Talk:Norman Davies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Old talk

He can't have been born in Bolton and in Wales, so I've assumed Bolton. Deb 17:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quite possible, I just used two source (one Polish) and translated parts of it for quick stub, so there are bound to be some errors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

according to a note on page 2 of his book The Isles: A History he was born in Bolton in 1939. Although there is obviously a Welsh connection somwhere, the book is dedicated to Richard Samson Davies (1863-1939)- "English by birth, Welsh by conviction, Lancastrian by choice, British by chance".

I will let a United Kingdom-er :D sort that one out, I don't feel qualified :) And please, sing your post, dear anonim(s). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, The Isles states he was born in Bolton, but his name's Welsh and he certainly seems to feel Welsh. In his history of Europe, he inserts the phrase Cymru am byth (Wales Forever) after a mention of the Brythonic languages. When he discusses names of places in different languages, he ends by saying 'For them it is Oxford, or even Niu-Jin: for us, forever Rhydychen.' (p. 88) That's the Welsh name for the city, by the way. garik 23:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The English Nation: The Great Myth

I think this book should be deleted from the list of publications as it seems to be by Edwin Jones, not Norman Davies (unless he had some input/co-authorship that i'm not aware of) I've just looked on Amazon and he did have some input, he wrote the forword to the book.

When I was adding those books, I just typed in Norman Davies on Amazon and added to Wiki what I saw there. If you are sure it is only a forward, them yes, this can be deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Some western colleagues"

An anon deleted this paragraph, and I reverted it, because while the criticism of the anon was correct, the behavior wasn't.

So, authors, please answer the anon's concern:

deleted paragraphs with weasel phrases, personal commentary: “some western colleagues accused…. “some people say…..”. no identifaction of “who, what etc

I.e., please provide sample references to support the states made: since we are speaking not about facts, but about opinions, we must have a clear indication whose opinions are these. Otherwise the paragraph must go away. Mikkalai 18:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, although, with all due respect, any doubts regarding the truthfulness of the paragraph in question do not demonstrate much insight into the inner workings of academic life in Europe and the U.S.. Davies's most outspoken critic is perhaps the late Lucy Dawidowicz, who came very close to calling him an anti-Semite. The fact that the administrators of the Dawidowicz estate put her articles on Davies physically in the same box as her articles on academic anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial speaks volumes of the atmosphere in which Davies has been reviewed [1]. Similar comments have come from Abraham Brumberg. Also, I have heard credible first-hand accounts on how Davies dropped a clanger or two with oral comments on Polish-Jewish history; the Stanford affair did certainly not come out of the blue. While not many historians go as far as that, warnings about Davies's "polonophile" attitude belong to the standard repertoire of junior and senior lecturers, including both those who have and have not read him. For a good account of how Davies tends to fall foul with many reviewers, kindly refer to a deft piece of analysis by Ann Applebaum [2], which can also be found among the external links. --Thorsten1 19:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thorsten1, the article still says: "...Davies's partially polemical statements on this topic gained him the reputation of an anti-Semite himself." Who have decided that Davies has a reputation of an anti-Semite? This is a very PVO and should't have place on Wiki. --Ttyre 20:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ttyr, the opionion stated is obviously POV - and I personally do not agree with it. That the POV exists and has affected Davies's career to some degree is a fact which should be mentioned here. I would recommend you read Applebaum's level-headed review mentioned both in the article and above (the URL is correct now) to get an idea of what I am on about. --Thorsten1 21:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I do have the copy of late L. Davidowicz papers on Davies and Edelman. It looks like she was little bit obsessed with Davies and the exchange got personal (on both sides). --Ttyre 20:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have read the articles in question, how can you seriously question the POV's relevance? The motivation may have been personal, but the effects are quite tangible, as Davies would probably be the first to confirm. There is no reason whatsoever why we should not mention this affair here; esp. since sweeping it under the carpet would just invite criticism from the anti-Davies party. I have tried get the wording as balanced as possible, but if anyone feels it requires more work, the article is open for anyone to improve at any time. --Thorsten1 21:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read Applebaum's review of Davies' book. There is no mention of Davies gaining reputation as an anti-Semite. According to Webster, reputation is 1: overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general 2: recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability <has the reputation of being clever>.

The closest Applebaum comments on A-S and Davies is by saying: "...Although no one spoke openly of anti-semitism-just as Professor Rabb does not speak opently of anti-Semitism-the accusations were enough to prevent Davies from getting the tenure...", and "...the allegation that Norman Davies is anti-Semitic, or that he denies the importance of the Holocaust, has always been absurd...". Once again my question in relation to the sentence "...Davies's partially polemical statements on this topic gained him the reputation of an anti-Semite himself..." what makes you think that he gain reputation as an anti-Semite? I propose to delete this sentence as inaccurate. --Ttyre 23:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ttyre, I fully agree both with yourself and Applebaum that accusing Davies of anti-Semitism is absurd. Unfortunately, the absurdity of these claims has not stopped them from being made. In fact, had they not been made, Applebaum would hardly feel the need to reject them as vehemently as she does. Eventually, the sentences you are quoting support my argument rather than yours. Furthermore, accusations of anti-Semitism need not at all be made overtly to affect somebody's reputation: What Applebaum is trying to show is how "subtle" pinpricks can have more of an impact than obviously overstated blunt defamations.

