Talk:Romuald Rajs

Article is astonishingly whitewashed
The article obscures that fact that this guy is basically known for committing war crimes. "A Pacification of Five Villages. On the Dark Chapters of Biography of Capt. Romuald Rajs aka Bury This review article presents Michał Ostapiuk’s book Komendant „Bury”. Biografi a kpt. Romualda Adama Rajsa „Burego” (1913–1949) (Olsztyn and Warsaw, 2019), and focuses primarily on the post-war part of Rajs’s life and his military activities in the Białystok region. The best-known episode of this period is a pacification made by the unit commanded by Bury (Third National Military Union Brigade) of five Belarusian villages in the Bielsk Podlaski district in late January and early February of 1946. As a result, seventy-nine peasants were killed, including women and children. The Author of the biography tries to justify the guerrillas, indicating the political character of these actions (their struggle against communism) and the threat posed to the National Military Union by the Belarusian ‘communized’ people. The polemics of the review article concerns the description of operations of the Third National Military Union Brigade in the five villages of Zaleszany, Wólka Wygonowska, Szpaki, Zanie, and Końcowizna in early 1946 and their interpretations, including the rejection by the Author of the criterion of nationality as one of the causative factors. The most crucial point under criticism is the Author’s failure to recognize the concept of crime against civilians as the term referring to the activities of armed formations against civilians."
 * Im Januar 1946 wurde er zum Führer dieser Brigade, deren Haupteinsatzgebiet die Umgebung von Hajnówka war (Kułak 2004). Dort kam es zu zahlreichen Gewalttaten und zur Vernichtung ganzer Dörfer, bei der vor allem weißrussische Bauern – Männer, Frauen und Kinder – aus den umliegenden Gemeinden ihr Leben verloren (Chmielewska/Drozdowska/Gogolewska 2010: 19). Großes Aufsehen erregte der Mord an 28 Fuhrmännern weißrussischer Herkunft (die polnischen Fuhrmänner wurden freigelassen), wovon die Bewohner jener Gebiete bis heute bewegt erzählen (Moroz 2016). Rajs’ brutale Aktionen wurden sowohl von der lokalen Bevölkerung als auch von den Befehlshabern der NZW verurteilt und riefen verstärkt Repressionen vonseiten der Sicherheitsdienste hervor. Ab Oktober 1946 befand sich Rajs nicht mehr innerhalb der Strukturen der NZW. Im November 1948 wurde er in Elbląg verhaftet, im September 1949 in Białystok vor Gericht gestellt. Er wurde zum Tode verurteilt, das Urteil wurde am 31.12.1949 vollstreckt.
 * On the other hand, Romuald Rajs "Bury" is the perpetrator of the leading crimes, the aim of which was probably to intimidate ethnic minorities and persuade them to leave the Białystok region ...

IPN itself stated that Rajs activities "nosiły znamiona ludobójstwa". Furthermore, the article does not address current attempts to "rehabilitate" Rajs and similar anti-communist guerrillas, presenting them as national (Polish) heroes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any source which says he was convicted of "war crimes"? The charges he was convicted of were things like "belonging to illegal organizations" and "fighting to overthrow communism" and "encouraging others to seize property". And even those were vacated later on. This isn't to say that he didn't commit any crimes or anything but it's simply not true to say he was "convicted of war crimes". (Also, war was over by this point, so I think technically these killings would be just regular murder not "war crimes")  Volunteer Marek   02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Polish wiki states war crimes sourced to . Consider the following:
 * Przy podjęciu śledztwa zostało ono wstępnie zakwalifikowane do kategorii zbrodni przeciwko ludzkości, których wyjaśnienie należy do prokuratora IPN-u i które nie ulegają przedawnieniu. ... Reasumując zabójstwa, i usiłowania zabójstwa tych osób należy rozpatrywać jako zmierzające do wyniszczenia części tej grupy narodowej i religijnej, a zatem należące do zbrodni ludobójstwa, wchodzących do kategorii zbrodni przeciwko ludzkości.
