::Thank you Dan, I am happy to see you engaging in very productive and important discussion, your points are correct and worth attention, and I hope we and Piotrus will expand on them. As you pointed out the AK was very special due to Underground State and its extreme significance in central area of struggle in WW2
::Thank you Dan, I am happy to see you engaging in very productive and important discussion, your points are correct and worth attention, and I hope we and Piotrus will expand on them. As you pointed out the AK was very special due to Underground State and its extreme significance in central area of struggle in WW2
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:And thank you, Molobo, for your acknowledgement of my being correct. Whereas there can be no doubt that the AK contributed significantly to the defeat of the [[Axis powers|Axis]], especially in the [[Battle for Berlin|April offensive]] of 1945, I feel with a little more effort we can establish that the surrender on the [[USS Missouri (BB-63)|Missouri]] was also an [[Surrender of Japan|event]] that was could not have been accomplished without the aid of the A.K. If you come across some articles in a [[magazine|weekly]] or other sources that are in agreement with my thoughts on this, please let me know. Otherwise it would be original research. [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Following my contact with Professor Anna M. Cienciala of Kansas University she advised (in part) that ''"I should have said: the largest underground movement in Europe except for European (western) USSR. I am working on revising this very lecture and will make that correction. (Anna M. Cienciala)"'' (received Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:41 AM)
:::Following my contact with Professor Anna M. Cienciala of Kansas University she advised (in part) that ''"I should have said: the largest underground movement in Europe except for European (western) USSR. I am working on revising this very lecture and will make that correction. (Anna M. Cienciala)"'' (received Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:41 AM)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
"Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained during most of the interwar period due to conflicts over the Vilnius region and Suvalkai region, areas whose population was a mixture of Poles and Lithuanians. Germans relocated Lithuanian families to Vilnius region from Western parts of Lithuania by force, and this complicated situation. During the war these conflicts resulted in thousands of deaths, as groups on both sides used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies."
I have taken the liberty to move this section up to the main medcab section, where we have been discussing this para anyway. As this para is disputed by Sigitas, I think we all will appreciate his reply to why he persists in deleting most of this paragraph; as I think no other editor finds it objectionable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't appear to be there ATM, but I think that the first and third sentences are rather NPOV and semi-obvious, and can be easily referenced with some of our existing refs. The middle sentence about German relocation of L. families should have its own inline citation; plus we may want to note that Poles were deported from Vilnius by the Soviets ([1], [2]. etc.), further changing the population balance and antagonizing the Polish population. PS. Adhoc, since you said you have recently begun to read about those issues, you may want to see our well referenced article on Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_by_occupiers#Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_under_Soviet_occupation for some relevant information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the "thousands of deaths" should not be referenced as well. While obvious to me, this may be not so clear for every reader. --Lysytalk16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence is supported by Rimantas Zizas. Armijos Krajovos veikla Lietuvoje 1942-1944 metais (Acitivies of Armia Krajowa in Lithuania in 1942-1944). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje, pp. 14-39. A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (editors). Vilnius – Kaunas, 1995. This paragraph is OK. Sigitas13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After some thinking I have reservations regarding the "thousands of deaths". AK probably killed 4000 locals in "ethnic Lithuanian lands" but many of victims were Belarussians, Jews and Poles. Thousands of Poles would be killed by Germans with or without Lithuanian administration in place. Sonderkommando Ypatingasis burys in Paneriai were killing people not because they "took the opportunities offered by the war to commit crimes" but because they were forced to. Sigitas09:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should evaluate these data carefully. I know for sure that at least some of the villages burned by Territorial Defence Force were simply invented by Polish propagandists, for example killings in Grauziskes, when Territorial Defence Force didn't even reach this place before being destroyed by AK. Sigitas15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard about killings in Graużyszki, as indeed, Plechaviczius men were defeated earlier; however, In Sienkowszczyna (quite near Grauzyszki) Plechaviczius men were burning houses and killing people - probably that's why they were so easily defeated, since AK attacked while the butchers were busy with shooting the civilians. As for Burys being forced to kill Poles, well, they were all volunteers; Szopen07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT: plus Pawłów, Adamowszczyzna, Tołminów[reply]
Witnesses say they there ambushed marching by AK, which probably was tipped by Germans. I don't know much about these events though. Burys' members volunteered to assist germans initially, but not to kill people in paneriai. Most of them only were aknowledged of their role in killings after arrival to Paneriai and had no option to say "no" (Arūnas Bubnys (2004). Vokiečių ir lietuvių saugumo policija (1941–1944) (German and Lithuanian security police: 1941-1944). Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras. Retrieved on 2006-06-09.) Sigitas10:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is sad, but the same could be probably said of many Germans who did not go to army to murder civilians but then had no choice. I think the times were difficult and we're really often too easily assigning blame. On the other hand thousands of people were murdered in Paneriai and this also requires some justice and we cannot pretend that nobody killed them. --Lysytalk11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can indeed be said about many people involved in war. We cannot say "used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies" as this wording would mean voluntary and enthuasiastic participation in killings, when in fact Burys' people volunteered for escorting Jews to Ghettos, not for killings in Paneriai. Sigitas12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I meant. The "thousands of deaths" seems to be an oversimplification of the rather complex situation and may easily lead to misinterpretations. I'm not sure how to rephrase it in a NPOV, yet meaningful way, however. Maybe just remove this sentence from the lead ? --Lysytalk10:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are very quick. Thank you. Still I would like to ask some questions, Addhoc. Particular contributor Piotrus in one of the articles demonstrated examples of weasel words weasel words. looking in the light of this, I would like about this particular sentence in the article of AK: the nationalist[11] and extremist[10][19] Lithuanian Vilnija organization claims that. Please observe the ref of nationalist 11 is Polish Gazeta Wyborcza, while extremist also link to Gazeta Wyborcza also. According to Piotrus (evidence provided above) these particular words should be referenced in English. And second note near the word extremist contributor also placed and this EN source [3] From this ref it does not clear is Vilnija is the same as mentioned in this article, or it is another organization (or association !), that context in this article and in provided ref. Some my question - is this EN source is credible in this context, which speaks about AK, not about 20-21st. politics and relations plus is this the same Vilnija? M.K.17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd prefer we rephase it - it is important to note that Vilnija is not only nationalist, it represents extreme end of a political spectrum by being very anti-Polish (several refs I have refer to it as an organization promoting hate...), and thus has very low reliablity (like Stalin Society or, for examples of Polish organizations one should not really cite on encyklopedia, see Radio Maryja or All-Polish Youth). It would be nice if we had an article Vilnija, where reader could see those issues discussed in details.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess, these it represents extreme end of a political spectrum are from the Polish nationalists sources, no? M.K.17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While Gazeta would be prefect source for section Polish newspapers thoughts over Vilnija or something like this. This is the right place actually discuss the sources, actually; sadly you did not presented any NPOV sources which could back your case, till this moment. M.K.19:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really. neutral outsider suggested to drop this extremist from as you called English academic. forgot? And I ask you once more, does English academic source speaks about same Vilnija as you do, a? M.K.20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so you want to drop 'extremist' because it's suggested we may want to avoid this, and 'nationalist' because it's Polish, so we would remove all refs criticizing Vilnija? I am sorry, but readers need to be warned it's as unreliable source as there is. Or are you suggesting otherwise? I'd be willing to rephrase this sentence, if you'd like to suggest something that would keep the information but formulated it in a more acceptable way?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but for your convinience, here it again. It states it is extremist. And reputable Polish sources note it is nationalist and confirm extremist. Oh, and from the above source it appears it is an anti-semitic organziation as well, thank you for making me catch that, I must have missed it before. While you, on the other hand, have not presented a single shred of evidence that would show Vilnija in a more positive way.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time I will repeat my question, this time in bold - does English academic[5] source speaks about same Vilnija as you do and article do, a? 'M.K.23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what do you want to get by repeating the same question and ignoring my answer. The source states it is extremist. EOT, although I am sure it will not satify you, especially considering how you think something must be done with me, fast. I have also asked for WP:MILHIST peer review and notified the mediator of the case you resurrected, maybe they will have better luck discussing that issue with you them myself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not answering my question, I want to understand from there do you know that the source which you provided talks about the same organization. Do you understand the question now? M.K.00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I see now where you are going, although I find it puzzling. If it looks like a cat and meows like a cat, it is a cat. Or: if it is called Vilnija, exhibits behaviour consistent with all refs I could find, particularly ones used in the article, and if we use the Vilnija described by the source as 'extremist' to back up such claims in the article... the answer is: yes, I believe that if the source calls Vilnija extremist, and the article calls Vilnija extremist, and uses the source to reference that claim, than yes, both the article and the book are talking about the same Vilnija. Is this clear enough?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope not clear enough. Your delivered message is irresponsible. And you did not provided any evidence that this English source [6] speaks about same Vilnija as in AK context. This means you basing everything on your own presumptions this could mean – WP:OR. Speaking bout provided source; source:
Does not speak about Vilnija in Armia Krajowa context
Does not speak about Vilnija`s provided assessments;
Does not speak about Armia Krajowa at all;
In provided source Vilnija mentioned on time in one sentence;
Lists several organizations - Mažeikių Nafta, LNDP (?) ,UJL (?).
And similar
Having in mid such context and conducting simple googling you get a lot of “Vilijas” in internet [7], such as – [8]; this particular Vilnija is interesting because it is business incubator organization - [9], maybe author not random chosen to mentioned Mažeikių nafta?
Maybe these are same Vilnija too?
So, in the light of these remarks, I did not find any hint, which could lead to combining in source provided association Vilnija with organization Vilnija, which conducted assessments of AK crimes.
This could spark strong reaction from these organizations due to your used strong word, which is without reasonable support. M.K.22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M.K, I find your defence of Vilnija on such thin 'legal' grounds rather discouraging. There are not many Vilnija's, and there is only one involved in Lithuanian politics as far as I know. If you have sources to show otherwise, please do, but the existence of a business incubator with the same name does not make it likely it is that organization which is talked about in the book about politics. Anyway, per peer review suggestions, I think we should split the Lithuanian section off this article and leave an uncontroversial summary here; then we can worry about the controversies and details in the subarticle.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not committed any "legal" defense of Vilnija, if I did it would be in different format, and I am not wiling to do so; that I doing is raised question about source credibility in presented context. And Vilnija is not listed as any major "party", or very active in politics. Presented googling hits shows nice variety of Vilnijas. Your message - with the same name does not make it likely it is that organization which is talked about in the book about politics , indeed the same name does not make likely and I am talking about the same issue. Splitting the article - wouldn’t solve the problems. M.K.23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this article to older versions for several reasons. First of all the splint suggestion was labeled for very short time, so other neutral contributors could not evaluate all sides of it [10][11]. The split was done without any further talk, which parts, facts and statements should go to separate article so this can lead to loss of facts and could present one person’s POV. Very important issue is additional requests for neutral contributors to evaluate problems of this particular state article [12][13] not to transferring existing problems of this article to other sub article. So my suggestion - wait until more neutral contributors state their position regarding referencing problems etc., after it start discussions which parts of article should go etc. M.K.20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it would be nice if you could ask in the future before reverting others; also, don't revert copyedit changes and such, this is not good style. Second, comments from peer review all advised splitting the section, feel free to submit the split of article to further reviews. Splitting this section was discussed weeks ago (see archive), there were no objections. After the split, this article contains no controversial information, which is a significant plus, the split of controversial info was not really relevant to this article (like the Vilnija issue). Thus, reverted. PS. Also, before reverting, please nominate the Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II for deletion - we don't need any forks, do we? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked, everybody but you think it's a good idea - just read peer review, where this idea was actually suggested. Please stop inserting unreferenced information into this article; use the subarticle to pursue the details - this article is about AK, not 'AK and Lithuanians'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think my opinion on this matter is neutral, because I honestly had never heard of this event in history until I read this article. If I understand the issue here correctly, Piotrus is trying to split the "Relations with Lithuanians" (RwL) section off into a separate article and M.K. objects? In my opinion, the RwL section should be it's own, separate article. The RwL subject is secondary to the main topic, which is about the Armia Krajowa. There appears to be more than enough secondary information out there to support a separate RwL article. All this article needs is a couple of paragraphs (cited, of course) that explain the Armia Krajowa's involvement with the RwL issue and that's it. Cla6803:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you did evaluate my actions wrongly. Let my ask does information from historians commission or prosecutor`s office is not credible here? Does facts that AK collaborate with Nazi in Lithuania is not credible, of killing civilians and louting schools in Lithuania too? I think differently. While Piotrus continues to remove this info from article. M.K.09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the best and most prominent members of the WP:MILHIST, Kirill and Cla68, proposed in the relevant peer-review that a seperate sub-article about "Relations with Lithuania" should be created, because the current section is too long. Per WP:SUMMARY this is probably the adequate solution. If a sub-article (sub-article of this article, but main article about the RwL) is created including the infos in the current section, no info will be deleted, and, therefore, I do not think that Piotrus should be reported for anything - he does not delete anything; he transfers encyclopedic material to the main article on the particular topic. If a main RwL can stand on its own, I think that what Kirill and Cla68 proposed is the best solution: a main RwL article and a summary of it in the relevant section of this article.--Yannismarou09:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand M.K.'s objection. He/she feels that there should be more information in this article specifically about Armia Krajowa's place in the "RwL" issue? Some mention of that in this article is fine, but it's ok for it to be somewhat short with a "further details" link to direct to a longer, more detailed article on the issue, which I believe is what Piotrus is trying to do, and is supported in doing this by myself and at least a couple of other editors, judging by other comments here on the discussion page. As long as the information (cited of course) is in a linked article I don't see a problem with doing it that way. I don't think that's a "POV fork", because there's apparently more to the issue than just Armia Krajowa's place in it, and there would still be some mention of it on this page. Cla6807:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA Review
This is under review at WP:GA/R. If you expand the lead to summarize the article, I think it will stay a GA. Leave msg on my talk page when done.Rlevse14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M.K, seeing what you're trying to do, I'd like to comment that I think that this section in the article should be shortened, not expanded. I believe it should contain only the outline information and all the details should go the the separate article, devoted to the subject. Also, we should try to avoid potentially incorrect, and certainly disputable statements like "Such ethnic cleansing continued most of the Armia Krajowa`s operation time in Lithuania" or similar. --Lysytalk11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will be referenced if you asking about this. Note - discussion should go first before removing or moving any info and this should be done not one person, as Piotrus demonstrated here for several times [15], [16]. removal information from article is very disruptive behaviour not even talking about such edits then tag of {{inuse}} was removed and all info was removed. Note that Piotrus styles himself as "administrator with almost 2 years". So my question should admin act in this way by removing tags, info, despite of left notes in summaries, etc.? M.K.11:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying not to discuss the behaviour of individual editors here, but the article. Otherwise I'd rather suggest you discussing the obviously controversial changes first, before introducing them. Anyway, all I'm saying is that in my opinion the section should be shortened, not expanded. --Lysytalk11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes are referenced. Or maybe you would like reformulate your suggestion to - rather suggest discussing the obviously controversial moves first? M.K.11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only 'obviusly controversial' behaviour here is your own, as my changes are supported by everyone else who has taken the time to review this article (including all neutral reviewers). No referenced info is removed, it is only moved to a separate article as has been noted time and time again. As for the inuse tag, it can be removed just as any other controversial part of an edit; and if you want to work on article in the period of days, please use your sandbox instead of messing the GA-quality article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is not for days first of all, this is yet another your POV; second there was no suggestion from anybody that proper material should be removed from this article. That you conducting is selective facts which should stay, based only on your POV M.K.15:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: I did not ask if the changes were referenced or not. Also, I'd rather prefer to avoid discussing editors' behaviour (including "controversial moves") here as I think we should be better focusing on the article itself. As I said, the particular section you are expanding should be shortened, not expanded. That was my comment. --Lysytalk15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Piotrus uses his own and only POV to classify which info should go or which should stay in this article and this is a problem. M.K.15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about keeping the outline - general information that this is a controversial issue, the background of the problem, that Lithuanian side considered (or maybe still does) AK to be a criminal organisation. That there've been killings of civilians on both sides etc. But leave all the specific details for the separate article covering the issue. --Lysytalk15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you suggesting that we should drop parts about special commission conclusions, as well as prosecutor`s office? Or we should keep silent about AK work with Germans or killings of civilians? M.K.16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just suggested to keep the information about killing of civilians. Why are you asking if I would like to keep silent about this ? --Lysytalk16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a large section and it's almost as big as the main article. If there were no main article, I'd say leave it alone as this section is borderline in length. But, as there is a main article and it has 26 or so refs, it'd be best to make this section a 2-3 paragraph summary, leave the main article link in place, and STABILIZE the section and format it better or it WILL loose GA status eventually. This section has format issues, such as periods go before refs, not after. Everyone cooperate and work together otherwise you'll only harm yourselves and the article.Rlevse16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since M.K. quotes this publication so extensivly, I recalled that we already discussed the reliability of this source at Talk:Glitiškės and did a new search, hoping to find (finally) a single English review. Unfortunatly, I failed; as far as I can tell all the reviews are either in Lithuanian (which I cannot understand - hope some editor can compile a list with summaries) and Polish, which I do understand. Of course Polish sources will be somewhat biased, but it is interesting to see that they are all condemning this publication with rather strong words (note: some references describe a documentary movie based on the book). The most telling and official is the statement on the official pages of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affrairs:
[17] - V. Kavaliauskas, an advisor to the Lithuanian president, said: 'The film left a bad taste in my mouth... I am sorry it was shown... it was pointless... it was a political not historical film". The film is called 'not objective' and 'one-sided'. Motiekaitis, the spokesperson of the Lithuanian TV 3 which showed the film, promised that it will not be shown again and more careful screening will be put in place to avoid such controversies. Other critics of the film include Polish-Lithuanian historian J. Wołkanowski,Lithuanian journalist from "Veidas", A. Baciulis, and expert on Polish-Lithuanian pyblications, Jan Sienkiewicz, who reffered to Garšva as 'pseudohistorian'. Garšva is also reffered to as 'known for his anti-Polish sentiments'.
