Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Recent edits on Postwar Property Restitution

I've reverted as the use of a 1947 primary source is generally unacceptable. More seriously the passage misrepresented a volume edited by Grabowski&Libionka to the point it was libelous towards the cited authors - beyond the drivel pasted into our article from a questionable source, to assign such a summary to Grabowski&Libionka - is mind-boggling. I may of course refer to the 600+ page Polish language tome itself, however for the sake of those that read English, here's a short summary of Grabowski&Libionka: "The book, “Klucze i Kasa” (“Keys and Money”) details the ways in which Poles got rich off Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust – by plundering property that was left behind, charging exorbitant fees for hiding them, and so on. This may be another underlying reason for the Polish perception of Jews as a source of wealth – they literally enriched them. And paradoxically, their guilt feelings over this are being projected onto the Jews."[1]. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galassi: - unless you've actually read and reviewed the allegedly cited sources - I suggest you self revert - the issue here is a misrepresentation of the cited sources (+misuse of a PRIMARY 1947 source). This certainly is not a reasonable summary of the 37 cited pages in Klucze i Kasa. I don't know if you read Polish (and have the Polish book available) - however This Palgrave book is available in English (which we should prefer per WP:NOENG - and is a short summarized chapter. Grabowski&Libionka is much more in-depth (being Poland specific) - but shares the same conclusion. By reverting this content in - after it was challenged as a misrepresentation - you are taking responsibility for WP:Verifying it. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not have access to the sources used, but, in general, the passage does look cherry-picked and presents too rosy a picture in re: Jews in post-war Poland. For example, Yad Vashem has the following:

After the Holocaust, there were tens of thousands of Jewish survivors in Poland, as well as refugees who had returned there from the Soviet Union. On comprehending the enormity of the destruction of Polish Jewry and being confronted with manifestations of antisemitism, which reached their zenith with the Kielce pogrom of July 1946, these Jews decided to move westward to the American-occupied zone, and so they too arrived at the DP camps. In 1947, they were joined by a further wave of Jewish refugees from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania, and the total number of DP camp inhabitants reached a peak of some 250,000

Source: The Return to Life in the Displaced Persons Camps, 1945-1956. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The topic of Jewish property in Poland after WWII (and up to and including today) deserves a dedicated article. Nonetheless, the content here does not seem extraordinary, through there may be some undue weight issues, and it seems properly referenced (if to offline sources). I do not see sufficient rationale presented for reverting it wholesale, saying that 'it does not seem to fit with the spirit of the source' is hardly a serious argument. At the same time, there may be some synthesis issues when a claim is backed up by ~2 books and a wide range of pages. I'd generally suggest we focus on specific facts or interpretations. Is there something in the added passage that seems plain wrong? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - please provide quotes and translation of said quotes regarding the content you inserted here. Please be specific in terms of page numbers and works used for each bit. Your content has been challenged as a serious misrepresentation - onus on you to prove it is not a misrepresentation.Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Offline sources, I have no reason at this point to believe User:Tatzref made any serious errors in the content he inserted, and I see no reasons for its removal. Unless you have access to the same content and can prove there are issues? (That said, I'd encourage Tatzref to provide us with relevant quotes, if anyone actually challenges specific details of his additions, not that it has happened, as only vague generalities were criticized - that's hardly actionable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You've restored content challenged as a severe misrepresentation without actually verifying? Great. Contrary to said editing MO, I did access several of the sources cited by Tatzref, and stand behind my assertion this is a misrepresentation. I'm not sure how you want me to prove a negative here - some of the stuff isn't based on anything at all in the cited sources. WP:ONUS is on you (as well as all others who have inserted this content) to provide quotations verifying the content, and per WP:NOENG - with a translation please (I'm willing to work off the Polish - most editors in enwiki are not). Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As much of the content failed verification (versus the actual cited sources), and supporters of this content failed (over a period of 2.5 weeks) to quote and translate the sources they were cited (as required per WP:NOENG) I removed and replaced the content with a summary of academic sources, in English, available online. Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The information about postwar property restitution that Icewhiz reverted as "gross misrepresentation" and "failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source" and Galassi reverted as TW (defined as "acts of vandalism or unconstructive edits") is based on reliable sources produced by reputable Polish historians (Alina Skibińska, Łukasz Krzyżanowski, Krzysztof Urbański, Adam Kopciowski). These historians carried out research into hundreds of Polish court records for each town that they considered. Alina Skibinska states, in relation to Szczebrzeszyn, that at least one third of the 210 private properties belonging to Jews before the war were returned to their owners or their heirs by 1950, and that almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles (Klucze i kasa, p. 562-563). She goes on to assess the workings of the local municipal court: the vast majority of claims were favorably dealt with; the pace at which this was done was very speedy, as many of the claims were allowed the day they were received or very soon thereafter; the judges very often overlooked deficiencies in the applications (Klucze i kasa, p. 568-569). Moreover, the case study of Szczebrzeszyn confirms and is consistent with the research conducted by historians in relation to other towns (Grzegorz Miernik - Szydlowiec, Łukasz Krzyżanowski - Kalisz & Radom, Adam Kopciowski - Zamosc & Wlodawa). Moreover, it fully accords with the contemporaneous monitoring by Jewish organizations reported in the American Jewish Year Book (1947-1948), a highly reliable source produced by academics. Neither would have had the slightest interest in misrepresenting the situation to the detriment of Jewish Holocaust survivors.

Regarding the case study of property restitution in Szczebrzeszyn Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 562-563): “Scalenie dostępnych w materiałach archiwalnych informacji o nieruchomości należących przed wojną do Żydow prowadzi do wniosku, że było takich nieruchomości w Szczebrzeszynie ok. 210 (z wyłączeniem należących do gminy). Wszystkie te liczby świadczą o tym, że przynajmniej jedna trzecia spośród nich została właścicielom, ich spadkobiercom lub innym osobom za takowe się podającym do roku 1950 zwrócona. Wszystkie te nieruchomości (z kilkoma wyjątkami) w bardzo krótkim czasie sprzedano Polakom, bardzo często tym samym, którzy już je zajmowali.” GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The merger of information about real estate owned by the Jews before the war in the archives leads to the conclusion that there were about 210 real estates in Szczebrzeszyn (excluding those belonging to the commune). All these figures indicate that at least one-third of them became [were returned to] owners, their heirs or other persons [REMOVE: for such repayments until] [by] 1950. All these properties (with a few exceptions) were sold to the Poles in a very short time, very often to the same ones who already occupied them.”

Regarding the court process Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 568-569): “Oceniając więc postawę obu sędziów Sądu Grodzkiego w Szczebrzeszynie, należy brać pod uwagę nie tylko wyroki przez nich wydawane, a te były w zdecydowanej większości pozytywne dla wnioskodawców, lecz także tempo, w jakim sprawy rozpatrywali. Wielokrotnie data rozprawy wyznaczana była na ten sam dzień, w którym wniosek wpłynął, lub na termin bardzo nieodległy, co świadczy o przychylności tych sędziów, nie utrudniali bowiem proceduralnie spraw majątkowych. Wyroki zapadły z reguły jeszcze w dniu roprawy, uprawomocniały się po kilku tygodniach lub miesiącach. Obaj sędziowie brdzo często przymykali oko na nieścisłosci lub drobniejsze sprzeczności dowodowe, nie można w ich decyzjach dopatrywać się złej woli.” GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “In assessing the attitude of both Judges of the Grodzki [municipal] Court in Szczebrzeszyn, one should take into account not only the judgments passed by them, and these were mostly positive for the applicants, but also the pace at which they were considered. Repeatedly, the date of the hearing was set on the same day as the application, or on a very short date, which proves the favor [favourable disposition] of these judges, because they did not obstruct property matters in a procedural way. The verdicts were usually passed on the day of the abscess [the case was heard], they became stronger [legalized] after a few weeks or months. Both judges very often turned a blind eye to inaccuracies or minor contradictions of evidence, one cannot see evil decisions [bad faith] in their decisions.”

Regarding case studies for other towns (at. P. 171): “Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika, Łukasza Krzyżanowskiego, Adama Kopciowskiego. Ten ostatni zauważa, a jego wniosek potwierdzają również moje badania, “że choć odzyskiwanie utraconego w czasie wojny mienia wiązało się z ogromnym ryzykiem, stosunkowo wielu Żydom udało się je odzyskać”.” GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, "that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it." Tatzref (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Tatzref (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I neglected to mention what I pointed out in another post. The text that Icewhiz substituted for mine relies on publications of poor quality with no sources cited for the relevant claims (Laurence Weinbaum's article in The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust), publications that do not deal with court records with respect to property claims (Michael Meng, Shattered Spaces), or publications that refer to selected court records but do not undertake a systematic investigation of any one town (Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence -- the author admits she has no statistics). They then make sweeping generalizations that the scholarship which extensively canvases court records does not support. Additional comments will be provided with respect to other unfounded claims.Tatzref (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. I think the Klucze i kasa source is reliable and can be used. But I'll note that the reverted text ([2]) is not exactly the same one as discussed here (ex. here we talk about the town of Szczebrzeszyn, not mentioned in the talk). Still, I see nothing particularly wrong with most of that text, through the another part of it is based on another source (still seems reliable): Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).<ref name="Kopciowski">Adam Kopciowski. ''Zagłada Żydów w Zamościu'' (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2005), 203; Adam Kopciowski, "Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II," ''Holocaust: Studies and Materials'' vol. 1 (2008), 188.</ref> Through I actually like what is mentioned here, on the talk page, better, as Kopciowski just gives numbers and the Szczebrzeszyn text quoted here gives proportions. Once we have a subarticle, I think Kopciowski should be moved there. I also don't think the ending part is necessary (Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.<ref>Paweł Machcewicz and Krzysztof Persak, eds. ''Wokół Jedwabnego'' (Warsaw: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej—Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, 2002) vol. 1, 379–387.</ref>) - it seems undue here and as I believe I mentioned at some earlier point, I am sure some Poles were involved in this too, so what's the point of this sentence? I can think of any good reason to have this in our overview here (but as I also said, a dedicated subarticle on Jewish property in Poland is needed, and we can go into more detail there). As for the The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”<ref name="American Jewish Year Book">American Jewish Year Book, 5708 (1947–1948), vol. 49 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 390.</ref> , while this is an old source, I think it is attributed properly, and I see no reason to ignore it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOENG is policy - we have better English language sources - we generally prefer secondary academic sources in English (for which there is no lack, to say the least, on this topic). The Jewish Year Book, relating to 1947-8 and written in 1948, is a PRIMARY source - and contains two rather big BUTS (no under state control and direct-descendant heir (owner, son)) - which basically prevented the vast majority of Jews to even file a claim. As for the text itself - what was returned here was a gross misrepresentation. The quotations above support, at best, local anecdotes (number of cases in specific courts, attitude of very specific judes) - nothing more. Beyond being factually incorrect in "The restitution law in effect from May 1945 until the end of 1948" (as the 1945 decree was annulled and replace with another decree in 1946) nothing in the quotes (and WP:OR) above supports "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed" (and I'll note that the number of court cases may be larger than claimants (multiple claims) and that many court cases were fraudulent (a matter actually made clear in "Klucze i Kasa") - in which property was not returned to actual owners), as well as misstating the severe difficulties Jews faced with attempting to claim property.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

NOENG only states that if we have equivalent sources, English are preferred. Tatzref made a point above about them not being equivalent, as in Polish sources are better referenced, while English sources you cite are tertiary ones and less accurate. So in this case it seems to me he is winning the argument here. I do agree, however, that I'd like to see what the Klucze... text has to say about the 1945, 1948, and such, as I agree there're possibly some issues related to translation, etc. A while ago I wrote the nationalization in Poland article, and the text added here might contradict what is there - perhaps it's a translation issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the cited Polish language sources are mainly microhistories - referring to very small and specific areas (e.g. one town), and incidentally some are by rather obscure publishers and authors - they also have very low citation counts. We have reputable English sources here - top-notch publishers - and with references incidentally - not sure where that claim is coming from. More importantly - the English language sources are referring to Poland as a whole - as opposed to shenanigans in a particular courthouse. Furthermore, the text Tatzref is proposing is not supported by the anecdotes he is citing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with microhistories if reliable sources use them for generalization. At least in this case we know the source for generalizations, unlike from your 'reputable English sources' which as Tatzref noted just make sweeping statement with no references. When Alina Skibinska of Polish Center for Holocaust Research writes "Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy", she is certainly a RS that can be quoted here. Or do you think she is not a reliable scholar for those issues? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Skibinska, one should note, says property returned to "owners, their heirs or other persons" and "were sold to the Poles in a very short time" (usually those occupying) - she doesn't make a definitive statement on what was returned and to whom. As for the English language sources - they all are extensively referenced - including Weinbaum. Tatzref's claim that English language sources ignore Polish communist court transcripts? While such microhistories are of some value, the value (and standards of justice) of post-war Polish communist court transcripts is generally seen as dubious - and it is far from surprising that many sources heed them little notice. That these are largely ignored by well-cited and received book (e.g. Meng's Shattered spaces published in 2011 has 78 citations) - is an indication we should ignore anecdotal locale-specific evidence as well. Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is no "gross misrepresentation" going on in my edits, as alleged by Icewhiz, and that my sources are far more authoritative than his. The historians I cited, all of them reputable, have carried out extensive research on this topic in several localities. Alina Skibinska, of the Polish Holocaust Center/Centrum Badan nad Zaglada, with which Jan Grabowski is associated, admits that the state of the research shows a consistent pattern and that "relatively many" Jews were able to recover their property. Neither Laurence Weinbaum nor Michael Meng carried out any research nor do they provide any source regarding the actual functioning of the property restitution regime. Cichopek-Gajraj admits she has no statistics, even though Miernik, Urbanski and Kopciowski all published the outcome of their research well before she published her book. Generalizations without supporting scholarship or research does not outweigh a consistent pattern that emerges from a series of scholarly microhistories. Essentially the same law was in place throughout this period, with minor adjustments. The edit also notes there was an exception for nationalized property, and cites the American Jewish Year Book for that reason as well.Tatzref (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:OR based on your reading of local microhistories (whom themselves document widespread fraud and transfer of Jewish property to "other" non-related people) is of little value vs. Poland-wide secondary research. I have a question - your quote above - "Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika" - is this from page 171? Because page 171 is not by Skibinska. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That was a slip. The correct page number is 571. It is part of Skibinska's overall conclusion. The words “innym osobom za takowe się podającym”, i.e., "other persons holding themselves out as such," as Skibinska and others explain, refer to Jews posing as Jewish owners or their relatives in order to advance fraudulent claims. It was a big problem. Sometimes they were successful. However, it was virtually impossible for a non-Jew to pose as a Jew in order to initiate a bogus claim. At most, some Poles could be bribed to act as false witnesses for Jews. It is unlikely in the extreme that non-Jews would ever acquire property rights via the court process. Cichopek-Gajraj refers to this, and appears to recognize that it was essentially a Jewish problem. Jewish entities at that time did not attempt to shift the blame onto Poles.

