Talk:Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
A fact from Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 March 2008.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] Title

I don't see a need to move the article from Holocaust in Lithuania to Holocaust in Nazi occupied Lithuania. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) suggest using as simple a name as possible unless there is a possibility of a confusion. Since there was no other Holocaust in Lithuania, most publications use the simpler title (compare: "Holocaust in Lithuania" in print: 117 hits to "Holocaust in Nazi occupied Lithuania" in print: 1 hit).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Current title is perfectly logical. We wetness numerical events then google hints was not considered into account then naming articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M.K (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You could make a perfectly logical title ten times as long. So is the previous, shorter title which is much more popular and fits our policies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Further, the title is to certain extent misleading: in Lithuania, it could be argued, the Holocaust started before the Germans arrived and took firm control (and thus occupied the country). Ex: "In Lithuania, before the Nazis arrived, there were at least 40 pogroms in as many Jewish communities. These pogroms were perpetrated by the local populace against the Jews. Col. J. Bobelis of the Lithuanian army issued a statement that condemned the Jews as the enemies of both the Germans and the Lithuanians. At his instigation gangs sought out Jews to murder and torture." True, that was just a small prelude, but as various sources cited noted, at that time power was seized by the Lithuanian Nazi extremists, who tried to 'look good' before the Germans arrived (hoping for their support for restoration of Lithuanian independence) and who started anti-Jewish riots before Germans took firm control; those actions are considered a part of the Holocaust (ex. Porat wrote: "After the first stage of indiscriminate murder by the Lithuanians in July 1941, the Germans established the police battalions and planned a second stage"). Also, the Holocaust started before Generalbezirk Litauen was estabilished by Germans almost a month after the invasion, and when tens of thousands of Jews had already died.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There are clear indications that Klimaitis (his son is also known as a KGB agent, so you might get idea of what person it was) group as such was organized and sponsored from Tilsit. I can find references for that - I think Bubnys has good documented article(s) on this. As an indirect evidence is that this only group of armed men were allowed to move around nazi controlled teritories freely. Another questionwould you confirm existance of Lithuanian army in 1941, like in your citation: "Col. J. Bobelis of the Lithuanian army" - these are the facts, that just not go through reality check.
And as a sidenote - it is really strange enough compare Jedwabne pogrom and this article rhetoric. Should we go into details?--Lokyz (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would not be suprised if Klimaitis had been indeed an agent of one or two of those powers; feel free to expand his article and related ones with relevant information. The Lithuanian Army in 1941 is an interesting issue; the article doesn't go into many details - it may refer to some partisan formation, or former officers of the army. If we could find more info on this J. Bobelis this might shed more light into the situation. In any case, I agree those were rather marginal events; nonetheless marginal or not the original title was less confusing - and the current one forces a discussion of those marginal ones.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not eager to agree with your latest statements. --Lokyz (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the merit by each side in the title discussion, there are ways to deal with moves. Sometimes a move can be overturned without the formal RM but cut and paste moves, like done by Molobo, is a disaster since they create history forks. --Irpen 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes an article can be moved from original title without RM after a debate with its creator and consensus. Moving it outright and preventing restoration by creating redirects that prohibit return to original title seems inappropriate.--Molobo (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever else, cut and paste moves are a separate count of disruption that cannot be tolerated. There are way to deal with disagreeable moves. Cut'n'paste is not among such tools. --Irpen 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the title "Holocaust in Nazi occupied Lithuania". The problem is that some foreigners forget the Nazi role. They foolishly believe that Poles were somehow behind the Polish Camp Auschwitz. BBC reported once "However, Polish officials have become unsettled by media references to Auschwitz as a "Polish concentration camp"". --Doopdoop (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Nazis used Auschwitz first to imprison Poles, it was only later made into a camp for Jews. Makes views of Auschwitz as "Polish" all the more ironic. As for "largely cooperated" (below) I can't speak in detail to Lithuania, I haven't studied it; but that very same claim relative to Latvians has been shown lacking by Ezergailis (whose work, BTW, was supported by the U.S. Holocaust Museum, so not some nationalist apologist). —PētersV (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

False comparision. Lithuanians largely cooperated with Nazis, while Poles largely resisted Nazis. The amount of cooperation by Lithuanian forces makes the title misleading. The proper one should perhaps be Holocaust of Jews in Lithuania by Nazi and Lithuanian forces.--Molobo (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus has written in the article "It should be noted that not all of the Lithuanian populace supported the killings. Out of Lithuanian population of close to three millions (80% of it ethnic Lithuanians only a small part - a few tens of thousands took active part in the killings". Your proposed title "Holocaust of Jews in Lithuania by Nazi and Lithuanian forces" juxtaposes extremist political organization and nationality. Would you like a title "Holocaust of Jews in Poland by German forces" for the Holocaust in Poland article? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As you see below I asked Piotrus for the source of the poll in which Lithuanians expressed their support or opposition to extermination of Jews. Similar polls were made on German population. As to the claim that Lithuanian organisations collaborationist forces were 'extremist' and not represented the overall political convictions of large part of the population-what is the source ? --Molobo (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The title should be "The Holocaust in Lithuania". The Holocaust refers to events in WW2 organised by thre Nazis, which precludes the need for prolix additions like "in Nazi occupied". We should not preempt in the title issues about whether or not Lithuanians were or were not participants. We should just have the simplest and clearest title. Other sister articles could be equally called 'The Holocause in France' or 'The Holocaust in the Netherlands' etc Paul B (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well title do not indicate who was responsible for Holocaust, who was not. In fact there was different nationalities Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Germans etc. However if you like you can tag this article with {{Disputed title}}. M.K. (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)P.S. tagged the article by myself, hope it will attract more users
Exactly. Title is not the place to discuss the details, that's what we have articles for. Polish concentration camps are a different case and even have their own article. Holocaust in Lithuania is just as non-confusing as Holocaust in Poland; both were Nazi related but this is so obvious it doesn't need to be discussed in the article title (there was no separate non-Nazi related Holocaust, or a Holocaust in Nazi-independent Poland or Lithuania).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Obvious to you and me but not for many others. I think the whole history is no longer compulsory in the UK schools (pupils can select period of history they like to study). --Doopdoop (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Even so, I'd repeat my points above that article's names, per our policies, serve not to educate but to facilitate finding them. The readers may be confused about many other things, including time period or number of victims, but we are not adding those to the title, are we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy paste

Why this article is almost completely copy pasted like from: [1] [2].? M.K. (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Small relevant parts of those articles were quite relevant to this topic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible original research

Apart of fact request, I like to see exact quotes of those areas there is mark or, because i did not found any confirmation with provided sources and the text in the article. M.K. (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added more citations and to support the 'Holocaust begun in Lithuania' two quotes. If there is any statement in particular that you feel is inadequately referenced or written, please cite it here. Do note that virtually all refs are in English and thus should not pose much problem to verifiability due to their language.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please remember that proper move should be made after Request for Move voting and clear consensus

Please remember that proper move should be made after Request for Move voting and clear consensus. We don't need move-warring, let's do this in proper wikipedia procedural way. Also the degree of involvment of Lithuanian forces makes the title a bit misleading. Perhaps Holocaust of Lithuanian Jews by Nazi and Lithuanian forces ?--Molobo (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exact numbers ?

"It should be noted that not all of the Lithuanian populace supported the killings." What are then the exact numbers that made this claim ? Of course it is needless to say no population has the exact same views. I know for example polls in which 37 % of Germans in American occupation zone supported extermination of Poles and Jews. Does this statement come out of similar poll, and what was the percentage of Lithuanians that supported extermination of Jews then ?--Molobo (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep referring to these poles. Do you have any reliable sources for them (not just some website)? I very much doubt the reliability of claims that 37% of the German population after the war openly stated that Jews and Poles should be exterminated. Also, I know of no literature on the Holocaust that refers to any such statistic. Paul B (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They are in * Judt, Tony (2005). Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-065-3. We have an article about Tony Judt: Tony Judt (born 1948, London, England) is a British historian, author and professor. He specializes in European history and is the Erich Maria Remarque Professor in European Studies at New York University and Director of NYU's Erich Maria Remarque Institute. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. Seems quite reliable when regarding history. --Molobo (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Polls are not intrinsically reliable information. The specific question and its context (that is, all the other questions of the poll, and how the poll was described, what were the choices of answers in the cases of "multiple choice",...) must be available. You can't simply state X% of Y favored "Z". You can only state "When asked [fill in specific question], X% chose answer A, Y% chose answer B, and Z% chose answer C"--and you need to state whether that choice of answers A, B, C was provided as part of the question. —PētersV (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust started in Lithuania?

I know some sources have been provided for this assertion, but other sources state otherwise. For example, according to André Mineau's book "The Making of the Holocaust: Ideology and Ethics in the Systems" [3] the Holocaust essentially started in September 1939, when the Einsatzgruppen first came into contact with Polish Jewry. Martintg (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it depends on the definition. As Mineau's writes on this and the next page you cite (and as sourced I cited in the article - ex. Porat and MacQueen note), Operation Barbarossa represented a new level, a new magnitude in Jewish extermination. There are scholars who state that the Holocaust begun as early as 1938 (Kristallnacht ex. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ). Perhaps a better formulation would be 'Summer of 1941 in Lithuania is one of the several dates commonly used for start of the Holocaust' (or something along those lines). Still, most sources I look at tend to speak of 1941 as the line dividing 'perparations for the Holocaust'/'early stages' from the 'proper Holocaust'/'main stage' (etc.). I will try to incorporate this into the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The Jewish Virtual Library reckons 30 January 1933 as the starting date of the Holocaust, when Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany. The way it was phrased in the text gives the impression that it originated in Lithuania. Given the wide range of dates, I revised the text to suit. Martintg (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Almost every country had a different date then Holocaust started in it. but it does not mean that Lithuania was a country in which the general Holocaust started. Trying to push such opine is mere OR. M.K. (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
See note b. It's not OR when we have reliable sources claiming so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been claimed in sources the Holocaust started in Latvia (by eager Latvians) before the Nazis arrived. That information has been shown to be false--coming from falsified Nazi field reports back to Berlin. If anyone wishes to make the extraordinary claim that the Holocaust in Lithuania was not Nazi-originated and Nazi-managed--which appears to be the implication?--then that claim needs extraordinary proof, not just mention of some sources. Not all sources are reliable when it comes to the degree of local support or chronology in the Baltics. —PētersV (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be false to say that Holocaust would begun in Lithuania if not for the German involvement, just as it is true to say that Lithuanians were unable to prevent it. That said, there are sources that note a FACIST MINORITY (possibly infiltrated and directed by the Germans?) started killing Jews in the short period after the Soviets evacuated and before the Germans arrived - although I agree it is stretching to state that Holocaust proper started in Lithuanian before the Germans arrived, and I would not support such a statement (unless indeed extraordinary proof was provided). However there are quite a few sources stating that "Holocaust begun in Lithuania"; in addition to the several I cited above, here are others: [9], [10] and quite a few others. As I have shown in the article, there are other dates given for that; it is nonetheless a fact that some reliable sources consider this time and place the beginning of the Holocaust.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Another point is that in Lithuania there was no pogroms, contrary to other countries like Poland, prior 1941. Plus I would like to see exactly that is referenced with Bubnys in:"1500-5000 Jews perished over the next few days in Kaunas and nearby settlements in what became the first pogrom in Nazi-occupied Lithuania." Plus the sentence is a share synthesis. Therefore hardly this article meats bacis standards of neutrality as well.M.K. (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"in Lithuania there was no pogroms". I guess Kaunas pogrom happened while the town of Kaunas was temporarily dimension-shifted from Lithuania to somewhere else, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion would not be derailed by simply misquoting me. I repeat my self if you have nothing constructive to add, dont. I am sure that other more wiling contributors will do. In any case I still waiting for explanation of source usage as requested above. M.K. (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, succinctly put it, "Indeed, it depends on the definition." How can one argue with that? Maybe by who's interpreting the definition? Dr. Dan (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaunas synthesis

This is nothing but dubious synthesis:

"1500[source1]-5000[source2] Jews perished over the next few days in Kaunuas"

One source says 1500, another says "3800 and 1200 in nearby smaller towns" So, one combines it as "1500-5000"? Piotrus perhaps forgot the similar discussion about the number of victims during the Khmelnytsky uprising. I am marking this as synthesis. --Irpen 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified, per your comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I try to receive an answer on these issues several times, but in vain, including which ideas of Arūnas Bubnys is cited. M.K. (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you would have authored any works published in real world, you would know that if one source say Number1 and the other source says Number2, one cannot combine them into something like "Number1-Number2 perished". I would again refer you to the last year's discussion about the number of victims from Khmelnytsky Uprising for details.

You can say: "according to [1] the number of victims is A, while according to [2] the number of victims is B". But the number being presented as A-B is synthesis. --Irpen 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have footnotes, Irpen, directly after each number. It's the Wiki equivalent of saying 'number A (Smith 2005) - number B (Johnson 2001)'. I think it's quite clear.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not clear. It's misleading. Sorry for the typo in my entry above. Corrected now. --Irpen 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, Irpen, maybe this time is a simple style/grammar issue. Could you just rewrite the sentence, keeping the (referenced) data, as to avoid the confusion/synthesis issue that makes you so unhappy? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not just the style grammar issue. This is an issue of not taking time to write properly in order to rush this article in the drive that suddenly turned urgent for whatever reasons. Writing on historic topic takes time and care. Writing on controversial ones requires even more of the same. One should not be in rush to produce "something", especially on the topics like that, through pasting pieces from articles and cutting corners to save time and produce the seemingly referenced but distorted version of events to meet the deadline.

Same happened with the lead and the estimated number of the victims where you put in the number from the academic book and from the web-site more of the publicist nature right next to each other giving them equal weight even though it "looked" referenced to the careless observer. This writing history through google-booking is prone to produce more of such.

You may want to check the Holodomor article to see how the numbers are presented there, both in the lead and the death toll estimate section. It took me long to come up with the proper way to put that together and I still see the deficiencies that I am still thinking on how to improve. --Irpen 06:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On my part I can make following that such extremely critical topics should be written with care and not as hasty response to a constructive critique on a different subject [11]. Furious copy paste technique leads to major misunderstandings and contradictions, as Kaunas and all numerical estimations synthesis inserted in the article perfectly illustrates. Furthermor Bubnys source, used alongside, seems to contradict to rest. While I would gladly help by modifying sentence, but I can't because I do not know what exactly this source is implied to have shown, as contributor who add it not responding to my pleas and proper tags are hasty being removed. Looking back I also like to note how this article was nominated to DYK; not only was the article undeveloped properly to do so, but also initial hook prove to be a speculative POV. Moreover my attempts to inform parties on problems, resulted almost an accusation of some sort of deliberate jeopardy, including the allegations that I moved this article name, while in fact I never did this, my move log shows it clearly; my applied tags there with rationale, some of them repeated several times. These are just few issues to think about M.K. (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
For mention of Kaunas and how accounts propagated at the time, read here. I do recall in my readings somewhere the Nazi accounting of Kaunas victims, but I will have to look for that. —PētersV (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Holocaust?