[18]Tygodnik Wileńczczyzny (a Polish-language publication printed in Lithuania for Polish minority there): 'provocation' and 'work in the spirit of Soviet propaganda' and condemns wokrs of Kazimieras Garšva (a leader of the Vilinja 'extremist' organization we discussed recently)
While I will be the first to say that we cannot use Polish sources to completly debunk a publication critical of Poles, I'd like to point out is is obviously a controversial publication (a review of Lithuanian-language reviews would be most useful). It would be useful to try to find another, more reliable (English, preferably) source to confirm claims of the above publications - but in any case, such claims should be discussed at talk first, and not on this GA-class article, but at Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the film was based on the book, and anyway several of the refs above criticize the book and/or it's primary author. We should be careful when using such extremist sources, printed or in other media. Per WP:RS, not everything that is printed is reliable, and we have plenty of sources indicating that Garsva works are far from neutral.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat my self - it is not a film which I used. And by the way did your "critics" talk about the extremist Lithuanian prosecutor's office and eye-witnesses accounts too? M.K.17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And stop misleading other editors, the book does not belong to Garsva as you trying to show it has info of A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas j. Klausykla, M. Salgaris, S. Liskauskas, J. Žvinas, B., Radžiulis, j. Pajuodis, G. Katinias, B. Juodzevičius, K. Daugintis, P. Dunduliene, R. Tumolevičius, etc, etc, etc; M.K.17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of that source probably should be debated on the Relations with Lithuanians article discussion page. Not here. There are ways to compromise on the use of a single, disputed source, but I'm not going to get into it here. Cla6807:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polish editors disruptive edits
The Polish editors reached the peak with their disruptive edits
[22],[23][24]there are no talk about facts presented in article only simple removal of legitimate info. M.K.17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on relations with the Scots, the Brits, the Dutch, the French, the Spaniards and the Czechoslovaks will soon be added as well. Any other nations that deserve special sections? //Halibutt18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with Piotrus) I agree with the shortening. My opinion is that the SS content of the current section must be the result of a consensus among the interested editors. I hope that after Lysy's intervention the editors will have the chance to focus on the other problems of the article, in order to keep GA status and, possibly, to go for FA promotion.--Yannismarou19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This time article was not “increased” or “expanded” now, which was last time was an excuse for Polish contributors to remove my version, but removal continues with even stranger statements: [25] now the Lithuanian Government position became untenable, as well as presented sources. But how say this? This is based only by user:Piotrus POV. I urge Yannismarou, Addhoc, Cla68 to make the comments about which info and facts should be used, because this version was not disused on talk at all. M.K.21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M.K, please, please, try to discuss obviously controversial edits in talk first. Also try to keep the number of references per section at reason. Why are you not interested in working on the main article on the topic first. Your activity there is limited to inserting the POV tag only, without any rationale. --Lysytalk22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My activity is not limited to inserting the POV tag only actually user Piotrus failed to produce evidence, which will denounce presented facts, also probably can not separate case brought to court and investigation conclusions (one two episodes etc.). Nevertheless we will wait for some more people to come that we can discuss these all sides. M.K.22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been asked time and again to discuss controversial changes first on talk, then in articles. As long as you keep adding such controversial stuff into articles, expect to be reverted. It is telling that not a single user so far supports your changes. Your 'Lithuanian government claims' is best described by comments of Lithuanian historian Arūnas Bubnys, as quoted in Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II: any accusations of genocide are false and have an underlying political motive. Accusations of genocide and similar ones should be backed by a reliable academic publications in English language, per WP:RS, particulary as there have been objectiosn whether works of Kazimieras Garšva, leader of the extremist[26]Vilnija organization. Besides, we have sources more modern and contradicting your sources: you claim that in 1999 Lithuanian investigation concluded, but this article from 2001 states that the investigation has not yet ended, and in 2004 Lithuanian president and prime minister encouraged reconciliation between Lithuanian veterans and AK ones. I can hardly see such notable personas being so nice to veterans of organization who supposedly committed 'genocide' on their people... unless of course we trust the works of people who have been described as extremists (sic!).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Piotrus, care to tell why Lithuanian sources are wrong, and English are good? I know, you have found one "English" book written by Polish author, that uses extensive weasel language and adjectives (exactly or even more than Garšva does). This author even admits his intention on the back cover - we find out that he was living there, at the times as it did happen. You might check reviews of hat book at amazon.com, to understand what I'm talking about.
Somehow you do not find it to be contraversial and POV'ed. Isn't this so, only because it does support your POV? This makes me think, that everything you do not like is going to labeled as POV or and authors as "extremists".
In my opinion - denial is not a way to reach compromise, and I was hoping, that moving all the subject to separate article could help. I know that AK fighters are regarded as heroes in Poland, and i do agree with that, that's why separate article was good. Although heroism of Warszawa uprisal does not give any right to deny crimes in other regions (like Lithuania and Belarus).
Ah, and last thing - if historian states his opinion to a newspaper, it does not change decision of court -you are confronting things of completely different weight.Lokyz12:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd care to share which book you have read, it would be quite useful in allowing me to reply to this general statement. I am not aware of any AK crimes in Belarus, perhaps you should expand on that. I value average Lithuanian sources as much as Polish, but in such controversial cases prefer English academic ones, when I can get it. As for national sources, I find it difficult to evaluate them when the author is virtually unknown abroad; unfortunatly this is the case with authors M.K. uses - with the notable exception of K. Gasrva who is apparently notorius enough to get an extremist label in at least one English academic publication, which does not feel me with the desire to threat anything he contributes to as reliable (per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources). Also, it would be interesting to learn who published the books and so on. From various references I could find none was a good review of the dispute sources; and statements by people like an advisor to Lithuanian president that he is sorry a film was aired again don't make me feel like those publications even represent mainstram Lithuanian research. And you say that the case has concluded - but I found at least one source to the contrary. Which is right? I'd expect that a declaration that AK committed genocide would be widely discussed in both Polish and English media - but they are silent, and it's only mr. Gasrva who seems to be writing about it... In the end, those are clearly controversial claims who at the moment most evidently don't represent a majority point of view; as such, per WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS they should not be inserted into major articles. I am looking forward to seeing my requests for stubs on those authors and organizations that I left on WPL page fullfilled - hopefully we will have more info then.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it - it does not say that non-English books are POV'ed by default. The subject we're discussing now is vaguely represented with newest research in English, so I suppose books in other language should be ok, at least until there will be enough sources in English, or am I wrong?Lokyz14:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That will be not a problem. I've recently found Lithuanian research translated to English on the subject, so it will be fun:) Lokyz19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is one of the most boring things in Wikipedia IMO, I checked the differences in dispute, per M.K.'s kind request. I don't want to go into an evaluation of the conflicting Polish-Lithuanian comments, and I do not want to decided on who has the historical truth with him! In any case, I think that there is a chance to avoid endless edit wars here, if you try to implement three basic principles in the relevant section:
Do not overexpand the RwL section, and respect rules of WP:SS. Any addition or rephrasing of this section should respect this rule, so as RwL section to remain concise.
If you decide that, despite point 1, a new assessment is absolutely necessary to be added in this section, then use verifiable sources. A Polish or Lithuanian source is not enough for me. In order a regarded as Pro-Polish or Pro-Lithuanian addition to stand in the section, a third party source (preferable english) should be needed. Clarification: Not a Polish or Lithuanian source translated in English! No! Not a book of a Pole or Lithuanian writer in English! No! No!! No!!! A third party source (Not Polish! Not Lithuanian!) preferably written in English (although German or French would also be fine IMO).
Communicate with the altera pars. Assume good faith, and, if you think that a new addition of yours is going to annoy another editor of the article, do not hesitate to communicate with him. You may reach a wording satifying for both parties; you may reach a compromise!
Now, let's be more specific. I think the main problem here was two additions by M.K.:
"In 1943-1944, Armia Krajowa collaborating with Nazis as well".
"During this period hundreds of Lithuanian policemen, teachers, farmers and other civilians were killed,[1] especially were damaged Lithuanian schools, which activities were paralyzed.[2]"
M.K. regards that these addition do not violate Point 1 of mine, and per Point 2 should be added. He did not implement Point 3 trying to find a compromise with the altera pars. I'm going to comment in detail these two additions:
Addition no 1. I agree that five words (collaborating with Nazis as well) do not violate Point 1. The problem is: is this assessment accurate? Do we have a third party source substantiating and verifying that AK co-operated (we speak for an official co-operation here! Not some actions of AK that may have served Nazi's interests! Let's be careful here!) with the Nazis. If M.K. can provide such a source (and not a just a Lithuanian one) I would accept this addition, but I would aslo give the right to the altera pars to contradict this assessment with third pary's sources again, although we should have again in mind WP:SS. Let's say that both M.K. and Piotrus provide third party sources -the one in order to substantiate his allegations agains AK; the other to contradict these assertions. A compromise wording would be the following (don't take it word by word as a ready form to add! - It is just an crude example):"In 1943-1944, Armia Krajowa is said to have collaborated with Nazis as well, (cite third party verifiable source) although these allegations are disputed (cite third party verifiable source)."
Addition no 2. Similar commentes with Addition No 2. I must underscore here that verifiable third party sources should be demanded for both sides here - not only for the Lithuanian one!! I say that, because in this assessment "In response, Lithuanian police, who had already murdered hundreds of Polish civilians since 1941, I see as a source a Tadeusz Piotrowski who is a Pole (from Wrocław in Lower Silesia!). But his book is in English?! And what?!! The fact that his book is in English does not make it a third party verifiable source! Neither makes his assertion undisputable. Third party verifiable source also needed here IMO.
Addition no 3. In this case M.K. exposes undisputable facts. I have no reason to ask third party sources, because I do believe that these were the decisions of the Lithuanian governement. Nevertheless, in this case I have to give the right to the altera pars (It's you Piotrus!) to respond, and say what was the reaction of the Polish government to these allegations against AK. Let's say that both these additions are accepted. Are we OK? No! Because we forgot Point 1!!! Where is WP:SS?! Lost in the mist of the additions!! So, I just think: should you really overexpand here, and tell what are the accusations in detail of the Lithuanian government and the response in detail of the Polish government? Why don't you agree on a POV concise wording - maybe a very brief presentation (in one sentence) of Lithuanian government's allegations, and their denial by the Polish government (in one sentence again or combined in the same sentence)? And leave all the further details for the RwL sub-article?
Any pro-Polish or pro-Lithuanian assertion, which will remain there, should be verified by a third party verifiable source. A Polish or a Lithuanian source translated in English or a book written in English by a Pole or a Lithuanian writer is not a third party verifiable source! Assertions of both sides that do not fulfil this criterion should be omitted.
I think my three points above are a good basis for reaching a compromise here.
