Sunday, February 26, 2017

Links: Jacek Miedlar, Blood Libel, Poles and Guns Photos, Poles Killed 200,000 Jews, Directly or Indirectly During WW II

A Facebook friend has been sending me links I don't have time to assess or blog about, so I will merely share them with you. 

Jacek Miedlar to preach in England against Islam. Link

Detained and prevented from speaking link

The Facebook page of the group for whom Miedlar was supposed to speak includes video of the event at which he was supposed to speak link

The Times of Israel refers to Miedlar as an anti-Semitic Polish ex-priest link

An accusation of blood libel in Poland. I can't access this page -- too many pop-ups and anti virus protection warnings. Link

Poles pose for photos with guns link

200,000 Jews killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles during WW II link


  1. The "200,000 Jews killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles during WWII" is nothing new. It is a canard--repeated by Jan Grabowski from his anti-Polish JUDENJAGD (HUNT FOR THE JEWS). [For details on the voodoo mathematics behind this calumny, please click on my name in this specific posting.] Even Jan T. Gross has backed off from this contrived figure.

    The anti-Polish propaganda is getting more and more hysterical. It is reminiscent of newspaper tales of the "30,000 Jews killed by Poles" (99% bogus) in 1918--a primal and transparent attempt to discredit the new Polish state.

    1. When did Gross back off the figure of 200,000 Jews killed, either directly or indirectly, by Poles?

      Chris Helinsky

    2. To answer your question, see the following link. Gross says "tens of thousands". Of course, this figure is as much an arbitrary guess as Jan Grabowski and his 200,000. The actual number is unknown, and can be even lower than either figure.,8599,2058917,00.html

      Of course, it is not the actual number that is important. Remember, propaganda does not appeal to facts: It appeals to emotions. It is the Polonophobic innuendo that is the key in the accusations of Poles killing a fantastic number of Jews--not the actual number.

  2. The Grabowski article is behind a paywall. Can anyone provide a summary? I am curious to know what he means by saying there were no bystanders.

    Chris Helinsky

    1. I was able to access it and I was impressed by it. I don't know why you are hitting a paywall. Maybe try a public computer, at a library?

    2. I just tried from a library computer and was unable to read the article.

      Chris Helinsky

    3. Why were there no bystanders? Simple: Because almost all Poles are now guilty!

      Poles have progressed from co-victims with Jews, to "unequal victims" with Jews, to bystanders to the Jewish catastrophe, to guilty-by-mystification for having observed Jewish deaths (e. g, Michael Steinlauf), to guilty by some supra-logical magical collective sense (Jan Grabowski).

      That is where we now are in Polish-Jewish relations.

  3. I have obtained access to the full article, and here is the relevant set of statements regarding "no bystanders" by Grabowski:

    "​Grabowski also emerged with a more general insight from his comprehensive research, which included a lengthy stay as a research fellow at Yad Vashem’s International School for Holocaust Studies. He is now convinced that the commonly used term “bystanders” – to describe the indifferent response of the majority of the local population, in Poland and elsewhere in Europe – should be removed from historical lexicon. His conclusion from the many testimonies he read is that it was impossible to remain neutral and indifferent, particularly in occupied Poland, where the Holocaust reached the very doorstep of so many homes.

    “The general lesson,” he says, “is that no one who went through World War II in Eastern Europe emerged without wounds and scars of one kind or another. There were no ‘bystanders’ to the Holocaust – everybody acted, one way or another, became involved.”


    This is a variation of the age-old Guilt-By-Omission Argument: The Catholic Church, and Poles, are guilty of the Holocaust because they [somehow!] could have stopped it, if only they had been more enlightened, and less prejudiced against Jews.

    This Guild-By-Omission element of Holocaustspeak is, of course, applied selectively to past historical events. It is part of the mystification of the Holocaust. No one invokes a Guild-By-Omission argument on behalf of Poles, wherein, for example, anyone and everyone who did nothing to stop the Churchill-Roosevelt betrayal of Poland is just as guilty of this crime as the main actors.

    1. That is a rather sweeping statement by Grabowski. Whose testimony is he referring to, survivor testimony, Polish testimony, both? While I do not doubt his statement regarding indifference, everybody would have had a position, I have doubts regarding the statement that everybody would become involved. In a meaningful sense anyway. The occupation made it impossible for someone's actions to not have an impact in the Shoah, but not all actions are the same. His statement also seems to ignore the reality of being occupied by the Nazis.

      Chris Helinsky

    2. "Rather sweeping"--that is quite an understatement.

      To answer your question, Chris, here is the voodoo mathematics behind Grabowski's figure:

      Of 3,400,000 Jews in Poland in 1939, 2,500,000 are assumed to have been still alive at the start of the Holocaust in German-occupied Poland (Spring 1942). So far, so good.

      But then Jan Grabowski makes the completely arbitrary assumption that 10% of them, that is, 250,000, fled the ghettos.

      Then, using the lowest plausible figure for Jews that survived in German-occupied Poland (40,000-60,000), and subtracting, he arrives at 200,000 denounced Jews, which he furthermore assumes was done almost entirely by Poles.

      Actual estimates of percentage of Jews who fled can be much lower than 10% (3%-5%), and the number of Jews who survived the Nazi German occupation of Poland much higher than 40,000-60,000 (100,000 or more).

      Thus, we could have 125,000 Jews permanently fleeing the ghettos and 100,000 of these surviving.

      Of those fugitive Jews that did not survive, no one knows, even approximately, how many of them were found directly by the Germans. Of those denounced by locals, no one knows how many were denounced by VOLKSDEUTSCHEN (Polish-speaking Germans), Ukrainians, Jewish Gestapo agents, etc.

      Finally, of the share of fugitive Jews denounced by Poles, no one knows how many Poles necessarily acted out of murderous anti-Semitism, and how many more Poles denounced Jews because of such things as fear of the Germans, Jewish banditry, Jewish involvement in the murderous Communist GL-AL bands, etc.

      In short, Grabowski arbitrarily picks the most extreme possible figures, and then jumps to the most anti-Polish conclusions possible, in an obvious attempt to make Poles look as bad as possible.

      Then again, that is the exact purpose of the propaganda--to paint Poles a primal, villainous people. It is no more complicated than that.

    3. Hello Mr. Peczkis,
      Don't forget that Jews were also often murdered by GL-AL. Such was the case of 28 Polish soldiers (Polish Jews) who escaped from P.O.W. camp in Lublin. Commies pretended to be an unit of the Home Army.

    4. Hello Mr. Helinsky,

      I think that names like "bystander" or "survivor" are misleading. They don't correspond to the facts and reality of German occupation.
      They don't even have equivalents in polish language.

      Poles didn't had the luxury of being the bystanders. Germans could kill them with impunity at any moment.
      Jews couldn't be the survivors. Wartime Poland was not a tropical island.
      No Crusoes here. And no Fridays.
      Western narrative simply doesn't fit here.

    5. "I think that names like "bystander" or "survivor" are misleading. They don't correspond to the facts and reality of German occupation."

      Of course not. Nor are they intended to. Recall that the original Newspeak, in George Orwell's 1984, was not intended just to change the vocabulary. It was intended to change the very way that people think. In like manner, "bystander" and "survivor", along with all the other terms used in Holocaustspeak, exist for the purpose of creating and reinforcing certain narratives on Poles and Jews. And they do--to our everlasting disadvantage.

      I am well aware of the Communist GL-AL killing Jews. [See my review of TAJNE OBLICZE for details]. Not surprisingly, Holocaust publications focus almost exclusively on (alleged) killings of Jews by the AK and NSZ. That is what fits the standard narrative- of bashing Polish patriotic organizations.

  4. ADDENDUM (This was cut off in my previous posting attempt):

    The diffusion of guilt for the Holocaust, away from the Germans, as exemplified by Grabowski, is not incidental. It is a policy of the European Union. The European Union has made of the Holocaust a perpetual all-European liability, in place of what it actually is--a perpetual Austrian-German liability.

    For details, please click on my name in this specific posting.

  5. The word "bystander" obviously has a different meaning when used in a professorjangrossetc context.

    Or is it just that its OK to be a bystander if you are not Polish?

    I ask because the countries that managed to stay neutral and stay out of WW2 - a really efficient bit of bystandery - did not suffer as Poland did, nor do they come in for this continual untering from the most powerful media and academe in the world.

    Nor should they by the way!


Bieganski the Blog exists to further explore the themes of the book Bieganski the Brute Polak Stereotype, Its Role in Polish-Jewish Relations and American Popular Culture.
These themes include the false and damaging stereotype of Poles as brutes who are uniquely hateful and responsible for atrocity, and this stereotype's use in distorting WW II history and all accounts of atrocity.
This blog welcomes comments from readers that address those themes. Off-topic and anti-Semitic posts are likely to be deleted.
Your comment is more likely to be posted if:
Your comment includes a real first and last name.
Your comment uses Standard English spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Your comment uses I-statements rather than You-statements.
Your comment states a position based on facts, rather than on ad hominem material.
Your comment includes readily verifiable factual material, rather than speculation that veers wildly away from established facts.
T'he full meaning of your comment is clear to the comment moderator the first time he or she glances over it.
You comment is less likely to be posted if:
You do not include a first and last name.
Your comment is not in Standard English, with enough errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar to make the comment's meaning difficult to discern.
Your comment includes ad hominem statements, or You-statements.
You have previously posted, or attempted to post, in an inappropriate manner.
You keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.