Thursday, May 10, 2012

"Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews" A Review

I recently reviewed "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold" for The American Association for Polish-Jewish Studies. The review can be seen on their website, here. They've kindly given me permission to reproduce the review on my blog, and it is below.

Recent years have seen the deployment of a Brute Polak stereotype to distort World War Two and Holocaust history. The 2012 book, "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews," edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski and Pawel Styrna, published by Leopolis Press, promises to contribute to the battle against the Brute Polak stereotype and concomitant revisionist World War Two histories. The first words of the book: "Anyone who fosters hatred for the Polish people is committing a sin! … These people are glorious!"

The authors, obviously dedicated, have combed archives and retrieved valuable material. Good points, too rarely emphasized, are made: in the early days of the war, Poles had as much to fear from Nazis and Soviets as did Jews (47); Poland cannot be compared with Denmark (198); the Brute Polak stereotype relies for its power on diminishing the role of German Nazis (57). "Collective Rescue Efforts by Poles" by Ryszard Tyndorf is a forty-seven-page compilation. Tyndorf documents that while it took only one denouncer to kill a Jew, it took many more Poles to keep a Jew safe, and that the Polish Catholic peasants so demonized in the Brute Polak stereotype were quite capable of using their peasant skills and culture to protect Jews. Teresa Preker reports that one peasant, who refused to accept money from the Jews she helped, was sure to ask for the return of a mug because it was the only mug she owned (108).

Given the value of this material, it is all the more troubling that "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" is not the book its Polonian readers wish it could be. Were this book to be presented in venues where the Polak stereotype must be battled – campuses, newsrooms, boardrooms, backrooms and houses of worship – its flaws could do more harm than good.

This book has more errors in basic English than any other scholarly book I have read. When authors, editors, and proofreaders – those eyes that view a document before scholarly publication – can't use so rudimentary a tool as spellcheck to catch "andf" for the word "and" (276) or "ingore" for "ignore" (281), the reader begins to assume that the entire text is suspect. The definite and indefinite article are misused consistently, either added where inappropriate, e.g. "Jews perished at the Polish hands" (55) or omitted where needed "Even under worst circumstances" (218). There are meaningless sentence fragments, e.g., "In his writings, Gross almost entirely overlooks the vexing issue of Jewish-Jewish relations, though they are." (45) The word "neigh" – the sound a horse makes – is used where the word "nigh" is required (49). "Man in not created equally," the book states (201). There are errors in punctuation, e.g. "a communist historian Czeslaw Madajczyk appreciated the disappearance" (61). There are mistakes in verb tense, e.g., "To what extent did the village primitives thought of themselves as Poles?" (62) and number "several others members" (291). There are errors in word usage, e.g. "complementarily" where "complementarity" is required (83). There are missing words: "an attempt light something on fire" (93) "The operative did not the source of the information" (136); "enable us to determine they bear" (234) "the massacre carried out the locals" (292); there are excess words, "twenty-seven of reports" (97). When discretion is most needed, there are distasteful jokes (294, 335) and purple prose "Every decision man makes is a battle" (202); "The Moloch of Death guzzled blood" (217). There is redundancy "Hitler's henchman accomplices" (219); "trying attempting" (301). I counted at least a dozen sentences stating that Jan Tomasz Gross is unscholarly before I stopped counting. The Brute Polak stereotype communicates that Poles are inept, uneducated, chauvinists. The many errors in this text could be used, in the wrong hands, to support that stereotype.

As readers will suspect, these errors are reflective of larger problems. Most grievously, "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" accuses several prominent Polish-studies scholars of Stalinism. "The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States" by John Radzilowski, smears Piotr Wrobel, Joanna Michlic, Malgorzata Fidelis, Padraic Kenney, Gunnar S. Paulsson, Jan Grabowski and John Connelly. In a related matter, in 2008, Piotr Gontarczyk, one of the contributors to "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" accused Lech Walesa of being a Communist spy.

One of the accused scholars, Gunnar S. Paulsson wrote one of the best recent books about Jews in wartime Poland, "Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945." "Secret City" won the 2004 Polish Studies Association Orbis Prize and the Kazimierz Moczarski Prize. In fact, "Secret City" is extensively and approvingly quoted – in "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" (e.g. 154-55). John Connelly wrote "Captive University: The Sovietization of East German, Czech, and Polish Higher Education, 1945-1956" an indictment of the destructiveness of Stalinism. Piotr Wrobel is the author of "Devil's Playground: Poland in World War II," a fact-packed, pithy introduction to a topic all Polonians wish people knew more about. Padraic Kenney is the director of the Polish Studies Center at Indiana University. These are not Stalinists. Squandering Polonia's energies in fruitless witch-hunts, using paranoia to turn one Polish-American on another, prevents Polonia from uniting and responding strategically to the Brute Polak stereotype.

"Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" repeatedly identifies Princeton professor Jan Tomasz Gross as the source of the Brute Polak stereotype. This is factually incorrect, and it disserves Polonia. Gross' oeuvre includes a previous work, "Revolution from Abroad," that educates the reader about the little-known Soviet occupation of Poland. Too, the Brute Polak stereotype existed before Jan Tomasz Gross was born. Andrzej Kapiszewski's work "Conflicts Across the Atlantic: Essays on Polish-Jewish Relations in the United States During World War I and in the Interwar Years" includes American press deployments of the Brute Polak stereotype from almost one hundred years ago.

"Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" implies that Jews and leftists are responsible for the Brute Polak stereotype (e.g. "historical discourse dominated by the Jewish voices" [sic] 13 and 239-53). Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost one hundred years ago, Madison Grant and Kenneth L. Roberts were just two of many anti-Communist and arch-Nordic Americans who disseminated immensely influential depictions of Brute Polaks. Today Christian publications deploy the Brute Polak stereotype. It is not helpful to Polonia to mislead well-meaning people into believing that Jews and leftists are their natural enemies, or to believe that conquering Jewish or leftist enemies will eliminate the Brute Polak stereotype. Those fighting the brute stereotype include Jews and leftists, and we sabotage ourselves by not recognizing this. Our best strategy is respectful education of colleagues and potential allies, not demonization of imagined enemies. "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" describes Poles as powerless (13, 99). Again, this is not true. Poles and Polish-Americans have power; to succeed, we, like other stereotyped groups, must abandon self-pity, internecine feuds, conspiracy theories, a siege mentality, and scapegoating of others. We must unite, organize, and use our power strategically.

"Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" accuses Gross of being non-scholarly. Only two of the fourteen authors are PhDs currently employed at universities. The selections do not follow the paradigm of scholarly articles: they do not advance a single thesis and then attempt to prove that thesis through original, peer-reviewed research. Rather, the articles ramble; they are replete with rhetorical questions. Necessary citations are absent. The index is woefully inadequate. The authors comment on stereotypes in popular American culture, yet none are scholars of stereotypes or of American culture, and none cite previous research on stereotypes of Poles in America. A graduate student expatiates on the nature of good and evil and human equality (201-03). These are weighty topics. No discernible reason is given why this young lady's musings should be taken any more seriously than scribbles from the margins of her diary, especially given the unfortunate typo in the first sentence of her second paragraph, and her criticizing Gross for lacking "rigorous methodology" while exhibiting none of her own. The authors accuse Gross of cherry-picking. The authors engage in cherry-picking. Gross cherry-picks anecdotes that show Polish Catholics persecuting Jews. The authors select anecdotes that depict Polish Catholics aiding Jews – from books that, in other passages they don't cite, show evidence of Polish anti-Semitism.

In response to this cherry-picking, obvious questions arise, including the following. Which anecdotes are representational of the larger picture? Using a comparison of statistics of wartime survival of Jews in Poland and Holland, and the average number of Poles it took to keep one Jew alive, Gunnar S. Paulsson attempted to answer the representationality question in "Secret City," but no article in this book makes such an attempt. Another question: which anecdotes represent the essence of Polish culture? Scholar Brian Porter has pointed out that there is more than one strain of Polish identity; there are inclusive strains, and there are exclusive ones. Again, the authors here attempt no such answer, and do not cite Porter. Another question: to what extent did Polish anti-Semitism affect the Nazis' carrying out the Final Solution in Poland? "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" flitters around that question in chapters about pre-war anti-Semites like Jan Mosdorf and Zofia Kossak-Szczucka (326-7, 337) who helped Jews during the war, but does not tackle it head-on, or address previous, high-profile works that addressed it specifically.

The book works very hard to produce the impression that Poles have "hearts of Gold" and that they weren't all that anti-Semitic before World War Two broke out, and that during the war Poles, for the most part, helped Jews. Perhaps the nadir of this aspect of the book is when the 1946 Kielce Pogrom is referred to using scare quotes that suggest either that the pogrom never happened, or that it was not really a pogrom (320). Ethical Poles have acknowledged since 1946 that the Kielce Pogrom happened, that it was carried out by Poles, and that patriotic Poles will resist the kind of anti-Semitism that produced it. Readers familiar with anti-Semitism in interwar and wartime Poland will not be able to accept the book's assertions of near total Polish innocence. Another low point in denial: the book suggests that peasants who committed atrocities against Jews weren't "really" Polish because they were too simple, illiterate, and uneducated to be Polish (150, 353).

What ethically minded readers want is some admission from Poles that, yes, anti-Semitism was a significant factor in interwar and wartime Polish life. It is the job of those dedicated to demolishing the stereotype to explain why the presence of anti-Semitism in Polish society does not justify the Brute Polak stereotype. "Golden Hearts or Hearts of Gold?" makes no such attempt. Poles have done much to address anti-Semitism. Many observers, including Jewish ones, laud Poles for this. These efforts to combat anti-Semitism before, during and after the war are all but unmentioned in "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?"

The book includes documentation of Jewish collaboration with both Soviets and Nazis, Jewish profiteering, Jewish betrayal of Polish neighbors, Jews who tortured and murdered Poles, a throwaway reference to pre-war Jewish pimps (66) and Jewish prostitutes in concentration camps (124). We know why the authors include this material. It is included in order to show that human failings are not the sole provenance of Polish Catholics; thus, the stereotyping of Poles is not logical. One wishes that this were always made clear. In some cases it is; in others, the material is thrust at the reader in a way that will offend many.

In writing this admittedly harsh review, I have worked to note what is valuable in the book. I have also hoped to present alternative strategies to mistakes the book makes. Truth and ethics, not to mention simple consistency, are on the side of those fighting against the Brute Polak stereotype. We cannot allow our understandable anger or pain to sideline us. With the right strategy, the truth will win out.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Thank you, as ever, for all you do.

  3. A very interesting review. What a shame that some of the issues mentioned could not have been addressed pre-publication. Certainly gives me much to think about. Thank you.

  4. Whenever I speak of Poles, I always accentuate their heroic nature, nobilty, intelligence, courage and love even though light and darkness exist similtaneoulsy in all human beings.

  5. Yes, grammar, spelling, logical argument and rigorous research do matter. I keep noticing this depressing redundancy that you mention in your review. You cite: "Hitler's henchman accomplices". One I note a lot in the UK is "I got a reply back". The "back" is redundant - you got a reply. Or, on cookery programmes, "I am reducing the sauce down." "What! As opposed to reducing it UP?!" I scream, hurling my rubber brick at the screen. If this sort of stuff is getting into scholarly publications now that is depressing indeed... And this is a very tricky area too - a swamp of Political Correctness, so probably needs even extra rigour. I think the title is good, even though I don't think that us Poles have hearts any more or less golden than anybody else.

  6. I, too, have reviewed this book in detail recently. To see my review, please click on my name in this specific posting.

    Thinking people disagree, and I disagree with your review.

    1). Yes, there are grammatical erros. But let's not major on minors. This book presents information not found anywhere else in English.

    2). The neo-Stalinist characterization is spot-on. The hostility of Jan T. Gross, and his fans, towards Polish Catholicism and Polish patriotism is obvious.

    3). Yes, the Bieganski stereotype emanated from many sources. Hoqever, nowadays, the main source is leftists, Judeocentrists, and neo-Stalinists.

    4). Yes, both Gross and his refuters cite anecdotal information. The essential difference is that Gross cites a few events that are atypical; his refuters cite many events that are more typical of what happened.

    5). Gross has a devil-may-care approach to the facts. By any rational measure, this work is head, shoulders, and chest above any of Gross' recent books.

  7. CONTINUATION. Referring to (2) above, you are obviously confusing Stalinism and neo-Stalinism. Please read Dr. Radzilowski more carefully.

    6). Your comment about Gontarczyk and Walesa, besides being old information completely irrelevant to this book, comes across as a cheap shot. [BTW, Gontarczyk never called Walesa a Communist. Gontarczyk alleged that documents show that Walesa once gave information to Communist security officials. The documents may be forged. Also, Communists were masters at getting people to inform against each other in seemingly-innocent statements, often by using such techniques as deceit and blackmail.]

    7). No one is doubting the murder of Jews at Kielce in July 1946. (p. 320). The relevant factor was that the Kielce pogrom was a Communist-staged event, and not a pogrom in the conventional sense of the word.

    8). The possibility of the Jew-killing peasants not being Poles (p. 150, 353) is relevant insofar as they do not exemplify the bloodthirsty Catholic-steeped and nationalistically-steeped Pole demonized by Gross. The killers, far from being blinded by Catholicism and Polish nationalism, were obviously largely untouched by Polish culture and influence. [They may not have even been Poles according to heritage. They may have been nascent Byelorussians, not nascent Poles.]

    9). The context of Jewish malefactors (p. 66, 124) is obvious just by reading the context!

    10). Anti-Semitic attitudes are largely irrelevant. Remember, popular anti-Semitism does not, by itself, equal murderous anti-Semitism--notwithstanding Gross' attempts to equate the two.

    11). Throughout your review, you focus on tangential issues and almost completely ignore the main thrust of the book-the facts presented that demolish Jan T. Gross and his falsehoods. Why?

    I must confess that I am disappointed in your review, and had expected better from you.

  8. ADDENDUM: Your complaint that there is no "balance-sheet" analysis in this book, of the method used by Gunnar S. Paulsson in his SECRET CITY, is incorrect. Dr. Chodakiewicz, in fact, uses Paulsson's method, to analyze the fate of fugitive Jews in Krasnik County. (pp. 49-57).

    The "balance sheet" is as follows: Of about 1,000 fugitive Jews, 400 were found and murdered directly by Germans, 300-400 were directly or indirectly killed by Poles for various reasons (including banditry, but rarely out of voluntary "Jew hunting"), and 300 survived the war. There were about 1,000 Poles who housed fugitive Jews for extended periods of time, while another 5,000 Poles helped Jews sporadically.

  9. A summary of the essays in "Hearts of Gold" can be read here:

    I haven't read either the book or the summary yet, but once again I note a great title: “If the Facts Are Against Us, Too Bad for the Facts”: On the Scholarly Methodology of Jan Tomasz Gross’s Golden Harvest – Piotr Gontarczy.

    Which, sadly, probably sums up the politics of this quite nicely. The inconvenient facts must not be allowed to get in the way of the agenda. And given that our Creator has warned us that this present world system of things lies in the power of the one who is called "the father of the lie", should that surprise us?

    So, yes, this does sound like a book that needed writing Jan - especially if, as you say, it contains information not previously published in English.

    But it sounds like it should have gone through another session of rigorous editing before it hit the presses. And I think Dr.Goska is right to point that out, because wouldn't the book be much more effective if that had happened? It can be fixed. And it should be.

  10. Thank you for this review, Danusha!

    I have read the polish version and I think it is a essential book. One have to remember that this book is directed against Gross who uses flawed methodology and who picks sources to fit his thesis. As a scholar, he is extreme and this demands a "extreme" response.

    There are many valuable essays in this book and it is unfortune if these essays will remain in the shadows.

  11. I would like to expand Point #4 of my answer to your review of Chodakiewicz et al.:

    4). Yes, both Gross and his refuters cite anecdotal information, but to treat them as equivalent is far from correct:

    a). Gross cherry-picks anecdotes that make Poles look bad. Chodakiewicz et al. cite anecdotes that make Poles look good AND anecdotes that make Poles look bad.

    b). It can be shown that Jan T. Gross often cites dubiously-valid anecdotes, and mispresents the meaning of the anecdotes he uses.

    c). Gross commonly bases an argument on ONE anecdote. Chodakiewicz et al. base their arguments on many anecdotes each (even tens or hundreds of supportive anecdotes.) See my Amazon review, which can be accessed by clicking on my name in this specific posting.

    d). The Chodakiewicz et al. work goes beyond anecdotes. For instance, Chodakiewicz has, using archives, studied the Krasnik area. He cites specific facts and figures on the frequency of Jewish fugitives, Jewish survivors, Jews denounced by Poles, and Poles who either aided or denounced Jews. Gross has not done anything comparable.


Comments are moderated.
Your comment is more likely to be posted if:
Your comment includes a real first and last name.
Your comment uses Standard English spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Your comment uses I-statements rather than You-statements.
Your comment states a position based on facts, rather than on ad hominem material.
Your comment includes readily verifiable factual material, rather than speculation that veers wildly away from established facts.
T'he full meaning of your comment is clear to the comment moderator the first time he or she glances over it.
You comment is less likely to be posted if:
You do not include a first and last name.
Your comment is not in Standard English, with enough errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar to make the comment's meaning difficult to discern.
Your comment includes ad hominem statements, or You-statements.
You have previously posted, or attempted to post, in an inappropriate manner.
You keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.