1. Butterfield, Herbert, The Whig Interpretation of History (London, 1951), pp. 1–2 Google Scholar.

2. Lukas, Richard C., The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles under German Occupation, 1939–1944 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1986), p. 223Google Scholar. Subsequent citations to this book will beindicated in the text by page numbers in parentheses.

3. Slavic Review 45 (Fall 1986): 579–580.

4. Lukas does note that “Polish writers tend to minimize Polish anti-Semitism and sometimesexaggerate the amount of assistance Poles gave the Jews” (p. 121). Such a statement, however, is theexception rather than the rule. Lukas's footnotes consistently chide Jewish historians only, while hisconcluding remarks are aimed at Jewish writers, with no corresponding discussion of the shortcomingsof Polish historiography.

5. In view of Lukas's statements about the biased nature of Jewish historiography on his subject, it should be pointed out that the writers who bear the brunt of his criticism—Lucy Dawidowicz, Yisrael Gutman, Jozef Kermisz, Shmuel Krakowksi, and Ezra Mendelsohn—all read Polish as wellas Hebrew and Yiddish. In this respect, at least, they have a better chance of producing objectivehistory than does Lukas. In addition, graduate students of the Holocaust in Israeli universities aretrained in the Polish language.

6. The exordium for this statement is the sentence, “Lucy Dawidowicz states that Jewish writers‘are still mourning the loss of their past.'” In typical fashion, Lukas has taken the eight quoted wordsout of context and assigned them an inappropriate meaning. In fact, Dawidowicz made this commentas part of an attempt to explain why contemporary Jewish historians, “under the prevailing influenceof positivism and the paramountcy of empiricism … have avoided theorizing about the Holocaust inthe perspective of Jewish history, leaving such reflections to the philosophers and the theologians.” She suggested that “Jewish historians are still too preoccupied with the building blocks and thescaffolding of the historical structure to be able to see it in the landscape of historical time.” In thissense, she wrote, “they are still too close to the events; they are still mourning the loss of their past.” Dawidowicz's point is thus the opposite of the one Lukas makes: Jewish historians have not attemptedto assign ideological meaning to the Holocuast and have concentrated on purely empirical researchpursuits. Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historians (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 140–141.Similar comments are offered by Yehuda Bauer, “Trends in Holocaust Research,” Yad Vashem Studies 12 (1977): 8–9. One may disagree with this evaluation (assuming, of course, that one is thoroughlyfamiliar with Jewish historiography on the Holocaust in all languages), but one may not misrepresentit.

7. The Schwarzbart archive is located at Yad Vashem, Jerusalem (record group M2). It consistsof twenty linear meters of material, containing Schwarzbart's correspondence with members andinstitutions of the Polish government-in-exile and with Jewish organizations and their representatives, dispatches and reports from Polish and Jewish sources in occupied Poland, minutes of Schwarzbart's meetings with Polish and Jewish leaders, notes taken by Schwarzbart at plenary and committeemeetings of the Polish National Council, and Schwarzbart's wartime diaries. A list of file groups andof names, places, and organizations mentioned in the materials, as well as an introductory survey ofthe collection, has been prepared in English, so that Lukas could easily have familiarized himself withits contents. Its existence is noted, among other places, in Ringelblum, Emmanuel, Polish-Jewish Relations During the Second World War, ed., Joseph Kermisz and Shmuel Krakowksi (New York, 1977), p. 3,Google Scholar a source to which Lukas makes repeated reference.

8. Davies, Norman, God's Playground: A History of Poland (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar; Steven, Stewart, The Poles (New York, 1982)Google Scholar; Ciotkosz, Adam, Walka o prawde: Wybor artykutow, 1940–1978 (London, 1983)Google Scholar.

9. Heller, Celia S., On the Edge of Destruction: Jews of Poland between the Two World Wars (NewYork, 1977)Google Scholar; Mendelsohn, Ezra, The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars (Bloomington, 1983)Google Scholar. Mendelsohn's book is actually a general survey of Jewish life in seven countries, althoughthe chapter on Poland (pp. 11–83) is based upon original research.

10. Among book-length works in western languages or in Polish to which Lukas might havereferred are Bronsztejn, Szyja, Ludnosc zydowska w Polsce w okresie miedzywojennym: Studium statystyczne (Wroclaw, 1963)Google Scholar; Chojnowksi, Andrzej, Koncepcje polityki narodowosciowej rzqdow polskich w latach 1921–1939 (Wroclaw, 1979)Google Scholar; Golczewski, Frank, Polnisch-jiidische Beziehungen, 1881–1922: Eine Studie zur Geschichte des Antisemitismus in Osteuropa (Wiesbaden, 1981)Google Scholar; Johnpoll, Bernard, The Politics of Futility: The General Jewish Workers Bund of Poland, 1917–1943 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1967)Google Scholar; Korzec, Pawet, Juifs en Pologne: La question juive pendant Ventre deux-guerres (Paris, 1980)Google Scholar; Marcus, Joseph, Social and Political History of the Jews in Poland, 1919–1939 (Berlin, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Mendelsohn, Ezra, Zionism in Poland: The Formative Years, 1915–1926 (New Haven, 1981)Google Scholar. In addition, three majorstudies in Hebrew are basic works on aspects of the period: Mahler, Rafael, Yehudei Polin bein Shetei Milhamot haOlam: Historiyah Kalkalit-Sotsialiyit le'or haStatistikah [The Jews of Poland between thetwo world wars: A socioeconomic history on a statistical basis] (Tel Aviv, 1968)Google Scholar; Melzer, Emanuel, Ma'avak Medini beMalkodet: Yehudei Polin, 1935–1939 [Political strife in a blind alley: The Jews inPoland 1935–1939] (Tel Aviv, 1982)Google Scholar; Shlomo Netzer, Ma'avak Yehudei Polin al Zechuyoteihem haEzrahiyot vehaLe'umiyot (1918–1922) [The struggle of Polish Jewry for civil and national minorityrights (1918–1922)] (Tel Aviv, 1980). This is not to mention a large body of articles, mostly in Hebrewand Yiddish but to an extent also in western languages, including Joshua A. Fishman, ed., Studies on Polish Jewry, 1919–1939: The Interplay of Social, Economic and Political Factors in the Struggle of a Minority for its Existence (New York, 1974). For a discussion of the literature on the interwar period, see Gershon David Hundert and Gershon Bacon, The Jews of Poland: Bibliographical Essays (Bloomington, 1984)Google Scholar.

11. Lukas's statement regarding Jews and the Polish language is evidently based upon the factthat in the 1931 census “almost 80 percent of the Jews declared Yiddish to be their mother tongue.” Lukas overlooks the obvious possibility of bilingualism, a possibility that could not be reflected inthe census. In contrast, Celia Heller, basing her conclusions upon sociological investigations conductedunder the auspisces of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in Wilno during the 1930s, notes thatin independent Poland linguistic acculturation was the dominant trend among the upper and middlestrata of the Jewish populace and was gaining ground among the lower strata as well (Heller, On the Edge of Destruction, pp. 66–68). Lukas evidently read Heller's book but chose to overlook her commentson this matter. In support of his statement that Jews discriminated against Poles, Lukas offersno more than a lengthy quotation from a person identified merely as “one Polish Jew,” previouslyquoted in Steven, The Poles, pp. 313–314. In Steven the source is simply “an Israeli friend” who hadbeen born and raised in Cracow. Following Davies (God's Playground, pp. 262–263), Lukas writes (p. 125): “American and British observers discredited western reports of widespread pogroms in theearly years of the Polish Republic. For instance, an alleged pogrom on Lwow in 1918 was a militarymassacre in which more Christians than Jews perished. Another reported pogrom in Pinsk in 1919was in reality the execution of thirty-five Bolshevik infiltrators, a judgment an American investigatorconsidered justified in the circumstances.” One wonders just who are the “American and Britishobservers” to whom Lukas and Davies refer. An official United States commission of inquiry underthe chairmanship of Henry Morgenthau was dispatched to Poland in July 1919 to investigate thereports of anti-Jewish pogroms; a similar British commission arrived in the country shortly thereafter.None of the four reports submitted by members of these commissions expressed conclusions bearingany resemblance to those affirmed by Lukas. On the contrary, Morgenthau wrote of the pogrom inLw6w (Lemberg) that “disreputabale elements [from the Polish army] plundered to the extent ofmany millions of crowns the dwellings and stores in the Jewish quarter, and did not hesitate atmurder when they met with resistance “; he made no mention of Christian casualties. With regard toPihsk, after describing how a group of Jews meeting to discuss the distribution of relief funds fromthe United States had been summarily arrested by a band of Polish soldiers, he stated that “35 [Jews]… were shot with scant deliberation and no trial whatever.” He also declared that “this mission isconvinced that no arguments of bolshevist nature were mentioned in the meeting in question,” andthat “Maj. Luczynski, the town commander, showed reprehensible and frivolous readiness to placecredence upon such untested assertions, and on this insufficient basis took inexcusably drastic actionagainst reputable citizens.” The joint report of the two other members of the United States commission, Brigadier General Edgar Jadwin and Homer H. Johnson, essentially affirmed Morgenthau's evaluation of these events. Thus none of the three official United States investigators held the Pihskpogrom to be justified. The reports of the British investigators expressed similar conclusions. For thetext of all reports, see National Polish Comittee of America, The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions (Chicago, n. d.). Lukas has also ignored the substantialsecondary literature on the pogroms; see especially Golczewski, Polnisch-jiidische Beziehungen, pp.182–264; Azriel Shohat, “Parashat haPogrom beFinsk beHamishah be April 1919” [The pogrom inPiiisk on 5 April 1919], Gal-Ed: On the History of the Jews in Poland 1 (1973): 135–173.

12. Mendelsohn, Jews of East Central Europe, p. 40. Celia Heller, the only “other Jewish writer” to produce a scholarly work on the period that Lukas has consulted, does not mention the pogrom inLwow at all. “Other Jewish writers” with whose work Lukas is not familiar consistently give thefigure of seventy-two killed; see Korzec, Juifs en Pologne, p. 297 n. 18, and Netzer, Ma'avak Yehudei Polin, p. 106. This figure is based upon reports of contemporary Jewish observers and has long beenaccepted by both Polish and Jewish historians.

13. Sanacja refers to the regime installed in Poland by Jezef Pilsudski in 1926.

14. Edward D. Wynot, Jr., “'A Necessary Cruelty': The Emergence of Official Anti-Semitism inPoland, 1936–39,” American Historical Review 76, no. 4 (1971): 1, 055Google Scholar; compare also p. 1, 040.

15. Mendelsohn, Jews of East Central Europe, p. 72.

16. “Sprawozdanie Celta,” 1944, Archiwum Instytutu Polskiego [henceforth AIP], KOL. 25/9.Compare the description in Jan Tomasz Gross, Polish Society under German Occupation: The Generalgouvernement. 1939–1944 (Princeton, 1979), p. 185.

17. Mersin, “Sytuacja w Warszawie i w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie,” 31.XII.1940, AIP, PRMK.86; also in Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford, Calif, [henceforth HIA], Tadeusz Komorowski, box 3.

18. Gross, Polish Society, pp. 184–185.

19. S. Krakowski, “The Slaughter of Polish Jewry—A Polish‘Reassessment',” Wiener Library Bulletin, nos. 28/29 (1972–1973), p. 14. This article offers strong criticism of one of the two secondarysources upon which Lukas based his conclusions regarding the character of wartime Polish attitudestoward Jews.

20. “Excerpt from a Memorandum by Roman Knoll…,” in Ringelblum, Polish-Jewish Relations, p. 257.

21. David Engel, “An Early Account of Polish Jewry under Nazi and Soviet Occupation Presentedto the Polish Government-in-Exile, February 1940,” Jewish Social Studies 45, 1 (1983): 10.

22. “Sprawozdanie z rozmowy Generala Andersa z przedstawicielami zydowstwa polskiego naterenie ZSRR,” 24 October 1941, HIA, Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, box 16, File “Polish Army in USSR: Jewish Question. “

23. See, for example, Cholawski, Shalom, Al Neharot haNieman vehaDnieper: Yehudei Byelorusiyah haMa'aravit beMilhemet haOlam haSheniyah [By the Nieman and the Dnieper: The Jews of westernWhite Russia in the Second World War] (Jerusalem, 1982)Google Scholar; Nussbaum, Kalman, VeHafach lahem leRo'ets: HaYehudim baTsava haAmami haPolani biVrit haMo'atsot [The story of an illusion: Jews inthe Polish People's Army in the USSR] (Tel Aviv, 1984)Google Scholar; Ben-Cion Pinchuk, Yehudei Berit-haMo'atsot mulpenei haSho'ah: Mehkar beVa'ayot Haglayah uFinnui [Soviet Jews face the Holocaust: A study inthe problems of deportation and evacuation] (Tel Aviv, 1979)Google Scholar; Schwarz, Solomon, Di Yidn in Sovetn-Farband: Milkhome un Nokhmilkhome-Yorn, 1939–1965 [The Jews in the Soviet Union: The war andpostwar years] (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Roman Bertish, “Pezurat Yehudei Polin beMilhemet haOlamhaSheniyah …,” [Jewish emigrants from Poland during World War II …] Gal-Ed 1 (1973); Yosef Litwak, “She'elat haEzrahut shel Yehudim Yotse'ei-Polin biVrit haMo'atsot,” [The question of thecitizenship of Jews from Poland in the Soviet Union] Behinot 7 (1977). Had he been able, Lukasmight also have availed himself of published Jewish primary sources in these languages, such as thereport by Moshe Kleinbaum, “Tazkir al Matsavah shel Yahadut Mizrach-Eiropah beReshit MilhemethaOlam haSheniyah,” [Memorandum on the condition of East European Jewry at the beginning ofthe Second World War] Gal-Ed 4–5 (1978), and the collection of testimonies reprinted in facsimile in Altshuler, M., Yehudei Berit HaMo'atsot baShanim 1939–1953 [Soviet Jews, 1939–1953] (Jerusalem, 1971)Google Scholar.

24. See, for example, Gilboa, Yehoshua, The Black Years of Soviet Jewry 1939–1953 (Boston, 1971)Google Scholar; Levin, Dov, “The Attitude of the Soviet Union to the Rescue of Jews,” in Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust: Proceedings of the Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference, ed., Yisrael Gutman and Efraim Zuroff (Jerusalem, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shimon Redlich, “The Jews under Soviet Ruleduring World War II” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1968).

25. He would also have found upon further study that in some places Poles too at first lookedupon the Soviets as allies, in the mistaken belief that Russian troops were heading west to fightHitler. See Irena Grudziiiska-Gross and Jan Gross, Tomasz, War Through Children's Eyes: The Soviet Occupation of Poland and the Deportations, 1939–1941 (Stanford, Calif., 1981), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

26. On the percentage of Jews among the deportees, see Kot to Mikolajczyk, 11 October 1941, in Kot, Stanislaw, Conversations with the Kremlin and Dispatches from Russia (London, 1963), p. 62 Google Scholar. Lukas is familiar with this document, as he cites it elsewhere (e.g., p. 254 n. 41). See also, Grudzifiska-Gross and Gross, War Through Children's Eyes, p. xxiii; Nussbaum, VeHafach lahem leRo'ets, pp.25–28; Bauer, Yehuda, The Holocaust in Historical Perspective (Seattle, 1978), pp. 55–56 Google Scholar. Lukas explicitlyrefers to the Jews’ reception of the invading Soviet armies as “treasonable behavior” (p. 132).

27. Nussbaum, VeHafach lahem leRo'ets, pp. 53–75; idem, “'Legyon Yehudi’ o Ahizat Einayim?” [ “Jewish Legion” or delusion?] Shvut 10 (1984); Yisrael Gutman, “Jews in General Anders’ Army inthe Soviet Union,” Yjid Vashem Studies 12 (1977); Yosef Litwak, “HaYehudim beTseva'o shelhaGeneral Anders,” [The Jews in the army of General Anders] Shvut 5 (1977); Shimon Redlich, “Jews in General Anders’ Army in the Soviet Union, 1941–1942,” Soviet Jewish Affairs 2 (1971).

28. Another important source for several of these works, especially the one by Gutman ( “Jewsin General Anders’ Army “), was the archive of Polish ambassador to the USSR Stanistaw Kot (AIP, KOL. 25) and, in particular, the file labeled “2ydzi” (no. 24). Although Lukas had access to thisarchive (he cites at least one other file from it; see p. 253, n. 24), he did not make use of a singledocument from the file on Jews in compiling his account of Jews in the Anders army.

29. See Nussbaum, VeHafach lahem leRo'ets, pp. 54–55, 64–69; Gutman, “Jews in General Anders’ Army,” pp. 239–244, 281–294. Lukas bases his assertion that Anders rejected a numerus clausus upon a letter sent by Kot to Mikolajczyk on 11 October 1941, in Kot, Conversations with the Kremlin, p. 62. In the event, the passage dealing with the numerus clausus reads as follows: “Our military …are already wanting to introduce a numerus clausus in the military institutions” (Elipsis in original).There is no mention of opposition from Anders.

30. Dowodztwo Polskich Sit Zbrojnych w ZSRR—Sztab, “Do rak wlasnych Dowodcy,” 30November 1941 (L. dz. 607/tjn. Kane. Sztab. 41), HIA, Stanistaw Mikolajczyk, box 16, File “PolishArmy in the USSR. Jewish Question.” The order was also more severe in tone than Lukas indicates;it said, among other things, that “for now [emphasis added] no manifestations of the struggle againstthe Jews is … allowable” and that “when we are masters in our own home …, we shall dispose ofthe Jewish question as the greatness and sovereignty of our homeland and ordinary human justicerequire. “

31. On the slight possibility that this lapse is due simply to careless oversight and not to aconscious tendency to suppress evidence, it should be pointed out that Lukas had other means ofdetermining the order's genuineness. The Polish text of the order was published in Stanistaw Kot, Listy z Rosji do Generala Sikorskiego (London, 1955), pp. 465–466; in the same book (p. 436) Kotindicated that “[Anders] met with very strong opposition [to his order of 14 November]; he thenissued a follow-up order which contained several paragraphs that are politically touchy.” These passageswere removed from the abridged English edition of the work (entitled Conversations with the Kremlin and Dispatches from Russia), which is the edition to which Lukas refers throughout his book;but there is no sound reason why Lukas should not have referred to the Polish original. Moreover, had he been familiar with Gutman's article, he would have found, in addition to the citation fromKot just mentioned, mention of an additional extant copy of the order in the Yad Vashem archives (Gutman, “Jews in General Anders’ Army,” p. 272). Had he read Nussbaum's book, he would havediscovered additional indirect evidence of the order's genuineness (Nussbaum, VeHafach lahem leRo'ets, pp. 72–73).

32. In an earlier book Lukas wrote, on the basis of the abridged English version of Kot's dispatchesfrom Russia, Anders's autobiography, and a single document from a published collection onwartime Polish-Soviet relations, that “Soviet discrimination against Polish Jews ironically led to Jewsabroad blaming Polish authorities for anti-Semitism” (Richard C. Lukas, The Strange Allies: The United States and Poland, 1941–1945 [Knoxville, 1978], p. 177, no. 9).

33. Subsequently, a lengthy article has appeared examining the matter of the desertions of Jewishsoldiers from the Jewish forces in Britain in detail; David Engel, “HaBerihah haHafganatit shelHayalim Yehudiyim mehaTsava haPolani beAngliyah biShenat 1944,” [The protest desertion of Jewishsoldiers from the Polish army in Britain in 1944] Yahadut Zemanenu 2 (1985): 177–207.

34. HIA, Polish government, box 226, 227; HIA, Poland. Rada Narodowa, box 8, file 24. Lukashad access to the files of the Polish National Council located at the Polish Institute in London (AIP, A.5). These files in all likelihood also contain the minutes of the council's special investigating commission;but, even if they do not, sufficient criticism of the Defense Ministry's handling of the affairwas voiced in plenary sessions to make Lukas aware of the perils of accepting the report of theministry-appointed commission at face value.

35. On this see Pawel Korzec, “General Sikorski und seine Exilregierung zur Judenfrage in Polenim Lichte von Dokumenten des Jahres 1940,” Zeitschrfit fur Ostforschung, 30 (1981), esp. document 13. On general relations between the Poles and the revisionists, see Korzec, Juifs en Pologne, pp.253–255; Melzer, Ma'avak Medini beMalkodet, passim; Wladyslaw Pobog-Malinowski, Najnowsza historia polityczna Polski, II. Wyd. (London, 1983), pp. 819–821 Google Scholar; Drymmer, W. T., “Zagadnieniezydowskie w Polsce w latach 1935–1939,” Zeszyty Historyczne 13 (1968): 55–77 Google Scholar; Korbonski, Stefan, “[An] Unknown Chapter in the Life of Menahem Begin and [the] Irgun Zvai Leumi,” East European Quarterly 13 (1979): 373–379.Google Scholar

36. Jabotinsky, Vladimir, The War and the Jews (New York, 1942), pp. 96–101 Google Scholar. CompareS. Gruszka to S. Kot, 16 January 1941, AIP, A.9. V/2. Since Lukas wrote his book, a study ofwartime Polish-revisionist relations has been published; David Engel, “The Frustrated Alliance: TheRevisionist Movement and the Polish Government-in-Exile, 1939–1945,” Studies in Zionism 7 (1986): 11–36. Had Lukas been familiar with the archives of the Committee for a Jewish Army, he wouldhave found that it had been approached in August 1942 by a Jewish soldier who had deserted fromthe Polish army with a request for assistance. The committee, rather than publicizing the ratherserious charges of anti-Semitism in the Polish ranks that the soldier raised, referred the letter to thePolish prime minister Wtadystaw Sikorski, with a covering communication indicating that the committeewas “fully aware of the attitude of genuine friendliness of Your Excellency and Your Governmenttowards the Jewish people and considered] that the unsatisfactory position disclosed by theenclosed leter and similar documents in our possession is in no way a result of policy, but rather theinevitable consequence of pre-war conditions in Poland” (J. Rosenberg to J. Helpern, 19 August1942, Jabotinsky Institute Archives [henceforth JIA], H3A/3/75; Helpern to Sikorski, 25 August1942, JIA, H3A/3/57).

37. See “The Jewish Army Committee and the Polish Jewish Soldiers,” 25 April 1944, JIA, H3A/3/75. On the attitude of the official leadership of Polish Jewry in Britain to the desertions, seethe declaration by I. Schwarzbart and A. Tartakower in the name of the Representation of PolishJewry, 19 January 1944, Yad Vashem Archives, M2/100. Compare E. Scherer to Polish Commanderin-Chief, 24 January 1944, from the private collection of Synaj Okrgt (copy in author's possession).

38. Helpern to Sir J. Grigg, 23 February 1944, JIA, H3A/3/48.

39. “Persecution of Jews in the Polish Army,” 21 April 1944, JIA, H3A/43/75.

40. This is not to say that there are not items of value here and there in his work. In particular, his discovery of a copy of Stefan Korbohski's message of 26 July 1942 regarding the beginning of themass deportation from the Warsaw ghetto adds an important element to the ongoing discussion ofthe Polish role in transmitting information about the Holocaust to the west. Unfortunately, it requiresan expert to tell the substance from the froth.

41. Space does not permit an extended discussion of whether or not this appraisal of Germanintentions toward the Poles is valid. Lukas cites some evidence in its support, but he has hardlyundertaken a systematic analysis of German attitudes toward Poland based upon research in Germanarchives. Such an analysis, which would be an invaluable contribution to the overall understandingof World War II, has yet to be made. In the meantime, a preliminary investigation has turned upevidence that, although from time to time the idea of launching a total murder campaign against thePoles similar to that being carried out against the Jews was broached in Nazi circles, it was invariablyrejected on ideological grounds. See Tal, Uriel, “On the Study of the Holocaust and Genocide,” Yad Vashem Studies 13 (1979): 38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. It should be pointed out that Jewish historians, among them those with whose work Lukasis familiar, have in fact taken these items into consideration in their discussions of Polish-Jewishrelations. See, for example, Bauer, The Holocaust in Historical Perspective, p. 59; Yisrael Gutman, “HaPolanim nochah Gerush Yehudei Varshah beKayits 1942,” in Nisyonot uFe'uIot Hatsalah biTekufat haSho'ah, ed. Yisrael Gutman (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 331–332. Lukas lists both works (the latter inEnglish translation) in his bibliography.

43. Loewenberg, Peter, Decoding the Past: The Psychohislorical Approach (Berkeley, 1985), p. 12 Google Scholar. Loewenberg continues, “The identification of subject with object calls, not for denial and defensivemaneuvers, but for a conscious policy of rational management and exploitation in the service ofobjectivity” (p. 13).