Talk:German occupation of Byelorussia during World War II/Archive 1

POV
The article presents mostly Soviet POV.Xx236 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, so "illegal occupation of Eastern Poland" presents Polish nationalistic POV, completely disregarding issues of Curson line, Riga treaty, Middle Lithuania. The lands were ethnically prevailingly non-Polish, after all, too, and were subject to intensive Polonisation and Polish colonisation.

Pushers of mentioned POV are scattering this "illegal occupation of Eastern Poland" virtually everywhere in English WP. Interestingly, they don't use this so extensively in Polish Wikipedia. Yury Tarasievich 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above text pushes Soviet POV ignoring intwernational law. Xx236 09:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So we are even here, violation of law to violation of law, and POV to POV. What next? Yury Tarasievich 10:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For the last time: please do not try to involve things like "international law" here, because here it is, at least, completely irrelevant. And by doing so, you destroy the constructive process of Wikipedia. We don't want the background of such articles to reach down to the Bronze Age, do we?


 * However, the reference to the un-recognition of September 1939 by Polish exiled government and by the Polish population in the West Belarus will, of course, have its due place in this article. Not in the current (POV) form, though. Is this suggestion good enough? Yury Tarasievich 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet annexations were illegal and officially recognized (only ?) by Nazi Germany. Soviet crimes, including annexations, are relevant, here and everywhere, see Occupation of Baltic states. Yes, I admit, I'm agaisnt constructive whitewashing of Soviet crimes like Kurapaty and tens such places in to-day Belarus. Xx236 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Soviet annexations were recognized by Yalta. The only valid context of un-recognising in the article about "Nazi occupation of Belarus" is for the explanation of position of Polish exiled government and of the attitude of Poles in BSSR (as of 1941). The BSSR in 1941 was a 1) fact and 2) fairly homogenous environment, even considering the two parts. That's what makes it possible to historiography to regard it as a whole. And I'm not even starting about the mote in one's eye. Yury Tarasievich 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet partizans
If it was so good, why did the UK push the Poles to fight in the East to help the Red Army? Wachlarz was the result.Xx236 08:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Fan" was the result of exiled government wanting to restore pre-1939 status. Yury Tarasievich 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Administration, collaboration
The article doesn't inform about German administration and collaboration. Kube should be mentioned.Xx236 07:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Five according to Belarusian Central Rada. Xx236 09:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Four zones of administration, too. Yury Tarasievich 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong count there, then. Two Reichskomissariats (Ostland and Ukraine), Bezirk OstPreussen and one army group rear. Six, if Generalkomissariats are to be counted separately. Yury Tarasievich 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In total, Belarus lost a quarter of its pre-war population in the Second World War
Which Belarus and of which population? pre-war BSSR or BSSR + Western Belarus? Isn't the Great Purge included here as it used to be in the SU? Xx236 06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Great Purge isn't included here, and anyway it wasn't that great w/r to numbers — the Collectivisation was much worse.
 * The population in question is 1941 population. No, there was no overall census in 1939-1941, but some sort of the estimation was active, only I don't remember what, precisely.


 * The sceptics, if you want to be one, rather point out to unclear status of inclusion or non-inclusion of:
 * 1941 Soviet evacuation, est. up to 1,5 mln. people, which consequences weren't reverted completely after the war
 * forced driving of young people to the Germany, up to 400 thousand, not all of whom returned
 * 1944 evacuation of BKA, police, local administration and families, possibly up to 100 thousand
 * pre-war purges of Poles in Western provinces, in thousands at least.


 * The extermination of Jewish population was started early in the Occupation (cf. Pripyat Swamps), and up to half of population of cities and towns in BSSR were Jews (e.g., Hrodna: like 25-30 housand out of 55 thousand).
 * Besides that, 9200 villages were destroyed, often with their inhabitants killed. Punitive operations with 5-10 thousand of civil deaths were "normal"
 * --- Yury Tarasievich 08:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem - how did Soviet partizan strategy influenced German pacifications. Quite many Germans wouldn't have invested their assets (outside the Holocaust) without real menace.Xx236 10:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * False problem, I think. Mass burning of people — with huge percentage of old people, women and children — which was a "routine" practice in Belarus, is hardly excused by any amount of Soviet partizan activity.
 * But of course, if you would point me to the scientific schools which promote such point of view, I'd be happy to incorporate that information in the article. Yury Tarasievich 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal quagmire
Recent edit summary asked whether only Poles regarded the pre-1941-06-22 situation as "illegal" (also about the nationalists given undue weight).

I'd venture an answer that yes, it was the Poles only (the worldview stemming from their 1919-1921 successes); and yes, the Belarusian nationalists' views are given undue weight here -- they were the minor powerless group, "riding the German coattails". However, Belarusians in their majority rather did not resend the 1941 territorial status of the BSSR and the Riga treaty (and other related, parcelling the Belarusian ethnic lands) was considered as unjust "from the very moment of its signing".

I won't "go ahead" with references, though, as the Belarusian historiography is somewhat open to abuse here, in English Wikipedia, being singled out for some sort of "lustracja". Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the "The Prisoners of Silence" a link?
It's an After Action Report from the Paradox forums. It's a video game fanfiction. Why is this a link? -Teh Bomb Sophist (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking common English words
I understand that this article will be both read and edited by people who speak many languages, and may not know English well. But is there a need to Wikilink ordinary English words like "exception", "discrepancy" and "prisoner" (linking them either to articles in Wikipedia or to definitions in Wiktionary, sometimes inaccurately)? When a word is used in a specialized sense that differs from the ordinary usage, it's probably best to spell that out in words, rather than use a Wikilink that most readers won't go to the trouble of opening (and thus losing their place in this article). There's a general Wikipedia policy against overlinking and drowning the text in a sea of blue. This is also an WP:Accessibility problem for some screen-readers, monitors and color-blind users. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, such links should be removed. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)