Talk:Soviet partisans/Archive 1

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 [1] , 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)

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html "According to that narrative, the Soviet partisans killed 1.5 million “Germans and their collaborators.” In reality, the casualties inflicted on the enemy did not exceed 45,000, half of them Germans. As Musial puts it, “The higher the position of the official submitting the report, the higher the enemy losses reported” (22).

In the meantime, the Soviet partisan commanders deluged Moscow with “euphoric reports about their military successes which did not reflect reality” (107). Regarding the German antipartisan pacification action “Hermann” in the Naliboki Forest undertaken between 13 July and 8 August 1943, the communist partisan leader reported the annihilation of the staff and the commanding officer of the infamous SS-Dirlewanger Sonderbrigade, and boasted of “3,000 killed and wounded enemies, 29 POWs taken, 60 destroyed enemy vehicles, 3 tanks and 4 armored cars taken over.” The Soviet losses were put at “129 killed, 50 wounded, and 24 missing” (107). In reality, Dirlewanger died after the war and his staff escaped unscathed. The German casualty rolls show 52 killed, 155 wounded, and 4 missing."

A bit inflated, huh. In one battle number reported: 3000, real losses: 200. And in the same time soe people are still taking soviet reports about partisans seriously. Szopen 09:11, 22 May 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: [2] 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 [3] 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

Please see Can You Believe This? (below to understand this entry better). Dr. Dan 13:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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? [4] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 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 ^Talk 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Molobo's new edits [5], 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.[6] --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: [7], [8], [9]. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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[10]
• Ukraine: A History - 3rd Edition [11]
• Germany and the Second World War: Volume VI: The Global War [12]
• The People's War: Responses to World War II in the Soviet Union [13]
• The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich: A History of the German National Railway Volume 2, 1933-1945 [14]
• The Great Fatherland War [15]
• Moscow's Road to Nuremberg: The Soviet Background to the Trial [16]

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[17]. 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[18], 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[19]. Attacks on Poles were organised and reports were made in a manner similar to describing military operations[20]. 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 Wikipedia 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: [21]

• 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[22] and Google Scholar[23]. 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 ^Talk 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 one 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, people, look at the insidious propaganda tactics here: the article is rather small, but they already worried about "overloading"! I added one sentence for three important war crime points, and they deleted one of them so far.AlexPU 08:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, if I deserve the name Muscovian friend, or what name you deserve, also when and where I censored some NKVD articles, but lets discuss the article here. I think the Irpen's points are valid - the Soviet partisan article is necessary a resume of all the Partisan-related info on Wikipedia (see e.g. the list of links to Partisans there). Partisans committed a number of atrocities, but it was generally a movement (international, BTW) with quite a noble goal - to resist the German occupation of their country. Most of them have an opportunity to not be involved but they prefer not to use it. Hundreds of thousands of them died. Some bosses of the partisan movement sat in the Moscow NKVD offices, partisans were en mass ordinary people on the occupied land. Most of them have no NKVD connection before or after WW2, those who had were not protected from Germans anyway. Quite probably because of their deaths were are able to sit in the comfortable rooms and chat in Wikipedia. I think that if the half of the article will be devoted to their occasional crimes (as they seen from our comfortable lives today) then it would be equivalent to spitting on their graves. I am not for censorship, but if you are most interest in partisan's crimes and SS good-heartedness, can you keep the extended info in some other article and here only a short resume and links. Is it to much to ask? abakharev 09:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear abakharev:

• I apologize for any abusive calling of you if any was
• Regarding NKVD: you may study the history of the article and find out that I meant User:Mikkalai, the guy who initially opposed war crime issue there but then appeared the first to develop it (and I'm kind of grateful for this)
• About war crimes infos and my attitude. Having studied my history you would find out that I urged everyone to develop war crime issue at CIA and any Ukrainian agency (military formation). I pioneered this topic at SBU, MVS (Ukraine), Georgiy Gongadze etc. And I don't think that I "spit" into the faces of Ukraine, West or whatever. Articles like Ukrainian Insurgent Army are concentrated around this topic. Do you object such "spitting" into the face of my nation:)? If you do - go there, fight Polish and Jewish editors and delete this topic :)) So I believe your abovwe-layed motivation is wrong and unencyclopedic. This is ecnyclopedic history, not school textbook or propaganda
• So none of your respond above convinces me. I'm still afraid that all this written in attempt to laquer the Soviet history :( Particularly: develop other detailed articles or not, I insist on keeping my thesises here. This will be just a "resume" you're suggesting
• On my personal attitude: my two Ukrainian grandfathers fought WWII in the Red Army (one of them died there). My family has never been critical, opposive or fighting Soviet authorities. I was born in Soviet Union early enough, and I'm critical enough to the modern Ukrainian state. So I can fairly assess the long-term results of the War, Soviet regime etc.
• Anyway, I'm satisfied with your civility and declared opposition to censorship (as well as with your admin status). So, shall we discuss and edit the article together as representatives of two points of view? Or you'll stop at the point of protecting Irpen's careless deletions, Alex?AlexPU 10:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, partisans are not my sphere of expertise - I was overfed with this info at my Soviet school years and would prefer, if I need to go into WW2 topics to do something about the siege of Leningrad or any military operations my relatives were involved in, but this is irrelevant, if necessary I would do the research. From this article and its possible daughters I want:

• No censorship - all sourced info should go to Wiki, one way or another;
• Balance - the issue of partisan's crimes and controversies, should be short relative to the entire article. I want to be able to show the article to any of my relatives who fought in WW2 (or to AlexPU's grand-dad for that matter) and not be ashamed.

Irpen suggested to have a separate section Contraversy and if would grow out of proportions have a daughter article. Been a lazy man, I like this idea. Alternatively, we can just greatly increase the positive and neutral coverage of partisan-related topics. It might be preferable, but require more work. abakharev 14:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that there are two ways of achieving the balance: the right way and the wrong way. The wrong way is erasing info just to keep "the proportion". The right way is expanding the article by working on the other side of it and achieving the balance this way. KPbIC 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading this article, I didn't get the Kovpak/Rudniev controversy. It should be more clear for a reader what exactly Kovpak wanted, what exactly Rudnev wanted, what exactly Moskow wanted, and why exactly Rudnev was assassinated (if any).

I agree that as of now, the article is not balanced, and is not written so well. KPbIC 00:00, 2 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)

• I see nothing wrong with the word and link to guerilla. Thanks for restoring it. abakharev 09:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

More on insidiousness. Few days after talking of overloading and context (see above), one of the Rus. propagandists added irrelevant pictures with descriptions to Ukraine section... I deleted them of course (forgot to mention in edit summary but telling now).AlexPU 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored the pictures. It would be best to have pics of the partisans in action but pics of German atrocities that prompted the partisans movement is better than nothing at all. And I marked a dubious statement about attempted cooperation of UPA with Soviets as such until its author support it with some acceptable referemces. If such refs exist, it would be a good idea to add this info to the UPA article as well. --Irpen 09:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

May I also add the pictures of attrocities committed by the Soviet partisans then? //Halibutt 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and go right ahead. I know you would love to. And don't forget to add the atrocities pictures to UPA article as well. As a Pole it should have been closer to your heart. But I beleive you will go with a former option. We'll see. --Irpen 16:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen... you might want to check the articles on sarcasm and irony next time before you make such comments. And you might want to explain to me how is UPA related to this article, for I see little connection. Perhaps you wanted to add this comment to Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army?

Anyway, let me rephrase it then so that all could understand it clearly. What I meant is that pictures could too be POVed. Just imagine the article on Joseph Stalin showing only pictures of Soso with happy children and smiling women. Same goes for the article on Soviet partisans. It's not NPOV to portray them the way Soviet propaganda did, be it in the text or through the pictures. And no, I don't believe two radical POVs make one NPOV. Adding biased propaganda from the other side would not make your addition any more acceptable. //Halibutt 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Everybody, please read WP:VAND and do not use summaries as "rvv", "revert vandalism", "revert propagandovandalism", etc on the context disputes that are clearly not vandalism. On wiki vandalism is a technical term and it is reasonably good defined. Please also avoid naming your opponents "trolls" and other names. Use the edit summaries to access your edits not other editors.

Please also avoid using vandal-fighting tools such as rollback and popup-assisted reverts on non-vandalous edits. I am sorry for showing a big stick, but I could block people for repeated uncivil summaries. abakharev 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

POV dispute

The title is misleading. It does not cover partisan movement in the Poland proper, but rather territories of modern Ukraine, Belarus and Lithania. As such they already covered in the article. I do not want to blank Halibutt's additions and do not know where to merge it, so I will change Poland to "Polish territories taken in 1939" and a phrase explaining the situation. abakharev 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On that, see user talk:Halibutt and his reply at my talk. I think this is already covered by Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania chapters. See our discussion with the author. --Irpen 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From one side, the war didn't start in 1941 (as it was used to be presented to us), the war started in 1939. Poland was occupied and partitioned in 1939, and they regained the country back only in 1945. If we name territories as of the beginning of the war, it should be as of 1939.

From the other side, Soviet partisans are essentially appeared as are result of Nazi's attack on the Soviet Union. Year 1941 is a significant milestone for us, as our territory was occupied, and Great Patriotic War (GPW) has began. Soviet partisans were a part of GPW, and only a part GPW. If we were to mark territories as of the beginning of GPW, Poland would just disappear from the picture.

Another view, as we are talking of Soviet partisans, it may be appropriate to present the classification used at that time. There were Partisan Movement Headquarters per Soviet republic. If we were to follow this way again there would be no room for Poland.

But also, we may analyse the situation in the areas, and we would notice that the treatment of Soviet partisans was significantly different in western Ukraine (a part of former Poland) and in the rest of Ukraine.

These are about all the arguments. And honestly I don’t see some arguments being better than the other. I would let the Poland stay in this article as the most peaceful solution. Millions died during the war we are talking about. Should not the desire to look for the most peaceful solution be a lesson for us out all of the wars? KPbIC 02:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From E-mail I got from User:Molobo (temporarily blocked), maybe important:

"On the pre-war Polish territory annexed by Soviets (Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and Lithuania)" A simple look of map showing the zone of occupation of Poland by Soviets in 1939 clearly shows that Soviet occupation reached territories beyond those states and in fact a significant portion of territory occupied in 1939 by Soviets was returned after the war and remains in Poland to this day.

So saying that territories annexed by Soviets are Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and Lithuania is factually incorrect. (from User:Molobo)

I personally have not heard of any territories returned, but if this true it might be important abakharev 06:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1939-1945 border changes

