Talk:Home Army/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recognition (Relations with Jews)

This section misrepresents Yad Vashem and the source cited. Yad Vashem recognized a few members of the AK who acted against the common norms of the time. The source cited is a list of names, and does not ascribe any recognition to the Home Army as a group, which Yad Vashem describes as it is commonly described elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it appears you are trying to provoke other editors by using intentionally offensive edit summaries, like you did here. First, it's ridiculous and transparently false that these individuals "acted in exception to the organization". These are some of the most well known members of the organization and some of its top leaders. The "group" is NOT "generally seen in an opposite light" - maybe by you, but not generally. Worst of all, your little comparison of the Home Army to the Nazi party is a blatant attempt to offend and piss off other editors. You hoping to provoke others?

I don't see any way that your actions can be interpreted as acting in good faith. You need to apologize for these remarks (since it's impossible for you to strike them seeing as how you saw it fit to put it in the edit summary).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not compare the Home Army to the Nazi Party. I did say there were Nazi Party members who were recognized as Righteous (At least eleven of the Righteous were, or had been, formal members of the Nazi Party The German Righteous Among the Nations. As for views on the AK, Yad Vasehm elsewhere (this is from a citation presently in the article) says Despite the existence of antisemitism in the ranks of AK partisans...[1] and the hunting of Jews by AK units is well documented (e.g. - Zimmerman - chapter 10 - When the Home Army Turned Its Guns on the Jews[2]). Certainly there were also some positive interactions (also documented by Zimmerman). Suggesting that Yad Vashem recognition of a few individuals within a group extends to the group as a whole is not NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You most certainly did. Otherwise, what was the point of that edit summary? And you're doing again. I have no idea how you expect others to assume good faith towards you when you persist in behaving in an offensive and insulting manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not make a comparison. The AK and Nazi party clearly are different - though many Holocaust historians and survivors do consider AK underground forces to be as dangerous to Jews as the Nazis (this is a comparison - but a sourced one[3]) - there's nothing offensive in well established scholarly views. What I did do is provide an example that is clearly patently absurd (adding a recognition section to the Nazi party article based on 11 Nazi party members receiving the righteous designation) - an example that is relevant as the section in this article is based on the same sort of sourcing (designation of a few AK members).Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What???? Of course you did. I mean, it's so trivially easy to check [4] that in fact you did make this comparison that I don't even understand why you're denying it. You're doing it again. That thing, where you make a blatantly false claim which it is ridiculously easy to check that it's false, then sit there denying it with a straight face.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note that Zimmerman himself admits that the view in the field is different from his research - Understanding of the Polish Underground’s wartime record was overwhelmingly negative. Holocaust survivor testimony and scholarly studies argued that partisans of the Home Army — those clandestine forces in Nazi-occupied Poland loyal to the Polish government-in-exile — were just as dangerous to Jews as were the Nazis. And the specific cases on which these claims were made were no doubt accurate..[5]. Zimmerman himself paints a more mixed picture (distinguishing between the more positive Home Army under Rowecki, and the negative Home Army under Komorowski from mid 1943 onwards).Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, and I will note that Norman Davies himself states that “wild” accusations of Home Army being anti-Semitic are utterly false. quote - They are particularly incensed by the false accusation that the Home Army did not accept Jews, and by even wilder talk about it being an anti-Semitic organization. The fact is, Jews with the various religious or political connections served with distinction both in the Home Army and in the People's Army. [6] GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of sentences earlier he says something that puts the whole paragraph in doubt (not to say the whole book): In the eyes of most Jewish insurgents this is a non-issue, since they were accustomed to regard themselves as patriotic Poles like anyone else. They have no sympathy for the post-war Zionist convention which regards 'Poles' and 'Jews' as two completely separate ethnic or national groups. The first part is true, but the second? That's bullocks. Other than personal acquaintance etc., we have countless sources documenting Polish convictions on this, including in the underground movements, and how Jews reacted in real time. Not all too surprisingly, Davies received some criticism for his views on these matters, and even denied tenure at one point [7]. François Robere (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"That's bullocks." No, what that is, is original research and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT on your part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. There was no "convention" of the sort, and just about any source that discussed wartime anti-Semitism makes the point that Poles viewed Jews as "not part of the Polish nation", we previously discussed here. François Robere (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you are engaging in a dispute with a reliable source, yes, it's original research. It's pretty much the definition of it. It's also false that "just about any source" says that. One source says this. Don't exaggerate to mislead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say "says", I said "makes the point". Racism by definition is directed at "someone else", hence any source elaborating on Polish anti-Semitism makes the point of ethnic Poles not seeing Jews as "of their own" - and plenty of sources are explicit on that. You're arguing on common knowledge vs. a single, already criticized source. François Robere (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since the source doesn't say anything like that and this is still you arguing with a source. Likewise "plenty of sources are explicit on that" is a false assertion - maybe one source says that. At best. Once you OR and SYNTH it up a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Mainly Jews who hid their Jewish identity. Davies belongs to a different camp of historians, and his views on the matter are quite divisive (it would seem that his tenure bid at Stanford was rejected due to writings in this subject area). In any case, we are talking about Yad Vasehm recognition and the research and views of Yad Vashem historians is quite clear - for instance see this recent piece by the former director of the righteous department: In fact, many factions in the underground washed their hands of the Jews, with some, such as the NSZ, committed themselves to hunting down Jews on the run, while at the same time resisting the Nazi occupiers. Those few Jews who were admitted into the Home Army were able to do this mostly by successfully hiding their Jewish identity.[8] Misrepresenting Yad Vashem's recognition of a few exceptions within the AK as some sort of recognition that applies to the group is not NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian just because he doesn't agree with your extremist views. At least this time you're not misrepresenting sources and trying to use anti-semitic far right publications to make your attacks. Your last sentence makes no sense as that is not what the article text says. Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem... while making offensive comparisons between the Home Army and the Nazi party.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not BLP, it's already in the article and backed by RS. You're too quick to make accusations, Marek. François Robere (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz you wrote - ‘’Davies belongs to a different camp of historians’’ - could you clarify what do you mean? GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

VM - please cease making personnel attacks. As for "Davies belongs to a different camp of historians" - there are clearly a number of different schools of thought regarding AK-Jewish issues - as you might see in the historiography section in Zimmerman's The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939-1945 - pages 4-10 - where Zimmerman differentiates between various Polish sources (anti-AK communist era publication and pro-AK Polish emigre publications and post-communist Polish writing) vs. historians of the Holocaust and Jewish literature. Zimmerman refers to Norman Davies's God's Playground as an example of a "general histories of modern Poland published in emigration have been uncritical and laudatory". (top of page 5, Davies given as the example in footnote 19 at end of the sentence).Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks. Please be aware that falsely accusing someone of making personal attacks is itself a personal attack, per WP:NPA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you implying that Davies is fraudulent? Do I understand you correctly? GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I said he belonged to a different school of thought of historians - I did not say he was fraudulent. I quoted Zimmerman who wrote "uncritical and laudatory". Others have labelled him as a "polophile" - e.g. [9][10], Davies is opinionated and biased (he could be characterized as a Polophile), and he argues cogently—if not, for me, convincingly—for the most charitable interpretation possible concerning such subjects as the Polish government's policies toward Jews in the interwar period, and its ethnic cleansing of Germans and Ukrainians after the war.[11]. Being a WP:BIASED source does mean one is "fraudulent" - and I'll again quote the Atlantic - "Given Davies's bias, it's an impressive mark of his scholarly honesty and comprehensiveness that both times I've read his book it has led me to a conclusion its brilliant author would find uncongenial.". In regards to use on Wikipedia - we should bear in mind per WP:BIASED the proper use of attribution as well as the use of other viewpoints - clearly a section based mainly on one camp of historians (e.g. Snyder & Davies) is not NPOV - and would require significant balancing from sources representing a different POV.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't Zimmerman (a historian), this is some journalist, who appears to have some serious bias issues himself. That nasty quote he includes in his review about Poles lacking "common sense" is telling. Where do you even find this stuff? And oh yeah, this is the guy who's the editor of a magazine that publishes people like Steve Sailer. Sorry, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for an explanation. So according to Zimmerman, Davies is a biased "polophile". So you are indicating that Zimmerman is unbiased and that he belongs to a “different (better) camp of historians”. Why? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Gizzy, Zimmerman does not say that. Icewhiz pulled a little switcheroo, and substituted a different writer - a journalist, with some serious biases himself - while we were discussing Zimmerman. It does appear like Icewhiz is trying to suggest that Zimmerman said this, but he did not. But hey, let's WP:AFG and assume that this was (yet another) "mistake" on Icewhiz's part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I clearly wrote "Others have labelled him as" - which include (clearly cited) 2 rather notable journalists in serious publications, and a professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison in a book published by Guilford Press.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It was not clear to me, sorry. But thank you for explaining it. So Zimmerman has no issues with Davies work, these journalists have. Are these journalists more reliable than Davies? I don’t think so. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A professor as well. As for Zimmerman he gives Davies' work as an example of uncritical and laudatory" writing on the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman doesn't say "biased polophile", he does say "uncritical and laudatory" - which would seem to indicate Zimmerman is in a different school of thought than Davies (Zimmerman himself, on this issue, is more "middle of the road" - he's taking a positing he acknowledges is contrary to previous Holocaust studies[12]). The "Polophile" label has been used by professor Robert C. Ostergren, the Atlantic, and Paul Wells at Maclean's among others. We should take care to represent all significant viewpoints in the article - certainly there is some space for Davies - but certainly a large number of historians have disagreed with him regarding the AK and antisemitism. Returning back to this section - adding a recognition section to this article, based on the exceptional recognition of a few individuals in the group, is highly inapprorpiate and misrepresents the Yad Vashem designation which was awarded to a person and scholarship from within Yad Vashem.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Who decides that “Zimmerman himself, on this issue, is more "middle of the road" - he's taking a position he acknowledges is contrary to previous Holocaust studies" - is this your personal belief, or there are studies on that?GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In this particular case, Zimmerman himself says so - presenting the consensus among Holocaust researchers and then diverging from it (towards a less critical view of the AK) - he makes this clear in the introduction to his book as well as the link I provided above - why are we discussing Zimmerman? In any event, misrepresenting individual righteous designations, made to exceptional people, as representative of the group is a misrepresentation.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not. It just doesn't fit in with the POV you're trying to push here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you to show why this content which is not on the AK should be in the AK article. It is also WP:OR on the citations it uses.Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have bought the book (in Polish). It says it contains some corrections. It means the the original edition contains errors.

The book lacks historical context. An average Western reader is unable to understand it - almost nothing about traditional Sanacja, only OZON, almost nothing about economic and social conflicts in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias as usual

The HA was anti-German. Thousands of its member were murderd by Germans. Some other underground organizations (NSZ) and writers (Józef Mackiewicz) understood the future and criticized the HA. Now a traditionally biased editor creates a biased section Relations with Germans containing a description of Adolf Pilch actions. The biased editor quotes the book by Zimmermann, but he stays 50 years before Zimmermann and one mile below his book.

Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The section comes from Bielski partisans. Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Zimmerman, this was done with the full knowledge of the district command of Nowogródek - and this wasn't only Pilch, but also for instance Józef Świda's battalion. Certainly such cooperation bears mentioning in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's a singular case and it may be relevant at Plich's article if it exists. And putting this under "Relations with Germans" is obnoxious WP:POINT and just a continuation of your practice of making edits and comments whose sole purpose appears to be offensive and provoke other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Zimmerman - Pilch was not singular. Major Świda entered into a similar arrangement in the same district. And this was done with the full knowledge of the district commander of Nowogródek, Szlaski, see - Zimmerman, page 278. If you have a suggestion for a better section title for such liaisons with the German forces - fine - but removing well sourced content is not based on policy. Well sourced historical information should not be offensive to Wikipedia editors.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your titling of this section "Relationship with Germans" (the whole freakin' article is about HA's relationship with Germans, since the whole purpose of the organization was to fight the Germans) and then filling it up with one instance where one unit of the HA agreed to a local cease fire with the Germans was... what's the word.... what's the word... when you post something deliberately offensive, that you can't possibly mean seriously, which is intended to provoke a reaction in others...? Hmmm....? Can't think of it. If you can, then remind me and maybe we can talk then. Otherwise, just quit it man. Those kind of tricks might work on some reddit forum or facebook comments but not here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The AK's purpose was not to fight the Germans (whom they definitely fought in most areas), but to advance a post-war national government (and in this context, throughout much of the war the AK was a "force in being", mainly conserving its strength and engaging in minor local activities - the exception was when the front advanced towards Poland). I made sure to state that The Home Army fought against the Germans in most sectors, however there were a few exceptions.. I attempted develop Nowogródek (where per Zimmerman the command was aware of these arrangements by more than one units) was one of 16 Voivodeships. There were similar arrangements with the Germans in the AK's Wilno district (so that's 2/16 districts - and high conflict ones). A truce, tactical coordination (including - it would seem - AK members spared in reprisals in Wilno), and weapon supplies from the Germans is not a "local cease fire".Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"The AK's purpose was not to fight the Germans, but to advance a post-war national government ". Oh my god. You're still doing it. Saying things which are most likely intended to be offensive, that you can't possibly mean seriously and which are intended to provoke a reaction in others. Please stop it. Those kinds of comments can't really be responded to since they're absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The Communist-controlled groups, which were quite weak, advocated an immediate confrontation with the Nazi forces ....... In contrast, the Home Army sought to avoid a major confrontation, partly to spare the civilian population, but above all because it wanted to conserve its strength until the decisive moment when German power was on the verge of collapse. Its aim was to use that juncture in order to take Power in Poland and then confront the Soviets with the alternatives of either negotiating with the London government and its forces in Poland or else crushing those forces before the eyes of the world. This risky strategy, as is will known, failed disastrously and was followed by the sovietization of Poland. At the time, however, it was dictated by the desperate strategic position and by the realization on the part of the leaders in London that they had little chance of returning to their country. As a result, when the Jews of Poland were being murdered en masse, the minds of the Polish politicians in London and in the underground movement were firmly concentrated on what was to them the central issue of how to regain the independence of their country. [13] Antony Polonsky - not me. No lack of sources on how the AK was, for most of the war, a force in being.Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole fragment ommitted a "couple of facts"

• 1.The fact that Pilchs's unit counted 50 members and evaded pursuit by 10,000-12,000 strong Soviet partisant group.
• 2.Said pursuit happened AFTER Soviet forces broke agreement of cooperation with Pilch's forces and attacked them in surprise attack.
• 3.That Pilch decided to stay to protect Polish villagers who were robbed and massacred by Soviet and Jewish partisants
• 4.That he was excluded from AK.
• 5.There was no "anti-Jewish" operation by Bor-Komorowski. Jews were in AK. Jews were in Soviet forces too. There were also bands of armed Jewish fugitives/survivors engaged in banditry in the Eastern Poland under Soviet occupation.Both AK and eventually even Soviets attempted to stop their activities.Even sources that can hardly be named as anti-semitic like Yad Vashem or Adam Pulawski mention the fact of robberies and conflict with local non-Nazi population.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