At a meeting of the Central Committee of Polish Jews in August 1946: “News travels to Kraków from smaller Jewish communities that Jews started to sell houses which were not theirs… Jews sell houses of those who live abroad.” Polish courts increasingly became aware of these scams. The American Joint Distribution Committee: “The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the ‘racket’ of some Jews in going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs.” (Beyond Violence, p. 85)

This amply trumps your argument and demolishes any concerns about the value of the sources I cited.

As for late Jewish returnees from the Soviet Union they were treated no different than Poles who had to leave behind their homes in Eastern Poland territory seized by the Soviet Union. They were resettled on lands Poland acquired from Germany and received material compensation on the same basis as other Poles. Dariusz Stola deals with this matter in his article in Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe (New York & Oxford, 2007), at p. 244. I believe I pointed this out before, but it looks like it has been removed.Tatzref (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Another apparent misrep in Icewhiz’s text: “Polish officials blocked return of Jews from DP camp.” This is based on the article by Laurence Weinstein, a researcher associated with the World Jewish Congress. Weinstein provides no source for this information. A far more authoritative author is historian Yehuda Bauer, who estimates that about 15,000 Jews returned to Poland from camps in Germany in his article “Jewish Survivors in DP Camps and She’erith Hapletah,” in volume 9 (The End of the Holocaust) in The Nazi Holocaust: Historical Articles on the Destruction of the European Jews (Westport, CT, 1989), p. 527. If Jews were prevented from returning to Poland, a far more likely enforcer would have been Zionist agents. They often used violence against Jews in DP camps in Germany and Austria who were unwilling to be drafted to fight in Palestine. Hundreds of such reports are known. See Yosef Grodzinsky, In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II (Common Courage Press, 2004), pp. 199, 207, 230.

Yet another misrep based on Laurence Weinstein’s article: “with a claims deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948) after which property devolved to the Polish state.” As Cichopek-Gajraj points out (Beyond Violence, p. 73), it was only after 10 years that an immoveable property remained “heirless” that the state could acquire ownership by right of occupation, which would mean mid-1955. In the meantime, claims could continue to be brought even by more distant heirs (apart from spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and siblings) under the normal court process (Kasa i klucze, p. 523; Beyond Violence, p. 75).

Here’s a multiple misrep: “The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax.” In fact, the source cited (“Beyond Violence”) states: “The majority of Jewish claimants residing in Poland could not afford to pay the fees without the help of the CKZP (which also offered free legal aid) or without obtaining an exemption from the court and lawyer fees called “poor man’s benefit.” So the state restitution process provided for an exemption from court and legal fees for needy applicants, and those who got an exemption didn’t need financial help. Second apparent misrep: the alleged destitute condition of most Jews in Poland. The head of the DP operations for UNRRA in Germany reported quite the opposite, noting the arrival of so many “well-dressed, well-fed, rosy-cheeked” Jews who appeared to have “plenty of money.” See Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift (John Murray, 2007), p. 330. Moreover, claims could be made from outside Poland. Skibinska stated that there was a booming business in Palestine and Germany, and that Jewish organizations around the world submitted claims. (Klucze i kasa, p. 530-531.) Tatzref (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The clearest and most accurate treatment of the law on abandoned property appears to be an article by Barbara Gorczycka-Muszynska, an attorney and former judge, titled “Whose Tenements? A Legal Analysis of the Status of Former Jewish Property in Light of Postwar Polish Law,” in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews (Leopolis Press, 2012), edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski & Pawel Styrna, at pages 223–231: Here are some key passages:

The first act in Communist-occupied Poland to regulate the status of abandoned property was the decree from 2 March 1945 (“On abandoned properties,” Dz.U. no. 9, item 45, 1945). It was soon substituted by another law from 6 May 1945 (same title, Dz.U., no. 17, item 94, 1945.) There were no significant differences between the two regulations. The successor act merely introduced a new stipulation regarding farms and extended the time available for Municipal Courts (Sady grodzkie) to examine the claims of former owners attempting to reclaim abandoned properties.

The decree and the successor act granted the owners of abandoned properties a special privilege. They benefited from simplified and expedited legal procedures while pursuing their property restitution claims, as opposed to the regular civil procedures. The latter included burdening the claimant with the financial costs of the legal proceedings, calculated as a percentage of the value of the property in question. Claims pursued via the provisions of the decree waived this demand. The municipal courts, which were tasked with handling such cases, were obligated to rule within especially short periods of time. According to the decree, the hearing was to be scheduled on the eighth day, and the court was required to rule “within three weeks of the filing of the claim or sooner" … According to the successor act, the hearing was to be scheduled no later the twenty-first day, counting from the date of the filing of the claim, while the ruling was to be announced no later than within six weeks from the date of filing.

The act “on abandoned properties” from 6 May 1945 was substituted by a decree from 8 March 1946 on abandoned and “post-German” properties (Dz.U., no. 13, item 87, 1946). … An important difference existed between the decree and act of 1945, on the one hand, and the decree of 1946, on the other. In the case of the former, expedited-track restitution could only occur upon the request of the owner himself (or a legally qualified party). According to the 1946 decree, however, any proprietor, hence also an individual not in possession of a title of ownership, qualified to file a restitution claim taking advantage of the fast-track proceedings.

The decree of 1946 specified the deadline for restitution claims filed with municipal courts. After a twofold extension, the deadline finally lapsed on 31 December 1948. Afterwards, persons filing for restitution claims could do so only via ordinary civil procedures. The remaining regulations of the decree of 1946 did not differ in any meaningful way from those contained in the legal acts of 1945.

It may also be considered noteworthy that the decree of 1946 shortened by half the time period following which an abandoned property came under the official ownership of the state. According to Article 34, Section 1, this period was 10 years in the case of real estate, and five years in the case of mobile property. In both cases, the period was calculated from the end of 1945. By contrast with the legal acts of 1945, the decree of 1946 introduced legal fees for those claiming restitution and appealing unfavorable rulings (Article 28, Section 1 of the decree). The amount was to constitute 1/10 of the proportional fee (wpis stosunkowy) calculated on the basis of the value of the property in question.

The provisions contained in all three were essentially identical. Thus, the general legal doctrine developed as a result of the decree of 1946 was also applicable to the two acts of 1945.

A comparison of the legal regulations pertaining to abandoned properties with legislation regarding “land reform” and the expropriation of industry reveals unequal treatment and the conferring of a privileged position to the owners of abandoned properties in relation to the owners of landed estates [almost all of these were ethnic Poles – ed. note] , businesses, and other goods confiscated in the name of the “law” by the Communist state. Individuals in the latter category were required to vacate their properties within a three-day period. Moreover, they were forbidden to live in their previous county of residence. It is difficult to resist the impression that the reason begin the privileged status granted to the former category may be attributed to the fact that many of the abandoned properties belonged formerly to Polish citizens of Jewish descent. The regulations pertaining to these properties enabled such persons, or their legal representatives, to sell them immediately following revendication. Such cases (the selling of reclaimed properties) were not uncommon, and pertained mainly to property regained by Jews, who were leaving Poland en masse after 1945. Tatzref (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Weinbaum is reliably published, and the factoid you're quoting from Bauer (1984) doesn't disagree with him - 15,000 (mostly temporary) returnees is a very small fraction here. As for Leopolis Press - this is a WP:SPS, and the particular work you are referring to has received very negative attention - it is notorious (which is why it was covered at all) - for claiming that a large portion of modern scholars in the field, all in very prestigious institutions, are "neo stalinists" - see [3], [4], and there are a number of others. This paperback response to Jan Gross's Golden Harvest (Gross's work being cited and used in an academic context) - is not cited by academic works. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Either 15,000 Jews returned to Poland from DP camps, as Bauer and other historians (Glikson, Dobroszycki) state, or they were blocked from returning as Weinbaum claims. You can't have it both ways. Moreover, Jews continued to return to Poland from DP camps in 1947 - 1,500 according to Józef Adelson, "W Polsce zwanej ludową," in Najnowsze dzieje Żydów w Polsce: w zarysie (do 1950 roku), ed. Jerzy Tomaszewski and Józef Adelson (Warsaw: Wydawn. Naukowe PWN, 1993), p. 419. Weinbaum gave no source for his information, nor did you come up with anything to support it. It's not worth much compared to the sources I cited. Moreover, the fact most Jews didn't remain in Poland changes nothing. They could have made restitution claims before they left or in Germany, where Jewish organizations and lawyers set up a booming business. The academics and professional historians who published articles in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?, among them Piotr Gontarczyk, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Peter Stachura, John Radzilowski, Waldemar Chrostowski, have all published scholarly works that are widely cited. Jan Gross's Golden Harvest was also severely criticized by prominent historians such as Pawel Machcewicz and Bozena Szaynok, and Gross even falsely described the photograph on the dust cover showed Polish diggers searching for gold. So maybe Gross's book should not be relied on either. Moreover, Gorczycka-Muszynska's treatment of the actual law on abandoned property is not inconsistent with Cichopek-Gajraj's, just a lot clearer and more concise. In comparison with both of these authors, Weinbaum's effort is amateurish and contains blatant misreps.Tatzref (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz wrote:

The "grossly discrimanatory" Polish act was criticized by US president Truman,"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&dq=poland+blocked+"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNqsvnhO3hAhWjAmMBHbQRBPI4FBDoATADegQIARAS though sources do place an emphasis on Jews fleeing for their lives to pogroms and other violence in Poland. There is no conflict between Polish authorities blocking returnees from DP camps - and a very small number, at specific intervals, returning. As stated by multiple sources making a restitution claim (which resulted in a notice, but not actual return of property) - and the subsequent much more ardous eviction proceedings against the Polish invaders - was close to impossible outside of Poland. Weinbaum is published by a reputable publisher, so is Gross. Both are cited by academic works, and cite their sources. As for Hearts of Gold - it seems reputable publishers refused to publish it and that the author/editor published it, in soft cover, by himself. The sole attention it received, it seems, is due to the outlandish claim that most of the leading scholars in the field in the US are "Stalinists". The author/editor of this WP:SPS being covered by the SPLC is a major red flag as well.2009 2017

Icewhiz, is this some sort of pathetic hoax or merely more flagrant misrepresentation? The text in the link has nothing to do with any “‘grossly discrimanatory’ (sic) Polish act [that] was criticized by US president Truman.” The text states:

Here are some of the most flagrantly discriminatory provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 which need correction:

1. The Act defines a displaced person as one who was in DP camps of Germany, Austria, and Italy on or before December 22, 1945. This date eliminates Poles, Czechs, almost all the Jews and others who fled into the camps during 1946 and 1947 and is, therefore, grossly discriminatory.

As per the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_Persons_Act) “Truman had many objections to specific details … which he made explicit in his “Statement On Signing the Displaced Persons Act of 1948”: Truman, Harry S. (June 25, 1948). "Statement by the President Upon Signing the Displaced Persons Act - June 25, 1948". Internet Archive. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. pp. 382–384:

https://archive.org/details/4728453.1948.001.umich.edu/page/382

You keep saying that Weinbaum cites his sources but you can’t seem to provide any source for the claim that Poland blocked the return of Jews from DP camps. So not only is there no evidence to support Weinbaum’s claim, which is contradicted by several Holocaust historians, but here’s an attempt to grossly misrepresent a text in order to bolster a bogus claim. This is highly disconcerting and discrediting.

Nor have you provided any source -- backed by actual data -- to support the claim that it was “close to impossible” to make restitution claims outside Poland. Moreover, persons making such claims didn’t want or seek possession of the property – they wanted to sell the property. Alina Skibinska of the Polish Holocaust Research Center, who has carried out in-depth research as to how the restitution process functioned, is quite clear about her conclusions as to the fate of real property owned by Jews in 1939: “there were about 210 such real estates in Szczebrzeszyn (excluding those belonging to the Jewish community) … at least one-third of them were returned to the owners, their heirs or other persons [i.e., Jews] holding themselves out as such by the year 1950. All these properties (with a few exceptions) were sold to Poles in a very short time, very often to the same ones who already occupied them.” Skibinska also refers to the booming restitution business outside Poland (p. 530-531). It was carried out in many countries, by many organizations, and involved applications made by law firms. In Israel, Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. alone submitted 1,821 claims for restitution by way of 37 batches up to July 4, 1948. It goes without saying that they would not have kept submitting claims if it was “close to impossible” for them to succeed. Skibinska also points out that her in-depth research confirms what other historians have found. “The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of ‘abandoned property’ seems typical,” she writes. “This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski.” No cogent evidence has been produced by you to put in question these factually based conclusions.

Leopolis Press, which published the English translation of Hearts of Gold, is associated with the Kosciuszko Chair at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC. Given that one of the book’s editors, Chodakiewicz, is the holder of that chair, there is nothing amiss in the book being published there, rather than elsewhere. So your derogatory remark, “it seems reputable publishers refused to publish it,” while typical, is also a misrep. Moreover, no one in that book claimed that most of the leading scholars in the field in the US are “Stalinists” – yet another misrep. John Radzilowski, Associate Professor of History at the University of Alaska, wrote an article titled “The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States.” Radzilowski’s credentials are impressive (http://www.uas.alaska.edu/dir/jtradzilowski.html). The degree of desperation to discredit Chodakiewicz is apparent by having to resort to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization. Niall Fergusson called it a “phoney civil rights organisation.” Mark Thiessen wrote an article in the Washington Post aptly titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a9889d037724).

Furthermore, SPLC has no historical credentials, so its views regarding a historian’s writings are worth zero. Suffice it to point out that Chodakiewicz’s monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, is one of very few publications of hundreds on Jedwabne that is cited and relied on by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010). So enough of these insinuations that are brought up again and again, as if they haven’t been addressed and discredited. They are a useless distraction and don’t in any way undermine the merit of Gorczycka-Muszynska’s article about postwar Polish legislation on abandoned properties.Tatzref (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I was incorrect on the act, struck. Leopolis is a self publication - it has published very few items and is run by Chodakiewicz himself. The SPLC is considered a RS on Wikipedia for white supramacism and other such activites in the US.Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with https://kosciuszkochair.com/leopolis-press/ associated with the The Institute of World Politics. I guess you could take it to WP:RSN for more comments, but right now I think it's a reliable source that can be cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ONUS on those that want to use this. Leopolis press, which is run by the kosciuszko Chair in IWP, the chair also being the author of the book - "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press."[5] - is by definition WP:SPS. With the publisher/author in question -being profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center - [6][7] - and has according to the SPLC "a long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism" - this is a highly inappropriate source which runs counter to V/NPOV/FRINGE. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous; you are saying that if an academic also has ties to University of Foo than if he publishes in Foo University Press it's SPS? And it doesn't matter that an NGO criticizes a scholar, he is still a reliable (if biased) scholar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Leopolis doesn't have the standing of a University press. It isn't even backed by IWP - it is backed by a single person - Chodakiewicz - who is designated by the SPLC. The Institute of World Politics itself (not that this is relevant, since Chodakiewicz is the publisher (and editor, and first named author)) is not a research institution - it is a very small teaching college offering a small number of M.A. programs. It is a "boutique graduate school for wannabe spies and national security nerds in Washington, D.C"[8] - and I'll expand - a large chunk of the very small student body (around 150) are CIA spooks (and the odd State dept. cultural attache who is not a spook - such unicorns do exist) who are back in the states on a desk job (and are studying concurrent to their stateside assignment) - the institute has a highly eclectic group of instructors who speak many European languages, some of whom represent various strains as nationalism (as, somewhat ironically, far-right nationalist elements in target countries are often exploited as intelligence assets). Another instructor employed there is - Sebastian Gorka (known for his support of Magyar Gárda in Hungary) - whose thesis adviser said "I would not call him an expert on terrorism".[9] Even if this were a IWP backed publisher there would be issues (as this isn't an institution known for its academic research or publications) - but here we are discussing a single SPLC designated individual who is the publisher. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And all it boils down to is that it's a minor scholarly outlet. But to me it still seems scholarly. I suggest WP:RSN if you want to get a community consensus on removing this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this recent change,[10] as it relies on a self-published work by an author/editor/publisher covered in WP:RSes for writing nationalist tracts that contain "prejudicial views towards Jews and other minorities", and who has been extensively covered by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I will further note that other sources (e.g. Stola in Martin Dean's book) were used in a highly selective fashion (Stola covering in the same page the anti-Jewish purpose of the 1945/6 decrees), or misrepresented (e.g. Klucze i kasa, which we shouldn't be using per NOENG, page 605 doesn't quite support the content attributed to it - and further notes that most Jewish moveable property remained in Polish hands, criminal gangs illegally taking over Jewish property, and that the post-war process was the last stage of the process that started under German occupation - and met by approval by Poles who became owners), and misused primary sources. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As noted previously, I do not concur that primary source is used inappropriately, nor that Chodawkiewicz is non-RS. Since no other user commented on those issues outside you, me, and Tatzref, it seems clear that majority of views are in favor if using those sources. Again, as I said above, you can ask for more input at RSN re Leopold Press, and if you have issues with the primary source from 1946 I guess we could do an RfC for it. I do agree that the sentence from KiK (605) is not worded properly, so I tagged it with clarification note before your revert. I am also ok with its temporary removal, until quotations are presented here to support it. The sentence in question is: "According to several historians[who?] who examined court records, “relatively many” Jews successfully reclaimed “a large number of properties” throughout Poland." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

ARCA rejected a blanket ban - which is beyond WP:NOENG. NOENG is English Wikipedia policy - preferring English language sources. Using a self-published source by a fringe author is a definite no-go. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I will note that besides review articles (which are equivalent to opinion - which were decidedly negative in English journal), "Hearts of Gold" was the subject of a full fledged journal article in peer reviewed setting. Grzegorz Krzywiec notes in his journal article that "This collection is more like the material for a seminar of linguists or even scholars of rhetoric and propaganda. The book will not be good nourishment for readers interested in the Holocaust and its third phase". "There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the

modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre, which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.. Would care to elaborate on the academic background of Barbara Gorczycka-Muszyńska? The journal article has little to say on her other than "It seems that it is not a coincidence that Gorczycka-Muszyńska has the same surname as another author and editor of the collection. and notes that she "does spare the reader her relections on the communists of Jewish descent (“żydokomuna”) aside from a cleverly chosen part of a testimony of a “Jew from Lublin.” Obviously nothing tastes as good as a quotation of a real Jew in a parable with an anti-Semitic tag line!" - what pray tell are Gorczycka-Muszyńska (the sole thing I found about her in an academic setting, is Krzywiec journal article quote above) credentials here? Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I cannot get an access to this article. Would you be so kind and email me a copy? I would like to use it as a source for the relevant paragraph in his bio. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Krzywiec has ethical problems. No serious source? http://kompromitacje.blogspot.com/2012/09/grzegorz-krzywiec-o-romanie-dmowskim.html Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Chod. is not an RS, and less so as an SPS. As for this law, I have a confession: I have never heard of it prior to it being raised on Wiki. I've talked with a lot of survivors over the years (and heard or read the stories of many more), including some who stayed in Poland after the war, and none ever mentioned it as far as I can recall. This is not a representative sample, I'm sure, but I can't help but think that if there was such an effort by the Polish government it was short lived and poorly published. Reparations were well known and hotly debated; this? Nothing. François Robere (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Millions lost their properties after the war. Division of big farms (reforma rolan) and nationalisation, Bierut's decree in Warsaw, lost Eastern Poland. Owner's of houses had to accept destructive tenants. Now you come and say - hello the Poles, you robbed us. The Communists robbed everyone and constructed thousands of tanks to kill people of the West. Americans obtained compensations. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20384/volume-384-I-5518-English.pdf The majority of Polish people lost their economies as the result of money exchange 1950 and 1980-1995 inflation. Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We're not here to rehash Polish post-war agreements. If you claim this law, which I never heard of, was an exceedingly generous and considerate arrangement, you'd better have more than just one SPS source by Chodawkiewicz. Dropping the superlatives would also leave you with a much stronger argument, putting Poland's Jews in line with everyone else who lost their possessions. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss the problem of generposity with those editors, who claim it. My family lost everything during the war. Our house in Belarus was plundered by Polish neighbours. It's the real world of Eastern Europe. Xx236 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, as a compromise I propose we attribute any problematic sources. As for Chodakiewicz, isn't he just an editor for of this book? So we should figure out who wrote the chapter(s) being cited here. It could be someone more - or less - reliable, opening a new issue :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

I restored the WP:STABLE version here, please do not revert prior to establishing consensus. Use of a fringe work, edited and self-published by a far-right activist[11] - described as "farcical" in an academic journal article covering the controversy over its release, its contents (described as collection of polemic essays, not history) thoroughly roasted ([12][13][14]) by the few academics who bothered to respond to this (possibly due to the extremeness of the thesis, presented in a whole chapter: "The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. ... Furthermore, this Soviet-European-American implant seems to have been a danger to Polish social life since the 1990s. Finally, after a lengthy exposition, the author states that “neo-Stalinism may also be seen as a historiographic offensive bringing turmoil to Polish intellectual, cultural and social life in years following 1989” (p. 246)"). The particular author of the essay cited in the removed segment seems to have no academic credentials other than "it seems that it is not a coincidence that Gorczycka-Muszyńska has the same surname as another author and editor of the collection", also noting "does spare the reader her relections on the communists of Jewish descent (“żydokomuna”) aside from a cleverly chosen part of a testimony of a “Jew from Lublin.” Obviously nothing tastes as good as a quotation of a real Jew in a parable with an anti-Semitic tag line!".[15] This far right collection of polemic essays is clearly not an appropriate source. Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not actually the stable version and anyway, WP:STABLE is not a policy, it is most certainly not an excuse for edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Also - per WP:NOENG - we shouldn't be using non-English sources here at all as equal or better English language sources are available. Furthermore, in a spot check of Klucze i kasa - page 605 doesn't quite support the content attributed to it - and further notes that most Jewish moveable property remained in Polish hands, criminal gangs illegally taking over Jewish property, and that the post-war process was the last stage of the process that started under German occupation - and met by approval by Poles who became owner. Per NOENG - Please provide quotation (entire paragraph please, for context) + translations of every Klucze i kasa passage you want to discuss using. Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For the millionth time, stop misrepresenting WP:NOENG. You even brought this to ArbCom and were basically told your claims about it were nonsense. One'd figure that'd be enough to put that to rest, but apparently not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked for a soircing restriction - beyond NOENG. NOENG itself remains policy and is quote clear in regards to preferring English sources amd request for quotation.Icewhiz (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT^8 Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already tagged some refs for verification, not sure it was provided. Please bring to talk before adding! François Robere (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The review you mention ([16]) discusses cherry picking, and it seems that this is the case here. The reviewers point out errors and bias in the book, but also that it contains good parts. Ex. [17]: "In writing this admittedly harsh review, I have worked to note what is valuable in the book.". The review at [18] seems neutral and does not make any value judgement about the book. Neither of those two seems to contain the word 'farcical' you 'quote'. Who called the book such? In either case, the book is a collection of the essays. Some are better, some are worse. You seem to repeat ad nauseum the controversial claim the book makes about some scholars being neo-Stalinist, but this claim is only from one of the book essays, and I don't think we even cite this essay here, so your criticism is a straw man fallacy. Since you say that the page 605 of Klucze... does not support the content given, I will not restore it, pending User:Tatzref response (and I note I have already agreed above that that sentence is problematic). I see no reason to remove other contents, and your repeated attacks on professor Chodawkiewicz might warrant a reminder about WP:BLP. PS. I will also note that some of the content you've removed had unchallenged quotations provided above, ex. the statistics for Szczebrzeszyn. I would like to see quotations for Zamość and Parczew, if possible. I think that the estimate that about (only?) 1/3 of the Jewish properties was reclaimed following the war is likely a correct, if rough, estimate, and a valuable summary for this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No consensus to include material published by a far right activist. Please stop edit warring and stick to the WP:STABLE] version. Micro statistics of property claims (many of which were fraud - not returning to the owners - per multiple sources) are UNDUE. Finally, please do not restore non-English sources without providing clear quotes and translations per NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus in sources that this professor is a far right activist. If you persist in calling him this left and right, this is something that BLP reviewers will have to be contacted about. And quotes and translations are recommended but NOT REQUIRED, so you don't get to remove sources that fail it unless they are clear red flags, and this is not the case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

SPLC and Newsweek, use far right. These are RSes. NOENG states editors may request quotation - which I have - please provide them. Finally, introducing extremist sources - the particular cited essay being by an author without academic qualifications and a review noting it contains an antisemitic motif - is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We are not citing that "particular essay". But anyway, who describes it as extremist? You may not like something (I am not a fan of their arguments, neither), but not liking something doesn't mean we get to censor it from Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The essay we are citing is described as containing an antisemitic motif in an academic journal article (not a short review). The author of the essay has no academic qualifications in the fields. The journal article does note a family relationship to one of the co-editors. The publisher (and editor, and author) is a far right activist, profiled by the SPLC. So far - other than stating this exists - you have brought no justification for the use of this essay (which runs counter to multiple published (by a publisher with a positive reputation), acadmic sources).Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Some recent edits:

• [19] CUP is "mainstream", but Chod. isn't. The very name of the book ("Polish-Jewish Conflict") is rather telling regarding its position, and Polonsky's review of the book, which I added earlier today to his respective article (regardless of your edit),[20] corroborates one's suspicion that it's far from "mainstream", or even acceptable.
• [21] Trying to look for the source of the quote in that Ph.D thesis; note that it was quoted by an RS, so it shouldn't be that problematic. There is, however, another quote there, that we can use without objection as it's sourced to Dobroszycki: "As the then Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945: ‘We will not permit some foreign Jews, for instance Argentinian Jews, to inherit property in Poland.’" I still object the use of Chod's SPS. The second par. is mostly cruft, and with all honesty I don't trust the estimate of "1/3 of all properties" - that would suggest hundreds of thousands of properties, and given that nobody I ever talked with ever mentioned it (stories of lost property, however, abound), nor is it mentioned in high-profile sources, I find it hard to believe.
• [22] "Suggests" and "effectively means" are not the same. Go with the source.
• [23] This is actually an interesting issue. Not at the core of our disagreements here, but I think worth covering in a wider context as it didn't affect only Holocaust survivors and their kin.

François Robere (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no phd thesis that was used. Weizman is published (in English) in a peer reviewed journal. One of his many sources was a phd thesis - however secondary sources routinely gather sources and vet them. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a consensus for this version of the section on section on Jewish property. Sourcing is not reliable & the content looks cherry-picked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So you seriously think that the version that cites a PhD thesis, unverifiable quote accusing Polish government of calling Jews parasites and making laws based on that attitude is neutral and not-cherry picked? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It does not contain a phd thesis - it contains a peer reviewed journal article that cites (one of a multitude of sources - 87 references) a phd thesis. We have a WP:STABLE version - please cease edit warring until we form a consensus here.Icewhiz (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will address the various points raised in detail shortly. For now I want to make it clear that Icewhiz's text is by no means a "stable version", which is defined by Wikipedia as: "The term "stable version" is a concept that refers to the most recent version of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war." Icewhiz introduced his text on March 12, 2019 after reverting my text of February 22, 2019, which was restored by others in the interim. There is no consensus for his text. Holding it out as a "stable version" is a misrep. Here's the sequence:

16:37, 22 February 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 218,162 bytes +3,071‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: added information on property restitution

06:23, 23 February 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 215,273 bytes -3,071‎ Undid revision 884586715 by Tatzref (talk) OR, misrepresentation of sources

15:34, 23 February 2019‎ Piotrus talk contribs‎ 218,184 bytes +3,093‎ Undid revision 884674904 by Icewhiz (talk) I don't see any red flags in this, please explain on talk what is this OR and misrepresentation of sources here?

15:40, 23 February 2019‎ Piotrus talk contribs‎ 217,467 bytes -695‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: this seems not particularly relevant, and could have neutrality/undue problems, also difficult to verify due to convoluted and offline (?) reference

01:59, 24 February 2019‎ יניב הורון talk contribs‎ 215,091 bytes -2,376‎ rv antisemitic vandalism

06:36, 24 February 2019‎ Volunteer Marek talk contribs‎ 217,467 bytes +2,376‎ please refrain from using false and offensive edit summaries

07:03, 24 February 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 215,091 bytes -2,376‎ Undid revision 884821883 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Use of 1947 primary source not acceptable. Gross misrepresentation of Klucze i kasa (37 cited pages) - reading the book in question leads to a different conclusion.

13:55, 24 February 2019‎ Galassi talk contribs‎ 217,467 bytes +2,376‎ Reverted good faith edits by Icewhiz (talk): Meets all the WP:RS criteria (TW)

22:49, 25 February 2019‎ TonyBallioni talk contribs‎ m 217,467 bytes 0‎ Protected "History of the Jews in Poland": Edit warring / content dispute: AE action ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)))Tag: PHP7

12:23, 12 March 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 219,143 bytes +1,651‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online.

