thus, all aforementioned researchers were deleted by Gross from history. 

If Gross uses any publications, then he frequently cuts phrases from the passages in a strange manner. For example on page 228 of „Fear” he quotes a piece of an article by Dariusz Libionka, published in the book Żydzi i Polacy pod okupacją niemiecką 1939 – 1945. Studia i materiały (Jews and Poles under German Occupation 1939-1945. Studies and Materials): „Since the beginning of German occupation the reality in the Polish territory was perceived on ethnical grounds. (…) Though the murders of Polish Jews in 1942 were on an enormous scale, The Union of the Armed Struggle-Polish Home Army did not undertake any military actions, even on a limited scale, to defend them. (…) The characteristic feature of the official statements of the Polish underground movement issued in the days of „big operation” in the Warsaw ghetto I believe – writes Libionka – was the lack of references to the fact that Jews who were being murdered then were the citizens of the Republic of Poland”. 

The above passage in the original version looks as follows: “Though the murders of Polish Jews in 1942 were on an enormous scale, The Union of the Armed Struggle/Polish Home Army did not undertake any military actions, even on a limited scale, to defend them. There were many reasons for that. First and foremost the Polish Underground State did not have at its disposal any resources to undertake any effective measures that could stop the Germans. (…) As it was rightly indicated by Krystyna Kersten: „the war making the national divisions even more acute and bringing them to the surface, shaped the national consciousness in a specific manner. Because of threat the nation was becoming the widely predominant thinking category, fundamental link, major objective of actions. The disintegration of the Second Republic along national lines became a fact of life”. Since the beginning of German occupation the reality in the Polish territory was perceived on ethnical grounds. (…) Even for people far from anti-Semitism, „strangeness” of the Jews raised no doubts. The stigmatization of Jews by means of Nazi legislation, closing them up in ghettos, but primarily due to physical exclusion from the community where they lived, further deepened their alienation. (…) The characteristic feature… etc.” (pp. 52 – 54). 

Libionka writes about problems, phenomena and their drivers. Gross took out sentences that he needed, thus distorting the real sense of the author’s message. And that is how he fabricated another evidence for anti-Semitism of the Polish underground movement. The whole passage he commented in the following manner: “Racial distinction introduced by the Nazi occupation authorities was reflected by the realities of the underground Poland”. 

Gross also uses other books freely, regardless of their actual content and presented factual material. This is the case, for instance, with the book Działalność komunistów wśród Żydów w Polsce 1944 – 1949 (Activities of Communists in the Jewish Community in Poland in 1994-1949) (2004) by August Grabski. Thus, „Fear” demonstrates the scale of its author’s unreliability. 

German military policeman as a typical Pole 

A couple of years ago in the book „Wokół Jedwabnego” („On Jedwabne”) the minutes of the questioning of Helena Klimaszewska were published. She described a drastic scene that happened in Radziłowo after the murder of local Jews in 1941: „It seems to me that it was in August 1941 (…) when I went from Goniądz to Radziłowo in order to find a flat for my husband’s parents, because I learnt that after Jews’ liquidation there were free flats there. Godlewski, I do not remember his first name, told me that all flats were occupied. Then he said the following: „When it was necessary to liquidate Jews, nobody was here, but now everybody is coming over to get a flat”. The mother of my husband, already deceased, stated then: now they do not want to give me a flat, whereas they sent my grandson to pour petrol over the barn”. 

While discussing the above incident Gross noted that: „Here we are witnessing a conversation based on the grounds – taken implicitly by one elderly woman, one middle-aged woman and one man – of recognition that the entitlement to acquire former Jewish assets is the participation in murdering assets owners”. 

It is disputable in what context the aforementioned „elderly woman” uttered the quoted passage. Here, one could concur with Gross’ opinion. But with the remaining two persons the things are more complicated. Klimaszewska does not take any stance on the reported case, but only provides an account of the situation. Gross’ thesis that she accepted such methods for former Jewish flats is groundless. The trouble begins in relation to Wacław Godlewski who is a perfectly known figure in the documents concerning the murder in Radziłów. 

He is not „one man” (which is to say: typical Pole), but a renegade (a fact concealed by Gross) and a German military policeman. And German military policemen are not necessarily equivocal to Polish society. Thus, Gross’ evidence is up in the air. This case becomes in „Fear” a fundamental illustration about „norms” and „mechanisms for redistribution of Jewish assets” in the Polish society. 

