Włodzimierz Mich

The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to sum up a certain stage of the discus- sion on held in the Polish press after 1989 and it is hardly intended as a media studies examination of the approach to the issue rep- resented by particular newspapers and magazines. Instead, the analysis aims at reconstructing the positions that emerged from the debate and the argumentation used to justify them. My considerations are based on publications appearing between 1989 and the middle of the 1990s, when the case of the was brought into the public debate. The approach was determined by strictly practical considerations, as to examine the journalistic writings from later years would have required further time-consuming study. Substantive reasons existed as well, for the currently operating perceptions of the Holocaust were first articulated in the period under study. Moreover, it was then that this issue was the subject of heated polemics. The starting point of most discussions was the view then functioning in the West that the Holocaust was unique and hence people had the obli- gation to preserve the memory of the Shoah and to act upon a moral dic- tate of opposing anti-Semitism and compensating descendants of . What seemed especially interesting was the Polish aspect of this issue, that is, the accusations put forward against the and the postulates that were voiced. This aspect was examined from both the moral and the practical point of view. It was acknowledged that the adoption of any given interpretation of the past necessarily affects the way current problems are settled, thus co-determining 's image, its international position, alliances, the economic situation etc. To a certain 282 Włodzimierz Mich degree, which differed in particular cases, this led to an instrumental treatment of the issue. In effect of the debate, two distinct positions emerged in Polish poli- tical journalism of the period. Adherents of the first, whom I have called "rejecters" in this study, rejected the memory of the Holocaust thus artic- ulated or at least the resultant consequences. Proponents of the second, whom I will refer to as "accepters", accepted the key elements of this mode of remembrance. Papers representative of the "rejecter" position include foremost the nationalist periodicals (Głos Narodu, Myśl Polska, Szczerbiec), which are more or less anti-Semitic, by which term I mean an anti-Jewish obsession, a hostility towards in general stemming from the belief in a "Jewish conspiracy" that threatens Poland. I have also taken into account articles in the anticommunist Gazeta Polska and in the liberal Najwyższy Czas! for which the attitude towards Jews was not a corner- stone of their ideological conceptions and which were motivated not so much by hostility towards Jews as by a dislike for political correctness and a desire to defend Poland's reputation. The "accepters" viewpoint was analyzed based on publications in the daily, and the Polityka, and Tygodnik Solidarność weeklies. In a few cases, I have referred to publi- cations that depart from the official line presented by particular newspa- pers. I have also used in this study a number of articles published in other periodicals. In discussing the position represented by the two parties, I have focused on three issues: 1) the significance of the Holocaust; 2) the ques- tion of Polish (joint) responsibility; and 3) cultivation of memory. The study is structured accordingly.

Significance of the Holocaust

Any discussion of the Holocaust had to begin with an assessment of the importance of the phenomenon. The orientations under investigation clearly differed on this issue, the rejecters being governed by tactical rea- sons much more than their opponents. Striving to marginalize the prob- lem of the Poles' responsibility for the Holocaust and the resultant con- sequences, they downplayed the weight of the phenomenon. The least frequent - I have practically encountered no such viewpoint expressed directly - was a denial of the Holocaust itself. The interpretation of indi- The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 283

vidual propositions, for example the statement that after the Holocaust there were "suspiciously many" Jews left alive, 1 can certainly be argued, yet it seems reasonable to avoid too far-reaching interpretations and treat them as a manifestation of the frequent tendency to relativize the impor- tance of the Holocaust. To anti-Semites especially, the Holocaust was essentially insignifi- cant, something that could in no way influence the way they considered the Jewish question. In the attempts to marginalize the memory of the Holocaust two kinds of argumentation were advanced. Firstly, the number of Holocaust victims tended, more or less patent- ly, to be diminished. The demonstration, also by Israeli scholars, that ear- lier estimates of the number of victims, e.g. in Auschwitz (formerly four million, today's estimates are one million) were overblown, paved the way for a growing tendency to belittle the scale of the phenomenon. Efforts to learn the truth superposed on manipulations driven by anti- Semitism created a picture that was difficult to interpret in an unequivo- cal manner, additionally blurred (although rather later) by the impact of the dispute about the penalization of the Auschwitz lie, thus introducing the motif of freedom of speech. 2 The boundary between the rejecters and the accepters was somewhat blurred here, because both sides were beginning to re-examine existing findings. The rejecters generally assumed the position of an impartial observer reporting on growing revisionist or rejective tendencies. For example, Mirosław Dragan wrote in Szczerbiec that the revision of the Holocaust was intensifying. Patrick Buchanan revealed in 1990 that Diesel engine fumes could not have been used in the mass execution of Jews in Treblinka. In 1993, a Jewish organization in France published a book by J. C. Pressac, in which the number of Auschwitz victims was reduced to 800,000. In Poland, the files of the Chief Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in were declassified, revealing that archaeological investigations in Treblinka in 1945 did not confirm the existence of gas chambers and of sufficiently big mass graves (in keep- ing with the reported number of victims). 3

1 A. Gmurczyk, "Ordnung muss sein!", Awangarda Narodowa. Biuletyn Narodowego Odrodzenia Polski, 3, Supplement to Szczerbiec, 4, April 1994, p. 11 (I). 2 J. Dziadul, "Weryfikacja historii", Polityka, 2, 13 January 1990, p. 14; J. Tomaszewski, "Hitler, którego kochaliśmy i dlaczego", Polityka, 41,13 October 1990, p. 14; G. Dobiecki, "Między Verdun a Vichy", Polityka, 20, 18 May 1996, p. 39. 3 M. Dragan, "Rewizjonizm Holocaustu", Szczerbiec, 6, June 1994, p. 8. 284 Włodzimierz Mich

Sometimes, the writers even distanced themselves from the rejecters as such. Jan Engelgard wrote in Myśl Polska that immediately after World War II victim estimates were exaggerated, whereas the Jewish cir- cles are now striving to sacralize the Holocaust and are denying the need for investigations. On the other hand, revisionists or rejecters are chal- lenging the truth about the extermination of Jews. Honest scholars are therefore in a difficult position, exposed to the influence of these mutu- ally driven extremes. 4 In any case, attention was focused on findings that belittled the importance of the Holocaust. Andrzej Maśnica argued in Myśl Polska that many views on World War II, including the Holocaust, inevitably would have to be revised. It would be a revision of history created by the Allies as part of the Potsdam-Conference order, which is now becoming a thing of the past. In Maśnica's opinion, this process should be assessed favorably, even if it relieved the Germans of the war-guilt odium and strengthened them morally. As part of this process it would be necessary to review the Nuremberg trial (a travesty of justice), to disclose inter alia the behind-the-scenes circumstances of "the alleged uprising in the and the Allied falsification of gas chambers at the Dachau concentration camp" - in Germany there were labor camps rather than extermination camps; it would also be necessary to lower the esti- mates of the number of Auschwitz victims: it was earlier reported that four million Jews were killed there, whereas Dr Franciszek Piper, Director of the Auschwitz Museum, speaks of about 950,000. 5 Secondly, the proposition that the Jewish Holocaust was unique was attacked severely. In this case two arguments were employed, one being that the Jews were not the only victims of genocide. Throughout world history there were many holocausts. Examples were given of genocidal action with regard to specific ethnic groups or social classes: massacre of the Armenians, extermination of the American Indians, persecution of "enemies of the people" in the Soviet Union and Cambodia, and the tragedies of Biafra, Rwanda, Bosnia or Chechnya. 6 A different practice,