1. The fragment stated that 50 men from Pilch's battalion evaded capture by the Soviets in December (the unit was larger pre and post capture it was reinforced). In addition other units such as Swida's acted in a similar fashion. 2. Per Zimmerman Pilch attacked Jewish and Soviet units in purpose, and executed a group of Jewish partisans (documented in AK logs and orders) - this led to a large Soviet operation to capture his unit, as well as hostilities vs. The AK in general. 3. Polish villagers were to a large extent part of the AK, with various "self defense" forces on the village level. 4. Per Zimmerman, Pilch continued to be part of the AK. The district sent him commands. He is even mentioned in explicit commands from Bor-Komorowski as a unit to be used for anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet action. 5. Zimmerman while agreeing with reinterpertation of order 116, points out other order by Bor-Komorowski. There were very few Jews in the AK (a few hundred per Zimmerman), and most of them kept their Jewish identity secret - in Western Belarus there were even fewer such Jews, due to the open conflict with Jews in the area from 1943 by the AK. That Jewish bands were in conflict with Polish villagers (who took control of Jewish property of former residents) is of course documented.Icewhiz (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the forest for a tree. There were conflicts between Soviet partisans and the Home Army, and later, the Red Army and the Home Army, as the communists wanted to destroy the HA, which they saw as a threat to their takeover of the country. The Soviet partisans had a higher proportion of Jews for a number of reasons (because the Soviets were less antisemitic, plus all the Zydokomuna stuff...). But it was never an antisemitic, HA-vs-Jews conflict. Outside of some antisemitic excesses by some units/individuals, usually of the NSZ, the HA had nothing against the Jews, and even helped them. Please stop trying to push a WP:UNDUE interpretation of the Home Army as antisemitic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

DRN - please read

I've asked for WP:DR of this article. The discussion is here. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Is Shmuel Krakowski reliable?

krakowski was a Communist political officer till 1966, so his opinion about the HA may be biased. Political officers brainwashed drafted soldiers. Certainly not Sine ira et studio.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right but we do need a reliable source for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

[14], quoted texts are to be verified. Xx236 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have started the thread in March. Now I have the Zimmermann's book which criticizes Krakowski's texts.Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Krakowski is generally reliable (particularly so when published in a journal or academic publisher). He is a noted academic and is widely cited. Yes - he is critiqued (though Zimmerman critiques only a very particular paper) - and it is hard to find any long standing academic who hasn't been critiqued. And if you want to eliminate former Jewish members of the Polish communist party (seeing he was deported from Poland in 1968 by the communists - I'm not sure what direction of bias he should have) - then are we to eliminate all historians who were members of the AK or were the descendants of AK members? I'm not sure you'd want to go down that route...... Nor do I think you'd want to eliminate every historian who has been critiqued by Zimmerman - as his introduction on historiography in the book basically critiques everyone on all sides (Jewish and Polish - he sees much of the Polish writing as "uncritical and laudatory") in his introduction - and then sort of strikes a middle ground between them all in the rest of the book - we'd be basically be left just with Zimmerman if we took this approach.Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please quote your source supporting that Krakowski was deported. He was allowed to emigrate at the time when ethnic Poles were imprisoned or mistreated in the Communist army.

Political officers were the worst group of officers, they indoctrinated and lied.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Dubious text reinstated, sourcing removed

@Volunteer Marek:, RE this blanket revert, please -

1. explain why you chose to remove two academic sources for Henryk Woliński's section.
2. Produce sources that show a meaningful connection between Żegota and the Home Army (as opposed to the Government in exile), that support, in full, the current text.
3. Produce a source stating that the AK established "organizations of Jewish resistance under Nazi rule in Poland" (as opposed to cooperating with same weaponry - which we already cover in "The Warsaw ghetto uprising" section).

The section heading - "daily operations" - is also at a disconnect from the content.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I actually restored sourced text which you removed. The Marrus and Zimmerman sources can be added, although they are redundant with whats already there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you restored text that was not supported by its citation - which is your responsibility to check after challenged. For instance, "as well as the formation of organizations of Jewish resistance under Nazi rule in Poland." is counterfactual, not supported by its references (not in Sławiński, which wouldn't be a RS in any event, Not in Wolffe, and not in any Yad Vashem report (the citation being rather malformed - ""Zegota, page 4/34 of the Report" (PDF). Yad Vashem Shoa Resource Center." - to the point of being unverifiable) I found on Zegota). Do kindly self-revert this WP:HOAX.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources which you tried to remove already DO discuss a connection between the Home Army and Zegota. So why are you trying to remove them, then demanding sources? WP:TEND.

As far as the other sentence, Slawinski says: "The military wing of the Polish Underground State, the Home Army, tried to involve the Jewish organisations in Poland in resistance activities. At first there was reluctance on their part to participate. However, in 1942 the Jewish resistance movement began. The Home Army helped by providing military intelligence, communication with the Allies and eventually by providing some weapons, explosives and military expertise for the fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising", which supports the text. The Wolffe source is obviously intended to source the Zegota part. But there's plenty other sources which discuss AK's support for Jewish resistance formations, especially ZZW (for example [15]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

1. The sources in the article support connections between some people affiliated with the AK and Zegota (e.g. per Kermish - Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, USHMM doesn't support this at all, neither does Wagman-Geller, Zimmerman is in the wrong location, Wolffe (wrong location) is closest to this and says that the founders of Zegota were Christian Poles working for the AK and other resistance groups) - they do not support The Home Army also supported the Relief Council for Jews in Poland, codenamed Żegota, - none of them say this - what you do have supported (which wouldn't go under "daily operations") is that "some of the Żegota founders also served in the Home Army".Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Slawinski, which is not a RS (being published by London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association), does not support "formation of organizations of Jewish resistance" - it does support (in a non-RS manner) the AK providing some assistance ( military intelligence, communication) to Jewish resistance units that were not formed by the AK. If this is all you've got - a non-RS that doesn't support the text - it goes. We already cover the Warsaw ghetto uprising separately (and also in that context - the AK did not form nor organize Jewish units).Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

One more change that needs to be done there, that I haven't done for 1RR, is the "formed by the Polish government" - it wasn't ("Żegota had been set up by representatives of the Front for the Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups" - Cesarani‏ & Kavanaugh (2004), p. 64). François Robere (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding this: C&K say Żegota was formed by "representatives of the Front for the Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups"; the Yad Vashem source says "representatives of the Polish parties operating in the underground"; another Yad Vashem source [16] states it included "activists... from many different political movements"; the USHMM source says "the Polish government"; and the Wagman-Geller and Baumgarten books say nothing. So only one source out of all of these says it was formed by the Polish government, two directly contradict it, and one implies it. Why should the text remain as it is? François Robere (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's incorrect. In addition to USHMM, the provided van Wormer source says the same thing. The thing is the Yad Vashem and the C&K are not contradicting this either - those "Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups" as well as "representatives of Polish parties operating in the underground" WERE part of the Polish government. There's no mystery here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not assign sub group actions to the entire group. We particularly do not do so selectively for positive assignments only, while leaving the negative qualified. If most sources do not make a jump to the encompassing group, neither should we.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the one book that isn't event about history (it's about welfare policy)? Does this seem enough to you?

those [activists] WERE part of the Polish government is WP:SYNTH, as is the generalization Icewhiz pointed out. François Robere (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You're actively disrupting the page. The discussion on this ended some time ago. We know the GIE did not form Zegota, and "partly funded" is hardly something that needs elaboration here. What's your point? François Robere (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. The discussion might have ... stalled but there was no consensus for your edit. Here's a suggestion: since you object to the text, why not tweak it and propose alternative here rather than repeatedly reverting to your preferred non-consensus version, which is simply just not going to fall. Please make an attempt at compromise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There were several attempts at compromise here - yet the article still largely reflects a rather limited set of sources which ascribe to a particular viewpoint. It would seem that additions and modifications are mainly blanket reverted - rather than modified to some middle ground. This should probably head to DRN or a RfC - either in parts or the section as a whole.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black?