Gross applies similar research methods throughout „Fear”. Even if the case of a murder of a Jew is based on robbery rather than anti-Semitic grounds, Gross claims otherwise. This is the case of the murder of Henryk Liberfreund described on pp. 55 – 57. The document quoted seems to indicate a real perpetrator: „in two of these houses (…) lives a company centered around a woman with loose morals (…) The entire company has a good time and drinks at nights, and from time to time they wait for a train going past hoping for some spoils. Now the victims of such gangs are Jewish passengers going past by trains”. 

However, despite quite precise information possessed by Gross on this case, he treats Liberfreund as one of the victims of Polish anti-Semitism. But the case in question could prompt Gross to examine more seriously the question of Jews murdered in the provinces, not only on the trains. 

The 1940s was a period of easy access to weapons and demoralization. Violent crime was a common plague throughout the Polish provinces. Due to migratory movements the Jews were frequently travelling by trains, sometimes with all their possessions, money and valuables, unlike local peasants. Additionally in a certain area they were „strangers”, because they were just passing by, and as mentioned before – alienated in the society. The fact that they lost entire families increased the likelihood that the bandits would get away unpunished and nobody would take revenge on them. Given migratory movements on a large scale, the absence of victim’s relatives and a huge crime rate, nobody would seek redress for the wrong done to the missing person. Consequently Jews travelling on trains were an easy and sought after targets of assault and robbery committed by the criminals operating there. 

There is another serious issue Gross came across during the debate about the Jedwabne crime. This issue boils down to the activities of gangs of criminals swindling the friends, relatives and „Neighbors” of Jews murdered during Holocaust out of their real properties. Ties with criminal underclass, warfare and squaring the accounts, and also the possibility of being able to get hold of a large sum of money drastically increased the risk faced by Jews. This element cannot be ignored. The minds of the perpetrators of above swindles and crimes were not preoccupied with the issues of ritual murder, „Jewish communists” or anti-Semitism. 

The gist is that also on this matter Gross has not carried out any research and information provided by him frequently deserves a label of confabulations and gossip. In this case, quantity counts rather than quality. Thus Gross categorizes Liberfreund and similar persons simply into „Jewish victims of Poles”. Further he deliberates on anthropological predispositions of individual Polish groups and communities for the participation in the Jews-hunt: „Between the railway stations Jews were searched for on the trains. And presumably for this role the most suitable in the crowded railway carriages were slim boy scouts”. 

Facts do not matter 

The obvious facts are treated like objects on the same footing as specialist literature and sources by the author of „Fear”. He sees only what he would like to see. In his previous book, „Neighbors”, he based the most drastic descriptions of the Jedwabne crime on the testimonies of two witnesses – Abram Boruszczak and Eliasz Grądowski. Gross knew that both witnesses were false. Boruszczak never lived in Jedwabne and probably he was not there in 1941. The same goes for Grądowski. Though he came from Jedwabne, however, a year before the tragic crime he had been exiled into a remote place in the USSR for the theft of a gramophone. 

When this and other manipulations were publicly pointed out to the author of „Neighbors” he said that he had never defined him as „an eyewitness”. The problem is that before the appearance of Jan Tomasz Gross the science did not know the division of witnesses into „eyewitness” and „non-eyewitness”. Despite repudiation of the accounts of Boruszczak and Grądowski Gross did not make any corrections in the book and published it in the Germany. Equally characteristic events occurred when a son of one of the accused by Gross of participation in the Jedwabne crime threatened with a lawsuit. Gross made a murderer of a man who having been released from a Soviet prison, at the moment of the Jedwabne crime being committed, was lying in bed in a serious condition. The author of „Neighbors” admitted he had committed a mistake in "Rzeczpospolita". 

These are only two examples of Gross incredibility who, to put it bluntly, uses falsehood frequently and consciously. 

For example, in „Fear” he was more than willing to use a long quotation from a paper by Professor Andrzej Rzepliński published in the first volume of the book Wokół Jedwabnego (On Jedwabne) (Warsaw, 2002, ed. Krzysztof Persak and Paweł Machcewicz). It contains radical theses about the trial of people in the Jedwabne crime. This quotation becomes for Gross a basis for giving general opinions about functioning of Polish prosecutor’s office and judiciary. The gist is that the Rzepliński’s paper is exceptionally weak and shows the author’s lack of scientific and legal competence. Gross knows that because in the Dzieje Najnowsze (no 3/2003) it was pointed out by a competent historian. However, the competent historian is blacklisted by Gross. 