4 J. Engelgard, "Lewacka twarz rewizjonizmu", Myśl Polska (henceforth MP), 32, 11 August 1996, p. 5. 5 A. Maśnica, "O rewizjonizmie i lustracji", MP, 13, 31 March 1996, p. 7. 6 J. Garewicz, "Dług", Tygodnik Powszechny (henceforth TP), 8, 19 February 1995, p. 6; J. Korwin-Mikke, "Między nami brunatnymi", in: id., Nie tylko o Żydach, Warszawa 1991, pp. 84-86. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 285 but also leading to the relativization of the Shoah was the use of the term "the Holocaust of the unborn" by proponents of the ban on abortion. Piotr Semka, without directly referring to the Shoah, wrote about the killing of unborn children that "this Holocaust is still going on", which, even though he may not have intended it, belittled the importance of the Holocaust of the Jews. 7 This was combined with challenging the legitimacy of a special eval- uation of the Shoah and making a distinction in the assessment of mass murders depending on their ideological justification or the identity of vic- tims. Proponents of this viewpoint saw no reason why the memory of the Shoah should arouse any special emotions. The other argument was based on the conviction that the Jews them- selves were or even are in the present day the perpetrators of genocide. To justify this thesis, its proponents reached as far back as the Biblical period, treating the conquest of the land of Canaan and the defeat of the Philistines as genocide committed by the Israelites. 8 In addition, the Poles were singled out as victims of genocide committed by the Jews. When substantiating the Jews' anti-Polish attitude, it was argued that it assumed criminal forms, far more extreme than the essentially moderate, if extant at all, Polish anti-Semitism. In this context, it was even said, vide Zbigniew Lipiński, that "the Jewish-made Holocaust of Polish patri- ots (...) was perpetrated by Jews commanding the security-police appa- ratus [the UB] in the Stalinist years". 9 The Germans were also presented as victims of "Jewish criminals from the UB". In his article devoted to John Sack's book Eye for Eye, Waldemar Wyrostkiewicz recom- mended the Sack book "to those who yielded to the propaganda that evil can be attributed to everybody but Jews". 1 0 Arabs, especially , were also regarded as victims. Recourse was taken here to the memory of Jewish terrorist activities pre-

7 P. Semka, "Między sacrum a profanum", Tygodnik Solidarność (henceforth TS), 4, 24 January 1992, p. 11. 8 Dobiecki, "Między Verdun...", op. cit., p. 38. 9 Z. Lipiński, "Z Polski widać", MP, 34, 25 August 1996, p. 8. 10 W. Wyrostkiewicz, "Piekło zaczeło się po wojnie", Myśl Polska z książką, I, January 1996, p. "March", Supplement to MP, 7, 18 February 1996. According to Marcin Czerwiński, a comparison of these events leads to the conclusion that there was no Holocaust, but simply a struggle in which the Germans and Jews killed one another, M. Czerwiński, "Omówienia i pomówienia", Polityka, 43, 28 October 1995, p. 45. 286 Włodzimierz Mich

ceding the establishment of the State of . Janusz Leonard Majewski argued in Głos Narodu that "Jewish terrorists murdered Palestinians with such unparalleled bestiality that this could only be compared to the mas- sacre of Poles in Eastern and in Volhynia". 1 1 First of all, however, references were made to Israeli policies, where similarities were sought to the conduct of the Third Reich. The Holocaust was put on a par with air raids on Lebanon, it was claimed that the Jews were run- ning concentration camps for the Palestinians, that they were murdering Arabs even as they continued to remind us of Nazi crimes. 1 2 The Awangarda Narodowa, press organ of the National Rebirth of Poland organization, even suggested the slogan: "The True Holocaust Pale- stine". 13 This was to belittle or even deny the moral right of the Jews to remember about the Shoah and thereby demand special treatment. Attempts were made to contrast the picture of the Jew as a victim with the image of the Jew as an executioner. An especially significant element of this way of thinking was the con- viction that it was not Jews but Poles who were the main victims of German crimes during World War II. "The Poles, through German fury, are the most wronged nation during the last war" read the statement of the Movement for Polish Silesia, published in Głos Narodu. 14 To justify the theory it was pointed out that Poles were the first vic- tims. It was emphasized that six million Polish citizens died at the hands of the Germans. It is particularly characteristic that in this case the rec- ognized number of victims was not challenged or revised and that Polish citizens of Jewish nationality were included among the Polish vic-

11 J. L. Majewski, "Klątwa 'antysemityzmu'", Głos Narodu (henceforth GN),

2, 1 October 1989, p. 4 % 12 "My nie ustępujemy" (Letter to the President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski). Edward Moskal, President, Polish American Congress, MP, 20, 19 May 1996, p. 4; "Szokujące wyznania - Izraelska prasa donosi o Żydach, którzy wymordowali Polaków" (translation of American text "Trust at Last" no. 336), ed. Tomasz Kostyla, GN, 1-2, January-February 1993, pp. 3-4; see J. F. Dziżynski, "List otwarty do p. Kardynała Macharskiego Arcybiskupa diecezji krakowskiej", Szczerbiec, 6, June 1992, p. 7. 13 Awangarda Narodowa. Biuletyn Narodowego Odrodzenia Polski, 3, Supplement to Szczerbiec, 4, April 1994, p. 11 (I). 14 Polish Western Association - Movement for Polish Silesia - Provisional Board in Opole, Statement on behalf of participants in the symposium on "Current Ethnic Situation in Opole Region" held in K?dzierzyn on 15 February 1992, GN, 4-5, April-May 1992, p. 11. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 287 tims. It was probably the only case of the inclusion by Polish anti- Semites of Jews into the Polish community. This was done with a clear goal in mind: for example, the , in its appeal published in Głos Narodu, argued that the bulk of damages (estimated at 80 billion dollars) paid by the Federal Republic of Germany to Israel for the Holocaust should have gone to Poland. 1 5 The accepters acknowledged the uniqueness of the Holocaust and protested against relativizing it. They also generally rejected the legiti- macy of comparing the suffering of Poles and Jews. 1 6 The exceptional character of the Holocaust stemmed foremost from the fact that the Jews (as well as Gypsies, about whom there was comparatively little mention) were all doomed to total extermination. As stated, the Jews were to die all and almost all were killed, whereas other nations were to survive, if only to serve the race of masters. 17

The problem of Polish (joint) responsibility

The positions of both sides in the dispute were the closest compara- tively with regard to the tendency occurring in the West to shift responsi- bility for the Holocaust onto the Poles. This was criticized mainly by the rejecters, for whom it was the principal reason for their interest in the Holocaust. Yet it also aroused alarm among the accepters. Polish columnists

15 "Apel Stronnictwa Narodowego do posłów Sejmu PRL o ratowanie zagrożonej egzystencji narodu", GN, 3, 1 January 1990, p. 1; see F. Budzisz, "Piećdziesiąta roczni- ca przemilczanej zbrodni", Szczerbiec, 7, July 1993, p. 19; W. Rudny, "Polski wymiar Holocaustu", Myśl Polska z książką, 5, April 1996, Supplement to MP, 15, 14 April 1996, p. "July". 16 K. Gebert argued in 1989 that the Poles did not experience a moral shock after the Shoah because, inter alia, the difference between the fate of Poles and Jews, although substantial, did not have the nature of a metaphysical difference: six million Jews were killed and three million Poles. "It is some comparable, metaphysical level of suffering, compared with which the singularity of the horror of the Shoah can somehow evade us", cf. W. Skrodzki, "Pomiędzy losem Polaków i Żydów. Rozmowa z Konstantym Gebertem czyli Dawidem Warszawskim", Gazeta Polska (henceforth GP), 59/11, 27 May 1989, p. 2. 17 "Słowa po latach milczenia. Z prof. Janem Karskim rozmawia Jerzy Korczak", TP, 26, 30 June 1991, p. 6; J. Karski, "Dzieci Abrahama", TP, 16, 21 April 1991, p. 7; "Nie w naszym imieniu. List otwarty do Edwarda Moskala, prezesa Kongresu Polonii Amerykańskiej", Gazeta Wyborcza (henceforth GW), 120, 24 May 1996, p. 19. 288 Włodzimierz Mich

and commentators, regardless of their anti- or philo-Semitic leanings, point- ed out that Western publications devoted to the Holocaust speak of the responsibility of the Nazis, but not of the responsibility of the Germans at large: the word "Germans" is omitted, which is intended to mean that only Hitler's followers were guilty. No mention is made of the responsibility of other nations. What is said, however, is that the Holocaust took place in Poland, thus suggesting more or less directly that this was due to the geno- cide-favoring attitude of Poles (with their anti-Semitic inclinations) - in another country its population would have allegedly refused to permit the perpetration of the Holocaust. There is a tendency to write or teach children at school about Polish concentration camps. That it were Poles who mur- dered Jews and it was a consequence of Polish anti-Semitism (Polish- Jewish relations were a series of ). The guilt of Poles and Germans for the Holocaust is not only put on a par, but what is more, the Germans are justified while the Poles in general are accused of the crime. Even Germans tended to criticize the attitude of the Poles during the Holocaust. 18 Waldemar Łysiak ventured to examine the dynamics of this tendency. In his opinion, it was widely known immediately after WW II that the Germans had perpetrated the Holocaust. Then two groups of revisionists emerged: 1) anti-Semitic revisionists contended that the gas chambers and crematoriums did not work during the war but that they had been built afterwards to humiliate the Germans; 2) Jewish revisionists, active mainly in Israel, claimed that it was the Poles who had carried out the Holocaust. During the first stage of this operation, in the latter half of the 1950s, the Poles were accused of being indifferent; in the second, in the 1960s, of satisfaction and complicity, especially by the peasants. During the third stage, that is, in the 1970s, a campaign was launched all over the world and the charges extended: the whole nation and its structures (prac- tically meaning the AK - underground resistance ) were accused of active complicity. This thesis was promoted not only in the media, but also in literary fiction and in films. It was then that the word "Germans" in naming the perpetrators of the crime was replaced by

