Talk:Soviet partisans - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 09:09, 17 September 2019 (→Be wary of Soviet era sources: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:09, 17 September 2019 by Piotrus (talk | contribs) (→Be wary of Soviet era sources: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soviet partisans article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German / Polish / Russian & Soviet / World War II

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Antisemitism

Seems like this concept is missing from the article. A reference is listed for "Smilovitskii, Leonid. Antisemitism in the Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941–1944: The Case of Belorussia in: Holocaust and Genocide Studies 20, 2006" but that does not seem to be used in the article. This is also discussed for two pages in (two-pages under the heading 'Allegations of anti-Semitism') if anyone wants to take a stab at incorporating this here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue that is touched on by sources - e.g. many of the independent Jewish otriads formed (some outside of Soviet influence, initially) after Jews were rejected by normal partisan units - this was particularly an issue with the rank and file and some field commanders. Off the top of my head - I have read quite a bit on this (particularly in the early phase - e.g. 1941-43, and around disbandment of the units in 1945 - there's significantly less talk of this during the peak of the movement - i.e. before the front lines made contact, and afterwards during incorporation into the Red Army into the advance / pacification of territory) - but I do not recall how much the coverage of this in the sources is anecdotal (based on Jewish testimonies - of which there are alot) and how much is academic (as a phenomena). Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources / POV

I have some concerns about sources used in Soviet_partisans#In_Soviet_Union_territories that read like Soviet era propaganda. "Elderly men and women and children often put themselves in mortal danger. A number of Soviet sources extols the level of cooperation between the partisans and the populace, for example, a leader of the Minsk underground Communist Party committee reported: "The local people helped us in the search for weapons. From rivers, swamps, and forests, people located rifles, ammunition, shells, and all this was delivered to us." The local population provided food and clothing to partisans voluntarily." Can anyone comment on the quality of sources used there? Majority are in Russian. I tried to NPOV this section by adding content from a recent Western reliable academic source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Well - elderly men, women and children did put themselves in danger - but it does not mean they wanted to do so. Voluntary supply of food and clothing (to all partisan movements and armies - this is a claim that goes all around) - is generally a myth. Usually a small minority of the population was willing accomplices and suppliers, with the rest either being passively sympathetic/opposed - but not willing (or resentful) to hand foodstocks over voluntarily (particularly since villages around the forests needed not only to feed themselves (+ sell some for cash in the towns) - but were generally requisitioned for food (and labor!) from by the German forces, the Soviet forces, and quite often also various ethnic/national partisans (e.g. AK, UIA, Jewish partisans, etc.) .Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The popular support enjoyed by the Soviet partisans and partisans' conduct in helping locals are amply documented in hundreds, probably thousands of scholarly sources. The effectiveness and strength of the Soviet partisan operations, as well as their conduct and relations with civilians, are proven not only by the likes of Zhukov, but extensively in the contemporary observations of German military leaders. You don't like these facts, hence your derogatory description of the facts as "Soviet propaganda." What's concerning is the insertion of dubious, ethno-nationalist publicists/propagandists like Bogdan Musial and Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who quite literally champion some of the same forces that came into conflict with the Soviet partisans and whose work would have to be described as fringe.

"The narrative of judeo-communism is perhaps one of the most active and "alive in the extreming right-wing nationalistic political and cultural circles. It also constitutes one of the premises for historical thinking characteristic of the new and growing ethnonatoinalistic historiography that has emerged in the post-1989 period. Its leading representatives are Marek J. Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk, Leszek Zebrowski, Bogdan Musial, the late Tomasz Strzembosz, and Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. - cited in p.163 Rethinking Poles and Jews: Troubled Past, Brighter Future . This article literally cites Chodakiewicz and Musial, two ethnonationalistic Polish guys, in an article about Soviet/Russian-led partisans and presents them as leading authorities on the subject. Piotrus doesn't take issue with this, but only content that is in opposition to the Polish ethno-nationalist narrative echoed by guys like Musial and Chodakiewicz.

By the way, why are you solely disagreeing with the use of Russian language sources in this article? We have a confirmed Polish ethno-nationalist guy Jerzy Turonek and his book Białoruś pod okupacją niemiecką cited in this article, but Piotrus argues that the Russian sources are problematic, which shows a lack of consistency. Polish sources on Russia = good but Russian sources on Russia = bad?

