Talk:Home Army/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

The largest resistance movement

I have updated the article to reflect the discussion here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This and that historiography

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)

Agreed, the historiography shouldn't be in the lead - I moved it to a new note.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 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)

Interesting point. I tried to address the controversies in a little more detail in the lead, and I still think it is useful to note how AK was and is portrayed differently in various countries: there is a Polish-Soviet communist POV, emigree and modern Polish POV, Western POV, Lithuanian POV, Ukrainian POV, Jewish POV. That said, referencing those claims will be a pain; I am just not sure how to indicate in a neutral fashion that some - but not all - find AK controversial.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:02, 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)

I am not aware of any general modern Russian and Belarusian POV's regarding AK. I also think modern Ukrainian sources, moving away from emigree "OUN was perfect" POV, are much more toned down and neutral.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise of the Ukrainian sources. Yes, the mainstream ones have nothing to do with OUN and all of them consider AK highly critically, from what I have read. --Irpen 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

anti-Soviet Polish government

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)

Agreed, rephrased.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

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)

A few rather simple questions:

1. Which Polish government?
2. What region and time?
3. What regiments (Polish and Soviet). If regiments/or/if partisants? And finally how about Warsaw uprising (just an example to show, how generalization can go utterly wrong, was not ment as an insult).
4. Continuing about units - or rather - direct question were AK units fighting Soviet partisans or not?
5. Further Questions - what weapons, uniforms and helmet do we see in the

   

Regarding the second issue:

Just two citations on Piotrowski:

1. By mediator on this article: Denying author as a third party source: see this

   I see as a source a Tadeusz Piotrowski who is a Pole (from Wrocław in Lower Silesia!

2. From the peer review of his book: As stated above, the book nearly ignores the Soviet and Nazi participation in the Polish holocaust. After a very brief description of the economic, social, and human atrocities committed by the Soviets and Germans, (constituting only 25 pages out of a total of over 250) Piotrowski delves into the manner in which Poland’s largest minority populations attempted to exploit the upheaval of war.

I'll not go into further conclusions, the review says it all: sometimes the book does seem, as if AK did not fight against Germans, but more against minorities in borders of Second Polish Republic.-- Lokyz (talk) 20:23, 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.

1-There was only one Polish government, I don't understand this question ?

2-I don't understand the question ?

3-In relation to what ? Cooperation with Soviet units ? See Operation Vilnius Uprising and Lviv Uprising-both were coordinated with Soviet forces against German formations. But many more operations too place ?

4.Soviet partisants received orders on June 1943 to attack Polish resistance.

5. I don't know ? Home Army units used homemade equipment, pre-war supplies, British supplies from airdrops, equipment captured from Germans(in fights, transports intercepted, stolen from magazines, bought from corrupt soldiers) and equipment bought undercover from Hungarians, Italians who were stationed in Poland. The equipment on the picture could be from one of those sources.

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)

No one entered the details of these controversies. They were just mentioned. You removal is what constitutes IDONTLIKEIT, not the other way around. Sadly, the article is now compromised. Tagged as such. Please try to find consensus. --Irpen 04:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, list below what items do you think lead is missing, and we will discuss them point by point. Please note that fringe and undue issues do not belong in the lead, just as we should no go to Russian Enlightenment and add notes to that article's lead on how ransacking and looting of Poland contributed to creation of Russian cultural treasures - even through it happened and is a part of that time, it is not of major enough importance to be noted in the lead at all.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:55, 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)

And are those issues significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead?

A good test is to see what other encyclopedias or general descriptions of AK have to say about it. Britannica, as far as I can tell (wow, they have a really terrible search) has no article on AK. It is mentioned in "History - Poland in the 20th century - World War II" article with "From 1939 a Polish underground, one of the largest in occupied Europe, resisted the Nazis through a veritable secret state and a Home Army (AK) loyal to the Polish government-in-exile. The latter was a legal successor of the government that on September 17, 1939, had crossed into Romania and was interned there. [...] [AK cooperation with the Soviets] however, when attempted in areas that had been part of prewar eastern Poland, was followed by arrests and deportation or conscription into the Soviet-sponsored Polish Kosciuszko Division. [...] The AK planned to capture the capital and act on behalf of Mikolajczyk's government as host to the entering Red Army. It was assumed that the Soviets would not dare to disregard this demonstration of the Polish right to self-determination. In the absence of Soviet military assistance, the rising was doomed, yet, had the AK not risen, it would have been accused of inactivity by the communists. The insurgents fought alone for 63 days, because the Soviets not only halted their own offensive but also refused to allow Allied planes to help resupply the AK." In the article on "resistance" Britannica just mentions AK in passing reference to Warsaw Uprising and relation with the Soviets - "...in Poland, where the Soviet Union backed the communist resistance movement and allowed the Polish nationalist underground, the Home Army, to be destroyed by the Germans in the Warsaw Uprising of autumn 1944.". Honestly, I find Britannica POV rather too preoccupied with Soviet-Polish relations myself. The article on "The Allies' first decisive successes German-occupied Europe" mentions "the Home Army in Poland, comprised people of many different political persuasions, though they were invariably anti-Fascists.". At that point I gave up with Britannica, but do note I did not see anything about AK atrocities or collaboration. Not unexpected, other traditional encyclopedias fair poorly. Columbia has an article on Warsaw Uprising ([1]) which again concentrates on the failure of Soviet aid. Similar with Encarta. It is at this point I gave up with traditional English encyclopedias - feel free to try it out.

Polish encyclopedias, of course, fair better ([2], [3], [4]). The WIEM description is pretty extensive (it has some info that I will incorporate into this article in the future); not a single one of them mentions collaboration or attrocities.

I would be quite interested if any Lithuanian, Russian or Ukrainian encyclopedias have articles on AK and what do they mention. A German perspective would be interesting, too. As far as I can tell, Lithuanian wiki entry is not critical of AK; neither does the German wiki entry mention anything about AK collaborating with the Nazis.

Google Print (thank you, Google) is as always an interesting and useful source. Search for AK/Home Army and encyclopedia yielded some results. World War II: A Student Encyclopedia provides a small entry on the AK; again - no mention of the discussed issues. Ditto World War II: A Visual Encyclopedia ([5]).

While I invite other editors to present further sources, I think it is quite clear that definition of Armia Krajowa does not involve collaboration and atrocities. Such fringe issues belong in subsections/subarticles, not the lead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reprisals?

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)

Ummm, looking at the definition of a reprisal the second example fits it quite well. The first one is somewhat more iffy. Btw, what prisoners? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Equipment

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)

Stats would be very nice. I have a book with stats for the Warsaw district, but not with a general ones. That said, I think our 'weapons and equipment' section is pretty good as it is.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of AK

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)

Can you elaborate on the usefulness of that source for our collegue Molobo? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:47, 3 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)

The text is propaganda manipulation. Adolf Pilch's actions were condemned by Armia Krajowa command as mutiny. Jozef Swida rebeled against Armia Krajowa in January 1944 and refused to accept its orders or assist in its actions. Armia Krajowa leadership demanded that he will ally with Soviet partisants, which he refused as well. He killed four AK members and was subject to trial by AK which gave him a death sentence. The quote here makes no mention of this.

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_%C5%9Awida#Proces_i_wyrok

Alledged report by SS uses communist propaganda language which makes it curious:

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]

--ObywatelKwak (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting personal assessment. Of cource if you find an academic source, which concurs that those AK people there prosecuted by AK, we definitely will add this in article, to illustrate that AK killed not even civilians and military personnel of different countries but also their teammates. Just personal wonder - it took eight months to deal with so called "rebelled" detachment, actually conducting such "swift" actions, you even can lose more then a whole war, as invasion of Poland shows. And again if you have an academic source which says that - Leonid Smilovitsky's presented SS report is actually a communist propaganda, cite it. As we have a number of others German reports in regards of AK collaboration. M.K. (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is that collaboration of AK was not sanctioned by high command and occurred only within a few units (I doubt it was even applicable to more than a few percent of total membership). Considering that the Soviets (partisans and regular army units) commonly attacked AK, most of such collaboration was in self-defense, as AK commanders tried to secure their area and escape destruction that would result from fighting on two fronts. As ObywatelKwak noted, accusations of collaboration were also made falsely by the communist authorities bent on destroying AK image and replacing it with the heroic image of Armia Ludowa. See also [7]: According to Article 58, a Home Army soldier, who was ethnically Polish, born in pre-war Poland, and a life-long citizen of Poland could be sentenced as “traitor to the Soviet Motherland” in addition to being a “counter-revolutionary,” “Hitlerite collaborator,” and “fascist.” Arguably, the most important of them was the infamous Decree of August 31, 1944, against “the fascist-Hitlerite criminals and traitors of the Polish Nation.” The decree was promulgated by the Communist proxy regime and used mainly as a political and legal tool of repression against the independentists fighters and politicians, who were routinely branded as “Hitlerite collaborators,” “fascists,” and “reactionaries.”--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about joint AK-UPA actions

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)

Very interesting. AK also proposed joint anti-German and anti-Soviet actions to Lithuanians, but it never received any reply other than "we want all Polish units to leave disputed territories".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Legitimate" Polish government

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)

Sorry Irpen, but let's not use Soviet POV. The Soviet puppet government was not reckognised internationally during timeframe of AK's existance. And indeed we should be thankfull that under air bombardment and Nazi-Soviet alliance's joint invasion Polish leaders had foresight enough to relocate and continue their struggle for Polish freedom and protection from Nazi-Soviet genocide actions(AB Aktion and Katyn come to mind). Among them were great thinkers and politicians, thanks to whome, Polish resistance continued its existance and contacts with Allies, providing needed intelligence and sabotae operations against Nazi Germany as well as informing the world about reality of Auschwitz. But remember that is not discussion forum. --Molobo (talk) 21:10, 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)

I am almost certain that all sources, except Party ones of course, will refer to the London government as the legitimate one. What is the issue? Also, can you look over the "relation with Ukrainians" section for accuracy? Ostap 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ostap, this is beyond the point. The legitimacy of the London gov is a fascinating topic but it belongs (and is discussed) elsewhere. There is no need to inject this debate into this article. The body can be neutrally called the Polish Government in Exile in the articles outside of this debate.

I will look at the PL-UA relations in this context. I remember Subtelny elaborating on that. --Irpen 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is legitimate not neutral ? What other view is there ? Who does present it ? I would like to hear an answer on that, since I don't believe anybody besides the Soviets and obviously Nazi Germany didn't reckognise Polish government as legitimate. And even Soviets did until Katyn Massacre was revealed to the world. Surely I don't think neutrality is achieved as middle point between Soviet and rest of the world view ?--Molobo (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, we simply do not inject every possible term around here. The legitimacy issue is outside of this article's scope. It is discussed in multiple places. Pl gov-in-exile relays all the info needed to the reader in this context. --Irpen 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen you didn't answer. Why did you claim calling Polish government legitimate is not neutral ? I can't see any argument why we shouldn't call it legitimate. It is a fine word and notes why it was a problem for Soviets interested in occupying Poland.I am eager to hear your answer why legitimate is not a neutral statement and what is the reason behind that statement. Best regards.--Molobo (talk) 21:38, 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)

Irpen, I am sorry, but your comments show total lack of knowledge of Polish history. The Govt fled Poland because of advancing Soviets, allied with the Nazis, it is enough to grab a book and check it out. bunch of guys in London utterly irrelevant - this is outrageous, all governments of occupied Europe fled to London, are you suggesting that General Sikorski and Stanislaw Mikolajczak were irrelevant guys? The government in London was the legitimate one, it was a direct continuation of the pre-1939 government, with all political parties participating in its activities. Sorry, but such comments are not helping, perhaps you know a lot about Soviet Union, but little about Poland. Tymek (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tymek, my entry was meant to be metaphorical of course and not offensive. I will now do my best effort to be more considerate to your feelings. The real question here is not whether the London gov was legitimate per se. Neither the question is whether it was relevant. The question here is about injecting stuff into an article. There is a dedicated article on the topic where all this is discussed. This article correctly and neutrally called the body the Polish government in exile, exactly per the title of the dedicated article about this government.

Molobo first injected "legitimate" into the sentence. Than he injected "internationally reckognized" [8] (sic). What next? "Legitimate internationally reckognized led by Sikorsky"? There is no end to it. The status of this government is simply not a subject of this article.

