Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:10, 1 May 2006

Great Patriotic War

i think the title for Great patriotic war should really be World war 2 as this is how it is called in english. as well, Great patriotic war has different meanings in different countries, for example in the North Korea it tends to mean Korean war rather than World war 2. it is english wiki, so it will be the best to use english name. as for latvia, i included what information i know about the situation there, both opinion of soviet partisans and taht of latvian government. if you have other suggestions, please say them but in my opinion it is better to have some written rather than none. Matsuhito 20:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War re-directs to the article specifically about WW II on the Eastern front. It is an accepted and known historical term in the West. It scores more than 6 million hits on Google , more than 90 % of them refer to the fighting between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany on the Eastern front. Your comment about situation in the Baltics was quite misinformed and biased and you yourself admitted you know little about the subject. I think its better to leave as it is, since it is a very controversial topic. Fisenko 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Im with Fisenko on this, anyone who is interested in the subject knows that that is what the russians call ww2.--dr doris

accurate numbers?

"Belorussian guerrillas liquidated, injured and took prisoner some 1.5 million German soldiers."

This seemes quite a lot. Since the Germnas lost about 4.5 million in the whole war it means that every third german casualty was due to belarusan partisans? Doesn't seem very likely?

According to more credible contemporary historic estimations Germans lost about 5.5-6 million + soldiers during WW II, more than 75 % of them on the Eastern front. That's only war casualties (i.e. either killed or injured badly enough not to return to combat). "1.5 million German soldiers" are only claimed to be either "liquidated, injured or taken prison" by Belorussian partisans (who accounted for about 40-50 % of Eastern front guerrilla activity), "injured" (including those injured lightly) are probably the largest group. This makes this estimate to be within the realm of possibility. I agree, however, the number was taken from a www.vor.ru website, from an article glorifying actions of Soviet partisans and is likely to be somewhat inflated. Nonetheless that's the only web reference I was able to find. Fisenko 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Still, seems highly unlikely given the number of actions the Belarusian partisans organized and given the overall efficiency of regular armies was probably much higher than that of partisans, even as brave as Belarusian ones. If we followed the number, we'd probably have to inflate the German WWII losses to some 50 millions. Do we have any more reliable source on that? //Halibutt 13:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably what is wrong about the figure is that all the soldiers are referred to as Germans. Many if not most of the rear units in Belarus were non-German, mostly non-ethnic-German SS units, Lithuanian polizai, and even some number of Belarussian collaborator "policemen" (although since this was a very dangerous occupation, there were probably surprisingly few of these - I however have never seen any hard figures). I am not sure about Belarus, but I know that in Ukraine for example a lot of the rear-area military garrisons were Hungarian. The situation could have been similar in Belarus. Also the count probably includes civilian collaborators like the hiwis. Still, that number is probably a bit inflated. Moonshiner 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will add references

To my entry later this day. --Molobo 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the article about Koniuchy Massacre. You really think Polish population supported Soviet partisants who just a while ago were people sending Poles to Gulags and Kazakhstan ? Anyway ok, I shall bring references tomorrow, alongside testimonies of local Poles regarding Soviet partisant units. What is POV ? That Soviet partisants didn't turn to banditry ? I will gladly support this with quotes even. That they didn't murder Polish civilians ? IPN is making a invistigation into several such cases. That Poles didn't view them as hostile as a result of previous soviet activities ? I can even give you direct quotes to diaries of Soviet units registering such events. --Molobo 04:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk abakharev 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV in Soviet Partisants ?

Look at the article about Koniuchy Massacre. You really think Polish population supported Soviet partisants who just a while ago were people sending Poles to Gulags and Kazakhstan ? Anyway ok, I shall bring references tomorrow, alongside testimonies of local Poles regarding Soviet partisant units. I really would like your explanation regarding your revert ? What is POV ? That Soviet partisants didn't turn to banditry ? I will gladly support this with quotes even. That they didn't murder Polish civilians ? IPN is making a invistigation into several such cases. That Poles didn't view them as hostile ? Please answer. --Molobo 04:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Rudniki.html 19 1/44 In the operation to destroy the 30 Jacob Prener armed village of Koniuchy, 30 fighters took part, of the units "Avenger" and "To Victory." http://www.ipn.gov.pl/eng/eng_inv_koniuchy.html --Molobo 04:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• The "Territories of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union" currently have names Belarus and Western Ukraine. They were populated by Ukrainians, Belorussian as well as Poles, Jews and Russians. Quite a number (I would dare say most of them) supported Partisans and one way or the other, otherwise the partisans would not have a slim chance to survive in the marshes and forests of these territories. Germans murder a quarter of population of Belarus but did not stop the partisan movements. It is ridiculous to state that they were all Soviet soldiers and communist activists. Indeed as in any popular guerrilla movements partisans committed a number of atrocities, but to paint them all as the bandits is a spit to the face of the dead. Communists indeed were not particularly nice to the population of these areas (and to the ones from the other places too) but it so happen that the German were worse. abakharev 04:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Territories of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union" currently have names Belarus and Western Ukraine Of course, but in the timeframe of the article they were territories of Poland occupied by Soviet Union. Only in 90s they regained independence.

They were populated by Ukrainians, Belorussian as well as Poles, Jews and Russians. Actually the population count in terrritories Soviet Union occupied from Poland in 1939 was as follows: Poles 38 %, Ukrainians 37 %, 14,5 % Belarussians, 8,4 % Jews, 0,9 % Russian, 0,6 % German. I am using a work here that analysed various population statistics given by various authors regarding that issue.They are of course higher estimates but this what the author gave as sensible conclusion of his research. The work is P. Eberhard "Polska granica wschodnia" Warsaw 1993. As you can see Polish population was quite high in those areas(circa 5 milion)

It is ridiculous to state that they were all Soviet soldiers and communist activists. Of course in territories that were part of Soviet Union before they weren't and received much support, but you have to understand that Soviet Union in 1939 acquired also territories that did have areas mostly Polish (of course I am not saying that Poles were majority of people, only that still there was a high population count, and they were areas were Poles formed majority-villages, small towns etc), and as the Soviets discriminated Polish population, Soviet partisants in those areas consisted of such people, and received little support, being seen as just another occupier. Indeed the whole communist movement in Poland reached only 6.000 soldiers. So you see I am writing about a specific area and issue-mainly the territories of Polish Second Republic that were acquired by Soviet Union in 1939, where the issue of Soviet partisants is different from other areas of SU due to presence of large Polish minority and conflict between them and Soviets.

Quite a number (I would dare say most of them) supported Partisans and one way or the other, otherwise the partisans would not have a slim chance to survive in the marshes and forests of these territories. Actually those partisants were despised by most Poles, at least that is what there is in publications regarding those issues. Most of Poles there were local peasants that had little arms, and even little training, while the partisants were former soldiers, with good training and very well armed. The in effect terriorised the local Polish population with threats and acts of violance. When resistance to banditry was made as in Koniuchy they resorted to massacres. And of course they and Home Army often fought which each other. So the picture presented in the current article is quite unrealistic, rosy and simply untrue. --Molobo 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes partisans killed 30 civilians in Knyuchij and probably thousands elsewhere. German occupants killed millions abakharev 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why nobody disputes that Germans murdered milions. But this doesn't mean that the fact that Soviet partisants persecuted Poles and turned to robbing and murdering civilians should be deleted. --Molobo 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

As I understand, Molobo demands that we state that partisans sometimes committed atrocities and to provide the link to Konjuchij Massacre. I think it fair, I will try to write a couple of sentences my evening abakharev 23:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I want the article expanded, currently it portayes a idolised and unrealistic portayal of those units. See for example: The provisions robbed by partisans (at least by Soviet partisans in Belarussia) included not only food but also almost every household necessity imaginable, which often later appeared in the marketplaces of local towns, having been sold for "pocket money". Molobo.

And here Moscow ordered (...) the Soviet partisans to "combat with every possible means bourgouis-nationalist units and groups (i.e the Polish partisans). --Molobo

The author also describes how this was done. Polish officers of underground movement were invited for talks by Soviet partisans and then murdered. --Molobo

A POVed entry

The current entry speaks nothing about the relation between Polish population and Soviet partisans. It is also POV that it implies some "Nazy" collaborationist were executed rather then making it clear that Soviet partisans murdered peasents they robbed including their families, wome n and children. It doesn't mention the wide ranging robberies, terrorising of local population, the fact that Soviet Partisans fought Ukrainian independence movement or that they were ordered to fight Allied soldiers that is the Home Army etc. It speaks nothing about the controversy regarding their attacks made without regarding the possible German reprisals on villagers. It is a very POV article. --Molobo 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall add a full section regarding persecution of Polish population, Soviet atrocities, and their attacks against Home Army after the weekend using footnotes and links. --Molobo 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the article seems pretty sympathetic to the Soviet partisans while mentions little of their other face. However, perhaps a better way to avoid a possible revert war and heated conflict would be to add the paragraph here first. What do you say? //Halibutt 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vet's accounts

A neighbor of mine, Robert Rieck, of Chicago, Illinois, was a soldier who fought in WWII with the American Army. He is in his middle 90s, but still alive and well. He owned and operated a hardware store, Riecks Hardware, in Chicago for over 50 years, until his retirement several years ago. During the Battle of the Bulge, he was captured and imprisoned in a POW camp in Germany. This camp was liberated by the Red Army several months later. I have know Bob for many years (since I was in High School), and have an extremely high regard for him and his character.

In various conversations with him regarding his wartime experiences, I have touched upon his imprisonment and subsequent liberation. His bottom line is that after the jubilation of being liberated, came the absolute horror from watching the Red Army killing, raping, looting, and otherwise terrorizing German civilians, until he was transferred from the area. One particularly revolting story, was when some drunken soldiers shot and killed an old man in the street for no other reason than wanting hateful revenge on the "enemy". In the Naked City there are millions of stories, and this is just one of them. How many allied war veterans have you spoken to in Sri Lanka? Dr. Dan 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)p.s. feel free to investigate the name and story.

What does the Red Army have to do with partisans? I think you have the wrong article. Moonshiner 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree...no relavance CoNtRaBaNdO

You are right that the RA and partisans are two different entities. The unsigned editor commingled the two and I responded to it. Dr. Dan 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true, the Red Army raped, looted and burned. Any other army in its place would have done the same, after taking back half of Europe through blood and pain. American soldiers are comfortable at critisizing the "red hordes" for being inhumane, barbaric, etc. However, they never, and I will repeat, NEVER, were in the situation Russians were in. Hitler ordered American and Englishh POWs to be given better treatment than the "inferior" Slavs and Jews. Jews and Slavs were usually worked to death or near-death and then killed. The biggest concentration camps were in Eastern Europe. American soldiers always had plenty of supplies and military support, they seldom experienced being surrounded and massacred or any other horrors of a total war like the American land being bombed and looted by Germans, with the citizens burned in concentration camps. Russians lost 20 million soldiers in the war. Most of the German forces were on the Eastern front. I think these facts should be considered before anybody would consider criticizing Russians. Russians are as human as anybody else, however unlike the other Allies, they were placed in a situation which made them animal-like when it came to retaliating for the losses they sustained.

