Talk:Soviet partisans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Polish military history task force
Russian and Soviet military history task force
World War II task force
  1. Talk:Soviet partisans/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Poland and historic revisionism

Recently I took the liberty to rename the title of a section on Soviet partisans in Poland from Former eastern territories of the Second Polish Republic to Soviet partisans in Poland. As usually, my edit was instantly reverted by Irpen, who accused me of historic revisionism. Let's check who is the revisionist then.

  1. Soviet partisans operated in the said area between 1941 and 1944
  2. Poland officially ceded the said areas to the USSR in 1945
  3. So the area became a former eastern territory of Poland only after the Soviet partisans were already in Berlin, with the Red Army
  4. While the rest of the world never recognized the Soviet and Nazi occupation of Poland in 1939, the Soviet Union also declared its pacts with Germany null and void in 1941.
  5. So, in other words, the version defended by Irpen does not hold the water.

Besides, there's several other arguments for the new name of the section:

  1. It's shorter and simpler
  2. It's in line with the name of the more detailed article on Soviet partisans in Poland
  3. The name of the said country was Republic of Poland. Second Polish Republic is just a nick-name, coined by journalists, but never used officially.
  4. Finally, some of the most notorious groups of the Soviet partisans operated in the area of Pinsk and Kobryn, which was in central rather than eastern Poland. //Halibutt 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, the very existence of this section was a significant compromise as it is redundant. The actions in the territories attached to the USSR in 1939 belong to Ukraine and Belarus sections where they are covered already. The section uder question concentrates on the relationship with Poles rather than actions in Poland. I will then rename it as such. The actions in central PL is an interesting fact that I've never heard of. But if this ineed happened, this would belong to a totally different section that we have about the action "outside of the Soviet Union". Feel free to elaborate on this interesting detail there. --Irpen 05:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a compromise, it was simply what was left after you single-handedly moved parts of this article that you did not like to some other place. But still, the actions of Soviet partisans in what was Poland back then belong to the section on Poland, not on Belarus or Ukraine. The said areas did not became a part of Ukrainian and Belarusian SSRs until 1945.
As to geography, prior to 1945 the areas around Vistula and Bug were in central Poland rather than eastern. Note that only now, after the annexations, Warsaw is considered to be in the eastern part of the country. //Halibutt 07:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Single handedly? First, Piotrus agreed to it. Second, it was well explained and this has nothing to do with my not liking anything. The said areas became Ukraine and Belarus in 1939, however unjust was the way it was done. The action in this areas is already covered in UA and BE sections. Note the UPA issue. The entire UPA happened in the former territories of Poland and it is covered in Ukrainian section. Would you propose that moved?

As Warsaw getting to be Eastern Poland, well, lots of things happened at the time. Some territories that became Western Poland were disputably Polish. How is this relevant here?

I had no objection against a distinct PL-centered angle over the issue be represented in the WP. Much research was done and a separate article is justified, just like the Holodomor can legit coexist in WP with the Famines in Russia and USSR. However, the "in Poland" section in the main article was a flame-bait, similar to your other writing about "treatment by the occupiers" separate section in the History of PL article. The broad topics need to be presented with the natural flow of events and consequences. Inserting the sections of the narrow view into the broad topic articles is unhelpful for the articles in the first place. If I saw the info as unencyclopedic, I would have proposed it for deletion, rather than the spinoff. So, please do not accuse me in liking or not liking. And in this article the SP are not presented as mere heroes. A healthy amount of criticism is there too. --Irpen 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. So how many Soviet partisans were there in 1939? And in 1940? None. The entire movement started already after the USSR declared their pacts with Nazi Germany (including the Ribbentrop-Molotov) null and void. And ended long before Poland officially ceded those areas. But you call people revisionists even though it is you to propose an extraordinary vision of history and propose to revise it.
  2. As to single-handed migration, you might want to take a look at Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland to see if there really was a consensus to pick just one aspect of Soviet partisan activity and move it to some separate article. Besides, you did not consult anyone before applying those changes, did you.
  3. Sure you had no objections - as it was you to move it.
  4. I doubt the Polish perspective on the Soviet partisans is narrow. AAMoF it seems that it's common to all nations involved who were blessed by the Soviets with partisan activity
  5. So how should I call your action? Not backed up by sources or by consensus, merely by your own liking and your own views. You believed that Soviet perspective merits inclusion in this article, while Polish does not. You did the move and you defended it fiercefuly. //Halibutt 18:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I told you elsewhere that MRP was not and could not be a legal basis to incorporate the Polish territories into the USSR and this was not the meaning it was supposed to have. Firts of all, the appendix about the partition of PL was secret and kept secret for another 40 years. You do not classify the documents that you want legalize your actions. Further, MRP was a mere memorandum between two countries on what their plans were and how they were going to implement it. The basis of the incorporation, was the Soviet de-facto control of the territory after the successful Soviet invasion. The cited legal basis of invasion was the Soviet gov's claim that Poland, as a state, seized to exist and not the MRP (Soviets waited with their invasion on purpose and started it only after the PL gov was evacuated exactly to be able to make that claim). The other reason cited by the Soviets was "the need to protect the Ukrainian and Belarusian population". We are not talking here about the merit and honesty of these justification. But note that 1) MRP was not a legal basis of anything and 2) the territories of Kresy were de-facto Soviet by 1941. --Irpen 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... So, shall we call all other sections "partisans in Germany" or something like that? Szopen 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no respected literature calls Kiev (or Smolensk) Germany even for the couple of years of the German occupation. OTOH, Lviv and Brest (even of that time) are widely called as cities belonging to Soviet Ukraine and Belarus. --Irpen

Now, let me repeat the question, do you claim that interaction with UPA should be moved from UA section to the Polish one? Seriously?

As for the PL perspective, it is encyclopedic, but I have to remind you one more time that not every event in the world history is Polish-centered, you know. It is for the sake of the History of PL article and, perhaps, for the PL-wiki. Polish view of the events is notable and encyclopedic but does not warrant the prominence of the whole section in the main article. It just looked odd there. If you seriously disagree, let's start a poll. Would you object? I repeat that you were the only one to object to the spinoff. I agree that this is not consensus. But sometimes a full consensus is impossible. Why won't you start the poll to see where the overwhelming majority stands. --Irpen 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if the basis of the occupation was a de facto control (a tautology? The basis for de facto control was a de facto control?), then why do you refer to those areas as part of Soviet Union and not as parts of Poland de facto under Soviet control?
Also, the Soviets waited so long for fear of the western intervention, while the Polish government was evacuated to Romania specifically because of Soviet invasion. Not prior to it, but afterwards - and as a direct consequence of the Soviet tanks nearing the Polish-Romanian border.
Let me remind you then that what happens on Polish territory is Polish-centred, no matter what. And, let me also remind you, that the Nazi-Soviet views are quite isolated in that the rest of the world did not accept them. So it's not a problem of too much "Polish view", but the problem of certain users pushing the view of the (fortunately) deceased USSR against the view of pretty all other states, except for Nazi Germany and their puppets. In this case a poll won't tell you what is right, as this is the case of facts vs. their interpretation by the Soviets. We don't vote on whether 2 and 2 make 4, do we. //Halibutt 21:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
When one starts talking about Nazi and Soviet in such a way, that usually means that this person is short of meaningful arguments, and such a comment borders on a personal attack, as it criticizes the contributor and not the content.
And by the way, why voting on 2x2 is harmful in any way? Let's vote on this matter, and I'm pretty sure most users will agree Lviv is an Ukrainian territory and Brest a Belorussian one. And yes, those areas were part of the Soviet Union because it annexed them. Or maybe in your universe, everyone is as peaceful as a sheep and everything is colored in pink? A country grows by annexing its neighbors, it is as simple as that. So for all intents and purposes, it was a Soviet territory by the times this article deals with. And by the way, it's still ain't Polish territory, and unlikely to be so in the future. Bottom line: your argument is moot.
As for the evacuation, this is just funny, as the first evacuation was because of German invasion, not because of Soviet.
And finally, what "Other states"??? No other states are mentionned here? Maybe you will tell to an Ukrainian living in Lviv that it is not his land? I'm sure the answer will be pretty self-explanatory :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think if you would ask Pole living in Lwow in 1939 whether it is Ukrainian land you will also get self-explanatory request. But getting to the point - Germans have annexes Greater Poland and Pomorze into Germany, directly. So Polish udnerground in these territories should go into "German resistance", right? Szopen 06:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you all need some WP:TEA. Considering that the question of 'whom the Kresy belonged to' during 39-45 is a tricky one, I think the current section heading ('Relations with Polish resistance forces') is pretty decent. Perhaps the Soviet partisans in Poland article should be renamed into Relations between Polish and Soviet partisans, without a mention of 'where', because as we have seen it it is not an easy answer to give :) PS. Grafikm: Poland government and most of Polish forces did indeed evecuate to Romania because of Soviet invasion, not German one. According to Polish plans for the German only invasion, they area of Romanian bridgehead was to be defended for months, and (speculating here) if not for Soviet invasion, Poles could have defended that region until Allied offensive in 1940...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, just about anyone find that "Relations with Polish resistance forces" is an OK compromise for the title, and I'm not saying that it is biaised either.
As for your objections about evacuations, like you said, it is a speculation, because no one is able to predict what could happen otherwise. However, the government was already evacuated from Warsaw long before...
This side issue set apart, I think this title meets a pretty decent consensus and should be kept as is. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that the scope of both the section and the article created out of it is not the relations but activity. It is (and should be) a description of Soviet activity in Eastern Poland during WWII. Relations with local population, Polish resistance or the Germans might be a nice addition, but not the main scope. Alternatively, we could create two separate sections, one focused on relations with the locals and the other devoted to SP's activities. //Halibutt 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the sectioning of the article by the Soviet Republics is that each SSR with Germans on their territory had its own Commando. At Stavka there were Russian partisan commando, Belarusian partisan commando and Ukrainian partisan commando. At corresponded Fronts there were weaker Karelo-Finnish, Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian commandos plus some organizations for the North Caucasus. There was no Polish Soviet Partisan Commando (if we do not count Armia Ludowa) - I guess that is because there were no Polish Soviet Socialist Republic). I find logical to follow the organizational structure of an organization in its own article. The question of who was a legal sovereign over a territory is irrelevant here abakharev 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Germans too had their administrative divisions in occupied Soviet territory, yet we're not pretending that Smolensk was part of Germany in 1943, do we. At the same time, this article does just that: it presents the Soviet dreams as reality. Also, several users do their best to revert anyone who is trying to correct that, or at least make this article represent anything but the Soviet vision of the world. Sorry, Alex, but this is not NPOV. //Halibutt 21:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What Soviet dreams are you talking about? Besides, this section deals just with the title of one header, which has nothing to do with NPOV. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
When we are talking of Reichskommissariat Moskau or Reichskommissariat Ukraine or Reichskommissariat Kaukasus or Lokot Republic we naturally use the German administrative units, when we are talking about Armia Krajowa we use Polish administrative units it appears naturalt to use Soviet administrative units for the Soviet Partisans (that are the same as the structure of the organization in question) abakharev 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Alex, your argument would make much more sense if the article would use the word 'Commando' even once ;p. That said, as I wrote above, because it is night-impossible to clearly define what was 'Poland' or 'Ukraine', and anyway as we well known population was very mixed in terms of ethnicity, I think that we should rething (and rename) the 'Areas of operations' section. Anyway it doesn't even talk much about areas in geographical terms, articles in that section deal with two issues: operations of partisans on a given area AND relation with the local population. Further, not only in case of Poland the borders are murky: Finland and Karelia are not that clear, either. I don't see why Polish section should stand out: I suggest renaming it to 'Poland', and renaming the 'Areas of operations' into 'Areas of operations and relations with local population' or just 'Areas and relations'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The Germans seized the Reichskommissariat Ukraine in 1941, but the Soviets retook Ukrainian SSR in 1944..? Frankly speaking I don't see such wording in Wiki. Also, claiming that Białystok or Lwów were part of Ukrainian or Belarusian SSR is a little more than pointing at the administrative division. This article suggests that the said areas were part of USSR, both before they were granted to USSR and even before the Soviets had them in control. This article suggests that the areas became part of the USSR before 1945, which is simply not true, even from the Soviet perspective. Why do we mislead our readers?
IMO we could either rewrite this article to conform with NPOV, or fill it with plenty of horrific terms like "Soviet partisans in what became the Ukrainian SSR in 1945" or "1942 activities of the Soviet partisans in what became Belarus in 1945". //Halibutt 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It was explained to you that those became parts of UA and BE SSR not in 1945 but in 1939. They were not granted to the USSR. They were captured to the USSR. How fair/unfair was that belongs to different articles and don't fork those argument to every article about mid-20th century. --Irpen 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And it was explained to you that you are mistaken. However, if we were to adopt your reasoning, then there were no partisans in Ukraine and Belarus at all, as all their actions took place in Germany. Why not? USSR captured those lands in 1939, Germany captured them in 1941, then the partisans appeared. When the Red Army captured those areas again, the partisans ceased their actions, so they did not act in USSR at all.
However, to me it seems that even your interpretation lacks logic. Following your vision presented in the article, Wikipedia is to consider the 1939 annexation of Poland as legitimate. Fine with me, even the USSR did not consider it legitimate, but what the heck, let's agree with Irpen. However, all of a sudden you do not accept the 1941 takeover of those areas by Germany as legitimate. Why so? Double standards anyone? Sorry to say so, but your logic resembles the logic of 19th century imperialists: wherever a British soldier rests his foot, it's Britain. You modified that logic a tad, but it's still the same: wherever the Red Army entered, it's Soviet Union.
And finally, why exactly should we not follow the simple rules of international law? //Halibutt 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


On a side note, guess what saved the fates of SS Galizien troops' asses? Historical revisionism, if we were to follow Irpen's logic. So either we accept international doctrine for international NPOV or plunge into deep Soviet/Nazi propaganda as our friends suggest, and regard all acts of belligerence/and or aggression leading to annexations in 1938-45 as valid. Reichenbach 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poland and historic revisionism - 2

Halibutt, please do not inserted this "claimed by the USSR on the basis of the MRP". Western Ukraine was not "claimed" but "annexed" to the USSR. The MRP was NOT and could NOT be a legal basis for the Soviet annexation as from the POV of the international law the annexation was illegal and MRP does not change it in any way. Nor the MRP was used to even justify the annexation as the appendix to the MRP that difived the Eastern Europe was secret. You can't justify anything with the document that is secret. I remind you that two justifications were brought up by the Soviets: 1) the fact that the majority of these territories were Russian and Belarusian, respectively, and those people oppressed in the nationalist bourgeous SPR needed protection and 2) that following its series of defeats to Germans Poland "seized to exist". --Irpen 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you'd prefer we state that those territories were annexed with the Soviet justification being unilateral declaration and propaganda?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to spread the details that are already genereously spread from MRP article to about a dozen other articles further one more article where they don't belong. But besides that, the assertion entered by Halibutt was just false. The territory was not "claimed" but annexed. Soviet administration was implemented there de-facto rather than just "claimed". "Claimed" was Polish London's governement assertions over those territories, the claim that even Churchill, its main ally, found incredulous. "Claim" means hypothetical, "annexed" means factual. Second, it was annexed not "on the basis of MRP", as MRP, being secret (and extralegal), could not be a basis of anything in international relations. --Irpen 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And I see no need to spread the prop you are spreading. The MRP was indeed the justification, or precisely the "Treaty of Friendship" which was an appendix to the MRP. The treaty in question was the basis for the "Border of Peace", as the demarcation line was called, and was the only international document that could've been the justification.
But this is unimportant here. What is important is that currently the article once again tries to present Soviet propaganda as if it was a fact. Great Patriotic War? "Section deals with interaction"? If so, then at least state precisely who says so. Like "According to certain User:Irpen this section deals with...". //Halibutt 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Which brings us to WP:V/WP:RS. Both of you, please cite sources that support your formulation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources of what? That Soviets claimed that the reason of their action was protection of Ukrainians and Belarusians and that Poland was crumbling anyway? You need this sourced? --Irpen 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the easiest way to deal with this gordian knot is to simply delete the introduction and leave the section as it was meant to be. We don't really need two leads in one article, do we? //Halibutt 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The proper way to deal with this knot is to keep stuff in relevant articles and avoid redundancies. It was repeatedly exlained that "in Poland" subsection of the "areas of operation" supersection is redundant as all material is covered in Ukraine, Belarus' and Lithuania sections of this article. Halibutt insists on keeping the redundancy here. Because of the insistance of certain editors on this redundancy, the explanation on what the redundant section is doing here is needed on top of it. In fact this is an article in an article, that's why the intro to the section resembling a second lead. Just keeping this all in a relevant article (linked from here) would restore normalcy but for some reason no Soviet/Russia/Ukraine/Lithuania-related article may be kept without the unrelated or loosely related Polish matters pasted into it. --Irpen 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me to what lenght you will go to avoid informing the reader of the darker sides of SU, such as the attrocities commited by the Soviet partisans in Poland. This is an important part of their activities, and most certainly deserves a section in this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It does and there is a section for it in the "controversies" part. Halibutt tries to push it to the "areas of operations" thus making it redundant there as those areas are covered in other sections. I will not dignify a baseless attack in the first part of your message with any response. --Irpen 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I don't agree with definition. Soviet partisans are currently defined as "members of the anti-fascist resistance movement which fought guerrilla war against the Axis occupation of the Soviet Union during the Second World War.". Were AKowcy Soviet partisans? Armija Krajowa fits the definition well. AK sometimes used to engage in the fights with Germans in occupied territory of USSR. Definition should be refined. Sigitas 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material on partisan terrorist attacks in Finland

The Finnish Goverment has released formerly secret images of partisan attacks in Finland. They were not released before because they were thought to offend the relatives of the victims or worsen relationship with USSR. I know many Russians today adore partisans, but this is a ruthless truth. After you see them, I'm sure you agree that those disgusting attacks on civilians are pure terrorism. All of them were executed head-to-head with partisans' hand weapons. Wikipedia is not censored, however, do you consider it a POV if these are included in the article?

--Pudeo (Talk) 19:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All POV considerations set aside, the article is already pretty overloaded with images and the corresponding section isn't exactly huge. Consequently, it would be unwise to include additional pics besides the one already there. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest creating a subarticle on Soviet partisans in Finland, where such images and additional info can be added in detail.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/v/Talk%7ESoviet_partisans_f6b1.html"