Talk:Soviet partisans/Archive 1

message: i think the title for Great patriotic war should really be World war 2 as this is how it is called in english. as well, Great patriotic war has different meanings in different countries, for example in the North Korea it tends to mean Korean war rather than World war 2. it is english wiki, so it will be the best to use english name. as for latvia, i included what information i know about the situation there, both opinion of soviet partisans and taht of latvian government. if you have other suggestions, please say them but in my opinion it is better to have some written rather than none. Matsuhito 20:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Patriotic War

message: "Belorussian guerrillas liquidated, injured and took prisoner some 1.5 million German soldiers."
This seemes quite a lot. Since the Germnas lost about 4.5 million in the whole war it means that every third german casualty was due to belarusan partisans? Doesn't seem very likely?
According to more credible contemporary historic estimations Germans lost about 5.5-6 million + soldiers during WW II, more than 75 % of them on the Eastern front. That's only war casualties (i.e. either killed or injured badly enough not to return to combat).  "1.5 million German soldiers" are only claimed to be either "liquidated, injured or taken prison" by Belorussian partisans (who accounted for about 40-50 % of Eastern front guerrilla activity), "injured" (including those injured lightly) are probably the largest group. This makes this estimate to be within the realm of possibility. I agree, however, the number was taken from a www.vor.ru website, from an article glorifying actions of Soviet partisans and is likely to be somewhat inflated. Nonetheless that's the only web reference I was able to find. Fisenko 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, seems highly unlikely given the number of actions the Belarusian partisans organized and given the overall efficiency of regular armies was probably much higher than that of partisans, even as brave as Belarusian ones. If we followed the number, we'd probably have to inflate the German WWII losses to some 50 millions. Do we have any more reliable source on that? //Halibutt 13:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accurate numbers? 

message: To my entry later this day. --Molobo 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I will add references

message: Look at the article about Koniuchy Massacre. You really think Polish population supported Soviet partisants who just a while ago were people sending Poles to Gulags and Kazakhstan ?  Anyway ok, I shall bring references tomorrow, alongside testimonies of local Poles regarding  Soviet partisant units. I really would like your explanation regarding your revert ? What is POV ? That Soviet partisants didn't turn to banditry ? I will gladly support this with quotes even. That they didn't murder Polish civilians ? IPN is making a invistigation into several such cases. That Poles didn't view them as hostile ? Please answer. --Molobo 04:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Territories of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union" currently have names Belarus and Western Ukraine Of course, but in the timeframe of the article they were territories of Poland occupied by Soviet Union. Only in 90s they regained independence.
They were populated by Ukrainians, Belorussian as well as Poles, Jews and Russians.
Actually the population count in terrritories Soviet Union occupied from Poland in 1939 was as follows:
Poles 38 %, Ukrainians 37 %, 14,5 % Belarussians, 8,4 % Jews, 0,9 % Russian, 0,6 % German.
I am using a work here that analysed various population statistics given by various authors regarding that issue.They are of course higher estimates but this what the author gave as sensible conclusion of his research. The work is P. Eberhard "Polska granica wschodnia" Warsaw 1993. As you can see Polish population was quite high in those areas(circa 5 milion)
It is ridiculous to state that they were all Soviet soldiers and communist activists. 
Of course in territories that were part of Soviet Union before they weren't and received much support, but you have to understand that Soviet Union in 1939 acquired also territories that did have areas mostly Polish (of course I am not saying that Poles were majority of people, only that still there was a high population count, and they were areas were Poles formed majority-villages, small towns etc), and as the Soviets discriminated Polish population, Soviet partisants in those areas consisted of such people, and received little support, being seen as just another occupier. Indeed the whole communist movement in Poland reached only 6.000 soldiers. So you see I am writing about a specific area and issue-mainly the territories of Polish Second Republic that were acquired by Soviet Union in 1939, where the issue of Soviet partisants is different from other areas of SU due to presence of large Polish minority and conflict between them and Soviets.
Quite a number (I would dare say most of them) supported Partisans and one way or the other, otherwise the partisans would not have a slim chance to survive in the marshes and forests of these territories. 
Actually those partisants were despised by most Poles, at least that is what there is in publications regarding those issues. Most of Poles there were local peasants that had little arms, and even little training, while the partisants were former soldiers, with good training and very well armed. The in effect terriorised the local Polish population with threats and acts of violance. When resistance to banditry was made as in Koniuchy they resorted to massacres. And of course they and Home Army often fought which each other. So the picture presented in the current article is quite unrealistic, rosy and simply untrue.
--Molobo 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant POV in Soviet Partisants ?