18 J. Engelgard, "Oblicza antypolonizmu", MP, 29, 21 July 1996, p. 5; Sz. Zaryn, "Obchody Oświęcimskie", Ład, 6, 5 February 1995, p. 8; S. Wiesenthal, Opoka w kraju, 5, April 1994, p. 14; J. Kwieciński, "Jak szkaluje się Polaków", GP, 23, 9 June 1994, pp. 1, 10-11; A. K. Wróblewski, "Z mlekiem matki?" Polityka, 21, 25 May 1996, p. 16; A. Michnik, "O czym nie lubią pamiętać Polacy i Żydzi", TP, 29, 16 July 1995, p. 9; "Zmora fałszywych oskarżeń", GW, 146, 25 June 1996, p. 17; "Nie w naszym...", loc. cit. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 289

the "Nazis": formerly the term "German concentration camps" was used, but subsequently "" started to be employed. The fourth stage (the 1980s and 1990s) marked the period of another escalation of accusations against Poles, who came to be named as the chief exterminators. Formulations appeared about "Polish-Nazi" and then "Polish" concentration camps. 1 9 While writing about anti-Polish propaganda, the Polish press defined the range and causes of this phenomenon in various ways. Different inter- pretations were applied to specific forms of expression, e.g. the films by C. Lanzman and S. Spielberg, Shoah and Schindler's List respectively. The divergences concerned the intentions of their authors, the degree of saturation of these works with anti-Polish content, and even their artistic value. There was agreement, however, as to the existence of anti-Polish tendencies and the tendentious nature of some statements, including artistic expressions: an especially vehement response was evoked by Marian Marzyński film entitled Shtetl. 20 Divergent opinions also concerned the motives ascribed to the pro- moters of the anti-Polish campaign or at least its Jewish promoters. Both the rejecters and the accepters offered similar evaluations of the inten- tions of other Western societies. There was essentially consent about the fact that the campaign was a form of self-excuse, an attempt to shift the blame to the Poles for Western offences against the Jews. It was also meant to justify the Western sense of guilt towards the Poles, especially after the "Yalta betrayal". Launching a view about Polish anti-Semitism permitted proponents to contend that giving freedom to Poles would lead to the , therefore Poles do not deserve assistance or even compassion. In the case of the Jews, there was no such agreement. Also in this instance, the rejecters wrote of attempts to justify guilt and offences against the Poles: the reason was communist crimes (for some writers "Jewish-communist"). It was said that Jews were "escaping from grati- tude" for the assistance given by Poles during the war, for centuries of

19 "The fifth stage can only be accusing Poles of crucifying Christ", cf. W. Łysiak, "Aktualne rozwiązanie kwestii polskiej", TS, 26, 24 June 1994, p. 14. 2 0 B. Zaremba, "Ofiara Marzyńskiego", MP, 25, 23 June 1996, p. 11; M. Grochowska, "Miasteczko Brańsk", Polityka, 24, 15 June 1996, pp. 92-96; T. Sobolewski, "Sztetl", Polityka, 43, 26 October 1996, p. 53. 290 Włodzimierz Mich

asylum in Poland. Another reason for Jewish motives was also a desire to oppress the Poles morally in order to render them compliant to Jewish influence, and foremost to compel them to accept financial claims. Anti- Semites wrote, traditionally, about the Jewish designs to create on Polish soil the so-called "Judeopolonia" (Judeo-Poland), a substitute homeland in case the State of Israel (inevitably) collapsed. The rejecters also wrote, pointing out the friendlier attitude of Jewish circles to Germany, about the perennial German-Jewish alliance, Germany's financial aid to Israel or even about the masochism of Jews. 2 1 The accepters also accused the West (and in essence, its elites) of manipulating the past for political ends. In the case of Jews, however, they did not give prominence to this motive, seeking other, mainly psy- chological explanations. For example, the phenomenon of better Jewish- German than Jewish-Polish relations was explained by the fact that Germans, unlike Poles, performed expiation, and acknowledged their guilt and offences. explained the especially emotional attitude of Jews towards Poland and Poles (of whom they write with a greater passion than about any other nation) by the operation of the mechanism of "unrequited love" - the Jewish love for the "Polish ethos, Polish culture, the Polish system of values", rejected by the Poles. 2 2 Both sides thus differently interpreted the actions of Jewish circles, and this entailed different conceptions of counteraction. The rejecters believed that participants in the anti-Polish campaign were motivated by ill will. They lied because it benefited them. Consequently, there was no point in dialogue or a joint search for the truth. The proof of this was in the failure of undertaken attempts, in the refusal of magazines involved

21 S. Borkacki, "Karmelitanki. Prawda i odpowiedzialność", Szczerbiec, 7, July 1993, p. 5; J. Przedpelski, "Dopraszam si ę łaski zezwolenia na odrobinę 'ksenofobii'", Najwyższy Czas (henceforth NCz), 4, 22 January 1994, p. 12; R. A. Ziemkiewicz, " A K zdemaskowana!", NCz, 2, 8 January 1994, p. 16; S. Michalkiewicz, "Historia się pow- tarza?", NCz, 17/18, 19 April-6 May 1995, p. 1; J. Engelgard, "Żydowskie rachunki", MP, 21, 26 May 1996, p. 1; R. Larkowski, "Gwiazda Dawida w natarciu", Szczerbiec, 7, July 1992, p. 3; P. S., "Przestańmy milczeć", MP, 25, 23 June 1996, p. 3; W. Łysiak, "Ministerstwo Prawdy", TS, 21, 20 May 1994, p. 16; P. Wierzbicki, "Przygwoździmy kłamców", GP, 16, 21 April 1994, p. 5; "Aktualny układ sił w świecie" (Excerpts from a pamphlet published in 1994 by the War Victims association), GP, 6, June 1994, p. 3; Z. Lipiński, "Druga prowokacja kielecka", MP, 29, 21 July 1996, p. 4. 2 2 Michnik, "O czym...", op. cit., p. 8; "Przeciw uproszczeniom" An interview with Wojciech Adamiecki, Polish Ambassador to Israel, , 224, 27 September 1995, p. 7. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 291 in the anti-Polish campaign to publish corrections of erroneous informa- tion, in avoiding the publication of articles presenting Poland in a favor- able light: about fighting the Nazi occupants or assistance given to Jews during WWII. It was even claimed that the Jews could not care less about Polish-Jewish dialogue and that they wanted Poles to admit complicity in the Holocaust and to satisfy their increasingly far-going demands. Bolesław Zaremba wrote: "They want only one thing - to totally humi- liate the Poles". 2 3 Under these circumstances, it was deemed better to counteract rather than to continue trying to reach an understanding, working to prevent the adverse and untruthful image of Poland from being established in the consciousness of Western societies. Moreover, "self-flagellation" should be stopped, at least until a balanced image of Poland is restored. No repentance, no writing about the dark chapters of Polish history. No charges against Poles by Poles, leave that to the Jews. No need to show weakness, a lack of dignity, thereby facilitating the anti-Polish campaign. Sincere repentance, striving to expiate, and ostentatious philo-Semitism not only confirm our guilt, but they also give Israel and the Jewish Diaspora an advantage. Maśnica wrote that in Poland "there is an ongo- ing moral state of emergency imposed by official Poland-haters and agents of influence working for the State of Israel. Jewish neophytes, like sacred cows treated with incense by the native philo-Semites, paralyze Poland's independent policy by means of allegations of anti-Semitism and hamper the Polish raison d'etat with the hair shirt made of the 'reli- gion' of the Holocaust and Polish conscience fouled by it.". 24 Based on such assumptions, the rejecters promoted a very one-sided picture of the Holocaust, showing the conduct of Poles in very favorable light. Some of these elements were also present in publications by the accepters. Columnists and commentators of both sides emphasized that the Germans (Hitlerites) built extermination camps in Polish territory not

