Talk:Home Army/Archive 1

message: Is this public domain text?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.59.41.246 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: The AK was anti-Communist but their refusal to deal with Jews had more to do with innate Polish anti-Semitism and the weakness of Jewish resistance than it did with the fact that a number (though not all) of Jewish resistance members were left wing.  A a prime example of this is seen in the document Response of the Commander of the AK to the Jewish Request for Arms.
innate anti-Semitism ??? What a stupidity. Millions of Jews living in Poland for centuries, developing their culture, being protected by polish kings - while in whole Europe exiled, murdered, persecuted and... flying to Poland to living save life... For sure, Poles are innate anti-Semits.
::Also, is lack of arms equal to anti-Semitism? I don't have a gun at home either - am I an anti-Semite? Halibutt 12:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
:: There were conflicts between desperated hiding Jews and local population and partizan troops (also AK). There were also several Jewish "partizans" committing crimes. Why to pretend nothing happened? 
Xx236 11:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on AK and Jews 

message: Here is a link to an article with some information from the Polish viewpoint ( link). It is an overview of relations between Poles and Lithuanians during the war.  It also discusses the role of Armia Krajowa.
A very informative article, but here I will (roughly) translate only the relevant passage:
There exists only one documented case where Armia Krajowa members responded with murder on Lithuanian civilians, in retaliation for the murder of Polish civilians.  This happened in the Lithuanian village of Dubinki, whose inhabitants were killed in retaliation for the killing by Lithuanians of the Polish inhabitans of the village Glinciszki.  These incidents have been acknowledged as criminal and condemned recently by representatives both of Poles and Lithuanians.
Except for this one case - which at any rate was not in accordance with the policies of Armia Krajowa High Command but was an initiative "from below" by the local unit commander - Armia Krajowa never acted against Lithuanian civilians or national independence organisation.  However, it did fight against those who collaborated with Soviet and German occupiers.  It sometimes happened that Lithuanians were victims of such actions.  However, these cannot be considered anti-Lithuanian acts, as for example in the General Govenrment Armia Krajowa executed Poles guilty of such collaboration. Balcer 00:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Armia Krajowa is still in the "stub" stage so it is difficult to argue about lengths of various sections.  Obviously relations with Lithuanians are a minor issue in the history of an organisation which counted hundreds of thousands of members all over Poland, and concerned itself primarily with fighting the Germans and resisting the Soviets. Still, there ought to be a section on the relatively uknown operations of Armia Krajowa in areas of Eastern Poland, where the Poles were not necessarily the overwhelming majority of the population, and hence to the conflict with the Nazi Germans was added the smaller but still significant conflict with other local nationalities.  As part of that chapter, the Dubinki massacre should be mentioned, in a proper context.  On the other hand, the way the article is now, this massacre and relations with Lithuanians in general are given too much prominence. Balcer 00:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: View from the Polish side

message: What I'd like to see is collected in one place: name, title, isbn/etc. and quote/abstracts relevant to this discussion. I think we all have an 'overall' picture, and agree that it can and should be mentioned. Then we can see how many POVs there are, who supports what and write a NPOV paragraph presenting all sides of the argument: X claims that...most Polish historians claim that...etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK AK in Vilnius region DID carry negotiations with Nazis at the end of the war, but DID NOT enter into any sort of special relations. However, NKVD DID prepared falsified documents etc to discredit AK Szopen 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could provide more info about it in article maybe, like reasons and such, and also later NKVD propaganda? That probably would need a seprate paragraph in article though as it is not exactly relations with Lithuanians DeirYassin 07:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collected eferences 

message: I'm starting the gallery of new pics. So far only one uploaded, but there will be much more of them. See the Talk:Polish September Campaign and Talk:Warsaw Uprising for other galleries of recently-uploaded pics
--Halibutt 12:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Gallery removed while archiving, due to fair use... only applicable on main namespace, not on talk namespace. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics 

message: The sections "Origins", "Structure" and "relations with jews" are almost literally translated from "The Encyclopeia of the Holocaust", an Hebrew Encyclopedia published in Israel by Yad Vashem and a private publishung house - "Sifriat Poalim". As much as this translation violates copyrights, those sections need reediting. Almog 05:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: copyright violation?

message: It seems like the section 'Operations' should at least mention some of the intelligence work done by the AK, since up until Burza that was its main activity. I remember reading (will try to look up the source) that supposedly 80% of the Allies' information about German war production came from the AK (through forced laborers). A paragraph or two on Operations Most II and III - the recovery of tested V2 rockets, and the intelligence work with regard to V1 and V2 in general would be nice. I'm new to this Wiki thing so I hesitate to do it myself.
radek 12:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wiki. Don't be afraid to edit, be bold! Some information about Most operations and such are at Polish contribution to World War II, don't hesitate to copy any material to expand AK article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the encouragment. Here's what I have on the AK and the V-1 and V-2 so far: Home Army and V1 and V2. I hesitate to put it into the article (is this the right place for it?) as it is too long (though the article I think is too short...) it could use editing and I need to Wikifiy it. radek 11:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good job. For starters, make sure it [linked] from related articles. Wikifying is quite easy, read links from welcome I posted on your talk page for a turorial on that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence work 

