Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Footnotes

I suggest to change all the in-text links to sources to footnotes.--Nixer 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Cite.php references are the newer and better form of Wikipedia:Inline citations that the old ref-note system?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Subarticle created

As has been discussed above, I have created a subarticle on Treatment of the Polish citizens by the occupants, copied the current treatment section there and summarized the current section. Feel free to streamline it - bring back some important fragments - but try to keep it no longer then it is now (if you add something, move sth else to the subarticle). As usual, if you add sth new here, make sure you add it to the subarticle as the subsection here is supposed to be just a summary!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be occupiers, not occupants, shouldn't it? john k 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The English "occupant" is a false friend to the Polish "okupant." The proper term for the above context is "occupiers." logologist|Talk 04:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Important fact

The article should mention the polish intervention in Allied offensives, for example Market Garden, Monte Cassino, Bagration and Berlin. Miguel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:27DPAK OsnowaGrp forced LWP.jpg

Image:27DPAK OsnowaGrp forced LWP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacmmandBot (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Soviet picture

@ Molobo and Piotrus. This picture is just documentary evidence. How can this picture ... the authenticity of which is without question by any modern historian ... be said not to "represent the reality of described events". I'm lost?!? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture falsfifies the reality of the events, it does not serve as good illustration just as a sm iling Jewish inmate of Auschwitz wouldn't be good ilustration for Holocaust article. --Molobo (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture is sourced to the archival collection of documents. Are you saying the picture is falsified? If so, it should be removed. It's just that we need the falsification be established by someone else than a Wikipedian. --Irpen 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This picture simply doesn't illustrate well events, just as a smiling Jewish inmate wouldn't be a good picture to illustrate Holocaust. As to if it falsfified-probably. However this is not the main point why it shouldn't be here.--Molobo (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, you're being a "little" extreme here. Are you saying the people of Lodz loved the Nazis, and desired the Nazis as much as the Jewish inmates of Auschwitz hated being tortured and exterminated? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

People in Lodz hated the Soviet mass rapes, plunder, banditry and terror. In fact this is well documented and can be referenced. The picture thus doesn't illustrate the events well. Obviously people hated both Nazi and Soviet terror.--Molobo (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who suffered those would obviously hate them. Obviously Lodz was a big place, and there were enough happy people at that stage in 1945 to celebrate the expulsion of the Nazis. Why does it all have to be one-sided? I get the feeling you want to generalize too much about the negative things when at that stage in 1945 there were surely many who were happy to see the Soviets (communist Poles not least) expel the Germans. The picture really doesn't imply (speaking as a neutral) that Soviet occupation was a beauteous thing ... but the Soviet "liberation" is important whatever perspective you have. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

