Talk:Soviet war crimes/Archive 2

An irrelevant segment?
The "background" part tells:

From 1941 on, Stalin was willing to strike back against the invading Axis forces at all costs and led the war with extreme brutality, including against his own soldiers.[8][9]

The Red Army took much higher casualties than any other military force during World War II, in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training.[10] Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery, the tactics of Soviet commanders were often based on mass infantry attacks, inflicting heavy losses on their own troops. This tactic was also used for clearing minefields, which were ‘attacked’ by waves of infantry soldiers in order to clear them.[11][12][13][8] In accordance with the orders of Soviet High Command, retreating soldiers or even soldiers who hesitated to advance faced being shot by rearguard NKVD units: Stalin’s order No 270 of August 16, 1941, states that in case of retreat or surrender, all officers involved were to be shot on the spot and all enlisted men threatened with total annihilation as well as possible reprisals against their families.[9].[14][8] However, the Soviet military had always called for a scorched earth policy: a speech delivered by Stalin said that in case of a forced retreat, "the enemy must not be left a single engine, a single railway car, not a single pound of grain or a gallon of fuel"[15]


 * This is all sourced but probably belongs to a different article. Is not it? These are atrocities committed by SMERSH against Red Army, not atrocities committed by Red Army. Should be moved somewhere?Biophys (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing
I added this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_scandals because I thought it was a scandal in Finland (because of long-supressed information or whatever). Correct this if I was wrong. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Or any other incident being a scandal really (I wasn't even reading throgh this article). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And yeah, "military scandal" is undefined. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Repressions against Red Army
This is inappropriate. Clearly this section belongs to “Backgrounds” and it should stay there without any new “headline”. --Dionysos (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But this is clearly off topic. This segment has nothing to do with war crimes committed BY Red Army. This belongs to a different article. I move this material here:

From 1941 on, Stalin was willing to strike back against the invading Axis forces at all costs and led the war with extreme brutality, including against his own soldiers. The Red Army took much higher casualties than any other military force during World War II, in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training. Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery, the tactics of Soviet commanders were often based on mass infantry attacks, inflicting heavy losses on their own troops. This tactic was also used for clearing minefields, which were ‘attacked’ by waves of infantry soldiers in order to clear them. In accordance with the orders of Soviet High Command, retreating soldiers or even soldiers who hesitated to advance faced being shot by rearguard SMERSH units: Stalin’s order No 270 of August 16, 1941, states that in case of retreat or surrender, all officers involved were to be shot on the spot and all enlisted men threatened with total annihilation as well as possible reprisals against their families. . Biophys (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * O'K, I placed this material to Eastern Front (World War II).Biophys (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"effects for russia/communism"
The russian war crimes,and behavior of the russians in the occupied areas have had some (for russia unwanted)side effects.Poles,Czechs,Hungarians,Baltics aso do not excatly love the russians. Another effect is visible in germany,where the germans of the east dont like russians a lot(their occupators) but the germans of the west dont really dislike brits and americans(their occupators).This is a effect of the american "hearts and minds" policy,in DDR they had to control the people with STASI.Since the warcrimes in Germany,Poland(EX: Katyn)etc of the russians were known in west europe,in more or less degree,it must have had some effect on the moral in western europe.It probably have made it easier(my guess) to make countries join NATO,since the populations have known how inhumane Russia/communism could behave,which they eagerly confirmed ,more or less,later on (Hungary 1956,Czech 1968,to some degree Poland(again!!)1980,and the brutal war against the Afghans 1979-1989 aso).Interestingly the "after communism" war against chechenya also should have been very brutal.Personally my guess is ,that the hard life for russian soldiers(even today),the inhumane "army culture" and the heavy alcohol consumption has something to do with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.215.234.84 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Russian behavior had one good effect for someone...In the book "Occupational Hazards: Success and Failure in Military Occupation" (Cornell University Press, 2008) by Professor David M. Edelstein you learn that it was, in fact, the fear of Soviet invasion and occupation that led the western Germans to accept occupation by the U.S., Britain, and France. He also argues that historically, the pattern of failed/successful occupations are best explained by whether such a third party threat was present.
 * Essentially by making the West Germans deeply afraid of a Russian invasion also of West Germany, the Russians ensured that there would be no West German rebellion against the French or British or Americans.
 * The occupation of West Germany was no paradise in the early years, the Americans refused to provide food to Germans during 1945 and parts of 1946, U.S. soldiers were sent to prison if the even spoke to German children. A collective guilt campaign was conducted using posters such as this
 * And just as the soviet union did, they used millions of Germans, relabeled as Disarmed Enemy Forces to take away their legal protection, as slave laborers. these slaves were for example forced to clear minefields without proper equipment and sometimes by walking over the minefields. The video was from Norway, but for example in France it was estimated by French authorities that 2000 were getting blown up each month during 1945. Life really was not nice in the West, former U.S. President Herbert Hoover stated in March 1947 in a situation report from occupied Germany:
 * Good thing for the U.S. that bad as things got in the Western zones in 1945 - 1947 (see this description from 1947], people at least thought that things would get even worse with the Russians there. I wonder if it was thanks to Western Allied propaganda, or from testimonials by refugees that had managed to flee west from places like East Prussia.
 * --Stor stark7 Speak 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * --Stor stark7 Speak 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of Soviet civilians killed?
The "20 million" figure given in this article does not agree with World War II Casualties, which lists Soviet civilian casualties at 11,400,000. Does someone have a source for the number given in this article? Zorodius (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need better sources here.Biophys (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing section
This article now has a much wider scope. Then one should include a section about Russian Civil war. However, anything during time of peace (Great Terror, Holodomor, etc.) do not belong to "war crimes". Perhaps crimes against humanity, but not "war crimes".Biophys (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for war crimes articles
Please comment here Talk:Japanese_war_crimes--Stor stark7 Speak 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of Soviet POWs dead in German captivity
Section "Treatment of prisoners of war" lists number of Soviet POWs that died in German captivity as 300,000 (death rate of 14,9%). This is obviously in contradiction to most sources including Wikipedia articles. In this very article the section "Discussion by historians" lists 3,9 million dead out of 5,2 million Soviet POWs, which is much more believable, since the total number of Soviet POWs is indeed a several million figure, and death rate among them is generally considered to be over 50%. I think that the article needs clarification so that it does not contradict itself. 194.44.31.194 (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1939–1942 : regions naming
The article goes like that: "The Red Army invaded and occupied the eastern part of Poland ... Later it occupied the Baltic States and parts of Ukraine".

Don't you think it's either "Poland" or "parts of Ukraine"? Because these "parts of Ukraine" (modern Western Ukraine) were officially Polish land before the war. Plus, Ukraine had been one of the republics of the Soviet Union for 20 years at that time, it couldn't just come and occupy itself, that's quite obvious. What's quite obvious again is that there was no internationally recognized Ukraine other than Ukrainian SSR as part of the USSR. Thus, I would propose deletion of words about occupying Ukraine by USSR in 1939-1942 as per WP:Verifiability.

However, the Polish lands which were occupied by USSR really constituted much of the modern Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. As well as modern Western Poland is basically pre-war German lands, where the native German population was expelled after the war. I propose including this information into the article as per WP:NPOV.

Another point for this phrase is that it gives no reference to Romania, while Bessarabia was a Romanian land at the time. We may discuss whether it was occupied, as was stated by some Soviet sources, or not, but anyway there was no independent Bessarabia or Moldavia at that time. So we should speak of occupying Greater Romania in this case. I propose changing the phrase respectively. FeelSunny (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Finnish war crimes
I think explanation of Finnish war crimes is essential in the article to understand better some of the reasons of the Soviet special force behavior that is told about in the article. After all, Finnish war crimes in question preceded Soviet special force atrocities that the article tells about.

In case you think Finnish atrocities belong to another article, you should check the very first section of the article and see that it tells much about the Axis atrocities - surely to give reader a better understanding of the nature of the WWII on the Eastern front. Take it as a precedent. Finns did not belong to Axis during the war, but they were close allies of Hitler, and thus their deeds on occupied lands must also be present in the article to make it more comprehencive.

We also should givу two points of view to maintain at least some semblance of objectivity in the articles like this. Please see what WP rules tell about that. FeelSunny (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about Soviet war crimes, not about Finnish war crimes. You are welcome to create article Finnish war crimes.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC). As about first section, this does not belong to the article too. Removed.Biophys (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So really decided to just remove both statements about Axis war crimes on the Eastern fromt and statements about Finnish crimes from the article? You do not beleive in precedence, right?:)

Ok, I restored both sections you do not like. Next time before removal please give me any arguments, not "I just feel it belongs to another article". FeelSunny (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not you understand that Finland and Soviet Union are two different countries? We are not going to collect war crimes by all countries here. Right? Biophys (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page:

I understand you do not like to see the sources that speak of Finnish war crimes during the war. however, I think these things are essential in the article to understand better some of the reasons of the Soviet special force behavior that is told about in the article.

In case you think Finnish atrocities belong to another article, you should check the very first section of the Soviet war crimes article and see that it tells much about the Axis atrocities. Surely to give reader a better understanding of the nature of the WWII on the Eastern front. Take it as a precedent. Finns did not belong to Axis during the war, but they were close allies of Hitler, and thus their deeds on occupied lands must also be present in the article to make it more comprehensive.

Overall, that war was not just like big Stalin bear fighting the small brave country. Please refrain from reverting this contribution without first discussing it on the discussion page. FeelSunny (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Especially, if we are talking about partisan actions - these people were Karelia natives, many of them former Karelian civilian workers. They should have been greatly influenced by Finnish actions in Karelia. FeelSunny (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I do like to see more sources, much more sources. It is not a question should Finnish war crimes to be published, but the whole question is relevancy: Are Finnish war crimes relevant to the article about Soviet war crimes? And the answer is no. This article has it's own focus, and we have to respect that, otherwise this would become unreadable as everything which even remotely connects with Soviet war crimes were included. The much better option is to create own article about the Finnish war crimes.


 * Using opponents war crimes as a defense to own war crimes doesn't work, and it has never been approved in the court of law. War crimes are punishable in every occasion, and an attempts to mitigate them by using opponents deeds only creates distain.


 * In fact, most of those people were not Karelia natives. The largest group in operative level -almost half- were common criminals recruited from prisons. Also lot of people were transferred from elsewhere of Soviet Union as due to the low population density there wasn't enough people to man those partisan units. And an another thing which separated partisan activity of Finnish front from other fronts was that partisan units were based inside Soviet controlled territories and they never managed to establish larger base inside Finnish controlled territory. They were also heavily criticized by internal reports already during the war. --Whiskey (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Whiskey. This also seems to be an attempt of WP:OR by FeeSunny  to justify war crimes by referring to war crimes by another side. That kind of stuff belong to propaganda and not to encyclopedia.Biophys (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my reasons why I think this information is relevant:
 * 1) Connotations: We three know well that Eastern front war was much more cruel, deadly, merciless than the Second front war. But not all readers do. No French died en masse in death camps created by Axis powers, no English did. Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Russians, Serbs died across all Europe. In Karelia too. This things must be given explicitly.
 * 2) Topic is sensitive: We are covering a topic of war crimes. Actually, as with every topic, we must give a mutual perspective. Here it is only much more important as otherwise you create an image of non-provoked violence from one side. That is completely wrong.
 * 3) WP:OR: This is not the WP:OR. I do not justify murders of civilians. I never thought and never edited WP in order to justify war crimes by another war crimes. However, i think that it's relevant to show that atrocities were commited by both sides.
 * 4) Natives: Unless we provide sources, all things about them being natives are just my personal view, as well as it's your personal beleifs to see them as sent from other regions of the USSR. However, I must remind that Finnih Continuation war was not separated for Russians from the Great Patriotic war in general. Again, basing on Finnish actions in occupied Karelia and means used by Finns during the Leningrad siege, there was really no reason to separate the two.
 * Source:Stepakov, Victor and Frolov, Dmitry: Komandos, 2004, Moscow --Whiskey (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a book does not exist, at least, according to Google. Please check if you cite it's name correctly. Neither in Russian or in English there is no word "Komandos". I tried to think of possible names in both languages. AFAIK, there is a word Kommando in English, and there is a series of bélles-léttres Russian war books with similar name. Maybe you speak of one of the books from these series? Maybe you could post an ISBN here? FeelSunny (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Try ISBN 5878491605. Full name: Komandos. Russkie Diversanty Protiv Kukushek --Whiskey (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The real name is "Russkie Diversanty Protiv Kukushek" without the name of the series: Kommandos. In Russian it is "Русские диверсанты против "кукушек"". The book does not tell about partisans, but rather about saboteur units during the war. Could you please provide the relevant page number so I need not read the whole book to check if the author really states the majority of the Russian partisans were sent to Karelia from other USSR regions? FeelSunny (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... At least at page 177 (Part 2, three pages before the end) there is mentioned that partisan units in north against Finns and Germans were 40% former prisoners, 40% NKVD operatives and only remaining 20% for rest, including local citizens.


 * There was also a article about the partisans in the "Carelia"-magazine, published in Petrozavodsk, where a historian from Petrozavodsk University wrote referencing Ministry of Interior and GRU reports about the effectiveness of partisans. In those reports high number criminals and the lack of local knowledge was mentioned along with efficient Finnish counter partiasan operations (and interning civilians to the camps) as a reason why partisans didn't fare as well there as they did against Germans at south. I don't have the copy of the article with me, but IIRC it was in the 8/2002 number...--Whiskey (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, we should give a mutual view of the events. That is one of the basic rules of Wikipedia. In order to stop the edit war on the page I propose creating an article Finnish war crimes and giving a reference to this article here. Then we can skip this relevant information in this article and just give a link to the new one.

Here is an exempt from a WP:NPOV:''Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.''

We need to consider this when we decide what to do with information about Finnish atrocities.

PS. Wish you both a Happy New Year anyway! FeelSunny (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to describe atrocities by all sides, you are very welcome to create article War crimes of World War II. WP:NPOV indeed requires representing all views, but only on the subject of the article. If you have something published specifically about Red Army crimes (in the context of any wars), you can use it. But your recent edits are WP:SYN.Biophys (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't see how does fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate become only on the subject of the article from your recent post. But I do not get any answers on my arguments and do not see any sense in one-sided further discussion. I just want to hear your thoughts on my previoyus proposal. FeelSunny (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead with any new articles about war crimes.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So - to make it clear - do you agree that I post a link to a new page Finnish war crimes on the page Soviet war crimes in the section about continuation war and we make a first sentence in the period say "both sides commited atrocities"? FeelSunny (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To the first part yes, to the second part no. The reason is that the evidence that Finnish war crimes somehow effected to the actions of Soviet soldiers is not sourced anywhere, it is only your WP:OR. The reports of partisan units do not cover any atrocities and are sometimes very funny reading when comparing to the Finnish investigations about the issues. (Like:Soviet version:"Partisans attacked recuperation house of Finnish and German officers and killed 58 officers and wounded scores." Finnish version:"Partisans attacked isolated inn where 7 civilian road workers were sleeping and killed one of them but rest escaped, some wounded." And partisans reported that they had destroyed several trains in Pechenga area, while in reality there wasn't even railroad there at that time 8-).) But I believe we can figure some kind of wording to add the link. For example via Kuusinen's book... --Whiskey (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG it takes too much time. Again: ''...fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.'' I can see a bias. I propose you a way to mend the article without even inserting the words you do not like to see. Nevertheless, you do not want to insert even a link. I think we will have to use a mediation here. You may find the request here. FeelSunny (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you even read what I wrote above? I repeat the last two sentences:But I believe we can figure some kind of wording to add the link. For example via Kuusinen's book... But if you like to go through meditation, that's ok for me. And if we have that article about Finnish war crimes, it would be easier to fit the link here. --Whiskey (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by inserting a link to a page wia the book? Sorry, but I just can not understand the matter of the proposal. FeelSunny (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Finland without a Mask" by O.W. Kuusinen. Soviet propaganda booklet published at october 1943 in Russian, Finnish and English. Depicts alleged Finnish war crimes. --Whiskey (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still can not understand why do we need to choose one (and by far not the most informative) book to insert a link. Here I gave much more valuable sources that were written after the war (i.e. included war crimes of 43-44) in the West (i.e. were not the war propaganda, but a much more reliable sources, that a Finnish communist thoughts on the matter). FeelSunny (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent removal of links
Recently several links were removed to articles about German and Allied war crimes. While I think these should be included to present the reader a full overview of the topic the other point of view is not unreasonable either; this article is about the Soviets and we could include links to every war crime in history. Perhaps a good compromise can reached by adding a template, something like

WAR CRIMES IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR

German War Crimes — Einsatzgruppen; Concentration camps; ...

Soviet War Crimes — ...

Japanese War Crimes — ...

American ...

British ...

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so feel free to criticize. Any thoughts? Pietrow (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Creation of such new template is a good idea (please do!). Then it could replace the general WW II template in this article.Biophys (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
The use of Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes has been removed because it does not conform to Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. The citation of political advocacy groups is not acceptable for scholarly research. The only acceptable sources here are those by competent specialists in the field. To use overtly polemical sources has the effect of jeopardizing Wikipedia's credibility. Nejedly (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, are you trying to imply that you are an 'official' administrator of Wikipedia's policies? As far as sources are concerned, I agree that the source you mention may not be the most 'objective', but then which source is? What is 'scholarly'? Is a document from the 'esteeemed' Max Planck Institute of Germany scholarly and reliable? This Institute employed and directed Dr Mengel's research in Auschwitz in the 1940s and its best scientists promoted the idea of 'racial purity'. One scholar connected to Mengele's Auschwitz projects, Nobel laureate Adolf Butenandt, was president of the Max Planck Society until his retirement in 1972. Many scholars and universities are now funded by corporations. Some esteemed scholars denied the dangers of tobacco smoking or that global warming was a reality.


 * Secondly, I noticed that you tried to remove someone else's reference, and replaced it by your own by the Russian author Pavel Polian. You seem to have quoted him in a mischeivous, and very selective way. He clearly states on page 119 the "Polish administration, the Polish army and Polish intellectuals ceased to exist" and that 120,962 were 'convicted' and 243,106 were subjected to 'special resettlement' — this is a far cry from your 'repatriation' that you imply and which happened later when the Soviet Union needed more help against the Nazis. Polian clearly states on p.119 that after 1939, out of the Poles in the occupied area of Poland, 389,382 were repressed. Of these:
 * 119,865 were conscripted in the Anders Army in 1941.
 * 269,176 were deported to Central Asia
 * It is important to note that between 1939 and 1941 the Poles were still 'repressed' and spent their time in 'resettlement' camps in Central Asia or in the Gulag. General Anders himself was released from the Lubyanka prison in Moscow in 1941 to head the Army.


 * Two years later (in 1943) of the people deported:
 * 165,000 were issued given Soviet citizenship
 * 26,000 retained Polish citizenship
 * An unknown number were issued with Soviet passports, but this does not mean that they were given equal status to Russians. It is interesting to note, that despite the Soviet's bestowing citizenship onto the Poles, about 41,000 Polish combatants and 74,000 Polish civilians managed to escape the Soviet Union after the war.


 * The claim that many repressed Poles did not survive the war or that 100,000 were murdered, thus has not been disproven by you, nor was the opposite implied by Polian, so there was no need to delete other people's sources.


 * Thirdly, in terms of of 'jeopardizing Wikipedia's credibiliy' — speak for yourself! It is more ethical (and less destructive) to suggest that passages that may not be appropriate for a particular article — be placed elsewhere, or put into a new article — rather than completely removing them like you have done. The passages that you deleted all had references, and not all of them were from the above source. 122.107.82.171 (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Problems
This article is titled "Soviet war crimes". Yet claims to the effect of "By 1989, russification and colonization had reduced the percentage of Estonians in the population to 61%" have no relevance to the subject at hand. Even if these allegations of Russification are to believed, by no stretch of the imagination can they be called war crimes. Claims that do not relate to the topic at hand have no place in this article. Nejedly (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed — this particular section does not belong to this particular article, and should be in an article on Political repression in the Soviet Union. However, you also removed sections dealing with massacres of civilians by Soviet Russian occupying troops in Estonia, and Lithuania, including the murder of demonstrators by Soviet armed forces in Vilnius (see January Events). Why? Are you claiming that war crimes can only be committed when two countries are at war? As you know the Baltic States were forcibly annexed, and war was not actually 'declared'. If it it too difficult to agree on what constitutes a 'war crime', then I suggest we need a new category and article like Soviet mass violence. See a useful definition of mass violence here. 122.107.82.171 (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant information
The section titled "Polish operation of the NKVD" does not relate to the subject of war crimes. There have been a vast number of studies on the topic of Soviet repression of 1937-38 and none of them use the term "war crime" to describe these events. Nejedly (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed — even if the definition of Genocide and Crimes against humanity are not universally agreed upon — these were certainly acts of mass violence perpertrated by NKVD and Soviet armed forces on civilians — not by the local police or militia. 122.107.82.171 (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A woman in Berlin
Editorial reviews:


 * From Publishers Weekly, see link.

From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com. See link

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stor stark7 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of background information
I believe this part may be relevant as "background" information. It explains that the atrocities were a result of ideological indoctrination and a part of the overall regime's brutality. However, one must cite some sources that specifically make such connection to avoid OR. One should also tell more about SMERSH operations.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Soviet state has committed many crimes, but not all of them are military. Aforementioned "background information" misleadingly mixed together general police state terror with war crimes. It seems to beef up the POV.Galassi (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not as simple. The removed fragment tells mostly about 1918 events. This was a year when the Soviet regime was on the brink of catastrophe. It is normal fot the war rhetorics (and practice) to be so brutal during a civil war. With regards to SMERSH, I have some cholarly articles, and I'll try to add some facts in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored it, I think the information should be here because this what in fact happened and the information is well sourced. I'm open to discussion.--Jacurek (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In actuality, any army of any state is ideologically oriented (if we assume that patriotism is an ideology) and its major goal is to defend existing regime from the attack from abroad. With regards to the "early official announcement, published in Izvestiya, "Appeal to the Working Class" on September 3, 1918 called for the workers to "crush the hydra of counterrevolution with massive terror"," one has to remember that during that time the Soviets had to defend themselves by all possible means, because, as I already pointed out above, the regime was on the on the brink of catastrophe. I addition, although different point of view of exists on the origin of the Red terror, almost everyone agrees that White terror was equally brutal. I am not intended to start the discussion which terror started first and which one was just a response, but obviously, the peace of text introduced by Jacurek is a pure example of a well sourced material taken out of a context. It creates a wrong picture and has to be either removed or completely re-written.
 * I agree. It is also worth noting that this may create a large POVfork.Galassi (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead
The first sentence of the lede gives an odd definition of Soviet war crimes. It states:
 * Soviet war crimes refer to war crimes perpetrated by the armed forces of the Soviet Union from 1919 to 1991. This includes war crimes by the regular army — the Red Army (later called the Soviet Army), the NKVD, and the Internal Troops (і.е Ministry of the Interior).

NKVD was a public and secret police organization of the Soviet Union, and, therefore, cannot be considered a Soviet armed force (as opposed to Internal Troops). All crimes of Soviet regime fit the current definition, including Great Purge, for instance. That is ridiculous. NKVD should be removed, and the article modified, accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gestapo was responsible for war crimes during the war. Similarly, I see no problem to include NKVD's crimes during wartime into the article. In addition, as I already wrote, internal troops should be in the lede (as opposed to NKVD as whole). However, if we follow the current definition, then Great Purge, de-kulakisation, Doctor's plot etc, etc, must be included into the article, that would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I hope it can be done easily. You already agreed that the Poland 1921-38 section should be removed. In addition, we need to discuss what else does not relate to war crimes. To my opinion, the Georgia section should be removed, because it happened not during wartime or some military operation. In actuality, during Tblisi tragedy, the internal troops played the role special police forces play in other countries. Believe me or not, by that moment the USSR had no special troops to break up armless demonstrations. The internal troop soldiers involved in Tblisi tragedy had neither special skills nor even rubber sticks to fight against crowd, they had to use sapper shovels instead, hence the casualties. One way or the another, this tragedy doesn't fit the war crime criteria. I'll look at other sections more carefully and, if you don't mind, we discuss them later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The NKVD were presumably armed, and tasked with maintaining security during times of war. The Nazi secret police organisation, the Gestapo, were certainly responsible for committing war crimes, no? I don't think there is anything in the relevant conventions that exempt police forces from culpability when committing war crimes. --Martintg (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "The NKVD were presumably armed" In every state (except the UK) police is armed.
 * Agree totally. Peacetime atrocities simply don't belong in the article, and here they simply serve the purpose of vilification.--Galassi (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article should cover crimes committed during war, but I disagree with removal mention of the NKVD from the lede. The Katyn massacre was perpetrated by the NKVD. The NKVD prisoner massacres was a phenomenon that occurred during war time, precipitated by the advancing German army, and the killing of prisoners is explicitly defined as a war crime in the various conventions. So the NKVD should be reinserted into the lede. --Martintg (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NKVD didn't disappear completely, because the NKVD's internal troops are there. Remember, there is a big difference between Gestapo and NKVD. Gestapo was a secret police only, whereas NKVD combined both public and secret police. I believe you agree that ordinary public police ("militsiya") wasn't involved in prisoner massacres. As a rule, executions were performed by internal troops, and the prisons and camp personnel was composed mostly by NKVD internal troops, so I see almost no problem with the current lede. With one exception. It must be stated explicitly that the article deals mostly with wartime events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However only mentioning the NKVD's internal troops is misleading since while interior troops may or may not have be involved in guarding these particular prisoners, the actual executioners in prisoner massacres like Katyn were NKVD personnel, such as Vasili Blokhin who personally shot 7000 Polish POWs. Your assertion "as a rule, executions were performed by internal troops" is factually incorrect, since it was Blokhin's execution team that carried out the majority of executions of prisoners held in NKVD custody. So the NKVD should be explicitly mentioned in the lead. --Martintg (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell if you a correct or not. NKVD's internal troops did belong to NKVD personnel. Therefore your statement may be in concordance with mine. Anyway, since, in contrast to Gestapo, NKVD combined a large number of different services, including, regular militsiya, criminal police, secret police, counter-intelligence and even border guards (I am not quite sure about the latters, however), then more clear definition is needed in the lede. Feel free to propose your version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Firefighters were also part of NKVD, until WW2.--Galassi (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul, the fact is that these prisoners were in the custody of the NKVD and killed with the full knowledge and approval of the central NKVD organ at the highest level and the executions were carried out by the central NKVD execution team. Your assertion that "as a rule, executions were performed by internal troops" simply has no basis in this case, and you must agree this is a distortion. Just because the NKVD also ran the fire brigade doesn't preclude mentioning the NKVD. Next you will be arguing we should not mention the Red Army in the lead because it was a big organization that had veterinary troops, police and intelligence units too. This is absurd. I propose that the lead should simply state "This includes war crimes by the regular army — the Red Army (later called the Soviet Army) and the NKVD", then in the body mention which specific units (if known) of the Red Army and NKVD committed the war crime(s). This is in keeping with MOS which states that the lead should not be an over specific description. --Martintg (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the NKVD mention would be obligatory in the lede. The scope of this article is REGULAR MILITARY crimes, and irregulars' and police misdeeds MAY BE mentioned in the article, but not necessarily in the lede.--Galassi (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article are war crimes committed by the Soviet Union, otherwise the title would be Red Army war crimes. There is nothing in the various conventions that limit war crimes to regular military units, police and irregular units have been charged with war crimes in the past, so I don't think we should artificially restrict the scope. The lead should be a summary of the article, and since the article discusses NKVD crimes during war time, then it must be mentioned in the lead. --Martintg (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Martintg, I agree with your arguments. I am glad your speak frankly. In response, let me point out (equally frankly), that I see no reason to argue. After some meditations I came to a conclusion that the old lede's version was equally fine: taking into account that war crimes, by definition, include only wartime crimes I see no problem to leave NKVD there. The only thing we have to do is bringing the article into accordance with the lede.
 * I'm glad we can agree Paul. The Georgia section should be removed, since there was no civil war at the time and thus beating a fleeing 16 year old girl to death with a sapper shovel is not a war crime, but simply a crime which should be dealt with elsewhere. --Martintg (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a big surprise when two reasonable persons appear to be able to accept each other's logical arguments. Hope to have fruitful collaboration with you in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never doubted our collaboration would be fruitful Paul. --Martintg (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Poland. 1921–38 ??
Since war crimes are defined as "violations of the laws or customs of war", could anyone explain me which war took place between Poland and the USSR during 1921–38 period, and how does this section relate to the article's subject?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, remove the section. --Martintg (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria
I looked through the sourse, and I found nothing there about war crimes in Bulgaria. The sourse states that Tolbukhin army's behaviour was "relatively exemplary". Therefore, the statement "there was a relative absence of rapes in Bulgaria" is both unsopported by the source and semantically odd (the term absence has a qualitative, non quantitative nature, so the words "relative absence" are senseless). The second part of the sentence tells not about Bulgaria, so it belongs to other section.

Therefore, the section should be either changed to:
 * "Thanks to the better discipline in Marshal Tolbukhin's army, a relative similarity in cultures, a century of friendly relations, and an open welcome of the Soviet troops, there are no data on Soviet war crimes in Bulgaria.",

or to remove the section at all. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very strange section, I don't think we should have a section for each of the many countries in the world where the Soviets didn't commit war crimes, so remove it. --Martintg (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

names of baltic deaths
I'm looking for names of civilian deaths of rhe baltic area during WW2. please let me know, thanks!

jaredandbeka@mac.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.151.161 (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

War crimes?
"termination of the existing way of life and economic model, and a strong pressure upon Latvian culture"

"The various repressive activities of Soviet forces sparked a guerrilla war against the Soviet authorities in Estonia, which continued into the late 1970s by "forest brothers" (metsavennad), consisting mostly of Estonian veterans of both the German and Finnish armies as well as some civilians."

"In The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949, Norman Naimark wrote that not only did each victim have to carry the trauma for the rest of their days, but it also inflicted a massive collective trauma on the former country of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic). Naimark concluded that "The social psychology of women and men in the Soviet zone of occupation was marked by the crime of rape from the first days of occupation, through the founding of the GDR in the fall of 1949, until, one could argue, the present."

"These actions increased the hatred by the local population toward those who had collaborated with the Soviets, or who were suspected of being sympathetic toward the Soviet cause. Jews were singled out and unfairly blamed by the local population in this regard." - Red army caused the Holocaust?

These quotes seem to be written by the heirs of Waffen SS troops. The superb example is listing Majdanek under Category:Soviet World War II crimes in Poland.Jaksap (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as information was relevant and sourced, it can stay. "Forrest brothers" seem to be relevant; persecution of Jews by Germans do not. Removed.Biophys (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Forest brothers was an insurrection that the Soviets fought against. How can that be a war crime of the Soviets? Since when are "strong pressure on the culture" and "altered social psychology" war crimes?Jaksap (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the statements like "Nazi war crimes, while dramatic and well-exposed due to losing the war" is a direct attempt to whitewash Nazism, which is unacceptable. BTW, the same argument can be applied to Stalinism: Stalinism's crimes become well exposed due to losing the Cold war. I wouldn't use such an argument, however, because, as I already wrote, losing Cold war opened many classified archives and thereby demonstrated that Cold war era numbers were just a Cold war myth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heirs of Waffen SS troops? :D well played nazi card, comrade. It's really really funny that up to today, there remain people who deny Soviet war crimes, while anyone denying Nazi war crimes is regarded as a lunatic. Nazi war crimes, while dramatic and well-exposed due to losing the war, were equaled and very probably surpassed by numerous crimes against civilians by Stalin's government during and after the war. It is just absurd that the neutrality of an article from 60 years ago can be disputed; does someone really claim we have up to today no idea what really happened? Does someone still want to defent wartime Communism and Stalin's deeds? Is there any room for politics or non-neutrality there? --Sigmundur (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cannot agree. The statements like "Nazi war crimes, while dramatic and well-exposed due to losing the war, were equaled and very probably surpassed by numerous crimes against civilians by Stalin's government during and after the war." are the legacy of Cold War era. The newly discovered data from Soviet de-classified archives demonstrated that fantastic numbers of 60 millions perished in GULAG etc were incorrect. Many western researchers now reconsidered their estimations of Stalinism's death toll.
 * PS. With regards to "and after the war," let me remind you that the article is about war crimes, therefore, its scope is limited with war time events.
 * PPS. Re: "well played nazi cardwell played nazi card". Let me remind you that, although Waffen-SS had no direct relation to SS sonderkommando, many Baltic volunteers (mostly from Latvia and Lithuania) were responsible for killing Jews during Nazi occupation. Academic sources available for me testify that they started mass killing right after Germany occupied their countries, before Nazi commenced their program of extermination of Jews in Central Europe. I am far from blaming all Latvians and Lithuanians in Nazism, however, that disgraceful fact (I mean their participation in extermination of Jews) must be remembered as soon as we remember their brave resistance to Soviet hordes...--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Red Army and the Pogroms?
The (unsourced) sentence: "Some units of the Red Army were accused of pogroms during the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920" looks odd. Taking into account that percent of Jews among Bolsheviks was very high, taking into account that anti-antisemitism was an official policy of early Soviet state (remember Lenin's speach ) and, taking into account that pogroms were committed mostly by White movement, Ukrainian nationalists and other Communists' opponenents, and the pretext for these pogroms was that all Jews were supposed to be a supporters of Communists, the sentence is absolutely misleading. I removed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Konarmia misdeeds are well documented. Jews were also well represented in bourgeoisie as well, and would suffer as such.--Galassi (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should either extend the section to reflect the facts from above, or remove the section. It is quite necessary to mention that Bolsheviks were generally pro-Semitic rather than anti-Semitic, and that Konarmia deeds should be considered as exceptions from the rule. The material in its present form is absolutely misleading and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it can be said that Bolsheviks were more pro-Semitic than the whites, after all Aleksandr Kerensky alledgedly had a Jewish background. I don't know if that is true, but certainly the Yiddish press at the time hailed Kerensky "embodied the free soul of Russia". On the other hand the Bolsheviks were hostile to Judaism and the so called "Talmudists". From December 1918 to August 1919, the teaching of Hebrew was banned, religious instruction in Judaism was forbidden, the Kehillot and other organizations were suppressed and the leaders of those organizations were rounded up and imprisoned. Ofcourse the Nazis linked Jews to Bolshevism for propaganda purposes. --Martintg (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this: "During the civil war that followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Ukrainian nationalists, Polish officials, Red Army soldiers all engaged in pogrom-like violence in western Belorussia (Belarus) and Poland's Galicia province (now West Ukraine), killing tens of thousands of Jews between 1918 and 1920" --Martintg (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One has to distinguish between Judaism (religion) and Jews (nation). The tendency of secularization was very strong among Jews in Russian empire, so the repression against Judaism didn't necessarily mean repressions against the Jews. The Lenin's speech above as well as many other documents testify that Bolsheviks considered Jews as a nation oppressed by old Tsarist regime, and the Jews had many preferences during early Soviet era. The Jews were natural allies of Bolsheviks during that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Found another source regarding Red Army participation in pogroms, Pogroms By John Doyle Klier, Shlomo Lambroza, p294: "All armies involved in the Civil War, including the Bolshevik, were responsible for some of the anti-Jewish violence. The pogroms, no matter which army was responsible, had a great deal in common. The killings were done mostly by ill-disciplined soldiers and the peasants usually participated in looting" --Martintg (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many sources you find – what is undeniable despite such scattered incidents was that pogroms were carried out by some individual members of the Red Army in the Civil War – they were never a policy of the Bolshevik Party, of the leading Bolsheviks, or of Soviet state, which actually put an end to the mass violence against Jews that had predominated in the Czarist Empire. Given this, Paul Siebert is absolutely right: this section is absolutely misleading and should be removed. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the "policy of the Bolshevik Party", it is about Soviet war crimes. War crimes are usually committed by individuals. Removing the section is no longer an option, since several verifiable sources have been supplied, one even by distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history published by Cambridge University Press. It is now a question of due weight. --Martintg (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not at all relevant here. Per WP:UNDUE:"'Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.'"
 * Hence, I am sticking with what was said by Paul Siebert. Either we should adequately address the point that this was indeed completely contrary to everything else, or we should remove this section as misleading in this article. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying we should attribute more weight to what was said by Wikipedian Paul Siebert and discount what was said by these distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history John Doyle Klier and Shlomo Lambroza in their published book? Am I understanding you correctly? --Martintg (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saying we should acknowledge WP:UNDUE. As far as Paul Siebert and others, this Wikipedia is user-edited. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted, thus using up your permitted 1RR per article per week, however I don't see what is undue when both United States Holocaust Museum and two distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history state that the Red Army participated in pogroms during the Russian civil war. I think Galassi would agree with me that inclusion of this verifiable fact into the article is not undue by any means. --Martintg (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have not reverted, as you have de facto used up your 1RR per article per week restriction. I'm sure you can tell Galassi why you kept removing material about anti-semitism from the Timeline of antisemitism when Rabbi Berl Lazar said that Estonia's act of comemmorating Alfons Rebane (another article you've edited) was anti-semitic. I'm Jewish myself, so please don't play at this game. You are always welcome to put this material back in when you put this into the realistic context of the White Army's massive pogroms of Jews, the Bolshevik forces hanging anti-semitic killers (Red and White), the official Soviet policy of integrating Jews into the Soviet movement, Lenin's speeches, laws against anti-semitism, and plenty of other stuff. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from getting personal. According to this Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire article, out of an estimated 887 mass pogroms, 8.5% of pogroms were perpetrated by the Red Army during the Russian civil war. That's 75 mass pogroms attributed to the Red Army, hardly undue compared with the other crimes. BTW, I've not de facto used up anything, but I would recommend you undo your revert lest it is counted against you. --Martintg (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, quoting an unsourced Wikipedia article! Ce n'est pas très bon. Sorry, the one who made this personal was you. Again, you are free to add this material in when you put it into a context that does not completely cater to your POV. Paul Siebert is completely justified. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article is now sourced, Henry Abramson cites Nahum Gergel's figure of 8.6% pogroms atrributed to the Red Army and considers the numbers to be conservative. --Martintg (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are three ways to present well sources facts. (i) To write that the Red Army committed some porgoms. (What we have in the article now). (ii) To write that, although the Red Army committed some porgoms, it is responsible for only 8.6% of total number of pogroms, whereas majority of other porgoms were committed by the Bolsheviks' opponents; and (iii) To write that, although protection of Jews was the official policy of young Soviet state, some Red Army units were responsible for committing pogroms, although the pogroms attributed to the Red Army constituted only 8.6% of total amount of pogroms, and majority of other porgoms were committed by the Bolsheviks' opponents. In my opinion, only (iii) would be a neutral and unbiased representation of the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[od] I think we must be careful not to over-editorialize based upon our own personal political convictions. Your proposed text implies certain things, such as Soviet policy was "pro-Semitic" as you claimed earlier. I don't think this is true. Let's rely upon what the sources say. John Doyle Klier and Shlomo Lambroza state is "All armies involved in the Civil War, including the Bolshevik, were responsible for some of the anti-Jewish violence. The pogroms, no matter which army was responsible, had a great deal in common. The killings were done mostly by ill-disciplined soldiers and the peasants usually participated in looting". They don't equivocate by saying "some units", they clearly say "all armies". They also say that the common factor across all armies was ill discipline. So I think it is sufficient state that the pogromming was due to ill discipline, without recourse to mentioning percentages or official soviet policy, which included the "pro-Semitic" act of banning of Hebrew language education. --Martintg (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And, please, in future refrain from personal attacks. I know you are polite, constructive and reasonable person. And I believe you realise we both are amateur historians, and we both aren't going to push our OR here. All my claims are based on what I read and I am always ready to support them with sources upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. One of the pillars of the early Soviet state was internationalism. In addition, early Communist leaders repeatedly and explicitly stated that additional protection should be granted to the nations oppressed during tzarist regime, and Jews were among these nations. Moreover, for many reasons there was a vast amount of Jews among Bolsheviks. By contrast, majority of anti-Communist forces during Civil war were nationalists, and, in addition, they considered all Jews as actual or potential supporters of Bolsheviks (and such a point of view was partially justified). As a result, pogroms attributed to the Red Army were a result of ill discipline (and should be considered as an exception rather than a rule), whereas the pogroms committed by other forces were a logical continuation of the White movement's policy. The attempt to conceal this fact in a direct misinterpretation of the history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should write to John Doyle Klier and Shlomo Lambroza, because they clearly state otherwise. What are your qualifications that permit you to state these two distinguished scholars of Russian Jewish history are falsifying history? Pehaps if you published something we could reference it here. --Martintg (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, on the page 296 of the book you cited the author, Peter Kenez noted that the connection existed in popular mind between Communists and Jews, and that that connection was employed by anti-Semitic forces. On the page 300 he writes that the Whites had a preconception of Jews an enemies, whereas the Reds killed only those Jews who were considered to be the supporters of anti-Communists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In another work (The Ideology of the White Movement Author(s): Peter Kenez Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1980), pp. 58-83) the same author states:
 * "The consequence of White propaganda was a series of pogroms in the Ukraine in 1919 which claimed approximately a hundred thousand victims."
 * In connection to that, could you please show me (i) any example of anti-Semitic Red propaganda, and (ii) any quotes from White, Ukrainian or Polish leaders (1918-1921) who express the idea of protection of Jews (similar to the above Lenin's speech. BTW, to avoid accusations in using primary sources, here is a reliable secondary source stating the same:(The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis. Author(s): William Korey. Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 111-135)).

Since we're discussing encyclopedic coverage of the situation, perhaps we should include this material – which shall certainly fill in the gaps in the ambiguous current state of the pogroms passage, which even misuses its own sources at present by not mentioning that the 8.6% of pogroms attributed to the Red Army were carried out by ill-disciplined units (during the Civil War many units transferred from the White Army to Red Army, a well as vice-versa):

From Nora Levin, The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917: On Pages 43-44: "'In 1920, a number of Red Army pogroms were investigated by Semyon Budenny's First Cavalry, most of whose soldiers had previously served under Denikin. In Kremenchug, for example, Jews recognized them from the pogroms of a year before. The Red Army Command, however, vigorously condemnded these pogroms and disarmed the guilty regiments. In October 1920, Mikhail Kalinin, President of the Soviet Union, attended a military parade in the Ukraine and made a speech condemning Red Army pogroms and demanding that the Red Army fight a class war, not a national one. Bolshevik advances further inflamed anti-Semitism and set new cycles of massacres into motion [by the Whites?], but as the Soviet forces progressively consolidated their power, the Ukraine was reoccupied and a certain measure of security for Jews was achieved." "'The frightfulness of the pogroms more than anything else forced Jews to look at the Bolsheviks, and especially the Red Army, as their only refuge. On one occasion, the entire Jewish population of a town of 4,000 Jews trooped after a retiring Bolshevik regiment. Obviously, this had important political implications, although many Jews mentally divorced the Red Army from the Communist party and government. A special recruitment section of the Red Army was set up to enlist Jewish youth. They were welcomed, but it was realized that 'many enter the Red Army partially out of hatred for the White pogromists' and a desire for revenge. Even those who opposed Bolshevism on ideological grounds supported the Red Army. According to an eyewitness, 'Jewish youth leave the shtetlach and run to Kiev - to enter the Red Army. They are not Bolsheviks at all...but they go into the Red Army because on can die with rifle in hand.'" On Page 45 of the same work: "'The poet Chaim Grade has told the story of a Red Army commissar who shot a soldier for having taken a watch from a Jew during the Soviet occupation of Vilna - a totally new, bracing experience for Jews. For the first time, somebody was defending them...'"

Zvi Y. Gitelman, A Century of Ambivalence, Page 70: "'The only armed force that did not systematically terrorize the Jews was the Red Army of the Bolsheviks. Though over 700 Jews were killed in pogroms mounted by Red Army detachments, the Red Army command condemned these actions and punished them. Jews came to regard the Red Army as their protector, and young Jews joined it in order to avenge the crimes against their families and people...Trotsky recognized the motivations driving Jews into the Red Army and warned that 'these are not the best Communists' and that they needed intensive political education. Indeed, ideological opponents of Bolshevism were joining the Red Army out of Jewish national motivations. 'In the Kalinovka station I was surprised to see a Red Army company composed entirely of Jews and even including some wearing earlocks. These were yeshiva students from Proskurov who joined the Red Army after Petliura's riots in order to take revenge...and I, the Zionist opponent of Communism [which] I saw...as a fatal danger to Judaism - I was filled with pride seeing those Jewish fellows.''"

From "Pogroms" - an article from the Jewish virtual library: "'After a short period of confusion, the Soviets adopted stringent measures against pogromists found in the ranks of the Red Army. In addition to a fundamental and comprehensive information campaign, severe penalities were imposed not only on guilty individuals, who were executed, but also on complete army units, which were disbanded after their men had attacked Jews. Even though pogroms were still perpetrated after this, mainly by Ukrainian units of the Red Army at the time of its retreat from Poland (1920), in general, the Jews regarded the units of the Red Army as the only force which was able and willing to defend them.'"

From Lance Selfa's The Struggle for Palestine, Page 6: "'The 1917 October Revolution in Russia showed what the socialist strategy for Jewish emancipation meant in practice. In a country where the czar and his henchmen used anti-Semitism to divide workers, Russian workers elected Jewish Bolsheviks such as Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Yakov Sverdlov to leading roles in the revolutionary government. The revolution declared freedom of religion and abolished tsarist restrictions on education and residence for Jews. During the 1918-1922 civil war against counterrevolutionary armies that slaughtered Jews by the thousands, the revolutionary Red Army meted out stern punishment - including execution - to any pogromists in its ranks. In the workers' government, Yiddish was given equal status with other languages. A Commissariat of Jewish Affairs and a special Jewish Commission inside the Bolshevik Party simultaneously worked to involve Jews in the affair sof the workers' state and to win the Jewish masses to socialism.'"

