After "Neighbors:" Seeking Universal Standards
Wojciech Roszkowski
Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 3. (Autumn, 2002), pp. 460-465.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6779%28200223%2961%3A3%3C460%3AA%22SUS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
Slavic Review is currently published by The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/aaass.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
Fri Dec 28 16:09:23 2007
After Neighbors: Seeking Universal Standards
Wojciech Roszkowski
Neighbors by Jan T. Gross has sparked an unprecedented debate about
Polish-Jewish relations past and present.l Some of the opinions expressed
have been serious and balanced, showing respect for the truth and aimed
at improving these relations. But many others have prompted emotionality and have spoiled previous improvements. One is tempted to join the
debate, but everyone who speaks up from either side can be sure of facing verbal fire from the other side. Those who try to find balanced and objective words and to apply universal standards of valuation must be aware
of the danger of being fired at from both sides. For a historian to join the
debate is thus a high-risk prospect. But to stand on the sidelines may be
safe only for a while. Every historian may be asked, "Are you with us or
against us?" And some may choose the friendship of Plato to the friendship of truth. This may seem an old-fashioned standpoint, but I do believe
that there is truth and that there are universal standards of valuation.
The debate on Neighbors has been hottest in the United States, where
the Polish- and Jewish-American communities have been separated by
decades of suspicion, prejudice, and mutual, emotional accusations. In
Poland the debate on Gross's book has not been as dramatic. Gross's moderate supporters and his moderate critics have been able to argue in an atmosphere closer to a scholarly debate. Nevertheless, emotions have been
raised to a new height in Poland as well, as is evident in the publication of
the most representative selection of Polish opinions on this subject by the
Warsaw monthly Wiei2But this general reaction should come as no surprise since Gross openly confessed that his goal was to initiate a debate.
The way he did it, however, could only lead to a chaotic exchange of
blows.
I would like to explore three different aspects of the debate, both in
Poland and elsewhere: first, the credibility of Gross's book in the light
of existing evidence; second, constantly growing knowledge of the facts
of 10July 1941 and their moral evaluation with (or without) regard to all
contemporary circumstances; and third, the question of the representativeness of the Jedwabne case in the light of the accusations raised against
the Poles for collaborating in the Holocaust, as well as the question of the
"guilt" or "innocence" of nations.
Credibility of Neighbors
When we take a close look at the facts that we can be sure of, the credibility of Neighbors does not look impressive. First, Gross's theses are often
groundless because of a rather one-sided selection of sources and their a
1. Jan T. Gross, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community i n Jedwabne, Poland
(Princeton, 2001).
2. Thou Shalt Not Kill: Poles on Jedwabne (Warsaw, 2001).
Slavic Review 61, no. 3 (Fall 2002)
After Neighbors: Seeking Universal Standards
46 1
priori interpretation. This is a serious statement, but it is fully justified.
Most of the evidence Gross presents should be verified in light of what we
now know. The prosecutor investigating the matter on behalf of the Polish official Institute of National Remembrance issued an important statement in earlyJuly 2002. Marek Chodakiewicz has extensively documented
. ~ his
the current state of our knowledge of the Jedwabne m a ~ s a c r e In
review of Neighbors in the respected scholarly periodical Dzieje Najnowsze,
Bogdan Musial pointed out several instances where Gross accepted sources
at face value.4 For instance, Gross took for granted the testimonies of
Abram Boruszczak and Eliasz Grgdowski, although the former had never
been to Jedwabne, and the latter was absent during the 1941 massacre.
Gross also mixed up the words and deeds of the three Laudanskis: Czeslaw
and his sonsJerzy and Zygmunt. Gross failed to check the credibility of the
testimonies even when the witness changed his or her mind. In other
words, Gross failed to distinguish eyewitness accounts from second-hand
depositions and mixed-up testimonies submitted freely from the ones coerced during communist postwar interrogations.
Neighbors abounds with factual errors. For instance, in 1941 the mayor
and the council ofJedwabne were not elected but appointed by the Nazis.
The figure of 1,600 victims is a guess not based on any material evidence.
