Jan Grabowski’s JUDENJAGD: A Case in Point For the Study of Holocaust Distortion, by Piotr Gontarczyk. 2023. POLISH JEWISH STUDIES 4: 385-423
JUDENJAGD Judeocentric Fabrications: A Devastating Scholarly Expose
Author Piotr Gontarczyk is a historian with the IPN. He tirelessly exposes the lies of the so-called Polish Center for Holocaust Research. It is a bombshell.
JUDENJAGD JUDEOCENTRIC FABRICATIONS. GRABOWSKI FABRICATES ELEMENTS OF “POLISH ANTISEMITISM”
As is prevalent with Holocaust materials, history is flattened and everything is folded into the Holocaust. Therefore, trivial anti-Jewish acts (as done by some Poles), which occurred long before the German-made Holocaust, are dragged-in to the much-later actual German murder of 6 million Jews. Grabowski does the same, and makes things up. Gontarczyk presents an example, “The first is the “case of Stanisław Klekot from Otfinów, accused of instigating hate against Jews, smashing their windows, and setting their houses on fire.”…So it transpires that Stanisław Klekot, contrary to what JUDENJAGD says about him, did not break any windows, and, in particular, there is no mention in the case files of any “setting [Jewish] houses on fire.” (p. 395). But as long as it makes for a better Polish-antisemitism horror story, why not?
LIES BY OMISSION: IGNORING GERMAN BEAMS AND ZEROING-IN ON POLISH SPECKS
Lies by omission are probably the worst lies, and Grabowski proves himself the virtuoso in engaging in them. Gontarczyk comments, “Szczucin…No account of this massacre, however, or many other similar ones perpetrated by the Germans in this area during the war can be found in JUDENJAGD. This comes as no surprise if one considers the fact (which is proven below) that the author was less interested in the fate of the Jews and crimes perpetrated against them by the Germans than in searching out evidence of the reprehensible deeds of Poles.” (p. 388).
JUDENJAGD JUDEOCENTRIC FABRICATIONS. BELIEVING GERMAN MURDERERS (ON TRIAL)–WHEN THEY ACCUSE POLES
How low can Grabowski stoop? Gontarczyk writes, “Moreover, what we are faced with here is the omission of hundreds of testimonies attesting to German crimes whose perpetrators are given the status of credible and praiseworthy witnesses of history….Presenting mendacious testimonies given in court by Pernutz as factual accounts and calling them ‘recollections’ are a typical example of the bizarre whitewashing of Nazi criminals found in Jan Grabowski’s works and those of the ‘academic school’ he represents.” (p. 389).
GRABOWSKI CHERRY-PICKS HISTORICAL INFORMATION
Gontarczyk describes how Grabowski conveniently omits various historical sources that do not fit his Polonophobic agenda, “It can be legitimately argued that it was not due to their lack of credibility that the author chose not to refer to these publications, but rather that decision was based on finding a pretext to exclude them.” (p. 392).
The conclusion from this is inescapable, “It was clear from the outset that its purpose was not to reconstruct accurately the fate of the Jews, but to search for criminal acts carried out by Poles.” (p. 393). Exactly. Gontarczyk adds, “The author (Grabowski) systematically omitted or removed any information that could have been considered unfavorable to Jews.” (p. 409). That says it all.
JUDENJAGD JUDEOCENTRIC FABRICATIONS: JUDENJAGD CLEVERLY HIDES ITS LIES
The Holocaust establishment is sly. It knows very well that, whenever it cites archival sources, very few readers will check them. JUDENJAGD does this even better: It often obscures the archival source itself! Historian Gontarczyk makes this devastating expose, “…without indicating the document the quotation came from, which goes against the fundamental rules of academic writing. This is not a single instance, but rather a modus operandi of sorts that discourages one from verifying information given in the book, sometimes requiring the reviewer to read hundreds or even thousands of pages of files. It remains an open question whether writing footnotes in this manner resulted from disrespect for the rules of academic writing or was intentional. A helpful tip on the matter seems to be a noticeably significant relationship, namely the more difficult it is to verify information given in such cases, the more often the information given in the book based on such quotations has nothing in common with its actual content.” (p. 400).
Of course, the Holocaust-related lies can also be subtle. Gontarczyk writes, “After checking various quotations set out in the book [JUDENJAGD], one often finds that the sources say something different than what the writer [Grabowski] writes, quotations are trimmed so that their tenor is different than in the original testimonies, and the sources in no way provide the information mentioned in the book. Such distortions are downright systemic and also impact many of the testimonies of Holocaust victims.” (p. 401).
JUDENJAGD JUDEOCENTRIC FABRICATIONS REMIND US OF THE WORST COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA
Gontarczyk concludes, “As far as Polish history is concerned, the academic world is well aware that such practices of doctoring historical sources, as are found in many publications by Jan Grabowski, were, until recently, mainly the domain of the notorious Department of Party History at the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party in Stalinist times.” (p. 423).
For more on the mendacity of the so-called Polish Center for Holocaust Research, see:
