Wikipedia

Talk:Brześć Ghetto

Latest comment: 4 years ago by K.e.coffman in topic Holocaust rescue
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brześć Ghetto. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brześć Ghetto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in Brześć Ghetto

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brześć Ghetto's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Browning":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cooperation vs. fight

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I prefer to cooperate with another editors. I do at least Google search before I criticze or demand removal. During one minute Bashert: A Granddaughter's Holocaust Quest, The local Catholic priest was also executed.

Icewhiz, why haven't you offered one minute of your time? Do I demand too much?Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
The Kobryń Ghetto link is red. What about writing the page and mentioning the two murdered priests?Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
If there is a reliable source connecting this to the ghetto, then we can include. What I removed, which was partially sourced to a myrtarlogy, had both sourcing issues and SYNTH concerns - the source did not tie this to the ghetto.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
We can include' means probably - you XX do the work and I Icewhiz will remove parts of your text. No, thank you. Please use 10% of your anti-Polish zeal to describe the Holocaust. How is it you don't edit 99% of the Holocaust pages, you select only the ones about bad Poles?Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have pre-answered you below. Kind of precognishion?Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let's rename the page

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If there is Holocaust in Bolekhiv, so Holocaust in Brześć were also acceptable. The ghetto was a tool of the Holocaust, not a valubale part of Jewish culture to be defended.Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The ghettos typically pass WP:GEOLAND and are discussed by ghetto/camp in sources such as USHMM's encyclopedia of ghettos and camps.Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Your POV is fascinating - you prefer pieces of land rather than Jewish people. Generally Jews worked outside ghettos, were killed outside, food was smoogled from outside, Jews were hinding around the ghetto. Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I assume that Holocaust in Bolekhiv should be deleted? You dehumanize the victims and helpers. Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dead priests

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

This is Wikipedia, not a martyrology. A society for the promotion of an antisemitic priest is not remotely appropriate as a source, nor is a popular audience book published in 1957. Furthermore neither source ties the deaths of the priests to the ghetto (and in one case, not even to the town). @Volunteer Marek: - instead of edit warring, please use the talk page and provide both a clear justification for use of these sources as well as a clear quote from each tying the priests to the ghetto. Saying "obviously refer" in an edit summary sounds like WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC) copy edited.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

myrtarlogy ?Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Both of these are reliable sources. That "antisemitic priest" was canonized because he gave his life to save others. If you have a problem with these sources, you can take it to WP:RSN. YOU need to stop edit warring. How many edit wars have you now started on this topic since your topic ban expired??? Volunteer Marek 21:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Neither is an appropriate source for history. WP:ONUS on you - not me. Beyond the RS issue, neither source supports a connection to the ghetto - or in ine case even to the town.Icewhiz (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
They're both fine. You can go to WP:RSN and make your case there. Reliable sources have been provided, ONUS is on you now. Volunteer Marek 04:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
ONUS on you. I have looked at both sources - beyond their dubious nature, they simply do not support any connection to the ghetto - your use here is WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, gee, thanks for actually looking at sources before dismissing them. But no, the idea is that they're "dubious" is your own idiosyncratic opinion and while you have a right to hold it you cannot shove it down other people's throats. These sources meet the requirements for WP:RS.
Hey, I know!!!! If you're so sure of your opinion - that they are indeed "dubious" or not-RS then you can go to WP:RSN and ask there. If you're right, then it will be a cinch to get support.
Otherwise quit it with the WP:WIKILAWYERing. Once reliable sources have been provided, ONUS falls on you to make a compelling case for exclusion. Volunteer Marek 04:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
WP:ONUS is on you. A source published by the "Saint Maximilian Kolbe Foundation" is not remotely reliable, regardless - the source does not even support any connection between the assistant pastor Rev. Grobelny and the ghetto (or Brześć), nor do I see where it makes a claim of "Polish priests were murdered in several neighbouring towns" to Brześć (it does seem to list various incidents in towns that could, via WP:OR, be described as such). Quote supporting your text, please ? Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
"is not remotely reliable" <-- if that is true, then you'll have no problem getting people to support your position over at WP:RSN. It's reliable, you're just engaging in a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 07:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
WP:ONUS on you, and in this case the unreliable source itself does not even support the connection made here - it is WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nope. Reliable sources have been provided. ONUS is now on you. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't magically change that. Volunteer Marek 06:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of whether it's a reliable source, is there any indication that a connection exists between Kolbe and the ghetto? If not, Icewhiz is correct that this is a case of WP:OR. Catrìona (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Soviets and Germans as "wartime allies"

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion

@Volunteer Marek: - restoring this "The German armed forces launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union – previously its own wartime ally is a NPOV and OR issue. Outside of very particular fringe circles (who also try to cast Hitler as a left wing figure) the Soviet Union and Germany are not considered allies in 39-41. Please provide a rationale for this - as "restore sourced material, reword" does not quite fit the bill.Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's your own... strange ... opinion. Especially that whole "Hitler as a left wing figure" part. What in the world are you talking about? Volunteer Marek 04:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I guess a University of Cambridge professor is "Inside" a "particular fringe circle" and considers "Hitler a left wing figure" [1]? See, that's the problem. What you keep calling "fringe" is not what is actually fringe. What you keep calling mainstream is not actually always "mainstream". You simply use these words to mean "Icewhiz disagrees with it" and "Icewhiz agrees with it".
That's not how Wikipedia works and you really need to stop doing that as it's WP:TENDENTIOUS, bad faithed and not conducive to achieving compromise. Volunteer Marek 04:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
The source you are citing to make your claims of this being somewhat accepted describes this as "worryingly one-sided account". How about you try advancing this irregular POV slant in the World War II article, e.g. placing the Soviet Union on the other side there of the infobox? I suspect such an attempt would fail quite quickly. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
The source I am citing explicitly states: "And alliance indeed it was". What YOU quote with regard to "worryingly one-sided account" has NOTHING to do with the description of this alliance. It's about something else. The fact that it was an "alliance" is Richard J. Evans's position NOT Moorhouse's (I have no idea what his position is, and it's irrelevant). And Evans is, or was, Regius Professor of History at Cambridge - you pretty much can't get more scholarly and authoritative than that. Your are trying to misrepresent sources again.
As for the WW2 article, I'm not interested in editing that article right now. Stop trying to deflect.
Volunteer Marek 07:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Here is Timothy Snyder: [2] referring to the German-Soviet alliance.
I could keep going. It's trivial to find authoritative sources for this. This IS the "mainstream" view. YOURS is the "fringe" view, even though you're trying to pretend it's all topsy turvy. Volunteer Marek 07:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I posted a request for uninvovled input in NOR/n and in Talk:World War II.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Wartime ally" suggests that the USSR was fighting alongside Germany. Therefore I would oppose it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
they did fight alongside each other in 1939 in Poland. I think "ally" is appropriate. 08:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)
Military alliance implies more than non-aggression or an ad-hoc coalition - typically military allies will come to each other's mutual aid if attacked by a 3rd party (and in this case the Soviet Union did not aid Germany in response to French and English declarations of war) .Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's great that you feel that way but reliable sources - which here means very prestigious historians - disagree. I will take the word of a mainstream historian over the fringe view of some guy on Wikipedia any day. Wikipedia policy requires me to do that. Volunteer Marek 06:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would say, "some sources disagree, and some agree". That means "wartime ally" should not be in the text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Why is this even in the article? Nazi Germany and the USSR cooperated for about two years, and some authors label this an alliance. However, it doesn't seem relevant to this article - the assertion has just been dropped into the middle of the sentence. One could just as easily add text saying that Hitler regarded the pact as a marriage of convenience and always intended to invade the USSR and murder and enslave its citizens, which is also true and actually more relevant to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • This "deeply problematic book", as described by its reviewer, discusses how the Soviets and Germans turned a blind eye to one another during their respective campaigns and how they agreed to partition Poland. And, even though "alliance" is mentioned several times throughout the review, in no way is it implied that this understanding between them was a military alliance of any sorts, which is what "previously its own wartime ally" appears to suggest. Context matters, and it looks like someone is confusing defense pacts with non-aggression/neutrality pacts. Even the few scholars who did classify non-aggression as one of three types of formal alliance (see this paper, p. 5) specifically exclude Molotov-Ribbentrop as one of the exceptions to the rule. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
We're not using the "deeply problematic book". We're using a review by a Regius Professor of History at Cambridge. Which says, quote: ""And alliance indeed it was". Volunteer Marek 06:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • By writing "a former wartime ally" we imply the USSR was at war with at least one country Nazi Germany was at war with. However, as far as I know, that was not the case (Poland, Britain and France were not at war with the USSR in 1939-41, Finland and Romania were not German enemies, and they even were German co-belligerents later; Baltic states were not the Allies). Therefore, we either have to explain who, why and it which context applied this term to the USSR (and describe the views of the authors who disagree with that) or not to use these words at all. IMO, a universal and non-controversial wording would be just to say that the USSR had a non-aggression pact with Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, this is original research and reliable sources disagree. And USSR was at war with Poland in 1939. An undeclared war, but a war nonetheless. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
What does "ally" mean. 1) We can ask the dictionary. Webster Unabridged: a sovereign or state united, banded, or associated with another in a common cause or by treaty or league *the duke and his allies* *an eastern empire with strong western allies* This seems to fit USSR-Germany. 2) the 1939 pact had a major military dimension--it contained a secret protocol to arrange a new partition of Poland between Germany and the USSR. That took place as each invaded Poland from opposite directions a couple weeks apart. 3) look at some recent titles: The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 by Roger Moorhouse - 2014 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0465054927 4) The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler https://books.google.com/books?id=OupmAAAAMAAJ by Geoffrey Roberts 1989. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
"The Unholy Alliance" is a just paraphrase of "The Holy Alliance", so it is more an allegory than a real statement. By the way, Roberts does not consider USSR a German ally, see, for example [3].
The quote from this article explains Roberts's views:
" This is not the generally accepted view of the Nazi-Soviet pact, which posits that on 23 August 1939 there was a definite agreement to partition Poland between Germany and the USSR and to allow Soviet subjugation of the Baltic states. The evidence for this view is quite simply that this is what subsequently happened. However, that fact is no proof of any prior commitment. The evidence, at least on the Soviet side, is that there was no such plan, agreement or definite intention. In signing the pact with Nazi Germany Stalin finally abandoned the policy of collective security and opted for safeguarding Soviet interests via neutrality and independent manoeuvring. Beyond that the new foreign policy embodied in the pact remained fluid. A strategy of territorial expansion into Eastern Europe was only one of the possibilities present at the moment of the signing of the pact; and whether or not it should be the chosen course of action would depend on the circumstances. After all, on 23 August 1939 nothing was certain. Would Hitler really attack Poland? Would the Poles fight back and how successful would they be? What would Britain and France do? What were the chances of another 'Munich'? What would be the consequences of any forward Soviet strategy in Eastern Europe? Until these and many other quandaries were resolved there could be no question of any precipitate action. In the meantime Soviet foreign strategy was kept in a state of abeyance. Only an analysis along these lines can explain the surprising ambiguity, hesitancy and uncertainty that characterised Soviet foreign policy in the days and weeks immediately following the conclusion of the pact with Nazi Germany."
Roberts clearly sees the pact as a non-aggression treaty, and it contrasts it with a full scale military alliance that Soviet Union, Britain and France planned to sign, but never signed. With regard to speculations about dictionaries, that is not serious. Dictinaries are not good sources for us, because they leave to much space for free interpretations, which may tantamount to original research. I would prefer the sources that leave less freedom of manoeuvre, for example, Britannica says:
"Alliance, in international relations, a formal agreement between two or more states for mutual support in case of war."
In connection to that, I am wondering which formal agreement existed between the USSR and Nazi Germany that stipulated a mutual support in case of war? Roberts demonstrates that neither Molotov-Ribbentrop pact nor its secret protocol fits these criteria.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
"The evidence, at least on the Soviet side, is that there was no such plan, agreement or definite intention." <-- this is clearly contradicted by other (and more recent) research. There was the secret protocol. I don't know if this peculiar view is due to the fact that you cherry picked a fringe-y quote or if it's because the work is so outdated. Volunteer Marek 06:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Marek, first, I took Roberts, because he was used by another user as support the thesis about some alliance, although this author has quite different opinion on that. Second, if you read Roberts's article in full, you probably noticed Roberts builds his opinion based on the secret protocol and declassified Soviet documents. No more fresh documents became available from the time Roberts wrote this paper.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
UK and France did not have a formal signed agreement or treaty either--but they are always called "allies."Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
They both declared a war on Germany, and they both were the allies of Poland.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
One should also note that since WWII is one of the most widely written about topics, it is possible to find sources advocating just about any POV (see Talk:List of vegetarians#RfC about Hitler being a vegetarian for a recent discuasion - some modern vegans and vegeterians have written at length on the topic) - the question is not whether one can find a source advocating a position - but rather acceptance of the position. In this regard, USHMM's encyclopedia (such "for dummies" sources are useful for brief non-nuanced phrases) - says "The pact was an agreement of convenience between the two bitter ideological enemies."[4] - showing that a mainstream source casts this as something other than a "wartime ally" relationship.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, the "mainstream source" here are historians like Evans and Snyder, not your own "fringe" views. So please don't even TRY to pretend that this is "just about any POV". It's professional, academic, scholarly, top in their field historians. And yeah, sure you can find a source which doesn't explicitly call it an alliance. But so what? I can find you a source which doesn't explicitly call a hamburger a sandwich. That doesn't make it not-a-sandwich. Basically what you need here is sources which are as respectable and reputable as Evans and Snyder explicitly (and recently) saying it's wasn't an alliance. Volunteer Marek 06:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Cannot tell anything about Evans, but Snyder is not a WWII expert. His research interests are different ("Bloodlsnds" is not a book about WWII history, just about one aspect of it). In addition, Snyder is controversial, I found many critical reviews on "Bloodlands".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And here is Antony Beevor calling it an "alliance" [5]. Volunteer Marek 06:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the recent (2012) pretty well-cited (per scholar - 71 citations for a 6 year old paper) Wilkins, Thomas S. "‘Alignment’, not ‘alliance’–the shifting paradigm of international security cooperation: toward a conceptual taxonomy of alignment." Review of International Studies 38.1 (2012): 53-76. non-aggression pacts (NAPs), in which the Soviet-German NAP with its secret protocols is discussed and classified, are expressly characterized as a non-alliance relationship. Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
This paper explicitly wants to change the definitions presently existing in mainstream sources. Which means it actually sort of proves the opposite point. Also, you need a few more sources here... Evans, Beevor, Lukacs, Snyder... sort of a tall order there. Volunteer Marek 07:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Beevor's book is intended for a general reader, it even has no references. I already responded about Snyder. In any event, in a case of controversy (and we definitely have a controversy, because Roberts's detailed analysis of archival documents contradicts to what Beevor calls, in passing, "an alliance") we cannot present just one POV.
In general, with due respect, your approach to work with sources (in this particular case) is incorrect, you just find a phrase that supports your own POV, but you do not perform an analysis of the context this phrase appears in the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Relevance to article