Tatzref (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

12 March is stable - and if not - we should return prior to Feb. Tatzref, per NOENG, please provide a quotation (entire parahraphs please) that supports "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives; the others were passed to new owners. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” case of a small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of the properties were very quickly sold to Poles..Icewhiz (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Icewhiz, I already provided the relevant text from Klucze i kasa (p. 562-563), so don't keep asking for the same thing over and over again -- look for it here instead of simply wiping out my edits under false pretenses. Besides, that's not my text. My text [04:32, 7 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ m 220,749 bytes +12‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property & 04:28, 7 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 220,737 bytes +1,343‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property] is set out below:

Successive restitution laws on “abandoned property” of March 2, 1945, May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, which remained in effect until the end of 1948, allowed property owners who had been dispossessed during the war or, if deceased, their spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and siblings, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property that was not subject to nationalization by way of a simplified, expedited and far less expensive procedure than the regular civil procedures. Until abandoned properties became nationalized at the end of 1955, such persons, as well as more distant relatives, could claim property of deceased owners under the regular civil procedures. Pursuant to the decrees of May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, applications had to be heard by municipal courts within 21 days and ruled on within 6 weeks. Many claims were processed successfully the day they were filed. Needy claimants could obtain exemptions from court and legal fees; financial and legal assistance was provided by various Jewish organizations. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Although municipal court rulings did not confer immediate ownership on someone who was not a dispossessed owner, successful claimants were able to sell the properties immediately following revendication. Many properties were also transferred or sold by Jewish owners outside this process. Jewish returnees from the Soviet Union who settled in territories acquired from Germany received material compensation on the same basis as Poles who had lost their property in Eastern Poland.

According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” Numerous Jewish organizations and law firms outside of Poland submitted applications on behalf of non-residents. For example, Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. submitted 1,821 restitution claims by July 4, 1948. According to several historians who examined court records, “relatively many” Jews successfully reclaimed “a large number of properties” throughout Poland. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” case of a small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of the properties were very quickly sold to Poles. The following examples also pertain to county towns in the Lublin Province: 281 applications were submitted in Zamość, 240 in Włodawa, some involving multiple properties, and 301 out of 894 former Jewish properties in Parczew were recovered by 1946.

This is my next post (more to come) dealing with the following book -- published by the Polish Holocaust Center in Warsaw, with which Jan Grabowski is affiliated -- referred to in support of 4 statements in my purged text: Klucze i kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950, ed. by Jan Grabowski & Dariusz Libionka (Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, Warszawa 2014). The relevant authors are: Alina Skibińska, “Problemy rewindykacji żydowskich nieruchomości w latach 1944–1950: Zagadnienia ogólne i szczegółowe (na przykładzie Szczebrzeszyna),” p. 493-573 & Łukasz Krzyżanowski, “‘Chcielibyśmy, by ten dom nie pozostał w obcych rękach’: Sądowa restytucja prywatnego mienia żydowskiego w Polsce na przykładzie Radomia i Kalisza 1945–1948,” p. 575-607.

1. Many claims were processed successfully the day they were filed.

Regarding the functioning of the court process Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 568-569): “Oceniając więc postawę obu sędziów Sądu Grodzkiego w Szczebrzeszynie, należy brać pod uwagę nie tylko wyroki przez nich wydawane, a te były w zdecydowanej większości pozytywne dla wnioskodawców, lecz także tempo, w jakim sprawy rozpatrywali. Wielokrotnie data rozprawy wyznaczana była na ten sam dzień, w którym wniosek wpłynął, lub na termin bardzo nieodległy, co świadczy o przychylności tych sędziów, nie utrudniali bowiem proceduralnie spraw majątkowych. Wyroki zapadły z reguły jeszcze w dniu roprawy, uprawomocniały się po kilku tygodniach lub miesiącach. Obaj sędziowie brdzo często przymykali oko na nieścisłosci lub drobniejsze sprzeczności dowodowe, nie można w ich decyzjach dopatrywać się złej woli.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “In assessing the attitude of both Judges of the Grodzki [municipal] Court in Szczebrzeszyn, one should take into account not only the judgments passed by them, and these were mostly positive for the applicants, but also the pace at which they were considered. Repeatedly, the date of the hearing was set on the same day as the application, or on a very short date, which proves the favorable disposition of these judges, because they did not obstruct property matters in a procedural way. The verdicts were usually passed on the day the case was heard, they became legalized after a few weeks or months. Both judges very often turned a blind eye to inaccuracies or minor contradictions of evidence, one cannot see bad faith in their decisions.”

2. Numerous Jewish organizations and law firms outside of Poland submitted applications on behalf of non-residents. For example, Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. submitted 1,821 restitution claims by July 4, 1948.

Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 530-531): “W zachowanej dokumentacji wynika, że niektóre organizacje, poszczególne biura prawne i adwokaci wyspecjalizowali się w sprawach o rewindykację mienia. Na przykład w Izraelu organizacja Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. miała Wydział Majątków Żydowskich w Diasporze, kierowany przez P.J. Jacobiego. W piśmie z 4 lipca 1948 r. do polskiej centrali KKL w Łodzi (Fundusz miał oddziały w większych miastach) informowano o przesłaniu trzydziestego ósmego już wykazu wniosków skierowanych do sądów w Polsce, ogółem wszystkich pozycji we wnioskach było 1821. Podobnymi sprawami zajmowały się wydziały prawne innych organizacji, np. Central Committee of Liberated Jews in the British Zone (Centralny Komitet Uwolnionych Żydów w Stefie [sic] Brytyjskiej), Federation of Jews from Poland in the U.S. Occupation Zone w Monachium (Federacja Żydów Polskich w Amerykańskiej Strefie Okupacyjnej), South African Jewish Board of Deputies w Johannesburgu (Żydowski Związek Deputowanych w Afryce Południowej), World Jewish Congress z siedzibą w Nowym Jorku, Association of Formerly Interned Jews in Italy (Stowarzyszenie Żydów wcześniej internowanych we Włoszech), Federacion de Los Israelitas Polacos en El Uruguay (Federacja Żydów Polskich w Urugwaju), Mosaiska Församlingen (Gmina Żydowska) w Sztokholmie i wiele innych, aczkolwiek nie posiadały one oddziałów w Polsce i nie prowadziły w Polsce spraw sądowych w imieniu swoich klientów. Listy w imieniu Żydów polskich w sprwach o restytucję mienia pozostawionego w Polsce napływały więc do CKŻP [Centralnego Komitetu Żydów w Polsce] z całego świat (Chin i Indii nie wykluczając), zarówno od osób indywidualnych, jak i organizacji reprezentujących skupiska polskich Żydów za granicą – niektóre bardzo liczne, jak te w zachodnich strefach okupacyjnych Niemiec czy w Izraelu.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The preserved documentation shows that some organizations, particular legal offices and lawyers specialized in cases regarding property restitution. For example, in Israel, the Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. organization had a Jewish Diaspora Department, headed by P.J. Jacobi. In a letter dated July 4, 1948, to the Polish headquarters of the KKL in Łódź (the Fund had branches in major cities), it informed about their sending of the thirty-eighth list of applications addressed to courts in Poland; the total of all items in the applications was 1821. Similar matters were dealt with by legal departments of other organizations, such as the Central Committee of Liberated Jews in the British Zone, the Federation of Jews from Poland in the US Occupation Zone in Munich (Federation of Polish Jews in the American Occupation Zone), South African Jewish Board of Deputies in Johannesburg (Jewish Association of Deputies in South Africa), World Jewish Congress based in New York, Association of Formerly Interned Jews in Italy (Association of Jews formerly internees in Italy), Federacion de Los Israelitas Polacos en El Uruguay (Federation of Polish Jews in Uruguay), Mosaiska Församlingen (Jewish Community) in Stockholm and many others, although they did not have branches in Poland and did not conduct court cases in Poland on behalf of their clients. Letters on behalf of Polish Jews in claims for the restitution of property left in Poland came to the CKŻP [Central Committee of Jews in Poland] from all over the world (including China and India), both from individuals and organizations representing clusters of Polish Jews abroad - some very numerous, as in the western occupation zones of Germany or in Israel.”

3. According to several historians who examined court records, “relatively many” Jews successfully reclaimed “a large number of properties” throughout Poland.

Regarding case studies carried out by historians for other towns Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 571): “Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika, Łukasza Krzyżanowskiego, Adama Kopciowskiego. Ten ostatni zauważa, a jego wniosek potwierdzają również moje badania, “że choć odzyskiwanie utraconego w czasie wojny mienia wiązało się z ogromnym ryzykiem, stosunkowo wielu Żydom udało się je odzyskać.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, “that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it.”

Łukasz Krzyżanowski wrote (at p. 605): “Zakończenie. Nie sposób określić całkowitej liczby przypadków odzyskania mienia prywatnego przez Żydow tuż po drugiej wojnie światowej w Radomiu i Kaliszu. Na podstawie akt sądowych z obu miast można wnioskować, iż posiadanie, nie własność, stosunkowo dużej liczby nieruchomości zostało przywrócone ocalałym z Zagłady, którzy powrócili do miejsc swego pochodzenia.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “Conclusion. It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of private property recovered by Jews in Radom and Kalisz shortly after the Second World War. On the basis of judicial files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin.”

4. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” case of a small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of the properties were very quickly sold to Poles.

Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 562-563): “Scalenie dostępnych w materiałach archiwalnych informacji o nieruchomości należących przed wojną do Żydow prowadzi do wniosku, że było takich nieruchomości w Szczebrzeszynie ok. 210 (z wyłączeniem należących do gminy). Wszystkie te liczby świadczą o tym, że przynajmniej jedna trzecia spośród nich została właścicielom, ich spadkobiercom lub innym osobom za takowe się podającym do roku 1950 zwrócona. Wszystkie te nieruchomości (z kilkoma wyjątkami) w bardzo krótkim czasie sprzedano Polakom, bardzo często tym samym, którzy już je zajmowali.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The merger of information about real estate owned by the Jews before the war in the archives leads to the conclusion that there were about 210 real estates in Szczebrzeszyn (excluding those belonging to the commune). All these figures indicate that at least one-third of them became [were returned to] owners, their heirs or other persons holding themselves out as such by 1950. All these properties (with a few exceptions) were sold to the Poles in a very short time, very often to the same ones who already occupied them.”

Therefore, it is clear that what I wrote is accurate and fully supported by the sources I provided. Icewhiz’s repeated claims of “Gross misrepresentation of Klucze i kasa,” “misrepresentation of sources,” etc. are themselves a misrepresentation, as is his claim that his edit represents “Restore WP:STABLE version.” Icewhiz has also been caught in an egregious misrepresentation of sources in this very article, claiming that the following linked source supported Weinbaum’s claim that the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from Germany -- Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC): “The "grossly discrimanatory" Polish act was criticized by US president Truman,"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&dq=poland+blocked+"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNqsvnhO3hAhWjAmMBHbQRBPI4FBDoATADegQIARAS.” As I pointed, that text says no such thing. President Truman was criticizing certain provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948.

Before moving on to the next source (in the next post), the reports of Jewish organizations who were submitting restitution claims at the time and monitoring their outcome fully support what I wrote about the above sources. The American Jewish Year Book, a highly reliable source published and authored by academics, reported, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” ”https://www.jstor.org/stable/i23603328

Tatzref (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Apologies if I misread you, but this seems absurd to the point of dishonest:

1. The source describes just two judges - yet you generalize it to the entire system?
2. The source talks about "some organizations", which you turn into "numerous organizations"? And how does "the total number of items in the applications" become "the total number of applications"?
3. Cherry picking to the extreme:
   1. Why did you quote the source on "relatively many", but not on "enormous risk"? And what else does the source say about this risk? Presumably it didn't pluck this phrase out of thin air, especially as it claims to verify it independently.
   2. Again false generalization: the source only talks about two cities - why do you quote it for the entire system? And why on earth do you not mention that they didn't actually get ownership of their properties, just possession? It changes the meaning of the entire quote!
4. First off, the source doesn't say anything about Szczebrzeszyn being a "typical case" of anything. Second, the source suggests, most or all of these properties were already occupied - something you chose to omit, presumably as it doesn't serve the narrative that reclamation went quickly and smoothly and everyone got their properties back as easy as they asked for them. Third, despite the fact this is core to the context of the sales and you chose to omit it, you still mentioned the sales. For what purpose?
5. The American Jewish Year Book, other than stating what you quoted above, also makes this note: "Recently, [the Jewish organization] submitted a memorandum to the government asking the restitution of Jewish communal property, which in several towns was used by the non-Jewish population for clubs and recreational centers." I was curious to see what resulted from that effort, so I looked in the following year book and found this: "the unfortunate handling of the problem of the restitution of Jewish property must be noted. In a number of cases when property could have been restored to the owners, local courts ruled in favor of persons who had no right to it... It was reported by local observers that very little collective Jewish property, i.e., property of Jewish communities, schools, foundations, etc., had been returned." If you want to use this source, which you hail as "a highly reliable source published and authored by academics", be my guest.

François Robere (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I came to post the text below (more to follow), and was surprised to see that I'm now at "the point of [being] dishonest."

1. It's not me who is drawing general conclusions from the research, but Skibinska. Based on a pattern of large scale property restitution in a number of towns researched by several historians, she concludes that Szczebrzeszyn, where at least 1/3 of the private properties were returned, appears to be a "typical" case. She wrote: "The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski."

2. "Some organizations" refers to just the first ones mentioned, then there are many more: "some organizations, particular legal offices and lawyers specialized in cases regarding property restitution ... Similar matters were dealt with by legal departments of other organizations...and many others..." Sounds like "numerous" to me. That's what the source says: By July 1948, they had submitted 38 lists of court applications, and the total number of items, i.e., property claims, in these lists amounted to 1821.

3. The article already contains an entire section dealing with immediate postwar violence. Moreover, as the sources show, the court process itself rarely gave rise to violence. The violence sometimes occurred in other contexts, e.g., when someone wanted actual possession of an occupied home. The properties that were recovered via the court process were almost always sold immediately without incident. That was the norm. I also acknowledged this in my text: "Although municipal court rulings did not confer immediate ownership on someone who was not a dispossessed owner, successful claimants were able to sell the properties immediately following revendication."

4. As multiple sources show, the vast majority of claimants, many of them outside Poland, simply wanted to sell the properties after their claim was approved, and this they did. See also the findings of Stanislaw Meducki (below) regarding Kielce.

5. My article does not deal with communal property, but private property that was not subject to nationalization. Yes, there were a number of fraudulent claims, which I had mentioned in a previous version, but that edit was removed by someone. Cichopek-Gajraj refers to this in Beyond Violence (p. 85): At a meeting of the Central Committee of Polish Jews in August 1946: “News travels to Kraków from smaller Jewish communities that Jews started to sell houses which were not theirs… Jews sell houses of those who live abroad.” The American Joint Distribution Committee: “The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the ‘racket’ of some Jews in going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs.” This probably deserves mention, but it'll likely just get removed again.Tatzref (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

1. I asked about the judges - how does you or the author generalize from two judges to a national system? And what does a "typical case" mean, exactly? A "typical case" of what?
2. Doesn't sound like it to me. And it is the "total number of items", rather than "the total number of applications".
3. The article does not contain a section on violence towards people filing reclamation requests, and that is what the source claims was the risk, doesn't it? Perhaps it is worth noting? And your phrasing is obtuse and illogical: if it did not "confer ownership" on anyone who wasn't dispossessed, who did it confer ownership to? And how could you sell a property that wasn't yours?
4. "Wanted" is your interpretation. Per your source the process was "enormously risky" (and you contradict yourself by claiming the violence was directed at returnees, yet that many of the applicants were from abroad - ie not returnees), the properties were usually occupied and the claimants rarely got actual ownership of the properties - all huge difficulties in realizing one's legal rights, which you choose to ignore in favor of a simplistic "[they] simply wanted to sell... that was the norm"? Whose narrative that this simplistic explanation serve?
5. You quoted AJYB; AJYB clearly states that the process was flawed, that in some cases courts ruled wrongly, and that no communal property was returned. Seeing this, instead of replying to the point on the conduct or misconduct of the Polish system, you raise the spectre of Jews cheating? Whose narrative does this serve?