Writing critically of Neighbors, Alexander B. Rossino noted another characteristic feature of Gross's writing: inconsistency. On the one hand, Gross
states that there were no Germans in Jedwabne on the fatal day of the massacre; on the other hand, he quotes the testimonies of several people who
saw Hermann Schaper, an SS commander of a special Gestapo unit operating in this area, in early July 1941.5These are only a few of Gross's numerous errors and misinterpretations.
In addition, the methodology employed in Neighbors is flawed. Gross
examined some testimonies but failed to crosscheck material evidence. In
a study first published in Polish under the title Upiorna dekada (A ghastly
decade), Gross rightly said that for a fair evaluation of any episode in
Polish-Jewish relations it was necessary to understand the "context of the
~ i t u a t i o n . "But
~ in Neighbors, Gross fails to do this. The reader is really at
a loss to understand why people behaved the way they are alleged to have
behaved. Nothing is said about the brutalization of everyday life under the
Soviets, about revenge and counterrevenge during these horrible times,
or about the scale of common banditry. The reader is left with the impression that beastly anti-Semitism was the only reason for the murders.
3. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, "The Massacre at Jedwabne, July 10, 1941: Before, During, and After." I wish to thank the author for sharing this unpublished work with me.
4. Bogdan Musial, "Tezy dotyczgce pogromu wJedwabnemn (Theses referring to the
Jedwabne pogrom), Dziqe Najnowsze, 2001, no. 3.
5. Alexander B. Rossino, "Oskarienia o slabych podstawach" (Accusation with a weak
foundation), Rzeapospolita, 26 September 2001, forthcoming in Polin: Studies i n PolishJewry
14 (2003).
6. Jan T. Gross, Upiorna dekada: Tny esqe o stereotypach n u temat Zyddw, Polakdw, Niemcdw
i komunistdw (Ghastly decade: Essays on stereotypes ofJews, Poles, Germans, and Communists) (Krakbw, 2001), 51.
462
Slavic Review
Moreover, Gross's general assumptions are a mystery. In his Upiorna
dekada he stated that the time had come to revise "our" historical knowledge about World War 11,' as if Polish-Jewish relations were at the heart of
wartime developments and as if our knowledge of these relations was so
poor. What made this time come? New evidence? Those who expected
Gross to present this evidence in Neighbors should feel disappointed. He
definitely changed his mind about Polish-Jewish wartime relations. One
wonders why he complained in Upiorna dekada that his well-documented
and objective earlier works had been written according to the historical
methodology of that earlier time.8 Did he face any limitations then? He
wrote in the west and not under Polish communist censorship. One thing
is clear: Neighbors is by no means a scholarly work. To consider the book
the equal of the works of KarlJaspers, Thomas Mann, and Hannah Arendt,
or to compare it to the works of Adam Mickiewicz,Juliusz Slowacki, and
Czeslaw Milosz, as Adam Michnik did in his preface to the German edition
of Neighbors, is, to say the least, an e~aggeration.~
Neighbors, just like Upiorna dekada, is not a scholarly monograph. Both
these works are political pamphlets with an a priori thesis. Gross adopts
the pose of a scholar, but his works lack substance. It is hard to guess his
intentions. "For Poland this is a chance to gain credibility and to face sins
of the past," he explained in the New York Tzmes.lo This is a remarkable
statement. First, one may wonder whether Poland really has had no credibility. Second, it is rather bizarre to claim that one is supporting Polish
"credibility" by presenting a biased image of "half of the neighbors [Poles]
killing the other half [Jews] ."I1 If Gross had managed to produce a balanced and fair picture of the Jedwabne events, he could have contributed
to convincing the Poles that they were not always innocent victims but
sometimes evildoers. Instead his efforts have been counterproductive.
Provocation is not the best way to induce moral reflection.12To those who
deny any Polish responsibility for the Jewish tragedy, Gross's books are another example ofJewish "ill will." To those who treat Polish and Jewish history in a more balanced way, Gross's books come not as a revelation but as
an awkward obstacle in their attempts to historically educate the Poles after communism. The reactions of the former group could easily be predicted. Fortunately, the latter group's reactions were calm and matterof-fact enough to allow the hope that the Polish-Jewish dialogue will
continue.
7. Ibid, 20.
8. For example,Jan T.Gross and Irena Grudzinska-Gross, Wnterdriestym nus Matko na
Sybirzesbli (They sent us to Siberia in 1940, Mother) (London, 1983).
