Friday, April 25, 2008

Bad manners at Warsaw Ghetto Israeli teenagers-students are a nuisance in Poland AGAIN!

Bad manners at Warsaw Ghetto Israeli teenagers-students are a nuisance in Poland AGAIN!
Please do something before the next trip or do not come to Poland.


Israeli youths in Poland ceremony score failing grade with disrespectful behavior

Attila Somfalvi Published: 04.24.08, 10:36 / Israel Opinion


It’s been a while since I felt both so proud and so embarrassed to be Israeli at the same time, as I felt during my visit to Poland.


President in Poland

Peres: New Poland one of Israel's greatest EU allies / Aviram Zino

Peres speaks at length about Jewish History in Poland. ‘Remnants of death camps on Poland’s land serve as pillar of fire in our collective historical memory’
Full Story


On the one hand, I was overwhelmed by powerful patriotic feelings, nationalistic even, when I stood under the blue-and-white flags proudly carried by Israeli students in the cold winds of Auschwitz and Majdanek. On the other hand, I was red with shame in the face of the behavior of Israeli youths during events that required a little respect and restraint.


For example, the impressive and dignified ceremony organized by the Poles to mark 65 years to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising that was attended, in addition to Polish President Lech Kaczynski and Israeli President Shimon Peres, by the French foreign minister, representatives of the German and US governments, Polish senators, Holocaust survivors, war veterans, senior Polish army officers – and also hundreds of Israeli teenagers from across the nation who were just finishing an intensive journey through the death camps.



It is difficult to describe the huge Polish investment in the event. It is also difficult to describe the reverence shown by the hundreds of non-Israeli invitees to the speeches delivered by the two presidents, the singing of the El Maleh Rachamim memorial prayer, the Israeli national anthem, the Hebrew prayers, and the entire ceremony. It appeared that everyone was doing above and beyond in order to honor the memory of the Warsaw Ghetto heroes.



Yet at the same time, a few meters away, the jungle was going wild. On the Israeli side where the youth delegation members were concentrated, everyone behaved as though they were in the middle of some feast on a Tel Aviv traffic island. Only the barbeques were missing, but we had snacks, soft drinks, loud giggling, and screaming. Some students were lying on the grass while listening to their iPods. We also had group gatherings, a mini-festival of storytellers and jokers, short naps, smoking, whispers, the occasional game of “catch” accompanied by cheerful calls, nuts and seeds, and childish, embarrassing, and exaggerated panic upon hearing the gun salute. It was all there.


Teenagers have not learned a thing
Indifferent teachers were also there, busy searching for a comfortable spot to lean on. We also had Education Ministry representatives with hands in their pockets who observed what was going on without doing a thing – overall, what we had there was a great shame. With the exception of several dozen youths who bothered to follow the ceremony and hold up flags, the Mideastern party continued according to plan and with no connection to the memory of the Jews who fought the Nazis.


One of the teachers explained to me that the Education Ministry is at fault because it did not bothered to organize chairs for the Israelis and the ceremony was long. Another teacher said the students had trouble following the speeches in Polish, and therefore lost interest in what was happening around them. This explanation could have been valid had I not seen with my own eyes the lack of interest and zero respect displayed by most students to the symbols of the State of Israel during President Shimon Peres’ speech – delivered in clear and fluent Hebrew. I will make no mention of the students’ attitude to the Polish national anthem and other speakers for obvious reasons of shame.


At the heart of Warsaw, a few meters away from the Rapaport Warsaw Ghetto monument, after eight days, three concentration camps, two ghettos, and dozens of stories – the Israeli teenagers proved on the last day of their journey that they have not learned a thing.

Perhaps they know more about the Holocaust, but in all matters related to manners, culture, education, and respect to others – they scored a humiliating failing grade. And with this grade they returned home, to Israel, to their parents and education system that have indeed put them on a plane to Poland – but sent them there without any moral baggage.

-----------------------
Encouraged by Rabbi Israel Singer's, the General Secretary of the World Jewish Congress, statements in 1996 such as " If Poland does not satisfy Jewish claims, it will be publicly attacked and humiliated in the international forum." So it is a plan to deliberately slander Poland's name and manipulate the American public's opinion against Poles. It was permitted to slander Poles now


A real hero - Witold Pilecki - A Volunteer for Auschwitz


Poland was the only country in all of Nazi-occupied Europe with death penalty for sheltering Jews. Germans knew how sympathetic Poles were to Polish Jews and in that way they could get rid of them both. Entire families, sometimes whole towns were murdered for sheltering Jews.

despite the overwhelming and deadly idea of antisemitism in the Third Reich - there were a large number of individuals and organizations (such as Zygota in Poland) that risked (and sometimes lost) their lives in the effort to save Jews? They saved thousands of Jewish children from the Nazi, smuggled them out of the Warsaw Getto and hid with Polish families

Saturday, April 19, 2008

DWARFS SCREAM WHEN HEROES SLEEP

DWARFS SCREAM WHEN HEROES SLEEP
From NASZ DZIENNIK - Warsaw, Poland


"Nearly all the literature written to this day - and many books as well as articles have been written about the uprising of the Warsaw Jews - is either a terrible falsification by those seeking their own fame while forgetting about others, or it is a mistake which results from a lack of knowledge and trusting relationship with surviving eyewitnesses, who fabricated their stories and shortened versions, making others look less significant and themselves more appealing - wrote Chaim Lazar-Litai in his book Masada in Warsaw. There was also official communist propaganda in Poland which gave a false picture of the uprising from the very beginning.
The Jewish Fighting Organization (ZOB - Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa) acted as the only counted-for participant in the uprising, despite the fact that her real involvement in the uprising was secondary. Her unveiling by communist historians, was decided by the official pro-Soviet orientation. As a consequence, the Polish leaders silenced the participation of the closely knit with the Polish Home Army, Jewish Military Organization (ZZW - Zydowski Zwiazek Wojskowy). With many more men, better armory, and trained by Polish instructors, they held a long lasting resistance against the Germans (from the 19th until the 27th of April 1943). For a comparison - badly armed and unprepared for combat, the warriors of ZOB were only able to defend themselves effectively for about eleven hours on the first day of the uprising. The fall of communism did not stop the conspiracy regarding ZZW. To this day there are plenty of those supporting the 'historical killing' of the truth about the participation of ZZW soldiers in the uprising. A demand for this enormous lie still exists; the only thing that has changed is its foundation. The Polish vision of "anti-Semitism", forced by pro-Jews and the Jewish movement cannot stand to measure up with facts from Polish-Jewish brothers in arms. In the midst of rampant lies and half-truths about the Polish Warsaw Uprising, it is worth to take a look at two Jewish publications The truth about the Warsaw uprising authored by Jewish publicist Aleksandra Swiszczewa, who appeared in "Shalom New York", as well as "Changing faces of memory: Who defended the Warsaw Ghetto?" by Moshe Arsen, published in the "Jerusalem Post" on April 23rd 2003.

The beginnings of ZZW
In November 1939, four Jews came to Captain Henry Iwanski's home, officer from the Armed Battle Organization (ZWZ - Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej). They were officers from the Polish Army - with Lieutenant David Mordechai Apfelbaum. They came forth with a proposal to create a Jewish fighting group, which would become part of the Polish underground. Towards the end of December the group came to life (it counted 39 people), made an oath and received the name of Jewish Military Association. After the oath, Captain Iwanski handed ZZW members 39 guns. On January 30th 1940, information about the emerging of ZZW was sent to General Sikorski. During the years 1940-1942, ZZW cells appeared all over Poland; the strongest links were in Lublin, Lwow and Stanislawow. The base of the organization was created by the members of the youthful organization "Betar" as well as two Zionist organizations. The main goal of ZZW in 1940 was the crossing of its members, particularly the officers, through the Polish-Hungarian border, to the Polish squads formed in France and England.