PasswordUsername (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

During the twenties, especially toward the end of that decade, the regime continued to make strong efforts to contain the virus of anti-Jewish bigotry. If the appropriate section of the Criminal Code (banning "agitation and propaganda arousing national enmities and dissensions") was infrequently invoked and if severe sentences for anti-Semitic offenses were rare, nonethe- less educational campaigns were energetically conducted by party organs, and various pedagogical efforts were undertaken.13 On at least one occasion Pravda sharply attacked "the connivance of the local party, trade union, and Komsomol organizations" in various "manifestations of anti-Semitism." The editorial emphasized that such "connivance makes it possible for the anti- Semitic campaign of persecution to go on unpunished for months and years" (Pravda, February 19, 1929)." One way or the another, your version seems not to be an improvement. However, if you have additional arguments, let's discuss. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC) BTW, the word "vigorously" removed by you was taken directly from the source and is in accordance with the July 27 decree...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC) With regards to Klier, you have to agree that in actuality, majority Jews weren't rich artisans and tradesman. There were no difference between ordinary Ukrainian artisan and Jewish one. The fact that Bolsheviks persecuted some social group (mostly rich tradesmen, bourgeois, etc) is well known, however, targeting certain ethnic group never was a Bolshevik's policy during 20s. Pogroms were directed against Jews as a nation, and Communists' policy had nothing in common with that. I don't think we need to mention Kerensy, Makhno and Petlura explicitly, because the article is about Soviet war crimes. BTW, in my version no anti-Jewish White agitation is mentioned, so I see no reason to mention "Makhno and Petliura proclamations forbidding pogroms". And, they didn't work, by the way....--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. In connection to that, I propose following wording:
 * "Although anti-Semitism was treated with utter contempt by early Soviet leaders, and emansipation of Jews was actively supported by Soviet authorities, some Red Army units were accused of pogroms during the Russian civil war, and the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920, notably at Baranovichi   . However, only 6.4% of total amount of pogroms were attributed to the Red Army, whereas the remaining pogroms were committed by anti-Communist and nationalist forces. The pogroms were vigirously condemned by the Red Army high command and guilty units were disarmed. "
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS The number of 8.6% is incorrect. The source gives 6.4% for pogroms and 8.6% for pogroms + other excesses. Since we speak about pogroms only, 6.4% should be shown.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I preferred your original version, there are some issues such as the line "emancipation of Jews was actively supported by Soviet authorities" seems to fly in the face of the fact that many activities such as Hebrew language and religious education was banned, organizations shut down and leaders repressed. Is this "emancipation" in the Orwellian sense? --Martintg (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like: "Although Lenin was against anti-Semitism,, some Red Army units perpetrated pogroms and related violence against Jews during the Russian civil war, and the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920, notably at Baranovichi   . A total of 8.6% of violent acts including 6.4% deemed to be pogroms was attributed to the Red Army, whereas the remaining pogroms were committed by anti-Communist and nationalist forces. The pogroms were condemned by the Red Army high command and guilty units were disarmed. " --Martintg (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Martintg, you again equate anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Communists were vehement opponents of all religions, they didn't targed Judaism in purpose. Therefore, your argument doesn't work here. Below is a direct quote from (The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis. Author(s): William Korey Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 111-135). Although the article is generally about Soviet anti-Semitism, the author conceded:
 * "The young Soviet state vigorously combatted popular forms of anti-Semitism during the period of civil war (1918-20) when large-scale violence against Jews was supported or tolerated by various White military forces. The July 27, 1918, Soviet decree ordering that "pogromists and persons inciting to pogroms be outlawed" (Izvestiia, July 27, 1918) was a clear reflection of the determination of the state to uproot ideas and practices which, in fact, were considered threatening to Bolshevik rule.
 * I also am unaware of any attempts to ban Hebrew language during twenties. You probably confused with late Stalin's years. With regards to your first sentence, it is misleading, because it creates an impression that only Lenin shared pro-Semitis views, whereas, according to the above quote, it was an official policy.
 * In addition, the table 2 (Murders during recorded anti-Jewish attacks) from the same source gives 213 "White" pogroms vs 106 "Red" ones. However, the amount of victims were 5,235 vs 725. That reminds me a story of lie, blatant lie and statistics...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked again at the Henry Abramson's article, and, upon some meditation I propose to remove all numbers from the proposed fragment. Both numbers of 6.4 and 8.6 percent are misleading. The table 2 (Murders during recorded anti-Jewish attacks) gives the following numbers of murders of each pogrom or excess: Hrygorriv's bands - 76/excess, Directory - 34, White 25, Red - 7. In other words, not only number of pogroms/excesses was different, but even their nature. Hrygorriv's excesses fit the caterogy of massacre whereas Red excesses closer resemble just an armed robbery. Summarising said above, I propose to replase the exact percent with "minor part", so the final version would be:
 * "Although anti-Semitism was treated with utter contempt by early Soviet leaders, and strong efforts were made by Soviet authorities to contain anti-Jewish bigotry, some Red Army units perpetrated pogroms during the Russian civil war, and the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920, notably at Baranovichi   . However, only small amount of pogroms were attributed to the Red Army, whereas the remaining pogroms were committed by anti-Communist and nationalist forces. The pogroms were vigirously condemned by the Red Army high command and guilty units were disarmed and pogromist were outlawed. "
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, apologies for the delay, I've been busy with off-wiki affairs. The latest text is an improvement, however it doesn't quite convey the situation adequately in my view. We must be careful in bringing in other sources and synthesizing something that is not quite reflected in the original sources. For example your comparison of relative death rates in the pogroms, there could be many reasons for this, for example in Klier's book is mentioned the fact that when the Reds arrived many Jews hid being mostly artisans and tradesman they suffered under Bolshevik rule, when the Whites drove out the Reds, these Jews came out of hiding to welcome them but were killed. It must be mentioned that the Kerensky government was strongly anti-semitic, with several prominent members of his government being jewish.The Russian Civil War was not just between the Whites and the Reds, there were also the so-called Greens and the anarchists, people like Makhno who opposed both Whites and Reds. Also both Makhno and Petliura issued proclamations forbidding pogroms too, with the death penalty eventually instituted, this must be mentioned. Also "some Red Army units were accused of pogroms" sholud be replaced by " some Red Army units perpetrated pogroms". --Martintg (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Perpetrated" is more neutral and adequate. Agreed. With regards to your other points, I see no contradiction with my statements. My point was that by presenting 6.4 or 8.6% we create just a visibility of truth, because a real pictute was much more complex.
 * You are correct that it is a complex picture. The point being that in the minds of some Red Army units, Jews were seen as an ethnic group as the capitalist exploiters, just as many Whites saw them as Bolshevik hoard, and this is mentioned in Klier's book. Also the way the text reads give the impression the the Bolsheviks were the champions of anti-anti-semitism, when in fact it was the Kerensky government, which the Boshevik's overthrew (btw the Jewish members of the Bolshevik leadership group either voted against or abstained in the decision to conduct armed struggle), that had first emancipated them. --Martintg (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you probably noticed, the mentioning of emancipation has already been removed from the new version. With regards to the mind of some Red Army units, both the Lenin's speech and the sources presented above demonstrates clearly that Bolsheviks "made strong efforts to contain the virus of anti-Jewish bigotry". This is not my conclusion, I took it from reliable sources(William Korey, 1972). With regards to Klier's book, for some reason, one important point was absent there, namely, that perception of Jews as an ethnic group as the capitalist exploiters was just an attitude of some members of some Red Army units, whereas White antisemitism was an official policy of anti-Communist authorities (see Peter Kenez, 1980). One way or the another, since I deliberately avoided contraposition of White and Red official policy towards Jews (no mentioning of White propaganda; I mention only the results, leaving all assertion beyond the scope), I don't see any problems with the text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe, major issues with the proposed text have been resolved, so I put it into the article. Remaining minor modifications can be done later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The relevant sources used for this section make it pretty clear that both the Reds and the Whites engaged in anti-Semitic pogroms. The part about the 700 pogroms (and the 50000-60000 dead) is clearly attributed to the Soviets since it happened after the Red Army took over the Ukraine. And this is an article on Soviet war crimes not the war crimes of the White Russians - feel free to include the relevant sources and information in articles on Denikin's anti-semitism or such. But that is not a reason to remove relevant information from THIS article. There were was a lot of violent anti-Semitism on both sides in the Russian Civil war and most Jews were caught in the middle and suffered from both sides. I see no reason why this article should not document that fact.radek (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Taking into account that the quote you provided demonstrates that you are familiar with the source, I see no explanation for your actions other than an attempt of direct falsification. I believe such actions will not repeat in future. Of course, I will be happy if someone explain me that I was wrong. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a false statement, Radek. Zvi Y. Gitelman writes that only ~700 Jews were killed by individual (carrying over stress from sources) detachments of the Red Army. You're writing about 700 pogroms "clearly attributed to the Red Army." PasswordUsername (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... I think we're talking about different sources. I'm talking about the one that's actually cited in the text (I will add the link in a sec), which states "when Soviet control was established in the Ukraine, it is estimated that pogroms took place in 700 communities. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews were killed. Another 100,000 were maimed or died of wounds". So, no, it's not that the Red Army killed 700 Jews. It's that they killed between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews (+ possibly another 100,000) in 700 communities. I took the liberty of rendering "700 communities" as "700 pogroms", in order to paraphrase the text enough to avoid copyvio. I hope that's not considered OR or SYNTH here.radek (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Radeksz, I'm very much familiar with the Levin source, as I was the one who first suggested including it (see above). What Levin writes is that "Between 1918 and the early months of 1921, when Soviet control was established in the Ukraine, it is estimated that pogroms took place in 700 communities. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews were killed." Nowhere does this attribute 700 pogroms, 700 communities affected, or between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews killed to the Red Army. (Please review the whole of Levin's work.) What Levin talks about is the pogroms committed during the Civil War (by all sides). They were outrageously numerous, but relatively very few were committed by Red Army troops. In fact, the work suggests that pogroms ended when the Soviet Army finished its establishment of firm control over the Ukraine. The fact that the other soruce - Zvi Y. Gitelman's A Century of Ambivalence - states that the total number of Jewish victims attributed to ill-disciplined Red Army units, who essentially ignored the Soviet state's highest leaders' sentiments agaisnt anti-Jewish violence, was ~700, really puts things into context much better. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now that is very clearly OR and SYNTH on your part. How about including a verbatim quote from the source instead? The source clearly goes on to blame Budenny for many of the pogroms. It does not state that only a few of them were committed by the Red Army (hence OR). It is true that eventually, the number of pogroms diminished as the Bolsheviks consolidated their hold on the area, but this is later, after the Civil War and the end to the general violence.radek (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The sources both talk about the same subject, and I'm presenting them to you in the talk page. Nora Levin does not say anywhere that 700 pogroms / 50,000-60,000 victims were attributed to the Red Army. What she discusses is the general estimate for victims of pogroms, which ended in 1921 (ie, the year of the establishment of Soviet control in the Ukraine, as Levin states in her book). If she does give an estimate of Red Army victims as 50,000-60,000, please provide a verbatim quote. The interpretation that 50,000-60,00 victims = 50,000-600,000 victims of the Red Army is your own interpretation. The source does not contain it. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "now that is very clearly OR and SYNTH on your part". No. It is you who should be blamed in deliberate SYNTH. The full verbatim quote is " Between 1918 and early months of 1921, when Soviet control was established in the Ukraine,...", whereas you took these words out of context and "verbatim" reproduced them as ""when Soviet control was established in the Ukraine", omitting the words "Between 1918 and early months of 1921" (that explicitly set a timeframe when majority pogroms took place. Obviously, there were no Red Army in Ukraine in 1918-1919). Moreover, during the article edit you  additionally  changed the text to " After the Red Army took control of the Ukraine", that directly contradicts to the source.
 * PS. In that section, a large number of reliable sources were presented that provided detailed numbers of Jews killed as a result of pogroms, and Red Army's pogroms in particular. Even if the numbers allegedly taken from Nora Levin are true (although, of course they aren't) these numbers are in direct contradiction to other reliable sources. Replacement ot information supported by one reliable source with other information is not allowed in WP. If two sources contradict each other (although it our case they don't), both POV must be presented, and both numbers should be given.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My revert
I restored the See Also NKVD Prison massacres, as the definition of war crimes includes those against civilians during times of war. Also, as far as I could tell the paragraphs on the rapes in Poland appeared to be reliably sourced.radek (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd need page ## to make that reliable, otherwise it is hearsay. NKVD crimes were against USSR's own citizens, and as such it is a CIVILAN atrocity, not a MILITARY one.Galassi (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that NKVD prisoner massacres occurred during war time, it is a war crime, there is no distinction between civilian or military atrocities on territory subject to occupation. --Martintg (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Emphatic NO. That was an atrocity against USSR's own citizens, and that is NOT a _military_ crime.Galassi (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Her own citizens? The commie sickos killed a large number of Polish civilians too. Loosmark (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a forum. Grow up.Galassi (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess when one runs out of arguments the good old "grow up" is better than nothing. Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the "sicko" and "commie" category. Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM.Galassi (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because somebody who murders innocent civilians is not a sicko? Loosmark (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could very well be. But here you'd need to provide the forensic psychiartist's official statement.Galassi (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

ANYWAY. The point is that it wasn't just USSR citizens that were murdered.radek (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the other objection - if you want page #s then put in a verify tag and request them, don't remove the text that is reliably sourced.radek (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the relevant excerpt from the source (which I'm about to add a link to) which is not from a book but from an interview with an author in the magazine of the Jagiellonian University:

''O nieobliczalności tej armii świadczyły kradzieże, rekwirowanie mieszkań, wywózki na wschód oraz zbiorowe gwałty na kobietach i dziewczynkach, m.in. na Dworcu Głównym w Krakowie, gdzie interweniujący Polacy zostali ostrzelani. Tych gwałtów i rabunków było tak wiele, że polskie władze komunistyczne przygotowały list do samego towarzysza Józefa Stalina, w którym zaprotestowano przeciwko zbrodniom, jakich dopuszczała się przecież nie tylko w Krakowie „armia wyzwolicieli”. List jednak nie został wysłany, bo jego autorzy zaczęli obawiać się o własne głowy.''