References about Soviet occupation of Lodz speak clearly of rapes, plunder, banditry and terror, murder. Please on OR from your side. This picture doesn't illustrate the reality of plunder, rape and terror that was the experience of Lodz citizens and thus distorts historic information about what really happened. Its just taken out of context-again like a smiling Jewish inmate in Holocaust article. Additionally your above comments is completely OR and contradicted by scholary sources regarding the attitude of Polish society. They did not welcome the Soviets and wanted them out, why hoping Americans would come instead. If needed this can be referenced.--Molobo (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, read WP:OR for a guide to its definition in English wiki. The photo is documentary evidence, it speaks for itself and you haven't provided any reason or source to question its authenticity. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The question of authencitity is of no importance here, a smiling Jewish inmate in Auschwitz wouldn't be best choice for illustrating Holocaust. Neither this extraordinary picture is suitable here to illustrate mass rapes, banditry and terror.As to OR it was regarding your baseless claims about population welcoming the Soviets, that are contradicted by several scholary sources on attitudes of Polish society in postwar period.--Molobo (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What "smiling Jew" photo are you talking about, Molobo? Let's not hypothesize. Which specific photo? --Irpen 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If we would find a photo of a smiling Jewish inmate in Auschwitz it wouldn't be the best choice to illustrate Holocaust article. Neither this strange photo completely contradictory to known circumstances is not a good choice to illustrate the reality of Soviet rapes, terror and banditry.--Molobo (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat the question, Molobo. Where is that "photo of a smiling Jewish inmate in Auschwitz" you are talking about? I am not interested in discussing some hypothetical photos produced by your imagination. --Irpen 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Such photos could exist based for example on Ovitz family when they tried to humour Mengele to save their livesfearing for their lives, the Ovitzes humored Mengele and sang German songs for him when ordered to do so.. Just as I wouldn't put such photo to illustrate death industry in Auschwitz I wouldn't put this photo here to illustrate Soviet rapes, banditry, terror and plunder. Please propose more fitting photo that doesn't distort the reality of situation and is not an exceptionall photo going against known situtation. We need a photo that reflects the general situation.--Molobo (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, I am not interested in the photos that "could exist". Let's discuss what exists. The imagination of a Wikipedian is not notable. --Irpen 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a comparision, nobody is putting here pictures of Auschwitz inmates. However my example would be just as improper to put as this picture to illustrate events such as banditry and rape.--Molobo (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, fair enough, you think the Soviet occupation was a bad thing for Poland. But what's that got to do with anything? This article is about the history of Poland in the period between 1939 and 1945. Now there are loads of pictures of Polish resistance fighters in this, taken from a relatively small number of people who at best were no more than an annoyance to the Germans; so why should there not be a picture illustrating the actual "liberation" of the country? The picture is so far as we know authentic, so even though you may not like it, this is just your POV. Please read WP:NPOV. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This picture distorts the reality. It does not fit here, a picture should be presented that portays the actual events, this picture is extraordinary and does not illustrate the reality of rapes, plunder and terror. A reader viewing it is given false impression, because the picture presents something extraordinary rather then the real situation that happened. Just like a picture of a smiling Jewish inmate could be found in theory, it wouldn't be the best photo to illustrate Holocaust article.--Molobo (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, the picture portrays actual events, the entry of Soviets to the city from which they kicked the Nazis out. Is there a reputable source that doubts the authenticity of this picture? --Irpen 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because picture is authentic doesn't mean it is suitable to illustrate events. For example there is a authentic picture of smiling happy little girl and smiling Hitler walking together on grass holding hands. Would I put it to illustrate Nazism or Adolf Hitler article ? No, because it would distort the article and information in that articles. The overall actions of Soviets consisted of plunder, terror and banditry-we need to find a photo that illustrates this reality. This photo is not it.--Molobo (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, your repetition of that unhelpful parallel isn't getting us anywhere. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A picture from a May 1st Parade in Warsaw doesn't represent feelings of Polish people towards Communism. Even an authentic one. Space Cadet (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Were "Polish people" in 1945 some indistinguishable mass of robots toeing the post-Communist patriotic line? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I (and other editors) have noted in the discussion above, there are several reasons for why this picture is not necessary here. To sum them up: 1) the picture is non-neutral 2) the even depicted is not very notable 3) there are plenty of other pictures to show from. Together those reasons indicate this photos is not a best choice; there are no pictures of Soviet forces committing crimes on Polish citizens to 'balance' the "liberation" - and I hope the article does not degenerate into this kind of a 'picture war'. Progress of Eastern front can be - if needed - neutrally illustrated by a photo of combat, or troops not welcomed by citizens who might have well been forced to pose for this picture (if there were real citizens and not other Soviet troops dressed as such in some random town). We have no photos of Western Allies planes dropping supplies to Polish partisans, we have no photos of dozens of crucial personas or events related to that article, each much less controversial. Insistence of some users to add the photo of Soviet "liberation" hard to understand as anything else then POV-pushing (in case of the editors who are familiar with the discussions of that photo).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture is not about smiling Auschwitz inmates, Hitler in a flowery meadow surrounded by children, nor is it about rape and plunder. It's not about Western Allies dropping supplies to Polish partisans. It concerns Łódź and the History of Poland. I personally changed the wording of the caption, so it would be less contentious. As in the case of any picture or photo it can be interpreted in many ways, or as stated more eloquently by you, but not as an original thought, ("a picture is worth a thousand words"). Nothing illustrates the problem and issues revolving around WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, than this relentless attempt to remove this picture. As for the remark (if there (sic) were real citizens and not other Soviet troops dressed as such in some random town) that is truly a surreal remark, and insulting to the millions of Soviet soldiers who perished, many who helped to rid Poland of an occupant that was what, better? As I recently asked, who rid Poland of the Nazis forces, the Armia Krajowa or the Armia Ludowa? Or the Red Army? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And there are 6 pictures depicting the Polish military, 4 depicting resistors. Now I get that this is the bit Polish people are most proud of, and of course rightly so many would say, but an objective article should cover the events objectively. These resistors were no more than an annoyance to the German occupiers, so why are there so many pictures of them and no Soviets (like 'em or hate 'em), who actually expelled the Germans? As I said before, "Polish people" in 1945 were not some indistinguishable mass of robots toeing the post-Communist patriotic line ... they were reacting to events as the happened in their individual circumstances. The USSR of course ... dare I ignore the damnatio memoriae ... didn't exactly struggle to find thousands of people to form and operate their puppet government. And before I get accusations of OR, all those Poles in that picture don't look that happy (not like the Germans in Vienna or anything). Most of them are just standing there. It's not up to wiki editors to decide how those people were feeling just because you want them to feel that way or think they ought to feel that way. The picture speaks for itself, and until one of its opponents comes up with some evidence against the picture I don't see how my opinion on this can change. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Per lack of meaningful response (or any response even) I am restoring this important and historic picture which illustrate the crucial event. --Irpen 06:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not show rapes, plunder or banditry, thus it does not illustrate the events in Lodz.--Molobo (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be as POVed as the discussed pro-Soviet propaganda photo. I am not opposed to showing a neutral photo, such as Soviet soldiers engaged in battle on a Polish soil. But spontaneous welcoming of Soviets was no more typical or neutral than Soviets robbing (or worse) of Polish civilians.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, would you have any problem with it if the caption stated explicitly that the photo came from Soviet archives? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen added a good reference; there is also a more neutral caption agreed upon at Łódź. The problem here, however, is that the event shows a biased, non-neutral version of Soviets entering Poland. Yes, they were likely cheered in few places. In many others, such photos were organized by propaganda units. In others, Soviets were welcomed with resentment (consider the circumstances of Józef Szczepański Red Plague poem, or the feelings of cursed soldiers, or the reason for many jokes about Soviet soldiers and watches (I recently saw a reference to an academic article about large scale robbery of Allied prisoners of war by Soviet soldiers that liberated them from POW camps)... PS. Do note we have a photo of Polish forces under Soviet command in Poland, so it's not like we are ignoring the Eastern Front.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, there is no single picture that would show a "universally neutral version" of the history of Poland. The fact of who ridded Poland from the Nazis is very notable and a picture illustrates this more than a thousand of words. Your own speculations do not get any more convincing from their repetition. Please find a source where this picture is asserted as falsified or even "organized". BTW, do you know that most Auswitz pics were also in a way "organized" as they were shot by the camp's liberators to make the world know what they have seen. Anyway, the picture is sourced, the objections to it are not. Until this change, all we see is an argument by repetition. Please try looking for sources instead. --Irpen 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, the so-called liberation of the city of Lodz was not a crucial event, and no Polish historian considers it important. For majority of Poles, it just meant change of occupying forces - from German to Russian. You can put this photo in the History of Lodz chapter of the Lodz article, if you like Tymek (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen a picture of Hitler going hand in hand with smiling little girl can easly be sourced as well, however it shouldn't be use to portay Nazism or Holocaust articles. We need a illustrative picture of rapes, plunder and murders the Soviet invading forces comitted during the re-occupation of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, a picture of Hitler is not anywhere near. Please start a discussion with the specific picture you have in mind at another article.

Tymek, this picture illustrates more than Lodz. It illustrates who actually kicked Nazis out of Poland. Unfortunately it was not a Polish army. We have a bunch of pics with Polish army whose significance in ending the Nazi rule was not so great, so to speak, and Polish editors try to remove a single picture that shows the army that indeed drove off the Nazis from their homeland. Please be honest. --Irpen 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Army mainly raped, plundered and terrorised Polish population. Just as smiling girl with Hitler photo, this is an extraordinary photo that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. A more appropriate photo would be of Soviet soldiers with 10 watches on hand or a rape victim. For now such photos are not in public domain, but its better to wait for them then to portay rape and terror with improper pictures.--Molobo (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for formatting your entry Molobo. I asked to ad naseum and I am sorry of having to remove it to make you follow the rules of courtesy. As for the rest, we've heard that already. Your hypothesising is irrelevant as much as fantasies about would be pictures. Who drove the Nazis off Poland? --Irpen 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Since you are unconviced, It will give me great pleasure to enrich this article with sources about this very subect written by professional historians :). As to your question, I guess it would be [1] and FDR's Lend Lease :) While Wikipedia is not a discussion forum,I could ask a similiar question about who invaded Poland with Nazis and signed agreement to help them destroy all Polish resistance to occupation, while giving away Jews to Gestapo ? Have a good day.--Molobo (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't even go into the staging of Soviet photos of "spontaneous" demonstrations. Please! Every use of "welcome" in any caption for any Soviet or Nazi "entering XYZ" photo has been by people ultimately (whether intentionally or not) pushing the POV that Eastern Europeans were either fascists or that they "welcomed" Soviet "liberation."
  The notion of Soviet "liberation" of Poland is just as dishonest as the notion of the "liberation" of the Baltics, the only difference being that initially Stalin only invaded and subjugated 51% of Polish territory based on his deal with his buddy Hitler instead of 100% as in the Baltics.
  Please let us just label this class of pictures as, for example, "Soviet information bureau archive photo of Red Army entering XYZ." —PētersV (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO all such pictures (x greeting the x army's tanks, along with brave soldiers of the x army), should go. They aren't amenable to nuanced discussions. Their inclusion leads to edit warring. Their provenance is often suspect. Balance is impossible in many cases. If the argument is that readers must look at a graphic once in a while, put in a portrait, a map, or a significant document. Novickas (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Only summary of Nazi occupation is present