Extermination of Jews and the left's weakness
During the summer of 1942, the Germans began their planned annihilation of the Warsaw ghetto. This so called 'great action' lasted from July 22nd until September 21st. Over three hundred thousand Warsaw Jews were sent to Treblinka and Majdanek. There remained only about fifty thousand people in the ghetto (according to official German statistics this number was about 35 000). Only then did the Zionist members of the socialist left-wing party decide to form their organization (along with Bund and the communists). Until this time they had not operated any underground activity. "We were the real authority in the ghetto. We decided how those remaining in the ghetto would live. They called us 'the party'. When the party ordered something, it was done immediately", remembers Mark Edelman about the Soviet order which reigned in the communist structures. There were no officers from the Polish Army during ZOB's entire existence.

Preparation and organization of ZZW
During this time the Jewish Military Organization had already been active two and a half years. Its members received weapons from the Polish Home Army and were learning how to use them. For this reason, an instructor, Captain from the Polish Home Army, came to see them on a regular basis from the city. From the memoirs of Henry Iwanski, officer from the Security Corps of the Polish Home Army, responsible for links with Jewish organizations, we find out that in the summer of 1942, 320 armed soldiers served in ZZW. During the period of the so-called 'great action' they hid in underground bunkers. For this reason, only about 15-20 of them were killed. The ZZW leader, David Apfelbaum, was warned by the Security Corpus about the approaching of the German action. He informed the Judenrat leader, Czerniakow, and suggested a resistance. In July 1942, a ghetto society meeting took place with Czerniakow and his replacement Lichtenbaum. Apfelbaum and Iwanski presented a report of the situation. Their suggestions were rejected. The leaders of ZZW did not decide to step against the Germans, thinking that they would probably be the ones blamed for this bloody massacre. Of major importance, as we can understand from Iwanski's memoirs, is the fact that from the very beginning of the 'great action', the organization was cut off from its weapon supplies; it could therefore not have done much in terms of resistance. The first open intervention against the Germans occurred in January 1943, when ZZW counted already 500 people. The structure of the organization confirms these figures. It was based on so-called 'fives' - four soldiers and one leader. Three 'fives' formed a squad, four squads formed a platoon. Four platoons formed a company (240 people). In the beginning of January 1943, ZZW counted two armed and equipped companies, as well as two 'skeleton' companies. These had no soldiers or arms, but it was assumed that during the uprising a mass of volunteers would fill its ranks. In April 1943, this task was completed.

Disproportions in the arming of ZZW and ZOB
The main weapon supplier for ZZW was the Safety Corpus of the Polish Home Army. From June 1942 until the beginning of the April 1943 uprising (this is how the Warsaw ghetto uprising is described in Jewish historiography) the Safety Corpus sent to the ghetto 3 heavy machine guns, 100 handguns, 7 rifles, 15 automatic guns and about 750 grenades. After the beginning of the uprising they sent an additional 4 machine guns, one light machine gun, 11 automatic guns, 50 handguns and 300 grenades. Apart from this, Henry Iwanski sent weapons to ZZW in 1941. In the first half of 1942, ZZW also received weapons from other groups of the Polish Home Army.
If we are to believe Mark Edelman, the best equipped for battle was his maternal ZOB. "Bund was the one political organization which had money. Arbeter Ring, a New York based worker's organization, to which belonged the chief of the American Trade Union, Dubinski, as well as comrades Pat and Held, sent us money from the very beginning. On the other hand the Zionists had not a penny. Their comrades from Palestine abandoned them", explains Edelman. He also added that another way of 'taking money' was 'terrorizing' 'rich Jews', 'smugglers', as well as 'Jewish policemen'. "We robbed the Judenrat cash drawer for hundreds of thousands of zloty; we also robbed the supplying company. We even went as far as kidnapping the son of Mark Lichtenbaum, leader of the Judenrat in Czerniakow when he refused to give us money. We wrote to Lichtenbaum that we have his son with his feet in ice cold water, so he will certainly get sick. They finally came with the money. On a different occasion, a Jewish policeman didn't want to give money. We had to show him that we were tough. We came to see him at around four o'clock, when the time for the ultimatum was up. "You don't want to give?" we asked and shot him. After this episode everybody paid. We never lacked money.
In the meantime Alexander Swiszczew, calling upon the memoirs of B. Jaworski (communist and leader of one of the ZOB groups) constantly gives an alarming state of weaponry of ZOB. "In January 1943 they had at their disposition 2 guns and one grenade, and this after 5 months of hard work. On April 19th ZOB had 70 handguns (50 of which they received from ZZW, and 10 from Polish communists). They had not a single machine gun... What more - no a single men who has ever see one, let alone the knowledge to use one. The numbers of ZOB (according to its official data) were 500 people during the uprising, but according to later memoirs of ZOB leaders it was only about 200-300 people. In the meantime the count for ZZW members during the uprising reached 1500 people (according to the memoirs of captain Zajdler and a few other officers of the Polish Home Army). The fact that ZZW also accepted into its ranks just about any person who was willing also influenced their numbers. They did not look at their party allegiance. Only the leadership remained revisionist. Among the leaders of medium rank we find a member of Bund, a member of Arudat-Israel and a communist. Joining with ZZW on autonomous principles, was the Hassidic organization from Braclaw and the left-wing socialist group of Richard Walewski, which ZOB did not accept for "not belonging to the Zionist camp". Neither did the communists and Bund, but they were accepted into ZOB for unknown reasons. It is also worth adding that ZZW numbers of 1500 fighters do not include all the different people which joined during the uprising. No one knows how many they were.

Left-wing party enlistment
Unlike ZZW, ZOB was created on purely political motives. The parties entering into this organization formed their own companies. There were 22 of them. Bund had 4 companies, the communists 4, and the remaining 15 belonged to the Zionist camp. Those without a political affiliation were not accepted into ZOB. They were not allowed acceptance lest there was a shortage of weapons. Because of these reasons, the numbers of ZOB could not have risen during the uprising. Another problem deepened this fact, because ZOB was mainly oriented on the Soviet Union and was looking for a link with the communist underground, counting on its help. Unfortunately, this help could not be given because of the weakness and small number of members.
The ZZW tried to work jointly with ZOB. There were many discussions about the union of the two organizations; unfortunately the left-wing Zionists continued their pre-war line of boycott of "fascists-revisionists". Nevertheless, they came to an agreement to collaborate, but separately. The ghetto territory was divided into two military districts. Each organization was responsible for its district. The ZZW also gave ZOB some of its weapons: 50 handguns and a few grenades, which became a big part of ZOB's weapons. "I will take a chance by saying that the lack of unity played a positive role. If the uprising was led by the chiefs of ZOB, and this is what uniting would have done, it would have weakened the resistance", convinces Alexander Swiszczew.

16 hours of ZOB
The author leaves absolutely no doubt as to the proportionally small participation of ZOB in the uprising: "The first German attacks on the ghetto were directed at ZOB positions near Nalewki and Zamenhof streets. ZOB warriors held a resistance for 16 hours, they set a tank on fire and eliminated from battle some twenty German soldiers; they then retreated. This marks the end of ZOB involvement in the uprising. But it is worth adding that some scattered ZOB groups were still active. On April 20th they still held a resistance while the Germans were destroying individual bunkers. What can be called "the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto" really lasted from April 17th until the 27th. The Germans were not fighting with ZOB.

ZZW under Polish and Jewish, ZOB under the red flag
After 16 hours of defense by ZOB, the Germans approached the Muranowski Square. It is here that the longest lasting position battle took place. The Square was the center of the ZZW district. The main ZZW staff was in house number 7. At Muranowski Square, in house number 17, Polish and Jewish flags were visible (the only ZOB flag which was seized by the Germans after their attack on the Anielewicz bunker was a red flag). A tunnel led into the basement of house number 7, which was used by ZZW to receive weapons and ammunitions from the city. ZZW warriors also dug 6 tunnels in different parts of the ghetto. One of them was discovered by the Germans even before the beginning of the uprising. ZOB didn't have a single tunnel. It is through this road that Josef Lejbski, linked with the Polish Home Army, supplied a heavy machine gun on the night of April 18th to 19th. It was mounted in the attic of house number 17 and strengthened considerably the power of ZZW. In the April 19th battles at the Muranowski Square, German soldiers tried to take the flag but they did not succeed until April 22nd.
The leader of the ghetto pacification, Brigadenfuhrer SS Jurgen von Stroop in his prison talk with Kazimierz Moczarski, admitted that "the problem of the flag had enormous political and moral implications". They united the nation around a right-wing government, especially Poles and Jews. Even a German criminal knew that this was impossible under the red flag. Reichsfuhrer Himmler shouted into the telephone: "Stroop, you must take down those two flags at any cost". Stroop received a First Class Eisen Kreuz for the pacifying of the ghetto.

The courage of the allies
In the meantime, the uprising seemed to be strangled. However, on April 27th squads of the Polish Home Army came with help. Major Henry Iwanski's squad walked through the tunnel and began to fight with the Germans. Simultaneously on the Muranowski Square, the soldiers of ZZW attacked the Germans. Both squads united together. In his report directed to Krakow he described the battle of ZZW with the Polish Home Army: "The main Jewish fighting group, in which Polish bandits also took place, retired the first or second day to a square called Muranowski. It became reinforced by a considerable number of Polish bandits. (...) On the roof of a building they put up Polish and Jewish flags as a sign of a war against us".
A part of ZZW Poles anticipated leaving the ghetto and joining the "Aryan side". David Apfelbaum refused to leave the ghetto because he had no links with many ZZW groups which were in other locations. Only a small number of warriors, 34, came out. For many hours, the Poles covered their evacuation, suffering much casuality. Major Iwanski was hurt, and both his sons, Edward and Roman were killed. The Germans lost over 100 people and one tank. In the April 27th battles, David Apfelbaum was severely wounded and died the following day. On April 29th the remaining ZZW warriors, which had lost all their leaders, left the ghetto through the Muranowski tunnel and became relocated in the Michalin Forest. This was the end of the main battles. It was the beginning of the penetration inside the ghetto and destruction of bunkers.

The last days of the uprising
From Stroop's report: "Unfolding of operation 29.04.43 (...). 36 bunkers intended as living quarters were found. From these and other hiding places, 2359 Jews were taken out, and 106 of these Jews died in battle (...). Forces: same as yesterday, no causalities. Unfolding of operation 2.05.43. We found 27 bunkers (...). Amongst the wounded - 4 German policemen, 4 Polish policemen. 6.05.43 (...). The Unterscharfuhrer SS was wounded (...). 47 bunkers were also destroyed, two people were wounded.
It is clear that during the destruction of the bunkers (631 were destroyed in total); the Germans also had a number of casualties. But these losses (106 Jews died in combat and not a single German was even wounded) are not comparable to the loss in the first days. Finally, the uprising was strangled on June 5th when the last battle took place with the Germans. Everything took place at the Muranowski Square. This time, the battle with the Germans was led by a group of Jewish criminals, without any link to either ZZW or ZOB. During the climax of finding and destroying bunkers, a small group of ZZW warriors entered the ghetto from the Aryan side and on May 5-6 they evacuated Jewish civilians into the city. By trying to camouflage the civilians, on May 6th, all the fighters were killed.

The ZOB evacuation
At the beginning of May, ZOB discovered a way out through the sewer system and left the ghetto. They would have escaped earlier perhaps, but they did not know the way since they did not have their own tunnels. As they were leaving the ghetto, they also left their warriors scattered in various places. From the memoirs of one of the members of the leadership of ZOB, it seems that they refused to take with them civilians and Jews without any political affiliations who were asking them for help.
Mordechaj Anielewicz refused to escape. On May 8th his bunker was surrounded by the Germans. Anielewicz, along with his fellow warriors were killed. According to some less trustworthy sources, Anielewicz killed himself earlier, before the bunker was surrounded by the Germans.

Apfelbaum led, not Anielewicz
"Various sources seem to indicate that the battle with the Germans was not led by the 'pacifists' from ZOB, but rather by the 'militants' of ZZW. Among the 1300 killed and wounded Germans, the ZOB hardly killed over a hundred of them. In agreement with this, the real leader of the uprising was not Mordechaj Anielewicz, but Lieutenant David Apfelbaum" (After his death he was advanced to the rank of Major) - believes Swiszczew.
A cited Jewish publicist strongly rejects slanderous talks of the Polish Home Army's idle watching of the destruction of the ghetto: "It is important to admit to false allegations of ZOB leaders (and all except Anielewicz survived) and Polish communists about the refusal by the Polish Home Army to help those fighting in the ghetto. Of course, the half million men Polish Home Army could have shown a greater help, but can we blame her for this?"

The communists sold ZOB
Alexander Swiszczew presents rather straightforwardly the communists' role and position of ZOB, who trusted them: "The Polish communists' interest in throwing mud at their political adversaries is understandable, as is ZOB's anger towards them. But if we must blame someone for the 'selling' of the ghetto uprising, it would be the Polish communists. The Polish Home Army showed great support, even if it was only towards 'their own Jews'. During this time, the communists sent 'their own Jews' only 10 handguns. It was enough for Anielewicz to shoot himself..."
The Jewish publicist suggests upfront that removing the truth about the participation of ZOB soldiers from history, takes away the facts from the Jewish resistance movement's best achievements. This is why - he convinces - "most of the lies spread around the uprising would not necessarily be presented by increasing the role of 'our own' and attacking 'strangers'. Complaining during the war is a normal thing. The biggest scare comes from the fact that these lies are used to calumniate the entire Jewish nation. Yet, the entire Jewish nation was walking like a 'lamb to the slaughterhouse', and for this reason the heroes of the uprising held a resistance".

A calling for the truth
In his book The Ghetto is Fighting, published shortly after the war, Edelman does not even mention ZZW. Another member of ZOB, Isaac Cukierman talks ignorantly about this organization. Yet there are testimonies from members of ZZW. Even in 1946, a small pamphlet appeared 'The truth about the Warsaw ghetto uprising'. Various memoirs of former ZZW members were published. In the 1960's a lot of material was gathered and systemized in Chaiman Lazarus-Litai's book Masada in Warsaw. Let us add to the list Muranowska 7, by Lazarus, published in 1966. Three years earlier David Wdowinski published a book in New York, And we are not saved, in which the publicist presents himself as one of the leaders of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It is also worth remembering Marian Apfelbaum's book Two Standards: the Thing about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, whose worth Anka Grupinska tried to diminish in 'Tygodnik Powszechny' (Searching for the (only) historical truth, 29.06.2003). Apfelbaum reminded about the Polish Home Army's role as an ally of the Jewish insurgents.

The perpetuity of lies or the past?
Even doctor Mark Edelman, one of the ZOB participants in the uprising, often called ZZW soldiers 'fascists'. He was convinced that ZOB lead the uprising. Later in the book interview Guardian, Mark Edelman tells about his trying to disregard and forget the past. "It is not important who shot where, how, and where they jumped. My purpose is not to give a testimony of the soldier's courage" - he explains. Edelman also unwillingly refers to the facts in the conversation with Hanna Krall, when he admitted that in the uprising, only about 200-220 warriors from his organization fought. "It doesn't matter" - he explains to Jew Michail Rumerow-Zarajewow. "Everything is nothing around the perpetuity of the past". The truth seems especially insignificant for certain Jewish scholars.