The border changes are nicely illustrated in this picture. As you can see, Białystok and the area around it was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1939-1941, but then remained part of Poland after the war. This is why many of Molotov Line fortifications are now on Polish territory. Balcer 12:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that currently the article reflects purely Soviet-Nazi point of view in that it considers the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as a legitimate treaty delimiting the borders between those states. Apart from the fact that the Soviet Union itself declared it null and void in 1941, the treaty was not legitimate in terms of international law even before that. So currently what we have here is the situation of 1941-1944 described from the point of view of the 1945 arrangements. What is the purpose of that? I have no idea, but perhaps Irpen could enlighten us. I'm not going to edit the article any more though, but adding a dispute and/or neutrality tags would not be out of place I believe. //Halibutt 14:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. We do not go into a difficult legalistic issue of the status of German-occupied territiries taken from Soviets who have taken it from Poles, who have taken them from the short-lived national states, who have taken them from Russian Empire who has taken them from Poland, etc. We just repicate the structure of of organization of the movement that had Belorusian Staff, Ukrainian Staff, Western Russian Staff, Northern Caucasus Staff, KareloFinnish Staff, Lithuanian Staff etc. They did not have entity called Polish Staff, that is all. abakharev 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet any mention of the fact that a large portion of the Soviet partisan forces were formed in Poland and not in USSR has been successfully purged from the article. At the same time Irpen did not delete/move to some obscure place other parts of this article. Quite typical, isn't it. And if we are not supposed to discuss the complicated issue of Soviet occupation of Poland here, then why are we suggesting one side of the story while purging the other one? That's definitely not NPOV and I'm adding the tag. Hope you get my point here. //Halibutt 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And while we are waiting for any kind of meaningful responce, the only one we got so far is the removal of the POV-tag and off topic personal attacks in edit summary. Typical, again (of the certain user, that is...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is information available in Wikipedia about Polish relations with Germany towards Chezhoslovakia? CoNtRaBaNdO

If it's not, feel free to add it, but keep in mind that you should insert information based on facts; so, for example, do not simply insert some babbling about Polish-German (non-existing) cooperation. Szopen 11:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I just dug out a new Times world atlas of WWII and on the section about partisans it uses wartime borders of Greater Germany and Reichskommisariats with Soviet Partisans in one colour and Polish in a different one. Their area of operation is destinct Soviet partisans in all Byelorussia east and west as well as northern Ukraine, east and west. Polish in Galicia and in the General governemnt. Soviet and Russian atalases like to use pre-1936 borders [24]. Although I dug out this 1940s Soviet atlas (don't worry about permission, its for the site not for you)[25] and observe Ukraine, Byelorussia and Germany. Which amogst other thigs includes a "region of German state interests". --Kuban Cossack 13:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The first map is one of the best examples of propaganda applied to every single part of life in the USSR. Take note that it portrays the Soviet-occupied part of Poland as Soviet territory, while the German-held part is still depicted with the pre-1939 borders, as if the annexation never happened. Same goes for parts of Slovakia taken by Hungary... //Halibutt 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Even better, it portrays Memel (Klajpeda) as part of the USSR, even while showing that a part of the German invading force attacked from there. From this one could prove that Nazi Germany must have invaded and seized Soviet territory even before June, 1941. The little enclave of Polish territory around Suwalki is also a nice touch. Overall, an uneducated person could conclude from this map that independent Poland was a participant in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Balcer 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the appendix it clearely states that Soviet Borders are given for 1940, international - 1936. I would not use the term propaganda but convinience. The maps were drawn to show a)Soviet territory that was more or less part of the present territory. b)Other countries that by that point would have been occupied and partitioned by Germany and as partition borders continuously change then it would make no consistency. On the contrary the map also shows just where are the original borders of Germany and when USSR liberated Belarus [26], or Poland [27] in 1944 maps like these become fully possible to show just on which respective countries confrontation took place. Finally remember that from 1939 onwards the Soviet Union saw those territories of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine as its own. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was very convenient, from the propaganda point of view. But even according to its own criteria it is misleading, as Memel was not within Soviet borders in 1940, yet it is colored as Soviet territory here. Actually, partition borders did not continually change before 1941. The scheme which the Germans imposed in Poland in late 1939 remained constant until June 1941 (some areas annexed, some made into General Government). Anyway, I think it has been demonstrated convincingly that the map is, not surprisingly, strongly influenced with the Soviet view on things, and so it is clearly not NPOV. On a lighter note, this discussion reminds me of an old joke (a bit tricky to translate from Polish, but I will give it a shot). Question: With which countries does the USSR share a common border? Answer: With the ones it wants. Balcer 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rudniev

I think the guy deserves a separate article on its own and one phrase here. abakharev 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created a stub Semyon Rudniev. If nobody will unstub it, I will do it tonight (my time) abakharev 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert war between AlexPU and Irpen

I am trying to merge Irpen's version. Here is the sketch:

Links to anti-fascist and resistance movement - restored.

Most of the partisans were fighting, first of all, occupants, and only then fascists as representatives of fascist ideology. "Antifascist resistance" is more appropriate for a resistance inside Germany, Italy, which was more ideologically driven.

NKVD was not internal security agence it was the Department of Interior, changed

Rm candidates of the plans for the resistance - all the plans were candidates they were not planned for the occupation of the half of the country as the main outcome

People were the most important element of the plans, and that is basically the only part of the plan which worked.

Restored images Image:Sumshshnyna 41.jpg and Image:Cherkaschyna deportation 1942.jpg abakharev 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

These pictures don't illustrate partisans, but the war situation itself. Eventually they should go into "Ukraine under German Occupation" article.