There is no summary of Soviet occupation.--Molobo (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pasting

I see that now the article undergoes the new round of neutral editing. The same lengthy text gets pasted by Piotrus to a second page now gets pasted by Molobo to a third one. The article now is also a POV-fork and a plain mess. I am tagging it as a whole. It uses non-neutral, purposefully inflammatory wording throughout the text, important and plain obvious info gets removed, the article is turned into a POV fork of already two other articles. If I was a Polish editor, I would rather make an effort to make the article encyclopedic. It more looks like the drive is "towards the right POV". Tagged as such. --Irpen 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the article needs expansion, for example the issue of Soviet rapes, plunder and torture against Polish population is largely missing.--Molobo (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, do explain how your edits, inserting the controversial "Soviets liberated Poland" phrase into several places, were improving the neutrality of the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More so than other allies ousting Nazi occupation elsewhere during the war? Regardless, please do not revert over the tag. Thanks. El_C 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Equating Western Allies with the Soviets is a joke, I assume. So the answer is "yes", and the tag over liberation would be acceptable only on Sovietpedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before on EN WP, at length and in good faith, so not a joke. Here's one case that went to mediation: [2], however, it's not clear to me, from this page, what the ultimate consensus was, if there was one. Novickas (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to address the article's problems. However, the article was thrown totally off balance by Molobo's massive pasting. This text made a full circle. It was started here. Split into a different article by consensus. Than it was copied (not split) again by Piotrus to yet third article recently. And now it is returned in full back here by Molobo. So, now we have three (!) POV forks of the exact same text. --Irpen 07:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not oppose the tag on the section in question, which does need some refocusing and copyediting. Tagging the article is not helpful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not directly addressed in policy, so not the letter of the law, but pasting difficult material to several articles before consensus has been reached does not follow the spirit of NPOV editing. Novickas (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I rather think the problem here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as illustrated by this. The community consensus was and is that those events are notable. Certainly this article was undue in giving coverage of German atrocities and ignoring the Soviets; this was now rectified - I will now edit the article to improve its neutrality; some details are too excessive and non-neutral here indeed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear - the point was not whether the events were notable, but whether it is acceptable to copy text from one article to another before a consensus on its content has been reached. Novickas (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere, P.P. decries one end of the swinging pendulum, i.e., what he refers to as "Sovietpedia", but has a problem with stopping it swinging on its way to its other end, i.e., what some refer to as "The Great Polish Imperial Encyclopedia". Dr. Dan (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article remains the victim of massive pasting, 3rd POV fork of the same text. Please don't remove the tag without addressing the problem. --Irpen 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some other problems

"There is no doubt that Roosevelt was naive" (unattributed, and millions of words have been written on this issue - lots of work ahead), "In a seemingly unfortunate coincidence, Sikorski, the most talented of the Polish exile leaders, was killed in an aircrash" (seemingly?),"Mikołajczyk and his colleagues in the Polish Government-in-Exile insisted on making a stand in defence of Poland's pre-1939 eastern border (Curzon line) as a basis for the future Polish-Soviet border"- no, the Curzon line was not the pre-1939 eastern border; it was drawn in the aftermath of WWI (not in the sand, but in the local equivalent), and the Treaty of Riga extended it. Novickas (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Naive" and the whole paragraph fixed. I put in the cite tags to remind me to put in the refs. Of course, others might have them as well. Roosevelt's commitment is from records kept by those in attendance, Churchill's is from his own memoirs as I recall. —PētersV (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Conquered?

Was Poland actually totally conquered by the invading countries? As I can't find the right information about it on the page to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.13.206 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If the words "Poland was divided between..." don't help, how about the maps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Polish 2nd Army on the Eastern Front.jpg

The image Image:Polish 2nd Army on the Eastern Front.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Parallels

Stalin was not exactly a nice man, but there was no Soviet equivalent to Generalplan Ost. We should refrain from drawing parallels for the sake of drawing parallels. Stalin's policies towards Poland are discussed elsewhere in the article. Feketekave (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While we are at it, we might avoid giving the impression that OUN was a vegetarian organisation. Feketekave (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more clear on OUN? Stalin's policies shifted significantly after German invasion of Soviet Union; consider Katyn massacre, for example.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The OUN was an extremist organisation that advocated violence from its inception. The following is from Timothy Snyder's The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, p. 143. "The OUN was an illegal, conspiratorial and terrorist organization bound to destroy the status quo. Its goal was an independent Ukraine to include all Ukrainian territories (widely understood) but only Ukrainian people (narrowly understood). Its first congress, in 1929, resolved that "Only the complete removal of all occupiers from Ukrainian lands will allow for the general development of the Ukrainian Nation within its own state." The last of the OUN's "Ten Commandments" is also clear: "Aspire to expand the strength, riches and size of the Ukrainian State even by means of enslaving foreigners." [...] By murdering respected Ukrainians willing to cooperate with the Polish state, and by murdering Polish officials intending to help Ukrainians, the OUN divided Ukrainians from Poles, and provoked Polish retaliations that seemed to justify its radical stance. [...] Like the Italian and other European fascist movements, the OUN in the 1930s included leaders who sympathized with Nazi Germany and who believed that Adolf Hitler would aid them for ideological reasons. The late 1930s found the OUN collaborating with the Abwehr, the intelligence service of Nazi Germany." As you of course know, Katyn happened before the German invasion - I may have misunderstood your last point. The above paragraph is about the OUN in the interwar period. Not that it makes sense to compare these things, but the OUN and friends killed a great deal more people in Volhynia and Galicia in 1943 than Stalin ever managed to kill at Katyn and related events in Soviet-occupied Poland. Feketekave (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, but I am not sure how does this concern the article? Insert non-formatted text here

Siberia

Hi, I didnt find any informations about three deportations of Poles to Siberia committed by Soviets. It is important fact.--Paweł5586 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of Polish citizens by Polish collaborators

I think this is too detailed for a general history article; there are plenty of similar detailed topics that can't really be discussed in detail here (ex. Polish culture during World War II or massacres of Poles in Volhynia...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

civil war

What part of what i edited was POV? I'm trying to clean the stuff up here, guys ;-) To give an example of why those sources were removed, Tarnopil, Lviv, and Stanislaviv are said there to be a combined 110-120,000 dead. Timothy Snyder, on the other hand, says the death toll in Galicia as a whole was limited to 25,000 (see: The Reconstruction of Nation, pg, 176). The former is obviously an extreme overstatement. --Львівське (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Selective sourcing

First of all, the removal of several scholarly monographs published in the last decade, in order to promote a single claim made 12 years ago, is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Our policy requires that: "the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views." Snyder, in his Reconstruction of Nations (PDF, page 176), quotes a single source in support of his statement. His book doesn't include data collected by historians who published in the following decade. His only source, used twice in chapter "The Embattled Ukrainian Borderland" (notes #54 and #76) is: Gregorz Hryciuk, “Straty ludności na Wolyniu w latach 1941–1944,” Polska—Ukraina: Trudne pytania, Vol. 5-6, Warsaw: Karta 1999-2000. Obviously, the available research collected by other specialists, some of them, under the auspices of Polish Institute of National Remembrance is more up to date, if not more accurate than that. Secondly, changing numbers supported by references already provided, and than removing these references, is considered by Wikipedia behavioral guidelines as a sign of Disruptive editing. — Caruk12 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

just double checked and in ref 76 he cites Hryciuk, Kotarba, and Iliushyn; and the book was published in '03, so its 8 years ago (not 12), hardly outdated.--Львівське (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding ref 76. Snyder mentions Kotarba only in the work by Hryciuk, dated 1999 (note #54) and 2000 (note #76); not from a new source. My dates are correct. Please see Snyder: Notes to Pages 174–181. [76] (quote): For estimates, Gregorz Hryciuk, “Straty ludności w Galicji Wschodniej w latach 1941–1944,” Polska—Ukraina: Trudne pytania, Vol. 6, Warsaw: Karta, 2000, 294; (and [54]: Vol. 5, Warsaw: Karta, 1999, 278.) see also Ryszard Kotarba, “Zbrodnie nacjonalistów ukrain´skich w województwie tarnopolskim,” ibid., 267. (ibid. means the same source) For recollections of the Galician cleansing see II/17, II/1758/j, II/2266/p, II/94/t, II/1286/2kw, II/1322/2kw, AWKW. See also Il’iushyn, OUN-UPA i ukrains’ke pytannia, 113. (Iliushyn's recolections are mentioned only in passing in this case). — Caruk12 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a single claim, Snyder is the authority on this topic, so it seemed logical to use, if anything, his number over anyone else's. I have a stack of other sources that would agree with these numbers. You only see the removed bloated figures from dubious Polish scholars. Heck, I even have a quote or two, if you'd like, by prominent impartial western scholars stating just that - that Polish numbers are artificially inflated. The use of these peripheral numbers would barely fly on the massacre article itself, likely they would be relegated to a sub-section on extreme estimates. Shouldn't this synopsis / sub-section mirror what the main article says, not go against it?--Львівське (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The impression created here by User:Lvivske, is that his unilateral and unexplained changes have a broader support in literature. That's definitely not the case with Snyder. Please look at the following revision: "over 60,000" changed to "35,000 Polish civilians being murdered"... Timothy Snyder said on page 170: "All in all, the UPA killed forty to sixty thousand Polish civilians in Volhynia in 1943" (see note #54, the same single source: Hryciuk, per above). The number "35,000" therefore, has no backing in any of the references listed or even mentioned here.[3] — Caruk12 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally its 35+ for Volyn (35-60), 60+ for the entire war. The 35 base figure is supported by Katchanovski and is what we're currently using in the lede on the main article. Refs do need to be carried over to finish the fixing, yes, but its not like I'm making things up here.--Львівське (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

related to above

Ok in regard to this edit [4].

• I think that the events described are generally referred to as "Volhynia massacre" or "Wolyn massacre" or something like that, rather than "Polish-Ukrainian civil war" or "conflict". The "civil war" definitely, and "conflict" probably appear to be original research.

Timothy Snyder refers to it strictly as "the Polish-Ukrainian civil war", in exactly those terms (and also at times a 'the Polish-Ukrainian conflict(s)'). Marples referts to it as the "Polish Ukrainian conflict" and Piotrowski rejects the concept of "‘fratricidal Polish-Ukrainian conflict” or an “undeclared Polish-Ukrainian War”. Rudling refers to “the conflicts that occurred between Ukrainians and Poles during the war". Referring to the entirety of events as simply the "Volhynia massacre" is a biased Polish representation of events that took place in Volhynia, Galicia, Lublin, Rzeszów, Podalia, and into other border areas of Poland itself. It only works if you narrow yourself to only the region of Volyn - and ignores the many thousands of Ukrainians that were massacred; and also ignores the massacres of Ukrainians that began by Poles as early as 1942. Its a multi dimensional, multisided conflict that spanned several years. I've yet to find an English source that refers to the entirety of the conflict in just the terms of it being a "volhynian massacre" or anything like that.--Львівське (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with "Polish-Ukrainian conflict" in this particular article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• The edit removed a whole bunch of sourced text along with sources. It may be the case that some of these sources were not reliable, but in that case let's bring that up here on the talk page first.
• "resulted in over 60,000 Polish civilians, being brutally murdered" was changed to "resulted in over 35,000 Polish civilians being murdered". I agree that the word "brutally" is a bit POV here and probably should be removed. Likewise most likely "over 60,000" is picking an upper bound. But then again picking 35,000 is taking a lower bound. Per the discussion we had here [5], and the tables we made the upper bound would in fact be 60k (in Volhynia alone) - this is pretty much in all the sources. 35,000 is Katchanovski's lower bound and AFAIK the only place that number appears. So how about using "up to 60,000" (rather than "over") for this part.
• The numbers for the other areas affected by the violence as they were given prior to Lvivske's edit were in fact probably exaggerated and based on a somewhat sketchy source (Siekierka). Again, based on other sources as found in the table we made [6], the deaths in other areas were probably somewhere between 10k and 25k. So I'm fine with removing the Siekierka numbers but I do think we should replace them with legitimate numbers from reliable sources. Also as a result the statement that "total Polish civilian losses are estimated to exceed 60,000" applies only to Volhynia - total losses for all areas affected by conflict were probably from 80k to 100k.

The total figure really depends on how you interpret the numbers and add up the sources. Volhynia goes as low as 35 and Galicia 10, and Lublin 5, so the total low end IN UKRAINE is 50, so saying the losses exceed 60 isn't an inaccurate statement. The biggest problem is that the Volhynia numbers span from 35 to 3x as high, which makes up this conflict wide margin.--Львівське (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's sort of true since some of the sources are not clear exactly about which area they're talking about. However, we do have sources (Snyder, Motyka, etc.) which are specific on the question. I guess we could go with "between 35 and 60 thousand for Volhynia alone" rather than "as high as 60 thousand in Volhynia alone" thought my only concern is that the 35 number comes from only one source and all other sources give higher estimates (Snyder says "more than 40k", "as high as 60k" etc.) Likewise I'd go with Motyka here for areas other than Volhynia, unless there's a sources which directly contradict him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Katch' is using the 34,647 figure of accounted for deaths as the baseline, and that its more grounded to use the lower bound. Snyder says 50 (40 by July). I think it's important to stay in the realistic realm of 35-50 and not allow it to arbitrarily creep into the 100s of thousands. What does Motyka say for the other areas? Btw; I'm making a new article on this topic (the entire conflict, not just volhynia), should I start a stub or should we just talk here? I guess what's in this section can be used as a bit of foundation for what goes in the fully expanded article.--Львівське (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• The text that was added, starting with "In addition to also killing as many Ukrainians ..." and ending with "...sides lost their lives over the course of this conflict." is unsourced and problematic in some parts. Specifically:
  • what does "also killing as many Ukrainians" mean? "As many" as what?
  • "the war led to ethnic cleansing and retaliatory killings in kind by Poles" - Operation Vistula was an act of ethnic cleansing for sure but then that should be mentioned specifically. "Retaliatory killings" in Volhynia were not ethnic cleansing. Also numbers matter for comparison. The best source for this I know of is Motyka who puts the "retaliatory killings" in Volhynia at 2 to 3 thousand. He puts total Ukrainian deaths (including Galicia etc.) at 10k to 20k.
  • "Poles not in the AK also took up arms by collaborating with Nazi Germany in policing roles" - This is unclear and missing some context.
  • The rest of the added text is fine I think though it could use citations. Also it might be worth mentioning that the Germans were playing up and egging on both sides.08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC) (VM)

white washing

The Polish collaboration does not really get mentioned in this article, which seems to reflect the Polish narrative, that ignores Polish responsibilty and postulates the myth that only Germans or only Russians were responsible for all crimes under fascism/communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.6.18 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange, I can see "Rare instances of collaboration with the occupiers" subparagraph. This article is about the period 1939-1945, so the comment about crimes under communism misinforms.Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Poles also beat the Enigma cypher.

I have removed the above statement from the Collaboration paragraph. Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just out of interest, why? Someone will ask. Britmax (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Enigma research took place in Poland before the war and this article is about the war.
• It wasn't a form of collaboration with the Nazis.Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added "Poles beat the Enigma cypher and transferred the results to France and United Kingdom." to the former article History of Poland (1918–39).Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Soviets promoted prayers to Stalin?

> Children were told that they should pray to paintings of Stalin instead of the cross, and were rewarded with sweets and candy for this.[11]

This strikes me as an obvious propaganda rumour; indeed, it appears in almost the same form in the notorious so-bad-it's-good Christian anticommunist exploitation movie If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horses Do? with Fidel Castro instead of Stalin.(YouTube) It sounds plausible and terrifying to pious Catholics but it makes no sense in terms of Communist doctrine or practice. I don't have access to the book source given (or read Polish in any case) but the UK [Catholic Herald archive](http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/23rd-february-1940/1/prayers-to-stalin) has the story sourced to an Italian newspaper. The complete lack of journalistic details, combined with the use of quoted dialogue that could not possibly have been actually transcribed from the event, if anything engenders less confidence than before.

And before anyone starts, yes I'm aware that this story is found in many books published long after the events and there are even living people today who remember this incident happening to them in particular. (Including with obviously fantastical details like "a hole opened up in the ceiling and candy poured out.") Neither of these facts are at all dispositive; I think we need a credible source close to the events in place and time if this info is to remain. 99.249.15.40 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Europa Europa allegedly shows a candy rain, the movie is based on Solomon Perel's book. Both Holland and Perel aren't probably Roman Catholics and they don't study RC propaganda. Pray may be a naive way of describing Soviet practices. Please remember that Soviet pictures replaced orthodox icons in many families. I don't have unfortunately the quoted book by Trela. Allegedly candies were distributed during Communist meetings in post-war Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here comes an eyewitness account by Adam Macedoński, unfortunately 2007. [7].Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me as a way of training (like animals, Classical conditioning), at the same time anti-Soviet behavior was punished.Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a rewrite

The middle sections seem like a fork of Occupation of Poland (1939–45)/War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. I proposed merging them, see talk of the occupation article. As part of the cleanup of those topics, I'd suggest rewriting this article into a chronological overview of Poland in 1939-1945 rather than topical; this would make it fit closer with others article in the History of Poland series. Ping User:Orczar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on improving a couple of People's Poland's articles lately, but if the greater need is here, I could interrupt these and work on a chronological WWII article. Orczar (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Orczar: Regarding the need, I'd say check out article's popularity stats either by using the views tool in the history tab, or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages. I see you've been working on 1968_Polish_political_crisis; the article on History of Poland (1939-45) is twice as popular among the readers: compare http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/1968_Polish_political_crisis to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/History_of_Poland_%281939%E2%80%9345%29. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead - the Gleiwitz incident, a provocation staged by the Gestapo

German Wikipedia says "SS", not "Gestapo". Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And reliable sources say...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

SS and Gestapo is probably a secure statement. But the lead shouldn't contain a controversial and unsourced statement.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I just changed it to uncontroversial Germans.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration with the occupiers

A long section written basically to argue that there was little collaboration. Then why the long section. The discussion of this more peripheral issue belongs to the Occupation of Poland (1939–45) article. Orczar (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this general point, but then why are you trying to expand it? Also, in regard to this [8] you just can't say this in Wikipedia voice. You have one source. Ok. ANd it's published in Gazeta Wyborcza which is generally perceived as partisan on the issue. There are other sources. Like the one I've used recently on the HCMB article. Which don't see it as "collaboration". Some of them are actually pretty explicit that this wasn't collaboration. What was the Brigade suppose to do? Surrender to the Soviets and go willingly to death? Fight the Soviets and... go willingly to death (and still get accused of "collaboration")? Or get the hell out of dodge before the Soviets got there? Even if that did require a temporary cease-fire with the German.

I'm not a fan of the NSZ. But you're trying to make this a black-and-white issue where in fact this is exactly the kind of issue which is anything but black-and-white.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The brigade got out on time by whatever means they could, they were lucky, saved themselves. What Rafał Wnuk wrote in a larger context is I'm sure generally correct and it took courage on his part because stuff like that doesn't help a historian's career now. Right-wing nationalistic views are officially promoted so you don't get many Polish sources that say otherwise. In the past the ultra-nationalistic right was judged more harshly by their contemporary mainstream Polish compatriots, and Rafał Wnuk brings this perspective. Then of course the historical Polish World War II issues are anything but black-and white, including the story of this brigade. Orczar (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's an online commentary about the Wnuk controversy: http://naszdziennik.pl/polska-kraj/151951,zaklamuja-brygade.html If you have time, see also the Polish television documentary featuring actual real survivors at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fZlyFajaMA I wonder what you think about this new material, Poeticbent talk 06:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The film is interesting because it shows the human aspect of the events (interviews with the participants). Orczar (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Poland (1939–45). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Thread started by banned editor User:HarveyCarter for his usual trolling purposes. Please ignore this kind of posts. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Removed. Poeticbent talk 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Poland (1939–45). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323161233/http://niniwa2.cba.pl/polska_1939_1945.htm to http://niniwa2.cba.pl/polska_1939_1945.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Poland

Hi guys, am back. Please chime in to latest discussion at the Poland Talk page. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Poland (1939–1945). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531104804/http://my.telegraph.co.uk/beanbean/beanbean/4054641/A_Polish_life_5_Starobielsk_and_the_transSiberian_railway/ to http://my.telegraph.co.uk/beanbean/beanbean/4054641/A_Polish_life_5_Starobielsk_and_the_transSiberian_railway/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930205033/http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=12571 to http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=12571
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222073214/http://www.indeks.karta.org.pl/represje_sowieckie_1.html to http://www.indeks.karta.org.pl/represje_sowieckie_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)