Talk:Soviet partisans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Poland and historic revisionism

Recently I took the liberty to rename the title of a section on Soviet partisans in Poland from Former eastern territories of the Second Polish Republic to Soviet partisans in Poland. As usually, my edit was instantly reverted by Irpen, who accused me of historic revisionism. Let's check who is the revisionist then.

1. Soviet partisans operated in the said area between 1941 and 1944
2. Poland officially ceded the said areas to the USSR in 1945
3. So the area became a former eastern territory of Poland only after the Soviet partisans were already in Berlin, with the Red Army
4. While the rest of the world never recognized the Soviet and Nazi occupation of Poland in 1939, the Soviet Union also declared its pacts with Germany null and void in 1941.
5. So, in other words, the version defended by Irpen does not hold water.

Besides, there are several other arguments for the new name of the section:

1. It's shorter and simpler
2. It's in line with the name of the more detailed article on Soviet partisans in Poland
3. The name of the said country was Republic of Poland. Second Polish Republic is just a nick-name, coined by journalists, but never used officially.
4. Finally, some of the most notorious groups of the Soviet partisans operated in the area of Pinsk and Kobryn, which was in central rather than eastern Poland. //Halibutt 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, the very existence of this section was a significant compromise as it is redundant. The actions in the territories attached to the USSR in 1939 belong to Ukraine and Belarus sections where they are covered already. The section under question concentrates on the relationship with Poles rather than actions in Poland. I will then rename it as such. The actions in central PL is an interesting fact that I've never heard of. But if this indeed happened, this would belong to a totally different section that we have about the action "outside of the Soviet Union". Feel free to elaborate on this interesting detail there. --Irpen 05:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a compromise, it was simply what was left after you single-handedly moved parts of this article that you did not like to some other place. But still, the actions of Soviet partisans in what was Poland back then belong to the section on Poland, not on Belarus or Ukraine. The said areas did not became a part of Ukrainian and Belarusian SSRs until 1945.

As to geography, prior to 1945 the areas around Vistula and Bug were in central Poland rather than eastern. Note that only now, after the annexations, Warsaw is considered to be in the eastern part of the country. //Halibutt 07:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Single handedly? First, Piotrus agreed to it. Second, it was well explained and this has nothing to do with my not liking anything. The said areas became Ukraine and Belarus in 1939, however unjust was the way it was done. The action in this areas is already covered in UA and BE sections. Note the UPA issue. The entire UPA happened in the former territories of Poland and it is covered in Ukrainian section. Would you propose that moved?

As Warsaw getting to be Eastern Poland, well, lots of things happened at the time. Some territories that became Western Poland were disputably Polish. How is this relevant here?

I had no objection against a distinct PL-centered angle over the issue be represented in the WP. Much research was done and a separate article is justified, just like the Holodomor can legit coexist in WP with the Famines in Russia and USSR. However, the "in Poland" section in the main article was a flame-bait, similar to your other writing about "treatment by the occupiers" separate section in the History of PL article. The broad topics need to be presented with the natural flow of events and consequences. Inserting the sections of the narrow view into the broad topic articles is unhelpful for the articles in the first place. If I saw the info as unencyclopedic, I would have proposed it for deletion, rather than the spinoff. So, please do not accuse me in liking or not liking. And in this article the SP are not presented as mere heroes. A healthy amount of criticism is there too. --Irpen 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1. So how many Soviet partisans were there in 1939? And in 1940? None. The entire movement started already after the USSR declared their pacts with Nazi Germany (including the Ribbentrop-Molotov) null and void. And ended long before Poland officially ceded those areas. But you call people revisionists even though it is you to propose an extraordinary vision of history and propose to revise it.
2. As to single-handed migration, you might want to take a look at Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland to see if there really was a consensus to pick just one aspect of Soviet partisan activity and move it to some separate article. Besides, you did not consult anyone before applying those changes, did you?
3. Sure you had no objections--as it was you to move it.
4. I doubt the Polish perspective on the Soviet partisans is narrow. AAMoF it seems that it's common to all nations involved who were blessed by the Soviets with partisan activity
5. So how should I call your action? Not backed up by sources or by consensus, merely by your own liking and your own views. You believed that Soviet perspective merits inclusion in this article, while Polish does not. You did the move and you defended it fiercefuly. //Halibutt 18:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I told you elsewhere that MRP was not and could not be a legal basis to incorporate the Polish territories into the USSR and this was not the meaning it was supposed to have. Firts of all, the appendix about the partition of PL was secret and kept secret for another 40 years. You do not classify the documents that you want legalize your actions. Further, MRP was a mere memorandum between two countries on what their plans were and how they were going to implement it. The basis of the incorporation, was the Soviet de-facto control of the territory after the successful Soviet invasion. The cited legal basis of invasion was the Soviet gov's claim that Poland, as a state, seized to exist and not the MRP (Soviets waited with their invasion on purpose and started it only after the PL gov was evacuated exactly to be able to make that claim). The other reason cited by the Soviets was "the need to protect the Ukrainian and Belarusian population". We are not talking here about the merit and honesty of these justification. But note that 1) MRP was not a legal basis of anything and 2) the territories of Kresy were de-facto Soviet by 1941. --Irpen 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... So, shall we call all other sections "partisans in Germany" or something like that? Szopen 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no respected literature calls Kiev (or Smolensk) Germany even for the couple of years of the German occupation. OTOH, Lviv and Brest (even of that time) are widely called as cities belonging to Soviet Ukraine and Belarus. --Irpen

Now, let me repeat the question, do you claim that interaction with UPA should be moved from UA section to the Polish one? Seriously?

As for the PL perspective, it is encyclopedic, but I have to remind you one more time that not every event in the world history is Polish-centered, you know. It is for the sake of the History of PL article and, perhaps, for the PL-wiki. Polish view of the events is notable and encyclopedic but does not warrant the prominence of the whole section in the main article. It just looked odd there. If you seriously disagree, let's start a poll. Would you object? I repeat that you were the only one to object to the spinoff. I agree that this is not consensus. But sometimes a full consensus is impossible. Why won't you start the poll to see where the overwhelming majority stands. --Irpen 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if the basis of the occupation was a de facto control (a tautology? The basis for de facto control was a de facto control?), then why do you refer to those areas as part of Soviet Union and not as parts of Poland de facto under Soviet control?

Also, the Soviets waited so long for fear of the western intervention, while the Polish government was evacuated to Romania specifically because of Soviet invasion. Not prior to it, but afterwards - and as a direct consequence of the Soviet tanks nearing the Polish-Romanian border.

Let me remind you then that what happens on Polish territory is Polish-centred, no matter what. And, let me also remind you, that the Nazi-Soviet views are quite isolated in that the rest of the world did not accept them. So it's not a problem of too much "Polish view", but the problem of certain users pushing the view of the (fortunately) deceased USSR against the view of pretty nearly all other states, except for Nazi Germany and their puppets. In this case a poll won't tell you what is right, as this is the case of facts vs. their interpretation by the Soviets. We don't vote on whether 2 and 2 make 4, do we. //Halibutt 21:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When one starts talking about Nazi and Soviet in such a way, that usually means that this person is short of meaningful arguments, and such a comment borders on a personal attack, as it criticizes the contributor and not the content.

And by the way, why voting on 2x2 is harmful in any way? Let's vote on this matter, and I'm pretty sure most users will agree Lviv is an Ukrainian territory and Brest a Belorussian one. And yes, those areas were part of the Soviet Union because it annexed them. Or maybe in your universe, everyone is as peaceful as a sheep and everything is colored in pink? A country grows by annexing its neighbors, it is as simple as that. So for all intents and purposes, it was a Soviet territory by the times this article deals with. And by the way, it's still ain't Polish territory, and unlikely to be so in the future. Bottom line: your argument is moot.

As for the evacuation, this is just funny, as the first evacuation was because of German invasion, not because of Soviet.

And finally, what "Other states"??? No other states are mentionned here? Maybe you will tell to an Ukrainian living in Lviv that it is not his land? I'm sure the answer will be pretty self-explanatory :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if you would ask Pole living in Lwow in 1939 whether it is Ukrainian land you will also get self-explanatory request. But getting to the point - Germans have annexed Greater Poland and Pomorze into Germany, directly. So Polish udnerground in these territories should go into "German resistance", right? Szopen 06:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you all need some WP:TEA. Considering that the question of 'whom the Kresy belonged to' during 39-45 is a tricky one, I think the current section heading ('Relations with Polish resistance forces') is pretty decent. Perhaps the Soviet partisans in Poland article should be renamed into Relations between Polish and Soviet partisans, without a mention of 'where', because as we have seen it it is not an easy answer to give :) PS. Grafikm: Poland government and most of Polish forces did indeed evecuate to Romania because of Soviet invasion, not German one. According to Polish plans for the German only invasion, the area of the Romanian bridgehead was to be defended for months, and (speculating here) if not for Soviet invasion, Poles could have defended that region until Allied offensive in 1940...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, just about anyone find that "Relations with Polish resistance forces" is an OK compromise for the title, and I'm not saying that it is biaised either.