The easiest way to derail any effort to improve the article is to fill it with "stuff" instead of the content. This is what Molobo has been doing for years. Just check only in the last week the History of Poland and the Soviet invasion of Poland were attacked by Molobo and now are a tagged mess. I am not keen to use this article to discuss any issues of this government. I just want it to remain on topic. I hope I answered your question and cleared any misunderstanding we might have had. --Irpen 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen please do tell who consideres Polish government not legitimate and what are your sources upon which you based your opinion and told us it is not neutral to call it so. I would appreciate your answer. You still haven't provided any answer and as of yet no argument for not calling it so.--Molobo (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, this is simply an off-topic issue. There are a lot of things about this government. Legitimacy, competence, nationalism (or lack of), etc. This is simply off-topic for this article. Whose orders was the AK taking? The orders of the Polish government in exile. Anything else is outside of this article's scope. My problem is not with the particular term but with the 2-year lasting campaign of injection of stuff by you into articles. You earned two articles a POV tag (according to several editors) just this week. I would like this one to not follow this route. --Irpen 03:49, 3 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)

I am glad we can move on from this issue. Hopefully we will get all of them resolved to the mutual compromise and will be able to untag the article. --Irpen 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue could have been more easily resolved by acknowledging all three Polish states or governments in this discussion. London, Moscow, and most importantly the heroic Polish Secret Underground State encompasssing most of Poland and its citizens. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not confuse state with government. London was to the underground state what Capitol is to United States. Or in other words, Polish government in exile and the Polish Underground State were two sides of the same coin - while the Moscow puppet government (PKWN) was a quite different coin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You lost me, without getting into numismatics, please elucidate on your opinion concerning the difference between what a government and a state is, because I'm not sure that any of these entities actually fit the bill. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr Dan, Polish Secret State and govt in exile were one entity, and frankly, I do not get that a contributor who claims to be a historian does not know this. Also, I am surprised that a heroic historian does not know that what Moscow prepared for Poland was not a government but a bunch of Soviet communists, brought to the country in Red Army trucks. Tymek (talk) 18:31, 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)

O.K., I understand the first part of the sentence, I just need a little help with the second part of it. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

referenced information

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)

Since it is removed again, this time by Piotrus, without a slightest attempt to reach compromise, I tagged the article (see above). Hopefully that while the damage is still repairable, we can fix it and move on rather than have it turned into mess, like to other articles recently edited by Molobo. --Irpen 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the damage inflicted by undue and fringe pov-pushing in the lead has been repaired, thank you for your concern. Please discuss the issue at the relevant section above. Molobo's contributions are quite helpful - alas, I agree that some other editors are attempting to disrupt this article. Alas, I suggest we discuss edits, not editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet operations against AK

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)

Yes, although this likely belongs to a subarticle, not here. I think our summary of AK-Soviet relations is relatively adequate.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:52, 3 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)

Certainly in the Soviet partisans in Poland subarticle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:19, 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)

The Armia Krajowa having at times cooperated with the Nazi forces against the Soviets

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)

The lead is extremely biased

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)

"Very good point. Only few specialist sources criticize AK, all general descriptions are quite positive."--89.78.40.231 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have shown above (#Lead), such criticism is absent in general description of AK. I have removed it from lead per WP:UNDUE; the general mention of controversies remains and they are discussed in more detail in the article itself. This should be a reasonable compromise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think as Piotrus and he has my support in this conflict, because I think that Piotrus is very good admin and he has experience in history, etc. So..Piotrus is my favourite admin, but maybe he's my favourite admin, because EN-Wiki have only two polish admins. Alden or talk with Alden 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, although I will point out that this discussion here has nothing to do with my admin powers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alden's remarks are very nice. In any case, I think the article lacks an explanation of the criterion or basis for becoming a member of this army. The Jan T. Gross article comes to mind as it states that Gross' mother was a member. Part of my interest stems from the probability that some people claimed they were members of the AK, when in reality they were not. How was this ascertained anyway? It also seems unlikely that the Polish Secret Underground State, in spite of being a highly developed state, would have wanted to keep detailed records of membership, considering the reality of the occupation. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr Dan has IMO good idea on this conflict. I think that ought to search in many source, because us POV is very other, because we were learnt history by different history teacher. In this sytuation ought to find in other sources. Alden or talk with Alden 09:04, 4 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)

I believe that there are cases when criticism is serious enough to be reflected in lead. Schutzstaffel is a good example, clearly stating "The SS was responsible for the vast majority of war crimes perpetrated under the Nazi regime, including the Holocaust". As I have explained above, in this case I agree with you - the fringe criticism has no place in the lead here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:01, 8 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)

I have discussed this at length, but my extensive reply linked above at the bottom of this thread has been ignored. To avoid further edit warring over this content, I have restored the version with the neutrality disputed tag. We should seek input from neutral editors/mediators; I will do so shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Piotrus has asked me to comment on this issue. WP:LEAD states that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources" [emphasis added]. The current text seems to be a good summary of the article - its brief statement that not everyone has a positive view of this organisation seems to reflect the weight criticisms are accorded in the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 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)

A point I made on WP:FT/N when this came up was that there are obvious differences between a largely partisan organisation and an official army such as the Red Army or the Wehrmacht; one being that the history of relations with the civilian population is more central to the history of the partisans than to the history of the other armies. So the comparisons are inapt. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments on this are here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:05, 11 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 am not sure what do you mean by the first and second comments, but it seems clear that majority of the editors - including the uninvolved commentators - prefer the current version without any undue claims in lead. For the record, Nick has clarified he prefers this version, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He means I am pointing out that comparison between the PHA and the Red Army/Wehrmacht leads on the issue of atrocities aren't logical, but am not commenting on the collaboration here; and that Moreschi believes that collaboration is undue, but isn't commenting on the atrocities.

(Incidentally, I hope that things aren't settled by 'majorities' round here.) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither they are by liberum veto. Since both the RfC comment and the noticeboard post noted both issues - collaboration and attrocities - I am pretty sure that the editors who commented are familiar with both fringe aspects of this case. PS. I am pretty certain we are not comparing AK to an official army in the lead, so I think this is not an issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:49, 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)

Piotrus, at leas one of the commenting editors (Relata Refero) agreed with several editors stating here that interaction with the local population is highly relevant. I restored this info and added another ref where this is discussed. Also, I removed weasel "some circles". I also hoped that the independent editors were brought here by RfC rather than through contacting individually by the choice of either side. You of course realize that leaving the selection of editors who would provide outside opinions to the individual tastes of the involved editors can skew the discussion. Finally, it would be best not to misuse the Fringe Theories board. That AK was involved in atrocities against the local population is not a fringe theory but an undisputed fact. This is a common content issue. Enough boards were misused in the past to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Would be nice to end this practice rather than expand it into a yet new venue. --Irpen 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Do note I have not reverted your other changes. Can you quote Relata on this? I am not getting an impression from his arguments that he supports such mention; further - not a single one of the (two?) editors who are demanding this inclusion in the lead has addressed my critique above. That a few specialist sources discuss the rare incidents of attrocities committed by AK does not mean that we should - unlike all the other general publication - mention those specific controversies in our summary. Further, comparing AK, which was responsible for - how many, really? a hundred over the three years? - of innocent civilian deaths with UIA, responsible for over a hundred thousands deaths in Volhynia alone, is nothing but wrong. PS. Building a straw man and criticizing the other editors as biased - because they support my position - will not help you much, I am afraid. Please stick on topic, and discuss edits, not editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not supporting or disagreeing with any mention at the time, as I did not know enough. I merely pointed out that the premise of the RfC statement was, in my opinion, flawed.

That being said, I have looked into the question of the notability of the PHA's "atrocities". My remarks have been moved to Piotrus' section below. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can do the same for collaboration if anyone is still interested. I note, in response to Moreschi, that just because it might be Stalinist propaganda is not enough reason to suppose it does not belong in the lead: it does not mean that it is non-notable, or was/is not widely studied, either to confirm or refute. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Try

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)

There were underground recruiting stations. And the claims usually went the other way around, as people tried to hide their AK past to avoid persecutions from the communist government.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:52, 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)

Piotrus is right, after the war, thousands of people actually hid their AK membership, fearing repressions of the communist government. In the course of the time, most of them died, so it is likely that AK's membership was even higher than the official estimates. Tymek (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here're sources discussing how communist propaganda spread false claim of Nazi collaboration and persecuted AK members: [11], [12].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AK and Soviet forces both during and after the war

AK didn't exist after the war. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we should remove the entire para on Wolność i Niezawisłość? I don't really see anything else that's too irrelevant, and even that seems somewhat relevant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 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)

I believe we are using the correct names throughout the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory language

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)

As a non-native English speaker, I did not think that Poles may be less preferable to Polish population, as I prever shorter versions. But if other editors agree with you we can certainly c/e the article - although such argument may even require a WP:MOS note.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:MOS#Identity. "Soviets" is just too ambiguous. While all Soviet Union contact was with Soviet citizens, I'm not sure that had any bearing on the subject of the article. You have done well for a non-native English speaker though--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My rationale for usage of shorter terms:

• they are neutral enough, as articles on Poles, Jews, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and so on demonstrate
• your proposed subtitles are for the most part incorrect. To be specific: the section you entitled Jewish resistance also deals with Jewish civilians; the section you entitled Lithuanian resistance and collaborators also deals with Lithuanian civilians and political elites - not to mention that the existence of any Lithuanian resistance is dubious; the section you entitled Red Army is mislabeled because not the Soviet partisans were not technically part of the Red Army; and finally, Ukrainian resistance and collaborators also deals with civilians and political elites.

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)

Claims of AK atrocities against the civilian population

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)

All that follows is, of course, tainted or untainted by my previous lack of knowledge of most of these issues. (Also, written before I read Piotrus' statement above.)

I find Tadeusz Piotrowski looks into both the question of collaboration and the question of civilian relations, from a viewpoint that cannot be described as anything but sympathetic (He is the historian who quotes the "honor of the AK is untainted" line). He does say, however, that this is something that "Jewish authors often state". He notes, as do many other sources, that the largest proportion of anti-Semitic acts committed by non-Germans were committed by the National Armed Front (I hope I have got the name right), but does not clear, as far as I can see, the AK either. Not that it matters; if it is something that is often stated, even if by "Jewish authors" (!!), that goes towards establishing its significance somewhat. One of these "Jewish authors", the historian Joshua Zimmerman, calls the hostility of the AK to Jewish partisans "a very painful phenomenon"; he adds "many Jewish sources and some Polish accounts" speak of hostile action against the forest Jews, though adds that this is "widely denied by many historians and writers in Poland." A story about Yaffa Eliach seems to be mentioned several times as being emblematic. According to Polonsky and Michlic, the years since the end of Communism have seen "a series of set-piece debates" on the AK's involvement in these affairs; a 1993 paper by John Lovell Armstrong on the subject is one of the most widely cited in the index of the Slav. E.E. Rev.

In all these reports I have tried to exclude those that include the NSZ. I note also -for context- that the PHA is widely reported as having viewed the Jewish community as simultaneously craven and beholden to Soviet Russia. ("The ghetto is no more than a base for Soviet Russia... the Russians were the one who prepared the revolt", according to a spokesman quoted in a book from the Holocaust Memorial.)

What of the Ukraine? There the literature in English is unsurprisingly more sparse. What is clear is that the memory of Volhynia is extraordinarily problematic. According to Nathaniel Copsey, it is the single most explosive issue in Ukrainian-Polish relations today and has implications for the expansion of the EU.

Note: I have written all this without really even looking at the article in its current state (except for a quick read-through some days ago) so as to be unaffected by any current biases either way.

