Talk:Gestapo–NKVD conferences

message: This article discusses quite a controversial issue, and would greatly benefit from inline citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations needed

message: In a long forgotten, 2 page opinion piece in a 1981 edition of Commentary magazine, English professor George Watson speculated (rather than "concluded", as editors keep insisting here) that "Katyn may have been discussed" in the April 1940 meeting. There are exactly zero reliable sources supporting this speculation. In a response to a critical letter to the editor, Watson went out of his way to point out he was merely speculating. This totally fringe theory, by a Fellow in English (not a historian) does not belong in an encyclopedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply directed to Talk:Katyn_massacre#Fringe_speculations_do_not_belong_in_an_encyclopedia, to avoid double posting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe speculations do not belong in an encyclopedia 

message: Part of this seems to make no sense
:The German side was represented by Adolf Eichmann and an official by the name of Zimmermann, who later became chief of the Radom District of the General Government. The Soviets, among others, brought Rita Zimmerman (director of a gold mine in Kolyma) and a man named Eichmans, creator of an efficient way of killing in the back of the head
Unless I am misreading it is saying German were represented by Eichmann and the Soviets Eichmans.  Further there was German official called Zimmermann and a Soviet official called Zimmerman.  Strange how both team had people with such similar names.
Further the reference is available in Polish.  Now I do not understand Polish, beyond saying things like hello and one beer please, but there is no indication of any Zimmermann or Zimmerman in the article.
Using translation software, it appears to say “Conference of the NKVD and the Gestapo, which took place on 20 February 1940. German delegation was headed by Adolf Eichmann and the Soviet delegation Grigory Litvinov, creator of the killing in the back of the head.”
Therefore I suggest I change the article to read 
:The German side was represented by Adolf Eichmann and the Soviets by Grigory Litvinov.  
I am seeing a Polish friend next week and I can ask her to translate the Polish version to confirm the above.  Let me know if agree to the change. Jniech (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: News about the conference must have leaked out to Great Britain, but London did not seem to care, which was immediately noticed by Joseph Stalin
Has been tagged as citation needed since July 2007.  Unless anyone can find a reference in the next week, I plan to remove. Jniech (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Conference

message: The second/final paragraph talks about fighting Polish organized resistance.  Is there a direct connection to the conference, e.g. did the Soviets then handed these reports to the Gestapo at the conference? Jniech (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth conference 

message: The following claims have gone unreferenced for years. I am moving them here; feel free to restore them - with refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time I hear such accusations. I've always thought these communist resistance groups were undesired by Moscow but still existed, see here: .--Potugin (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced content

message: I've added the missed cite. The article seems well referenced now, I'll ask for a MILHIST re-review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gestapo–NKVD Conferences. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/soviet_deportations/soviet_deportations_album_1.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.voskresenie.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?lg=pl&nr=200409&dz=z_historii&id_art=00005
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.communistcrimes.org/en/Database/Poland/Historical-Overview/1939-1941
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_foreword.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.polandsholocaust.org/1939.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't understand how one source stating Przemysl was the location is used above several sources claiming it was Lwow, among them Laurence Rees. I will, unless anyone has objections, swap the two, having Lwow as the most likely location, while some claim Przemysl.--Simen113 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reply, sometimes these discussions remain unanswered for years. I agree, there seems to be little consensus here, the article almost seems like own research. Perhaps a good source is lacking, an authorative one who deals with all four conferences, or even mentions four. What do you think? If you want to clean it up a bit, that would be great. If not, I can try to sort some out. But it should probably have some cleanup tags. . Simen113 (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The second conference and its location 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gestapo–NKVD conferences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603063918/http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/this_day_in_history/this_day_September_1.php to http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/this_day_in_history/this_day_September_1.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rm image -- it shows a military parade, rather than a secret police conference". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is appropriate for the subsection that deals with the historical backrgound. Restored. --Vihelik (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parade image 

message: I wanted to raise the issue long time ago, but here you finally have it. No-one was interested in the Russian Wikipedia when I complained about the situation there, but the original source for all these Wikipedia language versions seems to be this one here. Please do note that the original version here was practically unsourced: .
The only serious author who claims such conferences took place, was Robert Conquest. But there is no substiantion to his claims this time. All other "sources" just repeat the same thing over and over again, without any evidence whatsoever. 
It is not acceptable to present a theory first proposed by a good scholar (but even Conquest can make mistakes, no?) as some kind of an undisputable fact. The complete lack of documentary support (German archives are open, right?) for this theory just suggests that, most probably, these events never took place. It would have been better if this article had never been written, because some people take these unsubstantiated, probably wrong rumours, too seriously: see here  - Radio Svoboda outright uses this "article" written by anonymous Wikipedia users as a source!
One thing is sufficiently verifiable events: NKVD handing plenty of German (and especially Jewish-German) Communists over to Gestapo; then there is this question of German-Soviet refugee/population swaps that some people want to connect with the issue at hand , another thing is this conspiracy theory here.
Thus, the article at hand needs a thorough clean-up, though the best solution would just be to delete it, because the theory has been advanced only by one scholar and has found zero support. These events almost certainly never took place (as per current scholarly results) and it is absolutely not OK to paint these rumours as established facts, as Wikipedias currently do.Potugin (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I admitted in my initial post, that prisoner swaps did take place. As did refugee swaps, see here: . This has nothing to do with the fact that this article at hand completely relies on rumours and hearsay. Again, I have no interest in defending one side or the another (they were both almost equally disgusting), but we have to stick to the facts. This article offers no facts, but only unfounded theories. Potugin (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not dispute the sources references. Cloud200 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I cannot access the other sources, but the only one I can is an irrelevant website (unsuitable for supporting sensational claims as presented in the article). And this website reads:W lutym 1940 roku w dworze Jagerhoff w Romintach spotkał się Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler oraz szef NKWD Ławrentij Beria. - In February 1940, Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler met with NKVD chief Lavrenty Beria in the manor of Jägerhoff in Rominty. No documentary evidence of course - only sensational claims. I guess someone who takes such allegations seriously might even be interested in the theories that maybe Hitler escaped to South America etc.Potugin (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You also ignored the above IPN article that also mentions these meetings. The information in the article you linked is based on interrogation of Waldermar Macholl, person widely described in the literature. There are also mentions of Macholl together with Beria, directly based on the interrogation of the former. It can be clearly demonstrated that the NKVD-Gestapo meetings are a historical fact and, unlike you say, are based on numerous sources, not only Conquest, and clearly these sources are not "repeating the same thing" after Conquest, as you suggested. The fact that you call these "sensational claims" suggests that you clearly have an emotional attachment to this subject and I recommend reading WP:NPOV on how to work with such articles in future. Cloud200 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check the IPN source you provided tomorrow, because back in 2010 they could be taken seriously and academically they indeed are scholars. As for WP:NPOV, thanks for reminding me, but I'm aware of this policy, but the aspect of it that applies in that particular case is Wikipedia:Fringe_theories and "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence", which simply isn't available in the article. And kindly stop personal insinuations, I'm only guided by a wish to improve Wikipedia, my only "emotional attachment" is that I dislike cheap propaganda and poorly written articles. Potugin (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

text: PS. Your user page says you have good Russian skills - just Google встреча гиммлера и берия 1940. The lack of any decent hits demonstrates quite clearly that it never took place. Or that for some reason we simply don't know anything about it yet. The odds that in the relatively open Russia of 1990s this kind of past event - a meeting of Beriya and Himmler in February 1940 (if it took place) could have escaped any scholarly discussion and could have found no eye-witness testimonies of even the poorest quality makes this theory incredible.Potugin (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on analysis of Polish literature, I can testify it's pretty well researched and based on numerous and pretty broad spectrum of sources, from intelligence reports to protocols of Nazi officials trials after war. In Russian academic circles intelligence reports from Armia Krajowa might have not been the most popular and widely researched historic source.  The archives in Russia were open for relatively short period in 90's, right now it's all closed again and their secret classification was just recently (2018) extended until 2040 and NKVD archives until 2050, while another law is now proposed to ban any comparisons of role of USSR and Third Reich. It's not a very good climate to research the subject of NKVD and Gestapo working together - an objective which officially established by the German–Soviet Frontier Treaty (28 September 1939) which was a secret annexe to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (23 August 1939). The Frontier Treaty directly mentioned cooperation in suppressing any Polish resistance in the Secret Supplement #2: Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose. Cloud200 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, you say there's no Russian sources but this is not true - the article refers to Некрич А.М. 1941, 22 июня. - М.: Памятники исторической мысли, 1995.. Nekrich refers to ADAP. Serie D. Bd. VIII. N 160. S. 128. which is Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Germany's state archive. Cloud200 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the article is very well-sourced; I don't see any problems at an initial glance. I might look at details later, but for now, I disagree with complainers' reasoning entirely. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: ..but saying all of the above I’ll look closer at it when I get some energy for it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: (After an Edit Conflict:) No, unfortunately I'm not wrong. This DYK thing just demonstrates the inherent shortcomings that Wikipedia has.Take a closer look. This article is a classic case of WP:COATRACK. What is true in this article, is basically copy-paste from other, legitimate Wikipedia articles. These things are nothing new, they only serve here to add an air of credibility to the other, exceptional claims. These new claims are all sourced to unreliable stuff like this one  that is supposed to prove the WP:REDFLAG claim that "The next meeting took place some time at the end of November 1939 in Przemyśl". All the key claims of the infobox:
 Time	
    27 September 1939 in Brześć [1]
    October 1939 in Lwów [2]
    November 1939 in Przemyśl [1]
    6–7 December 1939 in Kraków [3]
    8–9 December 1939 in Zakopane [3]
    20 February 1940 in Zakopane [1]
    March 1940 in Kraków [4]
are sourced to similar unsuitable sources (who could take [4] "Radio London and Resistance in Occupied Europe: British Political Warfare 1939-1943" seriously for exceptional claims like the ones presented here?!). This stuff is all unencyclopedic, face it.Potugin (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oxford University apparently. Volunteer Marek  05:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input, Volunteer Marek. I encourage folks to engage the matter here! Well surely Oxford University considered this book worthwhile for publishing as it presumably covers Radio London 1939-1945 in great detail. The topic however is not Radio London nor even the Resistance movement in Poland or elsewhere. So this regrettably doesn't mean it is a specialist source for the unlikely claims of the article at hand. Potugin (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is indeed related to Polish resistance since one of the purposes of these conferences was to establish procedures for the Gestapo and NKVD to coordinate their suppression of Polish resistance. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: So... you are willing to take the source seriously?  Volunteer Marek  05:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Every single one of the references from the info box listed above is to a work by a PhD historian. Volunteer Marek  05:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "So... you are willing to take the source seriously?" - read my post again. I said "[one cannot take it] seriously for exceptional claims like the ones presented here". Exceptional claims require exceptionally good, specialist sources. What's been offered so far as sources (apart from Conquest himself ofc) is actually a) a bunch of nobodies from the point of view of credentials in researching Soviet-German relations and or b) selective quotes from books where the supposed sensational events are just mentioned passing-by without any evidence. Just because someone has a PhD and perhaps even is a notable theologist and repeats in one or two sentences Conquest's or someone else's theory in some random book just won't qualify here.Potugin (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are fine - reliable and scholarly - and if that’s not enough for you then it’s really just a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT problem. Volunteer Marek  17:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Look, you initially raised a concern that could have been valid - "all sources repeat claim by Conquest". And a whole bunch editors went to verify it. And it was verified as unsubstantiated. You ignored all earlier-than-Conquest sources, which was already quite arrogant, and jumped on to another accusation - that there's "no Russian sources". So I found a Russian historian source to disprove your claim, then I found the German-Soviet format agreement that actually initiated that cooperation, which you of course... ignored, and now jumped onto yet another claim that "exceptional claim requires exceptional sources", which now can be escalated ad nauseam as you will always claim that the source presented is not "exceptional" enough. This is a classic Gish gallop, not a fact-based dispute. And there was nothing exceptional in the cooperation between Gestapo and NKVD - these two countries jointly occupied a third country and signed an agreement to suppress local resistance in the occupied country. Cloud200 (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: i knew it, even articles as insconspicuous as the irrefutable fact of Soviet Nazi cooperation seems to be riddled with cynics on its talk pages, you're no different than actual fascists discrediting scholarly reports of the Holocaust, get a better use for your time than doing this hostile behaviour to good natured wikipedia 180.253.228.221 (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is deficient, based on unfounded rumours 

message: *Perhaps this page should be expanded and renamed to Gestapo–NKVD collaboration. Then it would cover things like giving anti-fascist Germans and Austrians who had fought against Hitler to the Gestapo by NKVD ], the infamous Nikolai Skoblin who worked with Reinhard Heydrich, etc. That is how RS frame it . Soviet-Nazi collaboration does not seem to cover it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all good, but we do not have a separate page on the Soviet-Nazi collaboration. I think this should be a separate page. This is now a part of a huge "umbrella" article Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941. It covers a lot of materials, but just too big to be easily readable. But I am leaving these to you people, since you know this better.My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?