Journalists weave familiar anti-Polish stereotypes into their reports on the Auschwitz Commemorations

Journalists weave familiar anti-Polish stereotypes into their reports on the Auschwitz Commemorations


In January 2020, a number of news media outlets reported on the two foremost commemorations of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The first commemoration took place in Jerusalem, Israel, and the second took place in Oświęcim, Poland.

This paper will examine articles that reported on the two events and were published in The Hill, the Jewish News Syndicate, Washington Post, Independent (UK), New York Times, and Wall Street Journal. As will be seen, the articles’ writers have woven familiar anti-Polish stereotypical accusations into their reports.

The article in The Hill is entitled “Politicizing the Holocaust is a danger to us all” by Eugene Finkel and Jelena Subotić and was published on 2 February 2020. The article on the Jewish News Syndicate website is entitled “A Polish-Russian Row Over Commemoration of the Holocaust” by Melanie Phillips and was published on 23 January 2020. The Washington Post article is entitled “Russia and Poland use differing versions of World War II history for domestic ends” by Leonid Ragozin and was published on 3 February 2020. The Independent article is entitled “Poland is in denial about its role in the Holocaust – it was both victim and perpetrator” by Rivkah Brown and was published on 22 January 2020. The New York Times article is entitled “The Road to Auschwitz Wasn’t Paved with Indifference” by Rivka Weinberg and was published on 21 January 2020. The Wall Street Journal article is entitled “Auschwitz 75 Years After Liberation” by Edward Rothstein and was published on 28 January 2020. 

This paper will first present background information summarizing what occurred between President Duda of Poland and President Putin of Russia prior to the commemorations. It will then present four common accusations that the writers, most of whom are Jewish, have determined are appropriate for inclusion in their articles. It will also be shown how each accusation is baseless and how each writer is uninformed of the historical facts that directly pertain to the accusations. From this, it will be seen how these accusations are not only unsupported but are also justifiably perceived by Poles as gratuitously punitive and inflammatory. 


The first commemoration, called the Fifth World Holocaust Forum, was held in Jerusalem on 23 January 2020. It was organized by the World Holocaust Forum Foundation and co-hosted by Yad Vashem under the auspices of Israeli President Rivlin. The Foundation’s founder is Russian billionaire Moshe Vyacheslav Kantor, long-time head of the European Jewish Congress, major financial contributor to Yad Vashem, and personal friend of President Putin of Russia. Invited to and attending the event were President Putin as a featured speaker, President Steinmeier of Germany, President Macron of France, and Prince Charles of the UK. President Duda of Poland was also invited but was told he would not be allowed to speak. Quite sensibly, he declined the invitation.

The second commemoration was held at the former Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp on 27 January 2020. It was organized by the Polish government and co-hosted by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. Invited to and attending were the presidents of Israel, Germany, Austria, Ukraine, the royal families and prime ministers of a number of European countries, and World Jewish Congress Chairman Ronald Lauder, who skipped the Jerusalem event. A number of dignitaries from other countries also attended.

From this, one would surmise that the reporting would focus on why President Duda was denied the opportunity to speak at the Jerusalem commemoration.

In an attempt to explain why President Duda was denied the opportunity to speak at the Forum, Yad Vashem issued a press release on 7 January entitled “Yad Vashem response to reports that Polish President Duda will not attend the Fifth World Holocaust Forum”. It stated: “…it is especially appropriate that the leaders addressing this event represent the four main powers of the Allied forces, which liberated Europe and the world from the murderous tyranny of Nazi Germany.” This rationalization by Yad Vashem was invalid for two reasons. The first is that France established a collaborationist Vichy government, rounded up and transported thousands of its Jews to the death camps, and its liberation efforts were effectively limited to its own borders. The second is that Polish uniformed forces under Allied command outnumbered those of France and unquestionably helped liberate Europe. Polish forces included General Maczek’s 1st Armored Division, General Anders’s 2nd Army Corps, and General Berling’s 1st Polish Army. Polish RAF squadrons under British command helped defeat Hitler’s Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain while Poland’s early Enigma successes enabled the deciphering of German communications, which helped shorten the war. What the Yad Vashem press release did not say, and what can be reasonably ascertained, is that the close relationship between President Putin and Moshe Kantor was why President Duda was denied the opportunity to speak.

President Putin was not invited to the commemoration in Poland because he had previously made a number of charges against Poland, one of which was that the country was partly responsible for the outbreak of World War II. Putin’s allegations stemmed from a European Parliament Resolution issued on 19 September 2019 entitled “Importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe”. It condemns the Soviet Union and Germany for agreeing, via the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to start World War II by jointly attacking Poland, dividing Europe between them, and engaging in mass murders of civilians. The Resolution further states that Russian authorities have denied responsibility for the Pact and its horrific consequences, and instead are promoting the view that Poland, the Baltic States, and the West are the true instigators of the war. Putin dismissed the Resolution as “sheer nonsense” and suggested that Stalin was forced into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact after other European nations signed nonaggression agreements with Hitler. He further claimed the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia, was an example of western “collusion” with Hitler.

Stereotypical Accusations made by the Articles’ Writers

Accusation 1: Poles willingly aided the Germans in the deaths of Jews.

Eugene Finkel and Jelena Subotić of The Hill write “It also is undeniable that many Eastern Europeans — individuals, pogrom mobs, nationalist armed groups and collaborationist governments — actively participated in the murder of Jews.” The authors use the sweeping phrase “many Eastern Europeans”, which directly implicates Poland; however, no supporting examples are provided for any of the “Eastern European” countries. Conveniently ignored are Western European countries France, Norway, Holland, and Belgium, who “actively participated” through their collaborationist governments. Mr. Finkel and Ms. Subotić also are either unaware or willfully neglectful of the fact that the Judenräte and Jewish Ghetto Police delivered hundreds of thousands of their own to the German executioners.

Melanie Phillips of the Jewish News Syndicate writes “…both sides [Poland and Russia] are trying to sanitize their highly-complex pasts. Both are using their undeniable suffering at the hands of the Nazi regime to absolve themselves of complicity in either Nazi aggression or the onslaught upon the Jews.” While “complicity in Nazi aggression” does not apply to Poland, Ms. Phillips’s accusation of “complicity in the onslaught upon the Jews” is clearly directed at Poland; however, supporting examples are not provided.

Leonid Ragozin of the Washington Post writes “Poland, whose right-wing government made it a crime to accuse Poles of complicity in the Holocaust (the law was reversed after an outcry from Israel and the United States), is no exception.” Ragozin misinterprets the Polish antidefamation law, which prohibits accusing the Polish State of complicity but not individuals. Nonetheless, he echoes the familiar indictment that “Poland was complicit in the Holocaust”. Unsurprisingly, supporting facts are absent.

Rivkah Brown of the Independent immediately accuses Poland of murdering Jews, which is evident in her article’s title “Poland is in denial about its role in the Holocaust – it was both victim and perpetrator”. To support her accusation, Ms. Brown offers Jan Gross’s disputed claim of Poles killing Jews in Jedwabne and is apparently unaware that Gross dismissed the testimonies of Jewish and Polish witnesses who testified it was done by the Germans while citing testimonies of other who were not eyewitnesses.

Rivka Weinberg of the New York Times writes “During the Holocaust, where the local population was more anti-Semitic, they tended toward greater collaboration, resulting in a markedly higher murder rate.” Ms. Weinberg theorizes that the high number of Polish Jews who died, nearly three million, is directly attributable to a high number of anti-Semitic collaborationist Poles. Predictably, no evidence is offered to support her theory of proportional collaboration and she is apparently unaware that, in a 19-month period between 1942 and 1943, nearly half of Poland’s Jews, approximately 1.4 million, were murdered by the Germans in the secret Operation Reinhard death camps of Bełżec, Sobibór, and Treblinka. Ms. Weinberg also ignores the many tens of thousands of Polish Jews who died under horrible conditions in the German-operated ghettos of occupied Poland.

