Talk:Kielce pogrom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kielce pogrom is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Moved from Talk:History of anti-Semitism

The mods to entry for Kielce, 1946 require serious support. Please provide. Thanks. Humus sapiens 10:23, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Kielce is not well documented, because Poland was under communist regime. It was also abused for propaganda reasons. What I can assure you, that something barely happenned without the consent of the secret police. In the period of 1945-1956 Polish secret police was ruled by ethnic Jews.Cautious
The Jews were not ruling Poland's secret police. That would be an anti-Semitic position.
Are you joking?? Anti-Semitism is the hatry of Jews. Stating the historical facts, that Stalin used ethnic Jews against Poles in period 1945-1956 has nothing to do with hatry. Do Poles deny Feliks Dherzhynsky nationality? I am not saying, that those Jewish communists, pursue Jewish interests, rather Soviet interests. Also I think, that planned by Stalin pogrom in 1953, was also to put blame on Jews for Stalinist crimes in Poland. Eventually, it was Stalin, who died first, one claims that from natural causes. Cautious

Perhaps some of the police were of Jewish ethnicity, but that is a different issues. Most secret police in most European communist states came from Christian backgrounds. Does this make the Christians a problem people? Does this mean that Christians were not persecuted at times? No. JeMa 17:34, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

If I mean ethnic Jews, I mean ethnicity, not religion. Religiously, they were atheist. In Kielce, religious Jews were massacred by the rioters, while the atheists Jews, living the next house, were not attacked. Coincidence or the deliberate planing? Cautious
Not even going into highly questionable details of Cautious' arguments, this is irrelevant, IMO. Dry, objective encyclopedic reference to historic facts should not be replaced by allegations (still baseless and undocumented - after 2 days) or emotions. So I am going to remove the fairytale and restate the simple fact, supported by 9 links. Thank you. Humus sapiens 06:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] The alleged intentions

The intention of this action was to induce a mass immigration to Palestine, causing troubles to Great Britain after the war and facilitating the implementation of Soviet spies to the West.

I moved that phrase to talk. Sorry but this allegation can't be serious: after 1937, throughout the WW2 and up until the establishment of Israel in 1948, very small number of Jewish immigrants was allowed by the Mandate. That was one of the reasons why many European Jews had nowhere to go and ended up in the Nazi gas chambers. In 1946, thousands of Jewish (and other) refugees still were held in concentration camps for displaced persons (now kept by the Allies) throughout Europe. This was a major point of contention between GB and the Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No matter the allegations, the Kielce was not the only pogrom or act of violence against Jews in Poland. I've just read about Poles killing five Jewish survivors in Raciaz; It could be that KGB haev organized it (it definetely suited the Soviets!) but it was all too easy for them...
OTOH, there are two other facts: the ongoing civil war in Poland and post-war chaos, and indeed high percentage of poeple perceived as "Jewish" in Polish communist secret police and elsewhere. Not sure hwo to present that twop facts in NPOV light, since both of them would result in reverts from either one or second side... Szopen 15:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Poland was not alone, unfortunately. AFAIK, the same sad story was repeating all over Europe. For example, I've heard a personal story of similar events in Chernivtsi, Ukraine. I can imagine that people, including refugees who lost their own property, who considered (or even helped) the Jews "exterminated", so naturally Jewish homes were taken over. I can certainly understand that some of new owners would be unpleasantly surprised by returning the survivors who claimed their property. I don't think KGB push was necessary for sparks to fly... ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There likely were several indcidents like that - times were hard, and people aren't perfect no matter what time or place. But most of them were organised by an organistation with a specific goal - like Nazis had in Germany in 1930s. Jews lived there fairly peacefuly for hundreds of years, and wars like The Deluge have devasted those teritories as much as the IIWW. I doubt if withouth KGB help most of those pogroms would have had happened. This is why I think it is important to live some mention of why KGB did it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have deleted several external links because, IMHO, they didn't satisfy the relevance and quality standards. All historical information about the pogrom is included in links to two published authors Szaynok [1] (historian who published a book about the event) and Pogonowski [2] and is nicely augmented by USHM [3] and fantom.com links [4]. Leichter text [5] is not scientific but rather an emotional impression about the event, Hlond's response [6] was one of hundreds which were expressed about the event (or generally about Christian-Jewish relations e.g. John Paul II) between 1946-2005, link to JTA story [7] about the planned commemoration for the site of pogrom is dated (1996) - current info would be welcomed here. Also, JTA story, in light of Szynok and Pogonowski monographs, is not accurate. Link to Anna Williams [8] doesn't contribute anything new to the history of the event - there are dozens of references like that on the internet. Link to Jewish Virtual Library [9] contains a reprint of Szynok's original article from [10] and as duplicate is not needed.