As for "reputation" - thanks a lot, but with all due respect - I really do not feel the need to be lectured on the word's meaning by someone with a level of articulateness as moderate as yours. Contrary to what your dictionary somewhat misleadingly suggests, a "reputation" is not necessarily something uniform perceived by "people in general". One can also have a reputation just with some people; and if these people happen to be in the academic establishment, that's more than enough to cause you trouble. Have you ever wondered why it took the better part of two decades before a German publisher dared to have a book by Davies translated?

While some people in Poland think that Davies is not polonophile enough, the fact remains that some influential people outside Poland think he is too polonophile (read: "anti-Semitic"). I do not share either opinion, but I do believe that both opinions deserve to be duly mentioned in the article.

Piotrek - I appreciate your attempt at mediation, but I think your recent edit was not quite as helpful as intended: After all, the current version waters down the issue (why replace "partially polemical statements" with "strong views"?); and worse, it disrupts the consistency of the text to the point of reversing its meaning to more careless readers: "... he also contradicts narrow Polish nationalist claims and vehemently criticises the strong tendency to create Polono-centric historical myths. Davies's strong views on this matter are believed to be a factor when in 1986 Stanford University refused him a promised tenure at short notice...". Now that is not exactly what happened, is it?

Instead, I suggest to restore the previous version, while adding a qualifying comment to "reputation" to accomodate Ttyre's concerns. After all, if a sentence is found to be inaccurate, making it more accurate is a is a better idea than deleting it altogether, right?.--Thorsten1 16:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thorsten1, spare yourself personal comments about my level of articulateness and Webster being my dictionary. Proper definition of a word "reputation" is a crucial issue here. My point of contention has been the sentence "...gained him the reputation of an anti-Semite with a part the academic establishment." I think you have overused the word "reputation" thus exaggerating the impact of Davies' hard-core, on the issue of the Holocaust, critics. Opinions of Lucy Dawidowicz, Abraham Brumberg, and Theodore Rabb do not constitute gaining a reputation in all or part of the academic establishment. Definition of reputation, according to Merriam-Webster Online or Webster's New World, stresses "judgment by people in general" or its "commonality" not an opinion of a few. To leave the sentence in question as-is nobilitates these three critics and validates their position(s) against Davies. In his own defense, in a letter to Stanford University's Provost James Rosse, Davies mentioned 30(!) international references backing his candidacy. Even James Rosse, in his reply commenting about the content of the Davies' evaluation letters from 25 outside scholars, said: "While many of the letters were by no means uncritical, most reflected a favorable opinion of your scholarship and, in cases in which the reviewer was knowledgeable, your teaching." I am willing to scan and email you the letters I am quoting (Campus Report, Jan. 28, 1987). Also, a more proper word for non-Jewish is Gentile. --Ttyre 22:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ttyre, even at the risk of wasting my time, I do not want to leave your comments unchallenged. As for my "personal comments" - remember it was you who presumed to educate me on the meaning of some words, not vice-versa. My response may have been too confrontational, -- if so I am willing to apologize -- but I am not going to back down on any of the factual statements I have made.

You wrote: "Proper definition of a word "reputation" is a crucial issue here". Absolutely, that is exactly what I was trying to explain to you. Seems like I have not been doing a very good job, though.

"My point of contention has been the sentence '...gained him the reputation of an anti-Semite with a part the academic establishment.'" Well, no. The sentence you were complaining about was "...gained him the reputation of an anti-Semite", period. I have since added the clarifying phrase "with a part the academic establishment" to accommodate your criticism, even though I personally think that, seen in context, the statement was fairly clear in the first place. Alas, you are still not satisfied and continue to zero in on the word "reputation". However, stubbornly repeating your claims about the semantics of "reputation", based on sterile dictionary definitions in the apparent absence of experience with real-life usage, does not make them any more persuasive. No, a reputation is not necessarily an opinion shared by everyone or almost everyone. In fact, most scholars are not known enough to even have a reputation in the general public, but of course they do have a reputation among peers. And, again, a reputation can be ambiguous: What some see as pioneering research, others may see as utter charlatanism. What some see as a refreshing new take on certain politically correct orthodoxies in post-war Western historiography, others may see as evidence of latent anti-Semitism.

You wrote: "Opinions of Lucy Dawidowicz, Abraham Brumberg, and Theodore Rabb do not constitute gaining a reputation in all or part of the academic establishment". ... in all - no, of course not. But then I never said that, did I? ... in a part - yes, they do indeed. Because contrary to what you suggest, these people are not just an isolated "few", but have a profound influence. Like it or not, they successfully managed to polarise opinion. Calling them the tip of the iceberg would not be that far-fetched. Davies did not sue Stanford for nothing, you see.

Further, I absolutely fail to see how saying that something gained Davies "the reputation of an anti-Semite with a part the academic establishment", should, as you write, "nobilitate[] these three critics and validates their position(s) against Davies". That you think so may have to do with a skewed understanding of the words "reputation", and possibly also "academic establishment". A reputation does not have to reflect the truth at all, and as often as not is not rightly deserved. Plus, "academic establishment" is not as nice a term as it may sound to your ears. When someone says that Britney Spears has a reputation as an excellent artist with a part of her teenage audience, this hardly "nobilitates" the teenage audience, does it? In fact, it tells you more about the audience than it does about the artist. It's not entirely different here.