Edward Rothstein of the Wall Street Journal writes “Ultimately an accounting of Polish pogroms, even those that took place after the war, will have to be acknowledged…” Mr. Rothstein apparently relies on Jan Gross’s unsubstantiated Jedwabne allegations and ignores the extent to which it was German-staged. He is also apparently referring to the postwar Kielce incident, which was Soviet-staged. Former US Ambassador to Poland Arthur Bliss Lane was chosen to report on the incident and did so in his book I Saw Poland Betrayed: An American Ambassador Reports to The American People. Lane wrote: “But almost all sources agreed that the militia had been responsible to a great extent for the massacre, not only in failing to keep order but in the actual killing of the victims, for many had been shot or bayoneted to death…” It’s important to remember that the militia in postwar Poland was fully controlled by the Soviet occupiers.

Accusation 2: The current Polish government is actively engaged in historical revisionism.

Eugene Finkel and Jelena Subotić of The Hill write “After the fall of communism, many Eastern European governments engaged in remarkable Holocaust revisionism, almost always aimed at minimizing or ignoring anti-Jewish violence carried out by their own populations. In Poland, most prominently since the rise of the Law and Justice party to power in 2015, the government passed a series of ‘memory laws’ that criminalized (later, just civilly sanctioned) any mention of Polish participation in the murder of their Jewish neighbors.” The authors assert that the Law and Justice Party enacted the Polish antidefamation law to prohibit public discourse of historical truths, real or imagined, that reveal “Polish participation”. As explained in Accusation 3 below, i.e., the Polish antidefamation law suppresses historical truth, Mr. Finkel and Ms. Subotić misrepresent the law by using the nebulous term “Polish participation”. The authors are also unaware that their term “neighbors” is incorrect. A few days after Hitler attacked Poland, the Germans began imprisoning Poland’s Jews in German-managed ghettos. Jews who did not enter the ghettos or escaped from them became fugitives and went into hiding either by themselves or were assisted by Poles. Fugitive Jews could by no means be called “neighbors”.

Melanie Phillips of the Jewish News Syndicate writes that the Polish antidefamation law “created a furious row with Israel” and further says “An uneasy peace was brokered when the two countries [Poland and Israel] agreed on a joint declaration [signed by President Duda and Prime Minister Netanyahu] stressing the involvement of the Polish resistance in helping Jews. This was condemned by Yad Vashem and other Jewish historians who claimed that this overstated the Poles’ rescue efforts and understated their anti-Jewish atrocities.” Ms. Phillips cites Yad Vashem’s opinion as proof of improper Polish revisionism, which curiously in this case, was approved by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Although Yad Vashem easily could have provided supporting evidence for its claim of “understated anti-Jewish atrocities”, the absence of such evidence renders its opinion fallacious.

Leonid Ragozin of the Washington Post writes “All authoritarian-leaning nationalists do that [i.e., “whitewash and weaponize the country’s history for political ends”], especially those in eastern and central Europe, where nation-building myths are based on sanitized and twisted versions of history. Poland, whose right-wing government made it a crime to accuse Poles of complicity in the Holocaust (the law was reversed after an outcry from Israel and the United States), is no exception.” Mr. Ragozin asserts that the antidefamation law empowers the current Polish Administration to suppress negative historical facts while promulgating fabricated myths. Predictably, no examples of such “myths” or “sanitized versions of history” are provided.