message: As I understand, Molobo demands that we state that partisans sometimes committed atrocities and to provide the link to Konjuchij Massacre. I think it fair, I will try to write a couple of sentences my evening abakharev 23:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The current entry speaks nothing about the relation between Polish population and Soviet partisans. It is also POV that it implies some "Nazy" collaborationist were executed rather then making it clear that Soviet partisans murdered peasents they robbed including their families, wome n and children. It doesn't mention the wide ranging robberies, terrorising of local population, the fact that Soviet Partisans fought Ukrainian independence movement or that they were ordered to fight Allied soldiers that is the Home Army etc. It speaks nothing about the controversy regarding their attacks made without regarding the possible German reprisals on villagers.
It is a very POV article. --Molobo 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the article seems pretty sympathetic to the Soviet partisans while mentions little of their other face. However, perhaps a better way to avoid a possible revert war and heated conflict would be to add the paragraph here first. What do you say? //Halibutt 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A POVed entry

message: A neighbor of mine, Robert Rieck, of Chicago, Illinois, was a soldier who fought in WWII with the American Army. He is in his middle 90s, but still alive and well. He owned and operated a hardware store, Riecks Hardware, in Chicago for over 50 years, until his retirement several years ago. During the Battle of the Bulge, he was captured and imprisoned in a POW camp in Germany. This camp was liberated by the Red Army several months later. I have know Bob for many years (since I was in High School), and have an extremely high regard for him and his character.
In various conversations with him regarding his wartime experiences, I have touched upon his imprisonment and subsequent liberation. His bottom line is that after the jubilation of being liberated, came the absolute horror from watching the Red Army killing, raping, looting, and otherwise terrorizing German civilians, until he was transferred from the area. One particularly revolting story, was when some drunken soldiers shot and killed an old man in the street for no other reason than wanting hateful revenge on the "enemy". In the Naked City there are millions of stories, and this is just one of them. How many allied war veterans have you spoken to in Sri Lanka? Dr. Dan 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the Red Army have to do with partisans? I think you have the wrong article. Moonshiner 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Can You Believe This? (below to understand this entry better). Dr. Dan 13:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that the RA and partisans are two different entities. The unsigned editor commingled the two and I responded to it. Dr. Dan 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think American soldiers are comfortable criticising the Red Army and never said so. I was instructed by an anonymous editor from Sri Lanka to talk to Allied Vets. Told him I have, and this was one story I heard. Regarding American military participation in WWII, maybe you should read a little more about the Pacific theater, and some of the barbarity and atrocities that were being perpetrated there, too. Dr. Dan 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vet's accounts

message: Fisenko, I see you rv'd everything that Molobo added today. Was everything POV? Nothing true? I have often disagreed with Molobo, but if he says the sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, I'm not going to call it POV. So once again, was anything, anything, he added true? Like the tidbit about Latvia for example? Dr. Dan 03:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Question

message: I feel I have wrote too strong words about AK (thanks to Molobo). Can somebody indicate that AK as well as OUN and other nationalist guerillas fought Nazi's as well, just avoided cooperations with the Soviets? Maybe the whole question, of "Partisans and the National Question" should go to a daughter article? abakharev 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too strong about AK

message: 1.5 mln seem quite absurd. Does anybody have objective sources ?
This informative discussion seems to indicate the casualties were much smaller:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=77352
--Molobo 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does 0,5 mln seems better?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Belarus numbers

message: The article mentions occupiers. This a slight POV, as Soviet Partisans fought also against Ukrainian,Belarus, Polish and Baltic independence movement. --Molobo 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupiers

message: Hmm should we bring forward such subjects ? I mean I could give description how Sovietization looked like when directed upon Polish population, but is it the proper place ?
--Molobo 18:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look Molobo, seriosly get a life, you do reaslise that even your own Polish colleagues are telling you to stop this assault and POV-pushing campaign. Every single time you are going to edit an article in the manner that you did this one it will reverted. Do read WP:Assume good faith  --Kuban Cossack  09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sovietization

