Talk:Kielce pogrom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

KGB involvment?

I agree that the following fragment needs sources before it can be put back into the text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Allegations have been made that this was part of a much wider action organized by the KGB in countries controlled by the Soviet Union, and that Soviet-dominated agencies like the Urząd Bezpieczeństwa were used in the preparation of the Kielce pogrom. But this sounds implausible since the Soviet Union was quite pro-Jewish before 1948

Exactly! And, due to Russophobic trends in Polish media, I would like to see something more solid than an article in some tabloid. Even allegation, to be encyclopedic, need to be voiced in at least remotedly serious place.

Why Lysy is insisting in putting such an incredulous unsourced claim in the article is beyond me. I've seen the claim in some internet forums that there were attempts of an alliance discussed between Beck and Hitler aimed at joint partitioning of the USSR. No source I've seen it in is serious enough to add this stuff to Jozef Beck article, even as an allegation. --Irpen 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any research sources for this at hand, but believe me, when I'm talking about widespread allegations, I do not mean some Internet forums, I thought you knew me better than this. I could easily provide Internet references from some nationalistic sites but I don't think this is what we need. I also do not suggest that these allegations were truthful. In fact I find them shameful for Poles, who always tried to find the guilt elsewhere (as the allegations of German involvement in Jedwabne massacre). Therefore I suggest that the {{fact}} tag stays until the source is provided. --Lysy^talk 00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I see you've already chosen to revert it instead :-( --Lysy^talk 00:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, what exactly is the link between this article and your mumbo-jumbo above? Sorry, but it is simply off topic here and looks like some sort of a personal crusade to promote your, fortunately rare, views that the Poles are Russophobic - in every single article, even completely unrelated with Russophobia.

As to the links between secret police and the pogrom, they are mentioned in almost all publications on the matter. Parts of my family originate from Kielce and I happen to have some of such books at hand. I'll add relevant sources as soon as I find the exact pages. Halibutt 00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said that all Poles are Russophobes. My phrase was about Polish press and even that was not about all of the Polish press. When I see some serious source discussing this allegation, or just a reference to it, I will have no objections to returning this to the article. The claim seems to me so ludicrous that I could not beleive it could be seriously made. But if I was wrong, it is just as well. Return it and a mention at talk of where you saw it is enough, no need to cite an exact page number in the article. --Irpen 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can any accusation of the Soviet authorities be not serious? They committed almost any crime possible. Xx236 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. As a matter of fact I never heard of direct KGB involvement. On the other hand most sources provide evidence that the UB and NKVD could indeed be interested in starting such a campaign of hatred - and that the secret police was indeed involved in the pogrom. Halibutt 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It was rather KNVD than KGB at that time. Xx236 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wrote above, Xx. //Halibutt 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I think KGB was used here as a generic term for Soviet security/intelligence services, as explained in the KGB article: The term KGB is also used in a more general sense to refer to the Soviet State Security organization since its foundation as the Cheka in 1917. --Lysy^talk 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Popularly in the west. In Russia it's always Cheka, even today.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kielce_pogrom&diff=111190944&oldid=110898776 --HanzoHattori 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

smuggled out illegally

The Communist authorities allowed the smuggling. With all due respect, elderly people and chldren weren't able to run away if trained border guards chased them. The guards shot many ethnic Poles and (probably) Ukrainians. Xx236 08:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of victims

I'm confused by the different versions on the number of victims. Some sources give 39 Jewish victims and 2 gentiles, other give 37, 40 or 42 Jews and 3 gentiles. Some claim that a Pole who attempted to prevent the massacre was murdered by militia or the Polish mob, while other claim that the Poles were killed by the Jews in self-defence. Any "official" numbers ? --Lysy^talk 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly (I am no expert), part of the problem is that some people were killed on that day in Kielce in a robbery or at least away from the main site of the pogrom, and it is not clear whether they should be counted among the victims or not. This article quoting the IPN prosecutor gives for the number killed 37 Jews (plus 35 wounded) and 3 Poles (furthremore, 2 Jews killed in a robbery are not counted since they were judged unrelated to the pogrom). I would go with those numbers.Balcer 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern research and reconciliation

I'm a bit unhappy about the sentence in "Modern research and reconciliation" section:

But this may also sound dubious since Soviet Union's policies were not anti-Semitic until the campaign against "rootless cosmopolitanism" started after 1948.

While I might agree or disagree with the statement itself, I think it should be sourced, as otherwise it seems to be a speculation of wikipedia editors, thus original research that we'd prefer to avoid especially in such a loaded article. --Lysy^talk 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs inline cit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On a second thought, I totally disagree with this overly naive reasoning. In Soviet Union NKVD did not have to be anti-Russian in order to kill Russians nor anti-Semitic to kill Jews. I've removed the sentence. --Lysy^talk 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Soviet anti-Semitism