Unfortunately, the facts do not matter at all for the author of „Fear”. Therefore his general opinions about the Polish Workers’ Party policy on the Jews, the activities of the Ministry of National Security or the Roman Catholic Church („the collaborator” of the murderers of Jews during occupation [p. 315]) are devoid of serious intellectual significance. Similar examples of groundless claims were described by August Grabski: „a controversial fragment in the description of the Kielce events by Jan Tomasz Gross is the summary of the conversation between the murderers of a Jewish mother and child about their criminal intention with the statement: ‘It was the perfectly regular conversation between two strangers in Poland Anno Domini 1946.’ One does not need to stretch out his imagination too much to see the absurdity of a thesis that juxtaposes the population of 20 million Poles with a few hundred of Jews killed. Again Gross manipulates with the size of the presented phenomenon. The resultant deformation seems to be a caricature or even very thoughtless and grim joke. Jews in the post-war Poland were killed by a small underclass of criminals and anti-communist underground rather than – as one might deduct after reading „Fear” – being one the national sports of the Poles”. 

There is no point to comment on the titles of the chapters such as: „Murders in Cold Blood”, Murdering of Jews Because of Having Nothing to Do”. However, it is not possible to turn a deaf ear to the fact that in the English edition of the book Gross wrote about 1,600 victims of the Jedwabne crime. However, the exhumation of the bodies on the spot of the crime and scientific research reduced the size of another „fact” quoted by Gross to the range from 250 to 350 people killed. Gross knows about that but realizes that the findings of the above research will remain unknown to the American readers, similarly to the political history of the post-war Poland. Therefore he can use lies systematically, consciously and with impunity in the United States.Different yardsticks for Poles and Jews 

Language, religion and culture make Jews and Poles different. However, for Gross these differences have a much deeper meaning. He applies different research methods, different responsibilities, and different criteria for giving judgments. To the description of harm suffered by the Jews from Poles Gross applies a straightforward principle: the more, the better. Thus Gross generalizes every single case and the entire incident is upgraded immediately to the level of universally binding rules. He is more than willing to categorize as murderers of Jews anyone who is available, even unintentional eyewitnesses and gawkers. Based on the absurd theories of Witold Kula, Gross states that the Jewish pogrom in Kielce might have been attended by a quarter of the city’s population, which would give almost twenty thousand people. Elsewhere he writes: „it is worth considering whether those who on that day were, for instance, „drinking in happy moods because of developments”, should have been included in the category of active participants of the Kielce pogrom”. However, no matter what is the assessment of the event, it is a long way from expressing one’s happiness because of pogrom to „active” participation. 

Applying such methodology, one could reach for an article published in the pre-war press about knocking down a Polish child by a vehicle driven by a Jew. Then the rest of the story will almost write itself. We can give a spectacular headline: „„Fear”. Jews Knock Down Christian Children By Cars. Story of Moral Decline”. Universal titles of chapters („Murders in cold blood” or „Murdering Poles because of having nothing to do”) could be taken from „Fear” by Gross. Then one would have to remember about important crime participants – „eyewitnesses”, and about „gawkers”. But this is methodology as if taken directly from anti-Semitic brochures rather than from a serious science. No matter that it is a mirror reflection of Gross’ methodology. 

The research methods applied to the Jews were entirely different from those applied to the Poles. All facts that were troublesome for Gross are distorted or ignored. Alhough he presents his intellectually questionable deliberations on the participation of the Jews in the Secret Police, he sums them up with somewhat with quite original scientific claim: „calculation of foreskin of males in the political police deepens neither the understanding of communism, nor the Polish history”. Furthermore, he warns that nobody should enter this area because „calculation of the Jews amongst [Secret Police] personnel is a favorite pastime of anti-Semites”. 

Gross treats contemptuously and insultingly the people who do not share his radical and excessively autonomous opinions. He builds for them an intellectual ghetto, using the term „Catholic National Democrats”: „I introduce the term Catholic National Democrats (...) to focus reader’s attention on the viewpoint, which is widespread in the Polish nation and it is characterized, among others, by the fact that Jewish communists are treated as reality rather than ideological construct”. 

I put aside the issue that one may to get into Gross‘ books because of having different research topics and completely balanced judgments. It is worthwhile to quote the words of one of the most well-known Jewish Poles, Adam Michnik: „In sensu stricto I come from a liberal Jewish communist community” (Powściągliwość i Praca 6/1988). In this way Gross pigeonholed Michnik as a „Catholic National Democratic” ghetto. 

One of major drawbacks of „Fear” is the creation of a one-sided vision of history. The book is mainly based on the accounts of Jews and documents of Jewish institutions. As I have already mentioned, the author in fact skipped all documents created by the Polish political parties, offices of county authorities, people’s councils, citizens’ militia, Secret Police or other state offices. The end result is disastrous, since having no knowledge about the realities of the 1940s, Gross was not able (or rather he did not want to) create the right context, scale and size of the events. 

