Poland Books

This collection of essays ranges from highly academic to deeply personal. It explores the difficult relationships among Jews and Poles, not only since World War II but also during the centuries prior when Poland was the largest, most vibrant part of the Jewish world. The authors make no attempt to gloss over the problems but they illustrate potential solutions and present evidence that new approaches are working. Co-editor and contributor Annamaria Orla-Bukowska is an American born professor of Polish parentage who lives in Poland and knows more about Jews and Poles than most Jews and Poles know about themselves and each other. After meeting and being impressed by her in Poland I bought the book and it further opened my eyes to the possibilities of creating new and stronger connections between these two peoples. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in post-Holocaust studies in particular or the sociology of strained inter-national relationships in general.

Anyone who questions the severity of anti-Polonism is in for a rude awakening upon reading this book. Robert Cherry's surveys of Holocaust academicians and others prompt him to conclude that: "The evidence presented strongly suggests that complaints in the Polish American community about the anti-Polish stereotypes found among non-Polish faculty who teach Holocaust-related courses are well-founded; not surprisingly, these stereotypes are strongest among non-historians." (p. 76).

Cherry is candid about the marginalization of the PolAm voice: "Jewish faculty teach Holocaust courses throughout the country, courses that enroll tens of thousands of students annually...By contrast, Polish academicians do not have a significant forum to promote their views to the general public...It is only within Polish American communities that their views dominate." (p. 77)

What about the American media? Biskupski's systematic analysis of Hollywood's decades-old portrayal of Poles relative to Jews is damning.

The quality of this book is variable; hence my 3-star rating. Novel features, besides the surveys, include the repudiation of the phrase "Polish concentration camps" by the American Jewish Committee (pp. 65-66). More-of-the-same aspects of this book include its transparent Judeocentrism. Poles are praised insofar as some of them agree with Jewish attacks on Poland (e. g., p. 57).

Although some Jewish authors are candid about Jewish prejudices against Poles, they don't seem to show the same degree of moral urgency that Poles do (or are supposed to do) relative to Polish prejudices against Jews. And many of Cherry's survey questions are clearly of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type.

There is the customary preoccupation with unequal victimhood (e. g., Pawlikowski, who misrepresents Lukas as teaching that Poles and Jews were equal victims: pp. 116-117). Why can't we just recognize each other as victims of the Nazis, and leave it at that? (Among cancer-victims organizations, we don't see month-terminal patients complain that they are unequal victims with year-terminal patients).

There are also the usual ruminations about past Christian teachings on Jews, but not a hint of the reverse. How many Poles felt hostility to Jews because they knew that Jews saw them as idolatrous worshippers of the Bastard Son of an adulteress, and of three gods?

Throughout this book, Jan T. Gross is lionized ad nauseam, with no hint of the fraudulence of most of his claims (see, for instance, the Peczkis review of Sto klamstw J.T. Grossa o Jedwabnem i zydowskich sasiadach).

And if "coming to terms with the past" is a mark of maturity, then why won't the Jewish side freely admit its crimes (instead of the usual dismissive attitude--e. g. Polonsky, p. 131, 133)? Jewish crimes against Poles are undeniable and considerable (see, for instance, the Peczkis review of Przemilczane zbrodnie: Zydzi i Polacy na Kresach w latach 1939-1941).

Pawlikowski defends the U. S. Holocaust Museum's inclusion of the Kielce Pogrom (p. 117). It doesn't matter that Kielce wasn't part of the Holocaust, was trivial next to the same, and was probably a Soviet provocation. Talk about relativizing the Holocaust!

Joanna B. Michlic takes cheap shots at RADIO MARYJA, and name-calls several careful scholars with whom she disagrees, actually going as far as expressing concern that they are taken seriously! (p. 163). Along these lines, she dismisses Chodakiewicz's detailed research on the Jedwabne massacre (p. 168). Evidently, facts don't matter to her. And whom does Krajewski think that he is fooling in his implicit denial (p. 148) that certain Jewish groups are trying to extort money from Poland?