How would you suggest "tweaking" a statement that is clearly false? Zegota was not formed by the Polish government. François Robere (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not "clearly false". The actual name of the organization was "Rada Pomocy Żydom przy Delegaturze Rządu RP na Kraj" - "Council to Aid Jews part of the Government Delegation for Poland". The Government Delegation for Poland was an agency of the Polish government in exile. Wait. Are you confusing Zegota with the Provisional Committee to Aid Jews? Come on, please take care to get the basics right first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you it was not formed as a government agency, and indeed wasn't one at all (Dariusz Stola (2003), The Polish government-in-exile and the final solution, in Zimmerman (ed.), Contested memories, p. 91). François Robere (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Section about Adolf Pilch

Interesting, but actions of one minor commander and his de facto excesses and betrayals are WP:UNDUE here. I support removal of this section. Interested parties may of course expand the article about that commander, he is notable. But he and his actions are too minor to deserve more than a sentence mention here. I'd support including a sentence about him and a link to his article in the 'relations with the Soviets' section. PS. That section was of course grossly biased, as it omitted any mention that Pilch only started fighting the Soviets following Soviet attacks on Polish partisans. He was only retaliating. Trying to imply that he turned on the Soviets out of whim (or antisemitism) is rather unfair, to say the least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Pilch wasn't retaliating - he ordered his men to attack Soviets and Jews upon their re-entry to the Naliboki forest (after being driving out by the German operation in August) - right after he got appointed (the previous commander was removed).
2. It wasn't just Pilch - it was also the Nadniemeński battalion commanded by Józef Świda. Świda was "sentenced" to death - but that got commuted to a reprimand - and he continued in the AK....
3. The Nowogródek district command - headed by Szlaski - knew of these arrangements and per Zimmerman condoned them.
4. The AK high command, who knew of Pilch's arrangement, did supposedly order him to stop - but they didn't do much beyond that. The continued to employ Pilch in their operations (with Bór-Komorowski specifically directing their use for anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet operations).
5. There were similar events in the nearby Wilno district.

So no - this isn't "just" Pilch. This is something that involved an entire AK district (whose command knew and condoned this) - and there are sources for Wilno as well.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Szlaski ordered to kill a HA officer (rather not Jewish), he didn't obey orders.Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. As you say yourself, the command ordered him to stop. And it did not sanction his actions in the first place. Regional command might have supported it for a brief time, though what exactly it supported is an open question ([17]). Granted, you are misled by the shoddy scholarship in that section of Joshua D. Zimmerman, who indeed describes Pilch's wartime actions as effectively starting (in September '43) from his orders to fight the Soviets (and the Jews). But the Soviets started this earlier (June). Pilch's agreement with the Germans started only in December. Exactly what happened, who started what, etc., is something for discussion in his bio article, not here (there's a book about him, [18]). PS. Pilch was clearly friendly toward Jews in general, and his units had many Jewish members: see his own words at Richard C. Lukas (25 March 2013). Out of the Inferno: Poles Remember the Holocaust. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 92–. ISBN 0-8131-4332-2. where he describes, among other things, how his unit incorporated dozens of Jewish men in 1944.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As for "who started it" (or "robbery" vs. "requisition" vs. "reacquiring Jewish property taken over by the Poles") - is frankly un-tractable in general - leading one to hark back to 1939 or 1921 (though for Pilch specifically - who was recently appointed to the unit - he arrived from England - it actually is clear he "started it" - but you could always claim he was responding to prior attacks on others). The Truth of the matter is that this was contested ground between Soviets, Germans, and Poles (with a few minor units - e.g. Belorussians and Jews) - making this a 3-way content throughout (so a bit messy - less messier than Western Ukraine where there was a 4-way conflict (Soviets, Germans, Ukrainians, and Poles). As such - any arrangement between the Polish forces and the Soviets was temporary - the Soviets saw the Poles as rebels.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - It is also Swida, not just Pilch. For high command ordering a "stop" - more critical examinations of this (that go beyond just noting said command) - note that this was entirely perfunctory. Swida was sentenced to death (when he headed back West to Krakow) - supposedly - but a death sentence got commuted to a reprimand and he was placed in charge of a another unit.... Zimmerman probes deeper and more thoroughly than those historians Zimmerman labels as "uncritical and laudatory". He uncovered a number of bits of corroborating testimony indicating the knowledge and sanction of the district command (and to large extent - such district commands were much more influential of the high command). He notes the high command didn't have problem with employing Swida on his return from the district. He further notes high command continued use of Pilch's units (see pages 280-1 in Zimmerman) - organizational report no. 240 covering sep 1 1943-feb 29 1944 by general Bór-Komorowski (so - all the way up), the following is written on Nowogródek "The highest priority in the Nowogródek district is the display of self-defence in the face of hostile Soviet partisans and Jewish-communist bands .... to achieve this goal our units have been mobilized and grouped into three battalions: in the 77th Infantry Regiment - The Zanimenski and Cadre Strike Battalion - the in the 78th Infantry Regiment - the Stolpce Battalion". The Stolpce battalion being Pilch's command. (the Cadre Strike Battalion - being the highly antisemitic Uderzeniowe Bataliony Kadrowe led by Bolesław Piasecki - incorporated into the Nowogródek district by Bór-Komorowski's command). I'll note that the same report admits "who started it" - saying the attacks on Poles were partly "in retaliation for the liquidation by our division of a Jewish band [of 12?] people who robbed Polish people". So - Bór-Komorowski after ordering a "stop" to the arrangement with the Germans (which was ignored in Nowogródek command) - continued to employ these same units who made this continuing arrangement (and noting that anti-Soviet and anti-Jewish operation were the priority - not German). So this was quite sanctioned. And.... The same was happening in Wilno. This cooperation with the Germans in the north-east in the offensive late 1943-early 1944 (so the actual period where the Home Army was involved in significant combat - as opposed to sitting and waiting) - was significant. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wilno included Ponary, where Lithuanian volunteers murdered thousands of Jews and hundreds of Poles including HA members and many places around Wilno (here 12 [19]). Icewhiz has never contributed to the Paneriai page. Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Putting all the other problems with this, um, section, it's simply UNDUE in a general level article such as this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, it seems Icewhiz is attempting to use this as a POVFORK within the article. The fact that he chose to name that section "Relations with Germans", despite the fact that the entire article is about "relations with Germans", since that's what Home Army did, fight the Germans, pretty much evidences that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is about the Home Army who fought many other factions (and most of the time - just conserved its strength waiting for the decisive moment). If the problem is the title - suggest an alternative one for coverage of the Home Army's arrangements in Nowogródek, Wilno, and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The title is a problem (as well as the content, since it's undue) but it's also a pretty good indication of the problems with your edits to this and related articles in general. It appears to be purposefully offensive and intended to provoke. I've pointed this out several times. At that point you could've said "oh sorry, I didn't mean that" or something like that, but instead you doubled down and kept pushing with it.