23 B. Zaremba, "Żydowski rewizjonizm", MP, 29, 21 July 1996, p. 3; see J. Engelgard, "Pozostał niesmak", MP, 28, 14 July 1996, p. 3; J. K., "Dosyć. O Polsce i Polakach", GP, 29,21 July 1994, p. 9. 24 A. Maśnica, "Moralny stan wyjątkowy", MP, 12, 24 March 1996, p. 1; see J. Kwieciński, "Dosyć", GP, 14,7 April 1994, pp. 1, 8-9; id., "Dosyć" (continued), GP, 21,26 May 1994, p. 8; J. K., "Przegląd prasy", GP, 20, 19 May 1994; p. 12; S. Dąbrow- ski, "Walka o amerykańskie dolary dla Izraela", GN, 1-2, January-February 1992, p. 11; id., "Walczyć czy błagać o przebaczenie", GN, 4 - 5 , April-May 1992, p. 6; "Polski antysemityzm", Opoka w kraju, 4, February 1994, p. 11. 292 Włodzimierz Mich because of Polish anti-Semitism (it was not the main reason at any rate), but because of purely logistic considerations: the majority of Jews lived there and the crime could be concealed, the country being occupied and partly incorporated into the Third Reich. Some authors added that a net- work of concentration camps for Poles, the first victims of the Nazis, was already in existence before the start of . 2 5 It was brought up that Poles did not behave towards the murdered Jews any worse (that is more passively) than other nations, especially if the cir- cumstances, that is, the threat to life, were taken into account. 26 In effect, the merits of the Poles and the transgressions of other nations were emphasized. The Western public was reminded of the par- ticipation in the Holocaust of governments of states subordinated to the Third Reich (France especially). Western societies and the governments of the anti-Nazi coalition states were held responsible for allowing the Shoah to happen. It was argued, adducing inter alia the testimony of Jan Karski, that the world leaders knew what was happening to the Jews, but for them it was a negligible factor. It is why the Jewish postulates were not realized, like, for example, bombing the railways and crematoriums or threatening to hold the Germans accountable for crimes against the Jews. The Allies did not want to single out any one nation and they feared that the bombings would affect the local population or the camp prison- ers, and that Goebbels's thesis would be confirmed that the war was waged in the interest of the Jews. 2 7 A specificity of the rejecters' position was the attempt to justify whol- ly the behavior of the Poles. It was contended that Poles helped Jews as much as they were able to; they could not have done more (or it was argued that at any rate Poles did more for Jews than the latter would have done for Poles). Another peculiarity of the rejecters' viewpoint was shifting the responsibility to the Jews themselves. Expounders of this view were

25 S. Satroń, USA, "List do redakcji. Dlaczego w Polsce", Polityka, 22, 1 June 1991, p. 2. 2 6 M. Kozłowski, "Opowieś ć prawdziwa", TP, 11, 12 March 1989, p. 4. 27 M. Turski, "Wychodzenie z milczenia", Polityka, 25, 22 June 1991, p. 14; M. Białecki, "Czy Geremek może by ć premierem?", Lad, 30, 23 July 1995, p. 2; J. Wojnarowski, "Kłamstwo prawdą zwyciężaj", GN, 1-2, January-February 1992, pp. 13-14; "Zmora...", loc. cit. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 293 eager to demonstrate that the Jews exterminated themselves in the sense that some Jews murdered others. Several accusations were formulated. First, the accusation of indifference: rejecters delighted in stressing that rich Jews living in safety, especially the American Jews, did nothing or very little too help their brothers. Stanisław Borkacki even wrote in this context about "the Jewish crime committed on Jews". 2 8 These opinions were fuelled by the conviction that great numbers of Jews could have been saved. Józef Kargul argued that "Roosevelt the Jew" and "shabes goy Churchill" (as well as the Jewish organizations) could have saved half the exterminated Jews. Out of four million Jews, a partisan army 400-thousand strong could have been formed. The Allies could have air- lifted arms for this army, just as they did for Tito's partisans. Yet they refused to do so despite appeals from Zygielbojm and General Sikorski. 2 9 The second, more serious charge related to the furtherance of . The rejecters even wrote about the shared responsibility of Jewish circles for the success of Nazism. It was claimed that the Nazis would not have seized power or started the war had they not had the support of Jewish financiers, who thus wanted to rule the world. According to J. Kargul, it was the rich Jews from the West who "set in motion the mechanism of genocide of four million of their brothers". 30 The third charge in short is that the Jews were Nazis themselves. The furthest-reaching suggestions held Jews responsible for creating the ide- ology of German and the organization of the Nazi movement, and thereby for its crimes, including the Holocaust. It is how the lists of prominent Nazi figures identified as Jews should be interpreted; for instance, Hitler was claimed to be half-Jewish, and Rosenberg, Heydrich, Eichmann, Borman, Goebbels, and Himmler were all believed to be Jewish. 3 2

28 Borkacki, "Karmelitanki...", op. cit., p. 8; see S. Biskupski, "Szantaż?" MP, 28, 14 July 1996, p. 9; B. Zaremba, "USA i Anglia aprobowały Holocaust", MP, 23, 21 August 1994, pp. 1,3. 29 J. Kargul, "16 postulatów pojednania polsko-żydowskiego", Szczerbiec, 6, June 1993, p. 16; see Wojnarowski, "Kłamstwo...", loc. cit. 30 Less radical journalists wrote that it was about the money given to the Nazi in exchange for allowing rich Jews to emigrate. J. Jankowiak, "Holocaust - czyja jest wina?", Szczerbiec, 5, May 1992, p. 9. 31 Kargul, "16 postulatów...", op. cit., p. 17. 32 Ibid.; see MAG, "Pisarz i myśliciel", Polityka, 19, 10 May 1997, p. 86. 294 Włodzimierz Mich

The fourth accusation concerned the complicity of some Jews in the Holocaust. It was argued, referring to Jewish authors, such as H. G. Adler and Hannah Arendt, that the extermination of the Jewish nation would not have been possible without the participation of the Jews themselves, the (Jewish councils) and Jewish police foremost, both of which sent their fellow brothers to death. Jewish agents of the , Jewish priests and blackmailers were all targeted. It was said that the Gestapo had eight thousand Jewish collaborators in Warsaw alone, and the Jewish Gestapo squads numbered 1378 people. The atrocities committed by Jewish police were adduced and it was emphasized that the gas chambers were built by Jews, the gold teeth were pulled from the dead bodies by Jews, that the victims' belongings were sorted out by Jews etc., and that Jewish leaders collaborated in the extermination. 33 The fifth charge related to the passivity of the murdered Jews. In this case the victims themselves were held responsible. To counter accusa- tions of a lack of solidarity with the Jews, it was argued that the case was quite the contrary: Poles showed solidarity and helped Jews as much as they could. 3 4 However, Polish offers of cooperation were rejected by the Jews, who did not defend themselves against extermination, but waited passively for death. The charge that Poles refused to give assistance to Jews was reversed in this case: Jerzy Narbutt wrote, quoting the memoirs of General Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski (the last Home Army commander) that, for example, the Jewish leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto rejected an offer of armed assistance from the Home Army. Jewish elites in the Ghetto shied away from fighting, and did not want any help from the Home Army; they wished to survive by sacrificing the Jewish masses. Arguing with Jan Błoński's well-known article, Narbutt maintained that the Poles felt terrible about the Ghetto; they could not do more because of the attitude of the Jews, who would not fight. 3 5

33 Łysiak, "Aktualne...", loc. cit; J. Korwin-Mikke, "Też ratowali!!!", Lad, 28, 10 July 1988, p. 16; A. Piotrowski, "Czy byłem mordercą", Myśl Polska z książką, 8, August 1993, Supplement to MP, 16, 16-31 August 1993, pp. I, IV; J. Narbutt, "Żydzi przeciw Żydom", Lad, 9, 26 Febbruary 1995, p. 7. 34 Although it was also pointed out (indirectly accepting the accusation) that the Jews did not pass the test then of solidarity towards their fellow countrymen either, cf. A. Zambrowski, "Psiamać, znów o polskim antysemityzmie", Lad, 3, 17 January 1993, pp. 9, 11. 35 J. Narbutt, "A zdarta płyta dalej gra...", Lad, 34, 20 August 1989, p. 15; id., "Suum cuique (2)", Lad, 32, 12 August 1990, p. 7; id., "Żydzi...", loc. cit. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 295