François Robere (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Just highlighting this unfinished thread ⬆. François Robere (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Before moving on to the next source (Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold), I wanted to point out once again why my text on the outcome of private property claims is demonstrably superior to Icewhiz’s.

1. It relies on the latest scholarly research by reputable, professional historians.

2. Eight historians--Krzysztof Urbański (Kielce), Grzegorz Miernik (Szydłowiec), Stanisław Meducki (Kielce), Adam Kopciowski (Zamość, Włodawa), Sebastian Piątkowski (Radom), Mariusz Bechta (Parczew), Alina Skibińska (Szczebrzeszyn), Łukasz Krzyżanowski (Radom, Kalisz)--carried out in-depth examination of the relevant court records in specific towns and independently arrived at similar conclusions regarding the large extent of property restitution in those towns.

3. Based on this clear pattern (citing the studies of Miernik, Kopciowski, Krzyżanowski as well as her own), Alina Skibińska concluded that her town (Szczebrzeszyn) was "typical," in other words, this is a representative sample. She also pointed out that these were minimum numbers of recovered properties, as the court records were incomplete. Moreover, as noted in other sources, many properties were sold or transferred outside the municipal court restitution process.

4. Skibińska goes on to assess the workings of the local municipal court: the vast majority of claims were favourably dealt with; the pace was very speedy, as many of the claims were allowed the day they were received or very soon after; the judges very often overlooked deficiencies the applications.

5. Similar conclusions were drawn by other historians, who note that the vast majority of claims were processed without incident. Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.” See Z kroniki utraconego sąsiedztwa: Kielce, wrzesień 2000/From the Chronicle of the Lost Neighborhood: Kielce, September 2000, ed. by Marta Pawlina-Meducka (Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Kielce 2001), p. 202 (bilingual edition, English text cited).

6. This research both confirms and is further supported by what Jewish organizations reported at the time. According to The American Jewish Year Book (1947-1948), which was published and authored by academics, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”

7. Michael Meng’s claim that the number of recovered properties was “extremely small” (Shattered Spaces) is based on no research of his own, nor does he cite any sources in support. As such, it carries no weight. Since it conflicts with the findings of many other historians, it should not be cited at all, or if it is, it should be pointed out that this is a minority view that is based on sheer conjecture.

8. Similarly Cichopek-Gajraj’s research on the outcome of property restitution (Beyond Violence) is spotty at best, relying most on anecdotes, and her conclusion that only a “small” number of properties was returned is, by her own admission, not based on any “comprehensive statistics.” Moreover, it is in conflict with that of many other historians such as Urbański, Miernik, Meducki, Kopciowski, Piątkowski, whose findings were available long before she published her book in 2014, but which she was apparently unaware of.

Tatzref (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the well rationed analysis. I find it convincing (through I'd attribute “relatively many” to pl:Adam Kopciowski and "typical" to [24]), but few more items need clarification. 1) Quotes for number for outside Szczebrzeszyn, which seem to suggest that about 1/3 of Jewish properties were recovered: "the following examples also pertain to county towns in the Lublin Province: 281 applications were submitted in Zamość, 240 in Włodawa, some involving multiple properties, and 301 out of 894 former Jewish properties in Parczew were recovered by 1946.". 2) Regarding "Many claims were processed successfully the day they were filed" - this seems limited to Szczebrzeszyn, and I don't think we can use it to generalize to the entire Poland 3) "Numerous Jewish organizations and law firms outside of Poland submitted applications on behalf of non-residents." - true, through I don't see how relevant it is to this article (seems too detailed/undue). 4) I find your criticism of Meng and Cichopek-Gajraj interesting. WP:NOENG notes that English sources are preferable if they are equal or better quality that non-English. Logically, if those English sources are then of lower quality, the reverse applies... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The English sources here are of a higher quality (Meng is widely cited - a 2011 work cited 79 times per scholar, published by Harvard UP, Cichopek-Gajraj (2014) is cited 23 times, published by Cambridge UP) - focusing on Poland (and elsewhere) as a whole as opposed to very specific and very small towns (Klucze i kasa which is a collection of micro-histories (very local focus in each study - valuable for very detailed local study, but almost impossible to generalize - findings vary in each chapter), and in Polish, has been cited 7 times to date per google scholar). As for Tatzref's text - "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives" - is a gross misrepresentation. This is a WP:OR generalization (to entire Poland) based on approx. 70 properties in the small town of Szczebrzeszyn (population 5,299 in 2006), and furthermore misrepresents even those 70 properties - the source reads "at least one-third of them became owners, their heirs or other persons.". As made clear in Klucze i kasa - widespread fraud by Polish criminal gangs in receiving these initial decrees (which themselves did not grant actual possession - eviction of tenants was nearly impossible - so the typical result was a sale to the tenants at a very low price) - makes other persons a rather significant omission here. Frankly, this is about as bad as it gets in terms of OR and misrepresenting sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So... now you have a problem with microhistories and historians who generalize from a single locale to the entire country? Funny that you never brought that up when you were edit warring over Grabowski's number of 200,000. There is no misrepresentation or OR here. Stop making shit up. If you think something is being omitted, then maybe we can add it. But other than that the sourcing and the text is as solid as it gets.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If a researcher generalizes - e.g. Grabowski - that is usable. If a microhistory does not generalize - but a Wikipedia editor via a feat of WP:OR (+omitting the significant "other persons" mentioned in the source) - generalizes - that is unacceptable WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We should not generalize ourselves, this can be a WP:SYNTH problem. But if reliable scholars generalize, we can quote them. Klucze... may be a minor and new work on the topic, but it is a perfectly reliable one. Or do you think that scholars like [25] or pl:Adam Kopciowski are unreliable? Are they profiled by the SPLC too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Klucze i kasa is a well regarded source - all be it far too deep in the weeds for this article (very detailed but also very-very local research - findings vary per courthouse (different chapters in the book)), and fairly little cited in relation to English publications (perhaps they'll translate at some point?) .... The text proposed for our article is a blatant misrepresentation of the contents of Klucze i kasa - which honestly notes the widespread fraud ("other persons" mentioned in each such courthouse statistic throughout the book, besides coverage of fraud), and that doesn't anywhere make a generalization that "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives". Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You will notice most of Tatzref's comments above have already been addressed; much of the rest is just "name dropping" without actual quotations, which isn't something we can build on. As for their comment on Cichopek-Gajraj - that's plain false. She does not give "anecdotal evidence", but examples of what she otherwise analyse and synthesize from dozens of secondary and tertiary sources; and on some occasions where she cannot give a convincing estimate or explanation, she doesn't. François Robere (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Endlessly repeating WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT in response to very detailed and well reasoned explanations is not "addressing". And ffs, their comments are a quotation after quotation after quotation so where in the world do you get "name dropping without actual quotations"??? Stop making shit up. How is it possible to even have a goof faithed discussion on this topic when two parties to the discussion, both on the same side of the issue, sit there and keep on insisting on something which is blatantly false? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Marek, my reply to Tatzref from today ([26]), as well as a batch of new sources I left downstairs ([27]) haven't been aswered yet. If you have an argument other than "you just don't like it!!!" feel free to start there. François Robere (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, he already answered you. You replied with something like "It doesn't sound like it to me", which is, like, almost verbatim of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Diff of reply? François Robere (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I came to post my remarks about the book Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold (see below). I'll digress briefly to address some of the "new" points, which are simply a rehash of matters already amply addressed. Icewhiz wrote: "As for Tatzref's text - "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives" - is a gross misrepresentation." That is not my text, to suggest that it is yet another or a disturbing pattern of misreps on Icewhiz's part. As for "widespread fraud by Polish criminal gangs", I've already set out complaints from Jewish organizations. Interestingly, they all complained of fraud perpetrated by fellow Jews. I even saw one from a Swedish organization to that effect. It would have been virtually impossible for an ethnic Pole to pose as a Jew and reclaim property. The Central Committee of Jews' own members were involved in property scams in Radom. See Łukasz Krzyżanowski, Dom, którego nie było: Powroty ocalałych do powojennego miasta (Wydawnictwo Czarne, Wołowiec: 2016), p. 307. The only large criminal gang that the sources refer to is the Jewish mafia ring that worked closely with Jews from the State Security Office in Białystok, among them Samuel Faber and Eliasz Trokenheim, who were eventually caught and punished. See Krzysztof Persak, “Akta postępowań cywilnych z lat 1947–1949 w sprawach dotyczących zmarłych żydowskich mieszkańców Jedwabnego,” in Wokół Jedwabnego, volume 1, p. 379–387. There used to be information about this in the article but, as I pointed out, it was removed. Wonder why?

The notion that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?: Studies of the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews, edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski & Pawel Styrna (Leopolis Press, 2012) is a self-published book is baseless. It’s an English language version of a book that was published by The Facto, a Warsaw publishing house (http://thefacto.pl/), in March 2011 under the title Złote serca, czy złote żniwa?: Studia nad wojennymi losami Polaków i Żydów. The book is a collection of essays by 14 authors, among them professional historians and academics such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (Institute of World Politics), Waledmar Chrostowski (Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University), Piotr Gontarczyk (IPN), Wojciech Muszunski (IPN), John Radzilowski (University of Alaska), Peter Stachura (University of Stirling), Teresa Preker (University of Warsaw). Clearly the authors and publishers are not the same for either the Polish or English language versions, so the book is not self-published. This is all readily verifiable, so suggesting otherwise is a crude ruse. The collection of authors mentioned, their academic and professional credentials, as well as their numerous publications (look them up), all clearly indicate that this book meets the test of reliable source. They are by no means fringe or extremist. The fact that some reviewers have criticized the content is immaterial. A number of historians trashed Timothy Snyder’s books as alleged Holocaust “revisionism.”

Just last year, both Icewhiz and K.e.coffman concocted a similar attempt to discredit a major book, Sowjetische Partisanen, by historian Bogdan Musial, published by a renowned German publishing house and hailed by Yehuda Bauer as “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia Yad Vashem Studies (vol. 38, no. 2). The book was removed from the “Bielski Brothers” article as allegedly “fringe” (!) and “SPS” (self-published sources) (!):

• • 06:16, 28 May 2018‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 20,929 bytes +137‎ Highly questionable fringe SPS.
  • 02:29, 1 June 2018‎ K.e.coffman talk contribs‎ 19,592 bytes -659‎ Pls see Talk:Bielski_partisans#"Further_reading"
  • 07:16, 1 June 2018‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 19,592 bytes -659‎ Undid revision 843878281 by GizzyCatBella (talk) No consensus to include this non-English fringe work

So, with all due respect, not only do they have no credibility in this regard but they are also involved in extreme POV.

The incessant attempts to smeer Chodakiewicz (and others mentioned) as “extremist” and “far right” are both hackneyed and unpersuasive. Invoking Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization, is a pathetic joke. SPLC was sued for falsely claiming that Maajid Nawaz was an extremist, paid US$3.375 million in settlement, and then pulled their list of alleged “extremists.” Niall Fergusson called SPLC a “phoney civil rights organisation.” http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/let-me-give-you-the-real-news-about-hate-crime Mark Thiessen wrote an article in the Washington Post aptly titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a9889d037724).

Furthermore, SPLC has no credentials to pass judgment on historical writing, so its views on Chodakiewicz and his writings are worth zero.

Suffice it to point out that Chodakiewicz’s monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, is one of very few publications of hundreds on Jedwabne that is cited and relied on by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010). If Chodakiewicz’s scholarly publications are good enough for Longerich, they’re clearly good enough for Wikipedia. So enough of these baseless insinuations that are brought up again and again, as if they haven’t been addressed and discredited. They are a useless distraction.

Moreover, these and other baseless insinuations don’t in any way undermine the merit of Barbara Gorczycka-Muszynska’s article on postwar Polish legislation on abandoned properties titled “Whose Tenements? A Legal Analysis of the Status of Former Jewish Property in Light of Postwar Polish Law,” found in found in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold (at p. 223–231). Gorczycka-Muszynska’s treatment of the legislative framework is not inconsistent with Skibinska’s, Meng’s or Cichopek-Gajraj, it is simply clearer, more accurate, and much more authoritative. Why? Because, as the book notes, she is a retired judge so she is far better placed to discuss Polish legislation than historians. Moreover, referring to her simply as a former judge is much too modest. She was a member of the Warsaw Province Administrative Court who was decorated in 2012 by Poland’s President Bronislaw Komorowski with the Commander’s Cross of the Order of the Rebirth of Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Polonia_Restituta) for her “outstanding services for the administration of justice, for shaping the principles of a democratic state of law and legal culture” (za wybitne zasługi dla wymiaru sprawiedliwości, za kształtowanie zasad demokratycznego państwa prawa i kultury prawnej). https://www.prezydent.pl/archiwum-bronislawa-komorowskiego/aktualnosci/ordery-i-odznaczenia/art,1152,odznaczenia-i-nominacje-sedziowskie.html The ugly innuendos being hurled at her, based on speculation as to whether she’s related to Wojciech Muszynski, are both irrelevant and highly distasteful. They are the lowest for of “smeer” tactics – totally inexcusable.

The allegation that Gorczycka-Muszynska’s article is somehow anti-Semitic because it contains (in a footnote) a quotation from the memoir of Shiye Goldberg, who succeeded in regaining several pieces of real estate in Lublin with the help of Polish witnesses, is bizarre. This spurious charge itself contains racist overtones. Cichopek-Gajraj and Meng’s books contain a proliferation of such anecdotal information.

As Gorczycka-Muszynska notes, the laws on abandoned property did not supersede the regular court inheritance procedure, which remained in place for any heir to access. The problem was that it was cumbersome and expensive. That is why the simplified, expedited and far less expensive laws on abandoned property were introduced on an interim basis, and this was done primarily for the benefit of Holocaust survivors and their close relatives. However, access to that process (limited to spouses, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings) was more restrictive than to the ordinary court process. As Gorczycka-Muszynska also points out, the hardest hit under postwar “land reform” and expropriation of industry were the owners of landed estates, almost all of whom were ethnic Poles, and the owners of large industrial and commercial enterprises. The former got no compensation and were given 3 days to vacate their property. She also pointed out that it was the Communist-run state that was the primary beneficiary of property that was nationalized, both Polish and Jewish, not ordinary Poles.

