Talk:Soviet war crimes

A woman in Berlin

Editorial reviews:

• From Publishers Weekly, see link.

From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com. See link

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stor stark7 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

War crimes?

"termination of the existing way of life and economic model, and a strong pressure upon Latvian culture"

"The various repressive activities of Soviet forces sparked a guerrilla war against the Soviet authorities in Estonia, which continued into the late 1970s by "forest brothers" (metsavennad), consisting mostly of Estonian veterans of both the German and Finnish armies as well as some civilians."

"In The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949, Norman Naimark wrote that not only did each victim have to carry the trauma for the rest of their days, but it also inflicted a massive collective trauma on the former country of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic). Naimark concluded that "The social psychology of women and men in the Soviet zone of occupation was marked by the crime of rape from the first days of occupation, through the founding of the GDR in the fall of 1949, until, one could argue, the present."

"These actions increased the hatred by the local population toward those who had collaborated with the Soviets, or who were suspected of being sympathetic toward the Soviet cause. Jews were singled out and unfairly blamed by the local population in this regard." - Red army caused the Holocaust?

These quotes seem to be written by the heirs of Waffen SS troops. The superb example is listing Majdanek under Category:Soviet World War II crimes in Poland.Jaksap (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as information was relevant and sourced, it can stay. "Forrest brothers" seem to be relevant; persecution of Jews by Germans do not. Removed.Biophys (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Forest brothers was an insurrection that the Soviets fought against. How can that be a war crime of the Soviets? Since when are "strong pressure on the culture" and "altered social psychology" war crimes?Jaksap (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Heirs of Waffen SS troops? :D well played nazi card, comrade. It's really really funny that up to today, there remain people who deny Soviet war crimes, while anyone denying Nazi war crimes is regarded as a lunatic. Nazi war crimes, while dramatic and well-exposed due to losing the war, were equaled and very probably surpassed by numerous crimes against civilians by Stalin's government during and after the war. It is just absurd that the neutrality of an article from 60 years ago can be disputed; does someone really claim we have up to today no idea what really happened? Does someone still want to defent wartime Communism and Stalin's deeds? Is there any room for politics or non-neutrality there? --Sigmundur (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannot agree. The statements like "Nazi war crimes, while dramatic and well-exposed due to losing the war, were equaled and very probably surpassed by numerous crimes against civilians by Stalin's government during and after the war." are the legacy of Cold War era. The newly discovered data from Soviet de-classified archives demonstrated that fantastic numbers of 60 millions perished in GULAG etc were incorrect. Many western researchers now reconsidered their estimations of Stalinism's death toll.
In addition, the statements like "Nazi war crimes, while dramatic and well-exposed due to losing the war" is a direct attempt to whitewash Nazism, which is unacceptable. BTW, the same argument can be applied to Stalinism: Stalinism's crimes become well exposed due to losing the Cold war. I wouldn't use such an argument, however, because, as I already wrote, losing Cold war opened many classified archives and thereby demonstrated that Cold war era numbers were just a Cold war myth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. With regards to "and after the war," let me remind you that the article is about war crimes, therefore, its scope is limited with war time events.

PPS. Re: "well played nazi cardwell played nazi card". Let me remind you that, although Waffen-SS had no direct relation to SS sonderkommando, many Baltic volunteers (mostly from Latvia and Lithuania) were responsible for killing Jews during Nazi occupation. Academic sources available for me testify that they started mass killing right after Germany occupied their countries, before Nazi commenced their program of extermination of Jews in Central Europe. I am far from blaming all Latvians and Lithuanians in Nazism, however, that disgraceful fact (I mean their participation in extermination of Jews) must be remembered as soon as we remember their brave resistance to Soviet hordes...--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of background information

I believe this part may be relevant as "background" information. It explains that the atrocities were a result of ideological indoctrination and a part of the overall regime's brutality. However, one must cite some sources that specifically make such connection to avoid OR. One should also tell more about SMERSH operations.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Soviet state has committed many crimes, but not all of them are military. Aforementioned "background information" misleadingly mixed together general police state terror with war crimes. It seems to beef up the POV.Galassi (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not as simple. The removed fragment tells mostly about 1918 events. This was a year when the Soviet regime was on the brink of catastrophe. It is normal fot the war rhetorics (and practice) to be so brutal during a civil war. With regards to SMERSH, I have some cholarly articles, and I'll try to add some facts in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I restored it, I think the information should be here because this what in fact happened and the information is well sourced. I'm open to discussion.--Jacurek (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, any army of any state is ideologically oriented (if we assume that patriotism is an ideology) and its major goal is to defend existing regime from the attack from abroad. With regards to the "early official announcement, published in Izvestiya, "Appeal to the Working Class" on September 3, 1918 called for the workers to "crush the hydra of counterrevolution with massive terror"," one has to remember that during that time the Soviets had to defend themselves by all possible means, because, as I already pointed out above, the regime was on the on the brink of catastrophe. I addition, although different point of view of exists on the origin of the Red terror, almost everyone agrees that White terror was equally brutal. I am not intended to start the discussion which terror started first and which one was just a response, but obviously, the peace of text introduced by Jacurek is a pure example of a well sourced material taken out of a context. It creates a wrong picture and has to be either removed or completely re-written.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is also worth noting that this may create a large POVfork.Galassi (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Red Army and the Pogroms?

The (unsourced) sentence: "Some units of the Red Army were accused of pogroms during the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920" looks odd. Taking into account that percent of Jews among Bolsheviks was very high, taking into account that anti-antisemitism was an official policy of early Soviet state (remember Lenin's speach [1]) and, taking into account that pogroms were committed mostly by White movement, Ukrainian nationalists and other Communists' opponenents, and the pretext for these pogroms was that all Jews were supposed to be a supporters of Communists, the sentence is absolutely misleading. I removed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Konarmia misdeeds are well documented. Jews were also well represented in bourgeoisie as well, and would suffer as such.--Galassi (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You should either extend the section to reflect the facts from above, or remove the section. It is quite necessary to mention that Bolsheviks were generally pro-Semitic rather than anti-Semitic, and that Konarmia deeds should be considered as exceptions from the rule. The material in its present form is absolutely misleading and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be said that Bolsheviks were more pro-Semitic than the whites, after all Aleksandr Kerensky alledgedly had a Jewish background. I don't know if that is true, but certainly the Yiddish press at the time hailed Kerensky "embodied the free soul of Russia". On the other hand the Bolsheviks were hostile to Judaism and the so called "Talmudists". From December 1918 to August 1919, the teaching of Hebrew was banned, religious instruction in Judaism was forbidden, the Kehillot and other organizations were suppressed and the leaders of those organizations were rounded up and imprisoned. Ofcourse the Nazis linked Jews to Bolshevism for propaganda purposes. --Martintg (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this: "During the civil war that followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Ukrainian nationalists, Polish officials, Red Army soldiers all engaged in pogrom-like violence in western Belorussia (Belarus) and Poland's Galicia province (now West Ukraine), killing tens of thousands of Jews between 1918 and 1920" --Martintg (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One has to distinguish between Judaism (religion) and Jews (nation). The tendency of secularization was very strong among Jews in Russian empire, so the repression against Judaism didn't necessarily mean repressions against the Jews. The Lenin's speech above as well as many other documents testify that Bolsheviks considered Jews as a nation oppressed by old Tsarist regime, and the Jews had many preferences during early Soviet era. The Jews were natural allies of Bolsheviks during that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Found another source regarding Red Army participation in pogroms, Pogroms By John Doyle Klier, Shlomo Lambroza, p294: "All armies involved in the Civil War, including the Bolshevik, were responsible for some of the anti-Jewish violence. The pogroms, no matter which army was responsible, had a great deal in common. The killings were done mostly by ill-disciplined soldiers and the peasants usually participated in looting" --Martintg (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources you find–what is undeniable despite such scattered incidents was that pogroms were carried out by some individual members of the Red Army in the Civil War–they were never a policy of the Bolshevik Party, of the leading Bolsheviks, or of Soviet state, which actually put an end to the mass violence against Jews that had predominated in the Czarist Empire. Given this, Paul Siebert is absolutely right: this section is absolutely misleading and should be removed. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the "policy of the Bolshevik Party", it is about Soviet war crimes. War crimes are usually committed by individuals. Removing the section is no longer an option, since several verifiable sources have been supplied, one even by distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history published by Cambridge University Press. It is now a question of due weight. --Martintg (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not at all relevant here. Per WP:UNDUE:

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Hence, I am sticking with what was said by Paul Siebert. Either we should adequately address the point that this was indeed completely contrary to everything else, or we should remove this section as misleading in this article. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying we should attribute more weight to what was said by Wikipedian Paul Siebert and discount what was said by these distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history John Doyle Klier and Shlomo Lambroza in their published book? Am I understanding you correctly? --Martintg (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying we should acknowledge WP:UNDUE. As far as Paul Siebert and others, this Wikipedia is user-edited. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you have reverted, thus using up your permitted 1RR per article per week, however I don't see what is undue when both United States Holocaust Museum and two distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history state that the Red Army participated in pogroms during the Russian civil war. I think Galassi would agree with me that inclusion of this verifiable fact into the article is not undue by any means. --Martintg (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you have not reverted, as you have de facto used up your 1RR per article per week restriction. I'm sure you can tell Galassi why you kept removing material about anti-semitism from the Timeline of antisemitism when Rabbi Berl Lazar said that Estonia's act of comemmorating Alfons Rebane (another article you've edited) was anti-semitic. I'm Jewish myself, so please don't play at this game. You are always welcome to put this material back in when you put this into the realistic context of the White Army's massive pogroms of Jews, the Bolshevik forces hanging anti-semitic killers (Red and White), the official Soviet policy of integrating Jews into the Soviet movement, Lenin's speeches, laws against anti-semitism, and plenty of other stuff. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from getting personal. According to this Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire#During the Revolution and the Civil Wars in Russia article, out of an estimated 887 mass pogroms, 8.5% of pogroms were perpetrated by the Red Army during the Russian civil war. That's 75 mass pogroms attributed to the Red Army, hardly undue compared with the other crimes. BTW, I've not de facto used up anything, but I would recommend you undo your revert lest it is counted against you. --Martintg (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quoting an unsourced Wikipedia article! Ce n'est pas très bon. Sorry, the one who made this personal was you. Again, you are free to add this material in when you put it into a context that does not completely cater to your POV. Paul Siebert is completely justified. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is now sourced, Henry Abramson cites Nahum Gergel's figure of 8.6% pogroms atrributed to the Red Army and considers the numbers to be conservative. --Martintg (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are three ways to present well sources facts. (i) To write that the Red Army committed some porgoms. (What we have in the article now). (ii) To write that, although the Red Army committed some porgoms, it is responsible for only 8.6% of total number of pogroms, whereas majority of other porgoms were committed by the Bolsheviks' opponents; and (iii) To write that, although protection of Jews was the official policy of young Soviet state, some Red Army units were responsible for committing pogroms, although the pogroms attributed to the Red Army constituted only 8.6% of total amount of pogroms, and majority of other porgoms were committed by the Bolsheviks' opponents. In my opinion, only (iii) would be a neutral and unbiased representation of the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[od] I think we must be careful not to over-editorialize based upon our own personal political convictions. Your proposed text implies certain things, such as Soviet policy was "pro-Semitic" as you claimed earlier. I don't think this is true. Let's rely upon what the sources say. John Doyle Klier and Shlomo Lambroza state is "All armies involved in the Civil War, including the Bolshevik, were responsible for some of the anti-Jewish violence. The pogroms, no matter which army was responsible, had a great deal in common. The killings were done mostly by ill-disciplined soldiers and the peasants usually participated in looting". They don't equivocate by saying "some units", they clearly say "all armies". They also say that the common factor across all armies was ill discipline. So I think it is sufficient state that the pogromming was due to ill discipline, without recourse to mentioning percentages or official soviet policy, which included the "pro-Semitic" act of banning of Hebrew language education. --Martintg (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. One of the pillars of the early Soviet state was internationalism. In addition, early Communist leaders repeatedly and explicitly stated that additional protection should be granted to the nations oppressed during tzarist regime, and Jews were among these nations. Moreover, for many reasons there was a vast amount of Jews among Bolsheviks. By contrast, majority of anti-Communist forces during Civil war were nationalists, and, in addition, they considered all Jews as actual or potential supporters of Bolsheviks (and such a point of view was partially justified). As a result, pogroms attributed to the Red Army were a result of ill discipline (and should be considered as an exception rather than a rule), whereas the pogroms committed by other forces were a logical continuation of the White movement's policy. The attempt to conceal this fact in a direct misinterpretation of the history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you should write to John Doyle Klier and Shlomo Lambroza, because they clearly state otherwise. What are your qualifications that permit you to state these two distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history are falsifying history? Pehaps if you published something we could reference it here. --Martintg (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, on the page 296 of the book you cited the author, Peter Kenez noted that the connection existed in popular mind between Communists and Jews, and that that connection was employed by anti-Semitic forces. On the page 300 he writes that the Whites had a preconception of Jews an enemies, whereas the Reds killed only those Jews who were considered to be the supporters of anti-Communists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In another work (The Ideology of the White Movement Author(s): Peter Kenez Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1980), pp. 58-83) the same author states:

"The consequence of White propaganda was a series of pogroms in the Ukraine in 1919 which claimed approximately a hundred thousand victims."

In connection to that, could you please show me (i) any example of anti-Semitic Red propaganda, and (ii) any quotes from White, Ukrainian or Polish leaders (1918-1921) who express the idea of protection of Jews (similar to the above Lenin's speech. BTW, to avoid accusations in using primary sources, here is a reliable secondary source stating the same:(The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis. Author(s): William Korey. Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 111-135)).
And, please, in future refrain from personal attacks. I know you are polite, constructive and reasonable person. And I believe you realise we both are amateur historians, and we both aren't going to push our OR here. All my claims are based on what I read and I am always ready to support them with sources upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we're discussing encyclopedic coverage of the situation, perhaps we should include this material–which shall certainly fill in the gaps in the ambiguous current state of the pogroms passage, which even misuses its own sources at present by not mentioning that the 8.6% of pogroms attributed to the Red Army were carried out by ill-disciplined units (during the Civil War many units transferred from the White Army to Red Army, a well as vice-versa):

From Nora Levin, The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917: On Pages 43-44:

"In 1920, a number of Red Army pogroms were investigated by Semyon Budenny's First Cavalry, most of whose soldiers had previously served under Denikin. In Kremenchug, for example, Jews recognized them from the pogroms of a year before. The Red Army Command, however, vigorously condemnded these pogroms and disarmed the guilty regiments. In October 1920, Mikhail Kalinin, President of the Soviet Union, attended a military parade in the Ukraine and made a speech condemning Red Army pogroms and demanding that the Red Army fight a class war, not a national one. Bolshevik advances further inflamed anti-Semitism and set new cycles of massacres into motion [by the Whites?], but as the Soviet forces progressively consolidated their power, the Ukraine was reoccupied and a certain measure of security for Jews was achieved.

"The frightfulness of the pogroms more than anything else forced Jews to look at the Bolsheviks, and especially the Red Army, as their only refuge. On one occasion, the entire Jewish population of a town of 4,000 Jews trooped after a retiring Bolshevik regiment. Obviously, this had important political implications, although many Jews mentally divorced the Red Army from the Communist party and government. A special recruitment section of the Red Army was set up to enlist Jewish youth. They were welcomed, but it was realized that 'many enter the Red Army partially out of hatred for the White pogromists' and a desire for revenge. Even those who opposed Bolshevism on ideological grounds supported the Red Army. According to an eyewitness, 'Jewish youth leave the shtetlach and run to Kiev - to enter the Red Army. They are not Bolsheviks at all...but they go into the Red Army because on can die with rifle in hand."

On Page 45 of the same work:

"The poet Chaim Grade has told the story of a Red Army commissar who shot a soldier for having taken a watch from a Jew during the Soviet occupation of Vilna - a totally new, bracing experience for Jews. For the first time, somebody was defending them..."

Zvi Y. Gitelman, A Century of Ambivalence, Page 70:

"The only armed force that did not systematically terrorize the Jews was the Red Army of the Bolsheviks. Though over 700 Jews were killed in pogroms mounted by Red Army detachments, the Red Army command condemned these actions and punished them. Jews came to regard the Red Army as their protector, and young Jews joined it in order to avenge the crimes against their families and people...Trotsky recognized the motivations driving Jews into the Red Army and warned that "these are not the best Communists" and that they needed intensive political education. Indeed, ideological opponents of Bolshevism were joining the Red Army out of Jewish national motivations. 'In the Kalinovka station I was surprised to see a Red Army company composed entirely of Jews and even including some wearing earlocks. These were yeshiva students from Proskurov who joined the Red Army after Petliura's riots in order to take revenge...and I, the Zionist opponent of Communism [which] I saw...as a fatal danger to Judaism - I was filled with pride seeing those Jewish fellows.'"

From "Pogroms" - an article from the Jewish virtual library:

"After a short period of confusion, the Soviets adopted stringent measures against pogromists found in the ranks of the Red Army. In addition to a fundamental and comprehensive information campaign, severe penalities were imposed not only on guilty individuals, who were executed, but also on complete army units, which were disbanded after their men had attacked Jews. Even though pogroms were still perpetrated after this, mainly by Ukrainian units of the Red Army at the time of its retreat from Poland (1920), in general, the Jews regarded the units of the Red Army as the only force which was able and willing to defend them."

From Lance Selfa's The Struggle for Palestine, Page 6:

"The 1917 October Revolution in Russia showed what the socialist strategy for Jewish emancipation meant in practice. In a country where the czar and his henchmen used anti-Semitism to divide workers, Russian workers elected Jewish Bolsheviks such as Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Yakov Sverdlov to leading roles in the revolutionary government. The revolution declared freedom of religion and abolished tsarist restrictions on education and residence for Jews. During the 1918-1922 civil war against counterrevolutionary armies that slaughtered Jews by the thousands, the revolutionary Red Army meted out stern punishment - including execution - to any pogromists in its ranks. In the workers' government, Yiddish was given equal status with other languages. A Commissariat of Jewish Affairs and a special Jewish Commission inside the Bolshevik Party simultaneously worked to involve Jews in the affair sof the workers' state and to win the Jewish masses to socialism."

PasswordUsername (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. In connection to that, I propose following wording:

"Although anti-Semitism was treated with utter contempt by early Soviet leaders, and emansipation of Jews was actively supported by Soviet authorities, some Red Army units were accused of pogroms during the Russian civil war, and the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920, notably at Baranovichi. However, only 6.4% of total amount of pogroms were attributed to the Red Army, whereas the remaining pogroms were committed by anti-Communist and nationalist forces. The pogroms were vigirously condemned by the Red Army high command and guilty units were disarmed."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

PS The number of 8.6% is incorrect. The source gives 6.4% for pogroms and 8.6% for pogroms + other excesses. Since we speak about pogroms only, 6.4% should be shown.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I preferred your original version, there are some issues such as the line "emancipation of Jews was actively supported by Soviet authorities" seems to fly in the face of the fact that many activities such as Hebrew language and religious education was banned, organizations shut down and leaders repressed. Is this "emancipation" in the Orwellian sense? --Martintg (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like: "Although Lenin was against anti-Semitism,, some Red Army units perpetrated pogroms and related violence against Jews during the Russian civil war, and the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920, notably at Baranovichi. A total of 8.6% of violent acts including 6.4% deemed to be pogroms was attributed to the Red Army, whereas the remaining pogroms were committed by anti-Communist and nationalist forces. The pogroms were condemned by the Red Army high command and guilty units were disarmed." --Martintg (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Martintg, you again equate anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Communists were vehement opponents of all religions, they didn't targed Judaism in purpose. Therefore, your argument doesn't work here. Below is a direct quote from (The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis. Author(s): William Korey Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 111-135). Although the article is generally about Soviet anti-Semitism, the author conceded:

"The young Soviet state vigorously combatted popular forms of anti-Semitism during the period of civil war (1918-20) when large-scale violence against Jews was supported or tolerated by various White military forces. The July 27, 1918, Soviet decree ordering that "pogromists and persons inciting to pogroms be outlawed" (Izvestiia, July 27, 1918) was a clear reflection of the determination of the state to uproot ideas and practices which, in fact, were considered threatening to Bolshevik rule.
During the twenties, especially toward the end of that decade, the regime continued to make strong efforts to contain the virus of anti-Jewish bigotry. If the appropriate section of the Criminal Code (banning "agitation and propaganda arousing national enmities and dissensions") was infrequently invoked and if severe sentences for anti-Semitic offenses were rare, nonethe- less educational campaigns were energetically conducted by party organs, and various pedagogical efforts were undertaken.13 On at least one occasion Pravda sharply attacked "the connivance of the local party, trade union, and Komsomol organizations" in various "manifestations of anti-Semitism." The editorial emphasized that such "connivance makes it possible for the anti- Semitic campaign of persecution to go on unpunished for months and years" (Pravda, February 19, 1929)."

I also am unaware of any attempts to ban Hebrew language during twenties. You probably confused with late Stalin's years. With regards to your first sentence, it is misleading, because it creates an impression that only Lenin shared pro-Semitis views, whereas, according to the above quote, it was an official policy.
One way or the another, your version seems not to be an improvement. However, if you have additional arguments, let's discuss.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the word "vigorously" removed by you was taken directly from the source and is in accordance with the July 27 decree...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the table 2 (Murders during recorded anti-Jewish attacks) from the same source gives 213 "White" pogroms vs 106 "Red" ones. However, the amount of victims were 5,235 vs 725. That reminds me a story of lie, blatant lie and statistics...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked again at the Henry Abramson's article, and, upon some meditation I propose to remove all numbers from the proposed fragment. Both numbers of 6.4 and 8.6 percent are misleading. The table 2 (Murders during recorded anti-Jewish attacks) gives the following numbers of murders of each pogrom or excess: Hrygorriv's bands - 76/excess, Directory - 34, White 25, Red - 7. In other words, not only number of pogroms/excesses was different, but even their nature. Hrygorriv's excesses fit the caterogy of massacre whereas Red excesses closer resemble just an armed robbery. Summarising said above, I propose to replase the exact percent with "minor part", so the final version would be:

"Although anti-Semitism was treated with utter contempt by early Soviet leaders, and strong efforts were made by Soviet authorities to contain anti-Jewish bigotry, some Red Army units perpetrated pogroms during the Russian civil war, and the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920, notably at Baranovichi. However, only small amount of pogroms were attributed to the Red Army, whereas the remaining pogroms were committed by anti-Communist and nationalist forces. The pogroms were vigirously condemned by the Red Army high command and guilty units were disarmed and pogromist were outlawed."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, apologies for the delay, I've been busy with off-wiki affairs. The latest text is an improvement, however it doesn't quite convey the situation adequately in my view. We must be careful in bringing in other sources and synthesizing something that is not quite reflected in the original sources. For example your comparison of relative death rates in the pogroms, there could be many reasons for this, for example in Klier's book is mentioned the fact that when the Reds arrived many Jews hid being mostly artisans and tradesman they suffered under Bolshevik rule, when the Whites drove out the Reds, these Jews came out of hiding to welcome them but were killed. It must be mentioned that the Kerensky government was strongly anti-semitic, with several prominent members of his government being jewish.The Russian Civil War was not just between the Whites and the Reds, there were also the so-called Greens and the anarchists, people like Makhno who opposed both Whites and Reds. Also both Makhno and Petliura issued proclamations forbidding pogroms too, with the death penalty eventually instituted, this must be mentioned. Also "some Red Army units were accused of pogroms" sholud be replaced by " some Red Army units perpetrated pogroms". --Martintg (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Perpetrated" is more neutral and adequate. Agreed. With regards to your other points, I see no contradiction with my statements. My point was that by presenting 6.4 or 8.6% we create just a visibility of truth, because a real pictute was much more complex.
With regards to Klier, you have to agree that in actuality, majority Jews weren't rich artisans and tradesman. There were no difference between ordinary Ukrainian artisan and Jewish one. The fact that Bolsheviks persecuted some social group (mostly rich tradesmen, bourgeois, etc) is well known, however, targeting certain ethnic group never was a Bolshevik's policy during 20s. Pogroms were directed against Jews as a nation, and Communists' policy had nothing in common with that.
I don't think we need to mention Kerensy, Makhno and Petlura explicitly, because the article is about Soviet war crimes. BTW, in my version no anti-Jewish White agitation is mentioned, so I see no reason to mention "Makhno and Petliura proclamations forbidding pogroms". And, they didn't work, by the way....--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that it is a complex picture. The point being that in the minds of some Red Army units, Jews were seen as an ethnic group as the capitalist exploiters, just as many Whites saw them as Bolshevik hoard, and this is mentioned in Klier's book. Also the way the text reads give the impression the the Bolsheviks were the champions of anti-anti-semitism, when in fact it was the Kerensky government, which the Boshevik's overthrew (btw the Jewish members of the Bolshevik leadership group either voted against or abstained in the decision to conduct armed struggle), that had first emancipated them. --Martintg (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, the mentioning of emancipation has already been removed from the new version. With regards to the mind of some Red Army units, both the Lenin's speech and the sources presented above demonstrates clearly that Bolsheviks "made strong efforts to contain the virus of anti-Jewish bigotry". This is not my conclusion, I took it from reliable sources(William Korey, 1972). With regards to Klier's book, for some reason, one important point was absent there, namely, that perception of Jews as an ethnic group as the capitalist exploiters was just an attitude of some members of some Red Army units, whereas White antisemitism was an official policy of anti-Communist authorities (see Peter Kenez, 1980). One way or the another, since I deliberately avoided contraposition of White and Red official policy towards Jews (no mentioning of White propaganda; I mention only the results, leaving all assertion beyond the scope), I don't see any problems with the text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe, major issues with the proposed text have been resolved, so I put it into the article. Remaining minor modifications can be done later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The relevant sources used for this section make it pretty clear that both the Reds and the Whites engaged in anti-Semitic pogroms. The part about the 700 pogroms (and the 50000-60000 dead) is clearly attributed to the Soviets since it happened after the Red Army took over the Ukraine. And this is an article on Soviet war crimes not the war crimes of the White Russians - feel free to include the relevant sources and information in articles on Denikin's anti-semitism or such. But that is not a reason to remove relevant information from THIS article. There were was a lot of violent anti-Semitism on both sides in the Russian Civil war and most Jews were caught in the middle and suffered from both sides. I see no reason why this article should not document that fact.radek (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a false statement, Radek. Zvi Y. Gitelman writes that only ~700 Jews were killed by individual (carrying over stress from sources) detachments of the Red Army. You're writing about 700 pogroms "clearly attributed to the Red Army." PasswordUsername (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh... I think we're talking about different sources. I'm talking about the one that's actually cited in the text [2] (I will add the link in a sec), which states "when Soviet control was established in the Ukraine, it is estimated that pogroms took place in 700 communities. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews were killed. Another 100,000 were maimed or died of wounds". So, no, it's not that the Red Army killed 700 Jews. It's that they killed between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews (+ possibly another 100,000) in 700 communities. I took the liberty of rendering "700 communities" as "700 pogroms", in order to paraphrase the text enough to avoid copyvio. I hope that's not considered OR or SYNTH here.radek (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Radeksz, I'm very much familiar with the Levin source, as I was the one who first suggested including it (see above). What Levin writes is that "Between 1918 and the early months of 1921, when Soviet control was established in the Ukraine, it is estimated that pogroms took place in 700 communities. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews were killed." Nowhere does this attribute 700 pogroms, 700 communities affected, or between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews killed to the Red Army. (Please review the whole of Levin's work.) What Levin talks about is the pogroms committed during the Civil War (by all sides). They were outrageously numerous, but relatively very few were committed by Red Army troops. In fact, the work suggests that pogroms ended when the Soviet Army finished its establishment of firm control over the Ukraine. The fact that the other soruce - Zvi Y. Gitelman's A Century of Ambivalence - states that the total number of Jewish victims attributed to ill-disciplined Red Army units, who essentially ignored the Soviet state's highest leaders' sentiments agaisnt anti-Jewish violence, was ~700, really puts things into context much better. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that is very clearly OR and SYNTH on your part. How about including a verbatim quote from the source instead? The source clearly goes on to blame Budenny for many of the pogroms. It does not state that only a few of them were committed by the Red Army (hence OR). It is true that eventually, the number of pogroms diminished as the Bolsheviks consolidated their hold on the area, but this is later, after the Civil War and the end to the general violence.radek (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The sources both talk about the same subject, and I'm presenting them to you in the talk page. Nora Levin does not say anywhere that 700 pogroms / 50,000-60,000 victims were attributed to the Red Army. What she discusses is the general estimate for victims of pogroms, which ended in 1921 (ie, the year of the establishment of Soviet control in the Ukraine, as Levin states in her book). If she does give an estimate of Red Army victims as 50,000-60,000, please provide a verbatim quote. The interpretation that 50,000-60,00 victims = 50,000-600,000 victims of the Red Army is your own interpretation. The source does not contain it. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence of the lede gives an odd definition of Soviet war crimes. It states:

Soviet war crimes refer to war crimes perpetrated by the armed forces of the Soviet Union from 1919 to 1991. This includes war crimes by the regular army — the Red Army (later called the Soviet Army), the NKVD, and the Internal Troops (і.е Ministry of the Interior).

NKVD was a public and secret police organization of the Soviet Union, and, therefore, cannot be considered a Soviet armed force (as opposed to Internal Troops).
All crimes of Soviet regime fit the current definition, including Great Purge, for instance. That is ridiculous.
NKVD should be removed, and the article modified, accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The NKVD were presumably armed, and tasked with maintaining security during times of war. The Nazi secret police organisation, the Gestapo, were certainly responsible for committing war crimes, no? I don't think there is anything in the relevant conventions that exempt police forces from culpability when committing war crimes. --Martintg (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The NKVD were presumably armed" In every state (except the UK) police is armed.
Gestapo was responsible for war crimes during the war. Similarly, I see no problem to include NKVD's crimes during wartime into the article. In addition, as I already wrote, internal troops should be in the lede (as opposed to NKVD as whole).
However, if we follow the current definition, then Great Purge, de-kulakisation, Doctor's plot etc, etc, must be included into the article, that would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree totally. Peacetime atrocities simply don't belong in the article, and here they simply serve the purpose of vilification.--Galassi (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article should cover crimes committed during war, but I disagree with removal mention of the NKVD from the lede. The Katyn massacre was perpetrated by the NKVD. The NKVD prisoner massacres was a phenomenon that occurred during war time, precipitated by the advancing German army, and the killing of prisoners is explicitly defined as a war crime in the various conventions. So the NKVD should be reinserted into the lede. --Martintg (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NKVD didn't disappear completely, because the NKVD's internal troops are there. Remember, there is a big difference between Gestapo and NKVD. Gestapo was a secret police only, whereas NKVD combined both public and secret police. I believe you agree that ordinary public police ("militsiya") wasn't involved in prisoner massacres. As a rule, executions were performed by internal troops, and the prisons and camp personnel was composed mostly by NKVD internal troops, so I see almost no problem with the current lede. With one exception. It must be stated explicitly that the article deals mostly with wartime events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

However only mentioning the NKVD's internal troops is misleading since while interior troops may or may not have be involved in guarding these particular prisoners, the actual executioners in prisoner massacres like Katyn were NKVD personnel, such as Vasili Blokhin who personally shot 7000 Polish POWs. Your assertion "as a rule, executions were performed by internal troops" is factually incorrect, since it was Blokhin's execution team that carried out the majority of executions of prisoners held in NKVD custody. So the NKVD should be explicitly mentioned in the lead. --Martintg (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot tell if you a correct or not. NKVD's internal troops did belong to NKVD personnel. Therefore your statement may be in concordance with mine. Anyway, since, in contrast to Gestapo, NKVD combined a large number of different services, including, regular militsiya, criminal police, secret police, counter-intelligence and even border guards (I am not quite sure about the latters, however), then more clear definition is needed in the lede. Feel free to propose your version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Firefighters were also part of NKVD, until WW2.--Galassi (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul, the fact is that these prisoners were in the custody of the NKVD and killed with the full knowledge and approval of the central NKVD organ at the highest level and the executions were carried out by the central NKVD execution team. Your assertion that "as a rule, executions were performed by internal troops" simply has no basis in this case, and you must agree this is a distortion. Just because the NKVD also ran the fire brigade doesn't preclude mentioning the NKVD. Next you will be arguing we should not mention the Red Army in the lead because it was a big organization that had veterinary troops, police and intelligence units too. This is absurd. I propose that the lead should simply state "This includes war crimes by the regular army — the Red Army (later called the Soviet Army) and the NKVD", then in the body mention which specific units (if known) of the Red Army and NKVD committed the war crime(s). This is in keeping with MOS which states that the lead should not be an over specific description. --Martintg (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the NKVD mention would be obligatory in the lede. The scope of this article is REGULAR MILITARY crimes, and irregulars' and police misdeeds MAY BE mentioned in the article, but not necessarily in the lede.--Galassi (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the article are war crimes committed by the Soviet Union, otherwise the title would be Red Army war crimes. There is nothing in the various conventions that limit war crimes to regular military units, police and irregular units have been charged with war crimes in the past, so I don't think we should artificially restrict the scope. The lead should be a summary of the article, and since the article discusses NKVD crimes during war time, then it must be mentioned in the lead. --Martintg (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Martintg, I agree with your arguments. I am glad your speak frankly. In response, let me point out (equally frankly), that I see no reason to argue. After some meditations I came to a conclusion that the old lede's version was equally fine: taking into account that war crimes, by definition, include only wartime crimes I see no problem to leave NKVD there. The only thing we have to do is bringing the article into accordance with the lede.
I hope it can be done easily. You already agreed that the Poland 1921-38 section should be removed. In addition, we need to discuss what else does not relate to war crimes.
To my opinion, the Georgia section should be removed, because it happened not during wartime or some military operation. In actuality, during Tblisi tragedy, the internal troops played the role special police forces play in other countries. Believe me or not, by that moment the USSR had no special troops to break up armless demonstrations. The internal troop soldiers involved in Tblisi tragedy had neither special skills nor even rubber sticks to fight against crowd, they had to use sapper shovels instead, hence the casualties. One way or the another, this tragedy doesn't fit the war crime criteria.
I'll look at other sections more carefully and, if you don't mind, we discuss them later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree Paul. The Georgia section should be removed, since there was no civil war at the time and thus beating a fleeing 16 year old girl to death with a sapper shovel is not a war crime, but simply a crime which should be dealt with elsewhere. --Martintg (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a big surprise when two reasonable persons appear to be able to accept each other's logical arguments. Hope to have fruitful collaboration with you in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I never doubted our collaboration would be fruitful Paul. --Martintg (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Poland. 1921–38 ??

Since war crimes are defined as "violations of the laws or customs of war", could anyone explain me which war took place between Poland and the USSR during 1921–38 period, and how does this section relate to the article's subject?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, remove the section. --Martintg (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria

I looked through the sourse, and I found nothing there about war crimes in Bulgaria. The sourse states that Tolbukhin army's behaviour was "relatively exemplary". Therefore, the statement "there was a relative absence of rapes in Bulgaria" is both unsopported by the source and semantically odd (the term absence has a qualitative, non quantitative nature, so the words "relative absence" are senseless).
The second part of the sentence tells not about Bulgaria, so it belongs to other section.

Therefore, the section should be either changed to:

"Thanks to the better discipline in Marshal Tolbukhin's army, a relative similarity in cultures, a century of friendly relations, and an open welcome of the Soviet troops, there are no data on Soviet war crimes in Bulgaria.",

or to remove the section at all.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Very strange section, I don't think we should have a section for each of the many countries in the world where the Soviets didn't commit war crimes, so remove it. --Martintg (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

names of baltic deaths

I'm looking for names of civilian deaths of rhe baltic area during WW2. please let me know, thanks!

jaredandbeka@mac.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.151.161 (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My revert

I restored the See Also NKVD Prison massacres, as the definition of war crimes includes those against civilians during times of war. Also, as far as I could tell the paragraphs on the rapes in Poland appeared to be reliably sourced.radek (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd need page ## to make that reliable, otherwise it is hearsay. NKVD crimes were against USSR's own citizens, and as such it is a CIVILAN atrocity, not a MILITARY one.Galassi (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that NKVD prisoner massacres occurred during war time, it is a war crime, there is no distinction between civilian or military atrocities on territory subject to occupation. --Martintg (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Emphatic NO. That was an atrocity against USSR's own citizens, and that is NOT a _military_ crime.Galassi (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Her own citizens? The commie sickos killed a large number of Polish civilians too. Loosmark (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a forum. Grow up.Galassi (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess when one runs out of arguments the good old "grow up" is better than nothing. Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the "sicko" and "commie" category. Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM.Galassi (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Because somebody who murders innocent civilians is not a sicko? Loosmark (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Could very well be. But here you'd need to provide the forensic psychiartist's official statement.Galassi (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

ANYWAY. The point is that it wasn't just USSR citizens that were murdered.radek (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the other objection - if you want page #s then put in a verify tag and request them, don't remove the text that is reliably sourced.radek (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the relevant excerpt from the source (which I'm about to add a link to) which is not from a book but from an interview with an author in the magazine of the Jagiellonian University:

O nieobliczalności tej armii świadczyły kradzieże, rekwirowanie mieszkań, wywózki na wschód oraz zbiorowe gwałty na kobietach i dziewczynkach, m.in. na Dworcu Głównym w Krakowie, gdzie interweniujący Polacy zostali ostrzelani. Tych gwałtów i rabunków było tak wiele, że polskie władze komunistyczne przygotowały list do samego towarzysza Józefa Stalina, w którym zaprotestowano przeciwko zbrodniom, jakich dopuszczała się przecież nie tylko w Krakowie „armia wyzwolicieli”. List jednak nie został wysłany, bo jego autorzy zaczęli obawiać się o własne głowy.

Translation on provided on request.radek (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The unpredictable nature of this army (Red Army - Radeksz) was evidenced by the robberies, the commandeering of private houses, the expulsions to the east (Siberia, Kazakhstan - Radeksz) and also the gang rapes of women and little girls, among others at the Main Rail Station in Krakow, where the Poles who tried to intervene where shot at. The rapes and robberies were so common that even the Polish communist authorities (subject to Soviet control - Radeksz) prepared a letter to comrade Joseph Stalin in which they protested against these crimes, which were being committed by the "liberation army" (quotations in the source) not only in Krakow. The letter was never sent however because it's authors began to worry about their own heads. radek (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of German civilians

This photo has been marked as "German propaganda" in captioning before. If we take a look at the source, it reads "1944-1945"; a use rationale admits that "Although this image would not ordinarily enter the public domain until 70 years after the (unknown) author's death in Germany or 70 years after it was first published, it was seized by the U.S. Government Interdepartmental Committee." Given that this photo was produced by an unreliable source (the Nazis are certainly known for faking atrocities, like the Polish attack on Germany in 1939) - as well as its possible use as a propaganda photo, I believe this photo's authenticity is doubtful. At any rate, civilians are killed in war all the time: the civilian dead of the 2003-present War in Iraq were estimated at 100,000 - 1,000,000 quite recently, though few have treated this as a war crime. It should really be removed pending verification, pending WP:RS. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case you probably want to go ahead and remove the same from Metgethen article and address the issue there as well.radek (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Metgehen article doesn't label (or imply) that this is to be judged a war crime, and states that this version comes from German sources. (We don't know if these people were killed by soldiers, bombs, collateral damage, or what.) That's a much better context to put the photo in, but if you object to its usage there, you should raise the issue. (I only see the inclusion here as rather unjustified.) PasswordUsername (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

latest revert by Password Username

1) I am not edit warring and please don't make such accusations unless you're willing to file the respective report at 3RR since, if you're not, they are just a personal attack. I was under the impression that there was confusion over the use of two different sources and that you didn't quite understand that the information I entered was in a different source you thought it was.

2) Please don't make assertions of "consensus" where you clearly got none. And anyway, this was a new addition to the article by me, so you can't claim "consensus" a mere few minutes after you've deleted/reverted it.

3) You still seem to be under a misconception about different sources. The information I included is clearly in the source that it is cited to. You're talking about some other different source where the number "700" appears to occur just by chance. But it's two completely different things.

4) Given that, and the fact that this has been patiently explained to you, why are you removing information that is well cited to reliable sources? Ok, once, I understand that there could be some confusion based on the fact that the source included in the text, and the one you're referring to both happen to use the number "700". But to persist in this is simply disruptive. Please address any issues you have with the source over at RSN. Otherwise, please self revert.radek (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1) To quote a wise Wikipedian administrator: "To think of it in a more pragmatic way...when you made that revert, I'm sure you knew it wasn't going to stay. You saw you were in the middle of a dispute, did you really think they would all just back off after you reverted? If you know that your revert is not going to last five seconds, don't do it—start a discussion instead, then maybe you'll actually get somewhere."

2) Please don't keep reverting against stable material that has been in the article after a long discussion with at least four editors.

3) That is completely false. Please re-read the long discussion - and my latest posts.

4) Please understand the above points.

PasswordUsername (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, from the discussion on this talk page it is completely clear there was no consensus thefore reverting claiming there is a consensus is clearly disruptive. Loosmark (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Initially, there was no consensus in July. Clearly, there was a reasonable version reached the same month, which had been on Wiki until now. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't claim in your revert that there was "reasonable version", you explicitly accused radek to go against consensus which is blatantly false. Loosmark (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

When four editors have a discussion (this also took place in the section "Lede", right below the main section) and come to an agreement, I believe there is a consensus version. This section may be changed, but to revert war against it even as new discussion continues is a plainly bad idea. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)