This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I reverted this edit [4] as it had serious neutrality issues. First of all it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotype. This is obviously not true.Second of all it twisted the information greatly, Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group Antyk.Third of all Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propaganda.Fourth-the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their work. As such the current edit wasn't neutral and had serious undue weight issues. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotypeNo, it didn't. It stated that the emphasis placed on the subject was fed by a stereotype, in-line with the sources. In fact, I was careful to note that the two district commanders mentioned by name were stationed in eastern Poland, so as not to undermine the later claim that attitudes towards Jews varied between east and west, which as written suggests Soviet affiliations were more prevalent in the east.
Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group AntykZimmerman gives the example of Col. Rzepecki, head of the Home Army's Bureau of Information (of which Antyk was part), but he gives it as an example of how radical was its staff, not of how ill-regarded it was as a whole. The fact Col. Rzepecki could not rid Antyk of the people he so vehemently opposed raises serious questions about their acceptance within the larger organization. If you wish to mention Rzepecki we can do so, but we ought to also mention Antyk operated apparently uninterrupted until the end of the war.
Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propagandaZimmerman also says this:
In contrast to the sometime sympathetic tone in the reports of the Home Army and Delegate’s Bureau, the Home Army’s anti-communist division, Antyk, had a pronounced anti-Jewish orientation. The division’s staff included the openly anti-Jewish figure, Henryk Glass. Internal documents of Antyk demonstrate that it identified antisemitism as a useful tool in the struggle against communism. Stressing the idea that Jews were behind communism, Antyk tried to infuse the Polish population with a marked anti-communist and anti-Soviet sentiment. That is why Antyk instructed its members to link “Judaism” to communism in its propaganda literature.(pp. 380-381)
the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their workSource?
To date, most underground reporting on the fate of the Jews was sympathetic. An important exception was [Antyk]). François Robere ( talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
He indoctrinated Polish soldiers. As far as I know he has never described his work. Is he ashamed? Xx236 ( talk) 11:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
was born in Warsaw and grew up in Łódź, where he joined the HaShomer HaTsair socialist Zionist youth movement. He was incarcerated in the Lodz ghetto during the war and was active in the underground youth movements there. He survived the ghetto, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald, death marches, and Theresienstadt, where he was liberated. He then joined the Polish army and rose to the rank of major in the political division. Afterward he worked for the Museum of the History of the Polish Revolutionary Movement, and following that worked in the archive of Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw. He was fired in 1968 as part of the government’s antisemitic campaign that led to the expulsion of most of the remaining Jews of Poland. Shmuel moved to Israel and began working in Yad Vashem’s archive. His doctorate written at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Jewish armed resistance in the Generalgouvernement in occupied Poland resulted in his book The War of the Doomed, which remains a standard work on the subject to this day.He passed earlier this year.
Anyway, the fact that Krakowski was a communist officer at some point is not a reason to consider him as unreliable. However, his research has been challenged as inaccurate and unreliable by modern scholars. And no, not by Polish scholars (well, by Polish scholars too, but I am sure certain individuals here would not consider this an issue). He has been described as by Joshua D. Zimmerman as follows (source: Joshua D. Zimmerman (5 June 2015). The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-107-01426-8.) "The negative portrayal of the Home Army among professional Jewish historians was made semi-official with the appearance in the early 1980s... with... Krakowski's volume, Unequal Victims... [who] concluded in their study that [Polish Undeground was mostly hostile towards the Jews and some armed units where involved in murder of Jews] Some historians began to challenge the prevailing assumptions in Jewish historiography in the late 1980s. In particular, Shmuel Krakowski's assertion that Home Army commander, General Bór-Komorowski, sanctioned assaults against Jewish partisans came under close scrutiny. The late Polish American historian, Stanislaus A. Blejwas, exposed errors in Krakowski's sources used to prove used to prove the Home Army commander's culpability. Blejwas cogently demonstrated that the actual document on combating banditry that was sent to local AK leaders – claimed by Krakowski to be an order to kill Jews–did not mention Jews at all (see [8], not sure how to get full digital text of that). John Lowell Armstrong concurred (see [9])." So, based on the assessment of newer scholarship, I think Krakowski should NOT be cited (and it would be nice if some editors engaged in the discussion here and on related topics would reconsider their views, as possibly, well, dated and representing a more biased scholarship views of the 1980s...). Zimmerman's book is a great overview of the different camps and changing opinions about the Home Army and the Polish Underground (if you cannot access more pages on Google Book, I got the book through Library Genesis in one minute...cheers for piracy). On an ending note, I like what Snyder has to say on this: "“...the record of the Home Army towards Jews is ambivalent". That's quite a good word to use here. (As well as his caution that the "“the dark legend [of older Jewish historiography hostile to Polish Underground] must be abandoned". It has as much place in our article as the (rightly) criticized works of scholars from "the camp of Polish historians devoted to defending wartime Poland’s record". Neither of such extremes makes for a good source. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
the AK? What do you mean? If you mean the commander please write the commander of the AK. Apparently not all AK members referred this way and some of the members were Jewish.
Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these pople (and also to COmmunist partisans) as "bandits", an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves"Followed by a long quote of Bor-Komorowski in which he conflates (per Polonsky) communist partisans, ordinary robbers, and Jews. Per Polonsky this was pervasive terminology by the High Command and local commanders. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The HA published Biuletyn Informacyjny, the biggest underground paper in Poland. Xx236 ( talk) 11:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This change made the whole text unreadable, there are now numerous numbers floating around the text making it completely unreadable and it looks like it is garbled part text part some computer code [11]. I think I saw this on other articles once before it was fixed and normal references returned. I will have to go reference by reference to restore its readability but would appreciate if somebody more skilled in coding would help, as I am not a skilled programmer. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Personally I prefer any style that keeps links to Google Book pages for easier verification, through yes, that creates multiple refs (numbers) for the same work. Sigh. Damned either way. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The article is biased, it's main part is not the HA, but national conflicts and HA participation in them. Informations about the HA are short. Xx236 ( talk) 07:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
"In total, between 7,000- 8,000 [1] to 10,000 [2] Ukrainians perished in the territories of today's Poland."
References
The section lacks informations about the Armia Krajowa Obywatelska and Augustów roundup. Xx236 ( talk) 07:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding
this revert. Snyder writes the following - Probably the most significant way the Home Army and other Polish political organizations aided individuals Jews was by the production of false German documents. Their famous "paper mills" could generate German Kennkarten, indication that Jews were, in fact, Poles: "Aryan papers," as Jews called them at the time. Usually Poles took money or goods for this, but not always
. Furthermore, Snyder belong to a particular historical came here,
[12] and is making a claim not generally ascribed to the Home Army as a whole (as opposed to individual forgers turning a profit) - this should be attributed. That this was generally a service provided for cash or goods is explicitly and clearly stated by Snyder.
Icewhiz (
talk)
16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not what Polonsky in the cited source writes. - MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The page ignores women. Such bias is innacceptable. Xx236 ( talk) 09:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Please correct. Xx236 ( talk) 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Female messenger? Perhaps the notion should be defined as a separate page. Thousands of łaczniczkas died or were imprisoned, messengers rather don't die. The women transported arms, illegal printings, messages.
@ Volunteer Marek: I'm not sure what's your objection to this. [14] [15] (and that? [16]) It's sourced and representative of the source, so what's the problem? François Robere ( talk) 20:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
the matter is discussed at length in this volume by Michael Marrus and he doesn't bring it upThe article is by Prekerowa, and she does bring it up (p. 523): "The RPZ... did so free of charge while other organizations were normally charging their customers sums equal to their prime cost."