I don't think American soldiers are comfortable criticising the Red Army and never said so. I was instructed by an anonymous editor from Sri Lanka to talk to Allied Vets. Told him I have, and this was one story I heard. Regarding American military participation in WWII, maybe you should read a little more about the Pacific theater, and some of the barbarity and atrocities that were being perpetrated there, too. Dr. Dan 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I even wonder how keen others are in critisizing the Russians, while not giving them any credit for WWII, while in reality they bore the brunt of the war. I guess propaganda worked on people's minds not only in the USSR. It has become very popular to bite Russia's ass (excuse me for the expression) for its atrocities and crimes against humanity. Of course, German National-Socialism was a much better alternative. Listening to all the crap I hear about Russians, I can readily imagine how a person not acquanted with anybody Russian can see them as baby-eating rapists, dirty commies and plotting bastards. Have some historical respect for them! --AK

I aknowledge that a minority of Russian soldiers did indeed commit atrocities. However from what I have observed it shocks me that so much negative is spoken of the Red Army. Does anyone know that the Latvian SS commited atrocities and now they are called heroes. Most of the Russian partisans were very humane. CoNtRaBaNdO

New Question

Fisenko, I see you rv'd everything that Molobo added today. Was everything POV? Nothing true? I have often disagreed with Molobo, but if he says the sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, I'm not going to call it POV. So once again, was anything, anything, he added true? Like the tidbit about Latvia for example? Dr. Dan 03:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=401&issue_id=2940&article_id=236643 On April 30, the Latvian Supreme Court found 81-year-old Vassily Kononov guilty of war crimes and sentenced him to twenty months in prison - although, according to Russia's Foreign Ministry, the court reportedly then released him on the grounds that he had already served the time. Kononov is accused of executing nine civilians whom he suspected of Nazi sympathies, one of them a pregnant woman, in the east Latvian village of Mazie Bati in May of 1944. In January of 2000 a district court in Riga found Kononov guilty of war crimes and sentenced him to six years in prison. Kononov appealed, and in April 2000 the Latvian Supreme Court ordered him released for the duration of his appeal, asking experts to review the case.

Prosecutors re-filed the war crimes charges against Kononov in January 2001, but a Latvian court dismissed them in October of last year for insufficient evidence. Latvian prosecutors appealed that verdict the following month, but the Latvian Supreme Court began examining their appeal only last month. Kononov's case became something of a cause celebre in Russia: In January 2003, President Vladimir Putin sent Kononov a congratulatory birthday letter saying that the former partisan's "selfless struggle" against "the infringement… of human rights" and "attempts to rewrite history" in Latvia evoked "sincere support in Russian society" (AP, January 3, 2003). --Molobo 07:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Latvian Government is controversial in the context of Nazism. I believe that the statement of Molobo is one sided as it doesnt mention about it. CoNtRaBaNdO Just a fragment.Perceptions of Soviet partisans outside of Russia by people who experienced them obviously differs from the Russian one. --Molobo 07:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Many Russian partisans came from the villages and were former peasants etc. I know this sounds general. Why would Russian partisans commit atrocitities if not for a few bandits or the misguided by their government. I suggest Molobo and Kuban Cossack to exchange sources. CoNtRaBaNdO

That account is misleading. As demonstrated in court, Kononov and several other accomplices (I don't know what happened to them or why he was singled out) made a raid against Malie Baty after another group of partisans were killed in the village. In fact, his group killed ten people, and 9 of them were Nazi polizai. The woman was the only civilian killed, because the other villagers identified her as a polizai collaborator. (http://www.peoples.ru/military/hero/kononov/, http://www.zavtra.ru/cgi/veil/data/zavtra/01/381/53.html) Moonshiner 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Too strong about AK

I feel I have wrote too strong words about AK (thanks to Molobo). Can somebody indicate that AK as well as OUN and other nationalist guerillas fought Nazi's as well, just avoided cooperations with the Soviets? Maybe the whole question, of "Partisans and the National Question" should go to a daughter article? abakharev 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Daughter article ? Why, you didn't want a daughter article to Warsaw Uprising 1794 about Russian propaganda. I don't think description of atcocities, thievery, mass murder comitted by Soviet partisans in Soviet occupied Poland should be removed from this article. They form the full portayal of those formations. As to your: Can somebody indicate that AK as well as OUN and other nationalist guerillas fought Nazi's as well, just avoided cooperations with the Soviets? First of all comparing AK with OUN is biased since AK didn't work for German Reich, secondly AK worked with Soviet Partisans untill they started to attack and murder them on orders of Moscow. And of course I shall restore blanked information as soon as possible.

Of course there is nothing about AK cooperating with Nazis in links you presented. --Molobo 05:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Belarus numbers

1.5 mln seem quite absurd. Does anybody have objective sources ? This informative discussion seems to indicate the casualties were much smaller: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=77352 --Molobo 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Does 0,5 mln seems better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Occupiers

The article mentions occupiers. This a slight POV, as Soviet Partisans fought also against Ukrainian,Belarus, Polish and Baltic independence movement. --Molobo 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish POV