So how about you stop comparing the biggest anti-Nazi resistance movement to the Nazi party, you stop pretending that a single local act of cease-fire amounts to "collaboration", you stop titling your sections in offensive way, you stop making ridiculous assertions about how the biggest anti-Nazi resistance movement was not about fighting Germans but "about establishing a national government after the war", you stop changing "occupied by Soviet Union" to "administered to Soviet Union", you stop trying to argue that sources should be removed on the basis of their ethnicity, you stop trying to use far-right anti-semitic sources when it suits your purpose... and just seriously rethink your approach to your editing in this topic area. Then try to make some constructive edits and maybe at some point you'll earn back the trust and consideration that other editors once afforded you, but which your own actions squandered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The comparison between the AK and the Nazis, regarding danger to Jews in the countryside, has been made by Holocaust survivors and scholars - I am sorry you find this offensive, however these are sources we should reflect in the article. Occupied/adminstered is a NPOV issue, which is wider than just the Polish POV. The AK was in general opposed to the Nazis, but it had a wider agenda - establishing a national (i.e. not communist) post war gvmt - which is clearly set out by any expert source covering the AK. We prefer English langauge sources - this is policy. As for truce and weapon supply arrangements from the Germans - the section sourced two such arrangements, by significant units lasting some time. There were additional arrangements in Wilno. Sources critical of the AK note this was condoned at the district command level, and known by the high command.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

When Jewish survivors hate Poles, it's academic. When Polish survivors hate Jews - it's antisemitic.

A survivor may tell anything, a serious academic historian should understand the context of WWII terror. Hiding Jews weren't directly oppressed by Hitler, Himmler or Eichmann but by local peasants more or less controlled by Germans. Icewhiz maintains that Poland was an Axi state, even if tens of thousands of Polish ciutizens fought in the West 1940-1945. How many Jewish soldiers "run away" (according to the Polish edition of Zimmermann) in 1939 to fight the Nazis? I understand that the number of Jewish officers was limited and that the Jews weren't always werlcome, but how many? Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

for the record Icewhiz - I find it offensive alsoGizzyCatBella (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I regret you find coverage of the AK in RSes offensive, however we reflect academic sources, as opposed to writing what we wish.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I think Wikipedia in general needs a better overview of the conflict between AK and the Soviet partisans. The relevant section here may need some refining. But let's try to avoid undue weight and highlighting tiny incidents or footnote individuals. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The url you requested was not found

Links 95 and 96 - the Yad Vashem. Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Now 97 and 98.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you link them here, with accompanying info (titles, etc.) so we can try to derot them? Did you try the links in the Wayback Machine? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Gray Ranks should be integrated

The "Gray Ranks" should be integrated into the "Home Army" article. The See also is not enough. Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Concur. Nihil novi (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, of course, who'll do it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Polish 1939 attempt on Hitler's life

It belongs to Service for Poland's Victory. However, the division of the subject (the underground Home Army and its antecedents) into three parts complicates the subject. Maybe we need a general article on the SZP / ZWZ / AK? The Biuletyn Informacyjny was created by the SZP. Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the general article should be "Home Army". SZP / ZWZ / AK would be understandable.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That seems a good solution. Nihil novi (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to have a section that makes the background of AK clear, discussing its origins. We already do it, but as part of a general history article, paragraph that begins with "The Home Army originated in the Service for Poland's Victory (Służba Zwycięstwu Polski)" and mentions ZWZ later. A new subheading about AK origins mightbe in order? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the page should describe continuity, from 1939 till political and social activities of former HA soldiers in the years 1976-1989 and (with due caution) World Association of Home Army Soldiers. Biuletyn Informacyjny was published by three organizations, Grey Ranks cooperated with the three organization and probably many activities were continued in two or three organizations. The continuity should be explained to a new reader, who may be lost in the mix of Polish and English names. The problem is dificullt, maybe someon (Davies, Kochanski?) has written something useful? Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the Stroop Report

Two paper editions are referenced here. Are both editions identical? 99% of the readers don't have acces to the books. However the report is widely described in Stroop Report and an English translation (by the IPN?) is linked there.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The Protest

I'm not sure if the Protest is directly connected with Home Army. The picture is in Żegota, but it is not mentioned in the text. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's compare the UPA page

The HA and UPA pages are different. This page finishes about 1950, UPA contains 4 additional sections.

10 Monuments for UPA combatants

11 Monuments commemorating UPA's Polish victims

12 Ukraine (Combatant vs Collaborator)

13 Popular culture

13.1 Films

13.2 Fiction

13.3 Songs

Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Better to be Austrian

The Austrian Resistance was heroic and perfectionistic, not like the HA described here.Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Recognition

The list is incomplete: [20] Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Protest-inc-w-ghetcie-warszawskim-za-murem-odcinajacym-od-swiata-kilkaset-tysiecy-0.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews in the HA

From History of the Jews in Thessaloniki: Among the 1,000 Salonican Jews employed on the task, a group of twenty managed to escape from the ghetto and join the Polish resistance, the Armia Krajowa, which organized the Warsaw Uprising. Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the liberation of Gęsiówka.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Bolesław Jamróz

Can anyone verify this edit? François Robere (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The change was reverted. François Robere (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman about individual help

Zimmerman's book informs about Individual Aid.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

His book isn't quoted, listed for Further reading.

Zimmerman describes the supplies as "limited but real".[65]:121-122 but 65 is an erroneous reference.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please correct the reference 65.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

sought to denounce Jewish refugees ?

I'm sorry I don't understand. Do you mean that the HA denounced the Jews? I may belive they killed the Jews who were dangerous for the peasants or robbed food? What does Zimmerman say in his book about the subject? How is it possible to write about the HA-Jewish relations ignoring the only academic book? Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The War crimes subsection taken out of context

Relations with Lithuanians should include the war crimes in the context. The same Ukrainians. Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced subsection created by a new editor. Please discuss the subject here.Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Pawłokoma massacre

The massacre was committed by a former HA unit. Generally the problem of post-HA organisations should be described. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Also mentions of mass murders commited by post-HA units that has polish wiki pages should be added:

• Zbrodnia w Bachowie
• Zbrodnia w Brzusce
• Zbrodnie w Sufczynie

(+ +)MagicalFaces(+ +) (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Should be Polish, not polish.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the Home Army

It's not about the Jews nor the Holocaust, it's about the Home Army which means it should be written like similar pages. Please compare the Ukrainian Insurgent Army#UPA and Jews summarized Supporters of the UPA argue that the relationship between the UPA and Western Ukraine's Jews was complex and not one-sided. As far Ukrainian historians use two examples of Jewish UPA memebrs, one fictious and one who has never admitted to be Jewish, which means that they have only few real ones.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Home Army is about Jews and the Holocaust, as well as Poles, Ukrainians and others who were living under the Nazi occupation. François Robere (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The Army was an army. Why don't you write about Jews in another armies?

Why do you mention Ukranians here? They didn't join the HA and UPA fought a war against the HA. You haven't recently edited the Ukrainian Insurgent Army page, it was also an army which acted also in Germany occupied Poland. BTW - I don't know any Pole who met a Nazi during WWII. The Nazis were German citizens, educated in German or Austrian schools and universities, respected German citizens after the war. Were they de-Nazified in some magic fluid? Do you know the formula? Is it possible to de-Nazify the HA using the fluid? According toyour edits the only form of Nazism today id the HA and Żegota. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be better if you focused on the content rather than making disgusting and undue accusations against other editors. François Robere (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the Home Army. One may compare it to pages describing cruel underground organizations or WWII armies. Double standards. Even the Wehrmacht doesn't contain sections Wehrmacht and the Jews or Wehrmacht and the Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Somebody should expand the Wehrmacht article then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

HA war crimes

I see mentions of them were removed from article. I opt for inclusion mentions of them into text of article, if they are not already mentioned. They all have their Polish wikipedia articles under following polish names:

Mass murder on Lithuanians

• Zbrodnia w Dubinkach

Mass Murders on Jews:

• Zbrodnia w Lesie Siekierzyńskim (50-60 victims)

Mass murders on Ukrainians:

• Zbrodnia w Chlebowicach Świrskich
• Zbrodnia w Mołożowie
• Zbrodnia w Sahryniu
• Zbrodnia w Strzelcach
• Zbrodnia w Szołomyi
• Zbrodnie w Bukowinie

Also mentions of assassinations committed by AK on Ukrainian inteligentsia, mainly teachers of Ukrainian language and other shall be added, but it would require collecting sources together.

(+ +)MagicalFaces(+ +) (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dubingiai massacre is mentioned in the article. For other topics, I recommend translating the articles into English. Overall, just like with Dubingia, I agree such events should be linked here, through due to due weight concerns, and such events being pretty fringe and exceptional, there is no need to discuss them here in detail (as this could create a misleading impression that such events were not exception to the rule). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Exaggerations

This article hypes and boasts about the mighty prominence of the AK, which doesn't appear accurate. According to data from the Bureau of War Reparations of the Presidium of Poland's Council of Ministers, Poland's war casualties amounted to about 120 thousand, including 65,000 killed in 1939, 14 thousand killed among the 1st and 2nd Polish armies in the east, 13 thousand during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, and 20 thousand killed in guerrilla war. That amounts to at most 33,000 AK killed in guerrilla war. Tiny Albania had nearly 30,000 partisans killed against the Axis forces, and 300,000 Yugoslav partisans died during the war.[21]. 600,000 Soviets died when driving the Germans out of Poland... 76.168.138.102 (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a similar number under "Membership". Other than that we cannot opine on this here. François Robere (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, better sources than a random Russian/Ukrainian websites please. And if you are citing Polish gov't figures, well, communist era Polish gov't did its best to marginalize (and falsify) statistics related to AK to propagate the myth that it was communist AL partisans who led the resistance (in reality, AK/AL strength and actions were like 10:1, but communists did their best to make them either equal or just talk about AL, and one of their best tools was to ignore and falsify info on AK). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The AK had a limited number of rifles. Please explain how was it able to fight against planes and tanks.

The goal of the AK was to organize uprisings like the Prague uprising or some actions in France. They fought in Wilno and Lwów. It's not obvious why the Warsaw uprising failed.

The Yugoslav Partisans fought in mountains (no mountains and little forests in ethnic Poland). And they didn't fight the Axis only, they fought a number of civil wars either.

World War II in Albania However, the NLA's military activities in 1943 were directed as much against the party's domestic political opponents, including prewar liberal, nationalist, and monarchist parties, as against the occupation forces.

Any killing of a German was punished by killing of 50-100 Polish civilians.

Many AK members collected or produced arms, spied or opposed German intelligence, produced false documents, printed and distributed papers.

World War II casualties doesn't inform about any civilan deaths in Albania, so our knowledge is very limited. Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent reversal

@Piotrus: Regarding this reversal: Do you object / support anything in particular? (Just to narrow the scope of the discussion) François Robere (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: IMHO, the article was relatively stable and neutral until last few months, so I do prefer the version more congruent with the past revisions. Wholesale reverts are unrproductive. Let's discuss any issues here, one by one. For better or worse, there are fewer participants now, so hopefully we will be able to keep the discussion more on topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The last versions to hold for more than a couple of days date late 2017. If you want to restore to one of those and work from there we can do that. If you'd rather I explain specific changes we can do that as well, I just don't want to start elaborating on something we both agree on, so if you can narrow the scope somewhat it would be helpful. Either way I'll be back with you in a few days. François Robere (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than doing big reverts which require one to review the entire article sentence by sentence, it is better to do them in small parts. Also, please list all changes here so others can review them. I may very well agree with you on many of them, but it is easier for them to be listed here, just as you did on Zegota's pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Changelist:

• Removed "Protest!" poster - has little to do with AK.
• Restored previous structure, including "daily operations" and "attitude towards refugees" sections.
• Shortened section lead - no reason for all that stuff there - it's enough to say that "attitudes varied" - and some of it (specifically the "clashed with Soviet partisans" bit) is fallacious and apologetic in that context (the original statement, about persecution of Jewish partisans, was distorted by a now-banned editor).
• Removed some material that referenced the IPN bulletin - the bulletin has been challenged as a source; the editor who made the challenge has been temporarily banned for WP:BATTLEGROUND, but the challenge was convincing. The gist of it was that a) the bulletin was a publication intended for public consumption, and should be viewed critically compared with scholarly publications; and b) IPN is not purely a research or commemoration institution, but a government authority with executive power; as such it has been politicized at times, and should be treated accordingly. So I'm reluctant to rely on the bulletin alone for contended claims.
• The generalizing statement about AK imposing "harsh punishment" for a/s behavior has been switched back to a more accurate, "some" statement, to better reflect the source.
• The "closely integrated with the JMU" section was removed as fallacious (see previous discussion).
• The JMU/Soviet censorship bit was also removed - irrelevant apologetics.
• The "Jewish hit squad" was removed - was very poorly sourced. This may have been discussed at AE at some point, in addition to this TP.
• Moved a source to the reflist and changed the references accordingly.
• There's a phrase from Snyder about "operations to save Jews" that I changed to better reflect the source.
• Removed detail about Zegota forming and financing as inaccurate and off-topic. It was previously discussed here.
• The segment about Rowecki was poorly written, so I rephrased and shortened it.
• Restored two sources that raise important reservations about AK arms supply to the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
• Tagged several vague bits.

François Robere (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the above seems unecessary and diminishes the value of this article, by removing well sourced and important information. I would suggest making smaller reverts so that editors can discuss potential controversial changes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to discuss here. That's why Piotr asked for this. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Your IPN comments are biased. The IPN has existed since many years and published many very good texts. It's obvious which authors are biased and which ones are neutral, which texts are about history and which are political. Unfortunately the Yad Vashem has recently published biased political comments, does it make all YV research wrong?Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The changelist doesn't contain any Biuletyn IPN reference. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Discussion stalled, so I restored the above revision while incorporating later copyedit by others. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: The discussion might have not stalled have you pinged me about it. Anyway, I've reviewed and copy edited the text again. I don't see what's apologetic about saying that most clashes between Polish and Jewish partistans were de facto clashes between Polish and Soviet partisans. Also, IPN bulletin and other sources are at least as good as Yad Vashem publications and in fact most of the times are much better, since IPN sources like [22] are full of footnotes and references, unlike YV pamphlets. I do share your concerns about the politicization and loss of neutrality in recent Polish historiography, but it is not our job do call foul, we have to leave it to other scholars to describe, in years to come, whether IPN works (and of what period) are acceptable or not. Ironically, your removal of this particular source is quite in line with the current Polish government politic, as the author of the cited article, dr Adam Puławski, was recently... forced to leave IPN as his research was seen as politically incorrect - too critical of the Polish govt/org towards Jews, and not the other way around... ([23], [24]). And, as Puławski case shows, not everyone associated with IPN, even now, can be seen as towing a particular agenda. I wonder what dr Puławski would think of your arguments: he is too pro-Jewish to work in IPN, apparently, but to you, Francois, he is too, err... Polish? IPNish? to be acceptable on Wikipedia? I hope this case teaches you that nothing is white and black, and we have to go beyond simple labels when judging a source reliability (I am certainly going to be more cautious when it comes to post-2018 IPN publications in this field, myself, but I am still not agreeing they are not reliable; don't confuse neutrality with reliability). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what's apologetic about saying that most clashes between Polish and Jewish partistans were de facto clashes between Polish and Soviet partisans The phrase was the conception of an editor now topic-banned, which attempted to misrepresent a source stating AK units killed Jews as such. If you have a source on the political factions use it, but don't use it alone or replace the original and what it stated.

IPN bulletin and other sources are at least as good as Yad Vashem publications I think Icewhiz made a decent argument against that publication. Also, we've had the discussion before regarding IPN's politicization - there are articles about it already. Yad Vashem, in comparison, isn't and never has been obliged to any party line.

As for the particular source - I did not make any claim regarding Adam Puławski specifically.

Regarding post-2018 IPN: As I said before, even if any particular study is done properly, selection and publication biases can still be introduced to and through other studies, and I would argue it is our job to filter those out, though the exact method of doing so is subject to another discussion. François Robere (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So if two editors are topic banned, the one you disagreed with you refer to as topic banned, but the one who agreed with you you refer by nickname. Isn't this what one would call hypocrisy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Gęsiówka table - twice

Does anyone control integrity of the page?Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

POV/WEASEL use of word "some"

In the sentence "The Home Army leadership punished some perpetrators of antisemitic violence in its ranks" - is the word "some" actually in the source? The insinuation here seems to be that it CHOSE not to punish others. But this is sort of like saying "the US justice system punishes SOME murderers", because you know, that's actually true, because not all murderers are caught or convicted. The wording is POV. Volunteer Marek 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources aren't decisive on how often the AK actually enforced that policy. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Attitude towards refugees

The word refugees defines a POV - good refugees and bad local population and AK units. The refugees plundered however the farms to survive and created a danger of German punishment. Polish peasants were plundered/taxed already by the Germans (the Kontingent system) and sometimes by guerilla, sometimes by many guerillas and common criminals. It's quite logical they refused to accept the demands of the weakest opponents - the Jews.

The Germans created the cruel system, not the peasants or AK soldiers. I understand moral indignation of some editors, but tis Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ethical guide.Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're chased out of your home under threat of murder and have no safety or home among your fellow citizens, then you're a refugee. If you're forced to live by plundering because the majority of the population would rather see you dead than full, you're still a refugee. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If you control the language, you control the past. Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This time I can't but agree with Xx236. Anyway, the word refugee is not correct in this context, refugee "is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely". Clearly, this term does not apply here. Not sure what would be better, displaced civilians, perhaps, ugh. PS. C&K use the term fugitives [25]. Refugees in this context seem to be a POV inventon of someone, aiming to evoke extra sympathy. "AK hunted refugees". No, AK occasionally clashed with bandit gangs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Internally displaced persons" [26] is legalese. "Refugee" is good enough as far as I'm concerned - especially as it is accepted usage [27][28]. That being said, the legal term can be used here, as the Polish state was all but dissolved and had no authority in the territories occupied by the Germans - a requirement for using "displaced" rather than "refugees".

As for "fugitives" - that's possible. Not common, but possible.

As for "bandits" - no. We already had this discussion and several sources on how the term was used to refer specifically to Jewish refugees, and exempted Poles who relied on similar tactics (including from AK). And yes - we have sources explicitly stating that some AK units actively sought out Jews - not "bandits", "Jews". François Robere (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

PS There's no need to evoke extra sympathy for anyone. One should have all the sympathy in the world for those who for no wrongdoing of their own are hunted by their occupier, denounced by their peers, have no home, no means for survival and no hope of finding safety or help, who as a last resort take up theft and robbery just so they have some food and clothing. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You lack sympathy for Polish victims, but you demand "all the sympathy in the world". Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please cite such sources, so we can discuss this in detail. While there are always exceptions, and there were a few, marginal (<1% of total) AK units that committed various atrocities, something that can certainly be mentioned here, we have to avoid creating the wrong impression. A statement that "AK hunted Jews" is about as misleading as "Jews collaborated in the Holocaust" (yes, a few did, ex. Hotel Polski, again, <1% of of total...). As for sympathy, yes, up to a point, for example when theft and robbery results in murder, or leaving others to starve in the winter. Again, extreme cases, but that's what we are talking about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Bauer (1989): "Orders were issued in 1943 by the AK to kill Jewish "bandits," who were supposedly robbing and otherwise endangering the Polish population."
• Cesarani & Kavanaugh: "Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these people (and also to Communist partisans) as "bandits," an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves."
• Connelly (2012): "In tune with nationalist writers, [Kochanski] calls these [Jewish] partisans “Jewish bandits” and asserts that, by executing such alleged marauders, the AK “protected” the Polish population. And yet, if it had included Jews as part of the population to protect, the Polish underground would have fed those in hiding rather than hunt them down. In a sense, members of the AK were also bandits, dependent on the local population for provisions, taking by force what they could not obtain by consent. Why does Kochanski think that Polish Jewish partisans were a menace whereas Polish Christian partisans were not?"
• Krakowski, in Zimmerman (2003), p. 103: "A very painful phenomenon was the widespread hostility of a significant part of the Polish underground toward Jewish armed detachments in the forests. Many documents of the Home Army and the Delegatura refer to these detachments as gangs of bandits and robbers. These allegations appeared often starting from the end of 1942 until the summer of 1944. At the same time, very little was done to aid those Jewish escapees hiding in the forests, despite the circumstances which brought them to the forests. I cannot find any justification for labeling these fighting Jews as bandits. We find here a strange paradox. On the one hand, the Polish underground (and, in many cases, also the Jewish underground) often accused the Jewish population of passivity during the liquidation of the ghettos and the deportations. There was very little understanding for people who found themselves in circumstances unprecedented in modern history and without any means for effective action. On the other hand, the Polish underground labeled as bandits those extremely brave men and women who were able to escape from the closed ghettos and camps under harsh circumstances and organize some self-defense groups."
• Zimmerman (2015) discusses this from p. 254 onwards: "The shift to a decidedly negative attitude toward the Jews under the new Home Army commander coincided with a new focus on combating banditry. This included calls by several district commanders for action against Soviet, communist, and Jewish bands. Komorowski’s first recorded comment on Jews since becoming underground commander reflected the new, negative orientation, entirely devoid of empathy. “There is discontent with the Jews who have escaped from the ghettos,” Komorowski wrote in a dispatch to London on July 21, 1943. “They are eager to fight or else join groups of bandits (szajki bandyckie).” In a rare admission that Jews were unwelcome in Home Army units, Komorowski maintained, “no one wants to accept Jews in the Warsaw neighborhoods.”" He then discusses the notorious "organizational reports" No. 220 & 116.

