Sunday, 21/4/2024 | 5:54 UTC+2

Dariusz Ratajczak

Post by relatedRelated post

Excerpt from interview with Polish Historian Zionists Hounded to Death

Dariusz+Ratajczak+[On June 11, 2010 the badly decomposed body of Dariusz Ratajczak (left) was found in a parked car. A noted Polish historian, a Ph.D. and author of many books, he was hounded out of his job after questioning the Zionist conception of Polish history. His treatment proves that Communism changes its face but remains in charge.]

I felt intuitively that we were facing the danger of replacing communist censorship with its soc-liberal equivalent. What is more, I anticipated that the result of the victorious invasion of political correctness would be a slavish subjugation of the science of history to politics.”

ZK : Where, when, and in what circumstances did first troubles start ? Was it in an educational institution, or did it take place outside university walls ? Who put the initial pressure on you ?

DR : To answer your question requires bringing up numerous details, including the names of my “worthy harassers”. I would not mind if servility, lying, and I do not hesitate to use this expression – common boorishness, so typical of our political elites and many scientific workers, saw the light of the day.

In 1988, I started working in an Opole learning institution, then called the Silesian Insurrectionists School of Pedagogy…. In the first half of the 1990s I had already an established position in the university. I won’t be bragging when I say that during my classes the classroom was always full. It was nice to hear from the students that I was considered a reliable historian and excellent speaker (this wasn’t particularly my own achievement, but that of genes inherited from my father, a lawyer), who was not afraid to take up topics that were dangerous from the viewpoint of political correctness…

I prepared a number of “incorrect topics”, which I followed through during classes. Let me mention only a few of them: “Starve the rat, or critically about American feminism”, “Freemasonry yesterday and today”, “Hitlerism and Communism common roots”, “Does colonialism deserve to be unconditionally condemned ?”, “The history of French Algeria”, and so on, and so forth. The students liked it a lot, but, at the same time, more and more often, I was called on the carpet by the director of the History Institute, Professor Stanislaw S. Nicieja (privately, the supervisor of my PhD thesis, and, later, the almighty Rector of Opole University). He would tell me, more or less, this: “I don’t impose anything on you; you’ve got excellent term marks, and we appreciate your knowledge. But do you really have to charge like this ? I know that what you do is based on sources, but do not go against the current, or it may end up bad.”

…The beginning of real troubles is connected, of course, with my publishing, in March 1999, of a little journalistic book entitled DANGEROUS TOPICS. Before I move on to the consequences of this publication, let me once again make a few introductory remarks. During the lectures, more than once, I touched on the so-called Jewish subject. This was most justified, especially in the context of most recent history of Poland. When I was speaking of the functions, structure, and make-up of the Ministry of Public Security, the grim ubecja , I would mention that in this institution there was an overrepresentation of individuals of Jewish extraction, especially on the decision level.

When I mentioned the case of the monstrous murder of Boleslaw Piasecki’s son, I would say, in accordance with truth, that all the traces of the murder led to Israel. When, finally, I was discussing the attitude of the majority of Jews toward Poland’s regaining independence in 1918, and their conduct in the years of the Polish-Bolshevik war, as well as after the Soviet invasion of September 17, 1939, I would state that they were not, by any means, the paragon of patriotic virtue. This irritated the university acabus. The end came eventually, under some pretext, in 1998, when my classes on most recent history of Poland got cut back; they were “transferred” to the 19th century.

This did not help much, because the Jewish ubeks could always be replaced with the Jews-Litwaks (30), who were equally anti-Polish. All in all, this was painful to me, the more so that, firstly, I would always base my lectures on sources, and, secondly, the Jewish subject was not the center of my historic interest. Of course, there was much criticism on my part there, but this precisely posture is connected immanently with the job I do.

In any case, no one accused me of the infamous anti-Semitism. It was similar in the case of several lectures devoted to Holocaust revisionism, which I had within the university walls in 1997/98. The university authorities murmured a little, whereas students stumbled over one another to attend, because, perhaps for the first time in the history of a Polish university, somebody was objectively relating the opinions of this milieu, one which is a social and historical reality. A milieu let us add that includes also Jews.

By the way, after these lectures, many students demanded from me, behind the stage, a clear attitude toward the theses announced by the revisionists. Invariably, I would reply as follows: “If the revisionists think there were no gas chambers, they are wrong. If they think six million Jews did not perish during the war, they are right. If they state that the Holocaust is not the pivot of the 20th century martyrdom, they are right. Otherwise, we would feel contempt for victims of the Soviet Gulag Archipelago, the Armenian victims of Turkish politics during World War One, or our own countrymen, victims of German and Soviet savagery in 1939-45. And what about the poor Tutsis, murdered by the gone-mad members of the Hutu tribe ? Can victims be divided into better and worse ones ?”

As I have mentioned, at the beginning of March 1999, I published, at my own expense, and in the symbolic edition of 320 copies, the book DANGEROUS TOPICS. I did it in order to leave behind, to record in a journalistic form, a trace of some of my university lectures. One of its subchapters was entitled ‘Holocaust Revisionism’.