ZOB dishonored and the Holocaust enterprise
Paul Shapiro attempts to remember the true role of ZZW in 'Reczpospolita' ("The Jewish Military Organization - history's white stain", 5-6.07.2003 as well as: "The Unknown History. The Jewish Fighting Organization, The Jewish Military Association. A short course on remembering and forgetting"). Without hesitation, Shapiro writes about the damaging role of the ZOB propagandists, who built their own legend on ZZW's corpse: "To make sure that we are remembered and not forgotten, it is not sufficient to know how to use a machine gun; you have to always surround yourself with strategic weapons. On the example of our own country's 'London list' containing names of the ZOB fighters murdered in the ghetto uprising, names of people having nothing in common with the uprising but who were politically close were added. May I add that the person adding these names benefited from an excessive memory" - writes Shapiro. In his opinion, ZOB fighters make up one of the pillars of the Holocaust enterprise. Coming face to face with the truth about the general involvement of ZZW in the uprising, which was supported by the Polish Home Army, would have certainly shattered the interest of the support movements. It is not very polite to request compensation from the allies, but it is a lot simpler from a 'Polish anti-Semites'.
"60 years have gone by since the beginning of the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. Because it has become legendary, it should be freed from political prejudice and truthfully narrated with a straightforward relating of events. We owe this to the heroes of the uprising" - concluded Moshe Arens in The Jerusalem Post, concerned about this since the soldiers of ZZW could not write down their history. The insolence of leaders from the Jewish World Congress, who need 'Polish collaboration' in the emerging of the Auschwitz concentration camp, is the newest reminder of this. There are strong insinuations that the truth about the Polish-Jewish brothers in arms of the Polish Home Army - the ZZW - will not be eternalized in the Museum of Polish Jews in Warsaw - jointly created using Polish money - if the Polish side does not request this accomplishment.
The historical suicide of the Polish-Jewish brothers in arms heroes has produced deep and unhealed wounds in the memory of both nations. As long as, in the name of genuine ghetto heroes, usurpers are crying out praises asking for ten of millions of dollars for so-called compensation, the picture of a Jew in the eyes of a Pole - and vice-versa - will be distorted. There is consequently not a great deal of opportunity for a full normalization of relations between our nations without recalling the beautiful cards of a common history and removing any fire of its implementation.

By Waldemar Moszkowski

Friday, April 18, 2008

Myśląc Ojczyzna: "Językiem dyplomatycznym" red. Stanisław Michalkiewicz Felieton

Myśląc Ojczyzna: "Językiem dyplomatycznym" red. Stanisław Michalkiewicz Felieton


słuchajzapisz

Szanowni Państwo!

Wielokrotne doświadczenia nauczyły nas, żeby nigdy nie wierzyć politykom. Jeśli nawet polityk mówi, dajmy na to, "dzień dobry", to zanim uprzejmie mu odpowiemy na to pozdrowienie, najpierw sprawdźmy, czy aby na pewno jest dzień - bo czy był on "dobry", to okaże się dopiero o północy.
Dlaczego nie powinniśmy wierzyć politykom? Dlatego, że z reguły posługują się oni językiem dyplomatycznym. Język dyplomatyczny zaś nie służy wcale do wyrażania myśli, a zwłaszcza - do jasnego ich wyrażania, tylko przeciwnie - służy do ukrywania myśli. A w jaki sposób najlepiej ukryć myśl? To proste; myśl najlepiej ukryć w bezmyślnym bełkocie. To dlatego właśnie wystąpienia polityków sprawiają wrażenie beznadziejnie głupich, bo trzeba użyć bardzo dużo bezmyślnego bełkotu, żeby ukryć w nim jakąś - nawet byle jaką - myśl.
Jeśli zatem politycy mówią nam, że jest dobrze, a będzie jeszcze lepiej - powinniśmy raczej spodziewać się najgorszego, pamiętając o diagnozie Radia Erewań, ze "lepiej już było". Kiedy więc słyszymy, że Polska po przyłączeniu jej do nowego państwa - Unii Europejskiej - nie utraci niepodległości, to wiemy, ze jest to tylko bezmyślny bełkot, przy pomocy którego politycy pragną ukryć przed nami wstydliwą prawdę, że zgodzili się nie tylko na utratę niepodległości, ale prawdopodobnie i na swego rodzaju rozbiór Polski w nadziei, iż ich nowi zwierzchnicy zapewnia im łaskawy chleb na biurowych i poselskich posadach.
Ale żadna działalność ludzka nie jest doskonała i niekiedy politykom, nawet jeśli w ukrywaniu myśli doszli do wielkiej wprawy, ta sztuka nie udaje się do końca. Mam wrażenie, że taki właściwie wypadek przydarzył się prezydentowi Izraela, panu Szymonowi Peresowi, podczas przemówienia z okazji obchodów rocznicy powstania w getcie warszawskim. Pan prezydent Peres powiedział między innymi, że "Izrael pragnie zemsty", chociaż ma to być zemsta "w innym wymiarze". Ten "inny wymiar" polega na tym, by mścić się przy pomocy "pokoju".
Na pozór wypowiedź ta przypomina znany z przemówień innych polityków bezmyślny bełkot, ale tym razem chyba tak nie jest. Obawiam się, że tym razem prezydent Izraela, być może niechcący, ujawnił przed nami niepokojącą prawdę - że mianowicie również pokój może być narzędziem zemsty.
Właściwie nie jest to myśl oryginalna, bo przecież wszystkie wojny prędzej czy później kończyły się pokojem. Problem jednak polegał na tym, że niekoniecznie był to pokój sprawiedliwy. Weźmy na przykład drugą wojnę światową. Zakończyła się ona pokojem, ale pokój ten został osiągnięty dzięki decyzjom podjętym na konferencji w Jałcie w lutym 1945 roku, w następstwie których Polska, podobnie jak inne państwa Środkowej Europy, dostały się pod władzę Józefa Stalina i w sowieckiej niewoli przeżyły prawie pół wieku! Taki pokój rzeczywiście można byłoby potraktować w kategoriach zemsty, więc jak widzimy - prezydent Szymon Peres w gruncie rzeczy nie powiedział nam niczego nowego.
Jego deklaracja zyskuje walor nowości tylko wtedy, gdy potraktujemy ją jako ostrzeżenie. Czy jednak mamy podstawy, by tak właśnie ją potraktować? Akurat niedawno bawił w Izraelu pan premier Donald Tusk, według którego, od tej wizyty można rozpocząć liczenie nowej ery w stosunkach między obydwoma państwami. Byłoby to może bardzo ciekawe, ale pan premier Tusk już kilka razy zdążył ogłosić nowa erę, zarówno w stosunkach polsko-niemieckich, jak i w stosunkach polsko-rosyjskich. Te deklaracje okazały się jednak bez pokrycia, bo postępowanie Niemiec wobec Polski wprawia w zakłopotanie nawet "profesora" Władysława Bartoszewskiego, znanego w całym świecie ze strusiego żołądka, który przełknie i strawi wszystko, pod warunkiem odpowiedniej omasty w postaci nagrody, które Niemcy z charakterystyczną dla siebie systematycznością, przyznają mu regularnie mniej więcej co kwartał. Jeśli chodzi o Rosję, to w ogóle szkoda każdego słowa, bo dla scharakteryzowania rezultatów moskiewskiej wizyty pana premiera Donalda Tuska należałoby użyć wyłącznie sformułowań lekceważących, a to byłoby niezbyt taktowne.
Czy jednak deklaracja pana premiera Tuska, sugerująca nową erę w stosunkach polsko-izraelskich nie zawiera aby ziarenka prawdy? Tego wykluczyć nie można przede wszystkim z uwagi na zapowiedź polskiego premiera, iż do końca roku zostanie uchwalona ustawa o rekompensatach za mienie odebrane właścicielom przez komunistów, którzy objęli Polskę we władanie w ramach pokoju uzgodnionego w Jałcie.
Pan Szewach Weiss, były ambasador Izraela w Warszawie, uchodzący z tego tytułu za "przyjaciela Polski", w niedawnym felietonie zamieszczonym w "Rzeczpospolitej", sprecyzował izraelskie oczekiwania na kwotę od 30 do 60 miliardów dolarów. Warto zwrócić uwagę, że kiedy przed dwoma laty na tej antenie poinformowałem polską opinię publiczną o takiej właśnie skali żydowskich roszczeń wobec Polski, omal nie zostałem żywcem rozszarpany przez tubylczych ormowców politycznej poprawności. Ale skoro taką samą kwotę wymienia "przyjaciel Polski", to jego, ma się rozumieć, nikt o "antysemityzm" do prokuratury nie zaskarży.
Oczywiście pan premier Tusk nie obiecał wypłacenia całej tej sumy; takie zuchwalstwo nie przeszłoby przez gardło nawet jemu, chociaż pewnie "Gazeta Wyborcza" nazwałaby go wtedy "Umiłowanym Przywódcą", a i inne media nie ośmieliłyby się zbluźnić przeciwko takiej hojności. Ale oprócz mediów jest jeszcze milcząca większość, której taka hojność ich kosztem mogłaby się mimo wszystko nie spodobać. Dlatego też obiecał wypłacenie tylko 20 procent tej sumy. Ciekawe, że nawet te środowiska żydowskie, które jeszcze niedawno o żadnych 20 procentach nie chciały słyszeć, domagając się stu procent z odsetkami, tym razem, jak na komendę nabrały wody w usta i nie podjęły żadnej dyskusji. Można to sobie tłumaczyć na dwa sposoby: albo wspaniałomyślnie odstąpiły od zamiaru "pokojowej zemsty" na ubogiej Rzeczypospolitej - co wkładam raczej między bajki - albo traktują te 20 procent jako pierwszą transzę, takie włożenie nogi między drzwi, których potem już nie będzie można zamknąć, aż skarbiec zostanie opróżniony do ostatniego okruszka.
Chodzi bowiem o to, że ustawa, o której wspomina pan premier Tusk, dopiero stworzy podstawę prawną, umożliwiającą wysunięcie roszczeń tym, którzy do tej pory niczego skutecznie domagać się od Polski nie mogli. Ci bowiem, którzy naprawdę mieli uprawnienia do majątku, tytuły własności odzyskiwali bez żadnych dodatkowych ustaw. Najlepszym przykładem jest pan Ron Balamuth, spadkobierca właścicieli kamienicy w Wadowicach, w której urodził się Karol Wojtyła. Odzyskał on tytuł własności tej kamienicy w zwyczajnym postępowaniu przed polskim sądem, a następnie sprzedał ja panu Ryszardowi Krauzemu, który z kolei ofiarował ją na muzeum Jana Pawła II. Jeśli zatem prawdziwym spadkobiercom niepotrzebna jest żadna nowa ustawa, to komu jest potrzebna?
Pan minister Aleksander Grad twierdzi, że właśnie indywidualnym spadkobiercom i że organizacje tak zwanego "przemysłu holokaustu" nie dostana z tego tytułu ani grosza. Ale pan minister Grad może na razie sobie mówić, co mu się tylko podoba, bo nie ma jeszcze nawet założeń do rządowego projektu ustawy. Kiedy zaś przyjdzie do ich opracowywania, to już nie jestem pewien, czy pan minister Grad nie wykaże większej elastyczności, zwłaszcza gdyby zmusiła go do tego ta sama ręka, która przywiodła go do władzy. Wreszcie musimy pamiętać, że język dyplomatyczny służy nie do wyrażania, a do ukrywania myśli, więc nie można wykluczyć, że pan minister Grad chciał przed nami ukryć myśl następującą: "niech cymbały na razie myślą, że to prawda, że rząd dba o interes państwa i obywateli, a potem - niech sobie krzyczą i gadają, skoro i tak będzie już po harapie."?
Warto przypomnieć, że w roku 1997 Polska, jako łapówkę za przyjęcie do NATO, musiała uchwalić ustawę o stosunku państwa do gmin żydowskich, na podstawie której przewidziano transfer majątku o wartości około 10 miliardów dolarów. Akurat dzięki uprzejmości jednego z Czytelników i Słuchaczy dostałem dokumentację nieruchomości w Gdańsku, która w 1939 roku została przez tamtejszą gminę żydowską sprzedana notarialnie za wynagrodzeniem Senatowi Wolnego Miasta Gdańska, a obecnie - "odzyskana" przez tamtejszą gminę żydowską - być może z zamiarem powtórnego jej sprzedania.
Skoro jedna niewielka gmina potrafi wykręcać takie sztuki pod samym nosem pana premiera Tuska, to cóż dopiero mówić o organizacjach "przemysłu holokaustu", dysponujących nie tylko rezerwą finansową, ale i potężnymi wpływami, wobec których głosik rządu pana premiera Tuska cieńszy jest od pisku? Dlatego też, im więcej zapewnień ze strony rządu, że wszystko będzie w jak najlepszym porządku, tym mniej pewności po naszej - obywateli stronie, bo już wiemy, ze politykom, w szczególności aktualnie nas reprezentującym, nie można wierzyć ani na jotę.

Mówił Stanisław Michalkiewicz

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Sendler Irena Mother of the Holocaust Children

Sendler Irena Mother of the Holocaust Children


Poland was the only country in all of Nazi-occupied Europe with death penalty for sheltering Jews. Germans knew how sympathetic Poles were to Polish Jews and in that way they could get rid of them both. Entire families, sometimes whole towns were murdered for sheltering Jews.

Spam What about the fact that - despite the overwhelming and deadly idea of antisemitism in the Third Reich - there were a large number of individuals and organizations (such as Zygota in Poland) that risked (and sometimes lost) their lives in the effort to save Jews? They saved thousands of Jewish children from the Nazi, smuggled them out of the Warsaw Getto and hid with Polish families?

Friday, April 11, 2008

Wizyta premiera Tuska w Izraelu prof. dr hab Bobusław Wolniewicz

Wizyta premiera Tuska w Izraelu prof. dr hab Bobusław Wolniewicz

Prawdziwa kompromitacja rządu premiera Tuska, a zwłaszcza jego osobiście



Wizyta premiera Tuska w Izraelu
prof. dr hab Bobusław Wolniewicz

słuchajzapisz


Bogusław Wolniewicz (ur. 22 września 1927 w Toruniu) - filozof i logik. Publicysta i felietonista m.in. Telewizji Trwam, Radia Maryja , Naszego Dziennika. W 2005 r. startował w wyborach parlamentarnych z listy Platformy Janusza Korwin-Mikke.


Życiorys
Studiował w latach 1947-1951 na Uniwersytecie Mikołaja Kopernika pod kierunkiem Tadeusza Czeżowskiego. Do 1953 r. był asystentem w Katedrze Logiki UMK, a od 1956 r. wykładowcą na WSP w Gdańsku. W 1963 r. został przeniesiony do Katedry Filozofii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego z inicjatywy Adama Schaffa. Do 1998 r. był profesorem w Instytucie Filozofii UW, kiedy to odszedł na emeryturę. W latach 1956 - 1981 członek PZPR.


Nauka
Bogusław Wolniewicz specjalizuje się w filozofii religii i filozofii współczesnej. Dystansuje się od głównych nurtów filozofii XX wieku i przyjmuje tezy wielkich myślicieli, m.in.: Arystotelesa, Leibniza, Hume'a, Kanta i szczególnie Wittgensteina. Krytyczny wobec freudyzmu, fenomenologii, postmodernizmu i fundamentalizmu religijnego, a od lat 90. XX wieku także marksizmu, reprezentuje postawę analityczną i metafizyczną. Główne założenia jego myśli to aksjologiczny absolutyzm w wersji racjonalistycznej i metafizyczny pesymizm w spojrzeniu na człowieka oraz społeczeństwo.

Postanowieniem prezydenta Aleksandra Kwaśniewskiego z dnia 11 listopada 1997 roku, za wybitne zasługi dla nauki polskiej, został odznaczony Krzyżem Oficerskim Orderu Odrodzenia Polski.


Polityka
Bogusław Wolniewicz startował w wyborach parlamentarnych w 2005 r. z list Platformy Janusza Korwin-Mikke, ale nie został posłem.

9 kwietnia 2006 Wolniewicz, wraz z o. Mieczysławem Krąpcem i ks. Czesławem Bartnikiem, zainicjował Społeczny Niezależny Zespół ds. Etyki Mediów, poparty m.in. przez przedstawicieli świata nauki i mediów, który postawił sobie za cel "informować rzetelnie opinię publiczną w kraju i na świecie o wszelkich poczynaniach w mediach i wokół nich, które zagrażają bądź obyczajności, bądź swobodzie publicznej dyskusji"[1]. Wolniewicz wyraził przekonanie, że Rada Etyki Mediów chce "nałożyć Polsce kaganiec na swobodę publicznej dyskusji" i "wprowadzić skrytą cenzurę"[2]. Inicjatywa ta miała miejsce po tym, jak Rada Etyki Mediów oraz Marek Edelman skrytykowali[3] Radio Maryja za nadanie, określanego przez nich jako antysemickiego, felietonu[4] Stanisława Michalkiewicza, a kieleckie Stowarzyszenie im. Jana Karskiego zażądało od prokuratury wszczęcia postępowania przeciwko autorowi[5].


Wybrane pisma
Ontologia sytuacji : podstawy i zastosowania, Warszawa : Państwowe Wydaw. Naukowe, 1985.
Filozofia i wartości : rozprawy i wypowiedzi : z fragmentami pism Tadeusza Kotarbińskiego, Warszawa : Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 1993.
Filozofia i wartości, 2, Warszawa : Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 1998.
Logic and metaphysics : studies in Wittgenstein's ontology of facts, Warszawa : "Znak, Język, Rzeczywistość" : Polskie Towarzystwo Semiotyczne, 1999.
Filozofia i wartości, 3, Z fragmentem "Księgi tragizmu" Henryka Elzenberga i jego uwagami o "Dociekaniach" Wittgensteina, Warszawa : Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2003.
Boguslaw Wolniewicz and the Formal Ontology of Situations


INTRODUCTION

"The theory presented below was developed in an effort to clarify the metaphysics of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. The result obtained, however, is not strictly the formal twin of his variant of Logical Atomism. but something more, general, of which the latter is lust a special case. One might call it an ontology of situations. Some basic ideas of that ontology stern from Stenius Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Oxford, 1968 and Suszko Ontology in the Tractatus of L. Wittgenstein - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1968.

Let L be a classic propositional language. Propositions of L are supposed to have their semantic counterparts in the realm of possibility, or as Wittgenstein put it: in logical space. These counterparts are situations, and S is to be the totality of them. The situation described by a proposition a is S(a). With Meinong we call it the objective of a."

From: Boguslaw Wolniewicz - A formal ontology of situations - Studia Logica 41: 381-413 (1982). pp. 381-382.



"Different ontologies adopt different notions of existence as basic. Aristotle's paradigm of existence is given by the equivalence:

(A) to be = to be a substance.

On the other hand, the paradigm of existence adopted in Wittgenstein's Tractatus is given by the parallel equivalence:

(W) to be = to be a fact.

Now, an Aristotelian substance is the denotation of an individual name, whereas a Wittgensteinian fact is the denotation of a true proposition. It seems therefore that the notions of existence derived from these two paradigms should be quite different, and one might readily expect that the metaphysical systems erected upon them will display wide structural discrepancies.

It turns out, however, that in spite of this basic difference there runs between these two systems a deep and striking parallelism. This parallelism is so close indeed that it makes possible the construction of a vocabulary which would transform characteristic propositions of Wittgenstein's ontology into Aristotelian ones, and conversely. To show in some detail the workings of that transformation will be the subject of this paper.

The vocabulary mentioned is based on the following four fundamental correlations:



Aristotle
Wittgenstein

1) primary substances (substantiae primae)
atomic facts
2) prime matter (materia prima)
objects

3) form (forma)
configuration

4) self-subsistence of primary substances (esse per se)
independence of atomic facts




Aristotle's ontology is an ontology of substances, Wittgenstein's ontology is an ontology of facts. But concerning the respective items of each of the pairs (1)-(4) both ontologies lay down conditions which in view of our vocabulary appear to be identical. To show this let us confront, to begin with, the items of pair (1): substances and facts.

(The interpretation of Aristotle adopted in this paper is the standard one, to be found in any competent textbook of the history of philosophy. Therefore, with but one exception, no references to Aristotle's works will be given here.)Relatively to the system involved substances and facts are of the same ontological status. Aristotle's world is the totality of substances (summa rerum), Wittgenstein's world is the totality of facts (die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen). For Aristotle whatever exists in the basic sense of the word is a primary substance, for Wittgenstein - an atomic fact. Moreover, both ontologies are MODAL ones, allowing for different modes of being (modi essendi); and both take as basic the notion of `contingent being' (esse contingens), opposed to necessary being on the one hand, and to the possibility of being on the other. Both substances and facts are entities which actually exist, but might have not existed. The equality of ontological status between substances and facts is corroborated by the circumstance that both are PARTICULARS, there being - as the saying goes - no multiplicity of entities which FALL UNDER them.

Substances and facts stand also in the same relation to the ontological categories of pairs (2) and (3). Both are always COMPOUND entities, a substance consisting of matter and form, and a fact consisting of objects and the way of their configuration. But in neither of the two systems is this compoundness to be understood literally as composition of physically separable parts or pieces. The compoundness (compositio) of a substance consists in its being formed stuff (materia informata), and the compoundness of a fact in its being a configuration of objects.

In view of correlation (4) we have also an equality of relation which a substance bears to other substances, and a fact to other facts. Self-subsistence is the characteristic attribute of primary substances: substantia prima = ens per se. If we take this to mean that each substance exists independently of the existence or non-existence of any other substance we get immediately the exact counterpart of Wittgenstein's principle of logical atomism stating the mutual independence of atomic facts. It should be noted that thus understood the attribute of self-subsistence or independence is a relative one, belonging to a substance - or to a fact - only in virtue of its relation to other substances - or facts.

From a Wittgensteinian point of view Aristotle's substances are not things, but hypostases of facts, and thus their names are not logically proper names, but name-like equivalents of propositions. (By that term we mean roughly either a noun clause of the form `that p', or any symbol which might be regarded as a definitional abbreviation of such clause.) Surely, from the Aristotelian point of view it might be easily retorted here that just the opposite is the case: substances are not `reified' facts, but on the contrary - facts are 'dereified' substances. Without passing judgement on these mutual objections let us note in passing that their symmetric character seems to be itself an additional manifestation of the parallelism discussed."

From: Boguslaw Wolniewicz - A parallelism between Wittgensteinian and Aristotelian ontologies. In Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. IV. Edited by Cohen Robert S. and Wartofsky Marx W. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company 1969. pp. 208-210 (notes omitted).




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS (Works in Polish are not enclosed)

In 1970 Boguslaw Wolniewicz published a Polish translation of Ludwig Wittgenstein Tractatus logico-philosophicus.

A difference between Russell's and Wittgenstein's logical atomism. In Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongresses für Philosophie. Wien, 2. - 9. September 1968 - Vol. II. Wien: Herder 1968. pp. 263-267
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp.193-197

"A note on Black's 'Companion'," Mind 78: 141 (1969).
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - p. 229.

"It is a mistake to suppose that in Wittgenstein's "Tractatus" the meaning of Urbild has any connexion with that of picture. "

A parallelism between Wittgensteinian and Aristotelian ontologies. In Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. IV. Edited by Cohen Robert S. and Wartofsky Marx W. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company 1969. pp. 208-217
Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the philosophy of science 1966/1968.

Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp.198-207

"Four notion of independence," Theoria 36: 161-164 (1970).
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp.127-130.

WFour (binary) relations of independence I(p,q) between propositions are distinguished: the Wittgensteinian I sub-w, the statistical I sub-s, the modal I sub-m, and the deductive I sub-d. The validity of the following theorem is argued for: I sub-w(p,q) implies I sub-s(p,q) implies I sub-m(p,q) implies Isub-d(p,q). "

Wittgensteinian foundations of non-Fregean logic. In Contemporary East European philosophy. Vol. 3. Edited by D'Angelo Edward, DeGrood David, and Riepe Dale. Bridgeport: Spartacus Books 1971. pp. 231-243

"The notion of fact as a modal operator," Teorema: 59-66 (1972).
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp. 218-224

"The notion of fact /fp = "it is a fact that p"/ is characterized axiomatically, and the ensuing modal systems shown to be equivalent to tT, S4 and S5 respectively."

Zur Semantik des Satzkalküls: Frege und Wittgenstein. In Der Mensch - Subjekt und Objekt (Festchrift für Adam Schaff). Edited by Borbé Tasso. Wien: Europaverl. 1973. pp.

Sachlage und Elementarsätz. In Wittgenstein and his impact on contemporary thought. Proceedings of the Second International Wittgenstein Symposium, 29th August to 4th September 1977, Kirchberg/Wechsel (Austria). Edited by Leinfellner Elisabeth. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1977. pp. 174-176

"Objectives of propositions," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 7: 143-147 (1978).
"The paper sketches out a semantics for propositions based upon the Wittgensteinian notion of a possible situation. The objective of a proposition is defined as the smallest situation verifying it. Two propositions are assumed to have the same objective iff they are strictly equivalent. Formulas are given which determine the objectives of conjunction and disjunction as functions of the objectives of their components. finally a link with possible-world semantics is established."

"Situations as the reference of propositions," Dialectics and Humanism 5: 171-182 (1978).
"The reference of propositions is determined for a class of languages to be called the "Wittgensteinian" ones. A meaningful proposition presents a possible situation. Every consistent conjunction of elementary propositions presents an elementary situation. The smallest elementary situations are the "Sachverhalte"; the greatest are possible worlds. The situation presented by a proposition is to be distinguished from that verifying it, but the greatest situation presented is identical with the smallest verifying. The reference of compound propositions is then determined as a function of their components."

"Les situations comme corrélats semantiques des enoncés," Studia Filozoficzne 2: 27-41 (1978).

Wittgenstein und der Positivismus. In Wittgenstein, the Vienna circle and critical rationalism. Proceedings of the third International Wittgenstein Symposium, 13th to 19th August 1978, Kirchberg am Wechsel (Austria). Edited by Bergehel Hal, Hübner Adolf, and Eckehart Köhler. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1978. pp. 75-77

"Some formal properties of objectives," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 8: 16-20 (1979).
"The objectives of propositions as defined in an earlier paper are shown here to form a distributive lattice."

A Wittgensteinian semantics for propositions. In Intention and intentionality. Essay in honour of G. E. M. Anscombe. Edited by Diamond Cora and Teichman Jenny. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1979. pp. 165-178
"More than once Professor Anscombe has expressed doubt concerning the semantic efficacy of the idea of an 'elementary proposition' as conceived in the Tractatus. Wittgenstein himself eventually discarded it, together with the whole philosophy of language of which it had been an essential part. None the less the idea is still with us, and it seems to cover theoretical potentialities yet to be explored. This paper is a tentative move in that direction.
According to Professor Anscombe, (*) Wittgenstein's 'elementary propositions' may be characterized by the following five theses:
(1) They are a class of mutually independent propositions.
(2) They are essentially positive.
(2) They are such that for each of them there are no two ways of being true or false, but only one.
(4) They are such that there is in them no distinction between an internal and an external negation.
(5) They are concatenations of names, which are absolutely simple signs.
We shall not investigate whether this is an adequate axiomatic for the notion under consideration. We suppose it is. In any case it is possible to modify it in one way or another, and for the resulting notion still to preserve a family resemblance with the original idea. One such modification is sketched out below."

"On the lattice of elementary situations," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 9: 115-121 (1980).

"On the verifiers of disjunction," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 9: 57-59 (1980).

"The Boolean algebra of objectives," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 10: 17-23 (1981).
"This concludes a series of papers constructing a semantics for propositional languages based on the notion of a possible "situation". Objectives of propositions are the situations described by them. The set of objectives is defined and shown to be a boolean algebra isomorphic to that formed by sets of possible worlds."

"A closure system for elementary situations," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 11: 134-139 (1982).

"On logical space," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 11: 84-88 (1982).

"Ludwig Fleck and Polish philosophy," Dialectics and Humanism 9: 25-28 (1982).

"A formal ontology of situations," Studia Logica 41: 381-413 (1982).
"A generalized Wittgensteinian semantics for propositional languages is presented, based on a lattice of elementary situations. Of these, maximal ones are possible worlds, constituting a logical space; minimal ones are logical atoms, partitioned into its dimensions. A verifier of a proposition is an elementary situation such that if real it makes true. The reference (or objective) of a proposition is a situation, which is the set of all its minimal verifiers. (Maximal ones constitute its locus.) Situations are shown to form a Boolean algebra, and the Boolean set algebra of loci is its representation. Wittgenstein's is a special case, admitting binary dimensions only."

Contents:
0. Preliminaries;
1. Elementary Situations
1.1.The Axioms; 1.2.Some Consequences; 1.3. W-Independence; 1.4.States of Affairs;
2. Sets of Elementary Situations
2.1.The Semigroup of SE"-Sets; 2.2.The Lattice of Minimal SE"-Sets; 2.3.Q-Spaces and V-Sets; 2.4.V-Equivalence and Q-Equivalence; 2.4.V-Classes and V-Sets;
3. Objectives of Propositions
3.1. Verifiers of Propositions; 3.2. Verifying and Forcing; 3.3. Situations and Logical Loci; 3.4. Loci and Objectives of Compound Propositions 3.5. The Boolean Algebra of Situations;
4. References

"Truth arguments and independence," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 12: 21-28 (1983).

"Logical space and metaphysical systems," Studia Logica 42: 269-284 (1983).
"The paper applies the theory presented in "A formal ontology of situations" (Studia Logica, vol. 41 (1982), no. 4) to obtain a typology of metaphysical systems by interpreting them as different ontologies of situations.
Four are treated in some detail: Hume's diachronic atomism, Laplacean determinism, Hume's synchronic atomism, and Wittgenstein's logical atomism. Moreover, the relation of that theory to the "situation semantics" of Perry and Barwise is discussed."

"An algebra of subsets for join-semilatttices with unit," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 13: 21-24 (1984).

"A topology for logical space," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 13: 255-259 (1984).

"Suszko: a reminiscence," Studia Logica 43: 317-321 (1984).
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp.302-306

"Die Grundwerte einer wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassaung," Conceptus 19: 3-8 (1985).
"The scientific world-view is one of the fundamentals of our culture. It can be characterized in part by its specific system of values. A world-view is regarded as a scientific one if "truth" is one of its primary values, that is, as a value which is not a means, but an end in itself. Truth is served in particular by the two instrumental values of conceptual clarity and openness to critique. Their standing is (at present) low, for two reasons. (1) Unclear thinking not only promotes social idols; its consequences are also often difficult to see clearly and immediately. (2) In any case truth is of no interest (in a biological sense) to human beings; therefore, critique can at best be a socially tolerated activity. On the other hand, truth is not only a value, but also a force which in the long run cannot be held back; this fact gives some hope to adherents of the scientific world-view. "

"Discreteness of logical space," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 15: 132-136 (1986).

"Entailments and independence in join-semilattices," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 18: 2-5 (1989).
"The paper generalizes Wittgenstein's notion of independence. in a join-semilattice of elementary situations the atoms are the Sachverhalte, and maximal ideals are possible worlds. A subset of that semilattice is independent iff it is free of "ontic ties". This is shown to be equivalent to independence in von Neumann's sense."

"On atomic join-semilattices," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 18: 105-111 (1989).
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp. 307-312.

The essence of Logical Atomism: Hume and Wittgenstein. In Wittgenstein. Eine Neubewertung. Akten 14. Internationale Wittgenstein-Symposium. Vol. 1. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1990. pp. 106-111

"A question about join-semilattices," Bulletin of the Section of Logic: 108 (1990).

Concerning reism in Kotarbinski. In Kotarbinski: logic. semantics and ontology. Edited by Wolenski Jan. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1990. pp. 199-204
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp.265-271

Elzenberg's logic of values. In Logic counts. Edited by Zarnecka-Bialy Ewa. Dordrecht: Kluwe 1990. pp. 63-70
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp. 286-292 (with the title: Elzenberg's axiology"

"1. Values are what our value-Judgements refer to, and the passing of Judgements is one of our vital activities, like sleeping and breathing. We constantly appraise things as good or bad, pretty or ugly, as noble or base, well-made or misshapen. No wonder that both the act of appraisal and that which it refers to - i.e. the real or spurious values - have been always the source of philosophical reflexion. In systematic form such reflexion is what we call axiology.
In Polish philosophy it was Henryk Elzenberg (1887-1967) who reflected upon matters of axiology most deeply and incisively.
(...)
3. Leibniz had said somewhere: "There are two mazes in which the human mind is most likely to get lost: one is the concept of continuity, the other is that of liberty". This admits of generalization: all concepts are mazes, viz mazes of logical relations between the propositions that involve them.
One such maze is the concept of 'value'. Possibly, it is even the same as one of the two mentioned by Leibniz, only entered - so to say - by another door. For it would be in full accord with Elzenberg's position - and with that of Kant too - to adopt the following characteristic: values are what controls the actions of free agents. Thus the concepts of value and of liberty should constitute one conceptual maze, or - which comes to the same - two mazes communicating with each other.
To get a survey of such logical maze the first thing is to fix the ontological category of the concept in question. Thus, in our case, we ask what kind of entities are those 'values' supposed to be. (Ontological categories are the most general classes of entities, the summa genera A term even more general has to cover literally everything: like 'entity' or 'something'. For everything is an entity, just as everything is a something.)
Different ontologies admit different sets of categories. The categories most frequently referred to are those of 'objects', 'properties', and 'relations'; the more exotic ones are those of an 'event', a 'set', a 'function', or a 'situation'. One point, however, is of paramount importance: the categories admitted In one ontology have to be mutually disjoint". p. 63; 66.

"A sequel to Hawranek/Zygmunt," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 20: 143-144 (1991).

Needs and value. In Logic and ethics. Edited by Geach Peter. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1991. pp.

On the discontinuity of Wittgenstein's philosophy. In Peter Geach: philosophical encounters. Edited by Lewis Harry. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1991. pp. 77-81
Reprinted in: Logic and metaphysics (1999) - pp. 13-17.

"A question of logic in the philosophy of religion," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 22: 33-36 (1993).

On the synthetic a priori. In Philosophical logic in Poland. Edited by Wolenski Jan. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994. pp. 327-336

Logic and metaphysics. Studies in Wittgenstein's ontology of facts. Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Semiotyczne 1999.
Contents: Preface 11; Discontinuity of Wittgenstein's philosophy 13; 1. Elementary situations as a lattice of finite length 19; Elementary situations as a semilattice 73; 3. Independence 127; 4. Elementary situations generalized 137; 5. Auxiliary studies 193; 5.1 The Logical Atomisms of Russell and Wittgenstein 193; 5.2 A parallelism between Wittgenstein and Aristotle 198; 5.3 Frege's semantics 207; 5.4. The notion of fact as a modal operator 218; 5.5 "Tractatus" 5.541 - 5.542 224; 5.6 History of the concept of a Situation 229; 6. Offshoots 243 6.1 Languages and codes 243; 6.2 Logic and hermeneutics 254; 6.3 Kotarbinski's Reism 265; 6.4 On Bayle's critique of theodicy 271; 6.5 Elzenberg's axiology 286; 6.6 Needs and values 293; 6.7 Suszko: a reminiscence 302; Supplements 307; Indices: Index of subjects 317; Index of names 326; Index of Tractatus references 329.

"Atoms in semantic frames," Logica Trianguli 4: 69-86 (2000).
"Elaborating on Wittgenstein's ontology of facts, semantic frames are described axiomatically as based on the notion of an elementary situation being the verifier of a proposition. Conditions are investigated then for suchframes to be atomic, i.e. to have lattice-theoretic counterparts of his "Sachverhalte"."

"Extending atomistic frames," Logica Trianguli 5 (2001).

Tractatus 5.541 - 5.542. In Satz un Sachverhalt. Edited by Neumaier Otto. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag 2001. pp. 185-190
"In Wittgenstein's "Tractatus", thesis 5 is the Principle of Extensionality: all propositions are truth-functions of their clauses. This, however, has been often thrown into doubt. There are - it is said - compound propositions whose truth-value does not depend on that of their clauses. The usual example given are the so-called intensional contexts, like "John thinks that p", or "John says that p". And indeed, the truth-value of "p" is patently immaterial here to that of the whole proposition which it is part of.
Wittgenstein's retort are the following much discussed theses, adduced here in a translation of our own:

5.54 In the general propositional form, propositions occur in one another only as bases of truth-operations.
5.541 At first sight it seems that a proposition might occur in another also in a different way.
Particularly in certain propositional forms of psychology, like "A believes that p is the case", "A thinks p", etc.
For taken superficially, proposition p seems here to stand to the object A in some sort of relation.
(And in modem epistemology - Russell, Moore, etc. - these have actually been construed that way.)
5.542 However, "A believes that p", "A thinks p", "A says p" are clearly of the form " 'p' says p "; and this is not correlating a fact with an object, but a correlation of facts by correlating their objects.

The objection is met here in two steps. Firstly, it is pointed out that a proposition of the form "John says that p" is actually of the form "'p' says that p". The idea is this: the proposition "John says that Jill has a cat" means: John produces the sentence "Jill has a cat", the latter saying by itself that Jill has a cat. In such a way propositions get independent of the persons producing them, and communicate some objective content. It is surely not by John's looks that we come to know about Jill's cat, but merely by his words. Whom they stem from, is irrelevant.
In his second step Wittgenstein follows Frege's interpretation of indirect speech, but with modifications. He points out that the formula " 'p' says that p " is equivalent to some compound proposition in which neither the proposition "p" as a syntactic unit, nor anything equivalent to it, does occur although there occur all the logically relevant constituents of "p" separately.
(...)
The distinction between abstract and concrete states of affairs is not drawn explicitly in the "Tractatus". But it fits well thesis 5.156, if we expand that thesis by a few words of comment, added here in brackets:

5.156(d) A proposition may well be en incomplete image of a particular (concrete) situation, but it is always the complete image (of an abstract one).

The circumstance that in 5.156 not "states of affairs", but "situations" are mentioned, is of no consequence in our context. We assume that states of affairs are just atomic situations, and so the distinction between "concrete" and "abstract" applies to both."

"Extending atomistic frames: part II," Logica Trianguli 6: 69-88 (2003).
"The paper concludes an earlier one (Logica Trianguli, 5) on extensions of atomistic semantic frames. Three kinds of extension are considered: the adjunctive, the conjunctive, and the disjunctive one. Some theorems are proved on extending "Humean" frames, i.e. such that the elementary situations constituting their universa are separated by the maximally coherent sets of them ("realizations")."

"On a minimality condition," Bulletin of the Section of Logic 34: 227-228 (2005).