Shadow of the Wall

This is a story about a boy that survived what seemed to be the impossible, when he was very young his father died of a disease. His mother sent him to an orphanage; she eventually started to live there. After Misha was older he started to smuggle food in from the "outside" for his family because his mother was very sick and couldn't work. Eventually Mishas mother died, leaving him and his two sisters. The Nazis started to give terrible punishments to people who broke the law, if Misha was caught smuggling food he would be killed. The Nazis are preparing to raid the orphanage and many of the children and adults are very weak. What will happen to Misha, his sisters and the rest of the orphanage?

I didn't like this story because it is to sad the way both of his parents die when he's young and leave him to fend for both him and his two sisters. It is also a little bit gross, when Misha was smuggling once he stumbled over two dead bodies and one of them wasn't even covered up! This story relates to The Diary of Anne Frank.

I AM A 6TH GRADE STUDENT AND I JUST FINISHED READING SHADOW OF THE WALL. IT IS A FANTASTIC BOOK. IT IS CONFUSING AT THE BEGINNING BUT WHEN YOU GET TOWARD THE MIDDLE IT GETS REALLY GOOD. I WOULD RECOMEND IT TO ANYONE. IT IS ABOUT A 13-YEAR-OLD JEWISH BOY THAT LIVED IN A GHETTO DURING THE HOLOCAUST. HE GOES ON A VERY IMPORTANT MISSION (SMUGGLE HIS BABY SISTER OUT OG THE GHETTO TO LIVE WITH A NON-JEWISH FAMILY). IT ALSO TELLS ABOUT HIS OTHER ADVENTURES.

This true story takes Tabea Springer from age 9 in 1912 through WWI, the turbulent 20's and 30's, and WWII as seen through the eyes of a German pastor's daughter and eventual RN. The book is easy to read and not too long.

As a physician and a student of WWII, I was facinated by the descriptions of the kinds of medical services that were offered to German soldiers during WWII. I was particularly impressed with how the German army organized and maintained its hospital train service to the Russian front. I was amazed by how well supplied and staffed these trains were until the very end.

Some readers might be put off by the frequent expressions of religious faith, but I feel (based on experience with my German Lutheran in-laws) this actually lends a certain authentiity to the story.

I agree that there are parallels with "All Quiet on the Western Front".

Tabea's Story is a quick but engrossing read. There is just enough history interjected to set the scenes Tabea describes from her experiences as a German army nurse. Her view point of WW II does not focus on the military aspects but more on the personal sacrifice, suffering and impact of the war on her life and those around her. This would be an exceptional book to add to any high school or college reading list. It is a great combination of history and personal tale.

Tusgele has the age-old problem of young Jewish women. Her parents want her to be married. "Find me a man as reliable as my broom," says Tsugele, "and I will marry him." Suitor after boorish suitor, she turns away.

When her parents promise to introduce still more men, Tsugele packs her bags and her broom and heads for a neighboring town. She settles with Mendel and his wife, and the same routine starts again. They introduce a leather goods man, and she goes off in a huff.

That night Tsugele dreams that her broom turns into a man. They dance. The next morning, she cannot find her broom... Alyssa A. Lappen

Valerie Scho Carey has, with "Tsugele's Broom," managed the neat trick of making this new tale seem like an old one. It has all the flavor of a folk tale passed down through generations, but with a decidedly modern twist.

The twist is this: Tsugele, a perfectly capable young woman who is perfectly happy on her own, is told by her parents that she needs to get married. Tsugele reasonably tells them that she sees no need for that, as she's fine all by her independent self. They insist, and Tsugele good-naturedly suffers through the attentions of several suitors before finally finding the man she really loves in a most unexpected manner.

Dirk Zimmer's terrific illustrations combine a block-print border with stylized drawings of Tsugele and the other characters. He uses color to very great effect, giving the book the fantastical look of eastern European embroidery. Highly recommended for any independent little girl!

In this timely and important book the reader is reminded about an obscure war that had great ramifications. Coming as it did between the World Wars the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921 has been largely forgotten in history. But many leading historians of European history have long recognized that it was pivotal in stemming the Soviet advance into Europe and in saving the Versailles peace conference and a reconstructed Poland (White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-1920 and "The Miracle on the Vistula" andDevelopment of Class Structure in Eastern Europe: Poland and Her Southern Neighbors). This book is primarily a military history of this conflict and the book is accompanied by a large number of very helpful maps.