message: The main probolem of this article is that it lacks credible academic references. Not only it lacks inline references, but 40% of the current 'references' comes from 'Republic of Belarus Defense Ministry' and Soviet Encyclopaedia (does it refer to Great Soviet Encyclopedia, by any chance??). I just read a very interesting review of a new book about Soviet partisans in Belarus, which should be soon available online in Sarmatian Review (they are free but seem to be lagging somewhat behind their publishing schedule). In the meantime, editors of that article would do wisely to familiarize themselves with Google Print and Google Scholar. Some interesting resources I found in just a few minutes of browsing:
* Leonid Grenkevich, The Soviet Partisan Movement 1941-1945: A Critical Historiographical Analysis, Routledge, 1999 Google Print
* John A. Armstrong, Soviet partisans in World War II, University of Wisconsin Press, 1964
Doesn't seem to be in GPrint yet, but see Google Schoolar for plenty of reviews.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of good references 

message: Everybody, please read WP:VAND and do not use summaries as "rvv", "revert vandalism", "revert propagandovandalism", etc on the context disputes that are clearly not vandalism. On wiki vandalism is a technical term and it is reasonably good defined. Please also avoid naming your opponents "trolls" and other names. Use the edit summaries to access your edits not other editors.
Please also avoid using vandal-fighting tools such as rollback and popup-assisted reverts on non-vandalous edits. I am sorry for showing a big stick, but I could block people for repeated uncivil summaries. abakharev 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: I just dug out a new Times world atlas of WWII and on the section about partisans it uses wartime borders of Greater Germany and Reichskommisariats with Soviet Partisans in one colour and Polish in a different one. Their area of operation is destinct Soviet partisans in all Byelorussia east and west as well as northern Ukraine, east and west. Polish in Galicia and in the General governemnt. Soviet and Russian atalases like to use pre-1936 borders . Although I dug out this 1940s Soviet atlas (don't worry about permission, its for the site not for you) and observe Ukraine, Byelorussia and Germany. Which amogst other thigs includes a "region of German state interests". --Kuban Cossack  13:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first map is one of the best examples of propaganda applied to every single part of life in the USSR. Take note that it portrays the Soviet-occupied part of Poland as Soviet territory, while the German-held part is still depicted with the pre-1939 borders, as if the annexation never happened. Same goes for parts of Slovakia taken by Hungary... //Halibutt 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better, it portrays Memel (Klajpeda) as part of the USSR, even while showing that a part of the German invading force attacked from there.  From this one could prove that Nazi Germany must have invaded and seized Soviet territory even before June, 1941. The little enclave of Polish territory around Suwalki is also a nice touch.  Overall, an uneducated person could conclude from this map that independent Poland was a participant in the invasion of the Soviet Union.  Balcer 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In the appendix it clearely states that Soviet Borders are given for 1940, international - 1936. I would not use the term propaganda but convinience. The maps were drawn to show a)Soviet territory that was more or less part of the present territory. b)Other countries that by that point would have been occupied and partitioned by Germany and as partition borders continuously change then it would make no consistency. On the contrary the map also shows just where are the original borders of Germany and when USSR liberated Belarus , or Poland  in 1944 maps like these become fully possible to show just on which respective countries confrontation took place. Finally remember that from 1939 onwards the Soviet Union saw those territories of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine as its own. --Kuban Cossack  15:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it was very convenient, from the propaganda point of view.  But even according to its own criteria it is misleading, as Memel was not within Soviet borders in 1940, yet it is colored as Soviet territory here.  Actually, partition borders did not continually change before 1941.  The scheme which the Germans imposed in Poland in late 1939 remained constant until June 1941 (some areas annexed, some made into General Government). Anyway, I think it has been demonstrated convincingly that the map is, not surprisingly, strongly influenced with the Soviet view on things, and so it is clearly not NPOV.  On a lighter note, this discussion reminds me of an old joke (a bit tricky to translate from Polish, but I will give it a shot).  Question: With which countries does the USSR share a common border? Answer: With the ones it wants. Balcer 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I think the guy deserves a separate article on its own and one phrase here. abakharev 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudniev 