edit
As I noted above, why is this even in the article? It's not relevant. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree, but, unfortunately, in any article devoted to the Eastern Europe history this issue appears regularly...--04:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Siebert (talk • contribs)
Me three. This is an aside observation placed between hyphens - "The German armed forces launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union – previously its own wartime ally – on June 22, 1941" - the question of the nature of German/Soviet relations in 1941 is rather simply irrelevant to Brest/Brześć/Brisk at large, and the Brest/Brześć/Brisk ghetto specifically - and as presently in the article is simply a random unconnected observation. What is relevant is the German capture of Brest/Brześć/Brisk - which isn't even dated at the moment (we just mention the start of Barbarossa on 22 June, and the Nazi administrative change six months later. Brest/Brześć/Brisk itself was captured shortly after 22 June - but we don't even say that). Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Verification failed

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I looked into the following sentence: "Other recognized rescuers from the Brześć area include... In 2004 Floria Budziszewska, who risked her life to save a young Jewish boy (R. Lewin), was awarded with the title Righteous Among Nations.". This is sourced to [6] in turn sourcing a Russian book I cannot access. But while it true Floria Budiszewska received a Righteous award in 2004, the account [7] here states that she was active not in the Brześć nB area, but in Żabinka, which is nowhere close. As such, I am removing this claim per verification failed; her story is however relevant to the history of Jewish rescue in Żabinka. PS. The other recently removed content was indeed not revant here, and it pertains to the history of Jews in Bochnia. Also, I added a template for better sources to another challenged paragraph, as I have trouble verifying the names cited form a Russian book in the YV database; it may be just a name translation error from Cyrllic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Racist website

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

pamiecitozsamosc.pl is run by the racist Lux Veritatis Foundation, I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crynot (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Holocaust rescue

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rm material unrelated to the ghetto". Specifically, I removed the following:

  • Two Polish priests, The Reverend Władysław Grobelny and Jan Wolski from Kobryń near Brześć, arrested for helping the Jews, were executed on October 15, 1942 together with a number of Jews from the Brześć ghetto.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Zajaczkowski, Waclaw (1988). Martyrs of Charity: Christian and Jewish Response to the Holocaust. St. Maximilian Kolbe Foundation. p. 164. ISBN 0945281005.
  2. ^ "ks. Władysław Grobelny, wikariusz z parafii w Kobryniu | Pamięć i Tożsamość | MIĘDZYNARODOWE CENTRUM INFORMACYJNE". pamiecitozsamosc.pl. Retrieved 2019-06-12.

Courtesy ping @Piotrus:. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brześć_Ghetto&oldid=1206464324"