Talk:Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia

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

New Article[edit]

Will add more as time permits. The annexation of Transcarpathia was rather different, occuring after the second world war, and will be certainly be included in a post-script or "aftermath" section to this article. A lot aboput Soviet policies, initially pro-Ukrainian but becoming increasingly repressive, will also be added. A background section will also be written, briefly outlining the region's history.Faustian (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Polish officials, civil servants, and police were deported?[edit]

I don't doubt that many were, indeed deported, but the claim that ALL civil servants were deported seems to be an exaggeration. From my readings on that topic I remember that many Polish officials, especially specialized and highly trained ones staid on and were for most of the time not bothered. I don't have a Magocsi textbook, however, Subtelny does mention that 1.2 mln Poles were deported and mentions nothing about all civil servants being deported. There seems to be a mistake. Can anyone check? --Hillock65 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magocsi's book on page 620, last sentence of the first paragraph: "After order was established, the Soviet government initiated a policy of arrests and forced deportations of al potentially unreliable elements in the population." Next paragraph, first 2 sentences: "The deportations took place in three waves during the first half of 1940. Among the deportees were (1) former Polish civil servants, police, and officials...(4) all Polish citizens (mostly Poles) who fled to the east after the German invasion in September 1939." I thought that I was summarizing rather than doing OR, but am not opposed to changing the wording. I now see that he didn't use "all" bfore the civil servants part so it might not be totally clear.Faustian (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed intresting whom was killed by OUN-B proponents at june-july 1941? While again Magoci popular rather then scholar work approach - more figures, more attention - (same as UPA 1000000) but here as an avesome "record" 5000000 instead ~20000 Ukrainians.
The exact number of Poles deported to Siberia or Central Asia between 1939 and 1941 remains unknown
really -? What about
the Soviet authorities, unwilling to evacuate prisoners, chose to kill all inmates whether or not they had committed major or minor crimes and whether or not they were held for political reasons. Estimates of the number of people killed vary from 15,000 to 40,000
LOL - according to you Сергей МАКОГОН is a reliable source compared to Magocsi or Subtelny.Faustian (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noone can be compared to Magocsi or Subtelny even Hrushevskyy and Klyuchevskyy are junior-high students- is'nt?Jo0doe (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of these regions would be captured and reintegrated into Soviet Ukraine in 1944.
  • DYK what 1941 borders and 1945 borders is not the same.Jo0doe (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So were those regions integrated in 1944 or not?Faustian (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's realy sad to see editor which try to contribute in WP on topic which he/she is not familiar are.Hints - find July 1941 and August 1945 USSR-Poland agreements. In history details are importantJo0doe (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A victimization narrative it's not good idea for WP please visit the library first - please not limit history to Magoci 1996 and Subtelnyy 1988 version. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a problem with this wikipedia article: [4] and sourced material about NKVD massacres written by Robert Gellately, for instance. But as we know from your issues with Magosci, you don't like RS that contradict your personal theories.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo - a "charming" Vinnitsa massacre
  • DYK about Yad-Washem files about Vinnitsa?
So - you don't like RS and like to have criticized by Subtelnyy (and not only) scholar opinion reperesented here as universally adopted facts?*
You claim that book about Ukrainian history published by University of Toronto isn't an RS. Thanks for sharing with us your idea of RS. I urge you try to maintain a NPOV as I do.Faustian (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this [5] - it's actually called distorting the source facts. Not me - - not me, you know editor opinion worth nothing in scholar matters, but why you represent sole scholar opinion as universally regonized ? Indeed intresting how soon you forgot reccomendation [6] . Why you are so scared about post millenium work ? DYK that [7] work is widelly recognized and used in many scholars workd- becouse it based as historical work (see refs, archives etc)Jo0doe (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually [8] is called removing distortions by placing references in the right place, behind the right info. The second part of my edit involved removing Original Research - namely an editor's opinion that some historians' claims are correct while that of others are wrong. This original research which I removed also served a particular POV. We must strive for a NPOV.Faustian (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it remind me similar issue with UPA and rest articles - you again met with difficulties to read a line of text...не залишає сумнівів щодо причетності галиційських добровольців до мордувань поляків... at p.285. And agian Ilyushyn given as many Ilyushyns - similar to Subtelnyy 500000 for 1944-47?Jo0doe (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please limit this discussion to issues pertaining to this topic, rather than UPA or other topics. These can be addressed on the appropriate pages.Faustian (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objectiveness[edit]