As for your objections about evacuations, like you said, it is a speculation, because no one is able to predict what could happen otherwise. However, the government was already evacuated from Warsaw long before...

This side issue set apart, I think this title meets a pretty decent consensus and should be kept as is. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the scope of both the section and the article created out of it is not the relations but activity. It is (and should be) a description of Soviet activity in Eastern Poland during WWII. Relations with local population, Polish resistance or the Germans might be a nice addition, but not the main scope. Alternatively, we could create two separate sections, one focused on relations with the locals and the other devoted to SP's activities. //Halibutt 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the sectioning of the article by the Soviet Republics is that each SSR with Germans on their territory had its own Commando. At Stavka there were Russian partisan commando, Belarusian partisan commando and Ukrainian partisan commando. At corresponded Fronts there were weaker Karelo-Finnish, Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian commandos plus some organizations for the North Caucasus. There was no Polish Soviet Partisan Commando (if we do not count Armia Ludowa) - I guess that is because there were no Polish Soviet Socialist Republic). I find logical to follow the organizational structure of an organization in its own article. The question of who was a legal sovereign over a territory is irrelevant here abakharev 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Germans too had their administrative divisions in occupied Soviet territory, yet we're not pretending that Smolensk was part of Germany in 1943, do we? At the same time, this article does just that: it presents the Soviet dreams as reality. Also, several users do their best to revert anyone who is trying to correct that, or at least make this article represent anything but the Soviet vision of the world. Sorry, Alex, but this is not NPOV. //Halibutt 21:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What Soviet dreams are you talking about? Besides, this section deals just with the title of one header, which has nothing to do with NPOV. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When we are talking of Reichskommissariat Moskau or Reichskommissariat Ukraine or Reichskommissariat Kaukasus or Lokot Republic we naturally use the German administrative units, when we are talking about Armia Krajowa we use Polish administrative units it appears naturalt to use Soviet administrative units for the Soviet Partisans (that are the same as the structure of the organization in question) abakharev 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex, your argument would make much more sense if the article would use the word 'Commando' even once ;p. That said, as I wrote above, because it is nigh-impossible to clearly define what was 'Poland' or 'Ukraine', and anyway as we well know the population was very mixed in terms of ethnicity, I think that we should rethink (and rename) the 'Areas of operations' section. Anyway it doesn't even talk much about areas in geographical terms, articles in that section deal with two issues: operations of partisans on a given area AND relation with the local population. Further, not only in case of Poland the borders are murky: Finland and Karelia are not that clear, either. I don't see why Polish section should stand out: I suggest renaming it to 'Poland', and renaming the 'Areas of operations' into 'Areas of operations and relations with local population' or just 'Areas and relations'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Germans seized the Reichskommissariat Ukraine in 1941, but the Soviets retook Ukrainian SSR in 1944..? Frankly speaking I don't see such wording in Wiki. Also, claiming that Białystok or Lwów were part of Ukrainian or Belarusian SSR is a little more than pointing at the administrative division. This article suggests that the said areas were part of USSR, both before they were granted to USSR and even before the Soviets had them in control. This article suggests that the areas became part of the USSR before 1945, which is simply not true, even from the Soviet perspective. Why do we mislead our readers?

IMO we could either rewrite this article to conform with NPOV, or fill it with plenty of horrific terms like "Soviet partisans in what became the Ukrainian SSR in 1945" or "1942 activities of the Soviet partisans in what became Belarus in 1945". //Halibutt 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It was explained to you that those became parts of UA and BE SSR not in 1945 but in 1939. They were not granted to the USSR. They were captured to the USSR. How fair/unfair that was belongs in different articles and don't fork those arguments to every article about mid-20th century. --Irpen 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And it was explained to you that you are mistaken. However, if we were to adopt your reasoning, then there were no partisans in Ukraine and Belarus at all, as all their actions took place in Germany. Why not? USSR captured those lands in 1939, Germany captured them in 1941, then the partisans appeared. When the Red Army captured those areas again, the partisans ceased their actions, so they did not act in USSR at all.

However, to me it seems that even your interpretation lacks logic. Following your vision presented in the article, Wikipedia is to consider the 1939 annexation of Poland as legitimate. Fine with me, even the USSR did not consider it legitimate, but what the heck, let's agree with Irpen. However, all of a sudden you do not accept the 1941 takeover of those areas by Germany as legitimate. Why so? Double standards anyone? Sorry to say so, but your logic resembles the logic of 19th century imperialists: wherever a British soldier rests his foot, it's Britain. You modified that logic a tad, but it's still the same: wherever the Red Army entered, it's Soviet Union.

And finally, why exactly should we not follow the simple rules of international law? //Halibutt 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, guess what saved the fates of SS Galizien troops' asses? Historical revisionism, if we were to follow Irpen's logic. So either we accept international doctrine for international NPOV or plunge into deep Soviet/Nazi propaganda as our friends suggest, and regard all acts of belligerence/and or aggression leading to annexations in 1938-45 as valid. Reichenbach 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Poland and historic revisionism - 2

Halibutt, please do not inserted this "claimed by the USSR on the basis of the MRP". Western Ukraine was not "claimed" but "annexed" to the USSR. The MRP was NOT and could NOT be a legal basis for the Soviet annexation as from the POV of the international law the annexation was illegal and MRP does not change it in any way. Nor was the MRP used to even justify the annexation as the appendix to the MRP that divided Eastern Europe was secret. You can't justify anything with a document that is secret. I remind you that two justifications were brought up by the Soviets: 1) the fact that the majority of these territories were Russian and Belarusian, respectively, and those people oppressed in the nationalist bourgeous SPR needed protection and 2) that following its series of defeats by Germany, Poland "seized to exist". --Irpen 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you'd prefer we state that those territories were annexed with the Soviet justification being unilateral declaration and propaganda?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to spread the details that are already genereously spread from the MRP article further to about a dozen other articles one more article where they don't belong. But besides that, the assertion entered by Halibutt was just false. The territory was not "claimed" but annexed. Soviet administration was implemented there de-facto rather than just "claimed". "Claimed" was Polish London's government assertions over those territories, the claim that even Churchill, its main ally, found incredible. "Claim" means hypothetical, "annexed" means factual. Second, it was annexed not "on the basis of MRP", as MRP, being secret (and extralegal), could not be a basis of anything in international relations. --Irpen 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And I see no need to spread the prop you are spreading. The MRP was indeed the justification, or precisely the "Treaty of Friendship" which was an appendix to the MRP. The treaty in question was the basis for the "Border of Peace", as the demarcation line was called, and was the only international document that could've been the justification.

But this is unimportant here. What is important is that currently the article once again tries to present Soviet propaganda as if it were a fact. Great Patriotic War? "Section deals with interaction"? If so, then at least state precisely who says so. Like "According to certain User:Irpen this section deals with...". //Halibutt 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us to WP:V/WP:RS. Both of you, please cite sources that support your formulation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources of what? That Soviets claimed that the reason of their action was protection of Ukrainians and Belarusians and that Poland was crumbling anyway? You need this sourced? --Irpen 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the easiest way to deal with this gordian knot is to simply delete the introduction and leave the section as it was meant to be. We don't really need two leads in one article, do we? //Halibutt 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The proper way to deal with this knot is to keep stuff in relevant articles and avoid redundancies. It was repeatedly exlained that the "in Poland" subsection of the "areas of operation" supersection is redundant as all material is covered in Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania sections of this article. Halibutt insists on keeping the redundancy here. Because of the insistance of certain editors on this redundancy, the explanation on what the redundant section is doing here is needed on top of it. In fact this is an article in an article, that's why the intro to the section resembling a second lead. Just keeping this all in a relevant article (linked from here) would restore normalcy but for some reason no Soviet/Russia/Ukraine/Lithuania-related article may be kept without the unrelated or loosely related Polish matters pasted into it. --Irpen 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me to what length you will go to avoid informing the reader of the darker sides of the SU, such as the attrocities commited by the Soviet partisans in Poland. This is an important part of their activities, and most certainly deserves a section in this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It does and there is a section for it in the "controversies" part. Halibutt tries to push it to the "areas of operations" thus making it redundant there as those areas are covered in other sections. I will not dignify a baseless attack in the first part of your message with any response. --Irpen 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New material on partisan terrorist attacks in Finland

The Finnish Goverment has released formerly secret images of partisan attacks in Finland. They were not released before because they were thought to offend the relatives of the victims or worsen relationship with USSR. I know many Russians today adore partisans, but this is a ruthless truth. After you see them, I'm sure you agree that those disgusting attacks on civilians are pure terrorism. All of them were executed head-to-head with partisans' hand weapons. Wikipedia is not censored, however, do you consider it a POV if these are included in the article?

• "Threat for the USSR?"
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• Raped and dishonoured by Partisans
• [5]
• People responsible for the attacks

--Pudeo (Talk) 19:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All POV considerations set aside, the article is already pretty overloaded with images and the corresponding section isn't exactly huge. Consequently, it would be unwise to include additional pics besides the one already there. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating a subarticle on Soviet partisans in Finland, where such images and additional info can be added in detail.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please explain your edits. As it seems, you are only whitewashing Stalinist war crimes. I've seen you editing articles such as Holodomor, NKVD massacres, Polish and Baltic related articles in the same manner. I find this massacre denial disgusting. Your points in your last edit; changed some ethnic Russians to "Many local". Incorrect, "their personnel came all around Soviet Union ". I removed the "terrorist" so no disputes about that anymore. Other than that you'd like to add a image of Russian children in a transfer camp in 1944, taken by a Soviet propaganda photographer. (Notice by the way what neat clothes the children have, and how fat they are compared to USSR's own children?) I see little relevancy of that to Partisan operations in Finland. I'm not insisting that partisan attacks should be called massacres, eventhough partisans were sent to execute all people in those tiny villages. --Pudeo (Talk) 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pudeo, don't throw everything in one bag. Before making claims about Holodomor article, check its history more carefully for who wrote most of it.

Images: WP articles are not galleries and the number of images should be adequate to the amount of text in the article. Imageless articles are no good. Galleries are even worse. IMO, the Finnish section with its current length can take 1.5 images. That is one or two at most. I am OK with one image showing the civilian casualties of partisans, but if you want two images, then the second should demonstrate how the other side behaved as well. Yes, the image is likely staged as most concentration camps images during the war. The famous images of the prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps were taken by Soviets and allies when those camps were liberated (see eg. this one). So, they may all be called "staged", does not make them fake. Good luck striking those from Holocaust and other Nazi crimes related articles. --Irpen 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine section

Can people deleting the images explain why they are doing it? What is wrong with the images? Do you want to claim that Ukraine was prosperous and happy under German occupation? Alex Bakharev 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I looked up the suspicious claim that Ukrainians in the West where overwhelmingly supporting UPA. Subtelny writes in a section 23, Ukraine during the Second World War, of his "Ukraine: a history":

In any case, Soviet depiction of its partisan movement as a massive, patriotic rallying of the Ukrainian masses against the Germans is misleading (as is the nationalist treatment of UPA, which makes similar claims). The vast majority of Ukraine's population during the war remained politically uncommitted and was concerned not so much with resistance as with survival.

Source: Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: a history, p. 476, University of Toronto Press (2000), ISBN 0802083900.

So, please no "common knowledge claims" to the contrary, like this. Thanks, --Irpen 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now Constanz invokes Holodomor something that took place

• 10 years before the events in question
• in Soviet Ukraine only while, pro-Nazi support was mostly limited to the Western Ukraine unrelated to the Famine

Invoking the events of no relation to the events of the article to make a WP:POINT is a classic example of WP:TE. This would be the same as bringing up the, say Latvian collaboration in mass murder of the Latvian Jews in every article about post-war Latvia there just for the sake of disruption. Please do not use tricks of your ideological enemey.

Oh, and pls refer the info you added about "crushed by local self-defense" to some reliable source. Thx. --Irpen 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As for me, I won't be dragged into a blasphemous history discussion with a pre-known answer. Your irrelevant "слезодавка" images in Ukraine section can only stay if you Muscovians won't touch the text. Except of Subtelny's citation which I'm going to check and challenge by other sources. This is just my position of course, although I'll try to harmonize mutual attempts with Bohdan. But our Polish, Baltic and Jewish colleagues may establish more conditions.AlexPU 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means go check the Subtelny citation. I gave the page number a full quote above just to make it easier for you. Your general rant, as usually, does not warrant a response. Happy edits, --Irpen 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In this edit summary I explained what is wrong with your images, Mr.Bakharev. We should either keep only relevant photos or collect a full NPOV gallery depicting the Soviet period of Ukrainian history :). Well, I wonder why am I talking to these people... Ukrained 12:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the summary to this talkpage: rm irrelevant images: the page is already oversized, if we keep these, other-side irrelevant images would also be necessary [6]. In future please put your arguments to the talk page yourself. It also might be more civil to find another salutation to your fellow editors rather than these people. Alex Bakharev 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The pictures shows the atrocities committed by Germans against Ukrainians. This explains why many people choose to join Partisans as well as other anti-German resistance forces (UPA, AK, AL). I am not sure what is the other side pictures you want demonstrate. Showing that Ukrainians were prosperous and happy under German occupation and choose to join SS Galitzen and local pro-German militias? Even if both of this POVs deserve equal weight (that I doubt), then they would be more appropriate in Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II or 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galizien (1st Ukrainian).

The other point IMHO makes more sense. There are many pictures in this article already and we can survive without two of them. On the other hand it is difficult to argue that the article is long and can accommodate these picture. IMHO, on my own taste, the article both makes more sense and is more aesthetically pleasant with these pictures. As it is difficult to argue about tastes I suggest to have straw poll regarding these pictures and consider its reasults to be final. Alex Bakharev 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On one hand, Wikipedia articles are not galleries and just dumping pictures into them left and right is a bad idea. The number of pictures the article can accommodate depends on the article's length. Ukraine section is long enough for two pictures, so there is no problem in having pictures themselves. The remaining question is whether these two pictures are relevant to the content and even if they are, whether better pictures can be found to illustrate the article. The answer to the first question is yes, IMO. It was the atrocities of Nazis and their local allies that alienated people and further increased the support of the anti-fascist resistance. I hope Ukrained and AlexPU are not trying to say that Ukrainians were happy under Nazis. The second question is more difficult to answer as what pictures would be better for the article is a matter of judgment. We can, however, discuss it if Ukrained or whoever suggest pictures of better relevance. Please be constructive and make your proposals nicely and civilly. TIA, --Irpen 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You know some things are not subject to trade or "polls". Like truth, neutrality, and relevance. If you people insist that two photos which I deleted are relevant, I say they are as relevant as pictures of Holodomor and Soviet repressions. We either include all photos we can find on the listed topics, or deleted anything non-portraying partisans. I mean it, and I will delete.

Mr.Bakharev, answering your nice attempts давить мне на совесть:

• I find collaboration with both Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR equally reprehensible, regardless of the person's origins
• My last sentence means that I don't trust your destructive propagandizing group at all. After my Wikibreak, I found all theses that I thought we agreed changed to your POV-version again.
• You two don't qualify as my "fellow editors" (my fellow <anybody>). My fellow editors are users typically persecuted by your group. I thought it is clear to everyone. Ukrained 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ukrained, I formulated the reasons clearly. Your response is nothing but uncivil rant to which I see no need to respond. If you can't formulate objections staying on topic, take your political views to the internet fora designated just for that. (I can recommend you a couple) This page is for the article's discussion. --Irpen 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

More trolling and emotional-nationalistic rhetoric about "propaganda", "your group" and false claims of persecution. Do you want to discuss improving the article or make personal attacks on people who may or may not disagree with you? The latter seems to be the case and I can promise you that that kind of thing will only get you blocked in the end. Additionally, and this is just a friendly favor I'm asking for the sake of those of us who don't understand Ukrainian or Russian: can you please post in English? Thank you. TheQuandry 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm dismayed by your proclamations here [7] that "edit warring is sometimes the only way". This is definitely against the rules. TheQuandry 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mr.TheQuandry, how dare you to call me "emotional nationalist" etc. if you don't speak local languages? Cause it means that you don't understand neither the subject of our edit wars nor the context of our relations enough. You reminded me Soviet doyarkas (farmers) that were writing to newspapers, stating "I haven't read this traitor's book, but I condemn him anyway". Your thinking sounds Soviet, so you must learn Russian :). Oh, and please don't threaten me with blocking. Mr.Bakahrev tried it many times but failed :)). I don't thank you, Ukrained 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're on the English-language Wikipedia. I understand English, which is the language spoken on English Wikipedia. I don't need to understand Ukrainian or Russian to know what a troll is, nor do I have to speak those languages to understand international politics. You obviously have no intention of discussing the article at hand and your only wish is to goad people into fights. Your taunts are irrelevant. Discuss the article or be reported. I have no patience for this nonsense. TheQuandry 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current photos are not very relevant. Please try to use photos of Soviet partisans in Ukraine - burning villages or deported civilians are not that relevant.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

User:Halibutt added {{NPOV}} tag to the article without any explanation on the talk and with summary: added back the NPOV tag. Either this article presents only Soviet POV and is tagged, or it presents more than one POV and is untagged. As simple as that. [8]

I disagree that the article only presents Soviet POV. I guess phrases like:

While in some areas of Ukraine and Belarus some of the local population was initially supportive to the German occupation that they hoped would end the harsh Stalinist rule, they soon found that the Nazi regime was far more brutal

or

almost two thirds of the attacks targeted civilians[4], killing 200 and injuring 50, including children and elderly.[5][6][7] On several occasions the partisans executed civilians throughout, not wanting anyone to witness the atrocities.

and zillion others are not exactly the Soviet POV. If you have a specific grievances please discuss them on talk Alex Bakharev 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland, from a different angle

The Polish article mentions a few interesting facts about Poles in the ranks of Soviet partisans, that should be mentioned here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Na Ukrainie i Białorusi w ramach partyzantki radzieckiej istniały polskie oddziały partyzanckie z których największy był oddział Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła dowodzony przez Roberta Satanowskiego. W partyzantce radzieckiej brało udział około 12 tysięcy Polaków.

WPMILHIST review

Requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Soviet partisans - hopefully it will give us a good dose of neutral reviews of various issues faced by this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Civil War Era?

I see the article only covers wwii partisans. Should the article also cover civil war partisans (and if so, for all sides, for Red and Black, or for Red only)? Jacob Haller 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A separate article of course for the civil war. And each movement would deserve an article of its own. --Irpen 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two photos

What's the issue with these two photos, anyway? These do not correspond to the subject of the article directly, after all.

Also, some of the Partisan photos here seem to be too abstract, even staged. There are lots of more lifelike photos (where these came from, I believe). What about some changes? Yury Tarasievich 07:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for some of the photos being staged, many of the historic photos were staged, including the legendary ones. Faked and staged are not one and the same thing. In anu case, I did not find the photos for the engagements in UA, like I found for Belarus. But we can always for some changes.

About faked vs. staged you're right, of course, and this wasn't my point. I was thinking more about comparing, say, something obviously staged, like partisans marching army-style in two columns with commanders on horseback, with something much more faithful to realities, e.g., photo of group returning from the raid, some folks wounded, some supported by their pals, wading waist-deep across the stream. Or why have here the photo of the Ukrainian village burning when, in all respect, the famous photo of German soldier collecting livestock would be much more explanative. Yury Tarasievich 08:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Textwise, the first change I see is some restructuring by moving the material from "... in Poland" section to UA and BE sections as this structurally belongs there. Similarly, the interaction with UPA and AK should belong to UA, BE and LT sections. --Irpen 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There're some numbers and military aspects of the subject which I don't see here, too, although refutations to them already are here. Yury Tarasievich 08:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to any improvement work of course. --Irpen 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone insist on the appearent very importance of "The Soviet partisans movement included people of different social backgrounds and age groups. Pictured is the elderly village priest being awarded a partisan combat medal. ...a teenage boy leaving his mother's home to join the partisans' movement, ...a teenage boy leaving his mother's home to join the partisans' movement, ...and young women, members of Sydir Kovpak's partisan formation in Ukraine ...and young women, members of Sydir Kovpak's partisan formation in Ukraine." <- What the? It sounds like copied directly from a caption in the Soviet album. And no, it's not even "combat medal", it's just "To the partisan of the Patriotic War (Second Grade)"[9].

Also, who the heck was Anna Khobotneva? "To survive, resistance fighters largely relied on the civilian population providing them with food and daily necessities. However, in the areas they controlled, they had limited possibilities to operate their own agriculture. Pictured, Anna Khobotneva from the partisan squadron named to Chapayev is milking a cow for the wounded." Please explain me the importance of Anna Khobotneva. Or Chapayev, for that matter (some guy who died 22 years before the war started). --HanzoHattori 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your general grudge with "photos from Soviet albums" -- what albums are good, in your opinion, then? And what is your precise problem with captions? You seem to perceive some ideological invasion in them, but those are just captions, brief texts describing who and what's on the photo. And if these photos were taken from the (Soviet) album, then it's only logical to retain the captions going with the photos. Yury Tarasievich 09:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet album = Soviet propaganda. Photos are okay because there are no others, but the elaborate captions are just silly. So, who's this important person Anna Khobotneva? --HanzoHattori 10:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is well known partial case of the generalisation "War album = Government propaganda". Which is hardly a basis for making of the specific decisions. As to your question, Anna Khobotneva (of the Chapaev company) is precisely the person depicted on this photo. Yes, hardly as notable as, say, penis piercing, but I still can't see the reason for your messing with the captions. Yury Tarasievich 12:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask again: What is the importance of Anna Khobotneva milking cow, or Anna Khobotneva in general? Absolutely none.[10] Chapayev guy died in 1919 (quote: In later years he became a recurring character in numerous Russian jokes.). It's like linking Operation Barbarossa to Frederick I Barbarossa. --HanzoHattori 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will try to explain why I wrote this in the caption. Most war photos show unidentified people and frequently even the location is unidentified. Here we happen to be lucky and both the name of the female partisan and the unit she served at is known. I thought we can give this info if we know it. This woman is rather old now, if she is still alive, but she did nothing to have her name stricken off the records. If, OTOH, people judge this extra info irrelevant, fine by me, remove her name and the name of her unit. --Irpen 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The detailed info adds to the credibility and relevance of the photo. We possibly don't need article on Anna Khobotneva because of that. And we might need article on Chapaev Partisan Company, without any consideration of that. The anonymous "female" "somewhere" is suitable for newspaper, not for encyclopedia, esp. if the detailed info is available. Yury Tarasievich 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah? How I can say "Anna Khobotneva" was even a real person, if ALL the google search result is just your caption? For all I know, it might be Vladimir Putin the Older (NKVD superspy) in the Allo Allo disguise, except this would be much more worth mentioning (that is more than none). Real or not, ABSOLUTELY unimportant in every way possible (unless she became the Hero of the Soviet Union for milking 1,000 cows under fire or something, and you can prove this). And you know, I know about a lot of a GERMAN non-posed/faked photos of the anti-partisan operations (including executions, but also more casual things like taking a group cig break during a mission). Also, both German and Soviet propaganda posters. --HanzoHattori 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just WP:FAITH. Yury Tarasievich 11:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Slave laborers in Buchenwald; (Elie Wiesel is second row, seventh from left)

My, my, my. You know when you caption people? When they're IMPORTANT.

Who is Elie Wiesel? An important person (like, you know, Nobel Prize and all that). Appearently, "the very ill man lying at the back on the lower coughes was Max Hamburger, who came with TBC and malnourished from the camp. He recovered and became a psychiatrist in the Netherlands." I just checked and Hamburger is a very real person (and seemingly still alive [11]), but see, they decided he's NOT mentioned in the article because he's not THAT much important (he's important somewhat).

Who was "Anna Khobotneva"? Nobody. No one (0 (zero) mentions anywhere). And all this "milking cow" sounds like a rejected lyrics from the Amish Paradise (foo'). Okay, enough of this sillyness. "Just" WP:NOTE, WP:RS, etc. (blah-blah-blah, everyone can do this - see?).

Now, do you want me to dig up these posters and make some real illustrations? --HanzoHattori 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dig up whatever you wish and do with that whatever you please. This heated contention over the caption, which was simply translated, and is not repeated in the article, is getting just too silly. Yury Tarasievich 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

if you click on the source of the image, provided at the image's page, you will find the original page from which an image is taken and a caption "Партизанка отряда им. Чапаева Анна Хоботнева доит молоко для раненых.", which translates exactly to what the image caption says. There is no reason to believe the info on the name of the female partisan or her detachment are faked. If you are saying that they are so unimportant that their only impact is clutter, this is a matter of opinion. I think that it is not too much clutter but if we have the info, why not give it. But if you really think it should be removed, I don't really feel strongly about the issue. --Irpen 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I guess all the reasoning was already explained above, but just to put it all in one place:

1. Currently the article presents mostly the Soviet POV, without even presenting other POVs, not to mention some degree of neutrality.
2. The wording is definitely not neutral, just take a look at the "Polish" section to get the idea. #:attachment instead of annexation,

   other Ukrainian and Belarusian territories, which creates an impression that the parts of Poland annexed by Nazis and Soviets in 1939 were in fact Belarus and Ukraine, which is wrong. The areas became part of the USSR only after they were ceded in 1945.

   Polish national forces - for whatever they are, later named simply a nationalist force (Fight against the independence movements section)... strangely enough, the Soviet partisans are not labelled imperialist force here...

   after Irpen unilaterally moved most of the content of that section out, nearly 25% of it is devoted to alleged collaboration between Krzyżanowski and the Germans, not to the actions of the Soviet partisans. Which, to me, seems like a pretty nice try to justify the actions of the Soviet partisans instead of simply presenting them to our readers in a neutral way

3. Lots of dubious names and statements also outside the section, for instance constant usage of Great Patriotic War instead of WWII
4. All facts that could put the Soviets in bad light were all moved under the carpet of the Controversies section, even if the facts presented there are not controversial. The main part of the article presents the partisans in a definitely good light, while all bad things are just controversies.

All in all, the article is now much better than it used to be, but there's still plenty to do before it fits the standards of NPOV. //Halibutt 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting, but you're right about Krzyżanowski. At least one German photo would be nice too ;) Maybe a partisan execution or whatever (but I know the Wiki admins are pretty nazi on the copyrights, even the copyrights of the Nazis). Anyway, Polish nationalist guerillas were the NSZ. --HanzoHattori 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For a start, there are plenty of sources that call AK the Polish nationalist resistance. Should I list them or we can accept that? --Irpen 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AK, only in the way all the national resistance is nationalist. The NSZ stood for Nationalist Armed Forces, and was a far-right group. They were the militia of the nationalist party, and they fought with the Soviets and their partisans. --HanzoHattori 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt's objection #1 is plain vague. With words like mostly and some degree it is difficult to make any sense from it.

Attachment and annexation are synonymous. I don't fiercely object to annexation even though attachment seems to me preferable usage here.

When the territory became Ukraine and Belarus is a matter of opinion. Soviet Union de facto attached them to these republics, they integrated in the proper subdivisions in full. Legality of the annexation is to be debated elsewhere. In any case, the viable Polish state did not exist at the time and the London government could have claimed all it wanted from Lviv to Danzig to be legally theirs but this did not affect the facts on the ground.

"Polish nationalist force", see above.

What exactly you want to do with Krzysanowski here? His was the main Polish attachement the partisans had to deal with. Where do you want to keep it? Polish-Nazi collaboration in the Second World War? I don't get your point. The info is clearly sourced and relevant. Please elaborate.

I agree that a separate "controversies" section is bad style. Best is to integrate the material in the proper sections.

Looking forward for a response. --Irpen 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. For a start, there are plenty of sources calling Slavs sub-humans. Does it mean wiki should join them? To make long thing short, either we name the AK a nationalist force and call the Soviet partisans imperialists, or we drop both. That at least would be my suggestion.
2. All right, but you decided to follow the Soviet view of things (the Soviet-Nazi alliance as the legal basis for the annexation), without even mentioning the other view (in-line with the international law, both contemporary and modern).
3. The info on Krzyżanowski is clearly sourced, yet irrelevant here. There was plenty of relevant info you removed from this article, yet decided to leave that one. Why? As to Wilk-Krzyżanowski being the main force - that's simply wrong. Sure, he was notable, but there were also Oliwa-Kiwerski, Luboń-Bąbiński, Kowal-Szatowski, Grzmot-Białoszewicz, Janka-Filipkowski, Żuraw-Herman and many, many more. Yet, you mention only Krzyżanowski and only the most disputed part of his biography. //Halibutt 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt, please do not bring a straman here. I am talking modern academic sources. None of them call Slavs subhumans. Many do call AK nationalist.

On two, I repeat that RMP was not a legal basis of annexation and it could not be as the annex where the Polish partition was outlined was secret. From the POV of international law, the invasion of Poland was illegal act and there is nothing to discuss here. Soviets did not try to present it as legal and they did not even have to bother, actually, since when they invaded, Poland was already disappearing as it crumbled from the Nazi invasion. Soviets did try to justify their actions, which is not one and the same thing as to present a legal case. The Soviet claim was that Polish state "ceased to exist" and that "the Ukrainians and Belarusians who lived in the predominantly ethnically UA and BE territories should be protected from the Nazi takeover". That was the public justification rather than legalization. In any case, that the territory was administered by Soviets matters much more than whatever claims Sikorski was making from London. Most importantly, this issue belongs to other articles.

I don't see what you mean that Krzyzanowski was irrelevant. The article mentions fights between SP and AK. Krzyzanowski was an AK commander whose units fought the partisans. I repeat, where else do you want to put it? --Irpen 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad this rather inferior article is finally getting some attention. Maybe we can improve it. It seems to me that the way to go forward here is to avoid endless arguments about other aspects of World War II history, and focus on the subject of this article.

To put us on that path, I want to comment on the debate about point 1. Search for "nationalist Home Army" gives 2 hits on Google Books ( in books "Polish National Cinema" and "The Columbia Guide to the Literatures of Eastern Europe Since 1945", hardly authoritative works on World War II history). While "nationalist Polish Home Army" gives 1 hit. (in "Armies Of The Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism", again not a work focused on World War II history). So, while I am sure one can dig up books where Home Army is called "nationalist", the Google Books results seem to suggest that particular expresssion is not all that common, at least not among serious historical works devoted to the subject (and not, say, various memoirs with an axe to grind). Given this, since Irpen offered to dig up references, maybe that would be in order. Otherwise I suggest we drop the "nationalist" label. After all, this is not an article about the Home Army and not the place to debate its wartime record. Balcer 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, I am sure Ipren can dig several more sources from the times of Soviet Union for us to enjoy (as I am afraid Russian Imperial historiography has little to say on AK ;p). Seriously: please consider WP:RS of any sources that are presented. And this article needs to be NPOVed, definetly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's start on a fresh note and try to avoid accusing each other of previous misdeeds (that will of course lead nowhere). Again, I am sure one can find even Western historical works in which the Home Army is called nationalist. The point is, that formulation is obviously not universally accepted, and in the opinion of some people pejorative, so to maintain NPOV we should avoid using it, especially in this article only tangentially related to the Home Army. On the other hand, the interesting discussion about the extent to which the Home Army was influenced by nationalist ideology belongs in Talk:Armia Krajowa. Balcer 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite amused Irpen continues to ignore the NSZ even after I pointed it out to him - he really seems to have a Kryzanowski obsession. --HanzoHattori 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to POV-ing the Article

Thank you all for your helpful comments, especially to Hanzo for the last one. I will start from it. I added plenty of info about NSZ to Wikipedia articles. I know about it very well. This article is about SP and they were engaged with AK, not NSZ. That's why I wrote about it here.

Now, to the rest. Piotrus, your demeaning attitude is inappropriate. Now, how many modern western sources that call AK "nationalist" do you want me to quote? Let's rephrase the question. Is Orest Subtelny a Soviet historian? Here is the quote from his "Ukraine: a history", which I have handy now in Ukrainian (but it was originally published by Toronto University Press and is now considered one of the best modern books on Ukrainian jistory: "У свою чергу польська підпільна націоналістична армія — Армія Крайова (АК) не менш рішуче прагнула зберегти контроль над землями, що раніше входили до складу Польської держави"

Tranlsation: "In turn, the Polish underground nationalist army, the Armija Krajowa (AK), was no less determined to keep the control over the territories that belonged to the Polish state"

Maybe my reverse translation will differ somewhat from the original quote, but not much, I assure you. Nationalist AK will be there. I can tell you a page number of the English edition in a little while Wanna bet?

You need more? How about another "Soviet" source? Here is one titled "The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust", (ISBN 0231112017) published by the Soviet Columbia University Press, which I guess was so much infiltrated, that the influence continued to 2000 when USSR was long gone. Page 201:

"Poles joined either the right-wing nationalist AK or the Communist AL"

You need more? How about the 1998 book published by Soviet University of Illinois Press: "Shadows of Treblinka" (ISBN 0252023390). You gonna love this:

"Duke Krakuwka from the village of Bryki, whose barns and lands harbored many hidden Jewish refugees, had a son who helped the Polish nationalist partisans, the Armia Krajowa. Young Bolek often met with the AK in its hideouts in the Brzezinski forest, telling these killers where they could find helpless Jews to plunder and murder. Instead of coordinating activities with Jewish partisans in the woods, they would attack Jewish groups at every opportunity."

BTW, what article you recommend for this material?" This one? Should I replace [your new edit about SP's prefering to target Polish civilians to Germans referenced through a third party to an obscure historian by this material about AK "preferring" to hunt for the Jews instead of the Germans.

More refs? Check Steven Zaloga I added elsewhere to WP (I can find it if you insist.)

But putting this point aside, what the article could use is some restructuring indeed. I agree that a separate controversies section is plainly a bad style and the text has to be integrated with the rest of the article. Currently, the main text is structured by the main areas of operation. This coincides with the partisan's command structure as there was a central staff in Moscow to coordinate the activity for each republic. The interaction with non-Soviet and anti-Soviet units in Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics can be with some effort easily moved from the "Controversies" section and integrated to the proper sections of the proper territories. The section about "Poland" is redundant and I said so earlier. Except perhaps few exceptional operations, Soviet Partisans operated only in the territories that as of 1941 were attached to the USSR and this material belongs to the proper sections covering Ukraine and Belarus. There is no point to duplicate it in a separate section.

Certain actions, like acting in disregard to provoking the German reprisals against the civil population, however, were a universal issue for operations in all territories. So, such issues need to be covered outside of the territorial sections. Perhaps, we can move it to the assessment section.

I would like to specifically comment on this edit by Piotrus. There, he presented the fringe POV referenced to a single rather obscure (as it was shown in the previous version) author and even that is cited through the intermediary, a third party review that "claims that the book claims" something. After fierce Piotrus' persistence, this made it to the article in the past, but now Piotrus rewrote that passage to present it in the form of the established in the historiography POV. A dirty trick.

What's more, the very next paragraph used to give a very well sourced account of SP's enagement against the Krzyzanowski's AK's unit supplied and armed by Nazis. Let's look at the original text:

In January-February 1944, in the wake of growing hostilities between the Soviets and the AK forces, [[Aleksander Krzyżanowski]], the chief AK commander of the area around [[Vilnius]] and [[Navahradak]], engaged his units in a highly controversial cooperation with the [[Nazi Germany|Germans]] directed against the Soviet partisans. In a result of the settlement between the local AK leadership and the Nazi authorities, several Polish units fought alongside Germans against Soviet partisans "ref name=switch>according to the report of the local Nazi official "three sizeable Polish detachments came over to our side and initially also fought well.", -''Piotrowski''</ref> and the Polish units in the area equipped with the arms, provisions and intelligence from Germans "cleansed"<ref name="Piotrowski"/> the territory in the Vilnius/Navahradak area from the Soviet units. However, elsewhere and with the increasing support from the advancing [[Eastern Front]], the Soviets partisans were successful against the Polish units.

Now, let's look at what Piotrus substituted this for:

In late 1943, the actions of Soviet partisans, who were ordered to liquidate the AK forces<ref name="Piotrowski"/> resulted in a limited amount of uneasy cooperation between some units of AK and the Germans. While AK still treated Germans as the enemy and conducted various operations against them,<ref name="Piotrowski"/> when Germans offered AK some arms and provisions to be used against the Soviet partisans, some Polish units in the [[Nowogródek]] and [[Wilno]] decided to accept them, in order to gain intelligence on German morale and preparedness and to acquire some badly needed weapons.<ref name="Radzilowski">[http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_en_103.html Review] by [[John Radzilowski]] of [[Yaffa Eliach]]'s ''[[There Once Was a World: A 900-Year Chronicle of the Shtetl of Eishyshok]]'', [[Journal of Genocide Research]], vol. 1, no. 2 (June 1999), City University of New York.</ref> There are no known joint Polish-German actions, and the Germans were unsuccessful in their attempt to turn the Poles toward fighting exclusively against Soviet partisans.<ref name="Piotrowski"/> Such collaboration of local Polish commanders with the Germans was condemned by AK High Command.<ref name="Piotrowski"/>

What was irrelevant or misplaced in the original phrasing? Now look at the new one. Half of what's relevant is removed and replaced with general info about "lack of joint operations", the reasons why AK "decided to accept German help" now replaced the witness statement on how the AK units armed by Nazis cleanses the area from the Soviet partisans. Relevance anyone? NPOV anyone?

Sad thing is that such filling articles with irrelevant stuff has become a habit. I have to discuss similar tricks with Piotrus by three talk pages at the time, when he does the same dilution of article's information by irrelevant stuff and even canvassing for help at that. --Irpen 04:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, Irpen, that your ability to ignorce criticizm and 'stand alone and claim your POV is NPOV' is amazing. Balcer addressed 'nationalist' angle well enough. I removed your poorly referenced intepretation and elaborative description of some fringe AK group and repalced it with general assessment of AK. If you have refs that Krzyżanowski was supporting collaboration with the Nazis, please quote them. His well-referenced articles doesn't mention that (although indeed some local AK units cooperated in limited scope with Nazis, in the aftermath of attacks by the Soviets).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadows of Treblinka is a personal memoir, by a person who did not even reach the age of 20 before the war ended. You think that is a credible source to label the whole Home Army nationalist? Give me a fracking break! As for the other sources, they discuss the Home Army only tangentially (again). The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust is about the Holocaust, not about resistance movements in World War II. Subtelny writes a gigantic book about the whole 1000 year history of Ukraine, in which all of World War II probably only gets a chapter, and the Home Army probably one sentence (I am guessing the one you quoted). Again, the point here is not to find some random historical sources mentioning the issue in passing (as you sure will find them), but to demonstrate that the formulation "nationalist Home Army" is in such mainstream usage in serious historical works focused on the subject that it should be used any time the Home Army is mentioned in Wikipedia, even if only tangentially. You have certainly not demonstrated this to my satisfaction.

I think you would agree that one cannot use the tactic of typing some term into Google, getting a few books returned with the term in them, and then claiming that Wikipedia must use that term. Similarly, I am sure by pursuing the same tactic I could find references to demonstrate, for example, that the Red Army was "brutal" or "fanatical". How would you feel if on that basis I proceeded to insist on the formulation "brutal Red Army" all throughout Wikipedia? Balcer 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I can see your point. Whether AK was nationalist or not is a minor point. I wrote that originally because that was what I saw it was called in the books I've for a while (Subtelny and Zaloga) before typing anything in google to find more quotes (today). Anyway, this is a minor point and I am not going to insist on that. Let it be just AK and to what degree it was nationalist can be discussed in its article. The rest, however, is much more important. Piotrus' dilution of the directly relevant material about anti-SP actions of AK with the Nazi support with the general talk about how rare such accidents were. The account of events is replaced by the account of AK. Does not this also belong to the AK article? And finally, the bizarre statement referred to a single poorly established scholar, also cited through a third party, about SP "preferring" to kill Poles to killing Germans. That just goes beyond pale. And annoying is that such saturation of the sections with lines of irrelevant text just to "balance" or even replaced the original info is a trick that has been tried and tried by the same editor. --Irpen 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Marek Jan Chodakiewicz who quite positivly reviewed this book is a rather respected and reliable scholar, expert on 20th century East European history.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look then at what is actually said in this review:

"Musial’s study suggests that the Soviets seldom attacked German military and police targets. They preferred to assault the poorly armed and trained Belarusan and Polish self-defense forces"

Now, take a look at the original text before your edit:

"Bogdan Musial suggests that the Soviet partisants, instead of engaging German military and police targets, targeted the poorly armed and trained Belarusian and Polish self-defense forces."

Seems close, does not it? Now let's look at your edit that you summed up as "NPOV" in the summary:

"Soviet partisants, instead of engaging German military and police targets, often targeted the poorly armed and trained Belarusian and Polish self-defense forces.ref name=Chod"

That's NPOVed, right? --Irpen 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad we have reached agreement, Irpen. Indeed, the general approach in such conflicts that is best is to simply give a link, and let the Wikipedia reader go to the relevant article if he/she wants more information. As for the issue of discussing the cooperation between AK and the Germans, that is indeed a tricky subject. I must say I do not know much about it. It was certainly a topic that was almost taboo, both in Communist Poland and in emigre publications in the West. Many people in Poland still don't realize that AK operated in two distict theaters of war: in General Government, where cooperation with Germans was simply inconceivable (and it is only this half of the war that was presented in mainstream media), and Eastern Poland, where various levels of cooperation with the Germans (usually low level) against Soviet Partisans and other guerilla groups happened with some frequency (following the usual doctrine: The enemy of my enemy is my friend). Still, while this cooperation should be mentioned, one should be careful not to go to the other extreme and claim that the Home Army as a whole entered a regular alliance with the Germans against the Soviet Partisans. I hope that a reasonable, NPOV description of this sad chapter can be worked out here. Balcer 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, why don't you look at the original text instead of general discussing on what "one should be careful not to" do. I quote the original paragraph and Piotrus' version right above. Does it follow from the original text I wrote "that the Home Army as a whole entered a regular alliance with the Germans against the Soviet Partisans" The text is specific enough discussing an incident in question. The incident is relevant very much to the subject of the article, Soviet partisans. No generalizations, no simplification, nothing. Just the relevant facts. Now look at the Piotrus version (also above). We see a piece about reasons of cooperation for AK (to gain intelligence) and we see an analysis on how typical or atypical it was. This is all about AK, true, but not SP. The facts themselves related to SP/AL interaction are largely removed. So, how can one "work out a reasonable NPOV description" if specifically related facts are removed and replaced with generalizations and justifications about the organization that has a separate article just for that? That is the common trick I am talking about. Add the Russification material to Polonization, add Pilsudski material to Russo-Japanese War, add..., etc., etc. --Irpen 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not being very helpful here, it's just that I really do not have the expertise in the subject to decide which version is more appropriate. Piotrus' version seems a little bit too defensive, trying to put the best possible light on what was clearly a dark chapter in Home Army's history, and quoting text from the less than inspiring website http://www.naszawitryna.pl/ (though John Radzilowski is a reputable historian, his text here is a highly combative, defensive review of a controversial book, not a cool, impartial study). Irpen's version seems to pass over in silence the rather terrible situation the Home Army was in (not able to receive plentiful supplies and support like the Soviet Partisans that were fighting against them etc.) Furthermore, citing the words of a local Nazi official (via Piotrowski) as the main basis for the statement that "Poles fought alongside the Germans" might not be the best way to reach NPOV. "Alongside" really implies that the Germans and Poles were standing "shoulder to shoulder" in the battle against partisans, which really does imply that a regular alliance was made. In other places Piotrowski makes it perfectly clear that the cooperation was much more limited and short term. At this point both versions actually seem reasonable to me, but if they could be combined to reflect the above concerns, I would be perfectly satisfied.Balcer 05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'suggest' is the better wording in this, and we may also discuss moving the controversial 'suggestion' to subarticle.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Answering the first message here (by Halibutt):

• I disagree that "Belarusian and Ukrainian territories" are the problem. We could just add "ethnic" or "predominantly populated by" to achieve objectivity. One can agree that previous Polish control there influenced the level support for partisans much less than other factors.
• I agree that "Controversies" section should be reformed. As far as I remember, it was intitially suggested as "War crimes of Soviet Partisans".

And I'd like to repeat my old idea: Ukrainian, Polish and other non-Russian users should formulate their own united version of the page and maintain it together through reverting mechanism. Instead of, or paralleling, discussions with the Irpen Group. Ukrained 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore the rant and your attacks on myself, as usually, and will just say that persistent revert warring will get you blocked. Adding to it the calls to others to revert war as well will get you blocked sooner. Finally, peppering such entries with attacks will make it happen yet sooner. Please calm down and act maturely. Best yet, please do some writing for a change from revert warring. Happy edits, --Irpen 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukrained: How exactly do you propose to address the issue of separating of the events in the Western Belarusian and Ukrainian lands and filing them under "Poland"? Yury Tarasievich 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Yuri, now that you are here, would you have acess to any maps showing the larger areas of operations of partisans in Belarus...?--Kuban Cossack 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm kinda reluctant to draw myself into this outright. And I'd love to hear from Ukrained, on the issue I've just raised (assuming I'm not ignored as the "member of the Irpen group").

On the maps -- yes, I have some maps, some Soviet and some not-so-Soviet. Only I don't exactly know how does one make of those something for WP, which wouldn't cause copyright-trouble. Simple drawing I could just redraw by hand but this?? Yury Tarasievich 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If the original maps are not usable, than the redrawn ones would not be usable either 'cause that would have been a derivative work of the copyrighter content, strictly prohibited by copyright freaks. Just upload the maps if this is not too much trouble and we will try to devise some way to keep them.

Oh, and I would love to have an Irpen Group. There is so much to do, so many more articles to write and improve that if only I had a group I would not have had so much non-finished (and hence non-uploaded) articles in my drafts folder. But those remain unfinished yet :(. To name a few, I have non-finished rewritten history section of Peremyshl (and Peremyshl Principality), Ternopil, History of Kiev, Lypky, unstubbed Olha Kobylyanska, Drohobych, developped Khotin Uprising, Ostap Veresay and Vasyl Karazin (I picked latest 10 by date.) According to Ukrained, these articles are better off in my drafts folder than in WP. That's a very perverse form of patriotism, buddy, to have less articles about Ukraine in Wikipedia. Ukrained, are you happy now? If so, please start contributing constructively at last. Happy edits, --Irpen 08:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To Mr.TarasIEvich: Sir, I hope you're not asking a tricky provocative question (as you claim to be not a member of the Irpen Group). Of course, issues of the Soviet partisans network on Ukrainian and Belarusian territories should be included under "Belarus" and "Ukraine" sections respectively (with small NPOV notices in "Poland" sections/articles if needed). Am I being clear? Please point me to the edits contradicting this my opinion. And let me remind everybody that I'm a neutral Wpedian in the first place, then a Ukrainian nationalist.

Thank you, I wanted to know your position on that. Since you raised the issue, what's wrong with "IE" in my surname, please? Yury Tarasievich 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To Irpen: AlexPU was recently blocked for frank discussion of your "Ukrainian patriotism", so I'll refrain from a similar attempt. After all, who knows how many "embedded admins" have you recruited or lobbied (I already know two Russian ones threatening me, and two DYK foreigners that just "look away"). Instead I'll try to concentrate on your permanent breaches of WP rules (yes, this IS threat and warning). But PLEASE DON'T CALL ME YOUR "BUDDY", I CONSIDER IT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK AND TROLLING. Thank you all, Ukrained 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian territories under Polish and Soviet rule

Attn. Ukrainian and Polish editors: I find the following passage non-neutral and reflecting only Polish POV (inadmissable wording italisized):

In the former eastern territories of the Second Polish Republic, attached to the Ukrainian and Belarusian Soviet Republics after Soviet invasion of Poland, the organization and the operations of the Soviet partisans were similar to that in the Ukrainian and Belarusian territories.

The passage claims that Kresy Wschodnie are NOT "Ukrainian territories" as well. I think we don't need such a controversial claim, hardly relevant to the article's topic. How about "... to the territories under longer Soviet rule", or something? Ukrained 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, good point. Perhaps just the addition of SSR (in the Ukrainian and Belarusian SSR territories) would be enough?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they were actually under German rule. --HanzoHattori 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No Piotrus, I think "SSR" addition wouldn't be enough. In fact, I find the issue of pre-war partition of Poland hardly relevant here. We can assume that the Polish communities would form their distinct attitude towards Nazis and partisans anyway, no matter how many years ago Polish state was lost. I believe it's more about ethnicity and religion. However, if you insist on mentioning the partition issue, two thesises need to be stressed in the text:

• there were territories previously under Polish and under Soviet rule
• those territories were multiethnic at the time, not "Polish"; significantly Belarusian/Ukrainian as well

I'll suggest my text formulation later. And I hope these my opinions will be considered when writing new specific articles "from Polish perspective". Ukrained 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Destructuring of the article

Ladies and gentlemen, apart from painful neutrality issue, I'm concerned with the growing deformation of the article's structure and style. I'm talking mainly about the actions of the definite national group of editors (which I could avoid naming unless it renews its usual personal attacking again).

Two weeks ago I removed the duplicating and excessicely-detailed sentences, as well as irrelevant images from "Ukraine" section, and the other side seemed to agree non-images edit. Now I find new duplicating passages in the first section (although the intro looks better now). Editors who responsible for this: did you care reading section in the whole? And more, new lenghty redundant subsection on Vitebsk appeared. Not to mention the images, which litter only "Ukraine" section (is this a permanent trollish attack on Ukrainian editors?).

