- Suspecting from the outset that this is about anti-Semitism is nonsense. A fundamental condition of discussing past events properly is to determine their historical context. We can't present historical facts from the view point of the year 2001. We must reconstruct the background of events, their genesis. The historian must sensitize himself to a past context. There is no sense in a position like: I've had plenty to eat, live in New York or Warsaw, never had anything to do with facts of this kind, and now I will take some document and evaluate it from a moral point of view. That is arrogance. This isn't about an alibi for criminals-they should be condemned categorically. If Gross had written that X or Y was responsible for these crimes, that would be acceptable. However, he makes the society of Jedwabne, Polish society, responsible for this crime. First, he ought to prove this thesis.

- Can you explain to me why this didn't occur in Jedwabne in September 1939? Why it didn't happen until 1941? Suddenly, 2 years after the Red Army invaded these territories, so much had changed. Why? Why doesn't Gross pose this question at all? We know from history that similar incidents occurred at this time in the eastern strip running from Latvia to the territory of present day Moldavia shortly after the Soviet occupation forces left this area. An explosion of anti-Semitism occurred in all these places. Poles were not everywhere. There were Rumanians and Jews, Latvians and Jews, Ukrainians and Jews, Belorussians and Jews. If we look at what went on in the territories of present day Moldova, the events in Jedwabne pale in comparison. Yet there weren't any Germans or Poles there. The inter-ethnic conflicts that arose were strictly related to the Soviet occupation of these territories. Gross omits this issue.

- The Soviets, on entering these territories, destroyed the old bourgeois, capitalist system together with its representatives. They didn't however have much knowledge in personnel matters and thus had to rely on local sources. Who did this involve? In Poland before the war, there were tensions between Poles and Jews which were begging for conflicts. One part of the Jewish population, which had a leaning to the left, especially young people, did in fact collaborate with the Soviets. In this way, Poles began to see Jews as traitors, allies of the Soviets. It is widely believed that the Siberian forced labor deportation lists were prepared by Jewish communists. In part this is true.

We can take, for example Michel Mielnicki's account. He was the son of Chaim Mielnicki from Wasilków (the account is contained in the book Bialystok to Birkenau, which came out in Vancouver in 2000). He recalls that NKVD functionaries came to them and that his father helped them fill out lists of those who were to be sent to Siberia. He describes Poles using the terms "traitor," "Volksdeutsche," and "fascists"--the language of the Soviet occupation regime. He quotes his father as saying, "We must get rid of these Polish fascists for they are our enemies." Except that, amongst these fascists and traitors, there were also children and babies. Despite so many Poles being deported with the help of his father, Michel Mielnicki expresses great surprise that there were suddenly so many anti-Semites among these Poles after the Germans invaded.

- I totally agree with the central arguments of Professor Strzembosz, as contained in the text published recently in Rzeczpospolita (January 27-28, 2001). I presented this issue comprehensively in the book "Kontrrevolutionäre Elemente sind zu erschiessen". Die Brutalisierung des deutsch-sowjetischen Kriegs im Sommer 1941 ["Counterrevolutionary Elements Must Be Shot". The Brutalization of the German-Soviet War in Summer 1941]. I based this book primarily on Jewish accounts from the period 1941-42. This doesn't mean that all Jews collaborated with the NKVD. They were, however, perceived as doing so by many Poles who did not see Jews being arrested and persecuted by the NKVD, but did see Jewish policemen every day for two years.

- There is no doubt about this. It is also confirmed by Jewish historians. In the work of Ben-Cion Pinchuk, as for example in Shtetl Jews under Soviet Rule: Eastern Poland on the Eve of the Holocaust. His main sources were accounts by people who survived the Holocaust in these territories. Pinchuk comes to completely different conclusions than Gross, as he has an incomparably more professional base of source material. Pinchuk writes of the greeting of the Soviets and Jewish involvement, especially in the first phase of the building of the Soviet system. In the cities, Jews who were adherents of communism played a large role in sustaining Soviet authority. They created revolutionary committees, militias and so forth. Pinchuk establishes all of this on the basis of accounts not by Poles or anti-Semites, but by those of Jews, as preserved at Yad Vashem [the Memorial Institute in Jerusalem - ed.]
Gross quoted this monograph only once. Its thesis does not suit him as it is very inconvenient. He should, nevertheless, be able to say why Pinchuk comes to conclusions different from his own, despite knowing the facts that Gross writes about. This is why Gross makes a wide circle around the work of Pinchuk and many others.