The accepters rejected the idea of negating all accusations in the struggle for the memory of the Shoah. Not only because in their view it was dishonest, as it entailed concealing the truth, but also because it was futile. They maintained that convincing the world's public opinion, par- ticularly the Jewish circles, about Polish good will would be impossible; there was no way of counteracting anti-Polish lies without an honest admission of guilt and sins committed. By refusing to remember their own sins, Poles did not permit others to forget them. Without acknowl- edging our guilt and expiating, Poles would lose "the moral grounds for defending Poles against accusation of sins not committed". 36 However, "open acknowledgement of the dark sides of our past gives both moral and political credibility to Polish objections to harmful accusations moti- vated by ignorance or ill w i l l " . 3 7 The accepters believed that defending the nation's good reputation should be accompanied by a deeper reflection upon the past of Polish- Jewish relations. This process, inhibited by the communists, started in the 1980s - largely owing to the discussion ignited by J. Błoński's article of 1987, The Poor Poles Look at the Ghetto. It was believed that the debate transformed our consciousness and permitted Poles writing about the Shoah to overcome their defensive attitude. 38 Fortunately, this process is ongoing. It leads to an increased knowledge of the truth, including the truth about the ignoble conduct of some Poles. This in turn persuades toward an acknowledging of Polish sins and apologizing for them, as President Lech Wałęsa did in 1991. 3 9 The accepters assumed the possibility of Polish-Jewish reconcilia- tion, even though they were aware that some Jewish circles (like some Polish ones) would oppose any compromise whatsoever. They pointed out examples of Jewish organizations or individuals supporting Poland's interests, and regretfully admitted the rareness of protests by Jewish activists friendly to Poland against distortions of the memory of the Holocaust. They explained the difficulties of the dialogue with Jews by the impact of stereotypes, the burden of experience on both sides and

36 "Nie w naszym...", loc. cit.; see J. Leociak, "Skrzypek na dachu", TP, 25, 23 June 1991, p. 5; A. Michnik, "Solidarność z żydowskim losem", in: id., Diabe ł naszego czasu, Warszawa 1995, pp. 357-358; "Przeciw uproszczeniom...",Toc. cit. 37 D. Warszawski, "W stron ę przełomu", TP, 22, 2 June 1991, p. 3. 38 Lektor, "Ciężar pamięci", TP, 4, 22 January 1995, p. 13. 39 A. Gelberg, "Lodołamacz", TS, 22, 31 May 1991, p. 6. 296 Włodzimierz Mich

similar national characteristics, competition regarding who had suffered more, messianic attributes, a sense of superiority, refusal to acknowledge one's own guilt, waiting for others to repent, prejudice against aliens. Adam Michnik warned that the Poles, with their own martyrdom, would not accept the attitude of some Jews defined as "triumph of sorrow", expressed in the conviction that only Jews suffer and only Jews as the sufferers have the right to sympathy. 40 The accepters spoke out for breaking stereotypes on both sides, for transforming the historical consciousness of both the Jews and the Poles. They found it deplorable that Jewish young people never heard (or learned) about the or about the martyrdom of other nations except the Jewish one. The accepters similarly assessed the fact that in the USA many people had no idea that Jewish lives were saved in Poland during WWII; they had never heard of the "Żegota" organization. On the other hand, they criticized the fact that the input of Jews into Polish history in the period between the wars was not remembered, only their transgressions. 41 Thus, the accepters were waging a battle on two fronts, so to speak. Adam Michnik wrote that. "Polish-Jewish talks are conducted in the shadow of two stereotypes: Polish and Jewish. The Polish stereotype says that there was never any anti-Semitism in Poland and nowhere did the Jews fare better than in Poland. Any critical com- ment pointing out anti-Semitism is an expression of anti-Polish conspir- acy of world forces hostile to Poland. Moreover, there is the Jewish stereotype, which says that each Pole sucked anti-Semitism with his mother's milk, that the Poles share in the responsibility for the Holocaust, that the only thing worth knowing about Poles is precisely that they hate Jews. The Polish stereotype produces in Jews, also those friendly to Poland, an impulse of aversion to Poles, because this stereotype makes it impossi- ble to debate calmly the history of anti-Semitism. The Jewish stereotype, however, arouses in Poles a "secondary anti-Semitism", because people

40 Michnik, "O czym...", op. cit., p. 8; see "Zmora...", loc. cit.; A. Pomorski, "Obejrzeli w telewizji. Polacy - Żydzi - spór i dialog", Polityka, 41,12 October 1996, p. 46; "Nie w naszym...", loc. cit.; Z. Pietrasik, "Oświetlanie mostu", Polityka, 22, 1 June 1991, p. 12; Rev. Waldemar Chrostowski, "O Karmelu bez emocji", TS, 18, 29 September 1989, pp. 3, 10. 4 1 "Przeciw uproszczeniom...", loc. cit.; A. Bikont, "Nasza gmina patriotyczna", GW, 197, 24-25 August 1996, p. 11. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 297

entirely free of anti-Semitic phobia feel as if they were standing in the dock accused of crimes never committed. Charged with being anti-Semitic by nature, they feel wronged and see ill will on the Jewish side, which also excludes honest dialogue about the past and the future". 42 While rejecting unjust charges, the accepters did not find the accusa- tions against the Poles entirely unjustified. Although Poles could not be blamed for the Holocaust, they certainly did not have a clear conscience. The accepters saw several levels of Polish responsibility. First, as power- less, compulsory witnesses the Poles are burdened with an "uncommitted offence" or with, to put it differently, the "sin of being present" at the scene of the crime. The extermination perpetrated on Polish soil and in the presence of the Poles poses a challenge to their conscience. As Andrzej Potocki wrote: "This evil happened in our country, on our soil ! It was the Polish Soil that was desecrated by it. Our duty is therefore to repent, even though the crime was not ours, and it is for us, Poles, in the first place, to beg forgiveness even for the guilt that is not ours, but also for our sins, wherever we were at fault for our indifference, lack of sym- pathy or omission". 4 3 Christians were under a special obligation to reflect deeply as there was an indirect connection between the Holocaust and the tradition of Christian anti-Semitism despite the fact that the immediate cause of the Holocaust was the anti-Christian Nazi ideology. As Jerzy Turowicz wrote, "the decision about the physical extermination of the entire Jewish nation was the culmination of a centuries-old anti- Semitism, it would not have been possible without centuries of "teaching contempt" for the Jews, teaching that was the work of the Christians". 44 One cannot therefore maintain that what happened does not burden us in any way. It is necessary to rethink history and to have Polish-Jewish dia- logue on the shared tragedy of the Holocaust. 45 Second, the conviction that Poles did not do everything they could to save the Jews only aggravated the thesis about their guilt. It was

4 2 Michnik, "Solidarność...", op. cit., pp. 357-358. 43 A. Potocki, "KIK-owe Tygodnie Oświęcimski", TP, 17, 23 April 1989, p. 7; see Gelberg, "Lodołamacz", loc. cit; Michnik, "O czym...", op. cit., pp. 8-9. 44 J. Turowicz, "Chrześcijanie, Polacy, Żydzi", TP, 7, 17 February 1991, p. 7; id., "Dlaczego dwa?", TP, 6, 5 February 1995, p. 1; R. Bongowski, "Auschwitz, miejsce szczególne", TP, 16, 28 April 1991, p. 7. 45 Rev. A. Boniecki, "Auschwitz po 50 latach", TP, 38, 23 September 1990, p. 9; J. Błoński, "Polak-katolik i katolik-Polak", TP, 34, 21 August 1994, pp. 8-9; Lektor, "Ciężar...", loc. cit. 298 Włodzimierz Mich

emphasized that while the tragedy could not have been prevented and its scale considerably reduced, it might have been possible to save many more people, at least individuals, had it not been for the Polish dislike and sense of alienation with regard to the Jews, the inability to under- stand the Jewish tragedy, to empathize with it. In this context, frequent reference was made to the well-known contrast between the image of the burning Warsaw Ghetto and the merry-go-round running to the tune of music on the "Aryan" (non-Jewish) side". 4 6 Accepters rejected as too extreme 's view that because most of the people living at the time of the Holocaust were pas- sive witnesses, they thereby became accomplices in crime; for passivity in extreme circumstance is a crime, and the whole world was passive. 4 7 Adam Michnik stressed that people as such cannot be required to act heroically; they should not be accused just because they were afraid to help or feared for their lives and for their families. Everywhere, even among the Jews, people mostly wanted to survive. There is no reason therefore why the Poles should be singularly criticized, even while one understands, as Jan Nowak-Jeziorański wrote, "the feelings of victims who needed help so desperately but met nothing but indifference". 48 On the other hand, it was pointed out that only those who risked their lives have the right to say that they did everything they could. Władysław Bartoszewski has even claimed that only those who laid down their lives while helping did enough to save the Jewish nation 49 Thirdly, even stronger accusations were formulated against some Poles concerning their crimes against the Jews. The legitimacy of over- generalization and accusations of complicity in the Holocaust directed against all Poles were rejected, but it had to be admitted that instances of persecution or even murder of the Jews did occur. Before the Jedwabne discussion, the cases in point concerned rather single acts of violence, e.g. killing Jews escaping from transport trains to Auschwitz. Grzegorz Dymnicki described the history of a Pole of Jewish descent, whom