Piotrus, you inserted into this article: "Balitskii described how the partisans from the unit commanded by Yakov Mel’nik ‘ransacked Rudnitsa village like jackals and robbed almost all peasants’ (Bazhan2010, p. 452)." and simultaneously you vehemently object to the inclusion of "A number of Soviet sources extols the level of cooperation between the partisans and the populace, for example, a leader of the Minsk underground Communist Party committee reported: "The local people helped us in the search for weapons. From rivers, swamps, and forests, people located rifles, ammunition, shells, and all this was delivered to us." -- how is it consistent to endorse Balitskii and simultaneously condemn leader of the Minsk underground Communist Party? I think what you're arguing is that participants on the Russian side can only be given consideration as a proper historical source whenever they make the Russians look bad LegitimateProfit (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Musial and Chodakiewicz are clearly sources to avoid. Chodakiewicz is profiled by the SPLC, and both are highly criticized by mainstream historians - they both represent the most extreme point in Polish historical writing on the topic. That being said, we should avoid other problematic sources - and if possible - stick to English academic sources. Do you have a contemporary (past 20 years) source in English specifying voluntary help in the way described in the article?Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Stick to English sources? Most people outside of Russia don't care about Russian history. Therefore, the amount of historical research done on Russia from people outside of Russia is a tiny fraction of research done by Russian scholars. There is far more material on Soviet partisans available in Russian than from any other language. A Google Books search in English of "Kovpak Vershigora Ukraine partisans" brings 502 results. In Russian, "Вершигора ковпак украина партизаны" "has 1650 results-- Russians are simply more interested in Russian history than Americans or Englishmen. LegitimateProfit (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

LegitimateProfit, also for you counts the point: discuss first, then act, in case of controversial edits. The Banner talk 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TheBanner, consensus was never established for Piotrus' contentious edits.LegitimateProfit (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What username did you use before the present account name? The Banner talk 21:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

While in general I am quite fond of WP:NOENG, as noted, modern Russian scholarship is getting about as unreliable and biased as Soviet-era one, and we have to be careful with it. If reliable, English-language academic sources contradict it, well, it's pretty obvious which is more likely to be balanced or neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand: can anyone provide a reliability review for the Russian language sources used in this section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and there cannot be any serious reason to state that they ought not to be used. Тhis volume on World War II which was published in 2012 contains a summary of historiography from Russia and establishes the reliability and value of countless Russian sources. Just one example

p. 51-52: "The 1960s and 1970s was quite productive in terms of the study of problems of the nationwide struggle in the rear of the enemy. Only from 1965 to 1971, this topic was covered in over 400 books, brochures, articles and documentary collections. Among them was the book published in 1965, L. N. Bychkova “Partisan movement during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945: Short essay.". In 1976, N.M Makarov's monograph "Unconquered Russian Land", which for the first time in Soviet historiography covered the struggle of the Soviet people in the occupied Russian Federation territories. The author brought new data on the number of underground Communist and Komsomol organizatons, on the number of partisans and underground workers in Russian regions and summarized their activities. Separate questions of the national struggle are discussed in the monograph "War in the rear of the enemy: On some problems of the history of the Soviet partisan movement in the years of the Great Patriotic War." Its authors based the work on latest achievements of Soviet historiography and a number of new archival materials, and revealed the essence, character, content, and methods of partisan warfare at different stages of the war, as well as politics conducted by the enemy in the occupied territory of our country."LegitimateProfit (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with my question. Please discuss the reliability of sources used in the section in question by explaining who is their author/publisher. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Piotrus, your edits are contentious. Whether or not it's your intent, your edits have had the consequence of inserting an anti-partisan bias into this article. Statiev's article which you cited is misrepresented. You portray his article as a long rap sheet of alleged crimes committed by partisans, but in the very same article, Statiev writes, "Among all regular and irregular forces that operated in the occupied territories, partisans were the least lethal actor as far as the civilians were concerned...AK also killed more civilians than the partisans did... Given the savagery of war on the Eastern Front, it is striking how few civilians suffered at partisans’ hands as compared to those exterminated by nationalists, let alone Nazi collaborators." I implore you - please represent scholars' works in a fair and accurate manner rather than cherry-picking material.

Piotrus, in this edit, you deleted the fact that Soviet authorities perceived the Polish Home Army to be a hostile force, as well as the fact that Home Army units collaborated with Nazi German forces while at the same time engaging in combat with Soviet partisans. Why did you delete these facts? Certain editors have added large amounts of content about Poland and Finland, exceeding descriptions about the Soviet partisans in the Moscow and Leningrad regions, far more prominent than the Soviet partisan presence in Poland and Finland.

You asked about the sources used in the article and to verify whether they're reliable. Why didn't you do the research yourself in determining the reliability of these sources instead of asking for others to get that information? You were quite confident and assured that Musial, Chodakiewicz, and Gogun, who have all been characterized as having an anti-partisan bias, are reliable sources but you don't extend the same positive assessments to sources that have a more pro-partisan perspective.

Grenkevich is a reliable source. His book was published as part of the "Cass Series on Soviet (Russian) Military Experience) and the series was edited by prominent historian David Glantz.

Соколова, Е. А. Роль гражданского населения в оказании помощи белорусским партизанам иподпольщикам в оказании помощи фронту в годы Великой Отечественной войны is a reliable source. It is part of a work titled, "Society, State, and Religions in the Modern World: Materials of the Roundtable of the Department of Modern History of Belorussian State University.". It's as mainstream of a Belorussian source as it can get. elib.bsu.by is the electronic library of Belorussian State University. And the author of this work is Elena Alexandrovna Sokolova, author of "The policy of total terror of fascist Germany on the territory of Belarus during the Great Patriotic War" published by Belarusian State University.

СОПРОТИВЛЕНИЕ НАРОДОВ СССР НА ОККУППИРОВАННОЙ ВРАГОМ ТЕРРИТОРИИ is a summary of the partisan movement and is located on the web site of Moscow Institute of Business and Law. A reliable and mainstream source. Even if you don't like this source, I can guarantee that its contents overlap with sources published by Russia's Academy of Sciences

Советское партизанское движение is from a federal history portal in Russia and summarizes aspects of the partisan movement. A mainstream and reliable source, authored by Vitalij Afanasevich Perezhogin, who wrote "Partisans in the Battle of Mosccow", published by Russia's Academy of Sciences. He is identified as "Senior Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences" The contents of the cited work overlaps with content found in Grigory Nikolaevich Sevostyanov. War and Society, 1941-1945: in two volumes. -- published by Russia's Academy of Sciences, which is as mainstream of a source as it can get, albeit more difficult to access than the web link.LegitmateProfit (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I added material on Soviet partisans and their interactions with Polish resistance forces. Before Piotrus makes more false allegations about unreliable sources being used, I cited Vladimir Platonovich Pavlov, identified as a professor at International University MITO, at the department of history, law, and humanities. , and therefore qualifies as a reliable and mainstream source.LegitmateProfit (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Why are you demanding that others discuss things first before doing major edits but do you not adhere to your own demands? The Banner talk 22:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, to reiterate an obvious fact that's been ignored and disregarded by Piotrus: there is much more information on Soviet partisans available in the Russian language published in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus than in any other language. In particular, there is no English Misplaced Pages page regarding prominent partisan leader Alexey Botyan, who in January 1943 was sent to the deep rear of the German forces in the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus. The only sources on him available on English that I located are English language sources from Russia. This demonstrates that sources on Soviet partisans published in the West are relatively scant and inadequate because they are missing tons of information. According to western historiography from America and Britain, Alexey Botyan literally did not exist because I have not located a single source published in America or Britain in the English language that mentions him. There were no results in Jstor, Google Books, or JSTOR containing the name Alexey Botyan or Alexei Botian, which illustrates that western historiography on the partisans is incomplete and inadequate. This is perfectly understandable because, again, most people in the West are not interested in Russian history.

Western historiography about Russia is controversial in Russia. This is proven in this analysis by Alexander Sergeevich Linets, identified as a Professor at Pyatigorsk State University's Department of History. He writes in this analysis that appears on the web site of Pyatiorsk State University: "Summing up the conclusions of western historians on the issue, we can say that they held the point of view of denying the existence of a broad partisan movement at the beginning of World War II. According to their logic, only the "mistakes" of the German command in the occupied lands of the Soviet Union caused the rise of anti-German partisan forces. In the works of Soviet historians S. Voitenko, K. Pavlikov, N. Volkov, and A. Mertsalova, this thesis was criticized as scientifically untenable and biased in its essence."

Reliable Russian sources will be cited in this article and I doubt that there is a good, convincing reason you can come up with as to why they can't be.LegitmateProfit (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

So to get your POV, you demand things of others while you refuse to adhere your own demands yourself. Ow, and wiping your talkpage does not let your 4 warnings and 3RR-warning vanish. The Banner talk 09:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As I noted below, the problem is that Soviet (and now Russian) historiography is heavily biased because it used by the state as a propaganda tool. So, when as you say, Western and Soviet/Russian historians disagree, we generally go with the Western view, because it is more likely to be independent (as in, not influenced by political demands and censorship). I appreciate your explanation on who wrote those sources, but the point is that as long as the are published in Soviet Union or Russia, there are doubts about their reliability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of controversial sources

One or two sources have been cited in this article with the consequence and perhaps the intent of making the Soviet partisans look like bad guys.

Among them are are Poland's Marek Chodakiewicz and Bogdan Musial, who are described as ethno-nationalist authors: "The narrative of judeo-communism is perhaps one of the most active and alive in the extreme right-wing nationalistic political and cultural circles. It also constitutes one of the premises for historical thinking characteristic of the new and growing ethno-nationalistic historiography that has emerged in the post-1989 period. Its leading representatives are Marek J. Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk, Leszek Zebrowski, Bogdan Musial, the late Tomasz Strzembosz, and Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. - cited in p.163 of Rethinking Poles and Jews: Troubled Past, Brighter Future. It may be helpful to describe in a few sentences how certain elements in Poland feel about historical politics related to Poland's neighbors like Russia, Belarus and Ukriane, but relying on them for a factual summary of events and analyses regarding armed combatants from neighboring countries with which Poland has had a rivalry is problematic and will inevitably result in distortions and falsifications.

And then we have one Alexander Gogun, who comes across as fringe. Homeboy doesn't even live in Russia, but is a Berlin resident and has works published in Kiev. The guy is silly. He argues that the partisan movement in Ukraine was not a grassroots, spontaneous phenomenon, but was imposed by Stalin, god of lighting and thunder, hundreds of kilometers away in Moscow. We literally have thousands of scholarly books, articles, memoirs from Russian people about the partisans. And this Gogun guy does not reflect the mainstream.

Marek Chodakiewicz, Bogdan Musial and Alexander Gogun are all respectable if minor historians as can be seen from their pages. Their works get some good and some bad reviews. Gogun doesn't have a wiki page yet but carried his doctoral research on Soviet partisans while at USHMM . You need more than criticism from some random Russian portals expert.ru, svoboda.org and posprikaz.ru to make us reconsider their use. Particularly considering that recent Russian scholarship is ultra nationalistic and censored/directed by Putin and Russian government, not much coming from Russia can be considered reliable these days. Through yes, Poland is veering that way too, so to some degree I agree with criticism of some of Polish authors, but it is not that bad yet - at least there are dissenting views in Poland (in Russia, not anymore). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Gogun is controversial and doesn't reflect the consensus from Russia or Belarus regarding partisans - the guy can't even get many of his books published in Russia because no one wants to read them. Chodakiewicz and Musial are ethno-nationalist Polish authors. They are not reliable and don't possess the qualifications to write about Soviet partisans. Your dismissal of the majority of Russian sources regarding Soviet partisans is flawed and reveals a bias on your part, as far more research has been done about Soviet partisans and Russian history in general by Russians than by Poles, Americans or any other nationality. What you said about Russia simply is not true. LegitimateProfit (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

These academic reviews of Gogun's work are quite positive. The review in the Journal of Slavic Military studies has some criticism of the work but is overall quite positive (and this journal is certainly a gold standard for establishing the reliability of a source on the Eastern Front).:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518046.2017.1271693?casa_token=818iod0y1nEAAAAA:I5WjcnSevoV7FaWbctB32O8TKmQ0bCYiCr4E07YViZ0ircjk7pJmGzk1aYT7d-FtYRUEQHYgtw https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8072

debunks and exposes Gogun's work: "The progression of the book of Gogun is based on the ubambiguous, clearly, explicitly negative evaluation of the partisan movement and evolving from evaluation of a unit to another in the descriptions of cruelty, banditry, and moral decay of partisans. The book is characterized by a special selection of the source base: almost all of the evidence selected by the author are summaries of German occupation forces, Nazi organizations, Ukrainian nationalists, OUN. This source base is introduced by the author as a refutation of "Soviet stamps", as a counterargument to the thesis of the significant success and partisans' role in liberation... The stated purpose of the study repeatedly articulated by the author: "debunking the myth of the partisan movement in Ukraine during World War II."--- even Gogun himself essentially concedes that his work is not mainstream. He made it a mission to challenge the consensus in Russia+Belarus regarding the successes and popular support enjoyed by the Soviet partisans. And reviews of his works portray Gogun as hostile to the partisans. There is room in this article for Gogun, but he needs to be clearly attributed and he solely speaks for himself, not the majority of historiansLegitimateProfit (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Who is V. E. Tcherniavskaya and what journal did she publish in? In either case, as noted before, any criticism of things not fitting with the current Russian government POV published in Russia are of dubious academic integrity, as they may be state-ordered. If you want to criticize Gogun's work, please find a critical review of his work published outside Russia, preferably in an English-language journal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Are you trying to steer this discussion towards Putin? What evidence do you have that the sources I cited were published as a result of a government order? You're basically saying that no mainstream Russian source on the partisans can be trusted. The Russian government does not have anything to do with the topic and discussion at hand, which is about a period in history that was well over 70 years ago. Russian scholars as well as scholars in Belarus and Ukraine have advanced theses and arguments about the Soviet partisans, and your issue is that you don't like what they said. Russians have their own opinions and their thoughts are not the product of some all-mighty, all-encompassing power of the Russian government. In Russia, I love how you dismiss the discrediting of Alexander Gogun as merely material coming from some random Russian portals. Expert Kazakhstan is cited in this book, along with many other Russian language web sources. Gogun himself clearly and unambiguously identifies himself as challenging the established historical consensus in Russia and the mission of his books are described by him as seeking to debunk what he calls myths. His views are fringe and while he is welcome to a spot in this article in the form of a summary on the historiography of dissident views about the partisans, it is controversial and not okay to give him a prominent spotlight as though he represents a consensus on this topic. Musial and Chodakiewicz should only be mentioned in a summary of right-wing Polish nationalist historiography on the partisans.

You inserted Alexander Statiev in this article and depict his journal article as a long, laundry list of alleged crimes committed by partisans. But it seems to me that you did not fairly and properly represent his work. In the very same article, on p.1549, Statiev wrote: Among all regular and irregular forces that operated in the occupied territories, partisans were the least lethal actor as far as the civilians were concerned. UPA killed many times more civilians uninvolved in collaboration with the enemy; it routinely attacked peasants hostile or indifferent to its agenda, and conducted ethnic genocide following well-articulated instructions designed by their top leaders...There is a big difference between the typical attitude of Soviet top partisan leaders when they heard of indiscriminate violence—a reprimand of the culprits—and OUN’s direct orders to kill all civilians belonging to a certain group, such as that issued by Ananii Zakoshtui, head of OUN in Volhynia: ‘Liquidate all Poles and Reds in these regions as soon as possible’. No partisan agency at any level ever gave orders like this. AK also killed more civilians than the partisans did. Given the savagery of war on the Eastern Front, it is striking how few civilians suffered at partisans’ hands as compared to those exterminated by nationalists, let alone Nazi collaboratorsLegitimateProfit (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, modern Russian sources are problematic. Ex. 'Excusing the Soviet empire' or , , etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz (SPLC designated twice) and Musial are clear no-gos for anything unattributed - in histiography sources they are described as the extreme specturm of ethno-nationalism, and works by both have faced some rather scathing reviews. I would also argue against Russian language sources. We're the English encyclopedia, there are (I think!) high-quality English language sources out there - which per WP:NOENG we should prefer - definitely for unattributed use (for deciding NPOV slant in our own voice) - The moment we use a German, Polish, or Russian language source - the ability of editors to participate in discussion of the source is hampered. For attributed use - this is less of a problem - but for discussing NPOV in unattributed use - it is.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Anything controversial is best attributed. If Chodakiewicz or Musial are used to source something controversial, I concur they should be attributed. Ditto for Russian sources (or any other language) - IF they are reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

″== Biased content ==

This article suffers from some challenges. I may be wrong, though it's quite possible that this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist schools of thought, particularly from Poland and Finland, seeking to portray the Soviet partisans as bad guys. The sections on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania are about as long, if not longer, than the sections covering the Republic of Russia and certain people who edited this article have sought reduce its scope to a rap sheet of alleged crimes committed by partisans. The article gives the impression that the Soviet partisan movement was as prevalent in Poland and Finland as in Russia. Leonid Grenkevich on p.234 of his book summarizes: "...partisan fighting affected many regions but was particularly prevalent in German occupied Belorussia, the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel Districts of the Russian Republic, and in the Ukraine. This partisan warfare on so vast a scale was unprecedented in Russian history." So, if the Soviet partisan movement was most prevalent in the Belarus, Ukraine, and the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel provinces of Russia then I feel that the article should primarily concentrate on those regions. But this article concentrates extraordinarily heavily on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - is it because this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist interests from and sympathetic to those countries? Soviet partisans also served in Yugoslavia, and even in Italy but curiously this article doesn't have devote a single word to that fact. The article is in need of fundamental revisionsLegitmateProfit (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

While some content may be missing, the bulk of revisions should focus on removing Soviet/Russian unreliable propaganda sources, and verifying the facts with independent Western scholarly work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Soviet-occupied Poland"

This section seeks to obfuscate the reader as to what Polish territory was/is. Of the Polish provinces transferred to the Soviet Union: Western Ukraine was estimated to have a population that was 65% Ukrainian, while Western Belarus was estimated to have a population that was 78% Belarusian - these were not even ethnically Polish territories, although they were a part of Poland from around 1920 until September 1939. Lvov was a part of Poland from 1918-1939 and since 1939 has been a part of Ukraine. I recommend that Ukraine and Belarus in this article be defined per their 1939-1940 borders rather than the borders preceding World War II.LegitmateProfit (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree - considering the area was annexed by the USSR in 1939 (and hence - not occupied), and was ceded by Poland to the USSR in the Polish–Soviet border agreement of August 1945 - calling this "Soviet-occupied Poland" is incorrect. Furthermore, outside of Polish ethnonationalist sources, there is very little use of this irredentist terminology (around the "Kresy" in general) - these areas were annexed by Poland for a very brief period between 1921-1939, and Poles were one of many ethnicities present (and not a majority). For the past 70+ years Vilnius, Novogrudok, Lviv, etc. are not referred to as Polish cities or territories.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The term Soviet occupied Poland is correct. Until Poland agreed to border changes, this remained occupied Polish terrtiory.Majority of the population were Polish citizens irregardless of their ethnic background.Also Soviet Propaganda is inconsistant, as actually Soviets returned part of this territory, surely we don't want to claim Bialystok or Przemysl is part of Belarus or Ukraine occupied by Poland today? To sum it up-the correct term is Soviet occupied Poland both legally and par neutral sources.I agree that past 1945 Soviet occupied Poland shouldn't refer to Vilnius or Lviv but to communist Poland in post 1945 borders--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"considering the area was annexed by the USSR in 1939" - lol. Is that how it works? A country declares that a part of another country is its territory and that's it? Somehow I don't think so. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It depends - sometimes - as in the 1921 conquest by Poland or the 1939 Soviet conquest it is accepted, sometimes not. In this particular case - sources - e.g. Lebedeva, N. S. (2000). The deportation of the polish population to the USSR, 1939–41. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 16(1-2), 28–45. doi:10.1080/13523270008415428 The deportation of the Polish population from the territories annexed in September 1939 by the Soviet Union was an integral part of Stalin's policy of destroying Poland's state system and sovietizing the western areas of the Belorussian and Ukrainian republics., or Marples, D. R. (1994). Kuropaty: The Investigation of a Stalinist Historical Controversy. Slavic Review, 53(02), 513–523. doi:10.2307/2501303 Mass executions were conducted until shortly after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and Soviet policy in areas annexed from Poland was brutal, against the Poles initially but subsequently against western Ukrainians and western Belarusians. - support annexed.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to draw a false equivalence between 1921 and 1939. Sorry, that's a fringe POV view. In 1921, there was a treaty signed by two brand new states which didn't exist just a few years prior. In 1939 there was no treaty. I mean, there was the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement but I really hope you're not claiming that the legitimacy of Soviet "annexation" is demonstrated by the fact that the Nazis supported it. There was no treaty on the issue until Yalta and even that is somewhat arguable. And a couple cherry picked sources which happen to use the term in passing are not going to change that.Volunteer Marek 20:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands refers to it as an occupation.Volunteer Marek 20:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Jan Gross actually also calls it an occupation. As did British diplomats and governments at the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with annexed, but logically, something is usually occupied before being annexed. Perhaps the 'occupied then annexed' would be the best phrase? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It was annexed almost immediately - I would go with "invaded then annexed". Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but do we have any source for when did USSR pass any laws on annexation? Even the Soviets had to put some legal front. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Why would we care? If I declare that I've "annexed" Canada so what? For it to be "annexed" it has to have at least some international recognition. Which means that even in a generous view of Soviet policy, these territories weren't "annexed" until Yalta.Volunteer Marek 20:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

See this for the Soviet legal process/claims - as the state of Poland was extinguished via debellatio, the Soviets were no longer a party to various treaties (such as Riga 1921). Then also claimed derelicto due to the Polish gvmt/military flight, a humanitarian intervention on their side in the Eastern portion of Poland, and finally by a plebiscite in Western Belarus and Western Ukraine expression the populations "voluntary choice". There are a number of different dates, but per the Soviet view the Polish state had ceased to exist (and thus, also Soviet obligations from Riga) when they invaded. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

So... there was no such thing as "occupied Poland" during World War 2 at all? I mean, the Germans "annexed" various territories as well and/or designated them as new protectorates. Jinkins! And here I was always taught that there actually was such a thing as "occupied Poland" during World War 2. Might be some nationalist propaganda or something. No, the Nazis only "annexed" Poland. Seriously - who cares what bullshit excuses Stalin made for his occupation? Why should we give those any more credence then Hitler's excuses for the same? Volunteer Marek 20:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The German portion is a separate issue. As for the Soviet areas - because sources not affilated with the Polish POV generally use annexed for Western Belarus and Ukraine - e.g. Marples or Lebedeva journal articles quoted above. Why do they do so? Does not really matter - though they might be doing this since the annexation ended up being internationally recognized (such recognitions generally being retroactive) and the territories (mostly) belonging today to different countries.Icewhiz (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"because sources not affilated (sic) with the Polish POV " - Nonsense. You just made that up. Neither Timothy Snyder nor Jan Gross are associated with "the Polish POV" whatever the fuck that's suppose to be. And both are way more relevant than whatever you managed to find by cherry picking through the internets.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Much of Gross's work is based on Polish archives. Snyder is commonly referred to as a "polophile" - .Icewhiz (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Who cares how he is "referred to"??? Is that in Misplaced Pages policy somewhere? "Oh we can't use an author in an article on Poland if he's had nice things to say about Poland, gee wiz". What kind of absurd logic is that? That's right up there with you trying to remove any Polish sources from articles on Polish history, or removing sources because of their religious affiliation. And of course Gross' work is based on freakin' POLISH ARCHIVES!!!! It's a book about freakin' POLISH HISTORY!!! What the hell is it suppose to be based on? Fijian archives? Maybe Moroccan? No, wait, I know, ancient hieroglyphs from Egypt! This is even more ridiculous than your statement about Snyder. Not to mention that one opinion piece that, once again, you cherry picked from your dredging of the internet, does NOT establish that something is "common".

Sigh. Here, here is another "Polish POV" (sic) . A whole freakin' book about "Soviet occupied Poland" right in the title. From authors you yourself love to cite. Or is this going to become another farce like with Polonsky - where he was a "reputable academic source" which you insisted we should use, until you found out that he didn't actually fit in with your POV, so you then proceeded to try and remove him from an article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Unilateral annexation does not automatically end occupation. Occupation ends then territorial change has been is recognized by international community, usually after relevant border treaty, which in this case was signed in 1945. For example Germany formally annexed Czech territory but that period is still referred as German occupation of Czechoslovakia.--Staberinde (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Extlinks

@K.e.coffman: - you removed a couple of items on "non RS" grounds from the external links - however you left the same source in as a citation throughout the article - http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html (as well as https://www.iwp.edu/papers-studies/2006/05/01/the-myth-exposed/ which seems even more sketchy and unpublished - the book review at least was published). Was this your intention?

Be wary of Soviet era sources

Compare this diff, with Soviet era sources on one side, and modern research on the other: . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Categories: