Talk:The Bielski Brothers

Controversy

I guess it should be about persons, not book(s).

About Bielski there are until now mostly two kind of books: praising by Jewish and Western authors, and criticism by Polish right-wing and antisemitic Polish sources. This is because ntuil 1990 the topic of Jewish partisans and behaviour of soviets and communists could not be investiageted and discussed freely in Poland; only recently Polish historians started to investigated the issue, there is investigation by IPN which confirmed the massacres but reduced number of victims etc. Unfortunately, on the internet one may find almost only sites created by Polonia, which has to be filtered from some anti-semitic gibberish and rhetoric. The example for this is here: http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_en_127.html It is based on real testimonies and real sources, however added rhetoric make it hard to read. It may be hoped that results of IPN investigation will be then put on some pages by neutral people. To praise the Bielski's as "heroes" and to deny their deeds is strange. They were not perfect people. They were trying to save themselves and people they cared for, but in the same time they were murdering Polish children, woman and man. Szopen 09:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is memory of one of females from Koniuchy, written down here: http://www.promemoria.org.pl/arch/2004_13/golgota/golgota.html (In Polish). Szopen 10:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite good article, even if it's not concentrating on Bielski's, but it describes the situation in the area and gives background for the whole issue: http://www.glaukopis.gross.pl/pdf/artykul-5-4.pdf

In short, from point of view of Polish peasants, Bielski's were simple bandits and robbers Szopen 10:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to IPN raport, it has been established, that Soviet partisans (including Bielski's people) have killed 128 people in Naliboki, including three woman and one 10-years old child. Partisans burned the church, many houses, robbed the village and left. It must be stressed that according to earlier agreements between Polish and Soviet partisans Naliboki village was domain of Polish self-defense; but soviets do not cared much for such agreements. Szopen 10:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I think this article should be moved to Bielski partisans, as surely the main focus of the article should be the group, book(s) are not that notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your comment, I found that at present, Bielski partisans redirects back to this article (about the particular book), which I agree is not appropriate to represent this topic, let alone cover it. I haven't found an article on the brothers Bielski in any foreign language Wikipedia I've checked, but I'm able to do library research and create an article stub (or several) on them. I'll work through the Jewish History WikiProject to enlist the advice of and review by other editors. Deborahjay 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that would be great! Just remember to keep the article NPOV - Bielski were not heroes, or maybe - they were heroes from one point of view, but they were bandits from the other... Szopen 06:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest and encouragement! I'll bear your caveat in mind, and provide ample factual content. (For my further comments on partisans as heroes vs. bandits, see next section in this discussion page.) Deborahjay 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of "Partisans"

As far as NPOV goes, I agree that the terms heroes vs. bandits are subjective assessments -- thus are unlikely if not downright inappropriate language for an encyclopaedia article. Let me add one historical note for perspective's sake: the Bielski brothers' combat unit and camp are considered to be partisans, i.e. engaging in a form of guerilla warfare known for its enmeshed relations and conflicts with the civilian population: beginning with provisioning, and extending to collaboration vs. informers, etc. Deborahjay 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are "partisans" aaand "partisans". E.g. AK considered its main task to protect local population, while, for example Soviet partisans considered their main task kill off AK and attack Germans not paying attention to civilian losses. The descriptions of Soviet and Jewish partisans found in Polish documents are rather very rarely positive, to say the least. I can translate some quotes if you want to; I don't want to touch the articles anymore myself, because I'm affraid I am too hot-headed for this.

(EDIT: on second thought, I tend to remember that the quote I had specifically on mind was about the Zorin's people; about Bielski's I remember only the notes about their "harem" and robbing local population in order to have food surplus to Moscow).Szopen 12:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're right -- I too got confused with the charges against Zorin, an article I just edited recently (copyediting with little to add, but I believe I have material about him around my office...). Shall look into that as well.

And please don't get me started on the AK -- who besides being what I've heard described as the largest armed force of irregulars in WWII Europe (or certainly in Poland), as nationalists, numbered among them quite a few antisemites; if I recall correctly, there were numerous incidents of AK killing Jews who came to join the antifascist partisans, and attacking Jewish partisan units with intent to kill them. How tragic... and so much for the famous quote, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The issue was touched on by Prof. Yitzhak Arad, a former partisan, in a lecture he gave last Thursday on Operation Barbarossa. He's an inspired historian and a terrific speaker, and I'll see about basing some of my editing here upon his research. Deborahjay 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...and attacking Jewish partisan units with intent to kill them."

Are you talking about communist units who were under command from Moscow ? If so, they received an order to attack Home Army from Soviet command. Fighting for Soviets who earlier occupied Poland and massacred Polish population certainly didn't make them friends. --Molobo 23:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I referred to the Polish nationalist force, the Armia Krajowa ("Homeland Army") (internal link already provided). -- Deborahjay 04:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The issue was touched on by Prof. Yitzhak Arad, a former partisan..."

Soviet partisan ? --Molobo 23:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The internal link (already provided) gives his affiliation.

It might interest you to know that in the same lecture to which I referred above, Prof. Arad told of a recent (postwar; I didn't quite catch the reference) feature article on him published in a Ukrainian nationalist newspaper, entitled "An 'expert' with blood on his hands". Arad, having been an IDF brigadier general along with his academic career, is an obvious target for criticism by detractors. Otherwise, it's well known that Soviet partisan troops in WWII killed many people, including civilians and each other.

As I have yet to take the time to do the library research and gather factual material, with substantiation, regarding the allegations of the AK's killing Jewish partisans and Jews escaping Nazi ghettos who hoped, as antifascists, to be accepted into the ranks of existing partisan units or at least not to be killed by them, I'm only mentioning this on a Discussion page. Having stated my intentions of doing further research, which then can be added to pertinent articles, I won't engage in protracted discussion here. -- Deborahjay 04:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK was not "nationalist", it was Polish regular underground army. Though there were tragic incidents reported in which single Jews were killed, vast majority of so called "Jewish victims" which were supposedly killed by "antisemites from AK" were in fact victims in regular war which was started by Soviet partisans, or members of "wild bands" which were liquidated by AK regardless of their nationality (as AK had to take the policy duties and protect civilian populations against Polish, Jewish-Polish and other bands which were ignored by Germans. That many of those members of those bands had in fact no other way to survive than robbing local Polish population is totally different matter. I know from my past discussion with Jews (i presume you are Jewish) that many of them had image of AK as band of wild antisemites (ah, sometimes even all Poles as wild antisemites) whose main purpose was to help Germans, but I assure you the Polish view of them is totally different.

Deborahjay, as I said, this is touchy subject for me. I won't touch the articles, though I will certainly look at what you will do. Hald of my family was expelled from Kresy and survived Soviet occupation, was lucky enough not to be deported to gulags in 1939/41, and then German occupation. When I asked my grandmother, she said Soviet occupation was worse. Anyone who was helping Soviets was seen as traitor by Poles (no matter of true motives of collaborator). Read http://www.glaukopis.gross.pl/pdf/artykul-5-4.pdf about the general situation in the region.

And you have to understand that for me it's hard to believe anyone who was former soviet partisan, that is, from mine point of view, someone who was member of almost criminal organisation.

After all, Markov brigade was involved in war crimes - for example, murdering Polish AK members; i.e. Markov invited Polish AK officers for negotiations on the common attack on neighbouring German garrison, and when Polish officers came (including commander Antoni Burzynski "Kmicic") they were simply murdered (well, not "simply" - "Kmicic" was probably first tortured according to some witnesses), and then soviets surrounded unsupstecting AK unit - 50 of them after interrogations by NKVD was murdered, 70 was forced to join soviet partisans. When most of those escaped, Markov then ordered to execute last 30 AK members which were still in his camp.

And let's finish it at that. Szopen 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to allegations of atrocities - comment

[NOTE: The following POV comment has been placed here rather than in the body of the article, as had beeen inserted by an anonymous editor signing as "Peter Duffy", i.e. the book's author] -- Deborahjay 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The suggestion that the Bielski Brothers committed war crimes is a gross libel. The brothers have never been accused of any such charge in any tribunal during or after the war, and it is an outrage that their posthumous reputations are being tarred with such vicious and ill-founded smears. -- Peter Duffy) -- 12.152.248.4 18:47, June 16, 2006

This article is about Duffy's book; no longer "factual accuracy disputed"

This article's edit history shows previous versions with extensive contentions, supported by external links, regarding purported activities of the Bielski partisans that are apparently not covered in this book. A series of edits has removed these.

In my most recent edit, I've written a concise, NPOV synopsis about the above allegations "apparently not mentioned in Duffy's book". Anything else belongs in an article about the Bielski partisans, as yet to be written. Be assured that if and when it is, I'll take part in its editing.

As of now, I'm removing the "factual accuracy is disputed" template, as I believe my edit has neutralized that charge as regards this article. -- Deborahjay 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bielski partisans

I think this book is not notable, it should be merged to Bielski partisans article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only edit erraticly, but this topic does draw my interest. I think the two articles should be merged, and that the merger would lead to a more complete picture of the larger group and their leaders. Thank you. 65.54.155.43 06:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against. The book is not notable, it's about the brothers, it does not mention the Bielski's crimes. The article about Bielski's brothers at least mentions them briefly, though without much details. That way we avoid the revert war each time anonymous coward signing as "Peter Duffy" blindly deletes the info about IPN investigation and Naliboki massacre. Szopen 08:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea of merging the article about this book into the article about the Bielski Partisans. There can be articles about books, I believe, in Wikipedia. This article (about Duffy's book) should be limited to what Duffy has to say and, yes, to criticism of what he does and does not say. However, the subject of his book, the Bielski Partisans, should be dealt with in a separate article. I do not think it is enough to give the opinion that the book is not worthy of its own article. I can imagine someone deciding that John Steinbeck's novel "The Grapes of Wrath" is not worthy of its own article and should therefore be merged into a article about the historical migration of Oklahoma farmers to California during the 1930s (Steinbeck's historical setting for his novel). Most likely, Duffy's book is not so great a work of art and, besides, purports to be nonfiction rather than a novel, but I think that in any case, it would be unfair to decide that articles about books must be merged into articles about their subject.Milesnfowler 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the book deserves its own article and find the arguments against spurious. Of course, a lot of details should be fixed, added, and improved, but the same may be said about many similar WP articles. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do not quite think this book is of the literary or historical significance of the Grapes of Wrath, or that Duffy is comparable Steinbeck. The proper question is, is it any more notable than run of the mill popular historical works? DGG (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not containing info about war crimes"

A review from the highly biased site is for example here: http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_en_127.html. Turn on the language filter and you will see the review author ask real questions.

I haven't read P.Duffy's book, but I heard few issues repeating in several reviews. Someone, who has access to the book, please confirm.

Supposedly Duffy wrote in his book (pages 232/33 according to the http://www.kpk.org/english/toronto/tangledweb_1_of_3.pdf , the very last page since document deals with Eliach Yaffa)

That Bor-Komorowski issued an order of liquidating Jewish partisans (I think that this may be based on the real Bor-Komorowski order - i've read elsewhere that some western authors have edited it and published falsified version to "prove" Bor-Komorowski was antisemite)
supposedly Duffy presented AK as allied with Germans
supposedly Duffy does not mention Naliboki massacre, where Bielski's partisans participated - this is probably the largest and best-known massacre of Polish peasants in the area.
Supposedly Duffy does not write about robbing the impoverished population from the food, and in some accidents from valuables.

As I wrote before in discussions in Deborahjay, I won't touch the article until someone can answer me those questions. I am not sure whether I can be completely NPOV in the case of Bielski brothers, since my family came from Kresy, though not from Nowogrodek area. Szopen 11:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Szopen 08:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did The Duffy write about Kessler's people? Some my sources indicate that Kessler's people were the worse from Bielski's partisans, but Bielski at some point of time lost the real control over them. Szopen 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many, but not all, of those reviews came from extreme right-wing and/or antisemitic circles

Any sources?
What if the antisemitic circles tell the truth? Is an antisemitic truth false? Xx236 (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XX236, this is my personal opinion. I know no serious historian touching this issue until some early 2000s - all earlier accounts were written in the homepages, which were heavily loaded with very specific rhetoric, or contained links to sites with such rhetoric. Szopen (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any reviews from liberal circles? The article asserts there are negative reviews from them, butt hey are not cited. Either remove or document. DGG (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed most of the sketchy sources and edited the text a bit accordingly. The only source left is really that Mark Paul thing which is no longer available online (so I don't know much about it). Totally agree that this article could use some good refs.radek (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking around it seems the Polish edition of the book is not coming out until February 2009 so there probably won't be many reviews from Polish papers and academics until then. So for now it's just mostly Polonia (Poles in the West) reviews of the English edition.radek (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to this Amazon review (I know, I know, not RS but a place to start) [1] indicates that the mistaken mentioning of the Bor-Komorowski order myth was removed from the paperback edition.radek (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wrote This? An Infant?

The English in this article is atrocious, especially in the part which outlines the supposed criticisms laid on the book. To whatever foreigner or baby that wrote it, thanks but no thanks. Can someone edit this?-SF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.201.106 (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, you can edit this. This is how wikipedia works. I am not native, and I will be grateful to anyone who would contribute to better quality of this article. But criticism alone does not help. Szopen (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criticism

Have there been any positive reviews of the book? If so, they should be given as much space as the negative ones. Have the negative ones been criticized? That should also be included. (If any of this is in Polish, Im not the one to find it, so I ask help of those here who know that language and have access to the sources.)DGG (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the book evidently was positively reviewed in three significant journals: Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and Library Journal. See the "editorial reviews" tab here [2]. I think these reviews need to be reflected in the article, and that their absence, and the gross overemphasis on criticism in Poland, is a serious WP:NPOV issue, in repetition of what seems to be a pattern in articles on this general subject. I would like to see the regular editors here rectify this problem voluntarily and make this article neutral without further prodding. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and added the three reviews, and also tried to fix the remainder of the section. Question: if much of the criticism comes from the "right wing and anti-Semitic" press, and thus a fringe element, why is it being given so much weight? Isn't that a clear breach of WP:UNDUE? Stetsonharry (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]