I am encouraging anybody who is considering reverting my edits to read Szaynok and Pogonowski texts first and discuss them here. --Ttyre 14:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The copiousness of the links may be explained by attempts in the past to deny the K.P. or justify its occurrence. If we leave only 1-2 links, more attempts possible on the grounds that there is not enough evidence. Also note that ext. links have a tendency to disappear. A notability of the 1996 event was due to 50-year anniversary. I appreciate efforts to make this article more encyclopedic. 4 high-quality links with your explanations work for me. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trigger?

I have deleted the paragraph saying that Kielce pogrom was a trigger for Jewish exodus from Poland as incorrect and too simplistic. My reasons are as followed:

1. There were 2 main waves of Jewish emigration from Poland: first 40,000-50,000 between July and October of 1945, second between May and September 1946 (100,000). Assuming that between May and September 1946 every month an equal number of people left -> 40,000 left in 1946 before Kielce pogrom! Thus, overall, between July 1945 and June 30, 1946 (before Kielce pogrom), 80,000-90,000 Jews left Poland. Source: [11].

2. The reasons for Jewish exodus from Poland as well as from other Central/Eastern European countries were more complex. The main once were: refusal of the Communist regime to return pre-war Jewish property, desire to leave destroyed by the Holocaust communities and build a new life in the British Mandate of Palestine, as well as anti-Communist and anti-Jewish violence. Altogether 250,000 Jews left Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.

3. The emigration from Poland, although "illegal" was supported by the Polish and Soviet Communist regimes for various reasons. One of them was Soviet attempt to undermine British Mandate in Palestine. --Ttyre 00:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Aftermath

I would like to remove the sentence: "Eventually, almost all surviving Polish Jews resettled outside Eastern Europe, especially in Israel." from this paragraph. In this context it wrongly suggests that almost all Jews left Poland in result of the pogrom, while we know that many of them left in the later waves of emmigration, including 1968. Some firm figures would be enough, without the misleading commentary. It's only a speculation as to what extent the pogrom contributed to the emmigration, as the real reasons were much more complex than that. --Lysy (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right in that the sentence was not accurate, see the latest discussion of Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. However, it is accurate to say that Kielce contributed strongly to immigration, according to many sources (including [12]) the number of Jews fleeing Poland per month increased from 1,000 to 20,000 for the three months following the pogrom. There is also lots of other sources that indicate that the pogrom was a major factor: [13], [14], [15]
Thanks. I appreciate your edits. --Lysy (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KGB involvment?

I agree that the following fragment needs sources before it can be put back into the text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Allegations have been made[citation needed] that this was part of a much wider action organized by the KGB in countries controlled by the Soviet Union, and that Soviet-dominated agencies like the Urząd Bezpieczeństwa were used in the preparation of the Kielce pogrom. But this sounds implausible since the Soviet Union was quite pro-Jewish before 1948

Exactly! And, due to Russophobic trends in Polish media, I would like to see something more solid than an article in some tabloid. Even allegation, to be encyclopedic, need to be voiced in at least remotedly serious place.
Why Lysy is insisting in putting such an incredulous unsourced claim in the article is beyond me. I've seen the claim in some internet forums that there were attempts of an alliance discussed between Beck and Hitler aimed at joint partitioning of the USSR. No source I've seen it in is serious enough to add this stuff to Jozef Beck article, even as an allegation. --Irpen 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not have any research sources for this at hand, but believe me, when I'm talking about widespread allegations, I do not mean some Internet forums, I thought you knew me better than this. I could easily provide Internet references from some nationalistic sites but I don't think this is what we need. I also do not suggest that these allegations were truthful. In fact I find them shameful for Poles, who always tried to find the guilt elsewhere (as the allegations of German involvement in Jedwabne massacre). Therefore I suggest that the {{fact}} tag stays until the source is provided. --Lysytalk 00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, I see you've already chosen to revert it instead :-( --Lysytalk 00:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, what exactly is the link between this article and your mumbo-jumbo above? Sorry, but it is simply off topic here and looks like some sort of a personal crusade to promote your, fortunately rare, views that the Poles are Russophobic - in every single article, even completely unrelated with Russophobia.
As to the links between secret police and the pogrom, they are mentioned in almost all publications on the matter. Parts of my family originate from Kielce and I happen to have some of such books at hand. I'll add relevant sources as soon as I find the exact pages. Halibutt 00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said that all Poles are Russophobes. My phrase was about Polish press and even that was not about all of the Polish press. When I see some serious source discussing this allegation, or just a reference to it, I will have no objections to returning this to the article. The claim seems to me so ludicrous that I could not beleive it could be seriously made. But if I was wrong, it is just as well. Return it and a mention at talk of where you saw it is enough, no need to cite an exact page number in the article. --Irpen 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can any accusation of the Soviet authorities be not serious? They committed almost any crime possible. Xx236 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. As a matter of fact I never heard of direct KGB involvement. On the other hand most sources provide evidence that the UB and NKVD could indeed be interested in starting such a campaign of hatred - and that the secret police was indeed involved in the pogrom. Halibutt 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It was rather KNVD than KGB at that time. Xx236 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wrote above, Xx. //Halibutt 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I think KGB was used here as a generic term for Soviet security/intelligence services, as explained in the KGB article: The term KGB is also used in a more general sense to refer to the Soviet State Security organization since its foundation as the Cheka in 1917. --Lysytalk 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Popularly in the west. In Russia it's always Cheka, even today.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kielce_pogrom&diff=111190944&oldid=110898776 --HanzoHattori 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] smuggled out illegally

The Communist authorities allowed the smuggling. With all due respect, elderly people and chldren weren't able to run away if trained border guards chased them. The guards shot many ethnic Poles and (probably) Ukrainians. Xx236 08:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of victims

I'm confused by the different versions on the number of victims. Some sources give 39 Jewish victims and 2 gentiles, other give 37, 40 or 42 Jews and 3 gentiles. Some claim that a Pole who attempted to prevent the massacre was murdered by militia or the Polish mob, while other claim that the Poles were killed by the Jews in self-defence. Any "official" numbers ? --Lysytalk 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly (I am no expert), part of the problem is that some people were killed on that day in Kielce in a robbery or at least away from the main site of the pogrom, and it is not clear whether they should be counted among the victims or not. This article quoting the IPN prosecutor gives for the number killed 37 Jews (plus 35 wounded) and 3 Poles (furthremore, 2 Jews killed in a robbery are not counted since they were judged unrelated to the pogrom). I would go with those numbers.Balcer 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern research and reconciliation

I'm a bit unhappy about the sentence in "Modern research and reconciliation" section:

But this may also sound dubious since Soviet Union's policies were not anti-Semitic until the campaign against "rootless cosmopolitanism" started after 1948.

While I might agree or disagree with the statement itself, I think it should be sourced, as otherwise it seems to be a speculation of wikipedia editors, thus original research that we'd prefer to avoid especially in such a loaded article. --Lysytalk 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs inline cit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On a second thought, I totally disagree with this overly naive reasoning. In Soviet Union NKVD did not have to be anti-Russian in order to kill Russians nor anti-Semitic to kill Jews. I've removed the sentence. --Lysytalk 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Soviet anti-Semitism

