Polish-Jewish Relations: 1,300 Keyword-Phrase-Indexed Book Reviews (by Jan Peczkis)

Bystanders, Rescuers or Perpetrators? The Neutral Countries and the Shoah, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). 2016. Metropol Verlag, Berlin

Jews Instigate Polish Self-Guilt: That’s Why Polish Professors Often Attack Polish History

Holocaust-related attacks on Poland used to come just from the Jews. Now there are quite a few Polish professors that repeat the standard Jewish calumnies of Poland, and some Jews have disingenuously heralded this development. We might suppose that Poland-attacking Polish scholars exist solely because of the expectations of academic culture, which tends to be strongly leftist and uncritically pro-Jewish. What better way to advance one’s career than to join in the attacks on Poland? Follow the money.  But it is much more than that. It turns out that Jews themselves encourage Polish historians to engage in so-called “critical history”! Jews instigate self-guilt.

In terms of specifics, Jews instigate self-guilt through so-called “critical history”. It is predictably selective. It criticizes only Polish history and forever exempts the Jews from being criticized for their conduct. Note also how the likes of Jan T. Gross, Jan Grabowski, and Barbara Engelking have been made into heroes by the Holocaust establishment. This is hardly a coincidence.

JEWS INSTIGATE POLISH SELF-GUILT–OPENLY

By way of introduction, IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) is a powerful international organization, of which Poland is a member. It promotes the exceptionality of the Holocaust at the expense of all other genocides. See:

https://www.jewsandpolesdatabase.org/2026/01/14/toxic-ihra-holocaust-orthodoxy-challenge/

It also turns out that Jews, as represented by IHRA, actively promote Polish academics running down Poland, specifically in the case of Jews and their presumed special victimhood. Here’s the proof. Right in the Foreword, Corry Guttstadt writes, “IHRA member countries must, in fact, commit to facilitating critical historical research when applying for membership. This can be done, for example, by establishing historical commissions that investigate controversial aspects of their own history or by promoting public debates concerning questions of the responsibility and complicity of countries in the persecution of Europe’s Jews.” (p. 18).

We clearly see, in writing, that the IHRA requires an embrace of so-called “critical historical research” as a condition of membership. And that is not enough. There is an emphasis on specifically-identified so-called “responsibility and complicity” of nations with respect to the persecution of the Jews. Once again, Poles are dragged-in with the Germans.

How much more obvious does this have to be?

JEWS LONG CONSPIRED WITH TURKS TO PROTECT THE SUPREMACY OF THE HOLOCAUST

Pinar Dost-Niyego, a historian of international relations, wrote, “Based on the importance of Holocaust memory for the Jewish diaspora, and on the extensive debate regarding the uniqueness of the Holocaust since the mid-1980s, Ankara tried to gain the support of western Jewish communities in order to counter Armenian claims for recognition of the Armenian genocide. In certain ways, Turkey’s objective of denying the genocide agreed with the position of Israel and Jewish groups in the US who employ arguments concerning the uniqueness of the Holocaust.” (p. 218).

The Jews played a big role in this. She added, “The first major victory for this strategy seemed to come in 1990, when the Israeli Embassy in Washington succeeded in convincing the AIPAC to oppose the Armenian and Greek lobbies, thereby preventing a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide from passing in the US Congress.” (p. 220).

JEWS FEEL THE POLITICAL HEAT AND (PARTLY) FLIP-FLOP ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Pinar Dost-Niyego, a historian of international relations, made this revealing comment, “In August 2007, the American Anti-Defamation League (ADL), faced with criticism from the Armenian communities, changed its position on the genocide. It had previously limited its description of the events of 1915 as a ‘massacre’ and an ‘atrocity.’ It now acknowledged the genocide.”  (p. 225). Better late than never?

Clearly, recognition of genocides is driven by politics. So long as the Armenians did not have enough international clout, the Jews dismissed the Armenian experience as a valid genocide. Only under adequate Armenian pressure did they do an about-face, and then only partly. To this day, the State of Israel does not recognize the Armenian Genocide.

As for the politics, in like manner, we know that Germany has long paid reparations to Jews but not to Poles. Polish suffering is ignored or belittled. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeKfaLn5yC8

It is easy to see that the Nazi German genocide of the Poles (the Polokaust) will never achieve appreciable international recognition, least of all from the Germans and Jews, until Poles acquire substantially more international political clout.