9. Maciej Rybihski drew attention to this preface in: Maciej Rybinski, "Przeciw winie
kolektywnej" (Against collective guilt), Rzenpospolita, 26 September 2001.
10. New Ymk Times, 19 April 2001.
11. Gross, Neighbms, 7.
12. See, for example, Istv%nDe%k, "Heroes and Victims," New Ymk Review of Books,
31 May 2001.
After Neighbors: Seeking Universal Standards
What Happened and What It Means
The Jedwabne massacre as presented by Gross has been derived from the
facts but has taken on a life of its own. Let us begin with Gross's statement
that in Jedwabne "one half killed the other half" and that there were some
1,600Jewish victims of the pogrom.13We now know, with only little room
for doubt, that there were between 200 and 400 victims and between 20
and 100 active perpetrators, mostly Poles, but also some Germans. Gross
himself quotes the names of only 92 people who took part in the pogrom.
Despite these clearly documented facts, Gross has not only failed to
change his general thesis but has continued to uphold it with an iron consistency. By the way, in the earlier Polish version of Neighbors, you cannot
find the statement about "one half killing the other half." This appears
only in the English version. In Poland it would not sell at all. Gross ignored the presence of the Germans. Now we know that some were there
and that they played a leading role. Moreover, western pundits most frequently followed his example and, either not knowing or not caring about
the facts, issued emotional statements and conclusions corresponding to
their stereotypical perception of the Poles and the Jews.
No wonder Gross's thesis provoked criticism in Poland. Some pundits,
mostly rightist politicians, denied any Polish participation in anti-Jewish
crimes and treated such accusations as part of an anti-Polish campaign.14
But Gross's book was unacceptable to many Polish historians as well. To
mention just a few, Tomasz Strzembosz noted Gross's selectivity in choosing witnesses, Tomasz Szarota pointed out his insufficient research, Pawel
Machcewicz and Krzysztof Jasiewicz discussed the serious gaps in his documentation and logic, while Marek Chodakiewicz has recently come up
with a very thorough reconstruction of all the existing evidence.15
Are facts important? What do they mean? It is legitimate to question
the scale of Polish participation in the Jedwabne massacre, as presented
by Gross, but it is impossible to deny it. This fact alone should make Poles
reconsider their wartime experience. Until recently Polish wartime his13. Many American commentators have adopted this thesis as dogma. Cf. George F.
Will, "July 10, 1941, in Jedwabne," Newsweek, 9 July 2001. Abraham Brumberg has labeled
any attempt to correct these figures "Operation Whitewash." Cf. Abraham Brumberg, "Operation Whitewash," Los Angeles Times, 13June 2001; Abraham Brumberg, "Murder Most
Foul," Times Literary Supplement, 2 March 2001.
14. Cf. e.g., Ryszard Bender, "Trzy pytania d o prof. Grossa" (Three questions to Professor Gross), Gbs, 25 November 2000; Jan Engelgard, "Jedwabne a sprawa polska"
(Jedwabne and the Polish question), MySl Polska, December 2000; Antoni Macierewicz,
"Rewolucja nihilizmu" (Revolution of nihilism), Gbs, 3 February 2001; Jerzy Robert
Nowak, "Kto falszuje historic" (Who falsifies history), Nasz Lhimnik, 13-14 May 2001.
15. Tomasz Strzembosz, "Inny obraz s+siad6wn(A different image of the neighbors),
Rzeapospolita, 31 March-1 April 2001; Tomasz Szarota, "Do We Know Everything for Certain?" and "The National Debate on Jedwabne," in Thou Shalt Not Kill, 105-10, 281-90;
Pawel Machcewicz, "In the Shadow of Jedwabne," in Thou Shalt Not Kill, 145-50; and
Krzysztof Jasiewicz, "Research Still Needed on These Neighbors," in Thou Shalt Not Kill,
123-30; Chodakiewicz, "Massacre at Jedwabne."