I appreciate recent Irpen's clean up. I'm however going to remove the paragraph about the possibility of the Soviet Union's own anti-Semitic motives as irrelevant. Keeping this statement would falsely imply that there were some theories that attributed the mass murder to Soviet anti-Semitism. As far as I know, nobody ever assumed Soviet Union's own anti-Semitic motives as a driver behind the pogrom. --Lysytalk 08:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You can rephrase it but I would object to the total removal. Lack of anti-Semitic record and the presence of the records to the contrary is relevant to the speculations of the involvement in the massacre of the Jews. --Irpen 08:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is that there were (and still are) speculations about possible Soviet intelligence involvement in the pogrom, and this is mentioned in the article (personally I do not believe in such involvement, but this does not matter here). However none of these theories assumed that the alleged Soviet motivation would be anti-Semitism. They rather speculate that despite many Jewish people holding high positions in Communist security, they would be willing to sacrifice the lives of other innocent Jews only in order to achieve their perceived goals, which usually would be defaming Poles or distracting attention from some other events. The article explains a lot about these theories. Therefore there's no need to explain that official Soviet policy of that time was not anti-Semitic, as nobody denied that (in fact many believe that ir was very pro-Semitic). In fact such an explanation would be misleading, as it would indirectly suggest that there were some theories blaming the pogrom on Sovier anti-Semitism that need to be rebutted. --Lysytalk 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So, does any of the editors involved here actually believe in the Soviet involvement in the pogrom? (I don't either) If not, why don't we move those speculations under the heading "Conspiracy theories about the pogrom", to make it perfectly clear that there is no credible evidence for these theories, only speculations based on guessing "who would gain". Balcer 09:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added the heading, but as I did this, I thought that I might have been too quick to add it. This is quite judgmental and based on opinion of wiki-editors only. We should rather be presenting different theories in unbiased way, as long as they are supported by some of the scholarls. What do you think ? --Lysytalk 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This is based on the investigation of the IPN, clearly the most authoritative source, which found no solid evidence of outside involvement. Balcer 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I was surprised to hear historians from IPN (don't remeber their names) at least twice recently, who seemed to support the conspiracy versions of the events. --Lysytalk 10:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Some links to demonstrate this would be nice. Again, we must be careful here. Some IPN investigators do say that, as for any complex event, not everything about the Kielce Pogrom is perfectly understood, and some details or motivations may never be known. But this is normal for a complex event involving thousands of people 60 years ago. This is far from claiming that credible evidence exists for Soviet involvement. Balcer 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There's not evidence to support this, other than circumstantial, and this is explained in the article. Yet some researchers continue to support the external inspiration theories. My concern is whether we should be judging it by "speculations" header, even if we believe these are unsubstantiated speculations. Maybe some other wording of the section header would be more appropriate. I wish IPN made an official statement upon concluding their investigation. Did they ? --Lysytalk 11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to competing theories of who is the culprit here: the Soviet authorities and the anti-Semitic mob. Since the authors of the article chose to provide both a credible and the consipracy theory together, it is important to add who of the two had the history of anti-Semite actions and who hadn't. Since we are not making judgements and just provide the reader with the facts to decide which version he considers likely true, we need to show the reader the facts in their full context. --Irpen 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you have anti-Semitic mob in both cases. The only difference in the conspiracy version is that the anti-Semitic mob was pushed over the edge, so to speak, by secret service agents, who then failed to use military and police forces to stop the mob. I do agree that the credible version (spontaneous mob action) should be more clearly separated from the conspiracy theories about outside involvement. Balcer 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't is clearly separated already, as it is in a different section ? Right now, we have a section titles "speculations" which describes efforst based on circumstantial evidence and another section titled "Attempts of explanation", where IPN's prosecutor explains that after conducting the official investigation he believes that it was a spontaneous mob action. --Lysytalk 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, we could have a number of subsections under "Attempts of explanation". IPN would be one, Gross - another, etc. And if a source does not qualify as reputable, it should not be here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe IPN is fairly special here, because: they did the research, the investigation was official, and its purpose was finding facts. I'd assume that if they were able to trace any external inspirations, they would do it. Therefore lack of conclusion of their efforts is quite meaningful. The others however, including Gross, had their own agendas and tried to find facts to support their claims. Therefore they fit under "speculations" better. The reason for having this as another section was to separate the agenda-driven research from the (lack of) findings of the official investigation, as Balcer just suggested above. I'm not suggesting that IPN is all-knowing, but their research was substantial and their inability to charge anyone is a good conclusion. Gross goes further, as he tries to explain the reasons of the mob, but this again could be disputable. --Lysytalk 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear more that Gross, a very respected scholar, writes with the goal to push his own agenda. Until then, his claims should be given proper credence of the respected academic research. --Irpen 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He is often criticized for his journalist-like approach and lack of proper historical methodology. A handful of qoutes I found in a quick search on the Internet: "It is obvious to any historian that Professor Gross's book does not hold up to criticism in terms of methodology"; "The findings described in Gross' book cause some anxiety because the author has used research methods which are incompatible with a historian's methodology."; "Many Polish historians dispute the author’s methodology and selectivity in the use of source material, most of which has been available for the past fifty years from the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw."; "The book, unfortunately, is framed as a historical and sociological study, and the author's poor grasp of the history of the period, as well as of the methodology of sociological investigation, is all too apparent."; "As interesting as the book may or may not be, let alone the questionable methodology employed by Gross", "The Catholic media chose to quote historians critical of Gross's research. They explained that Gross was mistaken, his methodology and findings flawed". An interesting discussion can be found here. Reardless of the wide criticism, I believe that Gross, even if often exaggerating, is doing an extremely good job with his popular books that are so much needed eye-openers for many Poles. --Lysytalk 06:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The remark about Soviets not having an interest in "anti-semitic" actions is not accurate. As a scholar recent said, the Soviets were "masters of duplicity" and had not interest in preserving, enhancing or furthering the Jewish cause in post-war Poland, a fact that became ever so clear in 1968. To display this statement would totally ignore a lot of research that has shown that while not totally verifiable, there is at least doubt regarding the role of the Soviets in Kielce and other anti-Jewish occurrances throughout the Soviet sphere of influence at the time. The remark I deleted, especially its tone, seems to discredit these scholars totally, and this forum is to present fact not opinion.

I think you can hardly call Gross a very respected scholar. He is vehemently anti-Polish and as many scholars, Polish and international (and some Jewish), have pointed out, he loads his "research" with embellishments and exaggerations. He used to be different, actually, prior to "Neighbors". He actually did some fine work but never received the attention he deserved. As a result, he took another road, that of sparking a virtual war between the Polish and Jewish communities in America by writing a poorly-researched book where he quadrupled the number of Jewish victims in Jedwabne (his reasoning, by the way, was that he just assumed every Jewish resident in the town was killed, and that as a result he did not have to give credence to other scholars' work on the subject). The success of this book earned him a spot in a top university and new powerful friends, his ultimate goal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piast (talk • contribs).

