Talk:Battle of Praga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title is POV[edit]

I think the title is POV. The google test ("massacre of Praga" 1794 -wikipedia) [1] gives only WP mirrors. OTOH (1794 "Battle of Warsaw " -wikipedia)[2] gives much more. Please do not take this as if I challange the massacre. I just think we need to use the most established term. Why wasn't the article called Battle of Warsaw (1794)? --Irpen 05:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. The article should be moved to the Battle of Praga. --Ghirlandajo 07:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the massacre of Praga was only a part of the main battle. Not sure if we need to move it - I'd say yes if sb would write an article about the rest of the battle, then this can became a section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just judge from what I read in the article. Take another look. The massacre (and as of now I can neither argue against nor for the fact that the massacre did happen) is only a small part. The article is about a much broader battle. The topic about a massacre itself may deserve an article. But currently, the article about the battle (which simply redirects here) carries a POV title because it implies that the battle and the massacre is one an the same thing. --Irpen 04:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree with you. But I'd like to point out that at least from the Polish POV, the massacre is much more important (and infamous) then the battle itself. Bottom line is, if sb wants to write the article on the battle, I'd strongly approve, and I don't see what else can we do? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already have an article about the battle. If somebody wants to write an article about a massacre or spin off the massacre info from here into a separate article and call it a "Massacre of Praga", it's fine with me. I also would not mind if a massacre, which may seem like a more significant event to editors, would become a larger and more detailed than a battle article, which might generate less interest from editors.

Perhaps this was intitially intended to be a massacre article. However, it was expanded and what we have now is an article about a battle which is called "a massacre", a POV title for the battle article. What worries me even more is the creation of the battle article as a redirect to massacre.

As I see it now, this battle article has to be moved to a neutral title or carry a Template:POV-title tag. There is a workaround too, if editors approve. The info from here can be pasted in place of the redirect and the massacre info can be left here with a prominent link from the battle. The move seems more correct from the formal point of view but is more cumbersome. I would like to hear others' opinions on these suggestions. --Irpen 04:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't called massacre in Poland[edit]

The correct name of the event is named rzeź Pragi not masakra Pragi. You can easly check it on google.Correctly translated it should be named Slaughter of Praga, or Carnage of Praga.Two paintings about it are also called Rzeź Praska not Masakra. --Molobo 23:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Here an example of naming it such way: http://jewish.sites.warszawa.um.gov.pl/jj.htm 'Prayers were recited in Praga synagogues on the anniversary of the Praga slaughter. The metal goods factory of Józef Rosenthal, built in 1904, and converted by the Lejzorowicz brothers in 1919 into a tannery, survives on this little street.' --Molobo 23:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Another example : http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~mstaum/hist329/intrel.html 1794-Kosciuszko revolt in Poland led to Russian and Prussian invasion-slaughter or civilians by Russians in Praga suburb of Warsaw-20,000 deaths in autumn --Molobo 23:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC) So if you want to give a name under which it is known in Poland it should be Slaughter of Praga. --Molobo 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Also here is decleration of officials from the district about this event : http://www.pragapld.waw.pl/news.php?id=130 --Molobo 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if those opposed to Molobo's edits would actually explain their views on talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this fragment is properly referenced and after some NPOVing it can be useful for the article. Comments about NPOVing it? PS. The source is discussed at Talk:Alexander_Suvorov#From_my_talk_page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian historians and writers have tried to justify this massacre as an revenge for Polish conquest of Moscow in 1612.In 1831 when Russians once again crushed a Polish uprising against Russia's occupation of Poland Alexander Pushkin wrote "we smashed babies over the ruins of Praga" and declared that he is generous enough not to demand the destruction of whole Warsaw as the slaugher served its purpose[3].

anti-polonism[edit]

