Author John Sack's probe into the dark corners of postwar Europe was an eye-opener for many. The promotion of Jews into the ranks of "anti-fascist police" in eastern Europe, the ethnic cleansing of eastern Germans, the revenge exacted on the latter by Poles and Jews alike - all thrown down the Orwellian memory hole for years, unmentionable in "responsible" academia or journalism. Like Benny Morris, John Sack faced the music for writing anything about the postwar Jewish experience that deviated from the "consensus": all Jews were noble victims, elevated into sainthood by the evils of WW II.
The end of the cold war allowed for an opening in the West as well as the East. No subject was taboo, including the role of Jews in Poland's security police, cleansing the nation of a new-despised minority. In researching his book among the still-living witnesses and perpetrators, Sack found the iron curtain was by no means left behind in Europe. The book was refused agenting or publication, the US publishing industry acting like commissars of public information. The pitfalls of writing history of still-living persons was brought home, too, in the savage about-face of his protagonist Lola.
Yet for all the book's importance it's very sloppy writing, reading like an expanded magazine article (it was in fact adapted from two.) There is too much padding, too much personal intrusion of what Sack ate for breakfast, etc.. The narrative is rambling, sometimes incoherent, short on some vital details. I would much rather have read quotes from those alluded German prisoner reports, than family details of descendants who play no role in the subject. History is about people, true enough, but there must be relevance. Still, the book is saved by its subject, despite the author's dancing apologetics.
Groundbreaking for its time it was even featured on 60 Minutes. The hostility of the Guardians of the Official Narrative was palpable. It remains a touchy subject today. Cold War triumphalism, German reunification, rising anti-Semitism should not be excuses for ignoring all pages of the historic record. To do so mocks pretensions of a free press and a society of open inquiry.