This is actually incredible"

The intensity of The Holocaust increased after the Nazis occupied Lithuania at the commencement of Operation Barbarossa.[source1][source2][note]

What "lower intensity Holocaust" "before the commencement of Operation Barbarrosa"? Mass extermination of Lithuanian Jews by Red Army or what? Marking. --Irpen 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

?? The Holocaust spanned most of Europe that came under Nazi occupation. According to André Mineau's book "The Making of the Holocaust: Ideology and Ethics in the Systems" [12] the Holocaust essentially started in September 1939, when the Einsatzgruppen first came into contact with Polish Jewry. Other authors state it started with Kristalnacht. So while there is some debate about when and where it started, it is clear is that the intensity of the Holocaust increased after Barbarossa. Martintg (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read what the article actually says. It implies that the Holocaust in Lithuania intensified after the German arrival. If this was meant to refer to the Holocaust overall, this should be stated explicitly and, again, not in the lead section of the article about the Lithuanian events, but in the proper section of the text body. On topics like this it is even more important to familiarize oneself with the problem before commenting. --Irpen 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, if you were familiar with the issue, you would know that the original text stated that the Holocaust began in Lithuania, but many sources have been provided that indicated that the Holocaust began earlier, either in Poland or Germany. Why don't you be bold change the text yourself, rather than endless discussion on talk, surely it would save time. Martintg (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Martintg, you see any attempt to change this info, would be swiftly reverted. M.K. (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, sources, used even in this article, describe the similar atrocities that took place in the very same time in Western Ukraine and Belarus. --Irpen 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How early in the Holocaust in general these events are?

Discussion on whether the Lithuanian events started the Holocaust or it started earlier belongs not to The destruction of Lithuanian Jewry section which is about the course of events. It may be in the comprehension section in the end but not where it is. Further, once the sources casting doubt that this was indeed the start has been brought in, the rest of whether the start took place in 1938, 1939 or 1933 does not affect the conclusion as far as this article is concerned that this was not the start but the continuation. So, bringing this up in this section about what actually took place is off-topic and further elaboration on where the starting point of Holocaust is is even further off-topic. --Irpen 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Solution (see article) is simply inapplicable to what took place in June, 1941 unless spoken of as something in the future. I tried to make some improvements or tag what is unsalvageable but I am worn out by my edits' being reverted by Piotrus. I am tagging this as contradicting other material onwiki. These horrific events need to be covered properly and accurately without the urge to use improper "scientifically sounding" terms or other tricks. --Irpen 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FS article is missing many citations and is poorly written; I suggest you tag and try to improve that article - this one and the claims here are well-referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, in the context of Summer 1941 FS is simply an anachronism. Hitler came up with the term and its implementation in 1942 and first diary notes referring to this "solution" not yet called such, refer to December, 1941. References are here as well as in FS article. You do a disservice to the article and its readers by trying to use the scientifically sounding words inappropriately. --Irpen 18:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
While you are entitled to your opinion, I trust that scholars such as Porat (whose cited work is quite widely cited in relevant literature) or Kweit knew what they were writing about when they mentioned that Final Solution began in Lithuania in 1941 (see note b).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Piotrus, I don't want you to trust "my opinion". Just check the sources for yourself and see that the very term "Final Solution" was never used at the time as it was invented later. --Irpen 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to present a source to back up your claims. I have presented quite a few that back up mine. If you don't present any sources for yours - that's the end of this discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Final solution" as used in this article means the physical murder of all Jewish people. The source, Browning, "The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942" is already in the article. Before demanding sources check the existing ones. P. 253 states that in June 1941, the "solution" envision by Nazi leadership was forced resettlement even though the mass murders were undisputably taking place, and not just in Lithuania, like your version suggested.

You will find on p. 318 that in the end of October the "solution" was seen through "expulsion accompanied by no small amount of outright killing and attrition". "If before August 1941 the Jewish question was to be solved 'one way or another', after October it was to be solved in one way - through death of all Jews".

P. 321 states that as of August 1941, "the onslaught against Soviet Jewery as part of "war of destruction" on the one hand and the Final Solution of the Jewsih question in Europe on the other were as yet two separate programs or at least two distinct phases... They did not merge into a single enterprise until later". And so on.

You should study this book to see when the term "Final Solution" gained its most horrific meaning we know today.

The memory of the murdered people is best served by presenting facts as they were and using the correct terms rather than using any words you might have heard on related topics indiscriminately just to make it all look "scientific" or trying to present the events that took place in Lithuania as being anything different from what was going on elsewhere at the same time. --Irpen 06:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I know how you two love each other so much, and though I don't like to involve myself in your love-making, wouldn't you both agree that the controversy involved in defining the Final Solution, of which you are both aware, would be enough to refine the statements somewhere between plain fact and anachronism? I think I spoke along thees lines on the DYK objection. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry; chalk it up to me not being a native English speaker but I don't follow your point. Let me repeat mine: 1) we have sources that note that the Holocaust and the FS begun after OBarb. 2) we have a Wikipedia article on FS who gives other dates for FS but doesn't seem to have (as far as I can tell) inline cites to back up its claim. Hence 3) I believe that if the articles are contradictory it is the poorly referenced Wikipedia article on FS that needs revision first BEFORE this much better referenced article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to keep it clear and avoid long sentences. In historical usage the Final Solution means either 1) the destruction of the European Jews by the Germans; or 2) the plan to "solve" the "problem" of the European Jews. The latter is really the more precise definition. The date when the German government decided to carry out 2) as policy is debated (this date is potentially different from when it began to tolerate or encourage ground-level genocide). The statement here contradicts some views about 2). Thus statements, such as the one debated here, are controversial. Note that discussion of the Madagascar Plan was still ongoing after the beginning of OB and the Wannsee Conference likewise post-dates it. It is the wrong approach to find one or two references, as this does not solve the problem. It is the right approach to recognize the ambiguity and avoid repeating the assertions of these two writers in a way that could mislead a more general audience that doesn't understand the historiographical background. Hence why you and Irpen have a middle line available here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree; hence I added the information about Holocaust having started earlier. Since nobody provided (so far) any refs about FS starting later (and I didn't have time and will to search for it myself), I did not adjust the note with that information. If any editor is willing to find such refs, I hope they edit the article with them for clarification; but until they do so I think the article should stay true to the current refs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just a historical debate. Easiest thing in the world to find refs for later. E.g. here, here, here, etc. You could find it earlier too, as you have. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Great; could you format them and add to the relevant articles? This should put an end to that confusion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, the middle ground is omission when the information is loosely relevant to the topic and cannot be presented briefly, just like it was in the Defense of Brest Fortress article. The meaning of the term Final Solution evolved with time and this evolution belongs to the Final Solution article rather than here. Scholars agree that the Nazi policies evolved to the even greater cruelty upon the Soviet invasion. Lithuania was among the first hit by the invaders, but so were Ukraine and Belarus. Immediate destruction of the Jewish communities started in all these places and, like everywhere, the local collaborators played a crucial role. Explaining it to the reader requires an elaboration that cannot be written in rush. Time needs to be taken to do that properly. As for the place these events took in the implementation of the Nazi's Final Solution, clearly it is a separate question that cannot be answered in one sentence, like you attempted, or even in one paragraph. Trying to present so complex things in a sentence or two can produce nothing but a sloppy or even misleading presentation. This is why we have dedicated articles. --Irpen 06:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KGB originated materials

I see David Cesarani is used as a source. Critical review of his "Justice Delayed" shows that he has accepted much of what was written by the KGB regarding the Baltics and the Holocaust (specifically the anti-Latvian propaganda tome "Daugavas Vanagi--Who Are They?")--despite his reputation as a careful researcher. When dealing with the Baltics in particular, I don't believe the general editing community here fully appreciates the dynamics of the interplay of Nazi and Soviet propagandas and how entrenched both have become in ostensibly reputable scholarship.

From Ezergailis...

The Soviets of the 1960s when writing the pamphlets built on the Nazi stratagem of deception. It was the Germans who at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa devised a contorted plot to distance themselves from the killing actions. As the Nazis were plotting the murder of Europe’s Jews, they also knew that it was an international crime and that the rest of the world would deem it as such. To deceive the outside world, the initial phase of the Holocaust was timed with the beginning of the onslaught on the USSR. While plotting their war propaganda, the Nazi public relations offices simultaneously endeavored to distance the Germans from the crime they were slated to commit. Their gimmick was to portray the Eastern Europeans, whom they called “natives" [Einheimische], as vengeful and primitive monsters who assaulted the Jews before the Germans got to them. Amazingly, this Nazi chicanery, as the recent controversy over Jan Gross’s book Neighbors shows, worked. The Nazis contrived a tale of revenge and hatred and projected their own attitudes upon the people of the East. They proclaimed that Eastern Europeans were like the Nazis, only more so.* This Nazi “historical reality” was taken over by the Soviets, who repackaged it and presented it to the world again. By 1960 the Nazi stratagem was buried under the ruins of the war. The skeptics of the West, however, found the Soviet resurrected variant irresistible. What explains the West’s gullibility? There was a broader historical context that worked for the Soviet/Nazi tandem. ...
*The Nazi version of the Holocaust began to emerge as the killings were happening. In Sweden the Nazi version of the Holocaust was planted by a pro-German Swedish journalist, Fritz Lönnegren. As early as 14 August 1941. Lönnegren published in pro-Nazi newspaper Aftonobladet, basically a Nazi version of the Holocaust in Lithuania. As cited in Stephane Bruchfeld and Paul A. Levine, Tell ye Your Children…: A Book About the Holocaust in Europe, 1933-1945. See also Ingvar Svenberg and Mattias Tyden, Sverige och Förintelsen: Debatt och Dokument om Europas Judar, 1939-1945, Stockholm: Bokförlaget Arena, 1997, pp. 222-224.

Let's not cobble together stuff contending the Holocaust was anything but Nazi. —PētersV (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Execellent post. You are correct. "Cobble" is truly the operative word in this discussion. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly would support adding a criticism of his arguments to the relevant places; of course the question is how widespread is this criticism - is Cesarani work an exception, making strange claims and being widely criticized, or is Ezergailis the one who wrote an interesting but not widely recognized critique? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Kaunas

From Ezergailis' review of Andrej Angrick and Peter Klein, Die “Endlösung” in Riga: Ausbeutung und Vernichtung 1941-1944, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007.

Although the Latvians and Lithuanian by now have accumulated a sizable research literature about the Holocaust, looking through their footnotes and bibliography, Angrick and Klein make very little use of it. One especially egregious omission appears in their treatment of the June 27, 1941 “pogrom” in the Lietukis garage in Kaunus, Lithuania. By now Lithuanian historians (among them Alfonsas Eidintas) have made a thorough study of this event (a whole conference was convened to discuss that topic) but our authors would have no truck with them. Instead they relied on a version that the Nazis mocked up in 1941. It is true that the version Angrick and Klein used is part of the Holocaust folklore, especially beloved in Germany. Whatever actually happened in the garage, a historian in 2006 should not stick uncritically with a version was based on the testimony of a Nazi photographer who was likely a member of Stahlecker’s retinue.

Stahlecker ran the Nazi killing programs in the Baltics and, among other responsibilities, was in charge of portraying the Nazi line that the Holocaust in the Baltics was Germanless. Hence Lithuanians and Latvians so vicious that the German "eye witnesses" were appalled and "rescued" Jews from them.
   I would suggest Kaunas in particular be dealt with based on Eidintas. I would also suggest that the article be purged of Germans reporting Lithuanians as more vicious than the Nazis. That was the picture, documented prior to the invasion, which the Nazis planned to create. Such "observations" must be placed into that context. —PētersV (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a referenced line from Bubnys

The statement - "and before the Germans arrived" is not right. Please read the text, and you'll find perfectly referenced material that pogroms in Kaunas were instigated by SS Brigadeführer Franz Walter Stahlecker HIMSELF, who did arrive in Kaunas on July 25th (i.e. the the day BEFORE pogroms started). And he does clearly state in his report that he personally agitated Lithuanian Security Police to attack Jews, but Police did not agree to do that. Then he made another speech in the city, and, as hedid report on October 15th, - "despite that it was hard to convince local population, some people agreed" (Klimaitis rougue sqad). He also did write, that he succeeded covering his actions and instigations, to look like local initiative. It's all documented in German (ordnung) manner. Also, please note, that it is unlikely that SS Brigadenfueher travels alone into territory controlled by nobody knows who. So he did arrive with Vorkommando. So Germans were already in Kaunas, and not any reconnaissance unit, but SS Brigadenfuhrer himself. I had put the information, and proper links in the article, but they were removed without any proper reasoning, and you might find them on CVS, a.k.a history page.--Lokyz (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no "Germanless" Holocaust. Stahlecker was responsible for the rollout of the Holocaust across the Baltics. —PētersV (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not for nothing, but it is incontrovertibly documented that it was a fairly small unit of all Germans, not Lithuanians, that went through the countryside eradicating Jews.
   MacQueen, as the head of the OSI (reading the "the Lithuanians did it" journal summary), represents an organization that accepted all Soviet-provided evidence at face value. A shame it included accusing people of Holocaust crimes who were only 5 years old at the time. The whole "local populace" participating section is a sorry mix of fact and myth. —PētersV (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the entire western scholarship is in error, than. But to reflect that in our article we need reliable sources that make that point. I certainly agree that Germans tried to create an impression of support from local populace, but MacQueen and others do not deny that, they only note that in Lithuania - unlike in most places - the Germans were extraordinary successful, as the local populace had a very high fraction (compared to other societies) that decided to collaborate with the Nazis in the Holocaust.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cesarani's

Re: p. 162 of Cesarani's "The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation": "The reports of Einsatzgruppe A testify to the eagerness the Lithuanians demonstrated."
   Those reports were designed to create the myth of the Germanless Holocaust: locally created, locally organized, locally executed. Those reports were then immediately sent abroad by the Nazis (via a sympathetic journalist to Sweden and in Hitler's own pronouncements) so as to insure implicating the local populace (far more than the collaborators the Nazis did find)--while they clamped down and let no other news escape. Re: Lokyz's latest addition, it is documented if you read the proper Nazi sources that the local populace resisted participation. Also, as I mentioned, that it was Germans that killed Jews in the countryside, again, if you read the proper Nazi sources. Let's indict the guilty, not an entire people based on myth. —PētersV (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course when using Nazi sources we have to clearly label them as such; I don't suggest we give them much prominence in our article - and certainly none without a clear attribution. That said, if respect scholars deem such reports reliable, per WP:V and WP:RS, as well as WP:NOR, we have to accept their judgment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Baltics to the Ukraine to Poland (Jan Gross's book a prime example, one he has become rich on), the premise is that the Nazis (and later Soviets) lied about everything--except about Eastern European populace exacting the Germanless Holocaust upon the Jews. We are to believe that all across Nazi-occupied territory, the Nazis themselves were blameless (except for the occasional whisper in the ear) and that such atavistic and primal hatred of Jews was let loose that Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Ukrainians... denied themselves German rifles, preferring to bludgeon their Jewish neighbors to death with the bluntest instruments possible in a manner so savage and subhuman as to be incomprehensible to the civilized mind. No one would accuse anyone in Western Europe of such savagery, not even the Nazis. (Is no editor curious why it's only in Eastern Europe that Germans are purported to "rescue" Jews from the local savages? Considering the centuries and centuries of amicable relations between Jews and Eastern Europeans, what is more likely? That Eastern Europeans are actually sub-humans or that the Nazis lied?). But apparently it's quite normal and expected for Eastern Europeans to be painted as the basest of living creatures. Today, here, in this article, it's the Lithuanians. But it's no different anywhere across Eastern Europe where the Nazis inflicted the Holocaust.
   (edit conflict) To Piotrus' point, the most "reputable" scholarship is not reputable if it takes Nazi (or later Soviet) statements at face value. That scholars stop at that point is precisely the problem. The Holocaust is so incomprehensible that the only possible rationalization for it is reasoning that is even more incomprehensible, that is, Piotrus, that any stories of amicable Jewish-Polish or Jewish-Latvian relations that we have told by our families or relatives are all a lie and that we are genetic sub-humans capable of bludgeoning people to death while humming our respective national anthems while stepping over their still-warm corpses. —PētersV (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Lithuanian sources

It should be noted - as was in the article - that Lithuanian historiography is still lagging behind with relation to this event. See also [13],[14]. So we should be careful when using Lithuanian sources in giving due weight and attribution, as they may - even unintentionally - be too interested in whitewashing the issue (this is of course common to all national historiographies, Lithuanian is simply no exception to the general rule, as shown by the sources we cite). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A participant downplaying their role (or related events) is one thing. I don't think that implies a systemic bias beyond Soviets being the first invaders, ergo they will never be seen as liberators, only "re-"occupiers. The only solution where bias in sources is suspected is to correlate specific items, such as Kaunas, and examine the scholarship--but not "average" it. —PētersV (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
As for whitewashing, well - I do trust documents, not opinions. And of course I would be glad if you'd refer to some facts and examples rather than to generalizations (as a matter of fact book does talk about 1991 opening of the Paneriai monument, and press review in 1991-1992 - not mentioning historiography at all: google search did mislead you on this one).
Also you should note, that the book notes change in the press and the recognition of the problem [15]
Also you should note, that this books is 12 years out of a print and does not say a word about most recent research (This also leads to assumption, that information is more than 12 years old, since a book is not written in a day). And Bubnys research is much more "fresh" in this respect, because it is published in 2003.
Well, about bias and creation of myths, we have to fight, there is a good read In there you can find also a comprehensive list of most recent Lithuanian historiography achievements in Holocaust research. And please note, that these research papers are evaluated by special "The International Commission for evaluation of the crimes of Nazi and Soviet occupations", so i doubt that allegations on "bias" do apply. --Lokyz (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue / false claim about the Poles

A strange claim is being added ([16], [17], [18]). Not only it is unclear due to a poor grammar, but one possible interpretation suggest that Polish anti-Nazi resistance Armia Krajowa has specifically targeted Lithuanians who tried to save the Jews. Such an outrageous claim needs not only a quotation with a translation, but a reliable source - and not only we do not know who Rimantas Zizas is, but the Armijos Krajovos book has been criticized for many errors, strong anti-Polish bias and outright falsehoods by, among others, notable historians of Polish-Lithuanian relations such as Piotr Łossowski ([19]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We do know exactly who is Ph.d. Rimantas Zizas - he is a scientific associate of Lithuanian Institute of History , he is also member of "The International Commission for evaluation of the crimes of Nazi and Soviet occupations", so i doubt that allegations on "bias" do apply.
Also, I do not like seeing books attacked, rather than providing exact citations from reviews - what errors, what authors, what article in the book, criticized for what. General accusations of book being "anti-Polish" or even whole country historiography as biased does not work, it's not evidence, it's WP:POV.--Lokyz (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have provided links to the review; a larger translated excerpt is here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not new. Some editors seeing info they want to remove try to attack the otherwise credible and academic source by cherry-picking "reviews" and other stuff. Does not work. Facts should be treated separately from opinions, even of scholars. And facts presented in academic works is a serious stuff. What we get from certain quarter in response, are persistent attempts to attack academic sources. I can find reviews on anyone, including Norman Davies being called an "opinionated and biased Polonophile".

All those claims from cherry piked "reviews" even if true (which they aren't), would only amount to a red herring in this argument -- facts reported even by biased sources must be examined, rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous, or even true, accusations about the source's character. --Irpen 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG,"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". As I explained above, the source given for this highly controversial claim is of dubious reliability and does not justify including this undue and fringe claim in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
How is it exceptional? Is it the unique case of AK's involvement with the actions that are hostile to the Jews? Neither the collaboration of AK with Nazis is unheard of. They collaborated with Nazis (who armed them) against the Soviets in the neighboring area (Navahrudak) a little later. --Irpen 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is all discussed in AK article. There were rare cases of anti-Soviet collaboration, which are quite irrelevant to this article. There were no cases when AK targeted the few Lithuanians who tried to save the Jews - such extraordinary claim should be sources with a quotation, translation and with more than one fringe source of dubious reliability.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"There were no cases" said by a Wikipedia user vs "there were cases" said in an academic source are claims of obviously different strength (and compliance with WP:V). I don't see anything immediately dubious in the source. That said, I support the call for quotation and translation.
Hopefully we can sort this out without revert warring, attacks, and, especially, logging in/out to cause annoyance. [20] [21] --Irpen 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think I should add references quotes by Polish academics about how Soviet Union planned a genocide of Poles to various Holocaust related articles and such, let me know - I was under the impression that we reached an agreement after Załuski Library incident that we will try to avoid this, but if you changed your mind we can act on that.
I have presented a criticism of this book by a Polish academic; plus WP:REDFLAG is clear - exceptional claim like this requires exceptional source(s). One dubious Lithuanian publication is not it.
Edit warring is bad, but high-visibility issues (Holocaust) and fringe undue claims tend to attract edit warring. If you think that some editor is logging out for sockpuppetry, WP:CHECKUSER is that way - and I would fully support the investigation of who it may be (socks are bad, I totally agree).
PS. I support tagging the section, per WP:V and other related policies, it is much better to remove extreme claims, discuss them on talk, reach consensus and then restore them (or not) - instead of edit warring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I am glad we reached consensus on what to do right now, that is keep the section tagged and stop revert warring. Back to the topic "you presented criticism", sorry is not good enough. I can provide a shredding review to almost any academic. You "soviet planned Holocaust of Poles" stuff is off-topic. I would prefer to stick to the issue at hand. I know where checkuser is. I also know who is this anon without checkuser. However, as long as the disagreeable section is tagged, I don't care much on whose version it is stalled. The section (and the whole article) is a huge mess anyway. --Irpen 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So who is the anon? I'd very much like to know; if it is an editor I know I would like to talk to them and tell them not to do so in the future - before we have another incident like with User:Logologist in the past. It's best to nip such things in the bud.
Please note that I am not critical of Rimantas Zizas; rather there are several sources - including Lithuanian - which are critical of the fringe Lithuanian sources that try to blacken the name of Armia Krajowa. This is a serious academic criticism.
Without the quotation/translation, it is also quite possible that this entire fragment is some form of synthesis (AK fought with Lithuania - fact; some Lithuanians protected Jews - fact; AK killed Lithuanians who protected Jews - synthesis and logical fallacy...).
Please note that the alleged Polish actions against Lithuanians are as relevant here as well-document Soviet actions against the Poles. It is a clear case of undue (and unreliable, and fringe, and non-neutral, and so on...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
P.K. aka P.P., your chiding user:Logologist for his behavior is highly appreciated, in spite of it being somewhat belated. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at his talk, you can see I have done so as soon as I've learned of it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed it. In that case good for you. Thanks again. It must have been very shameful and difficult for you, considering that user: Logologist was not only a sock puppeteer, but voted in support (as various socks) of many issues that you concurred with. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I am sure we all would like to hear who Irpen suspects of this puppetry, so that the issue can be investigated properly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue has been sufficiently investigated, and it is a sad case. Irpen, or anyone else is welcome to comment on the matter, but it's hardly necessary. I should think the long awaited, but not forthcoming apology from User: Logologist would be much better than any one elses commentary. What needs to be investigated? Hopefully others will learn from his shameful behavior. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of Lithuanians

I regard removal of relevant information under pretexts of ungrammatical sentence, it doesn't make sense, undue weight, that version is obviously better, rather discouraging. Every open minded contributor could see by simple googling that Lithuanians risk their lives by saving Jews and those who save them there persecuted by Nazis. Many books are written about those issues like "Gyvybę ir duoną nešančios rankos" compiled by Viktorija Sakaitė, with Mikhail Erenburgas and Dalija Epštaineitė (Vilnius: 1997; 2001). Viktorija Sakaitė published an article on Lithuanian priests and nuns who hid Jews. („Žydų gelbėjimas" . Genocidas ir Rezistencija. 1998 2-4). The latest book (Išgelbėję pasaulį Vilnius: 2001) was compiled by Dalia Kuodytė, President of the Lithuanian Center for Research on Genocide, and Rimantas Stankevičius. Here even web pages notes that type of persecutions awaited Lithuanians who saved Jews:

“ The Nazis inflicted different penalties on Jew rescuers. People, who justified themselves, that they did it just for money, were imprisoned for three moths. Those, whose excuse was based on Catholic morals “You shall not kill ” were executed. The same penalty was inflicted on the whole rescuer’s family, including infants. The farms of the rescuers were either burnt down or given to the informer. The activities of such rescuers were equaled to being a partisan, and consequently, the capital punishment was inflicted on them. A Lithuanian rescuer J. Rutkauskas, like a wellknown Schindler, sheltered Jews at his home and forged identity documents for them. J. Rutkauskas saved the lives of more than 150 Jews. In 1944, he was executed by the Nazis. After his death, J. Rutkauskas was given the name of “Righteous Gentiles” by Israel. The archive of the Gaon Jew Museum in Vilnius has a Register, which holds records of 2300 names of family-rescuers. Among them there are: 237 representatives from intelligentsia — teachers, doctors, lawyers, writers, musicians and professors; 237 office employees; 120 priests; two seminaries; four monasteries. The Register of rescued Jews holds records of 3000 names. ”

[22]

I feel great shame that such information is reverted at sight M.K. (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but note that the above reference does not contain the claim discussed above that Poles of Armia Krajowa targeted the heroic Lithuanians who tried to save Jews. It is of course not disputed that Nazis did so, and certainly Germans and pro-Nazi collaborators hunted down and killed those who tried to save the Jews. I would fully support including such a claim as based on the above source, which seems quite reliable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As I do not speak Lithuanian, I would be grateful if somebody would provide more specific information about Armia Krajowa's soldiers, targeting those Lithuanians who helped the Jews. Where it happened, when, the circumstances, number of victims, names of AK's units. Just anything that would give a full picture of such actions. Also, a question. Was there an organized, mass Lithuanian anti-Nazi movement in the occupied country? Tymek (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there was some passive resistance (ex. not reporting for labor/conscription, anti-German propaganda), growing with the resentment as the Nazi promises of autonomy have proven more and more empty. I am not aware of any active (violent) resistance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
P.K. aka P.P., are you asking if there was a state similiar to The Polish Secret Underground State in Lithuania, or if there was resistance in Lithuania to German occupation? Also could you elaborate if you think that the Armia Krajowa was more heroic than the the heroic (your adjective) Lithuanians who tried to save the Jews? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that Armia Krajowa's antisemitic character is not very well known to some contributors. Lets see that Ph. D. Leonid Smilovitsky has on it:
“ Anti-Semitism was widespread among the fighters of Armia Krajowa and of the grouping National Armed Forces (Narodowy Sily Zbrojne -- NSZ). Jews were regarded as a “pro-Soviet element” –- they were persecuted and killed. In the spring and summer of 1943, Jews were subjected to all this in Lipichany, Naliboki, Rudensk, Naroch', and Bryansk forests. Reports by the Delegatura (General Sikorski's representatives in the occupied territory of Poland), which were sent to London, referred to Jews as enemies of Polish national interests and robbers. The report of December 20, 1942 noted that bands of Jews, acting in parallel with Belorussian partisans, attacked peasant farms, robbed, raped, and killed civilian residents, and terrorized the population, distinguishing themselves by “special cruelty”[42].

“Jewish bandits” (bandyci Zydowscy) were often mentioned in AK and NSZ reports on the situation in various localities and, especially, in Eastern Poland (western regions of Belorussia). They contained a description of the situation in the ghettos and the attitude of Jews toward the Polish-Soviet conflict. According to the assessments in these reports, 90 percent of the ghetto inmates were pro-Bolshevik[43]. In reality, such assessments were exaggerations and served as a justification to fight Soviet partisans. In Ivenets Rayon in 1943, the 250-strong detachment of Zdzislaw Nurkiewicz (pseudonym “Noc” [Night]), Podchorazy [Cadet Officer] of the 27th Ulan Regiment of the Stolbtsy AK Formation, terrorized civilian residents and attacked partisans. I.G. Ivanov, commander of the Frunze Partisan Detachment, P.N. Guba, chief of a special department, several fighters and Commissar P.P. Danilin of the Furmanov Detachment, three partisans of the Zhukov Brigade, and others were killed.

Another tragedy occurred in November 1943. This time, 10 Jews from Shalom Zorin's detachment were the victims of the conflict. On the evening of November 18, they were stocking up food supplies for partisans in the village of Sovkovshchizna, Ivenets Rayon. One of the peasants complained to Nurkiewicz that the “Jews were looting”. The legionnaires surrounded Zorin's men and opened fire, after which they took away six horses and four partisan carts. They disarmed those who tried to get back the property and beat them brutally: They broke Khaim Sagal'chik's skull and Yefim Raskin's hand. The atrocities continued throughout the night. In the morning, they took the captives to the forest and began to execute them. Luckily, Abram Teyf and Lev Chernyak survived and were able to get to the camp of the 106th Detachment. On December 1, 1943, Belorussian partisans disarmed the Nurkiewicz Detachment[44].

 ”

[23]

Lets see that Rimantas Zizas, a Lithuanian historian Ph.D., has on antisemitism of Armia Krajowa (with the relevant citation of Persecution of Lithuanians):

“

As documents shows, terror did not bypass and Jews. In 1943 November in Eišiškės Polish Partisans killed 20 Jews, in 1944 March took to Bariūnai 12 Jews and killed them as well. One of them was found hanged...."Lietuvių fonto biuletenis" wrote that by killing soviet partisans, AK fury manifest ed then Jews there met, which there shot without paying attention to gender and age. This evidenced and in former AK partisan Konvicki book, in one of the episodes about soviet partisans help to Jews , he notes that Jews could expect only one from Polish partisans - bullet in head. On 1945 because of hiding Jews during German occupation Lithuanians like Sodovskiai father and son there beaten by Polish partisans......

 ”

If some one is not comfortable with merging Nazis and Polish partisans in one sentence, fell free to divide them in two, with attribution to Zizas. M.K. (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this is all completely irrelevant to this article; second, another user has pointed out the errors and omissions in your quotation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
a) presented sources quite relevant, b) no single fact presented on different talk that Leonid Smilovitsky presented facts has "errors" c) I used Zizas to reference particular claim. M.K. (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
MK, these quotes are quite interesting, but I cannot help wondering what events that took place in Naliboki or Stolpce (today's Belarus) have to do with Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania. Tymek (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Short answer - direct. As some contributors trying to introduce motion about "Biased Lithuanian sources", therefore Smilovitsky presented facts provides good insight of AK character, the same which was in Lithuania, as per Zizas provided facts. P.S. Try to find sources there academics would suggest , that AK did not persecuted people who there hiding Jews in Lithuania. M.K. (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
M.K., I think that both Tymek, and P.K. aka P.P. would prefer that you moved this interesting information to the Armia Krajowa article. Naturally any errors or ommissions should be addressed first. Meanwhile I'm trying to reach some compromise in my own mind as to where and when the Holocaust began. Particularly the Baltic States component. Whereas many Jewish sources believe it began on January 30, 1933, or in Poland in 1939, one would have to agree that for all practical purposes it began (for those victims involved) in April of 1919. But more research needs to be done on that case too. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we should probably expand Soviet partisans in Poland, noting a high percentage of Jews among the Soviet partisans - who were ordered by Stalin to engage and eliminate AK (hence the hostilities). It probably deserves a mention in żydokomuna, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but what, "order" of Stalin to Jewish partisans," are you referring to? And where do you get the statistic regarding "a high percentage of Jews among Soviet partisans"? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just read the linked article(s) and the quotes that M.K so graciously provided for as above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking you, not M.K., if Stalin issued a specific order to Jewish partisans to "engage and eliminate the A.K.", since it's your assertion. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dr Dan, your original research on Holocaust is fascinating, it takes a vivid imagination to connect Pinsk 1919 massacre with events of World War Two. Just a friendly tip - check if the Holocaust began in 1391 in Sevilla. I know, more research has to be done, but a heroic, NPOV historian will always find the truth. Tymek (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, thanks for your comments. How can it have begun in Sevilla, if the Prokonsul has intimated that it began in the Baltic States primarily in Lithuania (with sources backing this claim). Now, perhaps you can add to the discussion by informing us about Stalin's order to Jewish partisans regarding the AK. Or do you think this is also "fascinating original research"? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I am happy that I have made you happy. Anyway, from what I see, Piotrus meant Soviet partisans, among whom were many Jews, not Jewish partisans. There is Stalin's order about eliminating AK by Soviet partisans and I bet the Man of Steel would have sent you to gulag for calling his orders original research. The order, number 220145, was issued by Stalin in Moscow on July 14, 1944. Glad I have made you happy again. It is my pleasure. Tymek (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As a pacifist, I'm always disturbed by man's inhumanity to man (or women). Lest I judge you to be mocking me, heavens forbid, please give everyone an English translation of Stalin's order (220145). Also be so kind as to not interpret what Piotrus meant vs. what he said. Thanks. p.s. What makes you think your remarks, made me happy? I think the pleasure was all yours. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If contributors would not present sources, which denounce those specific claims, particularly that Polish partisans did not persecuted people who hide Jews, I will restore material about Polish "contribution" to Holocaust in Lithuania. M.K. (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That we will not present sources that moon is not made out of green cheese does not mean you can add such fringe unverified claims to the article. Read WP:V, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Unverified claims, really? because of hiding Jews during German occupation Lithuanians like Sodovskiai father and son there beaten by Polish partisans...... Zizas p. 34. May I ask that, you presented the sources which would point that this Zizas assertion is fringe unverified claim? M.K. (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
MK, where did it happen? What Polish partisans? Was it AK? What unit? When did it happen? Still, including information about one family that was beaten is one of the most encyclopedic things I have seen on Wikipedia. It is a good counterweight to thousands of Lithuanians who willingly joined the Germans in massacring Jews. Tymek (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Present academic source for the claim that only one family that was beaten, as well as for to thousands of Lithuanians who willingly joined the Germans in massacring Jews.Waiting for sources. And as I said if there will be no presentation of sources, which would suggest that Polish Partisans, AK did not persecuted people who hide Jews, I will restore previuos info. M.K. (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have pointed out here (with citations), there is still a trend in modern Lithuania that tries to whitewash this collaboration by highlighting it patriotic, pro-independence movement - and to paint the Polish resistance as "bad guys" in contrast, by highlighting the few "exceptions to the rule" incidents. Even Lithuanian scholars like Bubnys have commented on this shameful approach - alas, it is still a notable POV, as we can see here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is already third time as Lithuanian historiography (or indirectly editors) are accused on trying to whitewash something. Anyway it is not new: "argumentation" like this it is used not only against Lithuanian sources. It is obvious, that we do have red herring situation:. My point is, that not related things should be kept separate:

  1. Some Lithuanians did collaborate with Nazi, nobody is denying that, the research of the crimes is going on and some attempts to use those crimes against Lithuanian is also going on. An I still believe, that Lithuanian historians with access to documents and with international help are able to do it good. Articles about the topic onwiki are being created, now all is needed is to find NPOV - it means not to persecute, but to let readers know what happened, and why it did happen.
  2. Polish resistance was not a block of concrete per se. It was acting in different regions, with different ethnic background and used different methods. We're not talking about AK as a whole, we're talking about some AK Crimes, in a specific regions: Lithuanians have information on crimes in one region. Belarus researchers have another information [24], Ukrainians do have another information. Does this mean, they're all whitewashing something? AK is accused on war crimes in Lithuania, and these should be discussed in detail, a good referenced start is here. Although these are mostly ignored, also as requrest to verify validity of provided evidences. You should note, that after rather prolonged inquiry for validity of Polish authors there is a buzzing silence. This raises further bad feeling, as one of authors is identified as AK veteran, so his credibility is rather dubious.
    1. Now for the Bubnys: I'm rather tired of this citation taken out of context from newspaper interview: A Lithuanian historian Arūnas Bubnys admits that there were no mass murders carried by AK (with the only exception being Dubinki), but that AK was guilty of some war crimes against individuals or selected families; he also notes that any accusations of genocide are false and have an underlying political motive, among them a counteraction to the accusations of widespread German-Lithuanian collaboration . One should note, that Bubnys was member of Lithuanian Governmental commission, that investigated AK's actions in the region, and declared, that AK did commit war crimes. If I do remember right, the interview notes that. I do not remember him mentioning any exact form of collaboration - so the mentioned (and provided above) citation is rather half WP:OR half compilation, or even putting words into someone's mouth. If I'm wrong I can be easily corrected by providing exact citations. Sadly, the newspaper is not available online, so the burden of proof lies on one who did provide it.
    2. And here is my question - where does anyone used word Genocide in AK-Lithuanian relations? We're talking about documented war crimes, And let's talk about specific crimes, not imaginable trends and other generalizations. A good start would be answering questions about Polish authors reliability and political stance on some issues regarding past where the questions are raised. And let's leave this talk page to related matters.

And documented AK beatings of civil population hiding Jews is important. I think it would be rather difficult to proclaim people hiding Jews "Nazi colaborators"?--Lokyz (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz, your explanation is just and fair IMO, and I am being serious about this. However (forgive my sarcasm), in the light of mass murder of almost 200 000 Jews, a single incident in which one Lithuanian family was beaten by God knows who (nobody answered my questions) looks grotesquely inflated here. Anyway, I understand the stance of some contributors. We had the same problem in Poland a few years ago, when the Jedwabne case came out and many people were shocked, unwilling to admit wrongdoings of Poles themselves.Tymek (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm also serious Tymek. I did just suggested to stay on specific topic rather than generalize and accuse others. Nobody is speaking about genocide, but about referenced facts. And M.K's provided reference is not the single fact, as there are other recordings people killed in the region for hiding Jews. Not all of them are Lithunians, but some are : For helping Jews, the following priests from Braslaw, Brest, Grodno, Vileyka, Molodechno, and Pinsk were shot: Mieczyslaw Kubik, Mikhail Daneletskiy, Tadeusz Grzesiak, Wladyslaw Grobel'ny, Iosif Kuczynski, Fabian Odlanicki, Jan Urbanowicz, and others[20]. Certain partisan formations took part in the rescue of Jews. In contrast to the central Soviet press, which kept silent about the genocide of Jews in the occupied territory, some Belorussian underground publications printed documentary eyewitness accounts. citing from here.
As for your questions, I do not think AK units had a habit introduce themselves when coming into a village to to "fight collaborators". Please, correct me if I'm wrong.--Lokyz (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Many of the Polish scholars discussed here have articles on wiki. No criticism has been presented regarding them or their cited work, unlike the case of Kazimieras Garšva and the Armijos Krajovos... publication, criticisms of whom has been presented. The accusations of AK in Lithuania are not relevant to this article, and criticism of those accusations have been presented. Of course, there were few tragic incidents, but as was noted - including by Lithuanian historians - there is a tendency to overblow those incidents to indeed whitewash or divert attention from issues discussed in this article (like Lithuanian collaboration). If AK needs to be mentioned in this article (which I do not think so), the above is the only context that is mildly relevant, I am afraid. Finally, since you ask about AK and genocide, see Polish-Lithuanian relations during World War II and look for the word genocide - the disputed claim "Lithuanian General Prosecutor Office in 1999 established that "partisan units of AK, not recognising the return of Vilnius region in 1939, were performing genocide of the population of Lithuania" is still there, added by one of the Lithuanian editors and referenced to a not very reliable newspaper (XXI amžius); my and other editors many requests for more reliable sources and follow-up on this 1999 report have been never answered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot accept this essay by Lossowski as a scientific review, or as review at all. Let's begin with the fact, that it is not published in any scientific magazine.
Name of this article is "Why interrogations" - and it is obvious, not the book is main object of the essay. It begins with stating, that Lithuanian Prosecutor's office invited AK veterans for interrogation.
“ "W dniu 1 lutego 2000 r. prezes Klubu Weteranów Wojny (władze litewskie nie zgodziły się na przyjętą uprzednio nazwę Klubu Żołnierzy Armii Krajowej) - Stanisław Kaczkan wezwany został do prokuratury litewskiej. Prokurator domagał się od niego informacji na temat działalności Armii Krajowej w czasie wojny, ale także wyjaśnień o obecnej aktywności Klubu. Przesłuchiwani byli także i inni członkowie Klubu." ”
Now it's obvious, that this essay is rather taking a stance in political situation, than reviewing book, and let me note, that and I'm not convinced, whether it is historian's job to evaluate the work of other country's Juridical system and work.
Then historian expresses his opinions, about how good AK was, and how the others do lie. Please note, he does use only one interesting reference:
“ Ten pojedynczy przypadek w historii AK na Wileńszczyźnie - pisze badacz problemu i uczestnik wydarzeń Roman Korab-Żebryk ”

