Polish court orders historians to apologise over Holocaust book

[Jacob]

From State-sponsored, court-enforced revisionist history to 80s nostalgia.

Seriously, though, if you have time to write to U. Ottawa in support, it will be appreciated. Jan Grabowski is such a decent guy, and he's been receiving a lot of death threats about his research.

Do you have an email address or other means to pass on such support?

Yeah, what's the right address to contact?

[Tamas]

Ok but:

1. Did the study claim Edward Malinowski gave up Jews to the Germans?
2. Can it be proven that he did?

Because the answers are 1. yes and 2. no, then I don't see the problem with the verdict, just one of the countless libel trials basically.

[crazy canuck]

From State-sponsored, court-enforced revisionist history to 80s nostalgia.

Seriously, though, if you have time to write to U. Ottawa in support, it will be appreciated. Jan Grabowski is such a decent guy, and he's been receiving a lot of death threats about his research.

I am not sure what support is necessary.  A Polish Court issues an order that two academics need to apologize for what is in their work.  Good luck to Poland trying to enforce that ruling anywhere outside Poland.  This has consequences if they want to step foot in Poland again.  But in that case I am not sure what a Canadian University can do about a foreign jurisdiction with totalitarian laws.

[crazy canuck]

Ok but:

1. Did the study claim Edward Malinowski gave up Jews to the Germans?
2. Can it be proven that he did?

Because the answers are 1. yes and 2. no, then I don't see the problem with the verdict, just one of the countless libel trials basically.

So are you telling me that all historians who say King John was a terrible king could be sued for libel?  Not a very good analogy.

[Tamas]

From the New York Times article on this:

Judge Jonczyk said she had ruled against awarding damages because court decisions "should not have a cooling effect on scientific research." She also rejected a demand that the apology describe the wartime mayor of Malinowo village, Edward Malinowski, as a "Jew-saving hero." The book had portrayed him as a thief and Nazi collaborator.

.

Professor Engelking said the issues "we are supposed to apologize for have no basis in fact." She said her account of the wartime mayor's actions, which included both helping and betraying Jews, was based on the postwar testimony of a Jewish woman whom he had aided and also robbed.

Considering this mayor got condemned in the book as a collaborator based on one survivor's testimony, who actually was aided by the mayor but then robbed by him, I think stopping the case at an apology is fairly level-headed.

I mean what was the judge supposed to do? Declare that yes in fact, based on this one witness who was saved by the mayor, the mayor was a Nazi collaborator and a killer?

About their book from the same article:

"The conclusion drawn from the numbers is grim: two out of every three Jews looking for rescue died — most often because of their Christian neighbors," the scholars wrote in the introduction.

Now, you see, I have trouble believing that nearly 2/3rd of dead Polish Jews died because their neighbours ratted them out. Maybe, but I don't think even Hungary could show such numbers and we were really short on Jew-saving.

So it would be good to know what they mean by that. Actively calling the Nazis on a Jew you knew is of course evil. Not willing to risk sheltering the poor souls is another matter and I would have trouble judging people for it - it was no joking matter.

[Jacob]

So it would be good to know what they mean by that. Actively calling the Nazis on a Jew you knew is of course evil. Not willing to risk sheltering the poor souls is another matter and I would have trouble judging people for it - it was no joking matter.

I guess you could buy the book and read it?

[Barrister]

Now, you see, I have trouble believing that nearly 2/3rd of dead Polish Jews died because their neighbours ratted them out. Maybe, but I don't think even Hungary could show such numbers and we were really short on Jew-saving.

So it would be good to know what they mean by that. Actively calling the Nazis on a Jew you knew is of course evil. Not willing to risk sheltering the poor souls is another matter and I would have trouble judging people for it - it was no joking matter.

I parsed it as 'two third of Jews who went looking for rescue died" - not two third of all Jews.

[Tamas]

So it would be good to know what they mean by that. Actively calling the Nazis on a Jew you knew is of course evil. Not willing to risk sheltering the poor souls is another matter and I would have trouble judging people for it - it was no joking matter.

I guess you could buy the book and read it?

Or I could base

Now, you see, I have trouble believing that nearly 2/3rd of dead Polish Jews died because their neighbours ratted them out. Maybe, but I don't think even Hungary could show such numbers and we were really short on Jew-saving.

So it would be good to know what they mean by that. Actively calling the Nazis on a Jew you knew is of course evil. Not willing to risk sheltering the poor souls is another matter and I would have trouble judging people for it - it was no joking matter.

I parsed it as 'two third of Jews who went looking for rescue died" - not two third of all Jews.

Good point I missed that in first reading.

Still I think the libel ruling was a measured one if the only witness to claim the mayor was a nazi collaborator was a Jewish person saved by the mayor.

[Jacob]

Still I think the libel ruling was a measured one if the only witness to claim the mayor was a nazi collaborator was a Jewish person saved by the mayor.

How so?

Because if he saved her he couldn't possibly also have collaborated, or robbed her?

[Tamas]

Still I think the libel ruling was a measured one if the only witness to claim the mayor was a nazi collaborator was a Jewish person saved by the mayor.

How so?

Because if he saved her he couldn't possibly also have collaborated, or robbed her?

No but if we have one witness saying he was and another witness (his niece) saying he wasn't, then perhaps presenting that he was as historical fact is misleading.

[Jacob]

No but if we have one witness saying he was and another witness (his niece) saying he wasn't, then perhaps presenting that he was as historical fact is misleading.

Fair.

But are we sure that they're presenting it "as historical fact" rather than providing an accounting of all the facts they have?

[Admiral Yi]

No but if we have one witness saying he was and another witness (his niece) saying he wasn't, then perhaps presenting that he was as historical fact is misleading.

The niece didn't say that.  She said the historians " failed to follow correct research methodology."

As far as we know.

[Tamas]

The niece went farther than that and claimed the mayor was a hero for saving Jews, which the judge refused to declare.

Now of course the details in the book might paint a more convincing picture but based on these articles I think the judge made quite a neutral ruling.

Publishing an apology on a webpage ain't that terrible and u am fairly certain this brouhaha generated plenty of extra income on the book.

[Admiral Yi]

The niece went farther than that and claimed the mayor was a hero for saving Jews, which the judge refused to declare.

I can't find this in the article.

[crazy canuck]

From the New York Times article on this:

Judge Jonczyk said she had ruled against awarding damages because court decisions "should not have a cooling effect on scientific research." She also rejected a demand that the apology describe the wartime mayor of Malinowo village, Edward Malinowski, as a "Jew-saving hero." The book had portrayed him as a thief and Nazi collaborator.

.

Professor Engelking said the issues "we are supposed to apologize for have no basis in fact." She said her account of the wartime mayor's actions, which included both helping and betraying Jews, was based on the postwar testimony of a Jewish woman whom he had aided and also robbed.

Considering this mayor got condemned in the book as a collaborator based on one survivor's testimony, who actually was aided by the mayor but then robbed by him, I think stopping the case at an apology is fairly level-headed.

I mean what was the judge supposed to do? Declare that yes in fact, based on this one witness who was saved by the mayor, the mayor was a Nazi collaborator and a killer?

About their book from the same article:

"The conclusion drawn from the numbers is grim: two out of every three Jews looking for rescue died — most often because of their Christian neighbors," the scholars wrote in the introduction.

Now, you see, I have trouble believing that nearly 2/3rd of dead Polish Jews died because their neighbours ratted them out. Maybe, but I don't think even Hungary could show such numbers and we were really short on Jew-saving.

So it would be good to know what they mean by that. Actively calling the Nazis on a Jew you knew is of course evil. Not willing to risk sheltering the poor souls is another matter and I would have trouble judging people for it - it was no joking matter.

And that is what academic discourse is for. 

Not the courts.  This would be thrown out of a Canadian Court with costs on a preliminary application.  It is perfectly lawful to make conclusions based evidence.