It's discussed in Zimmerman as well and also not raised as an important issueThat's by Martin Gilbert, not Zimmerman. It quotes Antek's memoir, which doesn't mention paying for documents, but does mention some people sold them. François Robere ( talk) 23:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I am undoing Piotrus' edit, as it introduced bigoted language. If we say Ukrainian fighters murdered Polish civilians, then we should say the same of the Home Army murdering Ukrainian civilians. If we say kill, both should be kill. But saying Polish Home Army killed or pacified civilians, but Ukrainians murdered is bigoted. Piotrus also introduced several horrendous a-historical sources that glorify supposed Polish heroism. www.polishresistance-ak.org for example. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
This article needs many better sources. Let's consider some that have recently been removed (and readded):
Those are IMHO passable. Should be replaced with higher quality sources, but they have either a reliable author or publisher.
I support removal of this as clearly failing RS. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's discuss this source: lecture notes by historian Anna M. Cienciala available at [20]. The author is a respected academic. The notes are effectively self-published, but are cited by many other scholars ( [21]) and even positively reviewed " I was pleased that she mentioned Sarmatian Review in her excellent compendium of works on the history of Poland and Eastern Europe available online (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/bibpt1rev.htm)." While I would say that such a source should not be used for WP:REDFLAG, I think it is entirely acceptable in regular circumstances, and its use here didn't raise any red flags, did it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I read link you give. It is an obiturary by a friend in the Polish review. The friend is happy her work on Poland is listed in Cienciala's bibliography. The link Cienciala's friend calls excellent is the bibliography, not lecture 16 you used. You want we use sources sympathetic to Ukraine in this page? I can find. They tell story of Home Army differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Home Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove --> style="width:98%;" <-- from wikitable User-duck ( talk) 07:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was "poorly-sourced WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. This is an extraordinary claim and Wikipedia should not use Polish schoolbooks parroting Home Army veterans. Actual historians: "As Marcin Zaremba and other historians have pointed out, Poles killed more Jews than they did Germans during the occupation"
[22]. Official German records from the Generalgouvernement show 1,300 Germans killed between 1939 and 1944, and another 2,000 to 9,000 in the August 1944 uprising.
[23] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
what was your previous accountto Joe, but you don't ask Seedsdough? Come on. Asking that question to an editor with few edits who disagrees with you–but not asking another editor with even fewer edits who agrees with you–is almost like bullying behavior. Nobody should be asking an editor to disclose prior accounts in the middle of a content dispute. Even if the editor has prior accounts, suppose it's a clean start, it defeats the whole purpose of a clean start if the editor had to self-disclose. Or maybe they re-named for privacy reasons (like their first account was their real name) or to avoid harassment–this happens regularly, and you know this, you've been here a very long time. When I first got here a year ago, I was asked this question constantly, and it greatly put me off. In fact, it was exactly this that made me stop editing Holocaust related articles, and Israel/Palestine, and American Politics... I still never really returned to those areas. If you think it's a banned editor, you know where SPI is. Otherwise, please don't use the "what was your previous account" line with new editors. – Leviv ich 04:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus is basing the text with the wild claims on the "London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association" and other wild claims from veterans. Historian Marcin Zaremba who analyzed German reports,
[24] and is cited by other scholars,
[25] is NOT a Nazi!!!!! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
05:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
Please ping me if this is resolved early — please also ping me if the protection expires, so that I can restore the indefinite semi protection (I'm likely to forget).
El_C
07:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
In the end, I decided to go with extended-confirmed protection so as to deter new or dormant accounts from edit warring on the article mainspace. I may downgrade it further to semi at some point, but the duration is fixed as indefinite. El_C 08:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit: [27] is a follow up to my earlier edit here: [28]. These are exceptional claims for the following reasons:
In any case, KIA troops are not generally how the effectiveness of WWII resistance is measured. Information/propaganda, intelligence, sabotage, attacking supply & communication lines, cooperation with advancing Allied forces, prevention of collaboration, state continuity, etc. are the themes from Hitler's Europe Ablaze where enemy KIAs are rarely discussed. For his part, Latawski concludes (I paraphrase) that the fact that Polish resistance was not crowned with "ultimate success" should not detract from the "impressive legacy" of the Underground state and the AK. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I spend some time looking for a good estimate. First, the source we use for 150,000 states "...the Polish resistance movement was arguably the most effective of any established in a Nazi-occupied country. Some 150,000 Germans, including top SS officials, wre killed in Poland." Raymond Taras (19 February 2018). Democracy In Poland: Second Edition. Taylor & Francis. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-429-98067-1. That source seems reliable ( Raymond Taras, Routledge, etc.), through it is not an in-depth analysis. It also generalizes to the losses inflicted by various partisan forces, but AK represented over 90% of Polish partisans anyway. It is also worth keeping in mind that reliable sources can, of course, repeat errors (such as communist-era inflated propaganda estimates). What is Taras' source we have no idea, since he doesn't cite any. I found some unreliable (forum, etc.) discussions in Polish which suggest that the number 150k is an inflated estimate that actually doesn't come from communist propaganda but from post-war Polish emigre research that wasn't very reliable, but I couldn't find any reliable sources to cite, all I found for this is forum chat with no sources. As for what I found in regards to other estimates, it is not much. Polish Wikikipedia at pl:Armia Krajowa has a reliable source but only for partial period of August 1942 to September 1944 ( pl:Andrzej Leon Sowa, „Kto wydał wyrok na miasto. Plany operacyjne ZWZ-AK (1940 – 1944) that states that "German sources listed casualties of 9671 Germans and 11481 Polish and Ukrainian collaborators as victims of the Home Army". Note that this estimates includes non-Germans, which Taras does not seem to to (but he can be generalizing, of course); Special Courts are responsible for about ~2,5k confirmed executions on collaborators. Some might have been Volksdeutsche and therefore qualify for both estimates anyway. There is the issue that such casualties may be limited only to what Germans recognized as 'Poland', i.e General Government, while the resistance was also active in other territories (I don't have access to that book so I can't see its analysis, if any). Further, needless to say, German casualty numbers were under-reported (ex. for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Germans official casualties were listed as 17 fatalities, while resistance reported inflicting 300, the latter number is for example repeated in Micheal Clodfelter (9 May 2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th ed. McFarland. pp. 466–. ISBN 978-0-7864-7470-7. and see also Mark Nepo (17 July 2018). More Together Than Alone: Discovering the Power and Spirit of Community in Our Lives and in the World. Atria Books. pp. 226–. ISBN 978-1-5011-6785-0. for both numbers.) For the larger Warsaw Uprising (see infobox), German casualty figures are reported from 2k to 17k, that's a very wide range (and for a conflict that is heavily studied). Few more estimates. An estimate for German losses in what is likely the largest anti-partisan operation in rural areas ( Sturmwind I and II) in Poland, according to [33], is 1,300. Anyway, on to other estimates, the short version is I failed to find anything in reliable sources that's more precises. German_casualties_in_World_War_II as far as I can tell is totally mum when it comes to discussing partisan-inflicted casualties on any front outside a table stating that "Home front" casualties amounted to 64,055 (but again methodology and such is unclear; and as another editor pointed at out milhist when I asked it could have nothing to with partisans at all), and neither is Battle casualties of World War II of any help here. I checked Polish online encyclopedias (PWN, etc.) entries on AK but they don't contain estimates of casualties it might have inflicted.Given that, while I have concerns about the number 150k, it is nonetheless published in a reliable source, and is the only estimate we have (it is tough to call something a redflag without a single source to contradict it, 'gut feeling' will not do), so unless someone can find other estimates, it's hard to justify discarding it 'because we think it may be incorrect'. It might very well be a gross overestimate, but we need sources that provide better estimate or debunk that number; barring that the best compromise I can suggest for now is to attribute this number to Raymond Taras.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
MDR is not blog.
German Studies Review is scholarly journal.
[37], page 69, Mark Kramer in book published by Cambridge University Press, tells of estimate by
Jan T. Gross. Gross tells Poles killed more Jews than Germans. Germans killed are 17000 in the 1939 invasion, 5000 in next four years, 5000 in Warsaw uprising. So at most 10000 for Polish resistance. The book tells that these crimes and inconsequential effect on Germans are politically sensitive in Poland itself. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
Gross tells Poles killed more Jews than Germans. Germans killed are 17000 in the 1939 invasion, 5000 in next four years, 5000 in Warsaw uprising. So at most 10000 for Polish resistance. Interesting. Is Gross comparing German military deaths vs Jewish civilian deaths while ignoring German civilian deaths or does he give estimate of number of Jewish militia and partistan members that Gross claims Polish resistance killed in fighting? Are there also any estimates Gross gives for number of German military casualties inflicted by Jewish resitance vs number of Jewish civilians killed directly and indirectly by Jewish collaborators?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, you are misleading, nothing red flag but mainstream research.
User:Paul Siebert,
Jan T. Gross is a major scholar. And he only repeated well established research by historian Marcin Zaremba: "this is the conclusion drawn by Marcin Zaremba: ‘Until 1944, the German losses on the territory of occupied Poland did not exceed 3,000. Thus … we were not on the side, on which it seemed to us that we actually were, because we killed more Jews than Germans.’" in
[38] published in Holocaust Studies journal. Zaremba and Gross are quoted by other scholars. Anyway, this gives us a number for Germans killed: less than 3,000 from beginning of occupation to 1944. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
[39] Holocaust Studies journal published by Taylor & Francis is not "FRINGE".
German Studies Review is not "FRINGE".
[40] Cambridge University Press is not "FRINGE". What western and new Polish historians tell should be in article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
12:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
If you keep on dismissing mainstream authors published in mainstream publications, in English, as "FRINGE" then you shall end up at AE. Calling these "Nazi German sources":
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Home_Army&diff=929483428&oldid=929454048 will not go down well. Leave your personal feelings aside, and find a way to incorporate the prevailing mainstream estimates here, which are a few thousands of Germans killed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
04:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
This article is missing one key point: that the majority of postwar Jewish testimony has a negative view of AK (according to an analysis by Joshua D. Zimmerman, author of The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945). [1] According to Zimmerman, "the widely held view in collective Jewish memory and Jewish historiography that the Home army was hostile is largely confirmed" by his analysis of the testimony of Holocaust survivors, although he notes that 30% of survivors had positive interactions with AK. Zimmerman also states (p. 5) that "In rare instances, Jews fought openly in the Home army without concealing their background". Zimmerman also states that Tadeusz Komorowski reversed the policies of helping Jews in ghettos and favored excluding them from Home Army ranks (pp. 15–16), also
With a chilling indifference towards their fate, Komorowski characterized Jewish partisans as communist, pro-Soviet elements, an attitude that gave local Home army units (especially in the northeastern provinces where the Polish-Soviet conflict was most acute) a green light to treat Jews any way they wished. This is exemplified in Komorowski’s well-known Organizational Report No. 220 to his superiors in London in which he condemns Jewish partisans for requisitioning foodstuffs from Polish peasants without any sympathy for their predicament. (p. 17)
Overall, Zimmerman says that
The present examination of the attitude and behavior of the Home Army towards the Jews reveals both profoundly disturbing acts of violence as well as extraordinary acts of aid and compassion. Evidence of wrongdoing (and to a lesser degree, of assistance) within the Home Army has mounted in recent years with the body of research published by such Polish historians as Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, Alina Skibińska, Jerzy Mazurek, Tadeusz Markiel, Adam Puławski, Marcin Urynowicz, and Dariusz Libionka.114 These Polish historians are revising the old, decidedly positive view prevalent in Polish scholarship prior to the twenty-first century (p. 20)
I can provide this paper to anyone who wants it. b uidh e 07:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Zimmerman puts it perfect. He tells how some Polish historians overlooked AK's anti-Jewish violence or praised it. He tells of new Polish historians who follow Western history. And he tells that the west had: "decidedly negative views of the Polish Underground as endemically anti-Semitic". Some new historians in the West accept some good among mostly anti-Jewish. This article uses old Polish historians, and not newer research or wider academia in West. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
12:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
There is a clear consensus that neither A nor B should be included in the article.
What should appear in the article:
A. Raymond Taras has provided an estimate of 150,000 for Axis fatalities incurred due to operations by the Polish underground [1] (however, estimates of guerrilla-inflicted casualties often have a wide margin of error [2]).
B. According to historian Marcin Zaremba, until 1944 Germans losses in occupied Poland were lower than 3,000. [3] [4] Historian Jan T. Gross estimates that Poles killed 5,000 Germans in 1940-1944 and another 5,000 in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. [5]
A+B
None
16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
citations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. Remember that it is the wikimarkup that counts to the total, and so the five references contribute a significant proportion. Is it necessary to include so much text in the refs? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To quote:According to the incomplete data filed by the Wehrmacht the German losses in the fighting against the Polish resistance only within the GG and only in the period of August 1942 to December 1944 amounted to 11,491 men, including 6,722 Wehrmacht soldiers, 2,805 SS and police troopers, and 1,984 Reichsdeutsch and Volksdeutsch men Polish Resistance Movement in Poland and Abroad, 1939-1945 PWN--Polish Scientific Publishers, 1987m Stanisław Okęcki. Page 156. The figure above is just official claims by Nazi Germany and doesn't include losses before August 1942, outside General Gouvernment in annexed territories of Poland and Eastern Poland(for example in Operation Tempest). To compare IIRC the German losses in the West during occupation were circa 22,000 dead and missing and in the Balkans 36,000 but I would have to check this. In general the estimates in this area would be hard to identify, besides Home Army there were other resistance groups and it is doubtful a very precise estimate can be made that that can attribute the losses to one or the other resistance group. I would also recommend two publications on the subject
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The article needs a reassessment due to longstanding issues with sources that do not meet the subject-specific sourcing requirements, a lead that does not meet MOS:LEAD, and various other cleanup tags. These prevent it from reaching the GA criteria. ( t · c) buidhe 21:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Other sources certainly exist:
In their memoranda on the ‘solution of the Ukrainian question’, the staff of the Home Army of Lviv mirrored the mood of the population. In July 1942 it recommended deporting between one and one and a half million Ukrainians to the Soviet Union and settling the remainder in other parts of Poland. In the eastern areas of Poland not more than 10 per cent of the population should consist of national minorities. Any suggestions regarding a limited autonomy for Ukrainians, as was being discussed in Warsaw and London, would find no support among the local population
— Mick, Christoph (2011). "Incompatible Experiences: Poles, Ukrainians and Jews in Lviv under Soviet and German Occupation, 1939-44". Journal of Contemporary History. 46 (2): 336–363. doi: 10.1177/0022009410392409.
Snyder writes that AK sided with Red Army against Ukrainian forces:
Thousands of Polish men and women escaped to the Volhynian marshes and forests in 1943, joining Soviet partisan armies fighting the UPA and the Wehrmacht.34 At the same time, some Poles took revenge on Ukrainians who had been serving as German policemen... Polish partisans of all political stripes attacked the UPA, assassinated prominent Ukrainian civilians, and burned Ukrainian villages.... Throughout the spring of 1944, the AK and UPA battled intermittently for control of Eastern Galicia and its crown jewel, Lviv. The UPA attacked Polish civilians, but Polish preparations and Ukrainian warnings limited the deaths to perhaps ten thousand.37 In July 1944, the Red Army (aided by the AK) drove the Germans from Lviv.
— Snyder, Timothy (1999). ""To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All": The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947". Journal of Cold War Studies. 1 (2): 86–120. doi: 10.1162/15203979952559531.
See also this book around page 233: Liber, George (2016). Total Wars and the Making of Modern Ukraine, 1914-1954. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-2144-2. ( t · c) buidhe 07:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. Once I do that, you still insist that there is no issue? Parts of this read like apologia rather than an encyclopedia article: our article on the Wehrmacht doesn't say, "one Wehrmacht commander objected to war crimes and ordered his soldiers not to commit any". Again, I wasn't the one who tagged this section for POV issues and the issue needs to be resolved to stay a GA article. ( t · c) buidhe 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what is the ground on which you allege NPOV? Only thing you mentioned in the sentence is Polish nationality, which by itself upon no circumstances can be seen as ground to doubt a historian. We do not judge historians based on their ethnicity or nationality.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
All issues have been fixed, including a rewrite to the Ukrainian section using at least one of the sources linked above. The only remaining issue is to add better sources than the newspaper article for the cursed soldiers section, although since nobody pointed out any errors, and the newspaper is considered mainstream and reliable, I don't think it is a major issue. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the concerns cited above, I would also suggest that this article needs a cleanup to meet GA standards. In particular:
Please accept these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. They are, of course, only a personal opinion and I admit to having little grounding in the Polish literature on the subject. I would urge that a copy-edit is requested as a particular priority, however. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 18:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view"( WP:IMPARTIAL). This must include whether he has been described as a hero. This is really fundamental to Wikipedia. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 12:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."There is already a good first paragraph and the coverage of the post-war period seems reasonable to me, but I think it is important that the lead does indeed engage with the long and difficult relations sections. It also might be worth re-working the current second/third paragraphs to present a better picture of the AK's actual activities - my understanding is that the "weapons" and "membership" sections point towards the complexity of the AK's organisation which is not really addressed at this stage. Do you have any thoughts, Buidhe? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Brigade Piron, Could you clarify what you are asking for here: [43]. Are you asking for a reference, or do you think the language used is not neutral? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
As this GAR appears to still be live, I'd like to offer the following comments to help with improving the article and ensuring that it meets the GA criteria:
I don't see how this section can be considered NPOV in its approach. We have no section for List of Home Army members convicted of war crimes, for instance, which would be necessary to provide for balance if we're going to keep this section (we shouldn't). I think you could have a sentence on this in the "Relations with Jews" section, but I don't think it justifies a separate subsection because as far as I know, the strongest sources on Home Army–Jewish relations don't place a lot of weight on this specific award comparable to what it is given in this article. For example, I checked two reviews [44] [45] of Zimmerman's book, which are of comparable length to the section about Jews, but don't mention this issue. ( t · c) buidhe 06:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the following text:
Purchases were made by individual units and sometimes by individual soldiers. As Germany's prospects for victory diminished and the morale in German units dropped, the number of soldiers willing to sell their weapons correspondingly increased and thus made this source more important. citation needed All such purchases were highly risky, as the Gestapo was well aware of this black market in arms and tried to check it by setting up sting operations. For the most part, this trade was limited to personal weapons, but occasionally light and heavy machine guns could also be purchased. It was much easier to trade with Italian and Hungarian units stationed in Poland, which more willingly sold their arms to the Polish underground as long as they could conceal this trade from the Germans. citation needed
Frankly, it is just not very important (and I cannot find any source for it, even through it is likely correct). There is a referenced sentence that partisans bought some weapons from the Germans, and this excessive detail is pretty much trivial - it is obvious and doesn't really add anything to the article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Ping User:Brigade Piron. This is subjective, perhaps, but I tend to prefer keeping chronological history in one section. Now you've split it into three (origins, wartime, postwar), each separated by some non-history sections (currently: origins, membership, structure, wartime activities, weapons and equipment, relations with other factions, postwar). I don't see how this layout is more helpful to the reader compared to one that keeps all of the chronological histories in one section (with subsections for each period). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Brigade Piron. After completing my preliminary copyedit I always ask questions about the article to ensure that my edit reflects the intended meaning and is clear in doing so. Please reply to each point by indenting below each one like you would a conversation; items will be struck out once they have been answered. Please ping me with {{ U}}, {{ ping}}, or {{ re}} as I have a lot of items on my watchlist. My copyediting process can be found here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC) |
The Home Army sabotaged German transports bound for the Eastern Front in the Soviet Union, destroying German supplies and tying down substantial German forces.Are "destroying German supplies" and "tying down substantial German forces" part of sabotaging German transports, or are they different but equal ideas?
Estimates of the Home Army's 1944 strength range between 200,000 and 600,000, the most commonly cited number being 400,000. The latter number would [...]There are three numbers in the first sentence. Which one is "latter" referring to: 600,000 or 400,000? Alternatively, is it important for the reader to understand in the lede that 400,000 is the most common number?
[...] communism-friendly government to Poland.To confirm, the Soviets wanted a Polish government that was okay with communism?
[..] about 1943–44 [...]Weird sentence fragment here, but I think the intent was to say that the Peasants' Battalions merged with the Home Army sometime in 1943 or 1944?
Home Army ranks included a number of female operatives; the service was very dangerous.What's the connection between the number of women serving and service being dangerous? Something is being implied here, but I don't know what it is.
[...] with over 2,000 female soldiers taken captive, with the latter number reported in contemporary press causing a "European sensation".Already edited. Was it the capture of 2,000 female soldiers that caused a "European sensation", or was the capture reported in publications that caused a "European sensation" themselves?
The Home Army published a weekly Biuletyn Informacyjny (Information Bulletin), with a top circulation (in November 1943) of 50,000.Emphasis and links removed. 50,000 what? Issues? Copies?
Rowecki was willing to provide Jewish fighters with aid and resources when it contributed to "the greater war effort", but had (apparently) concluded that providing large quantities of supplies to the Jewish resistance would be futile.Is apparently necessary in parentheses? Maybe it's a source issue?
Emphasis added. Is latter referring to the Soviets?Not only had the Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September 1939, following the German invasion that began 1 September 1939, but even after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 the latter [...]
Asides in parentheses removed for readability. This is one incredibly long run-on sentence with no discernable verb. Is the main point of this sentence supposed to be "The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army directed most of its attacks against Poles and Jews"? There is a lot of information being packed into this sentence, and it might be better to either remove it or put it in a footnote as it starts deviating from the Home Army.The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a Ukrainian nationalist force and the military arm of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which some historians consider fascist, and which was fighting the Germans, Soviets and Poles—all of whom they saw as occupiers of the future ethnically-pure Ukrainian state—to direct most of its attacks against Poles and Jews.
On 20 July that year the Home Army command decided to establish partisan units in Volhynia. Nine formations were created, numbering about a thousand soldiers.A thousand soldiers each or in total?
Notably, in January 1944 the 27th Home Army Infantry Division was formed in Volhynia.This sentence feels orphaned and should be joined with either the sentence before it or the one after it. It seems like the following sentence talks about the division further?
On 7 May 1945 NIE ("NO") [...]What does "NO" mean in the parentheses?
Women were most numerous in the communication branch [...]Did most women work in communications or was the communications branch mostly made up of women?
Looking forward to your responses. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Quick question - what's the neutrality concern with the lede sentence "The Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators"? I'm not seeing that discussed anywhere. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
References
From the moment of its founding, fascists were integral to, and played a central role in, the organization. The OUN avoided designating itself as fascist in order to emphasize the "originality" of Ukrainian nationalism.7 In 1941 the organization split between a more radical wing, the OUN(b), named after its leader, Stepan Bandera, and a more conservative wing, the OUN(m), led by Andrii Mel'nyk. Both were totalitarian, anti-Semitic, and fascist.
Jews who had escaped the Holocaust, and a large Polish minority, passionately hated UPA because it engaged in thorough ethnic cleansing, killing all the Jews it could find, about 50,000 Poles in Volhynia and between 20,000 and 30,000 Poles in Galicia.
This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I reverted this edit [4] as it had serious neutrality issues. First of all it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotype. This is obviously not true.Second of all it twisted the information greatly, Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group Antyk.Third of all Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propaganda.Fourth-the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their work. As such the current edit wasn't neutral and had serious undue weight issues. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotypeNo, it didn't. It stated that the emphasis placed on the subject was fed by a stereotype, in-line with the sources. In fact, I was careful to note that the two district commanders mentioned by name were stationed in eastern Poland, so as not to undermine the later claim that attitudes towards Jews varied between east and west, which as written suggests Soviet affiliations were more prevalent in the east.
Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group AntykZimmerman gives the example of Col. Rzepecki, head of the Home Army's Bureau of Information (of which Antyk was part), but he gives it as an example of how radical was its staff, not of how ill-regarded it was as a whole. The fact Col. Rzepecki could not rid Antyk of the people he so vehemently opposed raises serious questions about their acceptance within the larger organization. If you wish to mention Rzepecki we can do so, but we ought to also mention Antyk operated apparently uninterrupted until the end of the war.
Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propagandaZimmerman also says this:
In contrast to the sometime sympathetic tone in the reports of the Home Army and Delegate’s Bureau, the Home Army’s anti-communist division, Antyk, had a pronounced anti-Jewish orientation. The division’s staff included the openly anti-Jewish figure, Henryk Glass. Internal documents of Antyk demonstrate that it identified antisemitism as a useful tool in the struggle against communism. Stressing the idea that Jews were behind communism, Antyk tried to infuse the Polish population with a marked anti-communist and anti-Soviet sentiment. That is why Antyk instructed its members to link “Judaism” to communism in its propaganda literature.(pp. 380-381)
the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their workSource?
To date, most underground reporting on the fate of the Jews was sympathetic. An important exception was [Antyk]). François Robere ( talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
He indoctrinated Polish soldiers. As far as I know he has never described his work. Is he ashamed? Xx236 ( talk) 11:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
was born in Warsaw and grew up in Łódź, where he joined the HaShomer HaTsair socialist Zionist youth movement. He was incarcerated in the Lodz ghetto during the war and was active in the underground youth movements there. He survived the ghetto, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald, death marches, and Theresienstadt, where he was liberated. He then joined the Polish army and rose to the rank of major in the political division. Afterward he worked for the Museum of the History of the Polish Revolutionary Movement, and following that worked in the archive of Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw. He was fired in 1968 as part of the government’s antisemitic campaign that led to the expulsion of most of the remaining Jews of Poland. Shmuel moved to Israel and began working in Yad Vashem’s archive. His doctorate written at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Jewish armed resistance in the Generalgouvernement in occupied Poland resulted in his book The War of the Doomed, which remains a standard work on the subject to this day.He passed earlier this year.
Anyway, the fact that Krakowski was a communist officer at some point is not a reason to consider him as unreliable. However, his research has been challenged as inaccurate and unreliable by modern scholars. And no, not by Polish scholars (well, by Polish scholars too, but I am sure certain individuals here would not consider this an issue). He has been described as by Joshua D. Zimmerman as follows (source: Joshua D. Zimmerman (5 June 2015). The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-107-01426-8.) "The negative portrayal of the Home Army among professional Jewish historians was made semi-official with the appearance in the early 1980s... with... Krakowski's volume, Unequal Victims... [who] concluded in their study that [Polish Undeground was mostly hostile towards the Jews and some armed units where involved in murder of Jews] Some historians began to challenge the prevailing assumptions in Jewish historiography in the late 1980s. In particular, Shmuel Krakowski's assertion that Home Army commander, General Bór-Komorowski, sanctioned assaults against Jewish partisans came under close scrutiny. The late Polish American historian, Stanislaus A. Blejwas, exposed errors in Krakowski's sources used to prove used to prove the Home Army commander's culpability. Blejwas cogently demonstrated that the actual document on combating banditry that was sent to local AK leaders – claimed by Krakowski to be an order to kill Jews–did not mention Jews at all (see [8], not sure how to get full digital text of that). John Lowell Armstrong concurred (see [9])." So, based on the assessment of newer scholarship, I think Krakowski should NOT be cited (and it would be nice if some editors engaged in the discussion here and on related topics would reconsider their views, as possibly, well, dated and representing a more biased scholarship views of the 1980s...). Zimmerman's book is a great overview of the different camps and changing opinions about the Home Army and the Polish Underground (if you cannot access more pages on Google Book, I got the book through Library Genesis in one minute...cheers for piracy). On an ending note, I like what Snyder has to say on this: "“...the record of the Home Army towards Jews is ambivalent". That's quite a good word to use here. (As well as his caution that the "“the dark legend [of older Jewish historiography hostile to Polish Underground] must be abandoned". It has as much place in our article as the (rightly) criticized works of scholars from "the camp of Polish historians devoted to defending wartime Poland’s record". Neither of such extremes makes for a good source. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
the AK? What do you mean? If you mean the commander please write the commander of the AK. Apparently not all AK members referred this way and some of the members were Jewish.
Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these pople (and also to COmmunist partisans) as "bandits", an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves"Followed by a long quote of Bor-Komorowski in which he conflates (per Polonsky) communist partisans, ordinary robbers, and Jews. Per Polonsky this was pervasive terminology by the High Command and local commanders. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The HA published Biuletyn Informacyjny, the biggest underground paper in Poland. Xx236 ( talk) 11:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This change made the whole text unreadable, there are now numerous numbers floating around the text making it completely unreadable and it looks like it is garbled part text part some computer code [11]. I think I saw this on other articles once before it was fixed and normal references returned. I will have to go reference by reference to restore its readability but would appreciate if somebody more skilled in coding would help, as I am not a skilled programmer. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Personally I prefer any style that keeps links to Google Book pages for easier verification, through yes, that creates multiple refs (numbers) for the same work. Sigh. Damned either way. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The article is biased, it's main part is not the HA, but national conflicts and HA participation in them. Informations about the HA are short. Xx236 ( talk) 07:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
"In total, between 7,000- 8,000 [1] to 10,000 [2] Ukrainians perished in the territories of today's Poland."
References
The section lacks informations about the Armia Krajowa Obywatelska and Augustów roundup. Xx236 ( talk) 07:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding
this revert. Snyder writes the following - Probably the most significant way the Home Army and other Polish political organizations aided individuals Jews was by the production of false German documents. Their famous "paper mills" could generate German Kennkarten, indication that Jews were, in fact, Poles: "Aryan papers," as Jews called them at the time. Usually Poles took money or goods for this, but not always
. Furthermore, Snyder belong to a particular historical came here,
[12] and is making a claim not generally ascribed to the Home Army as a whole (as opposed to individual forgers turning a profit) - this should be attributed. That this was generally a service provided for cash or goods is explicitly and clearly stated by Snyder.
Icewhiz (
talk)
16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not what Polonsky in the cited source writes. - MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The page ignores women. Such bias is innacceptable. Xx236 ( talk) 09:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Please correct. Xx236 ( talk) 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Female messenger? Perhaps the notion should be defined as a separate page. Thousands of łaczniczkas died or were imprisoned, messengers rather don't die. The women transported arms, illegal printings, messages.
@ Volunteer Marek: I'm not sure what's your objection to this. [14] [15] (and that? [16]) It's sourced and representative of the source, so what's the problem? François Robere ( talk) 20:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
the matter is discussed at length in this volume by Michael Marrus and he doesn't bring it upThe article is by Prekerowa, and she does bring it up (p. 523): "The RPZ... did so free of charge while other organizations were normally charging their customers sums equal to their prime cost."
It's discussed in Zimmerman as well and also not raised as an important issueThat's by Martin Gilbert, not Zimmerman. It quotes Antek's memoir, which doesn't mention paying for documents, but does mention some people sold them. François Robere ( talk) 23:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I am undoing Piotrus' edit, as it introduced bigoted language. If we say Ukrainian fighters murdered Polish civilians, then we should say the same of the Home Army murdering Ukrainian civilians. If we say kill, both should be kill. But saying Polish Home Army killed or pacified civilians, but Ukrainians murdered is bigoted. Piotrus also introduced several horrendous a-historical sources that glorify supposed Polish heroism. www.polishresistance-ak.org for example. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
This article needs many better sources. Let's consider some that have recently been removed (and readded):
Those are IMHO passable. Should be replaced with higher quality sources, but they have either a reliable author or publisher.
I support removal of this as clearly failing RS. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's discuss this source: lecture notes by historian Anna M. Cienciala available at [20]. The author is a respected academic. The notes are effectively self-published, but are cited by many other scholars ( [21]) and even positively reviewed " I was pleased that she mentioned Sarmatian Review in her excellent compendium of works on the history of Poland and Eastern Europe available online (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/bibpt1rev.htm)." While I would say that such a source should not be used for WP:REDFLAG, I think it is entirely acceptable in regular circumstances, and its use here didn't raise any red flags, did it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I read link you give. It is an obiturary by a friend in the Polish review. The friend is happy her work on Poland is listed in Cienciala's bibliography. The link Cienciala's friend calls excellent is the bibliography, not lecture 16 you used. You want we use sources sympathetic to Ukraine in this page? I can find. They tell story of Home Army differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Home Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove --> style="width:98%;" <-- from wikitable User-duck ( talk) 07:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was "poorly-sourced WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. This is an extraordinary claim and Wikipedia should not use Polish schoolbooks parroting Home Army veterans. Actual historians: "As Marcin Zaremba and other historians have pointed out, Poles killed more Jews than they did Germans during the occupation"
[22]. Official German records from the Generalgouvernement show 1,300 Germans killed between 1939 and 1944, and another 2,000 to 9,000 in the August 1944 uprising.
[23] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
what was your previous accountto Joe, but you don't ask Seedsdough? Come on. Asking that question to an editor with few edits who disagrees with you–but not asking another editor with even fewer edits who agrees with you–is almost like bullying behavior. Nobody should be asking an editor to disclose prior accounts in the middle of a content dispute. Even if the editor has prior accounts, suppose it's a clean start, it defeats the whole purpose of a clean start if the editor had to self-disclose. Or maybe they re-named for privacy reasons (like their first account was their real name) or to avoid harassment–this happens regularly, and you know this, you've been here a very long time. When I first got here a year ago, I was asked this question constantly, and it greatly put me off. In fact, it was exactly this that made me stop editing Holocaust related articles, and Israel/Palestine, and American Politics... I still never really returned to those areas. If you think it's a banned editor, you know where SPI is. Otherwise, please don't use the "what was your previous account" line with new editors. – Leviv ich 04:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus is basing the text with the wild claims on the "London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association" and other wild claims from veterans. Historian Marcin Zaremba who analyzed German reports,
[24] and is cited by other scholars,
[25] is NOT a Nazi!!!!! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
05:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
Please ping me if this is resolved early — please also ping me if the protection expires, so that I can restore the indefinite semi protection (I'm likely to forget).
El_C
07:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
In the end, I decided to go with extended-confirmed protection so as to deter new or dormant accounts from edit warring on the article mainspace. I may downgrade it further to semi at some point, but the duration is fixed as indefinite. El_C 08:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit: [27] is a follow up to my earlier edit here: [28]. These are exceptional claims for the following reasons:
In any case, KIA troops are not generally how the effectiveness of WWII resistance is measured. Information/propaganda, intelligence, sabotage, attacking supply & communication lines, cooperation with advancing Allied forces, prevention of collaboration, state continuity, etc. are the themes from Hitler's Europe Ablaze where enemy KIAs are rarely discussed. For his part, Latawski concludes (I paraphrase) that the fact that Polish resistance was not crowned with "ultimate success" should not detract from the "impressive legacy" of the Underground state and the AK. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I spend some time looking for a good estimate. First, the source we use for 150,000 states "...the Polish resistance movement was arguably the most effective of any established in a Nazi-occupied country. Some 150,000 Germans, including top SS officials, wre killed in Poland." Raymond Taras (19 February 2018). Democracy In Poland: Second Edition. Taylor & Francis. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-429-98067-1. That source seems reliable ( Raymond Taras, Routledge, etc.), through it is not an in-depth analysis. It also generalizes to the losses inflicted by various partisan forces, but AK represented over 90% of Polish partisans anyway. It is also worth keeping in mind that reliable sources can, of course, repeat errors (such as communist-era inflated propaganda estimates). What is Taras' source we have no idea, since he doesn't cite any. I found some unreliable (forum, etc.) discussions in Polish which suggest that the number 150k is an inflated estimate that actually doesn't come from communist propaganda but from post-war Polish emigre research that wasn't very reliable, but I couldn't find any reliable sources to cite, all I found for this is forum chat with no sources. As for what I found in regards to other estimates, it is not much. Polish Wikikipedia at pl:Armia Krajowa has a reliable source but only for partial period of August 1942 to September 1944 ( pl:Andrzej Leon Sowa, „Kto wydał wyrok na miasto. Plany operacyjne ZWZ-AK (1940 – 1944) that states that "German sources listed casualties of 9671 Germans and 11481 Polish and Ukrainian collaborators as victims of the Home Army". Note that this estimates includes non-Germans, which Taras does not seem to to (but he can be generalizing, of course); Special Courts are responsible for about ~2,5k confirmed executions on collaborators. Some might have been Volksdeutsche and therefore qualify for both estimates anyway. There is the issue that such casualties may be limited only to what Germans recognized as 'Poland', i.e General Government, while the resistance was also active in other territories (I don't have access to that book so I can't see its analysis, if any). Further, needless to say, German casualty numbers were under-reported (ex. for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Germans official casualties were listed as 17 fatalities, while resistance reported inflicting 300, the latter number is for example repeated in Micheal Clodfelter (9 May 2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th ed. McFarland. pp. 466–. ISBN 978-0-7864-7470-7. and see also Mark Nepo (17 July 2018). More Together Than Alone: Discovering the Power and Spirit of Community in Our Lives and in the World. Atria Books. pp. 226–. ISBN 978-1-5011-6785-0. for both numbers.) For the larger Warsaw Uprising (see infobox), German casualty figures are reported from 2k to 17k, that's a very wide range (and for a conflict that is heavily studied). Few more estimates. An estimate for German losses in what is likely the largest anti-partisan operation in rural areas ( Sturmwind I and II) in Poland, according to [33], is 1,300. Anyway, on to other estimates, the short version is I failed to find anything in reliable sources that's more precises. German_casualties_in_World_War_II as far as I can tell is totally mum when it comes to discussing partisan-inflicted casualties on any front outside a table stating that "Home front" casualties amounted to 64,055 (but again methodology and such is unclear; and as another editor pointed at out milhist when I asked it could have nothing to with partisans at all), and neither is Battle casualties of World War II of any help here. I checked Polish online encyclopedias (PWN, etc.) entries on AK but they don't contain estimates of casualties it might have inflicted.Given that, while I have concerns about the number 150k, it is nonetheless published in a reliable source, and is the only estimate we have (it is tough to call something a redflag without a single source to contradict it, 'gut feeling' will not do), so unless someone can find other estimates, it's hard to justify discarding it 'because we think it may be incorrect'. It might very well be a gross overestimate, but we need sources that provide better estimate or debunk that number; barring that the best compromise I can suggest for now is to attribute this number to Raymond Taras.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
MDR is not blog.
German Studies Review is scholarly journal.
[37], page 69, Mark Kramer in book published by Cambridge University Press, tells of estimate by
Jan T. Gross. Gross tells Poles killed more Jews than Germans. Germans killed are 17000 in the 1939 invasion, 5000 in next four years, 5000 in Warsaw uprising. So at most 10000 for Polish resistance. The book tells that these crimes and inconsequential effect on Germans are politically sensitive in Poland itself. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
Gross tells Poles killed more Jews than Germans. Germans killed are 17000 in the 1939 invasion, 5000 in next four years, 5000 in Warsaw uprising. So at most 10000 for Polish resistance. Interesting. Is Gross comparing German military deaths vs Jewish civilian deaths while ignoring German civilian deaths or does he give estimate of number of Jewish militia and partistan members that Gross claims Polish resistance killed in fighting? Are there also any estimates Gross gives for number of German military casualties inflicted by Jewish resitance vs number of Jewish civilians killed directly and indirectly by Jewish collaborators?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, you are misleading, nothing red flag but mainstream research.
User:Paul Siebert,
Jan T. Gross is a major scholar. And he only repeated well established research by historian Marcin Zaremba: "this is the conclusion drawn by Marcin Zaremba: ‘Until 1944, the German losses on the territory of occupied Poland did not exceed 3,000. Thus … we were not on the side, on which it seemed to us that we actually were, because we killed more Jews than Germans.’" in
[38] published in Holocaust Studies journal. Zaremba and Gross are quoted by other scholars. Anyway, this gives us a number for Germans killed: less than 3,000 from beginning of occupation to 1944. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
[39] Holocaust Studies journal published by Taylor & Francis is not "FRINGE".
German Studies Review is not "FRINGE".
[40] Cambridge University Press is not "FRINGE". What western and new Polish historians tell should be in article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
12:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
If you keep on dismissing mainstream authors published in mainstream publications, in English, as "FRINGE" then you shall end up at AE. Calling these "Nazi German sources":
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Home_Army&diff=929483428&oldid=929454048 will not go down well. Leave your personal feelings aside, and find a way to incorporate the prevailing mainstream estimates here, which are a few thousands of Germans killed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
04:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
This article is missing one key point: that the majority of postwar Jewish testimony has a negative view of AK (according to an analysis by Joshua D. Zimmerman, author of The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945). [1] According to Zimmerman, "the widely held view in collective Jewish memory and Jewish historiography that the Home army was hostile is largely confirmed" by his analysis of the testimony of Holocaust survivors, although he notes that 30% of survivors had positive interactions with AK. Zimmerman also states (p. 5) that "In rare instances, Jews fought openly in the Home army without concealing their background". Zimmerman also states that Tadeusz Komorowski reversed the policies of helping Jews in ghettos and favored excluding them from Home Army ranks (pp. 15–16), also
With a chilling indifference towards their fate, Komorowski characterized Jewish partisans as communist, pro-Soviet elements, an attitude that gave local Home army units (especially in the northeastern provinces where the Polish-Soviet conflict was most acute) a green light to treat Jews any way they wished. This is exemplified in Komorowski’s well-known Organizational Report No. 220 to his superiors in London in which he condemns Jewish partisans for requisitioning foodstuffs from Polish peasants without any sympathy for their predicament. (p. 17)
Overall, Zimmerman says that
The present examination of the attitude and behavior of the Home Army towards the Jews reveals both profoundly disturbing acts of violence as well as extraordinary acts of aid and compassion. Evidence of wrongdoing (and to a lesser degree, of assistance) within the Home Army has mounted in recent years with the body of research published by such Polish historians as Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, Alina Skibińska, Jerzy Mazurek, Tadeusz Markiel, Adam Puławski, Marcin Urynowicz, and Dariusz Libionka.114 These Polish historians are revising the old, decidedly positive view prevalent in Polish scholarship prior to the twenty-first century (p. 20)
I can provide this paper to anyone who wants it. b uidh e 07:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Zimmerman puts it perfect. He tells how some Polish historians overlooked AK's anti-Jewish violence or praised it. He tells of new Polish historians who follow Western history. And he tells that the west had: "decidedly negative views of the Polish Underground as endemically anti-Semitic". Some new historians in the West accept some good among mostly anti-Jewish. This article uses old Polish historians, and not newer research or wider academia in West. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JoeZ451 (
talk •
contribs)
12:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
There is a clear consensus that neither A nor B should be included in the article.
What should appear in the article:
A. Raymond Taras has provided an estimate of 150,000 for Axis fatalities incurred due to operations by the Polish underground [1] (however, estimates of guerrilla-inflicted casualties often have a wide margin of error [2]).
B. According to historian Marcin Zaremba, until 1944 Germans losses in occupied Poland were lower than 3,000. [3] [4] Historian Jan T. Gross estimates that Poles killed 5,000 Germans in 1940-1944 and another 5,000 in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. [5]
A+B
None
16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
citations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. Remember that it is the wikimarkup that counts to the total, and so the five references contribute a significant proportion. Is it necessary to include so much text in the refs? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To quote:According to the incomplete data filed by the Wehrmacht the German losses in the fighting against the Polish resistance only within the GG and only in the period of August 1942 to December 1944 amounted to 11,491 men, including 6,722 Wehrmacht soldiers, 2,805 SS and police troopers, and 1,984 Reichsdeutsch and Volksdeutsch men Polish Resistance Movement in Poland and Abroad, 1939-1945 PWN--Polish Scientific Publishers, 1987m Stanisław Okęcki. Page 156. The figure above is just official claims by Nazi Germany and doesn't include losses before August 1942, outside General Gouvernment in annexed territories of Poland and Eastern Poland(for example in Operation Tempest). To compare IIRC the German losses in the West during occupation were circa 22,000 dead and missing and in the Balkans 36,000 but I would have to check this. In general the estimates in this area would be hard to identify, besides Home Army there were other resistance groups and it is doubtful a very precise estimate can be made that that can attribute the losses to one or the other resistance group. I would also recommend two publications on the subject
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The article needs a reassessment due to longstanding issues with sources that do not meet the subject-specific sourcing requirements, a lead that does not meet MOS:LEAD, and various other cleanup tags. These prevent it from reaching the GA criteria. ( t · c) buidhe 21:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Other sources certainly exist:
In their memoranda on the ‘solution of the Ukrainian question’, the staff of the Home Army of Lviv mirrored the mood of the population. In July 1942 it recommended deporting between one and one and a half million Ukrainians to the Soviet Union and settling the remainder in other parts of Poland. In the eastern areas of Poland not more than 10 per cent of the population should consist of national minorities. Any suggestions regarding a limited autonomy for Ukrainians, as was being discussed in Warsaw and London, would find no support among the local population
— Mick, Christoph (2011). "Incompatible Experiences: Poles, Ukrainians and Jews in Lviv under Soviet and German Occupation, 1939-44". Journal of Contemporary History. 46 (2): 336–363. doi: 10.1177/0022009410392409.
Snyder writes that AK sided with Red Army against Ukrainian forces:
Thousands of Polish men and women escaped to the Volhynian marshes and forests in 1943, joining Soviet partisan armies fighting the UPA and the Wehrmacht.34 At the same time, some Poles took revenge on Ukrainians who had been serving as German policemen... Polish partisans of all political stripes attacked the UPA, assassinated prominent Ukrainian civilians, and burned Ukrainian villages.... Throughout the spring of 1944, the AK and UPA battled intermittently for control of Eastern Galicia and its crown jewel, Lviv. The UPA attacked Polish civilians, but Polish preparations and Ukrainian warnings limited the deaths to perhaps ten thousand.37 In July 1944, the Red Army (aided by the AK) drove the Germans from Lviv.
— Snyder, Timothy (1999). ""To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All": The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947". Journal of Cold War Studies. 1 (2): 86–120. doi: 10.1162/15203979952559531.
See also this book around page 233: Liber, George (2016). Total Wars and the Making of Modern Ukraine, 1914-1954. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-2144-2. ( t · c) buidhe 07:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. Once I do that, you still insist that there is no issue? Parts of this read like apologia rather than an encyclopedia article: our article on the Wehrmacht doesn't say, "one Wehrmacht commander objected to war crimes and ordered his soldiers not to commit any". Again, I wasn't the one who tagged this section for POV issues and the issue needs to be resolved to stay a GA article. ( t · c) buidhe 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what is the ground on which you allege NPOV? Only thing you mentioned in the sentence is Polish nationality, which by itself upon no circumstances can be seen as ground to doubt a historian. We do not judge historians based on their ethnicity or nationality.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
All issues have been fixed, including a rewrite to the Ukrainian section using at least one of the sources linked above. The only remaining issue is to add better sources than the newspaper article for the cursed soldiers section, although since nobody pointed out any errors, and the newspaper is considered mainstream and reliable, I don't think it is a major issue. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the concerns cited above, I would also suggest that this article needs a cleanup to meet GA standards. In particular:
Please accept these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. They are, of course, only a personal opinion and I admit to having little grounding in the Polish literature on the subject. I would urge that a copy-edit is requested as a particular priority, however. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 18:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view"( WP:IMPARTIAL). This must include whether he has been described as a hero. This is really fundamental to Wikipedia. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 12:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."There is already a good first paragraph and the coverage of the post-war period seems reasonable to me, but I think it is important that the lead does indeed engage with the long and difficult relations sections. It also might be worth re-working the current second/third paragraphs to present a better picture of the AK's actual activities - my understanding is that the "weapons" and "membership" sections point towards the complexity of the AK's organisation which is not really addressed at this stage. Do you have any thoughts, Buidhe? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Brigade Piron, Could you clarify what you are asking for here: [43]. Are you asking for a reference, or do you think the language used is not neutral? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
As this GAR appears to still be live, I'd like to offer the following comments to help with improving the article and ensuring that it meets the GA criteria:
I don't see how this section can be considered NPOV in its approach. We have no section for List of Home Army members convicted of war crimes, for instance, which would be necessary to provide for balance if we're going to keep this section (we shouldn't). I think you could have a sentence on this in the "Relations with Jews" section, but I don't think it justifies a separate subsection because as far as I know, the strongest sources on Home Army–Jewish relations don't place a lot of weight on this specific award comparable to what it is given in this article. For example, I checked two reviews [44] [45] of Zimmerman's book, which are of comparable length to the section about Jews, but don't mention this issue. ( t · c) buidhe 06:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the following text:
Purchases were made by individual units and sometimes by individual soldiers. As Germany's prospects for victory diminished and the morale in German units dropped, the number of soldiers willing to sell their weapons correspondingly increased and thus made this source more important. citation needed All such purchases were highly risky, as the Gestapo was well aware of this black market in arms and tried to check it by setting up sting operations. For the most part, this trade was limited to personal weapons, but occasionally light and heavy machine guns could also be purchased. It was much easier to trade with Italian and Hungarian units stationed in Poland, which more willingly sold their arms to the Polish underground as long as they could conceal this trade from the Germans. citation needed
Frankly, it is just not very important (and I cannot find any source for it, even through it is likely correct). There is a referenced sentence that partisans bought some weapons from the Germans, and this excessive detail is pretty much trivial - it is obvious and doesn't really add anything to the article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Ping User:Brigade Piron. This is subjective, perhaps, but I tend to prefer keeping chronological history in one section. Now you've split it into three (origins, wartime, postwar), each separated by some non-history sections (currently: origins, membership, structure, wartime activities, weapons and equipment, relations with other factions, postwar). I don't see how this layout is more helpful to the reader compared to one that keeps all of the chronological histories in one section (with subsections for each period). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Brigade Piron. After completing my preliminary copyedit I always ask questions about the article to ensure that my edit reflects the intended meaning and is clear in doing so. Please reply to each point by indenting below each one like you would a conversation; items will be struck out once they have been answered. Please ping me with {{ U}}, {{ ping}}, or {{ re}} as I have a lot of items on my watchlist. My copyediting process can be found here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC) |
The Home Army sabotaged German transports bound for the Eastern Front in the Soviet Union, destroying German supplies and tying down substantial German forces.Are "destroying German supplies" and "tying down substantial German forces" part of sabotaging German transports, or are they different but equal ideas?
Estimates of the Home Army's 1944 strength range between 200,000 and 600,000, the most commonly cited number being 400,000. The latter number would [...]There are three numbers in the first sentence. Which one is "latter" referring to: 600,000 or 400,000? Alternatively, is it important for the reader to understand in the lede that 400,000 is the most common number?
[...] communism-friendly government to Poland.To confirm, the Soviets wanted a Polish government that was okay with communism?
[..] about 1943–44 [...]Weird sentence fragment here, but I think the intent was to say that the Peasants' Battalions merged with the Home Army sometime in 1943 or 1944?
Home Army ranks included a number of female operatives; the service was very dangerous.What's the connection between the number of women serving and service being dangerous? Something is being implied here, but I don't know what it is.
[...] with over 2,000 female soldiers taken captive, with the latter number reported in contemporary press causing a "European sensation".Already edited. Was it the capture of 2,000 female soldiers that caused a "European sensation", or was the capture reported in publications that caused a "European sensation" themselves?
The Home Army published a weekly Biuletyn Informacyjny (Information Bulletin), with a top circulation (in November 1943) of 50,000.Emphasis and links removed. 50,000 what? Issues? Copies?
Rowecki was willing to provide Jewish fighters with aid and resources when it contributed to "the greater war effort", but had (apparently) concluded that providing large quantities of supplies to the Jewish resistance would be futile.Is apparently necessary in parentheses? Maybe it's a source issue?
Emphasis added. Is latter referring to the Soviets?Not only had the Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September 1939, following the German invasion that began 1 September 1939, but even after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 the latter [...]
Asides in parentheses removed for readability. This is one incredibly long run-on sentence with no discernable verb. Is the main point of this sentence supposed to be "The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army directed most of its attacks against Poles and Jews"? There is a lot of information being packed into this sentence, and it might be better to either remove it or put it in a footnote as it starts deviating from the Home Army.The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a Ukrainian nationalist force and the military arm of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which some historians consider fascist, and which was fighting the Germans, Soviets and Poles—all of whom they saw as occupiers of the future ethnically-pure Ukrainian state—to direct most of its attacks against Poles and Jews.
On 20 July that year the Home Army command decided to establish partisan units in Volhynia. Nine formations were created, numbering about a thousand soldiers.A thousand soldiers each or in total?
Notably, in January 1944 the 27th Home Army Infantry Division was formed in Volhynia.This sentence feels orphaned and should be joined with either the sentence before it or the one after it. It seems like the following sentence talks about the division further?
On 7 May 1945 NIE ("NO") [...]What does "NO" mean in the parentheses?
Women were most numerous in the communication branch [...]Did most women work in communications or was the communications branch mostly made up of women?
Looking forward to your responses. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Quick question - what's the neutrality concern with the lede sentence "The Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators"? I'm not seeing that discussed anywhere. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
References
From the moment of its founding, fascists were integral to, and played a central role in, the organization. The OUN avoided designating itself as fascist in order to emphasize the "originality" of Ukrainian nationalism.7 In 1941 the organization split between a more radical wing, the OUN(b), named after its leader, Stepan Bandera, and a more conservative wing, the OUN(m), led by Andrii Mel'nyk. Both were totalitarian, anti-Semitic, and fascist.
Jews who had escaped the Holocaust, and a large Polish minority, passionately hated UPA because it engaged in thorough ethnic cleansing, killing all the Jews it could find, about 50,000 Poles in Volhynia and between 20,000 and 30,000 Poles in Galicia.