Thank you so much for your offer to send me a reference to the 25 or maybe 30 references, but: You still seem to have a hard time understanding that I am not accusing Davies of anything here, least of all of anti-Semitism. I am merely stating that some people do, for reasons we can't discuss in detail, and have succeeded in damaging his career. That is something decisively different.

On a final note, who told you that Gentile was a "more proper" word for a non-Jewish person, and what on earth has this got to do with the issue we are discussing? Very much as "Goyim", "gentile" refers to a specifically Jewish point of view. So why use it when "non-Jewish" is not only perfectly correct, but unbiased, less pretentious and more instantly understandable to non-historians (or whatever you prefer to call them)? If you feel the urge to impress people with your vocabulary, you would be well advised to look for the right context first. --Thorsten1 11:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Quoting dictionary definition of the word "reputation" was my attempt to establish a common ground between our positions. However, since you don't want to accept dictionary definition(s) of the word our discussion here is futile. Gentile(s) IMHO is a better word for a non-Jewish person (I have changed it 2x in the article). --Ttyre 12:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ttyre, your edits in the article and contributions here did not exactly give me the impression that you were honestly looking for "common ground". On the contrary, to me it seems that you are stirring up a row for the mere sake of it. As for your definitions, I have nothing at all against dictionaries. But often they do not capture all nuances of a word's meaning in a given context, which is why they are of limited use in discussions, esp. when they are rabulistically brought up against common sense. My own polonophile tendencies forbid me to dwell upon the question why this often occurs in discussions between Poles and Westerners on Wikipedia. However, since you don't want to accept my extensive comments on the usage of the word, I fully agree that our discussion here is futile. So there's your common ground. I'd still be curious to learn in what ways "Gentile" is supposed to be a "better" word, though. --Thorsten1 13:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

from Jehudit: I revised the text to remove POV on disputed issues, remove name-calling, remove opinions made without citation, remove ethnic stereotypes, and add citations (likely an incomplete list consisting of those readily available). Specifically,

1. The text “Davies's partially polemical statements on this topic gained him the reputation of an anti-Semite with a part the academic establishment” and “While Davies's critics focus on unconventional statements that may be construed as anti-Semitic” were removed for POV, personal opinion, absence of citations.

The allegation that Davies is anti-Semitic is a personal opinion of the author. It was not made in the Stanford case cited. The criticism attributed to Dawidowicz in the press release (without citation) did not allege that Davies personally was anti-Semitic, but that his historical presentation “…minimized historic anti-Semitism in Poland…etc.”. It was not made in subsequent writings by Dawidowicz, Rabb, or Brumberg. At least in the references which I found, they do not say this. Thorsten1 uses their names without citation, to misattribute the allegation to them rather than himself (see citations added). Likewise, I did not find it in the body of scholarly debate on Davies’ historical works.

The moniker “anti-Semite” is a serious charge which borders on defamation when made without substantial and careful validation. The initial text crossed into the realm of personal opinion and name-calling.

No citation was given for text “partially polemical” and “unconventional statements” by Davies? What statements? Who considers them “polemical” or “unconventional? What opinions “may be construed” as anti-Semitic and by whom?

Tytre correctly complains on the misuse of the word “reputation”. The statement “…gained him a reputation” [read negative] is innuendo and personal attack. Unable to support this wording, Thorsten1 resorts to personal attack on Tytre’s English skills. The text did not represent or cite the body of scholarly debate on the historical merit of Davies’ works. Allegations made by individuals such as Dawidowicz, Rabb, Brumberg - should be supported with citations to those persons, and not a vague generalization to someone’s "gaining a reputation” in the “establishment.” I have tried to supply a few citations to their criticisms together with the rebuttals of others. The ongoing debate on the historical presentation of the Holocaust is not yet resolved in the academic establishment.

2. Text on the Stanford case was revised for clarity, correctness and NPOV.

The original wording misled some readers into thinking that the Stanford controversy was somehow related to the opinions of Rabb and Brumberg in addition to Dawidowicz, and somehow related to the charge of anti-Semitism. In fact, the Stanford faculty voted on the appointment in early 1986. Dawidowicz, Rabb, and Brumberg published commentaries on Davies in 1987, 1996 and 2001.

The allegation in the court case against Stanford was not anti-Semitism, but Davies’ [the plaintiff] own allegation of defamation, breach of contract etc. against Stanford. The original text selectively quotes a press release issued by Stanford, the defendant (“Davies' works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz….”, but did not include the next sentence “ Davies supporters contend….”. Wikipedia is not the venue to file an opinion on a case which was never tried. However, if this subject is deemed of sufficient importance to be included in an encyclopedia entry, both the defendant’s and plaintiff’s position (such as the Complaint filed with the court) should be given.

3. Removed references to “ Polish nationalist claims”, “Polono-centric historical myths”, and “the Polish position”. What “Polish nationalist claims”? What “strong tendency to create Polono-centric historical myths” . Is there a single, generally accepted “Polish position”? Provide citation to Davies’ use of this characterization of the Poles. Otherwise, these statements represent ethnic or national stereotypes of the author.

4. Removed “scientific”, which in common usage suggests an article on a scientific subject rather than history. Jehudit 19:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC) [signature added by Thorsten1, 17:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)]

Response to Jehudit by Thorsten1
With some delay, I finally have the opportunity to react to Jehudit's above accusations. In a nutshell, she sees it fit to blame the messenger for the message, accusing me of "name-calling" and "personal defamation"; to misrepresent my statements to mean the opposite of what they say (alternatively, she simply ignores them, claiming I mean the opposite of what I say - and leaving it to the reader to infer that I am a blatant liar); and insinuating that I am guided by "ethnic or national stereotypes".

Jehudith wrote: "The allegation that Davies is anti-Semitic is a personal opinion of the author". I wonder how Jehudit knows that this is my "personal opinion" when I explicitely and repeatedly criticised this allegation as absurd? The only conclusion I can draw from Jehudit's statement is that she is either accusing me of intentionally lying about my "real" opinion, or presumes to know my own opinion better than I do myself. Either premise makes it impossible to argue with her. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to rebut Jehudit's irritating attacks, if only to protect my own integrity.

"The moniker "anti-Semite" is a serious charge which borders on defamation when made without substantial and careful validation." I absolutely agree; Jehudit should go ahead and tell that to the people who are a bit trigger happy with this allegation. Regardless of what she or Ttyre may choose to read into my opinion, I am not one of them - on the contrary, having been on the receiving end of such allegations myself, I have every reason to be extra careful with it. However, unlike Jehudit, I do think that a prerequisite for dealing with such allegations is having them out in the open. Trying to sweep them under the carpet, or sophistically asserting they do not even exist is certainly not a tried and tested method of dealing with them; at worst, this may be interpreted as sheepish evasion or a tacit admission of guilt. That is why trying to cover up the issue or denying its existence would be doing Davies a disservice; unfortunately, that is exactly what Jehudit goes on to do:

"[The allegation of anti-Semitism] was not made in the Stanford case cited. The criticism attributed to Dawidowicz in the press release (without citation) [Note: blame that on Stanford's press officer] did not allege that Davies personally was anti-Semitic, but that his historical presentation "…minimized historic anti-Semitism in Poland…etc.". It was not made in subsequent writings by Dawidowicz, Rabb, or Brumberg. At least in the references which I found, they do not say this. [...] Likewise, I did not find it in the body of scholarly debate on Davies' historical works."

No, of course Jehudit did not find it in any "scholarly debate", nor in the Stanford case. Davies' critics are too cunning to make explicit accusations; they know that, in the absence of any proper evidence, subtle allusions will catch on much better. I suppose Jehudit is perfectly aware of that (at least I have no reason to doubt that she is); however, she prefers to play possum so that she can continue to conveniently blame the messenger for the message: "Thorsten1 uses their names without citation, to misattribute the allegation to them rather than himself (see citations added)."

My sincere thanks go to Jehudit for hammering it home to me that I think Davies is an anti-Semite - I really didn't know that I think so until now, you see; but let's hear Anne Applebaum, whose name I used early on, with citation. She appears to understand the mechanisms of influence in the academic establishment much better than Jehudit pretends to: "Rabb [...] is fond of making vague and unsubstantiated accusations [...]", she says in her review of Europe: A History. She goes on to quote Brumberg, who indignantly "feels that describing [Nazi atrocities and Jewish postwar cooperation with Communist atrocities] on the same page "helps to camouflage the unique nature of the German holocaust."" This, according to Applebaum, is a sequel to the affair surrounding God's Playground in the 1980s, when "[...] a group of American academics complained that Davies had failed to put sufficient emphasis on the role which the Poles had played in carrying out the Nazi Holocaust. Although no one spoke openly of anti-Semitism — just as Professor Rabb does not speak openly of anti-Semitism — the accusations were enough to prevent Davies from getting the tenure which he had been promised at Stanford." She concludes by saying that "It does now appear that unless you go on spouting the clichés [...] you are likely to find your book [...] dismissed as "right-wing" or "anti-Semitic"" [3].

Maybe Jehudit should contact Applebaum and let her know that Rabb etc. really meant nothing of that kind; that in fact it is strictly Applebaum's personal opinion that Davies is an anti-Semite, an opinion which she misattributes to Rabb and Brumberg, whose names she uses without proper citation; finally, that she engages in name-calling and personal defamation. And while Jehudit is already at it, why not sue the New Statesman for quoting the abusive comment of "one professor of history" in the first paragraph of its review of Europe, and for saying that in the response to the book, the "issue of anti-Semitism has never been far below the surface" and that "people said he had trivialised the Holocaust" [4]? After all, isn't it quite clear that the author, hiding behind "one professer of history" and some anonymous "people" is pushing his own agenda? Why take the trouble to tackle the message when condemning the messenger is so much easier?

And what about the following statement from a Polish review of Smok wawelski nad Tamizą: "Część amerykańskich Żydów zaczęła wytwarzać wokół niego wrogą atmosferę, pojawiły się oskarżenia o antysemityzm. Doszło wręcz do tego, że nie dostał katedry na uniwersytecie w Stanford. [...] Historyk, który jako pierwszy do historii Polski wstawił rozdział poświęcony Żydom, który nad Wisłą uchodzi za jednego z czołowych orędowników tropienia wszelkich krzywd, jakie Polacy wyrządzili Żydom, który za jeden z najważniejszych tekstów uważa sławny artykuł Jana Błońskiego, raptem został zdefiniowany jako antysemita." ("Some American Jews began to create a hostile atmosphere around him [Davies], accusations of anti-Semitism appeared. In the end, he did not get a chair at Stanford. [...] A historian, who was the first to include a special chapter about Jews in a history of Poland, who on the Vistula is considered as a leading contributor to the investigation of all crimes Poles committed against Jews, who considers Jan Błoński's famous article as one of the most important texts, was all of a sudden defined as an anti-Semite"; Robert Krasowksi, Davies między sąsiadami, Życie, 19 April 2001 [5]). Is Krasowski another member of that clique which misattribute their own allegations against Davies to anonymous "American Jews"? Apparently so.

Jehudit inquisitorially complains: "No citation was given for text "partially polemical" and "unconventional statements" by Davies? What statements? Who considers them "polemical" or "unconventional? What opinions "may be construed" as anti-Semitic and by whom?" Before I begin to answer each of these questions, a few words on Jehudit's apparent obsession with formal citation may be in order. Wikipedia is by definition not a place for original research, the hallmark of which is heavy use of citation; encyclopedia articles tend to restrict themselves to very few references for "further reading". Of course, it is sometimes better to have too many than too few references. But most Wikipedia articles are about things that are either generally accepted anyway, or can be checked with relatively little effort, such as in this case, with a simple Google search.

When I was writing the paragraph in question, I was not aware that anyone might seriously doubt that some scholars have explicitly or implicitly misconstrued statements made by Davies as anti-Semitic; even less did I anticipate that anyone would contend that Davies offers strictly "conventional" views on history (is "spouting the clichés", to use Applebaum's words), or that his prose is never polemical. Otherwise I would certainly have provided such references earlier on.

As for "unconventional statements" - basically these include any statements contradicting what Davies criticises as conventional Western views of European history; a subset of which he calls the "Allied Scheme of History". One such violation of conventional wisdom, as Applebaum correctly assumes, is the "capsule" Batt-101 in Europe (pp. 1022f., 1998 paperback edition). In it, Davies relates the story of the Reserve Police Battalion 101, which turned "ordinary men" into brutal killers, and quotes Christopher Browning: "If the men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 could become killers under such circumstances, what group of men cannot?". Without further ado, Davies then segues into the question of "Jews who were placed in a similar moral position to that of Battalion 101", using the examples of Jewish ghetto policemen and Sonderkommandos recruited "for the worst tasks in the death-camps". Davies goes on to discuss the role of Jews in the post-war Polish Security Office; while "popular knowledge in the country has always insisted that the notorious communist Security Office (UB) contained a disproportionate number of Jews (or rather ex-Jews), and that their crimes were heinous", this was a "taboo" only recently broken by a case study on the UB in Upper Silesia. The study not only revealed that "in 1945 every single commander and three-quarters of the local agents [...] were of Jewish origin", but also that "ex-Nazi camps and prisons were refilled with totally innocent civilians, especially Germans; and that torture, starvation, sadistic beatings and murder were routine". Davies concludes by saying that "in this light it is difficult to justify the widespread practice whereby murderers, the victims, and the bystanders of wartime Poland are each neatly identified with specific ethnic groups" (p. 1023).

Personally, I fully agree with this conclusion. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that mentioning crimes committed by Germans against Jews and crimes committed by Jews against Poles and even Germans in the same context, is "conventional" in the "reputable" academic environment. It is anything but that. It fundamentally contradicts the common wholesale characterisation of Jews as victims under any circumstances, according to which any offences committed by Jews are by definition more excusable than those committed by others. The same goes for that crucial sentence in the chapter on Jewish life in God's Playground, which was alleged to downplay Polish inter-war and wartime anti-Semitism: "To ask why the Poles did little to help the Jews is rather like asking why the Jews did nothing to assist the Poles" (p. 264, 1981 [?] paperback, repeated in modified form in Heart of Europe, p. 72, 1986 paperback). While there is more than some truth in that statement, there is also sarcasm and bitterness about the lack of understanding for the predicament of (non-Jewish) Poles. It is intentionally provocative - designed to challenge the dogmatic notion that the Poles are somehow guilty of collective wilful neglect or worse. If Wikipedia's definition of the term "polemic" is anything to go by, then this statement is an excellent example.

Which brings me to Jehudit's question as to "what opinions "may be construed" as anti-Semitic and by whom". Generally speaking, just about any opinion involving Jews may be construed as anti-Semitic. Sometimes having an opinion about Jews at all is deemed enough to substantiate the allegation of anti-Semitism; after all, it's a small step from imagining any Jewish collectivity to dreaming up a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, isn't it? At other times, not declaring any opinion about Jews is enough to substantiate the same allegation; after all, why would one want to hush up the existence of Jews? On the Polish example, merely speaking of "Polish Jews" might be construed as latently anti-Semitic - as it implies an act of "othering" Jews from "actual" Poles. Conversely, refusal to speak of "Polish Jews" may just as well be construed that way: As an attempt to deny Jews their right to a separate ethnic identity (an act of "saming" if you will). If a personal anecdote is permitted - I was once asked why, according to my opinion, there was no significant domestic anti-Semitism in Franquist Spain. I said there could hardly have been any, since the Spanish Jews had been expelled as early as 1492. This answer was instantly revealed as latently anti-Semitic; after all it could be reversed to mean that there would have been anti-Semitism had there been Jews - thus the Jews are to blame themselves. Such is the atmosphere when talking about Jewish matters. There are certain people (some of them Jews, most of them not, I hasten to add) who are constantly looking for an opportunity to accuse others of anti-Semitism because it makes them feel morally superior. In the face of this, Jehudit's acting the innocent fool and her bossy inquiry which of Davies's opinions "may be construed" as anti-Semitic and by whom" look like yet another threadbare attempt to hold the messenger responsible for the message.

Jehudit wrote "Tytre correctly complains on the misuse of the word "reputation". The statement "…gained him a reputation" [read negative] is innuendo and personal attack. Unable to support this wording, Thorsten1 resorts to personal attack on Tytre's English skills." The "personal attack on Tytre's English skills" Jehudit is referring to was not only instantly apologised for, but was in fact tiny in comparison to my extensive explanation as to why I think that saying that Davies "gained a (negative) reputation in a part of the academic establishment" is absolutely correct. Not only does Jehudit completely ignore that explanation (which, of course, she need not agree with); she also chooses to dismiss my emphatic dissociation from what I was observing. She either fails to understand that observing a phenomenon does not necessarily imply approval of that phenomenon; or she does understand that, but prefers to denounce her opponents as liars. Both possibilities do little to raise my respect for her as a serious disputant.

Jehudit complains that "The text did not represent or cite the body of scholarly debate on the historical merit of Davies' works." No, it did not - because as explained above, the opposition against Davies does not operate on the level of "scholarly debate". Which makes it less valid, but no less effective or - as Jehudit tries to imply - less existent. In his 1987 rebuttal to Dawidowicz, Davies himself demonstrated a much better understanding of how the "campaign" against him works. As I do not have the original handy I hope you won't mind me quoting and retranslating the Polish translation: "Dawidowicz [...] nie pozbyła się [...] cechy wszystkich komunistycznych polemistów, którzy próbują zniszczyć reputację swoich oponentów, nie poświęcając trudu na analizę ich poglądów. Jeśli pozwolimy, by takie podejście zwyciężyło, wkrótce okaże się, że każdy, kto zakwestionuje przedstawioną przez Dawidowicz wersję prawdy, zostanie rychło przegnany z mediów i z życia akademickiego" ("Dawidowicz [...] has not given up the characteristic method of all communist controverters who try to destroy their opponents' reputation without taking the trouble to analyse their views. If we let such an approach gain ground, it will soon turn out that anyone who questions the version of truth presented by Dawidowicz will be removed from the media and academic life." - Smok wawelski nad Tamizą: Eseje, polemiki, wykłady, p. 138).

Davies also has some ideas about Dawidowicz's potential motivation: Edelman's criticism of Zionism and Israel's policies, his own criticism of Israeli nationalism, and his refusal to have his area of expertise, the history of Poland, presented in the categories of Jewish-American mythology and collective guilt. That is why, when Davies wrote a positive review on Edelman, Dawidowicz "poczuła się dotknięty podwójnie. Ponieważ nie może napiętnować Edelmana jako antisemity, sugeruje, że jest on niezrównoważony psychicznie. Ponieważ nie jest przygotowana do tego, by polemizować z linią argumentacji Daviesa, stwierdza, że jego kompetencje naukowe są żałosne" (p. 138-9). Davies also alludes to an ominous "computer error", as a result of which the paperback edition of God's Playground did not end up in the catalogue of U.S. Books in Print, and Dawidowicz's possible role in the Stanford case (p. 142).

Jehudit complains that "allegations made by individuals such as Dawidowicz, Rabb, Brumberg - should be supported with citations to those persons, and not a vague generalization to someone's "gaining a reputation" in the "establishment." I admit that it would have been better to be more specific about the individuals who first came out with the allegations from the beginning. If, however, Jehudit seeks to imply that precise citations could somehow create the impression that we are dealing with strictly personal animosities between isolated individuals with no or little clout in "(parts of) the establishment", she is either being naive or considers Wikipedia's readership naive. As I said earlier on, these authors appear to be just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. "I have tried to supply a few citations to their criticisms together with the rebuttals of others." Thanks for that nonetheless: They are nice to have even if they do not contribute anything to the issue at hand. "The ongoing debate on the historical presentation of the Holocaust is not yet resolved in the academic establishment." Certainly not, not least thanks to Davies. But then I did not imply otherwise when I said that there were certain "conventions" (or "clichés", to quote Applebaum again) regarding the historical presentation of the Holocaust and the events surrounding it.

Jehudit complains that "the original wording misled some readers into thinking that the Stanford controversy was somehow related to the opinions of Rabb and Brumberg in addition to Dawidowicz, and somehow related to the charge of anti-Semitism. In fact, the Stanford faculty voted on the appointment in early 1986. Dawidowicz, Rabb, and Brumberg published commentaries on Davies in 1987, 1996 and 2001." I acknowledge that the wording was at one point misleading - this was due to some hectic editing after the entire paragraph had been deleted and Ttyre flatly denied that any this had any relevance at all. However, the "wrong" impression evoked by the text was not so wrong after all. That Dawidowicz and her epigones published their comments only during and after the Stanford case, respectively, just goes to prove that we are dealing with a more massive and complex machination than Ttyre and Jehudit are willing to admit. Even at the risk of fostering conspiracy theories - Dawidowicz, Brumberg, Rabb, Judt all appear to be different heads of one hydra. To point out that it reared its heads in different guises and at different times does not disprove its existence; if anything, the opposite is the case.

"The allegation in the court case against Stanford was not anti-Semitism, but Davies' [the plaintiff] own allegation of defamation, breach of contract etc. against Stanford." True enough, but again, I never implied otherwise. All I said was that the charge of anti-Semitism was believed to be a factor when Davies was denied the position, and that Davies subsequently sued the university. "The original text selectively quotes a press release issued by Stanford, the defendant ("Davies' works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz….", but did not include the next sentence " Davies supporters contend….". [...] if this subject is deemed of sufficient importance to be included in an encyclopedia entry, both the defendant's and plaintiff's position (such as the Complaint filed with the court) should be given."

In principle, this is a justifiable position; but again it ignores how the paragraph in question came about in the first place, resulting in a mispresentation of my intention. In fact, I inserted this quotation only after Ttyre claimed that the allegations against Davies were irrelevant to his professional standing. I actually considered including the following sentence as well: "Davies' supporters contend that Poles suffered as much as Jews did in the war and could have done very little to save any of the 3 million Jews living in Poland at the time of the Nazi invasion in 1939." However, I decided not to as I felt it was merely stating the obvious and would have further distorted the proportion between the this and the uncontroversial remaining part of the article. Also, a link to the full Stanford statement was provided. As for the actual complaint filed with the court, I am not aware that it is available anywhere on the internet. If Jehudit has access to it and sees it fit to include it here, she is of course free to take care of that.

Finally, Jehudit says she "removed references to " Polish nationalist claims", "Polono-centric historical myths", and "the Polish position". What "Polish nationalist claims"? What "strong tendency to create Polono-centric historical myths" . Is there a single, generally accepted "Polish position"? Provide citation to Davies' use of this characterization of the Poles. Otherwise, these statements represent ethnic or national stereotypes of the author."

First off, I did not speak of any "single, generally accepted 'Polish position'" as such, although Jehudit tries to create this impression by truncating a sentence of some 20 words down to just 2. The full sentence reads: "In fact, in presenting Polish-Russian, Polish-Jewish or Polish-Western conflicts, Davies tends to justify or qualify criticism of the Polish position." And yes, in many if not most Polish-Russian, Polish-Jewish or Polish-Western conflicts, there is in fact a "single, generally accepted 'Polish position'". To give just a few examples, there is the Polish-Russian issue of Katyń (Davies supported the Polish position that the massacre was committed by the Soviets); there is the Polish-Western issue on whether or not the West could have done more to assist the Polish combatants (Davies supports the Polish position that they could have done more). Then there are the various Polish-Jewish issues, such as whether the or not non-Jewish Poles could have done more to assist their Jewish neighbours (Davies supports the Polish position that they could not possibly have done more), whether or not anti-Semitism in inter-war Poland was in any way a prelude to the Holocaust and Polish "bystanding" (Davies supports the Polish position that it was not), whether or not there was a majority of Jews in the brutal communist security police after the war (Davies supports the Polish position that there was). Of course, none of these are shared by each and every Pole. But they are obviously shared by enough Poles to arguably justify calling them "Polish positions".

As for the sentence "While Davies's critics focus on unconventional statements that may be construed as anti-Semitic, they tend to overlook the fact that he simultaneously contradicts Polish nationalist claims and vehemently criticises a strong tendency to create Polono-centric historical myths."' Jehudit is either unable or unwilling to understand that the entire sentence is meant to counterweigh the unfair but widespread criticism of Davies as a romantic admirer of all things Polish. As I indicated above, there are many people who "know" exactly one thing about Davies - that he is an uncritical champion of the "Polish cause". As one example of this type of reception take John Connelly's review of Rising '44 in the London Review of Books: Connelly criticises the book as a "hyperpatriotic account", asserting that "Davies is reiterating what is known in Poland as the 'romantic' position.", and somewhat skewedly confronting Davies's "romantic" account with Włodzimierz Borodziej's "realist" history of the Uprising [6], which he contends was unaffected by the bias of the survivors. Connelly claims that the survivors' "self-righteousness has become [Davies's]; their rejection of persistent questions about Polish anti-semitism explains his impatient refusal to look squarely at the 'black pages' of Polish history" [7].

Of course, if one prefers to deny that such criticism even exists, any counterweight is just an irritating stumbling block that must somehow be disposed of. Jehudit does so with a typical sophistic trick: She builds a straw man to transport a threadbare abusive ad hominem attack. I am, of course, unable to "provide citation" to any such "characterization of the Poles" in Davies's works. But neither do I see why I should, when all I said was that "Polish nationalist claims" and "Polono-centric historical myths" exist; that Davies criticises them; and that his critics tend not to see that - while they make much of Davies's criticism of Zionist claims and myths. Among the myths Davies criticises is the exclusive ancestral right of the Polish nation to a certain territory that must be defended against Jewish, German or Ukrainian aliens.