I have shorten a little bit the piece about UPA, the article is not about UPA but about the partisans

I feel that then speaking abour Western Russia, we can use the term liberate. abakharev 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

KPbIC 03:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I will go over the recent edits by KRYS and abakharev now and most will hopefully be self-explanatory. One thing though is the Polish issue. When I thought Halibutt's new section title I thought that it was going to be an Armia Ludowa article, a Polish pro-communist resistance movement separate from the Home Army organized with an active support of the Soviet Union. That one, while notable, were not Soviet partisan any more than the post-war Poland was a Soviet republic. They both weren't although both were Soviet-controlled. However, in its current form the section is just a POV fork of other sections. Former territories of Poland are covered by Ukraine/Belarus/Lithianian sections. If partisans from Belarus or Lithuania roamed into the Polish mainland similar to Kovpak's raid, that material still belongs to the appropriate territorial section. OTOH, Soviet partisans in the territories of the Second Polish Republic may be an article on its own if Halibutt's interested in such a specific topic. I will surely help woth refs. --Irpen 05:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But, Irpen, you are basically going back to your version, incorporating some of new changes into it, and reverting the other. Then, could you explain the parts that you are reverting, because they are far from being self-explanatory. For example, why do we need the first paragraph in Ukraine susection, which starts with "As well as Belarus, Ukraine...". It describe sopmething which is common to all areas, and logically it should be put above, as I did. KPbIC 06:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, "wide", but not "widespread support", as the movement was specific to suitable areas with supportive civilian population (not in steppe, not in western Ukraine). KPbIC 08:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Or to densely-populated areas where they did not need much support but could requisition what they need. //Halibutt

OK, Alex, are you done with merging of my and Russian versions? I mean I'm satisfied with your suprisingly co-operative start (namely of Bakharev). But are you going to include (discuss) the rest of my principal thesises, or should I be edit-warring for them :(? Let me know so I can start either discussing or editing voluntarily. AlexPU 16:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Irpens revert to his own version, this article has again some serious POV problem. nationalist guerrillas in Poland and Baltic States, no mention of Poland (eventhough the Soviet partisans took part in fights in much of Poland, roughly 50% of its pre-war territory), no mention of the fact that they were mostly Red Army and not necessarily local population (quite a unique thing among other WWII partisan movements who were in large part locals), lots of weasel terms (additional burden on civilians looks mildly if one bears in mind that the Soviet disregard for the local civilians caused thousands of reprisal actions from the Germans, in most cases involving killing entire villages) and so on. And the only well-sourced part was removed... //Halibutt 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Halibutt but locals participated equally as much as the Red Army. In fact the locals were the ones that gathered intelligence whilst specially trained commando units would do the assaults that way avoiding retaliation against the local population. Volhynia Ukraine, almost all of the locals joined the partisan movement, and you might find it interesting but they did carry out some combined operations with AK. Since Volhynia was a haven for both Soviet and Polish resistance. --Kuban Cossack 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We might either generalize the way you did or try to generalize my remark. While you claim that the civilians supported the Soviet partisans, I claim that it was not always so. The truth is somewhere in the middle. But of course, my view is somehow affected by the knowledge of mostly the Soviets to operate in Poland...err... Western Soviet Union. And those did not have much support from the locals. Even in Volhynia the Soviet resistance was quite negligible, as compared with other groups fighting in the area. //Halibutt 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Negligible? Nikolai Kuznetsov and Dmitry Medvedev, the second most well-known names after Sidyr Kovpak (who too went through Volhynia). Or how many raicars were destroyed in the Kovel - Kiev route. Now that is rediculous! As for Polessie and Podlasie, I would not even comment. Galicia was the only place that the Soviets lacked support that is known fact that I would not deny. Volhynia might not have been the fray like Chernigov oblasts or Sumy, but it sure did play a big part. Particulary under Rivne where my wife comes from and ALL of her relatives were part of the partisan underground organisation. --Kuban Cossack 23:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maryte Melnikaite/Marija Melnik

Some sources claims that she was a Lithuanian under the name listed here first, other claims that she was a Russian (or Belarusian?) and that her name was Marija Melnik ("ja" here probably means "ya" as she was probably born in Poland).

Well, silence was an answer... So I just edit unilaterally, and don't you anybody dare to revert my edits :(. Best wishes, AlexPU 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can You Believe This?

If I may completely digress for a moment, one of the strange peculiarities of editing in Wikipedia, can be illustrated by the case of Danil Wickramarante, from Sri Lanka. Around 24 March 2006, he wrote a couple of lines on the Soviet partisan Talk Pages. They were under the bylines of Did you know? and Polish Civilians. In them, he made a few comments and encouraged us to talk to Allied War Veterans to get a "better" perspective of the nature of the Red Army. I then proceeded to tell a story about a vet that I knew, Bob Rieck, who was a POW during WWII. Someone, probably Danil himself, then came back and deleted all of his imput. This of course left my remarks and response hanging without the original comments which prompted them. Someone also changed the byline to A Vet's Account, prompting another editor to question what the entire exchange had to do with Soviet partisans, and why any of it was on these talk pages at all. I question first, if it is proper to remove ones own imput on the talk pages, if after a few days one reviews it as foolish or in error, and two, if the subsequent responses to the initial edit should then be removed as well. Afterall, they then begin to look strange and unrelated to the rest of the talk page imput, which was removed. Any comments? Dr. Dan 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WHy don't you simply restore what's deleted? --Irpen 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Danil's answer: I wanted to make my words in context to the rules of wikipedia. Someone mentioned Sri Lankas participation in the Great Patriotic War, veterans and questioned the island nations participation in the war. First of all Sri Lanka did participate in the War, while being under British rule during that time, Ceylon was bombed by the Japanese. Some Sri Lankans participated in D-Day and probably other operations. My grandfather was invited to train as a Pilot in Canada for example. I also have Russian and Ukrainian blood since im not fully Sri Lankan. My ancestors also participated in the Great Patriotic War. I have come across many facts in my life that showed me that many people, especially in the West dont know about Russia and at times "propaganda" and hiding of information is done. You may think that I am not entitled to say this, but I have seen Russia both inside and from an outside view.

That's nice, so why did you remove your earlier imput? You are entitled think and say anything you like here! But please do not remove or censor other people's edits. Did you you think your statements and edits made you look foolish or worse? Could this be the reason you removed them. Dr. Dan 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) p.s. Irpen, I have enough to do without having to restore imput written by others, who then delete their own imput because it makes them look foolish. How about it Danil Wickramarante, why don't you re-add it?

Why do u think it really makes me look foolish? Did I "censor" other peoples edits, is this another biast statement? Danil

Is that your answer to my question? Look, you wrote it, and you removed it. Reminds me of Stalin's airbrushing people out of photographs. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't remove it from the "history" of the talk pages. Forgive me for the "foolish" label. My apologies. So, what made you remove your earlier imput? Dr. Dan 04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, you said I erased OTHER peoples input. Also i wrote WHY I wanted to erase my input. Danil

Maybe I confused you, so here it goes again. You made comments around March 24, 2006. I responded to them. You then for some reason, removed your comments, and left my responses hanging in "mid-air". This then put my comments in a strange light, and making little sense regarding Soviet Partisans (which is what the article is about). Sorry, but I don't think you explained why you removed your original remarks to anyones satisfaction, at least not to mine. In any case, can you understand why I might have a problem to your actions, since I responded to your original comments in the first place? And don't be so touchy, it's really not all that personal to me, and I have apologized to you already, if you took offense. So why did you remove your remarks? Try me again. Dr. Dan 14:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote..."I wanted to make my words in context to the rules of wikipedia." Sorry I did not mean to put your information in an unfavourable position. Danil

Danil, you seem to be a very nice person, I'd guess you are between 12 and 17 y.o.; Wrong or right, if you want to pay basketball or soccer on the court, learn the rules, and improve your English. If I seem harsh, I'm sorry, but learn English before you contribute, or ask some one from the Stalin Society, to help you with your edits. Dr. Dan 03:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My english is fine. Also you are wrong because I do not belong to your above mentioned age category. You seem to ask me over and over again to explain why I did erase my text, even when you read my answer and I apologised. When I came across this article I wanted to portray from what I have seen in a documenentary and interviews with Allied soldiers. (Red Army meeting with the Allies). Its seemed to me that this topic would be interesting howeer simple it may sound.

That's wonderful, and you should have left your interesting and simple topic alone, just like you wrote it and added it in the first place. Dr. Dan 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-fascist

In my opinion, the anti-fascist definition in the intro is irrelevant and false. By following that link everyone may find out that this a term of political science related to ideologies. Using it regarding wide-spread guerilla movement would be an unencyclopedic repeating of a Soviet propaganda cliche. Peasant guerillas were antifascists, doyarkas supported Kuchma's constitutional ammendments, what else jingoistic should we bring here :)? Going to delete that link in a while if nobody objects. Best wishes, Ukrained 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Intersting, but I think in common understanding anti-fascist and anti-nazi are so intermixed together that I do not see a real reason to distinguish them. I mean its worth saying on the main articles of those two terms (if they have not been said) but I see no reason to remove it from Partisans, besides most of the Partisan actions was strongly coordinated by the Party. --Kuban Cossack 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The same cliche is brought to the intro of Young Guard (Soviet resistance), probably by the same editors. 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. A more indepth thought :). Can we really say that Soviet ideology and rule (at least in the '30s) wasn't "fascist" itself? I could substantiate this point elsewhere... Ukrained 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No we cannonot because that is a blatant POV. --Kuban Cossack 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Sashok, but both of your statements seem profanous. A common understanding? In an encylopedia? And I really appreciate your respecting of my (shall we say any non-Russian?) POV. And your readiness to discuss our differences. Going to search "blatant" in my large dictionary, must be something insulting... Ukrained 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Watch WP:NPA or else I know how sensitive you are to be being poked :). As for non-Russian POV, the Ukrainian state officially lists all partisans and Soviet troops as anti-fascist warriors and liberators. :) So really unless of course we touch that Galician appendix, you really have nothing to support your argument. So please avoid trolling the talk page with POVs.--Kuban Cossack 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, you don't need a large dictionary. A in Wiktionary[28] or Webster[29] would provide you with the interpretation. "Common understanding" is not as a meaningless notion as you are trying to present here. Most books don't add references to things that are common knowledge. Please note: "Sometimes the assertion that something is "common knowledge" is merely another way of saying that someone is ignoring an obvious fact." That Partisan movement was anti-Fascist is questioned only at the fringe. --Irpen

Title

Just a question: Shouldn't the name be plural? --Kuban Cossack 16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that plural form "Soviet partisans" is better. Or "Soviet partizan movement" (similarly to Norwegian resistance movement, etc.) Or "Partisans (Soviet Union)" (similarly to Partisans (Yugoslavia)). KPbIC 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, shall I move it to your latter suggestion? --Kuban Cossack 20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the third. I actualy like "Partisans (Soviet Union)" most of all, quite a number of participants were not particulary fond of Soviets but saw as it as a national resistance movement. On the other hand, the change the title to "Partisans (Soviet Union)" might mean that we want some info about UPA, AK, "Forest brothers", etc in the article as well. Has nothing against it, but it is a big change, that should be agreed upon abakharev 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the current title is much better than those, but it could be pluralized. Like you said, Partisans (Soviet Union) creates confusion as not all of them were in the Soviet Union, nor were all of them fighting for the Soviet Union, even if they generally were at the very least supported by the Soviet Union. heqs 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the move to the plural. This article is not about some stereotypical single Soviet partisan, but about Soviet partisants. The possible names we should consider are Soviet partisants or Soviet resistance.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I too support the move to plural. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting information

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html Much of this information should be included in the text. --Molobo 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, we've been through this. Stop pasting stuff from outside. You were even blocked for that in the past. A link is sufficient and you can be sure that I, as well as the others will read it. I will comment on that separately. --Irpen 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Irpen I already experienced your delations regarding quotes about Soviet atrocities. I will just point out notable points:

• According to that narrative, the Soviet partisans killed 1.5 million “Germans and their collaborators.” In reality, the casualties inflicted on the enemy did not exceed 45,000, half of them Germans.
• the Sxoviet guerrilla operations were initiated by the NKVD/NKGB immediately after the Nazi invasion of the USSR and of its occupied Polish, Baltic, and Romanian territories. On 26 June 1941 the Soviet leadership in Belarus ordered fourteen guerrilla units into the field. They consisted of 1,162 fighters including 539 NKGB, 623 NKVD, and the remainder the Red Army (17-18).
• Meanwhile, the remnants of the original NKVD commandos who had survived the Nazi assault of summer and fall 1941, and new NKVD men sent as reinforcements by Moscow, located the forest hideaways and gradually subordinated to themselves many of their denizens. Simultaneously, the NKVD men reestablished the clandestine communist party structures. By January 1944, out of 1,156 Soviet partisan units of 187,571 fighters, 723 units comprising 121,903 persons, or 65 percent of the total, operated in tiny Belarus (21).''
• The Jewish partisans had a difficult time. Even within the Soviet partisan units they had to contend with “hatred of Jews” (91)
• In May 1943, “partisan Grigorii Rivin, Jewish by nationality, [was] shot because of his systematic spreading of Jewish chauvinism.” Rivin’s transgression was that he openly and frequently complained that “Jews were not accepted into the [partisan] unit . . . [and that] they were harassed” (190). In June 1943 in Mironka, after a Jewish sentry mistakenly killed a Soviet partisan, the latter’s comrades unleashed themselves upon the Jewish patrol, killing seven of its members (192).

--Molobo 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I never deleted a single word you wrote. Don't mislead people who might be unaware of the previous history of the problem. Now, that you shortened it to a reasonable length, I think it is fine to stay. --Irpen 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I never deleted a single word you wrote. And I clearly wrote that you deleted quotes about Soviet atrocities. Please read what I write. --Molobo 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Molobo. I never deleted anything. This old problem was looked at by a wider audience and the result was you being blocked for revert warring and posting a copyrighted info to Wikipedia. I tried to keep talk page readable and copied everything you wrote to a separate page and linked to every quote as appropriate. You are starting this mess trying to make yourself an innocent victim while you were clearly trolling as you are now. You want me to post the details of what happened at that time? I really think it is irrelevant and was prompted by your new bad faith accusation. So, cool it. --Irpen 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Adress such issues as your deletions of my sources on my private page. I could you call for you to stop personal attacks but sadly we have grown used to you and certain other editors calling all contribution regarding Soviet atrocities "trolling". Anyway please stop from further OT and concentrate on issues regarding the article. I recommend further private comments to be posted on user discussion pages. --Molobo 23:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The link from the Sarmatian Review http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html has many well taken points, and for some balance, the link should be in the actual article itself, not just the talk pages. The article is losing its original encyclopedia quality and is beginning to become a Propaganda Piece. The talk pages are becoming too personal and bitter. Dr. Dan 20:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The link does not work. Usually the links with *.edu/~* are personal student's or faculty pages, something even less reliable then blogs abakharev 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

4The link in question is a review of historian study about Soviet Partisans, the review is from a journal regarding history and made by a Polish historian that publishes about that part of our history, --Molobo 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. heqs 11:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarmatian Review is respected, if one of more minors, academic publications dealing with Eastern Europe. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is also a respected scholar. I certainly agree that facts from this article should be used in ours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As to what Alex wrote above, I believe Rice University is quite a respected centre of education, nowhere near blogs and such. //Halibutt 14:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

reverts

Thumbs down to the tag team reverts. To not even bother to explain your reverts on this page is hostile editing. It suggests that you are removing it simply because you don't like it. Please explain your removal of information and POV tag. "de-Moloboize" and "polish nationalism not allowed" ad hominems are not valid. heqs 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the version that the people are trying to impose and ask yourslef if it is neutral and consice. Thumbs down to those who are trying to fill this article with a POV and then put a POV tag. --Kuban Cossack 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read it and it generally corresponds with my understanding of the situation. It's a little sloppy (for instance, Antanas Sniečkus should not have been edited out), and should be improved upon. Improve the wording to better suit the context of the article. Or, if you object to a couple of unsourced statements, remove them, but don't delete the whole thing out of hand. Give other the users, and those who claim non-NPOV a chance to improve it as well. heqs 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the current version is such. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans crimes in Finland.

The remains of the Finnish village of Lokka after a partisan attack on July 14, 1944. Picture from the book "Partisaanisodan Siviiliuhrit" (Civilian Victims of the Partisan War) by Tyyne Martikainen.

http://www3.filehost.to/files/2006-05-22_03/235951_partisan1.1.jpg

The burned dead victims of the partisan being carried to the back of a truck The soldier at the left carrying Siiri H. Kumpulainen. Picture from the book "Partisaanien Uhrit" (Partisans Victims) by Ville Tikkanen.

http://www3.filehost.to/files/2006-05-23_01/000201_partisan2.jpg

Grave of the victims of the partisan attack to the Lokka village. Picture from the book "Neuvostoliiton partisaanien tuhoiskut siviilikyliin 1941-44" (Destructive attacks of the Soviet Union's partisans against civilian villages 1941-1944) by Tyyne Martikainen.

The tombstone says:

"At Lokka, as victims of the partisans. 14.7.1944." (Names and dates of the victims birth's. At the down right corner: "Book of Revelation, Chapter 6."

http://www3.filehost.to/files/2006-05-23_01/000327_partisan3.2.jpg

Kurt.

Kurt, thanks for the references. While they are a good start, can you find any academic references for this? English language would be preferable, although if we lack those, Finnish - as long as we can verify that they were published in an academic source - would be ok, too. Google Scholar and Google Print are two good places to start the search for English academic references. PS. In your edit summary, you also quoted this link. Could you elaborate on the veteraanienperinto organization?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Kurt is a person who changes numbers, removes sourced facts and adds unsourced and extremly pow pushing text. There is a request for comment against him which he has refused to post any coherent answers to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman (Deng 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for those kind lines

And it should be noted that Deng appears to have a personal grudge towards me and he attempts to paint all I do as vandalism. This is seriusly off-topic, and I will not continue this discussion here.

Kurt.

Kurt, I don't know you enough to know who is right or not without reviewing your RfC - and I don't have time for it. I'll just point out to you that if you abandon this talk page, you also abandon your case, and to Deng, that everyone can change for the better and if Kurt can provide varifiable information, I see no reason why not to let him try.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Piotr

"I'll just point out to you that if you abandon this talk page, you also abandon your case"

Don't worry, I have no intention of doing so. I shall continue the research as soon as possible. At the same time you could also try to do some research yourself, if you are interested.

Kurt

I am not sure if I'll have time for that. On a related note, please don't overuse headings. One per discussion is enough, no nead for a new heading for each new post.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I have edited it a bit, adding new sources and the book. I wonder why Russian sources are capable, but Deng especially keeps questioning everything. I'd suggest you to take a look at this. Finland is #1 in Press Freedom, while Russia is 148th. Let's keep that in mind when looking at sources. The crime records (murders and crimes against humanity) are also in Finnish goverment's records (before secret records). --Pudeo 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Related NPOV debate

All editors interested in POV of this article would probably be interested in the debate at Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No more this shit!

OK, Russian Wikipedians, you vandalized the article once again with your stylistic history laquering as well as with brutal deletions and inadequate templates. I'm getting tired of this shit. Do it again, and I'll fulfill this threat! BTW, another external link for you to consider your behaviour. I could easily harvest THOUSANDS of such sources (including those from Runet). Alex Bakharev, please think about mentoring your compatriots in order to avoid a massive PR-problem for Russia here on Wikipedia. Worst wishes,AlexPU 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

15 minutes passed until they censored the article again, just by an explained revert... OK. You wanted it - you got it. Ghirlandajo, I'll meet you at Category:Russia :)))AlexPU 16:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you concern yourself on expanding your volcabulary and ending such degenerate edit summaries and then going back to writing articles in a CIVILISED fashion.--Kuban Cossack 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:)))) Nice vocabulary YOU have: 2 misspellings. What's most funny, I found numerous misspellings in Russia (?!). I mean Russians rampage Ukraine-related articles on a daily basis but don't care a fuck about their own country articles. Weird, pervert shauvenistic priorities...AlexPU 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't confuse vocabulary and spelling
2. Familiarise yourself with WP:EQ and WP:Civil
3. Thanks a lot for typo corrections ;).--Kuban Cossack 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "chauvinistic priorities" ? Fisenko 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't get too emotional my Ukrainian friend. Not only Russian editors think your revisionist version of history is just as biased as the official Soviet propaganda. Fisenko 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC) If anything the current "Russian vandalized" version of the article (as AlexPU calls it) is still very critical of partisans and has anti-Soviet bias. Fisenko 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fisenko, I didn't really mean YOU were my friend, judging by your reckless reverts of this article. Неужто я б... последняя, чтобы при этом с тобой дружить? Да и ты, наверное, не дружишь с б...ми, правда? So I rephrased myself above. Sorry for misleading.

Now back to the editing. "Revisionism of history" is a controversial term&concept itself :).AlexPU 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU, recruiting of meatpuppets isn't a new tactic and someone here was banned for one months for doing just that. It just doesn't work and, besides, your opponents may than go to Inosmi.ru or anti-orange.ua sites to recruit others and we'll have a mess that everyone will regret. During the AndriyK's crusade I believe only my strong persuasion of some of my friends stopped them from appealing to such fora frequented by people whose views are quite oppostie from those you threaten to recruit.

That said, you would really do yourself a favor by learning to talk civilly. Criticizing others' English (like you did for KK) is an extremely unethical thing in internet fora and you should have known by now. It's not your English but your filthy mouth is the biggest problem for which you were blocked already. Unless you urgently curtail this habbit, I see more blocks coming your way. --Irpen 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Ukraine, Rudniev and Ukrainian nationalist myths

1) Both partisans and UPA had a strong support in Western Ukraine and the local population there was very polarized and divided. In general UPA tend to have support of population in Galicia while in Volyn and Zhitomir regions were was strong local support for partisans.

2) I have yet to see any credible historic sources about any serious dialogue in regards to any kind of alliance between Ukrainian partisans and UPA.

3) The idea of Rudniev (an old Bolshevik) being patriotic Ukrainian martyr killed by evil NKVD agent Kovpak is good for Ukrainian nationalist revisionist presudo-history but not for a neutral encyclopedia. Fisenko 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fisenko, don't worry, I already wrote a preliminary draft for Rudniev's article that would replace a bunch of unreferenced conspiracy theories. I will replaced the current nonsense within a couple of days. This article will be brought to normalcy too. I have some more urgent things on my todo list but this will be done. Why don't you start? Cheers, --Irpen 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem?

In the Ukraine there were 2 types of partisans one who fough twith the Red army in some way dont know the numbers and one of about 300,000 thousand men who fought against both the Red Army and the nazies. (Deng 22:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

Well not really, according to this article [30] :Великая Отечественная война закончилась разгромом Германии. Казалось бы, ОУН-УПА ничего другого не оставалось кроме как самоликвидироваться - ведь надеяться было больше не на кого. Правительство Украины использовало момент и трижды (12 февраля, 27 ноября 1944 года и 19 мая 1945 года) обращалось к участникам оуновского подполья с предложением сдаться. После этого около 55 тысяч (ПиВ, N 11, 1991 год) покинули УПА.

The Great Patriotic war ended with the defeat of Germany, it seamed to the OUN-UPA that there was nothing left but to self-liquidate, as it now had nobody to rely on. The government of the Ukraine took advantage of the moment and three times (12 Feb, 27 Nov 1944 and 19 May 1945) offered to the participants of the OUN movement to surrender. After which approximately 55 thousand left the UPA (source given). So it should say that some of the Ukrainian nationalist fighters left the UPA after the Red Army liberated Western Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and what happened to them afterwards ? --Molobo 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit war

I am trying to merge the versions by Kuban Kazak [31] and by Ukrained [32]

Here is the list of differences with my comments:

1. Kovpaks detachment vs formation. I think Ukrained's formation is less awkward
2. Link of harsh Stalinist rule to a Category. I think inter-namespace links should be avoided, besides a half of the category belongs to the post-WW2 events. Linked to Soviet persecutions instead.
3. Paragraph about UPA and SP. I think should stay, although references should be provided
4. Linking of War Crimes. I see no reasons why the link is dropped, restored.
5. I can not accept statement that the price paid for the Victory was to high as a fact. It is inherritently an opinion and hottly contested. Restoring according to some historians.
6. For a few differences I left Ukrained's version.
7. External references. Frankly I do not see the special place of a fragment of a book review (not a critical review, just a commercial) published in a personal webspace hosted by Rice University. I do not know about the book, but the review is not a scolarship work. For once it has no references. Reformatted the section accordingly abakharev 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Finnish gravestone picture

If you feel it is absolutely necessary to have this picture in the article: [33] I will also add this picture of Finnish concentration camp for Russian children in Petrozavodsk: [34] Personally I don't think such a small paragraph within the article deserves two pictures. Fisenko 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that most photos were staged, such as the famous one of the liberation of Auschwitz, so it's not credible.

This is called historical revisionism, so mind what you say. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What am I revising? Sorry, wrong lead in trying to discredit a factual comment.

No

Information related to the Finnish consentration camps is irrelevant. You apparently have adapted a wrong idea about them. They had nothing to do with national socialism or racial policies. The camps were operated under the same principle as American camps where Japanese-Americans were interned following United State's entry in the war. People were not sent to die to the camps and they were not mass murdered there. Don't try to justificate the partisans acts with them and talk about brutality. Kurt.

True, and how that image isn't suitable for the article? The text in Finnish says "In Lokka, victims of the partisans", and shows all the victims of the specific attack. There were children killed, even one month old baby in the gravestone which pretty much tells the style of the attacks.. --Pudeo 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Since you are reverting the article with the line "Soviet partisans executed civilians accused of collaborating throughout". What is that? Finnish civilians in Finland being accused of collaborating with who... The Finnish goverment? --Pudeo 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"""People were not sent to die to the camps and they were not mass murdered there.""" Don't try to whitewash Finnish war crimes. 20 000 ethnic Russians in Karelia were put in concentration camps and 7000 of them died there. Here is my reference [35] How come this is irrelevant ? There are people who believe Holoucast never happened, doesn't mean this should be adopted as official point of view on Wikipedia Fisenko 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"How come this is irrelevant ? " Did you even read what I said earlier? "20 000 ethnic Russians in Karelia were put in concentration camps and 7000 of them died there....There are people who believe Holoucast never happened, doesn't mean this should be adopted as official point of view on Wikipedia " It had nothing to do with racial policies or the Holocaust. Those people were not mass murdered in the camps. Their deaths were not result of planned extermination. You are out of your path. Kurt.

Please explain the deaths of these people. Are you seriously saying deaths of these people had nothing to do with the fact Finnish troops put them in concentration camps ?? Fisenko 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Food was especially scarce in 1942 in Finland due to bad harvest, and for this reason the number of deaths in Finnish camps rose high. It is not that the people were not tried to be fed, it's that there was lack of food in the country. Kurt.

Intresting whitewash theory. why did all this people ended up in concentration camps in the first place ? Weren't they forced there in order to move them east and settle the land with Karelians, Vesps and Finns ? wouldn't this be a policy nowdays called "ethnic cleansing" ? Fisenko 23:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fisenko is correct. Its very sad to see such biast entries aimed against Russia.

Revert war on Finland part of the article needs to stop

Why do you keep removing the picture, it is fine and completely suitable for the article. Maybe we need to get a comment by adminstrator if you keep removing it wihtout any comment here.

I removed the part that said "Partisans executed civilians deemed hostile throughout", don't tell me children, women and elderly were hostile.

There have been 15 reverts on the case, please do not just revert it again. --Pudeo 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I decided to protect the article for a while, to have discussions here. Too much edit warring recently.

I have locked the AlexPU/Ukrained/Molobo version abakharev 12:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is minor about this minor edit?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a revert I think. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And reverts are not minor and should be labelled as reverts, right?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That they should be labelled as reverts is perfectly right. Whether they're minor... I don't know. I never mark them as minor for myself (even for vandalism reverts), but some people tell me I should, so I have no personal preference. What is the meaning of the question btw??? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The meaning? I wanted to ask people if such an edit is indeed minor. I don't think that any unlabeled revert classifies as Help:Minor edit, and wanted to point this out as part of the 'cooling down' and 'what mistakes should not be repeated' during the protection period of this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)