Talk:Partisan

Wow! Just look at article history - There is a real impressive battle! I hate to be moralizing but I have to recall Manual of Style : Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article . So please more helpful links, less redundant movements :-) RamBow 17:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. February 8, 2006 5:43pm. WikiCheck 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I see the article as (at least in danger of) moving toward a mistaken view of why partisans (in our first sense) are so called. I.e., toward suggesting

• that the term reflects the East European partisans being inherantly as much Marxist-Leninists (or Stalinists) as nationalists or centrist anti-fascists, and
• that their adherence to either an loosely distinguished partisanship (a left political orientation) or a specific party (Communist Party of Xxx or whatever) is the reason for being referred to as partisans.

(I am not, BTW, informed on or strongly concerned with (the interesting question of) which of the specific orientations mentioned above are facts, misconceptions, or controversies. My concern is with avoiding our encouraging misconceptions about the meaning of this specific word.) --Jerzy(t) 15:25, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

No one "owes allegiance" unless they have a feudal liege lord. It's true that Americans like to go around "pledging allegiance", but that's at best an odd affectation in the context of American populist mythology. --Jerzy(t) 15:59, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

• What 'major' partisan force existed in Poland or did anything comparable with the other countries sited? CVA

The Armia Krajowa, one of the biggest partisan armies in WWII (400 000 members and approx. 1 500 000 collaborators). Also there was a Polish underground state with underground police, courts, universities, press, parliament and government. There was also a Polish Home Army intelligence net, mostly in Poland, Germany, the Soviet Union, Hungary, Romania and France. Halibutt 04:44, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the apparent size of the Polish ‘underground’, however, the subject here is Partisans, armed forces actively and overtly engaged in armed confrontation. They held territory and were pursued in the open by the enemy. Can you give examples of territory Polish Partisans held, battles where they attacked in their hundreds (as opposed to acts of sabotage) and liberated towns?

In other references on this site they write of Polish Resistance. This is not the same as Partisans, every occupied country had a Resistance movement to varying degrees. The Warsaw uprising appears to be the army in hiding materialising in force. However, it also appears this was formerly a secret army who lived among the populous. If they were Partisans they would be away from home living as an army in the field. There appears to be nothing to say the Poles did this, hence they were a covert Home Army but were not a Partisan force as seen in Russia, Italy and Yugoslavia? CVA

Apart from the Operation Tempest there were hundreds of units using partisan warfare since 1939. The first one, although not yet member of the Home Army, was the unit of Henryk "Hubal" Dobrzański who simply organized a partisan cavalry unit from soldiers who avoided POW camps in 1939. However, there was a huge group of people in 1939 who simply could not return home and German policies made the group even larger. Because of that in various parts of the country "oddziały leśne" (forest units) were created. By 1943 the Home Army units in various parts of Poland (most notably in the Holy Cross mountains (Góry Świętokrzyskie, code name Jodła), Tatra mountains, Polesie and various other densely forrested regions held large portions of the territory. German garrisons held the towns, but the partisans held the countryside. There were also smaller partisan organizations like the Narodowe Sily Zbrojne.

Also, there were heavy partisan fights during all three of the major uprisings in 1939 - and these people did not spark out of nowhere, they were trained and equipped before and until 1944 they were rather an Urban Guerilla. Also, take a look at the only (so far) article about the Polish partisans here at wikipedia: 27th Polish Home Army Infantry Division. It was the biggest unit, but not the only one. Halibutt 14:02, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I’ve read through the examples you mention which primarily, as they state, deal with armed insurrection. However, for the purpose of this encyclopaedia (which is not a general forum of opinion), someone who opposes the occupiers and keeps a weapon under the floorboards while they otherwise appear to be a regular citizen is no doubt part of the Resistance but is NOT a Partisan.

The examples given of Partisan Russia, Italy and Yugoslavia is very different to Poland. In these countries there were extensive armed forces living in the field mostly part of a command structure. They too had urban guerrillas and intelligence networks. Also, they did not materialise and disappear. While Poland may indeed have had a large Resistance network and a great number of people they could call upon at various times, they did not have a consistent Partisan force, which was built upon, comparable with the other countries sited. CVA

Read more on the topic and then come back. My grandpa spent most of the war in the forests around Kielce and he was not mushroom-picking. Halibutt 08:54, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I have read about Poland and furthermore every occupied country had pockets of people living in the wilds, but, every country did not have a major Partisan force as stated in this topic and comparable with Russia, Italy and Yugoslavia. I suggest you read more about Russia, Tito, Chetniks the CNL and the CNLAI then you will know more. An encyclopaedia entry is no place for jingoism or minority opinion and entries which cannot be substantiated by fact. CVA

Then prove that Poland did not have significant partisan forces in WWII. Halibutt 17:20, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Very simple, history says so! You prove they had more real Partisans in a co-ordinated army than Czechoslovakia, or France!

Dear anon, durring the Slovakian Uprising there were aproximately 20.000 partisans. At a later stage some 60.000 soldiers of regular Slovakian army joined them, but that was a standing army and not partisans.

In January 1944 in Poland there were 54 major forest units (oddziały leśne) of the Home Army that were composed of approximately 90 000 soldiers. They were further strenghtened before the Operation Tempest to approximately 300 000 (some 150-200 000 of whom you'd classify as partisans). Some numbers from various Home Army inspectorates:

• Warsaw area - 50 000 (after the capitulation of the Warsaw Uprising there were still 20 000 partisans taken POW in the city, more than all the partisans in Slovakia)
• Wilno and Nowogródek area - 13 000
• Lwów - 13 000
• Tarnopol - 10-11 000
• Stanisławów - 4 000
• Bóbrka - 7 500
• Kielce and Radom - 5 300

Also, after the occupation of Poland by the Red Army the NKVD tried to arrest as many Home Army soldiers as possible, which forced many of them back into forests. Before the amnesty in 1947 there were still approximately 25 000 to 30 000 partisans in various parts of the country.

Sources:

• Home Army museum, Kraków
• Warsaw Rising museum, Warsaw
• col. Wojciech Borzobochaty, "Jodła", Warsaw 1988

Need more sources? No problem. Need photos? Just make a wish. After all the 1944 in Poland is my hobby, I have a plethora of books on this period at home. Halibutt 08:20, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Having followed this discussion, I ‘d say the problem is Halibutt, you don’t or won’t understand the difference between partisans and resistance. It has been put to you, correctly, but you don’t appear to get it do you?

You’re giving figures for the Warsaw uprising, what’s this got to do with Partisans? Did a vast army of Partisans invade the city from the outside? No, nothing like it. It was the resident resistance movement within the city, or as has been said, people otherwise going about their daily life but with a weapon under the floorboards waiting for a cue for action. These are not Partisans or anything like, whoever many thousands there were.

The reference already on this site about the uprising refers to resistance, not partisans. When the short invasion of Poland was over, 90’000 of the army in the south disappeared off to be able to continue fighting and eventually ended up in the British 8th Army where they did well. Major Hubal refused to surrender and took his men off into the wilds to fight guerrilla actions, but he was caught and killed in April 1940. Bands of people who couldn’t or wouldn’t go home sprung up in remote places, including those who didn’t want to be conscripted into the German or Soviet armies. There was very poor co-ordination however, as you have groups of everything from fascists to communist. The advice from the government in exile and London was to be an underground resistance and work in propaganda, intelligence and sabotage, in which they did very well. Warsaw first formed the Sluzba Zwyciestwu Polski. This was absorbed by the Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej and after the ‘Underground State’ was in play. With Germany later busy fighting Russia the ZWZ became the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) but remained mostly in its resistance role. Bands acting as partisans were mostly on the eastern frontier in the Pripet Marshes and expanses of forests. However, these were places no one had much of a need to go to and mostly they were left to live in the wilds. They didn’t tie down any enemy forces and little effort was put into any attempt to clear them out.

The official policy of the Home Army was covert low key. Factions broke away and caused needless reprisals for their independent actions. Some independent groups even fought each other and assassinated Jewish senior members of the Home Army! Communist factions though they had made deals with the advancing Soviets who afterwards shot them or conscripted them as soldiers or labourers.

The Warsaw Uprising of August ‘44, as distinct from the Jewish Ghetto Uprising of April ‘43, was estimated at about 37’600 insurgents among the populous, of which only about 14% started out armed, much fighting done with grenades and petrol bombs. The Germans replied with a policy of shooting anyone, armed or not. Of the 37K figures given approx. 15K were killed but anything up to 250’000 civilians. The Home Army as an organisation collapsed after this and was reduced to pockets.

Clechanoski - The Warsaw Rising; Hanson - Civilian Population and the Warsaw Uprising; Zawodny - Nothing but Honour.

Regarding Slovakia, while their partisans never totalled more than 50’000, they tied down up to 5 German divisions and lost nearly half their number. Norway ended the war with a Home Army of 50’000 which is very considerable for them considering their population size. However, they majored on intelligence and sabotage, not mass partisan warfare. Similar Belgium, Holland and Denmark.

France had a huge resistance network and too was very successful in intelligence, sabotage and ambush. However, they were not involved in mass partisan warfare during their time of occupation (largest concentration reached approx.3500), though thousands aided in the Allied invasions and thereafter joined the French/Allied forces. Paris liberated itself largely by the action of the French resistance, not partisans.

Yugoslavia and Italy by comparison developed immense partisan forces which continued to grow through to the end of the war and constituted very significant formal opposition to the Germans and fascists. Tito of course, emerged as the National leader and even posed armed confrontation with the Allies and Italy at the end. The Italian resistance ended the war over a million strong, approximately 60/40 in real terms of urban resistance and partisan. Kesselring reported that at any one time at least six German Divisions were engaged again the partisans in addition to units of Wolf’s SS and the fascists.

Poland had a very large resistance organisation, mostly urban, but in terms of partisans as enduring and meaningful opposition were minimal. I note your claims are based on Polish sources which, quite frankly, are renown for gross exaggeration. Given the geography of Poland and its then vast areas of woodland, and to some extent marsh, there is everything to suggest the majority of the people living rough were just displaced persons sheltering with a small minority of combatants.

I agree with the observation of the CVA that Poland may have had a major resistance organisation but nowhere near a major partisan one.

Dear anon, the very sense of partisan warfare is that people emerge from nowhere, attack and dissappear. If they return to their homes and hide their weapons - they're resistance movement. If they return to the forests or the hills- they're partisans. According to all reliable sources I know (both Polish and foreign, although I've never heard of any decent foreign monography on the topic) the majority of Armia Krajowa were resistance fighters, people trained and equipped for liberating the country in one blow when the right time comes. However, there was still a huge number of partisans as such, since the very beginning of the war, until well after it (early 50s). This force was significant and one of the biggest in Europe.

If those fighting in the Warsaw Uprising were but an urban guerilla, then how would you call those trying to breach into the city from the forests located outside (Puszcza Kampinoska, Las Kabacki, Lasy Chojnowskie)..? Also, were those partisan divisions (27th Polish Home Army Infantry Division numbering 7300 men, for instance) an urban guerilla? Nope, they fought like a partisan unit, using partisan tactics and did not return home after actions. This was the biggest, but not the only such unit in Poland.

Also, if the number of Axis divisions tied down is the key here then how many occupation divisions is the borderline? Also, think twice before you critisize sources just because they were written by people of certain nationality. The two monographies I cited were written by the ones of the best historians of this period I know. Col. Borzobochaty was the chief of staff of the Kielce-Radom area since 1943 until 1945. After the war and imprisonment, he spent 30 years collecting materials for his monography. If he's not the person to trust - then who is? Also, Gen. Kirchmayer was the chief of staff of Warsaw-region area (excluding the city). In late 1944 he joined the Soviet-backed Army and became the chief of Military Historical Institute. After spending six years in prison in 1955 he was rehabilitated and became a member of the Historical Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. If he's not a reliable source - then who is?

Let's make long things short: give me a number of people who fought as partisans necessary to call a partisan organization a major one, and I'll give you sources. Halibutt 12:27, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Re your comments after editing the Partisan page again, frankly there seems little point in using the Talk page as your argument, which counters history, boils down to nothing more than repeating “oh yes they were”. You’ve sited parts of the army that retreated after the invasion only to be soon routed. Desperately ill-equipped urban uprisings (contrary to Allied advice), fugitives and displaced persons living in wild areas of no or little military interest to the Germans or the Russians with no doubt a desire to self liberate but with nowhere near the means to do so, and, who repeatedly splintered through disagreements and diverse opinion (Communist, fascist, nationalist and the Jews), and, fought Germans and Russians and among themselves. Probably the heaviest Partisan activity took place in an 80 kilometre stretch between Vilna and the Pripet marshes, by bands of Jewish Partisans. Yes, the Germans occasionally sent companies to fight them, but, they had no need or desire to occupy marshes. All credible histories and reports estimate the actual number of armed resisters at probably no better then 10%. None of the above constitutes anything like an Army, however many people were living in the wilds and whatever their intentions. In real terms, it didn’t happen.

The Polish Resistance was quite extensive and accomplished quite a lot, but the Partisan effort was negligible and conspicuous by its lack of significant achievement WHEN COMPARED to the achievements of the Partisan forces in Russia, Italy and Yugoslavia which you have never drawn comparison with, suggesting you know little about them?

To reply to remarks about the absence of enemy forces ‘tied down’ by the enemy, you refer to Occupational Forces? Every occupied county had Occupational Forces deployed, how else is an enemy going to occupy a country? The difference is, that Partisans in the other countries caused the enemy to deploy additional Divisions purely and specifically to counter the Partisans. The Partisans in Poland never merited this. They didn’t stop the Germans or the Russians coming in and were not able to throw either out or even expel them in part.

As has been stated repeatedly, the most significant achievements against the enemy was by the underground Resistance forces in sabotage and intelligence. CVA

All right then, I gave you my sources. Now it's your turn:

• You’ve sited parts of the army that retreated after the invasion only to be soon routed - quote your sources
• Desperately ill-equipped urban uprisings - quote your sources (two out of three major uprisings were successful)
• contrary to Allied advice - quote your sources (contrary to Italy or Yugoslavia there were no British liason officers in Poland)
• with no doubt a desire to self liberate but with nowhere near the means to do so - quote your sources (if so, then whom the hell the Brits were sending all this equipment?)
• who repeatedly splintered through disagreements and diverse opinion (Communist, fascist, nationalist and the Jews) - quote your sources (also, what were the fascist partisans in Poland???)
• fought Germans and Russians and among themselves - quote your sources (among themselves?!)
• Probably the heaviest Partisan activity took place in an 80 kilometre stretch between Vilna and the Pripet marshes, by bands of Jewish Partisans - this indeed was an area of heavy partisan activity, but the most numerous units were Polish and Soviet, the Jewish partisans were but a margin there.
• All credible histories and reports estimate... - those are..? Quote your sources
• estimate the actual number of armed resisters at probably no better then 10%. - of what? 10% of the Polish population of the time was 3 500 000 men, I doubt partisan units were that numerous.
• In real terms, it didn’t happen. - quote your sources as I've quoted mine.
• The difference is, that Partisans in the other countries caused the enemy to deploy additional Divisions purely and specifically to counter the Partisans - like the three infantry divisions stationed around Kielce to fight with the partisans?
• They didn’t stop the Germans or the Russians coming in and were not able to throw either out or even expel them in part - if that's the criterion, then we should delete all mentions of the Soviet, Italian or French partisans since the only partisan army that actually expelled the enemy from bigger parts of their country were the Yugoslavs. All the rest simply cooperated with the advancing allied troops, creating small friendly-controlled pockets, but without enough power to expand them without external help.

Unless you quote your sources, these are but your opinions. You believe that there were no partisans in Poland, and you repeat it over and over again. However, now it's time to quote some hard data, some books that would back up your thoughts or at least some memoirs. Halibutt 15:37, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, since you apparently decided to ignore the factual debate and simply revert than perhaps I could help you with some further reading? Just tell me what are your preferred languages (your page doesn't say anything at all) and I'll prepare a bibliographical list for you. How about that? Halibutt 04:38, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Dear CVA, you're a tough nut to crack. Theoretically this page should be listed on NPOV dispute list since your oppinion is opposed by my sources. However, since you apparently ignore the discussion and refuse to state any sources that would back your POV up and simply engage in a revert war, perhaps it should be listed on Vandalism in progress? Halibutt 22:48, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can’t find anyone with the time to provide you with an education. All your exaggerated claims quote Polish sources which is to be expected and is quite typical for Poles. The Polish sources are typically exaggerated, selective, and, predictably, exceptionally bias in favour of Poland. i.e. everything they ever did had to be the best or the greatest and/or the world owes them a great debt? This small topic defines ‘Partisans’ which are (Usually) a part of an overall resistance. In accurate strict terms the Polish Partisans were for the main part ineffective and of little consequence when COMPARED to the Partisan forces of Russia, Italy and Yugoslavia, of which you appear to have only surface knowledge. CVA

Sorry, CVA, but the "this guy is a Pole so he must be wrong" is not an argument. Perhaps for the racists, but I don't suppose you're one of them, are you? You're right only at one point - I have little or no knowledge on the Italian partisans during WWII (there's not even a page on them on wiki). The rest is false, malevolent and simply disgusting. I'm putting your page at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page and it should stay there unless you finally find some time to back up your absurd claims with any verifiable data. A simple "I'm sorry" would also do. Halibutt 09:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Simple proof that Polish partisans did exists. Try to search phrase "polish partisans" in Google. You will find some pages, mostly describing conflicts between pro-USSR Jewish and Soviet partisans and Polish forces. Even anti-Polish pages of those, nevertheless use the phrase "Polish partisans". Przepla 13:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Halibutt and Przepla. CVA/anon user(s) fails to provide sources for his/their own thesis and his/their main argument is that 'Polish sources are biased' (also an unsourced arguemnt). On the contrary, Halibutt provides sources and so far his arguments seem to hold more weight as many Polish units operating during 1939-1945 fullfill the (not challenged by anybody) definiton on the main page of this article: a member of an lightly equipped irregular military force, formed to oppose a foreign invading army or army of occupation by limited combat, with the prime purpose of their ejection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, i haven't heard about any Italian partisans before, but i don't start to shout "there was not Italian partisans because i don't know about them" and dismiss all the sources as unreliable.

Halibutt quoted sources which gave you the approx. numbers of Polish partisans, LIVING AND FIGHTING IN FORESTS. I recommend some reading about so called "republika pinczowska" or battles in Janowskie forests (where in one single battle fought at Flisy 3200 partisans, killing close to 500 Germans in total plus unknown number of German policemen, collaborators, Kalmuks etc). Polish partisan force of course can;'t be compared to Italian one, both because Polish partisan forces were larger, accomplished more and acted in much more difficult conditions.

Anyway it seems that CVA had no idea about the topic, judging his answers about for example partisans in Warsaw Uprising (That partisans werre trying to break into the city is almost common knowledge after all), and ignores any sources

I wonder also how do you count Polish partisan units fighting in France and Yugoslavia: as member of Polish, or French resistance movement? Szopen 07:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone has prepared a page (stub?) on Italian resistance movement. So far it doesn't mention any partisan activity there. Could anyone add more info to the article? Perhaps User:CVA could add something..? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:20, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Bravo, User:Michael Snow, who unties Gordian knots with Alexandrian flair. --Jerzy(t) 17:18, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

A brave and wise move indeed, thanks Michael!. Why hadn't I thought of that earlier? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:53, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm flattered and embarrassed, but apparently the page is still a target for provocative edits. To prevent the knot from being retied, I removed the inappropriate inclusion of the PLO as an example. Whether the PLO qualifies as a partisan organization under the first definition would be seriously debated depending on one's point of view. In fact, most uses of the word "partisan" in connection with the PLO fit the second definition, not the first. Meanwhile, the WWII resistance movements are the archetypal example for the first definition, and should be sufficient for the purposes of a disambiguation page. --Michael Snow 17:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Italian partisans

There was a request for information ... referring to the Italian resistance movement. A little bit is moving there, some translations from Italian needed. Italian scene seems to be dominated by pro-Fascist (or at least crypto-fascist) POV, especially in the English Wikipedia. It is somewhat better in the Italian version, there is more competition, as far as I can judge. Help needed! MGTom 12:58, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Partisan in political language - especially in the United States

Hi, think one part is missing here, because it is used in a different sense in some wiki-articles. It is the meaning of partisan as it is used in the political debate and discussion especially in the United States. I have looked at wiktionary to find this term, because I am not from the US, and I believe we should incoulde this meaning here at the page. Maybe we could include a link to wiktionary.

By the way one of the definitions there is: A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

This with a short explanation of the "opposite" of it in this context which I think would be bipartisan. I could suppose some text if it is wanted.

Looking forward to hear your opinions. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have just seen the article Bipartisanship exists allready, so no explanation of this term needed a link would do the trick. But the other thing still remains. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)