On Poland's court ruling against Holocaust researchers [THREAD]: The Polish government has led a campaign to whitewash history and intimidate researchers tackling difficult issues, but this civil lawsuit is only indirectly related to it. The verdict is of an independent court. 1/

The judge said researchers Engelking and Grabowski must apologise for giving "imprecise information" on alleged complicity of a Polish man in the murder of Jews by Germans during WWII. But she rejected claims for damages and for an admission of intentional slander of Poles. 2/

The judge suggested the researchers placed too much emphasis on the evidence of one survivor, who claimed the man robbed her and betrayed Jews in hiding, without giving enough space to conflicting evidence. Thus they supposedly violated the man's good name as an individual. 3/

The key passage may well be poorly worded, presenting one witness opinion as fact, though she had not seen the events herself. Much hinges on interpretation of wording that the witness was "aware of" the man's guilt (instead of, for instance, that she "believed" in his guilt). 4/

Many critics question whether a court can assess such historical evidence. Also important to note that this individual's guilt (or innocence) doesn't alter the wider question of Polish complicity. In defending himself, he claimed it was a local forester who betrayed the Jews. 5/

In isolation, this case raises tricky questions of whether historians may evaluate evidence about individuals as they see fit without application of defamation laws that would apply to publications about living people. However, this case clearly does NOT exist in isolation. 6/

The researchers have faced a sustained propaganda campaign to discredit them, led by PiS-controlled public and private media, politicians, IPN, and ideological allies. The lawsuit itself was instigated and supported by an influential pro-PiS NGO that has received public funds. 7/

The attacks on the researchers are a response to the extensive evidence they present on varied forms of collaboration of some individual Poles in the Holocaust. PiS and its allies wish to stamp out research on this subject to defend their simplified national vision of history. 8/

This campaign is indeed a threat to freedom of research and historical truth. The research itself is of course not beyond criticism. I have raised my own questions about the presentation of some of its claims, while acknowledging its broad significance. 9/ https://notesfrompoland.com/2018/06/29/poles-and-the-holocaust-new-research-old-controversies/

Poles were primarily victims of the brutal German occupation in WWII. And Germany is fully responsible for the Holocaust. But a minority of Polish individuals collaborated in it (there was no collaborationist state). This is a historical fact supported by gathering evidence. 10/

These issues are only now being researched, as they were off limits before 1989. The Polish government wants to keep them repressed (ironic given its broader view on pre-1989 distortions - e.g. it encourages new research on Poles who collaborated with the communist regime). 11/

It is crucial to note - as Engelking and Grabowski do (though arguably not clearly enough) - the varied contexts of collaboration. Some Poles killed or betrayed Jews for personal gain. But others were forced to cooperate against their will in fear for their family's lives. 12/

Finally, most Jews who survived did so thanks to Poles who risked their lives to help them. Engelking and Grabowski show that around 1/3 of Jews who escaped the ghettos survived thanks to Poles - despite the danger of brutal German retaliation and betrayal by other Poles. 13/

Under demoralising German occupation, and in context of prewar Polish antisemitism, it perhaps isn't collaboration that surprises, but rather the help that was given, often requiring networks of brave individuals. The truth of Polish-Jewish relations during WWII is mixed. 14/

Conclusion: PiS and its allies promote purified national narratives of history for political gain and seek to undermine inconvenient research that might detract from them. The recent lawsuit is indirectly part of this campaign, but the court's decision appears to be independent.