Rivkah Brown of the Independent writes the following: “Both Russia and Poland are tailoring the Holocaust narrative to fit a nationalist agenda, the former by hamming up its triumphalism and the latter its pitifulness.” “Since the right-wing nationalist Law and Justice Party took power in 2015, Poland has set about rewriting its story of the Holocaust to give itself a more flattering part.” “The common thread is nationalism. Both Russia and Poland have been gradually trying to fit the patriotic mythoi on which their nationalist governments depend: Russia by hamming up its tailoring the Holocaust narrative triumphalism, Poland its pitifulness.” According to Ms. Brown, the Polish Administration is revising “its story of the Holocaust”; however, she fails to explain where this “story” resides and what government or private entities have promulgated it. In addition, she asserts that the government is fabricating a “more flattering part” that highlights “its pitifulness”, which means its purpose is to evoke pity rather than impress with heroism. None of this is factual and Ms. Brown’s anti-Polish disposition is evident by her dismissive claims of “pitifulness”.

Accusation 3: The Polish antidefamation law suppresses historical truth.

Eugene Finkel and Jelena Subotić of The Hill write “The new Polish legislation not only stifles research and public debate about the Holocaust but also has produced virulent anti-Semitic attacks.” Whether deliberately or unintentionally, the substance of the antidefamation law is often distorted by news media reporters, which is the case here. The law consists of two components that distinguish between the actions of the Polish State and the actions of individuals. The first component prohibits accusing the Polish State of participating in the crimes against humanity committed by the German Third Reich. During World War II, the Polish State consisted of the Polish government-in-exile in London and the Polish Underground State in German-occupied Poland. It is historical fact neither entity participated in these crimes. The second component exempts academic research that uncovers or artistic activities that portray an individual’s actions. It’s important to recall that Polish officials have publicly and repeatedly acknowledged that some Poles collaborated with the Germans; however, this was atypical. By contrast, Jewish historians and Israeli officials rarely, if ever, have acknowledged Jewish collaboration with the Germans or Jewish collaboration with the Soviets against Poles. Subsequent discovery of individual Polish actions through research and artistic portrayal of individual Polish actions are not an issue. As for the law triggering “virulent anti-Semitic attacks”, the authors predictably present no supporting evidence for their bizarre assertion. 

Melanie Phillips of the Jewish News Syndicate writes “Last year, its [Polish] government’s attempt to prohibit rhetoric accusing Poland of complicity in Nazi crimes created a furious row with Israel.” This is another example of writers misrepresenting the Polish antidefamation law. Ms. Phillips is accusing Poland, i.e., the Polish State, of committing the crimes of the Germans, which she wrongly believes is historical fact. By publicly issuing this false accusation, she is in violation of the antidefamation law. As noted in Accusation 2 above, Ms. Phillips cites Yad Vashem’s simplistic opinion as the validating authority for her allegation that the current Polish Administration is revising Polish history. However, for her accusation here, i.e., the law suppresses evidence that the Polish State committed the crimes of the Germans, she is unable to cite Yad Vashem as her validating authority. The obvious question is — why did the law cause a “furious row with Israel”, meaning with Yad Vashem. This is because, although it knows the Polish State was not complicit, Yad Vashem has effectively endorsed the opposite narrative by avoiding comment on its veracity. If it were to publicly acknowledge that the Polish State was not complicit, this would undermine the false narrative that has been tolerated by Yad Vashem and disseminated by writers such as Ms. Phillips, who falsely asserts that all of Poland’s people and its institutions were active participants. 

Rivkah Brown of the Independent writes “The [Polish antidefamation] law uncannily resembles that introduced by the Kremlin in 2014, forbidding the spreading of ‘false information about the Soviet Union’s activities during World War II’, including by comparing Nazi and Soviet crimes.” Ms. Brown engages in sophism by attempting to portray the Polish law as indistinguishable in substance from the 2014 Soviet law. She implies that there is factually true information somewhere that depicts Polish complicity; however, once uncovered, the Polish Administration will deem it to be “false” and enforce the antidefamation law to prohibit its dissemination. With respect to “comparing crimes”, there are no Polish crimes against humanity and this invalidates any attempted comparison with “Nazi crimes”. However, in the case of the Soviets, some of their crimes unmistakably matched German atrocities, a notable example of which is the Katyn massacre of 22,000 Polish officers. Finally, it is apparent that there is no “uncanny resemblance” between the 2018 Polish law and the 2014 Russian law.

Edward Rothstein of the Wall Street Journal writes “…in 2018 it [Poland] criminalized assertions of Polish collaboration or participation in the Holocaust, backpedaling only after protests.” This is another example of either ignorant or deliberate distortion of the Polish antidefamation law. In this case, Mr. Rothstein employs the ambiguous phrases “Polish collaboration” and “Polish participation”. As previously explained, the antidefamation law clearly distinguishes between the actions of the Polish State and Polish individuals. A second point is that the term “Holocaust” has multiple definitions that encompass a wide range of belligerent actions and behaviors. As a result, accusing a country or an individual of “collaboration” or “participation” in the “Holocaust” without providing supporting specifics renders such an accusation invalid and effectively meaningless.

Accusation 4: Poles have always been anti-Semitic.

Before reviewing the accusations of the authors, it’s important to understand the difference between Polish anti-Semitism and Jewish anti-Polonism. Polish anti-Semitism was not, and is not today, racist in nature. By contrast, Jewish anti-Polonism exhibited by Polish Jews and today’s Jewish diaspora is essentially racist. The term “racism” is generally defined as the belief that one or more races are innately superior to others because of distinctive traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features. This concept of innate predominance has subsequently been expanded to apply to ethnic, religious, and other culturally distinctive groups. The essence of racism is when anyone, no matter what their ethnicity, harbors automatic negative, prejudicial attitudes towards individuals of a different ethnicity.

Mark Paul’s work Traditional Jewish Attitudes Toward Poles provides well-sourced examples of Jewish communities inculcating in their children a sense of superiority over the Poles, which was subsequently strengthened by Jewish religious convictions. In one example, Historian Bernard Weinryb makes the point that the negative images Polish Jews held of Poles were based on ideas about the superiority of their own community and the chosenness of the Jews over that of the idolatrous Catholic Poles. In another example, Leon Weliczker Wells, adviser to the Holocaust Library in New York, who came from the small town of Stojanów, states the following: “We Jews felt superior to all others, as we were the ‘chosen people’, chosen by God Himself. We even repeated it in our prayers at least three times a day, morning, afternoon, and evening.”

This narrow view, which serves as the basis for Jewish anti-Polonism, is widely prevalent today. By contrast, when an accusation of Polish anti-Semitism is made, those who make the charge are confident that the accused has an innate hostility or even hatred toward Jews. Unfortunately, the uninformed others who hear or read this tend to accept the allegation as reliable. This is erroneous and offensive, and as will be shown in the next paragraph, Polish resentment of Jews is based on an historical pattern of Jewish behavior.

During the era of the Partitions, Polish anti-Semitism stemmed chiefly from Jewish refusal to join the fight for Polish independence, with the notable exception of Colonel Joselewicz and his 100-man Jewish regiment in the 1809 Battle of Kock. During the interwar years, main causes of Polish anti-Semitism were Jewish opposition to the formation and advancement of the Polish state as well as Jewish domination of the economy. Polish Jewish members of the Parliament (Sejm) demanded that the Polish Constitution provide for autonomous Jewish provinces on Polish soil with separate legislative representation in the Sejm. Jewish merchants transacted almost exclusively with their co-religionists and avoided engaging Polish businesses that were emerging following the rebirth of the country. During World War II, Polish anti-Semitism was the result of Polish Jewish collaboration with the Soviets, which enabled the murdering of Poles in the Kresy, in some cases by Jewish militias, and cattle car transport of approximately 1 million Poles to gulags and labor camps in the deep Soviet interior where many tens of thousands died. During the communist era, Polish anti-Semitism was the result of brutal suppression by the Ministry of State Security, which exerted the power of life or death and held the populace under a reign of terror. It was headed by Jakub Berman, a Polish Jew and personal friend of Stalin, who assembled a leadership team of Polish Jews that followed Stalin’s diktat to murder persons suspected of advocating Poland’s independence, especially members of the Home Army who fought the Germans. More recently, Polish anti-Semitism occurred in response to the World Jewish Restitution Organization’s demands that Poland pay for heirless Jewish properties, despite the fact there is no such legal concept anywhere. With this as an accurate contextual background, the accusations of Polish anti-Semitism in the articles can be appropriately assessed.