464
Slavic Review
tory has been written from the position of the victims, since the Poles lost
six million citizens (including three million Polish Jews) and their sovereignty as a result of World War 11, despite their heroic endeavors. As compared to other nations, Polish collaboration with the Nazis was absolutely
marginal. There was no rump Polish state in Poland and there were generally no Polish organizations tolerated by the Nazis. There were cases of
spontaneous manifestations of anti-Jewish feelings in such tragic events as
those in Jedwabne, RadziGw, and Wgszosz, and there were cases when the
scum of Polish society sold Jews to Nazi henchmen, but it would be unfair
to blow these incidents out of proportion. It would also be unfair to forget that Poles frequently, if often incorrectly, considered Polish Jews to be
communists or their sympathizers.16As a fair nation, Poles should apologize for any Jewish life that was lost due to malicious Polish action-not
for reason of collective guilt but because Poles should feel responsible for
the values ("Thou shalt not kill") transgressed against by those murderers
who were Poles. But this should be a moral reflection rather than a political event spotlighted by the media that leaves the false impression that the
Poles feel guilty as a nation. It really does matter whether "one half killed
the other half" or not. If this were true, it would mean that all the Polish
inhabitants of Jedwabne are guilty. According to the logic of emotions,
this would also imply that all Poles bear some guilt by association. This fits
too well into the stereotype that Poles, according to Icchak Shamir, "imbibe anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk," a stereotype offensive to all
Poles who were fed otherwise."
"Guilty" or "Innocent" Nations
This brings us to a very emotional question often raised during the debate
over Neighbors: the guilt or innocence of nations. Although major discussants on both sides reject collective responsibility, many still tend to apply
it to the opposing side. But this is absurd: there are no innocent nations
just as there are no guilty nations. When Poles endeavor to present the
"context of the situation" in Jewabne or in similar cases, the Jewish side
usually treats this as a Polish profession of "innocence" or as "Operation
Whitewash." The same refers to Polish stereotypes of the Jews. The Jews
struggle with the problem of the Jewish ghetto police force under the
Nazis, but no sound and sane Pole can claim that the existence of this
group implies a Jewish collaboration in the Holocaust. Nor should allJews
be blamed because someJews participated in the Communist Party and in
the security apparatus under the Soviets. With reference to the question
16. This is a different topic, but, in addition to Jewish victims of communism, there
were Jews in the Soviet power apparatus, and most Poles perceived the Soviet Union to be
an enemy power. Today these people are usually presented as communists rather than
Jews, but if they were killed by the Poles, they turn out to have been Jews. Cf. Yaffa Eliach,
There Once Was a World: A Nine-Hundred-Ears Chronicle of the Shtetl of Eyshyshok (Boston,
1998). Gross adopted this same logic in Upiorna dekada.
17. Icchak Shamir, as quoted in Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, The Convent of Auschwitz
(London, 1990), 121.
After Neighbors: Seeking Universal Standards
465
of Jewish responsibility for communism, Gross argues in a manner quite
similar to the extreme Polish nationalists. While the latter groups fear
a pars pro toto generalization and claim that those who took part in murdering Jews were not Poles but bandits, Gross argues that Jewish communists were not Jews but communists. He also argues that "a vision of
Sovietization of the Eastern Borderland of Poland after 1939," and of Poland itself after 1944, "with the help of the Jews is false."ls This is a very
imprecise statement. By denying an extreme and unfair generalization,
Gross tries to prove that there was no Jewish participation in communism
whatsoever. Reality is always more complicated than a simple statement
that "Poles" or "Jews"are either to blame or are innocent.
Polish-Jewish controversies, like the one involving Neighbors, paradoxically stem from both sides adopting the assumption that they have been
the innocent victims of history. Zealous Poles claim that in view of all the
misfortunes and suffering they bore during World War I1 it is unfair to
mention any wrongdoing by any Pole. Zealous Jews claim that the Holocaust has been such an unprecedented tragedy that any mention of Jewish guilt is horrendous. Moreover, extremists from both sides tend to become furious if their misfortunes are compared. This Polish-Jewish rivalry
for first place in the hierarchy of suffering is regrettable. It is even worse
when it leads to groundless, unjust accusations. Scholarly fairness and
simple honesty should prevent our making such accusations, based on the
pars pro toto principle, and should ensure that everyone measures the scale
of events and moral meaning by universal standards.
18. Gross, Upiorna dekada, 80.