There is no need to have half of the article dedicated to Polish POV, since it an article focused on Soviet history not Polish. I understand that according to Molobo articles on everything from Ded Moroz to Alexander Suvorov should be dedicated entirely to the heroic struggle and suffering of the Polish people under Russian yoke, but not everyone is intrested in just learning Polish POV and bias Fisenko 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, as far as this goes, I understand that the disputed information is this, right? Was it pasted from any other article? It seems rather relevant to me here, and referenced, and the current article is not too long to merit creation of a subarticle. So why was it all removed? The current version of the article has not a single mention of Polish-Soviet relations. And let me notet that your 'reply' above makes no factual statement other then menting some 'Polish POV' (no examples given) and making a personal attack against Molobo.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Molobo's new edits , one thing I think he should do is first qualify what the "territories annexed by Soviet Union from Poland" where partisans fought were and the time-frame they did it in. I cannot read the Polish sources he posted, but to me it sounds suspiciously like first of all they are confusing national liberation movements like that of the OUN against Polish occupiers as actions of Soviet partisans (and in some way this is justified, as some number of UPA fighters did join Soviet partisans, see for example this interview with Vsevolod Klokov). Maybe he is talking about raids made by partisans from Belarus and Ukraine farther west as the front moved that way later in the war. The distinction is quite important not just for military historians (please keep in mind that hopefully we are all writing this article for people who want to learn history and not for those who just want to cry over the plight, real or imagined, of Polish people - for these audiences there are fine books by talented Polish novelists such as Stefan Żeromski among others). Also, I believe that the Institute of National Rememberance publications should not be used as sources because of serious problems with their objectivity and neutrality - one of the Institute's stated goals is to gain monetary compensation for those it considers victims. --Moonshiner 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that IPN is regarded as one of the most respectable historic institutes in Poland, and gains no monetary rewards for researching crimes. It's even been accused of being anti-polish for relentlessy pursuing information on crimes against Jews made by Poles. It aims at compensation of all wrongs, regardless who was the victim or who was the executioner. I would agree with you if IPN sought the money for itself. But it seeks compensation for all wronged people not the institution. However I never heard of anybody receiving compensation yet. If you did please inform me. (Molobo)

I don't see how your claim that IPN is already one of the most respectable institutes in Poland can be true since it only began operating in 2000. Regarding monetary rewards for solving crimes, the conflict of interest lies in the fact that IPN is an institution whose stated mission is to prosecute these crimes. They do not claim to be an impartial historical source so you should not treat them as such. Furthermore, possible conflicts of interest can arise when people associated with IPN may be called on to serve as expert witnesses in a trial (I don't know about Poland, but in the US and other countries, expert witnesses are compensated monetarily), and in possible connections associates of IPN may have with victims claiming compensation (since as you stated, there have been no known cases brought forth by the IPN, whether these accusations are true or not is yet to be established). Furthermore, since IPN is a government-established, funded and managed institution, I don't understand how you can claim that they are an impartial source for original research over and above simple duplication of government archives, which you have presented here. --Moonshiner 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read the Polish sources he posted, but to me it sounds suspiciously like first of all they are confusing national liberation movements like that of the OUN against Polish occupiers as actions of Soviet partisans (and in some way this is justified, as some number of UPA fighters did join Soviet partisans I am glad to correct you in this. None of my sources confuses OUN or UPA with Soviet partisans, in fact in mention Soviet struggles with them as well. Why did you claim that ? For instance the Koniuchy massacre is quite well sourced as made by Soviet partisans and even Yad Vashem has log of the Soviet unit mentioning destruction of the village. --Molobo 18:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained in what you just quoted, first of all I cannot read Polish, and second of all not all units which eventually became Soviet partisans started out that way. Moonshiner 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, transferring the info from other sites, should be done in a balanced way. For instance, the info from this chapter of a serious academic book can be added to lots of articles in no time. For example this info: , , . Once I put it to the Home Army and History of Poland articles, I expect Molobo to see such additions as unbalanced. --Irpen 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing against adding that sources if the issues the talk about are explained fully. --Molobo 18:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Today, while searching for the origin of a certain German proverb, I stumbled upon this article, which casts even more doubt on the validity of information coming from the IPN. --Moonshiner 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian POV

If you think there is a Polish POV and bias coming from the Polish Wikipedian Community ( and there is, although, for the most part, not as drastic as you portray it to be), the best way to combat it, is certainly not by emmulating it. These polemics as the founder of Misplaced Pages, so correctly named them, are really very tedious to get around, and truly non-productive. POV is bad enough to deal with, but "Totalitarian Style Propaganda," is typically directed to very primitive types, who are rather unlikely to read, edit, contribute or care about the Misplaced Pages Project, anyway. I hope everybody from all sides, keeps this in mind. In the beginning, it has a humorous, and almost entertaining quality to it. Then it becomes rather disgusting and uninteresting, with lots of untruths being bantered around, which have "citations" from dubious sources full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Lastly, please remember there are no countries without "skeletons" in their closets. Somehow the Americans and Japanese, and the French and Germans, have moved beyond 1945. Eastern Europe has not. This unfortunately, is the result of the Communist Totalitarian system (now defunct), continually and habitually, and somewhat skillfully, keeping these hatreds alive, since they had to, as they were not able to provide things as basic as toliet paper to the masses of their people. Before you reiterate how different the war was in the East, how terrible etc., I know this to be true. However the war between the U.S. and Japan had it's share of atrocities too. And in the continuum of human history, it happenned before and will, unfortunately happen again. Ladies and Gentlemen, more facts, less bullshit! Dr. Dan 02:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Dan, you are correct in every word when you state the problem here. However, your solution "more facts, less bullshit!" is too general to help. Any article can be loaded with any amount of true and referenced facts that would still make a mess out of it. The solution lies in using the common sense in covering the controversial events properly. That is not to throw them here and there, but to choose the articles appropriately, as well as the amount of the information on the issue that belongs to the particular article. We see an attempt by some users to devote many RU-related articles entirely to how their subjects are related to Poland. Catherine the Great, Tyutchev and even Ded Moroz are some examples of this.

I can give you counltess examples how this can be responded too. To begin with, check the links I posted recently to talk:Wilno Uprising about the tacit collaboration between the Polish Home Army and the Nazis against Soviet partisans. The issue is rather obscure and, while peculiar, does not characterize the Home Army because, AFAIK, it was a single isolated incident. Still, this is a fact and by adding this info in every detail to the Home Army, Polish contribution to World War II, History of Poland (1939–1945), World War II and many other articles it is easy to turn them into a complete mess. The opponents will not be able to strike this out, because it is true and referenced, and instead will "counter" by similarly fact-based but totally inapropriate attacks on other articles. Check the recent history and talk at History of Poland (1939–1945). One contributor had recently added to it a whone new section entitled as "Treatment of the Polish citizens under Soviet occupation". There are many other similar cases. The easiest to find all many of them is to check the list of contributions by Molobo.

In short, common sense and ethics are needed in addition to commonly known wisdoms such as "Stick to facts" and Misplaced Pages policies. --Irpen 03:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lot of information can be safely removed from an article if it already exist in a linke subarticle. In the mentioned example, I do think that quite a few facts from the 'Treatment of the Polish citizens under Soviet occupation' section in History of Poland (1939–1945) will be moved to a dedicated subarticle - once it is created. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Common Sense and Ethics

Boy, does that sound good! Imagine if you can, that being implemented. Dr. Dan 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Dan this cannot be fully implemented but we do have to try. At least veterans should no better than make edits that they know will be disruptive. It's enough hassle to deal with guillible newbies as well as non-newbie trolls who do it all of the time. Choosing a proper place for information (wide or narow article, or a separate article perhaps), choosing a proper way to express dissatisfaction with certain information in an article (googling yourself, asking at talk or throwing tags indiscriminately), using "dubious", "fact", "totallydisputed" and other tags as a POV conflict weapon, using image copyright issues as a POV-conflict weapon, encouraging known problem users into getting involved in order to use them as a battering ram to get a POV through are only some of very well known tools that every veteran knows but should not use. In these conflicts we have a little bit of each. --Irpen 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Veterans, forgetting old flame wars for a moment, can there be an attempt this April to work a little closer and less hostilely in the future? Irpen is right, in that we all know the tactics and methods to disrupt or ignore a well made point that we disagree with. Maybe a little more reasoning and debate of the subject, or issue, before the revert, deletion, or edit would be a start. Dr. Dan 05:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I support conditionally, provided Piotrus and Halibutt also support by action and provided I see a complete seizure of Molobo's trolling which can only be achieved through the good-faith mentorship by the users above.

If this could possibly be implemented, it would spare me the time of having to add well referenced information about:

• Treatment of Orthodox Church in the Commonwealth (as a separate section to the PLC article),
• details of the 1920 Polish "Victor's parade" in Kiev and its perception among Kievans as well as vandalous destruction of the city by the Polish army to the History of PL (18-39) article (similarly to lots of loosely relevant rant about Molotov and Brest parade that Halibutt and Molobo added to History of PL 39-45 article),
• well-referenced information about complicity of Polish resistance forces in the Holocaust events and in anti-Partisan collaboration with Nazis (similar to Molobo's attempt to turn this article into an article about the incidents between the Soviet partisans and the Poles) to the same Hisotry 39-45 article,
• two or three paragraphs (or even a separate section) about the Wisla Action to History of PL 39-45, and other similarly true and referenced information to other broad articles.

I seemed to have lost hope that I can convince the users above by any other means but with this call for peace from so far mostly uninvolved Dr Dan maybe there is still a chance. To start with, I suggest Halibutt and Piotrus start cleaning up History of PL 39-45 article from what makes it like a publicist piece about evil Russia and Soviet Union. Yes, Soviet Union was evil, but the History of PL article, should devote to this only an appropriate amount of space. --Irpen 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a threat to me. But as I am sure you have nothing but good faith etc. on your mind, I do actually encourage you to add the 'well-referenced'* information you mentioned above the the relevant** articles.

*well-referenced: please, no Imperial Russia propaganda booklets...

**relevant: please, create appopriate subarticles if they don't exist (and if they do like in Wisla action, usually an ilink or a simple sentence is enough for such a large article like 'History of the country'. Use Dr.Dan's common sense, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied at user talk:Piotrus. --Irpen 04:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Prokonsul, I usually agree with 90% of your imput, maybe I had one too many Starkas tonight, I don't see this threat you say Irpen is making. Can you elucidate? Dr. Dan 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A threat... or maybe an offer - I am not sure if my choise of words was the most fortunte. Anyway, I refer to thinking along the lines: if you edit my articles, I'll edit your articles. As I belive that the more edits of various POVs in the article, the more NPOV it gets, I don't really mind it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, if you have ideas how to create an agreeable document on the Common sense and Ethics in the Eastern European topics please do it, it is extremely important - we are spending huge amount of energy warring with each other and if we can all agree on some guidance it would be great! On the hand I would not be able to write something of that sort myself, since I do not know how to start beyond reiteration of WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:TROLL, WP:DICK, WP:NOT and similar wonderful but too general documents. abakharev

Well, in m:Dick we have a quote: "If people abided by this, we wouldn't need any other policies." I wish everyone read this more often. --Irpen 07:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If one should take the time to read, m:Dick, take a look at the external link by David R. Kendrick, too. Dr. Dan 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Irpen wants to imply that he will distort other articles if we add information about atrocities or persecution made by Soviets and Russia(I hope I am mistaken here), and if we we will avoid mentioning such things he won't interefere in Polish related articles(again I am hoping I am mistaken). If its true I urge Irpen to engage in such articles with reliable and trustworthy sources, there is no need to conceal history regardless if it concerns the negative aspects of Russian or Polish history. We need to present all facts, even if they might disturb Polish or Russian nationalists. --Molobo 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics of guerilla fighting

If I may add my two cents, I think what is missing from this discussion is the basic understanding of the nature of guerilla fighting, which is among the most brutal forms of warfare known to mankind. My comments here apply both to the Soviet partisans, Home Army units and just about all guerilla forces fighting in World War II. Even well organised, regular armies must employ numerous units of Military Police to keep the criminal element in their ranks in checks. What can be expected then of guerrilas or partisans, where every unit operates with only weak connection to central command, and every local commander is a law unto himself? A commander with criminal propensities can thus commit crimes almost without any sanction. Add to that the fact that the partisans operated against Nazi forces who thought of them all, as well as the local inhabitants, as subhumans, and the full horrifying picture emerges.

So, here is what the article must do, in my opinion only of course. Most importantly, it must avoid trying to present a simple black and white picture, of partisan heroes or partisan villains. It should acknowledge that crimes were committed by the Soviet Partisans, as they would have been committed by just about any guerilla force in similar circumstances. Simple example: it was a practical impossibility for partisan units to keep large numbers of prisoners of war for any length of time, so the prisoners of war they took were commonly just executed. According to conventional definitions this was a war crime, but at the same time it flowed from the very nature of the warfare. Of course the German forces summarily executed every partisan they could get their hands on, completing the picture. Example two: partisans needed food to survive, which they had to obtain from the local villagers. Some villages might have given them the food willingly, but some probably did not. The partisans were often well armed, the peasants were not. The partisans needed food to survive, but the peasants also faced starvation when food was taken away from them. If the peasants refused to give food, did the partisans simply politely walk back to the forest, or did they take the food forcibly, possibly accusing the peasants of being Nazi collaborators through refusing to support them. One can immediately think of any number of scenarios in which atrocities could be easily committed. And given the heterogenous nature of the warfare, almost all the permutations must have played out. So, it is quite possible that in one district a reasonable Soviet partisan commander had a great relationship with the peasants, while just one district over another local commander was their greatest enemy.

What the article must recognise is this: crimes certainly did happen, and they should be acknowledged. However, it must also be made very clear that these crimes were not the defining features of the partisan movement, but rather stemmed mostly from the nature of guerilla war itself. It must thus be made very clear that obviously the partisans were not a criminal force and contributed mightily to the defeat of Nazi Germany. But achieving this clarity by removing all mention of crimes commited by the partisans is not the way to go. So,is such a balanced article possible? Balcer 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

On what basis can we so confidently claim that many (some) partisans were enemies to the peasants etc..Why would villages support the Nazis and oppose partisans? Indeed many partisans were local inhabitants of the area. It is also likely that villagers who supported the Nazis would probably have been involved in atrocities commited by them, in fact if closely researching on this topic one could find that traitors like that existed. comments by 220.247.228.183

I would guess that most villages simply wanted to be left alone, and have nothing to do with either the partisans or the Nazis. A partisan force which entered a formerly peaceful area, took away the peasants' food and attracted German retaliation would probably not have been welcomed. A village caught between the partisans and the Nazis, being stripped of food by both sides, could presumably choose cooperation with either side, representing the lesser evil for them in the particular case, depending on the circumstances. Note that I am not making general arguments here that would apply in all cases. I am simply saying that episodes similar to this must have occured. Balcer 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, and hard to dispute. Dr. Dan 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now let's work to try to incorporate them into the article in a balanced way. Right now the article offers a rather skewed portrayal of the partisan movement, with no mention whatsoever of any of its darker sides.

I add some useful references available on Google book search:

• The Soviet Partisan Movement 1941-1945: A Critical Historiographical Analysis
• Ukraine: A History - 3rd Edition
• Germany and the Second World War: Volume VI: The Global War
• The People's War: Responses to World War II in the Soviet Union
• The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich: A History of the German National Railway Volume 2, 1933-1945
• The Great Fatherland War
• Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial

Balcer 05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed fragment

I have removed the following fragment:

Soviet partisans in territories occupied from Second Polish Republic by USSR consisted of former Red Army soldiers, Russians and Belarussians, and people of Jewish ethnicity. They were not supported by local Polish population, which had seen them as representing former occupiers.

The source provided is the Procurator investigating Koniuchy massacre and Naliboki massacre. The citations is relevant to the particular partisan group participating in the massacres involved and so for the articles Koniuchy massacre and Naliboki massacre (even there it is inherently POV as it is the job of Procurator to represent one side of the case, not to produce neutral statements). It is irrelevant for the composition of the hundreds of group acting on the territory of hundred thousands sq. km.

The question of the amount of support produced by different ethnic groups to Soviet Partisans, National Guerrillas and Nazi is interesting and relevant, but I have not seen a single academic reference so far and the original research in this controversial area is unacceptable. abakharev 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry but the sentence speaks in general about Soviet partisans in an attempt to describe general character in these territories not about the ones who comitted the mass murder. --Molobo 07:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw I can easly provide other sources confirming this. Do you seriously believe Poles supported Soviet soldiers after Soviets mass murdered Polish population in 1939 ? --Molobo 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I shall the fragment :

Partisans in territories annexed by Soviet Union from Poland

As Soviet partisans in territories occupied from Second Polish Republic by USSR consisted from former Soviet Army soldiers, Russians and Belarussians, and people of Jewish ethnicity, they weren't supported by local Polish population, which had seen them as representing former occupiers. Soviet partisans engaged in plunder, terror against civilian population, mass murder and were despised by many locals Polish population was classified by Soviet partisans as an enemy target, just like German forces and Polish villages were constantly attacked, whole families murdered as well as Poles who formed the intellectual elite. Attacks on Poles were organised and reports were made in a manner similar to describing military operations. Soviet command also ordered their partisans to attack Polish underground groups. As Polish Home Army was a force of Polish government in exile, and reckognised as allied soldiers, this means that Soviets ordered an attack on Allied soldiers. Soviet partisans have even massacred whole villages if faced with resistance, the most infamous one been the Koniuchy massacre. In Poland there is ongoing research on mass murder of Polish citizens, including women and children in massacres conducted by Soviet partisans. Villagers couldn't stand Soviet partisans because they conducted shamefull robberies. They stole whatever they could, even children't toys .One doesn't have to mention they stealed horses, cows, pigs, underwear, etc. They were many cases, when faced with resistance, they hanged poor peasents by their legs, upside down, to force them into giving something. Behind Willa, in forests and swamps, they formed new units constantly-otriads, which opressed our villages</ref>

As soon as possible. --Molobo 08:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, my wife is from Rivne, her whole family fought for the partisans, and believe me, on that ethnically Ukrainian territory both 1939 and 1944 are seen as liberation by the Soviet Union. Stop bullshiting. --Kuban Cossack 16:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use scholary objective sources and not personal stories that can't be vertified. Also restrict yourself to scholary language. --Molobo 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, do you recall how Poland got a hold of these territories in the first place? How it maintained power? Why entire populations fled to form the Cossaks? Do you recall perhaps, Polish interwar cultural policies in Galicia?

I am very very tired seeing Poland and the Polish portrayed as perenially innocent victims of unending oppressed. Yes Poland drew the short straw and got stuck between Russia and Germany. Yes, far too often its been the playground of the major powers. Yes, its been oppressed, more than most. But Poland has also sinned, and maybe you should keep that in mind.

I appologize for a post almost entirely off-topic, but dude, you exagerate when you don't prevaricate, and when you don't do either you still sound overly aggresive and beligerent.

Finally the point: What is on the page right now seems sufficient, concidering the size of the article. If you want to clarify that the Polish population did not, as a rule, support the Partisans, and that they were subject to attack by the same, go ahead, but don't make that section longer than the rest of the article, and don't work to make the impression that the partisans did nothing but persecute the Poles and murder civilians. That wouldn't be true and you damn well know it. Crocodilicus 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write on the subjects you mention be my guest. However this is a topic about Soviet Partisans. And yes I am sad to tell you that indeed in territories inhabited by Poles they mainly engaged in robbieries and murder, while at the same time fighting Home Army. Of course they fought against national liberation movement of Ukrainians as well. Which isn't mentioned quite clearly in the article. If you think other sections are too short, feel free to expand them, rather then to reduce others. But Poland has also sinned Please restrict your language to a scholary one. --Molobo 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, it is comments like this which drive some of the other editors to despair. From your comment it follows that the primary purpose of Soviet partisans was to rob Poles, fight the Home Army, and repress Ukrainians. What about the Germans, Molobo, the Germans?! (to paraphrase Sosabowski)quote. Do you seriously believe that the Soviet Partisans contributed nothing to the defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front? That they should be primarily remembered for robbing Poles? Balcer 15:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not writing the about Germans but about Poles. People interested in other aspects can full in the article. However it is a fact that Soviet partisans were ordered by Moscov to attack Poles and did so. Of course Soviet partisans aided Soviet effort against Germany also. IIRC food they plundered from Polish villagers was sent by planes to Moscow controlled regions for example. But to Polish reaction it was of little consequence. The events of 1939 when Soviets engaged in brutal massacres of Polish population had deep everlasting influence on perception towards Soviet activities and they didn't support them. Soviet partisans thus engaged in terror and massacres to enforce their rule. Another tactic which often mentioned is deliberate attacks on Germans in areas where Soviets weren't supported by local population-which would provoke Germans reprisal against the local people. --Molobo 16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course Soviet partisans aided Soviet effort against Germany also. I am very glad you are willing to recognise this. It is good to see you write a sentence that presents at least some Soviet actions in a positive light. Could you, as a way to demonstrate your good will towards other editors, add at least a few sentences on that aspect of Soviet Partisan activities to the article? I know you are not interested in this, but please make an effort. You are not restricted to writing only about the things you are interested in, namely the view of and effect on the Poles on various things.

This is not a frivolous request. If Misplaced Pages is to be of any use, it must have articles written by editors who are willing to step out, even if just a little bit, of their own skin. Your argument that you don't have to write about other points of view as others will fill it in is, to say the least, inadequate. Balcer 17:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is good to see you write a sentence that presents at least some Soviet actions in a positive light I see nothing in postive or negative light when writing something. I see only facts. The fact that Soviets and Nazis were fighting over who will occupy and exploit nations of Central Europe is rather far from being classfified as postitive if you would ask me. However I try not to use such language in articles. --Molobo 17:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you, as a way to demonstrate your good will towards other editors, add at least a few sentences on that aspect of Soviet Partisan activities to the article? Why I am not so much interested in operations of Soviet partisans I think I could try to estimate more realistic numbers regarding their operations against German army. --Molobo 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be an excellent contribution, provided of course you can find good scholarly sources for your additions. The precise degree of difficulty which the partisan operations caused the Germans has been a subject of some debate. Balcer 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sovietization

Hmm should we bring forward such subjects ? I mean I could give description how Sovietization looked like when directed upon Polish population, but is it the proper place ? --Molobo 18:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Look Molobo, seriosly get a life, you do reaslise that even your own Polish colleagues are telling you to stop this assault and POV-pushing campaign. Every single time you are going to edit an article in the manner that you did this one it will reverted. Do read WP:Assume good faith --Kuban Cossack 09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans in Ukraine numbers

Irpen are you sure about the " but only became a formidable force in 1943, by which stage they were operating throughout occupied Ukraine (mostly in northeastern part) and numbered over 150,000 fighters." ? Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Encyclopedia of Ukraine says that there were about 13,300 in early and 43,500 in late 1943.Vorthax 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