The first section of the book examines the two armies that faced eachother, the Russian Red Army which at the time was a creature of Trotsky, complete with commissars and some professional officers. It also included the Cavalry army of Semion Budionny. The Polish army was far less homogenous. It had been built from nothing by the Polish national leader Josef Pilsudski who had helped single handedly to revive Poland as a state. It included Ukrainian allies and Polish units that had fought for all sides during the First World War. For this reason the Polish army suffered terribly during the first half of 1920, watching there state, which had stretched to Kiev, shrink to almost nothing. However during the `miracle on the Vistula' the Polish army was able, in several engagements, to destroy the Russian army that had hitherto been brilliantly commanded by Michael Tukhachevsky (the brilliant general later shot by Stalin).

Arguments that this book is biased hold little water. The premise that Lenin's decision to invade Poland presaged an invasion of Europe may be overstate on the cover to make the subject seem more pertinent, but in fact the book presents a very clear matter of fact story that is neither sensationalist nor extremist in its interpretation of events. In fact there is little room for interpretation in a book that is both short and covers mostly military affairs and the leaders on both sides.

This is a quick read about an important subject. The writing is masterful and the emphasis on military affairs is a pleasant surprise given the fact that so many books today, even ones on war, seem to concentrate entirely on social and economic matters.

Seth J. Frantzman

This is a short book, some 140 pages of text and I have to say I am disappointed in the author. I read Zamoyski's book on Napoleon's invasion of Russia and thought it was quite good, but here, I'd say he's very much lacking. This is a 'niche' subject that few have covered and to date, as this book shows, it is a subject filled with bias and hypocrisy. The reader is confronted by the old idea that the not yet created Soviet Union wanted to and WOULD HAVE exported their revolution to Germany through Poland. That is an idea that is not based in fact, there were many who wanted to export the Revolution but at the same time, and this is in fact what really happened, there were those who understood that in time a revolution would begin anyway. That is the reason for signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, they gave away land that they expected to take back at one point or another. When that point would come was anyone's guess since these people were not fortune tellers but revolutionaries who jumped at opportunities and, undoubtedly, at times tried to make those opportunities come about.

Zamoyski himself states on pg. 9 that it was the Poles who first attacked Soviet troops by taking Wilno (Vilnius) and then Minsk. The idea here, apparently, is that it is OK for the Poles to take lands that belonged to them over a century ago before Poland was partitioned, but the Russians cannot do the same thing (for which they also can bring up a claim as they DID control the land for the past century, etc, one should also note that Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc also have claims. But who has a claim matters little if they do not have an army to back that claim up with). Apparently, if you are only interested in nationalistic ideals that is OK with Zamoyski, but if you want to eventually spread the Communist ideal, that is going overboard. One has to keep in mind that when the Poles attacked the Red Army was facing Denikin in the south and on pg. 10 the author explains that the Army created in the West by the Russians was not strong enough to fight its way across Poland but rather only to fill a power-vacuum when available. The problem here is that the author, as far as I can tell, confuses what the Russians wanted to do with what they eventually would do. Just because some wanted to spread the revolution doesn't mean that's what would have happened. This can be seen by the fact that at least two of the leading Bolsheviks were against the war, Trotsky and Chicherin. Would Lenin still have attacked if the Poles didn't attack first? And then while peace negotiations were going on attack again and take the city of Dunaberg from the Russians and give it over to the anti-Bolshevik government of Lativa? A historian would not be able to give a concrete answer, but the author, apparently, can. Taking an extreme and making it seem as the only viable route is not the job of a historian. My real problem with this book is not the idea that if successful the Bolsheviks might have taken their revolution abroad, or that some wanted this from the start, but that the author is asserting this as a fact and that nothing could change it from happening, aside from, apparently, what did happen, makes sense?

If someone followed everything the Bolsheviks said and took it to heart, how can they then explain how Russian officers, known as 'enemies of the people', were then taken into the Red Army and named 'specialists' and in fact, put in charge of the Red Army (according to the author, by 1920 over 80% of the Red Army officer cadre would be made up of them)? Bolshevik rhetoric is just that, one has to be cautious in assuming that everything Lenin or anyone else said is what would have happened, especially during such a chaotic and turbulent time.