I appreciate recent Irpen's clean up. I'm however going to remove the paragraph about the possibility of the Soviet Union's own anti-Semitic motives as irrelevant. Keeping this statement would falsely imply that there were some theories that attributed the mass murder to Soviet anti-Semitism. As far as I know, nobody ever assumed Soviet Union's own anti-Semitic motives as a driver behind the pogrom. --Lysy^talk 08:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You can rephrase it but I would object to the total removal. Lack of anti-Semitic record and the presence of the records to the contrary is relevant to the speculations of the involvement in the massacre of the Jews. --Irpen 08:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that there were (and still are) speculations about possible Soviet intelligence involvement in the pogrom, and this is mentioned in the article (personally I do not believe in such involvement, but this does not matter here). However none of these theories assumed that the alleged Soviet motivation would be anti-Semitism. They rather speculate that despite many Jewish people holding high positions in Communist security, they would be willing to sacrifice the lives of other innocent Jews only in order to achieve their perceived goals, which usually would be defaming Poles or distracting attention from some other events. The article explains a lot about these theories. Therefore there's no need to explain that official Soviet policy of that time was not anti-Semitic, as nobody denied that (in fact many believe that ir was very pro-Semitic). In fact such an explanation would be misleading, as it would indirectly suggest that there were some theories blaming the pogrom on Sovier anti-Semitism that need to be rebutted. --Lysy^talk 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So, does any of the editors involved here actually believe in the Soviet involvement in the pogrom? (I don't either) If not, why don't we move those speculations under the heading "Conspiracy theories about the pogrom", to make it perfectly clear that there is no credible evidence for these theories, only speculations based on guessing "who would gain". Balcer 09:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the heading, but as I did this, I thought that I might have been too quick to add it. This is quite judgmental and based on opinion of wiki-editors only. We should rather be presenting different theories in unbiased way, as long as they are supported by some of the scholarls. What do you think ? --Lysy^talk 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is based on the investigation of the IPN, clearly the most authoritative source, which found no solid evidence of outside involvement. Balcer 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I was surprised to hear historians from IPN (don't remeber their names) at least twice recently, who seemed to support the conspiracy versions of the events. --Lysy^talk 10:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some links to demonstrate this would be nice. Again, we must be careful here. Some IPN investigators do say that, as for any complex event, not everything about the Kielce Pogrom is perfectly understood, and some details or motivations may never be known. But this is normal for a complex event involving thousands of people 60 years ago. This is far from claiming that credible evidence exists for Soviet involvement. Balcer 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's not evidence to support this, other than circumstantial, and this is explained in the article. Yet some researchers continue to support the external inspiration theories. My concern is whether we should be judging it by "speculations" header, even if we believe these are unsubstantiated speculations. Maybe some other wording of the section header would be more appropriate. I wish IPN made an official statement upon concluding their investigation. Did they ? --Lysy^talk 11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to competing theories of who is the culprit here: the Soviet authorities and the anti-Semitic mob. Since the authors of the article chose to provide both a credible and the consipracy theory together, it is important to add who of the two had the history of anti-Semite actions and who hadn't. Since we are not making judgements and just provide the reader with the facts to decide which version he considers likely true, we need to show the reader the facts in their full context. --Irpen 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you have anti-Semitic mob in both cases. The only difference in the conspiracy version is that the anti-Semitic mob was pushed over the edge, so to speak, by secret service agents, who then failed to use military and police forces to stop the mob. I do agree that the credible version (spontaneous mob action) should be more clearly separated from the conspiracy theories about outside involvement. Balcer 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't is clearly separated already, as it is in a different section ? Right now, we have a section titles "speculations" which describes efforst based on circumstantial evidence and another section titled "Attempts of explanation", where IPN's prosecutor explains that after conducting the official investigation he believes that it was a spontaneous mob action. --Lysy^talk 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we could have a number of subsections under "Attempts of explanation". IPN would be one, Gross - another, etc. And if a source does not qualify as reputable, it should not be here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe IPN is fairly special here, because: they did the research, the investigation was official, and its purpose was finding facts. I'd assume that if they were able to trace any external inspirations, they would do it. Therefore lack of conclusion of their efforts is quite meaningful. The others however, including Gross, had their own agendas and tried to find facts to support their claims. Therefore they fit under "speculations" better. The reason for having this as another section was to separate the agenda-driven research from the (lack of) findings of the official investigation, as Balcer just suggested above. I'm not suggesting that IPN is all-knowing, but their research was substantial and their inability to charge anyone is a good conclusion. Gross goes further, as he tries to explain the reasons of the mob, but this again could be disputable. --Lysy^talk 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear more that Gross, a very respected scholar, writes with the goal to push his own agenda. Until then, his claims should be given proper credence of the respected academic research. --Irpen 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He is often criticized for his journalist-like approach and lack of proper historical methodology. A handful of qoutes I found in a quick search on the Internet: "It is obvious to any historian that Professor Gross's book does not hold up to criticism in terms of methodology"; "The findings described in Gross' book cause some anxiety because the author has used research methods which are incompatible with a historian's methodology."; "Many Polish historians dispute the author’s methodology and selectivity in the use of source material, most of which has been available for the past fifty years from the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw."; "The book, unfortunately, is framed as a historical and sociological study, and the author's poor grasp of the history of the period, as well as of the methodology of sociological investigation, is all too apparent."; "As interesting as the book may or may not be, let alone the questionable methodology employed by Gross", "The Catholic media chose to quote historians critical of Gross's research. They explained that Gross was mistaken, his methodology and findings flawed". An interesting discussion can be found here. Reardless of the wide criticism, I believe that Gross, even if often exaggerating, is doing an extremely good job with his popular books that are so much needed eye-openers for many Poles. --Lysy^talk 06:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The remark about Soviets not having an interest in "anti-semitic" actions is not accurate. As a scholar recent said, the Soviets were "masters of duplicity" and had not interest in preserving, enhancing or furthering the Jewish cause in post-war Poland, a fact that became ever so clear in 1968. To display this statement would totally ignore a lot of research that has shown that while not totally verifiable, there is at least doubt regarding the role of the Soviets in Kielce and other anti-Jewish occurrances throughout the Soviet sphere of influence at the time. The remark I deleted, especially its tone, seems to discredit these scholars totally, and this forum is to present fact not opinion.

I think you can hardly call Gross a very respected scholar. He is vehemently anti-Polish and as many scholars, Polish and international (and some Jewish), have pointed out, he loads his "research" with embellishments and exaggerations. He used to be different, actually, prior to "Neighbors". He actually did some fine work but never received the attention he deserved. As a result, he took another road, that of sparking a virtual war between the Polish and Jewish communities in America by writing a poorly-researched book where he quadrupled the number of Jewish victims in Jedwabne (his reasoning, by the way, was that he just assumed every Jewish resident in the town was killed, and that as a result he did not have to give credence to other scholars' work on the subject). The success of this book earned him a spot in a top university and new powerful friends, his ultimate goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piast (talk • contribs)

Dear Piast, the issue here is not whether the Soviets were planning to enhance the Jewish causes. Nor Gross is the issue to decide on the relevance of the matter. The issue here is there exist some competing claims who (or what) was the origin of the action, the medieval anti-Semitism of the mob or the Soviet state. There is no clear conclusion and we present the reader only with the existing finding. Like the juror, who makes up his mind, it is useful for the reader to weight which of the two possibly guilty parties has a history of Anti-Semitic actions. As such, the lack of such actions on the Soviet part (as of that time of course) is relevant and your deletion removes useful information from the article. --Irpen 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem paragraph

Attempts to move the blame for the tragic events on the "communist provocateurs" or Soviet intellugence, an easy scapegoat to assign the fault, are ill regarded by many to this day who cite such explanation as evidence the lack of determination in the Polish society to confront and address what they consider to be persistent and pervasive antisemitism in Poland.[9]

I see this paragraph as particularly problematic. As evidenced by the commemoration events, attended by highest state officials, which were the number one story in the Polish media on that day, there does appear to be a strong willingness to confront that event. This paragraph appears to be based on a brief story in a Scottish newspaper, which does not cite any sources. And who are these "many" who make these claims? It would be nice to cite a specific group, person or organisation that believes this. Balcer 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would leave it out as it brings nothing new, and is based on a newspaper commentary only. I've read the article, and while relatively well written, it rather slips on the surface of the facts, without being too precise either. --Lysy^talk 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do a google news search for Kielce in recently published articles before claiming that this is a single article's commentary. There is certianly not a single Scottish Newspaper and many sources note the presidential absence at the ceremony too. Presidents attend and not attend events never by accident. "Health reasons" is the most generic reason sited for non-attendance. As such, relevant info was deleted. I will restore it. --Irpen 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think Kaczynski's illness is genuine, as a few days before he missed a very important summit meeting with the leaders of Germany and France. Besides, his appearance at the commemoration was scheduled long before, and he cancelled in the last moment. His speech was read at the ceremonies by his representative. If you want to claim that he missed the event on purpose, you should provide some evidence, not your personal speculation. Balcer 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to claim anything. His mere absence was notable enough to be mentioned in the AP article from where it made it to hundreds of newspapers. Dozen or so, had their own journalist write on the event. Russian press also mentioned it.[1] I think it makes it notable for WP as well. I had no time to finish my planned edit yet. --Irpen 06:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on news articles, it should go to wikinews then, not Wikipedia. Let's not mistake encyclopedia for a news service. --Lysy^talk 07:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If news articles in major press that cover the specific event find smth notable enough, the WP article's section devoted to the very same event should cover it too. --Irpen 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The purpose of writing a news article is different than an encyclopedic article. While the news commentary would cover all the details of the event, an encyclopedic article should be constrained to the relevant information only. You may want to take a look at wikinews to see the difference. --Lysy^talk 07:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, just explain whether you consider this detail not important enough to be mentioned in WP or irrelevant? In the former case, I disagree because the fact whether the president reads the statement himself and attends the ceremony or this is done on his behalf by someone (presidents always have people who do lots of things on their behalf, otherwise they would have needed thousands hours per day in order just to write the stuff that they tell or state) makes a difference. I do not say that the health reasons are false. I simply claim, the attendance is important. If you think it is irrelevant, rather than unimportant, I again don't see how the detail the major media find relevant is irrelvant by the judgement of the Wikieditor. I clicked "submit" to the article's edit before I saw your response above at the talk. --Irpen 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the news are usually seeking a bit more sensation than we would like to see here. This is understandable, as their purpose is differetn, but this should be filtered out in encyclopedia. As to this specific event, I think this is irrelevant speculation, as the ceremony was long planned, and Kawczynski planned to attend. It was also attended by Polish foreign affairs and internal affairs ministers, so I think Polish authorities were well represented. Also, the position of president in Poland is much less important than in other countries like Russia or USA. If he did not want to attend than he would not need to plan it in the first place. He would also not need to send his letter had he not wanted to. Therefore I think such comment should not make it into the article, as his illness is irrelevant to the topic of the article. --Lysy^talk 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