Why doing things like that? I can understand POV-pushing intentions of pro-partisans users... But we must first of all care about innocent readers, not concerned with survival of either Russia or Ukraine. Otherwise the project would degrade, and Jimbo would run out of his budget. For instance, I'm experiencing hard troubles when opening and editing this overloaded page, which I'm sure is the case with many other users of WP.

Distinctively on images issue: I will put NPOV tag unless they will be removed in a week. Ukrained 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It was me adding text recently, and I don't understand your objections. E.g., how am I "pro-partisan"? Now, my work isn't finished yet. As I see it from here, after rewriting, the 1941-1942 piece on Belarus is now actually explaining the development of the events, not using passages on "partisan cells springing up in Spring". Also, the info was added on the crucial event of the whole Soviet partisan war development (Vitsyebsk Gate), and am now preparing to proceed to the 1943 and 1944.

The current info duplication comes from the people structuring this article before me, mainly from artificial division of the Belarusian and Ukrainian sections, and from parting of the significant part of the overview from the lead, which indeed may be confusing.

I told already about map actually tripling in size when "thumbnailed". That's the whole reason for slow load. Possibly you'd care to solve this little tech. problem? Yury Tarasievich 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Artificial division of the Belarusian and Ukrainian sections? Hey, we could avoid that division (as well as that of between all partisans-affected countries)... because it was purely a result of the worthy anti-POV attempts. Each nation fights pro-partisans propaganda passages concerning their motherland. If non-Muscovite editors united and form a single neutral version, than we all could counter persistent POV-insertions, and possibly ban all Russian trolls and vandals who обсели this article.

I agree with Ukrained on duplication issue. Ukraine section starts with ritual Soviet-Hebbelsian mantra "partisans were good guys only because Nazis were bad guys", which is also present in the lead. We should limit that crap.AlexPU 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not competent in Ukrainian part of this, but from what I know, at least treating the Belarusian section by parts is a-historical. The only real result of the 1921-1939 division of Belarus which is relevant here, was certain abstaining of Soviet HQ from buildup of Partisan forces on the West Belarusian lands in 1942. This wasn't 100%, and dispensed with completely come beg. 1943.

As for "good guys" -- any historian will tell you that at least in Belarus Germans spoiled their own considerable popular success in 1941 by the abysmal treating of the local people. Pacifications with tens of thousand of local people killed at a go were a reality, too. So, I don't see the reason for this name-calling. Yury Tarasievich 06:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a small side note, there are reports that the Khatyn Massacre was partially carried out by "Ukrainians" not Germans. I am sure AlexPU will succeed in winning over Belarusians on the "Ukrainian" side of the dispute once I dig up some sources on that. Also I request that people note that the quotations around "Ukrainians" are deliberate to match the usage of the word that svidomy trolls are using and are not necessary representetive of all Ukrainians. ;) --Kuban Cossack 13:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we already have the issue you're talking about in the lead. But it just repeated in Ukraine's section, which I could even agree with. But not with redundant one-sided photos and trollish bad-style phrases like "... immediately quickly" (the partisans movement spread over Ukraine). Oh, and the worst thing is: pro-Soviet editors would rewrite the whole article in a biased way as soon as Ukrainian editors will stop watching. The current far-from-perfect revision (except images) was set in a hard conflictious way.AlexPU 06:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Harvest of '41

Due to loss of fertilizer imports and fifth of arable land the food situation in Finland was difficult. Although some fo the needed grain was bought from Germany, Finland was still on the brink of faminy at 1941. When most of the working age males were conscripted, there was even a shortage of labor. The same shortage of labor and from the same reason was also in East Karelia, and Soviet evacuation of all material, including food, made the situation even more difficult. The rations which were issued to the camps were standard rations for light workers which has been used in Finland for example in volunteer projects. What was not counted, was that with the shortage of food, also the low quality material were taken into use, with much lower nutritional values than normal stuff. The end result was increased deaths everywhere where that material had to be used, also in Finland proper. In statistics there can be seen slight increase in deaths in Finland, a little higher among the free occupied people, and much higher inside the camps, although also in Finland the deaths were much more likely in places were people couldn't help themselves, like in mental hospitals. The free people, in Finland and East Karelia, were able to fix the deficiencies by fishing, collecting berries and gardening, none of which were available in the camps initially, only late 1942 were fishing allowed. Also the quality of the raw materials were checked better, and the minimum rations were increased just in case. The end result was that during the last year of occupation, there wasn't a difference in death rates inside camps, outside camps or with Finland proper. --Whiskey 10:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I told you on my Talk page, no amount of wording will unmake the fact of at least 1 person out of 6 being starved to death. Those people were rounded up by government, put in the camp, and then they died of hunger. Harvest doesn't enter into it, and certainly not so in the context of this text. Yury Tarasievich 10:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is, were those people murdered by intentionally giving them too little food rations. The answer to that question is no. So why did they die? The answer to that question is the low quality of the available foodstuff and missing options to improve those lacking rations. Why was the quality then so low? The simple answer to that is the bad harvest, which forced everybody to use for food even those stuff which would have in normal situation used for some other thing, like feeding the cattle, making a glue etc. And even Finns suffered from that in a situations similar like those inside the camps. Incompetence is one big factor, as Finns didn't realize how bad those material were until it was too late: The bureocrats just looked the numbers that so-and-so many tons of potatoes or flour were delivered but no-one questioned the quality of the stuff. --Whiskey 11:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the crop failure by itself doesn't "make this answer no". However, this isn't the issue or this article. As I see it, you could start the article on those camps, and provide all those explanations there, and insert a link to it here. Yury Tarasievich 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just check the sources? The failed harvests and lack of food are very important matters in Finnish history during World War II. It is widely known and discussed among historians. So, are you just pushing your own speculation or original research or what are the sources for the claim, that they were deliberately murdered by other means. Anyway - what this has to do with partisans? Sure it made some Russians angry, but giving that as the main explanation on partisan attacks in the main chapter feels somewhat ridiculous. The occupation policy is discussed here Continuation_War#Finnish_occupation_policy, not on this article about partisans anyway.. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat myself, that the crop failure doesn't excuse starving as good as 1 out 6 and as bad as 1 out of 3 persons "interned" in the -- glory be -- not-Communistic camp. So, pushing this into the text looks just like the trivial WP:WEASEL to me, hinting that "if there was crop failure, interned people mass-starving to death is sort of okay".

But actually the whole reason of their death is not relevant in the context of this article. But the fact of their death is, as this is sort of explanation of the support provided to the partisans by the local people. That's why I removed the whole clause. Yury Tarasievich 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the percentage of death caused by hunger among the Finnish population was comparable, the the deaths in camps are caused by deliberate malnutrition of detainees and not by natural circumstances. --Irpen 14:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What the..? Of course we can't compare free civilians and people in internment. A better thing for comparing would be Finnish prisons. Anyway, Finland was not - and is not communistic, food was given to people. But when there is no food in stores, where to get them for enemy aliens in camps? Of course the failed harvest affects everything. I believe Germans POWs in Siberia did not have a death rate from hunger comparable with Soviet citizens. :) I don't see any logic in your point. This is not a major issue when discussing Soviet partisans, and failed harvest is a fact... --Pudeo (Talk) 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New illustrations

Quite relevant, by the way.

Possibly, someone could also address the issue of the map being like three times bigger in volume than the actual upload, when "reduced in size for display". Upload was in indexed colour, this I suppose is converted to full colour. Yury Tarasievich 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --HanzoHattori 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

anti-fascist

I'm for anti-Nazi. The Soviet usage of word fascist was fuzzy. Xx236 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Germans went on their crusade not alone. Yes, and Italians too (putting the fascism back into the "fascist"). --HanzoHattori 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Partisan losses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#Poles_and_East_Slavs says 400,000 Soviet "paramilitary and partisans" died. --HanzoHattori 09:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Make Category: Soviet partisans

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eastern_European_World_War_II_resistance_movements --HanzoHattori 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

The book Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study by Walter Laqueur ([12]) contains academic critical estimates of Soviet partisans numbers and casualties inflicted by them. Highly recommended for improving this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so big deal, really. At least, those pages included for free contained no revelations of he kind you seem to be looking for.

An almost century-spanning overview, dedicating chapter per movement, with only superficial insight. No wonder, that it overlooks some crucial developments.

But hey, it's "Western"! Yury Tarasievich 10:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)