Dear Piast, the issue here is not whether the Soviets were planning to enhance the Jewish causes. Nor Gross is the issue to decide on the relevance of the matter. The issue here is there exist some competing claims who (or what) was the origin of the action, the medieval anti-Semitism of the mob or the Soviet state. There is no clear conclusion and we present the reader only with the existing finding. Like the juror, who makes up his mind, it is useful for the reader to weight which of the two possibly guilty parties has a history of Anti-Semitic actions. As such, the lack of such actions on the Soviet part (as of that time of course) is relevant and your deletion removes useful information from the article. --Irpen 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem paragraph

Attempts to move the blame for the tragic events on the "communist provocateurs" or Soviet intellugence, an easy scapegoat to assign the fault, are ill regarded by many to this day who cite such explanation as evidence the lack of determination in the Polish society to confront and address what they consider to be persistent and pervasive antisemitism in Poland.[9]

I see this paragraph as particularly problematic. As evidenced by the commemoration events, attended by highest state officials, which were the number one story in the Polish media on that day, there does appear to be a strong willingness to confront that event. This paragraph appears to be based on a brief story in a Scottish newspaper, which does not cite any sources. And who are these "many" who make these claims? It would be nice to cite a specific group, person or organisation that believes this. Balcer 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would leave it out as it brings nothing new, and is based on a newspaper commentary only. I've read the article, and while relatively well written, it rather slips on the surface of the facts, without being too precise either. --Lysytalk 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do a google news search for Kielce in recently published articles before claiming that this is a single article's commentary. There is certianly not a single Scottish Newspaper and many sources note the presidential absence at the ceremony too. Presidents attend and not attend events never by accident. "Health reasons" is the most generic reason sited for non-attendance. As such, relevant info was deleted. I will restore it. --Irpen 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think Kaczynski's illness is genuine, as a few days before he missed a very important summit meeting with the leaders of Germany and France. Besides, his appearance at the commemoration was scheduled long before, and he cancelled in the last moment. His speech was read at the ceremonies by his representative. If you want to claim that he missed the event on purpose, you should provide some evidence, not your personal speculation. Balcer 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to claim anything. His mere absence was notable enough to be mentioned in the AP article from where it made it to hundreds of newspapers. Dozen or so, had their own journalist write on the event. Russian press also mentioned it.[16] I think it makes it notable for WP as well. I had no time to finish my planned edit yet. --Irpen 06:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on news articles, it should go to wikinews then, not Wikipedia. Let's not mistake encyclopedia for a news service. --Lysytalk 07:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If news articles in major press that cover the specific event find smth notable enough, the WP article's section devoted to the very same event should cover it too. --Irpen 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The purpose of writing a news article is different than an encyclopedic article. While the news commentary would cover all the details of the event, an encyclopedic article should be constrained to the relevant information only. You may want to take a look at wikinews to see the difference. --Lysytalk 07:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, just explain whether you consider this detail not important enough to be mentioned in WP or irrelevant? In the former case, I disagree because the fact whether the president reads the statement himself and attends the ceremony or this is done on his behalf by someone (presidents always have people who do lots of things on their behalf, otherwise they would have needed thousands hours per day in order just to write the stuff that they tell or state) makes a difference. I do not say that the health reasons are false. I simply claim, the attendance is important. If you think it is irrelevant, rather than unimportant, I again don't see how the detail the major media find relevant is irrelvant by the judgement of the Wikieditor. I clicked "submit" to the article's edit before I saw your response above at the talk. --Irpen 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the news are usually seeking a bit more sensation than we would like to see here. This is understandable, as their purpose is differetn, but this should be filtered out in encyclopedia. As to this specific event, I think this is irrelevant speculation, as the ceremony was long planned, and Kawczynski planned to attend. It was also attended by Polish foreign affairs and internal affairs ministers, so I think Polish authorities were well represented. Also, the position of president in Poland is much less important than in other countries like Russia or USA. If he did not want to attend than he would not need to plan it in the first place. He would also not need to send his letter had he not wanted to. Therefore I think such comment should not make it into the article, as his illness is irrelevant to the topic of the article. --Lysytalk 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

It would be useful if the cited books were properly referenced with page numbers. Otherwise the references are hard to be verified and not really useful. --Lysytalk 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Two books by Gross are cited. I've seen only one of them (will add page numbers) and the other is referred to through a review only as it has been only recently published. I would have never used a third party quote to support the book, should it have been availbale by now. Since the book is unavailable yet, the review is acceptable until that time. --Irpen 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the "Fear" either. I'm sure it will make a perfect reference in the future, but until then, I've moved it to a general section, that I consider as a "recommended reading" list. As a specific reference note it cannot reasonably be used without giving a page number, I'm sure you'll agree. The same holds for the other books of course. --Lysytalk 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not a word about LWP soldiers?

They were a significiant part of the mob, as armed with firearms and bayonets. (Polish Communist troops - a large Soviet unit stationed nearby didn't take part nor intervented and just stayed in their barracks all day) In a separate but related incident other soldiers killed at least one Jew found in a nearby train.

Also in the city was the NKVD specialist of the Jewish affairs, who later became a Soviet ambassador to Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs).

This above is exactly an example why the "#Problem paragraph" as it was called above is correct. The discussion there diverged from the real issue to a less significant one, a president's health. Anyway, I restored the info, whose deletion I missed, slightly reformulated it, and restored a ref someone deleted from the article, perhaps accidentally. --Irpen 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I don't like the statement "some Jewish groups" in the problem paragraph. It sounds cryptic and sloppy. The Scotsman article makes no reference as to what specific groups these might be. If you can find specific references to statements various groups have made, we can use them. Otherwise I think this should be removed. All statements of the type "some groups believe that some country is doing something" should be avoided. How would you feel about a statement "some groups believe that widespread racism exists in Ukraine" that would be included in an article, just because some newspaper printed such a statement. Balcer 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, uniformed members of the communist Polish people's army and militia were definitely involved in the pogrom, so you might want to reconsider your removal of that information (though of course it needs some elaboration). This is not a conspiracy theory but a well established fact. The discipline in the military and militia units at the scene broke down and some of their members were part of the mob which carried out the pogrom. Balcer 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I disagree that the wording Jewish groups is problematic. It is entirely clear what it means especially in the context of confronting real or alleged anti-semitism. I would love to be more specific and write eg. ADL, but, for now, we only have a ref for a more general statement.

All statements of the type "some groups believe" should be avoided, yes, when they are unreferenced or based on the randomly clipped unrelated of cherry-picked groups since from that we would not know how representative those are.

Example: A group of Russian kids gets mugged in Warsaw. At the same time the Marek Kroll's tabloid publishes a couple of masterpeice articles like these [17][18][19] and, say, some Polish guy says on TV that he hates Russians. This is not sufficient, to say something like "the Russophobic sentiments are widespread in Poland".

On the other hand, if we have a referenced statement that says exactly those things published in NYtimes which saw it fit to publish an interview with the statement: "Poles talk about Russians the way anti-Semites talk about Jews,"[20] or a statistical data published in another higly respectable paper showing that 32% of Poles have a negative view towards Russia, such generalizations made not by a Wikipedian but referenced to the outside source are usable.

Same here: if we find a single statement, which may or may not be representative of the overall situation, I would prefer not to generalize it over some groups. If a respectable source speaks about groups, it's a different story.

As for your question about how I would treat "some groups believe that widespread racism exists in Ukraine", note that "some jewish groups" and "some groups" is not one and the same thing. The former statement is more narrow. It would also depend on the respectability of the newspaper, where such article is printed and whether it is in the general news/Editiorial or an OpEd section. The Scotsman definetely qualifies as a respectable paper and, as I said, it was simply the most detailed article on the event that I found with the Google News search. Now, some weeks later, it may be more difficult to find its news coverage. --Irpen 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are responding at great length, bringing in other issues which only complicate the situation, whereas my concern is quite simple. If the statement "some Jewish groups believe " is used, that implies some well established, official groups representing the Jewish community have issued a statement about this issue. If no direct references to such statements (ideally with links) can be located, such a claim is obviously misleading. If within some reasonable time such direct references cannot be found, which should not be that difficult given that serious groups post their official statements on the web, then the claim should be removed. On the other hand, if references are found, we should link them directly and quote exactly what they say.
I think your confidence in the accuracy of Western papers when reporting on events in former Communist countries is quite misplaced. I have frequently found significant errors even in the most "respectable" newspapers, when they are writing about Poland. Certainly one sentence in a short article, without any solid facts or references to support its claim, is not sufficient to back up a contentious sentence in Wikipedia.
The point is that Poland has done quite a lot since 1989 to confront the significant anti-semitism that is a part of its history and to some extent its present day, though obviously more needs to be done. Boiling all these efforts down to simply claiming that "Polish society lacks determination to deal with antisemitism" is grossly unfair, and certainly POV. But this is all that the current version of the article says about the issue. To get a better feeling of the intricacies of the situation, read this article on the JTA website. If I have the time, I will try to expand the section about the significance of the Kielce pogrom in present day Polish-Jewish relations, so a more balanced picture can be presented. Balcer 00:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soldiers ("dubious" or something" - strange guy questioning facts)