For a month, nothing happened at the university, even though I had personally handed in the first copies to Rector Nicieja and the university “top”, with an appropriate, polite dedication. A month later, I am being summoned by no, not the Rector, nor the director of the History Institute, but one of the editors of the Gazeta Wyborcza (31) who tells me with a smirk: “We’ll trample you into the ground for the little book, and the little subchapter on the Holocaust”. Well, so it all started out. On April 8, the Council of the Pedagogic-Historic Faculty of Opole University gathers up summarily, and condemns me “spontaneously”.

At the same time, the Gazeta Wyborcza, and other left-wing periodicals, the Auschwitz Museum, the Israeli Embassy, the “moral authorities”, some members of Buzek’s government (32), as well as people from the entourage of President Kwasniewski (the left and right in the same line), begin a sharp assault.

Director of the Auschwitz Museum states that I am a neo-Nazi. The spokesman for the Israeli embassy, Michael Sobelman, is surprised that “such a man works at a Polish university” (a clear suggestion to “kick me out”). Wladyslaw Bartoszewski (33) sends me to a mental institution, and so on, and so forth. Meanwhile, the frightened Rector Nicieja receives phone calls from the VIPs in the Ministry of National Education, the “Simon Wiesenthal people”, and whoever you like, warning him: “If you don’t kick out that Ratajczak, your school will be boycotted, and you won’t get any grants”. Well, so Rector suspends me from my duties as academic teacher. Alas, he is a trustworthy man, who is sensitive to the direction of the wind of history (today he fulfils the glorious function of a Polish Republic Senator from the SLD). (34)

In April 1999, I was going through hard times. My timid university colleagues turned their backs on me. There came a point when they would not recognize me in the street. It has remained so since. The media were spitting at me. As if it were not enough that I was suspended from my job, the university was told by the “top” to take me to an academic court. The court lasted a year, and was an open ridicule of justice. During the consecutive hearings, I would give 2-hour speeches on the subject of freedom of speech and the right to question.

Also, I would make a stand toward the theses announced by the Holocaust revisionists, but the university inquisition seldom pretended to listen to me. The verdict was ready: a disciplinary removal from the university, with a 3-year ban on work in the teaching profession. I had only the satisfaction of intellectually finishing off Messrs. judges (the moral bottom, and of like legal knowledge), as well as the disciplinary spokesman for Opole University, Prof. Wieslaw Lukaszewski, who, after a year of investigation, was not able to produce even one prosecution witness.

When I showed to my father Lukaszewski’s prosecution statement against me, my father asserted that, compared to Lukaszewski, one Andriei Vyshinsky (35) appeared a good lawyer. Well, but privately Lukaszewski is a psychologist, and the make-up of the academic court consisted of a medieval historian, another psychologist, as well as a priest from the OU Theological Faculty. Indeed, we have interesting priests nowadays. But at least I was comforted by the attitude of my students. They wrote petitions in my defense to Rector and the press, risking terribly on the occasion. Two of them got immediately suspended from the university.

When I learned of this, I forbade them any similar acts. Also, with a great relief, I accepted moral support from numerous countrymen. People phoned me all the time, cheering me up. Unusually active was the Polonia (36) in the USA and Canada, who inundated the university with e-mails in my defense. Several letters came also from Australia. Poles felt intuitively that the monstrous machinery of political correctness, operating like a steamroller, was falling down upon one man. I was sinking in a good company, later supplemented by courageous scientists (Miroslaw Dakowski, Rafal Broda, Ryszard Bender, Peter Raina, etc.), as well as equally courageous editors of some newspapers. I would have been a happy man if, at that time, I had fought only the learning institution’s cowards and their commanders. But no such thing.

In May 1999, my case was taken care of by the public prosecutor’s office, which accused me of breaking Article 55 of the Institute for National Remembrance Act. (37) This Article, after the fashion of West European and other states, punishes with up to three years in jail for the so-called denial of Nazi crimes.

This barely concealed censorship, in force in Poland since January 1, 1999, signifies, in my opinion, the grave of historiography, because it puts a stop to scientific questioning, without which the historian’s job makes no sense. The lawmaker, inspired by the “Holocaust Industry”, seems to say: ” It all happened so and so; if you try to deviate, we’ll clap you up”. Very well, I reply, there is no one in his right mind who would deny Nazi crimes (against Jews; that is what this strictly ethnic Act is all about), but nobody will talk into me that it all happened the way that Messrs. Gross, (38) Wilkomirski, (39) and the whole bunch of liars working for the Holocaust Industry (also in Australia there is no shortage of those) wish.

Of course, the object of the prosecution’s and court’s inquiry is the book DANGEROUS TOPICS, that is, its subchapter ‘Holocaust Revisionism’. My explanation that I merely present the revisionists’ opinions appears futile, and so do my attempts to introduce defense witnesses, experts, etc. Well, the court knows better. I’ve already got two verdicts, but the end of the affair is nowhere in sight; at present, I face 10 months in jail. It looks as if I have touched on something that causes fury of the mighty of the world, because, logically thinking, one does not persecute for three years a man for dealing with meaningless trifles.

Background Article:

full interview



Dissident Net

A transparancy and non-corruption of justice or people activity by


April 2024