In an essay on the "Polish Melting-Pot", which appeared in Tygodnik Powszechny in 1990, Davies notes that an overwhelming part of the population cannot remember conspicuous ethnic diversity in their country: "Chociaż, oczywiście, zdają sobie oni sprawę, że w przedwojennej Polsce mieszkały liczne tak zwane mniejszości, to jednak panujący obecnie stan rzeczy nieuchronnie utrwalił uświęcone tradycją nacjonalistyczne mity, według których polskie 'ziemie' są związane wyłącznie z polskim 'narodem'. Rządowa propaganda niewątpliwie odegrała tu swoją rolę; nieunikniona stała się jednak, być może, tęstknota pozbawionego korzeni powojennego pokolenia Polaków za narodową przeszłością, kiedy to ich przodkowie byli dumni ze swego miejsca na ziemi, a 'mniejszości' odgrywałzy zaledwie marginalną rolę" ("Although they are, of course, aware that in inter-war Poland there lived many so-called minorities, the present circumstances inevitably cemented certain nationalist myths sanctified by tradition, according to which the Polish 'soil' is exclusively tied with the Polish 'nation'. Government propaganda has doubtlessly played its part here; however, it may have been inevitable that the uprooted post-war generation of Poles longed for a national past when their forefathers were proud of their place on earth, and 'minorities' played only a marginal role." - Smok wawelski..., p. 87).

See also the shrewd analysis of the development of Polish national awareness at the beginning of volume II of God's Playground: Davies approvingly notes Mickiewicz's and Piłsudski's understanding of "Polishness in non-national terms", whereas "other people, whose aspirations departed completely from all historical precedents, came to think of Polishness as a quality reserved exclusively for Polish speakers or even Polish Catholics" (p. 12). For those who would dismiss such a statement as a vague generalisation without correct citation: Davies is, of course, speaking of Roman Dmowski's version of Polish identity. Davies even goes as far as implying that this aggressive, exclusionist version of national identity might have been copied from their German neighbours: "Fichte's ideas of the Urvolk or 'Primordial People' and of the mystical union of the nation with its native soil are still alive, completely unattributed, in Poland today" (p. 28; cf. Heart of Europe, p. 138-9).

Davies is also critical of the Polish myth about the "Recovered Territories". Post-war propaganda made their acquisition appear as a long sought after return to the motherland after many centuries under foreign rule, but Davies writes that "although all Polish parties were eager to obtain Danzig, few had hoped for Breslau, and none had thought of Stettin" (God's Playground, p. 501); and that "Poland was awarded far more German territory in the West than she could possibly have wanted, whilst receiving nothing [...] of her historic lands in the East" (Heart of Europe, p. 105). To say something like that out loud is still a surefire way to stir up a controversy in Poland today, 20 years on.

Against the notion that Poles had once fiercely defended these territories, Davies remarks that "it is not good form in modern Poland to recall that the Slavs took part in [the] great Drang nach Osten no less than the Germans" (Heart of Poland, p. 281-2). He dismisses the "simplistic theories supporting the exclusive claims of immemorial possession by just one ethnic group" as practiced by the Autochtonous School, "which sees the territory of the present People's Republic [...] as the fixed and exclusive homeland of the Prasłowanie".

No wonder that Davies himself declares, tongue in cheek and with explicit reference to the Stanford case, that "mimo iż uważam się za polonofila, to co mówię o Polakach, nie zawsze im się podoba. Parę lat temu zostałem uznany przez 'Dziennik Polski' w Londynie za siłę antypolską, bo [...] nie zgadzam się z tezą o słowiańskim charakterze kultury łużyckiej. A co by było, gdyby wiedziano, że jako romantyczny Celt sądzę, iż Kraków powinien należeć do Celtów?" ("Although I consider myself a Polonophile, the Poles do not always like what I say about them. A few years ago the 'Dziennik Polski' in London identified me as an anti-Polish force, because [...] I do not agree with the thesis of the Slavonic character of the Lusatian Culture. What if they knew that as a romantic Celt I think that Cracow should belong to the Celts?" - Smok wawelski..., p. 22).

I could go on, but I believe I have already provided enough "citation" for Jehudit, even if I cannot serve her with any "characterisation of the Poles" as nationalists.

Finally, I can't help but recognise that Jehudit's style of discussion is strikingly reminiscient of Dawidowicz's. She consistently ignores all my statements that do not match her own preconceptions; she takes statements out of context; she invents statements I never made; she implicitly accuses me of defamation, name-calling, and lying about my intentions; in the end, she claims I was doing all this because I was guided by some unidentified "ethnic or national stereotypes" - an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. By the way, this strikes me as almost amusing - as at the same time I am being attacked as pro-Polish on the German Wikipedia [8]. What I find less amusing, though, is that Jehudit is undermining my own reputation as a Wikipedia author. I wrote most of this article - Jehudit insinuates I did so for the sole purpose of calling Davies an anti-Semite. Jehudit, who is quick with accusations about personal attacks is not too shy about launching personal attacks herself, it seems. Now, should anyone state that I gained the reputation of an anti-Polish name-caller in parts of Wikipedia's establishment I can hardly object. --Thorsten1 17:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)