Przeglądarka, z której korzystasz jest przestarzała.

Starsze przeglądarki internetowe takie jak Internet Explorer 6, 7 i 8 posiadają udokumentowane luki bezpieczeństwa, ograniczoną funkcjonalność oraz nie są zgodne z najnowszymi standardami.

Prosimy o zainstalowanie nowszej przeglądarki, która pozwoli Ci skorzystać z pełni możliwości oferowanych przez nasz portal, jak również znacznie ułatwi Ci przeglądanie internetu w przyszłości :)

Pobierz nowszą przeglądarkę:

Użytkownik

"Le Point" krytykuje kontrowersyjną książkę o Janie Karskim

Utworzony przez Sieczkobrzęk, 9 lutego 2010 o 13:58
To w końcu kto krytykuje "dzieło" Pana Haenela ; "Le Point" czy Pan Pawełek? A swoją drogą to dziwię się Panu Profesorowi Karskiemu takiego przyjaciela jak Pan Pawełek.
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0
Ale przecież prawdą jest, że USA i Wielka Brytania pomijały fakt mordowania Żydów, jaki przekazał Karski, co zresztą pomija Lanzmann. Ta prawda nie była i nie jest wygodna dla Brytyjczyków i Amerykanów. Co więcej, nie przyjmują jej również sami Żydzi. Winą obarcza się dzisiaj Polaków, a gdzie wówczas byli wielcy tego świata?
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0
PISZĄ MITOMANI SWOJĄ WERSJĘ HISTORII ,WSZAK JUDZENIEM ZAJMUJĄ SIĘ OD ZAWSZE
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0
Sieczkobrzęk napisał:
To w końcu kto krytykuje "dzieło" Pana Haenela ; "Le Point" czy Pan Pawełek? A swoją drogą to dziwię się Panu Profesorowi Karskiemu takiego przyjaciela jak Pan Pawełek.
Ciekawi mnie czy Ci Panowie z Lublina odezwą się w przypadku ataku Lanzmana na Pana Profesora Karskiego. Ten typ już odgraża się, że skontruje książkę a właściwie osobę Pana Karskiego. Poczekamy, zobaczymy.
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0
a niech se tam robio co chco a kazdy prawidzwy polak wie, co gdyby nie takie karskie, to Pelowcy nie wzieliby wladzy i juz Polska by wolna i sprawiedliwie by sie ze narodem dobrami dzielila. a tak dali nam Tuska i masz babo placek. ale to juz zaras bedzie czas do wyborczego pojemnika kartke wsadzic i wypendzic to wszystko Zydowstwo.
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0
Karskim nie powinno się szafować. W Polsce nir robi się jaj z de Gaulle'a
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0
Kazimierz napisał:
a niech se tam robio co chco a kazdy prawidzwy polak wie, co gdyby nie takie karskie, to Pelowcy nie wzieliby wladzy i juz Polska by wolna i sprawiedliwie by sie ze narodem dobrami dzielila. a tak dali nam Tuska i masz babo placek. ale to juz zaras bedzie czas do wyborczego pojemnika kartke wsadzic i wypendzic to wszystko Zydowstwo.
KAZIMIERZ GACIE PRZYMIERZ
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0
Michael Szporer: Quayling Jan Karski Yannick Haenel’s "Jan Karski" is an odd concoction--not really novel, but a compilation of two rudimentary summaries and a monologue, Yannick Haenel as Jan Karski. I have no problem with first person monologues, which may or may not resemble the author, and understand that first person, even in an autobiography, can be treated as a literary persona, or mask. However Haenel’s first person is nothing like Norman Mailer, or less adept literary biographers who try to popularize historical figures. Leaving historical inaccuracies aside, beginning with the book cover [Did anyone at Gallimard notice that Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941 and that Poland was devastated in September 1939?], the book is seriously flawed. It is difficult for me to understand from the point of view of historical literature why this particular work--a kind of Que Je Sais about Jan Karski--received such instant recognition in Paris as “groundbreaking.” Perhaps it was the sudden discovery of Jan Karski in a country with a troubled past of collaboration with the Nazis? Jan Karski’s heroism is well known outside of France, surely in America, in Israel--where he has been recognized as one of the Righteous-- and in his native Poland. If Karski isn’t better known around the world, it is only because Professor Karski was a remarkably humble man, who would not like to be transformed into something he was not. He genuinely believed he had done what any honest individual should have done. Of course he did more, because he could never forget the corpses his eyes saw in the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto and that “quivering cargo of flesh” at the transit camp Izbica, the last stop before