Interestingly, Alina Skibinska mentions a 1947 memorandum, “Survey of Restitution in Europe,” prepared by the World Jewish Congress, that covers 18 countries. She notes, “Rozwiązania prawne, procedury i okres, w którym obowiązywał uproszczony tryb odzyskiwania mienia, były podobne.” (“The legal solutions, procedures and the period during which the simplified mode of asset recovery was in force were similar.”) The only significant difference was that in Eastern Europe, i.e. the Communist bloc, certain categories of properties were nationalized. (Klucze i kasa, 569-570.)

I will address Laurence Weinbaum’s writings in my next post.Tatzref (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Icewhiz's remarks: "the source reads "at least one-third of them became owners, their heirs or other persons.". As made clear in Klucze i kasa - widespread fraud by Polish criminal gangs in receiving these initial decrees (which themselves did not grant actual possession - eviction of tenants was nearly impossible - so the typical result was a sale to the tenants at a very low price) - makes other persons a rather significant omission here."

Yet another misrep by Icewhiz. Skibinska text does not simply say "other persons", but as I pointed out earlier, “innym osobom za takowe się podającym,” which means "other persons holding themselves out as such." In other words, this refers to Jews posing as Jewish owners or their relatives in order to advance fraudulent claims. Virtually no one wanted to evict occupants, they wanted the court to accept their restitution claim, which, as Skibinska and others points out, allowed them to then sell the property, and this they did in almost every case. Property pries were depressed because of widespread poverty, their poor condition, and the very uncertain status of private property (threat of nationalization). Poles who bought property were taking a gamble. If the Jews believed otherwise, i.e., that you could make money buying these properties, they would be scooping them up themselves.Tatzref (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. You're yet to comment on some of my points above [28]. I've highlighted them for your convenience, and shall refer to them as "the previous thread" henceforth.
2. That is not my text What's your text, then?
3. I've already set out complaints from Jewish organizations Diff?
4. Interestingly, they all complained of fraud perpetrated by fellow Jews Both biased and wrong, as both your comments on the AJYB (#5 in the previous thread) and the sources below show.
5. I even saw one from a Swedish organization to that effect Quote? (@Volunteer Marek: this is what I refer to as "name dropping". Unless it's quoted somewhere in the thread, it doesn't exist.)
6. It would have been virtually impossible for an ethnic Pole to pose as a Jew and reclaim property Why is that?
7. See Łukasz Krzyżanowski, Dom, którego nie było: Powroty ocalałych do powojennego miasta (Wydawnictwo Czarne, Wołowiec: 2016), p. 307 Quote?
8. See Krzysztof Persak, “Akta postępowań cywilnych z lat 1947–1949 w sprawach dotyczących zmarłych żydowskich mieszkańców Jedwabnego,” in Wokół Jedwabnego, volume 1, p. 379–387 Quote?
9. There used to be information about this in the article but, as I pointed out, it was removed. Wonder why? I too wonder. Diff?
10. The notion that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?... is a self-published book is baseless Well, it's edited by Chod. and published by his own publishing house - the definition of WP:SPS.
11. It’s an English language version of a book that was published by The Facto, a Warsaw publishing house Would you characterize The Facto as an academic, journalistic or popular publisher? I reckon it's the latter, which means the book probably never went through independent peer review.
12. The book is a collection of essays by 14 authors I find it curious that so many of our discussions here - in this and related articles - result in the same names popping up: Chodakiewicz, Gontarczyk, Radzilowski, Stachura, Musial (also in German) and Mark Paul - another contributor who you forgot to mentions, but we'll get back to him later - a small cadre of cross-referencing scholars, who - unlike Timothy Snyder - aren't well known or well regarded outside Poland. I've linked the articles, so lay readers can get an idea of their positions (academic and other) on their own.
13. Just last year, both Icewhiz and K.e.coffman concocted a similar attempt to discredit a major book You'll notice K.e.coffman used the edit summary to direct editors to the TP; following that link shows a very different picture than what you're trying to portray: first off, the removal was actually done by Pinkbeast [29] on grounds of POV, relevance and reliability; K.e.coffman supported it on grounds of language and usefulness to readers; and lastly Icewhiz joined, supporting it for his own reasons which you never bothered asking about (if you had, you'd have seen this diff). All of this took place after you added two links to Mark Paul [30] - the same Mark Paul from before - who's a pseudonymic writer of unknown provenance, who isn't considered an RS here.
14. The incessant attempts to smeer Chodakiewicz (and others mentioned) as “extremist” and “far right” are both hackneyed and unpersuasive When approaching Chod. one first has to ask: Do you think anyone who disagrees with him is a "neo-Stalinist"? Because Chod. seems to think so [31] (this he took from Radzilowski, from the same book you're citing). He also promoted the idea that Barack Obama is some sort of communist fanatic raised on Islam and extremist "Black power" ideologies [32]. That's not exactly "mainstream", is it?
15. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization The SPLC is WP:GREL as far as Wikipedia is concerned [33]. If you want to argue against it, go to WP:RSN.
16. SPLC has no credentials to pass judgment on historical writing It doesn't, nor does anyone claim it does. The SPLC records extremists and extremist groups who are in the public eye, and Chod. certainly is given his political activities and popular writings. This is relevant to how we treat him as an historian as well, but even if it didn't - he received plenty of criticisms from within the field as well (see "reviews" and "criticisms" sections here).
17. Suffice it to point out that Chodakiewicz’s monograph... is cited and relied on by Peter Longerich No one said Chod. is always wrong, or never produced worthwile literature, and it's perfectly acceptable for Longerich to accept a particular narrative of the Jedwabne events and cite sources that support it. However, it doesn't change the fact that Chod.'s works are heavily criticized and haven't gained much traction outside of a narrow circle of like-minded scholars.
18. Gorczycka-Muszynska’s treatment of the legislative framework is not inconsistent with Skibinska’s, Meng’s or Cichopek-Gajraj, it is simply clearer, more accurate, and much more authoritative Maybe, but if it's published in a book that as far as we know did not go through independent peer review, then we've only your word to trust on its authoritativeness? Regardless, if it's not inconsistent with the other sources' - that is, we're not liable to introduce fallacies or inaccuracies by using them rather than it - then there's no real reason not to use them, if they suit us in other respects.
19. Because, as the book notes, she is a retired judge so she is far better placed to discuss Polish legislation than historians That's... arguable.
20. I can't comment on your claims regarding the discussion surrounding Gorczycka-Muszynska's use as a source here, as they lack context and I can't find them in the thread.
21. As Gorczycka-Muszynska notes... I'm not seeing anything in this par. that contradicts anything written by the other sources, or that's even relevant to this discussion. The Communist land reform isn't the subject of this article.
22. Alina Skibinska mentions a 1947 memorandum... We have other documents to this, and other effects. We also have some sources that explain that the realization of these policies was lacking.
23. Yet another misrep by Icewhiz I'm not seeing you actually disagree with Icewhiz. What did he misrepresent?
24. "other persons holding themselves out as such". In other words... Jews posing as Jewish owners or their relatives How does "other persons" in the source become "Jews" in your claim?
25. If the Jews believed otherwise, i.e., that you could make money buying these properties, they would be scooping them up themselves Again it's your understanding of events, not any of the sources' (see #4 in the previous thread), and it's suggestive as to what you yourself believe: that Jews coming back from the wastelands of the Holocaust had money, and choice - maybe even some "inside knowledge" - and just "preferred" to sell their homes, their businesses - whatever little they could've had - to strangers. This could not be further from the truth.

François Robere (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Laurence Weinbaum, who continues to be cited in the article, is not a RS. His essay in the book “The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust" (New York University Press, 2000), is dated, refers to no sources in the brief treatment of postwar property, and is replete with flagrant errors (p.101). Unclaimed “abandoned” property was nationalized not at the end of 1948, but at the end of 1955 (Gorczycka-Muszynska, Golden Harvest, p. 228; Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence, p. 73.) The claim that “except for individual cases, the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from DP camps” in contradicted by leading Holocaust historians. (Yehuda Bauer estimates that some 15,000 Jews returned to Poland from camps in Germany. See The Nazi Holocaust: Historical Articles on the Destruction of the European Jews, volume 9 (Westport, CT, 1989), p. 527.) There was no new succession law enacted on October 8, 1947. Intestate succession (under the law of March 8, 1946) was not “restricted to father, mother, descendants and the surviving spouse,” but also included siblings and grandparents. Weinbaum managed to make all these errors in just ten lines. As for Jewish returnees from the Soviet Union, Weinbaum failed to notice that many of them settled in the territories acquired from Germany and “receive[ed] material compensation on the same basis as Polish resettlers from the East.” (Dariusz Stola, Robbery and Restitution, Berghahn Books & United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2007, p. 244). Not surprisingly, neither the latter book, nor Meng’s Shattered Spaces, nor Cichopek-Gajraj’s Beyond Violence refer to Weinbaum’s article (based on a Google search). Moreover, Weinbaum is not an independent historian. He is the mouthpiece of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), for whom he works as a research and editorial officer. The WJC is a decidedly Jewish nationalist organization with an aggressive restitution agenda. Israel Singer, the Secretary General of the WJC at the time, who wrote the preface to this book, declared that Poland would be “publicly attacked and humiliated” unless it gave into Jewish restitution demands. Avi Beker, the editor of this book, is the Director of International Affairs of the WJC and Executive Director of the Israel Office. It’s clearly a POV effort.

I had another look at Robere’s long and growing list of queries and have come to the conclusion that any significant matters they raise have already been amply addressed in my lengthy posts. Suffice it to say that a scholarly consensus has emerged among historians who have actually carried out in-depth research into court records -- Krzysztof Urbański, Grzegorz Miernik, Stanisław Meducki, Adam Kopciowski, Sebastian Piątkowski, Mariusz Bechta, Alina Skibińska, Łukasz Krzyżanowski -- that large quantities of property were returned to Jews in 1945-1948 throughout Poland. The historians that claim otherwise have carried out no such research and appear to be aware of this body of highly reliable scholarship.Tatzref (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'appear NOT to be aware"? Klucze... is a relatively new work, and it is published just in Polish, so scholars who don't read Polish can be mostly justified for not being aware of it.

As for Weinbaum, I think you make a good points his research is contradicted by more recent and better researched sources. But I wouldn't discount him due to ties to WJC. Many scholars are biased and have ties to NGOs or such. If we were to call him unreliable solely based on his biases, we would have to remove, for example, most sources about Polish-American Congress from the PAC article, as most of the Polish-American scholars writing about PAC are also tied to it. Or, for example, the most reliable study on the International Sociological Association is based on the study commissioned and published by ISA itself... it's a slippery slope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And here the writer declares his intention to ignore his critiques and declares, out of the blue, that "consensus has been achieved". I will note that of the eight names the writer repeatedly quotes - Urbański, Miernik etc. - only one (Skibińska) has been discussed in this thread; for all of the others combined I could find only one more quote anywhere in the thread. This, again, is what we call "name dropping"; if the writer is serious about proving his point, let him give accurate citations and quotes (per WP:NOENG) for all eight, as I did with several sources in the section below.

Lastly, again the writer makes unsubstantiated claims against Jews and their representatives; let the reader deduce what they may. François Robere (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor's ORish opinion on Weinbaum, a well respected and cited researcher published by reputable publishers - Palgrave in this case. That Weinbaum also works in WJC is of little consequence to his published research, and does not indicate any particular bias. Outside of the far-right conspiracy circles (i.e. Protocols of Zion style smears), the WJC is generally well regarded as a reputable organization. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

More sources

Allow me to introduce a few more sources and quotes to the discussion:

Extended content

Bazyler, Michael; Gostynski, Szymon (2018). "Restitution of Private Property in Postwar Poland: The Unfinished Legacy of the Second World War and Communism". Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 41 (3): 273. Retrieved 2019-05-12. "After the war, many Jewish survivors left the country never to return, and those who stayed were often threatened if they attempted to recover their property."" (Citing Monika Krawczyk) "Krawczyk further describes how people manipulated the Polish legal system in the early post-war years by getting false witnesses to confirm the death of former Jewish property owners so that persons who were not the rightful heirs could purchase the property. These false acts prevented real heirs from being able to make legitimate claims." (Quoting Kraw.) "After liberation from the German occupation, assets lost by the Jews during the war could be reclaimed. This was facilitated formally by the legislation passed in the early years of independence. However, it was far easier, in practical terms, for Jews returning from camps or from hiding to regain possession of their property in large towns and cities than in small towns and villages. Jews returning to their family homes tended to find other families already living there, and they were often met with aggression, death threats or even murder. Exhuming mass graves and stripping corpses was the final form of plunder of Jewish property by their Polish neighbors. Terrified by such behavior, Polish Jews would often decide to leave the country in search of a new future abroad." (Quoting Halik Kochanski) "The state passed a series of decrees during 1945 which placed ‘abandoned and formerly German properties’ under state administration, but many of these ‘abandoned’ properties had been owned by Jews, who faced the prospect of court action against the state to reclaim them." The paper also criticizes Poland for being "the only EU country and the only former Eastern European communist state not to have enacted [a restitution] law," but rather "a patchwork of laws and court decisions promulgated from 1945-present." The post-socialist city: urban form and space transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after socialism. GeoJournal Library. Kiril Stanilov (ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. 2007. ISBN 978-1-4020-6053-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) Similar criticism of a lack of defining legislation on the matter Numbers the total restitution (or "re-privatization") claims filed in Poland by 1992 at 65,000. States in several places that, due to socio-political reasons, the Catholic church, trade unions and other "major organization" received preferential treatment on this matter. It later states that: "The flexible and highly individualized regulations... have promoted the advance of clientelism as oftentimes the procedures that quickly lead to successful restitutions may not be traced back... Once established, the dominance of powerful individuals or certain interest groups may hardly be reversed. This situation works to the disadvantage of claimants who possess little social resources and few contacts with the higher-ups." And yet later: "Why, for instance, has the Catholic Church been restored its property while Jewish individuals and institutions have to take court action with no promise of success? In Poland, re-privatization is primarily settled in administrative courts, which demands a lot of activity on the part of the claimant and therefore privileges those who are able to mobilize a large quantity of economic, social, and political resources." Stola, Dariusz (2008). "The polish debate on the holocaust and the restitution of property". Robbery and restitution: the conflict over Jewish property in Europe. pp. 240–255. ISBN 978-1-306-54603-4. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help) "The authors of the [1945 and 1946] decrees did not conceal the fact that these restrictions had been imposed with, among other things, the possessions of murdered Jews in mind. During the debate in the Krajowa Rada Narodowa [National Council] (KRN), a temporary legislative body set up by the communists, the restrictions were justified, among other reasons, by a warning that without them there was a danger of enormous wealth being concentrated in a few hands. Such a concentration of wealth would, the proponents of the restrictions claimed, firstly be unjust and economically unproductive and, secondly, cause a rise in antisemitism. Therefore, the combination of low survival rates (i.e., the efficiency of the Nazi “Final Solution” in Poland) and the restrictions imposed by the 1945 decree meant that most of the property of the victims of the Holocaust was classified as “abandoned.” Consequently, it came under state administration and after a time (five to ten years) was nationalized." "Even if someone from the restricted circle of direct heirs had survived the war, there were many difficulties preventing them from regaining their inheritance." The author mentions the need to prove the claimant is the last remaining hair of a (now deceased) owner as one of those difficulties, and continues with a sad and absurd anecdote which I encourage you to read in the original (p. 245). "The fact that various persons took over “formerly Jewish” property without acquiring a legal title had a fundamental influence on Polish-Jewish relations after the war. Jewish people who returned to their apartments or shops often came up against the open hostility of those who had taken over these assets at the time of German occupation, convinced that the Jewish owners would never return. Accounts of homecoming Jews being threatened, assaulted, and even murdered are sufficiently frequent in survivor accounts and official reports published by Jewish organizations in the first years after the war that one may assume that such events were quite common. Nevertheless, they should not be interpreted as simply a continuation of prewar anti-Jewish behavior... " Similar criticism as before on lack of comprehensive restitution law. Notes "prejudice against and antipathy toward Jews still present in Polish society" (2008) as another difficulty standing in the path of restitution, specifically to owners or heirs who are foreign nationals. "This is fed by marginal, but obsessively active antisemitic organizations and publishers, and it is sometimes exploited or tolerated by more prominent factions and political figures." And later: "The question of restitution is in many ways connected to the question of Polish-Jewish relations, their history and remembrance, but particularly to the attitude of the Poles to the Holocaust." (for more info on the current situation, see Jewish space in contemporary Poland. Erica T. Lehrer, Michael Meng (eds.). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 2015. ISBN 978-0-253-01506-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)). Cichopek-Gajraj, Anna (2014). Beyond violence: Jewish survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944-48. New studies in European history. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6. Notes that in the first few months of 1945 restitution (or something to that effect) may have been easy, but as early as August 1945 the JOINT that "the new economic tendency of the Polish government... is against, or at least makes difficulties in, getting back the Jewish property robbed by the German authorities." "Undoubtedly, Polish restitution law [as of 1947] was as generous on paper as it could have been at the start of nationalization and land reform in Eastern Europe... The implementation of the restitution law, however, was uneven and contingent on the region and the rural or urban character of a community. More property was returned in the urban centers than in the countryside, but even in cities restitution was far from successful. In the villages and small towns... restitution was almost non-existent as Jewish survivors were to scared to pursue their claims. Murders were not uncommon as Jews were easy targets - lone individuals with no community to protect them." Case in point: Abram Berliński from Jastrzębie: "He had a mill which he was able to recover in 1945. In April 1945, an armed group broke into his house. Berliński and his relatives escaped to the forest. The relatives were later hunted down and killed. The local authorities concluded that the attackers wanted the mill. Soon after, Berliński left the village for good and a leaser took over his property. Then follow several reasons for why survivors in the cities might not have wished to, or couldn't, go through the process of reclamation, which conclude with "only a small fraction of survivors, perhaps a few thousand, perhaps less, attempted to go through the troubles of restitution." "Municipalities administered most abandoned and nationalized property after the war, and were the foremost obstacle in the urban restitution... Municipalities could also sell property if maintenance was too expensive... more often, however, the municipality 'assigned' the property management to well-connected individuals or public institutions." Proceeds to suggest that Jews were at a distinct disadvantage compared to non-Jews with respect to restitution: "The Association of Jewish Artisans... struggled to take physical possession of its prewar building, [which was[ administered by the municipal department of social welfare [and] was allocated to nuns... The nuns did not want to leave the building even after the district court ruled in favor of the Association... The Association was reluctant to use force, fearing a rise in antisemitism if 'the Jews kicked out' nuns." The source then gives various details on the fees and records that were required to file a restitution request during the early years following the war, which were expensive and difficult to obtain, and usually required CKŻP aid. But apparently even those weren't enough: "Having found the necessary records and witnesses, hired good lawyers and paid fees, and even having won their case in court, a claimant could still not be certain of success. The so-called 'interest of the state economy' and 'public interest' clauses were most commonly cited to prevent restitution." Gross, Jan Tomasz (2007). Fear: anti-semitism in Poland after Auschwitz ; an essay in historical interpretation. A Random House trade paperback (Random House trade paperback ed ed.). New York, NY: Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-6746-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Notes the difficulty faced by Jews who, during the war, gave various items to neighbours and friends for safekeeping, only to discover when they returned that they refuse to give them back. Notes that many of these cases ended in court, and the filers often asked that the case be adjudicated even in their absence: "For already in May 1945... Jews were running away from Poland, fleeing for their lives to, of all places, Germany." And later: "One would wish for a climate of compassion, especially among close acquaintances, toward the few returnees whose communities and families had just suffered an unspeakable calamity. But compassion was absent. Indeed, there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise. This is why Jews who dared to pursue the matter had to resort to the courts." And then: "Jewish property had been taken by people all around, and it was not a specifically Polish behavior by any means... But there had been many more Jews in Poland than anywhere else, many more had been killed, and therefore the phenomenon was much more widespread." He then gives several disturbing accounts that I suggest reading in the original. Denburg, Stephen A. (1998). "Reclaiming Their Past: A Survey of Jewish Efforts to Restitute European Property". Third World Law Journal. 18 (2): 233. Notes the relative ease with which the Catholic church managed to reclaim some of its property - by means of a designated law - and how "unlike the restitution of Church property, the idea of returning property to former Jewish owners has been met with a decided lack of enthusiasm from both the general Polish population as well as the government." He does not ascribe it necessarily to "latent antisemitism", but a popular fear that "restitution would only return Poland's upper class to their prewar social status" seems unsatifactory, and is suggestive of underlying prejudice. Notes that the Polish gov. had only recently (1998) and "grudgingly" started moving towards restitution of communal Jewish property for reasons of "international stature" and "foreign investment."

Other than that, I of course completely agree with Icewhiz. Tatzref is trying to introduce here a false narrative based on careful cherry-picking, and mostly fails to address the criticism. As an obvious example, take his quote of The American Jewish Year Book of 1947 [34]: When confronted with a conflicting quote from the year book of the following year [35] he completely ignores the contradiction, instead trying to deflect the criticism (in a completely off-topic fashion) towards the Jews [36], before again quoting the same source that was just contradicted [37]! Draw what conclusion that you may from this. François Robere (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, and we can discuss what to include from these, but in the meantime, please don't remove *other* material that's also based on reliable sources from the article. Your mischaracterizations of Tatzref's extended and exhaustive explanation for their edits is quite simply wrong. For example you write that he "tries to deflect the criticism "towards the Jews"". You italicize the phrase "towards the Jews" as if it was a quotation from Tatzref or something. And you back it up with this diff. Except... there's nothing "towards the Jews" in there. In fact, it's kind of hard to figure out what exactly you're going on about since that comment is very long. There's 5+8=13 points there. I don't even know which one you're objecting to. It looks more like you're just making a random accusation (insinuation?) then slapping a random diff at the end. That's not how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See #5 in that diff - out of the blue comes an accusation that Jews "racket" in property not their own, which is completely irrelevant to what he was asked in the corresponding section (#5) of the previous message, and he never actually replies to what he was asked. He did read it and he did "aim" for it - as evident by the reference to "communal property", which first appears there - but he didn't address the actual contradiction before repeating the quote in his next message. Now please, tell me more about misrepresentation! François Robere (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• WP:STABLE - As there is clearly WP:NOCONSENSUS to include Tatzref's recent additions (due to use of a highly fringe self-published source, use (or rather misuse) of non-English sources that are grossly misrepresented, and ommision of mainstream scholarship on the topic) - we should revert, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, back to the WP:STABLE version in existence prior to this bold modification.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  Grabowski, pages 192-195 - has a description on the theft and distribution of Jewish property under German occupation.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  page 230 - interesting comparison to Thessaloniki (Greece) - "The case of Thessaloniki could not be compared to the magnitude of that of Poland, owing to the depth, pervasiveness, and violence of Polish antisemitism. An analogy is, however, valid, in so far as in both cases entire societies benefited from he takeover of Jewish property. A correlation to the new stratum that arose in postwar Poland as a result of this practice can be found in Thessaloniki as well, despite the absence of pogroms in the latter..Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per Icewhiz's. For more you may read my comments above, duly numbered and mostly unanswered by the other editor. Assuming they will so remain, I support restoring WP:STABLE and moving on from there on a source-by-source basis. François Robere (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP vio

Tatzref added the following comment in a recent edit: "Based on research into court records, Lukasz Krzyzanowski concludes that... Based on no research, Michael Meng speculates that...". This unsubstantiated claim is a glaring violation of WP:BLP against Michael Meng, Associate Professor of History at UNC-Chapel Hill [38]. I've reverted the change. François Robere (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite a serious accusation vs. an author of a highly cited book (published 2011, cited 79 times) - perhaps one the most cited ones in the past decade on this topic. The author holds an academic post in Clemson - an academic research institution with a good reputation. Contrast this source with a self-published book (in English, Polish original (with rather ugly imagery on the cover) published by the very-very small (and new) The Facto - which as one can see in their publications - list on bookdepository - are generally not academic to say the least) - coupled with WP:OR and misrepresentations of non-English sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We generally don't say stuff like this. If we can't figure out what Meng used for his research, we just attribute it to him, and that's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Krzyżanowski

This edit, with the edit summary "why was Łukasz Krzyżanowski's quote removed? All points of view should be represented here" is unacceptable. For starters - WP:NOENG is Wikipedia policy - we have better English language sources available than this microhistory. Furthermore, this is a gross misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski to say that "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned", when the page actually reads:

1. Trudno powiedzieć, czy przedstawione tutaj trzy przypadki prób sądownego odzyskania mienia ruchomego należącego do polskich Zydów można uznać za typowe, czy byty one raczej wyjątkami. Sprawy dotyczące ruchomości niewątpliwie należą do rzadkości wśród dokumentacji sądów grodzkich zarówno w Radomiu, jak i Kaliszu. Przeważająca większość zachowanych akt dotyczy budynków i placów. Wydaje się prawdopodobne, że mienie ruchome polskich Żydów, inaczej lriż nieruchomości, było odzyskiwane CIeśli w ogóle) bez pośrednictwa państwa i sądów, przezbezpośrednie porozumienie się ocalalych zprzetrzymującymi terzeczy Polakami8o. Zasad,ne wydaje się również twierdzenie, iż większość należących do Żydów przedmiotów, które w czasie wojny znalazły się w polskich rękach, nigdy tych rąk nie opuściła i być może nawet do dziś są one przekazywane kolejnym pokoleniom jako pamiątki rodzinne. PeIniejsze opisanie losów żydowskiego mienia ruchomego w powojennej Polsce wymaga wykorzystania innych źródeł niż akta sądowe. Chcąc zglębić ten temat, należaloby zwróc\ć się ku dokumentom osobistym i relacjom.". Google translate: "It is difficult to say whether the three examples of attempts at judicial retrieval of movable property belonging to Polish Jews can be considered typical or rather exceptions. Cases regarding movables are undoubtedly a rarity among the documentation of municipal courts in both Radom and Kalisz. The vast majority of preserved files concern buildings and squares. It seems likely that movable property of Polish Jews, otherwise less real estate, was recovered if at all) without the mediation of the state and courts, by direct communication between survivors and Poles who refused the thesis. The principle also seems to claim that the majority of items belonging to Jews, which were in Polish hands during the war, never left these hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes. A more detailed description of the fate of Jewish movable property in post-war Poland requires the use of other sources than court files. If you want to explore this topic, you should turn to personal documents and relationships.".
2. "Nie sposób określić calkowitej liczby przypadków odzyskania mienia prywatnego przez Żydów tuż po drugiej wojnie światowej w Radomiu i Kaliszu. Na podstawie akt sądowych z obu miast można wnioskować, iż posiadanie, nie własność, stosunkowo dużej liczby nieruchomości zostało przywrócone ocalałym z Zagłady, którzy powrócili do miejsc swojego pochodzenia8l. Chcąc odzyskać majątki swoje lub swojej rodziny, Zydzi musieli stoczyć walkę z regulacjami ograniczającymi prawa osób pozbawionych majątku orazprzezwyciężyć wiele innych przeszkód. Ze wzgędu na biedę ocalałych, masową emigrację większości z nich z Polski orazbard,zo skomplikowaną sytuację, w jakiej po 1945 r. znalazło się wiele żydowskich nieruchomości, większość odzyskanych majątków była natychmiast odsprzedawana Polakom. Na szybkiej sprzedaży zależalo także członkom grup przestępczych zajmujących się nielegalnym przejmowaniem żydowskich nieruchomości. Przypadki restytucji majątków uznanych przez państwo za ,,opuszczolle" nie zmienialy więc ogólnego trendu przechodzenia wlasności żydowskiej w ręce nieżydowskie. Zjawisko to może być uznane za ostatni etap procesu przewłaszczenia, który rozpoczął się na ziemiach polskich w czasie okupacji niemieckiej i trwal jeszcze po wojnie. Zapoczątkowany przez Niemców i kontynuowany po wyzwoleniu transfer wlasności spotkał się z aprobatą wielu Polaków, którzy stali się posiadaczami mienia żydowskiego. Proces ten odpowiadał również powojennemu reżimowi komunistycznemu, ld6ry dążyI do utworzenia homogenicznego i monoetnicznego państwa82" Google translate: "It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin8. In order to reclaim their own or their family's assets, the Jews had to fight against regulations limiting the rights of persons deprived of property and to overcome many other obstacles. Because of the poverty of the survivors, the mass emigration of most of them from Poland and Warsaw, with the complicated situation in which many Jewish properties found their way after 1945, most of the recovered properties were immediately resold to Poles. The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate. The cases of restitution of estates declared by the state as "abandoned" did not change the general trend of Jewish ownership in non-Jewish hands, which may be considered the last stage of the expropriation process that began in the Polish territories during the German occupation and continued after the war. The transfer of ownership, initiated by the Germans and continued after the liberation, met the approval of many Poles who became the owners of Jewish property. This process was also in line with the post-war communist regime, which tended to create a homogeneous and mono-ethnic state82.

Such a misrepresentation of an academic work of scholarship - attributed on Wikipedia - is to the point of being a WP:BLP vio towards Krzyżanowski.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition, Krzyżanowski states in his conclusion in pages 606-607 in the next two paragraphs:

1. The nationalization of medium and large business. Krzyżanowski states that Jewish property was different in that it was deemed as "abandoned" and taken directly from the wartime actions of the Germans.
2. In some properties Poland approved the status-quo setup by the Nazi regime - concluding that - and lets quote thsi - "W ten sposób polskie państwo stalo się beneficjentem wymordowania milionów swoich żydowskich obywateIi, którym przed śmiercią odebrano caly ich majątek." - google translate - "In this way, the Polish state became the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death.
3. The Polish state actively sought to takeover a substantial portion of "abandoned" (quotes in original) property, and introduced legislation limiting restitution.
4. Krzyżanowski notes that while legislation didn't differentiate on ethnicity, the great destruction of the Jewish community created differences. He also notes the "huge scale of material consequences" that continue to persist until today.

Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also - I will note that Krzyżanowski, as many other reputable Polish scholars, has also published in English. Specifically Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. is a journal article, in English, covering Kalisz one of the two towns he wrote about in Polish in Klucze i kasa. Some quotes:

1. "In July 1946, the District Jewish Committee in Kalisz received a letter stating that the Jewish community must either leave the city by 25 August or ‘more will be done to them than was done in Kielce’.4" ... "However, one can clearly understand that Jewish returnees could feel threatened, especially considering that a few months earlier a similar letter issued to survivors in Warta, a town 40 kilometres away from Kalisz, was followed by the murder of two Jews who had ignored the ultimatum.42 Furthermore, Jewish survivors in Kalisz were conscious of the numerous murders, attacks and other hostile acts targeting Jews that were occurring in many locations....
2. Top of conclusion: "The existing archival material demonstrates that a group of Holocaust survivors exerted great effort in order to re-settle in Kalisz immediately after the war..."
3. Bottom of conclusion "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...." (ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa) - "These processes broke the survivors’ social networks and resulted in the disappearance of the Jewish community in post-war Kalisz and in many other Polish towns..

Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Two quick notes: 1) It wasn't actually removed - I've intended to cite him, but going through the mess of the thread above accidentally cited Skibińska instead [39]. I've now corrected that and cite both where intended [40]. 2) I assume good faith on the side of the restorer [41]; this blatant misrepresentation of the source was introduced to this discussion not by him, but by Tatzref. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: - I suggest you combine the unattributed fragment of Krzyżanowski (for which you've now corrected the citation), to the long attributed segment of Krzyżanowski in the same paragraph. Introducing BLP vios of this magnitude (which turn a scholar's work 180 degrees around) are beyond good faith, particularly when - the restorer was well aware that this was being challenged as being a misrepresentation - as should anyone editing the article (as evident in the edit summaries, and on the talk page). Krzyżanowski's conclusion from his 2018 paper that "difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property" was one of the factors (coupled with "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz") that caused Jews to leave the smaller towns (for large cities and/or out of Poland all together) may be worth incorporating. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - in your mass revert, you restored - "Overall, it is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back. Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned" - combined diff. This is a misrepresentation, to the point of being potentially defamatory to a well regarded scholar such as Krzyżanowski, and is not a reasonable summary of his conclusion (which for court records specifically is limited to Radom and Kalisz) in pages 605-607 - as quoted above. Please provide a rationale for this edit here. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"to the point of being potentially defamatory" - first off, cut out the hysterical hyperbole. Even if you disagree with it, it's not "defamatory". Stop being ridiculous. That kind of false rhetoric signals a lack of good faith in your approach to achieving consensus. It is also NOT a misrepresentation as he states this explicitly. Yes, he also notes other aspects of the phenomenon. And that can potentially be added - feel free to propose appropriate wording - but that's no excuse to remove this well sourced info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Presenting Krzyżanowski's conclusion in this manner is potentially defamatory to Krzyżanowski - as his conclusion does not support the text currently attributed to him.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Just the other day you claimed criticizing Ch. is a WP:BLP violation [42]. Why the change of heart on "hysterical hyperbole"?

BLP is intended for stuff that a) might ruin a person's life; b) might get Wikipedia (and by extension Wikimedia) involved in a libel case. Claiming a source said A when in fact they said B can be a BLP violation. François Robere (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The principle also seems to claim that the majority of items belonging to Jews, which were in Polish hands during the war, never left these hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes.

The majority of items belonging to Jews were taken by the German state and German people. A reader isn't informed about it. Similarly many items belonging to ethnic Poles never left German hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes. Portrait of a Young Man (Raphael), https://plus.gazetawroclawska.pl/polski-orzelek-zaginiony-podczas-ii-wojny-swiatowej-na-niemieckiej-aukcji/ar/c1-14143315

Many items belonging to Jews after several years of German occupation were worn out clothes and linen, sometimes rags, taken by extremaly poor people. The items don't exist any more.

Polish Communists obtained after the war items belonging to Poles, Jews or Germans. Some of the Communists were Jewish. https://www.empik.com/my-dzieci-komunistow-naszkowska-krystyna,p1222329247,ksiazka-p

House of my grandparents was plundered by Polish neighbours, like thousands of manors. The items are still family keepsakes in the neighbourhood. I bet that the problem isn't mentioned in this Wikipedia. Are Jewish items more important than non-Jewish ones?

Jews paid for food in ghettos and for help outside. Similarly Poles living in cities paid for food.

Valuable items were subject of trade, so any opinion about keepsakes is pure speculation.

Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

fight against regulations limiting the rights of persons deprived of property - the same rights worked for Jews and non-Jews. Some of the rights were written by Hilary Minc, who wasn't a Polish nationalist.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Skibińska

The other chapter misrepresented from Klucze i kasa is by Alina Skibińska. While this is self evident from reading the chapter in Polish (and heck - even from quotations of the chapter) - a simpler approach is possible here as Skibińska has given an interview on her post-Holocaust research in Szczebrzeszyn - in English - over here. Quoting from the interview:

1. "In the small towns where there were a few thousand Jews, there were hundreds of empty houses left after the war. Without Jewish inhabitants. It is estimated that 10% of Polish Jews survived the war. Out of these 10%, only a few decided to claim their rights and regain the houses. Many of the houses were taken over by the Polish state and individuals along the way, which nowadays we would describe as illegal, because the Jewish owners didn’t lose their rights. .... Also, there are cases that they not only took over the houses, but also took an active part in the earlier process of killing the owners. .... There are still places where people live in such houses and know about their past ...
2. "Let’s take Szczebrzeszyn, as I have conducted a thorough research there. Before the war more than 40% of inhabitants were Jewish. They lived in the very center of the town. Then such a visible social group “disappears”, as a matter of fact most of them were murdered on the spot. The houses were empty and very quickly other people moved in. After the war, they did not feel any obligation to move out, just because an old owner came back. To make it worse, Jews who managed to regain property in the courts, regained it together with the inhabitants. What were they supposed to do with them, when they refused to move out? They could go to court again, but it led to further tension and conflicts. What happens when in such a small town, where everyone know each another, suddenly a few dozens of people come back and want their property back?"
3. "It is obvious that the new inhabitants would prefer that the previous owners never come back, because they were facing either conflict and court or a need to pay for the house. It was often the case – a property regained in court was immediately sold to the inhabitants."
4. "Those Jews who decided to stay stayed in the same town but in different houses or flats. In Szczebrzeszyn, there was the case of Jankiel Grojser, who inherited two houses. He regained the houses and sold them. He stayed in Szczebrzeszyn until his death in 1974, but never had his own place again. I have wondered for a long time why he sold the houses and I reached conclusion that he had no choice, as the houses were already inhabited. Otherwise, he would face conflicts or even physical violence..

Skibińska's summmary of her research, in English, is quite different from contents attributed to her in the Wikipedia article. Skibińska places an emphasis on the murder and violence towards Jews who claimed properties - which intimidated and deterred heirs from even entering claims - "only a few decided to claim their rights". She stresses that even when Jews received a court ruling in their favor, this did not result in the eviction of the Polish residents who had illegally obtained the house - which coupled with the tangible possibility of violence left no choice but to sell. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It also bears mention that Skibińska authored a chapter (a bit of a misnomer - a 192 page long chapter....) in the 2018 Dalej jest noc on the Biłgoraj powiat which included Szczebrzeszyn during the occupation (Szczebrzeszyn being of significance since Zygmunt Klukowski lived there, and Skibińska wanted to know if his writings could be extrapolated to elsewhere). While 192 pages in Polish is a tad long (to the point that summary would be OR) - Skibińska gave this interview summarizing her research, which includes - " Jeśli chodzi o inne miasteczka w tym powiecie, to schemat się powtarza, było tak jak w Szczebrzeszynie, ogromne zaangażowanie miejscowych w wyłapywaniu Żydów w trakcie samych akcji, w grabieniu mienia – to się powtórzyło we wszystkich miastach." - (google translate): "As for other towns in this poviat, the pattern repeats itself, it was like in Szczebrzeszyn, the huge involvement of locals in catching Jews during the actions themselves, in the raking of property - it happened again in all cities. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

On #1: "One could even identify a normative order of sorts regulating access to plundered Jewish property. The governing rule was simple: those who were more intimately involved with dispossessing the Jews had a better claim on the goods than anyone else. Thus, when Helena Klimaszewska, from the village of Goniᾳdz, went to nearby RadziƗow to get an apartment for her in-laws—she knew there were vacancies there after the Jews had been killed—she was rebuffed by a certain Feliks Godlewski (she told the story during a deposition at his trial after the war) who reproached the claimants for not having been there when people were needed to kill the Jews, and only showing up later to ask for apartments. “You could have killed 10 Jews and you would have gotten a house,” she quoted him as saying at the time. Her mother-in-law protested that the family had made a contribution on that day as her grandson, Jozef Ekstowicz, was the one who had climbed on the barn where the Jews were assembled and doused its roof with gasoline." (Gross, Jan T., Fear, 2006)

On #3 (mentioned earlier, and part of it quoted in the article): "Irrespective of how personal disputes over bedding or furniture were resolved by the courts, it is telling that the few returning Jews had to use the courts to press such claims. On the other hand, we can also appreciate the sense of bad luck among the likes of Chrapczyńska (the woman unwilling to hand back two eiderdowns and four pillows in Ożarow). Why did “her” Jew have to come back from the dead while all the others, most of the others in any case, had disappeared and wouldn’t bother the neighbors who also stocked up on Jewish stuff? One would wish for a climate of compassion, especially among close acquaintances, toward the few returnees whose communities and families had just suffered an unspeakable calamity. But compassion was absent. Indeed, there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise. This is why Jews who dared to pursue the matter had to resort to the courts." (there)

François Robere (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

General level article

This is a general level article. All kinds of details and speculations and academic arguments belong in dedicated article on the subject, not here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly - we should follow academic sources, in English, published in reputable publishers, that treat Poland as a whole - e.g. Meng and Cichopek-Gajraj - as opposed to microhistories or non-academic writing self-published by SPLC designated individuals. Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I write something about this being a general level article. You respond with your tired, debunked, no-consesus and frankly absurd "interpretation" of WP:ENG. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No, actually Icewhiz is right. Half of the discussion in the above thread was about using "microhistories" - analyses of local accounts, local statistics etc. that attempt to draw conclusions for the entirety of Poland from a limited source pool (later it turned out the representation of those histories to us was, but to a handful of sentences, completely false). If you insist that it's a "general level article", then these shouldn't be used. As for WP:NOENG - what exactly is your interpretation of it? François Robere (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The crux of the issue here is whether “extremely few” properties were returned to Jews under the law on abandoned properties, as Michael Meng claims, or whether large numbers of properties were returned. A scholarly consensus has emerged among historians who have actually carried out in-depth research into court records of specific towns -- Krzysztof Urbański (Kielce), Grzegorz Miernik (Szydlowiec), Stanisław Meducki (Kielce), Adam Kopciowski (Zamosc & Wlodawa), Sebastian Piątkowski (Radom), Mariusz Bechta (Parczew), Alina Skibińska (Szczebrzeszyn), Łukasz Krzyżanowski (Radom & Kalisz) -- that “a relatively large number of properties” were returned to “relatively many Jews” in 1945-1948 throughout Poland. The conclusions of the latter group of historians are clear on this.

Alina Skibinska concludes: “The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, "that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it." (Klucze i kasa, p. 571). In Szczebrzeszyn, according to Skibinska’s examination of court records, at least one third of the properties were returned expeditiously.

Lukasz Krzyzanowski concludes: “It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of private property recovered by Jews in Radom and Kalisz shortly after the Second World War. On the basis of judicial files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin.” (Klucze i kasa, p. 605.)

Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.” (Z kroniki utraconego sąsiedztwa: Kielce, wrzesień 2000/From the Chronicle of the Lost Neighborhood: Kielce, September 2000, p. 202.)

On the other hand, Michael Meng and Anna Cichopek-Gajraj candidly admit they are not aware of the research on this matter and are merely guessing/speculating about the extent of property restitution based on suppositions--not hard facts. Cichopek-Gajraj: “I have no comprehensive statistics of how many houses and enterprises were returned to their rightful Jewish owners … these numbers must have been small.” (Beyond Violence, p. 86.) Meng: “It is impossible to guess how many Jews actually filed claims and of them how many then got their property back … But there is little doubt that the number was extremely small...” (p. 51-52.)

Clearly, the majority opinion is that many Jews successfully recovered properties, and that a large number of properties were recovered. As these historians also point out, almost all of these properties were quickly sold to Poles. That is the bottom line.Tatzref (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Tatzref (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Meng and Cichopek-Gajraj are published by reputable publishing houses and are making Poland-wide estimates based on their extensive research - as opposed to micro-histories that are making very local and very qualified (e.g. clearly qualifying fraud). As stated previously in a section above - you are grossly misrepresenting Krzyzanowski (in a microhistory on two medium towns) - as evident both in the Polish and in his later published English research - [Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. - "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...." (ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa). You are also grossly misrepresenting Skibinska (who is also writing on an extremely small town - 5000 residents) - who in Polish clearly qualifies her statement with "or other persons", elaborates on the widespread anti-Jewish violence (that deterred even placing claims, and forced Jews to sell "possession orders" to the invading tenants for pennies on the dollar) throughout the chapter. And again - this is clearly evident (beyond the Polish chapter as a whole) by Skibinska presenting her work in English - source - ". Many of the houses were taken over by the Polish state and individuals along the way, which nowadays we would describe as illegal, because the Jewish owners didn’t lose their rights. .... Also, there are cases that they not only took over the houses, but also took an active part in the earlier process of killing the owners. .... . To make it worse, Jews who managed to regain property in the courts, regained it together with the inhabitants. What were they supposed to do with them, when they refused to move out? They could go to court again, but it led to further tension and conflicts. ..... In Szczebrzeszyn, there was the case of Jankiel Grojser, who inherited two houses. He regained the houses and sold them. He stayed in Szczebrzeszyn until his death in 1974, but never had his own place again. I have wondered for a long time why he sold the houses and I reached conclusion that he had no choice, as the houses were already inhabited. Otherwise, he would face conflicts or even physical violence.".Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)