Please stop using Ukrainian topographic names when it comes to the EASTERN PART OF PRE-WAR POLAND for the obvious reason that that was Poland,under occupation but still Poland.So:Lwów,not Lviv or Lvov,Równe,not Rivne,Stanisławów,not Stanislav or something,Tarnopol instead of Ternopil.I believe that that is the state in which we should keep Wikipedia-objective.Using names other than Polish (and/or with Western renderings such as Warszawa-Warsaw,Kraków-Cracow,Wilno-Vilnious) is like pretending that they didn't belong to Poland which is a lie.International law speciphies clearly that any territory under occupation is not part of any other country that that to which it legally belongs.So what is with this 'Western Ukraine' and 'Western Belarus' language?This is language originated from Soviet bolshevik lie machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.91.37 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Soviet army helped to set up[edit]

helped is Soviet propaganda. The Soviets created their administration and any opponenets were arrested/deported. Local Communist parties were dissolved in 1937, so there was no local basis to organize the administration.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of the article[edit]

Seems like a purpose of some pictures in the article is to imply certain negative human qualities of people on those pictures towards whole nation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

MOVED
Soviet annexation of ethnic Ukrainian territories (1939)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I changed a good faith edit, because "territories inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians" include a lot of territory nowhere near the territories that are the focus of this article. The title "Soviet Annexation of Western Ukraine" is more specific, about the events of 1939 (the Soviets had annexed other areas such as Kiev also). Also, these were part of western Ukraine prior to being part of Poland and Romania (see West Ukrainian People's Republic) and became the western part of Ukraine after annexation. Faustian (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't use the title 'Soviet Annexation of Western Ukraine'. Firstly, capitalisation isn't proper, per WP:TITLE. Secondly, at the time the territories were annexed, there was no such thing as 'Western Ukraine'. These were territories of Poland and Romania, and to call them 'Western Ukraine' is inaccurate and misleading. Especially with regard to Galicia and the Kresy as a whole, those territories had a very large Polish population that was deported. To call them 'Western Ukraine' is outright insulting to those Poles who were deported, and certainly does not hold to WP:NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Polish population of Galicia was 25% and of Volhynia was 18%. In Bukovyna it was negligible. Various Polish editors have worked on this article and have not expressed that its title was insulting. The are all territories in the western part of Ukraine now and prior to when Poland and Romania conquered them in 1919. There is even an article about Western Ukraine including these territories.Faustian (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't say it's "insulting" although it does capture a certain way of describing the area. The alternative "inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians" though was not an improvement. I guess another alternative would be "Soviet Annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia"? I don't think "Western Ukraine" is particularly problematic though - I'm sure that present day sources use that term when referring to the area at the time, even if the sources of the time didn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is problematic because it implies that territories were possessed by a Ukrainian state at the time of capture, when instead they were Polish and Romanian. The territories were not 'Western Ukraine' from a neutral standpoint, but only from some kind of irredentist viewpoint. The West Ukrainian People's Republic existed for a year, and never achieved true status as state, whereas the Romanian and Polish claims were enshrined in law and lasted the duration of the interbellum. I agree that my title was improvised, as I couldn't think of anything else. But there is no way we can leave this as it is. An alternative is Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia and Northern Bukovina. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine can also be used as a geographic region. The alternative is also objective but I think readers unfamiliar with this area of the world would be lost because "Galicia", "Volhynia" and "Bukovyna" are rather obscure terms.. This article is about the western regions of Ukraine that were annexed by the USSR in 1939. Volunteer Marek (talk) is correct - modern reliable sources do describe this region as "western Ukraine", even when writing about the 1930s, and wikipedia ought to follow their lead. Here is national geographic [9] "Western Ukraine spent centuries under the shifting control of European powers like Poland and the Austro-Hungarian Empire." A book by Jan Gross: [10] "Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia"; Norman Davies: [11] op-ed in New York Times: [12] " The tracks are a relic of the prewar past, when this was all Polish territory, before the Soviet Union “liberated” western Ukraine in 1939 from Poland and incorporated it into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.." This is simply how the region is referred to.Faustian (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Western Ukraine' is misleading to the reader more than it is helpful.. We cannot imply that the territory was 'Ukrainian', when it was not. We have to use objective description in our titles, per WP:TITLE and WP:NPOV. The only objective description of the territory is either through the use of traditional regional names, or through acknowledgement that the territory was Polish and Romanian, not Ukrainian. I'd like to add that the name prior to my moving it was 'Soviet annexation of the western Ukrainian territories', which is perhaps much worse than even the present title. Usage of the word 'Ukraine' as a geographic region is the product of nationalism, and is not commonly known among the general populace, hence the misleading nature of this title. The regional terms are not 'obscure', and if by some chance a reader does not understand them he can click on the links and learn. That's better than him thinking that these regions were part of a 'Ukraine', when they were not. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A example of the usual way of description is this:

    Three waves of deportation were organised in the Polish territories annexed to Ukraine and western Belarus in 1940: these banished former settlers, osadnicy, local elites and some of the refugees (mostly Jews) who had fled the German occupation of Poland.

    Notice that it says that the territories were 'annexed to Ukraine', not that 'Western Ukraine was annexed'. RGloucester — ☎ 15:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But your link also states: "The deportation resumed in spring 1941: from western Ukraine on 22 May; from Moldavia in the night of 12-13 June; from the Baltic republics on 14 June and from western Belarus in the night of 19-20 June.." Indeed, these areas are generally referred to as "Western Ukraine" in most modern sources. Wikipedia policy seems to be, to follow general usage. Here is an article from Encyclopedia Britannica: "Western Ukraine under Polish Rule." [13].Faustian (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Polish authors also refer to this region as Western Ukraine. For example: [14] "he Communist Party of Western Ukraine, 1919-1929" by Janusz Radziejowski. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, University of Toronto. Faustian (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because by 1941 the territory had been incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR, and hence was then 'Western Ukraine'. With regard to your second link to a Polish author, that is in the context of the part itself, which was named as such during the time of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic and continued on during Polish rule.
At the time of annexation, the territories were not part of Ukraine, nor were they called 'Western Ukraine'. There is no way to get around that. The Britannica article refers to the areas as Galicia and Volhynia, as well as Bukovina. When it uses 'Western Ukraine', it means it in the sense of 'the future western Ukraine'.
Wikipedia policy does dictate WP:COMMONNAME, however, it also dictates WP:NPOV. Firstly, it is hard to make an argument that these territories were commonly called 'Western Ukraine' outside of a Ukrainian nationalist perspective, which violates NPOV. Western newspaper at the time reported 'Soviet invasions into Poland', not 'Soviet invasions of western Ukraine'. Especially in the case of Galicia, the population was not homogenous. There was a substantial Polish and Jewish population, and to call these territories 'Ukraine' at the time they were part of Poland is irredentist.
I suggest that we use the regional title above, which avoids any potential NPOV issues. There is also the possibility of Soviet annexation of the future western Ukraine, though I dislike that title. RGloucester — ☎ 18:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to suggest that the book that you suggest by the Polish author is inherently not neutral, and makes a declaration as such. Read this:

    In geopolitical terminology I have followed the usage of the revolutionary left. Eastern Galicia together with Volhynia is 'Western Ukraine'.

We cannot use the terminology of 'the revolutionary left', and remain neutral. What's more, even if we followed this non-neutral definition of 'Western Ukraine', it would not included northern Bukovina, making this article entirely incorrect. RGloucester — ☎ 18:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, skip the Polish authored book then. There is still Britannica which refers to this area as "Western Ukraine" in various articles about it: [15] "WESTERN UKRAINE UNDER POLISH RULE, and Western Ukraine under the Habsburg monarchy [16] (which btw includes Bukovyna). You can also go to googlebooks and find numerous reliable sources all referring to these territories as "western Ukraine." What they were called in 1939 is irrelevant - modern usage is what matters, and modern sources refer to it as western Ukraine. Googlebooks results with "interwar" and "western Ukraine" yields 3,000 results; "interwar" and "eastern Poland" yields only 2/3 as many - 2,190 results (and some of these probably refer to Belarus or Lithuania). Moreover, "western Ukraine" in the context of this article is more accurate - parts of Belarus and Lithuania were also in Eastern Poland and this article is about western Ukrainian areas and the expansion of the Ukrainian SSR in 1939.
How do you feel about this title: "Soviet annexation of ethnic Ukrainian territories in 1939." Yes, these areas had non-Ukrainian minorities (25% Poles in Galicia and 18% Poles in Volhynia) but that is true of much of the world. We should keep the title as simple as possible; "Soviet annexation of majority ethnic Ukrainian territories in 1939" seems a bit clumsy, but would be accurate at least. Faustian (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept that as a compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Faustian (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about the second annexation?[edit]

1943-1944 the Soviets (re)annexed the lands. The page does not explain there took place two annexations.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification would be required here. Because the Soviet strategic counteroffensive against Nazi Germany cut across Poland, while the Western counteroffensive cut across France following the Tehran Conference of 1943. This was no annexation, until Yalta Conference ratified the Europe's post-war reorganization. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill agreed to border shifts. – What do you propose we do, User:Xx236. Poeticbent talk 18:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume legality of Teheran and Yalta, we still have the second annexation, but a legal or accepted by world leaders one.Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The methods of Sovietisation were similar, only guerilla war was new here.Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what we are talking about. Do non-partisan reliable sources call this the second annexation?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. If we describe the process of annexation and Sovietisation 1939-1941 and don't describe parallel process 1944-? we are biased, we are misusing language as propaganda tool rather than academic one. Western Ukraine says incorporated regarding both 1939 and 1945.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. We just follow reliable sources. If there are reliable sources which call these processes "second annexation" (or just "annexation"), the info should be added to the article. (If there are sources which argue this was not annexation, they should be added as well). If there are no sources calling this "annexation", adding the info to the article would be original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide there were two annexations than this article can simply be renamed "the first annexation of...(1939-1941)".Faustian (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like Ymblanter says, there's always room for improvement. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Some clarifications are offered by L. Tesser (2013). Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Security, Memory and Ethnography. Springer. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-1137308771.
Official history and Polish collective memory have ultimately deemed their migration as an expulsion.[74] While international sanctioning of the Polish exodus from the Soviet-annexed kresy appears less clear,[75] Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed to the expulsion of Poles in the kresy even before consulting the Polish government.[76] The repatriates began their trek in 1944 when the Soviets began to force Poles in the kresy from their homes.[77] While a Soviet-annexed eastern Poland witnessed the departure of most Poles, officials subsequently applied general Soviet nationality policy... — Lynn M. Tesser
But the opinions are by no means uniform. Ray Taras (2016). National Identities and Ethnic Minorities in Eastern Europe: Selected Papers from the Fifth World Congress of Central and East European Studies. Warsaw (1995): Springer. p. 135. ISBN 978-1349265534.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) refers to annexation of 'Kresy' only once.
The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 23 August 1939, which divided Poland between the USSR and nazi Germany, brought into the USSR not only Ukrainians and Belorussians but also some 3,500,000[11] (3,800,000)[12] Poles ... in the pre-1939 Eastern Poland that had been annexed by the USSR.[12] The sizable Polish communities in Lithuania, Latvia and the Romanian provinces annexed in 1940 by the USSR have also to be added. Hence we arrive at the possible minimum of over five million... — Ray Taras
Poeticbent talk 19:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Western Ukraine was invided/liberated/annected by the Soviets twice. The results were similar - imprisoning of the enemies, mass deportations, Sovietization of education and economy, destruction of religious structures.
An encyclopedia should inform about similar subjects. The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics says annexation and re-annexation.
Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this book? – Robert Bayley; Richard Cameron; Ceil Lucas (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. OUP USA. p. 653. ISBN 978-0199744084. If so, Poland did not share the fate of Estonia. Poeticbent talk 06:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about Western Ukraine, so I don't understand your comment about Poland and Estonia. Poland was partially autonomous and Estonia was a Soviet republic, so Yes - their fate was different but No - both were under Soviet dictatorship. The situation in Poland was changing, especially after 1956, so it's difficult to describe the system in one line.
The fate of Eastern Poland was similar to Estonia's one - an annexation. The majority of ethnic Poles and Jews run away or was expelled.Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole discussion has no relevance for the article says Ymblanter.
Apparently has, the re-annexation should be mentioned and linked. Now only All of these regions would be captured and reintegrated into Soviet Ukraine in 1944.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (per above), there's a difference between satellite states (i.e. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary) and the successor states of the USSR. The troubling development is that the editors of the Handbook refused to notice the elephant in the room called "Belarus". The table 31.2 from article by Aneta Pavlenko is a manipulation of history in the grand Soviet style. The "Western provinces" of Belarus are listed as being annexed in 1940. In reality, those were the "Eastern provinces" of interwar Poland invaded by the Soviets in 1939. The Second Polish Republic is not mentioned at all. — This is similar to describing Crimea of today, without the single mention of Ukraine. Poeticbent talk 18:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Title of the article[edit]

Is the current title of this article adequate, and if not, what should we change it to? Super Ψ Dro 21:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comments: I will give my thoughts as to why I think the current article is not very good. At first I thought, why is Northern Bukovina included together with Eastern Galicia and Volhynia when it was annexed time later? The USSR annexed the latter two in 1939 following the invasion of Poland and it then annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (and the small Hertza region) in 1940 following an ultimatum to Romania. Including Northern Bukovina and not Bessarabia didn't seem right to me, so I thought of proposing removing Northern Bukovina from the title.
Later I thought it would be better to simply add Bessarabia to the title, although the Ukrainian SSR just annexed parts of it (the center became the Moldavian SSR), so the title I propose here would be "Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia, Northern Bukovina and Northern and Southern Bessarabia", which is way too long. Then I thought that since we are merging two separate annexations through which the Ukrainian SSR gained territory into one article, why not include the others too? After World War II, Ukraine got some more land from Romania (some islands, see map for detail) and, most importantly, Transcarpathia from Czechoslovakia.
Therefore, I propose three main names: "Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia" (excludes Northern Bukovina and focuses in the 1939 annexation of Polish land), "Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia, Northern Bukovina and Northern and Southern Bessarabia" (does not exclude Northern Bukovina and includes all the land Ukraine got through the 1939 annexation of Polish land and the 1940 annexation of Romanian land) and "Expansion of the Ukrainian SSR during World War II" (includes all the land it got during the war). The third proposal may change, perhaps to "Territorial evolution of the Ukrainian SSR during World War II" (my most preferred one as far) so we can also reflect the annexation of Ukrainian Transnistria by the Moldavian SSR, the 1951 Polish–Soviet land swap and the recovery of Romania of some of the islands I mentioned earlier. A fourth option is leaving it how it is, but I see no reason to. Super Ψ Dro 22:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel like the 1954 transfer of Crimea should be included in the article, so I prefer the limited scope. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? This way the scope will be complete. Also I believe there were some pre-WWII border movements as well. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article has always been about territorial gains during the Second World War, made through the use of a combination of military and political force. These have little in common in with the transfer of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see; you want to keep the current scope of the article. Still, my general scope is interesting in itself; cf. Territorial evolution of Poland. For example, Wikipedia does not cover the split of Don Cossack Host between Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Russia at all. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to Territorial evolution of the Ukrainian SSR, but I agree that it might be better to leave this article on its current scope. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely out of the question. The annexations were not in 'western Ukraine' from the Polish or Romanian perspective, and such titles are in direct opposition to WP:NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Galicia, Volhynia and Northern Bukovina are indisputably in Ukraine. But cool, I understand your point of view, and I anticipate you’ll support me in some RMs for articles with “Russia” in the title, including “Russian Civil War” and “Territorial evolution of Russia,” because they involve places that weren’t in “Russia” at the time, from the those-places perspective.
Sounds like a simple descriptive name might not work out, so let’s look at how reliable sources refer to the subject. —Michael Z. 04:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are indisputably in Ukraine now, but at the time they were annexed, they were legally recognised Polish and Romanian territories, not part of any 'Ukraine'. See what @Poeticbent: wrote above on this subject. You're basically proposing we rewrite history to exclude the fact that these were territories stolen from Poland and Romania, much in the same way Crimea was stolen from Ukraine. How would you like it if Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was titled Russian annexation of south-western Russia? RGloucester — ☎ 12:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding RCW and territorial evolution: these are handled by a COMMONNAME and topic respectively. RCW is a common name for that conflict and Territorial