Thank you, Yannismarou, for making the comments; I will try very try to answer to them today at night :). But very technical question:
Do you think that images, which I uploaded [27],[28] was deleted in proper manner several times - [29],[30],[31]
Lets drop in this case text removal, and note that pictures were added separately [32], but they were removed as well for several times without any explanation, despite the urge to restore them [33]. So how do you see this situation then historical value pictures were deliberately removed several times without any reason, by Piotrus and other Polish contributors? M.K.10:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are very strong images, and they help me understand the sensitivity of the whole issue for both sides. I tried to find similar examples of such images in other articles. And I did found in a Greek-Turkish related article: [[Image:He-smyrna-vict-line.jpg]] in Great Fire of Smyrna. I think that their use is legitimate, because they do illustrate history. But they also incite passions, and, therefore, I wouldn't use them, so as not to provoke the altera pars. Nevertheless, if I was a co-editor of this article, and you wanted to add these picture, I would not impede you, because it is your right to do it, despite my disagreement. But under one term: I would demand you to verify the accuracy of these pictures, in a way that will convince me that the persons depicted are really victims of AK. Who took these pictures? Are they published only in Armija Krajova Lietuvoje? Exact date and year they were taken? Are they exposed somewhere? Have they p[ossibly been a subject of controversy? As you had initially added the pictures, the caption provided insufficient information (the caption of the photo I used as an example also provides insufficient information). With better captions and a solid verification of their content, I would definitely accept them as part of the article.--Yannismarou12:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures taken in 1944.06.23, Molėtai par. presents family of Vinslovai – 7 people were killed by then, killed members:
Vinslovaitė Elena 7 years old child (girl), buried in Molėtai,
Vinslovaitė Leonora (girl)10 years old child, buried in Molėtai,
Vinslovaitė Liudvina 20 years woman buried in Molėtai,
Vinslovaitė Ona 12 years old child (girl), buried in Molėtai;
Vinslovienė Salomėja 47 years old women,
Vinslovaitė Salomėja 18 years old “women” ,
Vinslovas Petras 60 years old-man.
Family classified as peasants-farmers. And yes these are historical pictures, presenting drama of Lithuanians which is now trying to be hidden by removal without any reason. I did not ever deleted images which portrays the massacre of Jews in Lithuania, and I insist that these images would be not deleted too. AFAIK there were no controversies of these images. M.K.12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou, thank you very much for taking time to address this issue in such a detailed and constructive manner. I completly agree with what you wrote. Now, to address some specific details: 1) & 2) the issue of cooperation between AK and Germans is already addressed in a well referenced and more relevant section - check second para of 'Relations with the Soviets' (refs are primarily based on work by Tadeusz Piotrowski, a sociologist and historian at University of New Hampshire [34] and not the Polish lexicographer - Tadeusz Piotrowski is a disambig, btw). As for 3), I disagree that the sources are reliable. One (Kazimieras Garšva. Armija krajova ir Vietinė rinktinė Lietuvoje (Armia Krajowa and Local Detachment in Lithuania). XXI amžius, No.61 (1264), 18 August 2004) is a newspaper article by a very unreliable author (see Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija) in a newspaper (XXI amžius) that the user who added it admitted XXI amzius has weakest journalists and I will avoid using its publications when possible. (see Talk:Armia_Krajowa/Archive_1, post from 22:29, 6 June 2006). Then we have another newspaper article (Voruta). Kodėl negalima sakyti tiesos apie Armiją krajovą? 2005) of unknown author, and last but not least, another Garsva's work (A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (editors). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje. Vilnius-Kaunas, 1995 p.3) which as was discussed here, on his page and in several other places was shown to be very controversial to say the least (the movie based on it was criticized by both Polish and Lithuanian governents, and the publication itself had many negative reviews in Polish press (per links above, I am unaware of any English and despite my requests no Lithuanian ones were provided)). Further, most of thos revelations seem to be contradicted by other sources we have (see my post above from 16:42, 13 January 2007 - and look at chronology here - in 1999 AK is supposedly declared 'genocidal', a 2001 article notes the investigation is ongoing and in 2004 L. government allows AK veterans to use the AK name and encourages reconciliation between AK and L. veterans? Something doesn't add up, wouldn't you agree? And that something is, not suprisingly, Garsva and Vilnija claims). Summarizing, I am not convinced that Lithuanian government presently supports such claims; it seems to me that occasionaly in the past such claims were made by lower officials, but they were politically motivated (as was admitted by Arūnas Bubnys, a respected Lithuanian historian asked about them) - as such they fail WP:RS and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. As for 4) images, they are sourced to the controversial Armija Krajova Lietuvoje work. For both the reasons of disputed reliability and because this section should not be too long, those images don't belong here (please note the images were not removed from Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II). Lastly, please note that per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight if we want to add images of casualties, why not add the much more numerous Polish casualties in the Vilnius region? Alas, I don't insist on adding [[:Image:Lithuania Ponary Monument.jpg|such images here], instead I believe that uncontrovesial image of local AK commander is a much better picture for that section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Yannismarou, I would not finish to answer to your questions, as I promised, my paper work killed all my free time. Will try to do so in upcoming days. M.K.00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for long delay Yannismarou, various disputes regarding contributors and articles prevented smooth discussion in this particular field. You raised points taken into account. But the problem still exists – particular AK activity in the Lithuania is limited described in English sources. Let’s begin from the first mark 1): collaboration. Actually the Poles themselves do not deny the fact that collaboration between AK and Germans/Soviets was established. But Piotrus “argument” is that collaboration has “more relevant section”. By such logic many statements could be placed under “more relevant section”. Related issues with Lithuania should be mentioned in proper part and not somewhere else, especially then in summary mentions one side cooperation but keeps silent about another. Lithuanian multiply sources mentions AK`s collaboration and Polish too. So there is a problem? Nevertheless I keen to look for some German sources, because they also investigate collaboration question. Yannismarou, you could help in this field too. 2) Second point, I can not present for it a third party source now, because it almost direct quotations form the Lithuanian source. And I am not familiar that any (including Polish) scholars, who would interested in Lithuanian schools in particular context (while source presents comprehensive study about this issue). But worth to keep looking and will do 3) While yes this presented facts from 1993 Commission report (which was not denounced till present day; despite Piotrus attempt to discredit source using only his speculations). As you say that this particular section is too wide, lets summaries – for example: government`s established commission concluded that AK committed crimes against humanity in Lithuania. Because now we have section: Its activities in Lithuania have been investigated by a special Lithuanian government commission in 1993. So what? Does reader not deserve to be informed, at least briefly, main concluding points? Because now it is empty words. Second distorted summary element: Lithuanian police, who had already murdered hundreds of Polish civilians since 1941, Is it balanced? 1941? While AK started major it activities in 1943 in Lithuania. Or maybe we also should place a note about Polish bad deeds from 1920? Another note, the first paragraph is too wide. It can be summarized even more to consume a space for more important elements. Images. Some voices say that my presented pictures, which there were disruptively removed by Polish contributors, somehow wrong, so we going to remove them and from Holocaust related articles, because there they are even more dramatic. And now in article presented picture is quite controversial, especially with such “remarks” as (now Vilnius). And one more note if we look from the presented rules, section strongest remarks are made with non third party sources. Btw, Yannismarou, do you think that removal of this sign was appropriate ? M.K.20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your points:
1) What I believe is that the relevant section should be concise; and this stands for both sides. Now, I cannot go into the wording of each sentence. I don't have the time neither the courage! But I do believe that both sides shouldn't overexpand here, and treat in detail the relevant issues in PLR article. I could help in order to find a content and wording satisfying both sides, if you all agree on that. About your additions I expressed myself above, although this was weeks ago, and I have almost forgotten me. If you could tell me particularly that x,v, and c sentences of the current section are my problem and I would prefer this wording, and that I would like to see in the section a,b, and c content additions or changes, and if I had specific responses of Piotrus on these sentences and additions, I could make more concrete proposals. If I can help about the sources: Honestly, I can't! For three reasons: A) I have limited free time for Wikipedia during this period, B) Although in German I have the Kleines Sprachdiplom, I have years to practice them, and I have almost forgotten them! C) I'm also involved in Greek-related conflicts (e.g. the Pontic Greek Genocide issue), I'm righting my own articles (4 of them are right now pending!), and I have also to conduct research for these issues as well. I could express my opinion for the conclusions of your research and Piotrus', but conduct my own research on this article is almost impossible for me right now.
2) Yes, it is worth looking, if you want to strengthen your arguments.
3) "government`s established commission concluded that AK committed crimes against humanity in Lithuania." I would be fine with that. But we need another sentence after this on, presenting Poland's response. Thus, IMO something like that would be fine: "Lithuanian government's established commission concluded that AK committed crimes against humanity in Lithuania during WW II. Nevertheless, Polish governement rejected the commission's conclusions arguing that ... " Piotrus says "I am not convinced that Lithuanian government presently supports such claims; it seems to me that occasionaly in the past such claims were made by lower officials, but they were politically motivated (as was admitted by Arūnas Bubnys, a respected Lithuanian historian asked about them)". Can you provide sources (news reports etc.) verifying that the Lithuanian government endorsed and endorses these commissions and their findings? I think this should not be tough.
4) About the POV tag: Not the whole article is disputed; only a specific section. But if you manage to settle your differences the tag in this section will have no reason to be there! Otherwise, you can add it; Lisy will remove it; then you'll readd, and you will be playing hide-and-seek, until one of you violates the 3R rule! Another solution is to lock the article until you settle your differences. Me or somebody else will put an ugly padlock at the top of the article, and we'll wait until issues are settled! Anyway ... About the particular removal: IMO the POV-tag should not be removed but placed under the relevant section; but IMO as well this issue should have been already settled in order not to need POV tags.
5) About the photo, I expressed myself. But Piotrus is right when he says that these pictures are exposed in Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II, which is after all an article with a broader topic, and, theoritically, more readers. If you add the photo, then the Poles will ask the addition of the photo depicting a "Monument commemorating Poles murdered in Paneriai massacre, Paneriai, Vilnius, Lithuania". Would you be fine with that? From one side the one photo, and from the other side the other photo?
I don't know if I am constructive here. The problem is that whatever I may or may not say, you will live with this article, and you must find a way to settle the differences. Whatever comments or efforts I may do, if there is no ground or will for a solution satisfying both sides, any "third party involvement" will be pointless. The failure of such initiatives is unfortunately the rule in Wikipedia. And then we have RfCs against users, mediators, ArbComs etc. etc. etc.--Yannismarou19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right saying that it is time too see some actual suggestions. As I am convinced that the section is not NPOV I re added tag and also think solution from this situation is to go step by step discussion of paragraph sections. Lets start from the first part:
Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained already during most of the interwar period but during the war the previous conflicts escalated. Although Lithuanian and Polish resistance movements had in principle the same enemies - Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - they never became allies during the war. The main obstacle in forming an alliance was a territorial dispute centering on Vilnius. Only in 1944-1945, after the Soviet re-occupation, did Lithuanian and Polish resistance start cooperating in the fight against Soviet occupants.
I believe section is too big, and can be summarized further in oder to have more space for other issues. My initial suggestion of this part is:
Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained during the interwar period, and they escalated further during the war.The main obstacle was a territorial dispute centering on Lithuanian capital Vilnius. Only 1944-1945, after the Soviet re-occupation, did Lithuanian and Polish resistance start cooperating fighting common enemy.
While I agree it can be further shortened, I have two objections: reffering to Vilnius as 'Lithuanian capital' in that time is highly POVed; for Poles it was the capital of their voivodeship and we can just as well refer to it as 'dispute centered on Polish voivodship capital'. Second, for Lithuania, it was Soviet re-occupation, but for Poles, first occupation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take into account, Lithuanian state capital not some sort of district capital (for several years). The difference is quite clear.M.K.17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and claiming a multicultural city, that was in territory identified as Lithuania, and majority of which were Jews Polish is a very nice example of weaselising:) Especialy if we would remember, that Pilsudsky had to close load of of Lithuanian schools in 1927 and send Lithuanian priests to jail, to diminish the number of Lithuanians to the desired 2 percent;)--Lokyz16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about WP:POINT, neutral contributor suggestions about length and of course your own words which you delivered quite recently, and already breaching them. And indeed if will be agreement of expanding this particular part it will be easy to adjust your suggestion properly. M.K.
"in principle the same enemies - Nazi Germany and Soviet Union" - in principle 1941-1944 Lithuania was a German ally and Poland was a British ally, Lithuanian police fought Polish underground, Lithuanian soldiers killed tens of thousands Jews and Poles. Xx23613:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no Lithuanian police, because there was no Lithuanian state. Collaborationist police force formed by Reichskommissariat Ostland from inhabitants of Lithuania (mostly, but not only Lithuanians), and ruled by Ziwilverwaltung has nothing to do with Lithuanian statehood. Ergo Lithuania was not fighting on either side. The fact that Lithuanians did participate in those structures is regrettable and shameful, although it does not throw shadow on Lithuanian state as such. As for the statement about Lithuanian soldiers killing Jews - you are misled again - at the time no official army of Lithuania existed - contraversial LAF, colaborationist "Lithuanian" police and other structures which included former officer and soldiers of Lithuanian army, were not representing Lithuanian state.
The only Local detachment that never gave oath to Hitler did not participate in any mass killings.
AK was official armed forces of Polands Government in exile, so it is official Polish state politics.
Lokyz, before you answer this question, do consider that the Blue Police consisted of 15,000 members, while the article concercing the Lithuanian Security Police states their number to be around 500. Dr. Dan19:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus before I will answer, please explain what do you mean by saying "Lithuanian", based on my previous explanation.--Lokyz19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for Lokyz' answer, I will only add that that the Lithuanian Security Police and the YB, were not created by Lithuanians of their own free will, just as the Blue Police was not created by the free will of the Polish. Is that easy to agree to? Dr. Dan20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge Local Detachment never gave oath to Hitler, and for that was poorly armed and sent to "hot" places, like fight partisans in eastern Lithuania. As for detais I'm not expert on the subject, although hear accuations on mass kilings by local detachment it's quite new for me.--Lokyz21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Dan, just a friendly reminder. Piotrus asked who the Detachment fought, not who it did not fight. Next time read questions more carefully, and you do not have to thank me. Tymek (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Dan, this is really weird, as you are asking a question which you have already answered yourself. Well, memory loss is a real problem, even among historians, experts on everything Polish. Tymek (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tymek, on February 5, 2007, the Prokonsul responded to M.K. with..."Because quite often your sentences are so ungrammatical that (sic) it is impossible to understand your point..." (Yes, right here on this talk page, a few paragraphs above). Could you get some help, or try restating your point yourself? You lost me. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official representatives of Republic of Lithuania were diplomatic service in the US and by the Holy See, and to my knowledge they did not recognise neither Merkys' government, neither Provisonal government neither the puppet Council, neither any one later until circa 1990.--Lokyz20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There will be not any until you answer my. I can't stand if someone tries to evade direct questions.