Translation on provided on request.radek (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

''The unpredictable nature of this army (Red Army - Radeksz) was evidenced by the robberies, the commandeering of private houses, the expulsions to the east (Siberia, Kazakhstan - Radeksz) and also the gang rapes of women and little girls, among others at the Main Rail Station in Krakow, where the Poles who tried to intervene where shot at. The rapes and robberies were so common that even the Polish communist authorities (subject to Soviet control - Radeksz) prepared a letter to comrade Joseph Stalin in which they protested against these crimes, which were being committed by the "liberation army" (quotations in the source) not only in Krakow. The letter was never sent however because it's authors began to worry about their own heads.'' radek (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This quote seems not to meet WP:V. From this interview is not clear where the author took his information from, was that his personal experience (in that case it fit a memoirs category) or it is a hearsay. Could you provide anything that is verifiable?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of German civilians
This photo has been marked as "German propaganda" in captioning before. If we take a look at the source, it reads "1944-1945"; a use rationale admits that "Although this image would not ordinarily enter the public domain until 70 years after the (unknown) author's death in Germany or 70 years after it was first published, it was seized by the U.S. Government Interdepartmental Committee." Given that this photo was produced by an unreliable source (the Nazis are certainly known for faking atrocities, like the Polish attack on Germany in 1939) - as well as its possible use as a propaganda photo, I believe this photo's authenticity is doubtful. At any rate, civilians are killed in war all the time: the civilian dead of the 2003-present War in Iraq were estimated at 100,000 - 1,000,000 quite recently, though few have treated this as a war crime. It should really be removed pending verification, pending WP:RS. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case you probably want to go ahead and remove the same from Metgethen article and address the issue there as well.radek (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Metgehen article doesn't label (or imply) that this is to be judged a war crime, and states that this version comes from German sources. (We don't know if these people were killed by soldiers, bombs, collateral damage, or what.) That's a much better context to put the photo in, but if you object to its usage there, you should raise the issue. (I only see the inclusion here as rather unjustified.) PasswordUsername (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

latest revert by Password Username
1) I am not edit warring and please don't make such accusations unless you're willing to file the respective report at 3RR since, if you're not, they are just a personal attack. I was under the impression that there was confusion over the use of two different sources and that you didn't quite understand that the information I entered was in a different source you thought it was.

2) Please don't make assertions of "consensus" where you clearly got none. And anyway, this was a new addition to the article by me, so you can't claim "consensus" a mere few minutes after you've deleted/reverted it.

3) You still seem to be under a misconception about different sources. The information I included is clearly in the source that it is cited to. You're talking about some other different source where the number "700" appears to occur just by chance. But it's two completely different things.

4) Given that, and the fact that this has been patiently explained to you, why are you removing information that is well cited to reliable sources? Ok, once, I understand that there could be some confusion based on the fact that the source included in the text, and the one you're referring to both happen to use the number "700". But to persist in this is simply disruptive. Please address any issues you have with the source over at RSN. Otherwise, please self revert.radek (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) To quote a wise Wikipedian administrator: "To think of it in a more pragmatic way...when you made that revert, I'm sure you knew it wasn't going to stay. You saw you were in the middle of a dispute, did you really think they would all just back off after you reverted? If you know that your revert is not going to last five seconds, don't do it—start a discussion instead, then maybe you'll actually get somewhere."


 * 2) Please don't keep reverting against stable material that has been in the article after a long discussion with at least four editors.


 * 3) That is completely false. Please re-read the long discussion - and my latest posts.


 * 4) Please understand the above points.


 * PasswordUsername (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PasswordUsername, from the discussion on this talk page it is completely clear there was no consensus thefore reverting claiming there is a consensus is clearly disruptive. Loosmark (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Initially, there was no consensus in July. Clearly, there was a reasonable version reached the same month, which had been on Wiki until now. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Nora Levin, the situation is even more interesting. On the p. 43 of her book she writes:
 * You didn't claim in your revert that there was "reasonable version", you explicitly accused radek to go against consensus which is blatantly false. Loosmark (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When four editors have a discussion (this also took place in the section "Lede", right below the main section) and come to an agreement, I believe there is a consensus version. This section may be changed, but to revert war against it even as new discussion continues is a plainly bad idea. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I agree with Radek. His text was sourced and precisely on the subject. If there is a consensus here, this is to keep such materials.Biophys (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (od)Re: "When four editors have a discussion" Let me remind you that WP is not a democracy, and even a single editor's opinion may outweigh the opinion of the others provided, but only provided that it is bases on the reliable sources. Therefore, I propose to look how the edits made by Radekz are supported by the sources.
 * If we compare the words " was treated with utter contempt by early Soviet leaders", removed by Radekz, we will see that they almost literally reproduce what the cited source (William Korey. The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis. Slavic Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 111-135) says. Changing the words supported by a reliable source without providing any new source is incorrect. My conclusion: the edit was unjistified.
 * The words:" After the Red Army took control of the Ukraine, around 700 pogroms took place resulting in around 50,000 to 60,000 Jews being killed, some of them instigated by Semyon Budyonny's First Cavalry Army. Some of the pogroms that occured during the Civil War can be attributed to the Red Army, while others were also perpetrated by the White forces. " are not fully supported by the cited sources. The last source (Abramson) provides a detailed table (I can reproduce it upon request) that demonstrates that out of 31071 Jews killed as a result of recorded anti-Jew attacks only 725 Jews were killed by the Red Army. Only 106 pogroms out of 1236 were perpetrated by the Red Army, and the number of Jews killed per one pogrom was 7 for the Red Army's pogroms vs 25 on average (in other words, whereas, as a rule, the pogroms were massacres, the Red Army pogroms looked just like a robbery). My conclusion is that the text directly contradicts to the source.
 * "Between 1918 and early months of 1921, when Soviet control was established in the Ukraine, it is estimated that pogroms took place in 700 communities. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews were killed".
 * In other words, the Levin's point was that the pogroms took place and the Jews were killed before the Red Army established control in Ukraine, whereas Radekz writes that these pogroms took place after the Red Army took control of the Ukraine (the context this phrase is placed in is intended to imply that all these pogroms were perpetrated by the Red Army). My conclusion is that this is a direct and severe misinterpretation of the sources, that looks like a POV-pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't read Nora Levin's quote as saying the pogroms occurred either before or after the Red Army took control, but during, i.e. it took between 1918 to 1921 for Red Army control to be established, and the pogroms occurred during that time. It was certainly the case that control of many towns changed hands several times during course of the civil war. Also your figure of 1236 pogroms seems inflated, Nahum Gergel reports an estimated 887 mass pogroms occurred during that time, to suggest that White pogroms were "massacres" while Red pogroms "just looked like robbery" is synthesis, since John Doyle Klier, Shlomo Lambroza write that the White and Red progroms had a great deal in common, i.e. undisciplined troops did the killing and the peasants did the robbing. --Martintg (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "I don't read Nora Levin's quote as saying" During 1918-1919 major hostilities took place in Western Russia, and only partially in Eastern Ukraine, i.e. far from the regions where Jewish population was concentrated. After the tide had turned, the Red Army espablished the control in Ukraine relatively quickly.
 * Re: "Also your figure of 1236 pogroms seems inflated" You have to provide a ground for such a statement. Whereas Gergel tells about mass pogroms, the source I quote tells about all documented incidents. I see no contradiction between the sources.
 * Re: "to suggest that White pogroms were "massacres" while Red pogroms "just looked like robbery" is synthesis" This is a straw man fallacy. Majority pogroms were committed by Directoria and Hrygoriiv's bands, not by the Whites, who perpetrated much lesser porgoms (although more than the Red Army). In addition, I am free to present my conclusions on the talk page, because I do not propose to include it in the main article. In addition, I don't think 7 killing per pogrom vs 25 killings to be a minor difference. I believe I can comment it on the talk page and, I believe, my comment is justified. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul Sibert this quote of yours Obviously, there were no Red Army in Ukraine in 1918-1919 shows you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. Not only was the Red Army present in Ukraine at the time but they even held control of Kiev in both February 1919 and then again in December 1919. In any case they had more than enough control on various parts of Ukraine in that period to execute pogroms. Loosmark (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The time when the Red Army was in Kiev in 1918-1919 was minimal. BTW, majority Jewish population lived in west Ukraine. The numbers of pogroms is known (Red Army's pogroms constituted only 6% of total pogroms). The sources about extreme pro-Jewish position of Soviet leadership are reliable and well known. If you disagree, provide your sources, otherwise, the discussion is senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The source goes on to discuss the pogroms started by Budenny's cavalry. Last time I checked Budenny was a general in the Red Army. Not so sure about your interpretation.radek (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So SOME were. See above, 6%. There is no contradiction.Galassi (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I never claimed that the Red Army committed no pogroms. However, since the source clearly states that these pogroms constituted only 6% of total pogroms, and, importantly, that the Soviet leadership took special efforts to punish pogromists, the way you tried to change the section is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I apologize for being rude by accusing radek in deliberate POV pushing, however, (i) it was not me who started that first, and, (ii) I believe, you radek should not throw such accusations without careful reading the source. Regards,

Looking at it again, I can see how the text in the source can be interpreted differently. Probably need more sources here.radek (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Then you can come back when you have more sources. Clearly, Zvi Gitelman writes of "over 700" deaths attributed to the pogromists who fought in the RA's ranks, and Abramson gives 725. Levin discusses the deaths that took place during the Civil War pogroms by all sides, until the lawless period ended with the establishment of the Soviets' control. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)