Talk:Armia Krajowa

Contents

1 Old talk

2 AK's Jewish relations

3 More on AK and Jews

4 Relations with Lithuanians

4.1 View from the Polish side
4.2 Collected eferences

5 Relations with Lithuanians

6 AK is NOT "the largest underground resistance army during WWII"

7 NPOV dispute

8 Pics

Old talk

Is this public domain text?

Apparently.Halibutt 23:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

AK's Jewish relations

Just a small comment about AK's Jewish realtions...

............................................................................

"The AK accepted only a few Jews (about one thousand) into its own ranks: it generally turned down Jewish applicants. " ............................................................................

I think the main point is that AK was generally anti-communist organization and most of Jews were associated with communist movements. So there you go. It's not that AK wasn't accepting Jews - Jews would not join AK. And the once that did were not communists. Everyone who watched "Pianist" must remember that Jewish guy that initiated the Ghetto Uprising. There was a comment about him in the movie ... "he is a good man, he was in the army, the only thing I can have against him is that he is not a communist ..." --- Actually there was also fear, that Jew being member of AK was in double danger and could be potential danger to fellow conspirators - so I read, at least. Szopen

More on AK and Jews

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 (http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/about_holocaust/documents/part2/doc140.html).

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? Halibu tt 12:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Relations with Lithuanians

I will paste here the unsourced text removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armia_Krajowa&diff=0&oldid=12725061) from main article, for discussion, rewriting into English, NPOVing and sourcing - assuming any of this is true, of course: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As well AK killed lots of Lithuanian civilians in Vilnius region, because the planned Polish state would have included the mentioned region, therefore Lithuanian minority (or majority at some places of it) was unneeded to Poles.

There was a large Lithuanian minority in Wilno Voivodship (see Vilnius region for details) and at some places they constitued majority. Relations between Poles and Lithuanians were strained during almost all interwar period due to the conflict over Vilnius region and Suvalkai region. Armia Karajowa wanted to recreat Polish state including the Vilnius region, and therefore killing Lithuanians there was according to it's agenda; as well these killings happened because of general hatred towards Lithuanians cause of decades-long conflict, which was as well fueled by some actions certain Lithuanian nazi collaborators did. Therefore AK used to murder Lithuanian civilians in Vilnius region; Lithuanian people remembers them in a very bad light and claims that they used to come to Lithuanian farmsteads and kill whole families of Lithuanians including children and elder people. Polish historians however tends to tone down the involvement of Armia Kraiowa in these massacres.

Of course it is true, I tried to write it as neutral as possible, by citing Polish historians point of view as well, and also the allegetions of Lithuanian collaboration with nazis. There was a documentary movie on this recently; appearently it was covered in some Polish newspaper called "Gazeta Wyborcza" too in case you want the info in native language - however, mentioned newspaper presented Polish point of view which downplayed the events, but still recognised that they happened. Everyone agrees that Armia Krajowa killed Lithuanian civilians, however it is the ammount which is disputed, some recognises just a few massacres (usually that is Polish point of view), while some Lithuanian historians tend to claim that AK supposedly did genocide of Lithuanians. You can also read more on this at History of Lithuania, WW2 section. Appearently, massacre at Dubingiai is recognised by Poles (I didn't added that line to that article), while other massacres are disputed.DeirYassin 22:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This comment is much more reasoned than your original contribution to the article, which struck me as somewhat unbalanced. Indeed there is no denying that the war years in Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Eastern Poland were especially brutal, almost approaching a state of a war of all against all in the forests where partisans and bandits of all stripes tried to survive. Innocent and not so innocent people were being killed for all kinds of reasons, with no national group being blameless. So it follows logically that some of these crimes were committed by Polish groups.

However, accusing Armia Krajowa of conducting a conscious policy of genocide is taking things to a whole new level. I have not yet read any serious book which would support this accusation. If you have some specific sources which support this claim, please provide specific citations and we can continue a discussion. Citing "some article in Gazeta Wyborcza" is not specific enough. Balcer 00:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not accused Armia Krajowa of genocide in my updates to the article; only mentioned those accusations in my entry to the talk page, as some Lithuanians claim there was genocide. To the article I posted a neutral view however. However, if we will not find sources on this we would agree on neutrality, we could post both Lithuanian and Polish opinions and on where they agree/is enough evidence. I don't speak Polish so I cannot search for Polish articles, but here are some Lithuanian sources: http://www.politika.lt/index.php?cid=693&new_id=1456 , http://www.studentuera.lt/?s0=pramogzin&s1=tv&item=1400 - those are about mentioned documentary movie and about statements of interviewed Lithuanians from Vilnius region who remembered actions of Armia Krajowa. The film itself was called "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje. Istorijos akligatvis" ("Armia Krajowa in Lithuania: History's Road Without Exit"). It was easy to find those and more by Google, so you could type Polish words for Armia Kraiowa and massacre and Lithuania, or Armia Krajowa and mentioned town names, and such, and you should be able to find information - probably Polish info will tell there were no major massacres, but still, the fact of this discution and such should be mentioned somewhere in polish too. And western sources might be very hard to find because this is more or less a local issue, and there were lots of various larger violence during WW2.DeirYassin 12:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I tried "armia krajowa masakra litwa" and got 13 hits, none of them having anything to do with what you are alleging. So the approach of "proving your case through a Google search" does not work that well in this case.

Given that you have given no sources that readers of English Wikipedia could understand or easily obtain, could you at least translate from Lithuanian the two articles the links to which you have given and post this translation here. Otherwise, I don't see what the point of further discussion is.

Finally, you did accuse Armia Krajowa of trying to exterminate the Lithuanian minority in the Wilno region, which does sound like genocide to me. But then your definition of genocide might be different. Balcer 18:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Translation of http://www.politika.lt/index.php?cid=693&new_id=1456

Journalist Rimas Bružas says that with his movie "Armia Kraiowa (AK) in Lithuania: The History's Road without exit" he wanted to make more historian discutions, which would objectively decide on the actions of this controversial partisan army

"My goal was to raise historian discution, which, I hope, will start from this. If people made decitions, I am glad that they watched film instead of just watching into screen" - R. Bružas told ELTA in Monday, while commenting reactions towards the documentary film about AK actions in Vilnius region during World War 2, which was shown yesterday on TV3.

According to author of film, comments on internet and Polish media shows that supposedly people are getting into history without knowing real facts

"Without knoing history we cannot go forward. We do not question current Polish-Lithuanian relations. The biggest disappointment araises from the fact that historians of both nations uses same documents but makes different conclusions" - journalist told

He said that AK actions up till today is hard but still actual question, that's why the movie was taken with so much reaction. But discutions on this topic supposedly are needed now already, without waiting until "the witnesses will die and documents will rot". R. Bružas irronised "probably about Grunwald battle we should have started to speak only now also".

According to Polish daily "Gazeta Wyborcza" correspondent in Vilnius Jacekas Komaras (Jacek Komar) it was accentated in movie that AK was doing genocide of Lithuanians. One of interviewed expert was supposedly anti-Polish Kazimieras Garšva, chairman of "Vilnija" friendship. This organisation once did public court of AK, which decided that AK in Vilnius region did genocide of Lithuanians.

[Also it is objected that] In the film only the victims of these partisans were interviewed, but not AK veterans, Polish historians, or person of Povilas Plechavičius army, which was made by Germans against AK and Soviet Partisans.

At the end of almost hour-long movie the chairwoman of Lithuanian People Genocide and Resistance center said that there is not enough evidence to show that AK really did it all on purposes of genocide, however her personal opinion is that it was really done to purify Vilnius region. As R. Bružas himself informed, about 500 Lithuanians were killed by AK.

J. Komar for ELTA said that he disagrees with such history interpretation and thinks it should have been more objective about AK actions. Also, supposedly historians should make a stand and not journalists.

According to R. Bružas, AK veterans refused to talk to the creators of film. However, he said that he avoided subjectiveness and only supported the film on documments, witnesses' testimonies and historians' words.

Film was shown just after two days after official visit of Aleksandras Kvasnievskis (Aleksander Kwasniewski), President of Poland, to Lithuania. During the visit it was spoken much about friendly relations of two states. J. Komar did not rejected the possibility, that the film was supposedly ordered by some interested political power.

"It is strange, that there is so much paranoia in people about the influence of Moscow or Russia. It is absurd" - said R. Bružas - "A date for film was set randomly, it was postponed many times. Those who see a conspiracy theory here are wrong". ELTA

DeirYassin 19:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation. It is interesting, but it looks to me - so far - as a view of distanct minority (or an uncharted scientific territory, which however falls under the rule Wikipedia is not the place for orginal research). I am still looking for any printed sources, preferably from academic journals (online one can write anything...). From the sources I saw so far I would say that AK likely killed at best several dozens Lithuanians - hardly a genocide. A single (?) massacre, perpatrated by some local unit, without any orders from above - sure, an important tragedy, but it looks rather like an exception then the rule. As a sidenote, how many Lithuanians were killed by Nazis (Gestapo, etc.) and Soviets (NKVD, etc.)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation. I like this article, it seems reasonable and balanced. I am glad to see that even in Lithuania there is a reasonable debate about the role of Armia Krajowa, and the issue it not clearly settled yet.

It is interesting to see that the article estimates the total number of Lithanians killed by Armia Krajowa at 500. This establishes the scale of the phenomenon. It also explains why it is so difficult to find information about it. The deaths of five hundred people during a war with millions of victims in Eastern Europe might not seem to be worth the attention of most historians. Just at Paneriai in the Vilnius region about 100,000 Jews, Poles and others were executed.

If you were to make a contribution to this Wikipedia article broadly similar in spirit to the article you translated, it would be a better start. Balcer 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added the portion to article, tried to neutralise it even more. As for Piotrus's remarks, yes, there were more Lithuanians killed by nazis and Soviets of course, but I don't think that makes this information any less valuable. In comparement to other WW2 kills, 500 people is not much, but, however, wikipedia should provide info on general importance, not relative importance, therefore this info IMO qualifies as important, same as would be e.g. a mention of organisation which (allegedly) killed 500 Jews or Poles.DeirYassin 08:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Armia Krajowa committed at least one massacre of 27 Lithuanian civilians, including women and children, at Dubingiai."

DeirYassin do you have some serious sources? I found nothing on google and altavista.

Only something about this controversial film by R. Bruzas.

http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34234,2599500.html
http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34234,2599503.html (Audrius Bacziulis (an analyst for Lithuanian daily magazine "Veidas") calling the film a "provocation"

"There is an estimation of investigator R. Bružas of about 500 killed Lithuanian civilians overally"

How many of them were Nazi-Collaborators? --Witkacy 16:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As it was said previously, probably this number of deaths is too small iin the context of WW2 to b emany info about it, especially as internet connections number in Lithuania neither general English knowledge is good enough to get many opinions. I cited the article, and yes, some called the film provocation, especially poles, but as it was also mentioned in the article I translated above, there were previous accusing son Armia Krajowa about this too. Of course, Poles named them all to be anti-Polish; however the fact is that these discutions exist. I did not said in artcile that it WAS so; appearently, only one massacre is with evidence, and Poles I talked to agreed with that. However, all other deaths are disputed, which is what I said in my edits of article. There are people and witnesses who claims that they happened however. And R. Bružas was collecting information for this movie for 4 years, he has done other historical documentary films too about various events of history, so it is not like he would be some simple provocator. As far as I understand, only the number of civilians was given there, as that was the topic of Bružas film; you can read the context in the article I translated above. DeirYassin 18:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW it is Polish historian estimation that 20-27 people died in Dubingiai during AK massacre, some Lithuanian historians claims there were over 200 civilians killed there alone. DeirYassin 18:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still find the mention of the word genocide in the article disturbing. Even if we take the most generous estimate of the numbers killed, which is 500, that is much less than 1% of the Lithuanian minority in the Wilno region at the time. If Armia Krajowa really wanted to exterminate that minority, as the article suggests, they sure were not very efficient in going about it. According to Wikipedia, Genocide means deliberate mass murder of civilians. Does the killing of 500 people over the course of about 4 years, tragic and reprehensible though it obviously is, qualify as genocide? And this in the middle of occupation and war which killed millions in the region during the same years?

I would like to see some clear argument for the use of the word genocide given the relatively small numbers of people killed. The argument that "some historians claim this" is not sufficient for me. Surely we can all think for ourselves here. If some Lithuanian historians want to insist on the word genocide, to me this is only an illustration of their biases, prejudices and professional incompetence, which does not need to be exhibited on Wikipedia. Balcer 18:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There might have been more than 500, this is just Bružas's estimation, and estimation son this matter differs by much. I am not sure, but maybe those who accuses AK of genocide "found out" bigger estimations. Also genocide i sprobably meant rather to describe deliberate killing of some group/nation/religion and is not so much related to numbers. But I agree that it might seem not neutral, so I removed word genocide now and changed it with explaination instead. DeirYassin 19:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I did not said in artcile that it WAS so; appearently, only one massacre is with evidence, and Poles I talked to agreed with that."

So, please show me some evidences.

"BTW it is Polish historian estimation that 20-27 people died in Dubingiai during AK massacre"

What was the names of the Polish historians?

The problem is... that until now, you have not presented any serious sources only informations from one documentary film, which is considered as controversial in Poland and in Lithuania.

In the context of "Relations with Lithuanians" - You also forget to write more about the Lithuanian Police and Lithuanian military units (like that of Povilas Plechaviczius), Lithuanian Schutz-Staffel (SS) Legion etc. which murdered (together with Germans) AK-Soldiers and civilians.--Witkacy 19:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't wrote names/leaders of all organisations as well, you never can write all the info and such; besides, there was no Lithuanian SS division, there were plans to create one but certain Lithuanian military leaders did not want this and avoided this by closing down certain then autonomous local units when the possibility of them to be integrated into SS and other German units arose. Your mention of Lithuanian SS kinda debunks your credibility however. But I did mentioned the organisations' actions in article: which was supposedly further spurred by actions of certain Lithuanian military units which were fighting against AK and are also accused of killing civilians (therefore some of the AK actions might have been direct retalliations to actions of these groups, or to actions of Lithuanian collaborators; and vice-versa - some of actions of these groups were done as retalliation for AK actions). . I cannot access Polish sources myself as I don't speak Polish, however you might ask user Wojsyl, he is Polish and he said he has such sources. I found info in Lithuanian that Polish historians says 20-27 and Lithuanian historians 200 however. Also it is mentioned i article Dubingiai, which was not created by me (you can see in history that I haven't done any edit there), and some other places of wikipedia, also not by me. You might want to ask in History of Vilnius or History of Lithuania as more people including ones who are able to speak Polish and ths cite Polish sources are there.DeirYassin 20:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Policies to take into account: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. About R. Bružas movie - are there any English reviews? At the very least, an entry in the Internet Movie Database would allow us to confirm its existence. For books, even Lithuanian (or Polish) ones they shoud have ISBN number. Articles should have ISSN number. Of course, authors, publisher, date are welcome as well. Email, usenet of various forum links are not very helpful, and webpages not backed up with academic works are also higly disputable. I hope that DeirYassin using above info can provide us with sources to back his statements - so far we have one 'controversial' film not backed by any academic publications. We can hardly write in our article 'However, one controversial documentary film claims that...'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesnt seems that IMDB would include new Lithuanian films, even such famous film as Vienui Vieni doesnt has it's article. But do you really doubt the existance of film itself? Polish links were also guven by Witkacy which confirms existance of the film. It is not an orginal resaearch my part of article, I just cited Bružas's investigation as source because if it wouldn't be cited, people would doubt where the 500 figure is from. If you'll know any other sources, e.g. would find some Polish historian's article who would claim that only for example 30 civilians were killed by AK, you would be welcome to add it also nearby as another source. My goal isn't to create any biased things, but rather to provide more info, and that AK is controversial in Lithuania is a fact, the articles, the fact that such movie was created and that there were controversial reactions towards it, etc. prooves it too. I try to write down reasons for this controversy and such. There also was a book by A. Bubnys about Armia Krajowa in Lithuania (info about it here http://news.mireba.lt/ml/191/rytu_L.htm ). This book is not controversial like film so if I'll have time I'll translate this too maybe, as it provides some info about Dubingiai massacre too. Unfortunately, due to lack of internetisation of Lithuania probably, ISBN number is hard to find online. DeirYassin 21:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also although I try my best to confirm what I say, I think it is wrong to ask for too much English evidence here, because it is a very local issue, neither Lithuania nor Poland aren't English-speaking as native language (and due to history, in both countries levels of people knowing English are lower than in western Europe I guess), any films or books about this issue, or newspaper articles would most likely be either in Lithuanian or Polish, and available just in those countries, therefore, (almost) no international opinions. That is one of the major points why it is needed in wikipedia however: we are probably creating the first English information about the issue in the internet; I hope it will be as neutral as possible. DeirYassin 21:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So.. we have a controversial film (called by a Lithuanian publicist a "provocation"), no names of historians, no other sources, no links on google or altavista and a book without an ISBN number :)

"My goal isn't to create any biased things"

Hmm.., you are using sources like this: [1] (http://www.lithuanian.net/language/occupied.htm) " ("It was forbidden to speak Lithuanian [in Poland] publicly until 1950 (by phone as late as 1990).", "The Stalinist Polonisation of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal than that of the Poles during their occupation") - Fantasy stories ;)--Witkacy 22:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, despite of what is your opinion about Lithuanians, they are not brainwashed or such, so as many people as many opinions. I personally heard both positive and negative opinions about this movie too, including when I was searching for info. However, the fact is that Polish newspaper chose negative opinion to recite - and Veidas is conservative magazine which is quite russophobic and frequently sees Russian provocations/conspiracy at things. I didn't wrote that source myself, just gave a link to it. The point of talk pages is to decide what is truth, so everything's discussable. Name of historian who decided that AK did genocide is Kazimieras Garšva, name of historian who wrote book on AK is A. Bubnys, etc. and I am quite sure if I'd speak Polish I'd find you information on Polish sources too. And book(s) (I believe there were three as I get three release dates, 1991, 1995 and 1999 at different places) have an ISBN number of course, just that, for now, I don't know it, but I'll see if I'll be able to find out more info. DeirYassin 22:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

View from the Polish side

Here is a link to an article with some information from the Polish viewpoint ([2] (http://www.opoka.org.pl/biblioteka/P/PS/plechavicius_order.html) 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)

"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."

So.. :)

1) it was not a genocide on Lithuanians
2) it was a retaliation for murdered (about 40 people see: IPN [3] (http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wp_przeglad_240204.html) and [4] (http://www.cyberexpres.com/display.asp?id=1964&thread=0) and PWN Encyclopedia [5] (http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/24687_1.html), [6] (http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/17965_1.html)) Poles in Glinciszki (killed by the Lithuanian Police - almost women and children [7] (http://pater.kul.lublin.pl/wystawy/vita_mutatur/2004/slawinska/irena_slawinska.htm))
3) it was an initiative by a local unit commander
4) The victims of Dubinki were Lithuanian policeman (Nazi-Collaborators) and their families (see above PWN Encyclopedia)
5) the action has nothing to do with the "conflict over Vilnius region" or "polonization"
6) is that of such importance? (1/6 of the AK-article is about the relations with Lithuanians..) but for example nothing about Ponary where 100 000 Poles and Jews were killed by Lithuanian police and German units.--Witkacy 00:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

Witkacy - you just read Polish view and adopted that it is fully right, however, history is not like that and all views should be mentioned as Wikipedia is neutral; you cannot read just what you want to read. So, this massacre is the only one Poles admit, and that is mentioned in article, from Lithuanian side there are larger claims by historians I already mentioned. (K. Garšva, A. Bubnys), also, wherether it was intiated by local units or higher command is also doubted. I think the current way the part is written as neutral as possibkle, because both points of view are mentioned. The claims on numbers of deaths as well as who were killed is disputed too. What is disputed is mentioned in article as such and both views are given.
Balcer - I agree with you. Wikipedia articles cannot be written at once and yet that doesn't means they should be written starting from the most important parts; they are written from what the editors know. Full article about AK will include lots more info about other AK operations, while Relations to Lithuanians section probably won't be expanded much anymore, so the proportions will be different.DeirYassin 05:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is quite much information about it in Lithuanian, I don't have time to translate everything however; but it is not discution here on who was right or such, or which facts are right. I think enough has been said to proove that both opinions exist (if you want more names, there is also Algimantas Liekis who claims about AKs attempts to disturb Lithuania's seeks for independence because then Lithuania would claim Vilnius region). In the article both sides are represented and both opinions. So I don't see much point in continuing this discution I guess. If you'll want to cite more sources, feel free to do so. If you have any suggestions on what exactly to correct on article, say them (e.g. as there was suggestion to remove word "genocide", which I did). Wikipedia however is not a place for one-sided articles, so it won't be so that only one side would be represented. If there are concerns that AK article is too negative, you might write more in it about some positive things and operations AK done. DeirYassin 10:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Collected eferences

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)

Ok here it is, from Lithuanian side, someone else could do the same list for Polish historians:

Rimas Bružas (Journalist, creator of documentary films about historical events): Film "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje. Istorijos Akligatvis" (Armia Krajowa in Lithuania. History's road without exits). Claimed 500 killed Lithuanian civilians, interviewed witnesses and based on documents.
Kazimieras Garšva, Rimantas Zizas, A. Šimėnas (Historians): Book "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje" (Armia Krajowa in Lithuania), 1995 (part 1), 1999 (part 2), Vilnijos Draugija, LPKTS, 304 pages, ISBN 9986577292 (source: http://www.mab.lt/mainai1.html ). Based on AK archives found in Bernardinai monastery which documents actions between 1943 to liquidation of AK in 1944 July. Documents, according to the book, prooves that AK had relations to nazis, got weapons from them (in a nazi attempt to "divide and rule" in Vilnius region), followed locals, robbed civilians, were killing active pro-independence Lithuanians.
Juozas Lebionka (historian) - article "Vilniškės AK bendradarbiavimo su vokiečiais pirmtakas" (The starter of relations between Vilnian AK and Germans) and few other articles, talks about some person who supposedly started these relations. In the same source it is also talked about many other articles written by some historians, which are also agreeing to this idea. Claims that Dubingiai massacre had 100 deaths, and overally 1000 Lithuanian civilians killed by AK.
Juozas Dringelis (signer of independence delcaration, former member of parliament) - citates from AK documents, also supported by book "Geopolitinė Lietuvos padėtis, jos reikšmė Lenkijos ūkiui" ("Geopolitical stance of Lithuania, it's meanin for Polish") - "For that we have to contain Lithuanian claims of Vilnius - it is needed to move borders of Vilnius region westwards, to include Kaunas and it's surroundings", "Current Lithuanian nation has very many features of prehistoric humans. It has flly lost all higher feelings. Dignity, truth, knightism, forgiveness, toughness etc. in Lithuanian society are sounds without meaning". There are more such citates.
Arūnas Bubnys - "Fights between Armia Krajowa and Lithuanian militants" talks about 1942-1944 and says that AK Vilnian part was created just to attach Vilnius to Poland.
Kęstutis Kasparas another article on this topic from similar standpoint
Arvydas Anušauskas (http://www.genocid.lt/Leidyba/13/arvydasa.htm) talks about positive AK role at protecting Poles, talks that conflict was programmed from start, also creation of AK in Vilnius and opposing forces, and why the confrontation started.

And there is info about more articles and opinions themselves, but I guess this will be enough. Other sources for the things mentioned above: http://www.atgimimas.lt/articles.php?id=1113485871 , http://www.xxiamzius.lt/numeriai/2004/07/08/liter_02.html , ttp://www.lki.lt/index.php?asm=305 , etc. Add some Polish sources to the list too if you want DeirYassin 16:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) .

Note also please that these articles doesnt necessarily are saying my views, I just gave them here to show more about this standpoint, as I was asked DeirYassin 17:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its a nice list of polonophobic Lithuanian revisionist "historians" [8] (http://www.polonia-polska.pl/index.php?id=b00_4_7)--Witkacy 18:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, yet again, this opinion exists and is supported by quite much historians of Lithuania, and majority, even Polish historians, accepts that soemthing happened, tjust the scale and such is what is not agreed on. It is always easy to tell "that person is nazi", "that person is anti-something" and such, but these tellings are biased and does not makes information invalid, especially as many of it is based on documents, witnesses accounts and such. It'd be stupid if I'd just e.g. say that all Polish historians who says just one massacre happened are anti-Lithuanian; Wikipedia has NPOV policy, all views and possibilities should be mentioned. DeirYassin 18:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Based on AK archives found in Bernardinai monastery which documents actions between 1943 to liquidation of AK in 1944 July. Documents, according to the book, prooves that AK had relations to nazis, got weapons from them (in a nazi attempt to "divide and rule" in Vilnius region), followed locals, robbed civilians, were killing active pro-independence Lithuanians." Pls stop to produce more and more NPOV based on lies.--Witkacy 18:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, but it is not said as truth. I am not saying "AK collaborated with nazis" - this would be POV. I just said what historians and what investigations/books led to what decitions, this is normal as per Wikipedia rules. Nobody can say if the books are right or wrong, but what I said about those books is a fact. Instead of ranting or reverting, you could add similar Polish sources e.g. "But historian XY in his book "somename" claims that it was so and so") - this would be productive update. I written myself that Poles disagrees with this info and that there are other opinions, I gave examples of some, but I can't read in polish so it's up to other Wikipedia users to present more of those opinions with sources. Deleting of whole section you disagree with is not exactly Wikipedian way DeirYassin 18:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Written about that some Poles claims that these Lithuanians who says these things are anti-Polish, I hope that will make things more clear if you are afraid that someone would get only Lithuanian point of view. Is that right/encyclopedic?DeirYassin 18:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Relations with Lithuanians

There was a large Lithuanian minority in Wilno Voivodship (see Vilnius region for details) and at some places they constitued majority. Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained during almost all interwar period due to the conflict over Vilnius region and Suvalkai region. Armia Krajowa's ideas of Polish state included Vilnius region. Armia Krajowa committed at least one massacre of Lithuanian civilians, including women and children, at Dubingiai (Polish historians claims 20-27 as number of kills, Juozas Lebionka claims 100, some other Lithuanian historians claims 200). The scale of other killings is not agreed on also. There is an estimation of investigator Rimas Bružas of about 500 killed Lithuanian civilians overally, estimation of Juozas Lebionka says 1000; some Polish historians claims there were no other masscares except one at Dubingiai. Many of the opinions are supported by AK documents found in Bernardinai monastery, which describes AK actions between 1943 and 1944; however, some very differing opinions are based on same documents. What is also not agreed on is the reason for these killings: some historians tends to accuse Armia Krajowa of seeking to lower the number of Lithuanians in Vilnius region for purposes of further polonization of region. Other historians tends to claim that the killings were not a planned thing, and were more related to general dislike of Lithuanians by some people in AK ranks, which was supposedly further spurred by actions of certain Lithuanian military units which were fighting against AK and are also accused of killing civilians (therefore some of the AK actions might have been direct retalliations to actions of these groups, or to actions of Lithuanian collaborators; and vice-versa - some of actions of these groups were done as retalliation for AK actions). Some historians claim, based on same documents, that the fight between Lithuanian militants and AK was purposefully spurred by nazis by giving weaponry to both sides (sources: book Armia Krajowa in Lithuania, ISBN 9986577292 ). Cause of these reasons AK, despite of it's actions in saving Poles of Vilnius, same as Soviet partisans, are considered to be controversial organisations in today's Lithuania. ---

Moved everything deleted from article by user Witkacy from the main article back there, as it was already agreed here by themajority as far as I understand that the relations are worth mentioning. Now I written it as neutraly as possible, by providing different opinions with different sources. If you know any other sources and other, yet unmentioned, opinions, please tell them, they will be added too. If you don't however, and just remove the portion because it doesn't fits with your point of view, then that shouldn't be done, it's a disruption. DeirYassin 18:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above text is written in a very poor English and I am afraid it needs to be rewritten to be understandable - thus it cannot be included in our present article. On the other hand, I would like to stress here that I agree with DearYassin and Balcer that *some* note of this must be included in the text. I dont think that the above text is accepable. Besides being poor English, it contains too many weasel words: 'many, some, other historians'. References collected above are a good start and should be used to source every accusation in the above text. We also need Polish references. There should also be an explanation of why this matter is controversial. I won't have time to do much on Wiki until 3rd May, so I will constribute to our discussion here afterwards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you that it needs more Polish references and that my English is not good. I hope you will be able to find/provide those references and will correct some of the things. I say "some Polish historians" because I do not know who exactly, it should be easier for you to find as you know Polish. I would like to invite everybody to contribute positive changes to this article, I mean, providing more sources and such. And there is no factual inacurracies in the article now BTW: I did not written in the article something like "AK dealt with nazis" or "AK massacred many Lithuanians", but just say what some people said, and it is truth that they said that. If it would be written in article that e.g. some early US presidents made racistic remarks, it would be truth, but it wouldn't mean that blacks really are as these remarks would say or such. And you can and if you know, should add more information about Polish opinion. But both opinions can and should (as Wikipedia is neutral) coexist, there is no need to delete Lithuanian opinion either as that would be POV. I hope after May 3rd this article will get better, or that someone else will improve it and neutralise it even more before that DeirYassin 19:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quality of English is not that much of a problem, as it can be easily improved by other editors. I have a problem with the whole style: Professor X on the Lithuanian side said this, professor Y on the Polish side said that. This approach misses the point of Wikipedia and misuderstands the nature of the NPOV idea, in my opinion. The point is not to list opposing and sometimes extreme views in parallel, but rather to hammer out some kind of compromise.

DeirYassin, I notice than in your approach you often list a bunch of opinions, and then you cover yourself with the disclaimer that these are not necessarily your views. This makes arguing with you somewhat frustrating. Please, why don't you simply write what YOU think? You have read the sources, you understand the issues, trust yourself. Wikipedia is created by users themselves, not users assembling the opinions of others and listing them without any judgement as to their quality. If you do this, we can have an argument with you, and not some Lithuanian historians we unfortunately never heard of and cannot read. Balcer 19:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually do write my opinion most of ime, same was here previously, and I think it was more neutral maybe. Now however I was asked for more sources and such at this article, so now I tried my best to write only somone else's opinion and thought this way it wouldn't be disputed that much as I didnt claimed that any opinion is truth. I think maybe references could be deleted, and e.g. it could just say something like "up to 1000 Lithuanians died" (or maybe average 500 figure) "20-200 Civilian Lithuanians killed in Dubingiai depending on various claims". But well, then, yet again, some people will say that this is without evidence or without source, that is why I included it into article. I hope eventually decition will be reached and they could be removed or written separately bellow article. Why I posted even articles I dont agree with is that I was asked for references from various historians and who thinks what by Piotrus; I provided what I was asked for. I have some doubts myself over some things however, e.g. AK and nazi relations, but well, if these views are used to support things in article, then they all should be fully mentioned. DeirYassin 19:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You have doubts about AK and Nazi relations, other participants in this discussion reject this out of hand and are deeply offended by the accusation. So, why should this idea which none of us supports be in the article? I have removed it.

Next on the agenda: reasons for the killings. Please, let us know what you think the reasons for the killings were. Balcer 21:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following is my opinion and I do not say that it should be icnluded in article, I say it just because I was asked to. In my opinion it is naive to think that during those years, which were violent in general, AK did not kill any or almost any civilians. As for numbers, I'd think myself that 500 might be most realistic maybe, given the existing documents, witnesses accounts and such. As for reasons I think myself basically what was written previously in article, that it was spurred by general dislike between Poles and Lithuanians especially in the Vilnius region at the time so therefore there (IMO) were violence towards Lithuanian civilians more than towards other civilians. Which was maybe attributed by knowing that some Lithuanians fight against AK, and therefore e.g. if Lithuanians kills some AK fighter their friends might have attacked Lithuanians at some village. Now there exists evidence also taht AK wanted to attach Vilnius to liberated Poland. I don't know however if that was orders from above or actions of some local units or orders from some local leaders - very hard to say here (I think however that later two are more likely. Maybe it was some generic order from high command like not to allow Lithuanians to take too much control in the area, which was interpreted this way by some local leaders or units - again, this is just my guess, Im not claiming it was so), I think different opinions should be given at some places where they differ much by both sides, because well, we are 4 or 5 people here discussing it, and some of opinions shared by considerable number of people might not be supported by any of us but that does not make them less viable. And, yet again, this was my personal opinion. DeirYassin 07:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general the reason why I am reluctant to post my own opinion because that contradicts Wikipedia's rules as I understand, it is original research. We are not discussing here who is right, I am quite sure we wouldn't ever reach compromise on this because opinions and claims are simply too different; instead, we are discussing on what to put in the article. And article can represent several opinions too in cases where opinions are too different to *merge* them, in those cases it is more NPOV to leave a few opinions I'd guess. But that is my opinion lol.DeirYassin 08:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Now we can have a more reasonable discussion, hopefully. First, the numbers of victims. In situations like this, these are often very difficult to establish to the satisfaction of both sides. For now, I would have no problem with a compromise listing the claims of Polish and Lithuanian historians as to the number killed side by side. Of course this is subject to verification, if the Lithuanian historians you are quoting turn out to be unreliable or extreme in their views. This is the problem: we who don't speak Lithuanian and don't follow Lithuanian historiography have a great deal of difficulty in determining which of them are reliable and which are not. Just so that I don't seem to be picking on Lithuanians, I can only tell you that I consider some Polish "historians" to be highly unreliable or very heavily biased.

Still, I am puzzled. You write I don't know however if that was orders from above or actions of some local units or orders from some local leaders. To me and most likely the other editors involved here, the notion that the Armia Krajowa High Command ordered the extermination of the Lithuanian minority in the Vilno region is totally incredible and highly offensive. This is probably the main reason why the disputed tag has been attached. Given that nobody involved in this discussion strongly believes such an "ethnic cleansing" was ordered from above, we should not be including this view in the discussion. I have made the necessary change, which reflects what seems to be a concensus view here.

Anyway, over the weekend I will go to my university library, find more of the relevant sources, and try to expand the section on the operations of Armia Krajowa in the Wilno region. Stay tuned. Balcer 18:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said afterwards, that IMO other two theories were more likely than the first one (other two being local ruler's decition or decition of particular soldiers/groups of soldiers), so maybe it is ok to remove that then. As for historians, I put the estimations which I could fin donline, being 500 and 1000 for whole killings, and 100 to 200 in Dubingiai. As for Kazimieras Garšva, from what I heard about him from other places, he is accused by Poles of being anti-Polish sometimes, but these estimations are not from him. Maybe I think Bružas would be the most reliable of those (just in my opinion), because it is most known and also did other such investigations of historical events and said he was going through documents and witnesses and such for 4 years, and he's quite known independent journalist. But that is just my opinion of course. DeirYassin 19:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a sidenote: in your previous comment you are most certainly referring to the Operation Ostra Brama. Halibu tt 11:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

AK is NOT "the largest underground resistance army during WWII"

This statement, "The Home Army, the largest underground resistance army during World War II, formed the armed wing of what subsequently became known as the "underground state", is not true. The most eminent, well-known underground resistance army, which operated during WWII is the Yugoslavian National Liberation Army or People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (see the article at in Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisans_%28Yugoslavia%29, and at least the external reference herein). The estimate of real guerillas (not just the elusive "membership", used in that "article" ) is app. 300 thousands at the end of 1943 and app. 600 thousands at the end of 1944. Of course, the real deeds of the YNLA and its role are incomparable with that of the Armia Krajowa (with is, besides, not a monolith organization, as claimed in the sentence "resistance army"). If not take the definitions too strictly, the partisans of Belarus, could be thought a resistance army, however based not on national(istic) grounds. The number of real figters in Belarus (1944) was 143 thousands and 250 thousands of reserve (123 thousands of them were armed). Of course, their activity (estimated 500 000 nazi troops and collaborates were shot-up) again incomparable with that of the AK, especially if one compares the population of the countries (data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia). The activity, relative number of real fighters and the role of the Greek guerillas are (personal opinion) also exceeds that parameters of AK. Please, authors of that article, check the data and correct the alleged sentence.

Yes, and a short subjective after-word: most poles I have met in my life (except few, but very notable exceptions) were not able to control their "national arrogance" towards all other nations, and couldn't be sober rating their history. I am sorrow, that the venerable Wiki suffers from "historians" of that kind (I meant most articles, considering Polish history). IB

Activity of partisans in Belarus is sometimes very exxagerated, especially when you are reading either soviet or basing on soviet sources (I've read many satyrical jokes bsaed on this: usually many of those "partisan" activities included robbing local populations and attacking AK units, which then they exxagerated as fighting with fascist - great example are things like great victory at Koniuchy, where, few dozens of nazi collaborators, such as children and woman, were shot - especially that number: half million of Axis soldiers! Wow! I wonder why I've never spot that figure in any other source!). I don't know enough about guerillas in Greece to comment.

As for our national arrogance, why, it is mainly because we Poles were have God-given right to be sober and arrogant. And seriously, I have met on usenet many English, French and others and I couldn't lose the feeling that they all are arrogant !@!$#@ who are treating me like white Europeans were treating blacks in Africa in XIX century. WOw! It talks! It's hard not to develop some thick-skin in such circumstances.

But you are probably right about YNLA so I will change the sentence to "one of biggest resistance movements". And BTW AK was the army. Hence the name. Armia Krajowa. Home Army. Legally considered armed forces of Polish-government-in-exile in Poland.

Szopen 13:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As a footnote to what Szopen wrote (well said, pal), probably YLA and the Home Army had similar numbers, I can't judge which had more members at which point. However, it is to be noted that the Ak was nowhere near that successful in liberating its own territory. Mostly because the Yugoslav resistance did not have to fight the Soviets as well, but still the fact remains that the Tito's partisans were far more successful in 1944 and 1945. Whether stronger in numbers - I don't know. Halibu tt 14:01, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore such anon provocateurs... i guess "IB" is a sockpuppet - one of the known polophobe users :)--Witkacy 15:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I had a similar discussion some weeks ago on Talk:Polish September Campaign. Anon has a point - 'the biggest/most powerful' is POVed. However, 'one of the biggest/most powerful' is certainly right. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As an NPOV compromisse I propose the next statement: "The Home Army, ONE of the largest underground MOVEMENT during World War II, have formed the armed wing of the "underground state" (państwo podziemne), officially represented by the goverment-in-exile.

( became known as the "underground state" (państwo podziemne) - it is a national POV, the goverment-in-exile is the known concept).

The changes, which are based mainly on logical grounds (make it better concerning style and subject) revises the next logical points: 1. It is ONE of the largest...

Agreed Szopen 11:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

And applied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

2. MOVEMENT, but not army - it was became an army only in '44, but the article claims that it is functioned as army from '39. Explain, how AK as army was active before '44 (in other words except Operation Tempest) againist the nazi troops. This explanation is very important for the whole article and it is now missing. Without such explanations the number of 150 000 shot-up nazi troops is highly unreliable, because of very short actual time span - half year only)

AK was the army. Examples of activity: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (fights of one unit inside ghetto, actions on bonifraterska (sp?) etc. Since 1943 it organised partisan units. Despite, AK would still be army EVEN if it had not made any military actions. Army does not cease being army just because it's not active in some period of time, isn't it? It was army because it was officially called army, because it's member had officers, subofficers, because officers and subofficers were trained, because all members were swearing military oath and had military commander responsible to Polish government-in-exile Szopen 11:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps calling it a 'partisan army' would clarify the matter? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

3. "undeground state" could be included only as a particular specification, tied to the more known concept. Again, for NPOV, you should do a reference to Armia Ludowa (associated with the liftish forces, the moral clients of the USSR), and create that article (including the communication between AK and AL). The lack of knowlege about the real deeds of the AK except Operation Tempest and about its evolution is the serious defects of the article. The wlole article is seriously "POV-ed" from national (in other words internal) point of view (sorry for calembour). I am not pole as the most people in the world and I am intersted in "external" point of view, which means the connection of AK to the overal political processes, its influence by the west etc. I recognize, that it is not so easy to change the POV globally, but it should be done. IB

AL activity was abysmal. AK did carried sabotage, had military intelligence, had propaganda unit (including sections dealing with sabotage and propaganda and intelligence INSIDE Germany - even in Berlin). AK usually did not enforce fighting since it was army, not bunch of armed bandits, hence it even ordered Hubal unit to disband because of repercursions it may cause to civilians. OTOH, AL didn't care about civialians. AK usually allowed actions which were direct reactions to Nazis activity (e.g. actions during deportations of Zamojszczyzna or fights with Ukrainians as reactions to Vohlyn massacres etc etc ). Operation Tempest is largest and best known AK action. Some of them, in Polish, are listed here : [9] (http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/.)

Note that htis list of 106 actions is just chosen: the same page informs us that KEDYW alone made at list 407 actions. Effects of those actions is close to 7.000 destroyed or damaged locomotives, 38 blowed up bridges, desoyted 28 aircrafts, more than 500 cars, more than 19.000 train cars _before_ the "Tempest". Some of AK duties were to fight armed bands, which were tolerated by Nazis, and which robbed and terrorised local population in some areas. Some of these bands were under nominal leadership of AL.Szopen 11:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe all resistance movement besides AL were linked in main body, added link to AL article in See also. Also, noted in lead that AK was the dominant resistance movement in Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the actual number of combat-ready partisan troops, it is extremely hard to judge. After 1939 there was a number of Polish Army units that were left behind the lines and simply found their reffuge in the forests. Other units were acting mostly as urban guerilla and were being prepared for an open conflict (see Operation Tempest). Yet other group of people (usually estimated at ca. 50.000 at the end of 1941), the co-called leśni (forest people) were mnostly composed of people who had to retreat to the forests because of Nazi and Soviet terror. They formed the core of the future army as they had to fight for their lives against German units (both Wehrmacht and SS). Among the best known examples of such activity was the Jodła inspectorate of the AK (Kielce-Radom, Swietokrzyskie Hills area), where the countryside was effectively controlled by the AK back in 1943, while only the cities were held in German hands.

Finally, as pointed above, there were units of the Home Army that were conducting armed raids on German facilities and sabotage. These were not acting openly as the German retaliation would be too harsh for the civilians (collective responsibility...), but still had lots of successes in disrupting the German supply lines for the Eastern Front. Among such units was Kedyw and then Wachlarz.

Other thing is that there already is an article on Polish Secret State and the very term does not seem POV at all to me. It's simply a historical name for quite a unique phenomenon in the scale of the world: a state without a territory, but with all institutions of a modern state, including press, courts, parliament, government, police, armed forces and so on. Halibu tt 12:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

A very interesting subject, which definetly deserves much expantion. Although - wouldn't 'Polish Underground State' (Google 2,470 hits) be a better translation of 'Polskie państwo podziemne' then 'Polish Secret State' (104 hits including wiki and mirrors)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps yes. On the other hand, the term was coined by Jan Karski in his (English language) book Story of a Secret State, which was has not been translated to Polish until after the war. That's why I decided to promote the "original" name over the more common translation. Feel free to move it though, as both translations seem equally correct to me. Halibu tt 20:04, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Could someone enlighten me what is actually disputed here? Isn't it high time we removed the NPOV tag from the text and corrected the article if there is a need to do so?

Also, it seems that the Lithuanian part is the most disputed. Perhaps we could simply migrate it to a separate article (say Armia Krajowa in Lithuania or something similar) and continue to work on it there? Halibu tt 12:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should move it anywhere; maybe there could be a link to a "main article" like that, but that is only if somebody will write a more detailed information about AK in Lithuania, which would be too long to keep here. If we'd start creating new articles for every section, then nothing would remain in this article, e.g. AK relations with Jews, List of major operations and such would also go to new articles. But the usual practice is to write some info in main article, and if there is more info about that subject than create an additional article on that sub-subject with link from the subject article ("Main article: Armia Krajowa in Lithuania"). Now I think the disputed tag maybe could be removed and things left as is, because there weren't any discutions on this topic for a long time. DeirYassin 13:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm removing the tag. As to the Lithuanian and Jewish parts - I still believe these topics are rather a sidenote to the article, not the main part of it. Any ideas what to do with it? Halibu tt 18:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pics

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 --Halibu tt 12:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)