extermination camps in Belzec and Sobibor. Haenel exaggerates when he says Karski was unknown, or had to be rediscovered. Jan Karski taught at the School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University, wrote several books, beginning with the best-seller, Story of a Secret State [1944], which Haenel summarizes even though it is available in French; he advised US government officials, his students went on to be very influential, among them president Bill Clinton. He had a distinguished academic career that included a Fulbright in 1974 to his native Poland to write The Great Powers and Poland 1919-45; evidence in the Institute of National Remembrance archives indicates that communist security forces were keenly aware of his activities. Karski archives were collected at the Hoover Institution. Forgotten were other heroes of Polish resistance, notably Jan Karski’s brother, Colonel Marian Kozielewski. Yannick Haenel probably meant well, even if his true intentions are a mystery. He wanted to immortalize Karski, and show that during the dark days of Nazi-occupied Europe and horrendous atrocities, humanity thrived in individual acts of courage. One should note that Jan Karski had quite a remarkable war career, not only as a messenger who first reported the horrors of the Holocaust. However, Haenel’s perplexities as a French intellectual strike me as mightier than his pen. Why didn’t Haenel do basic historical research if, as he claims, he wished to restore a remarkable historical figure to his rightful place in history, and challenge existing interpretations of who was really responsible for the Holocaust? Oddly missing is a reference to Elie Wiesel, a francophone writer and Nobel Prize laureate, who reminded the world of Jan Karski’s mission to save the Jews at the International Liberators Conference in October 26-28, 1981 held in Washington D.C. Haenel’s Jan Karski is a book about Haenel—and perhaps the generation he represents--not about Jan Karski. It would have been best to introduce Karski and let him speak for himself, as Claude Lanzmann did in Shoah, or as Waldemar Piasecki did in My Mission. Unfortunately, Haenel’s Jan Karski is nothing like the Jan Karski I knew in the later years of his life. Karski had no patience with silly and unsubstantiated divagations about the Holocaust, like Haenel’s, and rightly so. Such thinking distorts history and dishonors the people that perished. Karski saw the tragedy of the Jews as not fitting in with Allied strategic aims to put an end to Hitler and Nazi Germany as quickly as possible with minimal losses. Haenel’s Karski is tormented by what strike me as uniquely French guilt feelings about the Jews and collaboration with the Nazis during WWII; and uniquely French pangs about cultural inadequacy steeped in oddball provincialism. These are all too obvious in the book even when masked by Haenel’s blaming America and England for abandoning the Jews, and disregarding the plight of war-scarred Poland and its forgotten heroes. I admit to deconstructing Haenel’s argument, but I am only “un-reading” his misreading. He has aspired to do nothing less to post-war Europe and America. Haenel boldly claims that the free world of post-war period was built on the hidden guilt of Allied complicity in the Holocaust. Much said—very provocative; one could go out on the limb and nod with a “perhaps.” Nonetheless, there is little in Haenel’s mediocre misrepresentation of Jan Karski to substantiate such a robust claim. If Yannick Haenel wishes to write about himself, he should write an autobiography. If he wishes to fictionalize Karski, he should at least have the decency to be faithful to history where history is known. No doubt literature should provoke and make us think big thoughts, but an empty provocation does more damage than good. My problem with Haenel’s Jan Karski is that it is neither a fresh look at a historical figure nor inventive as literature—it is a form of Quayling,*or “dumbing” down, of Jan Karski. “Cher, Yannick, I knew Jan Karski. Jan Karski was a friend of mine. You’re no Jan Karski!” *Quayling or “dumbing down” is a reference to the former Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle. Yannick Haenel "Jan Karski", Gallimard, Paris 2009 Michael Szporer is a Professor of Communications at University of Maryland University and a member of the Jan Karski Society
Zaloguj się, aby oddać głos
0

Dodaj odpowiedź:


Zaznacz "Nie jestem robotem", by dodać komentarz: