Talk:Home Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleHome Army has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
June 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 19, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Recent reversal[edit]

@Piotrus: Regarding this reversal: Do you object / support anything in particular? (Just to narrow the scope of the discussion) François Robere (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: IMHO, the article was relatively stable and neutral until last few months, so I do prefer the version more congruent with the past revisions. Wholesale reverts are unrproductive. Let's discuss any issues here, one by one. For better or worse, there are fewer participants now, so hopefully we will be able to keep the discussion more on topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The last versions to hold for more than a couple of days date late 2017. If you want to restore to one of those and work from there we can do that. If you'd rather I explain specific changes we can do that as well, I just don't want to start elaborating on something we both agree on, so if you can narrow the scope somewhat it would be helpful. Either way I'll be back with you in a few days. François Robere (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Rather than doing big reverts which require one to review the entire article sentence by sentence, it is better to do them in small parts. Also, please list all changes here so others can review them. I may very well agree with you on many of them, but it is easier for them to be listed here, just as you did on Zegota's pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Changelist:

  • Removed "Protest!" poster - has little to do with AK.
  • Restored previous structure, including "daily operations" and "attitude towards refugees" sections.
  • Shortened section lead - no reason for all that stuff there - it's enough to say that "attitudes varied" - and some of it (specifically the "clashed with Soviet partisans" bit) is fallacious and apologetic in that context (the original statement, about persecution of Jewish partisans, was distorted by a now-banned editor).
  • Removed some material that referenced the IPN bulletin - the bulletin has been challenged as a source; the editor who made the challenge has been temporarily banned for WP:BATTLEGROUND, but the challenge was convincing. The gist of it was that a) the bulletin was a publication intended for public consumption, and should be viewed critically compared with scholarly publications; and b) IPN is not purely a research or commemoration institution, but a government authority with executive power; as such it has been politicized at times, and should be treated accordingly. So I'm reluctant to rely on the bulletin alone for contended claims.
  • The generalizing statement about AK imposing "harsh punishment" for a/s behavior has been switched back to a more accurate, "some" statement, to better reflect the source.
  • The "closely integrated with the JMU" section was removed as fallacious (see previous discussion).
  • The JMU/Soviet censorship bit was also removed - irrelevant apologetics.
  • The "Jewish hit squad" was removed - was very poorly sourced. This may have been discussed at AE at some point, in addition to this TP.
  • Moved a source to the reflist and changed the references accordingly.
  • There's a phrase from Snyder about "operations to save Jews" that I changed to better reflect the source.
  • Removed detail about Zegota forming and financing as inaccurate and off-topic. It was previously discussed here.
  • The segment about Rowecki was poorly written, so I rephrased and shortened it.
  • Restored two sources that raise important reservations about AK arms supply to the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
  • Tagged several vague bits.

François Robere (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the above seems unecessary and diminishes the value of this article, by removing well sourced and important information. I would suggest making smaller reverts so that editors can discuss potential controversial changes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome to discuss here. That's why Piotr asked for this. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Your IPN comments are biased. The IPN has existed since many years and published many very good texts. It's obvious which authors are biased and which ones are neutral, which texts are about history and which are political. Unfortunately the Yad Vashem has recently published biased political comments, does it make all YV research wrong?Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The changelist doesn't contain any Biuletyn IPN reference. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion stalled, so I restored the above revision while incorporating later copyedit by others. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: The discussion might have not stalled have you pinged me about it. Anyway, I've reviewed and copy edited the text again. I don't see what's apologetic about saying that most clashes between Polish and Jewish partistans were de facto clashes between Polish and Soviet partisans. Also, IPN bulletin and other sources are at least as good as Yad Vashem publications and in fact most of the times are much better, since IPN sources like [1] are full of footnotes and references, unlike YV pamphlets. I do share your concerns about the politicization and loss of neutrality in recent Polish historiography, but it is not our job do call foul, we have to leave it to other scholars to describe, in years to come, whether IPN works (and of what period) are acceptable or not. Ironically, your removal of this particular source is quite in line with the current Polish government politic, as the author of the cited article, dr Adam Puławski, was recently... forced to leave IPN as his research was seen as politically incorrect - too critical of the Polish govt/org towards Jews, and not the other way around... ([2], [3]). And, as Puławski case shows, not everyone associated with IPN, even now, can be seen as towing a particular agenda. I wonder what dr Puławski would think of your arguments: he is too pro-Jewish to work in IPN, apparently, but to you, Francois, he is too, err... Polish? IPNish? to be acceptable on Wikipedia? I hope this case teaches you that nothing is white and black, and we have to go beyond simple labels when judging a source reliability (I am certainly going to be more cautious when it comes to post-2018 IPN publications in this field, myself, but I am still not agreeing they are not reliable; don't confuse neutrality with reliability). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see what's apologetic about saying that most clashes between Polish and Jewish partistans were de facto clashes between Polish and Soviet partisans The phrase was the conception of an editor now topic-banned, which attempted to misrepresent a source stating AK units killed Jews as such. If you have a source on the political factions use it, but don't use it alone or replace the original and what it stated.
IPN bulletin and other sources are at least as good as Yad Vashem publications I think Icewhiz made a decent argument against that publication. Also, we've had the discussion before regarding IPN's politicization - there are articles about it already. Yad Vashem, in comparison, isn't and never has been obliged to any party line.
As for the particular source - I did not make any claim regarding Adam Puławski specifically.
Regarding post-2018 IPN: As I said before, even if any particular study is done properly, selection and publication biases can still be introduced to and through other studies, and I would argue it is our job to filter those out, though the exact method of doing so is subject to another discussion. François Robere (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
So if two editors are topic banned, the one you disagreed with you refer to as topic banned, but the one who agreed with you you refer by nickname. Isn't this what one would call hypocrisy? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the Home Army[edit]

It's not about the Jews nor the Holocaust, it's about the Home Army which means it should be written like similar pages. Please compare the Ukrainian Insurgent Army#UPA and Jews summarized Supporters of the UPA argue that the relationship between the UPA and Western Ukraine's Jews was complex and not one-sided. As far Ukrainian historians use two examples of Jewish UPA memebrs, one fictious and one who has never admitted to be Jewish, which means that they have only few real ones.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Home Army is about Jews and the Holocaust, as well as Poles, Ukrainians and others who were living under the Nazi occupation. François Robere (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The Army was an army. Why don't you write about Jews in another armies?
Why do you mention Ukranians here? They didn't join the HA and UPA fought a war against the HA. You haven't recently edited the Ukrainian Insurgent Army page, it was also an army which acted also in Germany occupied Poland. BTW - I don't know any Pole who met a Nazi during WWII. The Nazis were German citizens, educated in German or Austrian schools and universities, respected German citizens after the war. Were they de-Nazified in some magic fluid? Do you know the formula? Is it possible to de-Nazify the HA using the fluid? According toyour edits the only form of Nazism today id the HA and Żegota. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be better if you focused on the content rather than making disgusting and undue accusations against other editors. François Robere (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This page is about the Home Army. One may compare it to pages describing cruel underground organizations or WWII armies. Double standards. Even the Wehrmacht doesn't contain sections Wehrmacht and the Jews or Wehrmacht and the Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Somebody should expand the Wehrmacht article then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews in the HA[edit]

From History of the Jews in Thessaloniki: Among the 1,000 Salonican Jews employed on the task, a group of twenty managed to escape from the ghetto and join the Polish resistance, the Armia Krajowa, which organized the Warsaw Uprising.[1][2] Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the liberation of Gęsiówka.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kerem was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ (in Spanish) Testimony Archived 2007-10-11 at the Wayback Machine. a survivor salonicien of the Holocaust on the site FundacionMemoria del holocausto

Bolesław Jamróz[edit]

Can anyone verify this edit? François Robere (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The change was reverted. François Robere (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman about individual help[edit]

Zimmerman's book informs about Individual Aid.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

His book isn't quoted, listed for Further reading.
Zimmerman describes the supplies as "limited but real".[65]:121-122 but 65 is an erroneous reference.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Please correct the reference 65.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

sought to denounce Jewish refugees ?[edit]

I'm sorry I don't understand. Do you mean that the HA denounced the Jews? I may belive they killed the Jews who were dangerous for the peasants or robbed food? What does Zimmerman say in his book about the subject? How is it possible to write about the HA-Jewish relations ignoring the only academic book? Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The War crimes subsection taken out of context[edit]

Relations with Lithuanians should include the war crimes in the context. The same Ukrainians. Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced subsection created by a new editor. Please discuss the subject here.Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Pawłokoma massacre[edit]

The massacre was committed by a former HA unit. Generally the problem of post-HA organisations should be described. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Also mentions of mass murders commited by post-HA units that has polish wiki pages should be added:

  • Zbrodnia w Bachowie
  • Zbrodnia w Brzusce
  • Zbrodnie w Sufczynie

(+ +)MagicalFaces(+ +) (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Should be Polish, not polish.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

HA war crimes[edit]

I see mentions of them were removed from article. I opt for inclusion mentions of them into text of article, if they are not already mentioned. They all have their Polish wikipedia articles under following polish names:

Mass murder on Lithuanians

  • Zbrodnia w Dubinkach

Mass Murders on Jews:

  • Zbrodnia w Lesie Siekierzyńskim (50-60 victims)

Mass murders on Ukrainians:

  • Zbrodnia w Chlebowicach Świrskich
  • Zbrodnia w Mołożowie
  • Zbrodnia w Sahryniu
  • Zbrodnia w Strzelcach
  • Zbrodnia w Szołomyi
  • Zbrodnie w Bukowinie

Also mentions of assassinations committed by AK on Ukrainian inteligentsia, mainly teachers of Ukrainian language and other shall be added, but it would require collecting sources together.

(+ +)MagicalFaces(+ +) (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dubingiai massacre is mentioned in the article. For other topics, I recommend translating the articles into English. Overall, just like with Dubingia, I agree such events should be linked here, through due to due weight concerns, and such events being pretty fringe and exceptional, there is no need to discuss them here in detail (as this could create a misleading impression that such events were not exception to the rule). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


This article hypes and boasts about the mighty prominence of the AK, which doesn't appear accurate. According to data from the Bureau of War Reparations of the Presidium of Poland's Council of Ministers, Poland's war casualties amounted to about 120 thousand, including 65,000 killed in 1939, 14 thousand killed among the 1st and 2nd Polish armies in the east, 13 thousand during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, and 20 thousand killed in guerrilla war. That amounts to at most 33,000 AK killed in guerrilla war. Tiny Albania had nearly 30,000 partisans killed against the Axis forces, and 300,000 Yugoslav partisans died during the war.[4]. 600,000 Soviets died when driving the Germans out of Poland... (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a similar number under "Membership". Other than that we cannot opine on this here. François Robere (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Ugh, better sources than a random Russian/Ukrainian websites please. And if you are citing Polish gov't figures, well, communist era Polish gov't did its best to marginalize (and falsify) statistics related to AK to propagate the myth that it was communist AL partisans who led the resistance (in reality, AK/AL strength and actions were like 10:1, but communists did their best to make them either equal or just talk about AL, and one of their best tools was to ignore and falsify info on AK). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The AK had a limited number of rifles. Please explain how was it able to fight against planes and tanks.
The goal of the AK was to organize uprisings like the Prague uprising or some actions in France. They fought in Wilno and Lwów. It's not obvious why the Warsaw uprising failed.
The Yugoslav Partisans fought in mountains (no mountains and little forests in ethnic Poland). And they didn't fight the Axis only, they fought a number of civil wars either.
World War II in Albania However, the NLA's military activities in 1943 were directed as much against the party's domestic political opponents, including prewar liberal, nationalist, and monarchist parties, as against the occupation forces.
Any killing of a German was punished by killing of 50-100 Polish civilians.
Many AK members collected or produced arms, spied or opposed German intelligence, produced false documents, printed and distributed papers.
World War II casualties doesn't inform about any civilan deaths in Albania, so our knowledge is very limited. Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Attitude towards refugees[edit]

The word refugees defines a POV - good refugees and bad local population and AK units. The refugees plundered however the farms to survive and created a danger of German punishment. Polish peasants were plundered/taxed already by the Germans (the Kontingent system) and sometimes by guerilla, sometimes by many guerillas and common criminals. It's quite logical they refused to accept the demands of the weakest opponents - the Jews.

The Germans created the cruel system, not the peasants or AK soldiers. I understand moral indignation of some editors, but tis Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ethical guide.Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
If you're chased out of your home under threat of murder and have no safety or home among your fellow citizens, then you're a refugee. If you're forced to live by plundering because the majority of the population would rather see you dead than full, you're still a refugee. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
If you control the language, you control the past. Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This time I can't but agree with Xx236. Anyway, the word refugee is not correct in this context, refugee "is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely". Clearly, this term does not apply here. Not sure what would be better, displaced civilians, perhaps, ugh. PS. C&K use the term fugitives [5]. Refugees in this context seem to be a POV inventon of someone, aiming to evoke extra sympathy. "AK hunted refugees". No, AK occasionally clashed with bandit gangs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
"Internally displaced persons" [6] is legalese. "Refugee" is good enough as far as I'm concerned - especially as it is accepted usage [7][8]. That being said, the legal term can be used here, as the Polish state was all but dissolved and had no authority in the territories occupied by the Germans - a requirement for using "displaced" rather than "refugees".
As for "fugitives" - that's possible. Not common, but possible.
As for "bandits" - no. We already had this discussion and several sources on how the term was used to refer specifically to Jewish refugees, and exempted Poles who relied on similar tactics (including from AK). And yes - we have sources explicitly stating that some AK units actively sought out Jews - not "bandits", "Jews". François Robere (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
PS There's no need to evoke extra sympathy for anyone. One should have all the sympathy in the world for those who for no wrongdoing of their own are hunted by their occupier, denounced by their peers, have no home, no means for survival and no hope of finding safety or help, who as a last resort take up theft and robbery just so they have some food and clothing. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You lack sympathy for Polish victims, but you demand "all the sympathy in the world". Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Please cite such sources, so we can discuss this in detail. While there are always exceptions, and there were a few, marginal (<1% of total) AK units that committed various atrocities, something that can certainly be mentioned here, we have to avoid creating the wrong impression. A statement that "AK hunted Jews" is about as misleading as "Jews collaborated in the Holocaust" (yes, a few did, ex. Hotel Polski, again, <1% of of total...). As for sympathy, yes, up to a point, for example when theft and robbery results in murder, or leaving others to starve in the winter. Again, extreme cases, but that's what we are talking about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


  • 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. At the same time, very little was done to aid those Jewish escapees hiding in the forests, despite the circumstances which brought them to the forests. I cannot find any justification for labeling these fighting Jews as bandits. We find here a strange paradox. On the one hand, the Polish underground (and, in many cases, also the Jewish underground) often accused the Jewish population of passivity during the liquidation of the ghettos and the deportations. There was very little understanding for people who found themselves in circumstances unprecedented in modern history and without any means for effective action. On the other hand, the Polish underground labeled as bandits those extremely brave men and women who were able to escape from the closed ghettos and camps under harsh circumstances and organize some self-defense groups."
  • Zimmerman (2015) discusses this from p. 254 onwards: "The shift to a decidedly negative attitude toward the Jews under the new Home Army commander coincided with a new focus on combating banditry. This included calls by several district commanders for action against Soviet, communist, and Jewish bands. Komorowski’s first recorded comment on Jews since becoming underground commander reflected the new, negative orientation, entirely devoid of empathy. “There is discontent with the Jews who have escaped from the ghettos,” Komorowski wrote in a dispatch to London on July 21, 1943. “They are eager to fight or else join groups of bandits (szajki bandyckie).” In a rare admission that Jews were unwelcome in Home Army units, Komorowski maintained, “no one wants to accept Jews in the Warsaw neighborhoods.”" He then discusses the notorious "organizational reports" No. 220 & 116.

A statement that "AK hunted Jews" is about as misleading as "Jews collaborated in the Holocaust" The text says "a few AK units", and I think that's a fair description. François Robere (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction here. The Jewish population like any other population included people of various background, including those who were involved in robberies or collaboration. The famous/infamous Bielski for example was a smuggler before the the war.Once again you do not observe that there was a difference in treatment of these groups in Central Poland and Eastern Poland-this is mentioned in scholarly research.The groups in Eastern Poland in 1939-1941 had people who were in position of power over local population when they collaborated with Soviets, for example Bielski was a commisar if I recall correctly. There was a general feeling of distrust due to activity of this group of people, even if they weren't majority.I can bring scholarly sources who note that assistance to hiding Jews was more eagerly given outside parts of Poland that were under Soviet occupation before.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are always good, so we can cite them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You're making the point quite well: The "the Jewish population had people of various backgrounds" bit makes too implicit assumptions: 1) The anyone referred to as a "bandit" was indeed a bandit; 2) that people had a choice with respect to their strategy of survival (some were collaborators, some were bandits, etc.). Both of these assumptions are wrong. The Bielski group is a good example: it was mostly (70%) women, children and the elderly, and only about 1/10th of the members were actually armed. The Bielski family itself was mostly farmers and shopkeepers; of the four brothers only Tuvia had military training AFAIK (and no, he wasn't a smuggler - only one popular publication suggests that, and even that is qualified with a "maybe"). All or most of the men, women and children who made the group would've perished were it not for the group. Their backgrounds didn't matter, they had no choice.
So were they bandits? No more than thousands of Poles who did just the same and weren't called that by anyone. And that's the point - and one the sources make amply clear.
You need not bring sources: Komorowski himself notes that "no one wants to accept Jews in the Warsaw neighborhoods". François Robere (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Bottom line is simple. Some Poles and Jews acted like bandits. Others were described as such without just cause (and yes, Soviet/communist propaganda referred to Poles/AK as bandits very often, so there's a parallel). We should avoid making any simplifications, there was an entire spectrum of behaviors. AK units murdered unamarmed Jews on an occasion or several, clashed with armed Jewish partisans over scarce resources, collaborated with others, were attacked by Jewish partisans allied/gauged by the Soviets who wanted to use them as tools to weaken AK - this and more happened. Anyone who tries to deny part of that is pushing a POV. Nonetheless, the general picture is clear. AK actively helped the Jews (with supplies and training) more often than it actively hurt them. There was, of course, lots of passivity, generally related to the fact that AK had limited resources; it's not like it could've stopped The Holocaust, after all (does anyone here believes that if AK could've stopped it, it wouldn't have?). We have to avoid to extreme POVs: one describing AK as saints who did no wrong, and another one who seems them (or Poles, in general) as complicit in the Holocaust. Really, it's all pretty simple. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Help for Jews from the AK itself was fairly scarce (some support prior to the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and in Warsaw specifically absorbing some surviving Jewish bands that broke out of the ghetto). What we do however have is a geographical dichotomy. In the eastern lands (and in this context - there is also a geographical division between the northeast (Belarus, Lithuanian) and the southeast (Ukraine) due different "ethnic alliances") - Jews survived in the forests - and the AK was generally in conflict with Jews in the forests (partisans, civilians, and the spectrum in between). In the un-forested West, there were very few Jews surviving off the land - Jews outside the ghettos were (mostly) either passing off as Aryans or hidden by Polish families - and conflict between AK units as units and Jews - was fairly scarce. Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll agree with whatever you say about over-simplification, and you're right on the range of interactions you're enumerating, but I think you're wrong on the conclusion: The bottom line is the Home Army didn't do a lot for Jews other than report on what was going on to the GOE. The instinctive attitude of its leadership reflected that of Poland as a whole: "Jews are not 'us'". Everything else stemmed from that. François Robere (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
But once more - this page is about an army, not about civilians. Let's not continue the line set in the text National Armed Forces, where at least 30% is abort the Jews. Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
"The bottom line is the Home Army didn't do a lot for Jews other than report on what was going on to the GOE"Neither did Home Army save Poles when Germans were massacring them,because it was unable to do so, what is actually your point here? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I’ve seen “jewish escapees”, although the phrase seems to be more frequently used for the Jewish population that was escaping German-occupied Europe or fleeing ahead of the German advance, for example during Barbarossa: [9]; [10]. “Ghetto escapees” and “ghetto refugees” are also used: [11]. The latter suggests that they had been interned in the ghettos first, which may not always be the case, but this narrows it down.
I don’t see a POV here; what’s good enough for the sources is good enough for the encyclopedia. I view "fugitives", "refugees" and "escapees" as being pretty close, and any would be acceptable. Separately, Refugees in this context seem to be a POV invention of someone, aiming to evoke extra sympathy. "AK hunted refugees". No, AK occasionally clashed with bandit gangs. This gave me pause. The full quote from Cesarani and Kavanaugh is as follows:
In general, though, the Home Army tended to see individual Jewish fugitives as security risks that were likely to endanger 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.
Source. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You are quoting Antony Polonsky actually (Cesarani and Kavanaugh are the editors). Whatever we call Jews managing to elude the Nazis (escapees, fugitives (e.g. [12] Zimmerman uses this), refugees, civilians, etc.) - the attacks by Home Army units on Jews surviving in the countryside is well documented and covered in the literature. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Your world is simple. Jan Hus allegedly said "Sancta simplicitas". Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Kochanski has specific opinions, she doesn't know contemporary Polish historiography, so if Connelly criticizes Kachanski, what doesn it give?
who were supposedly. The Poles are always wrong, non-Poles are always right. It seems however that Bauer's 1989 propaganda has been replaced by more academic descriptions. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Komorowski lacks empathy. Were Churchill, Mongomery, Roosevelt empathic?
This page is about an army, not about civilians, empathy nor language used inside the army. Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sikorski's order[edit]

@Piotrus: Re: this the point is the Jewish groups first asked the local (as in "resident", not "regional") leadership for help, and when that failed they went up the chain of command and appealed to Sikorski, who ordered AK to help. This is notable. François Robere (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That makes more sense, but we need better sources/quotations for verification and precision. Who refused to help and in what? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
They asked for weapons. I don't know who they asked, but when Karski raised the issues with Rowecki, the latter was aware of it but was hesitant to provide. Several sources mention hesitance on AK's side, and several sources mention direct involvement by Sikorski. François Robere (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
And, honestly, so what? The weapons were provided. It's hardly surprising that there was some hesitation, AK didn't have any surplus, and it is only logical to keep scarce resources to oneself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It's one important detail in a mountain of evidence that AK regarded Jews as second rate citizens. We actually have an AK commander saying at some point that they know Jews are suffering but aren't going to act unless the Nazis start persecuting Poles (see Zimmerman (2015), 167-168). Did AK show similar apprehensions to other local organizations it supplied? François Robere (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The HA wasn't able to defend the Poles, so everyone was second rate citizen.
This page is about an army, not about its commanders individual opinions. A similar page Israel Defense Forces doesn't contain IDF attitude toward Palestinians section.
Did the HA supply any other organization? It's goal was to integrate all organizations, not to supply them. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
" Did AK show similar apprehensions to other local organizations it supplied?" AK wasn't interested in supplying anyone, as it represented the legal military of Polish state under Soviet and Nazi occupation.Other groups weren't seen as legitimate military organizations.Jewish groups were small and had no military value at all, plus the ones in the East were a security threat quite often due to their connection with Soviet partisants.AK primary goal was to wait until military opportunity presents itself for countrywide uprising assisting forces ending German occupation.As undersupplied and underfunded organization it was in no positiong to end German genocide of Poles in the first place, never mind the genocide of Jews.Giving away few weapons would have achieved nothing besides compromising its structures to Germans.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. We have a sourced fact, part of a bigger well-sourced story. No real reason to leave it out. François Robere (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I am very glad that you found this guideline on Wikipedia, I have been thinking of suggesting this to you long time ago, based on your constant comments on various talk pages.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The Gęsiówka table - twice[edit]

Does anyone control integrity of the page?Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

the AK referred to fleeing Jews as "bandits"[edit]

the AK? What do you mean? If you mean the commander please write the commander of the AK. Apparently not all AK members referred this way and some of the members were Jewish.

The fleeing Jews had to eat and many of them weren't able to buy any food, so they robbed it and the locals defended their farms.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
According to Antony Polonsky the AK saw Jewish fugitives as security risks - everyone saw Jewish fugitives as security risk, including other hiding Jews. Similarly any underground activities created security risk. Please explain that the security risk was a result of German Nazi terror in occupied Poland, not created by the AK. And this page is about the AK, not about general situation in occupied Poland or generally Eastern Europe. Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Fleeing Jews often helped other fleeing Jews. That aside, Polonsky also refers to the Bandit terminology (as do many others - in the context of the banditry order or otherwise) - e.g. here in relation to "individual Jewish fugitives" - - Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these pople (and also to COmmunist partisans) as "bandits", an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves" Followed by a long quote of Bor-Komorowski in which he conflates (per Polonsky) communist partisans, ordinary robbers, and Jews. Per Polonsky this was pervasive terminology by the High Command and local commanders.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The source here relies on the debunked claims about a supposed "order" issued, according to Krakowski, by Bor Komorowski. No such order actually existed. And to the extent that Bor-Komorowski used the word "bandits" in some other writings, he was not referring to Jews. Krakowski cut up his quote to make it seem like it though. See here. This has been repeatedly pointed out. Hence, this is UNDUE and POV. Volunteer Marek 15:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Not true. The order (actually a report) existed, but it was passed up the chain of command rather than down. Debunked are the claims that it was a "kill order", not that it existed and that BK (seems to) have held that view at that time. Zimmerman, whose book's review you link, has a nuanced discussion of that. François Robere (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Fleeing Jews often helped other fleeing Jews. - please source often. How do you help, if your children are starving? The Kosinski family did quiote well (The Painted Bird is fiction), did they help any fleeing Jews?Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Biuletyn Informacyjny[edit]

The HA published Biuletyn Informacyjny, the biggest underground paper in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The Biuletyn was more liberal than average at that time. Thousands of people offered their lives to collect information, print and distribute the paper. Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem is mentioned later Most of underground press was symphathic towards Jews, does such general statement belong here? This page is about the HA.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Krakowski was a Communist propaganda officer[edit]

He indoctrinated Polish soldiers. As far as I know he has never described his work. Is he ashamed?Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he reached the rank of major and was in charge of Stalinist propaganda and indoctrination in the "People's Army" of Poland (this source which obviously is very glowing in its biography of him describes this as working in the "political division" - anyone familiar with the Stalinist period would know what that means, but those not so familiar would probably miss this). Part of the tasks of the "political division" of the People's Army of Poland in the Stalinist period was to carry out disinformation and propaganda campaigns against the Home Army and its members, who were being actively (and brutally) persecuted by the communist authorities during this time. He's a source which should be avoided or at the very least properly attributed with background. Volunteer Marek 15:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Shmuel Krakowski was born in Warsaw and grew up in Łódź, where he joined the HaShomer HaTsair socialist Zionist youth movement. He was incarcerated in the Lodz ghetto during the war and was active in the underground youth movements there. He survived the ghetto, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald, death marches, and Theresienstadt, where he was liberated. He then joined the Polish army and rose to the rank of major in the political division. Afterward he worked for the Museum of the History of the Polish Revolutionary Movement, and following that worked in the archive of Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw. He was fired in 1968 as part of the government’s antisemitic campaign that led to the expulsion of most of the remaining Jews of Poland. Shmuel moved to Israel and began working in Yad Vashem’s archive. His doctorate written at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Jewish armed resistance in the Generalgouvernement in occupied Poland resulted in his book The War of the Doomed, which remains a standard work on the subject to this day. He passed earlier this year.
If you have a source directly criticisng him then bring it, otherwise stop smearing the man. François Robere (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
IDONTLIKE it of a well regarded Jewish historian duly noted (on the basis of hime surviving the Holocaust and enlisting in the Polish army after the Holocaust - prior to becoming an historiaan). There is utterly no basis to treat him as anything other than a reliable source. Should we strike Polish authors who were Home Army, had family in the Home Army, or are active in modern political movements that venerate the Home Army? (To be clear, I am not suggesting thia. But to question an historian post-war service in the Polish state - decades prior to his authored work? That's a no go)Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is correct that this was a Stalinist propaganda officer, than I support of removal of his statements.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Please cite precise policy grounds for this - how are his activities in the late 40s relevant to his historical research decades later ? Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
And that's assuming there were "activities". François Robere (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's a source critical of him, through not high quality ([13]). Need to research his bio more, through his work in his youth (?) and likely involvement with the Stalinist security apparatus is hardly commendable, this doesn't mean he is unreliable as a historian. Of course, it is likely he should be considered a rather POVed source, but I think he can be cited, just as on the other end of the spectrum, the very pro-Polish, PIS-line towing Polish historians that are now taking over IPN would be. (Through it's worth noting that what is happening to Polish history research now seems to have been the norm in Israel/YV for decades...). Hard to find neutral sources in this area, a lot of the work is done by historians who have axes to grind. A good rule of thumb is to assume anyone with a Polish/Jewish background here is biased, and the case of Krakowski seems to be just another illustration. (But again, I think he can be cited, but carefully). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
A blog post by szpak80 on salon24? That's not usable for anything. Unless you have an actual RS referring to Krakowski as biased - preferably an academic source in English - performing OR via picking out random bio details decades prior to his research or using blogs is clearly out of line. Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Certainly usable as a starting point for more research, and discussion, not very usable for citing. This discussion may belong on talk of Krakowski, since his tiny stub needs expanding (Polish article is longer but essentially unreferenced). I found a reliable source for some of his early life biography here: [14]. Note that right now I cannot find a reliable source for him being a political officer/commissar; but the source is sufficient for establishing he was an (likely junior?) employee of Ministry of Public Security (Poland), later a member of the People's Army, and a member of the Communist Party in Poland. Hopefully further sources will allow us to flesh that out. I again invite interested editors to expand Krakowski's bio with reliable sources. PS. From YV: "He then joined the Polish army and rose to the rank of major in the political division." [15] - I wonder if by the political division they mean pl:Główny Zarząd Polityczny Wojska Polskiego? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, the fact that Krakowski was a communist officer at some point is not a reason to consider him as unreliable. However, his research has been challenged as inaccurate and unreliable by modern scholars. And no, not by Polish scholars (well, by Polish scholars too, but I am sure certain individuals here would not consider this an issue). He has been described as by Joshua D. Zimmerman as follows (source: Joshua D. Zimmerman (5 June 2015). The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-107-01426-8.) "The negative portrayal of the Home Army among professional Jewish historians was made semi-official with the appearance in the early 1980s... with... Krakowski's volume, Unequal Victims... [who] concluded in their study that [Polish Undeground was mostly hostile towards the Jews and some armed units where involved in murder of Jews] Some historians began to challenge the prevailing assumptions in Jewish historiography in the late 1980s. In particular, Shmuel Krakowski's assertion that Home Army commander, General Bór-Komorowski, sanctioned assaults against Jewish partisans came under close scrutiny. The late Polish American historian, Stanislaus A. Blejwas, exposed errors in Krakowski's sources used to prove used to prove the Home Army commander's culpability. Blejwas cogently demonstrated that the actual document on combating banditry that was sent to local AK leaders – claimed by Krakowski to be an order to kill Jews–did not mention Jews at all (see [16], not sure how to get full digital text of that). John Lowell Armstrong concurred (see [17])." So, based on the assessment of newer scholarship, I think Krakowski should NOT be cited (and it would be nice if some editors engaged in the discussion here and on related topics would reconsider their views, as possibly, well, dated and representing a more biased scholarship views of the 1980s...). Zimmerman's book is a great overview of the different camps and changing opinions about the Home Army and the Polish Underground (if you cannot access more pages on Google Book, I got the book through Library Genesis in one minute...cheers for piracy). On an ending note, I like what Snyder has to say on this: "“...the record of the Home Army towards Jews is ambivalent". That's quite a good word to use here. (As well as his caution that the "“the dark legend [of older Jewish historiography hostile to Polish Underground] must be abandoned". It has as much place in our article as the (rightly) criticized works of scholars from "the camp of Polish historians devoted to defending wartime Poland’s record". Neither of such extremes makes for a good source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Krakowski continued writing well into the 2000s. As many historians (and acaddemics at large), some of his earlier interpretations have been challenged by others - e.g. the banditry order (116) has had varying views from the 1980s to present. If we are discussing order number 116 - a later source incorporating the subsequent discussion is probably best - e.g. Zimmerman who is recent - it far from clear cut (e.g. while pro-Polish sources point out Jews were never mentioned in the order, others have pointed out that this was euphemistic speak for Jews). Snyder is far from an unbiased source, to say the least.[18]. Many of Krakowski's works are considered authoritative - and are well cited. For order 116 we indeed have subsequent research and secondary/trietary coverage of the debate which incorporates further work.Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

POV/WEASEL use of word "some"[edit]

In the sentence "The Home Army leadership punished some perpetrators of antisemitic violence in its ranks" - is the word "some" actually in the source? The insinuation here seems to be that it CHOSE not to punish others. But this is sort of like saying "the US justice system punishes SOME murderers", because you know, that's actually true, because not all murderers are caught or convicted. The wording is POV. Volunteer Marek 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources aren't decisive on how often the AK actually enforced that policy. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


I reverted this edit[19] as it had serious neutrality issues. First of all it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotype. This is obviously not true.Second of all it twisted the information greatly, Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group Antyk.Third of all Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propaganda.Fourth-the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their work. As such the current edit wasn't neutral and had serious undue weight issues. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotype No, it didn't. It stated that the emphasis placed on the subject was fed by a stereotype, in-line with the sources. In fact, I was careful to note that the two district commanders mentioned by name were stationed in eastern Poland, so as not to undermine the later claim that attitudes towards Jews varied between east and west, which as written suggests Soviet affiliations were more prevalent in the east.
Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group Antyk Zimmerman gives the example of Col. Rzepecki, head of the Home Army's Bureau of Information (of which Antyk was part), but he gives it as an example of how radical was its staff, not of how ill-regarded it was as a whole. The fact Col. Rzepecki could not rid Antyk of the people he so vehemently opposed raises serious questions about their acceptance within the larger organization. If you wish to mention Rzepecki we can do so, but we ought to also mention Antyk operated apparently uninterrupted until the end of the war.
Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propaganda Zimmerman also says this: In contrast to the sometime sympathetic tone in the reports of the Home Army and Delegate’s Bureau, the Home Army’s anti-communist division, Antyk, had a pronounced anti-Jewish orientation. The division’s staff included the openly anti-Jewish figure, Henryk Glass. Internal documents of Antyk demonstrate that it identified antisemitism as a useful tool in the struggle against communism. Stressing the idea that Jews were behind communism, Antyk tried to infuse the Polish population with a marked anti-communist and anti-Soviet sentiment. That is why Antyk instructed its members to link “Judaism” to communism in its propaganda literature. (pp. 380-381)
the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their work Source?
Bottom line: You removed sourced information on two district commanders persecuting Jews and on an AK division publicly endorsing anti-Semitic views, and cherry-picked a claim on the underground press at large (the original: To date, most underground reporting on the fate of the Jews was sympathetic. An important exception was [Antyk]). François Robere (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Antyk wasn't a AK division.Once again you write something that is a glaring historical error.It seems to me that you cherry picked parts of the text from Zimmerman without actually reading on the subject. For the record even Zimmerman writes about them as sub-division.I am afraid Zimmerman is much more nuanced that you believe and there's plenty in his writings about AK protecting and helping Jewish population, and his writings on reporting on Jewish issues does include information that it was positive in majority.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what bothers you? Let's call them a "special ancillary sub-department". Either way, they were AK.
Zimmerman is very nuanced, but of "Anytk" he's unequivocally critical, and you've given no reason not to cite his criticism. François Robere (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Either way, "they were AK"Antyk counted 20 people and actually they worked in secret from AK, which counted 400,000 people. So saying "they were AK" is grossly out of proportion, especially since work Zimmerman mentions was even a marginal amount of their activity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The entire BOI was 150 people. Shall we delete the article? François Robere (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
" The entire BOI was 150 people" I am glad you now have abandoned the oversimplication in phrase "They were AK". I believe Antyk is notable but if you want to propose its deletion that is your choice.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Text has become undreadable mess after latest changes-formatting[edit]

This change made the whole text unreadable, there are now numerous numbers floating around the text making it completely unreadable and it looks like it is garbled part text part some computer code[20]. I think I saw this on other articles once before it was fixed and normal references returned. I will have to go reference by reference to restore its readability but would appreciate if somebody more skilled in coding would help, as I am not a skilled programmer. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Having multiple copies of common citations (eg. 5 copies of Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust and 10 copies of Zimmerman's The Polish Underground and the Jews in multiple formats) carries its own problems for style, maintenance and verifiability. However, changing template used for inline citations is relatively straightforward: I usually use {{r}}, but we can use {{sfn}} or anything else. Just pick. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer any style that keeps links to Google Book pages for easier verification, through yes, that creates multiple refs (numbers) for the same work. Sigh. Damned either way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia, technically speaking, sucks at managing references. We can do what's suggested here, but it would require some discipline on editors' behalf. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no Template:Paulsson 2002.Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed[edit]

"In total, between 7,000- 8,000[1] to 10,000[2] Ukrainians perished in the territories of today's Poland."

This page is about the HA, not about Polish crimes, committed by many organisations. Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
various troops (including these affiliated with the Home Army) - there was no HA at that time, do you mean previously affilaited or affiliated with the post-HA organisations?Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Is the article "good"?[edit]

The article is biased, it's main part is not the HA, but national conflicts and HA participation in them. Informations about the HA are short.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


The section lacks informations about the Armia Krajowa Obywatelska and Augustów roundup.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably the Generation of Columbuses should be mentioned. Roman Bratny was a HA soldier, later a Communist propaganda activist (1980).Tadeusz Konwicki wrote a critical novel about his HA experiences, later joined anti-Communist opposition.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Snyder, cherry-picking, and attribution[edit]

Regarding this revert. Snyder writes the following - Probably the most significant way the Home Army and other Polish political organizations aided individuals Jews was by the production of false German documents. Their famous "paper mills" could generate German Kennkarten, indication that Jews were, in fact, Poles: "Aryan papers," as Jews called them at the time. Usually Poles took money or goods for this, but not always. Furthermore, Snyder belong to a particular historical came here,[21] and is making a claim not generally ascribed to the Home Army as a whole (as opposed to individual forgers turning a profit) - this should be attributed. That this was generally a service provided for cash or goods is explicitly and clearly stated by Snyder. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)