A statement that "AK hunted Jews" is about as misleading as "Jews collaborated in the Holocaust" The text says "a few AK units", and I think that's a fair description. François Robere (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction here. The Jewish population like any other population included people of various background, including those who were involved in robberies or collaboration. The famous/infamous Bielski for example was a smuggler before the the war.Once again you do not observe that there was a difference in treatment of these groups in Central Poland and Eastern Poland-this is mentioned in scholarly research.The groups in Eastern Poland in 1939-1941 had people who were in position of power over local population when they collaborated with Soviets, for example Bielski was a commisar if I recall correctly. There was a general feeling of distrust due to activity of this group of people, even if they weren't majority.I can bring scholarly sources who note that assistance to hiding Jews was more eagerly given outside parts of Poland that were under Soviet occupation before.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are always good, so we can cite them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You're making the point quite well: The "the Jewish population had people of various backgrounds" bit makes too implicit assumptions: 1) The anyone referred to as a "bandit" was indeed a bandit; 2) that people had a choice with respect to their strategy of survival (some were collaborators, some were bandits, etc.). Both of these assumptions are wrong. The Bielski group is a good example: it was mostly (70%) women, children and the elderly, and only about 1/10th of the members were actually armed. The Bielski family itself was mostly farmers and shopkeepers; of the four brothers only Tuvia had military training AFAIK (and no, he wasn't a smuggler - only one popular publication suggests that, and even that is qualified with a "maybe"). All or most of the men, women and children who made the group would've perished were it not for the group. Their backgrounds didn't matter, they had no choice.

So were they bandits? No more than thousands of Poles who did just the same and weren't called that by anyone. And that's the point - and one the sources make amply clear.

You need not bring sources: Komorowski himself notes that "no one wants to accept Jews in the Warsaw neighborhoods". François Robere (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line is simple. Some Poles and Jews acted like bandits. Others were described as such without just cause (and yes, Soviet/communist propaganda referred to Poles/AK as bandits very often, so there's a parallel). We should avoid making any simplifications, there was an entire spectrum of behaviors. AK units murdered unamarmed Jews on an occasion or several, clashed with armed Jewish partisans over scarce resources, collaborated with others, were attacked by Jewish partisans allied/gauged by the Soviets who wanted to use them as tools to weaken AK - this and more happened. Anyone who tries to deny part of that is pushing a POV. Nonetheless, the general picture is clear. AK actively helped the Jews (with supplies and training) more often than it actively hurt them. There was, of course, lots of passivity, generally related to the fact that AK had limited resources; it's not like it could've stopped The Holocaust, after all (does anyone here believes that if AK could've stopped it, it wouldn't have?). We have to avoid to extreme POVs: one describing AK as saints who did no wrong, and another one who seems them (or Poles, in general) as complicit in the Holocaust. Really, it's all pretty simple. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Help for Jews from the AK itself was fairly scarce (some support prior to the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and in Warsaw specifically absorbing some surviving Jewish bands that broke out of the ghetto). What we do however have is a geographical dichotomy. In the eastern lands (and in this context - there is also a geographical division between the northeast (Belarus, Lithuanian) and the southeast (Ukraine) due different "ethnic alliances") - Jews survived in the forests - and the AK was generally in conflict with Jews in the forests (partisans, civilians, and the spectrum in between). In the un-forested West, there were very few Jews surviving off the land - Jews outside the ghettos were (mostly) either passing off as Aryans or hidden by Polish families - and conflict between AK units as units and Jews - was fairly scarce. Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll agree with whatever you say about over-simplification, and you're right on the range of interactions you're enumerating, but I think you're wrong on the conclusion: The bottom line is the Home Army didn't do a lot for Jews other than report on what was going on to the GOE. The instinctive attitude of its leadership reflected that of Poland as a whole: "Jews are not 'us'". Everything else stemmed from that. François Robere (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

But once more - this page is about an army, not about civilians. Let's not continue the line set in the text National Armed Forces, where at least 30% is abort the Jews. Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"The bottom line is the Home Army didn't do a lot for Jews other than report on what was going on to the GOE"Neither did Home Army save Poles when Germans were massacring them,because it was unable to do so, what is actually your point here? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I’ve seen “jewish escapees”, although the phrase seems to be more frequently used for the Jewish population that was escaping German-occupied Europe or fleeing ahead of the German advance, for example during Barbarossa: [29]; [30]. “Ghetto escapees” and “ghetto refugees” are also used: [31]. The latter suggests that they had been interned in the ghettos first, which may not always be the case, but this narrows it down.

I don’t see a POV here; what’s good enough for the sources is good enough for the encyclopedia. I view "fugitives", "refugees" and "escapees" as being pretty close, and any would be acceptable. Separately, Refugees in this context seem to be a POV invention of someone, aiming to evoke extra sympathy. "AK hunted refugees". No, AK occasionally clashed with bandit gangs. This gave me pause. The full quote from Cesarani and Kavanaugh is as follows:

In general, though, the Home Army tended to see individual Jewish fugitives as security risks that were likely to endanger its own position. Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these people (and also to Communist partisans) as “bandits”, an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves.

Source. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting Antony Polonsky actually (Cesarani and Kavanaugh are the editors). Whatever we call Jews managing to elude the Nazis (escapees, fugitives (e.g. [32] Zimmerman uses this), refugees, civilians, etc.) - the attacks by Home Army units on Jews surviving in the countryside is well documented and covered in the literature. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your world is simple. Jan Hus allegedly said "Sancta simplicitas". Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Kochanski has specific opinions, she doesn't know contemporary Polish historiography, so if Connelly criticizes Kachanski, what doesn it give?

who were supposedly. The Poles are always wrong, non-Poles are always right. It seems however that Bauer's 1989 propaganda has been replaced by more academic descriptions. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Komorowski lacks empathy. Were Churchill, Mongomery, Roosevelt empathic?

This page is about an army, not about civilians, empathy nor language used inside the army. Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sikorski's order

@Piotrus: Re: this the point is the Jewish groups first asked the local (as in "resident", not "regional") leadership for help, and when that failed they went up the chain of command and appealed to Sikorski, who ordered AK to help. This is notable. François Robere (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That makes more sense, but we need better sources/quotations for verification and precision. Who refused to help and in what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

They asked for weapons. I don't know who they asked, but when Karski raised the issues with Rowecki, the latter was aware of it but was hesitant to provide. Several sources mention hesitance on AK's side, and several sources mention direct involvement by Sikorski. François Robere (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And, honestly, so what? The weapons were provided. It's hardly surprising that there was some hesitation, AK didn't have any surplus, and it is only logical to keep scarce resources to oneself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's one important detail in a mountain of evidence that AK regarded Jews as second rate citizens. We actually have an AK commander saying at some point that they know Jews are suffering but aren't going to act unless the Nazis start persecuting Poles (see Zimmerman (2015), 167-168). Did AK show similar apprehensions to other local organizations it supplied? François Robere (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The HA wasn't able to defend the Poles, so everyone was second rate citizen.

This page is about an army, not about its commanders individual opinions. A similar page Israel Defense Forces doesn't contain IDF attitude toward Palestinians section.

Did the HA supply any other organization? It's goal was to integrate all organizations, not to supply them. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

" Did AK show similar apprehensions to other local organizations it supplied?" AK wasn't interested in supplying anyone, as it represented the legal military of Polish state under Soviet and Nazi occupation.Other groups weren't seen as legitimate military organizations.Jewish groups were small and had no military value at all, plus the ones in the East were a security threat quite often due to their connection with Soviet partisants.AK primary goal was to wait until military opportunity presents itself for countrywide uprising assisting forces ending German occupation.As undersupplied and underfunded organization it was in no positiong to end German genocide of Poles in the first place, never mind the genocide of Jews.Giving away few weapons would have achieved nothing besides compromising its structures to Germans.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. We have a sourced fact, part of a bigger well-sourced story. No real reason to leave it out. François Robere (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I am very glad that you found this guideline on Wikipedia, I have been thinking of suggesting this to you long time ago, based on your constant comments on various talk pages.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)