message: Not related. While some AK attacks indeed were retalliations for Lithuanian attacks, it was not for Ponary but for other events that are already mentioned. In Ponary mostly Jews were killed BTW.) "mostly", but thousands of non-Jews were also killed. What about the lithuanian Sauguma? Xx236 07:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, most of those killed were Poles, regardless of their actual ethnicity. //Halibutt 13:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about ethnicities here rather than citizenships; the Nazis repressed populations based on their ethnicity. Besides, talking about nationalities in this particular case is very difficult - fact is that in 1939 when Lithuania took control of Vilnius all the local population was given Lithuanian nationality (with the exception of those people who had come from the other parts of Poland during the interbellum, but this was a minority). D'Italia 19:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponary 

message: Yes, the SU was not anti-Semitic, but some of its members were. Do we have "Anti-Semitism" section in the Soviet Union article? I doubt very much. 
Xx236 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some interesting facts about anti-semitism among Soviet partisants here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, the AK was not anti-Semitic, but some of its members were. 

message: It would be nice to create a related article on events in Glitiškės. It is interesting topic. Sigitas 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for creating this article. On Polish wiki I found two related articles: the fairly long one on :pl:Aleksander Krzyżanowski, and a tiny stub on :pl:Sauguma. I will translate AK time permitting soon, but I didn't find much about the Sauguma police.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glinciszki (Glitiškės) massacre 

message: If Plechavicius would be colaborator of nazis he wouldn't be arrested and put to concentration camp and his organisation banned and persecuted by nazis. Plechavicius was resistant of nazi regime. Should we call AK colaborators for their dealings with Nazis and Soviets? We should if we call Plechavicius colaborator. Sigitas 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the main reason why a Waffen-SS division was never formed in Lithuania and resisted those efforts to the end. He wanted to form an army for self-defense of Lithuanian territory. His call to all members of the "Local Lithuanian Detachment" to flee to the woods with their weapons on the eve of his arrest seeded the post-war anti-Soviet partisan resistance. heqs 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While I have become aware of the PP existance only yesterday, a brief examination of the available sources indicates to me that he was indeed a collaborator. He worked under the command of Nazi Germany,  his forces were engaged in the battles against the enemies of Nazis (Soviets, Polish resistance). How else can we refer to him?  Considering he was a military man perhaps an 'ally' would be a better term, just as the forces of Vichy, Mussolini, many Balkan countries and such. Certainly his later break up with the Nazis and turning against them is significant and I would not oppose to amending it in the text to reflect the fact that he fought against them later.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Local Detachment had only Lithuanian commanders, and disobeyed orders of Germans. Armia Krajowa also waged battles against enemies of Nazis, i.e. Soviets. Is AK collaborator?  Sigitas 19:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LLD most apparently didn't disobey the German orders for the first months of their operation. The organization was initially created with German official approval. It is also very likely that the organziation received suport (money, arms) from the Germans as an official part of the German military structure. Therefore in its early history it was obviously allied and/or collaborated with Germans, nonwithstanding the fact that it turned against them later. AK was not created with German approval/support, never received orders from Germany or official suport (with the exception of some few extremly rare cases, and those seem to involve NSZ, not AK, as described above), and finally unlike LLD which was initially created to help Germans, AK was created from the start to fight the Germans. The differences are glaringly clear, I believe.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not confuse co-belligerence and collaboration. I guess it's a matter of perspective. The Germans played on nationalist sentiments when they formed local/ethnic forces. To some people, the most significant issue will be that at first it was subordinate to the Germans, to others, it's that when it came down to it they were loyal only to the Lithuanian cause. heqs 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Receiving arms is not a collaboration. As said before, LLD had only Lithuanian commanders, its  own agenda, and German orders were ignored, which resulted in ban and persecution of LDD . Sigitas 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly agree that there are many reasons we should not view Lithuanian alliance with Nazis as something simple; as many other nations they were in it more to escape the Soviet opression then because they approved of Hitler's schemes. On the other side of the coin would be of course the unfriendly attitude of L. nationalists to Poles (and vice-versa - although I am sure there were notable examples of cooperation, and perhaps it would do us all good if we would try to write a little about those 'better' aspects from time to time). Co-belligerence is a nice link and a good one to use to expand/replace on the instances where collaboration is used. Legionas, I'd recommend you look through Google Print and provide some evidence to back such statements. I will repeat that PP was obviously a German enemy later, but in the begining he was either their ally or collaborator (although of course his primary motivation was not to help Germans, but Lithuanians).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On an aside (sort of), can someone who speaks Polish briefly tell me what this is about:  ? It seems to be some kind of announcement of cooperation between the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre and the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, is that right? Thanks, heqs 02:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It talks about the 2nd Polish-Lithuanian Conference on "Polish-Lithuanian Relations 1939-1989" and mentions some others. It mentions signing of a cooperation but doesn't say between whom (countries? universities? no idea). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it: here's a page in english about the conference:  heqs 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Plechavičius initially was a colaborator of the Nazis, the problem is that the word has some pejorative connotations. It seems that we may be lacking a correct NPOV word here. It might also be that cooperation with the Nazis was seen somehow different from the Polish and Lithuanian perspective. I think the best we can do is to search some possibly neutral sources. I'd like to point out here, that in some cases AK also was receiving weapons from the Nazis. --Lysytalk 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tnx for the links. How are they relevant here, though?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they not? I was replying to Lysy. heqs 02:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the pointers. They certainly give some background of the situation. They however seem to confirm that Plechavičius initially collaborated with the Nazis, although his goals were apparently different. Whether his effort deserves to be criticised or praised is another issue. --Lysytalk 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I initially brought up the term co-belligerence on this page with reference to Sigitas' comment "Armia Krajowa also waged battles against enemies of Nazis", but given the information I have (an army under Lithuanian command, to remain in and defend Lithuanian territory), I am increasingly coming under the impression that PP was a co-belligerent, not a collaborator. heqs 08:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Of course Nazis occupied Lithuania and no one is disputing that. However, preparing local army for defence against Soviet aggressors was a patriotic thing and not a treason. Even if German weapons were used. We should not apply name "collaborator" in this article regarding Plechavicius, because people can also call him "resistant". "Collaborator-resistant Povilas Plechavicius" sounds just too cumbersome. Sigitas 13:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that it perfectly matches the definition. Consider the subtleties of the situation in Lithuania in Feb.-May 1944, and that the entire resistance had swung from boycotting the German mobilization attempt of 43 to fully supporting the PP recruitment. It was apparent that the front would soon arrive, and the nature of the Nazis as an occupying power shifted and weakened somewhat. A quasi-autonomous army that was liquidated for failing to subordinate, hardly seems like it was a textbook case of collaboration with an occupier. heqs 17:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plechavicius - colaborator or resistant? 

message: Sauguma is the name mentioned in the GW article linked above. It has a stub on Polish wiki (). Legionas removed the link to Sauguma from the text with the edit summary: "I'm not familiar with the structure of Lithuanian police during the war but organisation with the name "Sauguma" never existed. " It is misspelled word for security". According to WP:V it is not reason for the removal: we have a verifiable source for its existance, and especially as Legionas admits he is unfamiliar with the organization of L. police perhaps they used such a mispelled title? In any case, I am sure that Lithuanian police and/or Sauguma are notable and deserve article, especially considering that the articles I summarized above note that much of the information about AK-L relations is very related to the aspects of L. collaboration with the Nazis, which certainly should be described somewhere at least as well as our current AK controversy section is.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, just have in mind that unreferenced wikipedia stub is not good enough source. I probably missed this "verifiable source". Sigitas 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly the stub is not an acceptable reference. The newspaper articles are a start, although we should look for academic English language publications, like . This and this give another name to consider: Schuma, although I believe that considering this is an English Wikipedia, we should start with Lithuanian police article. If you could possibly write a general entry, we can later add a history section and then write something about the controversies of the IIWW. I don't think that it would be appopriate to start the Lithuanian police with information about the IIWW collaboration with Germans, which certainly represent only the small part of the history of this organization. PS. A very useful ref.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you please remind me in which article "Sauguma" name was mentioned? I genuinely believe there is a mistake here. It is most sure misspelled word "saugumas" (security), which would not be a official name of any organisation anyway.  Sigitas 10:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lithuanian police Sauguma, secret Lithuanian police Sauguma. Considering the relative high correlation between this term and Polish sources  I expect it is a Polish-only term, and English/Lithuanian versions would be different. There are some reliable sources using it, like this page of Instytut Pamięci Narodowej. It would appear that Sauguma was not Lithuanian police but rather a Lithuanian secret police agency, something like gestapo, NKVD or Urząd Bezpieczeństwa. Moreover the quick look at the sources mention that Sauguma was subordinate to Gestapo and its members came from an Iron Wolf (Lithuania) organization (which already has an article on en wiki, but it is a tiny stub with no refs). Btw, I found information about one more massacee of Polish civilians, probably by Sauguma: 1,200 at Święciany (mentioned IPN link). Interestingly the article mentions that the perpetrators were executed by Germans for oversteppong their authority. It is possible it was Sauguma who was responsible for Glinciszki massacre, too. I hope you can find something relevant in Lithuanian sources, for now I think I have enough Polish ones to have a stub with some credible references (IPN), but I'd prefer not to use Polish-only refs for such a controversial issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  There is one source about Lithuanian police during Nazi occupation with chronology:
"Lithuanians were for the most part formed into auxiliary support units for security operations. The first formal unit to be formed was known as the Lituanische Hunterschaften which was later used as a foundation for a series of self defense units known as Selbschutz-Bataillonen. The Selbschutz-Bataillonen units were later brought under the control of the German organization of uniformed frontline police, the Ordungspolizie, and renamed as Schutzmannschaft-Bataillonen or Schumas. The Schuma units were universally renamed and reformed into Polizie-Bataillonen in May of 1943. Nearly all units were formed in battalion-sized units consisting of between 500 and 600 men each. They were primarily assigned to rear-area security duties, but as the Soviets drew nearer to Lithuania, they also saw service fighting the Soviets directly. These Lithuanian units numbered a total of 35 Battalions during WWII, consisting of units numbered 1-15, 251-257, 263-265, and 301-310. 13 of these units, numbers 263-265 and 301-310, were never fully trained and were disbanded before they could be employed in combat. These units were posted variously to Poland, Belorussia, the other Baltic countries, and even as far away as the southern Ukraine. As the Soviets approached, the Germans took to grouping 3 or 4 Lithuanian Polizie-Bataillonen into regimental-sized units know as Lituanische Freiwilligen-Infanterie-Regimenter. Three such units were formed as the Soviets reached the border and they were sent directly to the front in the attempt at holding back the Soviet onslaught in late late 1944 and early 1945. The duties of the Lithuanian units was mainly rear-area security and anti-partisan operations, with occasional frontline service. As they served as auxilliaries to the Ordnungspolizei in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union, they often supported of the SD Einsatzkommando's nefarious cleansing operations. The Lithuanian units were often put under control of the RSHA - the Reich Main Security Office, and the HSSPF - the Höhere SS-Polizei Fuhrer of the Ostland regions, and were at times participants in operations against civilians and those deemed bandits in the rear areas of the Eastern Front."   Sigitas 11:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Schutzmannschaft ("Defence troops" or "protection crew") is the word you're looking for.  heqs 11:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The Schuma units were universally renamed and reformed into Polizie-Bataillonen in May of 1943". So in 1944 when conflicts with AK escalated those units were not called Schuma or Schutzmannschaft anymore - but Police. Sigitas 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct name for "Sauguma" is "Saugumo policija" (Security police) as it is called in article on Kaniuchy massacre . It was secret Lithunian police, and we should call it in wikipedia "Lithuanian security police". This is also name used by the US government - "Nazi-sponsored Lithuanian Security Police, the Saugumas." . I also found an article on Lithuanian security police structure in 1941-1944 , ask if you have any quostions  Sigitas 13:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I created stub for Lithuanian Security Police but it's main task was information gathering not fighting with partisans.  Lithuanian Security Police did not fight with AK, they were only spying on AK. Sigitas 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also created a decent stub lately - the one on Saugumas... What should we do with it? //Halibutt 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Kisielaitis, now 80, volunteered for the Lithuanian 2nd Auxiliary Police Service Battalion (later known as the 12th Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft Battalion) in 1941. During 1941-42, this battalion assisted in the execution of at least 130,000 people, primarily Jews.". So, Kisielaitis was policeman (ordinary police - not Security Police). Klimaitis was antisoviet insurgent during the outbreak of war. He formed his antisoviet unit, fought retreating soviets and was involved in killings of Jews. I cannot say how well these accusations are founded. There is none articles in Lithuanian on Klimaitis. He may be just urban myth.  Sigitas 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One stub ready. For the other - check here and here. //Halibutt 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sauguma - or Lithuanian police in general 

message: Article currently says: "Most Polish and Lithuanians historians claim that the massacre at Dubingiai was unique [4]". There are two problems with that: 1) it is not clear what "unique" means in this context. Does it mean that it was the only killing or that it was different killing from others? 2) Can anyone translate part of this article which says that most of Lithuanian historians regard this as an unique incident? To most Lithuanian historians this incident is only unique by larger number of victims  than usually. Sigitas 17:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is what is meant by that: that it was basically the only event classifying as massacre, all other events (or accusations) were about murder of individuals or at best, families/small groups of several people.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most Polish and Lithuanians historians claim..." 

message: I stumbled upon a source that should be quite useful in this and some other articles. A critical Review by John Radzilowski of Yaffa Eliach's Big Book of Holocaust Revisionism, published in academic journal:  JOURNAL OF GENOCIDE RESEARCH, vol. 1, no. 2 (June 1999), City University of New York. As any serious academic publications, it is well referenced and the refs should prove useful for various articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating, I must say. No wonder every now and then one hears about Polish concentration camps... //Halibutt 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite an old review. I have read it long ago, but I decided to never cite it because of the site... Szopen 07:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the site, but the journal and the author of the review both seem reliable. Journal of Genocide Research  is indexed by ingentaconnect (), and Radziwilowski seems to be affilited with University of Minnesota. Finally, I have also confirmed the article's existance via EBSCO database .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AK and the Holocaust - a useful review 

message: Genocide is a very strong word. The recently added fragment contains it, making it very controversial: "Lithuanian General Prosecutor Office in 1999 established that "partisan units of AK, not recognising return of Vilnius region in 1939, were performing genocide of population of Lithuania, i.e. terrorised, robbed, murdered civilians of Lithuanian, Jewish and Russian ethnicities, hoping that these actions will help reoccupy area after the war" First, can we have a source other then the 'XXI amžius' newspaper? Second, what was the Polish government reaction, and did Lithuanian gov. ever commented on this? This is an 7 years old information, it may very well be obsolete.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to elaborate this. I know that investigation of General Prosecutor in killings by AK did not end yet, and that in an AK case there are over 200 murdered victim names. I saw it recently somwhere , cannot find it right now. Sigitas 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, the fragment mentions that the AK "did not recognize return of Vilnius region in 1939", which seems a complete nonsense. Firstly, the AK was not formed in 1939. It was created in 1943, so it could not support anything four years before. Secondly, the Vilniaus kraštas (Vilnius region) was never a formal entity, so I doubt the AK commented on it anywhere. //Halibutt 22:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Firstly, the AK was not formed in 1939. It was created in 1943, so it could not support anything four years before." That doesn't really make sense... an organization certainly can support/oppose something that happened before it formed! heqs 04:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you can blame me for not signing the declaration of independence of the United States even though I was born several centuries afterwards? //Halibutt 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean... heqs 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting metaphores aside, Halibutt means that the sentece as translated by Legionas is somewhat confusing: either the translation is incorrect or the article makes a mistake claiming AK existed in 1939. Anyway, can we have an academic (or at least, official Lt. governmental) source stating AK commited genocide? A tabloid article is hardly a reliable source on such a controversial statement.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I don't see where it claims that AK existed in 1939. It just says AK didn't recognize the return of Vilnius to Lithuania in 1939. You and I could form an organization in 2006, and we could choose to not recognize the same thing... it could be our sole purpose in forming the organization. 2) Some people use the term genocide a little more freely than others. Lately on wikipedia I've found that some people are applying a very literal interpretation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition. If some unit(s) of AK "intended" "in whole or in part" ... to "destroy" Lithuanians as a group, they may have been guilty of genocide. (I am playing devil's advocate here) heqs 08:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, the "return" part must've mislead me. The author meant the return of Vilnius to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania then, right? Otherwise it's a weasel term for "the Home Army did not support the Lithuanian claims to the Polish city of Wilno"... As to the genocide - I'm not going to comment on that one. Sorry, but naming one, quite controversial situation in history with the G term is a tad over the top for me and resembles more of an attempt to prove some point than to present mere facts. But maybe it's just me. //Halibutt 14:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Try to see it from both sides... (Wilno) heqs 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup, I try hard. And I know why the Lithuanians wanted that city so badly. However, this does not mean that we should twist facts to support a strange vision of history - or to suggest it to our readers. If we call Lithuanian claims on a Polish city (and regarded as such by the League of Nations and all countries not allied to Nazi Germany) with such words (return), then it suggests a certain level of sympathy towards that view - and certain legitimacy of such claims. At the same time, we're not even mentioning the status quo at that time nor are we mentioning the point of view of the majority of the world at that time. It's not NPOV that way. //Halibutt 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm not opposed to changing the wording in the article... my comments were more general in nature. heqs 02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide?!

message: I have been reviewing for GA status and have concerns that should be able to fixed quickly
* two images have  
*This warning is very specific and states that the image concerned cannot be used on Wikipedia. Either remove the image or comply to copyright conditions.
* the references first 2/3rds of the article are referenced from 1 source and this is cited 14/15 times, are there any other source for this information that can be cite? Then there's 17 other references some cited multiple times to cover the last third of the article.
I have place the nomination on hold, besides these the rest of article is interesting. Gnangarra 14:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the talk page of that template for the latest news. Sadly, I was too busy lately to call that guy again and ask him again to send the mail he promised me. In short, I have his word that there is no problem with usage whatsoever, but he also promised me to send us the decision by their lawyer - yet so far I did not receive it. I'll add it to my to-do list for Monday and we'll see. BTW, I found the guy in LinkedIn :) //Halibutt 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA concerns 

message: It seems that this should be Polish Home Army (what links there) or Home Army (what links there). "Armia Krajowa" is widely used in English sources, but much less often than "Home Army"; "Polish Home Army", which seems like the proper name, is used in more official contexts or when the context is less explicit. 
Google Books:
*"Polish Home Army" - 645 hits
*+Polish +"Home Army" - 2340
*+Poland +"Home Army" - 1930
*"Armia Krajowa" - 673
Google Scholar:
*"Polish Home Army" 173
*+Polish +"Home Army" 469
*+Poland +"Home Army" 457
*"Armia Krajowa" 224
Regards, heqs 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Home Army (disambiguation) for some good arguments why this should be moved to Home Army. Feel free to start a WP:RM and let's see what others would want to say. My personal stance is that Home Army is English (WP:UE) but Armia Krajowa is more 'distinct'. I feel this article can exists as well under Home Army and Armia Krajowa, and would likely abstain in the vote (unless arguments or one or the other party convince me to join their side).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I agree, Home Army has several other meanings, try a search like this (many of those hits still deal with AK, but many do not). heqs 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now filed the request for Polish Home Army at Wikipedia:Requested moves#31 July 2006. heqs 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Halibutt's searches on that talk page are far from the whole story. It's as if I only searched for "Polish Home Army" on Google here. Please look again at this search - roughly half, if not less, are about AK. Many are about the plans of the Hitler assassination plotters, historical reserve forces of UK and US, "home army" as a general term like "home guard", and a handful about other countries' resistance movements or reserves. The disambiguation page needs to be cleaned up/improved a bit, but as for AK, the proper English title is "Polish Home Army" per my initial evidence. "Home army" is far too general a term to be claimed by one country; having Home Army be about Polish Home Army is not that much different from having Army be about Polish Army. heqs 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, shouldn't we rename Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe or Heer, too?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly Luftwaffe or Heer, but I doubt that the english translation of "Wehrmacht" was ever used much. heqs 03:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I'm confounded by the continued suggestion to use Home Army. Would you move or redirect Luftwaffe to Air Force, or German Air Force? heqs 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please have a look at Heer - it is in fact a disambiguation page like Home Army should be. heqs 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The article is about 45kb long, the Lithuanian section is 17kb. This is now big (and disproportionate) enough to warrant its own section. I suggest leaving a brief summary here (about the lenght of other relation with...) and move the current version to an article entitled Polish-Lithuanian relations during the IIWW.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: What is GW_2001? Reference of this source is lost. Can anyone help to restore it? Sigitas 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I did it myself. Sigitas 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW_2001 

message: Reversing and twisting referenced information is unacceptable. Piotrus twists information as he likes without even familiarising with a source. My info is not original research, while version of Piotrus is just a lie. "AK killed Lithuanians judged to be collaborators"? How could so many babies and todlers be collaborators? Why persecution of Jews was removed? Such behaviour is unacceptable.  Sigitas 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop your personal attacks and getting emotional, and start respecting WP:NPOV. PS. Consider also if you want to continue with that course of action: both me and Halibutt have a habit of answering such conflicts with creating relevant, Featured Class, articles, like on Katyn Massacre or Warsaw Uprisings. Perhaps the only way to solve the current dispute about this article is to write detailed article about Polish-Lithuanian relations during the IIWW, and of course to substantially expand the section on Lithuanian collaboration with the Nazis during the IIWW, as it forms and important part of explanation why AK was often engaged in fights with LSP and similar Lithuanian units. I added a few sources to the begining of the P-L paragraph for people who want to check some related readings.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a formal procedure for dealing with vandals?  

message: Could we discuss the folowing disputed paragraph:
:"Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained during most of the interwar period due to conflicts over the Vilnius region and Suvalkai region, areas whose population was a mixture of Poles and Lithuanians. Germans relocated Lithuanian families to Vilnius region from Western parts of Lithuania by force, and this complicated situation. During the war these conflicts resulted in thousands of deaths, as groups on both sides used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies."
Addhoc 11:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty to move this section up to the main medcab section, where we have been discussing this para anyway. As this para is disputed by Sigitas, I think we all will appreciate his reply to why he persists in deleting most of this paragraph; as I think no other editor finds it objectionable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, do you know if there's a reference specifically for this paragraph? Addhoc 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't appear to be there ATM, but I think that the first and third sentences are rather NPOV and semi-obvious, and can be easily referenced with some of our existing refs. The middle sentence about German relocation of L. families should have its own inline citation; plus we may want to note that Poles were deported from Vilnius by the Soviets (, . etc.), further changing the population balance and antagonizing the Polish population. PS. Adhoc, since you said you have recently begun to read about those issues, you may want to see our well referenced article on Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_by_occupiers#Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_under_Soviet_occupation for some relevant information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if the "thousands of deaths" should not be referenced as well. While obvious to me, this may be not so clear for every reader. --Lysytalk 16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Addhoc 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what about the villages burned by Plechavicius men? They weren't forced to kill and murder Poles? Szopen 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should evaluate these data carefully. I know for sure that at least some of the villages burned by Territorial Defence Force were simply invented by Polish propagandists, for example killings in Grauziskes, when Territorial Defence Force didn't even reach this place before being destroyed by AK. Sigitas 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never heard about killings in Graużyszki, as indeed, Plechaviczius men were defeated earlier; however, In Sienkowszczyna (quite near Grauzyszki) Plechaviczius men were burning houses and killing people - probably that's why they were so easily defeated, since AK attacked while the butchers were busy with shooting the civilians. As for Burys being forced to kill Poles, well, they were all volunteers; Szopen 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Witnesses say they there ambushed marching by AK, which probably was tipped by Germans. I don't know much about these events though. Burys' members volunteered to assist germans initially, but not to kill people in paneriai. Most of them only were aknowledged of their role in killings after arrival to Paneriai and had no option to say "no" (Arūnas Bubnys (2004). Vokiečių ir lietuvių saugumo policija (1941–1944) (German and Lithuanian security police: 1941-1944). Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras. Retrieved on 2006-06-09.) Sigitas 10:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sad, but the same could be probably said of many Germans who did not go to army to murder civilians but then had no choice. I think the times were difficult and we're really often too easily assigning blame. On the other hand thousands of people were murdered in Paneriai and this also requires some justice and we cannot pretend that nobody killed them. --Lysytalk 11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it can indeed be said about many people involved in war. We cannot say "used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies" as this wording would mean voluntary and enthuasiastic participation in killings, when in fact Burys' people volunteered for escorting Jews to Ghettos, not for killings in Paneriai. Sigitas 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly what I meant. The "thousands of deaths" seems to be an oversimplification of the rather complex situation and may easily lead to misinterpretations. I'm not sure how to rephrase it in a NPOV, yet meaningful way, however. Maybe just remove this sentence from the lead ? --Lysytalk 10:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Paragraph 

message: BTW - why the academic name Home Army has been repalced by Armia Krajowa? How many people understand the name and know how to spell it?
The article is about an army. With all due respect to even 100 victims the article about the 300 000 organization cannot be dominated by such a subject. Even the Warsaw Uprising is linked, why not Lithuanian obsession?
Xx236 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't quite understand you. Are you suggesting that the Lithuanian/Polish controversy over Armia Krajowa should be ignored ? I would certainly object that. --Lysytalk 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Name of the article is discussed at #Requested move section. As for importance of Lithuanian aspect, I agree it is disproportional now and should be moved to it's own article with a summary here, but certainly it should be mentioned in this article (albeit in a shorter form), see #Focus section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about forking it into a separate article then ? --Lysytalk 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, per what I and others said above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is about the Home Army 

message: Would anyone object if the following sentence was removed...
"Polish underground held a very negative attitude towards Lithuanians and independent Lithuanian state"
This sentence doesn't have a reference and the mutual animosity is mentioned in the paragraph starting with "Although Lithuanian and Polish resistance movements had the same enemies - Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - they never became allies. The main obstacle in forming an alliance was the question of Vilnius..." Addhoc 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with removal, it is a strong sentence that would be controversial even if referenced.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to hear an opinion from someone who put this sentence here (like informing him first), and even an explanation, why it is not referenced.It was one of crucial phrases, AFAIK, in this discussion.--Lokyz 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the other paragraph that you mention already characterizes the situation and does it in a more comprehensive way. There's been animosity between Polish and Lithuanians since Poles took Vilnius in 1920s and it's obvious that the mutual attitude was rather negative. It only starts to change now, after almost a century. The sentence in question does not bring any new information to the article and is unnecessarily inflammatory, POV-biased and contains a speculative extrapolation. --Lysytalk 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a fact supported by further referenced info on Polish plans to occupy Lithuania. Sigitas 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, we can keep the sentence for now, although I agree with comments that it should be reworded to have a more formal, impartial tone. Addhoc 13:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like the sentence as it has a very general and non-encyclopedic form, assumes that Polish underground was homogeneous, uses emotional but unspecific phrasing like "very" and seems to be a result of ethnic prejudices more than anything else. We can skip it for now if we can move forward, but I'd comment it out or tag it and return to it later in another pass. --Lysytalk 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged sentence 

message: Now section on AK in Lithuania is becomming more and more biased. Even personal opinions of single journalist are included as the certain facts. I'm stepping back for a while, we will see what decision of moderator will have regarding the actions of Piotrus. See the discussion on moderation page . Sigitas 10:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepping back 

message: Sigitas, in the article you wrote: In total number of victims of Polish revenge action in the end of June of 1944 in Dubingiai and neighbouring towns of Joniškis, Inturkė, Bijutiškis, and Giedraičiai (town), was 70-100 Lithuanian civilians. Where
did you get the 70 number from ? --Lysytalk 12:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Bubnys. He says, and I quote: "Especially brutally [AK] killed residents in Dubingiai area in the end of June of 1944. By an unfinished count, more than 70 peaceful Lithuanians, including old people and small children, were killed by Polish partisans". Zizas and Garsva say approximate number was 100. Sigitas 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 70-100 civilians

message: I tried to find some references for AK numbers. Membership are rather easy - from 250,000 to 380,000 for 1943/1944. However the numbers of those killed by AK and its casualties are more difficult. There are some unsourced numbers of wiki, but so far sources information I managed to find come from this pdf also accessible in this html form, official and referenced (but not inline) leaflet from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. AK casualties are 34,000 up to mid-1944, plus 20,000-30,000 deported afterwards (no data on casualties after mid-1944). Polish wiki has an unsourced number for 100,000 casualties till 1944 and 50,000 deported or killed post-1944. But the number of those killed by AK is even a bigger mystery. The pdf states that 'partisant troops' (meaning AK) active from 1943 killed 1,000 Germans. Now, that seems rather low, especially considering the same document gives for example a number of 5,700 assassination attempts (it would seem that most of them were unsuccesfull and there were few unexpected casualties on the German side?). It seem to refer to German casualties from minor combat, and does not count their casualties from the Warsaw Uprising (10,000) mentioned later in the article, nor (I'd assume) casualties from the rest of the Operation Tempest actions. Even so, consider two other numbers we have on Wiki: Polish resistance movement in World War II states that Polish underground resistance killed 150,000 Germans. Granted, AK numbers would not count those from before 1943, but considering that non-affiliated units like AL were less then 1/5 of AK size totalled, we have a big discrepancy. Further, Polish contribution to World War II has another unsourced number, arguing for a significant increase in German casualties in Poland after creation of AK in 1943: German losses to the Polish partisans ranged at 850-1700 per month in early 1944 compared to about 250-320 per months in 1942. With some rough averages that gives us ~1,500 for 1939, ~3,000 for years 1940-1942 (~12,000 total) and ~16,000 for 1944. Let's throw ~10,000 for 1943 and 1945 and we get ~50,000 casualties, 1/3 of the 150,000, but more then 11,000 that canbe safely estimted from that pdf. Anyway, if you can dig up any more hard data, it would be much appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is rather consistent with AK activities in Lithuania. Engagements of AK and Germans were rare. AK generaly avoided conflicts with Germans. R. Zizas concludes, that military losses of germans inflicted by AK in eastern Lithuania did not correspond military potential of AK available. Sigitas 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sure that since Germans used Lithuanian collaborators to relieve their troops for other duties, AK directed part of their actions againt Lithuanians. Whether 'most' of AK actions were against Germans or Lithuanian collaborators it is hard to say (do you have any data on that), and of course there is the issue of are losses among Axis powers (which would include collaborators) aren't sometimes abbreviated by some authors as Germans. Statistics can get pretty difficult in such cases. Btw, IIRC our discussions correcty historian estimates of Lithuanian casualties inflicted by AK range from 100 (Polish estimates) to 1000 (Lithuanian e.), right (not counting Vilnija claims, obviously)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: I have stated several times that in issues such as this we should avoid local sources (like Lithuanian AND Polish). I'd like to point out that the source Sigitas so heavily relies upon has been very negativly reviewed by Lysy at Talk:Gliti%C5%A1k%C4%97s. It would be nice if Sigitas would reply to this review with an argument other then 'There is enough material published about how great AK was. This book about the dark side of AK helps to balance a view'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to avoid local sources as there is no such requirement in Wikipedia. Stop inventing new rules for Wikipedia. Most of the article is based on Polish sources, look what would happen if you'd strip it of references to Polish authors. Sigitas 12:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Sigitas, could you give your comments at Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Disputed_Paragraph. Thanks, Addhoc 13:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with local sources

message: I would like to request a vote in order to end reverse war. Do wikipedians agree that a collection of articles, witness reports, and wartime documents Armija Krajova Lietuvoje (Armia Krajowa in Lithuania). A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (editors). Vilnius – Kaunas, 1995. is a valid source and facts provided in this book may be included in the article? Please provide the arguments if you don't agree. Sigitas 13:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigitas, I can't vote on validity of something I had not seen. Szopen 13:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Szopen.  Furthermore, if we are to have a poll which people will accept, we must do it properly.  The guidelines are under Wikipedia:Straw polls.  Most important point: Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process.  So, let us start discussing what the question for the survey should be. Balcer 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and let me point out to the review by Lysy at linked at #Problems with local sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Scanned book . Sigitas 09:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This view is the only one existing in Lithuania. All Lithuanian historians confirm the AK crime facts and anti-Lithuanian position of AK. It is not controversial at all. Sigitas 10:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: Sigitas, I am reading the articles about Kazimieras Garsva. Well, the more I read about him, the less credible he seems. "Poland sent a desant of 300 priests" to Belarus, which are "ethnic Lithuanian territories", "Poland should apologise for occupation for Lithuania", "there were Red regime, Brown regime, and Polish regime", that planned meeting of Plechaviczius and AK men means that "Lithuanian soldiers sold themselves to Poles". POles living on Lithuania also reported that he consider all Poles in Lithuania in fact "polonised Lithuanians". One Pole reported that Garsva said to him in person "we will smoke you all out of Lithuania, like a rats".  Hardly a man who I would consider an authority Szopen 07:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not discuss the last anecdotal evidence, but everything else is generally truth. However, it is not a right place for discussing Lithuanian population polonisation trends, or Lithuanian ethnic lands abroad. Sigitas 10:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it does not matter much if you, me or Sigitas consider Garšva to be an authority or not. Apparently some people do, as he's been member of an official Lithuanian investigation commission, as Sigitas explained. I think it's not appropriate to ignore his views if they seem to be shared by at least a group of Lithuanian historians. Their opinions should be mentioned and appropriately attributed.  --Lysytalk 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if sb could write at least short bio stubs about those people, they certainly seem notable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No , Garsva wasn't a member of State commision. Members of state commision were: Zepkaite, Bubnys, Buchaveckas, Katuoka, Tamosiunas, Truska and Zizas. Sigitas 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garsva