I won't express a final judgement here. I'd just say that WP:LEAD, while a guideline, says that a "brief mention of notable controversies" should be included; prima facie these controversies look notable, but that is a matter that subject specialists might be able to correct me in. Also, I have argued in the past that the problematic associations of the Indian National Army and the post-war purge of collaborators by the French Resistance are notable; I have been successful in one case, and not in the other, so I admit to wishing to reserve judgement here. These are, of course, deeply contested issues of historical memory. In such cases I would hope that the contestation should be brought out in the open rather than buried, as that itself is the stuff of scholarly research. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, You mentioned Yaffa Eliach, may I presume that you quote her as example of dishonest twisting the facts and prime example of false accusing of AK? Szopen (talk) 06:00, 13 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)

Ri-ight. First, that's not the bottomline. The bottomline is that for leads, we're not expected to consider the truth but instead the amount of noise made at getting at the truth. Second, Piotrowski makes nothing like that clear, he says that collaboration was tactical and should not be generalised. I'm not sure what to say to the rest. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but Piotrowski makes it clear there was no collaboration between AK and Germans. There were extremely marginal rogue members who went against AK and achieved an unofficial cease-fire between them and German forces going against AK orders. Anyway do you have any comment about Jewish Partisans lead and Naliboki and Koniuch Massacre ? --Molobo (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at this time, since the article appears to be non-existent. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, the article is right here Jewish partisans, any comment on the lead and mentioning of Naliboki and Koniuchy massacres ?--Molobo (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you corrected that redlink, I was beginning to think you were colorblind. No, not at this time, since I spent an hour and half on reading this last issue, and because I'm a well-known tendentious editor on issues related to Jewish partisans, so I could not comment without incriminating myself and rendering all my careful words on this subject worthless. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I believe we see eye to eye here. The lead should mention controversies - specific IF they are notable. No specific controversies are notable in this case; as I have shown in my post above (which I am looking forward to hearing your comments about); it is even a concession going further then all of the sources discussed there to mention the fact that AK was controversial - because according to general sources, it wasn't, not really. In any case, I suggest we don't go too much off topic (again...); let's see if editors can present general references to prove the claim that AK's alleged attrocities are notable enough for a mention in the lead. If such sources are not presented, I think we can close the matter of lead and move on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us remember that AK was the biggest underground organization in occupied Europe. Due to number of its members and reality of these times, several incidents happened, and I am not going to say that 100% of AK's soldiers were angels. But atrocities? This is a gross exaggeration, which does not stand in comparison to wartime organizations from Lithuania and Ukraine, not mentioning Nazi Germany and Soviet units Tymek (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead of Soviet partisans is pretty bad - it does not mention, for example, that one of their activities was to weaken and destroy AK (see Soviet partisans in Poland). That said, even WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS aside, let's not go off topic again (if anybody wants to discuss the lead of Soviet partisans, Talk:Soviet partisans is that a'way). So back on topic - yes, tiny details have no place in lead (one could as well - perhaps this would be even a better analogy - go to article about NYPD and add to its lead info about how it kills innocent people... does it happen? Yes. Is it relevant? Hardly.).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So, massacres by AK are not notable? What next? --Irpen 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Piotrus, your blatant disrespect to the multiple users is unhelpful. Do you think you will help resolve the problems by pretending that objections of editors like above and below are unworthy? --Irpen 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, I have no intention of follow you into remarks about editors and violations of WP:NPA. I plan to make this article Featured, just like I did with many others. That's all I have to say to you on this issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus it is a very long way from being featured. Take a glance at Polish version, there is a huge list of joint Polish-Ukrainian actions listed for example. Likewise we have little about Jews becoming part of AK, especially those liberated from German camps.--Molobo (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

World's largest?!

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)

The graph based on all referenced numbers in the article and on talk.

Please see #The largest resistance movement as well as the note in the article. The claim of largest for AK is well referenced. Can you present refs for the 'largest' and numbers for the Soviet partisans? That article, unfortunately, is very poorly referenced; nobody added refs for the numbers I requested nor answered on talk. Do note that AK had about half a million combat personnel in mid-1944. PS. I leafed through this great book. p.162 and around give numbers for late 1941 as 20,000-30,000. p.205 gives the estimate for spring 1942 as ~70,000. At the same time ZWZ, transforming into AK, had an estimated 100,000 members. This book has an estimate of Soviet partisans as 150,000 in summer 1942 and 250,000 in summer 1943. This puts the roughly equal to AK. p.262 has an estimate of December 1943 at 250,000. Most estimates for AK around that time are above 300,000 and approaching or beyond 400,000. Consider now that around that time, the Soviet counteroffensive was pushing Germans from the Soviet Union, thus the numbers of partisans would diminish - as more Soviet territories were liberated, the partisans were obviously being incorporated into the ranks of the Red Army. At the same time AK was gearing up for the nationwide uprising and thus actively increasing its strength. On p.257 we have an estimate of partisans in Belorussia around Bagration at ~150,000. I couldn't find in that book ref for Ukraine, but from what I read the Soviet partisans in Belarus had larger numbers; our article on Soviet partisans gives the number for 150,000 (of course unreferenced and probably somewhat overestimated). P. 263 gives the numbers of Soviet partisans in Poland and Czechoslovakia at ~25,000; half of them in Poland. Perhaps a similar number operated in the Baltic states. That would give us ~350,000 Soviet partisans around Bagarion - below the common AK estimates of 400,000 (common range is 300,000-500,000, btw). All of that puts Soviet partisans perhaps close to AK around late 1942/1943 - but not higher, and as I've noted above we have plenty of sources that assign the primacy of numbers to AK, which probably reflects both the fact that in summer 1944 when AK approached its zenith and launched Operation Tempest, majority Soviet partisans were no more - as the Soviet lands were almost completely liberated, and the Red Army moved into foreign territories (Polish, Balkans, etc.) - and that ZWZ-AK had certainly higher numbers until mid/late 1942. Thus at best, if we find refs for it, we could say that Soviet partisans approached numbers of AK (which did not represent allof Polish resistance) around late 1942/1943, but ZWZ-AK had higher numbers both earlier and afterwards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is no good "leafing through" books! You have to read them, including where they get their numbers from. In this case the figures you quote come from Armstrong's 1964 book "Soviet Partisans in World War II" and US Department of Army 1951 pamphlet 20-240 based on the German Der Partisanenkrieg. I agree that the Soviet partisans article is not great, but here is no reason to take liberties with it! Think about it, on the one hand we have Poland, deep behind German lines, no real outside support, terrain not really suitable for large scale partisan activity (you say so in the article). On the other hand there is the occupied territory of Soviet Union, with the Belovezhskaya Pushcha alone being many times larger then the Polish section. The Pripyat swamps (punitive operation) was to be the first of such operations in that area alone; an area of 98,419.5 square kilometres, nearly a third of the current area of Poland in total (312,679 km²). This is besides entire Red Army units becoming de facto partisans during 1941. You are listing 20 divisions and a cavalry brigade as part of the Army, but these were not real divisions since I doubt the Germans would have missed 285,000 military firearms in the hands of the civilian population! On the other hand the Soviet Partisans had a constant supply of firearms, including artillery, and operated their own air strips as part of combat detachments, companies, battalions, regiments and brigades as combat formations quite apart form the clandestine intelligence gathering organisation. I have no dispute in the Polish underground having some combat elements, and conducting some combat operations, however, by and large those formations which did not cooperate with the Soviet command, received and could obtain very little support from the UK, and in the main were clandestine intelligence gathering and recruiting organisations. In that sense almost every individual in any occupied country was a partisan! I'd say if you call something an "Army", you had better count only combat elements.

Consider your own statements:

AK was able to overcome these difficulties to some extent and put tens of thousands of armed soldiers into the field.

however

From the arms caches hidden in 1939, the AK obtained: 614 heavy machine guns, 1,193 light machine guns, 33,052 rifles, 6,732 pistols, 28 antitank light field guns, 25 antitank rifles and 43,154 hand grenades.[26] However, because of inadequate preservation which had to be improvised in the chaos of the September campaign, most of these guns were in poor condition. Of those that were hidden in the ground and dug up in 1944 during preparation for Operation Tempest, only 30% were usable.

That's 12,300 armed personnel, a far cry from 400,000. i.e. an equivalent of one infantry division (reduced) dispersed over the whole of Poland. Even if they doubled this from captured German weapons, it would still not make it "World's largest".--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And what this has to do with anything? AK had more equipment than that; this is discussed in relevant section and citing only a tiny part of it is hardly an argument for anything. In any case we are discussing size, not armaments (I'd not be surprised if Soviet partisans were better equipped, but this would have to be cited properly before it could be used in the mainspace articles). Back to size; I strongly suggest you start paying attention to our policies and cite some references to back up your claims. I certainly have no intention to discuss this further until you do; my claims are very well referenced in the article and above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me this has to do with the claim of AK being "World's largest" partisan organisation! Even IF they had 32,000 armed soldiers by 1944, that is still not 400,000. In fact I did not cite a tiny part, but the major part. That the AK had 32,000 armed troops in 1944 was hardly useful when there millions of Red Army troops advancing into Poland during the summer. But this is not the issue. You can not claim, despite the sources cited, that it was the World's biggest without offering comparative analysis. If you do the research on the Soviet Partisan movement, you will find statistics that will put your claims in a different context.

PS. Just look at the claims made in the Yugoslav article that "In 1945 the Partisans, numbering over 800,000..." forgetting to say that there were hardly any Wehrmacht troops left in the country, and essentially Tito mobilised the former Yugoslav Army!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm THere is no claim of "largest partisan organisation" in the text of the article.. I read it few times and there is nothing like that. There is claim of "largest resistance underground". BTW, If you will say that puszcza bialowieska was "occupied territory of soviet union", then it really doesn't add much to the discussion (it was POlish territory occupied by first Soviets and then Nazis) Szopen (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Armia Krajowa, with over 400,000 members in 1944, was not only the largest Polish underground resistance movement but the world's largest." This is referenced to "Marek Ney-Krwawicz, The Polish Underground State and The Home Army (1939-45). Translated from Polish by Antoni Bohdanowicz. Article on the pages of the London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association.", hardly a neutral source. However, to back up the claim, there has to be some comparison made. I don't see any. Moreover the astronomic figures given in the article are based 5 out of 6 on Polish sources! I have contacted Prof. Cienciala regarding her startling claims--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I was largely trying to illustrate the location and size of favourable terrain for partisan operations when I mentioned Belovezhskaya Pushcha, and most of it is in Soviet Union on the maps of 1941.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So, no claim about "the largest partisan organisation" (which AK probably wasn't), but the claim about "largest resistance underground movement", which is something different and which AK probably was. This is important distinction. Szopen (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it was "probably" "largest resistance underground movement"? Yet again, it could not compare with Soviet organisation which was integrated with the Red Army combat intelligence and the GRU's predecessor, the Reconnaissance Directorate of the General Staff of the USSR (former 5th Directorate), which Poles could not compete with--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Szopen, we are talking not about the Polish Underground State (which was of course many level more complex and larger than anything Soviet partisans had) but AK, which was a partisan/resistance organization, indeed. Here are some quotes:

• Norman Davies: "Armia Krajowa (Home Army), the AK, which could fairly claim to be the largest of European resistance" [13]
• Gregor Dallas: "Home Army (Armia Krajowa or AK) in late 1943 numbered around 400000, making it the largest resistance organization in Europe" [14]
• Mark Wyman: "Armia Krajowa was considered the largest underground resistance unit in wartime Europe" [15]
• Yitzhak Zuckerman: "By 1944, the AK numbered nearly 400000 members, making it the largest resistance force in Nazi-occupied Europe" [16]
• Spencer Tucker et al.: "In Poland, meanwhile, the Polish Resistance established the Armia Krajowa (AK, Home Army), which became the largest underground movement in Europe with 400,000 fighters" [17]

That's just a selection, there are many, many other books there with this claim. So there are any refs to the contrary, I suggest leaving the original research of "32,000 fighters in 1944" where it belongs - off Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

It would also be nice to incorporate into the article that the AK was not only the largest, but the most important and significant underground resistance unit in the world. Naturally, including proper references are paramount. Undoubtably there are many. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dan, I am happy to see you engaging in very productive and important discussion, your points are correct and worth attention, and I hope we and Piotrus will expand on them. As you pointed out the AK was very special due to Underground State and its extreme significance in central area of struggle in WW2

--Molobo (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And thank you, Molobo, for your acknowledgement of my being correct. Whereas there can be no doubt that the AK contributed significantly to the defeat of the Axis, especially in the April offensive of 1945, I feel with a little more effort we can establish that the surrender on the Missouri was also an event that was could not have been accomplished without the aid of the A.K. If you come across some articles in a weekly or other sources that are in agreement with my thoughts on this, please let me know. Otherwise it would be original research. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Following my contact with Professor Anna M. Cienciala of Kansas University she advised (in part) that "I should have said: the largest underground movement in Europe except for European (western) USSR. I am working on revising this very lecture and will make that correction. (Anna M. Cienciala)" (received Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:41 AM)

All the other source making this claim are unreferenced and do not offer comparative data. In fact they sound oddly same.

Unlike the Polish Secret Underground State, the Soviet Union was not an underground state and could, and did support a very large clandestine organisation in the occupied territories that included man troops escaping the German encirclements, and was recruiting on a vast scale by late 1942 due to the underground Communist Party cells. The article makes no mention of this, and neither do your sources.

I will contact the publishers and authors where possible for comment, but I would suggest that they will all retract their statements as Professor Cienciala did.