46 A. Poppek, "... szkło bolesne, obraz dni", TS, 16, 16 April 1993, pp. 1, 10; J. Salij, OP, "Mroki egocentryzmu", TS, 15, 12 April 1991, p. 15; Turowicz, "Dlaczego...", op. cit., p. 10. 47 See M. Edelman, "Winna jest polityka", TP, 29, 16 July 1995, p. 8; KTT, "Odzyskiwanie", Polityka, 26, 29 June 1991, p. 16. 48 "Zmora...", loc. cit; see Michnik, "O czym...", op. cit., p. 9. 4 9 See B. Sułek-Kowalska, "Kim byli 'Sprawiedliwi'?", TS, 48, 26 November 1993, p. 14; "Apel", TP, 39, 24 September 1989, p. 3. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 299

friendly peasants in Mazowsze entertained with the story "how during the war [WWII] a Jew escaped from the transport and hid in a haystack in the field behind the village. The peasants noticed this, sneaked to the stack with forks and ... "He was squealing like a hog", they told laugh- ingly to the parents of my friend". 5 0 The accepters also wrote about post-war pogroms, especially the one in Kielce, which was treated, alongside the anti-Jewish witch-hunt of 1968, as one of the crucial points in Polish-Jewish relations. The Jedwabne case was almost entirely disregarded, although account was taken of information, usually reported by the victims' descendants, about other true or alleged pogroms. A discussion in the Polityka weekly can serve as an example; it followed the publication of Adam Luxemburg's letter describing the pogrom on the Wieprz River, where on 20 July 1944 the inhabitants of nearby villages killed 64 escaped Jews from the Dublin camp. 5 1 This discussion, however, took place on the peripheries of the discourse on Polish-Jewish relations. Of greater significance was the emotional debate that was evoked by Micha ł Cichy's article in the Gazeta Wyborcza daily on killing survivors from the Warsaw Ghetto by Warsaw Uprising fighters. 52 Generally, however, the sins of Poles did not include pogroms. This is understandable on the part of the rejecters but surpris- ing in the case of the accepters. Considering that the Jedwabne case was known, if only because of the post-war trial, the practice of ignoring it can be regarded as a deliberate narrowing of the debated scope of Polish responsibility. It appears that in this instance the accepters adopted the tactics of the rejecters. The fourth aspect of Polish responsibility, which is seldom and reluc- tantly mentioned, covered the connection between the attitude of some

50 G. Dymnicki, "Dlaczego wyjeżdzali?" TS, 18, 1 May 1992, p. 8; see Rev. A. Boniecki, MIC, "O dobrych chłopach i niewdzięcznych Żydach", TP, 32, 7 August 1994, p. 12. 5 1 A. Luxemburg, "Listy do redakcji. Nie tylko Kielce...", Polityka, 34,25 August 1990, p. 6; id., "Listy do redakcji. 'Nie tylko Kielce'", Polityka, 41, 13 October 1990, p. 14; J. Głogowski, K. Żochowski, "Nie tylko Kielce", Polityka, 38, 22 September 1990, p. 13; A. Filipek, "Listy do redakcji. 'Nie tylko Kielce'", Polityka, 42,20 October 1990, p. 12. 5 2 M. Cichy, "Wspomnienia umarłego", GW, 292, 1993; id., "Polacy - Żydzi: czarne karty powstania", GW, 24, 29 January 1994; Ziemkiewicz, " A K . . . " , loc. cit.; T. Bochwic, "Czarny ptasior", TS, 19, 6 May 1994, p. 22; M. Rudnicki, "Żydzi - Polacy - Powstanie Warszawskie", TP, 33, 14 August 1994, p. 6; A. Stelmach, "Wspomnienia odżyły", NCz, 5, 29 January 1994, p. 14. 300 Włodzimierz Mich

Poles and the Holocaust. Andrzej Gelberg cited Adolf Eichman's view expounded during his 1961 trial in Jerusalem that the second reason, after logistics, for locating the death camps in Poland was the Poles' dislike of Jews in general. 53 It was generally maintained, however, that the interre- lation of the Shoah and anti-Semitism is particularly complex in view of the fact, indicated by J. Błoński, that some pre-war anti-Semites worked to save Jews. What's more, some of them did this out of purely anti- Semitic motives, vide Zofia Kossak-Szczucka's activities and her leaflet of August 1942. In Błoński's view, Poles did not collaborate in the anni- hilation of the Jews partly because they were not able to do so: the Nazis did not give them the opportunity. The decisive factor, however, was the influence of Christian tradition - stimulating anti-Semitism but not admitting crime. In this sense, Błoński believed, God stopped the Poles from taking part in the Holocaust. Polish anti-Semitism was free of geno- cidal tendencies. It did not exclude active assistance, but it increased social dislike of the Jews, indirectly burdening the Polish population with shared responsibility for the Holocaust. 54 The conscience of Poles was also to be burdened by the fact, which is the fifth charge, that many of them were beneficiaries of the Shoah: They took over Jewish homes and workplaces. What is worse some of them not only showed no compassion for the surviving Jews but, being afraid to lose the newly acquired property, treated them in a hostile man- ner. The result was aggressive or contemptuous behavior, and a wave of pogroms that swept over Poland directly after the war. According to esti- mates reported by A. K. Wróblewski, 1500 people died then. 5 5 A l l this notwithstanding, the accepters challenged the thesis about the guilt of all Poles at large. They rejected both stereotypes that weighed on Polish-Jewish relations: the stereotype of the guilt of all Poles and the stereotype of the innocence of all Poles. They demonstrated considerable latitude in Polish attitudes. As A. Gelberg wrote, some Poles, too few of them, saved Jews. Others, fortunately even fewer, became blackmailers.

5 3 Gelberg, "Lodołamacz", loc. cit. 5 4 Błoński, "Polak-katolik i katolik-Polak", loc. cit. 5 5 Wróblewski, "Z mlekiem...", loc. cit.; see id., "Nasze ulice, wasze kamienice", Polityka, 17,27 April 1996, p. 31; K. Kersten, "Władza - komunizm - Żydzi", Polityka, 27, 6 July 1991, p. 14; "Lewica powinna marzyć..." interviewed by Adam Krzemiński, Polityka, 4, 26 January 1991, p. 9; J. Bocheński, "Niebieskiej kartce czarna", TP, 2, 13 January 1991, p. 7. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 301

"Between the two attitudes, the former giving testimony to the highest heroism and the latter showing the extent of the degradation, there was also a third which was shared by the majority of Poles. It was an attitude of passivity, although it, too, was of a diversified nature. Some empathized with the fate of Jews but were afraid to help, others were completely indifferent, and still others felt satisfaction". 56 This approach to the issue, advocated even more so in the rejecters' publications, was connected with a tendency to avoid generalizations, to perceive above all or almost exclusively individual fates, individual mer- its and offences, and individual memory. Andrzej Osęka argued, for example, that people who helped Jews during the war and those who gave them away both acted individually. It is nonsense to say: "Poles helped the Jews" because those who helped were specific individuals and they did so for a variety of reasons. The same religious motives, differ- ently understood, drove some people to help and legitimized others in giving away Jews. 5 7 To explain and justify to some extent the conduct of Poles some authors indicated the complexity and dramatic choices facing people under Nazi occupation. Hanna Krall reported a story set down in a letter from a Jewish woman from Równe. "They were hiding, the whole fami- ly, at the place of Mr. Stasio, the caretaker, a courageous and generous man. One day two Jews from the Ghetto, exhausted and breathless, ran into the house cellar. Some woman gave them water. Another woman, a Volksdeutsch, ran to the Gestapo headquarters. When the caretaker saw where the Volksdeutsch woman was going, he overtook her and reported the Jews himself. Had he not reported them, the Germans would have searched the whole house and found "his" Jewish family. Those two Jews were caught. The family survived. The underground resistance organization sentenced the man to death. They tried to shoot him but they they did not kill him, so he had to hide from the organization. He hid with the Jewish family who were hiding at his place. Do you see any

5 6 Gelberg, "Lodołamacz", loc. cit. 57 A. Oseka, "Trzydziestu sześciu sprawiedliwych", GW, 115, 18-19 May 1996, p. 11; see Edelman, "Winna...", loc. cit.; Wojnarowski, "Kłamstwo...", op. cit., p. 13; P. Wierzbicki, "Czy nie lubimy Żydów", GP, 20, 2 December 1993, p. 9; J. Korwin- Mikke, "Garb", in: id., Nie tylko o Żydach..., op. cit, pp. 159-169. 302 Włodzimierz Mich

sense in this? Or perhaps know what the caretaker should have done?" 5 8 Such an approach somehow relativized the issue of Polish responsibility, thus bringing the position of the accepters closer to that of their oppo- nents.

Cultivating memory of the Holocaust

The dispute also concerned the issue of whether and to what extent the memory of the Holocaust should be cultivated? Vehemently opposed to this were the rejecters, who regarded public homage to the exterminat- ed Jews and considerations of the complexity of Polish-Jewish relations as tantamount to propaganda of "Jewish adoration", aimed at imposing upon the world a sense of guilt and thereby prompting a readiness to yield to Jewish influence. They argued that the Jews cultivated a "reli- gion of the Holocaust" because the position of Israel and of the Jewish Diaspora was based on the guilty conscience of European countries: feel- ing guilty in part for the Holocaust, they supported Jewish interests, and reacted hysterically to any manifestations of anti-Semitism. The Poles should not, however, accept this attitude because it runs counter to Polish interests. 59 Not only did the rejecters thus belittle the significance of the Shoah, but they also refused to acknowledge its moral consequences. They pointed out that despite the Holocaust the Jews had become a power again, striving to rule the world. Finally, they argued that with the pas- sage of time the Holocaust had become a historical problem. Regardless of the magnitude of the Holocaust tragedy, Jews were not to be treated in any special way: It would be morally unjustified and also unreasonable, even harmful to the Jews, because it would necessarily evoke a dislike of them. There is likewise no reason why the Jewish nation or rather the Jewish people (anti-Semites generally preferred this term, refusing to regard Jews as worthy of the name of nation) should be treated as an "invalid for life, arousing pity and a desire to help". It is necessary to break with the "religion of the Holocaust", omit the Holocaust in considerations

5 8 "Lewica..." loc. cit; see M. Piątkowska, "Zdrowa ś Mario", GW, 138, 15-16 June 1996, p. 18; Wróblewski, "Z mlekiem...", loc. cit. 59 "Budowa nowego klasztoru sióstr karmelitanek", GN, 1-2, January-February 1992, p. 5; "Wokół powstania w getcie warszawskim", GN, 4-5, April-May 1993. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 303

of the Jewish question. 60 The rejecters implemented this postulate consistently themselves, writing about the Jewish threat as if the Holocaust had never occurred, and referring to pre-war literature, launching old slo- gans about the omnipotence of the Jews or a Jewish-German conspiracy. If the rejecters mentioned the issue of the Holocaust at all, it was only to find arguments against Jewish postulates to commemorate the memory of the Shoah. This referred to Oświecim in particular or rather Auschwitz (there was a dispute over the name). Jewish demands, such as to have the Carmelite nuns and the crosses removed from the camp site (the most extreme demands called for the exterritoriality of the Auschwitz camp), were viewed as manifestations of hostility towards Catholicism, the desire to appropriate the symbol of suffering or even to grant Jews a monopoly on being Nazi victims. The rejecters saw them even as attempts to gain ground, "gradually take control of or subjugate Poland", and of preparations for Jewish settlement. In opposing these demands, they invoked, among others, the sovereignty of the Polish State and the impossibility of isolating sites of Jewish martyrdom. Their thinking was also governed by the belief that Auschwitz is foremost a site of Polish martyrdom, a place filled with the blood of thousands of Poles and the ashes of Saint Maximilian Kolbe. They went as far as to write that Jews were merely a minority among the Auschwitz victims, that Poles constituted the majority among the victims. 6 1 Discussing the process of revising inflated estimates of Shoah vic- tims, A. Maśnica argued that when the falsifications of history were laid bare, "even the religion of the Holocaust will lose a lot of its imperial expansiveness. Then we, too, will be allowed to open shops and cloisters where we think fit". 6 2 The accepters, however, acknowledged the need to cultivate the memory of the Shoah. They accepted the fact that, in Karski's words, the Jews were living with a still open wound (the memory of the Holocaust) and they did not want this wound to heal. 6 3 At the same time, the

6 0 "List otwarty Zarządu Głównego Stronnictwa Narodowego Szczerbiec do Epi- skopatu Polski w związku z listem Episkopatu o stosunku katolików do Żydów", GN, 2 - 3 , February-March 1991, p. 5; Wojnarowski, "Kłamstwo...", op. cit., p. 14. 6 1 "Decyzja Papieża w sprawie oświecimskiego Karmelu", GN, 4- 5 , April-May 1993, p. 7; "Sprawa klasztoru sióstr karmelitanek w Oświecimiu", GN, 1, 26 August 1989, p. 3; Żaryn, "Obchody...", loc. cit.; P. Wierzbicki, "Egzekutor", GP,34, 25 August 1994, p. 16. 6 2 Maśnica, "O rewizjonizmie...", loc. cit. 6 3 Słowa po latach...", loc. cit. 304 Włodzimierz Mich

accepters expressed readiness to accept the Jewish view of the Holocaust and the resultant consequences, especially the condemnation of anti- Semitism. Particularly in Poland, where the most Jews were killed, anti- Semitism was supposed to be morally inadmissible. The memory of the Holocaust and the mental trauma it had caused allegedly implied the need to revise the attitude towards Jews. It was Poland's problem, impinging on the country's perception in the world, that Jewish martyrdom had not been recognized by the Poles as sufficient to effect such a breakthrough. Neither had the Poles acknowledged sufficiently their shared responsibil- ity or at least solidarity with the victims. This had to be done now, argued the accepters. 64 Moral reason and respect for the truth coincided here with utilitarian aspects. It was argued that by tolerating anti-Semitism Poland would find itself morally isolated. It was even brought up that it was not in the Polish interest to risk a confrontation with the influential, especially American, Jewish lobby. 6 5 In this case, the accepters adduced a similar set of assumptions as the rejecters, but then drew different conclusions. It is dif- ficult to assess whether and to what extent this aspect of the issue was discussed in opposition to the opponents. Acknowledging the need to cultivate the memory of the Holocaust, the accepters simultaneously objected to reducing the entire history of Polish-Jewish relations to this dimension. They insisted on commemorat- ing Polish-Jewish cooperation, or at least the life and works, not just the death, of Jews on Polish soil. It was stressed that Poland is not mere- ly a Jewish cemetery and should not be treated as such. 6 6 This objective bore fruit in the form of numerous publications con- cerning the history of Polish-Jewish relations. Some even believed them to be too many and of excessive importance. In 1966, A . K. Wrób- lewski, writing in the Polityka weekly, criticized the existing tendency

64 A. Cała, "Unikanie pułapki", TS, 2, 12 January 1990, p. 5; D. Fikus, "Listy do redakcji. 'Duży wstyd'", Polityka, 7, 16 February 1991, p. 2; A. Wyrobisz, "Upiory", Polityka, 25, 22 June 1991, p. 3; "Życie nie kończy się śmiercią". Henryk Grynberg interviewed by Agata Tuszyńska, TP, 43, 27 October 1991, p. 8; Leociak, "Skrzypek...", loc. cit.; E. Tracewicz, "Pieśń o narodzie wybranym", TP, 42, 16 October 1994, p. 15. 65 J. Karski, "Jan Nowak-Jeziorański", TP, 48, 2 December 1990, p. 2; Wróblewski, "Z mlekiem...", loc. cit. 66 M. Cisło, "Żydzi w walce o Polskę", TS, 16, 15 September 1989, p. 12; J. Kosiński, "Pomnik życia", Polityka, 30, 29 July 1990, p. 8. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 305 promoting Jewish themes when granting awards for historical studies (he was prompted to do so because the Foundation of Culture had given awards exclusively to books concerned with Jewish themes). He even contended that too many publications were being devoted to this topic. In his opinion, "The past is not good medicine for the future, and anti- Semitism will not be eradicated by means of philo-Semitism". 6 7 The accepters were well aware of the difficulties in trying to square Polish and Jewish memory of the Holocaust. It was not only about where the two sides stood in their opinions. The difficulty of a Polish-Jewish agreement, especially with regard to Auschwitz, lay in the fact that the places where the Shoah occurred are today parts of ordinary towns with everyday needs, the fulfillment of which cannot be reconciled with the sacred nature of a cemetery. At issue was not just how to solve specific problems, like the Oświecim supermarket (near the camp). What seemed a more serious problem was the almost irreconcilable difference between the attitudes of Jews visiting the commemorative sites and the Poles liv- ing there. As Piotr Podziomek wrote, both sides find it difficult to reach an understanding because, for example, the young Jews visiting places where their ancestors had been exterminated walk the road of death which runs in the middle of the Poles' road of life - hence embarrass- ment, a certain impropriety of the presence of Polish everyday life. 6 8 Mutual understanding was made even more difficult, argued Marek Frysztacki, because the Israelis "do not come to Poland but to a cemetery called Poland" 69 It was believed that they were not open enough to Poland, that the programme of visits was too one-sided. In turn, Poles ing in places that were sacred from the Jewish point of view, sometimes failed to observe even minimal forms of remembrance of the victims. Zygmunt Sobolewski wrote of a group of six men he had met at the pond situated on the site of crematorium no. 6, where the Germans used to throw the ashes of the cremated. The men were fishing there for - as they termed it - the "best carps in the neighborhood". 70

67 "Numerus clausus", Polityka, 48, 30 November 1996, p. 13; see "Niskie loty", Polity- ka, 48, 30 November 1996, p. 13. 68 P. Podziomek, Lad, 21, 24 May 1992, p. 8. 69 M. Frysztacki, "Pytania o Auschwitz", TP, 6, 5 February 1995, p. 7. 70 Z. Sobolewski, "Listy do redakcji. Oświecim i Kanada", Polityka, 42, 19 October 1991, p. 12; see E. Zientarska, "Miasto i obóz", GW, 65, 16-17 April 1996, p. 4. 306 Włodzimierz Mich

In the disputes, then current, over the form of the Auschwitz museum, the accepters largely acknowledged the legitimacy of Jewish postulates. They believed that one should be able to understand the Jews, try to look at the problems from their point of view, and show maximum tact and sympathy in relations with them. They shared the Jewish view on the essence of Auschwitz. Jerzy Turowicz wrote that for the Jews Auschwitz is the symbol of the Holocaust, for the Poles a symbol of the martyrdom of the nation. Thus two symbols of different weight clashed. To the Jews the importance of Auschwitz is greater than to the Poles - Auschwitz is a turning point in the history of their nation. 7 1 It was also pointed out that although in 1940-1942 Poles were the dominant group among Auschwitz prisoners, 90% of Auschwitz victims were Jews. Stanisław Kania argued in Polityka that "the world's greatest cemetery, which is Auschwitz, is the place of eternal rest first of all of the Jews. This is why they are the first to have the right to speak on the commemoration of the place and prayer for the murdered". 72 The absence of understanding on the Polish side for the Jewish view- point was largely attributed to the legacy of post-war communist- governed Poland, where the truth about the German Nazi camps was manipulated for propaganda purposes as a patriotic symbol, disregarding the Jewish aspect of the problem 73 The outcome is an extensive distor- tion of the historical consciousness of the Poles. In this context the accepters recalled the 1968 "pogrom" of the so-called encyclopedists (editors of the Great Encyclopedia) for the entry "Oświęcim/Auschwitz"or the 1968-1978 exhibition in Oświęcim, where the Holocaust was not reliably presented, while much space was devoted to the wartime parti- san exploits of Mieczysław Moczar. 7 4 It was also pointed out that a book sold at the Auschwitz museum confused citizenship with nationality, which lowered the number of Jewish victims. 7 5 It was pointed out that signs on the ruins of the crematorium were in Polish, English and

71 J. Turowicz, "Ani obiektywna, ani rzetelna. Spór o oświęcimski klasztor w oczach Petera Rainy", TP, 48, 29 November 1992, p. 7. 72 S. Kania, "Prośba o ciszę", Polityka, 39, 30 September 1989, p. 7. 73 J. J. Szczepański, "Musimy pamiętać", TP, 6, 5 February 1995, p. 3; "Oświadczenie Komisji Episkopatu Polski do Dialogu z Judaizmem na 50. rocznicę wyzwolenia obozu zagłady Auschwitz-Birkenau w Oświęcimiu Wyzwanie tamtego czasu", TP, 6, 5 February 1995, p. 10; R. Scharf, "Zawsze jest wybór", TP, 7, 12 February 1995, p. 7. 7 4 Kania, "Prośba...", loc. cit. 75 S. Wilkanowicz, "Problem Oświęcimia", TP, 45, 5 November 1989, p. 2. The Issue of the Memory of Shoah in the Polish Press after 1989 307

Russian, but not in Hebrew, despite 90% of the victims being Jewish. 7 6 Finally, the alphabetical listing of the nationalities of the victims on the commemorative plaque in the camp resulted in Jews (in Polish the word starts with one of the last letters in the alphabet) appearing at the very end. The accepters opted for changes that would give prominence to the suffering of the Jews, including listing them at the top of the victims' list in the museum-camp. Meanwhile, new plaques introduced in 1991 listed Poles as the first. 7 7 The accepters pointed out, adducing inter alia the opinions of Jewish organizations, that a tendency to belittle the significance of Jewish mar- tyrdom in Auschwitz continued after 1989. In 1991, Polityka published Z. Sobolewski's letter reminding the public of Culture Minister Izabella Cywińska's unkept promise to have an exhibition of the Martyrdom and Holocaust of the Jews organized in the "Sauna" building at Birkenau. Moreover, the Guide to the Auschwitz Museum published in April 1991 upholds the myth that medical experiments conducted in the camp were intended as a means of developing methods of biological extermination for the Slavonic nations, although in Auschwitz they were carried out on Jewish women from Block 10. Finally, during a service held in the court- yard of the "Death Block" No. 11, bishop Julian Grobicki spoke of "Aryan blood, which had soaked into the gravel yard of this block" 78 The accepters also emphasized the apparent lack of good will towards Jewish visitors to the Auschwitz Museum. Sobolewski wrote that older visitors could not tour the camp at Birkenau because there was no bus service operating there and that none of the 165 museum employees there could speak or Hebrew. 7 9 Cases of desecration by Poles of sites of martyrdom or, more gener- ally, sites commemorating Jews living once on Polish soil were also a cause of disagreement. The accepters devoted much attention to con-

7 6 Bongowski, "Auschwitz...", loc. cit. 77 Wilkanowicz, "Problem...", loc. cit.; S. Musiał, SJ, "Pamię ć Oświęcimia" TP, 16, 21 April 1991, p. 6; Rev. W. Chrostowski, "Nowy spór o Auschwitz?", TP, 22, 2 June 1991, p. 6. 78 Sobolewski, "Listy do redakcji. Oświęcim...", loc. cit.; see "I would not return were it not for my duty" Prof. Maurice Goldstein, President, International Auschwitz Club, interviewed by Marian Turski, Polityka, 27, 7 July 1990, p. 14. 79 Moreover, the participants met with little friendliness, Sobolewski, "Listy...", loc. cit. 308 Włodzimierz Mich

demning such conduct, pointing out that similar cases of desecration of memory sites were not unknown in Western Europe, but that certain forms of reaction had been adopted there. These forms are still lacking in Poland. Passivity towards anti-Semitic acts leaves Poles trailing the West. 8 0 The rejecters regarded such declarations and statements on the part of the accepters as manifestations of an anti-Polish campaign, aiming at building an image of Poland as an anti-Semitic country. They minimized the importance of occurrences when Jewish symbols were desecrated, contending that this happened far more often to Christian symbols. The rejecters argued that the accepters distorted the truth, and held Jewish cemeteries to be more important than Polish ones. 81

Conclusion The foregoing remarks certainly constitute little beyond an outline of the problem. They should be verified in the course of deeper studies. It would also be enlightening to trace the further evolution of the positions represented by the two sides, especially in the wake of the debate on the pogrom at Jedwabne. In my view, it has had little effect on the attitude of the rejecters, while it has compelled the accepters to broaden the scope of Polish guilt. I also believe that the issue of the Holocaust, like all ques- tions related to Polish-Jewish relations, is being given less prominence in most newspapers and periodicals, except the anti-Semitic ones. It is no longer the "hot" subject it was after 1989, an exception being the Jedwabne debate.

80 T. Bogucka, "Wolimy nie wiedzieć..." GW, 116, 20 May 1996, p. 18. 81 A. Kuraś, "Listy. Hańba domowa", MP, 42, 27 October 1990, p. 8.