Article quote 1:

Until July 4, 1946, Polish Jews cited the past as their main reason for emigration...After the Kielce pogrom, the situation changed drastically. Both Jewish and Polish reports spoke of an atmosphere of panic among Jewish society in the summer of 1946. Jews no longer believed that they could be safe in Poland. Despite the large militia and army presence in the town of Kielce, Jews had been murdered there in cold blood, in public, and for a period of more than five hours. The news that the militia and the army had taken part in the pogrom spread as well. From July 1945 until June 1946, about fifty thousand Jews passed the Polish border illegally. In July 1946, almost twenty thousand decided to leave Poland. In August 1946 the number increased to thirty thousand. In September 1946, twelve thousand Jews left Poland.

Article quote 2:

Nine participants in the pogrom were sentenced to death; three were given lengthy prison sentences. Policemen, military men, and functionaries of the UBP were tried separately and then unexpectedly all, with the exception of Wiktor Kuznicki, Commander of the MO, who was sentenced to one year in prison, were found not guilty of "having taken no action to stop the crowd from committing crimes." Clearly, during the period when the first investigations were launched and the trial, a most likely politically motivated decision had been made not to proceed with disciplinary action. This was in spite of very disturbing evidence that emerged during the pre-trial interviews. It is entirely feasible that instructions not to punish the MO and UBP commanders had been given because of the politically sensitive nature of the evidence. Evidence heard by the military prosecutor revealed major organizational and ideological weaknesses within these two security services..]

Just to remind: milicjanci (militsiya men - "militia", police) initiated and led whole attack. It was in the article even before my edits ("shooting the Jews and looting their homes". That's not even questioned by the strange guy - for whatever reason, questioned is link to Milicja Obywatelska (name of their organisation), or that they disarmed them first (the residents had some weapons from the war). Somebody explain me his motives or something, because it's completely beyond me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs).

In general we need a much better section on how the pogrom actually happened. The militiamen were definitely involved, but blaming the whole event on them is a huge stretch, and contradicts IPN findings. There is no denying that a large mob of Kielce inhabitants played an important role in the pogrom. Balcer 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You propably know how it started - the boy (son of UB agent) and the milicjanci came from the police station spreading the rumour of a "ritual kidnapping" on the way (the mob formed and followed). Then, they entered the building and disarmed the Jews. Then, they initiated the attack - civilians and some soldiers (uniformed and armed) joined in. In contrast, no policemen or soldiers (Polish nor Soviet) tried to DEFEND the Jews from the attackers. There was also an incident including soldiers on train, as the rumor spred (I don't remember details now, but I think they killed one or two Jews there). Also, a number of victims was thrown out of windows below, and the mob wasn't very big (small place). There's a website somehwere detailing the events practically by minute, and with plans - the links in the article here are practically useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs).
Do you have any idea at all what the IPN investigation of the pogrom concluded? Please familiarize yourself with this, as it is the most authoritative version of events. I know there have been many books published in Poland about the pogrom offering various theories and speculations, and you are probably basing your statements on one of them. Still, the IPN investigation was the most extensive, and it definitely did not conclude that the militia and only the militia was entirely to blame for the events. Besides, the militiamen also consisted of local inhabitants, so I don't see why blaming it all on them would really change anything. Balcer 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say "only MO". I said, there were also civilians (prominently a group of workers, with their tools) and the Army troops. Certainly some victims were killed or wounded by civilians. But they didn't start the attack, they had no firearms, and the Jews were first disarmed. Also, the servicemen were "found not guilty" (at all and of anything!) in the official trials - while the civilians were jailed for long terms and 9 executed (scapegoats). Your argument of "local militiamen" is also misleading, as they were members of the state police, not just some Kielce paramilitaries (the original meaning of militia). My info outdated to the IPN report - where can I get it so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs).

Here, from the http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Kielce.html

"At about 10 a.m., the police patrols and a group of functionaries from the political police were joined by an army contingent on Planty Street. According to the testimony of the deputy commander of the army division to which the soldiers belonged, about one hundred soldiers and five officers were dispatched to Planty Street. The newly arrived troops had not been told anything about the events, and they came to believe that Jews had kidnaped and murdered Polish children in the house on Planty Street. The soldiers got their information from the people gathered on the street. With the arrival of the troops, tensions rose very quickly.

The soldiers and the policemen then went into the building. Jews were told to surrender their weapons, but not all of the residents obeyed the order. The entry of the policemen and the soldiers into the Jewish house marked the beginning of the pogrom. Excerpts from testimony supplied by people who witnessed the outbreak of the pogrom describe what followed.

Ewa Szuchman, resident of the house on Planty Street, said:

After the police took away the weapons, the crowd broke into the Kibutz ( on the second floor) and policemen started shooting at the Jews first. They killed one and wounded several others.

Albert Grynbaum, another inhabitant of the Jewish house who was on the first floor, said:

The soldiers went up to the second floor. Several minutes later two Jews came to me and told me that the soldiers were killing Jews and looting their property. It was then that I heard shots. After the shooting on the second floor, shots were heard from the street and inside the building.

This is how the Kielce pogrom began. The behavior of the policemen and the soldiers, influenced by the crowd outside, provoked it into action. After the attack inside the building, the Jews were led outside where the people killed them in a cruel fashion. Other eye-witness accounts given by Jews and Poles confirm these events.

Baruch Dorfman (Jew, resident of the Jewish house):

Uniformed soldiers and a number of civilians forced their way into the building. I had already been wounded. They told us to get out and form a line. Civilians, including women, were on the stairs. The soldiers hit us with their rifle butts. Civilians, men and women, also hit us.

Ryszard Salapa (one of the policemen) recalled:

The military led Jews out of apartments and people began hitting them with everything they could. The armed soldiers did not react. Some returned to the building to lead other Jews outside.

At about 11 a.m. Seweryn Kahane, the chairman of the Jewish Committee in Kielce, was shot by soldiers. He was killed while calling for help. Within the first hour of the pogrom, representatives of such key institutions in Warsaw as the Ministry of Public Security (secret police) and the Chief Commander of the Police found out about the pogrom from their subordinates in Kielce, who called Warsaw at about 11 a.m.

Major Sobczynski, the local secret police commander, and his Soviet advisor Szpilevoy, were on Planty Street at that time, as were other local officials and army commanders. During the first phase of the pogrom, the monsignor of the cathedral parish in Kielce went to Planty Street with another priest. They were going to check on what had happened and to talk with people gathered there. Officers stopped them. The priests were told that the situation was under control, and that civilians were prohibited from entering Planty Street."

What do you think "the soldiers" (more than 100 of them) were, WEHRMACHT? Revert my corrections back at once! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs).

  • Don't be naive! the current right wing PIS polish goverment would be more than willing to put the blame on the "evil" communist institiutions like the armyor the police force if there were any serious evidence to support that. Read the IPN investigation results. Mieciu K 20:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear god

Are you telling me the survivors (Ewa Szuchman, Albert Grynbaum, Baruch Dorfman) were lieing who were killing them, because they were supporters of the XXI Century "right wing PIS polish goverment"?

I guess the TIME must be the official PiS newspaper: "Jews were lured out of the building by men in army uniforms who promised them safe conduct, then turned them over to the mob."[21]

How about Havi Ben-Sasson of Hebrew University of Jerusalem for Tel Aviv University?

Singer was arrested and beaten by the police while Dr. Seweryn Kahane, head of the Jewish Committee, tried to convince them of their mistake, pointing out that the building had no cellar. A crowd had gathered in front of the building where about 40 Jews lived, shouting that Christian children were being held and killed there by the Jews. Soldiers who were called searched the house and demanded that the Jews hand over all weapons they had for self-defense. After the first shot was fired – it is unclear by whom: a policeman, a soldier or one of the Jews – deadly violence broke out. Gross describes the scene graphically: the barbarity of the mob, the baseness of the police and the helplessness of the Jews. It should be emphasized that, unlike at Jedwabne, the Kielce pogrom was perpetrated both by the mob and by state and social agents such as the police, the army and workers from a nearby factory. Some Jews were gunned down – Dr. Kahane was shot in the back while he was trying to call the authorities for help – but most of the victims, among them many women and children, were beaten to death with stones, planks and metal bars.[22]

And so on. --HanzoHattori 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential references

  • The Epilogue, by Ruth Franklin in The New Republic, October 2, 2006, Pg. 36 - Review of Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz, by Jan T. Gross.

Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An article in Polish (for example, it mention previous deadly attacks in the area) --HanzoHattori 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] twelve among the pogrom’s civilian perpetrators were tried

The source that the punished were responsible? I have modified the sentence according to the IPN version.Xx236 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 42 Polish Jews were murdered

And the source is? According to the IPN 37 Jews were murdered in Planty, 2 in another place and 3 assailants were killed by the Jews. 37+2+3=42, but only 39 is right. Xx236 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Checinski

Michael Checinski, Poland, Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism - what is wrong with the book, that it isn't quoted here? Xx236 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Soviet anti-Semitism

Shakne Epshtein article presents another point of view than Irpen. Xx236 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/e/Talk%7EKielce_pogrom_438d.html"