When you entered your number, you didn't provide any source. That's why I returned the original one. Thanks for the link. Let's wait a little for the author, who wrote 150,000 to say what his number is based on. I will add a "citation needed" tag for now. --Irpen 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source:

• В борьбе с немецко-фашистскими оккупантами в годы войны на оккупированной территории Украины принимало участие свыше 500 тысяч партизан. Всего на оккупированной территории Украины действовало 60 партизанских соединений и около 2 тысяч партизанских отрядов и разведывательно-диверсионных групп, не входивших в состав соединений.
• Партизанами было выведено из строя около 500 тысяч фашистских оккупантов и их пособников, разгромлено 467 гарнизонов, комендатур, штабов, полицейских управлений, пущено под откос около 5 тысяч воинских эшелонов, подорвано свыше 1500 танков, 200 самолётов, 600 железнодорожных мостов, уничтожено свыше 900 складов.

Half a million, preatty much that is a realistic number. The article goes in detail about many regions --Kuban Cossack 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see one problem, your source is a political party website, with no bibliography or author signature... Vorthax 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is because it is not an article but official state publication...Numbers might be sketchy but if one reads it there are destinct similarities between those there and some other publications. I can translate the article if one wishes for it... After all we do not have to give exact figures we can always say between x and y thousand people fought for the partisans in N--Kuban Cossack 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

From your source:

• К концу 1943 года на оккупированной территории Украины действовало 29 партизанских соединений и 83 отдельных отряда, с которыми поддерживал связь УШПД. В составе этих соединений и отрядов сражались с оккупантами 43,5 тысячи партизан. Vorthax 08:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading, but I think the quote above says that at any one time there were 40-50 thousand however in total during the war in Ukraine from its occupation to liberation there were as much as 500 partisans that took part.--Kuban Cossack 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My russian is good enough :). We have " in 1943, by which stage and numbered over 150,000 fighters.", and it is misleading too. Maybe you could add your explanation above to the article?

We also need total number (and losses) of Soviet partisans on top. Vorthax 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is more neutral source than clearly biased Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies: The Oxford Companion to World War II (1995) by I. C. B. Dear, M. R. D. Foot states on page 1165 " Nearly 60% of the 250,000 Soviet partisans in Ukraine were Ukrainians..." Fisenko 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that total whole war number of partisans or partisan numbers in 1943? We were talking about 1943. Vorthax 08:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe 250 000 is the total whole number of partisans ever to be in Ukraine and 150 000 is the partisan strenght reached by the end of 1943. Fisenko 16:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lack of good references

The main probolem of this article is that it lacks credible academic references. Not only it lacks inline references, but 40% of the current 'references' comes from 'Republic of Belarus Defense Ministry' and Soviet Encyclopaedia (does it refer to Great Soviet Encyclopedia, by any chance??). I just read a very interesting review of a new book about Soviet partisans in Belarus, which should be soon available online in Sarmatian Review (they are free but seem to be lagging somewhat behind their publishing schedule). In the meantime, editors of that article would do wisely to familiarize themselves with Google Print and Google Scholar. Some interesting resources I found in just a few minutes of browsing:

• Leonid Grenkevich, The Soviet Partisan Movement 1941-1945: A Critical Historiographical Analysis, Routledge, 1999 Google Print
• John A. Armstrong, Soviet partisans in World War II, University of Wisconsin Press, 1964

Doesn't seem to be in GPrint yet, but see Google Schoolar for plenty of reviews.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

War crimes

I'd like to point out that we need to strike a balance between the article being representative of the subject and inclusion of the info particular editors hold very close to their heart.

As I wrote elsewhere, any articles may be thrown totally off-balance by adding to it some small and narrow detail, even if referenced, that's too narrow or too specific. If the war crimes take over the half of the article on the Soviet partisans, it's just madness. If anyone is interested to elaborate on the subject, the right way is to write a separate articles War crimes of Soviet partisans and link to it from the main article.

To give an example that my opponent will sure understand, the detailed informantion of certain Ukrainian WW2 formation belongs to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galizien (1st Ukrainian) article rather than to Ukrainians or History of Ukraine, while the latter article is OK to include a brief mention of some Ukrainians being among the Nazi collaborators complicit in the Holocaust events in Ukraine. Similarly, a couple of partagraphs on controvesies may be in order here, but if AlexPU is interested in contributing a wrath of info on the partisans' war crimes, he should start a separate article, make sure it is well-referenced and have it linked from the main one. --Irpen 06:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am second abakharev 09:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Muscovian friends... Tomorrow you'll say the NKVD article is a wrong place for war crimes information :). Actually some of your guys tried to make such point in 2004, but my strong opposition made him change his mind, and I'm very glad aboit it. Here I'm going to do just the same.

BTW, look at the insidious propaganda tactics here: the article is rather small, but they already worried about "overloading"! I added on sentence for three important war crime points, and they try to delete one of them so far.AlexPU 08:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

May 1 edit

Dear Russian friends, why do you avoid calling the partisans "guerillas" when they actually are? Is this word somehow abusive for you? Anyway, I restored this imminent truth in the lead. Best wishesAlexPU 08:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Template:Pl iconForms of constraint applied by the Soviet authorities in relation to the people of Wilejka region Professor Franciszek Sielicki Wrocławskie Studia Wschodnie, Wrocław, 1997 Villagers couldn't stand Soviet partisans because they conducted shamefull robberies. They stole whatever they could, even children't toys .One doesn't have to mention they stealed horses, cows, pigs, underwear, etc. They were many cases, when faced with resistance, they hanged poor peasents by their legs, upside down, to force them into giving something. Behind Willa, in forests and swamps, they formed new units constantly-otriads, which opressed our villages