 * (Upon the beginning of the investigation, it was initially classified into the category of crimes against humanity, according to the prosecutor of the Institute of National Remembrance, which is not subject to limitations. Summing up, the killings and the attempts to kill these people should be considered to be aimed at the destruction of part of this national and religious group, thus belonging to the crimes of genocide, falling under the category of crimes against humanity.) -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, the investigation was discontinued (umorzone) and I couldn't find exactly why with regards to Rajs (I think part of the reason was that it was impossible to identify some other perpetrators, but he was obviously identified as the leader). So I am not sure if IPN actually concluded he was a war criminal, despite saying so in the discussion (if the result was dismissed doesn't it mean he would be innocent?). At the same time it is worth noting that some historians from IPN has challenged the 2005 decision, which suggests that it did actually say he was a war criminal, given they wanted to dispute it . Interestingly, the challenge was criticized by others . Maybe there is something in that long document I missed; if anyone finds a quotation that plainly states Rajs was a war criminal or what he was guilty of, exactly, in the legal terms (and that the verdict was passed and not dismissed) it would be very helpful.
 * Last remark: IPN uses the term zbrodnie przeciw ludzkości (Crimes against humanity) not zbrodnie wojenne (war crimes). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Accused of Crimes against humanity perhaps is appropriate here? GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Including that he's guilty of "Crimes against humanity" is fine.  Volunteer Marek   03:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Accused of Crimes against humanity perhaps is appropriate here? GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Including that he's guilty of "Crimes against humanity" is fine.  Volunteer Marek   03:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to cry
Reading this article, I want to cry. It is whitewashed to the extreme and uses unreliable sources. "Bury" was a war criminal, ironically also a communist collaborator, and is a modern day symbol for ONR, which is like the Polish KKK. Kornelia Kończal writes this on "Bury" :"The history and memory of crimes perpetrated by Polish partisans in Podlachia remained little known to the wider public until the National-Radical Camp (Obóz Narodowo-Radykalny [ONR]), the main nationalist organization in Poland, discovered Rajs and positioned him as its new hero. Since 2015, posters and banners featuring his face have belonged to the standard equipment of nationalists participating in the Independence March, a large-scale manifestation organized in Warsaw on Poland’s Independence Day each 11th November.87 In the Polish–Belarusian border region, the glorification of Rajs became the most powerful symbol with which to express anti-Belarusian feelings.88 For instance, in late 2015, the ONR redrew the boundaries of national belonging by putting the name of Rajs on several public and private buildings in Hajnówka and some other places inhabited by Belarusians.89 This act of symbolic violence only forecast a new local tradition. Since 2016, a coalition between the ONR and other extreme right-wing organizations has celebrated the National Day of Remembrance of the Cursed Soldiers in Hajnówka by organizing a public manifestation in the town. A counter-demonstration by the local inhabitants, supported by a number of activists from across the country, has tried to tackle the nationalist provocation.90 In this way, the small Polish-Belarusian town has become the major focal point of a clash between two opposing emotions triggered by “cursed soldiers” in Poland: the pride in, and shame for, their deeds."--Bob not snob (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , You may be surprised that I agree with you. He was a war criminal - anyone who murders few dozen defenseless civilians is one in my book too. Alas, saying so here and in the article are two different things. For the latter, it is a strong claim that requires reliable sources. If the scholars (or IPN prosecutors...) discuss his crimes but do not call them 'war crime', then we cannot do so. What we can and should do is to describe his crimes here, based on reliable sources. Per the above discussion, I think the most 'damning' claim we can make right now is to say that IPN has investigated his actions as crimes against humanity. If you have a source that clearly states he was found guilty or one that calls him a war criminal, please do share so here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus - To be described as a "war criminal" in a lead one has to be convicted for such crimes, not because someone wrote something, somewhere in a newspaper or a journal. Prosecutors found him guilty of crimes against humanity (and genocide?) That's undoubtedly a serious crime. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this information was/is mostly in the article so I'm not clear on what it is that you want to cry about. Anyway, the rewrite is mostly fine, aside from some needs for copy/edits and one use of a dubious source.   Volunteer Marek   20:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I updated the article accordingly. It can be expanded more with theses sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the article accordingly. It can be expanded more with theses sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the article accordingly. It can be expanded more with theses sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the article accordingly. It can be expanded more with theses sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the article accordingly. It can be expanded more with theses sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the article accordingly. It can be expanded more with theses sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the article accordingly. It can be expanded more with theses sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Kozik in Journal of the Belarusian State University
, please explain the issue with that you removed here. I don't see any contradiction with other recent sources, The Journal of the Belarusian State University is a peer reviewed publication associated with the largest University in Belarus. L.A. Kozik (Любовь Антоновна Козик) is an expert on 20th and 21st century Polish history.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , How about we try this exercise: what makes the Journal of the Belarusian State University. History reliable and compliant with WP:APLRS? And who calls Kozik an expert on those topics? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

History and other subjects used to be grouped in "series 3", but in 2017 they split the 4 series into sub-journals, to it is now [https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/history Journal of the Belarusian State University. History]. It is double-blind peer-reviewed. BSU is the largest academic institution in Belarus, so it has some reputation. Dr. Kozik is a professor of history since 2005, specializing in "political and cultural history of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia in the XX - XXI centuries, the problems of historical politics, national myths, the use of innovative methods in the educational process" Her 2003 PhD was on "Political Struggle in Poland (June 1945-February 1947)". It meets the criteria of "specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals". Am I missing anything?--Bob not snob (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Index Copernicus is not a high quality database. The journal does not appear notable (per WP:Notability (academic journals), which also suggests it is not indexed in any other good citation indices and therefore consider impactful. Belarus is the "lasts dictatorship of Europe", which of course means that there are many problems with Belarusian historiography: , , Ivangorodsky, K. (2015). Belarusian historiography today: between neo-Soviet and national practices. In: V. Masnenko (ed.). The Image of Belarus in historiography and historical memory of Ukrainians: collective monograph, 31–63. Cherkasy. (in Ukr.); Smalančuk, A. (2011) ‘The Problem of Contemporary Belarusian Historiography and Collective Identity’, in Doucette, S., Dynko, A. & Pashkevich, A. (eds) Returning to Europe. Belarus. Past and Future (Warsaw, Łazarski). L.A. Kozik is an expert - according to whom? Which international source describes her as such? She got her masters and PhD from the same university she is employed in, a practice that is not considered 'best practices'. VM noted that her research has been contradicted by others. I'd say that the source is borderline reliable, which means it likely is on the wrong side of APLRS and should not be used for any controversial claims (but I'd not object to it being used for uncontroversial ones - but then, I am not sure if APLRS-reviewing admins would agree). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What is contradicted? If we are dismissing scholarly peer-reviews journals on the basis that they are from Belarus, then do we need to start barring Polish academic journals on the basis that recent Polish historical policy distortion has been criticized, more significantly than Belarus? I disagree, both countries have good scholars in academia.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Remind me, weren't you critical of Glaukopis? Which is a Polish peer-reviewed journal, likewise, very minor with next to no impact. What makes 'Journal of the Belarusian State University. History' superior to Glaukopis? Both are at the very bottom of the academic peer-reviewed barrier and should be treated with caution when they contradict more established scholarship. That said, I agree with would be nice to hear more about the contradiction in question. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Glaukopis isn't backed up by a reputable university, it publishes itself by its own very small organization. The Journal of the Belarusian State University is similar to Politeja or Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis published by Jagiellonian University or many other scientific journals published by reputable Polish universities. You are setting a very high bar here if you are rejecting peer reviewed university journals.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

War criminal?
We use this category for this article. The term is used in lead, sourced to, but that article does not use this term (zbrodnia wojenna). Pl wiki uses this source as well as, but again, I don't see this term used there. IPN article uses the term 'zbrodni przeciwko ludzkości' which would make Category:Crimes against humanity relevant, but that's not the same as war crime. I am also having trouble finding sources that say he was convincted (just indicted). The IPN page cited here and on pl wiki states "Z tych też względów należało podjąć decyzję o umorzeniu śledztwa w sprawach określonych w sentencji przestępstw jako zbrodni przeciwko ludzkości" ("For these reasons, a decision had to be made to discontinue the investigation into the cases defined in the operative part of the crimes as crimes against humanity"). How to properly describe his status? Thoughts? @Dreamcatcher25. PS. IMHO, common sens suggests this individual should be categorized as a war criminal, but we need reliable sources for such claims. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)