Bottom line is that the Red Army responded to a Polish threat. If there was no Polish threat there is no evidence one can point to which would undoubtedly show that the Red Army would have been used to spread the Revolution, especially considering the position Russia/Soviet Union found itself in after a bloody civil war. What happened in 1920 can be compared to what happened at the end of WWII, the Soviets did not export the revolution but they did enter Eastern Europe and Germany because they were on the COUNTERoffensive rather than an offensive. Hitler also claimed he was preempting a Soviet invasion, the Polish claim is taken seriously today while the German is known, by most, to be a complete fabrication. One can only wonder why that is.

A statement I vehemently disagree with is on pg. 13 when Zamoyski claims that for Russia and Lenin "...the best way of mobilizing support was war..." how can that be when not getting out of WWI is what ended Kerensky's run in the government and the Bolsheviks understood that they would be supported if they ended the war, thus the Brest Litovsk treaty! This can only be valid if seen in the context of the Polish invasion of Russia rather than any undertaking the Russians did before hand. With the Polish invasion many officers who had left the armed forces or never joined the Red Army in the first place came to it in droves and offered their support, such as the famous Brusilov. So, it might be argued that the Polish invasion helped increase support for the Bolshevik cause, but this is when the country is on the defensive, not the offensive, which is the author's original claim here. This can also be seen as the Poles rushed to support their troops when Warsaw was threatened, in both cases it was 'defensive' and 'counteroffensive' actions that rallied support, not outright offensive intentions.

If this book would have presented both sides in the same light, and I will readily admit that in some instances it does - for instance Polish and Russian atrocities against each other are listed, as well as some of the motley formations that were being led by both sides, their 'armies' at times were the furthest thing from what we picture in our minds as 'armies' - but overall this is in the end a biased looked at the events in question, and for that reason, I would not recommend it.

Frank Mocha describes his experiences and opinions. He mentions his POW status in Germany. At that time, he observed a German jet in flight and, realizing its strategic implications, managed to escape to England the tell the British authorities about it.

Mocha reminds us that Auschwitz was in Germany, not Poland (or even German-occupied Poland), and praises Edward Moskal for standing up to excessive Jewish demands upon Poland. Mocha also chides FDR's blatant dishonesty to Karol Rozmarek relative to Poland's fate after Yalta.

Mocha suggests that Anthony Sadowski's sons were comparable to Daniel Boone. He even suggests that, had Pulaski not been killed during the American Revolution, he would have accepted the Don Cossack's offer to switch sides (going against Russia), and this would have been sufficient to have averted Poland's defeat in 1794 and the ensuing final partition of Poland.

When Kedward wrote this book in 1971, he could scarcely have imagined that it might take on a different hue after September 2001. He wrote of European anarchists, who sought by violent means to overthrow what they saw as ossified and reactionary monarchies and capitalist regimes. Of course, one such group triggered the Great War.

If you now read this book, perhaps try comparing the figures and societies then with those of the Middle East of today. A collection of hidebound, sham democracies and feudal aristocracies. Prussia, Austria-Hungary or Tsarist Russia? Or Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia? A key difference is of course that now there are not two glowering coalitions, of nearly equal strength. But still the book can put bin Laden squarely in the footsteps of these long dead European radicals.

A comprehensive review of the history of architecture within the present Polish borders from early romanesque to the nineteenth century and a little post-war modern. Includes plans and sections of many chapels, cathedrals, palaces and country estates with black and white photographs at back of the book. A great source for understanding the evolution of the architecture of Poland from an objective, non-romantic point of view. An excellent book.

This is an excellent book for anyone interested in both art and history. I found it well documented and scholarly. The author includes many of Szyk's beautiful full-color illustrations.

As you may already know, Primo Levi on the Holocaust can be seriously depressing.
The brief Auschwitz Report is an uemotional report of some of the events and practices
Levi witnessed there. Perhaps the lack of obvious emotion brings our horror into sharp relief.