MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379619802 · doi:10.1353/his.2023.a899627

Warsaw Ghetto Police: The Jewish Order Service During the Nazi Occupation by Katarzyna Person (review)

2023· article· en· W4379619802 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gary Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNazismJudaismGermanOrder (exchange)LawReligious studiesService (business)SociologyHistoryPolitical scienceArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Warsaw Ghetto Police: The Jewish Order Service During the Nazi Occupation by Katarzyna Person Gary Bruce Person, Katarzyna–Warsaw Ghetto Police: The Jewish Order Service During the Nazi Occupation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2021. 232 p. In the late summer of 1942, the Jewish Order Service of the Warsaw ghetto brought roughly 6,000 people a day to the Umschlagplatz, where German authorities then deported them to Treblinka. The Service was savage in their rounding up of adults and children alike, many of the latter from Janusz Korczak’s orphanage. Jozef Szmerling, who oversaw the Umschlagplatz, was bestial. How it came to pass that Jews ruthlessly helped to dispatch other Jews to their deaths is the central question of Warsaw Ghetto Police. The Warsaw ghetto police was established in September 1940 when Adam Czerniakow, chairman of the Warsaw ghetto Judenrat (Jewish council), received orders to form a Jewish police force to assist with keeping order in the ghetto. Although the Service had some room to maneuver, it was never fully independent, reporting to the Judenrat, Polish Blue Police, and, the ultimate authority, the German civil administration. Czerniakow appointed Jozef Szerynski, a Jew who had converted to Catholicism, to oversee the roughly 2,000 strong ghetto police. It became immediately evident to ghetto residents that a position in the new police force would be advantageous. The author, Katarzyna Person, makes [End Page 232] a compelling case that the Service did not represent a cross-section of Jewish society, but was tilted towards the wealthy. The majority of the force had been office workers, merchants, or industrialists, as they were able to bribe their way into an organization that allowed them to avoid the roundups to labour camps. Although historians refer to the ghetto “police” as a shorthand, many of its tasks were more mundane than those of a police force, typically involving sanitation. They maintained general cleanliness in the ghetto, removed debris from pavement and roadways, monitored carts for safety, ensured horses were not overburdened, checked the ghetto walls for holes made by smugglers, and the like. Significantly, they were forbidden from conducting criminal cases, which remained the purview of the Blue Police and the German authorities. As time passed, their duties evolved to become more expansive and grislier. They established checkpoints in front of Judenrat buildings, collected debts from shops, and dealt with children who lay in the streets abandoned or dead. During “typhoid checks” on random dwellings, they beat Jews mercilessly and stole their money. In the spring of 1941, they began to round up Jews for labour detail and even furnished some of the guards at the labour camps. Such actions earned them the derogatory nickname “catchers” by other Jews and comparisons to officers in tsarist Russia who delivered Jews to the Russian military authorities. A tipping point in their duties came in November and December 1941 when the Jewish Order Service was used as an auxiliary in the execution of other Jews being held in a German prison. “For many,” Person writes, “these executions became a symbol of the final moral collapse of the Jewish police” (p. 74). Because of incidents like this, the service’s excessive use of force, and its terrible corruption, the service was vilified by ghetto residents, who described the force as “a collection of smugglers, Gestapo informers, and war profiteers” (p. 76). Oneg Shabbat, the underground group that ran the Ringelblum Archive, denounced the force as collaborators and betrayers of their own people. Emanuel Ringelblum himself was very critical of the force as well. Person is careful to point out that the force was not an “outsider” force of Jews who had converted to Catholicism, as might be implied by the situation of the Service’s leader. It was primarily composed of unassimilated Jews. This book is driven by a strong chronological narrative, with the occasional pause for analysis. Because Person’s analysis is so thoughtful, readers would no doubt desire more of it. One of the most intriguing sections of the book, for example, is her discussion of the concept of violence. As much as the Jewish policemen hid behind the standard refrain that “round ups carried out...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207