References

It would be useful if the cited books were properly referenced with page numbers. Otherwise the references are hard to be verified and not really useful. --Lysy^talk 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Two books by Gross are cited. I've seen only one of them (will add page numbers) and the other is referred to through a review only as it has been only recently published. I would have never used a third party quote to support the book, should it have been availbale by now. Since the book is unavailable yet, the review is acceptable until that time. --Irpen 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the "Fear" either. I'm sure it will make a perfect reference in the future, but until then, I've moved it to a general section, that I consider as a "recommended reading" list. As a specific reference note it cannot reasonably be used without giving a page number, I'm sure you'll agree. The same holds for the other books of course. --Lysy^talk 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not a word about LWP soldiers?

They were a significiant part of the mob, as armed with firearms and bayonets. (Polish Communist troops - a large Soviet unit stationed nearby didn't take part nor intervented and just stayed in their barracks all day) In a separate but related incident other soldiers killed at least one Jew found in a nearby train.

Also in the city was the NKVD specialist of the Jewish affairs, who later became a Soviet ambassador to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)

This above is exactly an example why the "#Problem paragraph" as it was called above is correct. The discussion there diverged from the real issue to a less significant one, a president's health. Anyway, I restored the info, whose deletion I missed, slightly reformulated it, and restored a ref someone deleted from the article, perhaps accidentally. --Irpen 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't like the statement "some Jewish groups" in the problem paragraph. It sounds cryptic and sloppy. The Scotsman article makes no reference as to what specific groups these might be. If you can find specific references to statements various groups have made, we can use them. Otherwise I think this should be removed. All statements of the type "some groups believe that some country is doing something" should be avoided. How would you feel about a statement "some groups believe that widespread racism exists in Ukraine" that would be included in an article, just because some newspaper printed such a statement. Balcer 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, uniformed members of the communist Polish people's army and militia were definitely involved in the pogrom, so you might want to reconsider your removal of that information (though of course it needs some elaboration). This is not a conspiracy theory but a well established fact. The discipline in the military and militia units at the scene broke down and some of their members were part of the mob which carried out the pogrom. Balcer 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I disagree that the wording Jewish groups is problematic. It is entirely clear what it means especially in the context of confronting real or alleged anti-semitism. I would love to be more specific and write eg. ADL, but, for now, we only have a ref for a more general statement.

All statements of the type "some groups believe" should be avoided, yes, when they are unreferenced or based on the randomly clipped unrelated of cherry-picked groups since from that we would not know how representative those are.

Example: A group of Russian kids gets mugged in Warsaw. At the same time the Marek Kroll's tabloid publishes a couple of masterpeice articles like these [2][3][4] and, say, some Polish guy says on TV that he hates Russians. This is not sufficient, to say something like "the Russophobic sentiments are widespread in Poland".

On the other hand, if we have a referenced statement that says exactly those things published in NYtimes which saw it fit to publish an interview with the statement: "Poles talk about Russians the way anti-Semites talk about Jews,"[5] or a statistical data published in another higly respectable paper showing that 32% of Poles have a negative view towards Russia, such generalizations made not by a Wikipedian but referenced to the outside source are usable.

Same here: if we find a single statement, which may or may not be representative of the overall situation, I would prefer not to generalize it over some groups. If a respectable source speaks about groups, it's a different story.

As for your question about how I would treat "some groups believe that widespread racism exists in Ukraine", note that "some jewish groups" and "some groups" is not one and the same thing. The former statement is more narrow. It would also depend on the respectability of the newspaper, where such article is printed and whether it is in the general news/Editiorial or an OpEd section. The Scotsman definetely qualifies as a respectable paper and, as I said, it was simply the most detailed article on the event that I found with the Google News search. Now, some weeks later, it may be more difficult to find its news coverage. --Irpen 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are responding at great length, bringing in other issues which only complicate the situation, whereas my concern is quite simple. If the statement "some Jewish groups believe " is used, that implies some well established, official groups representing the Jewish community have issued a statement about this issue. If no direct references to such statements (ideally with links) can be located, such a claim is obviously misleading. If within some reasonable time such direct references cannot be found, which should not be that difficult given that serious groups post their official statements on the web, then the claim should be removed. On the other hand, if references are found, we should link them directly and quote exactly what they say.

I think your confidence in the accuracy of Western papers when reporting on events in former Communist countries is quite misplaced. I have frequently found significant errors even in the most "respectable" newspapers, when they are writing about Poland. Certainly one sentence in a short article, without any solid facts or references to support its claim, is not sufficient to back up a contentious sentence in Wikipedia.

The point is that Poland has done quite a lot since 1989 to confront the significant anti-semitism that is a part of its history and to some extent its present day, though obviously more needs to be done. Boiling all these efforts down to simply claiming that "Polish society lacks determination to deal with antisemitism" is grossly unfair, and certainly POV. But this is all that the current version of the article says about the issue. To get a better feeling of the intricacies of the situation, read this article on the JTA website. If I have the time, I will try to expand the section about the significance of the Kielce pogrom in present day Polish-Jewish relations, so a more balanced picture can be presented. Balcer 00:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Soldiers ("dubious" or something" - strange guy questioning facts)

Article quote 1:

Until July 4, 1946, Polish Jews cited the past as their main reason for emigration...After the Kielce pogrom, the situation changed drastically. Both Jewish and Polish reports spoke of an atmosphere of panic among Jewish society in the summer of 1946. Jews no longer believed that they could be safe in Poland. Despite the large militia and army presence in the town of Kielce, Jews had been murdered there in cold blood, in public, and for a period of more than five hours. The news that the militia and the army had taken part in the pogrom spread as well. From July 1945 until June 1946, about fifty thousand Jews passed the Polish border illegally. In July 1946, almost twenty thousand decided to leave Poland. In August 1946 the number increased to thirty thousand. In September 1946, twelve thousand Jews left Poland.

Article quote 2:

Nine participants in the pogrom were sentenced to death; three were given lengthy prison sentences. Policemen, military men, and functionaries of the UBP were tried separately and then unexpectedly all, with the exception of Wiktor Kuznicki, Commander of the MO, who was sentenced to one year in prison, were found not guilty of "having taken no action to stop the crowd from committing crimes." Clearly, during the period when the first investigations were launched and the trial, a most likely politically motivated decision had been made not to proceed with disciplinary action. This was in spite of very disturbing evidence that emerged during the pre-trial interviews. It is entirely feasible that instructions not to punish the MO and UBP commanders had been given because of the politically sensitive nature of the evidence. Evidence heard by the military prosecutor revealed major organizational and ideological weaknesses within these two security services..]