For instance the communist policy on such an important issue as the property of the Polish citizens has not been presented properly. In many respects the policy in question was a follow-up on that applied by the Nazis effective from 1939. Grabski wrote: „Gross only to a small extent accounts for the fact that nationalization was a general direction in the economic policy of the Polish Workers’ Party and did not apply only to the former Jewish property, but also to German property or to Polish large owners. He does not say a word that such policy was supported by the Jewish communists and socialists”. 

But in Gross opinion it is not allowed to talk about the activities of Hilary Minc, responsible in the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Polish Workers‘ Party for nationalization. The same principle applies also to the activities of Jakub Berman, one of the wrost murderers of that era, who supervised the Secret Police. And anyone who disagrees is an anti-Semite. 

Bubel and Gross on one shelf 

Such vision of history seems to be intentional. It excludes the Polish-Jewish relations, the history of Jews in the communist Poland, but it contains only the distorted history of misdeeds committed by the Poles. Already in „Neighbors” Gross wrote that in unclear and disputable issues absolute priority should be given to the accounts of Jews before the accounts of Poles. For Gross the birth certificate of an eyewitness is more important than scientific research on the source’s credibility. 

In „Fear” this principle is creatively developed. Other non-Jewish sources are not only inferior, but also insignificant for establishing facts: „One cannot argue with reality – either you live with lies, or you accept truth and face it (…) And what truth criterion will be binding for us, we know very well (…). The Poles have to tell themselves the story of the Jews’ persecution in Poland so that the victim could recognize the picture of own fate in that story”. Therefore, scientific research is not necessary. Only Gross’ revelations are acceptable. Only Jews are right, but not Poles. 

Samuel Gringhauz who survived Holocaust warned against similar approach to the problem: „Never before the participants [Jewish eyewitnesses] of events felt that the event in which they were participating was a part of created history that shaped the era. (…) A result of this hyperhistorical complex is the fact that within a short post-war period we were flooded with „historical evidence” more „made-up” than „collected”. (…) The aforementioned hyperhistorical complex can be termed as Judeocentric, logocentric and egocentric. (…) That is why most of the diaries and accounts are full of absurd talkativeness, excessive self-promotion, amateurish philosophising, lyrical aspirations, groundless rumors, prejudice, biased attacks and apologies ” (quoted in: Bogdan Musiał, Rozstrzelać elementy kontrrewolucyjne, p. 67). 

It seems that the Gringhauz’s words should be given deeper consideration. The trouble is that his words were quoted by Bogdan Musiał who is blacklisted by Jan Tomasz Gross. It is a shame because such stance excludes discussion about our common history, which was sometimes difficult. The problems the deserve discussion are numerous. I was myself deeply moved when I learnt many facts from the book titled Polacy i Żydzi pod okupacją niemiecką 1939–1945 (published by IPN) about the exploits of some Poles or utterances made by certain priests and bishops. Certainly truth must be shown, sometimes sad and unpleasant, no matter what are individual and collective emotions. But first of all facts have to be described and balance must be struck. However, in case of the Church, Gross prefers mainly slanders, insults and insinuations. Perhaps Poles indeed do not know many pieces of their history. However, a question arises whether their education should be entrusted to such people like Jan Tomasz Gross. 

I have no doubts that „Fear” will find many admirers in certain scientific circles and in mass media such as Gazeta Wyborcza and Polityka. Though the truth will out, but frequently it has strong backing. Gross is already promoted by the community – as it would be put by the author of „Fear” – of non-National Democratic Christians from Tygodnik Powszechny and Znak. And the defense line for the Gross book value was already outlined by Jarosław Kurski in Gazeta Wyborcza daily a week ago. Between the lines he admitted that perhaps a few things are wrong, but generally speaking this publication has to be accepted as truth. The absence of research underpinning Gross’ „revelations” will be ignored or passed over. If the facts are against Gross’ theses the worse for the facts. However, it is worthwhile to be an optimist and regardless of the scale of the propaganda campaign one has to trust in the power of reason and rigorous application of research techniques. Real history will defend itself against the attacks of social healers and scientific charlatans. In science both writing of Leszek Bubel and „Fear” by Jan Tomasz Gross do not stand a chance of even conditional acceptance. 

Piotr Gontarczyk, Rzeczpospolita, 31 January 2008 

The author is an employee of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN). He is preparing a book about the policy of the Polish Workers’ Party in 1944-1948. This article reflects author’s individual opinions.