message: I am trying to merge Irpen's version. Here is the sketch:
Links to anti-fascist and resistance movement - restored.
::Most of the partisans were fighting, first of all, occupants, and only then fascists as representatives of fascist ideology. "Antifascist resistance" is more appropriate for a resistance inside Germany, Italy, which was more ideologically driven.
NKVD was not internal security agence it was the Department of Interior, changed
Rm candidates of the plans for the resistance - all the plans were candidates they were not planned for the occupation of the half of the country as the main outcome
::People were the most important element of the plans, and that is basically the only part of the plan which worked.
Restored images :Image:Sumshshnyna 41.jpg and :Image:Cherkaschyna deportation 1942.jpg abakharev 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These pictures don't illustrate partisans, but the war situation itself. Eventually they should go into "Ukraine under German Occupation" article.
I have shorten a little bit the piece about UPA, the article is not about UPA but about the partisans
I feel that then speaking abour Western Russia, we can use the term liberate. abakharev 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KPbIC 03:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But, Irpen, you are basically going back to your version, incorporating some of new changes into it, and reverting the other. Then, could you explain the parts that you are reverting, because they are far from being self-explanatory. For example, why do we need the first paragraph in Ukraine susection, which starts with "As well as Belarus, Ukraine...". It describe sopmething which is common to all areas, and logically it should be put above, as I did. KPbIC 06:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: AFAIK, "wide", but not "widespread support", as the movement was specific to suitable areas with supportive civilian population (not in steppe, not in western Ukraine). KPbIC 08:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to densely-populated areas where they did not need much support but could requisition what they need. //Halibutt
OK, Alex, are you done with merging of my and Russian versions? I mean I'm satisfied with your suprisingly co-operative start (namely of Bakharev). But are you going to include (discuss) the rest of my principal thesises, or should I be edit-warring for them :(? Let me know so I can start either discussing or editing voluntarily. AlexPU 16:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to Irpens revert to his own version, this article has again some serious POV problem. nationalist guerrillas in Poland and Baltic States, no mention of Poland (eventhough the Soviet partisans took part in fights in much of Poland, roughly 50% of its pre-war territory), no mention of the fact that they were mostly Red Army and not necessarily local population (quite a unique thing among other WWII partisan movements who were in large part locals), lots of weasel terms (additional burden on civilians looks mildly if one bears in mind that the Soviet disregard for the local civilians caused thousands of reprisal actions from the Germans, in most cases involving killing entire villages) and so on. And the only well-sourced part was removed... //Halibutt 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Halibutt but locals participated equally as much as the Red Army. In fact the locals were the ones that gathered intelligence whilst specially trained commando units would do the assaults that way avoiding retaliation against the local population. Volhynia Ukraine, almost all of the locals joined the partisan movement, and you might find it interesting but they did carry out some combined operations with AK. Since Volhynia was a haven for both Soviet and Polish resistance. --Kuban Cossack  23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We might either generalize the way you did or try to generalize my remark. While you claim that the civilians supported the Soviet partisans, I claim that it was not always so. The truth is somewhere in the middle. But of course, my view is somehow affected by the knowledge of mostly the Soviets to operate in Poland...err... Western Soviet Union. And those did not have much support from the locals. Even in Volhynia the Soviet resistance was quite negligible, as compared with other groups fighting in the area. //Halibutt 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Negligible? Nikolai Kuznetsov and Dmitry Medvedev, the second most well-known names after Sidyr Kovpak (who too went through Volhynia). Or how many raicars were destroyed in the Kovel - Kiev route. Now that is rediculous! As for Polessie and Podlasie, I would not even comment. Galicia was the only place that the Soviets lacked support that is known fact that I would not deny. Volhynia might not have been the fray like Chernigov oblasts or Sumy, but it sure did play a big part. Particulary under Rivne where my wife comes from and ALL of her relatives were part of the partisan underground organisation. --Kuban Cossack  23:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, silence was an answer... So I just edit unilaterally, and don't you anybody dare to revert my edits :(. Best wishes, AlexPU 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war between AlexPU and Irpen 

message: If I may completely digress for a moment, one of the strange peculiarities of editing in Wikipedia, can be illustrated by the case of Danil Wickramarante, from Sri Lanka. Around 24 March 2006, he wrote a couple of lines on the Soviet partisan Talk Pages. They were under the bylines of Did you know? and Polish Civilians. In them, he made a few comments and encouraged us to talk to Allied War Veterans to get a "better" perspective of the nature of the Red Army. I then proceeded to tell a story about a vet that I knew, Bob Rieck, who was a POW during WWII. Someone, probably Danil himself, then came back and deleted all of his imput. This of course left my remarks and response hanging without the original comments which prompted them. Someone also changed the byline to A Vet's Account, prompting another editor to question what the entire exchange had to do with Soviet partisans, and why any of it was on these talk pages at all. I question first, if it is proper to remove ones own imput on the talk pages, if after a few days one reviews it as foolish or in error, and two, if the subsequent responses to the initial edit should then be removed as well. Afterall, they then begin to look strange and unrelated to the rest of the talk page imput, which was removed. Any comments? Dr. Dan 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHy don't you simply restore what's deleted? --Irpen 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that your answer to my question? Look, you wrote it, and you removed it. Reminds me of Stalin's airbrushing people out of photographs. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't remove it from the "history" of the talk pages. Forgive me for the "foolish" label. My apologies. So, what made you remove your earlier imput? Dr. Dan 04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can You Believe This?

message: In my opinion, the anti-fascist definition in the intro is irrelevant and false. By following that link everyone may find out that this a term of political science related to ideologies. Using it regarding wide-spread guerilla movement would be an unencyclopedic repeating of a Soviet propaganda cliche. Peasant guerillas were antifascists, doyarkas supported Kuchma's constitutional ammendments, what else jingoistic should we bring here :)? Going to delete that link in a while if nobody objects. Best wishes, Ukrained 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intersting, but I think in common understanding anti-fascist and anti-nazi are so intermixed together that I do not see a real reason to distinguish them. I mean its worth saying on the main articles of those two terms (if they have not been said) but I see no reason to remove it from Partisans, besides most of the Partisan actions was strongly coordinated by the Party. --Kuban Cossack  20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No we cannonot because that is a blatant POV. --Kuban Cossack  20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Sashok, but both of your statements seem profanous. A common understanding? In an encylopedia? And I really appreciate your respecting of my (shall we say any non-Russian?)  POV. And your readiness to discuss our differences. Going to search "blatant" in my large dictionary, must be something insulting... Ukrained 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch WP:NPA or else I know how sensitive you are to be being poked :). As for non-Russian POV, the Ukrainian state officially lists all partisans and Soviet troops as anti-fascist warriors and liberators. :) So really unless of course we touch that Galician appendix, you really have nothing to support your argument. So please avoid trolling the talk page with POVs.--Kuban Cossack  21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Anti-fascist''

message: Just a question: Shouldn't the name be plural? --Kuban Cossack  16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that plural form "Soviet partisans" is better. Or "Soviet partizan movement" (similarly to Norwegian resistance movement, etc.) Or "Partisans (Soviet Union)" (similarly to Partisans (Yugoslavia)). KPbIC 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, shall I move it to your latter suggestion? --Kuban Cossack  20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the third. I actualy like "Partisans (Soviet Union)" most of all, quite a number of participants were not particulary fond of Soviets but saw as it as a national resistance movement. On the other hand, the change the title to "Partisans (Soviet Union)" might mean that we want some info about UPA, AK, "Forest brothers", etc in the article as well. Has nothing against it, but it is a big change, that should be agreed upon abakharev 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current title is much better than those, but it could be pluralized. Like you said, Partisans (Soviet Union) creates confusion as not all of them were in the Soviet Union, nor were all of them fighting for the Soviet Union, even if they generally were at the very least supported by the Soviet Union. heqs 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I too support the move to plural. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html
Much of this information should be included in the text.
--Molobo 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo, we've been through this. Stop pasting stuff from outside. You were even blocked for that in the past. A link is sufficient and you can be sure that I, as well as the others will read it. I will comment on that separately. --Irpen 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Molobo. I never deleted anything. This old problem was looked at by a wider audience and the result was you being blocked for revert warring and posting a copyrighted info to Wikipedia. I tried to keep talk page readable and copied everything you wrote to a separate page and linked to every quote as appropriate. You are starting this mess trying to make yourself an innocent victim while you were clearly trolling as you are now. You want me to post the details of what happened at that time? I really think it is irrelevant and was prompted by your new bad faith accusation. So, cool it. --Irpen 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The link does not work. Usually the links with *.edu/~* are personal student's or faculty pages, something even less reliable then blogs abakharev 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. heqs 11:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As to what Alex wrote above, I believe Rice University is quite a respected centre of education, nowhere near blogs and such. //Halibutt 14:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting information

message: Thumbs down to the tag team reverts. To not even bother to explain your reverts on this page is hostile editing. It suggests that you are removing it simply because you don't like it. Please explain your removal of information and POV tag. "de-Moloboize" and "polish nationalism not allowed" ad hominems are not valid. heqs 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the version that the people are trying to impose and ask yourslef if it is neutral and consice. Thumbs down to those who are trying to fill this article with a POV and then put a POV tag. --Kuban Cossack  22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it and it generally corresponds with my understanding of the situation. It's a little sloppy (for instance, Antanas Sniečkus should not have been edited out), and should be improved upon. Improve the wording to better suit the context of the article. Or, if you object to a couple of unsourced statements, remove them, but don't delete the whole thing out of hand. Give other the users, and those who claim non-NPOV a chance to improve it as well. heqs 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the current version is such. --Kuban Cossack  22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverts 

message: The remains of the Finnish village of Lokka after a partisan attack on July 14, 1944. Picture from the book "Partisaanisodan Siviiliuhrit" (Civilian Victims of the Partisan War) by Tyyne Martikainen.
http://www3.filehost.to/files/2006-05-22_03/235951_partisan1.1.jpg
The burned dead victims of the partisan being carried to the back of a truck The soldier at the left carrying Siiri H. Kumpulainen. Picture from the book "Partisaanien Uhrit" (Partisans Victims) by Ville Tikkanen.
http://www3.filehost.to/files/2006-05-23_01/000201_partisan2.jpg
Grave of the victims of the partisan attack to the Lokka village. Picture from the book "Neuvostoliiton partisaanien tuhoiskut siviilikyliin 1941-44" (Destructive attacks of the Soviet Union's partisans against civilian villages 1941-1944) by Tyyne Martikainen.
The tombstone says:
"At Lokka, as victims of the partisans. 14.7.1944." (Names and dates of the victims birth's. At the down right corner: "Book of Revelation, Chapter 6."
http://www3.filehost.to/files/2006-05-23_01/000327_partisan3.2.jpg
Kurt.
:Kurt, thanks for the references. While they are a good start, can you find any academic references for this? English language would be preferable, although if we lack those, Finnish - as long as we can verify that they were published in an academic source - would be ok, too. Google Scholar and Google Print are two good places to start the search for English academic references. PS. In your edit summary, you also quoted this link. Could you elaborate on the veteraanienperinto organization?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurt, I don't know you enough to know who is right or not without reviewing your RfC - and I don't have time for it. I'll just point out to you that if you abandon this talk page, you also abandon your case, and to Deng, that everyone can change for the better and if Kurt can provide varifiable information, I see no reason why not to let him try.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure if I'll have time for that. On a related note, please don't overuse headings. One per discussion is enough, no nead for a new heading for each new post.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet partisans crimes in Finland. 

message: And it should be noted that Deng appears to have a personal grudge towards me and he attempts to paint all I do as vandalism. This is seriusly off-topic, and I will not continue this discussion here.
Kurt.
:Kurt, I don't know you enough to know who is right or not without reviewing your RfC - and I don't have time for it. I'll just point out to you that if you abandon this talk page, you also abandon your case, and to Deng, that everyone can change for the better and if Kurt can provide varifiable information, I see no reason why not to let him try.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for those kind lines 

message: "I'll just point out to you that if you abandon this talk page, you also abandon your case"
Don't worry, I have no intention of doing so. I shall continue the research as soon as possible. At the same time you could also try 
to do some research yourself, if you are interested.
Kurt
:I am not sure if I'll have time for that. On a related note, please don't overuse headings. One per discussion is enough, no nead for a new heading for each new post.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotr 

message: I have edited it a bit, adding new sources and the book. I wonder why Russian sources are capable, but Deng especially keeps questioning everything. I'd suggest you to take a look at this. Finland is #1 in Press Freedom, while Russia is 148th. Let's keep that in mind when looking at sources. The crime records (murders and crimes against humanity) are also in Finnish goverment's records (before secret records). --Pudeo 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: All editors interested in POV of this article would probably be interested in the debate at Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related NPOV debate 

message: 1) Both partisans and UPA had a strong support in Western Ukraine and the local population there was very polarized and divided. In general UPA tend to have support of population  in Galicia while in Volyn and Zhitomir regions were was strong local support for partisans.  
2) I have yet to see any credible historic sources about any serious dialogue in regards to any kind of alliance between Ukrainian partisans and UPA.
3) The idea of Rudniev (an old Bolshevik) being patriotic Ukrainian martyr killed by evil NKVD agent Kovpak is good for Ukrainian nationalist revisionist presudo-history but not for a neutral encyclopedia.  Fisenko 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fisenko, don't worry, I already wrote a preliminary draft for Rudniev's article that would replace a bunch of unreferenced conspiracy theories. I will replaced the current nonsense within a couple of days. This article will be brought to normalcy too. I have some more urgent things on my todo list but this will be done. Why don't you start? Cheers, --Irpen 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Ukraine, Rudniev and Ukrainian nationalist myths 

message: I am trying to merge the versions by Kuban Kazak  and by Ukrained 
Here is the list of differences with my comments:
#Kovpaks detachment vs formation. I think Ukrained's formation is less awkward
#Link of harsh Stalinist rule to a Category. I think inter-namespace links should be avoided, besides a half of the category belongs to the post-WW2 events. Linked to Soviet persecutions instead.
#Paragraph about UPA and SP. I think should stay, although references should be provided
#Linking of War Crimes. I see no reasons why the link is dropped, restored.
#I can not accept statement that the price paid for the Victory was to high as a fact. It is inherritently an opinion and hottly contested. Restoring according to some historians.
#For a few differences I left Ukrained's version.
#External references. Frankly I do not see the special place of a fragment of a book review (not a critical review, just a commercial) published in a personal webspace hosted by Rice University. I do not know about the book, but the review is not a scolarship work. For once it has no references. Reformatted the section accordingly abakharev 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit war 

message: Information related to the Finnish consentration camps is irrelevant. You apparently have adapted a wrong idea about them. They had nothing to do with national socialism or racial policies. The camps were operated under the same principle as American camps where Japanese-Americans were interned following United State's entry in the war. People were not sent to die to the camps and they were not mass murdered there. Don't try to justificate the partisans acts with them and talk about brutality. Kurt.
: True, and how that image isn't suitable for the article? The text in Finnish says "In Lokka, victims of the partisans", and shows all the victims of the specific attack. There were children killed, even one month old baby in the gravestone which pretty much tells the style of the attacks.. --Pudeo 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "How come this is irrelevant ? " Did you even read what I said earlier? "20 000 ethnic Russians in Karelia were put in concentration camps and 7000 of them died there....There are people who believe Holoucast never happened, doesn't mean this should be adopted as official point of view on Wikipedia " It had nothing to do with racial policies or the Holocaust. Those people were not mass murdered in the camps. Their deaths were not result of planned extermination. You are out of your path. Kurt.
Please explain the deaths of these people. Are you seriously saying deaths of these people had nothing to do with the fact Finnish troops put them in concentration camps ?? Fisenko 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Food was especially scarce in 1942 in Finland due to bad harvest, and for this reason the number of deaths in Finnish camps rose high. It is not that the people were not tried to be fed, it's that there was lack of food in the country. Kurt.
Intresting whitewash theory. why did all this people ended up in concentration camps in the first place ? Weren't they forced there in order to move them east and settle the land with Karelians, Vesps and Finns ? wouldn't this be a policy nowdays called "ethnic cleansing" ? Fisenko 23:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: Why do you keep removing the picture, it is fine and completely suitable for the article. Maybe we need to get a comment by adminstrator if you keep removing it wihtout any comment here.
I removed the part that said "Partisans executed civilians deemed hostile throughout", don't tell me children, women and elderly were hostile.
There have been 15 reverts on the case, please do not just revert it again. --Pudeo 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war on Finland part of the article needs to stop 

message: I decided to protect the article for a while, to have discussions here. Too much edit warring recently.
I have locked the AlexPU/Ukrained/Molobo version abakharev 12:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what is minor about this minor edit?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a revert I think. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And reverts are not minor and should be labelled as reverts, right?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That they should be labelled as reverts is perfectly right. Whether they're minor... I don't know. I never mark them as minor for myself (even for vandalism reverts), but some people tell me I should, so I have no personal preference. What is the meaning of the question btw??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning? I wanted to ask people if such an edit is indeed minor. I don't think that any unlabeled revert classifies as Help:Minor edit, and wanted to point this out as part of the 'cooling down' and 'what mistakes should not be repeated' during the protection period of this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected