![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have updated the article to reflect the discussion here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So, the article informed the reader that the AK is viewed "controversial" by the number of historiographies and started the list: Communist, Jewish, Lithuanian, etc. "Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian" are also part of these "faulty historiographies" I guess. Anyway, I rephrased it to cut to the core. -- Irpen 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Irpen - much better. As stated above, Piotrus moved the material to note 1. Just now I moved the content of note 1 to a separate section of the article body, but on second thought - how useful is this text, really? Unless we have a well-sourced categorization of each historian that has critized AK as a card-carrying member of this or that historiography, the categories are based on what their surnames suggest. Do US or British-born authors with Jewish-sounding surnames belong to "Western" or "Jewish" historiography? Let's not go there. The note text shoud probably go away, since it is not referenced, and the mention of controversy is in the lead and then discussed in detail in separate sections. Let's continue to cite historians as they come along, and include the details they offer. If a particular historian's viewpoint is described somewhere in a reliable source as belonging to a specific historiography, put that in his or her bio article. But generalizations like "the majority of Western sources agree that AK was..." need at least one, preferably more, references for that exact statement. Novickas ( talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You forget the Russian and Belarusian POV but mention some non-existing "western" POV. I hope this is just an accident.
No problem with referencing. I am not familiar with a single Russian or Ukrainian source where the AK's role is not considered "controversial". -- Irpen 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The Soviet government was radically anti-Polish, which left very little space to Poles. Ther current lead is inacceptable, close to Jews were anti-German during WWII. Xx236 ( talk) 11:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all Polish government was allied to Soviets and Home Army formations assisted Soviet units in fights against German forces, only of course to be arrested and many executed, while the low rank members were forcefully drafted to Soviet controlled units (were later they sometimes murdered as well). To name that government anti-Soviet is rather strange, since it was rather the actions of Soviet government against Poland and Poles that dominated the relationship.
The second issue is that Piotrowski book certainly doesn't make a claim that Nazi Germany coordinated actions with Home Army. In fact he goes to great lenght to make a point such cooperation was non-existant. The only thing mentioned is leaving of supplies to Polish partisants by local commanders, and a report of German commander claiming some people from HA helped him, while it could be more likely NZS or any other formation. This is very little and doesn't form any convicing base for claim that HA coordinated actions with Nazi Germany. The relations with Germany are covered in seperate subsection and require detail large enough to explain them in neutral terms. The claim that Nazi Germany and Home Army coordinated their actions is not based on any source(although I am aware that such claims can be found in Soviet sources, and I guess in Russian and Belarussian dictatorships such claims possibly also could be found, however this of course wouldn't be neutral sources).To make this short-describe the relations in subsection, but there is no place in the lead that Home Army and Nazi Germany worked together, since it is untrue. We are talking about 400.000 to 500.000 man strong resistance group with several years of fighting, one occasion of leaving supplies made on behalf of German commander, and unspecified claims in one other report about some local group in forest aren't big enough for the lead. Also Ak cooperated with certain Jewish resistance group as well as having Jewish members so seperation is a bit too far reaching statement.-- Molobo ( talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Lokyz, I don't understand your last sentence. The book was thought as work covering up that aspect, the author made it clear at the very beginning that it will cover that subject of the occupation of Poland, since it wasn't covered very well unlike resistance to Nazi forces, and the ethnic situation interests him the most, just like a person writing about air operations in WW2 doesn't claim that only air battles happened in WW2.
Regards. -- Molobo ( talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Molobo makes valid points. In any case the lead is not the place to repeat minor fringe claims based on WP:ILIKEIT(ORNOT); hence it is not the place to discuss issues like Dubingai massacre, limited AK-Nazi cooperation that briefly occured in 1944 in the Vilnius region (one of 17 or so districts of AK), and such. Remember - lead is the summary, and only the most important points should make there. Novickas rightly pointed out that AK was seen as controversial by enough sources to merit the inclusion of that fact in the lead. Details of various controversies, however, do not belong in lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, I explained that the lead should not just mention the existence of some abstract "controversies" but mention the controversies themselves, that is AK's own involvement in atrocities against non-Polish population and the issue of collaboration. No details (save them for main body) but just to mention clearly what was its not so honorable activity, not some weasel "controversies". -- Irpen 05:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Example: UPA unit murders an entire Polish village with women and children. Atrocity. The Home Army attacks the UPA unit defeats it and kills everyone, including the prisoners and medical personnel. Despite killing prisoners is a war crime, this would be a "reprisal" an this is not what we are talking about.
Another example. After a mass murder of the Polish civilians by the UPA, the Home Army attacks the Ukrainian village and also murders everyone, including women and children. This is an atrocity. Plain and simple. To call it a reprisal is a white-wash. Hear, Molobo? -- Irpen 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier AK had different sources of equipment. It would be useful to create a table and subsection which could be later expanded to more seperate article detailing how equipment was obtained, its numbers and ways of producing it. I am fairly certain I saw statistics regarding how much was produced, stolen from Germans, or came from British and American air-drops. Such tables would enrich the article.-- Molobo ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend Molobo to read the memoirs of Josef Mackewicz cited By Piotrowski at page 89, available at google books as well as text around it. -- Irpen 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Amria Krajowa collaboration was quite well described by Ph. D. Leonid Smilovitsky, dealing event in Belarus:
“ | However, while resisting Soviet pressure, the AK High Command and its local representatives went to extremes: They cooperated with the Nazis. The first contacts began to be established in the summer and fall of 1943, after the breakdown of relations with the USSR. In December 1943 and February 1944, Captain Adolf Pilch (pseudonym "Gora"), commander of one of the AK detachments, met with SD [Security Service] and Wehrmacht officers in Stolbtsy, requesting urgent assistance. He received 18,000 units of ammunition, food, and uniforms. During the eight months of its existence (September 1943-August 1944), the "Gora" Detachment did not engage in a single battle with the Germans, whereas it waged 32 battles against Belorussian partisans. Andziej Kucner ("Maly") ["Small"]) followed his example until he was transferred to Ashmyany Rayon by order of the AK District Headquarters. The Nazis' attitude toward cooperation with "Akovtsy" [AK members] can be judged from German trophy documents. In February 1944, SS Obersturmbanfuhrer Strauch reported: "Cooperation with White Polish bandits is continuing. The 300-strong detachment in Rakov and Ivenets proved to be very useful. Negotiations with Ragner's (Stefan Zajaczkiewicz) 1,000-strong band have been concluded. Ragner's band is suppressing the territory between the Neman and the Volkovysk-Molodechno Railroad and between Mosty and Iv'ye. Contacts with other Polish bands have been established".
First Lieutenant Jozef Swida (Vileyka Oblast), commander of the Nadneman AK Formation in the Lida District, also cooperated with the occupiers. In the summer of 1944, in Shchuchin Rayon, Polish legionnaires gained control of the small towns of Zheludok and Vasilishki, where they replaced German garrisons. For the purpose of fighting partisans, they were given four trucks and 300,000 cartridges[55]. Some sub-units of Armia Krajowa displayed great cruelty toward the civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the partisans. The legionnaires burned down their homes, drove away their livestock, and robbed and killed the families of partisans. [6] |
” |
So it was much more bigger affair then "just" exchange of weapon, like some trying to describe... M.K. ( talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_%C5%9Awida#Proces_i_wyrok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans_in_Poland Communist propaganda routinely referred to the anti-Soviet Polish underground army as "bands of White Poles." According to another propaganda directive, the Polish underground was to be referred to as "the protégés of the Gestapo."[2] On 23 June 1943, the Soviet partisan leadership authorized the denouncing of the Polish underground to the Nazis. Later, orders went out to “shoot the [Polish] leaders” and “discredit, disarm, and dissolve” their units.[2]
I made similar request on UPA disscusion page. I know there were some joint AK-UPA actions against Soviet invading forces and German occupation at the end of the war. Alas, a book which had a some overview of them was lended by me to a person who I no longer have contact with. So can anybody name those joint battles ? Additionaly I know that some in UPA experienced such pressure from Soviet invasion and attacks they went as far as to propose a Polish-Ukrainian confederation-- Molobo ( talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And what does that suppose to mean? The Polish government bravely fled the country leaving it to advancing Nazis to form their own "General government". After that there was indeed a bunch of guys in London utterly irrelevant, claiming to be a Polish government. Note, however, that there was another bunch of guys claiming to be a Polish gov, sitting in Moscow. To avoid confusion, exiled government was used and it was just fine before Molobo's intrusion. -- Irpen 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Molobo, I am not suggesting to use anyone's "POV. All this discussion is a fascinating topic for the relevant articles. Here it suffices to just call the London gov the Polish Government in Exile, like its article does. We don't title the article "Legitimate Polish government during WWII" or smth. -- Irpen 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Molobo, Please note that "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answer" is disruptive. I am simply asking to stick each article with the issues at hand. -- Irpen 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, all but communist era historians agree that Polish government in exile was legitimate. That said, the lead of this article is not a place to discuss this issue, so I removed this word from my version. One less controversial issue to worry about it in this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Heroic historian? Why thank you, Tymek. And don't forget lot's of those trucks were Studebakers. Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Moscow was a capital of the world's working class, i.e. of the United States in the same way as of Poland. Xx236 ( talk) 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I restored the referenced info and gently reformatted some stuff. Hopefully, people are willing to discuss now rather than make silent reverts with misleading edit summaries. Due to recent Molobo's intrusions, two important articles are now tagged by a rather wide consensus of editors. I hope we can save this article for further development, rather than run revert wars, inject/paste stuff in and fight for tags. Let's try at least. -- Irpen 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We need to detail exact scale of operations against AK planned by Soviet forces, and how Soviets infiltrated the underground in Poland. Also important are the torture methods used by Soviet NKVD to break people, special units created to conduct operations against Polish independence movement and so on. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Panteleimon Ponomarenko deserves to be mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [9] Xx236 ( talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Panteleimon Ponomarenko ordered to destroy AK units in Belarus. It's about the AK, not only about Soviet partizans. Xx236 ( talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's nasty to cooperate with the Nazis, as the Soviets did 1939-1941. But also later the Soviets preferred sometimes to fight the Poles rather than the Nazis. Ponomarenko recommended denunciating Polish conspirators to Gestapo [10]. It was common in occupied Warsaw that Soviet agents denounced AK members. Once they denounced their own printing shop situated in the same house as the one run by the AK. The case was used after the war during internal fights in the Communist Party. Xx236 ( talk) 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
From 16 lines 5 lines criticise the AK. For example Red Army, no critics in the lead, Wehrmacht - nothing. Xx236 ( talk) 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
So, we have different POVs. Some of us are from countries that had fought with AK and unlike them. But that POV is not the only POV. We should compromise and consensus. Collaboration and attrocities are in article. Do not edit war over inclusion in lead, it is an undue place for that. Alden or talk with Alden 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a more general problem how to write leads. I believe that facts are preferred, rather than opinions. Another example is Bombing of Dresden in World War II.At the same time Auschwitz concentration camp's lead doesn't inform that a genocide or even a crime were committed there. Xx236 ( talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop this wholesale reverts. There is nothing "fringe" as facts being undisputed. If the concern is UNDUE, please discuss the removal from the article. The lead should summarize the article, rather than the selected parts of it. -- Irpen 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
An underground organisation should terrorize and kill people, which causes criticism of the terorised and families of the killed ones. Which underground organisation during WWII wasn't criticised because of such activities?
Soviet Union was an imperialistic state, which persecuted everyone inside and outside, so quoting Soviet critics is Soviet propaganda, not serious editing 2008'. Xx236 ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, no one here tries to whitewash negative events in the history of AK. It should be really mentioned in neutral manner to avoid further controversies. As users above mentioned, Red Army has far more negative stories but it isn't written in such a distinctive manner. I really don't see denial in edits of Polish editors. - Darwinek ( talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there are two issues at hand. Collaboration and atrocities against the civilian population. The first comment above addresses the atrocities and the second comment addresses collaboration. -- Irpen 09:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the following gives perfectly adequate coverage of the issues in the lead: "Those conflicts and other issues - such as the separation from communist or Jewish resistance - meant that Armia Krajowa, seen in modern Poland as a heroic resistance, has been the subject of controversy and more critical portrayal among some circles outside of Poland". As such, I'm removing the NPOV tag. -- Folantin ( talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Since my earlier question got lost in the above melee (I know, a little OT), I'll ask it again. How did one become a member of the AK? As I'm sure there were no recruiting stations, I'm wondering if there were post-war claims of members, who really never were members? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there were false claims. I know one regarding Szare Szeregi, also outside AK, by Edward Prus.
Veterans were recommended by two eywitnesses, so it was possible to create virtual units 30-40 years after the war. Xx236 ( talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
AK didn't exist after the war. Xx236 ( talk) 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that precise names should be used. The subject was extremely hot, because any Polish underground was described as the AK by outsiders. Xx236 ( talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that use of Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Jews and Soviets is rather derogatory. Lithuanian population, Jewish resistance or Soviet Forces, (for example, are far better forms to use. -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My rationale for usage of shorter terms:
Bottom line is that your titles are incorrect and cumbersome, and with the words like 'collaborators' - certainly less neutral then the shorter version (which has passed GA and A-class mil review).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The RfC above has pretty much discarded the claim of collaboration, but the claim of atrocities is still being occasionally restored. I invite interested editors to present here references that back up this claim in due weight - i.e. references that give a general description of AK (encyclopedias, etc.) and mention the claim of atrocities. Irpen wrote above "That AK was involved in atrocities against the local population is not a fringe theory but an undisputed fact." If so, I am sure he can present several general descriptions of AK - of the length of our lead - that stress those atrocities? I have attempted to demonstrate that no such sources exist here. The reference used currently, Piotrowski ( Print here) - a specialist book on the subject - does not support such a general claim; instead he discusses several exceptional events. Those exceptional events are nothing more that a trivia in the big picture of AK, and as such don't belong in lead - we could as well mention that AK designed a submachine gun or run anti-Soviet propaganda campaign ( Akcja Antyk) or a hundred of other very minor facts - alas, we do not do so in the lead. Yes, Piotrowski mentions the killings - as others have noted above, no wartime organization was perfect. It is true that AK had committed several atrocities and killed innocent civilians - so did every single other wartime organization. Certainly a comparison to UPA, responsible for 100,000 or more deaths in the massacres in Volhynia, is not justified. A few separate incidents, "exceptions to the rule", do not justify any claim of atrocities in the lead - just as it would be undue weight and inappropriate to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article, or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on. If one digs deep enough, we can find dirt and criticism of anything - but it does not mean that room for such criticism is in article's lead. May I finally quote WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" (hence I ask for the general references that mention atrocities as one of the defining qualities of AK). Further: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."). Since the AK's atrocities are mentioned only in the selected few specialist publication, they qualify for discussion in subarticles - even in the section of the main article, perhaps - but not in the lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line is that Piotrowski makes it clear that AK never collaborated with Nazi Germany. It's good that you mention Jewish partisans. Note that the lead there also does not make mention of atrocities like Naliboki massacre or Koniuchy Massacre.As to "One of these "Jewish authors", the historian Joshua Zimmerman, calls the hostility of the AK to Jewish partisans "a very painful phenomenon"-depends on region, you also have many Jews serving in AK itself, different situation in Kresy region where their units sided with Soviet forces who were hostile to Poland and Poles.-- Molobo ( talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So, massacres by AK are not notable? What next? -- Irpen 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this "The Armia Krajowa, with over 400,000 members in 1944, was not only the largest Polish underground resistance movement but the world's largest" a joke? The partisan forces operating on the occupeid territories of Soviet Union, and its bordering occupied states, controlled from a separate Directorate within Stavka, included two strategic theatres (Belorussian and Ukrainian), and more then 11 krais and zones with over 6,000 units, and over 1 million serving personnel (combat and non-combat) by 1944. Following the Operation Bagration alone 250,000-300,000 partisans were inducted into the ranks of the regular Red Army units. -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- AK was able to overcome these difficulties to some extent and put tens of thousands of armed soldiers into the field.
So there, mrg3105, perhaps you are forgetting that this organization (AK) was under the guidance and tutelage of the unique Polish Secret Underground State. This State (a very special entity) probably explains the uniqueness and enormity of this army. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Molobo ( talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Poland's resistance movement became the largest, most autonomous of its kind in Europe.
"Accurate figures for the number of activists are, in the nature of things, impossible to come by. After the war ended the state (that is, France) officially recognized some 300,000 people as resistance veterans, along with another 100,000 who sacrificed their lives in the struggle". [18]. James F. McMillan, 1992, Oxford University Press. So why do these other authors say 400,000 and then use that number to call it the largest? Novickas ( talk) 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After the war, many Frenchmen falsely claimed to have been involved in the resistance, from French resistance Xx236 ( talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a note about "the unqualified support of the civilian population"? [19] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there is copious discussion going on about the neutrality of this article here in talk! That is why there is a template that questions the neutrality of the POV from which this article is written. Just because YOU think the article is perfectly fine is not the reason to remove the template. Only when the individual who inserted the template is convinced that the article is not written from a predominantly Polish POV would he/she remove the template. I would appreciate if you replaced the template until this issue is resolved in talk. Thank you-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
During the Vietnam War, there was considerable debate, in the U.S. intelligence community, about the size of the opposition. I recommend War of Numbers, a posthumous book by Sam Adams, a CIA analyst who resigned over what he regarded as politicized estimates.
One of the worst measures, for many reasons, was "body count". At least at the tactical level, the best indicator tended to be the number of weapons captured after a battle. Guerillas often arm themselves from the other side, and certainly don't leave weapons behind if they have any choice in the matter. When weapons are captured, it can reasonably be assumed that the guerilla force was hurt badly enough that they physically couldn't carry them away. If there is evidence the force was wiped out, however, the number of weapons still won't be definitive about force size, since it's quite common to have more guerillas than weapons.
The reality, however, is that it is quite hard to get good size estimates on irregular forces, which, by their very nature, are at least somewhat covert, and rarely trot out in formation where they can be photographed by aircraft, or these days, by satellite.
Just in WWII terms, however, might I suggest that the Eighth Route Army might have the temerity to suggest that no European irregular organization approached its size, certainly by 1945? That doesn't even consider the New Fourth Army.
If, as an outsider, I might suggest that the absolute numbers may never be known accurately, it may be more useful to focus on the actual events -- battle outcomes, German or partisan retreats, areas of control, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Post-war section logically belong at the end of the article?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is currently protected due to edit warring over this OR, here is a simple question to interested editors: can anybody provide references that would support the claim that Soviet partisans were more numerous than AK? If not - and ample evidence to the contrary was presented in #World's largest?! - the article should be unprotected, and WP:OR claim removed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, guys, here we go.
Before proceeding I suppose I should answer M. K’s question, which I accept was placed in good faith, though I am not completely convinced that the information required is at all material to the purpose. My (female, incidentally!) particular expertise is in the politics of the seventeenth century English Restoration, the subject of the doctorate I took last year at the University of Cambridge. The details are all on my user page. I do, however, teach and lecture on a wide variety of historical topics, including twentieth century European history. I also have access to a superb library.
Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent on the Humanities desk, where I answer a broad range of questions on historical topics, including one posed by Piotr not so long ago on the relative strength of various partisan movements. Here is part of what I said to him on that occasion:
What I am now about to say about the Soviet Partisans has been garnered from a variety of secondary works, some specifically written on this topic. As one would expect, the movement in Russia had several tributaries. The first and most important was the mass of armed men, cut off and left behind by the German advance on Moscow in 1941. According to Alan Clark in Barbarossa: the Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45 (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1995) the lowest estimates indicate that there were never fewer than 250,000 of these in the occupied territories (p. 153). Of course, not all of these became partisans, but a great many did. They were supplemented by those fleeing from the prospect of forced labour and others angered by the nature of German occupation policy. Recruitment was particularly heavy in Belorussia, where several liberated zones developed by 1943, some covering very large areas. By the end of 1942 Richard Overy gives the total number of partisans as 300,000 (Russia's War, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 147).
The particular difficulty, I found, was in establishing precise figures at any given time. There are also issues arising from the nature of the figures themselves. Overy's 300,000 is really only a snapshot, which may hide more than it reveals. In other words, it says nothing about the turnover, the number of men and women who were processed through the partisan armies in any given period. The movement grew considerably in strength throughout 1943, increasing, according to official Soviet sources, from 130,000 in January, to 250,000 in December (N. Markov, KPSS-Organizator vsenarodni bor'by na vermenno okkupirovanni territorri SSSR in Velikaia pobeda Sovetskogo, Moscow, 1976, p. 167) However, I think the point made by Leonid D Grenkevich in The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-44: A Critical Historiographical Analysis (Frank Cass, London, 1999) is worth quoting in full;
In actuality, these estimates of partisan strength may be low, given the tremendous turbulence in partisan ranks. Estimates based on the most recent Russian archival research indicate that the total partisan strength may have reached 550,000 men if personnel turnover is considered. This was so because thousands of partisans were killed in combat operations, and old partisan units were being disbanded and new ones activated in continuous fashion. The new figures approximate closely to some Western sources that place partisan strength at 500,000 men throughout the entire period of the German occupation. (p.229)
This global figure is also supported by Walter Laqueur in The Guerilla Reader: A Historical Anthology, (New York, Charles Scribiner, 1990, p.233). Indeed, some accounts go so far as to say that, by December 1943, there were 360,000 partisans operating in Belorussia alone. (The Partisans by David Mountfield, (Hamlyn, London, 1979, p. 187).
All this would seem to confirm various Russian sources that estimate a growth rate of 250% from December 1942 to December 1943. Set against this there is the contention of Matthew Cooper that the Soviet figures are a 'ludicrous exaggeration' (The Phantom War: the German Struggle against Soviet Partisans, 1941-44, (Macdonald and Janes, London, 1979, p.67). However, Cooper gives no detailed reason for taking this view, beyond some general speculations about irregular units and infiltrators parachuted in by the Red Army. The rapid growth of the partisans is supported by one German source I came across, that provided by Eric Hesse in Der Sowjetrussische Partisankrieg, 1941-44 in Spiegel deutscher Kampfanweisungen und Befehle (Götingen, Munster-Schmidt Verlag, 1993, pp. 207-8). See also War in the Wild East: the German Army and Soviet Partisans by Ben Shepherd (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2004, p. 168)
Well, that's it. I do not believe there’s is any reason to suppose that by the winter of 1943/44 the whole of the Soviet partisan army was by far the strongest in Europe, not just in overall numbers, but in fighting effectiveness, having a readily available source of re-supply and rearmament, even on occasion making use of artillery. Precise figures, I accept, are very difficult to establish, but 500,000 is quite possible. However, returning to the point I made to Piotr the Russian partisan army would, in large measure, have ceased to exist as a partisan army by the conclusion, one supposes, of Operation Bagration, which cleared most of the remaining German forces from Soviet territory. So, in the period leading up to the Warsaw Rising the Polish Home Army may very well have the right to be considered as the strongest partisan force at that particular time. In comparative terms, though, it has to take second place to the Russians.
As I said at the outset, I am entirely neutral here, and have no wish to upset anyone. My only interest is in accuracy. Anyway, I hope you find this of some use, and my very warm wishes to you all, Polish or Russian or whoever! Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here, below, is a copy of a discussion Piotr and I are having on my talk page concerning the implications and significance of the above survey. Clio the Muse ( talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, then, I am now going to make a statement, which, for me, brings the matter to a close. I'm not quite sure how my survey of the various sources could in any way be interpreted as 'original research'. The works I consulted are all published monographs. It is true that none of them specifically address the question of relative size, or attempt any comparison with the AK, because, well, that is not their purpose. Even so, within there own particular parameters, the information given is fairly unambiguous. Grenkevich says that the Partisans grew during the course of 1943 from 65,000 in February, to 100,000 in June, to 245,000 in October and finally to 360,000 in December (p.230) (Also Mountfield, p. 187). And that is for Belorussia alone. I could not obtain comparative figures for the Baltic area, for the Ukraine, for the Crimea or for the rest of Russia. Soviet sources, as reported by Cooper (p. 67) do, however, claim as many as 220,000 fighters in the Ukraine by 1944. Both Grenkevich (p. 229) and Lacqueur (p. 233) place total Partisan strength in the region of 500,000 to 550,000. I should, I think, make it clear, that they are talking about fighters, not about the civilian support movements of this kind inevitably depend on. I am not asking anyone to accept my word on this. These texts should all be available in a decent research library.
Ultimately, guys, the only way this question is going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction is for some brave soul to dive into the Russian archives in Moscow, and possibly the German archives in Koblenz. Even then her or his work is likely to be rejected as original research! As I said at the outset, I am entirely neutral over this question, approaching it merely as a matter of academic interest. It's become obvious to me, though, that this whole area has become tied up in issues of national pride, going well beyond a strict understanding, as I see it, of pure encyclopedic value. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of one's nation, of one's culture and of one’s history. I can understand these emotions; I consider myself to be an English patriot; but I will not allow this to limit my judgement. Too many Wikipedia pages have been turned into battlegrounds over pride and politics.
Look, I would really like to cut the Gordian Knot for you. I honestly think it intensely silly to get too bogged-down over the issue of numbers, to make it a matter of what we in England called 'one-upmanship.' Can I suggest some neutral formulae along the lines of 'the AK and the Soviet Partisans were the strongest resistance forces in Europe', or 'the AK was high among the strongest resistance forces in Europe'. I'm sure it is not beyond you to find a mutually acceptable form of wording! And with that I am done! Clio the Muse ( talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The usage of the terms most and average in this context. It's OR unless a source we can all agree on states that or it is hashed out here.
The higher range of membership stats is currently "450,000-500,000[24] to even "over 600,000"".[24]
Ref #24 goes to Stanisław Salmonowicz, Polskie Państwo Podziemne, Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa, 1994. This book was translated into English in 1999, and is searchable in Google Books: [20]
In that edition, Salmonowicz states 400,000 as membership: [21]. No ranges, just "had, during its greatest period, four hundred thousand sworn soldiers."
The only search result for 600,000 is for soldiers of the Wehrmacht: [22] No results for 500,000 or 450,000.
Possibly the author retracted the higher stats in the 1999 edition, which has several co-authors. If so the article should reflect that. In any case, pls address. Novickas ( talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to see Dr. Dan's question addressed, given the wide range of membership in sources - how was membership determined? Do any of the current sources discuss that? Novickas ( talk) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't quote Taiwan books whe I write about Madagascar. Why a British book 25 years old can contain something interesting about the AK? Xx236 ( talk) 06:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The 1983 book quotes the 200 000 number probably from Ciechanowski, The Warsaw Uprising, 1975. Now one should check what is the source quoted by Ciechanowski. Xx236 ( talk) 07:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The quoted PWN source says 20 000 - 30 000, not 30 000. PPR members were AL members, many of them very civilian. Xx236 ( talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right, this article isn't about the AL, so why to quote the doubtful number of members? Xx236 ( talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Military Organization Lizard Union Xx236 ( talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean the part of NSZ with Brygada Swiętokrzyska. Xx236 ( talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(moved from mrg3105 talk - make accusations in public when concerning the article) I wanted to get a second opinion before I contacted you about this, but since you commented, I would like to ask you to avoid comments about editors based on their nationality in the future, they are offensive and in violation of various wiki policies. The comments I refer to are [23] and [24], for example. Further, as you have not disclosed your own nationality, criticizing others for being more open is hardly a fair approach. PS. Based on your knowledge or Russian, I could (but I am not) assume that you are Russian and thus biased towards Soviet partisans and against AK (who fought them). I would not have made such a bad faithed assumption even if you declared you are Russian, as I believe, assuming good faith, that reasonable editors can climb above such biases, based on their nationality (or other characteristics). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, would you like to elaborate on me being a hardcore POV pusher?--
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣
05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Chetniks doesn't contain Interaction with other forces paragraph. The same People's Liberation Army (Yugoslavia). United States Army - nothing. Are there different standards for criticizing Polish people in this Wikipedia? Xx236 ( talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is one English Wikipedia, which should have a standard of describing WWII underground organisations and armies. Not one standard for Poles and other standard for Americans or any other nation. "criticizing Polish people in this Wikipedia" means e.g. putting a large paragraph about Interaction with other forces here but not into hundreds of other articles. BTW - I don't have any opinion about the AK being "the largest resistance movement in the World" so look for another victim of your teachings. Xx236 ( talk) 07:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
pl:Jerzy Bokłażec was arrested by Soviets and hanged in Lida. Władysław Mickiewicz hanged in Trokiele. Xx236 ( talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mrg3105, our discussion at AK was not the best example of collaboration out there. But I am sure you, just as I, want to improve this project and the articles. Please, help me by suggesting some compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been my observation, in many contexts, that it can be very easy to get over-focused on relative size of things, to the point that the real issues may be obscured. I'm not being completely silly when I mention that in the U.S., there is a continuing series of jokes about "everything's bigger in Texas", which did have some difficulty when the physically larger Alaska became a state.
Both the Polish and Soviet irregular forces, in the Second World War, were large and determined, and neither lacked for examples of courage and determination. As I have mentioned, however, by 1945, the combined Chinese strength in the Eighth Route Army (i.e., the part on the Long March) and the New Fourth Army (i.e., the part that didn't go on the Long March) have a strong claim to be larger, in personnel, than either European resistance. Is it a matter of WP:UNDUE to be spending this much effort on arguing size, something historically difficult to measure precisely with irregular military forces, rather than dealing with the unique aspects of each of these movements?
For example, while the Soviet Partisans started as a spontaneous uprising, they came increasingly under centralized control, because a Soviet military command, while it was forced to retreat, never was completely in exile. It cannot be said that it did not suffer from factionalism, as there were various anti-communist groups, including the Ukrainian separatists and the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (i.e., the anti-Soviet forces under Andrey Vlasov), that demonstrated it was not a completely unified force. China fought simultaneous resistance to the Japanese as well as a civil war continuing after the Japanese were defeated. Polish courage is unquestioned, but, of the three countries, Poland probably had the most competing factions, as well as the issue of eventual Communist control. The Holocaust played important roles in the Polish and Soviet pictures, while the Chinese struggle had unique aspects of irregulars -- the Long March -- over great distances.
In other words, is a valuable part of Polish history being obscured by an argument that is likely never to have a precise answer? By their very nature, underground resistance movements are at least partially covert, and, for sound strategic reasons, hide their numbers from their opponents. As someone with respect for all these patriots, but no particular identification with any of them, I suggest it may be far easier to source the different groups playing a role in Polish resistance, and to explain the wartime and postwar dynamics, than to continue to argue the basis for size. During the Vietnam War, even with the capabilities of U.S. intelligence, it was very difficult to get accurate strength estimates for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (i.e., "Viet Cong") and Vietnam People's Army (i.e., North Vietnamese Army or Peoples' Army of Viet Nam), and the overemphasis on "body count" arguably caused strategic shortsightedness. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand our discussion in such way, that this article shouldn't present only the POV of AK, but also other POVs about AK. If some people were against AK so they organised a selfdefence unit to fight off AK, is it valid for this article or such information can be removed without any explanation? Xx236 ( talk) 09:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Aa I right or wrong? Xx236 ( talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not an obvious POV problem, but also one of the context - how much of the context should be included into this article. Soviet partisans contains much less context than this article. When I try to add some of the context my obvious addition is removed without any explanation. Xx236 ( talk) 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is unprotected as of this date, could we make something of a fresh start by summarizing the current POV disputes. Please discuss whether these two points are a fair characterization of the latest disputes:
Then maybe we can restart focused discussions below. Novickas ( talk) 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is criticism of AK widespread enough to justify inclusion in lead, with WP:UNDUE in mind? If so, what is the best wording? So far not a single source containing a general description of AK and such criticism has been presented, see my post (from 05:56, 3 April 2008) at the bottom of this thread. It is of course accepted that there was some criticism of AK from various sides and such criticism is noted in the article's main body and elaborated in various subarticles. Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, however, lead should not contain minor, undue information, no matter how true it is (for that reason we don't discuss or even mention the important role of Polish commandos parachuted in the West in AK's leadership, AK's unique production of its own weaponry, large scale anti-Nazi propaganda and psychological warfare, clashes with the Soviet resistance) and so on).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The AK controversies affect international relations. "(Polish) MP Jan Senkiewicz is upset at the (Lithuanian) Office of the Prosecutor General, which summoned former members of the Armia Krajowa for questioning" [28]. ""I can only imagine what a difficult road has been traveled by tens of thousands of people to this act of reconciliation which we are witnessing today," said Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko....Polish President Lech Kaczynski acknowledged that the massacre was covered up for decades by past Polish and Soviet governments, which forbid crosses and prayers for those who perished." [29] Novickas ( talk) 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, you know better than many how arbitrary this system of evaluation is. Your argument, "searched Britannica, what a terrible search engine, and did not find much" exposes the problem of many articles written through a google/google-book hodge-podge. Several books (real paper ones, published by scholarly presses and authored by scholarly authors) and papers discuss this and the relations of the civilian resistance force with the civilian population is inherently a crucial. No one is suggesting to throw the description of massacres by AK into the lead. But to mention that the relations were problematic is necessary. -- Irpen 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, the sources already listed mention atrocities. And note, I do not insist them on being in the lead. Just mentioning the problems in relations per sources already given is all it takes to find a compromise. What are you doing?! -- Irpen 05:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Irpen, I am happy to see we are making progress - so the issue is not about neutrality, but the perhaps weasely phrasing here. I will be waiting to see how you'd propose to fix it, without contradicting yourself (to quote your post from above "I do not insist on [atrocities] being in the lead."-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can references be found - per WP:V - to support the claim that Soviet partisans were more numerous than members of AK? Such a reference is needed if we want this claim or similar to remain in the article (what would be the best wording, assuming any refs are presented?). Currently we have several refs that clearly state, black on white, that AK was the largest resistance organization in WWII Europe (see Armia_Krajowa#Notes, more refs were presented in threads above, ex. here).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I have tried to represent the consensus on the talk page in the article ( [30]). Feel free to improve it further.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not taking any numbers. Anastasia presented all the numbers wit the exception of my whole-war total. This is not the highest membership at any one time in the Soviet partisans, but the aggregate of personnel who served (i.e. serving and casualties combined). At this time I don't have a regional numbers breakdown of the Soviet partisans, so I can not make any claims because I have not conducted even a preliminary research, my knowledge till now mostly based on circumstantial knowledge related to Bagration -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no such thing as a Soviet historian. Soviet historiography was censored and centrally controlled propaganda. Xx236 ( talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The question whose members more numerous doesn't describe the wholeproblem. I believe that only the difference between AK members and Polish collabolators describe the Polish contribution to the allied victory. The same is valid for Soviet partizans - the number minus the number of collaborators makes how many? Xx236 ( talk) 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotr, I have had enough of this!
You have removed the claim of "largest" from the lead paragraph, but left this
Such numbers made Armia Krajowa not only the largest of the Polish resistance movements, but among the largest (if not the largest) in WWII-time Europe [a].
What does it take? I mean, you asked Anastasia for her valuable time, and then paid no attention to her research! I told you that Prof. Cienciala had withdrawn her claim, and you called me a liar. Instead you choose to harp on about my sources although it is you who is making the statement - yes, that one word "largest" is a statement of comparative analysis.
Your hate for Soviet Union does not give you the right to doctor figures or make declarations that do not warrant even incredulity.
I do not see it possible to reach agreement on the issue here, and have decided to take this to the Project talk despite Миша's watching, and seemingly ever ready to block me for God knows what.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the mention of "On orders from Stavka sent on June 22 1943,[35] Soviet partisans engaged Polish partisans in combat" in the referenced source.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are some operations mentioned in the article by AK are translated into English, but Ostra Brama (Gate of Dawn) is not?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to find out which divisions are referred to by "The battles with the Germans, particularly in 1943 and 1944, tied down several German divisions (about 930,000 German soldiers in total)". A typical German infantry division had about 17,000 troops in it, and this means that almost 55 infantry division-equivalents were stationed in Poland between 1943 and 1944, which is significantly more then a "several". I note that in December 1943 AG Mitte was 200,000 troops short at the front.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the need for 0s? There is no need to say
Estimates of AK membership in the first half of 1944 and summer that year range from 200,000,[21] 300,000,[22] 380,000,[5] 400,000,[4], 450,000-500,000[23] to even "over 600,000".[23].
if you say
Most estimates put the highest numbers in summer 1944 between 300,000 and 500,000, with the average of 400,000.
Just keep the later and add a reference to a source.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just want to leave a note that the current article's structure is highly reflective of the fact that the article is the venue for POV-pushing, sloppy hodge-podge and edit warring. The right way to organize articles about military formations (as most anything) is a mix of chronological and areas of operations. Whenever the articles get sections like "Controversies", "Relations with Jews", etc. is a red flag. This is even more suspicious than references in the lead sections that, ideally, have no place there. If this is ever to be brought to FA, it needs a massive reorganization where relations with local civilians are given as part of the areas of operations rather than tucked away into an artificial section with an aim to eventually spin them off to a separate article. I started writing a section about AK's activity in Ukraine two weeks ago but I never got it to a stage when I am ready to post. -- Irpen 08:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Some AK members and units were compromised by Gestapo or Nazi forced due to Soviet agents cooperation with Gestapo while pretending to ally with Polish independence movement. A paragraph on Soviet infiltration and methods to destroy Polish indepedence movement would be in order.-- Molobo ( talk) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a an extensive anti-AK propaganda during Soviet occupation up till 60s. AK soldiers couldn't meet, were smeared with all kind of insults and for example they couldn't commemorate their fallen members in Warsaw Uprising(which wasn't marked at all). This is well noted in sholary research and I think deserves a chapter.-- Molobo ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
According to such logic almost all research about the Holocaust should be rejected because of the hate for Nazi Germany. Is Ivan's War based on hate for? Xx236 ( talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The Poles were mistreated like millions of Soviet citizens but the government killed mostly educated leaders. The fate of the Poles was statistically better than the one of deported Soviet peasants during collectivisation. Xx236 ( talk) 08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The prisons, ghettos, internment, transit, labor and extermination camps, roundups, mass deportations, public executions, mobile killing units, death marches, deprivation, hunger, disease, and exposure all testify to the 'inhuman policies of both Hitler and Stalin' and 'were clearly aimed at the total extermination of Polish citizens, both Jews and Christians. Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide.'
Note, there is no contradiction between what Davies writes and what Mrg says. You should make sure you read carefully whoever of the two you misread, Piotrus. -- Irpen 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
6 000 000 is a demographic estimate. I believe that Germanns killed about 500 000 non-Jewish Poles.
in the 80s-90s - it's not true. The 6 000 000 number comes from 1940-ties and Holocaust history was rewritten around 1968. Anti-German texts started around 2000, as a reaction on BdV propaganda and concentrated on economical aspects of the war, eg. a report about Warsaw was printed in 2004. Xx236 ( talk) 07:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Still you don't have any proves of Polish centrally controlled manipulation in the 80s-90s. You seem to be unaware of the radical change of government around 1990. If the Communists invented something in the 80s, the Solidarity government would have done exactly opposite in the 90s. And during the 80s the government humiliated the Poles using Lantzmann's Shoah rather than cared about any accusations.
If we accept the Nazi definition of a Jew, the Nazis win. Quite many RC believers died as Jews. I don't think that any statistical war were appropriate here. Xx236 ( talk) 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Change Category:Polish resistance fighters into Category:Polish resistance members 2. Archive the old stuff. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 13:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The last thing I would like is to seem disrespectful to the polish resistance movement, for which I have a great admiration and gratitude. The polish people proved their bravery not only fighting “underground”, but also enlisted in foreign armed forces (for instance RAF, where polish squadrons were simply the best and the polish army regulars had important role in the Italian Campaign). I am also not disputing, the Armia Krajowa being the largest underground movement in the occupied Europe, even because the Yugoslav Partisan movement was ostensive, and not underground, since its very beginning. From the January of 1942 on, the Partisans were able to keep some part of the Yugoslav territory free from Nazis.
But I confess that I feel highly disturbed with the deep incomprehension of the Partisan struggle in Yugoslavia that I found in this Talk page. I feel bound to avoid some people spreading ignorance. For instance, presenting the Partisan Army as a simple extension of the Royal Yugoslav Army shows a complete lack of information about the matter. That army surrendered after only 11 days of fighting, and its material assets were handed over to Germans and Italians. Most of the officers that choose to remain fighting joined Cetniks (wich was the movement supported by the king and the government in exile) and not Partisans, which communist ideology was not acceptable to Serbian military elite. The backbone of the Partisan military leadership consisted of Spanish Civil War veterans and not old Yugoslav officers.
By the end of the war Yugoslav Partisan Army had about 800.000 members (source: Axis Forces in Yugoslavia 1941-45, Nigel Thomas, Osprey, Pg.6), far more then Armia Krajowa ever had. That included tank units and even a small air force. The argument “it is not resistance movement, it is an army” lead to false conclusions, because that army evolved directly from the Partisan struggle that grown so much that was able to organize itself as a true national armed force. It is also important to note that these soldiers were not occasional participators in sabotages and stealth attacks but full time warriors. That assertion is not to reduce in any way the merit of the members of the underground resistance, which often requires more personal courage then fighting on the frontline. But it is important that underground resistance man count comprehend a large specter of participants, from full time committed members, to people that will occasionally perform some minor (although dangerous) task. An important remark is also Yugoslavia was quite smaller country then Poland.
In the critical year of 1942, Yugoslavian resistance tied 38 axis division (about 600.000 axis soldiers), preventing them to reinforce troops committed in pivotal battle of Stalingrad and El Alamein ( http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-14923.html ). At the maximum strength, 26 German divisions ware committed in Yugoslavia (that was after Italia surrendered, but Bulgarian and the domestic puppet-state troopers (which unfortunately also were many) were still there.
The Yugoslavs were able to free their country by themselves, except for “Operation Belgrade”, where Russian tank units cooperated to conquest the capital city.
Since one image is worth more then 1000 words, please see attached pictures, which are very illustrative:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128697
Other references:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=qmg
http://world-war-two.net/civil_fighters_and_resistance.html
By no mean I wish to say Polish people were less committed to fight the occupiers. Maybe it is exactly contrary: Yugoslavia had larger resistance movement, but I don’t believe Poland had so many shameless traitors and war criminals as were Serbian Cetniks and Croatian Ustase. The local geography also played major role, since the Yugoslav mountain ground is far more favorable to guerilla warfare then the mainly flat Poland. M.Campos ( talk) 12:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In order to show a fair comparison between AK, Soviet Partisans and Yugoslav Partisans I would like to add the following continuation to the note “a”:
Yugoslav partisans were more numerous (800,000 in 1945 [1]), but they actuated mostly ostensively, first as the rural guerilla, and later as a regular army, so cannot be qualified as "underground resistence movement".
Comments?
I found the following data about Partisan forces. Please note that includes only man in uniform, and not the vast underground structure necessary to support their fight.
Late '41 - 80,000
Late '42 - 150,000
Late '43 - 300,000 (at that time, it already resembled a regular army, equipped mostly with captured Italian material)
Late '45 - 800,000
M.Campos ( talk) 13:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In the source the author refers to AK as "antisemitic" very specifically in the context of the Kielce pogrom. But AK was disbanded well before that happened. Elsewhere in the book she translates "Armia Krajowa" as "Patriotic Army". It's pretty clear that the author is either plainly confused as to what organization she's referring to (lack of cites in these instances doesn't help) or she means WiN (or possibly even NSZ) but for whatever reason uses AK. While this source may be reliable for other information, getting basic factual info wrong should pretty much disqualify it as RS for this topic.
The Karay source also has problems. Through out the book refers to AK as a "right wing military organization". But of course AK wasn't a right wing organization or a left wing organization, it was an umbrella organization for almost all non-extremist pre-war political parties, including the Socialists. AK was "right wing" only in relation to the Soviet controlled communist AL and in fact the authors describe the AL as a "left wing military organization". This should immediately raise eyebrows and suggests that in this the book relies on or follows post war communist sources. Again non RS for this topic. Since most of the book has nothing to do with the AK the rest of the book could be quite good and useful as a source for other info.
But that's sort of the problem here. Both of these sources are NOT books on the AK and the second is not even about anti semitism in post war Poland. In both cases what is used as a source is a more or less off-hand remark about the organization, without references and in passing. It's pretty obvious that what's happened here is that someone typed in "armia krajowa anti-semitism" into Google Book search managed to find two books which used that phrase and threw them into the article to support a particular POV regardless of whether the books were actually on topic or not. As a result these two sources should be removed and the relevant section rewritten accordingly. On the other hand the sources for the statement "The issue remains a controversial one and is subject to a difficult debate" (currently 42 and 43 in the text) appear on topic and legit. radek ( talk) 20:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In any case, removing sources by starting full scale revert war is completely wrong. M.K. ( talk) 10:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It would really help matters and contribute to resolving potential conflicts if editors discussed controversial material on the talk page, which what it's there for, rather than carry out arguments in the edit summaries. I have been as guilty of this as others recently. As can be seen from some other articles, say the one on the Bielski partisans, it IS possible to work out a consensus on these controversial issues provided people are willing to discuss and listen. Reverting each others edits with snarky edit summaries is not going to get us there. Again, I want to emphasize that I was guilty here as well. radek ( talk) 20:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to read while the slide show in the lead is flashing away. Is a slide show appropriate for an encyclopedia article?-- Anewpester ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently an editor has challenged the non-free use of about six images on the page, by means of edits which blocked the original captions from display. I restored the captions so that others can view them in considering the non-free use issue. Mtsmallwood ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a photograph to the lead of a recent veterans march. I'm not sure if it's right for this article, if others wish to change, please do so. I thought something about the position of the AK in modern Polish historiography might be shown by the image. Mtsmallwood ( talk) 01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have updated the article to reflect the discussion here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So, the article informed the reader that the AK is viewed "controversial" by the number of historiographies and started the list: Communist, Jewish, Lithuanian, etc. "Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian" are also part of these "faulty historiographies" I guess. Anyway, I rephrased it to cut to the core. -- Irpen 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Irpen - much better. As stated above, Piotrus moved the material to note 1. Just now I moved the content of note 1 to a separate section of the article body, but on second thought - how useful is this text, really? Unless we have a well-sourced categorization of each historian that has critized AK as a card-carrying member of this or that historiography, the categories are based on what their surnames suggest. Do US or British-born authors with Jewish-sounding surnames belong to "Western" or "Jewish" historiography? Let's not go there. The note text shoud probably go away, since it is not referenced, and the mention of controversy is in the lead and then discussed in detail in separate sections. Let's continue to cite historians as they come along, and include the details they offer. If a particular historian's viewpoint is described somewhere in a reliable source as belonging to a specific historiography, put that in his or her bio article. But generalizations like "the majority of Western sources agree that AK was..." need at least one, preferably more, references for that exact statement. Novickas ( talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You forget the Russian and Belarusian POV but mention some non-existing "western" POV. I hope this is just an accident.
No problem with referencing. I am not familiar with a single Russian or Ukrainian source where the AK's role is not considered "controversial". -- Irpen 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The Soviet government was radically anti-Polish, which left very little space to Poles. Ther current lead is inacceptable, close to Jews were anti-German during WWII. Xx236 ( talk) 11:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all Polish government was allied to Soviets and Home Army formations assisted Soviet units in fights against German forces, only of course to be arrested and many executed, while the low rank members were forcefully drafted to Soviet controlled units (were later they sometimes murdered as well). To name that government anti-Soviet is rather strange, since it was rather the actions of Soviet government against Poland and Poles that dominated the relationship.
The second issue is that Piotrowski book certainly doesn't make a claim that Nazi Germany coordinated actions with Home Army. In fact he goes to great lenght to make a point such cooperation was non-existant. The only thing mentioned is leaving of supplies to Polish partisants by local commanders, and a report of German commander claiming some people from HA helped him, while it could be more likely NZS or any other formation. This is very little and doesn't form any convicing base for claim that HA coordinated actions with Nazi Germany. The relations with Germany are covered in seperate subsection and require detail large enough to explain them in neutral terms. The claim that Nazi Germany and Home Army coordinated their actions is not based on any source(although I am aware that such claims can be found in Soviet sources, and I guess in Russian and Belarussian dictatorships such claims possibly also could be found, however this of course wouldn't be neutral sources).To make this short-describe the relations in subsection, but there is no place in the lead that Home Army and Nazi Germany worked together, since it is untrue. We are talking about 400.000 to 500.000 man strong resistance group with several years of fighting, one occasion of leaving supplies made on behalf of German commander, and unspecified claims in one other report about some local group in forest aren't big enough for the lead. Also Ak cooperated with certain Jewish resistance group as well as having Jewish members so seperation is a bit too far reaching statement.-- Molobo ( talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Lokyz, I don't understand your last sentence. The book was thought as work covering up that aspect, the author made it clear at the very beginning that it will cover that subject of the occupation of Poland, since it wasn't covered very well unlike resistance to Nazi forces, and the ethnic situation interests him the most, just like a person writing about air operations in WW2 doesn't claim that only air battles happened in WW2.
Regards. -- Molobo ( talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Molobo makes valid points. In any case the lead is not the place to repeat minor fringe claims based on WP:ILIKEIT(ORNOT); hence it is not the place to discuss issues like Dubingai massacre, limited AK-Nazi cooperation that briefly occured in 1944 in the Vilnius region (one of 17 or so districts of AK), and such. Remember - lead is the summary, and only the most important points should make there. Novickas rightly pointed out that AK was seen as controversial by enough sources to merit the inclusion of that fact in the lead. Details of various controversies, however, do not belong in lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, I explained that the lead should not just mention the existence of some abstract "controversies" but mention the controversies themselves, that is AK's own involvement in atrocities against non-Polish population and the issue of collaboration. No details (save them for main body) but just to mention clearly what was its not so honorable activity, not some weasel "controversies". -- Irpen 05:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Example: UPA unit murders an entire Polish village with women and children. Atrocity. The Home Army attacks the UPA unit defeats it and kills everyone, including the prisoners and medical personnel. Despite killing prisoners is a war crime, this would be a "reprisal" an this is not what we are talking about.
Another example. After a mass murder of the Polish civilians by the UPA, the Home Army attacks the Ukrainian village and also murders everyone, including women and children. This is an atrocity. Plain and simple. To call it a reprisal is a white-wash. Hear, Molobo? -- Irpen 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier AK had different sources of equipment. It would be useful to create a table and subsection which could be later expanded to more seperate article detailing how equipment was obtained, its numbers and ways of producing it. I am fairly certain I saw statistics regarding how much was produced, stolen from Germans, or came from British and American air-drops. Such tables would enrich the article.-- Molobo ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend Molobo to read the memoirs of Josef Mackewicz cited By Piotrowski at page 89, available at google books as well as text around it. -- Irpen 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Amria Krajowa collaboration was quite well described by Ph. D. Leonid Smilovitsky, dealing event in Belarus:
“ | However, while resisting Soviet pressure, the AK High Command and its local representatives went to extremes: They cooperated with the Nazis. The first contacts began to be established in the summer and fall of 1943, after the breakdown of relations with the USSR. In December 1943 and February 1944, Captain Adolf Pilch (pseudonym "Gora"), commander of one of the AK detachments, met with SD [Security Service] and Wehrmacht officers in Stolbtsy, requesting urgent assistance. He received 18,000 units of ammunition, food, and uniforms. During the eight months of its existence (September 1943-August 1944), the "Gora" Detachment did not engage in a single battle with the Germans, whereas it waged 32 battles against Belorussian partisans. Andziej Kucner ("Maly") ["Small"]) followed his example until he was transferred to Ashmyany Rayon by order of the AK District Headquarters. The Nazis' attitude toward cooperation with "Akovtsy" [AK members] can be judged from German trophy documents. In February 1944, SS Obersturmbanfuhrer Strauch reported: "Cooperation with White Polish bandits is continuing. The 300-strong detachment in Rakov and Ivenets proved to be very useful. Negotiations with Ragner's (Stefan Zajaczkiewicz) 1,000-strong band have been concluded. Ragner's band is suppressing the territory between the Neman and the Volkovysk-Molodechno Railroad and between Mosty and Iv'ye. Contacts with other Polish bands have been established".
First Lieutenant Jozef Swida (Vileyka Oblast), commander of the Nadneman AK Formation in the Lida District, also cooperated with the occupiers. In the summer of 1944, in Shchuchin Rayon, Polish legionnaires gained control of the small towns of Zheludok and Vasilishki, where they replaced German garrisons. For the purpose of fighting partisans, they were given four trucks and 300,000 cartridges[55]. Some sub-units of Armia Krajowa displayed great cruelty toward the civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the partisans. The legionnaires burned down their homes, drove away their livestock, and robbed and killed the families of partisans. [6] |
” |
So it was much more bigger affair then "just" exchange of weapon, like some trying to describe... M.K. ( talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_%C5%9Awida#Proces_i_wyrok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans_in_Poland Communist propaganda routinely referred to the anti-Soviet Polish underground army as "bands of White Poles." According to another propaganda directive, the Polish underground was to be referred to as "the protégés of the Gestapo."[2] On 23 June 1943, the Soviet partisan leadership authorized the denouncing of the Polish underground to the Nazis. Later, orders went out to “shoot the [Polish] leaders” and “discredit, disarm, and dissolve” their units.[2]
I made similar request on UPA disscusion page. I know there were some joint AK-UPA actions against Soviet invading forces and German occupation at the end of the war. Alas, a book which had a some overview of them was lended by me to a person who I no longer have contact with. So can anybody name those joint battles ? Additionaly I know that some in UPA experienced such pressure from Soviet invasion and attacks they went as far as to propose a Polish-Ukrainian confederation-- Molobo ( talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And what does that suppose to mean? The Polish government bravely fled the country leaving it to advancing Nazis to form their own "General government". After that there was indeed a bunch of guys in London utterly irrelevant, claiming to be a Polish government. Note, however, that there was another bunch of guys claiming to be a Polish gov, sitting in Moscow. To avoid confusion, exiled government was used and it was just fine before Molobo's intrusion. -- Irpen 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Molobo, I am not suggesting to use anyone's "POV. All this discussion is a fascinating topic for the relevant articles. Here it suffices to just call the London gov the Polish Government in Exile, like its article does. We don't title the article "Legitimate Polish government during WWII" or smth. -- Irpen 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Molobo, Please note that "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answer" is disruptive. I am simply asking to stick each article with the issues at hand. -- Irpen 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, all but communist era historians agree that Polish government in exile was legitimate. That said, the lead of this article is not a place to discuss this issue, so I removed this word from my version. One less controversial issue to worry about it in this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Heroic historian? Why thank you, Tymek. And don't forget lot's of those trucks were Studebakers. Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Moscow was a capital of the world's working class, i.e. of the United States in the same way as of Poland. Xx236 ( talk) 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I restored the referenced info and gently reformatted some stuff. Hopefully, people are willing to discuss now rather than make silent reverts with misleading edit summaries. Due to recent Molobo's intrusions, two important articles are now tagged by a rather wide consensus of editors. I hope we can save this article for further development, rather than run revert wars, inject/paste stuff in and fight for tags. Let's try at least. -- Irpen 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We need to detail exact scale of operations against AK planned by Soviet forces, and how Soviets infiltrated the underground in Poland. Also important are the torture methods used by Soviet NKVD to break people, special units created to conduct operations against Polish independence movement and so on. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Panteleimon Ponomarenko deserves to be mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [9] Xx236 ( talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Panteleimon Ponomarenko ordered to destroy AK units in Belarus. It's about the AK, not only about Soviet partizans. Xx236 ( talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's nasty to cooperate with the Nazis, as the Soviets did 1939-1941. But also later the Soviets preferred sometimes to fight the Poles rather than the Nazis. Ponomarenko recommended denunciating Polish conspirators to Gestapo [10]. It was common in occupied Warsaw that Soviet agents denounced AK members. Once they denounced their own printing shop situated in the same house as the one run by the AK. The case was used after the war during internal fights in the Communist Party. Xx236 ( talk) 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
From 16 lines 5 lines criticise the AK. For example Red Army, no critics in the lead, Wehrmacht - nothing. Xx236 ( talk) 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
So, we have different POVs. Some of us are from countries that had fought with AK and unlike them. But that POV is not the only POV. We should compromise and consensus. Collaboration and attrocities are in article. Do not edit war over inclusion in lead, it is an undue place for that. Alden or talk with Alden 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a more general problem how to write leads. I believe that facts are preferred, rather than opinions. Another example is Bombing of Dresden in World War II.At the same time Auschwitz concentration camp's lead doesn't inform that a genocide or even a crime were committed there. Xx236 ( talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop this wholesale reverts. There is nothing "fringe" as facts being undisputed. If the concern is UNDUE, please discuss the removal from the article. The lead should summarize the article, rather than the selected parts of it. -- Irpen 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
An underground organisation should terrorize and kill people, which causes criticism of the terorised and families of the killed ones. Which underground organisation during WWII wasn't criticised because of such activities?
Soviet Union was an imperialistic state, which persecuted everyone inside and outside, so quoting Soviet critics is Soviet propaganda, not serious editing 2008'. Xx236 ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, no one here tries to whitewash negative events in the history of AK. It should be really mentioned in neutral manner to avoid further controversies. As users above mentioned, Red Army has far more negative stories but it isn't written in such a distinctive manner. I really don't see denial in edits of Polish editors. - Darwinek ( talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there are two issues at hand. Collaboration and atrocities against the civilian population. The first comment above addresses the atrocities and the second comment addresses collaboration. -- Irpen 09:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the following gives perfectly adequate coverage of the issues in the lead: "Those conflicts and other issues - such as the separation from communist or Jewish resistance - meant that Armia Krajowa, seen in modern Poland as a heroic resistance, has been the subject of controversy and more critical portrayal among some circles outside of Poland". As such, I'm removing the NPOV tag. -- Folantin ( talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Since my earlier question got lost in the above melee (I know, a little OT), I'll ask it again. How did one become a member of the AK? As I'm sure there were no recruiting stations, I'm wondering if there were post-war claims of members, who really never were members? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there were false claims. I know one regarding Szare Szeregi, also outside AK, by Edward Prus.
Veterans were recommended by two eywitnesses, so it was possible to create virtual units 30-40 years after the war. Xx236 ( talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
AK didn't exist after the war. Xx236 ( talk) 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that precise names should be used. The subject was extremely hot, because any Polish underground was described as the AK by outsiders. Xx236 ( talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that use of Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Jews and Soviets is rather derogatory. Lithuanian population, Jewish resistance or Soviet Forces, (for example, are far better forms to use. -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My rationale for usage of shorter terms:
Bottom line is that your titles are incorrect and cumbersome, and with the words like 'collaborators' - certainly less neutral then the shorter version (which has passed GA and A-class mil review).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The RfC above has pretty much discarded the claim of collaboration, but the claim of atrocities is still being occasionally restored. I invite interested editors to present here references that back up this claim in due weight - i.e. references that give a general description of AK (encyclopedias, etc.) and mention the claim of atrocities. Irpen wrote above "That AK was involved in atrocities against the local population is not a fringe theory but an undisputed fact." If so, I am sure he can present several general descriptions of AK - of the length of our lead - that stress those atrocities? I have attempted to demonstrate that no such sources exist here. The reference used currently, Piotrowski ( Print here) - a specialist book on the subject - does not support such a general claim; instead he discusses several exceptional events. Those exceptional events are nothing more that a trivia in the big picture of AK, and as such don't belong in lead - we could as well mention that AK designed a submachine gun or run anti-Soviet propaganda campaign ( Akcja Antyk) or a hundred of other very minor facts - alas, we do not do so in the lead. Yes, Piotrowski mentions the killings - as others have noted above, no wartime organization was perfect. It is true that AK had committed several atrocities and killed innocent civilians - so did every single other wartime organization. Certainly a comparison to UPA, responsible for 100,000 or more deaths in the massacres in Volhynia, is not justified. A few separate incidents, "exceptions to the rule", do not justify any claim of atrocities in the lead - just as it would be undue weight and inappropriate to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article, or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on. If one digs deep enough, we can find dirt and criticism of anything - but it does not mean that room for such criticism is in article's lead. May I finally quote WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" (hence I ask for the general references that mention atrocities as one of the defining qualities of AK). Further: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."). Since the AK's atrocities are mentioned only in the selected few specialist publication, they qualify for discussion in subarticles - even in the section of the main article, perhaps - but not in the lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line is that Piotrowski makes it clear that AK never collaborated with Nazi Germany. It's good that you mention Jewish partisans. Note that the lead there also does not make mention of atrocities like Naliboki massacre or Koniuchy Massacre.As to "One of these "Jewish authors", the historian Joshua Zimmerman, calls the hostility of the AK to Jewish partisans "a very painful phenomenon"-depends on region, you also have many Jews serving in AK itself, different situation in Kresy region where their units sided with Soviet forces who were hostile to Poland and Poles.-- Molobo ( talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So, massacres by AK are not notable? What next? -- Irpen 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this "The Armia Krajowa, with over 400,000 members in 1944, was not only the largest Polish underground resistance movement but the world's largest" a joke? The partisan forces operating on the occupeid territories of Soviet Union, and its bordering occupied states, controlled from a separate Directorate within Stavka, included two strategic theatres (Belorussian and Ukrainian), and more then 11 krais and zones with over 6,000 units, and over 1 million serving personnel (combat and non-combat) by 1944. Following the Operation Bagration alone 250,000-300,000 partisans were inducted into the ranks of the regular Red Army units. -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- AK was able to overcome these difficulties to some extent and put tens of thousands of armed soldiers into the field.
So there, mrg3105, perhaps you are forgetting that this organization (AK) was under the guidance and tutelage of the unique Polish Secret Underground State. This State (a very special entity) probably explains the uniqueness and enormity of this army. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Molobo ( talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Poland's resistance movement became the largest, most autonomous of its kind in Europe.
"Accurate figures for the number of activists are, in the nature of things, impossible to come by. After the war ended the state (that is, France) officially recognized some 300,000 people as resistance veterans, along with another 100,000 who sacrificed their lives in the struggle". [18]. James F. McMillan, 1992, Oxford University Press. So why do these other authors say 400,000 and then use that number to call it the largest? Novickas ( talk) 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After the war, many Frenchmen falsely claimed to have been involved in the resistance, from French resistance Xx236 ( talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a note about "the unqualified support of the civilian population"? [19] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there is copious discussion going on about the neutrality of this article here in talk! That is why there is a template that questions the neutrality of the POV from which this article is written. Just because YOU think the article is perfectly fine is not the reason to remove the template. Only when the individual who inserted the template is convinced that the article is not written from a predominantly Polish POV would he/she remove the template. I would appreciate if you replaced the template until this issue is resolved in talk. Thank you-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
During the Vietnam War, there was considerable debate, in the U.S. intelligence community, about the size of the opposition. I recommend War of Numbers, a posthumous book by Sam Adams, a CIA analyst who resigned over what he regarded as politicized estimates.
One of the worst measures, for many reasons, was "body count". At least at the tactical level, the best indicator tended to be the number of weapons captured after a battle. Guerillas often arm themselves from the other side, and certainly don't leave weapons behind if they have any choice in the matter. When weapons are captured, it can reasonably be assumed that the guerilla force was hurt badly enough that they physically couldn't carry them away. If there is evidence the force was wiped out, however, the number of weapons still won't be definitive about force size, since it's quite common to have more guerillas than weapons.
The reality, however, is that it is quite hard to get good size estimates on irregular forces, which, by their very nature, are at least somewhat covert, and rarely trot out in formation where they can be photographed by aircraft, or these days, by satellite.
Just in WWII terms, however, might I suggest that the Eighth Route Army might have the temerity to suggest that no European irregular organization approached its size, certainly by 1945? That doesn't even consider the New Fourth Army.
If, as an outsider, I might suggest that the absolute numbers may never be known accurately, it may be more useful to focus on the actual events -- battle outcomes, German or partisan retreats, areas of control, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Post-war section logically belong at the end of the article?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is currently protected due to edit warring over this OR, here is a simple question to interested editors: can anybody provide references that would support the claim that Soviet partisans were more numerous than AK? If not - and ample evidence to the contrary was presented in #World's largest?! - the article should be unprotected, and WP:OR claim removed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, guys, here we go.
Before proceeding I suppose I should answer M. K’s question, which I accept was placed in good faith, though I am not completely convinced that the information required is at all material to the purpose. My (female, incidentally!) particular expertise is in the politics of the seventeenth century English Restoration, the subject of the doctorate I took last year at the University of Cambridge. The details are all on my user page. I do, however, teach and lecture on a wide variety of historical topics, including twentieth century European history. I also have access to a superb library.
Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent on the Humanities desk, where I answer a broad range of questions on historical topics, including one posed by Piotr not so long ago on the relative strength of various partisan movements. Here is part of what I said to him on that occasion:
What I am now about to say about the Soviet Partisans has been garnered from a variety of secondary works, some specifically written on this topic. As one would expect, the movement in Russia had several tributaries. The first and most important was the mass of armed men, cut off and left behind by the German advance on Moscow in 1941. According to Alan Clark in Barbarossa: the Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45 (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1995) the lowest estimates indicate that there were never fewer than 250,000 of these in the occupied territories (p. 153). Of course, not all of these became partisans, but a great many did. They were supplemented by those fleeing from the prospect of forced labour and others angered by the nature of German occupation policy. Recruitment was particularly heavy in Belorussia, where several liberated zones developed by 1943, some covering very large areas. By the end of 1942 Richard Overy gives the total number of partisans as 300,000 (Russia's War, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 147).
The particular difficulty, I found, was in establishing precise figures at any given time. There are also issues arising from the nature of the figures themselves. Overy's 300,000 is really only a snapshot, which may hide more than it reveals. In other words, it says nothing about the turnover, the number of men and women who were processed through the partisan armies in any given period. The movement grew considerably in strength throughout 1943, increasing, according to official Soviet sources, from 130,000 in January, to 250,000 in December (N. Markov, KPSS-Organizator vsenarodni bor'by na vermenno okkupirovanni territorri SSSR in Velikaia pobeda Sovetskogo, Moscow, 1976, p. 167) However, I think the point made by Leonid D Grenkevich in The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-44: A Critical Historiographical Analysis (Frank Cass, London, 1999) is worth quoting in full;
In actuality, these estimates of partisan strength may be low, given the tremendous turbulence in partisan ranks. Estimates based on the most recent Russian archival research indicate that the total partisan strength may have reached 550,000 men if personnel turnover is considered. This was so because thousands of partisans were killed in combat operations, and old partisan units were being disbanded and new ones activated in continuous fashion. The new figures approximate closely to some Western sources that place partisan strength at 500,000 men throughout the entire period of the German occupation. (p.229)
This global figure is also supported by Walter Laqueur in The Guerilla Reader: A Historical Anthology, (New York, Charles Scribiner, 1990, p.233). Indeed, some accounts go so far as to say that, by December 1943, there were 360,000 partisans operating in Belorussia alone. (The Partisans by David Mountfield, (Hamlyn, London, 1979, p. 187).
All this would seem to confirm various Russian sources that estimate a growth rate of 250% from December 1942 to December 1943. Set against this there is the contention of Matthew Cooper that the Soviet figures are a 'ludicrous exaggeration' (The Phantom War: the German Struggle against Soviet Partisans, 1941-44, (Macdonald and Janes, London, 1979, p.67). However, Cooper gives no detailed reason for taking this view, beyond some general speculations about irregular units and infiltrators parachuted in by the Red Army. The rapid growth of the partisans is supported by one German source I came across, that provided by Eric Hesse in Der Sowjetrussische Partisankrieg, 1941-44 in Spiegel deutscher Kampfanweisungen und Befehle (Götingen, Munster-Schmidt Verlag, 1993, pp. 207-8). See also War in the Wild East: the German Army and Soviet Partisans by Ben Shepherd (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2004, p. 168)
Well, that's it. I do not believe there’s is any reason to suppose that by the winter of 1943/44 the whole of the Soviet partisan army was by far the strongest in Europe, not just in overall numbers, but in fighting effectiveness, having a readily available source of re-supply and rearmament, even on occasion making use of artillery. Precise figures, I accept, are very difficult to establish, but 500,000 is quite possible. However, returning to the point I made to Piotr the Russian partisan army would, in large measure, have ceased to exist as a partisan army by the conclusion, one supposes, of Operation Bagration, which cleared most of the remaining German forces from Soviet territory. So, in the period leading up to the Warsaw Rising the Polish Home Army may very well have the right to be considered as the strongest partisan force at that particular time. In comparative terms, though, it has to take second place to the Russians.
As I said at the outset, I am entirely neutral here, and have no wish to upset anyone. My only interest is in accuracy. Anyway, I hope you find this of some use, and my very warm wishes to you all, Polish or Russian or whoever! Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here, below, is a copy of a discussion Piotr and I are having on my talk page concerning the implications and significance of the above survey. Clio the Muse ( talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, then, I am now going to make a statement, which, for me, brings the matter to a close. I'm not quite sure how my survey of the various sources could in any way be interpreted as 'original research'. The works I consulted are all published monographs. It is true that none of them specifically address the question of relative size, or attempt any comparison with the AK, because, well, that is not their purpose. Even so, within there own particular parameters, the information given is fairly unambiguous. Grenkevich says that the Partisans grew during the course of 1943 from 65,000 in February, to 100,000 in June, to 245,000 in October and finally to 360,000 in December (p.230) (Also Mountfield, p. 187). And that is for Belorussia alone. I could not obtain comparative figures for the Baltic area, for the Ukraine, for the Crimea or for the rest of Russia. Soviet sources, as reported by Cooper (p. 67) do, however, claim as many as 220,000 fighters in the Ukraine by 1944. Both Grenkevich (p. 229) and Lacqueur (p. 233) place total Partisan strength in the region of 500,000 to 550,000. I should, I think, make it clear, that they are talking about fighters, not about the civilian support movements of this kind inevitably depend on. I am not asking anyone to accept my word on this. These texts should all be available in a decent research library.
Ultimately, guys, the only way this question is going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction is for some brave soul to dive into the Russian archives in Moscow, and possibly the German archives in Koblenz. Even then her or his work is likely to be rejected as original research! As I said at the outset, I am entirely neutral over this question, approaching it merely as a matter of academic interest. It's become obvious to me, though, that this whole area has become tied up in issues of national pride, going well beyond a strict understanding, as I see it, of pure encyclopedic value. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of one's nation, of one's culture and of one’s history. I can understand these emotions; I consider myself to be an English patriot; but I will not allow this to limit my judgement. Too many Wikipedia pages have been turned into battlegrounds over pride and politics.
Look, I would really like to cut the Gordian Knot for you. I honestly think it intensely silly to get too bogged-down over the issue of numbers, to make it a matter of what we in England called 'one-upmanship.' Can I suggest some neutral formulae along the lines of 'the AK and the Soviet Partisans were the strongest resistance forces in Europe', or 'the AK was high among the strongest resistance forces in Europe'. I'm sure it is not beyond you to find a mutually acceptable form of wording! And with that I am done! Clio the Muse ( talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The usage of the terms most and average in this context. It's OR unless a source we can all agree on states that or it is hashed out here.
The higher range of membership stats is currently "450,000-500,000[24] to even "over 600,000"".[24]
Ref #24 goes to Stanisław Salmonowicz, Polskie Państwo Podziemne, Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa, 1994. This book was translated into English in 1999, and is searchable in Google Books: [20]
In that edition, Salmonowicz states 400,000 as membership: [21]. No ranges, just "had, during its greatest period, four hundred thousand sworn soldiers."
The only search result for 600,000 is for soldiers of the Wehrmacht: [22] No results for 500,000 or 450,000.
Possibly the author retracted the higher stats in the 1999 edition, which has several co-authors. If so the article should reflect that. In any case, pls address. Novickas ( talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to see Dr. Dan's question addressed, given the wide range of membership in sources - how was membership determined? Do any of the current sources discuss that? Novickas ( talk) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't quote Taiwan books whe I write about Madagascar. Why a British book 25 years old can contain something interesting about the AK? Xx236 ( talk) 06:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The 1983 book quotes the 200 000 number probably from Ciechanowski, The Warsaw Uprising, 1975. Now one should check what is the source quoted by Ciechanowski. Xx236 ( talk) 07:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The quoted PWN source says 20 000 - 30 000, not 30 000. PPR members were AL members, many of them very civilian. Xx236 ( talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right, this article isn't about the AL, so why to quote the doubtful number of members? Xx236 ( talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Military Organization Lizard Union Xx236 ( talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean the part of NSZ with Brygada Swiętokrzyska. Xx236 ( talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(moved from mrg3105 talk - make accusations in public when concerning the article) I wanted to get a second opinion before I contacted you about this, but since you commented, I would like to ask you to avoid comments about editors based on their nationality in the future, they are offensive and in violation of various wiki policies. The comments I refer to are [23] and [24], for example. Further, as you have not disclosed your own nationality, criticizing others for being more open is hardly a fair approach. PS. Based on your knowledge or Russian, I could (but I am not) assume that you are Russian and thus biased towards Soviet partisans and against AK (who fought them). I would not have made such a bad faithed assumption even if you declared you are Russian, as I believe, assuming good faith, that reasonable editors can climb above such biases, based on their nationality (or other characteristics). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, would you like to elaborate on me being a hardcore POV pusher?--
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣
05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Chetniks doesn't contain Interaction with other forces paragraph. The same People's Liberation Army (Yugoslavia). United States Army - nothing. Are there different standards for criticizing Polish people in this Wikipedia? Xx236 ( talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is one English Wikipedia, which should have a standard of describing WWII underground organisations and armies. Not one standard for Poles and other standard for Americans or any other nation. "criticizing Polish people in this Wikipedia" means e.g. putting a large paragraph about Interaction with other forces here but not into hundreds of other articles. BTW - I don't have any opinion about the AK being "the largest resistance movement in the World" so look for another victim of your teachings. Xx236 ( talk) 07:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
pl:Jerzy Bokłażec was arrested by Soviets and hanged in Lida. Władysław Mickiewicz hanged in Trokiele. Xx236 ( talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mrg3105, our discussion at AK was not the best example of collaboration out there. But I am sure you, just as I, want to improve this project and the articles. Please, help me by suggesting some compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been my observation, in many contexts, that it can be very easy to get over-focused on relative size of things, to the point that the real issues may be obscured. I'm not being completely silly when I mention that in the U.S., there is a continuing series of jokes about "everything's bigger in Texas", which did have some difficulty when the physically larger Alaska became a state.
Both the Polish and Soviet irregular forces, in the Second World War, were large and determined, and neither lacked for examples of courage and determination. As I have mentioned, however, by 1945, the combined Chinese strength in the Eighth Route Army (i.e., the part on the Long March) and the New Fourth Army (i.e., the part that didn't go on the Long March) have a strong claim to be larger, in personnel, than either European resistance. Is it a matter of WP:UNDUE to be spending this much effort on arguing size, something historically difficult to measure precisely with irregular military forces, rather than dealing with the unique aspects of each of these movements?
For example, while the Soviet Partisans started as a spontaneous uprising, they came increasingly under centralized control, because a Soviet military command, while it was forced to retreat, never was completely in exile. It cannot be said that it did not suffer from factionalism, as there were various anti-communist groups, including the Ukrainian separatists and the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (i.e., the anti-Soviet forces under Andrey Vlasov), that demonstrated it was not a completely unified force. China fought simultaneous resistance to the Japanese as well as a civil war continuing after the Japanese were defeated. Polish courage is unquestioned, but, of the three countries, Poland probably had the most competing factions, as well as the issue of eventual Communist control. The Holocaust played important roles in the Polish and Soviet pictures, while the Chinese struggle had unique aspects of irregulars -- the Long March -- over great distances.
In other words, is a valuable part of Polish history being obscured by an argument that is likely never to have a precise answer? By their very nature, underground resistance movements are at least partially covert, and, for sound strategic reasons, hide their numbers from their opponents. As someone with respect for all these patriots, but no particular identification with any of them, I suggest it may be far easier to source the different groups playing a role in Polish resistance, and to explain the wartime and postwar dynamics, than to continue to argue the basis for size. During the Vietnam War, even with the capabilities of U.S. intelligence, it was very difficult to get accurate strength estimates for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (i.e., "Viet Cong") and Vietnam People's Army (i.e., North Vietnamese Army or Peoples' Army of Viet Nam), and the overemphasis on "body count" arguably caused strategic shortsightedness. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand our discussion in such way, that this article shouldn't present only the POV of AK, but also other POVs about AK. If some people were against AK so they organised a selfdefence unit to fight off AK, is it valid for this article or such information can be removed without any explanation? Xx236 ( talk) 09:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Aa I right or wrong? Xx236 ( talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not an obvious POV problem, but also one of the context - how much of the context should be included into this article. Soviet partisans contains much less context than this article. When I try to add some of the context my obvious addition is removed without any explanation. Xx236 ( talk) 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is unprotected as of this date, could we make something of a fresh start by summarizing the current POV disputes. Please discuss whether these two points are a fair characterization of the latest disputes:
Then maybe we can restart focused discussions below. Novickas ( talk) 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is criticism of AK widespread enough to justify inclusion in lead, with WP:UNDUE in mind? If so, what is the best wording? So far not a single source containing a general description of AK and such criticism has been presented, see my post (from 05:56, 3 April 2008) at the bottom of this thread. It is of course accepted that there was some criticism of AK from various sides and such criticism is noted in the article's main body and elaborated in various subarticles. Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, however, lead should not contain minor, undue information, no matter how true it is (for that reason we don't discuss or even mention the important role of Polish commandos parachuted in the West in AK's leadership, AK's unique production of its own weaponry, large scale anti-Nazi propaganda and psychological warfare, clashes with the Soviet resistance) and so on).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The AK controversies affect international relations. "(Polish) MP Jan Senkiewicz is upset at the (Lithuanian) Office of the Prosecutor General, which summoned former members of the Armia Krajowa for questioning" [28]. ""I can only imagine what a difficult road has been traveled by tens of thousands of people to this act of reconciliation which we are witnessing today," said Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko....Polish President Lech Kaczynski acknowledged that the massacre was covered up for decades by past Polish and Soviet governments, which forbid crosses and prayers for those who perished." [29] Novickas ( talk) 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, you know better than many how arbitrary this system of evaluation is. Your argument, "searched Britannica, what a terrible search engine, and did not find much" exposes the problem of many articles written through a google/google-book hodge-podge. Several books (real paper ones, published by scholarly presses and authored by scholarly authors) and papers discuss this and the relations of the civilian resistance force with the civilian population is inherently a crucial. No one is suggesting to throw the description of massacres by AK into the lead. But to mention that the relations were problematic is necessary. -- Irpen 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, the sources already listed mention atrocities. And note, I do not insist them on being in the lead. Just mentioning the problems in relations per sources already given is all it takes to find a compromise. What are you doing?! -- Irpen 05:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Irpen, I am happy to see we are making progress - so the issue is not about neutrality, but the perhaps weasely phrasing here. I will be waiting to see how you'd propose to fix it, without contradicting yourself (to quote your post from above "I do not insist on [atrocities] being in the lead."-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can references be found - per WP:V - to support the claim that Soviet partisans were more numerous than members of AK? Such a reference is needed if we want this claim or similar to remain in the article (what would be the best wording, assuming any refs are presented?). Currently we have several refs that clearly state, black on white, that AK was the largest resistance organization in WWII Europe (see Armia_Krajowa#Notes, more refs were presented in threads above, ex. here).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I have tried to represent the consensus on the talk page in the article ( [30]). Feel free to improve it further.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not taking any numbers. Anastasia presented all the numbers wit the exception of my whole-war total. This is not the highest membership at any one time in the Soviet partisans, but the aggregate of personnel who served (i.e. serving and casualties combined). At this time I don't have a regional numbers breakdown of the Soviet partisans, so I can not make any claims because I have not conducted even a preliminary research, my knowledge till now mostly based on circumstantial knowledge related to Bagration -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no such thing as a Soviet historian. Soviet historiography was censored and centrally controlled propaganda. Xx236 ( talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The question whose members more numerous doesn't describe the wholeproblem. I believe that only the difference between AK members and Polish collabolators describe the Polish contribution to the allied victory. The same is valid for Soviet partizans - the number minus the number of collaborators makes how many? Xx236 ( talk) 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotr, I have had enough of this!
You have removed the claim of "largest" from the lead paragraph, but left this
Such numbers made Armia Krajowa not only the largest of the Polish resistance movements, but among the largest (if not the largest) in WWII-time Europe [a].
What does it take? I mean, you asked Anastasia for her valuable time, and then paid no attention to her research! I told you that Prof. Cienciala had withdrawn her claim, and you called me a liar. Instead you choose to harp on about my sources although it is you who is making the statement - yes, that one word "largest" is a statement of comparative analysis.
Your hate for Soviet Union does not give you the right to doctor figures or make declarations that do not warrant even incredulity.
I do not see it possible to reach agreement on the issue here, and have decided to take this to the Project talk despite Миша's watching, and seemingly ever ready to block me for God knows what.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the mention of "On orders from Stavka sent on June 22 1943,[35] Soviet partisans engaged Polish partisans in combat" in the referenced source.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are some operations mentioned in the article by AK are translated into English, but Ostra Brama (Gate of Dawn) is not?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to find out which divisions are referred to by "The battles with the Germans, particularly in 1943 and 1944, tied down several German divisions (about 930,000 German soldiers in total)". A typical German infantry division had about 17,000 troops in it, and this means that almost 55 infantry division-equivalents were stationed in Poland between 1943 and 1944, which is significantly more then a "several". I note that in December 1943 AG Mitte was 200,000 troops short at the front.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the need for 0s? There is no need to say
Estimates of AK membership in the first half of 1944 and summer that year range from 200,000,[21] 300,000,[22] 380,000,[5] 400,000,[4], 450,000-500,000[23] to even "over 600,000".[23].
if you say
Most estimates put the highest numbers in summer 1944 between 300,000 and 500,000, with the average of 400,000.
Just keep the later and add a reference to a source.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just want to leave a note that the current article's structure is highly reflective of the fact that the article is the venue for POV-pushing, sloppy hodge-podge and edit warring. The right way to organize articles about military formations (as most anything) is a mix of chronological and areas of operations. Whenever the articles get sections like "Controversies", "Relations with Jews", etc. is a red flag. This is even more suspicious than references in the lead sections that, ideally, have no place there. If this is ever to be brought to FA, it needs a massive reorganization where relations with local civilians are given as part of the areas of operations rather than tucked away into an artificial section with an aim to eventually spin them off to a separate article. I started writing a section about AK's activity in Ukraine two weeks ago but I never got it to a stage when I am ready to post. -- Irpen 08:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Some AK members and units were compromised by Gestapo or Nazi forced due to Soviet agents cooperation with Gestapo while pretending to ally with Polish independence movement. A paragraph on Soviet infiltration and methods to destroy Polish indepedence movement would be in order.-- Molobo ( talk) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a an extensive anti-AK propaganda during Soviet occupation up till 60s. AK soldiers couldn't meet, were smeared with all kind of insults and for example they couldn't commemorate their fallen members in Warsaw Uprising(which wasn't marked at all). This is well noted in sholary research and I think deserves a chapter.-- Molobo ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
According to such logic almost all research about the Holocaust should be rejected because of the hate for Nazi Germany. Is Ivan's War based on hate for? Xx236 ( talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The Poles were mistreated like millions of Soviet citizens but the government killed mostly educated leaders. The fate of the Poles was statistically better than the one of deported Soviet peasants during collectivisation. Xx236 ( talk) 08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The prisons, ghettos, internment, transit, labor and extermination camps, roundups, mass deportations, public executions, mobile killing units, death marches, deprivation, hunger, disease, and exposure all testify to the 'inhuman policies of both Hitler and Stalin' and 'were clearly aimed at the total extermination of Polish citizens, both Jews and Christians. Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide.'
Note, there is no contradiction between what Davies writes and what Mrg says. You should make sure you read carefully whoever of the two you misread, Piotrus. -- Irpen 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
6 000 000 is a demographic estimate. I believe that Germanns killed about 500 000 non-Jewish Poles.
in the 80s-90s - it's not true. The 6 000 000 number comes from 1940-ties and Holocaust history was rewritten around 1968. Anti-German texts started around 2000, as a reaction on BdV propaganda and concentrated on economical aspects of the war, eg. a report about Warsaw was printed in 2004. Xx236 ( talk) 07:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Still you don't have any proves of Polish centrally controlled manipulation in the 80s-90s. You seem to be unaware of the radical change of government around 1990. If the Communists invented something in the 80s, the Solidarity government would have done exactly opposite in the 90s. And during the 80s the government humiliated the Poles using Lantzmann's Shoah rather than cared about any accusations.
If we accept the Nazi definition of a Jew, the Nazis win. Quite many RC believers died as Jews. I don't think that any statistical war were appropriate here. Xx236 ( talk) 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Change Category:Polish resistance fighters into Category:Polish resistance members 2. Archive the old stuff. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 13:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The last thing I would like is to seem disrespectful to the polish resistance movement, for which I have a great admiration and gratitude. The polish people proved their bravery not only fighting “underground”, but also enlisted in foreign armed forces (for instance RAF, where polish squadrons were simply the best and the polish army regulars had important role in the Italian Campaign). I am also not disputing, the Armia Krajowa being the largest underground movement in the occupied Europe, even because the Yugoslav Partisan movement was ostensive, and not underground, since its very beginning. From the January of 1942 on, the Partisans were able to keep some part of the Yugoslav territory free from Nazis.
But I confess that I feel highly disturbed with the deep incomprehension of the Partisan struggle in Yugoslavia that I found in this Talk page. I feel bound to avoid some people spreading ignorance. For instance, presenting the Partisan Army as a simple extension of the Royal Yugoslav Army shows a complete lack of information about the matter. That army surrendered after only 11 days of fighting, and its material assets were handed over to Germans and Italians. Most of the officers that choose to remain fighting joined Cetniks (wich was the movement supported by the king and the government in exile) and not Partisans, which communist ideology was not acceptable to Serbian military elite. The backbone of the Partisan military leadership consisted of Spanish Civil War veterans and not old Yugoslav officers.
By the end of the war Yugoslav Partisan Army had about 800.000 members (source: Axis Forces in Yugoslavia 1941-45, Nigel Thomas, Osprey, Pg.6), far more then Armia Krajowa ever had. That included tank units and even a small air force. The argument “it is not resistance movement, it is an army” lead to false conclusions, because that army evolved directly from the Partisan struggle that grown so much that was able to organize itself as a true national armed force. It is also important to note that these soldiers were not occasional participators in sabotages and stealth attacks but full time warriors. That assertion is not to reduce in any way the merit of the members of the underground resistance, which often requires more personal courage then fighting on the frontline. But it is important that underground resistance man count comprehend a large specter of participants, from full time committed members, to people that will occasionally perform some minor (although dangerous) task. An important remark is also Yugoslavia was quite smaller country then Poland.
In the critical year of 1942, Yugoslavian resistance tied 38 axis division (about 600.000 axis soldiers), preventing them to reinforce troops committed in pivotal battle of Stalingrad and El Alamein ( http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-14923.html ). At the maximum strength, 26 German divisions ware committed in Yugoslavia (that was after Italia surrendered, but Bulgarian and the domestic puppet-state troopers (which unfortunately also were many) were still there.
The Yugoslavs were able to free their country by themselves, except for “Operation Belgrade”, where Russian tank units cooperated to conquest the capital city.
Since one image is worth more then 1000 words, please see attached pictures, which are very illustrative:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128697
Other references:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=qmg
http://world-war-two.net/civil_fighters_and_resistance.html
By no mean I wish to say Polish people were less committed to fight the occupiers. Maybe it is exactly contrary: Yugoslavia had larger resistance movement, but I don’t believe Poland had so many shameless traitors and war criminals as were Serbian Cetniks and Croatian Ustase. The local geography also played major role, since the Yugoslav mountain ground is far more favorable to guerilla warfare then the mainly flat Poland. M.Campos ( talk) 12:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In order to show a fair comparison between AK, Soviet Partisans and Yugoslav Partisans I would like to add the following continuation to the note “a”:
Yugoslav partisans were more numerous (800,000 in 1945 [1]), but they actuated mostly ostensively, first as the rural guerilla, and later as a regular army, so cannot be qualified as "underground resistence movement".
Comments?
I found the following data about Partisan forces. Please note that includes only man in uniform, and not the vast underground structure necessary to support their fight.
Late '41 - 80,000
Late '42 - 150,000
Late '43 - 300,000 (at that time, it already resembled a regular army, equipped mostly with captured Italian material)
Late '45 - 800,000
M.Campos ( talk) 13:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In the source the author refers to AK as "antisemitic" very specifically in the context of the Kielce pogrom. But AK was disbanded well before that happened. Elsewhere in the book she translates "Armia Krajowa" as "Patriotic Army". It's pretty clear that the author is either plainly confused as to what organization she's referring to (lack of cites in these instances doesn't help) or she means WiN (or possibly even NSZ) but for whatever reason uses AK. While this source may be reliable for other information, getting basic factual info wrong should pretty much disqualify it as RS for this topic.
The Karay source also has problems. Through out the book refers to AK as a "right wing military organization". But of course AK wasn't a right wing organization or a left wing organization, it was an umbrella organization for almost all non-extremist pre-war political parties, including the Socialists. AK was "right wing" only in relation to the Soviet controlled communist AL and in fact the authors describe the AL as a "left wing military organization". This should immediately raise eyebrows and suggests that in this the book relies on or follows post war communist sources. Again non RS for this topic. Since most of the book has nothing to do with the AK the rest of the book could be quite good and useful as a source for other info.
But that's sort of the problem here. Both of these sources are NOT books on the AK and the second is not even about anti semitism in post war Poland. In both cases what is used as a source is a more or less off-hand remark about the organization, without references and in passing. It's pretty obvious that what's happened here is that someone typed in "armia krajowa anti-semitism" into Google Book search managed to find two books which used that phrase and threw them into the article to support a particular POV regardless of whether the books were actually on topic or not. As a result these two sources should be removed and the relevant section rewritten accordingly. On the other hand the sources for the statement "The issue remains a controversial one and is subject to a difficult debate" (currently 42 and 43 in the text) appear on topic and legit. radek ( talk) 20:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In any case, removing sources by starting full scale revert war is completely wrong. M.K. ( talk) 10:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It would really help matters and contribute to resolving potential conflicts if editors discussed controversial material on the talk page, which what it's there for, rather than carry out arguments in the edit summaries. I have been as guilty of this as others recently. As can be seen from some other articles, say the one on the Bielski partisans, it IS possible to work out a consensus on these controversial issues provided people are willing to discuss and listen. Reverting each others edits with snarky edit summaries is not going to get us there. Again, I want to emphasize that I was guilty here as well. radek ( talk) 20:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to read while the slide show in the lead is flashing away. Is a slide show appropriate for an encyclopedia article?-- Anewpester ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently an editor has challenged the non-free use of about six images on the page, by means of edits which blocked the original captions from display. I restored the captions so that others can view them in considering the non-free use issue. Mtsmallwood ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a photograph to the lead of a recent veterans march. I'm not sure if it's right for this article, if others wish to change, please do so. I thought something about the position of the AK in modern Polish historiography might be shown by the image. Mtsmallwood ( talk) 01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)