Melanie Phillips of the Independent writes “What Poland goes to such lengths to deny is that the culture of the country has always been riddled with antisemitism, due in large measure to the primitive prejudices promulgated by the Catholic Church.” As already pointed out, Polish anti-Semitism has consistently been the result of Jewish actions. While some parish priests may have expressed anger over the Jewish crucifixion of Jesus, the role of the Catholic Church was negligible. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Phillips is ill-informed of the long history of Polish-Jewish relations and as a consequence, is ignorant of the nature of Polish anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, no mention of Jewish anti-Polonism is made, although one can surmise by the tone of her article that she harbors such a predisposition.

Rivka Weinberg of the New York Times writes “Romania and Ukraine, on the other hand, had virulently anti-Semitic cultures and many Romanians and Ukrainians actively participated in murdering Jews. Few survived. Poland was also very anti-Semitic, and although there were Poles who sheltered Jews, many instead turned them in and looted their property. Some murdered Jews themselves. Very few Polish Jews survived.” As for the statement “many instead turned them in”, she is unaware that, while the Germans rounded up Polish Jews and imprisoned them in ghettos, Poles were in a day-to-day struggle for survival because of the brutalities and severe conditions exacted by the occupiers. It’s important to remember that, once the Germans had imprisoned Jews in the ghettos, those who did not enter the ghettos or escaped from them became fugitives and went into hiding from the Germans either by themselves or were assisted by Poles. Several circumstantial reasons explain the denunciation of fugitive Jews. In Polish villages, they were the result of valid fears of German “pacification” reprisals. As news spread to surrounding villages of Germans searching for Polish Jews and planning to execute their Polish rescuers, villagers understandably turned out or denounced their Jewish charges. Fugitive Jews were also betrayed under German torture. Additionally, because of the starvation rations imposed by the Germans, some could be bribed by offering bread, milk, sugar, or even meat. As for the statement “and looted their property”, Ms. Weinberg is ignorant of the fact that the Germans were the first to loot Jewish properties after forcing Jews from their homes into the ghettos. As for the statement “Some murdered Jews themselves”, this was true although rare. Polish officials have publicly and repeatedly acknowledged this fact. By contrast, Ms. Weinberg is unaware that some Jews formed militias in support of the invading Soviets and occasionally shot and brutally beat to death local Poles. As for the statement “very few survived”, one can reasonably ask what constitutes “very few”. Ms. Weinberg is unaware that Szymon Datner, a Polish-Jewish historian and former head of Yad Vashem, estimated the number of Jews in Poland who survived the war to be 200,000. Datner said that approximately 100, 000 survived, chiefly thanks to assistance provided by Polish residents, while another 100,000 people were seized by the Germans and murdered.

Edward Rothstein of the Wall Street Journal writes “the sordid history of Polish anti-Semitism cannot be separated from a persistent intertwining of the two peoples’ [Poles’ and Jews’] histories. Mr. Rothstein asserts that Polish anti-Semitism is a “sordid”, i.e., vile, element of Jewish history that cannot be expunged. He fails to consider that the historical pattern of Jewish anti-Polish behavior and Jewish anti-Polonism are justifiably irritating and contemptible elements of Polish history. Like Ms. Phillips and Ms. Weinberg, Mr. Rothstein is uninformed of the history of Polish-Jewish relations and how both sides came to view each other.


As pointed out in the beginning of this paper, a number of news media outlets reported on the two main commemorations of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Because a controversy between President Duda and President Putin emerged prior to the commemorations, one would reasonably expect that, in addition to reporting on the ceremonies in Jerusalem and Auschwitz-Birkenau, journalists would examine and describe the essentials of the controversy, a major part of which was the fact that President Duda was invited to the Jerusalem event but was denied the opportunity to speak.

The six articles reviewed in this paper should have summarized the facts of the controversy and also should have explained why President Duda was not allowed to speak. However, this was superficially addressed. Recognizing that news media reports about Poland in World War II invariably contain the familiar stereotypical anti-Polish accusations, it’s unsurprising that the articles’ writers, most of whom are Jewish, saw fit to include them. Unfortunately, it’s also apparent that the writers believe their accusations to be undeniably true, despite the fact that they provide no supporting evidence.

In examining the first accusation, Poles willingly aided the Germans in the deaths of Jews, we know this is factually true for a very small number of individuals; however, the prevailing and factually false belief of the writers continues to be that providing such aid was widespread among Poles. By contrast, it is factually true that Jews willingly aided the Germans in the deaths of Jews. Immediately following Hitler’s attack on Poland, Jewish leaders ceased all forms of contact with Polish authorities and negotiated the conditions of collaboration for Jewish administration and operation of the ghettos, which is detailed in Emmanuel Ringelblum’s “Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto”. Jewish authorities actively complied with the orders of the Germans and did the following: Gathered up Jews from small towns and concentrated them in German-run ghettos in larger urban areas; Kept Jews convinced that they were being deported to work in German-designated areas in the East; Forcibly rounded up ghetto Jews and loaded them onto the trains destined for the death camps. As Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg has correctly asked, why didn’t they resist and make the Germans do their own dirty work? 

In examining the second accusation, the current Polish government is actively engaged in historical revisionism, this is the result of the writers’ inability to believe the proven fact that the Polish State did not commit the crimes of the Germans. A second factor is the writers’ historically false belief that Polish collaboration was widespread and Polish rescue efforts were negligible. Unsurprisingly, no examples of revised histories that have been fashioned by the Polish Administration are provided to support this accusation.

In examining the third accusation, the Polish antidefamation law suppresses historical truth, this is the result of the writers’ misreading and distorting the substance of the antidefamation law. The law clearly distinguishes between the actions of the Polish State and the actions of individuals. Because the articles’ writers consistently misrepresent the law, which has always been available in English, the question naturally arises as to whether the writers have a reading comprehension problem or are intentionally obscuring it.

In examining the fourth accusation, Poles have always been anti-Semitic, this reflects the writers’ ignorance of 800 years of Polish-Jewish relations. As pointed out, rather than being racially motivated, Polish anti-Semitism stems from a history of Jewish behavior that encompasses the Partitions era, the interwar years, collaboration with the Germans and Soviets in World War II, the brutalities of the Communist period, and recent efforts to compel Poland to pay for heirless properties. By contrast, Jewish anti-Polonism was largely driven by the widely prevalent belief that Poles have always been intellectually and culturally inferior stock.

Finally, it is obvious that what’s missing from these six newspapers, which is regrettably common among Western media outlets, are articles or commentaries written by Polish journalists that would typically reflect a majority Polish perspective. It’s evident that no attempt was made to solicit such perspectives and it’s further apparent that the writers of the articles did not contact Polish sources to supplement or assess their reporting. The reason for this is clear; all of the articles are largely opinion pieces and fail to qualify as objective journalism, the purpose of which is to impartially pursue the truth and verify the accuracy of facts. By dismissing Polish viewpoints as irrelevant and unnecessary, these newspapers and writers have effectively engaged in censorship. This is especially risible in light of the writers’ accusation that the Polish anti-defamation law suppresses the truth. To the contrary, by publishing and disseminating false accusations commonly associated with a Jewish viewpoint and denying the presentation of a valid Polish perspective, the writers themselves and their newspapers are the actual suppressors of truth.

%d bloggers like this: