Talk:Home Army

Main goal

The main goal of the AK was the final uprising (Operation Tempest), ie. training of future officers and soldiers, collecting arms. Real resistance caused cruel German vengeance, eg. 100 Polish civilians killed for one German, so the AK preferred to act ouside pre-war Poland or in the East, where ethnic Poles consisted a minority.Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-war paragraph is almost so long as the WWII one, it's biased.Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

One file isn't available.Xx236 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation Vistula

Operation Vistula was carried out by the communist forces of UB, KBW and LWP, not Armia Krajowa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.75.112.142 (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've already replied to this on my talk page, but I am resposting here, since this is where the discussion should take place:

In regard to this edit [1]:

The source, Timothy Snyder, specifically mentions Saugumas (Lithuanian police) rather than Lithuanian Defense Force, so we go with what the source says. The second source also references Saugumas. It may very well be true that AK fought against LDF as well (in fact, I'm pretty sure they did), but we need another source for that.

Likewise, the sources given talk about "collaborators", not "civilians". The one exception is of course the Dubinki massacre, itself a retaliatory action - but that's exactly what it is, an exception (as the source clearly states) rather than a rule - whereas the killing of Polish civilians by Saugumas was pretty much routine.

Hence I am going to restore original text.VolunteerMarek 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Plan of section "Interaction with other groups"

Currently the section "Interaction with other groups" ([2]) has such subsections:

• Interaction with the Jewish community and Jewish resistance
• Interaction with the Lithuanian Nazi collaborators
• Interaction with Red Army and Soviet partisans
• Interaction with Ukrainian partisans and Nazi collaborators

Wouldn't it be better to shorten all those names to:

• Interaction with Jews
• Interaction with Lithuanians
• Interaction with Soviets
• Interaction with Ukrainians

Among other advantages, that would correct the, er, anomaly, of section "Interaction with the Lithuanian Nazi collaborators" starting with "Although Lithuanian and Polish resistance movements had in principle the same enemies – Nazi Germany and Soviet Union [...]"...

Afterwards, other problems with neutrality of this section could probably be solved. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, we may want to consider changing interactions to relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Done ([3]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Polish Righteous among the Nations

"Many members of Home Army was awarded Polish Righteous among the Nations medals after war: Władysław Bartoszewski, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka, Aleksander Kamiński, Jan Dobraczyński, Henryk Woliński, Mieczysław Fogg and others."

True, but unreferenced. Feel free to restore it, once proper inline refs are present. Ping User:Poeticbent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article is in a mess right now and needs work. It has been listed as wp:Good article over 5 years ago but if it isn't improved further, it risks another wp:Good article reassessment leading to even more trouble. Poeticbent talk 11:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article is so bad. I removed some unref'ed claims, added few refs. Seems good to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please reformat those collapsible sortable wikitables into regular tables and put them at the bottom of article. They cause parsing errors on my screen. Besides, per MOS:COLLAPSE boxes that toggle text between hide and show, should not conceal article content. Also, collapsible content is not always accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS. Poeticbent talk 17:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to reformat them; and their location seems appropriate. Perhaps you could ask at WP:VPT for someone to work on the tables? I am not a table expert, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Small museum in Michigan - notable?

"Another Polish Home Army Museum is located outside Poland, in Orchard Lake, Michigan, United States." I removed this unreferenced mention due to problems with WP:V and by extension, notability. See also Talk:Polish Home Army Museum, Orchard Lake, Michigan. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Home Army

I propose that this article be retitled from "Armia Krajowa" to "Home Army", in the interest of making the specific subject – and, by extension, Poland and its history generally – more accessible to non-Poles. Nihil novi (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• The way it sounds now, Armia Krajowa is so undeniably Polish that it does not even need a country description in its title, but Home Army, if we were to rename it, should really be the Polish Home Army to be understood... similar to any domestic army. Conversely, Wehrmacht is a good precedence for keeping it the way it is in my view. Poeticbent talk 06:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "Armia Krajowa" is immediately recognizable as Polish only to a Pole (or perhaps another Slav), who can also pronounce it correctly. To a non-Pole, it is not obviously Polish, and moreover will be mispronounced, even with the pronunciation guide.

"Wehrmacht" is a different matter. That term is much better known in the world, though it too will be mispronounced by many non-Germans.

"Home Army" already redirects to "Armia Krajowa". But I could, if necessary, settle for "Polish Home Army".

German history is much better known in the West than Polish history. It's my purpose to make Polish history more widely familiar by removing needless linguistic impediments. Nihil novi (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have thoroughly edited this article, making it grammatically, stylistically and vocabularily more readable and accurate. I wanted to move "Armia Krajowa" to the normal English-language rendering, "Home Army", but the system would not permit it. It also wouldn't permit variants such as "Polish Home Army" or "Home Army (Poland)", but it finally did accept the somewhat ungainly "Poland's Home Army".

I think "Poland's Home Army" is still easier for non-Poles to work with than "Armia Krajowa", but I would prefer the plain "Home Army", which up to now redirected to "Armia Krajowa". I would appreciate it if someone versed in arranging title moves could assist with this. Nihil novi (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, you do not have the wp:consensus for what you just did. The regular channel is to request the Renaming of article and waiting for feedback. Instead, you chose a less desirable title only because it allowed you to rename the article on your own, without asking for opinion. I oppose it. My first choice was, and still is: Armia Krajowa, similar to Wehrmacht, with no italics. BTW, thanks for other improvements Nihil novi. User:Piotrus was already at it in 2005 and I'd like to see what he thinks also. Poeticbent talk 16:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I guess for the sake of consistency we should rename "Government Delegation for Poland" to "Delegatura Rządu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej na Kraj". Nihil novi (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No objection to Home Army, but this shouldn't have been moved to the current title. Please go to WP:RM technical moves and request a fix. For old discussions, see Talk:Armia_Krajowa/Archive_1#Requested_move. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to request a move at "WP:RM technical moves" as you suggest, but couldn't figure out how to do it. That's why I requested assistance here. Nihil novi (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask for this move to be reverted an a proper RM started. In the future, feel free to ask me to request such moves on your behalf. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that an additional disambiguating term -- (Poland) -- is unneeded, as the base term currently redirects to this article. Xoloz (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Armia Krajowa → Home Army – I am starting this requested move discussion on behalf of User:Nihil novi, who asked for help with the RM procedure above. I'll quote his opening statement: "I propose that this article be retitled from "Armia Krajowa" to "Home Army", in the interest of making the specific subject – and, by extension, Poland and its history generally – more accessible to non-Poles." For the record, I, user Piotrus, will abstain from this RM, as I am fine with either name. An old discussion on this topic can be found at Talk:Armia_Krajowa/Archive_1#Requested_move _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Poland's Home Army → Home Army – This is the English equivalent of "Armia Krajowa". – Nihil novi (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• There have been many bodies which could more or less be described as a "home army". A disambiguator is needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've copied and pasted the above here because I presume that it might be overlooked where it originally appeared.

I'm a little puzzled by the comment that "a disambiguator is needed", since "Home Army" linked — and continues to link — to "Armia Krajowa": which suggests, to me, that there is no ambiguity. Nihil novi (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Anthony Appleyard. "Home Army" should be a disambiguation page. And we have one Home Army (disambiguation), so it should point to Home Guard. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Home Army (Poland) is acceptable, but Home Army is not acceptable as the article title. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • And your view, dear anon, is based on what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support, but with disambiguation: Home Army (Poland). English is to be preferred, and I see no reason to obfuscate the reader with Polish, when Home Army conveys what the words mean in a clearer and more WP:NATURAL form. RGloucester — ☎ 13:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation already exists at Home Army (disambiguation). —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not opposed to Home Army, but I don't think the disambiguation hurts, and can only actually help in this regard. Other bodies have been referred to as "home armies", as shown at the disambiguation page. However, if consensus is in favour of Home Army, I am not opposed. RGloucester — ☎ 21:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per RGloucester. As far as I'm aware, 'Home Army' is the most common English-language term, though a disambiguation is needed. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify, you support using Home Army (Poland) ? Or do you support Home Army ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • My preference is Home Army (Poland). 'Home Army' is a generic term which is applied broadly so the disambiguation is needed (for instance, I've seen it used to refer to the Australian Army forces which remained in Australia during World War II). Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Let me clarify my view: I abstain with regards to Armia Krajowa vs Home Army, but I object to Home Army (Poland) as unnecessary. Google Book search shows that the primary context for the expression "Home Army" in English is AK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support as the common name in English sources. The disambiguator is not needed as Home Army already directs here anyway. —  AjaxSmack  12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support for moving from "Armia Krajowa" to "Home Army". Over the past fifteen years or so I've seen the usage in English language works change on this. Counter-intuitively, earlier "Armia Krajowa" was actually more frequent - because it was mostly only written by specialists working in a narrow area. Over time as some elements of Polish history got more exposure in the West, non-specialists entered the conversation and they tended to use "Home Army". This caused a flip around some kind of tipping point and now my sense is that the latter is more frequent. I also don't think (oppose) that the qualification "(Poland)" is needed (i.e. oppose "Home Army (Poland")). A look into the sources and the subject shows that *this* particular Home Army is the primary topic here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: If this article does get moved, then we should also consider renaming the template [4] (which is in bad need of reorganization, clean up and expansion).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as proponent of the move from "Armia Krajowa" to "Home Army" (which latter term currently redirects back to "Armia Krajowa"). I would tend to agree with Piotrus, AjaxSmack, and Volunteer Marek that a disambiguation such as "(Poland)" is not essential, since the usual referent of the term "Home Army" is the World War II Polish Home Army. The other military units listed in the "Home Guard" disambiguation page are "home guards" and the like. Nihil novi (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is it ok then if I also move the Armia Krajowa Template as well, for sake of consistency? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would.

Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Syntax screwup post-move

G'day @Kirill Lokshin: Can you see what the problem is with this one? Since the recent move it has come up on Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging, and I've moved the old MH peer review (had never struck one of those before...), but it's still stuck. Could you have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The issue was a broken link to the old A-Class review. I've created a redirect from the new title, so the article should no longer be flagged as being tagged incorrectly. Kirill ^[talk] 09:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The name of the article

Greetings. I think that the name should be moved from Home Army to The Polish Home Army while "Home Army" is too general and might lead to some confusion. It's just my suggestion. Yatzhek (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A recent RM decided that disambiguation isn't needed. See the above discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. This was just a suggestion. Regards. Yatzhek (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Relations with Belarusians is needed

Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Home Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.savingjews.org/righteous/nv.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of the Ukrainians

re: this revert with edit summary "Major operations: unsupported claim" -- In fact, a series of massacres of civil Ukrainians by AK are well documented (see uk:Категорія:Воєнні злочини Армії Крайової) and some authors do refer this to as "ethnic cleansing" (cited even in this article). However I agree with the revert of inclusion of this statement into "Major operations", since massacres of civilians were not "major operations"; they were a series of local reprisals against UPA, which went overboard, as it was happening everywhere in areas of ethnic conflicts during WWII (and this happened even in modern times eg in Yugoslavia). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The magic phrase here in Wikipedia is compliance with reliable third-party sources. The article by Piotr Lipiński in Wyborcza says nothing (at all!) about ethnic cleansing. It speaks about a book written by a terminally-ill man who executed szmalcowniks as a teenager. Poeticbent talk 18:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The magic phrase in Wikipedia is "due diligence". In my reply Lipinski is irrelevant. If my points were invalid, then the statement in question could have been easily restored with proper sources (eg Timothy Snyder, "To Resolve the Ukrainian Question Once and for All: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947). My point is that massacres of Ukrainians by Polish partisans, covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, were never described as a "major operation". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry but Lipinski is very much relevant when his article he's being misquoted by a senior editor in English Wikipedia for reasons that escape me. – Why use his article at all, I ask? Meanwhile, article by Timothy Snyder, "To Resolve the Ukrainian Question Once and for All" is about Operation Vistula (a population transfer). I looked at Category uk:Категорія:Воєнні злочини Армії Крайової in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. It lists five (5) articles and one documentary film in Ukrainian (silent about UPA). The five articles about the retaliatory actions by self-defence units are also written in the Polish Wikipedia. They include:

10 March 1944: uk:Різня в Сагрині → pl:Zbrodnia w Sahryniu

3 March 1945: uk:Трагедія села Павлокоми → pl:Zbrodnie w Pawłokomie

11 April 1945: uk:Різня в Бахові → pl:Zbrodnia w Bachowie
 uk:Різня в Березці → pl:Zbrodnia w Brzusce
 uk:Різня в Сівчині → pl:Zbrodnie w Sufczynie

The retaliatory actions are well known, but they were not a proportional response to OUN-UPA policy of extermination in the name of ethnic purity. I fully agree with what you said about the revert of course. A "major operation" would imply central planning. Poeticbent talk 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing that AK didn't kill Ukrainians or there were no anti-Ukrainian massacres. These killings are already mentioned in the section "Relations with Ukrainians". As for "To Resolve...", Snyder does describe the removal of Ukrainians from Eastern Poland through population transfers as "ethnic cleansing", but he doesn't write that Home Army was responsible for ethnic cleansing of Ukrainian population or that ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians was its major operation. From "To Resolve...":

  The essay will focus mainly on the homogenizing policy of the Polish Communist regime from 1944 to 1947, but it will begin from the premise that some understanding of the cleansing of Poles by Ukrainians from 1943 to 1944 and of the Second World War in Galicia and Volhynia is necessary for an explanation and assessment of that Polish policy. (...) The cleansing of Ukrainians from southeastern Poland from 1944 to 1947 is the primary focus, but, to provide an appropriate context, the article begins with the cleansing of Poles from western Ukraine in 1943.

  Snyder's article is divided into sections:

  Ukrainian Partisans Murder Polish Civilians (1943–1944) / Soviet and Polish Communist Regimes Deport Poles and Ukrainians (1944–1946) / The Polish Communist Regime Disperses Ukrainians: Plans (1947) / The Issue of Polish Responsibility (1939-1999)

The reverted claim is not supported by the source (Lipinski). Even if it was, exceptional claims require exceptional (RS) sources. Hedviberit (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

Even if the OUN was fascist, it's not a right place to discuss the subject, I prefer radical nationalistic here.

The word fascist was misused by Soviet propaganda to describe non-communists.Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Polish underground sometimes cooperated with UPA after the liberation. AK and UPA started the talks in 1944, after disbanding of AK WiN and UPA cooperated. Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Shmuel Krakowski reliable?

krakowski was a Communist political officer till 1966, so his opinion about the HA may be biased. Political officers brainwashed drafted soldiers. Certainly not Sine ira et studio.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right but we do need a reliable source for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Security Cadre

The phrase about alleged fights inside the ghetto is poorly sourced and should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Home Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718034701/http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html to http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Home Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.polishembassy.ca/files/Polish%20Armed%20Forces%20in%20WWII%20eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516102948/http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/biog_pilecki.htm to http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/biog_pilecki.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://print.google.com/print%3Flr%3D%26q%3DPolish-Lithuanian%2Bcommonwealth%26start%3D40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601102331/http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/armia_krajowa.htm to http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/armia_krajowa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415001413/http://www.sp11.nowytarg.pl/sp11/module.php?show=patron to http://www.sp11.nowytarg.pl/sp11/module.php?show=patron

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Home Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311013108/http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34234,2262779.html to http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34234,2262779.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703045111/http://www.muzeum-ak.krakow.pl/english/index.php to http://www.muzeum-ak.krakow.pl/english/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AK units hunting down groups

Two editors have claimed the following is an exceptional claim:

"A number of AK detachments were actively engaged in hunting down and murdering Jews."

The claim is supported by the Bauer (1989), Connelly (2012) and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Cesarani & Kavanaugh quote an AK order to "move with arms" against "Men and women, especially Jewish women" - refugees - who are conflated with casual robbers and Soviet partisans.

I've previously asked one of the editors why it is exceptional and which sources they contend [5], but the editor has not yet replied. I'm asking again. François Robere (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a GA article and you really need to obtain consensus before making radical changes, which can be easily perceived as highly POV.

There are also some serious problems with the Cesarani & Kavanaugh source, as illustrated that they repeat this myth of Bor-Komorowski's "order" to "move with arms" etc. There was no such order. There were some comments Bor-Komorowski made in a letter to London, but nothing of the sort was ever issued. Additionally if you look at the citation for this faux-"order", you'll note the multiple ellipses, which should be a red flag that different parts of the letter are being strung together to create an impression that Bor-Komorowski said something he didn't say. Here is one source which discusses this matter [6]. Additionally, this was also discussed by Joshua Zimmerman who notes that the origins of this myth about this non-existent order can be traced to back an article publishes decades ago by Shmuel Krakowski in which he mislabeled the letter as "an order" and misrepresented its contents. This was then, unfortunately, repeated by other sources. I don't have the Zimmerman article handy right now, but I'll try to find it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source on the non-existent "order", by a historian who acknowledges that he himself fell for this myth [7].Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is one instance where Zimmerman discussed it [8], although I was thinking of a different article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, can you please stop inserting cherry picked "quotes" all over the place along with your commentary? It's not actually encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Policy on changes to GAs?
• Accepted. Keep in mind AK and other organizations routinely referred to Jewish refugees and partisans as "bandits" regardless of their activities, so this doesn't necessary acquits anyone. We can replace the current phrasing with something less decisive, or cite the following regarding Komorowski's general approach.
  • Zimmerman, p. 255 suggests the difference between the report and the order was due to outside criticism, or fear thereof, and p. 260 further questions Komorowski's approach to Poland's Jewry.
  • Polonsky is quoted by three of the sources regarding the "conflation" of Jewish refugees with robbers and Soviet partisans.
  • You cited Levine. He has some more material there that we can use here on anti-Semitism and collaboration in the AK.
• I occasionally use quotes to highlight a fact, but I don't "cherry-pick". If you believe I took a quote out of context, ping me and I'll check it again.

On changes:

• this simply isn't AK-specific, so I'm not sure why it's in this article. Plus, collaboration with AK itself often carried a death sentence, so there's no added value to claiming that saving refugees would've endangered them further.
• If you think this is out of context, then place it in context - don't just remove it (and it is in context in this article).
  • The book isn't a "tertiary source" per WP:TERTIARY, and even if it was there's no prohibition of tertiary sources anywhere.
  • On the one hand you removed a supposedly tertiary source, on the other you complained about using primary ones (Bartoszewski's quote). Pick one or the other, but not both!
• Re: GA - the article got that eight years ago [9], and that paragraph wasn't even there. Why did you remove the Cesarani & Kavanaugh, and Bauer's refs?
• Re: this - the whole point is the Warsaw ghetto resistance existed for some time before the uprising, when it wasn't supported by the AK, and even when it was it was in "limited quantities". So?
• What's POV here? Also: Would you prefer we mention how many weapons AK had in total (566 HMGs, 1097 LMGs, 31,391 rifles and 5m rounds of ammunition), for perspective?
• The "side commentary" is there to prevent claims by some editors (yourself included), of "POV", "cherry picking" etc. etc.
• This ref was already there. It was "GA", wasn't it? As for "dubious" - it's based on interviews with witnesses, and its claim is repeated in Zimmmerman (2015), p. 171.

François Robere (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Keep in mind AK and other organizations routinely referred to Jewish refugees and partisans as "bandits" regardless of their activities" - no, no they didn't. Read Zimmerman. This is just something you made up. Your POV and OR is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See? That's exactly why I put all these quotes in - so you couldn't say that:

Bauer (1989): Orders were issued in 1943 by the AK to kill Jewish "bandits," who were supposedly robbing and otherwise endangering the Polish population.

Cesarani & Kavanaugh: Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these people (and also to Communist partisans) as "bandits," an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves.

Connelly (2012): In tune with nationalist writers, [Kochanski] calls these [Jewish] partisans “Jewish bandits” and asserts that, by executing such alleged marauders, the AK “protected” the Polish population. And yet, if it had included Jews as part of the population to protect, the Polish underground would have fed those in hiding rather than hunt them down. In a sense, members of the AK were also bandits, dependent on the local population for provisions, taking by force what they could not obtain by consent. Why does Kochanski think that Polish Jewish partisans were a menace whereas Polish Christian partisans were not?

Krakowski, in Zimmerman (2003), p. 103: A very painful phenomenon was the widespread hostility of a significant part of the Polish underground toward Jewish armed detachments in the forests. Many documents of the Home Army and the Delegatura refer to these detachments as gangs of bandits and robbers. These allegations appeared often starting from the end of 1942 until the summer of 1944.

Say whatever you want, but I did not make that up.

What about the other points? Should I expect resistance there? François Robere (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Bauer and C&K are just repeating the "order myth" which has been debunked by Armstrong and Zimmerman, and which has been acknowledged by other historians. This is obvious, particularly with Bauer. So no, this doesn't prove anything. Connelly simply does not state what you are claiming, so I have no idea why you're putting him up. Krakowski, is already addressed. Sorry, man. Fail.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't checked Bauer's source then you're guessing; C&K use "often" and add interpretation, suggesting that's not their only source; Connelly doesn't state that, but he does make an important connection for editors coming to judge those sources; and Krakowski is mentioned in two other contexts, not in the usage of "bandits" by AK. So - not fail! François Robere (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that I haven't? But yes, it's obvious from the text here as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me, that even in a cursory check, one can find many RSes saying that some AK units (contrary to orders from the government in exile) attacked Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a different claim though than the text that FR is trying to insert and different than the claim he is making. Yes, there were some AK units who did this. What is "some" though? We're talking about an organization that at its peak had 400,000 members.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a difficult question to answer. I think Zimmerman is fairly balanced (and attempts to describe rather than accuse or venerate) - however the sources range here from some Jewish survivors saying (echoed in RSes) "they were all anti-semites", to more nuanced accounts such as Zimmerman (who says some were X, others were Y), to hagiographical (from the 90s onwards, and prior to that from communities in exile) accounts that "hear no evil, see no evil". Given the breadth here, attribution is probably due. I think Zimmerman is a good source - the problem is that it is also a very long source - you have a whole chapter (10) on the negative, and then chapters on institutional(11) and individual(12) help (with the rest of the book being a long timeline covering the same issue) - so you can easily paint a false picture by using one aspect from him (10 vs. 11/12). Order 116 and other actions of Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski are somewhat notorious. I actually think that in this case - finding source(s) that summarizes the topic (e.g. literature reviews, or perhaps an author such as Zimmerman giving a concise summary in an interview) is better for reflecting balance than the more detailed sources (which editors may summarize incorrectly - or search for results - e.g. cherrypicking Zimmerman you could present a scathing or hagiographical account based on what you pick from there).Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, both that it is a difficult question and that Zimmerman is pretty balanced. But once again, I don't thing there was such a thing as "Order 116" (unless you're referring to the one where Jews were NOT mentioned).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that critics of order 116 (of which there are quite a few) say that "bandits" was a way of saying "Jews hiding in the countryside/forests" - a dog whistle.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, they might say that but you'd need sources. And it's undoubtedly false, since the primary concern and the reason for the order was the very real and extensive banditry by Polish groups.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It also isn't only some, but sometimes/somewhere - depending on leadership, the units involved, and other constraints - e.g. (per my understanding of the sources) the Home Army was generally supportive (perhaps insufficiently so, but still supportive) of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (which was aligned with Polish goals) - while being very-very wary of survivors attempting to hide in the woods (labelled, correctly or incorrectly, as "bandits" - who attempted to live off the land and were sometimes armed (usually not very well) and sometimes (particularly when not accepted by the AK) sympathetic to the Soviets).Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "where" in the some matter a good bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I just want to know - there was a whole slew of objections I replied to upstairs. Do you have any comments on those? Further objections? I don't intend on "warring" over those, but if you have objections I want to know in detail, not "that's POVish" and that's it. François Robere (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the "whole slew of objections" is part of the problem. You make massive POV changes, then want to discuss all of them at once and expect others to answer in precise detail and argue every single point with you. The result is walls of text, incomprehensible discussions and situations where by the third or fourth iterations everyone's forgotten what it was that was being discussed. Here's a reminder: it's up to YOU to get WP:CONSENSUS for changes, especially given the GA level of this article (whenever it got it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

And it's also up to you to argue your objections, rather than just raising - and I did ask...

Anyway, I suggest you pick some change you object to and we can discuss it to your hearts content (or until we're at an impasse), before moving to the next change. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But sure, we can take another one. How in the world is the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising "late in the war"? And you're cherry picking like crazy from Zimmerman and Rashke, putting aside that Rashke's book isn't even about this topic. As an obvious example you omit Rowecki's statement "I have the highest respect for what the Jews intend to do. But it has no military significance... I will do what I can". Omitting this key part, and including what you're trying to include is an obvious attempt to misrepresent the sources - Zimmerman and Rashke - and Rowecki himself (subtly implying that he was motivated by anti-semitism). That kind of edit is textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS and probably a violation of discretionary sanctions here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the wrong way to put it - it's not so much "late in the war" as "late in the rebellion": These attitudes (the desire to avoid a premature uprising, suspicions about the Jewish sympathy for Communism and a belief that the weapons provided would not be used efficaciously) largely explain the meager supply of arms to the Warsaw and other ghettos. In the case of Warsaw, more weapons were supplied after the confrontation with the Nazis in mid-January 1943 had demonstrated the willingness of the Jewish Fighting Organization to undertake armed action. The smaller Jewish Military Union (Zydowski Zwivek Wojskowy), which was controlled by the Revisionist Zionists—who had some prewar links with the Polish military and who were impeccably anti-Communist—had more initial success in obtaining weapons.

Most of Zimmerman's quotes in this article, if not all, were there before, so you'll have to be specific. As for Rashke - he's just a secondary source here, but his claim is established by Zimmerman quoting the actual message from the Jewish resistance to Sikorski. Regarding Rowecki - I'm not at all trying to imply he had overt antisemitic motives; AK's order of priorities is already covered with another quote of Zimmerman, about the allied strategy etc. (which from my understanding is true). What isn't covered (or wasn't covered) is that AK did give very little, and very late, as they underestimated the rebellion's chance of success (Rowecki is quoted as saying the Germans will crush it "in a few hours", which of course they didn't). The rest of that paragraph also settles well with the other sources, about "waiting for a critical moment" etc. If you'd asked for my lay opinion (WP:NOTAFORUM and all that), I'd have said that antisemitism could've played into it subtly - eg. in making assumptions about Jews' ability to fight (not an uncommon perception in period Zionism either) - but it's not the main point here, and I wouldn't make it without a source explicitly saying so. What I would say, is that the government-in-exile was mostly understanding; the AK leadership was at worst indifferent ("not part of the Polish nation" etc.); and the fighters themselves varied markedly. That's what I'm seeing in the sources, and I don't really mind which specific quote we use to establish it. François Robere (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So first, I note that there's still no source for "late", in either war or "rebellion". And... "late in the rebellion"? What's that mean? The uprising started on April 19th. The guns were given to ZOB prior to the break out of the uprising (and more was given to ZZW even before that). Because no one asked for them before that (afaik) So I have no idea what you're going on about. Are you clear on the timeline here? The war lasted from 1939 till 1945. The uprising lasted about a month. There's no "late in" anywhere here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

And I'm not removing anything from Zimmerman that was "here before". I'm removing some strange text you've added which you claim is based on Zimmerman, but which actually isn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Timeline: the Warsaw ghetto was formed in October 1940; deportations to Treblinka started in July 1942 (the ghetto already saw massive casualties by then); the plea to Sikorski was passed in September 1942; the "confrontation" (see above) took place in January 1943, and the uprising in April 1943. Bottom line: The resistance didn't supply the Warsaw ghetto with anything meaningful for two out of the 2.5 years that it existed, during which 92,000-100,000 people died of hunger and disease, and another 250,000-260,000 people were sent to Treblinka. That's "late" by several measures, but you may rephrase as you wish.

What did I mis-cite as Zimmerman? François Robere (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: ? François Robere (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to say except what I already said. Here it is again: So first, I note that there's still no source for "late", in either war or "rebellion".

(Also your statement: "The resistance didn't supply the Warsaw ghetto with anything meaningful for two out of the 2.5 years that it existed, during which 92,000-100,000 people died of hunger and disease, and another 250,000-260,000 people were sent to Treblinka. That's "late" by several measures, but you may rephrase as you wish." is, frankly, idiotic. Who were they suppose to supply? ZOB? Oh wait, ZOB didn't exist until November 1942 (not October 1940). And when did they first receive supplies from Home Army? That's right. December 1942. I mean, being so deeply ignorant of basic facts about what you're trying to write about is one thing (never mind the complete lack of sourcing). But then slapping this over-the-top extremist and fringe POV on top of it - the part which tries to blame the deaths from hunger and disease and deaths in Treblinka on the Home Army (For. Fucks. Sake!) - just takes the cake. And it really really really puts the bias and the POV you bring to this article on display for everyone to see.

Just no. Quit while you're... not that too far behind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're setting the stage for a "disruptive edits" argument, Marek. If you ask a question, then I answer, then you disappear but still refuse my changes, then that's disruptive. The same goes for your other edit.

You asked about the usage of "late", and claimed I mis-cited Zimmerman; I answered:

1. Regarding "late": ZOB didn't exist until November 1942 actually July 1942 [10]. This means that by your timeline they were first supplied nearly half a year after they were formed (and almost three months after Sikorski himself approved it), which is pretty late. ZZW was formed much earlier, in Nov. 1939 [11], so Dec. 1942 is even later.
2. You haven't answered my question about mis-citing Zimmerman.
3. You claim "complete lack of sourcing" - of what exactly? I quoted several sources throughout this discussion and the article.
4. Can you quote the place where, according to you, I make that accusation of AK you claim I made? François Robere (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"of what exactly?" - ffs, you know exactly what! The "late in the war" nonsense. Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

by your timeline they were first supplied nearly half a year after they were formed (and almost three months after Sikorski himself approved it), which is pretty late. ZZW was formed much earlier, in Nov. 1939 [12], so Dec. 1942 is even later. Is that not correct? Would you like to use a different phrase, like "late in the existance of the ghetto"? François Robere (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I concur with Volunteer Marek.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you do. With what exactly? François Robere (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Everything what he wrote aboveGizzyCatBella (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So I assume you can tell me where I mis-cited Zimmerman, like he claims. François Robere (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You misrepresented SEVERAL sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For Zimmerman in particular, you tried to use him to back this claim up, quote (of you): "AK and other organizations routinely referred to Jewish refugees and partisans as "bandits" regardless of their activities" ". This is complete nonsense and Zimmerman does not say anything like that. And like I said, this is just ONE example out of MANY of you misrepresenting sources (the other instances are the whole "order" thing and the "late in the war" thing, but there are yet more). Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Copied from above:

Krakowski, in Zimmerman (2003), p. 103: A very painful phenomenon was the widespread hostility of a significant part of the Polish underground toward Jewish armed detachments in the forests. Many documents of the Home Army and the Delegatura refer to these detachments as gangs of bandits and robbers. These allegations appeared often starting from the end of 1942 until the summer of 1944.

Anything else? François Robere (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is NOT Zimmerman as you previously claimed. Stop. playing. games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Where did I say it was? François Robere (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is total cherry picking of sources and distortion.Armia Krajowa clashed with "Jewish detachments" because they were Communists and because they collaborated with the Soviet Partisans in slaughters of Polish villagers as in Naliboki massacre. Not because they were Jews.GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Bella, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument, and "cherry picking" isn't a cure-all for quotes you don't like. François Robere (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not because I don't like it FR. My concerns are that it appears you cherry-picked a source to push a narrative of AK attacking Jews merely because they were Jewish, which was not the case. To be honest, I wouldn't even consider "Jewish Partisans" to be "Jewsh," most of them were Communists backed by the Soviets. Not truly Jews; they were communist/leftist partisans of Jewish pedigree.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wherein you again do a racist WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Well done, Bella. François Robere (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is racist about what I wrote!? I'm further from being a racist than you can even imagine! This is entirely overboard FR; you are falsely accusing me of racism now!!! It's the second time you insult me. First with A..s word now you accusing me of being racist, that's it! I can't tolerate any more abuse from you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The Warsaw ghetto uprising

Jewish fighters of the Jewish Military Union received from the Home Army, among other things: 2 heavy machine guns, 4 light machine guns, 21 submachine guns, 30 rifles, 50 pistols, and over 400 grenades.[75] "By way of comparison", notes Yehuda Bauer, "the AK in 1941 claimed to possess 566 heavy machine-guns, 1097 light machine-guns, 31,391 rifles, and 5 million rounds of ammunition."[65]:21

I'm sorry, but I think this quote is wrong. Armaments, which Bauer reports, refer to the entire armaments throughout the territory of the Second Republic of Poland. It would be more appropriate to specify how many weapons AK had in Warsaw, not the whole country, and it would have to be added that the AK itself had problems with armaments. Even during the Warsaw Uprising, only 4% of the insurgents were armed.

I will also disagree with this statement Timeline: the Warsaw ghetto was formed in October 1940; deportations to Treblinka started in July 1942 (the ghetto already saw massive casualties by then); the plea to Sikorski was passed in September 1942; the "confrontation" (see above) took place in January 1943, and the uprising in April 1943. Bottom line: The resistance didn't supply the Warsaw ghetto with anything meaningful for two out of the 2.5 years that it existed, during which 92,000-100,000 people died of hunger and disease, and another 250,000-260,000 people were sent to Treblinka. That's "late" by several measures

"Thanks to the close ties with the Związek Walki Zbrojnej and then the AK (mainly through Iwański's Security Corps, the Polish underground police force), the ŻZW received a large number of guns and armaments, as well as training of their members by professional officers. Those resistance organizations also provided help with weapons and ammunition acquisition, as well as with organizing the escapes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Military_Union#Formation ZZW received earlier assistance from the ZWZ, renamed later in the Home Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Armed_Struggle Mat0018 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I prefered not to have any of it, but others insisted on describing the arms, and so a counter-point is justified. I think Bauer's numbers are significant, as Warsaw was a prime target for any number of reasons (the capital, had the largest Jewish population and largest ghetto of any city), and so one would expect a certain proportion of arms being directed there. According to him - and you can do your own calculations - that wasn't the case.

The bit about the ŻZW is known. The source does not elaborate on their inventory, just says they were "better equipped" than the ZOB (which was very poorly equipped). If you have accurate numbers we can add them. François Robere (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Żegota receiving more money from Jewish organizations

This need to be second sourced. A - What Jewish organizations financed Żegota ? B - Polish Goverment in Exile budget for Żegota was £ 100,000 sterling annually [13]. How much the Jewish organizations gave in there were any.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is also more or less UNDUE for this article since it's about the Home Army not Zegota or PGiE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem moving it to the other article. François Robere (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is per Winstone, a source you yourself introduced on a different article, as well as an article from "Yad Vashem" and any number of other sources that you can easily google.

As I wrote in the edit summary, you're abusing a tag meant to question editors to question an RS. François Robere (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems quite easy to source to say this was from the Bund and Jewish National Council. Precise numbers are at: http://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/resources/zegota-in-occupied-poland.html ”Rescue attempts during the holocaust, proceedings of the second yad vashem international historical conference”, 1977, Yisrael Gutman and Efraim Zuroff (editors), Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. Pages 367- 398., Josef Kermish] - During the initial stages of its work, the Council received funds for its relief activities only from the Delegation of the Polish Government in London. Due to the pressure and urgent demands of the Council, the Delegation raised its monthly remittance from 50,000 to 150,000 zlotys, and later to 300,000- 400,000 zlotys and more. Yet even this amount was merely a drop in the bucket. The Council could not expand the scope of its activities until July 1943 when the Jewish organizations – the Jewish National Committee and the Bund – began to receive relief funds sent directly from abroad. (In spite of the many secret messages, warnings, and appeals to the Jewish organizations abroad, no aid was sent for many months and the first payments from abroad arrived only in June 1943). From that time on, the Coordinating Committee of the Jewish National Committee and the Bund gave the Council 100,000 zlotys per month for its relief activities, and eventually significantly increased this amount. (In its memorandum of September 5, 1943, the Council reported that the Coordinating Committee had increased its monthly grant from 100,000 to 150,000 zlotys).. This is also present in Tadeusz Piotrowski (a source possibly with POV issues - but in the opposite direction). In a recent book, Mordecai Paldiel, saying the Joint channeled funds to these two - [14]. There's no lack of sources showing this was jointly funded.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding this edit: First of all, and I don't need to tell you that - WP:AGF. Second, you yourself removed some material saying it is "more or less UNDUE for this article" (a few lines up), so why do we need to note that the Polish GOE "partly financed Żegota"? Leave it to the other article. François Robere (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Zegota really is off topic here. The connection between it and the AK was quite limited, it was a separate organization. Wikipedia articles should not be puff pieces and should treat their subjects in a neutral manner.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Self revert? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Dubious text reinstated, sourcing removed

@Volunteer Marek:, RE this blanket revert, please -

1. explain why you chose to remove two academic sources for Henryk Woliński's section.
2. Produce sources that show a meaningful connection between Żegota and the Home Army (as opposed to the Government in exile), that support, in full, the current text.
3. Produce a source stating that the AK established "organizations of Jewish resistance under Nazi rule in Poland" (as opposed to cooperating with same weaponry - which we already cover in "The Warsaw ghetto uprising" section).

The section heading - "daily operations" - is also at a disconnect from the content.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I actually restored sourced text which you removed. The Marrus and Zimmerman sources can be added, although they are redundant with whats already there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you restored text that was not supported by its citation - which is your responsibility to check after challenged. For instance, "as well as the formation of organizations of Jewish resistance under Nazi rule in Poland." is counterfactual, not supported by its references (not in Sławiński, which wouldn't be a RS in any event, Not in Wolffe, and not in any Yad Vashem report (the citation being rather malformed - ""Zegota, page 4/34 of the Report" (PDF). Yad Vashem Shoa Resource Center." - to the point of being unverifiable) I found on Zegota). Do kindly self-revert this WP:HOAX.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources which you tried to remove already DO discuss a connection between the Home Army and Zegota. So why are you trying to remove them, then demanding sources? WP:TEND.

As far as the other sentence, Slawinski says: "The military wing of the Polish Underground State, the Home Army, tried to involve the Jewish organisations in Poland in resistance activities. At first there was reluctance on their part to participate. However, in 1942 the Jewish resistance movement began. The Home Army helped by providing military intelligence, communication with the Allies and eventually by providing some weapons, explosives and military expertise for the fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising", which supports the text. The Wolffe source is obviously intended to source the Zegota part. But there's plenty other sources which discuss AK's support for Jewish resistance formations, especially ZZW (for example [15]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

1. The sources in the article support connections between some people affiliated with the AK and Zegota (e.g. per Kermish - Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, USHMM doesn't support this at all, neither does Wagman-Geller, Zimmerman is in the wrong location, Wolffe (wrong location) is closest to this and says that the founders of Zegota were Christian Poles working for the AK and other resistance groups) - they do not support The Home Army also supported the Relief Council for Jews in Poland, codenamed Żegota, - none of them say this - what you do have supported (which wouldn't go under "daily operations") is that "some of the Żegota founders also served in the Home Army".Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Slawinski, which is not a RS (being published by London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association), does not support "formation of organizations of Jewish resistance" - it does support (in a non-RS manner) the AK providing some assistance ( military intelligence, communication) to Jewish resistance units that were not formed by the AK. If this is all you've got - a non-RS that doesn't support the text - it goes. We already cover the Warsaw ghetto uprising separately (and also in that context - the AK did not form nor organize Jewish units).Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

One more change that needs to be done there, that I haven't done for 1RR, is the "formed by the Polish government" - it wasn't ("Żegota had been set up by representatives of the Front for the Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups" - Cesarani‏ & Kavanaugh (2004), p. 64). François Robere (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding this: C&K say Żegota was formed by "representatives of the Front for the Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups"; the Yad Vashem source says "representatives of the Polish parties operating in the underground"; another Yad Vashem source [16] states it included "activists... from many different political movements"; the USHMM source says "the Polish government"; and the Wagman-Geller and Baumgarten books say nothing. So only one source out of all of these says it was formed by the Polish government, two directly contradict it, and one implies it. Why should the text remain as it is? François Robere (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's incorrect. In addition to USHMM, the provided van Wormer source says the same thing. The thing is the Yad Vashem and the C&K are not contradicting this either - those "Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups" as well as "representatives of Polish parties operating in the underground" WERE part of the Polish government. There's no mystery here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not assign sub group actions to the entire group. We particularly do not do so selectively for positive assignments only, while leaving the negative qualified. If most sources do not make a jump to the encompassing group, neither should we.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the one book that isn't event about history (it's about welfare policy)? Does this seem enough to you?

those [activists] WERE part of the Polish government is WP:SYNTH, as is the generalization Icewhiz pointed out. François Robere (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Counterintelligence should be described

It's mentioned, but not described, no sources.Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

POV tag

Neutral and uninvolved editors have extensively reviewed this GA article. On Jun. 8th 2018 it was unreasonably POV tagged here in my opinion[17]. Any solid justification for doing that? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This article was last reviewed in 2008. Back then standards were different, and the POV/OR issues in the article were at a much better state - as may be seen in the 2008 version. Over the years, unfounded assertions have crept into the Jewish section (e.g. - such that the AK sponsored on a wide scale Jewish organizations) while treatment of the pervasive antisemitism in the AK ranks has been cloaked with apologetic text, which contains quite a bit of distortion. From my examination of the rest of the article, relations with Lithuanians, Soviets, and Ukrainians are also presented from a POVish stance. In addition, the "History and operations" - in particular WWII - lacks balance and contains rather wild upper limits for the AK's effectiveness, while not containing a critical assessment. That the article underwent a good article review in 2008 - is not a means to defend unbalanced additions since 2008. It would seem that this article is due for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more sensible to explain first before inserting the POV tag into GA article. So precisely what should be updated here in your opinion? Maybe we should start from establishing this.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

He already explained Gizzy [18]. He basically said that this article doesn't shit on this anti-Nazi group enough. Unfortunately, Icewhiz's personal feelings and prejudices are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. Indeed, many appear to be orthogonal to these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the "Relations with Jews" section we've been discussing at length at late - the version when it was assessed for GAR in 2008 was actually quite balanced and well written (though perhaps a tad light / too reserved on the antisemitic angle - but it is discussed). Since 2008 - unbalanced additions have been added. Per my examination of other sections, it would seem there are problems elsewhere as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so you have the objection as far as one section only for now, not the entire article or not sure about it (“it would seem there are problems elsewhere as well”). So what should be exactly changed/edit inside the segment "Relations with Jews" in your opinion? GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have reservations on the article's tone overall. For instance, the rather wild and unfounded 150,000 estimate of Axis personnel killed by AK. In regards to the Jewish section - I would expect a version more inline with what was in place in 2008. Much of the current text is apologia - cherry picked apologia - that is not inline with what most neutral sources write about the AK.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So where should we start to improve an overall tone? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I also just additionally referenced the claim that AK killed around 150,000 Axis soldiers.[19] so we can have this possibly out of the way. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Mainline estimates are more at the 10,000-50,000 range - outlier estimates do exist, as you indeed have been able to find.Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In regards to antisemitism, all but the most POVish sources, see it as pervasive in the AK. In fact, correspondance from AK leadership to the government in exile during the war admits this explicitely, e.g. General Grot-Rowecki."home+army"+antisemitic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin9fvX3MXbAhUFElAKHfj-CL0Q6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q="home%20army"%20antisemitic&f=false.Icewhiz (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rationally we should wait for the judgment of other editors before inserting POV tag into GA article. As of today, it is only you who is challenging the fact of this article being GA article. Possibly the article might need to be rewritten and evaluated again but we need an input of other first. I’ll remove the tag for now until we hear from others. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

GA reassessment(GAR) process? GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently, this article is a POV mess, misrepresents sources, and engages in OR. The AK is widely described, in most sources, as being imbued with antisemitism and with some units engaging in widespread killing of Jews. This is not properly reflected in the current article. It was in a much better state until 2008. We could roll back the section to the GA version from 2008.Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"The AK is widely described, in most sources, as being imbued with antisemitism" - total absolute nonsense, which only shows your own extreme bias and once again underlies why your editing on this and related articles has been so disruptive. But hey, at least you didn't try to pass off anti-semitic far-right sources as reliable this time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Which sources are misrepresented?GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Currently, this article is a POV mess, misrepresents sources, and engages in OR" - so you say. But an assertion is not an argument. Unless you can specify what exactly is a "POV mess" and show convincingly that it is, no go. Without that, it's all just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. Everything that was there in the 2008 version is still there today, including all the negative stuff. The only thing that has happened is that the section has been expended with additional reliable sources. This is the quintessence of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Icewhiz doesn't explain what exactly is suppose to be POV just makes general and vague assertions about "tone". Which is meaningless. This is still spurious and a POV tag is not a consolation prize for failing to obtain consensus for your proposed POV changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This section is substantially different from 2008 when the GAR was done. The Home Army, in most sources, is seen as an organization imbued with antisemitism, that engaged, at times, in widespread killing of Jews. Our present article does not reflect this. It also misrepresents singular AK personnel involvement in Zegota to the entire group, as well as misrepresenting very limited and very late support for some Jewish resistance groups as something greater. The lack of consensus in the current section in the article - and this runs both ways - as there is no consensus for the present section in the article - is a clear indication of a POV issue, which should be tagged.Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

On what grounds are you arguing that - “The Home Army, in most sources, is seen as an organization imbued with antisemitism, that engaged, at times, in widespread killing of Jews." I'm referring to the "most sources." This article is widely referenced already. So other sources that are "most" were deliberately ignored by the editors? Or new "most" sources surfaced after 2008? We need to establish this.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The 2008 article, that passed GAR, reflected this. Obviously, it is possible to find polophilic writers in English and even more so if you use Rzeczpospolita which is not an appropriate source for ww2 history. At present vast tracts of text in the section are sourced to highly partisan sources, while more balanced sentences, which are short, are sourced to multiple sources. Any cursory source review of English academic level sourcing for the AK's relations with Jews shows a dramatically different presentation than that presently in our article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"The 2008 article, that passed GAR, reflected this." - this is another falsehood, which can be easily verified. Please stop making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's see ... AK leadership imposed harsh punishments on its soldiers for any antisemitic actions sentencing some to death [20]. So, in fact, there were anti-semitic elements among AK soldiers but AK as an organization was not antisemitic. Does the article reflect this?GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a neutral source. And in other cases, AK units actively hunted Jews. For instance, the NSZ was part ofnthe AK from 1944 and murdered Jews on anvast scale - an act AK leadership declined to even condemn, let alone punish. See "home+army"+antisemitic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin9fvX3MXbAhUFElAKHfj-CL0Q6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q="home%20army"%20antisemitic&f=false.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but your comments are confusing,.. are you hinting that references used in the article are faked? (If that the case then we need to identify editors/GA reviewers) Or only this particular historian (Piotrowski) is not genuine?GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond being a partisan source, our article misrepresents this source. Piotrowski gives an example in which someone was given a death sentence for cutting down a ZOB unit. However, our article makes a generalization - which is unsupported by the source.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

On what grounds Piotrowski is a partisan source? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

He's advancing polocaust, which is quite fringey. But that is besides the point - the text sourced to him is a misrepresentation - as he did not make the generalization in our text.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you reference this claim that Piotrowski is advancing a “polocaust” and that he is fringe? GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not say he was fringe, and as for treating Poles as holocaust victims - he does this in the book. You, diff, are in any event misrepresenting this source - he does not make the generalization that is present in our article - he merely provides a single example. In fact, other sources (e.g. the one I provided above), contradict the text you inserted - with multiple instances in which AK units engaged in mass killing of Jews, actione that were not even condemned by AK leadership, let alone punished.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you reference few concrete cases were AK units were engaged in the mass killing of Jews? There should be a record of it if these were mass killings. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"home+army"+antisemitic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin9fvX3MXbAhUFElAKHfj-CL0Q6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q="home%20army"%20antisemitic&f=false.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the same source you are giving for the 3rd time, but it does not provide any particular cases of the mass killings.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It does better than providing examples, it states outright "extensive campaign of murdering Jewish partisans and Jews who had succeeded in escaping from the ghettos". It states the murderous units were in the AK fold, and that the AK command declined to even condemn this as "it was not the right time".Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol, and just not that long ago you were running around insisting that we should only use scholarly and academic sources (when you weren't trying to pass off anti-semitic far-right magazines as reliable) yet here you are pushing a religious publisher which publishes fringe material. This source most certainly does not represent the consensus in the literature (for example, Zimmerman) and should be considered WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a religious publisher, it is a well regarded publisher of text books. The author is a holocaust historian. Claiming KTAV Publishing House is fringe exhibits unfounded - this publisher specializes in Jewish history, which the AK's actions against Jews are part of. This textbook represents the long running consensus about AK in many texts.Icewhiz (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually not, this is just one remote reference you keep pointing to, and it seems that you are supporting your claim of a "widespread mass killings" with. If there were mass killings, logically there should be references to actual events. For example:

• On the day “X”, in the town "Y", the home army massacred "Z" number of Jews.

Also massed killed people must be buried somewhere, any mass burial places of mass killed Jews by the AK you are aware of? And finally do you refer to Jews or Jewish partisans? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The source refers to murder of both partisans and non-partisans. As for locations, burial sites (and actually no, in a warzone, bodies are often left unburied) - the source (written by an expert in the field) refers explicitely to a campaign of such mass murders by this AK group, there is no need for OR.Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. If people are mass killed then the site of the crime is left with a high number of bodies. These corpses need to be burried one day. Eather right after the slaughter or the following month, year, etc. In either circumstance, this would be noted somewhere, written about or even photographed, so references to actual particular killings cases should exist. I'm sorry but your claims of the "widespread mass killings of Jews by the Home Army" seem to be unfounded. Without concrete examples of these "mass killings," we can't proceed. Perhaps we should now focus on other highly doubtful things that you claimed to exist in the article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

First, let's be clear on the fact that this source being pushed by Icewhiz is FRINGE. The claims it makes are very much at odds with other sources (academic, scholarly ones). Having gotten that out of the way, even this fringe source DOES NOT SUPPORT the claim that Icewhiz is making. It says nothing about "mass murder of Jews" by the AK. Yet again, Icewhiz is just making shit up to push POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Note also how Icewhiz totally dodges the question asked by Gizzy - where are the mass burial sites of these people supposedly killed by the AK? I'm gonna quote what he says, removing all the stuff in the paranthases which is intended only to distract and confuse: " As for locations, burial sites - refers explicitely to a campaign of such mass murders by this AK group, there is no need for OR" - In other words he pretty much admits that there is no such sites.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a reputable publisher for Jewish history, and Mordecai Paldiel is an expert historian innthe field. I did not admit there were no such sites - I said that engaging in OR (as is presently done in this mess of an article - that makes generalizations from singular examples) is not needed when we have a mainline source saying "extensive campaign of murdering Jewish partisans and Jews who had succeeded in escaping from the ghettos" - black on white - in regards to a group that was AK in 1944.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so disruptive. You just got done arguing that a guy who got his doctorate from Oxford and was a Director of the Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies was not notable, but now somebody who teaches at a minor religious college is an expert. Got it. The difference in these person's opinions might have something to do with it, no? And the book is indeed fringe. It's written in a hyperbolic, hysterical non-scholarly language, it's not from an academic publisher (obviously), it makes sweeping generalization and treats entire ethnicities and movements as if they were some monolithic singular organism. Just a quick comparison with an actual serious author, such as Joshua Zimmerman clearly illustrates the difference in quality between this fringe source and serious scholarship.

And you still haven't answered the question/request to actually specify what is suppose to be POV about this article. Just that you don't like it's "tone". Or the fact that all the info from 2008 is still in the article. Rather it appears that your complaint boils down to the fact that you're upset that you haven't been given free reign to POV this article all to hell with your fringe sources. That's not how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Icewhiz suggested the author was not WP:NOTABLE, not that it wasn't WP:RS. This is an acceptable position, and one you shouldn't hold against him. As for Yeshiva University - it's ranked several hundred places above the Jagiellonian University in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings [21][22], FWIW. François Robere (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Mordecai Paldiel has published quite a bit more than Paulsson and is a researcher with many years in the field - in his retirement (aged 70) he took up a lecturing post at Yeshiva University - which is far from minor.

As for the POV of this article, the anti-semitic aspects of AK are downplayed, while the minor help they did provide (or personnel within) are overplayed. As for Zimmerman, this is his own summary - He writes of Armia Krajowa units welcoming Jews into their ranks, supplying arms and money and training to Jewish partisan units, organizing an ultimately unsuccessful effort to breach the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto at the start of the 1943 Uprising, condemning Poles who blackmailed Jews and looted Jewish property, rescuing Jews at the risk of AK members’ lives, helping to found the Committee to Aid the Jews (Zegota), maintaining a sometimes-on/sometimes-off relationship with the ZOB, sending members clandestinely into ghettoes and concentration camps to ascertain the life-threatening situations, and publicizing the Jewish plight through its underground press of the government-in-exile. But he also writes of AK units that excluded Jews that killed Jews, that refused to offer aid because isolated, small-scale attacks on the German military were regarded as a “futile” waste of limited arms; he writes of right-wing parties that continued to harbor anti-Semitic views and spread anti-Semitic calumnies.Killers Of Jews Or Saviors of Jews? - he covers both aspects. And while Zimmerman is a good source, and much better than other sources in the article presently - e.g. " London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association" which is not a RS, Rzeczpospolita which is not an acceptable source, and some rather fringey authors - the view he advances in his book is somewhat left of mainstream.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Both of these are reliable sources. As is Zimmerman. It's also completely false - again - that "the anti-semitic aspects of AK are downplayed". Rather, the article presents a balanced - neutral - picture of the organization (similar to Zimmerman). The positive stuff is there. The negative stuff is there. What you mean, is that the article isn't a hit piece. Hell, compare it to the version at the Hebrew Wikipedia. This article is way more negative than that one. And one more time - all the stuff from 2008, is still here, so please drop this false - again - line of attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Aleksander Smolar (IIRC he was being advanced in a different context (but in this case, this is a published monograph) - "Only in Poland, was anti-Semitism compatible with patriotism (a correlation considerably strengthened under the Soviet occupation in 1939–1941) and also with democracy. The anti-Semitic National Democratic Party was represented both in the Polish government in London and in the structures of the underground within Poland. Precisely because Polish anti-Semitism was not tainted by any trace of collaboration with the Germans, it could prosper—not only in the street but also in the underground press, in political parties, and in the armed forces".[23].Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

And what the platypus does that have to do with anything being discussed? Or are you just taking this opportunity to call Poles anti-semites again? You know, the more you do these kinds of things, the more transparent your prejudice and bias becomes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(following lack of serious treatment of the issue in Polish works) "Jewish historians have presented the AK in an entirely different light. They have been sharply critical of the Home Army not only for its reported reluctance and unwillingness to aid Jews, but also for what they claim was its hostile attitude and actions towards Jewish resistance groups and Jewish fugitives from the camps and ghettos"..Varieties of Antisemitism: History, Ideology, Discourse, page 105.Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ummm... that whole page from the source you link to is all about unfair attacks on the leader of the Home Army (!!!). It's basically Zimmerman illustrating that these kinds of smears and attacks began pretty early on. Yet... somehow you manage to pull out of that the exact opposite conclusion. You're misrepresenting sources. Again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The AK itself admitted to being antisemitic. "A document drafted at the end of 1943 by the Home Army described the positions of the various underground organizations on the Jewish future in postwar Poland. Nine of the thierteen parties advocated wither "emigration of all Jews" (.... some exceptions ...), "liquidation of the Jews", or "removal of the Jews". Only three parties were in favot of "full and equal rights for all citizens"". in 1941 Stefan Rowecki wrote to London: "Please take it as an established fact than an overwhelming majority of the population is antisemitic ... There are only tactical differences about what to do. Hardly anybody advocates imitating the Germans". Roman Knoll in 1943 - "The mass murder of Jews in Poland by the Germans will reduce the dimensions of the Jewish Question in our country; it will not liquidate it entirely... return of the Jews to their jobs and workshops is completely out of the question, even if the number of Jews were greatly reduced".[24].Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Same fringe source as before. What was this document? There's no citation. A serious work would provide a reference to the document. This is omitting the fact that this is suppose to be a document issued by the AK describing other people's beliefs, not its own stance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling Mordecai Paldiel publishing KTAV Fringe - is quite astounding. The AK leadership is referring to the attitudes of the population, its personnel, and of the political parties that constituted the political alliance behind the AK.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Be astounded if you wish. Yet, the fact remains, that the source does push fringe narratives and presents false facts (for example, it repeats the debunked myth of "Bor-Komorowski's Order"). As to this particular issue, again, what is this document? The author does not even bother to reference it. One more time - a serious historical work of scholarship would provide a footnote or reference to explain precisely what primary source it is referring to. And you're doing OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not doing OR - I'm quoting a source. As for the "debunked myth of "Bor-Komorowski's Order"" - you'll have to be more specific regarding which particular order (he issued several, certainly 116 is notorious), who/how did the supposed debunking, and how Paldiel runs a-foul of said debunking.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The antisemitic and anticommunist factions of the Polish Home Army (Armia Krajowa, AK) often refused to accept Jewish members and betrayed and battled Jewish partisan groups too.. (from - Altruistic Personality: Rescuers Of Jews In Nazi Europe, Samuel P. Oliner, Free Press (publisher)).Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

quoting Yehuda Bauer - "The majority of Poles evinced an indifference, often rather hostile, to the fate of the Jews, expressed in a lack of basic human interest in their fate. A fairly large minority was actively hostile to the Jews, and a smaller minority was friendly and helpful". elsewhere - "to the Home Army, the Jews were not part of "our nation", and that action to defend them was not to be taken if it endangered its other objectives. Certainly the Home Army was not willing to absorb the Jewish partisan groups..... (... there was one exception, in Volhynia .... ) The Home Army was also not very willing to accept Jews as individuals, though here too there were exceptions.... In general, though, the Home Army tended to see individual Jewish fugities as security risks that were likely to endangers its own position. Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these people (and also to Communist partisans) as "bandits", an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves". "This document is striking because it conflates Communist partisans ("criminal subversive elements"), ordinary robbers, and Jews". The military formations linked with the various fascist groups, the National Armed Forces and the Ramparty group were openly hostile to the Jews and frequently murdered both Jewish partisans and Jews hiding in the villages. the situation continued even when the National Armed Forces became more closely linke with the Home Army toward the end of the war.. It is probably unrealistic to have expected the Home Army ... to have been able to do much to aid the Jews. The fact remains that its leadership probably did not want to do so". Cesarani, David, and Sarah Kavanaugh, eds. Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews. Vol. 5. Psychology Press, 2004..Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we all know you're very good at cherry picking the most negative aspects of this article's topic. You know your google book search terms give it away, right? And most of these have already been discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There were both positive and negative aspects to the AK. Our article at present overplays the positive - in a manner not borne out in neutral sources - going as far as placing Jewish relations in "Daily operations" and cherrypicking individual exceptions of Jewish members, claiming (misrepresenting the partisan source) that the AK punished every antisemitic act by its members, overplaying the extremely minute, late and insignificant (and criticized for being such) for Jewish units in some instances, and SYNTHly tying in Zegota (which was founded, in part, by AK members - but was not AK).Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Our article at present overplays the positive" - that is false. "in a manner not borne out in neutral sources" - that is also false. The article presents a balanced view typical of the reliable sources on the subject. "that the AK punished every antisemitic act by its members" - the article does not make this claim, so this too is false. "late" (aid, presumably, you lost a noun or two there) - again, false, we've been over this. This is the whole ridiculous "why didn't they help Jewish organizations before these even existed" argument that FR was making earlier before he finally dropped it (out of embarrassment I hope). Yet here you are bringing it back up again. "was founded, in part, by AK members - but was not AK" - well, good thing then that our article does not say Zegota was AK. So yet another false accusations. Seriously, Icewhiz, you managed to write down a paragraph, where every single sentence is a falsehood. Grats, that must have taken some effort, because I don't see how someone can do that on accident.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, another indication of the low quality of that source is that it repeats that whole "Bor-Komorowski's Order" hoax as if it were true. A source which does that is either fringe, or way outdated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This is - The Home Army leadership imposed harsh punishments on its soldiers for any antisemitic actions[56], in some cases sentencing them to death.[51] - presently in our article. This is patently false - and no - my assertion above regarding this piece of text is not false. As for repeating a hoax - you'll have to be more specific.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

And no - dropping "any" from that sentence does not make it any better. There are a few isolated examples of such punishments (which is what the cited sources provide) - mainly in instances in which the antisemitic action was harmful to AK's goals (e.g. attacking a unit friendly to the AK) - beyond such isolated examples, a wide blanket statement is undue.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, no, that is not patently false as that was indeed the policy of the AK. Was it always followed? I don't know, does the justice system in present day United States, Poland or Israel - which unlike the underground justice system of occupied Poland, can function freely, openly and without fear of persecution - always function perfectly? Anyway I removed the word "any", just to make you happy, and that pretty much solves that problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the problem at all - this is a gross generalization based on isolated examples in a partisan source - or in other words rather poor WP:OR. Certainly there were some cases, when expedient, that the AK punished members who attacked friendly Jewish units. In other cases the AK failed to even condemn antisemitic units in its ranks that murdered Jews in an organized manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Icewhiz has once again managed to derail a thread, which began with a simple request to actually provide an example, a list or any kind of evidence for these supposed "mass murders" committed by AK, or at the very least indications of the relevant burial sites. Since these didn't actually happen, Icewhiz was unable to fulfill this request and quickly changed the subject and moved on to some general and vague condemnations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

An example was not needed - as we had a high quality source making a generalization. We don't write encyclopedic content by examples - this is OR - and the article is full of it at the moment. What I did do - is provide several sources that treat the AK, and rampant antisemitism within its ranks(with some units engaging in widespread killing of Jews), in a different manner than our article presently. This thread started with mentioning the GA review - the state of this article was significantly different back when it was reviewed. I'll note that Polish historians, such as Jan T. Gross, have also taken a critical view of the AK's role - for instance Gross famously estimated that "Poles killed a maximum 30,000 Germans and between 100,000 to 200,000 Jews".Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about AK, not Poles. Plus, please source quotes, particularly ones as ridiculous as this (thank you for reminding us why Gross should always be treated with a lot of skepticism, he loves his controversial media claims, which sadly have much less grounding in proper research). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross is a respected (in most of the world) groundbreaking historian. AK constituted the majority of Polish forces. Another quote: "While a few partisan groups ... would accept Jews, those associated with the AK (the conservative nationalist underground Home Army) usually rejected them. More dangerously, some AK units and especially extremist units associated with the notorious National Armed Forces (NSZ) would either rob Jews or simply kill them outright." [25] Remembering Survival: Inside a Nazi Slave-Labor Camp, Christopher Browning, page 252.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Bilewicz, Michał, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt. "Evil Transformations: Social-Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing." Social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context (2012): 280. "historical research reveals several cases of non-Jewish resistance fighters involved in killings of Jews during the Holocaust, for example the execution of Jews by the Opatow section of the Polish underground Home Army (Skibinska & Libionka 2008), or killngs of Jews in the Haberbusch-Schiele breweries during the Warsaw Uprising by Polish resistance fighters (Cichy, 1994).... The perceived need for self-defence against such raids led the formerly anti-fascist branch of the Polish Home Army to collaborate with the Nazi police in killings of hidden Jews (Gluchowski & Kowalski 2009, Grossman 1988)"}.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

These claims were pushed in 90s but withdrawn and historians apologized for them as false.There was a campaign about it by liberal Gazeta Wyborcza claiming AK murdered Jews in Warsaw Uprising but later it withdrew from this and the claims are now recognized as false.Here's the apology letter[26], the claims were discredited so heavily that even Barbara Engelking was forced to admit they are groundless[27]. And the apology letter I added in this text is by the very same Michal Cichy you quoted above from 1994.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Gluchowski & Kowalski were punished because of plagiarism [28]]. Their subject were Bielski brothers. Michał Bilewicz is a psychologist, so his ideas about history may by unprofessional. Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Restoring version from April 27th

It seems the last version I thoroughly reviewed got distorted by some industrious editors. Among the problems:

• Paczkowski's quote about the Home Army being "closely integrated" with Jewish Military Union" is bullcrap. This is the actual quote:

The Jewish resistance, functioning in the most extreme circumstances, did have ties, albeit weak ties, with the Polish underground... the Jewish Military Union maintained contacts with the Polish underground, partly because its founders included a number of professional army officers. The AK commander recognized the ZOB as an associated paramilitary organization, but could offer it only the most meager assistance. The People’s Guard also had contact with the resistance in the Warsaw ghetto."

— Paczkowski (2003), Spring Will Be Ours, p. 104

• The "Polish-Jewish Heritage Foundation of Canada" isn't an RS.
• The statement "AK was involved in conflict with Jewish partisan units in Eastern Poland" has little to do with the sources that follow, and seems like another attempt at blurring AK's role in persecution of Jews.
• Multiple sources suggest Zegota was not formed by the Polish GIE. This suggestion was apparently added by an editor trying to "balance" a previous "negative" edit.
• The statement "The Home Army tried to protect the Jewish connectors, eliminating the agents and blackmailers (szmalcowniks) who were tracking them" is interesting: While the Home Army had a clear stance about szmalcowniks, it only started acting on it in 1943, as stated immediately after the above: "In Warsaw, the first sentences began to be carried out in May and June 1943". The problem is - by March 1943 (when AK addressed the problem in public) and May 1943 (when blackmailers started getting sentenced) most of Warsaw's Jewry was already gone. Indeed, it wasn't until the ghetto was destroyed and refugees hid by the thousand that AK realized this was a problem that needed to be addressed (see Zimmerman (2015), The Polish Underground and the Jews, pp. 194-195). In light of this, saying that the AK "tried to protect its Jewish connections" seems as valid as saying "the AK was oblivious for most of the war". Pending further information, this statement has to be qualified.
• Another statement depends on a primary source - an interview with Władysław Bartoszewski. While I don't doubt Bartoszewski's sincerity, I do wonder if the quote is enough to explain the inaction on the matter: Why was blackmail such a difficult problem? Was it particularly hard to identify blackmailers? Why was it hard to catch them in the act? What resources were allocated to that problem? Again, not doubting Bartoszewski's account, but this isn't the whole story as far as a reader is concerned.
• In another act of whitewashing, the statement regarding AK units persecuting Jews was removed, and the qualifier regarding use of the term "bandits" was changed from "often" to "sometimes". The reference to the death penalty being "the usual punishment" for perpetrators of anti-Semitic acts seems excessive, both because we know they were generally docile regarding the persecution of minorities (among others, refusing to interfere militarily with the Nazi genocide operation), and given the leeway it gave in this respect to entire movements like the NSZ.

François Robere (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of what you say, especially the first two points, may have merit. The 3rd statement seems to factually represent the sources I checked. This needs more discussion, just cutting 7k of text others are working on is not constructive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't intended as a response to your work, but rather to much of what preceded. Would you object reinstatement of the revision if it kept your changes?

Regarding the Home Army in Eastern Poland - the problem isn't with that statement it ins own right - the problem is it replaced another statement about AK persecution of Jews, and it isn't as well sourced as the one it replaced. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Piotrus that the first couple points might have some merit. However, the rest of your statement does not. The last three points in particular are nonsense (and some of this has already been discussed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The version of 27 April, which could be considered a stable version here, contains less blatant OR, misrepresentation of sources, and highly selective use of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It could, but it shouldn't, because it's not. Honestly, the closest you gonna get to a "stable version" is the one from right before you and FR showed up, which would be before April 2018. I mean, it's you and FR who've "destabilized" this GA article, whereas before editors were able to work constructively on it together. When you say "a stable version here" you actually mean "there was this one version in midst of all the edit warring which was the closest to my POV, let's restore that".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The GAR was in 2008. We could go back to that version - which contains a more balanced (yet still skewed) representation of the Home Army and relations with the Jews. It is quite shameful we have an article masquerading as a GA article which portrays an organization widely regarded as containing antisemitic elements that killed Jews, as a benevolent organization. Certainly there were complexities in the AK - not all of the AK was deeply antisemitic, however the degree of misrepresentation of this organization in the current article is shameful.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"skewed representation of the Home Army" in the article. Maybe we should try to establish skewed representation. What exactly is distorted? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Over-representation of the extremely minute, and very late, cooperation between the AK and Jews (which goes as far as listing individual Jewish fighters who mainly joined the AK as an exception to the rule and very late - following the Warsaw ghetto uprising) - while not representing enough the killing of Jews by AK units, and the widely reported (in more than half of the English sources on the topic) antisemitism within the AK. Certainly there are nuances - the situation was different in Warsaw, the countryside, Volhynia, etc. - varying between AK units and as per circumstances - but we shouldn't over-represent the exceptional.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is already in the article --> According to Tadeusz Piotrowski and Gunnar S. Paulsson, the bulk of Home Army antisemitic behavior can be ascribed to a small minority of members, often affiliated with the far-right National Democracy (N.D., or "endecja") party, whose National Armed Forces organization was only partly integrated into the Home Army. AK occasionally clashed with some units of Soviet-affiliated partisan units in Eastern Poland; some of those units had sizable Jewish presence (see also Jewish partisans).<ref>. What else should be added in your opinion ? GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Both sources cited are fairly favorable to the AK in regards to other sources who see antisemitism as more widespread - certainly there is a view that this was a minority of members, but there is also a view this was pervasive. The issue here is WP:BALASP - the section at present over-represents the insignificant, minute, and relatively late in the war positive interactions while the bulk of the negative interactions are, while present, drowned out in the mess of anecdotal detailing of the positive.08:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Both sources cited are fairly favorable to the AK - are you indicating that these sources are unreliable, should they be removed and replaced with other? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say they were unreliable (though both have been subject to criticism), merely that in the range of views on the matter in RS these two sources take a view generally favorable to the AK. The question here is of WP:BALASP - representing the more negative sources properly, and remove intricate details sourced to positive sources - often with OR regarding generalizations.Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding those three statements, I would appreciate it if you could say why any of the following points irrelevant:

Timing of AK action against blackmailers: Both the timing and the preceding inaction are important given the scope of the discussion Re: AK approach to Jews. Also, per Zimmerman, this too benefited from pressure of Jewish representatives on the GIE (p. 301).

Bartoszewski's: We have some of these "justice" narratives (see eg. Zimmerman, p. 329), and some are pretty straightforward. I contend that what the text currently presents isn't the full picture, and a secondary source on that particular issue can and should be found.

AK persecuting Jews: We have RS. François Robere (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The first two are pure OR on your part. The last one is already addressed in the article and this is just an attempt to pile on, violating both NPOV and UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not. First, there are sources who make these qualified statements (eg. Zimmerman, who writes on the problem of blackmailers following the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and notes that "It was not until 1943, however, that

the Polish Underground authorities issued an official declaration condemning this phenomenon and warning that such actions constituted treason against the Polish state."). Second, there's nothing OR in stating that "prior to 1943, the AK did not..." or the more subtle "From 1943 onward, the AK..." - they're even more factually correct statements than the absolute that opens that paragraph.

Regarding Bartoszewski: First, he's a primary source, and you know the policy about those. Second, this isn't OR as I'm not suggesting he's inappropriate; what I would like is to qualify his statement with "according to".

Regarding AK persecuting Jews - no, it's not addressed, and there's no policy reason to remove those particular sources. François Robere (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Home Army was an army. Any army participating in WWII committed crimes. Are crimes committed by the other armies are discussed like thay are here? Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly - we describe crimes by the Schutzstaffel and Wehrmacht. I'll note that there were a few Jews (or Jewish origin) soldiers in the German military (see Werner Goldberg, [29]) yet we still discuss the general attitude of these formations towards Jews, and not the exceptions.12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Three refereces are defined but unused

Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The usual solution in an unstable article, or in any other case where the sources might be of future use is to comment them out. François Robere (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)