Second thing -I do not think someone did count Lithuanian organizations of the period by number of members. And authority which gave orders to those "organizatons" is also quite clear, so reaso for those questions evades me.--Lokyz21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did the Lithuanians exactly to oppose the Germans and to help the victims? I don't know, I'm asking. How did the officers of the Sauguma conspire like the Blue Police did? Any sources?Xx23614:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have realized thera are two DrDans. The other has one mentioned 10,000 to 15,000 Blue Policemen, a number of them Ukrainian. The one here writes above something different. Xx23614:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask M.K to state clearly what he sees as POVed in that section. No POV was detected by reviewers from WPMILHIST project, the mediators or any other users, and you failed to continue the discussion with Yannismaru mediator, but I am willing to discuss this - if you can reply and simply state what is it that you see as POVed. Please use reliable sources (i.e. ones not from fringe and extremist organizations or people) to back up your claim and show us what POV is overrepresented or underrepresented.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message, Piotrus, but the last days (and the next ones!) were very very full! Please, give me, all here, a couple of days to see where we stand right now, to study the arguments of both sides, and some further sources I'll try to find about Armia Krajowa (I admit that until 2 months ago I hadn't even heard about it, and, hopefully), and I'll come soon come back with concrete proposals.--Yannismarou19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested and initiated concrete steps how to solve the situation, but Piotrus choose to disrupt this attempt by demonstrating his point by making "suggestions" which denounced earlier agreements (for instance length). I also ask you,Yannismarou, to restore the tag, which was removed by this particular contributor with strange "argumentation" [35]. M.K.10:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been brought up before. As long as Home Army redirects to Armia Krajowa (or if a move is made, vice versa), and the beginning of the article gives both names, I don't think it matters much.radek17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't for academy only. It's not rational to force someone to say Krajowa.
I stared the same discussion last year. The vote was 2 versus 2 and Google was radically for "Home Army".
Xx23608:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was me. See Talk:Armia_Krajowa/Archive_1#Requested_move, where in spite of rather overwhelming evidence in support of a move to Polish Home Army (there are hundreds of Google Books hits for "home army" that have nothing to do with Poland, for instance), the unfortunate "vote" with very little discussion or counter-argument was split 2-2. Please, feel free to initiate another WP:RM. heqs17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even in academia people who don't speak Polish or a Slavic language use "Polish Home Army." I've sat over beer discussing the Polish Home Army with a group of American, Polish, German and Italian academics, and as a courtesy to the non-Polish speakers, everyone used "Home Army." Not a single Polish scholar disagreed with this, and in fact, one of them provided this when the subject was initially opened. But my account of using this in academia is no more important than any other account of not using it in academia--what we need are sources, and these should not be confined to academia. Alas, outside of Slavic speakers and linguists, pronouncing Armia Krajowa in English tends towards Armeea Krădżovuh--I'd rather folks used "Home Army" than this. Using known English titles rather than foreign titles is not "dumbing it down." The Persians on Wikipedia are literally obsessed with naming articles with the phonetic Persian names--when an unknowing reader gets one of these as a random article, they might do just what I do, simply dismiss it. It makes the Persian articles difficult to read and cluttered and designed for other than the English language reader, when this is English Wikipedia. But if I came across Polish Home Army as a random page, or got it returned as a google hit, it would be something I might know about, or be curious about. "Polish Home Army" is what it is called in English. KP Botany18:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This I don't know. People tend to be very picky about this little detail. If talking in general, in English, one would always says Polish Home Army to be clear. But, the topic is seldom discussed
outside of a discussion of Poland in WWII, and in writings on the topic in English, it tends to simply be Home Army. Are there guidelines for this? Maybe Home Army (Polish)? I don't think a satisfactory answer will be reached, without some general guidelines. KP Botany23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the uses of "Home Army" outside the Polish context? Ireland?radek
So the guideline on Wikipedia as to whether to use "Polish Home Army" or "Home Army" is Wikipedia:Use English. Since we're comparing English to English, why would you say the guidelines are to use English? Let's stay on topic. What are the guidelines for naming pages such as this, should we include Polish, either leading or paranthetically, or not? KP Botany02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I already demonstrated in the old Requested Move, there are many uses for "home army" outside the Polish context. According the the Use English guideline, the article should be titled with the most common English name ("Polish Home Army"), with all other common names listed in the first paragraph. What is the big mystery here? heqs21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The big mystery is the overwhelming consensus when 4 people voted last time, you've provided no links to evidence, and you can't seem to or won't answer the question being asked. This is an academic subject that gets a lot of play outside Google searches, not the world's leading authority on anything but web searches. If there was never any question about "Polish Home Army" versus "Home Army (Poland)" the issue never would have arisen the first time. However, I'm getting a feeling why folks didn't vote last time. KP Botany00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Heqs. Most books in English use "Home Army" when the Polish context is clear; the AK itself, an Allied army, used "Home Army" or "Polish Home Army" in English-language communiques. I would tend toward "Polish Home Army" with Armia Krajowa and AK mentioned in the first sentence. (Think French Foreign Legion as a parallel example). ProhibitOnions(T)17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the section on the AK's relations with the Jews, it says, "it generally turned down Jewish applicants, since they could be more easily identified by the Nazis." It would be good to note WHY it was easy to identify Jews. In Poland, as in Germany and in Europe in general, it is very rare for men to be circumsized, EXCEPT for religious reasons, eg. if they are Jewish. So if the Nazi occupation authorities suspected that a man was Jewish, they would simply, physically check. All this might not be immediately obvious to U.S readers, where routine circumcision has been common. 140.147.160.7813:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]
But how does the fact that someone could be identified as a Jew cause a problem when joining a resistance organization? If any member of a resistance were captured, they were in trouble, if known to be a member of it, Jewish or not. If a Jew who was a member of AK were found alone, why would they suspect membership?Jrm200713:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could see this as being a problem in a group of partisans in a city, where the jew amongst them might give them away. However, the original argument involved circumcision, did it not? I will frankly say that I am not convinced by these arguments and even more frankly state that while the AK was perhaps not officially antisemitic, there were many antisemites in its ranks, based on my reading of history books. What is the point of denying this? Why is it even surprising since there was official government antisemitism pre-war and pogroms both pre and postwar?--Jrm200708:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resistance members could be captured in routine arrests made by Germans, in "lapankas" or just by accident. Germans then could sometimes release them if they would not know whom they caught. But I think that's not the point. The fact is that 1) preWar many people claimed, wrongly or rightly, that they can recognise Jewish by sight. I don't know whether it's true or not, but definetely this was widespread belief which could influence people 2) many Jewish simply didn't know Polish well enough and Polis customs well enough to pass as Poles in conspiration 3) AK was acting in cities and most of its members were not partisans, but city inhabitants 4) not many Jewish lived outside the cities. Szopen08:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. However AL is bad example, because they allowed also common criminals into their ranks, they didn't care about repercussions of their actions etc. Second, AK, didn't DISALLOW JEWS into their ranks. A token of Jews fought in partisan units. And of course by time AK started to field any significant partisan units, most of Jews were already gone.
My suspect is also the general distrust of Jewish applicants, but this is just my feelings. ANyway, the reasons were quite complex. Szopen12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you can say so - but antisemitism in the sense in which WHOLE EUROPE AT THE TIME was antisemitic. I mean, the stereotype that Jewish are poor fighters (till 1943), don't care about Poland, are not good patriots, the stereotype that they side with communists and enemies of Poland ... Similar to stereotypes many Europeans have about Poles: that they are all catholics, antisemites, wild patriots and ardent churchgoers. Stereotype, even negative, is not always equal to xenophobia. Szopen07:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will further ask, given that every Jew was whether he liked it or not involved in a life or death struggle with the Germans, I would think that would make him eminently trust worthy, no??--Jrm200723:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are splitting hairs, bringing up something that applied to a miniscule portion of Jews; the fundamental idea that any Jew knew that ultimately he faced death at the hands of the Nazis would make him on the average as trustworthy as anyone and probably moreso. Your argument is absurd.--Jrm200708:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jm, let's first explain a thing. We do not argue that they were less trustworthy. We challenge your view that they were authomatically MORE trustworthy ("eminently" in this context stronly implies "more" since on average Poles were not "eminently" trustworthy to AK).
Also, _I_ think that there is no difference between Jewish Poles and Catholic Poles, Protestant Poles of any other kind of Poles. So is Piotrus. I, and Piotrus too, think that Jewish Poles are as trustworthy as any other people. You asked about motives of AK in 1940s and we speculated on them. You assumed that Jewish would be authomatically more trustworthy than Poles, because they faced the death from Nazis. We showed you that this is no true. Jews were not more trustworthy (which does not imply "less trustworthy") than ordinary Poles, as you probably already know about the traps which used this naive assumption. Second, also only miniscule portion of Jews had any chance to even TRY to go into AK. It's not like they had recruitment beaureaus (bureaus?). Don't argue about partisan units started to be fielded in larger number at the time when most Jews were already killed, and most of their members were people accustomed to villages. AK members in cities had to have chances of going freely. Someone, who spoke Polish with heavy accent and didn't know Polish customs would be authomatically at greater danger of being caught than others.
Yes, some antisemitism surely played the role. This could also vary through territory to territory, from leader to leader. Actually I read the story told by one Jewish applicant to Polish partisan unit in eastern Poland, to the effect that partisan leader refused to accept him and his friends, explaining that they do not trust the Jews because most of them sided with soviet partisans. After Jewish applicant said that he has nothing to do with them, leader said that he understand his situation, and he knows that Jews from central Poland are different but the most he can do for him is give him a letter of passage guaranteeing movement through Polish partisan-controlled. Definetely example of what you would call antisemitic motives. I can write down whole passage if you want.
Ah, final note: remember that Polish partisan weren't usually spending all their time in forests. At the times they indeed WERE living in villages (e.g. during winters). Szopen09:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question about AK's Relations with Jews
More than one source describes the attacks made on Jews by the AK. What is the possible motivation for Jewish holocaust survivors to mis-represent the AK in this regard?Jrm2007 11:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very good questions. 1) Quite often they didn't differentiate between AK and other armed units - there were armed bands of common bandits in the forests. 2) Quite often they saw AK as enemies - e.g. in western Belarus AK carried war with Soviet partisans, and most of the Jews sided with Soviet side (one can argue that they haven't got much choice...) 3) Outright anti-polonism is possibility in some cases 4) and finally, AK had specific order to liquidate criminal bands (regardless of their nationality), and the victims sometimes were also Jewish - seems nobody cared that Jews have to rob to survive, and AK was just shoting all the robbers without asking for their motives. 5) Finally, they were sporadic incidents of AK units attacking Jewish groups - in the ranks of AK also were antisemites. E.g. Massacring the ZOB group - which resulted in military court for the commander of the mentioned AK unit. Szopen08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I think that the second reason you offer (if accurate) pretty much makes it clear that whether from anti-semitism or anti-Soviet sentiment, the Jews did have much to fear from the AK. It is important however to note that this does not imply an anti-Jewish policy of the AK, just that many Jews no doubt suffered at the AK's hands for whatever reason.Jrm200708:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_Jews and Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_the_Soviets sections contain most of the relevant info; do you think they need to be changed? PS. I'd also add a 6) explanation to Szopen's: AK often turned down Jewish applicants, as they didn't want to risk having Jews in their conspiracy, since AK members, particularly in cities, lived undercover, and Jews could be more easily spotted and arrested by the Germans (for being Jews), and then turn in rest of the local cells. Hence the reason Jews commonly formed their own resistance organizations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think those sections need to be changed. My question was not one about the AK and Jews but rather one about why some have portrayed this relationship so negatively -- as I asked originally, what would be the motivation of Jews to portray the AK as their enemies if this were not so.Jrm200721:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the reference specifically says that AK members were involved. And the article says that many units decided to continue their struggle even after being disbanded. Ostap00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt this could not be AK, as AK did not exist in March 1945. They were former AK soldiers, but still they were mostly the same people. But the article also discussed the situation of AK soldiers after January 1945 in the "postwar" section, so I don't quite understand the problem here. --Lysytalk01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AK was formally disbanded in January, but many AK units did not obey and continued fighting. Does it mean that the AK soldiers would not subordinate to their supervisors ? Or were they bandits ? --Lysytalk01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the section contains the number of civilian Poles murdered in 1943 in Volhynia, and the (fantastic) number of Ukrainians killed in Volhynia during the whole period. So the numbers cannot be compared. And I doubt it's a right article to compare such numbers. The article is about the AK, which was responsible for its actions, not for any action against Ukrainians. Xx236 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is messy, with a lot of short sentances and paragraphs. The lead should be redesigned to provide an accessible and useful introduction to the article. There also appears to be a lot of information which should be summarised in the lead but isn't, particularly regarding the post-war activities of the force.
[citation needed] tags are dotted throughout the article. Deal with them please.
Numerous parapgraphs throughout the article are missing citations and in some places, notably "postwar", the whole section is sourced to a single fairly short web news article. This is significant undersourcing.
I have suspicions that the article is not comprehensive. There seems to be a low level of detail on the organisation's activites within Poland. For example, was the V-2 stuff the only major achievement of the force? I don't think it was, but it is given a level of prominence which suggests it was on a par with the Warsaw Uprising or similar.
Sub-headings would aid navigation between important events and break up the big blocks of text. They may also encourage development of a greater level of detail which this relatively important article is lacking.
Any short one line paragraphs should be merged into the text around them.
These are just the more obvious problems here. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article while I continue to review it. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited lead; it reads well to me and seems to summarize the most important information.
Citation needed tags addressed.
The article is not comprehensive - one could write a book on AK (and indeed many did so); nonetheless I think it is a good summary. Only a para is dedicated to the V-2 rocket operation, I think it is due weight.
Feel free to add more subheadings; I feel there are enough of them at the moment but wouldn't mind seeing an alternative.
Rationales added.
Yes, the Ukrainian section needs some improvement; it was also discussed above. I have now rewritten it.
I've crossed off the resolved issues above, and I'll address the others soon when I can give them my full attention. Rest assured, this article will not be delisted anytime soon as long as concientious editors are still working on it. I'm also going to hold off deciding on this article until consensus is established on the Belarusian issue below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have taken time to run through the article and I have put a more detailed list of the problems I have found below.
The lead should summarise the article but at the moment there is minimal information on the following essential topics: Major actions undertaken during the war; the AK's conflict with the Soviet backed government after 1945. The lead could also be improved by mentioning details like important leaders of the AK, successes, failures and modern popular opinion of the organisation. Alhough the last section is optional, I would expect to see the first two well covered in two or three paragraphs numbering several sentances each.
The first four paragraphs are untidy and largely unsourced. I would prefer to see them merged in two or three coherent paragraphs with a clear narrative, but at the very least provide some sources where I have left [citation needed] tags.
Although not essential, provision of some examples in the fourth paragraph would improve the prose, which is not of high quality in this section.
The Warsaw Uprising, the most famous action of the AK, is skimmed over in two unconnected short paragraphs. This is a problem which needs fixing if the article is to pass the comprehensive requirement of the GA criteria.
The sentance which begins "In Autumn of 1946 . . ." needs expanding - what was this massacre? Was it one of many or notable for its uniqueness? This seems to be an important event, yet it has no context.
