Talk:Abba Kovner

Untitled

Corrected the page to reflect that fact that for most of the time Kovner lived in Vilnius, it was in Poland, not Lithuania. Did Kovner self-identify as a Lithuanian rather than a Polish Jew? Ephialtes (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did 68.198.153.87 work on all of that info, just to delete it all? Is there something I am missing? --Stoopideggs2 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I read in Wyborcza that his plan was to poison the public water supply and kill six million German civilians in retaliation for the holocaust and that when his capture made that plan impossible, his followers instead applied rat poison to the bottoms of seven thousand loaves of bread, making unknown numbers of people sick and killing between zero and seven hundred people, depending on who's numbers you use. I think that describing a plot to murder six million civilians as "to continue underground activities agasint Nazi POWs" is highly misleading.

Just the other day I was in a concert by Daniel Kahn where they sang about the "six million Germans"[1], pretending it was for real. This could be the origin of the story, but I have no idea about the veracity of it all. --Syzygy (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Battle Leaflets"

An anonymous IP wrote in this article "During his service he authored "battle leaflets," designed to keep up morale. One, dated July 12, 1948 declared: "The rotting corpses of our enemies will make our fields blossom" [bezevel gufot oyvenu od yelavlevu sdoteinu]. Five days later Kovner wrote: "Squeeze the trigger with love! Slaughter, Slaughter, Slaughter". [lekhatz al ha-hedek be ahava - lishkhot, lishkhot, lishkhot]" though there is no citation for this. I would ask for a citation, for starters. Stellarkid (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and suggest that the text is removed until, at least, a citation is provided and the matter can be discussed appropriately. Davshul (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would remove it myself but am still on an I-P article ban. Stellarkid (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Avengers," by Rich Cohen, (October 9, 2001), contains quotes from Abba Kovner from that period in time. Those quotes do not sound unlike things I recall from that book. But I don't have the book on hand to check for that now. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So I have removed the quotes for the time being. They do not seem appropriate anyway as they are highly POV, clearly trying to make Kovner out to be a butcher. We do not quote his poetry, why are we quoting from "battle leaflets"? Please bring any reinsertion to talk. Stellarkid (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He did indeed write things like that and it caused quite a stir. It is described in his biography by Dina Porat (Fall of a Sparrow), which I am reading. When I get to that part of the book I will add something to the article. Zero^talk 15:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See Ehud Sprinzak and Idith Zertal ‘Avenging Israel’s Blood (1946) in Jonathan B. Tucker (ed.) Toxic Terror: Assessing the Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons, MIT Press 2000 ISBN 978-0-262-70071-9 pp.17-42. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is in fact a recent article entirely devoted to his leaflets. It is on my list...but it is a long list. Zero^talk 09:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let us add them. Reminds me of Ilya Ehrenburg.

Zezen (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ghetto Vilinus.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

commanded a partisan group called the Avengers

But the linked page describes post-war vengeance, not a guerilla unit. Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Nokmim evolved in Nakam post war.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I recommend that interested parties discuss here what sources are reliable or not. Why would a book published by Routledge be non-reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:POLANDRS is that partisan sources which have been criticized for factual accuracy should not be used. according to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's article he is a proponent of various conspiracy theories. buidhe 02:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That article has been a target of some major BLP violations by a now indef banned user and likely needs a review. I have no problem with attribution that scholar if you want, but I don't believe there are grounds for calling his work unreliable. The book you removed has passed editorial review at Routledge, one of the top tier academic publishers. It is likely notable given the reviews I see ([2]). I may stub an entry on it, but right now I don't see any grounds for calling this particular work unreliable. PS. Just to be clear, I have no love lost for the author, who has some rather... disturbing views on some topics, IMHO. But what he says about topic X in venue Y doesn't mean that his academic book on topic A published by very reliable outlet should be problematic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

According to Dovid Katz review 10.1080/23739770.2013.11446559 Chodakiewicz is promoting the guilt of Rachel Margolis in war crimes, which is not accepted by any scholars outside of Eastern Europe that I know of. The issue of massacres by Soviet partisans is a very sensitive one and demands the best sources; both publisher and author should be considered. Overall from what I know about Chodakiewicz he is out to promote a particular viewpoint rather than being a seeker of truth. Such sources should be avoided in general imo. buidhe 04:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Dovid Katz is by no means a "neutral" party in this debate. Renata (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have done some c/e to this and now you can see all collected reviews at Marek_Jan_Chodakiewicz#Intermarium:_The_Land_between_the_Black_and_Baltic_Seas_(2012). Some are critical, some are not. I don't think MJC will win any major award for quality of his work or go down in annals of historiography, but I don't see why the source should be removed. Was it used for a WP:REDFLAG claim here? Why attribution of his views "MJC says..." is insufficient? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for "MJC says" because the fact that the Avengers group participated in the Konuchny massacre is not debated by anyone. It comes directly from partisan own war-time documentation and their post-war memoirs. Renata (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If there are better sources those should be cited instead. buidhe 05:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but a book published by Routledge just a few years ago is a pretty good source. I will repeat my claim: was this book used for any REDFLAG claim? Why remove it? Is all the content properly cited now to sources which are 'better'? Have you checked the other sources to verify that the claims in this article remain cited? And what makes the remaining sources for this section/sentence 'better'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good source. And anything having to do with massacres by Soviet partisans should be treated as a redflag issue as it is very sensitive, same as massacres of Jews by Poles (even if well documented like Jedwabne, etc.) buidhe 05:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't think it's a good source because...? With all due respect, the book has been positively reviewed by several experts, like Stachura or Miloiu. And criticized by others, and received mixed reviews by others still. What makes you conclude that in general, it is "not good"? Are you more of an expert that Peter Stachura who called it "impressively ambitious, panoramic examination of a substantial part of Central and Eastern Europe"? Given the mixed reviews, as I said attribution should suffice, I see no need to censor this book out of the reference section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Why? If there are other sources that could be used unattributed, why not cite them? I don't think it's reliable because sadly the author has a documented history of making things up. buidhe 05:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"sadly the author has a documented history of making things up"? Which review of the cited books mentions this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He supports Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories alleging that Obama was a Muslim and a Marxist.[3] Also promotes the unproven urban legend of gerbilling.[4] And per above, falsely claiming that Margolis was a war criminal. To me this indicates a relaxed attitude towards facts in general. buidhe 06:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Where do you see anything about Margolis in Intermarium or in Katz's review? Google preview shows that Margolis was mentioned once in Intermarium (page 507) when quoting three paragraphs related to Koniuchy from her own memoir published in 2006. There is no mention or even allusion of Margolis' role in the massacre. Katz review talks about how Intermarium did not cover the Lithuanian investigation into Koniuchy and how authorities wanted to talk to Margolis. Nowhere does it say that Intermarium accused Margolis of anything. Renata (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Chodakiewicz’s one reference to any of these extraordinary events is a single obtuse footnote in which former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is pilloried for having risen, in a 2011 article in the UK’s Independent, to Margolis’s defense: “Such ignorance, of course, informs politics. The United Kingdom’s [former] Labor leader Gordon Brown himself opined in favor of one of the participants of the Koniuchy massacre without really researching anything much about the event” (no. 37, p. 518). In fact, Brown had been briefed in great detail by Holocaust historian Sir Martin Gilbert, and knew very well that Margolis was not a participant in any massacre. For the antisemitic campaign in Lithuania to rear its head in Polish guise in this book is most discouraging." buidhe 06:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That's it? One vague footnote (that does not even name the participant) is the basis for disqualifying the whole book?? For the record, the article in Independent also talked about Fanya Branstovsky who Margolis herself mentioned as a participant at Koniuchy. Renata (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I split the reviews from MJC's page into Intermarium: The Land between the Black and Baltic Seas, since the book is clearly notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The central fact that some of Kovner's group was involved in the Koniuchi massacre is confirmed by Porat's book. I'll add it. I have no opinion on the other sources. Zero^talk 09:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Terrorist or not?

Some time ago I was encouraged by Meters to take this matter here. Previously, on multiple occasions, the other editors refused to engage on this topic, reverting my edit and messaging me threatening an edit ban.

I understand that Kovner’s reputation is an important investment for the State of Israel, with a recent exhibition in London (UK) advertising him as a freedom fighter.

So, does Kovner meet the definition of a terrorist, and if he does, why this article does not say he was one? --195.235.52.107 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ll rephrase. I can see how Kovner was a freedom fighter (factually and by way of a long-established supporting narrative), but is it not typical for quite a few of 20th-century freedom-fighters to also be considered terrorists due to their chosen tactics?--195.235.52.107 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is a terrorist. RAF did similar avenge tactics on political basis and are widely considered terrorists, don't see why he isn't. What he did was neither act of self defense, nor sanctioned by a court. 89.1.128.63 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)