Putting this in the anti-polonism category is against the NPOV spirit. Pascal.Tesson 04:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how come murdering thousands of people just because they were Poles is not an effect of some anti-Polish sentiments? //Halibutt 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Russian soldiers from the massacre "We shall kill Poles like dogs for Poles have tried to defy our rule". --Molobo 08:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Dzieje Insurekcji Kościuszkowskiej, Kazimierz Bartoszewicz.
--Molobo 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the page number? I am not sure if we can link directly to a page like with Google Print. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo, Pushkin wrote about Massacre in his Poem quite the opposite to what you claim. I am sure you can find the translation of full version and post it here. The other part of your edit is just as worthy. Consider adding cat:anti-Semitism to the articles of a whole lot of military "heroes" who "fought" for Poland as well as Russophobia to, say, Sigismund. --Irpen 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totallydisputed[edit]

To begin with:

  1. cat:Anti-Polonism persisted with by certain users is highly questionable. It is no more applicable than cat:Anti-Semitism or cat:Russophobia with respect to certain Polish historic figures and events that involved Poland
  2. In Russian historiography, if this is connected with anything at all, it is with the Massacre of the Russian garrison in Warsaw that preceeded this event, not to something centuries ago
  3. Pushkin in his poem avalable here titled to Gustav Olizar, a friend of his and a red link for now, wrote quite the contrary of what the article tries to present and the quote is taken out of the context. It's not what I think on what he wrote. It's just the direct words. The poem starts with the introduction of where he recalls the past conflicst and ends with him speaking of the hope for peace that will bbe brought through the friendship of the arts people.

Russian original with the literal translation under lines

Very inflammatory poetry and a good example of hatred towards Poles. Right Molobo? --Irpen 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An English translation would be nice. And let me repeat that your, or mine, or Molobo's interpretation of the poem cannot overrule an academic reference like Janusz Tazbir's book.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If only you read carefully, Piotrus, what others write at talk pages. English translation is right there, between lines, for which I spent quite some time to write. --Irpen 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, the layout was quite confusing, fixed now. I feel we are talking about a different poems (or parts of it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, besides, now I got how the bizarre connection allegedly made by the Russian historiohraphy and how this poem popped up with this. Pushkin simply cites Praga and Kremlin in this very poem as examples of the wrongs the countries did to each other. Nowhere he writes that they are connected and that one justifies the other. We do have sources that connect Praga with Warsaw, OTOH, and Piotrus have seen them too. I will give a literal translation to the rest of the poem. And there isn't another one. --Irpen 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pushkin simply cites Praga and Kremlin in this very poem as examples of the wrongs the countries did to each other. So he compares a massacre of innocent civilians of Poland to unfortunate involvment of Polis nobility on the side of one of factions that opposed the Muscovy ? Seems very POV. But I am not to judge this. Fortunetley Tazbir did it for us. Personally I believe that comparing the two is completely out of place and justification of Russian imperialism towards Poland, for which Puszkin became infamous in later days of his life. --Molobo 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, we had a related discussion with Pushkin and Mickiewicz at Talk:Russophobia#Irpen.27s_comment. I think we need to address several issus here. I will translate the related para from Tazbir's article, it is quite short:

"Aleksander Puszkin w wierszu Oszczercom Rosji nazywa postępowanie Suworowa słusznym odwetem za spalenie Moskwy. Ponieważ poeta uznał dziejowy rachunek za wyrównany, przeto „wspaniałomyślnie” nie domagał się już zniszczenia Warszawy. Nieco wcześniej zaś pisał: „Bywało, żeście świętowali sromotę Kremla, carów pęta. I myśmy wszak niemowlęta o gruzy Pragi rozbijali”.
Alexander Pushkin in a poem "Defamers of Russia" (Piotrus note: quick and dirty translation) calls Suvorov's action a justified revenge for the burning of Moscow (Piotrus note: presumably during the Dymitriads). Since the poet saw the historical acounts balanced, he "mercifuly" did not demand the desctruction of Warsaw. And earlier he wrote: "It was, that you celebrated the shame of Kreml, tsar's enslavement. But so did we crushed infants on Praga's ruins."

All things considered, Tazbir gives more examples then just Puskhin's poem, and his main argument is that that Russian hisorians justified Praga mostly not because of the earlier uprising but because of the Dymitriads, and that such interpreations or ommissions of the information of the massacre can be found in modern Russian sources (he cites a 2000 textbook).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I translated the entire poem as close to the original as I could. If this is the "comparison" as Molobo or Tazbir see, I suggest Molobo takes a small break and comes back later. Or this is a "justification" according to Tazbir? --Irpen 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the new variant of the article! Shame, guys! --Irpen 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL :D Gentlemen, shame on you indeed. How come you did not learn Russian - and the works of Pushkin? And to our dear Irpen a little surprise:



Клеветникам России[4]
(this is the poem referred to by Tazbir as "Oszczercom Rosji")
О чем шумите вы, народные витии? What are you bragging about oh people?
Зачем анафемой грозите вы России? Why are you threatening Russia with anathema?
Что возмутило вас? волнения Литвы? What is it that outraged you so much? Riots in Lithuania?
Оставьте: это спор славян между собою, Leave it: it's a matter between the Slavs
Домашний, старый спор, уж взвешенный судьбою, Internal, old disagreement, already settled by the fate,
Вопрос, которого не разрешите вы. A question you won't settle
Уже давно между собою These tribes have been
Враждуют эти племена; fighting for long already
Не раз клонилась под грозою Not once have they bend under storms
То их, то наша сторона. It's their, it's our matter
Кто устоит в неравном споре: Who will prevail in this uneven fight:
Кичливый лях, иль верный росс? Haughty Polack or faithful Russian?
Славянские ль ручьи сольются в русском море? Will Slavic streams melt into the Russian sea?
Оно ль иссякнет? вот вопрос. Or will it dry off? That's the question.
Оставьте нас: вы не читали Leave us alone, you have not read
Сии кровавые скрижали; those bloody tablets
Вам непонятна, вам чужда You won't understand, it's alien to you
Сия семейная вражда; that civil war
Для вас безмолвны Кремль и Прага; For you the Kremlin and Praga tell nothing
Бессмысленно прельщает вас Mindlessly entice you
Борьбы отчаянной отвага — the despaired courage -
И ненавидите вы нас... and you hate us...
За что ж? ответствуйте: за то ли, Why is it so? Say, is it
Что на развалинах пылающей Москвы because on the ruins of blazing Moscow
Мы не признали наглой воли we didn't follow the call of insolent will
Того, под кем дрожали вы? Of the one, under whose power you trembled?
За то ль, что в бездну повалили Or is it because we've overthrown into the abyss
Мы тяготеющий над царствами кумир The idol reigning whole empires?
И нашей кровью искупили And with our blood we bought
Европы вольность, честь и мир?.. Europe's freedom, honour and peace?..
Вы грозны на словах — попробуйте на деле! You are strong in words - but try the deeds!
Иль старый богатырь, покойный на постеле, Or is the old hero now silent on his bedding,
Не в силах завинтить свой измаильский штык? Too weak to strike his Izmail push?
Иль русского царя уже бессильно слово? Is the Russian Tsar's word too weak?
Иль нам с Европой спорить ново? Or should we start to argue with Europe again?
Иль русский от побед отвык? Or perhaps the Russian forgot how to win?
Иль мало нас? Или от Перми до Тавриды, Are we too few? From Perm to Crimea
От финских хладных скал до пламенной Колхиды, From the cold stones of Finland to flamy Colchis,
От потрясенного Кремля From the shaken Kremlin
До стен недвижного Китая, to still walls of China,
Стальной щетиною сверкая, will not the steel
Не встанет русская земля?.. Russian land rise?
Так высылайте ж к нам, витии, So go on, send us your news,
Своих озлобленных сынов: Your weakened sons:
Есть место им в полях России, There is still place for them in the fields of Russia
Среди нечуждых им гробов. Among other graves, not uncommon to them


Here you have everything: syndrome of a besieged fortress, portrayal of a mass slaughter of civilians as a friendly disagreement between "haughty Polacks" and faithful Russians, threats to the entire continent, Russification of Poles as a raison d'etre, extreme nationalism... BTW, there's a lovely essay on the poem here. It's by Yuri Druzhnikov, so it can hardly be called a Polish POV...