Just to remind: milicjanci (militsiya men - "militia", police) initiated and led whole attack. It was in the article even before my edits ("shooting the Jews and looting their homes". That's not even questioned by the strange guy - for whatever reason, questioned is link to Milicja Obywatelska (name of their organisation), or that they disarmed them first (the residents had some weapons from the war). Somebody explain me his motives or something, because it's completely beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)

In general we need a much better section on how the pogrom actually happened. The militiamen were definitely involved, but blaming the whole event on them is a huge stretch, and contradicts IPN findings. There is no denying that a large mob of Kielce inhabitants played an important role in the pogrom. Balcer 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You propably know how it started - the boy (son of UB agent) and the milicjanci came from the police station spreading the rumour of a "ritual kidnapping" on the way (the mob formed and followed). Then, they entered the building and disarmed the Jews. Then, they initiated the attack - civilians and some soldiers (uniformed and armed) joined in. In contrast, no policemen or soldiers (Polish nor Soviet) tried to DEFEND the Jews from the attackers. There was also an incident including soldiers on train, as the rumor spred (I don't remember details now, but I think they killed one or two Jews there). Also, a number of victims was thrown out of windows below, and the mob wasn't very big (small place). There's a website somehwere detailing the events practically by minute, and with plans - the links in the article here are practically useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)

Do you have any idea at all what the IPN investigation of the pogrom concluded? Please familiarize yourself with this, as it is the most authoritative version of events. I know there have been many books published in Poland about the pogrom offering various theories and speculations, and you are probably basing your statements on one of them. Still, the IPN investigation was the most extensive, and it definitely did not conclude that the militia and only the militia was entirely to blame for the events. Besides, the militiamen also consisted of local inhabitants, so I don't see why blaming it all on them would really change anything. Balcer 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "only MO". I said, there were also civilians (prominently a group of workers, with their tools) and the Army troops. Certainly some victims were killed or wounded by civilians. But they didn't start the attack, they had no firearms, and the Jews were first disarmed. Also, the servicemen were "found not guilty" (at all and of anything!) in the official trials - while the civilians were jailed for long terms and 9 executed (scapegoats). Your argument of "local militiamen" is also misleading, as they were members of the state police, not just some Kielce paramilitaries (the original meaning of militia). My info outdated to the IPN report - where can I get it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)

Here, from the http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Kielce.html

"At about 10 a.m., the police patrols and a group of functionaries from the political police were joined by an army contingent on Planty Street. According to the testimony of the deputy commander of the army division to which the soldiers belonged, about one hundred soldiers and five officers were dispatched to Planty Street. The newly arrived troops had not been told anything about the events, and they came to believe that Jews had kidnaped and murdered Polish children in the house on Planty Street. The soldiers got their information from the people gathered on the street. With the arrival of the troops, tensions rose very quickly.

The soldiers and the policemen then went into the building. Jews were told to surrender their weapons, but not all of the residents obeyed the order. The entry of the policemen and the soldiers into the Jewish house marked the beginning of the pogrom. Excerpts from testimony supplied by people who witnessed the outbreak of the pogrom describe what followed.

Ewa Szuchman, resident of the house on Planty Street, said:

After the police took away the weapons, the crowd broke into the Kibutz ( on the second floor) and policemen started shooting at the Jews first. They killed one and wounded several others.

Albert Grynbaum, another inhabitant of the Jewish house who was on the first floor, said:

The soldiers went up to the second floor. Several minutes later two Jews came to me and told me that the soldiers were killing Jews and looting their property. It was then that I heard shots. After the shooting on the second floor, shots were heard from the street and inside the building.

This is how the Kielce pogrom began. The behavior of the policemen and the soldiers, influenced by the crowd outside, provoked it into action. After the attack inside the building, the Jews were led outside where the people killed them in a cruel fashion. Other eye-witness accounts given by Jews and Poles confirm these events.

Baruch Dorfman (Jew, resident of the Jewish house):

Uniformed soldiers and a number of civilians forced their way into the building. I had already been wounded. They told us to get out and form a line. Civilians, including women, were on the stairs. The soldiers hit us with their rifle butts. Civilians, men and women, also hit us.

Ryszard Salapa (one of the policemen) recalled:

The military led Jews out of apartments and people began hitting them with everything they could. The armed soldiers did not react. Some returned to the building to lead other Jews outside.

At about 11 a.m. Seweryn Kahane, the chairman of the Jewish Committee in Kielce, was shot by soldiers. He was killed while calling for help. Within the first hour of the pogrom, representatives of such key institutions in Warsaw as the Ministry of Public Security (secret police) and the Chief Commander of the Police found out about the pogrom from their subordinates in Kielce, who called Warsaw at about 11 a.m.

Major Sobczynski, the local secret police commander, and his Soviet advisor Szpilevoy, were on Planty Street at that time, as were other local officials and army commanders. During the first phase of the pogrom, the monsignor of the cathedral parish in Kielce went to Planty Street with another priest. They were going to check on what had happened and to talk with people gathered there. Officers stopped them. The priests were told that the situation was under control, and that civilians were prohibited from entering Planty Street."

What do you think "the soldiers" (more than 100 of them) were, WEHRMACHT? Revert my corrections back at once! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs)

• Don't be naive! the current right wing PIS polish goverment would be more than willing to put the blame on the "evil" communist institiutions like the armyor the police force if there were any serious evidence to support that. Read the IPN investigation results. Mieciu K 20:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear god

Are you telling me the survivors (Ewa Szuchman, Albert Grynbaum, Baruch Dorfman) were lieing who were killing them, because they were supporters of the XXI Century "right wing PIS polish goverment"?

I guess the TIME must be the official PiS newspaper: "Jews were lured out of the building by men in army uniforms who promised them safe conduct, then turned them over to the mob."[6]

How about Havi Ben-Sasson of Hebrew University of Jerusalem for Tel Aviv University?

Singer was arrested and beaten by the police while Dr. Seweryn Kahane, head of the Jewish Committee, tried to convince them of their mistake, pointing out that the building had no cellar. A crowd had gathered in front of the building where about 40 Jews lived, shouting that Christian children were being held and killed there by the Jews. Soldiers who were called searched the house and demanded that the Jews hand over all weapons they had for self-defense. After the first shot was fired – it is unclear by whom: a policeman, a soldier or one of the Jews – deadly violence broke out. Gross describes the scene graphically: the barbarity of the mob, the baseness of the police and the helplessness of the Jews. It should be emphasized that, unlike at Jedwabne, the Kielce pogrom was perpetrated both by the mob and by state and social agents such as the police, the army and workers from a nearby factory. Some Jews were gunned down – Dr. Kahane was shot in the back while he was trying to call the authorities for help – but most of the victims, among them many women and children, were beaten to death with stones, planks and metal bars.[7]

And so on. --HanzoHattori 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential references

• The Epilogue, by Ruth Franklin in The New Republic, October 2, 2006, Pg. 36 - Review of Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz, by Jan T. Gross.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An article in Polish (for example, it mention previous deadly attacks in the area) --HanzoHattori 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

twelve among the pogrom’s civilian perpetrators were tried

The source that the punished were responsible? I have modified the sentence according to the IPN version.Xx236 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

42 Polish Jews were murdered

And the source is? According to the IPN 37 Jews were murdered in Planty, 2 in another place and 3 assailants were killed by the Jews. 37+2+3=42, but only 39 is right. Xx236 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Checinski