- It is absolutely certain that Poles are not anti-Semites by nature. This is an absurd thesis. Polish anti-Semitism has, of course, certain local traits but-just like the anti-Semitism of the Germans or Lithuanians-it was conditioned in a historical context, in an extraordinary period. I fully agree, however, that this does not lessen the moral blame of those responsible for the Jedwabne murder.
In regard to Gross's book there is naturally no statement of the sort that we find in Pinchuk that those Jews who were responsible for communist crimes, those who were engaged in the communist party, in the Komsomol [communist youth movement - ed.] or police, were the first to flee the areas left by the Soviets. I have many very interesting accounts, including some from Tarnopol, which indicate that before the German invasion there was already an awareness among Jews working in the Soviet apparatus that it could come to anti-Semitic pogroms. Those Jews who stayed became scapegoats.

- I don't think so, because in the USA there is a specific perspective in understanding the dramas of World War Two. Jews were victims, certainly, but Poles were the helpers of the perpetrators or passive witnesses to extermination. The Gross's book precisely confirms these prejudices, and reinforces stereotypes. There is no awareness of its shortcomings.

- There is still no historian in the USA who would concern himself with the theme of war crimes, in an ethnic context, in that time and place. What there is instead in the USA is the literature of Holocaust survivors' memoirs. These are subjective accounts that often contain a large emotional charge, and one that is anti-Polish. If such a person who hid somewhere was persecuted by Polish szmalcownicy, then I am not surprised by a prejudice against Poles. The only problem is that this person then assesses all of Polish society from this perspective--and this is a mistake.

- There is a widespread belief that the death camps were built in Poland because the Germans could count on Polish anti-Semitism and therefore had the appropriate emotional backing. This is a stereotype spread by people such as Claude Lanzmann or Elie Wiesel, people who are great opinion makers, as are newspapers like the New York Times. This assessment of history is an exact inversion of the anti-Semitic stereotype. This is anti-Polish chauvinism.

- I would say that we are dealing with the expropriation of the Holocaust in American culture. In the 1950s, it wasn't in reality an issue for general public opinion; no one was particularly interested. Even for those who survived and migrated to the USA, it was recommended that they not talk about the past. People said, "Let's look to the future." Only in the 1960s did the process begin of discovering the extermination of the Jews, and this took on momentum in the 1970s. At that time, the film Holocaust was screened, which nearly 100 million Americans watched. This film was a dramatization of factual events, but it had an immense impact on public opinion. Today, the Holocaust plays an enormous role in the USA. Norman G. Finkelstein writes about this "industry" in his book The Holocaust Industry. Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.

- Let me give you an explanatory example. In America, specialists in the Holocaust have the easiest time finding university or museum jobs. It is a subject which is easy to sell. It attracts people. If there is interest, then there must be something on offer to meet the demand. Such an offering could be an article, a film or a book. If you wish to publish a book in the States, then write about the Holocaust, and it is best to do so in such a way as not to trouble the reader, that is, in accordance with the prevailing stereotypes.

- American as well as Israeli historians and sociologists have repeatedly pointed out the exploitation of the Holocaust in America, where it has become an element of mass culture. They criticize this in strong terms, speaking of Americanization and mystification. Americans feel superior to Europeans, and therefore it would be a little awkward to talk, for instance, about the extermination of the Indians. Better to speak of the Holocaust, with which they have nothing in common. Germans and Poles are responsible for this--we [Americans - ed.] are not. At the same time, a moralistic phraseology and paternalist rhetoric are applied, which make a mockery of the facts.

- The Holocaust, for part of the Jewish elite, is becoming a "surrogate religion," an instrument of integration. It is a means of countering the loosening of traditional relations that maintain the Jewish community, which is slowly melting into American society. Memory of the Holocaust and injustices committed, a common fate, is to become a means of rebuilding collective identity. The state of Israel could have become a similar point of reference for many Americans of Jewish origin. The policy of Israel in the Middle East does not suit many people. The Holocaust lends itself ideally as a touchstone of common fate.

- Poles, as at best passive witnesses of the Holocaust, is an unquestionable dogma in America, a typical element of the Holocaust and its Americanization. It is unusually difficult to enter into a discussion with this dogma. There are various traps of political correctness lying in wait for revisionists. At every turn it's possible to fall foul of the accusation: you want to learn the context of the crime, and that means you are a closet anti-Semite.

- It does. It is similar to my experience with the exhibition Crimes of the Wehrmacht. Before I approached it, I took a long time making up my mind. This exhibition was dogma. In a period of three years, it became practically a religious cult. Criticism of the exhibition was blasphemy. I thought to myself: "Oh my God, I'll start to criticize it and they'll eat me alive." Frankly speaking, to take on such a subject, it's necessary to have more than just research skills. Tactical and strategic skills are needed. Even more, a specific sort of intuition is required. This becomes very complicated.

- In spite of everything, it's necessary to cast fear aside and ruthlessly seek out the truth. Poles ought to say openly: of course, there were szmalcownicy. It is then necessary to investigate how many there were, what sort of influence this had on the fate of the whole Jewish population, where they came from, whether or not there were attempts by the underground state to counteract them, and so forth. In my opinion, this is very important. Nothing should be kept hidden. This will result in a growth of trust in the Polish side. We should remember that there are many responsible Jewish historians. Not all practice history the way Daniel Goldhagen or Jan Gross do.
A wonderful example of reliability is Peter Novick and his book, The Holocaust in American Life. He gives, for example, an analysis of the passive witness concept and asks critics: Would you be able to prevent the extermination of the Jews if this represented a danger to you and your family?
Naturally, on both sides there are those acting against reconciliation. The best means of neutralizing their influence is the spectacular disclosure of their mistakes.

- I don't think so. Of course newspapers like The New York Times would certainly throw themselves upon such a person with malicious glee--after all, there are people who are incorrigible. We cannot be afraid, however. This mustn't discourage us from honest investigation.

- As a historian, I must first know what happened. Only then can I draw conclusions. I don't doubt that a certain significant group in Polish society either supported the Holocaust or were happy about it. However, and I continually repeat this, we should determine the context of these dramatic events. I don't believe that in a democratic state, in conditions of peace, this sort of incident would be possible. Why should the Polish nation be responsible as a whole for the deeds of the szmalcownicy?
Let's reach for another example: the year 1981. There were Zomowcy and people were beaten up by them. Who should ask for forgiveness now and who should be made responsible for the crimes of martial law at that time? Does the entire Polish nation have to apologize, or does a specific group of people, have to apologize for similar atrocities at the Wujek coal mine? It would be equally inappropriate for Poles to apologize for the communist system on behalf of the entire nation, for the events of 1968 or 1970. This is an attempt to stretch personal responsibility into collective responsibility.

- ...for the fact that, having absolutely authority, you beat me up. This position is an absurdity. It is the identification of the whole of society with one of its specific groups. This is a manipulation that most often allows some group involved in a situation to avoid responsibility.

- Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It isn't when the "fervor of the converted" is considered. Such situations are known. Here we have a subsequent example of the activity of certain elements on the basis of which it isn't possible to assess all of society. I remember such a characteristic example from the Kielce Province, where the Mayor of one of the towns there, who was half-Jewish, turned out to be a fanatical anti-Semite.
Similarly, all deportations from ghettos occurred with the participation of the Jewish Police and ghetto administration. But was anti-Semitism the determining element here? Nonsense. It is possible to condemn these people morally, but necessary to understand the circumstances in which they had to act. We have to become familiar with and understand the context of this situation. What other alternative did they have?

- ...that this was anti-Semitism. There were instances where Polish firemen were used in deportations. There is one such account, and now it is treated as anti-Semitism. Except that the fact is that these same firemen were previously deployed in roundups of Polish workers for slave labor. Now comes the question: Were these firemen also anti-Polish?

- I perceive a certain similarity between the situation of Poland and that of Switzerland. I don't think that Gross wrote particularly his book with this aim, although there always exists the possibility of exploiting this type of emotional writing. In the case of Switzerland, a great campaign was waged. There was continual talk about banks in the press and television, about the gold of murdered Jews and about the money that's in these accounts. In this regard it was forgotten, of course, that there were American banks that did exactly the same. There were also banks in Jewish hands that did exactly the same. There was silence about this, however, and the campaign was focused on Switzerland.

- What Gross had to say has stirred an interest in this subject in Poland. I see, in fact, that what Tomasz Strzembosz wrote is a very interesting analysis. Others will follow. Up to now, there has existed a fear of seeking out the complete truth about Polish-Jewish relations. A fear of being accused of anti-Semitism and a fear of touching upon certain painful places in the history of Poland has predominated. Gross wanted to provoke Poles, to tell them how terrible they are, but at the same time he has forced them into debate. This can represent a great breakthrough in Polish historiography, which up to now hasn't had much to say on these issues, and has in the main confined itself to journalistic platitudes. Each source, every account, must be investigated regardless of its ethnic or social undertones. The historian cannot confine himself to statements about moral rightness. Gross and his followers actually end up confining themselves to this, and demand that we do the same. Knowing Jewish and other sources however, it is possible to reduce the majority of arguments by Gross to absurdity. Using methods like his, it is possible to prove anything. He has spurred investigation here, this is a fact-but he has not shown how the research should be done.