If you persist to make this claim, I will ask you to provide the comparative data to Soviet organisation in the article, or remove the claim--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this statement

Poland's resistance movement became the largest, most autonomous of its kind in Europe.

by Landa (D. A. Lande, Resistance! Occupied Europe and Its Defiance of Hitler, Zenith Press, 2000 ISBN 978-0760307458) although it does not come from a "university" publisher, is a focused and comparative study of resistance movements in Europe. I'd replace claim of "largest in the World" with this, adding Professor Cienciala qualifier of "except for European (western) USSR". Of course wat Landa means by "autonomous" is that the Soviet partisans were controlled and directed from Stavka while AK pursued its own political and military goals.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with replacing world with Europe - majority of the refs cited note that; I have made appopriate edits and replaced the world claim with Europe claim. The current version of the article states that. Per WP:V, if you would like to prove that Soviet forces were bigger, it is you who has to present sources for that - sources cited so far do not support this claim. Perhaps professor Cienciala can give you some refs for that, but until that - we should stick with the sources we have.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But you do have a problem with Professor Cienciala's "the largest underground movement in Europe except for European (western) USSR"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is not referenced (an email is not a reference, see WP:V). And with all due respect for Professor Cienciala's, she has already made a mistake claiming that the largest resistance in Europe were the Yugoslavian partisans with 800,000 people (in fact that number refers to the Yugoslavian People's Army in 1945). If the Soviet partisans were the largest, you should not have any trouble finding plenty reliable and verifiable refs for that. So... where are they? PS. If you want a third opinion, you can ask about the @ at WP:RSN, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked up every one of your references for the size of AK, and none of them are referenced either. They just make a statement. What data are their statements based on? My guess is that it was the data produced by the AK itself. I had never seen any studies comparing AK to Soviet partisans because they were entirely different entities. While AK had, according to your claims, 32,000 armed personnel by 1944, Soviet partisans in Belorussia alone had 143,000 personnel in combat units (123,000 armed) and 250,000 associated personnel (i.e. informers, recruiters, messengers, etc.)

These were divided into 150 "brigades" (usually about rifle regiment size) and 49 detachments (varied from battalion to company in size), and several hundred "otryad"s (detachments of squad to platoon in size). These operated over a territory (in Belorussian 1941 borders) of 108,000 km² of which 38,000 km² were under permanent partisan control. From February to June 1944 prior to operation Bagration it is estimated that 380,000 German troops were being used to counter partisan operations in Belorussia. In all, the partisans were responsible for destruction of 4,491 tanks and armoured cars alone, the former representing about 20% of the total.

Now you may not be aware of it, but the largest resistance movement membership in the World is also claimed by the Thais, and they were not even a belligerent nation. So one has to ask the question, is membership an appropriate statement of value of an organisation, or is it the actual organisational performance that counts. How do you define a service member in what is after all an Armia? I would say that like in any armed force, being armed is of seemingly paramount importance, and your own sources state that only 32,000 members of the AK were armed. It may be that another 370,000 were able and willing to fight, but their ability was severely curtailed (shades of Dad's Army), which was not the case with the Soviet partisans. I am looking up a book on the Belorussian partisans now, and they alone during the war (to summer 1944) received from, or had put through training in Soviet Union 30,000 personnel alone, and were able to ensure that 30% of the units were in radio contact with their Army, Front and Stavka staffs. I'm not sure you will appreciate this, but it was extremely difficult to keep a transmitter going in a partisan unit, so 60 of them is a lot. What this meant was a greater effectiveness. How many radios did AK have? What forces did they cooperate with?

Making these "largest in the World" statements is just completely lacking in analysis and misrepresenting reality with lots of 0s. I for one, am not impressed.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, not only do you fail to cite a single ref to back up your claims, but you are putting your claims into my mouth ("AK had, according to your claims, 32,000 armed personnel by 1944" - this is YOUR OR, nothing more). I have no intention of continuing this discussion until you present refs to back up your claim. This is not a soapbox.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I believe that current discussion will draw some additional light on certain issues. M.K. (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"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 resistanceXx236 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Relations with the civilians

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)

Alden Jones

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)

I have to agree with you mrg3105. I especially concern about misleading edit summaries during those reverts. M.K. (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, I would be grateful if you showed some good faith. Comments like well, of course you would...you are Polish!!! are not helping and in the future you should refrain from them, since you, as a person involved in Soviet-related articles, are not unbiased yourself. Tymek (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's very bad faith. Not to mention that inserting npov tag without addressing what's not neutral, along inserting OR unreferenced claims about the Soviet partisans and errors in heading (ex. about some non-existing Lithuanian resistance) are hardly helpful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Tymek and Piotr, you should know that everyone has bias ;o)

The article is about a Polish resistance movement SO it is highly probable that a Polish person would be very supportive of Polish bias...at a guess.

Now, about my insertions - YOU Piotr have written that the AK was the largest resistance movement in the World. ANYTIME, anywhere, anyone makes quantitative or qualitative claims, they need to substantiate them through comparative data analysis. It is absolutely pointless saying something is best and brightest without context because it shows abject subjectivity otherwise known as POV. For example, I can say that "our Sun is the best and brightest star in the World", and I would be right because without our Sun the World would be dark and dead. However if I change the sentence to "our Sun is the best and brightest star in the Universe", would I be right about that? I'll let you provide the answer.

Meanwhile, I will leave that link to Soviet partisans if only because of your insistence that they attacked AK more often then the Wehrmacht.

I find your choice of identifying anyone non-Polish objectionable. However if you chose to use that language, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Even if you choose to use "Poles" in reference to the AK personnel, it is still not the right language to use, and it is certainly so in reference to Jews who were, in case I need to remind you, mostly Polish citizens, so probably warrant Polish Jews. If you insist on continuing to use this form of identifying ethnicities, I will be forced to request an RfC.

If you would like to question the numbers of Soviet partisans that served in the western European part of Soviet Union territory under occupation, then I would suggest that you address those questions in that particular article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We all have our biases. I have always readily admitted mine. Unfortunately, I see you have chosen not to do so with yours - this is of course an acceptable choice by our standards; but please - let's discuss the articles, not the editors, as in the end, everybody is biased one way or another (which is perfectly acceptable per WP:NPOV)).

You are certainly correct that a more precise statement than "largest in the world" was needed. I support the current "largest in Europe"; I think it is clear that the period is WWII but we can clarify that if it is not.

Jews, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and such are quite acceptable per the articles on those; feel free to request more input on that, but particularly when we are dealing with civilians, and resistance, and collaborators, and others - limiting the section title to just one of those is misleading.

Indeed, this article is not the place to discuss numbers of Soviet partisans. I have asked the relevant question on Talk:Soviet partisans weeks ago, none have replied. If it can be shown, per WP:V, that Soviet partisans were more numerous and larger than AK, I will certainly support and defend such a qualification in our article. I have done so in the past with the claim about the Yugoslav partisans (until it was proven false).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For your benefit Europe in Wikipedia is defined as

Europe is one of the seven traditional continents of Earth. The westernmost peninsula of Eurasia, it is bounded to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea, to the southeast by the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. To the east, Europe is generally divided from Asia by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, and by the Caspian Sea

This seems to imply that a goodly large chunk of it was in Soviet Union during the Second World War, which leads me to...restating that I do not accept this definition of AK being the "largest in Europe" on previously stated grounds

Well, that is your skill as an editor to use the appropriate term to describe each group the AK dealt with. As for Jews, I always supposed in my nativity that they were only Jews to Nazis, and to the patriotic Polish resistance they were fellow persecuted Polish citizens, right?

So what, if no other editor responds you just ignore the issue and hope it goes away? YOU are writing THIS article, so YOU are responsible for qualifying your statements. As it happens I missed that question in Talk:Soviet partisans, however it is irrelevant since you brought up the issue indirectly here in this article by suggesting AK was the largest. As of now you are basing your presentation of this subject to its potential audience on a lack of response in another article!!!

I find it fascinating that the article was protected by a Polish administrator AND my edits were surreptitiously changed by someone to read just like you want them to read. You may be aware that there are more then a few admins in Wiki community ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, thank you for claryfying what Europe is and thank you for your thoughts on Polish Jews, you might want to move them elsewhere, as they are not relevant to the topic. As for your pro-Soviet POV - please present sources that Soviet underground was the biggest in Europe, and if those sources are reliable, then IMO you can change the article. Tymek (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, if you will continue to discuss editors and will not present a single reference to back up your claims (so far only based on your interpretation of other wikipedia articles), this conversation will not move forward.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think referring to the AK as the most important, largest, and significant resistance entity in the World, is better than simply using the term Europe. It gives it a more appropriate stature and perspective. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr Dan, this is so nice, frankly, I did not expect you to write a post like this one. But let us not exaggerate, AK was nothing compared to Anti-Nazi Lithuanian Movement, whose name and activities have yet to be established. Tymek (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what are you waiting for? Get to work on it and I'll see what I can do to help. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

General problems of sizing irregular forces, and even comparing conventional forces

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)

Of course we operate only on rough estimates. Nonetheless the cited estimated of the Soviet partisans are slightly lower than those of Armia Krajowa, and that's a fact - at least as so far as sources used currently state. As I indicated above (or below...) I would have no problem mentioning that Soviet partisans numbers were similar and that they were the second largest resistance, as this is fully supported by our sources so far. There is however no basis for claiming that Soviet partisans were numerically superior to Polish ones. Once a source is presented with such an assertion, of course, I will gladly reevaluate my position.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Chinese Communist resistance (and yes, also a side in a civil war), was larger than either. The Eighth Route Army, or the force that went on the Long March, was estimated as 600,000 in 1945. The New Fourth Army, which was the force that didn't go on the march, has to be added to the Eighth.

In other words, the AK and Soviets may have been the largest in Europe, but at least one Asian resistance was larger than either. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Wouldn't the Post-war section logically belong at the end of the article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

History and operations go first, it seems only logical to me to keep the current structure.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, of course you are right. However this article is about the history of AK operations, and not the history of what happened after the operations ended, and therefore that post operational history would be expected at the end of the article as a sort of epilogue--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The postwar fate of the members is quite relevant. See similar treatment: SS#Postwar_activity.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, both articles are right, so I am afraid you have just wasted a good proverb.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet partisans largest?

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)

I will, at Piotr's request, attempt to uncover some solid information on this subject. If I do I will post the details here. I suppose I should make it clear that I have only just become aware of this dispute. I am quite neutral. It is not in any way my intention to take sides, or to fight a new partisan war! I am a historian and the only interest I have is in establishing an accurate picture of the past, so far as I am able. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please indicate that time frame you cover as historian. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And while we are at it, could you present your historical or at least academic qualifications to us, M.K.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mhm, why don't all sides send me their notary-certified credentials so I can verify who has the higher hand? Srsly, regardless of one's qualifications, just find reliable sources and present them for addition to the article - he who can provide them wins - it's the only reasonable way of establishing facts on Wikipedia, not edit warring and not quarreling over credentials - we've been through this to no avail. Миша13 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Misza13, fellow wikipedian himself indicated that he/she is historian, I just ask about his/her working time field, rather then "sides" or "credentials". In any case no offense meant....M.K. (talk) 07:30, 15 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:

"I certainly think there is ample evidence to prove that the Polish Home Army was stronger than the Yugoslav partisans in the period leading up to the Warsaw Rising. So, by that reckoning, it was also the strongest independent resistance in Europe at that particular time. Prior to this, though, the evidence suggests that, in absolute numerical terms, the Soviet Partisan forces were even greater in strength. However, by the time the Soviets entered eastern Poland almost all of these units-those that were not disbanded-had been absorbed into the Red Army. So, you do have a good case, Piotrus. Just be careful of the time frame!" Clio the Muse (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for that detailed analysis. I have however one comment: why "in comparative terms, though, it has to take second place to the Russians"? As you've noted in the sources presented, at any one time the "snapshots" did not exceed 350,000. AK's "snapshots" did so (with the 400,000 estimate being most common, and some Polish historians arguing for 450,000-500,000). Thus, of course, the AK's "turnover" would be accordingly higher. Or am I missing something? In any case, your suggestions as to the best wording of the phrase about "AK was the largest resistance in WWII" would be much appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That was quality research. I might suggest though that much of the data actually came from Belorussian area, and did not include smaller, but significant operations in Russia itself, in Ukraine and Moldova, Crimea and the Baltic areas.

You are quire correct that from the completion of liberation of the Soviet territory almost the entire partisan movement was either disbanded or absorbed into the Red Army, with minor units moving into Slovakia and southeastern Poland

The point about effectiveness I felt was particularly cogent. Much of the growth rate in the Soviet partisan movement was attributed to high casualty rates, particularly during 1942/3 due to inexperience and poor leadership, as well as location close to the combat areas --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:04, 16 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)

Thank you for that detailed analysis. I have however one comment: why "in comparative terms, though, it has to take second place to the Russians"? As you've noted in the sources presented, at any one time the "snapshots" did not exceed 350,000. AK's "snapshots" did so (with the 400,000 estimate being most common, and some Polish historians arguing for 450,000-500,000). Thus, of course, the AK's "turnover" would be accordingly higher. Or am I missing something? In any case, your suggestions as to the best wording of the phrase about "AK was the largest resistance in WWII" would be much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Piotr. What I really mean is that when you set one against the other; that the figure for the Russian force at upwards of 500,000 by the beginning of 1944 is, on the face of it, greater than that of the Polish Home Army. Also, I suppose it should also be made clear that this, as I understand it, is the number of fighters, independent of the forms of civilian support and back-up upon which a resistance army inevitably depends. I haven't studied the Polish figures in any detail, so I can offer no comment here. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am confused. It is my understanding that the Soviet figure of 500,000-550,000 refers to the sum total of alive and dead partisans at the end of the war. I.e. total number of one's alive at the end of the war and casualties. Now, we do not have a comparable number for the Polish partisans (I couldn't find one). What we have for the both are the snapshot numbers - sum total of alive partisans at the given time and those numbers for the Soviet partisans are either smaller or as high as (but not higher) than those of the Polish partisans. Thus I cannot see how can we use the above data to argue that the Soviet partisans were more numerous than the Polish ones? PS. Perhaps this graph will help to clarify my point - it contains all the snapshot estimates I had (not counting the high Polish historiography estimates of ~500,000), plus some extrapolation (lines connecting the dots); there is no point that the red line is above the blue one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Piotr; I'm not surprised by your confusion. It's probably a reflection of two things: the speed with which I had to carry out this research, and the way in which the information is presented in the sources themselves. I was looking from straightforward figures which could be presented in the same fashion as shown in your graph, showing figures from 1941 onwards, with yearly or, better still, half-yearly increases. But I just could not get this. I am, however, confident that there were some 360,000 fighters in the Belorussia area alone by the close of 1943, with possibly at least another 200,000 in the Ukraine. Grenkevich gives figures for the dramatic rate of increase in Belorussia; from 65,000 in February, 100,000 in June, 245,000 in October and 360,000 in December (p. 230). Unfortunately, I could not get any detailed information for the Baltic area, for what was left of occupied Russia, and for the Crimea; so the overall figure of about 500,000 probably errs on the side of caution. If one considers the actual turnover of fighters or, indeed, the civilian and non-combatant support beyond that, then the overall figure might be even higher. I cannot be precise because the data will simply not allow me to be precise. This whole topic is worthy of a doctoral survey on its own. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know how often one is shocked to find out that a topic one cosiders basic is heavily underresearched and missing basic data. I am very suprised to find it is so difficult to find numbers for Soviet partisans. Do note that I have managed to find some and as cited in my post and shown on the graph, they indicate that AK was slightly more numerous. It is possible that better research would show that Soviets were more numerous, and you are right we could interprest some of the sources you cite that way. That said, we should remember WP:OR and WP:V. ALL of our sources assign primacy to AK. We can speculate about their correctness, but until we can cite a source that contradicts it, we cannot really insert OR speculations - how would that sound: "all of the sources we have found claim that AK was the largest, but our own research (extrapolations of some numbers and additions) indicate that Soviet partisans might have been larger"... As I said, I would support the Soviet largest claim - IF a reliable, verifiable source can be found that states it clearly (or gives a clear number for a given date that is larger then the Polish one). PS. It would really hope if you could clearly say whether we have or we do not have sources that support the statement that AK was second largest after the Soviets; currently both sides disagree on interpretation of your post. I would ask that if you support such a statement, please provide a reference - author, source, page number and quotation that we could add that would prevent further edit warring on the subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be best, Piotr, If I take this discussion to the AK talk page, and then append a concluding statement by me. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:11, 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)

Thank you Anastasia. I can only speak for myself, but as someone who has researched the field, I simply take issue with comparative claims. This article will be looked at by many people interested in the history of the Second World War and its resistance movements, and a myth will be created that Poland had the largest, with all the presumptions that emanate from that. In actual fact the membership was large, but active resistance was limited to those who were armed, the 32,000. This is not made clear in the article. The sources the "largest" claim is based on are not referenced to secondary of primary sources themselves, but only repeat each other. The use of "largest" is a comparative claim in itself, the requirement of quantitative context is something that seems to escape Piotrus.

I can not at this time devote time to the Soviet partisans article, though in future I will. However, I suspect that all Soviet sources will be argued to be biased or doctored, which is why I suggested that Piotrus makes note of the sources you used. Ultimately only two authorities on the Soviet partisans existed, Soviet and German, and neither can be said to be completely lacking in bias. As Howard points out, no one will ever know the true extent of recruitment, and even in the AK, the rounding to the nearest 100,000 suggests something of the uncertainly despite greater accuracy expected of an underground state, and army.

I have no problem with the article using the 400,000 figure, or even that it makes no mention of Soviet partisans at all, but as your findings show, comparative data suggests that overall Soviet membership when active and passive (support) personnel are considered would certainly have exceeded the AK membership even in Belorussia alone based on the Polish ratio of 1:12 although in the Soviet membership it was likely to be only 1:3-4 or less. So no statement of "largest" can be made.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The largest myth I see here is your attempt to portray the Polish resistance as 32,000 strong. Presumably the figure of 35,000-100,000 casualties of AK include those who died assaulting Germans with clubs and stones, yes? Although I do think that this makes the 150,000 Axis casualties quite interesting, apparently the resistance fighters were several times as effective as the Germans. Would you like to add such a comparison to the article? Don't worry, I don't intend to add such simplified and ORish claims here. Fortunately until you publish this thesis of yours in an academic journal and manage to convince most scholars of your reasoning behind the 'Polish resistance was in fact 32,000 strong', this article - and various printed books and articles - will likely stick to the 400,000 estimate (ps. do you have a ref that would show that all, or at least most, of those 500,000 Soviet partisans were armed? Or is this just another one of your assumptions?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I would also like to point out that there are lower estimates of the Soviet partisans. For example, you give a source of 300,000 in Belarus before Bagarion - but here is a source for only half that number, 150,000.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Membership stats

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)

Google Print is a great tool, but snippets are not that useful. The higher range is discussed near the end of the book, in the last chapter (page given). It is there that Salmonowicz notes that 600,000 estimated is likely too high, and notes that the reasonable high estimate is 450,000-500,000, and that most sources agree on 400,000. Feel free to get the 1999 book, read it and tell us what you found.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If the author mentions the higher figures only to deprecate them, they don't belong here. But the actual wording is called for. As it stands, it serves to bracket the estimates and make readers feel comfortable with 400,000. Does he cite sources for 450k to 600k, or just mention them in passing? Please find and translate the section. Novickas (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AK was formed from ZWS - what was ZWS?Xx236 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

smaller ... due to constantly ongoing integration of other resistance organizations into AK - I beg your pardon?Xx236 (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not clear. I will rewrite the sentence once the protection end - I don't want to do any larger edits with protection status.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

'The History of Poland Since 1863 older than 25 years as a source? Xx236 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your comment? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 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)

And what book is it? Leslie presents some useful facts, if you can prove them unreliable or verify them with a more reliable source, please don't hesitate to do so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Armia Ludowa

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)

Ummm. So? This article is about AK, not AL. Please make your points more clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 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)

Opposition

Military Organization Lizard Union Xx236 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I created an article on them. Not that they are very relevant to the AK; they got merged into NSZ (September 1942) soon after ZWZ transformed into AK (February 1942).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean the part of NSZ with Brygada Swiętokrzyska.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith comments about editors due to their nationality

(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)

Your assumption that everyone who criticise your articles do so in "bad faith" is yours alone.

It is plain to see that all Polish editors involved have a highly emotional attachment to this article, and that includes yourself. Ordinarily I would not raise the issue of nationality, but in this case, and a previous with similar displays by Romanian editors, it had been valid, in my humble opinion, because neither you, nor anyone else had attempted to satisfactorily address the issues I raised, and in fact tried to surreptitiously evade the issues. The fact that the pp-protect was installed by an "uninvolved", but also Polish administrator, who may be uninvolved in the discussion, but may be very involved emotionally, only served to alert me more to the undercurrents of this review.

As is plainly seen from my user page, I was born in Ukraine, but I am Australian, and studied Russian, among other languages, here in Australia. I just don't like to advertise my lack of proficiency in the other languages once I advertise my proficiency in three or four of them, so I don't advertise any.

When I obtained a retraction from prof Anna M. Cienciala (note her revised 2008 notes) you dismissed her as being in error (but have not updated her as a reference, or updated her material as revised) although she is the only non-Polish source that claims a membership of over 200,000. Moreover, you disassociated the size of the membership from its capabilities by placing the number of armed members at the bottom of the section on Weapons and Equipment!

The impression given by this content

AK's numbers in 1944 include a cadre of more than 10,000-11,000 officers, 7,500 officers-in-training (podchorąży) and 88,000 NCOs.[6] The officer cadre was formed from pre-war officers and NCOs, graduates of underground courses and elite operatives usually parachuted from the West (cichociemni).[6] A basic organization unit was a platoon, which numbered 35-50 people, with a skeleton, unmobilized version of 16-25; in February 1944 AK had 6287 regular and 2613 skeleton platoons operational.

suggests that the AK was indeed a large fighting force. However, as prof Cienciala pointed out to me, the Allies, to save lives of the AK personnel, in late August 1944 recognised them as Allied soldiers which meant that the Wehrmacht troops were obliged to treat them as POWs rather then terrorists. Not only that, but you fail to mention that the officers and NCOs were former members of the Polish Armed forces and not commissioned by the AK, which, though a part of the underground state, was not a formally recognised state, and therefore could not commission personnel, hence their treatment as terrorists before August 1944.

The entire impression given in the article is that of an organisation much larger and more capable then the reality of a dispersed and under-armed force, almost lacking in communications and cooperation with the Allies (including Soviet Union). The unwillingness to add any comparative data while mentioning that the Soviet partisans spent more time fighting the AK then the German forces is blatantly selective in sources. Even if it was true, which it is not, the simple perusal of your own article would suggest that only a small number of AK forces were actually located in the areas bordering those where Soviet partisan activity was reported by Wehrmacht forces. This means that it is physically impossible for the number of combats between the Soviet partisans and AK to have been greater then those with the German forces by consideration of geometry (see [25] for calculation of periphery of irregular areas). From this rather simple observation I concluded that in fact the article was written with bad faith, and certainly not from a neutral point of view.

These simple observations on the disassociation of membership from capability, and exclusion of comparative data, and inclusion of blatantly erroneous data were those responsible for the placement of {{npov}} tag, as stated before.

The other reason for your assumption of my "bad faith" was my insistence that the language used by the article is not appropriate. In fact any reference, such as "Ugandans" for example, is usually used when the writer seeks to show a very broad application in the context, as in "All Ugandans of voting age are obligated to vote". The use of Lithuanians in your article can be misconstrued as applicable to all Lithuanians everywhere, which is not true. It is even less true when applied to Ukrainians who were ivided among collaborators, nationalists and communists. The reference to "Jews" is actually giving the impression that they are somehow a people apart from the survival of Polish population in general, where as in fact they were Polish citizens, and not "Jews". The attitude of Polish population towards the Jewish and other minorities in Poland is documented elsewhere, but I would suggest that if you do not want the article to display NPOV, you moderate your language by addressing specific groups the AK dealt with, and not apply a global label to large classifications of the populations under German occupation. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well put. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Third that. And the world is full of people of mixed origins, like Jan T. Gross, who has commented on AK in what might be construed as a critical manner [26], so please remove the "Jewish historiography" in the article. Novickas (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting your ethnic heritage. Will you state that your Ukrainian one has nothing to do with your interest in Eastern European history?

Certainly, Polish editors have Polish POV and are emotional. No less visible are Lithuanian POV and emotions, or Russian (post-Soviet...) POV and emotions in our recent discussions. Unless you plan on pointing them out next, I suggest we follow NPOV and discuss articles, not their editors.

You mention updated notes by professor Cienciala. Could you be more precise, and add a link (links) that would show our references have changed?

If you can provide a ref for your analysis of terrorism and treatment of POWs, we can consider adding it to an article. It would be interesting to see if Germans respected that decision of the Allies; while I am familiar with the fact that insurgents at the Warsaw Uprising who surrendered at the end were treated like POWs, I am also familiar with many Nazi war crimes of that late time (for example, Wola massacre). Further, you are incorrect to claim that Polish Underground State was not a formally recognized state. The Polish government in exile, and thus Poland (with its underground state) was recognized by most countries around the world till 1945-1947 when the communist Polish government took over and obtained recognition. Hence the ZWZ-AK, treated as the regular army by the Polish government, were in that legal POV regulars, not irregulars.

Please find a source giving size of Soviet partisans as large or similar to AK and we can consider adding them (I have already found some numbers below which would justify saying that Soviet partisans' numbers were almost as high as AK in some periods, perhaps this qualification would be a reasonable compromise?). If you want to claim Soviet superiority, please stop your ORish analysis, and find a reliable source to cite in relation to that claim.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your rationale about nationalities. Polish-Lithuanian war was not a war between every single Pole and Lithuanian, yet we don't call it a "war between Poliah and Lithuanian states, armies and some irregulars". It is perfectly acceptable and common to use shorter versions for headings, lead and such, where there is no room for a more detailed explanation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, you are wrong, as I share Piotrus' assumption. well, of course you would...you are Polish!!! is a gross example of bad faith and I would like you to give me an answer to a simple question. Are Polish editors in your opinion less important than, say, the Russians? Dismissing somebody's edit just because he is Polish was one of the clearest examples of anti-Polonism I have seen on Wikipedia. It is interesting that some hardcore POV pushers like you always seem to accuse others of the very same thing they do. Tymek (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is more important then anyone else in Wikipedia. However, it is expected that editors from a given country or culture, editing articles closely related to, or about that country or culture, are bound to have a high degree of emotional attachment to the article content. It is a natural and human behaviour. When I said well, of course you would...you are Polish!!!, that is exactly what it reflected on. It would be strange indeed if a Pole was dispassionate about this article. For this reason I mostly desist from editing articles on Australia, even if I think that Bondi needs serious expansion to match that of this article to reflect its population mix. That Armia Krajowa article is heavily written from a favourable Polish perspective is as obvious to me as to other editors, so the best strategy I would suggest when working on an obviously nationally important article is to team up with an editor who is completely impartial to, and even ignorant of the subject, because he or she is likely to be a good barometer and a sounding board of the likely issues that may creep up in the reviews. Stacking the editorial team with like-minded thinkers is tantamount to inviting comments like well, of course you would...you are Polish!!! If you choose to perceive it as "anti-Polonism", then that is ultimately your choice.

However, you will note that despite my extensive comments on the content of the article, you have chosen to focus on the suggestion of victimisation rather then the issue from which the comment arose. Victims are often self-created by people who feel insecure in their defensive posture. Such misinterpretations are sometimes referred to as the “false threat alarms” leading to irrational fear and anxiety--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tymek, would you like to elaborate on me being a hardcore POV pusher?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A hardcore POV pusher, like you, is a person who blindly promotes his own opinion and completely disregards the sources that contradict his POV. Piotrus has asked to provide references that would support the claim that Soviet partisans were more numerous than AK. You did not even bother yourself to join that topic. Piotrus has provided numerous sources stating that AK was the largest underground movement in the world, somehow it seems to have slipped your attention. A hardcore POV pusher is a person who constantly changes the topic of discussion, writing about what Europe is or about some Australia-related articles. A hardcore POV pusher is a person who disregards other users' contributions just because of their nationality. Hope this has helped now. Tymek (talk) 15:07, 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)

And? No one has requested a review of those articles. However if you think these are needed, just go ahead and suggest it in the Talk:pages of those articles. In any case, where do you get "criticizing Polish people in this Wikipedia"? Its about as valid a statement as AK being "the largest resistance movement in the World"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it necessarily makes sense to compare a regular force, such as the United States Army, with an irregular force, in terms of "interaction", if for no other reason that U.S. Army forces operated worldwide. Certainly, the U.S. Army and British Army interacted, but perhaps differently under Eisenhower in the European Theater of Operations and under Stilwell in the China-Burma-India theater. One could observe that MacArthur, in the Southwest Pacific Area, tended to feel other organizations worked for him rather than with him.

In any event, the U.S. Army was not primarily the organization that interacted with irregular forces in Europe. That was more the role of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services, the British Special Operations Executive, and, in some cases, the British Secret Intelligence Service. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:04, 16 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)

Underground organizations and (regular) armies, or are you being generic? The type of interaction between 21st Army Group (a British organization, but with other national forces) and 12th Army Group (a U.S. organization, again with other national forces) would be quite different than how an OSS Operational Group or Jedburgh team interacted with the French Resistance. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what I suggest (not teaching) you do, is got to the Military History Project talk page, and suggest that all articles dealing with WWII underground organisations and armies should have same article structure to get some consensus before going around and changing them all. Ok?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is: are those other articles incorrect or correct? I believe that they are incorrect, or rather, incomplete, by not having those sections. I think interactions are a useful section for many organizations, but of course should be given a due weight - in the end they formed only a minority of what a given organization was.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerzy Bokłażec

pl:Jerzy Bokłażec was arrested by Soviets and hanged in Lida. Władysław Mickiewicz hanged in Trokiele. Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us work together

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)

What do you mean by compromise?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS covers its pretty well. How would you like the text to read? What sources would you use to reference your version? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe in consensus without establishing facts. If facts are established, there is no need for consensus. In any case, that is a guideline in constant development.

I have no problem in the article stating that the AK had a large membership, maybe as large as 400,000, but was poorly equipped which limited its effectiveness though it still achieved much. If you insist on stating this in a comparative way, then please use professor Cienciala's suggestion, and that of Cleo as a qualifiers that AK was the largest outside of the Soviet partisan movement until 1943, as Cleo suggested, when it was overtaken in both membership and capability by the better supplied Soviet partisans. I think it is important to show that large memberships do not necessarily translate into capability due to lack of arms, but that is also an argument that AK did contribute significantly to combat German forces despite this handicap.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would discourage you from using the statement that Soviet partisans fought AK more then the Germans. Aside from the physical impossibility of this having transpired, most of Soviet partisan activity was directed to the East in cooperating with their Army and Front "handlers", so if any clashes did occur, they would have occurred in the immediate period before Bagration, and for a political reason we are all aware of. Other then that the Soviet partisans were just as short resources within the context of their operations as AK was, and probably saw the German forces in Poland as something out of their hands until Spring of 1944.

Cleo provided more English language sources, and if you are stuck for anything, just bring it up in talk.

So far as the various other forces AK interacted with, I really don't like using global identifiers like "Poles", or "Americans", or "whites", etc. I think you know what I mean. Please identify which groups AK dealt with because I think you can.

Just a note on the issue of structure, I find that the table of organisation is quite large, and breaks up the narrative of the article. You may want to consider inserting it after the epilogue, which is where I suggested the "after" section is moved to. It really is more natural to read the after-part after all the information you are presenting about the wartime events. This is how all the books I have do it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Professor Cienciala's in her email to me withdrew her qualification in light of the numbers I presented on our talk. Clio's not clear on which was the largest; I've asked her to clarify her position on that. I would agree that Soviets were likely better armed, although this should be clearly referenced. But if you want to claim they were the largest, we need to find a reference that states it clearly. This is demanded by our policies - WP:V and WP:OR (we cannot base a claim on our synthesis and worse, extrapolations, of several sources which are not clear).

As you will note, the claim that Soviets fought AK more often than the Germans does not appear in any lead; nor it should. It was the case limited to only part of Soviet partisans territory, as well as limited in time. That said there are plenty of sources that note that Soviet partisans decicated considerable effort to engaging the Polish ones in the disputed territories (Kresy). See also Soviet partisans in Poland.

AK dealt with too many groups. As I've noted, Jews, for example - it dealt with Jewish civilians and resistance. The heading "Interactions with Jewish civilians and resistance" in unwieldy. "Interactions with Jews" is better, and the word Jew is hardly an insult (just as the word Pole or an American isn't).

I see the epilogue argument, but I also would like to keep the history together (and in the opening section). If majority of editors would prefer your layout, I will not oppose it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't want compromise; you just want me to agree with you!

Ask the good professor to send me her reply to you, if you don't mind.

I thought Cleo was quite clear.

If you use comparative statements in the article, then why would I need to provide references?

You are either sly, or think that I'm a fool. Either way, it does not say much about you. "the claim that Soviets fought AK more often than the Germans does not appear in any lead" - but it is in the article, and it doesn't say "that Soviet partisans dedicated considerable effort to engaging the Polish ones in the disputed territories", but that ONE source said they fought AK more then the Germans ("Soviet partisans engaged Polish partisans in combat, and it has been claimed that they attacked the Poles more often than they did the Germans."), so you used that source without seeking additional corroboration, or even thinking about it!

You have written an article about an organisation. The organisation did not in general deal with the entire Jewish population of Poland in hiding, but groups that represented them. I'm sure you can find sources for them. Similarly with other ethnic, political and military entities.

The entire article is history! Why would you want to put post war history in the middle of wartime history?! I think I will insist on the epilogue as a matter of common sense. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That one source is better than anything you have presented here (read: no sources to back up your claims). Until you start presenting sources other then unverifiable emails, your own unreferenced claims and interpretations of what other wikipedians said, I don't think there is much left to discuss. Your claims are a violation of WP:V and WP:OR and that's all there is to it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I repeat! If *Y*O*U* make comparative claims, the onus is on you to substantiate then, and not one anyone else to repudiate them. If you can not do this, don't make the claims. Comparative claims are made based on analysis of sources, and not just citation of the sources you like. You have not done this. Tertiary sources are not "better" or "worse"; for that you have to go to secondary or primary sources, like a record of AK membership census. The expectation in Wikipedia policy is that tertiary sources are offered because they have analysed the secondary and primary sources, and in this case this is not true.

If you do not believe me, you can email Professor Cienciala yourself. She certainly doesn't mind being consulted.

Please don't make me go through your sources as I have done with Latvian claims.

I had made no WP:V and WP:OR transgressions since I had not contributed any sources to the article, and I have not made any claims based on my own research. All I have said is that your claims of the AK being the largest resistance movement in either the World or Europe are not soundly made. In fact none of the sources you used substantiate this, and all bar one (Professor Cienciala) quote one same Polish source which is very much a patriotic piece rather then a critical history.

I can only suggest you learn something from Cleo's "rushed" research.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me you misunderstand what Wikipedia is and our policies. I am not making comparative claims, you are - but adding an unreferenced claim that Soviet partisans were the largest, this is a violation of WP:V. We should avoid using primary sources and presenting our own analysis and synthesis; what you are demanding is a violation of WP:OR. We have sources that claim AK was the largest; such claim is acceptable since it is referenced (per WP:V). We have NO sources that AK was the second largest after the Soviets; adding such a claim based on your interpretations of unclear numbers is a violation of WP:OR.

Your claims that you have not added any content to the article, and that I have not presented sources to back up my own, are false, as should be evident to anybody who has looked at the article or the discussion here. You have added the unreferenced claim about Soviet partisans being larger than AK ([27]); while the claim of AK being the largest is well-referenced (in article, see Armia_Krajowa#Notes; more sources were presented on talk here).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a refocusing?

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 would agree that in this case size is not important. I'm quite happy if no comparative statement was made in the article. However there are other issues, some of which I can see have been fixed. I don't really have the time to devote to this discussion any more. If the Polish editors wish to insist on declarations of size, then a template needs to go in place to explain to the reader that the view is that of Polish sources, and does not represent a World-wide view.

The point made on Vietnam is a very good one. German sources suggest a very low figure for AK, and I would suggest that this may be because it was based on the interaction with AK as a result of intelligence assessment of its activities, which were only undertaken by that part of the AK which was armed.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You probably are aware of this already, but there is a large body of opinion that the emphasis on "body count" led to a culture of falsified reporting from which the U.S. military took decades to regain some of its integrity. Sam Adams' posthumous book from his CIA experience, War of Numbers, looks at the behind-the-scenes politicization of casualty estimates for the other side; Adams points out that if some estimates were taken, the entire population of Vietnam might have been killed several times. To reinforce your point about the German sources, several intelligence analysts now suggest that while it did not truly estimate casualties, especially of noncombatants or unarmed auxiliaries, the only metric that had much military validity were the number of weapons captured after an engagement.

In that war, even those numbers were sometimes difficult to assess. LTC Alex Lee, USMC, was one of the key individuals in U.S. Marine Corps deep reconnaissance. In his book, Force Recon Command: A Special Marine Unit in Vietnam, 1969-1970, he described some terrible things, but he wrote that there was only one thing he could not bring himself to recount in detail: "body count" and bomb damage assessment after a B-52 strike that left total devastation. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Whose POV should be included?

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)

Who said that?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aa I right or wrong? Xx236 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your question fully, but our policies - WP:NPOV and in particular, its WP:UNDUE subpolicy, should be most relevant to answer your question.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 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)

Summarizing disputes as of April 17, 2008

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:

1. Do its negative portrayals belong in the lead?
2. Do the article's current size estimates and description as the largest in WWII Europe, also in the lead, represent an international historic consensus?
3. Does post war history belong in the middle of the article or at the end?
4. Should the sice of the memebership be presented separately form its capability as an armed force?

Then maybe we can restart focused discussions below. Novickas (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we discuss those issues in separate subsections below. Considerable effort was wasted above as we tried to discuss too many issues in a single section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do negative portrayals of AK belong in the lead?

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)

Perhaps the Pawłokoma massacre, which occurred 2 months after AK was disbanded, should be mentioned in the Polish-Ukrainian relations. It was discussed here earlier, with Ukrainian editors, and we reached a consensus that the current Ukrainian section is well balanced and that events which occurred after Jan 1945 - including repatriations of Poles and Operation Vistula - don't belong here (and certainly, not in the lead). That some historical issue gets mentioned every few years in media, or in some politicians speech, is hardly unusual. Although if you can find a publication on Armia Krajowa and its continuing major impact on Polish foreign relations we can reconsider that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a Ukrainian editor I can say that, contrary to Piotrus' claim, no such "consensus" of any sort was reached. Consensus means a wide agreement. The discussion that arrived to this "consensus" took place between just two editors one of which was Piotrus himself. This article will be expanded when I, or other editors, have time for that. --Irpen 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That you did not take part in that discussion does not mean that a consensus has not been reached then and there. In any case, let's see if any sources can be presented to support the claim about AK's lead needing to discuss controversies in more detail.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it the other editor was me? I was the one who added the section about relations with Ukrainians. I haven't followed the development of section since it was called "a mess" by the GA reviewer, and it has changed since then. But didn't I ask you before to look at it? Ostap 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ostap, I would welcome your comments on that section as it is now, as you can see it has been rewritten and improved - it was indeed a mess back then - and now has been judged good by the GA and A-milhist reviewers (who have passed this article).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 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)

Burden on proof lies on you, or any editor who wants to prove that this article is not neutral. You need to find verifiable sources and show how they differ from our version of the article. I have gone out of my way to search for such sources and found nothing, my results are presented above. So - bring your sources or stop tag warring.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:23, 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)

But they are. We do mention that "[AK] became the subject of controversy and a more critical portrayal [...] as outside of Poland". That is already more criticism then in other general sources (which don't mention it at all). What else would you like us to do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other issues is a weasel, Piotrus. --Irpen 05:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I already see an answer in the form of your name popping up on the talk pages from my watchlist. Should all sides post around to editors and solicit support? Does not sound right to me. --Irpen 05:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And I thought you knew better than go over 3RR. Sigh. --Irpen 05:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have not went over 3RR, at that point I still have one more revert remaining if you want to get technical. But if you'd like to disagree, point to me my violation and I will be happy to self-revert and refrain from editing this article for 24h (as is my custom in such a situation, and you know it well).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in asking the editors who commented here after RfC was requested to repeat their reasons why do they believe the article is neutral. So far plenty of editors have agreed it is, and very few (you and...?) disagree.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:48, 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)

If I may ask - no to what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Were Soviet partisans more numerous than AK?

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)

Frankly, I wonder how important or useful this point may be. In insurgencies, resistances, or any movement that does not fight as a conventional, overt force, there tends to be a cadre of full-time leaders and specialists, a larger group of part-time or local fighters, a larger group of auxiliaries that do not fight but have responsibilities for combat service and combat service support (communications, logistics, etc.) and an even larger group of sympathizers that will help on a case-by-case basis. Do the counts of all of these groups go into the total? Some? If so, which? When does an individual go from one category to another (e.g., a local fighter might stay full-time for several weeks, guiding a full-time strike force, and then go back to reserve duty)?

Especially when comparing different insurgent forces, the comparison has to be made at a specific point of time. The nature of the Chinese Communist Long March was that the force recruited as it moved.

My thought is that much energy may be expended in this sort of argument, without really improving the article. Is it adequate to say that both the Polish and Soviet movements were large, but not necessarily the largest in WWII, that position going to China. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that we are dealing with imprecise estimates. I have noted this in the article itself, in the structure and membership section, where we have room to mention the range, estimates and elaborate more on those issues (there is no room for that in lead). It is nonetheless important to note that the "largest" claim is mentioned not only consistently in Polish historiography, but also in many western publications - and that we were so far unable to find a source with such a claim about another resistance movement in WWII. Further, granted, we are dealing with estimates - but even so "size matters". I found an interesting article by a Polish historian recently discussing how due to Cold War Polish resistance was marginalized and underesearched both in the West and in the East; he specifically compares it with a smaller and less active (according to him) French resistance - which nonetheless got much more coverage in the West than the Polish one. The same goes to for the East, were communist (Polish and Soviet) partisans were glorified and AK was ignored. It is of course not our job to correct history wrongs, but the fact remains that AK was underresearched not because it was small or unimportant but because researching it was not politically correct or valuable. If so many scholars stress now the point about "largest", I don't see why we should censor it out from our project. Btw, I also thought that Chinese might have been the largest, but I couldn't find a single study with a reliable number.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My exposure to estimating the size of insurgencies is less from academic history and more from politicomilitary analysis -- and I'm not speaking here of politicized estimates not especially based on reality. I'm drafting an addition to insurgency that addresses some of this order of battle analysis, and should have that up in the next day or two.

That which makes me most dubious about this argument is the apparent assumption that one is or is not a member of the resistance, rather than recognizing that there are multiple levels of involvement. As I've mentioned, I'm writing up a sourced section on the challenges of estimating the size, and how numbers tend not to be meaningful until one defines categories of participation. In a rural insurgency such as the Long March, is a sympathetic farmer, who never leaves his farm and never fights, but provides the food that keeps fifty fighters alive, to be counted? If so, how? One could argue that he is a force multiplier that is more valuable than a fighter, if he can keep fifty operating.

How does one count a humble janitor in the German headquarters, who gives warning to partisans or AK that the SS planning office is lit up all night, which has always indicated there will be a raid on a resistance headquarters, but not where? How does one count ten housewives that have been trained to observe German command centers and report which regional one is ready to support a raid? Is a highly skilled sniper equivalent to a squad of brave men with submachine guns, if the sniper can take out commanders that the regular soldiers could not reach?

I have been exposed to enough scholarly cruft, a product of "publish or perish", that I am not necessarily impressed by scholarly papers that do nothing but estimate, crudely, the sizes, but not the quantitative effectiveness, of insurgencies. This is getting into a discussion of insurgency that has little to do specifically with the Polish or Soviet forces. Pure size, if it isn't associated with some measure of effectiveness, I'm afraid, may not mean much. To take the example of the competing WWII guerilla movements in Yugoslavia, the Western Allies chose to support Tito not because he was more ideologically pleasing, but that his movements were demonstrably tying up more Nazi troops then were the Chetniks. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments above in the Soviet Partisans section. Bring them down here if you wish. Regards to all. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think we should indeed be able to reach a consensus along the lines you proposed, as the statement that "the AK was among the strongest resistance forces in Europe" is quite correct. We could mention the Soviet partisans in the article body and the lead as a force with roughly similar strength and numbers, citing the sources you provided. I will note, in closing, that it is a pleasure to discuss such issues with editors who present reliable sources :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We could have saved a lot of time. ...the AK was amongst the strongest resistance forces in Europe, is a far cry from calling it the "largest in the world". What were you thinking? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are just adamant not to acknowledge that Soviet partisans were greater in strength and numbers, aren't you? How does 350,000 fighters in Belorussia alone = to AK with 32,000 armed personnel being "a force with roughly similar strength and numbers"?

Consider this: two English football clubs. One in North of England, with a membership of 500,000 of whom 450,000 are from families of miners, and having only associate membership. The other club is London City, with a membership of 500,000 of which 450,000 work in the finance industry and have full memberships. They also get donations from corporate sponsors through their business connections not only in UK, but overseas. The scale and size of the support the teams receive are vastly different. The first club may get as much, or even more cheer from their supporters, and they are likely to be even more emotional about the team, but the second team gets everything they ask for, including choice in players, better coaches, equipment, support, training venue, etc. Its a quantitative and qualitative comparison that can not be made...except on emotional grounds, which you are doing!

Please stop with your comparisons of the number of all Soviet partisans (500,000 - at least you stopped the one million claims) to the number of 32,000 used only by one source who clearly states it is just a faction of Polish partisans. Do you have a ref that would show that majority - or all - of Soviet partisans were fully armed? If not, this is comparing apples to oranges, and your "apples to oranges and no need for references" logic is appalling. Taking the highest possible estimate favoring your side, and the lowest possible for the other, and ignoring all evidence you don't like, is hardly good research. Clio has proposed a good consensus and I intend to implement it soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:02, 18 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 haven't "stopped" claiming over one million members in the Soviet personnel who served in the partisan movement during the war because that is what the Soviet historians cite.

If 32,000 is "used only by one source who clearly states it is just a faction of Polish partisans" then where are the other sources? In fact the one source on 32,000 does not say "it is just a faction of Polish partisans", but that it was a part of the 200,000 who were attributed as members of AK by 1944.

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)

Well, since the historians cited in this article use comparative terms like largest, then you could make a case for discussing it here too. I do object to the use of "most" and "average" to support the single number 400,000 - that could take months of contentious discussion for a number that is clearly within the range of uncertainty. Or you could just say range from 200k to 400k - I would support "most sources state between 300k to 400k".

The numbers at the high end - if the ref's author does not take them seriously, and does not cite their provenance, they should go. That's why I asked for a full citation from the book. The response "Get the book yourself" is not a reasonable response to that request.

Some disconnect here: Norman Davies in God's Playground, 2005 edition, "The AK and the BCH with their 400,000 men"[31] but in 2003's Rising '44. The Battle for Warsaw he states 300,000-400,000.

BTW, Prof. Cienciala's lecture notes (ref 5) at this time read "Poland had the largest underground movement in Europe, with the anti-communist Home Army [Armia Krajowa - A.K] being the largest after Tito's communist-led Partisans. [The Armia Krajowa had 400,000 soldiers in August 1944, while Tito's Partisans numbered about 800,000 in 1945)." [32] Novickas (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest then that you contact Prof. Cienciala herself on the address provided there as she assured me she was going to update the online lecture notes.

However, since I note that all historians of the Soviet era are "tarred and feathered" there is little point in discussion since no evidence will ever be acceptable. I note that all data in English language is based on comparative analysis of claims by Soviet and German historians. Is it the suggestion that all Polish historians are honest, faultless, apolitical, most objective and analytical historians in the World, with the largest amount of data?

Piotr, you do not "own" articles in Wikipedia, and consensus does not apply to subjective data like organisational memberships. If a company had 123 employees, we can not say it "had almost 130 employees" because we reached this by consensus! In the case of AK, the data is not statistically viable at all, because the margin between the lowest and the highest parameters is equal or greater then 100%, this being the Margin of error, i.e. +/- 200,000! For historians, particularly those of the "scientific school of history" such as that in the Soviet Union (or the USA before it, e.g. Albert Bushnell Hart), this is known as "a stab in the dark" (for want of an article), and the failure to accept other estimates will lead you not to a discussion, but to a monologue.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified prof C. with regards to the erroneous Yugoslavian estimate. PS. Greg, I have not yet gotten around to questioning your Soviet sources, since you have not, so far, provided a single specific one for us to discuss :) I will be looking forward to seeing them once you get to your promised expansion of Soviet partisans, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:47, 19 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)

That's a rather eloquent and largely on the mark entry illustrates the difficulty of dealing with Piotrus and whoever he brings in with him. Now, I expect the response to concentrate on "incivility" and ignore the content. Some of this response will likely be off-line or at AE, sadly. Personally, I would not mention Piotrus' "hate for Soviet Union" no matter what I think on the matter (I keep this to myself) but just to avoid detours in the discussion since WP:THIS and WP:THAT are going to be quoted instead of the content and admins would be sought for to institute blocks and warnings.