The writing as a whole is rather poor. I would like to see this listed with the League of Copyeditors to try an straighten out some of the prose.
I have added [citation needed] tags to parts of the article I feel need sourcing. These are the bare minimum which should be sourced for this article and I may find more in the future.
At least one web source still has not publication information or last access date.
This list is hopefully clearer than the one above. See how much you can get done of the above and I will reassess when you are ready, although I may find other issues to be dealt with. All the best--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out various improvements, hopefully addressing most of the above, with the notable exceptions of copyediting (I am not a native English speaker) and there are still some refs missing for the 'weapons and equipment' section - so far I cannot find them (although the claims are rather plausible and non-controversial, as far as I can tell).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, I have copyedited the article myself (although I am no expert) and in all it reads and flows much better. The sourcing is improved and in all I am more than happy for this to remain a GA. There are still a few issues, some tags are not after punctuation and I couldn't work out what "That the number of sympathizers was much higher, but the number of armed members participating in actions would be smaller." meant. Nice job though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with you, Xx236, it is a shame that AK crimes towards Belarussians not mentioned, hope this will be solved quickly. M.K. (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are such subjects as Belarussians in the AK, conflicts (eg. in Nowogródek region) between AK, Germans and Soviets, Belarusian report of the AK supreme command. Xx236 (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partially yes, but certainly not all Belarusians were Soviet. Many collaborated with Germans and many common people were victims of the fighting parties. According to some sources there were Belarusians in AK troops. Xx236 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last little revert war hinted that we need separate section about crimes in which AK was involved, as AK is not treated equally in all countries. For instance Lithuanian Prosecutors Office has listed criminals charges to AK members. Thinking that possible actions there taken and in Belarus. In any case if this part evolves to bigger part, we always can have and separate article like Crimes involving Armia Krajowa any thoughts. M.K. (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, as suggested by these tabloids. It quite sad, say at least, to see that Lithuanian Government is equaled in such context. And again if you have nothing constructive to add, dont. Instead try to search a source which would concur your point that In Lithuania AK is not involved in crime charges. M.K. (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Ostap, currently I just trying to receive some feedback from fellows contributors about this issue. I know situation in Lithuania, have some info (not satisfactory) about Belarus, etc. Maybe you know developments in Ukraine? And no, if we have many info on particular issue, this info can be cropped into separately article and leaving here just the main points. In any case, I discussing this possibility, as in my view, this issue should be covered. M.K. (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think it would be best to include all information in just this article, unless it gets way too long. Ostap18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is not dead horse. The discussion which was pointed, was about section in regards of Lithuanians and AK and its length. Current proposal is about assessment of particular activities not limiting only on Lithuania, as AK actions is controversial in several countries. M.K. (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well my proposed section is not only about Lithuanians and Ukrainians. Of cource it would be great to know, are any criminal charges filled against AK members in Ukraine. M.K. (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial relationships in lead
The statement about AK's difficult relationships with various other peoples belongs in the lead, which should summarize the article. There is currently a lot a material about that here - several sections.
To clarify the positioning of this ref as supporting the statement that AK-Belarussian relationships were troubled, rather than including it in the AK-Jewish section. "On May 14, 1943, in Brest Oblast, partisans intercepted a directive from the center of the Grenadiers Party, stating that Germans and Belorussians were the enemies of Poles. Poles were ordered to prepare for an armed rebellion, collect weapons, and discredit Belorussians before the Germans. The directive signed by Captain Dubinski, one of the leaders of the Poles'ye AK District, concludes with the following statement: “Blend with the partisans, win their trust, and, if an opportunity arises, destroy them”. From [37] If/when a Relations With Belarus section is created the ref could go in there. Novickas (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the controversies should be mentioned; however due weight, neutrality and verifiability are important - for example your version spoke of conflicts between AK and Lithuanian resistance (red linked - was there any notable one?), while it is more correct to note the conflicts between AK and Lithuanian Nazi-collaborators. PS. The issues you discuss above are covered in relation with the Soviet partisans in Poland (as Belorussian resistance was part of that movement) and the lead already has a sentence on AK-Soviet conflict.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Lithuanian doesn't mean Soviet, the same Belorussian doesn't mean Soviet. Soviet is Soviet, even if it pretends to be Lithuanian, Polish or Belorussian. Soviet is controlled from Moscow and the orders are known. AK was a bunch of amateurs opposing Soviet genocidal policy. Why is the same Soviet policy wrong in Lithuania and O.K. in Belarus? Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a big difference between Belorussian SSR, which existed for two decades, and Belorussians, who had relatively little national identity, and Lithuanian SSR, a year old by the time Germans came, and Lithuanians, deeply nationalistic and patriotic. Hence calling Lithuanian 'Soviets' makes much less sense than calling Belorussians that; further, no arguments or sources have been made to argue that there was any significant Belorussian faction that was not subsumed by the Soviets with regards to AK relations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The history was more complicated, there existed obviously Belarusian nationalism, partially pro-Nazi.
Half of Belarus belonged to Poland and was occupied by the Soviets less than two years. [38]. Read Turonek.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Which underground organisation had non-controversial relationships with the outside world? Only the ones invented after the war. Xx236 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Novickas for raising this important subject. That any of this were not even mentioned in the lead was a gross omission. I corrected it by adding less than a sentence (to avoid UNDUE) to a lead with two references. Hopefully, there won't be WP:IDONTLIKEIT removals and revert wars. --Irpen08:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, the article informed the reader that the AK is viewed "controversial" by the number of historiographies and started the list: Communist, Jewish, Lithuanian, etc. "Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian" are also part of these "faulty historiographies" I guess. Anyway, I rephrased it to cut to the core. --Irpen09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Irpen - much better. As stated above, Piotrus moved the material to note 1. Just now I moved the content of note 1 to a separate section of the article body, but on second thought - how useful is this text, really? Unless we have a well-sourced categorization of each historian that has critized AK as a card-carrying member of this or that historiography, the categories are based on what their surnames suggest. Do US or British-born authors with Jewish-sounding surnames belong to "Western" or "Jewish" historiography? Let's not go there. The note text shoud probably go away, since it is not referenced, and the mention of controversy is in the lead and then discussed in detail in separate sections. Let's continue to cite historians as they come along, and include the details they offer. If a particular historian's viewpoint is described somewhere in a reliable source as belonging to a specific historiography, put that in his or her bio article. But generalizations like "the majority of Western sources agree that AK was..." need at least one, preferably more, references for that exact statement. Novickas (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. I tried to address the controversies in a little more detail in the lead, and I still think it is useful to note how AK was and is portrayed differently in various countries: there is a Polish-Soviet communist POV, emigree and modern Polish POV, Western POV, Lithuanian POV, Ukrainian POV, Jewish POV. That said, referencing those claims will be a pain; I am just not sure how to indicate in a neutral fashion that some - but not all - find AK controversial.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You forget the Russian and Belarusian POV but mention some non-existing "western" POV. I hope this is just an accident.
No problem with referencing. I am not familiar with a single Russian or Ukrainian source where the AK's role is not considered "controversial". --Irpen05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the praise of the Ukrainian sources. Yes, the mainstream ones have nothing to do with OUN and all of them consider AK highly critically, from what I have read. --Irpen05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
anti-Soviet Polish government
The Soviet government was radically anti-Polish, which left very little space to Poles. Ther current lead is inacceptable, close to Jews were anti-German during WWII.Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Polish government was allied to Soviets and Home Army formations assisted Soviet units in fights against German forces, only of course to be arrested and many executed, while the low rank members were forcefully drafted to Soviet controlled units (were later they sometimes murdered as well). To name that government anti-Soviet is rather strange, since it was rather the actions of Soviet government against Poland and Poles that dominated the relationship.
The second issue is that Piotrowski book certainly doesn't make a claim that Nazi Germany coordinated actions with Home Army. In fact he goes to great lenght to make a point such cooperation was non-existant. The only thing mentioned is leaving of supplies to Polish partisants by local commanders, and a report of German commander claiming some people from HA helped him, while it could be more likely NZS or any other formation. This is very little and doesn't form any convicing base for claim that HA coordinated actions with Nazi Germany. The relations with Germany are covered in seperate subsection and require detail large enough to explain them in neutral terms. The claim that Nazi Germany and Home Army coordinated their actions is not based on any source(although I am aware that such claims can be found in Soviet sources, and I guess in Russian and Belarussian dictatorships such claims possibly also could be found, however this of course wouldn't be neutral sources).To make this short-describe the relations in subsection, but there is no place in the lead that Home Army and Nazi Germany worked together, since it is untrue. We are talking about 400.000 to 500.000 man strong resistance group with several years of fighting, one occasion of leaving supplies made on behalf of German commander, and unspecified claims in one other report about some local group in forest aren't big enough for the lead. Also Ak cooperated with certain Jewish resistance group as well as having Jewish members so seperation is a bit too far reaching statement.--Molobo (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few rather simple questions:
Which Polish government?
What region and time?
What regiments (Polish and Soviet). If regiments/or/if partisants? And finally how about Warsaw uprising (just an example to show, how generalization can go utterly wrong, was not ment as an insult).
Continuing about units - or rather - direct question were AK units fighting Soviet partisans or not?
I'll not go into further conclusions, the review says it all: sometimes the book does seem, as if AK did not fight against Germans, but more against minorities in borders of Second Polish Republic.-- Lokyz (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lokyz, I don't understand your last sentence. The book was thought as work covering up that aspect, the author made it clear at the very beginning that it will cover that subject of the occupation of Poland, since it wasn't covered very well unlike resistance to Nazi forces, and the ethnic situation interests him the most, just like a person writing about air operations in WW2 doesn't claim that only air battles happened in WW2.
1-There was only one Polish government, I don't understand this question ?
2-I don't understand the question ?
3-In relation to what ? Cooperation with Soviet units ? See Operation Vilnius Uprising and Lviv Uprising-both were coordinated with Soviet forces against German formations. But many more operations too place ?
4.Soviet partisants received orders on June 1943 to attack Polish resistance.
5. I don't know ? Home Army units used homemade equipment, pre-war supplies, British supplies from airdrops, equipment captured from Germans(in fights, transports intercepted, stolen from magazines, bought from corrupt soldiers) and equipment bought undercover from Hungarians, Italians who were stationed in Poland. The equipment on the picture could be from one of those sources.
Molobo makes valid points. In any case the lead is not the place to repeat minor fringe claims based on WP:ILIKEIT(ORNOT); hence it is not the place to discuss issues like Dubingai massacre, limited AK-Nazi cooperation that briefly occured in 1944 in the Vilnius region (one of 17 or so districts of AK), and such. Remember - lead is the summary, and only the most important points should make there. Novickas rightly pointed out that AK was seen as controversial by enough sources to merit the inclusion of that fact in the lead. Details of various controversies, however, do not belong in lead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one entered the details of these controversies. They were just mentioned. You removal is what constitutes IDONTLIKEIT, not the other way around. Sadly, the article is now compromised. Tagged as such. Please try to find consensus. --Irpen04:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, list below what items do you think lead is missing, and we will discuss them point by point. Please note that fringe and undue issues do not belong in the lead, just as we should no go to Russian Enlightenment and add notes to that article's lead on how ransacking and looting of Poland contributed to creation of Russian cultural treasures - even through it happened and is a part of that time, it is not of major enough importance to be noted in the lead at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I explained that the lead should not just mention the existence of some abstract "controversies" but mention the controversies themselves, that is AK's own involvement in atrocities against non-Polish population and the issue of collaboration. No details (save them for main body) but just to mention clearly what was its not so honorable activity, not some weasel "controversies". --Irpen05:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And are those issues significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead?
A good test is to see what other encyclopedias or general descriptions of AK have to say about it. Britannica, as far as I can tell (wow, they have a really terrible search) has no article on AK. It is mentioned in "History - Poland in the 20th century - World War II" article with "From 1939 a Polish underground, one of the largest in occupied Europe, resisted the Nazis through a veritable secret state and a Home Army (AK) loyal to the Polish government-in-exile. The latter was a legal successor of the government that on September 17, 1939, had crossed into Romania and was interned there. [...] [AK cooperation with the Soviets] however, when attempted in areas that had been part of prewar eastern Poland, was followed by arrests and deportation or conscription into the Soviet-sponsored Polish Kosciuszko Division. [...] The AK planned to capture the capital and act on behalf of Mikolajczyk's government as host to the entering Red Army. It was assumed that the Soviets would not dare to disregard this demonstration of the Polish right to self-determination. In the absence of Soviet military assistance, the rising was doomed, yet, had the AK not risen, it would have been accused of inactivity by the communists. The insurgents fought alone for 63 days, because the Soviets not only halted their own offensive but also refused to allow Allied planes to help resupply the AK." In the article on "resistance" Britannica just mentions AK in passing reference to Warsaw Uprising and relation with the Soviets - "...in Poland, where the Soviet Union backed the communist resistance movement and allowed the Polish nationalist underground, the Home Army, to be destroyed by the Germans in the Warsaw Uprising of autumn 1944.". Honestly, I find Britannica POV rather too preoccupied with Soviet-Polish relations myself. The article on "The Allies' first decisive successes German-occupied Europe" mentions "the Home Army in Poland, comprised people of many different political persuasions, though they were invariably anti-Fascists.". At that point I gave up with Britannica, but do note I did not see anything about AK atrocities or collaboration. Not unexpected, other traditional encyclopedias fair poorly. Columbia has an article on Warsaw Uprising ([39]) which again concentrates on the failure of Soviet aid. Similar with Encarta. It is at this point I gave up with traditional English encyclopedias - feel free to try it out.
Polish encyclopedias, of course, fair better ([40], [41], [42]). The WIEM description is pretty extensive (it has some info that I will incorporate into this article in the future); not a single one of them mentions collaboration or attrocities.
I would be quite interested if any Lithuanian, Russian or Ukrainian encyclopedias have articles on AK and what do they mention. A German perspective would be interesting, too. As far as I can tell, Lithuanian wiki entry is not critical of AK; neither does the German wiki entry mention anything about AK collaborating with the Nazis.
Google Print (thank you, Google) is as always an interesting and useful source. Search for AK/Home Army and encyclopedia yielded some results. World War II: A Student Encyclopediaprovides a small entry on the AK; again - no mention of the discussed issues. Ditto World War II: A Visual Encyclopedia ([43]).
While I invite other editors to present further sources, I think it is quite clear that definition of Armia Krajowa does not involve collaboration and atrocities. Such fringe issues belong in subsections/subarticles, not the lead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reprisals?
Example: UPA unit murders an entire Polish village with women and children. Atrocity. The Home Army attacks the UPA unit defeats it and kills everyone, including the prisoners and medical personnel. Despite killing prisoners is a war crime, this would be a "reprisal" an this is not what we are talking about.
Another example. After a mass murder of the Polish civilians by the UPA, the Home Army attacks the Ukrainian village and also murders everyone, including women and children. This is an atrocity. Plain and simple. To call it a reprisal is a white-wash. Hear, Molobo? --Irpen20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier AK had different sources of equipment. It would be useful to create a table and subsection which could be later expanded to more seperate article detailing how equipment was obtained, its numbers and ways of producing it. I am fairly certain I saw statistics regarding how much was produced, stolen from Germans, or came from British and American air-drops. Such tables would enrich the article.--Molobo (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend Molobo to read the memoirs of Josef Mackewicz cited By Piotrowski at page 89, available at google books as well as text around it. --Irpen21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amria Krajowa collaboration was quite well described by Ph. D. Leonid Smilovitsky, dealing event in Belarus:
“
However, while resisting Soviet pressure, the AK High Command and its local representatives went to extremes: They cooperated with the Nazis. The first contacts began to be established in the summer and fall of 1943, after the breakdown of relations with the USSR. In December 1943 and February 1944, Captain Adolf Pilch (pseudonym "Gora"), commander of one of the AK detachments, met with SD [Security Service] and Wehrmacht officers in Stolbtsy, requesting urgent assistance. He received 18,000 units of ammunition, food, and uniforms. During the eight months of its existence (September 1943-August 1944), the "Gora" Detachment did not engage in a single battle with the Germans, whereas it waged 32 battles against Belorussian partisans. Andziej Kucner ("Maly") ["Small"]) followed his example until he was transferred to Ashmyany Rayon by order of the AK District Headquarters. The Nazis' attitude toward cooperation with "Akovtsy" [AK members] can be judged from German trophy documents. In February 1944, SS Obersturmbanfuhrer Strauch reported: "Cooperation with White Polish bandits is continuing. The 300-strong detachment in Rakov and Ivenets proved to be very useful. Negotiations with Ragner's (Stefan Zajaczkiewicz) 1,000-strong band have been concluded. Ragner's band is suppressing the territory between the Neman and the Volkovysk-Molodechno Railroad and between Mosty and Iv'ye. Contacts with other Polish bands have been established".
First Lieutenant Jozef Swida (Vileyka Oblast), commander of the Nadneman AK Formation in the Lida District, also cooperated with the occupiers. In the summer of 1944, in Shchuchin Rayon, Polish legionnaires gained control of the small towns of Zheludok and Vasilishki, where they replaced German garrisons. For the purpose of fighting partisans, they were given four trucks and 300,000 cartridges[55]. Some sub-units of Armia Krajowa displayed great cruelty toward the civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the partisans. The legionnaires burned down their homes, drove away their livestock, and robbed and killed the families of partisans.[44]
The text is propaganda manipulation. Adolf Pilch's actions were condemned by Armia Krajowa command as mutiny. Jozef Swida rebeled against Armia Krajowa in January 1944 and refused to accept its orders or assist in its actions. Armia Krajowa leadership demanded that he will ally with Soviet partisants, which he refused as well. He killed four AK members and was subject to trial by AK which gave him a death sentence. The quote here makes no mention of this.
Alledged report by SS uses communist propaganda language which makes it curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans_in_Poland
Communist propaganda routinely referred to the anti-Soviet Polish underground army as "bands of White Poles." According to another propaganda directive, the Polish underground was to be referred to as "the protégés of the Gestapo."[2] On 23 June 1943, the Soviet partisan leadership authorized the denouncing of the Polish underground to the Nazis. Later, orders went out to “shoot the [Polish] leaders” and “discredit, disarm, and dissolve” their units.[2]
Interesting personal assessment. Of cource if you find an academic source, which concurs that those AK people there prosecuted by AK, we definitely will add this in article, to illustrate that AK killed not even civilians and military personnel of different countries but also their teammates. Just personal wonder - it took eight months to deal with so called "rebelled" detachment, actually conducting such "swift" actions, you even can lose more then a whole war, as invasion of Poland shows. And again if you have an academic source which says that - Leonid Smilovitsky's presented SS report is actually a communist propaganda, cite it. As we have a number of others German reports in regards of AK collaboration. M.K. (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is that collaboration of AK was not sanctioned by high command and occurred only within a few units (I doubt it was even applicable to more than a few percent of total membership). Considering that the Soviets (partisans and regular army units) commonly attacked AK, most of such collaboration was in self-defense, as AK commanders tried to secure their area and escape destruction that would result from fighting on two fronts. As ObywatelKwak noted, accusations of collaboration were also made falsely by the communist authorities bent on destroying AK image and replacing it with the heroic image of Armia Ludowa. See also [45]: According to Article 58, a Home Army soldier, who was ethnically Polish, born in pre-war Poland, and a life-long citizen of Poland could be sentenced as “traitor to the Soviet Motherland” in addition to being a “counter-revolutionary,” “Hitlerite collaborator,” and “fascist.” Arguably, the most important of them was the infamous Decree of August 31, 1944, against “the fascist-Hitlerite criminals and traitors of the Polish Nation.” The decree was promulgated by the Communist proxy regime and used mainly as a political and legal tool of repression against the independentists fighters and politicians, who were routinely branded as “Hitlerite collaborators,” “fascists,” and “reactionaries.”--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question about joint AK-UPA actions
I made similar request on UPA disscusion page.
I know there were some joint AK-UPA actions against Soviet invading forces and German occupation at the end of the war. Alas, a book which had a some overview of them was lended by me to a person who I no longer have contact with. So can anybody name those joint battles ? Additionaly I know that some in UPA experienced such pressure from Soviet invasion and attacks they went as far as to propose a Polish-Ukrainian confederation--Molobo (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that suppose to mean? The Polish government bravely fled the country leaving it to advancing Nazis to form their own "General government". After that there was indeed a bunch of guys in London utterly irrelevant, claiming to be a Polish government. Note, however, that there was another bunch of guys claiming to be a Polish gov, sitting in Moscow. To avoid confusion, exiled government was used and it was just fine before Molobo's intrusion. --Irpen21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Irpen, but let's not use Soviet POV. The Soviet puppet government was not reckognised internationally during timeframe of AK's existance. And indeed we should be thankfull that under air bombardment and Nazi-Soviet alliance's joint invasion Polish leaders had foresight enough to relocate and continue their struggle for Polish freedom and protection from Nazi-Soviet genocide actions(AB Aktion and Katyn come to mind). Among them were great thinkers and politicians, thanks to whome, Polish resistance continued its existance and contacts with Allies, providing needed intelligence and sabotae operations against Nazi Germany as well as informing the world about reality of Auschwitz. But remember that is not discussion forum. --Molobo (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo, I am not suggesting to use anyone's "POV. All this discussion is a fascinating topic for the relevant articles. Here it suffices to just call the London gov the Polish Government in Exile, like its article does. We don't title the article "Legitimate Polish government during WWII" or smth. --Irpen21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am almost certain that all sources, except Party ones of course, will refer to the London government as the legitimate one. What is the issue? Also, can you look over the "relation with Ukrainians" section for accuracy? Ostap21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ostap, this is beyond the point. The legitimacy of the London gov is a fascinating topic but it belongs (and is discussed) elsewhere. There is no need to inject this debate into this article. The body can be neutrally called the Polish Government in Exile in the articles outside of this debate.
Why is legitimate not neutral ? What other view is there ? Who does present it ? I would like to hear an answer on that, since I don't believe anybody besides the Soviets and obviously Nazi Germany didn't reckognise Polish government as legitimate. And even Soviets did until Katyn Massacre was revealed to the world. Surely I don't think neutrality is achieved as middle point between Soviet and rest of the world view ?--Molobo (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo, we simply do not inject every possible term around here. The legitimacy issue is outside of this article's scope. It is discussed in multiple places. Pl gov-in-exile relays all the info needed to the reader in this context. --Irpen21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen you didn't answer. Why did you claim calling Polish government legitimate is not neutral ? I can't see any argument why we shouldn't call it legitimate. It is a fine word and notes why it was a problem for Soviets interested in occupying Poland.I am eager to hear your answer why legitimate is not a neutral statement and what is the reason behind that statement. Best regards.--Molobo (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo, Please note that "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answer" is disruptive. I am simply asking to stick each article with the issues at hand. --Irpen21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, I am sorry, but your comments show total lack of knowledge of Polish history. The Govt fled Poland because of advancing Soviets, allied with the Nazis, it is enough to grab a book and check it out. bunch of guys in London utterly irrelevant - this is outrageous, all governments of occupied Europe fled to London, are you suggesting that General Sikorski and Stanislaw Mikolajczak were irrelevant guys? The government in London was the legitimate one, it was a direct continuation of the pre-1939 government, with all political parties participating in its activities. Sorry, but such comments are not helping, perhaps you know a lot about Soviet Union, but little about Poland. Tymek (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tymek, my entry was meant to be metaphorical of course and not offensive. I will now do my best effort to be more considerate to your feelings. The real question here is not whether the London gov was legitimate per se. Neither the question is whether it was relevant. The question here is about injecting stuff into an article. There is a dedicated article on the topic where all this is discussed. This article correctly and neutrally called the body the Polish government in exile, exactly per the title of the dedicated article about this government.
Molobo first injected "legitimate" into the sentence. Than he injected "internationally reckognized" [46] (sic). What next? "Legitimate internationally reckognized led by Sikorsky"? There is no end to it. The status of this government is simply not a subject of this article.
The easiest way to derail any effort to improve the article is to fill it with "stuff" instead of the content. This is what Molobo has been doing for years. Just check only in the last week the History of Poland and the Soviet invasion of Poland were attacked by Molobo and now are a tagged mess. I am not keen to use this article to discuss any issues of this government. I just want it to remain on topic. I hope I answered your question and cleared any misunderstanding we might have had. --Irpen00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen please do tell who consideres Polish government not legitimate and what are your sources upon which you based your opinion and told us it is not neutral to call it so. I would appreciate your answer. You still haven't provided any answer and as of yet no argument for not calling it so.--Molobo (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo, this is simply an off-topic issue. There are a lot of things about this government. Legitimacy, competence, nationalism (or lack of), etc. This is simply off-topic for this article. Whose orders was the AK taking? The orders of the Polish government in exile. Anything else is outside of this article's scope. My problem is not with the particular term but with the 2-year lasting campaign of injection of stuff by you into articles. You earned two articles a POV tag (according to several editors) just this week. I would like this one to not follow this route. --Irpen03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all but communist era historians agree that Polish government in exile was legitimate. That said, the lead of this article is not a place to discuss this issue, so I removed this word from my version. One less controversial issue to worry about it in this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we can move on from this issue. Hopefully we will get all of them resolved to the mutual compromise and will be able to untag the article. --Irpen05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Dan, Polish Secret State and govt in exile were one entity, and frankly, I do not get that a contributor who claims to be a historian does not know this. Also, I am surprised that a heroic historian does not know that what Moscow prepared for Poland was not a government but a bunch of Soviet communists, brought to the country in Red Army trucks. Tymek (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the referenced info and gently reformatted some stuff. Hopefully, people are willing to discuss now rather than make silent reverts with misleading edit summaries. Due to recent Molobo's intrusions, two important articles are now tagged by a rather wide consensus of editors. I hope we can save this article for further development, rather than run revert wars, inject/paste stuff in and fight for tags. Let's try at least. --Irpen21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is removed again, this time by Piotrus, without a slightest attempt to reach compromise, I tagged the article (see above). Hopefully that while the damage is still repairable, we can fix it and move on rather than have it turned into mess, like to other articles recently edited by Molobo. --Irpen04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the damage inflicted by undue and fringe pov-pushing in the lead has been repaired, thank you for your concern. Please discuss the issue at the relevant section above. Molobo's contributions are quite helpful - alas, I agree that some other editors are attempting to disrupt this article. Alas, I suggest we discuss edits, not editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet operations against AK
We need to detail exact scale of operations against AK planned by Soviet forces, and how Soviets infiltrated the underground in Poland. Also important are the torture methods used by Soviet NKVD to break people, special units created to conduct operations against Polish independence movement and so on. --Molobo (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Panteleimon Ponomarenko ordered to destroy AK units in Belarus. It's about the AK, not only about Soviet partizans.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Armia Krajowa having at times cooperated with the Nazi forces against the Soviets
I agree, it's nasty to cooperate with the Nazis, as the Soviets did 1939-1941. But also later the Soviets preferred sometimes to fight the Poles rather than the Nazis. Ponomarenko recommended denunciating Polish conspirators to Gestapo[48]. It was common in occupied Warsaw that Soviet agents denounced AK members. Once they denounced their own printing shop situated in the same house as the one run by the AK. The case was used after the war during internal fights in the Communist Party.Xx236 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have shown above (#Lead), such criticism is absent in general description of AK. I have removed it from lead per WP:UNDUE; the general mention of controversies remains and they are discussed in more detail in the article itself. This should be a reasonable compromise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think as Piotrus and he has my support in this conflict, because I think that Piotrus is very good admin and he has experience in history, etc. So..Piotrus is my favourite admin, but maybe he's my favourite admin, because EN-Wiki have only two polish admins. Alden or talk with Alden22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alden's remarks are very nice. In any case, I think the article lacks an explanation of the criterion or basis for becoming a member of this army. The Jan T. Gross article comes to mind as it states that Gross' mother was a member. Part of my interest stems from the probability that some people claimed they were members of the AK, when in reality they were not. How was this ascertained anyway? It also seems unlikely that the Polish Secret Underground State, in spite of being a highly developed state, would have wanted to keep detailed records of membership, considering the reality of the occupation. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Dan has IMO good idea on this conflict. I think that ought to search in many source, because us POV is very other, because we were learnt history by different history teacher. In this sytuation ought to find in other sources. Alden or talk with Alden09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, we have different POVs. Some of us are from countries that had fought with AK and unlike them. But that POV is not the only POV. We should compromise and consensus. Collaboration and attrocities are in article. Do not edit war over inclusion in lead, it is an undue place for that. Alden or talk with Alden17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there are cases when criticism is serious enough to be reflected in lead. Schutzstaffel is a good example, clearly stating "The SS was responsible for the vast majority of war crimes perpetrated under the Nazi regime, including the Holocaust". As I have explained above, in this case I agree with you - the fringe criticism has no place in the lead here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop this wholesale reverts. There is nothing "fringe" as facts being undisputed. If the concern is UNDUE, please discuss the removal from the article. The lead should summarize the article, rather than the selected parts of it. --Irpen01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piotrus has asked me to comment on this issue. WP:LEAD states that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources" [emphasis added]. The current text seems to be a good summary of the article - its brief statement that not everyone has a positive view of this organisation seems to reflect the weight criticisms are accorded in the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An underground organisation should terrorize and kill people, which causes criticism of the terorised and families of the killed ones. Which underground organisation during WWII wasn't criticised because of such activities?
Soviet Union was an imperialistic state, which persecuted everyone inside and outside, so quoting Soviet critics is Soviet propaganda, not serious editing 2008'. Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one here tries to whitewash negative events in the history of AK. It should be really mentioned in neutral manner to avoid further controversies. As users above mentioned, Red Army has far more negative stories but it isn't written in such a distinctive manner. I really don't see denial in edits of Polish editors. - Darwinek (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A point I made on WP:FT/N when this came up was that there are obvious differences between a largely partisan organisation and an official army such as the Red Army or the Wehrmacht; one being that the history of relations with the civilian population is more central to the history of the partisans than to the history of the other armies. So the comparisons are inapt. --Relata refero (disp.)06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there are two issues at hand. Collaboration and atrocities against the civilian population. The first comment above addresses the atrocities and the second comment addresses collaboration. --Irpen09:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He means I am pointing out that comparison between the PHA and the Red Army/Wehrmacht leads on the issue of atrocities aren't logical, but am not commenting on the collaboration here; and that Moreschi believes that collaboration is undue, but isn't commenting on the atrocities.
Neither they are by liberum veto. Since both the RfC comment and the noticeboard post noted both issues - collaboration and attrocities - I am pretty sure that the editors who commented are familiar with both fringe aspects of this case. PS. I am pretty certain we are not comparing AK to an official army in the lead, so I think this is not an issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following gives perfectly adequate coverage of the issues in the lead: "Those conflicts and other issues - such as the separation from communist or Jewish resistance - meant that Armia Krajowa, seen in modern Poland as a heroic resistance, has been the subject of controversy and more critical portrayal among some circles outside of Poland". As such, I'm removing the NPOV tag. --Folantin (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, at leas one of the commenting editors (Relata Refero) agreed with several editors stating here that interaction with the local population is highly relevant. I restored this info and added another ref where this is discussed. Also, I removed weasel "some circles". I also hoped that the independent editors were brought here by RfC rather than through contacting individually by the choice of either side. You of course realize that leaving the selection of editors who would provide outside opinions to the individual tastes of the involved editors can skew the discussion. Finally, it would be best not to misuse the Fringe Theories board. That AK was involved in atrocities against the local population is not a fringe theory but an undisputed fact. This is a common content issue. Enough boards were misused in the past to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Would be nice to end this practice rather than expand it into a yet new venue. --Irpen18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do note I have not reverted your other changes. Can you quote Relata on this? I am not getting an impression from his arguments that he supports such mention; further - not a single one of the (two?) editors who are demanding this inclusion in the lead has addressed my critique above. That a few specialist sources discuss the rare incidents of attrocities committed by AK does not mean that we should - unlike all the other general publication - mention those specific controversies in our summary. Further, comparing AK, which was responsible for - how many, really? a hundred over the three years? - of innocent civilian deaths with UIA, responsible for over a hundred thousands deaths in Volhynia alone, is nothing but wrong. PS. Building a straw man and criticizing the other editors as biased - because they support my position - will not help you much, I am afraid. Please stick on topic, and discuss edits, not editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not supporting or disagreeing with any mention at the time, as I did not know enough. I merely pointed out that the premise of the RfC statement was, in my opinion, flawed.
That being said, I have looked into the question of the notability of the PHA's "atrocities". My remarks have been moved to Piotrus' section below. --Relata refero (disp.)20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the same for collaboration if anyone is still interested. I note, in response to Moreschi, that just because it might be Stalinist propaganda is not enough reason to suppose it does not belong in the lead: it does not mean that it is non-notable, or was/is not widely studied, either to confirm or refute. --Relata refero (disp.)20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Try
Since my earlier question got lost in the above melee (I know, a little OT), I'll ask it again. How did one become a member of the AK? As I'm sure there were no recruiting stations, I'm wondering if there were post-war claims of members, who really never were members? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were false claims. I know one regarding Szare Szeregi, also outside AK, by Edward Prus.
Veterans were recommended by two eywitnesses, so it was possible to create virtual units 30-40 years after the war. Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus is right, after the war, thousands of people actually hid their AK membership, fearing repressions of the communist government. In the course of the time, most of them died, so it is likely that AK's membership was even higher than the official estimates. Tymek (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that precise names should be used. The subject was extremely hot, because any Polish underground was described as the AK by outsiders. Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that use of Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Jews and Soviets is rather derogatory. Lithuanian population, Jewish resistance or Soviet Forces, (for example, are far better forms to use. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-native English speaker, I did not think that Poles may be less preferable to Polish population, as I prever shorter versions. But if other editors agree with you we can certainly c/e the article - although such argument may even require a WP:MOS note.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia:MOS#Identity. "Soviets" is just too ambiguous. While all Soviet Union contact was with Soviet citizens, I'm not sure that had any bearing on the subject of the article. You have done well for a non-native English speaker though--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your proposed subtitles are for the most part incorrect. To be specific: the section you entitled Jewish resistance also deals with Jewish civilians; the section you entitled Lithuanian resistance and collaborators also deals with Lithuanian civilians and political elites - not to mention that the existence of any Lithuanian resistance is dubious; the section you entitled Red Army is mislabeled because not the Soviet partisans were not technically part of the Red Army; and finally, Ukrainian resistance and collaborators also deals with civilians and political elites.
Claims of AK atrocities against the civilian population
The RfC above has pretty much discarded the claim of collaboration, but the claim of atrocities is still being occasionally restored. I invite interested editors to present here references that back up this claim in due weight - i.e. references that give a general description of AK (encyclopedias, etc.) and mention the claim of atrocities. Irpen wrote above "That AK was involved in atrocities against the local population is not a fringe theory but an undisputed fact." If so, I am sure he can present several general descriptions of AK - of the length of our lead - that stress those atrocities? I have attempted to demonstrate that no such sources exist here. The reference used currently, Piotrowski (Print here) - a specialist book on the subject - does not support such a general claim; instead he discusses several exceptional events. Those exceptional events are nothing more that a trivia in the big picture of AK, and as such don't belong in lead - we could as well mention that AK designed a submachine gun or run anti-Soviet propaganda campaign (Akcja Antyk) or a hundred of other very minor facts - alas, we do not do so in the lead. Yes, Piotrowski mentions the killings - as others have noted above, no wartime organization was perfect. It is true that AK had committed several atrocities and killed innocent civilians - so did every single other wartime organization. Certainly a comparison to UPA, responsible for 100,000 or more deaths in the massacres in Volhynia, is not justified. A few separate incidents, "exceptions to the rule", do not justify any claim of atrocities in the lead - just as it would be undue weight and inappropriate to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article, or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on. If one digs deep enough, we can find dirt and criticism of anything - but it does not mean that room for such criticism is in article's lead. May I finally quote WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" (hence I ask for the general references that mention atrocities as one of the defining qualities of AK). Further: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."). Since the AK's atrocities are mentioned only in the selected few specialist publication, they qualify for discussion in subarticles - even in the section of the main article, perhaps - but not in the lead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that follows is, of course, tainted or untainted by my previous lack of knowledge of most of these issues. (Also, written before I read Piotrus' statement above.)
I find Tadeusz Piotrowski looks into both the question of collaboration and the question of civilian relations, from a viewpoint that cannot be described as anything but sympathetic (He is the historian who quotes the "honor of the AK is untainted" line). He does say, however, that this is something that "Jewish authors often state". He notes, as do many other sources, that the largest proportion of anti-Semitic acts committed by non-Germans were committed by the National Armed Front (I hope I have got the name right), but does not clear, as far as I can see, the AK either. Not that it matters; if it is something that is often stated, even if by "Jewish authors" (!!), that goes towards establishing its significance somewhat. One of these "Jewish authors", the historian Joshua Zimmerman, calls the hostility of the AK to Jewish partisans "a very painful phenomenon"; he adds "many Jewish sources and some Polish accounts" speak of hostile action against the forest Jews, though adds that this is "widely denied by many historians and writers in Poland." A story about Yaffa Eliach seems to be mentioned several times as being emblematic. According to Polonsky and Michlic, the years since the end of Communism have seen "a series of set-piece debates" on the AK's involvement in these affairs; a 1993 paper by John Lovell Armstrong on the subject is one of the most widely cited in the index of the Slav. E.E. Rev.
In all these reports I have tried to exclude those that include the NSZ. I note also -for context- that the PHA is widely reported as having viewed the Jewish community as simultaneously craven and beholden to Soviet Russia. ("The ghetto is no more than a base for Soviet Russia... the Russians were the one who prepared the revolt", according to a spokesman quoted in a book from the Holocaust Memorial.)
What of the Ukraine? There the literature in English is unsurprisingly more sparse. What is clear is that the memory of Volhynia is extraordinarily problematic. According to Nathaniel Copsey, it is the single most explosive issue in Ukrainian-Polish relations today and has implications for the expansion of the EU.
Note: I have written all this without really even looking at the article in its current state (except for a quick read-through some days ago) so as to be unaffected by any current biases either way.
I won't express a final judgement here. I'd just say that WP:LEAD, while a guideline, says that a "brief mention of notable controversies" should be included; prima facie these controversies look notable, but that is a matter that subject specialists might be able to correct me in. Also, I have argued in the past that the problematic associations of the Indian National Army and the post-war purge of collaborators by the French Resistance are notable; I have been successful in one case, and not in the other, so I admit to wishing to reserve judgement here. These are, of course, deeply contested issues of historical memory. In such cases I would hope that the contestation should be brought out in the open rather than buried, as that itself is the stuff of scholarly research. --Relata refero (disp.)20:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, You mentioned Yaffa Eliach, may I presume that you quote her as example of dishonest twisting the facts and prime example of false accusing of AK? Szopen (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is that Piotrowski makes it clear that AK never collaborated with Nazi Germany.
It's good that you mention Jewish partisans. Note that the lead there also does not make mention of atrocities like Naliboki massacre or Koniuchy Massacre.As to "One of these "Jewish authors", the historian Joshua Zimmerman, calls the hostility of the AK to Jewish partisans "a very painful phenomenon"-depends on region, you also have many Jews serving in AK itself, different situation in Kresy region where their units sided with Soviet forces who were hostile to Poland and Poles.--Molobo (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ri-ight. First, that's not the bottomline. The bottomline is that for leads, we're not expected to consider the truth but instead the amount of noise made at getting at the truth. Second, Piotrowski makes nothing like that clear, he says that collaboration was tactical and should not be generalised. I'm not sure what to say to the rest. --Relata refero (disp.)20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but Piotrowski makes it clear there was no collaboration between AK and Germans. There were extremely marginal rogue members who went against AK and achieved an unofficial cease-fire between them and German forces going against AK orders. Anyway do you have any comment about Jewish Partisans lead and Naliboki and Koniuch Massacre ? --Molobo (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you corrected that redlink, I was beginning to think you were colorblind. No, not at this time, since I spent an hour and half on reading this last issue, and because I'm a well-known tendentious editor on issues related to Jewish partisans, so I could not comment without incriminating myself and rendering all my careful words on this subject worthless. --Relata refero (disp.)20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relata, I believe we see eye to eye here. The lead should mention controversies - specific IF they are notable. No specific controversies are notable in this case; as I have shown in my post above (which I am looking forward to hearing your comments about); it is even a concession going further then all of the sources discussed there to mention the fact that AK was controversial - because according to general sources, it wasn't, not really. In any case, I suggest we don't go too much off topic (again...); let's see if editors can present general references to prove the claim that AK's alleged attrocities are notable enough for a mention in the lead. If such sources are not presented, I think we can close the matter of lead and move on.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us remember that AK was the biggest underground organization in occupied Europe. Due to number of its members and reality of these times, several incidents happened, and I am not going to say that 100% of AK's soldiers were angels. But atrocities? This is a gross exaggeration, which does not stand in comparison to wartime organizations from Lithuania and Ukraine, not mentioning Nazi Germany and Soviet units Tymek (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of Soviet partisans is pretty bad - it does not mention, for example, that one of their activities was to weaken and destroy AK (see Soviet partisans in Poland). That said, even WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS aside, let's not go off topic again (if anybody wants to discuss the lead of Soviet partisans, Talk:Soviet partisans is that a'way). So back on topic - yes, tiny details have no place in lead (one could as well - perhaps this would be even a better analogy - go to article about NYPD and add to its lead info about how it kills innocent people... does it happen? Yes. Is it relevant? Hardly.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Piotrus, your blatant disrespect to the multiple users is unhelpful. Do you think you will help resolve the problems by pretending that objections of editors like above and below are unworthy? --Irpen05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus it is a very long way from being featured. Take a glance at Polish version, there is a huge list of joint Polish-Ukrainian actions listed for example. Likewise we have little about Jews becoming part of AK, especially those liberated from German camps.--Molobo (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
World's largest?!
Is this "The Armia Krajowa, with over 400,000 members in 1944, was not only the largest Polish underground resistance movement but the world's largest" a joke? The partisan forces operating on the occupeid territories of Soviet Union, and its bordering occupied states, controlled from a separate Directorate within Stavka, included two strategic theatres (Belorussian and Ukrainian), and more then 11 krais and zones with over 6,000 units, and over 1 million serving personnel (combat and non-combat) by 1944. Following the Operation Bagration alone 250,000-300,000 partisans were inducted into the ranks of the regular Red Army units. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The graph based on all referenced numbers in the article and on talk.
Please see #The largest resistance movement as well as the note in the article. The claim of largest for AK is well referenced. Can you present refs for the 'largest' and numbers for the Soviet partisans? That article, unfortunately, is very poorly referenced; nobody added refs for the numbers I requested nor answered on talk. Do note that AK had about half a million combat personnel in mid-1944. PS. I leafed through this great book. p.162 and around give numbers for late 1941 as 20,000-30,000. p.205 gives the estimate for spring 1942 as ~70,000. At the same time ZWZ, transforming into AK, had an estimated 100,000 members. This book has an estimate of Soviet partisans as 150,000 in summer 1942 and 250,000 in summer 1943. This puts the roughly equal to AK. p.262 has an estimate of December 1943 at 250,000. Most estimates for AK around that time are above 300,000 and approaching or beyond 400,000. Consider now that around that time, the Soviet counteroffensive was pushing Germans from the Soviet Union, thus the numbers of partisans would diminish - as more Soviet territories were liberated, the partisans were obviously being incorporated into the ranks of the Red Army. At the same time AK was gearing up for the nationwide uprising and thus actively increasing its strength. On p.257 we have an estimate of partisans in Belorussia around Bagration at ~150,000. I couldn't find in that book ref for Ukraine, but from what I read the Soviet partisans in Belarus had larger numbers; our article on Soviet partisans gives the number for 150,000 (of course unreferenced and probably somewhat overestimated). P. 263 gives the numbers of Soviet partisans in Poland and Czechoslovakia at ~25,000; half of them in Poland. Perhaps a similar number operated in the Baltic states. That would give us ~350,000 Soviet partisans around Bagarion - below the common AK estimates of 400,000 (common range is 300,000-500,000, btw). All of that puts Soviet partisans perhaps close to AK around late 1942/1943 - but not higher, and as I've noted above we have plenty of sources that assign the primacy of numbers to AK, which probably reflects both the fact that in summer 1944 when AK approached its zenith and launched Operation Tempest, majority Soviet partisans were no more - as the Soviet lands were almost completely liberated, and the Red Army moved into foreign territories (Polish, Balkans, etc.) - and that ZWZ-AK had certainly higher numbers until mid/late 1942. Thus at best, if we find refs for it, we could say that Soviet partisans approached numbers of AK (which did not represent allof Polish resistance) around late 1942/1943, but ZWZ-AK had higher numbers both earlier and afterwards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is no good "leafing through" books! You have to read them, including where they get their numbers from. In this case the figures you quote come from Armstrong's 1964 book "Soviet Partisans in World War II" and US Department of Army 1951 pamphlet 20-240 based on the German Der Partisanenkrieg. I agree that the Soviet partisans article is not great, but here is no reason to take liberties with it! Think about it, on the one hand we have Poland, deep behind German lines, no real outside support, terrain not really suitable for large scale partisan activity (you say so in the article). On the other hand there is the occupied territory of Soviet Union, with the Belovezhskaya Pushcha alone being many times larger then the Polish section. The Pripyat swamps (punitive operation) was to be the first of such operations in that area alone; an area of 98,419.5 square kilometres, nearly a third of the current area of Poland in total (312,679 km²). This is besides entire Red Army units becoming de facto partisans during 1941. You are listing 20 divisions and a cavalry brigade as part of the Army, but these were not real divisions since I doubt the Germans would have missed 285,000 military firearms in the hands of the civilian population! On the other hand the Soviet Partisans had a constant supply of firearms, including artillery, and operated their own air strips as part of combat detachments, companies, battalions, regiments and brigades as combat formations quite apart form the clandestine intelligence gathering organisation. I have no dispute in the Polish underground having some combat elements, and conducting some combat operations, however, by and large those formations which did not cooperate with the Soviet command, received and could obtain very little support from the UK, and in the main were clandestine intelligence gathering and recruiting organisations. In that sense almost every individual in any occupied country was a partisan! I'd say if you call something an "Army", you had better count only combat elements.
Consider your own statements:
AK was able to overcome these difficulties to some extent and put tens of thousands of armed soldiers into the field.
however
From the arms caches hidden in 1939, the AK obtained: 614 heavy machine guns, 1,193 light machine guns, 33,052 rifles, 6,732 pistols, 28 antitank light field guns, 25 antitank rifles and 43,154 hand grenades.[26] However, because of inadequate preservation which had to be improvised in the chaos of the September campaign, most of these guns were in poor condition. Of those that were hidden in the ground and dug up in 1944 during preparation for Operation Tempest, only 30% were usable.
That's 12,300 armed personnel, a far cry from 400,000. i.e. an equivalent of one infantry division (reduced) dispersed over the whole of Poland. Even if they doubled this from captured German weapons, it would still not make it "World's largest".--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what this has to do with anything? AK had more equipment than that; this is discussed in relevant section and citing only a tiny part of it is hardly an argument for anything. In any case we are discussing size, not armaments (I'd not be surprised if Soviet partisans were better equipped, but this would have to be cited properly before it could be used in the mainspace articles). Back to size; I strongly suggest you start paying attention to our policies and cite some references to back up your claims. I certainly have no intention to discuss this further until you do; my claims are very well referenced in the article and above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me this has to do with the claim of AK being "World's largest" partisan organisation! Even IF they had 32,000 armed soldiers by 1944, that is still not 400,000. In fact I did not cite a tiny part, but the major part. That the AK had 32,000 armed troops in 1944 was hardly useful when there millions of Red Army troops advancing into Poland during the summer. But this is not the issue. You can not claim, despite the sources cited, that it was the World's biggest without offering comparative analysis. If you do the research on the Soviet Partisan movement, you will find statistics that will put your claims in a different context.
PS. Just look at the claims made in the Yugoslav article that "In 1945 the Partisans, numbering over 800,000..." forgetting to say that there were hardly any Wehrmacht troops left in the country, and essentially Tito mobilised the former Yugoslav Army!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm THere is no claim of "largest partisan organisation" in the text of the article.. I read it few times and there is nothing like that. There is claim of "largest resistance underground". BTW, If you will say that puszcza bialowieska was "occupied territory of soviet union", then it really doesn't add much to the discussion (it was POlish territory occupied by first Soviets and then Nazis) Szopen (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The Armia Krajowa, with over 400,000 members in 1944, was not only the largest Polish underground resistance movement but the world's largest." This is referenced to "Marek Ney-Krwawicz, The Polish Underground State and The Home Army (1939-45). Translated from Polish by Antoni Bohdanowicz. Article on the pages of the London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association.", hardly a neutral source. However, to back up the claim, there has to be some comparison made. I don't see any. Moreover the astronomic figures given in the article are based 5 out of 6 on Polish sources! I have contacted Prof. Cienciala regarding her startling claims--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I was largely trying to illustrate the location and size of favourable terrain for partisan operations when I mentioned Belovezhskaya Pushcha, and most of it is in Soviet Union on the maps of 1941.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, no claim about "the largest partisan organisation" (which AK probably wasn't), but the claim about "largest resistance underground movement", which is something different and which AK probably was. This is important distinction. Szopen (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it was "probably" "largest resistance underground movement"? Yet again, it could not compare with Soviet organisation which was integrated with the Red Army combat intelligence and the GRU's predecessor, the Reconnaissance Directorate of the General Staff of the USSR (former 5th Directorate), which Poles could not compete with--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szopen, we are talking not about the Polish Underground State (which was of course many level more complex and larger than anything Soviet partisans had) but AK, which was a partisan/resistance organization, indeed. Here are some quotes:
Norman Davies: "Armia Krajowa (Home Army), the AK, which could fairly claim to be the largest of European resistance"[51]
Gregor Dallas: "Home Army (Armia Krajowa or AK) in late 1943 numbered around 400000, making it the largest resistance organization in Europe"[52]
Mark Wyman: "Armia Krajowa was considered the largest underground resistance unit in wartime Europe"[53]
Yitzhak Zuckerman: "By 1944, the AK numbered nearly 400000 members, making it the largest resistance force in Nazi-occupied Europe"[54]
Spencer Tucker et al.: "In Poland, meanwhile, the Polish Resistance established the Armia Krajowa (AK, Home Army), which became the largest underground movement in Europe with 400,000 fighters" [55]
That's just a selection, there are many, many other books there with this claim. So there are any refs to the contrary, I suggest leaving the original research of "32,000 fighters in 1944" where it belongs - off Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So there, mrg3105, perhaps you are forgetting that this organization (AK) was under the guidance and tutelage of the unique Polish Secret Underground State. This State (a very special entity) probably explains the uniqueness and enormity of this army. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It would also be nice to incorporate into the article that the AK was not only the largest, but the most important and significant underground resistance unit in the world. Naturally, including proper references are paramount. Undoubtably there are many. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dan, I am happy to see you engaging in very productive and important discussion, your points are correct and worth attention, and I hope we and Piotrus will expand on them. As you pointed out the AK was very special due to Underground State and its extreme significance in central area of struggle in WW2
And thank you, Molobo, for your acknowledgement of my being correct. Whereas there can be no doubt that the AK contributed significantly to the defeat of the Axis, especially in the April offensive of 1945, I feel with a little more effort we can establish that the surrender on the Missouri was also an event that was could not have been accomplished without the aid of the A.K. If you come across some articles in a weekly or other sources that are in agreement with my thoughts on this, please let me know. Otherwise it would be original research. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following my contact with Professor Anna M. Cienciala of Kansas University she advised (in part) that "I should have said: the largest underground movement in Europe except for European (western) USSR. I am working on revising this very lecture and will make that correction. (Anna M. Cienciala)" (received Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:41 AM)
All the other source making this claim are unreferenced and do not offer comparative data. In fact they sound oddly same.
Unlike the Polish Secret Underground State, the Soviet Union was not an underground state and could, and did support a very large clandestine organisation in the occupied territories that included man troops escaping the German encirclements, and was recruiting on a vast scale by late 1942 due to the underground Communist Party cells. The article makes no mention of this, and neither do your sources.
I will contact the publishers and authors where possible for comment, but I would suggest that they will all retract their statements as Professor Cienciala did.
If you persist to make this claim, I will ask you to provide the comparative data to Soviet organisation in the article, or remove the claim--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this statement
Poland's resistance movement became the largest, most autonomous of its kind in Europe.
by Landa (D. A. Lande, Resistance! Occupied Europe and Its Defiance of Hitler, Zenith Press, 2000 ISBN 978-0760307458) although it does not come from a "university" publisher, is a focused and comparative study of resistance movements in Europe. I'd replace claim of "largest in the World" with this, adding Professor Cienciala qualifier of "except for European (western) USSR". Of course wat Landa means by "autonomous" is that the Soviet partisans were controlled and directed from Stavka while AK pursued its own political and military goals.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with replacing world with Europe - majority of the refs cited note that; I have made appopriate edits and replaced the world claim with Europe claim. The current version of the article states that. Per WP:V, if you would like to prove that Soviet forces were bigger, it is you who has to present sources for that - sources cited so far do not support this claim. Perhaps professor Cienciala can give you some refs for that, but until that - we should stick with the sources we have.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is copious discussion going on about the neutrality of this article here in talk! That is why there is a template that questions the neutrality of the POV from which this article is written. Just because YOU think the article is perfectly fine is not the reason to remove the template. Only when the individual who inserted the template is convinced that the article is not written from a predominantly Polish POV would he/she remove the template. I would appreciate if you replaced the template until this issue is resolved in talk. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mrg3105, I would be grateful if you showed some good faith. Comments like well, of course you would...you are Polish!!! are not helping and in the future you should refrain from them, since you, as a person involved in Soviet-related articles, are not unbiased yourself. Tymek (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Tymek and Piotr, you should know that everyone has bias ;o)
The article is about a Polish resistance movement SO it is highly probable that a Polish person would be very supportive of Polish bias...at a guess.
Now, about my insertions - YOU Piotr have written that the AK was the largest resistance movement in the World. ANYTIME, anywhere, anyone makes quantitative or qualitative claims, they need to substantiate them through comparative data analysis. It is absolutely pointless saying something is best and brightest without context because it shows abject subjectivity otherwise known as POV. For example, I can say that "our Sun is the best and brightest star in the World", and I would be right because without our Sun the World would be dark and dead. However if I change the sentence to "our Sun is the best and brightest star in the Universe", would I be right about that? I'll let you provide the answer.
Meanwhile, I will leave that link to Soviet partisans if only because of your insistence that they attacked AK more often then the Wehrmacht.
I find your choice of identifying anyone non-Polish objectionable. However if you chose to use that language, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Even if you choose to use "Poles" in reference to the AK personnel, it is still not the right language to use, and it is certainly so in reference to Jews who were, in case I need to remind you, mostly Polish citizens, so probably warrant Polish Jews. If you insist on continuing to use this form of identifying ethnicities, I will be forced to request an RfC.
If you would like to question the numbers of Soviet partisans that served in the western European part of Soviet Union territory under occupation, then I would suggest that you address those questions in that particular article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We all have our biases. I have always readily admitted mine. Unfortunately, I see you have chosen not to do so with yours - this is of course an acceptable choice by our standards; but please - let's discuss the articles, not the editors, as in the end, everybody is biased one way or another (which is perfectly acceptable per WP:NPOV)).
You are certainly correct that a more precise statement than "largest in the world" was needed. I support the current "largest in Europe"; I think it is clear that the period is WWII but we can clarify that if it is not.
Jews, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and such are quite acceptable per the articles on those; feel free to request more input on that, but particularly when we are dealing with civilians, and resistance, and collaborators, and others - limiting the section title to just one of those is misleading.
Indeed, this article is not the place to discuss numbers of Soviet partisans. I have asked the relevant question on Talk:Soviet partisans weeks ago, none have replied. If it can be shown, per WP:V, that Soviet partisans were more numerous and larger than AK, I will certainly support and defend such a qualification in our article. I have done so in the past with the claim about the Yugoslav partisans (until it was proven false).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your benefit Europe in Wikipedia is defined as
This seems to imply that a goodly large chunk of it was in Soviet Union during the Second World War, which leads me to...restating that I do not accept this definition of AK being the "largest in Europe" on previously stated grounds
Well, that is your skill as an editor to use the appropriate term to describe each group the AK dealt with. As for Jews, I always supposed in my nativity that they were only Jews to Nazis, and to the patriotic Polish resistance they were fellow persecuted Polish citizens, right?
So what, if no other editor responds you just ignore the issue and hope it goes away? YOU are writing THIS article, so YOU are responsible for qualifying your statements. As it happens I missed that question in Talk:Soviet partisans, however it is irrelevant since you brought up the issue indirectly here in this article by suggesting AK was the largest. As of now you are basing your presentation of this subject to its potential audience on a lack of response in another article!!!
I find it fascinating that the article was protected by a Polish administrator AND my edits were surreptitiously changed by someone to read just like you want them to read. You may be aware that there are more then a few admins in Wiki community ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mrg3105, thank you for claryfying what Europe is and thank you for your thoughts on Polish Jews, you might want to move them elsewhere, as they are not relevant to the topic. As for your pro-Soviet POV - please present sources that Soviet underground was the biggest in Europe, and if those sources are reliable, then IMO you can change the article. Tymek (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think referring to the AK as the most important, largest, and significant resistance entity in the World, is better than simply using the term Europe. It gives it a more appropriate stature and perspective. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, of course you are right. However this article is about the history of AK operations, and not the history of what happened after the operations ended, and therefore that post operational history would be expected at the end of the article as a sort of epilogue--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is currently protected due to edit warring over this OR, here is a simple question to interested editors: can anybody provide references that would support the claim that Soviet partisans were more numerous than AK? If not - and ample evidence to the contrary was presented in #World's largest?! - the article should be unprotected, and WP:OR claim removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will, at Piotr's request, attempt to uncover some solid information on this subject. If I do I will post the details here. I suppose I should make it clear that I have only just become aware of this dispute. I am quite neutral. It is not in any way my intention to take sides, or to fight a new partisan war! I am a historian and the only interest I have is in establishing an accurate picture of the past, so far as I am able. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ abcdTemplate:Lt icon Voruta. Kodėl negalima sakyti tiesos apie Armiją krajovą? 2005
^Template:Lt icon A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (editors). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje. Vilnius-Kaunas, 1995 p.3