Oh, and when it comes to our beloved Pushkin - this friendly remark is particularly funny. //Halibutt 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his friendly remark] is particularly funny I putted it through Babelfish and it chilled my bones, It really makes you wonder how good we have today that we are free...--Molobo 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you post that translation?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I almost forgot: [5] and [6] :) //Halibutt 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what do we have here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt, I didn't shame anyone for not knowing Pushkin. I thought that edits of an articles were shameful and called them for what I saw them.

Now, where in the poem "Defamers of Russia" as Piotrus suggests any calling "of Suvorov's action a justified revenge for the burning of Moscow" (Piotrus note: presumably during the Dymitriads). Also note, that Moscow burned During Napoleon, rather than Dymitriads. Where is "mersiful non-demandingof the desctruction of Warsaw".

As for what Piotrus wrote "It was, that you celebrated the shame of Kreml, tsar's enslavement. But so did we crushed infants on Praga's ruins." It is certainly referred to the "earlier" "To Olizar" poem. I don't see all the other stuff you wrote above in this poem either. Could you elaborate? --Irpen 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it appears that Tazbir refers to both poems. First, to the 'crushing of infants' during Praga massacre in 'To Olizar', and then to comparison between Kremlin and Prage in the 'Oszczercom' poem ('For you the Kremlin and Praga tell nothing'). It does appear that the burning of Moscow seems to be more logically attributed to Napoleon then the Poles, though, and looking at the poems I see nothing about justifications. Anyway, interpreting poems is difficult, I will try to NPOV the current version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, but I did :) Not knowing Pushkin, Mickiewicz or Shakespeare is a serious flaw in education IMO, which is why I wrote what I did. As to the other things that are in this poem - I suggest the excellent collection of essays by Druzhnikov. Sadly the relevant chapter on this poem is available on-line only in Polish, as Russian version of his web-page gives other chapters. It's particularly interesting to read up on the general Russian reaction to his series of nationalist poems, which caused the tsar to like Pushkin more, while most of his friends to feel ashamed for his praise of barbarity... //Halibutt 09:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail[edit]

I heard that Suvorov engaged in atrocities similiar to the ones in Praga in Turkish city of Ismail. Can anybody confirm this ? --Molobo 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check his bio, I believe it is mentioned there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange spellings and strange text[edit]

I am not sure if all these Wasyl Zukowsklies and Czaadews are results of laziness or somehow intentional. Should we also change the spelling of Warsaw to Varshava etc.?

As a somehow eyewitness of the later Soviet propaganda I can confirm that during the Soviet time all the references to Suvorov's involvement in Praga massacre were taboo. The general attitude to the Poland Uprisings were in line with usual Leninist's "Russian Empire as a Prizon of Nations", "National-liberation and Peasant uprisings as a prelude to the Proletarian Revolution, etc". As such they were mostly considered as vaguely positive things (similar to say Bolotnikov Uprizing, but they preferred not to dwell on the details of the event. I strongly doubt that there exist any reference e.g. in any official Soviet publications (including the Large Soviet Encyclopedia that vindicates Praga massacre.

The same goes to the crazy Westernizer Pyotr Chaadaev (if this Piotr Czaadajew is indeed him). The officially-recognized authors of the time like Gavrila Romanovich Derzhavin or Vasily Zhukovsky (I guess the article refer to them) might say something supportive to the events, I would still like to see the references. As was shown by Irpen the alleged Pushikin references connecting Dimitriades and Praga were pure speculations.

BTW Pushkin and Adam Mickiewicz have quite a strong personal connections. Originally they were friendly, later, after the Slavophile verses of Pushkin Mickiewicz broke all the relations. Despite this Mickiewicz was shaken by the death of Pushkin and even sent the Pushkin's killer Georges d'Anthès a challenge for duel. I doubt he would do it if Pushkin would ever praise murdering of Polish babies.

If this Michail Glinka is Mikhail Glinka and the theatrical work is his opera A Life for the Tsar, then it has nothing to do with the Praga massacre.

In short this new section #National historiographies is a complete nonsense irrelevant to the Battle of Praga. abakharev 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its based on direct historical research by respected scholar. Neither mine or your personal views are important here. --Molobo 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, I can write a whole lot of irrelevant rant critical to Poland or to certain Poles and post it all around pasting it to articles, relevant and irrelevant. The issue is the relevance here. Did you actually read this bizarre section? --Irpen 01:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling are my fault, I copied them from Tazbir page, and couldn't find equivalents on pl wikipedia to see what's the proper term used on en wiki. Thank you for correcting them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, the entire presense of this section in the article is an outright nonsense along with cat:Anti-Polonism. This two issue cause a good-faith tag, bring no info on the battle and don't hold any water in general as pointed to you above by Alex and myself. Any reader who sees this nonsense would be alerted not to trust the whole article. Did you actually read what Alex and I stated in entirety? Because it seems you are picking minor issues to respond. Look, this article is the prime consern of Polish community and you are most interested for it to look encyclopedic rather than the clearly as the battleground for some above to grind an axe against Russia, USSR and even Pushkin. --Irpen 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that some of the info in this section is not very relevant and should be moved to articles about Russian historiography and/or Soviet propaganda, preferably to the first one - unfortunately it does not yet exist. Nonetheless information on views of the Praga Massacre in historiography is relevant to the article and I see no reason why the entire section is 'irrelevant'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large Soviet Soviet Encyclopedia and the Praga Massacre[edit]

The last edition of BSE is available online. I believe it is quite representative to the Soviet propaganda approach. The massacre of civilians is never mentioned at all.

  • The article on Praga [7] only states that it is a part of Warsaw and connected with bridges.
  • The article on Uprising of 1794 [8] only says 4 ноября царские войска овладели предместьем Варшавы - Прагой; 6 ноября столица капитулировала. За поражением восстания последовал третий раздел Польши (1795) и окончательная ликвидация Польского государства. Мужество и героизм народных масс, прогрессивная, несмотря на свою ограниченность, социальная политика повстанческого руководства оказали влияние на дальнейшую национально-освободительную борьбу польского народа. П. в. 1794 сыграло и значительную международную роль: оттянув на себя силы Пруссии... (On 4th of November tsarists troops (Suvorov never mentioned) took the Warsaw's suburb Praga, on 6th of November the capital capitulated. The defeat of the uprising was followed by the 3d division of Poland and the final liquidation of the Polish state. The courage and heroism of people masses, progressive despite being limited social politics influenced the following National Liberation Struggle of the Polish People...), the references are on Carl Marx and two Polish communists authors.
  • Finally the article on Suvorov [9] states: В августе 1794 назначен командующим русскими войсками, направленными для подавления Польского восстания 1794. В сентябре — октябре С. нанёс поражения войскам повстанцев (при Крупчицах, под Брест-Литовском, Кобылкой и др.), его войска штурмом овладели предместьем Варшавы Прагой и заняли Варшаву; при этом С. проявил гуманное отношение к «мятежникам» (отпустил пленных, запретил реквизиции, требовал не допускать «обид жителям» и т. д.). ( In august he was set to command Russian troops sent to suppress the Polish Uprising. In September-October he defeated the rebels (at Kruptsa, Brest-Litovsk, Kobylka, etc.), his troops took Warsaw's suburb Praga and took Warsaw; Suvorov when treated "insurgents" humanely (release the prisoners. forbade requisition, required not to allow "insults to the locals", etc.)).

I believe it was typical for the Soviet propaganda - taboo on mentioning the massacre, avoiding referencing Suvorov as the suppressor (only bad guys suppress people rebellions), if unavoidable emphasizing humane treatment by the hero. The uprising itself is "brave and progressive but limited".

It is difficult to me to read the entire Polish text but if there are any references to the BSE vindicating the massacre (or even mentioning it at all for that matter) I would like to see them.

I have removed the following section from the article. The reasons are outlined above. The info is mostly irrelevant to the article and many facts are doubtful or should be rephrased in neutral manner. I think some of the info might be useful for the Polonophobia article abakharev 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the GSE, Tazbir mentions the change in propaganda in the 1940s and that the Battle of Praga entry was changed after the 1940 edition.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not reinsert a strange cat:Anti-Polonisn which is just as applicable here as cat:Russophobia to Operation Barbarossa. --Irpen 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a large scale conquest military operation and small scale massacre of civilians, I'd think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how this "difference" makes the cat relevant? --Irpen 18:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany did not invade the Soviet Union because Russians lived there. The Russians slaughtered the people of Praga specifically because they were Polish. Quite a difference, don't you think? //Halibutt 09:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn... Polish Cabal at play. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn...Ghirla's arguments are stunning as always. When was the last time you provided a source or replied without any kind of personal attacks when talking to us, Ghirla? Could you refresh my memory?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russians didn't invade Poland because Poles lived there. So, I don't understand Halibutt's argument. Please elaborate. --Irpen 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. I believe Russians invaded Poland because they wanted to conquer it; simple imperialism, nothing more. Their reasons were probably the same as those for the German and Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939. However, they did not slaughter 20k+ people of Praga out of imperialism, as there was no politics behind that. Or was it?
Anyway, let's at least pretend we're being constructive here. I believe the section on national historiographies dealing with the problem of the massacre of Praga is important and that the article could surely benefit from such a section. Of course, it should be improved, but still, it seems a reasonable choice. After all the topic seems to have been controversial even back then, not to mention modern times (apparently). //Halibutt 03:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the massacre was to break the spirit of the insurrection. It was cruel, I agree. I no way it was done simply because Russians wanted to kill Poles as their goal or as one of their goals. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, did plan to eliminate 3/4 of the Soviet population. This elimination was the goal as well, along with the conquest of the control of the land. --Irpen 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course differences. But I feel this section is getting OT now...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little late, but I just discovered this discussion today, so I'll throw my two cents in.
Throughout history, bloody sieges or difficult, high-casualty assaults on defensive bastions have often been followed by a massacre of the surviving defenders. This is because of the emotional trauma incurred by the attackers: after having seen so many of their compatriots killed as a result of the defenders' obstinacy, the attackers are frequently consumed by an angry, uncontrollable lust for revenge.
I am not trying to justify the behavior of attackers in these situations; I'm merely trying to illustrate something well known about war, and about the vicissitudes of human emotion and irrationality under traumatic, life-threatening situations.
Generally, the more abuse and suffering the attackers incur, the more likely they are to irrationally seek revenge.
If the attackers are fighting in a foreign country and civilians are within the fighting zone, the attackers' crazed impulse for revenge is often directed at the civilians as well.
That such out-of-control killing frenzies sometimes consume the victorious attackers is so well known that generals are mindful of it in making strategic decisions.
The Russian surrender of Port Arthur to the Japanese in 1905 is a case in point. After resisting the Japanese for six months and inflicting heavy casualties on them, the Russian commander Stoessel realized his garrison could hold out for only another two months at most. Stoessel chose to negotiate an immediate surrender rather than to fight on, realizing that in the end, the Japanese troops might not be able to control their urge to take vengeance on the surrendering Russians who had caused them such pain and death.
Generals commanding the victorious attacking forces in such situations are often judged by contemporaries and history on the extent to which they were able to prevent their troops from massacring the remaining defenders.
If I'm not mistaken, Suvorov is known to have allowed his victorious troops to give full vent to their bloody impulse to avenge themselves against fallen defenders at the conclusion of sieges. Supposedly Suvorov believed that the curb his own troops would lower their morale and make them less motivated to win later battles in the campaign.
I'm not trying to defend Suvorov...I'm just relaying what I've read.
Kenmore 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore[reply]

National historiographies[edit]

For details, see Russian historiography and Polish historiography.

Russian writers and historians have tried to justify this massacre as an revenge for Polish conquest of Moscow in 1612 [1] or the heavy losses Russian garrison sustained during the Warsaw Uprising of 1794[2]. Such reasoning was immortalized after 1831 when Russians once again crushed a Polish uprising (the November Uprising) against Russia's occupation of Poland and Alexander Pushkin compared the Praga massacre with the events of events of 1612: "Once, you celebrated the shame of Kreml, tsar's enslavement. But so did we crushed infants on Praga's ruins".[1] Similar sentiments can be seen in the poetry of Wasyl Zukowski or Gawril R. Dierzawin or theatre of Michail Chieraskow or Michail Glinka.[1] On the other hand Polish literature and historiography has a tendency to be biased in the other direction, dwelling on the description of Russian cruelty and barbarism.[1]

Similar arguments were used by Russian historians such as Piotr Czaadajew, A.I. Kozaczenka and even Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and can be seen in such reference works as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.[1] After the Second World War this entire event, like many other cases of Russo-Polish conflicts, was a taboo topic in the Soviet Bloc, where Soviet propaganda now tried to create an illusion of eternal Slavic unity and friendship. Any references to the massacre of Praga were eliminated from textbooks, existing academic references were restricted and censored, and further research was strongly discouraged.[3] Although after the fall of communism the restrictions to research were lifted, this is still one of the controversial and sensitive topic in the Polish-Russian relations. [4]


And more on attempts by some Russian authors to justify the mass murder of Polish civilians: [10] --Molobo 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Suvorov quotes a Russian book quoting allegedly Czartoryski. It would be nice to check it. Xx236 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c d e (in Polish) Janusz Tazbir, Polacy na Kremlu i inne historyje (Poles on Kreml and other stories), Iskry, 2005, ISBN 8320717957, fragment online
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Alexander was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ferro was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference DaviesGP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Did Joselewicz die in the Battle of Praga?[edit]

The article states that Joselewicz was killed during the Battle of Praga. However, other sources (including other Wikipedia articles) claim that he survived and went on to fight (and die) at the battle of Kock in 1809. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.69.225 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed now, through the article needs sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review[edit]

Failed due to insufficient citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Suvorov before the storm[edit]

On the morning of 23 (November 3) October 1794 battery Suvorov began shelling the fortifications of Prague. In the evening of the same day the order was read to the troops to storm Suvorov:

"Walk in silence, without saying a word; came to strengthen the fast forward throw, throw into the pit fagot, get down, put to the shaft of the stairs, and the arrows to hit the enemy on the head. Climb briskly, two by two, to defend fellow comrade; if short stairway - a bayonet into a tree and climb it by another third. Without the need not to shoot and hit and drive a bayonet; work quickly, boldly, in Russian. Stay in the middle of her, by the princes to keep up, the front everywhere. The house is not running too begging for mercy - to spare, not to kill unarmed, not to fight with the women and children do not touch. Who killed - the kingdom of heaven; alive - glory, glory, glory."

Needs a source before we can include it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The text explains the massacre of 20 000 civilians as an answer to the killing of 2 000 soldiers. Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Praga. 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: 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) 20:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Praga. 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, 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) 05:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Praga. 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, 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) 12:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Praga&oldid=1214047530"