Michael Checinski, Poland, Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism - what is wrong with the book, that it isn't quoted here? Xx236 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Soviet anti-Semitism

Shakne Epshtein article presents another point of view than Irpen. Xx236 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Papal reluctance to condem atrocity

"Bernstein asked the Pope to condemn the pogroms, but the Pope claimed that it was difficult to communicate with the Church in Poland because of the Iron Curtain.[4]"

Sounds pretty lame. Could he not have used Vatican radio?80.229.222.48 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Basic question

What bothers me most in this whole discussion is this idea of attributing guilt to somebody: communists, nazis, the Jews themselves. Nobody seems to notice that a stupid medieval lie was accepted by the mob which happily charged against their "enemy". Could something like that happen anywhere else in Europe, except for Poland, or maybe some other Eastern European country? Please do not tell me that Germans were worse -- we know that already! Xfxfxf (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Such pogroms actually happened throughout whole eastern Europe. There are examples in Hungary, Romania and elsewhere. Kielce is notable just because of the scale. Could something like that happen anywhere else? Sure, it was happening few years earlier in Germany, violence against Jews in Liverpool (1947, UK -- only vandalising Jewish shops, beating Jews on the streets, no deaths though), in 1951 in Salzburg, Austria (26 wounded). No need for racist remarks that such behaviour is somehow limited only to Poland. Bastards are in every nation. Szopen (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"

Of the many pressing problems facing the newly reconstituted community in the early days after the war, three consumed most of its time and energy: the restoration of plundered property, the care and feeding of the refugees, and the plight of orphaned and “adopted” children. Many Jews who had fled to southern France or who had been deported during the war found when they returned to cities such as Paris and Strasbourg that their business, furniture, and apartments had been expropriated by the Nazis and sold to Frenchmen. Others who had entrusted their shops to French neighbors were now asked to reimburse the latter for having kept their businesses going. To compound the damage, the provisional government seemed more concerned with courting the thousands of bourgeois who had enriched themselves under Vichy than with helping returning Jews.

"

The antisemitic outbursts surrounding the efforts to regain lost property and to rescue orphaned children aroused fears of another Holocaust and led many Jews consciously to attempt to hide their identity. The pages of Jewish journals between 1944 and 1950 are filled with articles denouncing conversions, mixed marriages, and name changes on the part of French Jews.

[in:] "The Renewal of Jewish Life in France After the Holocaust" by David Weinberg Sounds similar, eh. Szopen (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaah I forgot about 1943 pogroms in Boston, and New York, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 08:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Was any of the cases you cite "justified" by blood libel? This was the 20th century! Xfxfxf (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

the 20th century - what do you find sexy in it? The Holocaust, the Holodomor and other Soviet genocides, two cruellest wars.

Some educated Western politicians in developed countries consult their astrologists. Any better than blood libel?

If you don't know - millions of Poles didn't obtain basic education due to German (and Soviet) occupation 1939-1945. More than 30% of educated Poles died or were deported or emigrated.

I don't know about any blood libel pogrom in pre-war Poland, during 20 years. Something has changed 1939-1945 that made the pogroms possible. Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See also

What do we want to see in the "See also" section ? A list of all pogroms in Eastern Europe ? Or maybe some only ? Which ones ? Pogroms of Jews only, or also other riots and massacres ? What about other ethnic groups ? I've asked the same question in Talk:Jedwabne pogrom. --Lysy^talk 11:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all we should see the pogroms of Jews in postwar Poland, when we should see earlier pogroms of the Jews in Kielce. The inclussion of the postwar pogroms of the Jews in the rest of the Eastern Europe and atrocities against other ethnnic minorities in postwar Poland such as Nieszawa massacre can be discussed. M0RD00R (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Were there any similar pogroms outside Poland, too ? --Lysy^talk 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can check See also section for the names of the locations (also Kunmadaras), but on much smaller scale than in Poland where the post-Holocaust violence against Jews was unprecedented. M0RD00R (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the same Poland where Jewish participation in persecution of Polish patriots was also unprecedented. Tymek (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the prosecution of Poles by "Jewish communists"? They were communnnists and their ethnical background had nothing to do with their views which were the same as the views of communists from other ethnic backgrounds. Mieciu K (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was rather the same Poland where medieval blood libel myth was alive and kicking in the middle of the XX century, and the same Poland where ghetto benches were introduced nationwide in 1930s, because patriotic students did find idea of sitting next to the Jews to be very very unpatriotic. M0RD00R (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There was more than just "medieval blood libel myth" which contributed to the violence against the Jews in post war Poland. Sometimes violence had nothing to do with anti-Semitism at all. Please avoid stereotyping. This is not good. Also remember, the whole Catholic Church was officially anti-Semitic until the Second Vatican Council of 1965 therefore all Catholics were anti-Semitic in those days. Do you think there were there no anti-semitas in England in the 1930s? Of course there were and lots of them, for example Oswald Mosely, whose black shirts organized Britain’s own pogrom like the Cable Street Riot. What about T.S. Eliot, Rudyard Kipling or G.K. Chesterton? The attitude of British public servants was also way far from ideal. Sir Alec Cadogan, for example, the First Undersecretary of the Foreign Office, described Stalin's cabinet in his diary as "the worst lot of stinking Jews I have ever met", and an anonymous bureaucrat annotated a report on the planned extermination of the Jews with the comment: "in my opinion, far too much of this department's time is taken up in dealing with these wailing Jews". Polish Jewish history/relations is very complicated and sensitive M0RD00R and one should use caution while expressing his/hers opinions.--Jacurek (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I once asked a very old Polish man who'd saved the lives of two Jews during the war (the penalty he risked, as you all know, was having all his own family shot) what Polish-Jewish relations were really like before 1939. The answer was -- and I've heard this many a time since -- that on a strictly personal level relations were usually very good, which explained why so many Poles were willing to hide Jews from the Germans: they were hiding their friends. On another plane, however, there was that "mystical" and spiritual antagonism and even enmity between two "chosen people", something like Catholics and Protestants in Ulster. Also on an economic level, Jewish control of trade was virtually complete, especially in the provinces, which is why the peasants saw the disappearance of the Jewish money-lender and cartel organizer as a "deliverance". --Jacurek (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What is disappearance a euphemism for? Murder or resettlement? And what do you mean by "deliverance" (the parentheses are yours)? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by "disappearance"? Are you serious Dr. Dan? :) No offence ... I just don't think you are serious. Anyway... By "deliverance" I meant that in peasants view, they were "freed” form hardship imposed on them" by a "greedy" Jew.--Jacurek (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic violence was not limited to Europe, just look at October 1943 in Boston and NYC. Mieciu K, what you are writing is very interesting, and indeed, Helena Wolinska was Jewish between 1919 and 1944, then she was a Communist of unknown origin between 1944 and 1968, and since then she has been Jewish again. Strange, isn't it? Mordoor, what was the percentage of Poles that believed in blood libel myth and what year do you refer to? Tymek (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak for Mordoor, but Tymek, was Wolinska involved in the Kielce massacre? If so how? One thing for sure, however, is I agree with you that what Jacurek has written, "freed from", "hardship imposed by", and "greedy Jew" is very interesting, to say the least. Again, if Mordoor wishes to venture a different answer, that's fine and dandy, but 1946, Kielce, Poland, and a sufficient "percentage" of Poles in Kielce seemed to be moved by the Blood libel myth to murder Jews after the Holocaust. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly - I was not referring to Jacurek. Secondly - this is talk, and we do not have to stick to the pogrom itself. Thirdly - what do you mean by sufficient percentage? Any data?Tymek (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to mix up Jacurek and Mieciu, but both of their comments actually were interesting. And sure, we don't don't have to stick to the topic although it helps. That doesn't mean you can't answer the question about Wolinska either. The article states that the Blood libel myth was a contributory factor in the pogrom. Are you suggesting that it's wrong? If it's true, then the people moved by this rumor, was the percentage. Naturally it's impossible to know an exact figure in 2008. But I suppose it really doesn't matter to those killed. I hope not whitewashing the meaning of this event matters to the living today. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have looked at recent edits by an IP. They seem to be non-controversial and technical. If there are any specific objections, please state them here instead of reverting all changes.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes on the basis of many minor changes done by 84.234.60.154 to the article, none of which had citations or justification. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kielce_pogrom&diff=235167773&oldid=234093939. The changes apparently added peacock language. E.g.,