- he's clearly stating, that his information is taken from works of participant of the events. Furthermore, I did not found any evidence of Roman Korab-Żebryk having any scientific degree in history. I've newer heard, that someone who was participating in the events (he was porucznik) can be referred as "reliable source". Author of memoirs, in the best case, and they should be confronted with actual documents of the time.

When this essay comes to discussing book I do not see a a single fact disputed. It's allegations only like Lithuanian underground press sources are criticized as being propagandistic and direct anti-AK

“ Poza artykułami przytacza się w obszernym wyborze wypowiedzi prasy litewskiej z lat 1942 - 1944. Stanowiąc odgłosy rozgrywających się wypadków i służąc potrzebom aktualnej propagandy, zwrócone były z całą bezwzględnością przeciwko Armii Krajowej. ”
It should be noted, that there are no criticism of sources used int the book - i.e. Lithuanian underground press. Of course there is not any critical review of soviet Red partisans documents.
The book does include also AK documents, found in a stash in Vilnius, stating documents are poorly selected" without a single word what's missing, and what might shed a better ligh on the events. The main problem Lossowski does find with documents is that part of them they are notes and drafts. I do not find this constructive criticism.
BTW, from the text anyone may notice, that Lossowski does not say bad word about Lithuanian historians:
“ "Zrodziła się za sprawą ambasador RP w Wilnie p. Eufemii Teichmann idea, ażeby zorganizować wspólnie z Litwinami konferencję, na której przedyskutowano by trudne problemy okresu II wojny światowej. I do takiego spotkania doszło w dniu 3 grudnia 1999 r. w Wilnie w gmachu litewskiego Sejmu. Przybyło na nie oprócz historyków grono kombatantów Armii Krajowej. W czasie obrad zaprezentowano poglądy obydwu stron. Choć były one rozbieżne, to jednak okazało się, że historycy Polski i Litwy potrafią dyskutować między sobą językiem argumentów opartych na faktach. Potwierdzeniem tego było oświadczenie wydane na zakończenie obrad, które oprócz uczestników polskich podpisało sześciu historyków litewskich. Uznano, iż pożądane są dalsze tego rodzaju spotkania." ”

As you can see authors disputed - i.e. Rimvydas Zizas and Arūnas Bubnys were present in the above mentioned meeting. And that the people in the meeting stated, that no common ground was found.

The essay ends with quite strange patronising moral lecture to Lithuanian society - what people should be not accepted.
And Piotrus, I'm surprised - in many places you call Bubnys prominent historian and cite him, so why do you deny credibility to his article in the book? The article written based on documents from "Archivuma Akt Nowych w Warszawie" - Sygn. 202 and 211 (I thnk it's found number), and rather well referenced. Zyzas article is even better referenced.
As for tendency to overblow those incidents to indeed whitewash - well, if you'd read the interview again, you'll see that this does relate only to "genocide" statement, not all crimes per se. --Lokyz (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Per RS and V, this review is acceptable. It was written by a specialist (historian) on the subject he is quite familiar with. If you can find any positive English or Polish reviews of this book, please do. Until then, the criticism from Polish sources remains the only reception this publication has generated. Roman Korab-Żebryk has a PhD in history, btw - which makes him much more qualified to discuss this era than Mr. Kazimieras Garšva.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well if we would consider terms "pro-Polish" or "anti-Polish" as a criteria to decide scientific value of the book, then we could call this essay a review. Still it's only your POV. (As for specialist - please remind me, what book did Lossowski wrote on AK?). If you'd be so kind and fully translate that essay, we might ask mediators, what do they think about it's scientific validity and compliance with WP:V. I'd translate it myself, but many times I was accused on "bad English", so I think we should skip it this time.
Beatings of Lithuanians, who were hiding Jews are described in Lithuanian Anti-Nazi underground press (yes, it did exist).
Roman Korab-Żebryk may be Ph.D. although this does not make him "more reliable" - as a direct participant of AK activity he might have personal motives to withold some information. And the fact, that he does not mention well documented facts in his book is noted by Bubnys. Anyway, this s not a place to discuss these issues. A much better place would be Dubingiai massacre, and there are still unanswered questions there.
Repeating Ph.D. Garšva's name again and again is a huge off-topic, as there is not a single mentioning of him or his articles on this article mainspace, and as a matter of fact, on any article in Wikipedia. And you still did not answer my question about Ph.D. Arvydas Bubnys, member of International commission.--Lokyz (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Since it is you who started this completly off-topic criticism of Poles discussion here, I thought we needed context - i.e. pointing out that such arguments and rhetoric are used by the extremist anti-Polish Vilnija organization. I am glad to hear you now agree with me this is not the best venue to discuss this issue. As far as I am concerned, this off-topic conversation has gone long enough here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What do you mean by "criticism of Poles"? And please define "Poles" in the context you're referring to: just some hints what I did express my thoughts about earlier - AK guerilla killing priests protecting Jews, historians who do write essays about foreign State Prosecutors office, historians with AK field operations background who are writing AK history? If you'd follow discussion, you'd not use another red herring - like saying it's about ethnicity: no it is NOT. It is about professionalism. So returning the discussion on-topic I do repeat my question - would you translate Lossowski's essay to be judged by a third party mediator for scientific validity? Could we return AK vs Lithuanians discussion to the place, where it did start?

And last question - what his wrong with citing a Lithuanian historian Arūnas Bubnys, prominent historian as you called him on many talk pages, including this one, and his colleague Rimantas Zizas. They both work in the Lithuanian Institute of History and in The International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation regimes in Lithuania. (I am not sure whether it's third or fourth time I'm repeating this question on this talk page alone) Would you, Piotrus, please answer the questions?

And the last thing - I did not start this discussion, it started, after removing well refereced text. I did just took my time and red through all the evidence provided by both sides. I like reading, and do not believe blind in keywords search like here and I am still convinced, that a monograph is more than collection of cherry picked citations. Hence the name mono-graphō.--Lokyz (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that then arguments are in short, discussion is hasty being converted to unrated discussion, like about MR. Garšva. Not the first time and not the last either. M.K. (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)