One thing is obvious. This all is anything but honest editing we see here. --Irpen 08:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Certain users fail to provide any source but engage in tag warring and flaming on talk... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, sorry to disappoint you, but Piotrus does not bring anybody in. How about you? Tymek (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stavka orders

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)

Good catch. The correct ref is to page 98-99, not 88-89.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

operational code names

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 fixed it, as indeed we don't seem to be translating them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Occupation divisions

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)

Membership

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)

Structure is a mess

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)

Ironically, just noticed that I was right about the eventual destination of these sections. --Irpen 08:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooperation with Gestapo and Nazi Reich

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)

Anti-AK propaganda during Soviet occupation

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)

I suggest expanding propaganda in People's Republic of Poland with that info (it shouldn't be difficult to reference it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hate for Soviet Union

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)

That is one HELL of a comparison to make! Soviet Union didn't try to exterminate the Polish people! It simply forced them to accept a political and economic system they didn't like. Things like that happen in history you know! Whom is Poland blaming, Soviets for wanting to derive some economic benefit from defeating Germany, or themselves for not being able to prevent being over-run in 1939? Poles have had to accept other people's political and economic systems for the past four centuries, and still are, so stop wining and consider this is a historical article and is not supposed to reflect the personal feelings of the editors. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

stop wining and consider this is a historical article and is not supposed to reflect the personal feelings of the editors - exactly. It's you who introduce here emotions instead of facts.Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You know of course that up to 1941 Germans and Soviets killed approximately similar number of Poles? Szopen (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It includes only Polish citizens. The Soviets killed 111 000 Soviet Poles and let starve an unknown number of deported before 1939.Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to the fate of the Polish minority in the Soviet Union, I presume? This article needs expansion, certainly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, no country in the world in 1939, including USA, would have managed to defend itself against combined aggression of Germany and Soviet Union. Soviet Union didn't try to exterminate the Polish people! - weel, I suggest reading some more documents about Soviet occupation of eastern Poland between Sept 1939 and June 1941. Soviet authorities clearly wanted to exterminate all Poles in that period. Interestingly enough, Soviet occupation was so cruel that numerous Jews escaped SU, choosing German occupied western Poland. They did not know their fate, but this is a completely different story. Tymek (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Soviet Union didn't try to exterminate the Polish people". Yes, sure, and Katyn massacre is a fictional story, perhaps? Sigh. Here: "In the 1939-1941 period alone, Soviet-inflicted suffering on all citizens in Poland exceeded that of Nazi-inflicted suffering on all citizens" [33]. Or: "In many ways, the work of Soviet NKVD in Eastern Poland proved far more destructive than that of Gestapo". [34]. And of course: "policies of both Hitler and Stalin were clearly aimed at the total extermination of Polish citizens, both Jews and Christians. Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide". [35]. Read also: Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 22 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)

There was no Soviet Policy to exterminate the population of Poland.

The political issue for Poland's desire for independence was the acceptance of ludicrous belief that France and UK could guarantee it, and that Germany and Russia, in other guises, were not going to rebuild and want to occupy Poland after WWI. Given the previous century, I have no idea what the Polish governments were thinking. So it seems to me they had a choice: make Poland into a fortress, or forget independence and integrate into either Germany or Soviet Union (aka Russia). They chose neither. This is called reality.

What happened after that is called effect of reality. All political regimes will take every measure to eliminate opposition, particularly extreme regimes that oppose democratic society, such as national socialism and communism, both of which reject religion as a worthwhile social factor. So whom are Poles blaming? They could blame the Germans for allowing Hitler to power, or they could blame Russians for allowing Communists to power. However, mostly they should blame themselves for not taking the measures to ensure that: a. they made invasion of Poland very costly, and b. that those who were expecting to be at risk of persecution left the country baring a lack of opposition. Many Polish Jews left after warnings by Jabotinsky that Hitler's intentions for Jews were not going to be anything comparable to even the pogroms of the earlier century. These views were known in the Polish Government.

Could Poland defend against both Germany and USSR? The price of independence when survival is at stake is always low, and it seems to me that some countries through history were willing to pay it. Had Poland's total population been mobilised, its defenses made better, and its air force more numerous, it could have defended itself successfully. Add to this the requirement for the French and British to station its troops in Poland, which would have been a greater deterrent to Germany, and without a German attack USSR would not have attacked after the experience in Finland, and a far more effective defence policy and plan. However, this was not done. Obviously the elected Polish Government was expecting a miracle.

In a socialist state there are no minorities. Poles were in the same "boat" as Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians, etc. Surely you don't suggest that the number of executed Polish officers at Katyn was greater then the number of Imperial Russian officers executed in numerous other sites?

I find your ability for selective quoting and misuse of numbers most troubling for an article editor.

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.'

Let's see. From a Jewish population of 3.3 million the war was survived by some 300,000. From the rest of the 32 million of Poland's population, 1 million was killed, of these 210,000 were direct military and civilian casualties of the 1939 invasion. That is 90% vs just over 3% of the respective populations. So, how many Christian Poles were subjected to the "prisons, ghettos, internment, transit, labor and extermination camps, roundups, mass deportations, public executions, mobile killing units, death marches, deprivation, hunger, disease, and exposure"? Let's see.

• Prisons = about 500,000.
• Ghettos=0.
• Internment=0.
• Transit=0.
• Labor=at least 1.5 million Polish citizens (excluding Jewish citizens) were transported to the Reich for labor. Inability to replace these with Jews who were being exterminated lead to the replacement of the German commander of occupied Poland.
• Extermination camps=150,000 (75,000)
• Roundups=about 100,000 (most released)
• Mass deportations=4,454 children chosen for Germanization
• Public executions=several thousand
• Mobile killing units=0
• Death marches=0
• Deprivation=0
• Hunger=0
• Disease=0
• Exposure=0

Are you still that there was a policy of extermination against the Poles by either Germany or the USSR in 1939-45? By the way, if there was such a policy in USSR, then how were they still able to still raise two Polish Armies during the war?

However, none of this has any bearing on the article at hand. The hate of either of its WWII enemies should not have any bearing on the data, sources and their analysis on the article content.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I find your ability to invent some unreferenced, bizarre numbers out of thin air very worrisome, as it suggests we should review various articles you have contributed to for more significant inaccuracies. I have no idea what fringe publication would give you a number of 1 million of Polish casualties, since the universally accepted number is several millions: "Over 6 million Polish citizens died during WWII, over 90% came through non-military loses; a 21.4% of the total population was lost between 1939 and 1945"[36] The note at World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Poland is even more informative and quite well referenced. I have no intention of continuing this pointless discussion, as your arguments seem to be limited only to unreferenced ORish claims and accusations of those who diagreewith you of some "hate". Per WP:SOAPBOX, Wikipedia is no place for such a polemic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User mrg3105 has just shown a total lack of knowledge about wartime Poland. Amazing and grotesque, yet at the same time saddening. Someone wrote that Wikipedia has a major problem, and I agree. Tymek (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is funny!

"what fringe publication would give you a number of 1 million of Polish casualties" - Wikipedia!

It really depends on how one counts.

Poland total pop.=34,849,000, mil. deaths=160,000, civ.deaths= 2,440,000, Jews=3,000,000, total=5,600,000, of total pop.=16.07%

350,000 deaths during the Soviet occupation in 1940-41

about 100,000 Poles killed in 1943-44 during the massacres of Poles in Volhynia by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

Losses by ethnic group were 3,100,000 Jews; 2,000,000 ethnic Poles; 500,000 Ukrainians and Belarusians.

However the number of 2 million ethnic Poles has been only recently revised by the Polish government and is still not really accepted. The reason is this. When these figures were revised, they were based on counting as Polish anyone not having a Jewish ethnicity in the citizenship documents. However, Germans were executing anyone with Jewish roots going back to third generation, so the extra million ethnic Poles are really double-counted assimilated and intermarried Jewish descendants, including those that converted to Catholicism when born into what would be a Catholic family after two-three generations.

And this is how you get over 6 million Polish citizens.

The reason for this increase is political. When anti-Semitic behaviour by Poles was suggested in the 80s-90s, someone in Poland decided that a larger total of deaths would be good to show that Poland's non-Jewish population also suffered significantly, so they did a recount using records not previously available to independent researchers. Indeed these showed doubling of ethnic Polish dead, and described above is why that is the case.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance anybody will take the above conspiration/falsification theories seriously, here's a 6 million estimate from early 1980s by a renown expert on Poland, Norman Davies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

in the 80s-90s - I do believe I saw some of the initial research proposals from Poland early in the 1990s, so assumed the research took place in 1980s.

I did the numbers almosta decade ago, and from memory what many forget to add in are the unborn children of women of childbearing age that were casualties. These are of course left out of the Jewish deaths, however since we are talking about ethnic Polish population, the Polish population growth in 1946 was missing about 400,000. I made it 500,000 to account for the non-existent data on ethnic Poles in territories occupied by USSR which became a part of Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs. Again, it all depends on how one counts.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:13, 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)

Indeed, this is exactly the point Davies makes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Category and this talk page

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)

World's largest - again

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 ), 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)

I have taken the liberty to moving your comment to the bottom, as it is difficult to see it in the middle of old discussions. I hope you'll take time to expand the Yugoslav partisans article. It appears scholars are not very clear on that issue - this article cites several claiming Polish was the largest - but if you can show reliable sources to the contrary, we can certainly make a note of that in the relevant articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was able to confirm the figures above in the book "Tito" by, Phyllis Auty (former member Political Inteligence Dept. of British Foreign Office). The military consultant of the book is Basil Liddell Hart, a further proof of book credibility. Unfortunatley, my edition is Brazilian, in portuguese (Publisher Renes,1975) so the page numbers may not mach with those in original English edition, by Ballantine Books.

• Late '41 - 80,000 (page 98)
• Late '42 - 150,000 (page 107)
• Late '43 - 300,000 (page 110)
• Late '45 End of the war - 800,000 (page 114) - correction made on November 19th, 2008

In December 1943 the Partisan Movement was transformed in the national army and the general regrutement was authorized in the territores free from german yoke. So it is fair to admit that, from 1944 on, the nature of movement changed. But until the end of 1943, the largest resistence movement in the occupied Europe were the Yugoslav Partisans. M.Campos (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to make a correction: instead the "Late '45" please read "End of the war".M.Campos (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While obtaning exact numbers and dates is hard, if you look at Armia Krajowa#Membership, you can see that the numbers were very similar: early '42 - 100,000, early '43 - 200,000, early-mid '44 - 300,000 to over 500,000. I think that those numbers (which I hope you've added to articles about Yugoslav partisans) support the claim that the movements were roughly similar in size - but not that it was definitely the largest. Your source would allow us to add a sentence to our current note that the size of Yugoslav partisans was very similar to AK, just as that of the Soviet partisans.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruth Gay and Karay sources

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)

Sigh. Unfortunately, some editors love to cite such out of context and confused sources. If somebody published a book about Armia Krajowa carrying out a holocaust on the green men of the Moon, we would see repeated attempts to add a note to the lead about controversy involving Armia Krajowa's genocide :( As it is, this article suffers periodical attacks from editors who want to push some fringe theories about AK being antisemitic or genocidal or Nazi collaborators or such. I support removal of such sources, whose authors may be experts on something, but quite obviously are not experts on Armia Krajowa, and rewriting the section per Radeksz suggestions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Left wing, right wing is not the issue here. Antisemitism is. M0RD00R (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the issue is the reliability of sources. If we had a source which consistently referred to Parti Socialiste as a right wing party or to, say, the Popular Front of Spain circa 1936 as right wing that would most definietly give us pause and discredit the source from being considered as reliable. There's a difference between 'a historian's opinion' and somebody just getting plain facts wrong. If you insist on including this source then this issue needs to be pointed out with, say, an extended discussion of [37] and other very verifiably leftist portions of AK.radek (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The issues we are discussing here is antisemitism. If an author have chosen to describe AK as a right wing, well the author has aright to an opinion, but this has nothing to do with the question of antisemitism. And stop revert warring, you have just violated 3RR rule on yet another article. M0RD00R (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the issue we are discussing here is the reliability of sources on the subject of Armia Krajowa, which is the title of this article. Again. If a source called the Parti Socialiste "right wing" and then proceeded to call that party "antisemitic" we would not use that source. Getting basic factual information wrong on the topic in question disqualifies sources from being used on that particular topic (and I'm glad to see that you agree this is clearly the case with the Gay source - the same thing is true here as well), though it may very well be a credible source on some other topic. I might have gotten ahead of myself there in terms of reverts(as did you)but I don't think I violated 3RR since we're talking about different sources here. Also what kind of innuendo is this "Yet another article"? radek (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everybody using the magic word "antisemitism" is always right. And if they make major errors - like Radek pointed out - they are not very reliable. It's as simple as that. And Radek is simply following WP:V - removing unreliable information. That said, both of you, stop reverting now. You are both edit warring, this has been noticed on ANI/3RR and I strongly suggest you keep to 1RR on this article for now on, or the next person to review the case may not be so understanding.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 4 February 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)

I'm sorry but I put up my comments four days ago or so and no one except Piotrus responded. So after waiting for a few more days I removed the clearly unreliable sources. No one, including you or Mordoor, felt inclined to discuss this previously. I'm not the one who started a revert war.radek (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on Radek. The only thing that matters for some users here is to prove how bad/antisemitic/racist/awful the Poles have been. The reliability of a source does not count here. What matters is that the source informs about Polish antisemitism. We have had it with Boodlesthecat, we have it with Mordoor and MK. Tymek (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the article on the talk page, not in edit summaries

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)

annoying slide show

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)

Non-free use tags

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)

Leading photograph

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)