• "reported missing by his father Walenty." --> "reported missing by his father Walenty, a man allegedly with connections to the secret police"
• "led by Adam Humer" --> "led by the dreaded security officer Adam Humer."
• "removed all the Jewish survivors from the building" --> "removed all the Jewish survivors from the ransacked building".

When defending his edits after I reverted them (apart from abusing me with swear words), the editor gave me a Web reference to a site in Polish.

Less than an hour after I reverted the changes, a different editor again reverted his changes and also gave him a vandalism warning. My issues were simply that the statements were unsourced, and detracted from the article quality. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the diff, he only replaced one reference and did not touch any others. So, the sourcing was exactly the same. This is obviously not vandalism. He removed only the following, because of "red links":

• September 24 1945 Topoľčany Pogrom (Slovakia)

• May 21 1946 Miskolc Pogrom (Hungary)Biophys (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my Discussion, it probably better for me to leave this at this point to those who know the subject well, and who can read Polish. However, the nature of his edits are not just vandalism, but don't express NPOV, and also rely on non-English references. This is a quote from Wiki policy on Verifiability "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content." Taken as a whole with the editor's extremely abusive defense, I'm not sure whether one would aptly call the editor's behavior "vandalism", but it doesn't seem to be much in the Wiki spirit. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

References

POV

Two sections of this article need to be reworded for neutrality: The aftermath and Speculations over Soviet involvement.

Some examples of POV in the article:

• The Kielce pogrom has been a difficult subject in Polish history for many years, and there is still confusion over who to blame. While it is beyond doubt that a mob (consisting of the gentile inhabitants of Kielce including members of the communist militsiya police and army), carried out the pogrom, there has been considerable controversy over possible outside inspiration for the events.
• In common with many conspiracy theories, such explanations are based on circumstantial evidence such as cui bono reasoning, and attempt to show that the communist government or other groups or forces would have gained various political benefits from the pogrom and thus could have inspired it. No solid, direct evidence of such outside provocation exists and it is unlikely that it will, because all documentation was intentionally destroyed by the communist security services (mostly in 1989). It is also pointed out that even if such a provocation were to be demonstrated, the participants in the pogrom would still bear the moral responsibility for having succumbed to it.

Please note that just because statements are cited and verifiable does not mean they are neutral. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Neutrality_disputes_and_handling for specifics.

In addition, this article needs more footnotes. Perhaps the items in the external links section can be used as references.

--*momoricks* (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

moving extremely unclear paragraph here

can;t make heads or tails of this. If someone can decipher, copy edit it to make sense of it, please have a go at it.

Some argue that the Kielce pogrom was a private game between different communsitic leaders as a tensions between them highly grew after the war. At the time of the events, the city mayor of Kielce, Tadeusz Żarecki, was of Jewish descent. Many Jews also were in communistic organizations based in Kielce, such as chief commander of WUBP Andrzej Kornecki (Dawid Kornhendler), chief of PPR in Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship Józef Kalinowski, director of human department of PPR Julian Lewin, deputy of chief of UB in Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship Albert Grynbaum, the commander of units send to help Jews major Konieczny, chief commander of human department of WUBP in Kielce Marian (after he left Poland he was known under the name Morris) Kwaśniewski. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Who?" and "Clarify" are not needed because all the informations can be found in the given references to the text. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Gross referential error

If the pogroms were "sparked by allegations of blood libel" that would mean that the Jews reacted against the accusations of blood libel (blood libel itself is a sort of accusation) made against them. This does not make any sense at all so I am editing the sentence to "sparked by blood libel against the Jews". 83.226.206.82 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AK reports and other

In house where live this jews, the UB hava a headquaters. Jews havin a firearm, but In PRL, people don't can have firearm, none firearm. AK intelligence reports saying that, in UB, in Kielce, are only jews (upon east of europe, quite a number o jew was comunnist, some jew was zionist), in unofficially statement (Jacob Berman) communism can build zion. In conspiracy theory, jews from UB was zionist, and they want jewish emmigration to Palestine, and they was instigators of pogrom. In pogrom time, around the house, is a lot of sldiers, and militiants, they stand and don't make nothning. After II world war Polish people, have support in west public opinion, government was don't happy. Make mourders withal polish people - and west change your mind. AK intelligence reports saying that, comunnist want make, a antypolish provocation i others cities (Poznan). Soldiers step into the buildings, they or jews open fire. Onlookers saying that they hear polish and russian language.

I know, is not many proofs, but in this building, in second side of this building, UB agents live near wimps of Kielce pogrom, these agents, who surveillance all of people, "don't know nothning" about firearm in house. Possession of firearm, i PRL, was strictly forbidden, and this is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.240.41 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Speculations over Soviet involvement

Current wording seems a little bit biased. It goes like this - There are facts proving Soviet involvement but Gross claims the opposite, so speculations about Soviet involvements are false. I think all opinions (and especially sources) should be presented with no direct or indirect indication who is right. Therefore I suggest that we remove "However" from the sentence "However Jan T. Gross attribues the massacre to what...". Currently "However" sound like "Whatever was said before is not true, since Gross...". Secondly Gross's historical craftmanship is questionned even in Wikipedia, so I would mention that. (Pijoder (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

The following should be included in this article. There isn't much to be speculated here. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk)

"860C.00/7-1546:Telegram / SECRET / Warsaw, July 15, 1946- 4 p.m./ Received July 16 - 4:15 p.m. / The Ambassador in Poland (Lane) to the Secretary of State/

1085. For the Secretary. From what prominent members of [Polish communist] Government, including [Jakub] Berman and Jewish elements tell us, there was a direct connection between Kielce pogrom and result of referendum. The [Communist Polish] Government indicates reactionary elements provoked pogrom to indicate dissatisfaction with their defeat. Majority of Diplomatic Corps and other impartial advisers, however, express view privately that falsification of referendum [elections] result was a direct reason for outbreak.

While I admit that the referendum result may have been the spark responsible for the Kielce explosion, the underlying cause is, in our opinion, shared by the Jewish community and by responsible American citizens of the Jewish race who are now in Poland, the growing anti-Semitism during the past few months. According to our best Jewish sources, the Jewish people in Poland have little regard for the present Government and resent the implication that the Jews in the Government represent the Jewish people. On the other hand, one of the principal reasons for the increasing hostility towards the Jews, which is evidenced by many acts of violence, including assassinations by anti-Government armed groups, is the estimated opposition of 80 to 90% of the Polish people against the [communist] Government and especially against the small, but controlling group, composed of Jews who have received their indoctrination in the Soviet Union and who are believed responsible for the repressive measures of the Security Police, the lack of freedom of the press and the present lack of independence of the nation (this group includes [Jakub] Berman, [Hilary] Minc, Modzelewski, Olszewski, Radkiewicz, and Gen. Spychalski).

Embassy observers are unanimous in believing that [the Polish communist] militia played an important part in Kielce pogrom and members of Government, including Ambassador Lange [Polish communist government Ambassador to the United States], have so admitted to me. Antipathy of [the communist] militia towards Jews probably inflamed by elements within militia and army who resent activities of Security Police and KBW ( Korpus Bezpieczenstwa Wewnetrznego - internal security corps headed by Russian General Kiziewicz). Both UB and KBW [are] composed of many Jews of Russian origin.

Government and anti-Government sources inform us and concur (despite some local evidence to the contrary from Kielce) that pogrom was deliberately planned [by the communists]. [The communist] Government accuses 'reactionary elements' and logically cites dissatisfaction with results of referendum. [...] we cannot understand what anti-Government forces could gain by anti-Jewish excesses. In fact, I believe from reliable sources that anti-Government elements have compelled their sympathizers to avoid violence at all cost.

On the other hand, we have evidence that [the communist] Government was aware as early as end of May that disturbance would take place in Kielce. The fact that pogrom was handled by the woyewode Security Police [WUBP - Voivodehship Office for Public Security - Polish secret police] and the [communist] militia in such an unbelievably inefficient manner, leads one to wonder whether elements in [the communist Polish] Government may not have secretly welcomed the opportunity to be able, both within the country and without, to denounce 'reactionary elements', including Mikolajczyk, the Catholic Church and others dissatisfied with Government program. There have been too many cases which have [come] to the Embassy's attention indicating complete disregard of [the communist] Government for human life and for human liberties to eliminate possibility of governmental connivance merely for humanitarian reasons. From treatment which Polish Jews complained to have received in Soviet Union, Soviet Government, which controls minority group in Polish Government, would likewise not appear squeamish in inflicting cruelties on Jews.

From conversations with Jews, I am convinced that exodus of Jews from Poland will increase until few, if any, are left in country and that they will, through preference, proceed without legal entry documents into American zone of occupation. Dept will appreciate therefore not only increased physical difficulties which this will create for USFET, as well our immigration authorities, but also international implications which may result because of possible emigration of unknown quantity of Jews to Palestine.

I regret that it is not possible more definitely to express an opinion as to the elements responsible for Kielce pogrom but it is believed that Dept will be able to infer possibilities from foregoing.

My comments on result of referendum [elections falsified by the communists] will follow shortly.

Sent Dept as 1085, repeated to USPolAd Berlin as 17 and to Moscow as 121.

[Arthur Bliss] Lane" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• "At the same time, Polish communist structures had already been in great part "cleansed" of Jews" - what is it? A quote from Gross? Jakub Berman and Hilary Minc weren't cleansed at that time and removed Gomulka later. Adam Humer eyewitnessed the pogrom. Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

cruelly assaulted in the hospitals by other patients and even the staff

What is the source? Were there "hospitals" in Kielce, which ones? According to this article the staff didn't allow the mob to attack the patients, in the same hospital or in another one?Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I have found the answer by Google - it's a literal quote Ruth Franklin's review of the (rather poor quality) "Fear". What about Franklin's rights?Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) According to several Polish language sources the wounded and the dead people were transported to the city hospital, not "hospitals". In his article JT Gross quotes a documentary by Łoziński, which doesn't confirm any results of the "cruell assaults in the hospitals". According to the account [8] the patients wanted to kill the wounded Jews (but failed to do anything) and one nurse hit one wounded. One can write anything about Poland and Poles, who are guilty to be Polish.Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Manipulation, Yad Vashem as a source

Hi, I've corrected "42 Jews being murdered" into "violence broke out which resulted in 42 dead (39 Jews and 3 non-Jewish Poles), and 40 more injured.".

First of all, the language. "Being murdered" is clearly an overstatement. This seems not to have been a planned attack, but an outburst of emotion, however idiotic and tragic. Sorry, but such manipulations should not appear on Wikipedia. The extent of idiocy of the "townsfolk" involved does not justify using Wikipedia for one's propaganda causes.

Secondly, the overall quality of the included source. The provided ref links to an article that mentions "42 Jews murdered", and I must say I am skeptical to it. Other sources mention 40 people dead, and mention 3 Poles as well. The aforementioned Yad Vashem article mentions no Poles in its statistics. With all due respect to the dead and Yad Vashem, but it seems that they simply took the total number of victims (including the non-Jewish Poles) and labelled them "Jewish".

Conclusion: more independent sources are necessary. The exact number of deaths is to be yet established, best from sources that carry neither .il nor .pl in their domains.

LMB (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The problem is that US "sources" are frequently more biased than the .il or .pl ones.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bishop of Kielce, Czesław Kaczmarek

Bishop of Kielce, Czesław Kaczmarek has been "quoted" by Checinski, but we don't know what he really said. We don't accept Checinski's opinions about Soviet involvement but we accept his opinions about the bishop.Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Academic consensus?

Is there any source that states the pogrom wasn't sparked by a MBP/NKVD propaganda operation? If there isn't, we should state in the lede that academica generally agrees the pogrom was sparked by security forces. We can then add that specifically the spread of the pogrom is debated as being caused by (i) anti-Semitism or (ii) propaganda operations. For example, Gross argues that anti-Semitism did not spark the pogrom (he says it was active measures), but that anti-Semitism caused the strong reaction to the spark; whereas Wat and Krajewski (both also of Jewish background) appear to see the security forces as holding more responsibility than the members of the public. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Given no comments after 3 days, I've tweaked the paragraph to this effect. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Kielcepogrom.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kielcepogrom.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

B-class review

Failed for WPPOLAND, due to some unreferenced content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to slander Cardinal Hlond

I have removed the adjective “pro-Nazi” labeling Cardinal Hlond. No evidence proving his pro-Nazi stand is presented, and when reading the article about him on Wikipedia, it seems he was on contrary quite firmly resisting Nazis (the only Polish cardinal jailed by Gestapo, and yet he refused to cooperate) bordering on heroism. If there are some claims of his pro-Nazism, they should be dealt with in the article about him, and not by a random labels in unrelated articles elsewhere.

Ceplm (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Similar comments were made by the Bishop of Lublin

The Bishop of Lublin is in Lublin, no connection with Kielce, to be removed.Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wyszyński helped Jews during the war. http://telewizjarepublika.pl/kard-wyszynski-w-czasie-wojny-ukrywal-zydow-quotrzeczpospolitaquot-o-nieznanych-faktach-z-zycia-prymasa-tysiaclecia,29643.html Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The burial should be described

Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kielce pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307025436/http://www.fathom.com/course/72809602/session3.html to http://www.fathom.com/course/72809602/session3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801060711/http://www6.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/photo to http://www6.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/photo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307025436/http://www.fathom.com/course/72809602/session3.html to http://www.fathom.com/course/72809602/session3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kielce pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080803022919/http://niniwa2.cba.pl/pogrom_na_plantach.htm to http://niniwa2.cba.pl/pogrom_na_plantach.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604205603/http://ece.columbia.edu/research/intermarium/vol1no3/kielce.html to http://www.ece.columbia.edu/research/intermarium/vol1no3/kielce.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023061605/http://www.powells.com/review/2006_09_28.html to http://www.powells.com/review/2006_09_28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

GZI ?

I don't see anything about the GZI in Szaynok. Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Fresh source

Much here to be folded in: https://networks.h-net.org/node/9669/reviews/127940/frydel-cichopek-gajraj-beyond-violence-jewish-survivors-poland-and

The source undermines the notion that the Kielce pogrom was inspired by a secret communist operation to so discord. It instead attributes it to several other factors including moral degradation through over five years of utterly brutal occupation, in which Poles permanently feared for their lives; the stereotype of Zydokomuna (unfortunately reinforced by disproportion of Jewish officials in the communist state); deep-seated Antisemitism including the ancient trope of blood libel and national competition (there was a 1918 pogrom in the same place, connected to calls for Jewish autonomy), property disputes; violent anarchy caused by Anti-communist resistance in Poland (1944–46), postwar lawlessness and the 'Polish civil war', which could use its own Wiki. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Historian Gunnar S. Paulsson, Director of Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies at the University of Leicester once remarked: If you wish to make serious scholarly research you simply have to be able to read the sources and the relevant literature in their original language. Full stop![9] Regrettably some of the most important and definitive works on this subject have yet to be translated, such as the IPN book Around the Kielce pogrom (Wokół pogromu kieleckiego) by Leszek Bukowski and Andrzej Jankowski, with Foreword by Jan Żaryn. IPN, Warsaw. 2008. pp. 166–171. ISBN 83-60464-87-1. Bukowski & Jankowski inform that eleven of the victims died from bayonet wounds and eleven more were fatally shot with military assault rifles, indicating direct involvement of the regular troops. — These are the facts. Meanwhile, Tomasz Frydel (University of Toronto) in his Review of Anna Cichopek-Gajraj. Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944-48 (hotlinked above) informs that: this was the way part of the anti-Communist resistance interpreted the Kielce pogrom. Clearly, there's a disconnect here between the results of scholarly research in Poland and abroad, and the issue remains highly controversial. Poeticbent talk 19:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Soldiers did participate, but they weren't ordered to kill the Jews.Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

Per WP:ELPOV, WP:NOCON - I removed After the Holocaust by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - a highly POVish work which has faced much criticism in mainstream academia - e.g. [10][11] - and isn't on this pogrom specifically. I also removed Pytania nad pogromem kieleckim by Jan Śledzianowski (plwiki) - the author appears to be a priest, the online book description has "Its special significance was emphasized by John Paul II in the Encyclical Veritatis Splendor. In the light of truth, ... " in it, and the publisher appears to sell toys, theology books, and children books. It doesn't seem to be a usable source for anything, and it is also not in English. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

ethnic cleansing

This edit is not supported by the given source. Zero^talk 03:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It actually is : "Polish historians have long known about Polish collaborators, whom they described as marginal, the dregs of society. Now a consensus is arising among researchers that the denouncers came from all walks of life. In villages around Kielce, for example, local elites orchestrated the killing of several hundred Jews, lending the crimes a “kind of official imprimatur,” according to Gross. Polish policemen tended to be well-situated heads of families. In his investigation of a district in southeastern Poland, Grabowski discovered that peasants with medium-size properties were overrepresented among the collaborators."

Accordingly, I am removing your tag, feel free to rephrase closer to the source, if you think you can do so without violating copyright.Here come the Suns (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting a reference to back up what I said! :) Yallayallaletsgo (talk)<

Here come the Suns - Good work with the quotations here. Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The text allegedly being supported is "Kielce was completely ethnically cleansed by the Nazis and their local Polish collaborators" but nothing in this quotation says that Polish collaborators took part in the ethnic cleansing of Kielce. The only mention of Kielce is of villages around Kielce, not of Kielce itself. It doesn't even logically follow, since attacks in the neighboring villages is just as likely to have driven the villagers to the city as refugees. Given the opportunity to source this claim, and the failure to do so, I'm removing it. Zero^talk 09:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

as I wrote, you could have rephrased closer to the source, rather than deleting. This is what I will now do. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Kielce and the villages around it" includes Kielce so it is just as bad as before. You have to restrict yourself to claims that the source makes; why is that such a difficult concept? In fact, this source does not mention the ethnic cleansing of Kielce at all, not even by Nazis, so why is it here? Another thing you should be aware of is that the Arbitration Committee has voted for very strict source guidelines for this area that do not allow magazine articles. I don't think it is in force yet but it's only days away (and about time too). Zero^talk 08:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

what is it that you dispute, exactly? That Kielce and surrounding villages were ethnically cleansed of their Jews? That the Nazis did it? That there were Polish collaborators involved? Here come the Suns (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You should stop editing until you read and understand WP:NOR and WP:V. Asking me what facts I dispute is a proof that you just don't get it. What I dispute is that a source has been provided for the claims made in the article. No source, no inclusion, that is the start and end of it. Zero^talk 11:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You should stop editing until you understand WP:V. A source has been provided that supports the edit, and your personal feud with YallaYallaLetsgo is getting in the way of your ability to edit impartially.

There is clear consensus on this talk page to include this sentence (myself, YYLG and Icewhiz), and you are disruptively edit- warring against this consensus.

Since you don't seem to dispute that Kielce was ethnically cleansed of its Jews, or that the villages surrounding it were ethnically cleansed of their Jews, or that the Nazis did it, or that there were Polish collaborators involved, I suggest you reflect on what is driving your opposition to the inclusion of a statement saying this, and realize that it has little to do with building a useful encyclopedia. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please keep those aspersions coming; they will help to get you banned. It is good that you found a source for Kielce being ethnically cleansed by the Nazis, but you still have to find a source that connects the villages around Kielce to the topic of this article. Zero^talk 09:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Threats are always the last resort of someone with no actual arguments. Everything is sourced, and the consensus you are disrupting is that the edit is fine. If you don't see how the fact the villages around Kielce were ethically cleansed of Jews is relevant to the background of an article about an antisemitic pogrom in Kielce, perhaps you should't be editing this article, or this topic area at all. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Kamiński (2006)

What is this book? There are five links to it, like Kamiński (2006), 29-33. I think this one: Reflections on the Kielce Pogrom, who will say something?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

External links

The link to the Jewish Virtual Library for The Jewish Pogrom in Kielce, July 1946 - republished from Intermarium Vol. 1, No. 3 (1997) - should be replaced by the link to its source and the author's name, Bozena Szaynok, added. I'm prevented from making the change. Mcljlm (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

Under the section "Evidence of Soviet Involvement" there is a "citation needed" at the end of the sentence "(the pogrom happened on 4 July, the same day the Katyn case started in Nuremberg, after the Soviet prosecutors falsely accused the Nazis of the massacre which was actually committed by the Soviets themselves in 1940)." for the Katyn Massacre mentioned at the Nuremberg Trials providing motive for Soviet involvement. This reference "https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-01-46.asp" provides evidence for that assertion. 2601:58C:4201:2400:8F8:77A5:A5CC:4E2B (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a 24,000-word page. Do you have a particular place to pay attention to? This is a case of "I ain't reading all that". SWinxy (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Gonna procedurally mark this request answered as we are awaiting input from the IP. —Sirdog (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

All you have to do is control "f" the quote I provided. There is a missing citation at the end of the second to last paragraph of the section "Evidence of Soviet Involvement". Insert the citation I provided. —2601:58C:4201:2400:8F8:77A5:A5CC:4E2B (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:4201:2400:4449:66CE:1EE1:2B1F (talk)