Jan Tomasz Gross defends Barbara Engelking in an interview with Newsweek, arguing against the view that anti-Semitism was widespread in Poland and that during the occupation many Poles denounced Jews and those who hid them. He also characterizes critics who disagree with his interpretation as echoes of the past figures Dmowski and Moczar.
A repetition of communist era propaganda
The remarks by the writer, a sociologist by training rather than a historian, alongside the questions from the Newsweek journalist, raise questions about the framing of Poland’s wartime history.
Was it predictable that the ruling party would use the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to push a contentious debate?
Aleksandra Pawlicka asks about the motivations at the start, clear indications that the questions followed Engelking’s TV appearance and the broader discussion surrounding her views.
The piece presents a chorus of voices from party officials who dispute the portrayal of Poles as passive or complicit in the persecution of Jews during the occupation.
Gross argues that the portrayal minimizes Polish suffering and forgets the complexities of those years, suggesting that statements in public debates sometimes omit painful historical facets.
How did Gross use Karski’s report?
The Newsweek interview presents Jan Karski’s 1940 report, with selective quoting that supports the claim that Poles did not uniformly respond to the fate of Jews hiding during the war.
Gross notes that the issue of the Jewish question forms a narrow path along which different actors sometimes converge, while Germany and segments of Polish society have been seen as shaping attitudes in ways that justify certain positions.
He adds that the German handling of the Jewish question served as a tool to influence opinions within Polish society, a point that echoes observations in Karski’s report.
In discussing the so-called pedestrian bridge, he suggests that the bridge is as narrow as the German occupiers would have it, implying that German policy helped shape Polish attitudes toward Jews during occupation, a comparison some see as analogous to current debates funded by external narratives.
Debunking myths
The journalist argues that Gross, from the outset, challenges the notion of extensive Polish assistance to Jews during the war.
There exists a vast collection of testimony and memoirs from Jews who endured persecution, documenting risks and harms faced by those who hid and were denounced by neighbors.
To deny this reality, according to the interview, would amount to a distortive portrayal of history that undermines the experiences of survivors and witnesses alike.
The discussion also points to public figures who have weighed in on the matter, with some presenting accounts that emphasize different aspects of wartime behavior and moral responsibility.
One commentator notes that the testimonies of survivors, including notable scholars, reflect a spectrum of experiences that cannot be reduced to a single narrative about Polish society during the occupation.
What about the Home Army?
Gross also challenges descriptions of the Home Army, citing an account from a survivor who encountered a request for help from Jewish insurgents. The response he quotes portrays a complex reality in which resources and support within the resistance varied, and some encounters were marked by difficult choices.
The piece highlights that party figures have framed history in a selective way, building a narrative that portrays Polish patriots in a light that contrasts with some critical historical assessments.
The discussion frames this as a clash between different ways of understanding the wartime past, with consequences for contemporary national identity and memory politics.
PiS and anti-Semitism
The interview includes a claim that current political movements carry historical threads tied to anti-Semitic templates, and that language used in political discourse can reflect this legacy.
Some observers argue that public rhetoric has at times resorted to terms and frames that stigmatize opponents, while others see ongoing efforts to separate genuine criticism from antisemitic sentiment. The debate touches on how memory work, history, and policy intersect in Poland today.
Scholars and commentators alike acknowledge the role of research institutions in documenting the Holocaust and in challenging false narratives, while recognizing the importance of engaging with difficult, painful memories to prevent repeating past injustices.
As the discussion closes, a sense persists that Poland must confront its history honestly, even when those conversations are uncomfortable or polarizing. The hope is that a clearer understanding of the wartime period can reduce harmful myths and contribute to a more accurate public memory.
In closing, the dialogue includes reflections on how history can be used in public discourse, and how personal histories, including those of individuals connected to wartime events, shape the broader narrative. The conversation underscores a shared interest in an accurate, responsible account of the past that informs present-day discussions about memory, justice, and national identity.
Acknowledgments of perspectives from historians, survivors, and researchers are noted as part of an ongoing effort to document and interpret Poland’s wartime experiences with nuance and care.