evolution of Russia is, well, about territorial evolution of Russia, acqusitions (incl., but not limited to, annexations) and losses (either as a result of military defeat, or, as in case of 1954 Crimea, by voluntary cession of territory) of territory by the Russian state (be it Tsardom, Empire, SFSR or present day Federation). Naturally, it involves border changes (since we talk about territorial changes), so this or that territory was/is Russian at one point of time and non-Russian at another. Seryo93 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont be so heated up and give us a benefit of doubt, of poor command of English. We both meant "Annexation to...", i.e., I hope you see nothing wrong with Soviet annexations to Western Ukraine during World War II Lembit Staan (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to usage of Western Ukraine, per WP:NPOV. This was already a problem in the discussions about this article's title that happened before this one. Also, just like Delasse said, Budjak (Southern Bessarabia) is not part of Western Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot Budjak, which belongs to Southern Ukraine and not to Western. Therefore Soviet annexations of western Ukraine is simply not correct. From another hand, Soviet annexation of Western Belorussia is perfectly correct title. Delasse (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine wasn't an independent state back then, so I'd just keep "Ukrainian SSR". Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Soviet Ukraine' is also a possibility. I'm just trying to simplify things. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one is good. Super Ψ Dro 15:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current name seems fine. It is accurate and neutral. I'm not opposed to splitting the article into two, one about the territories taken from the Poland, another about those taken from Romania.Faustian (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't accurate, or rather, it is imprecise. There's no reason to include Northern Bukovina with these two regions but not Southern and Northern Bessarabia. As you might know, Eastern Galicia and Volhynia and Bukovina and Bessarabia were given to Ukraine through two separate annexations. We can't just include half of one. I also highly doubt the annexation of Romanian territories would be able to get an article of its own. What would we say there that isn't currently said in Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina? So we either fix this article to cover its current scope (adding Bessarabia) or we reduce (no Northern Bukovina) or expand (all land gained in World War II) it. Super Ψ Dro 08:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not remove the Bukovyna information from this article and place it in the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina article? The annexation of Galicia and Volhynia from Poland was a distinct and noteworthy event that deserves its own article.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is another option, but most people seem to prefer expanding this article's scope to World War II. Super Ψ Dro 22:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps keep annexation of Poliush territories (a discrete and noteworthy event) as a separate article with a redirect from a general one about territorial changes.Faustian (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For this we already have Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union Delasse (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant territories annexed to the Ukrainian SSR from Poland. This annexation was a discrete event.Faustian (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Territorial evolution of Soviet Ukraine during World War II. Delasse (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. RGloucester — ☎ 14:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Super Ψ Dro 15:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently covers one annexation and a half, not a specific one. Most users seem to agree with "Territorial evolution of Soviet Ukraine during World War II", so the transfer of Crimea (and the Ukrainian loss of land near Rostov-on-Don, if I'm not wrong) won't be included. I believe nobody opposes the use of the word annexation, but it will be hard to come with an adequate, short and precise name using that word. What should this article cover is debatable, but I think it can be agreed that there is a problem with only including Northern Bukovina together with Eastern Galicia and Volhynia. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, a significant part of these territories were transferred to Western Belorussia, not Ukraine. Hence one can not just rename it to "Territorial evolution of Soviet Ukraine". My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Belarus got no parts of Galicia and Volhynia. I don't see anyway why would this mean we cannot rename this article to the proposed title. Super Ψ Dro 08:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no transfer of land from Ukraine to Russia after 1923. "Lands around Rostov" given to Russia in 1954 as a compensation for Crimea is an urban legend, which understandably became very popular in post-2014 Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter after 1928 to be precise, see File:1917-1928 Soviet Ukraine borders formation (EN).svg. There were also small transfer in 1944, see File:Donbass i Vojsko Donskoe.png. Delasse (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is important, but I do not see any land transfer from Ukraine to Russia after 1924 (with the exception of this tiny exclave in 1944), only in the opposite direction.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delasse, wasn't that 1944 transfer, in fact, from Russia to Ukraine? See this one and uk:Дар'їно-Єрмаківка. If so, then it only reinforces the point, that no territorial transfers from Ukraine to Russia occured after 1920s, and, certainly, that no "exchange" happened in 1954. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter Yes, of course I misread you comment. Please, sorry. I had not read the words from Ukraine to Russia, and thought that you wrote between Ukraine and Russia. Delasse (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC usually finishes with an uninvolved party closing the discussion and assessing consensus. The standard time is 30 days. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that. Super Ψ Dro 21:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to that option, but again, an article about the annexation of Romanian territories would probably be very short and repeat text that is said in Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Super Ψ Dro 08:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those options have the same neutrality problems as using Western Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 16:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not, I do not insist. One might argue that we have pages with an overlapped sub-subject: Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia and Northern Bukovina (this page). Hence just remove Northern Bukovina from this page, as Faustian suggested. Except that Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina redirects to Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and the occupation and annexation are generally treated as different subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree ghat occupation and annexation are different concepts. Occupation is something temporary, annexation is permanent. ::::Wikipedia say: Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action[1] and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act.[2] It is distinct from conquest, which refers to the acquisition of control over a territory involving a change of sovereignty,[3][4] and differs from cession, in which territory is given or sold through treaty, since annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state.[5] It usually follows military occupation of a territory.[1] Lembit Staan (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, an occupation can become permanent and be transformed to annexation - as in this case. If that happens, then one page can arguably cover the both. Just rename it to "occupation and annexation ..." and fix content. If one does that with page Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, then the suggestion by Faustian is very much reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From discussion I am making myself a conclusion that the solution must be two-fold: (a) Have articles on discrete homogeneous topics: (b) Have an umbrella article. Therefore for the current discussion it makes sense to have 3 articles: "Poland->Ukraine" "Romania->Ukraine" and "All about the territory of the Soviet Ukraine'. The latter being written per WP:Summary style will be not very difficult to concoct. I don't think it makes sense to have intermediate "sub-umbrella" articles because if we use WP:SUMMARY to avoid context duplication, the pages "Evolution of SovUkr during WWII" and "Evolution of SovUkr" will not be that different. On the other hand, it is convenient to have the all overview in a single page, because most people are not even aware of smaller events during UkrSSR. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a bad idea. One summary article, Territorial evolution of Soviet Ukraine, and separate articles for Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia, Soviet annexation of Northern Bukovina (or Northern Bukovina and Northern and Southern Bessarabia), and 1954 transfer of Crimea, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposed to splitting the article just because we’re unable to agree on a title: that seems backwards. (Territorial evolution is also already covered in Development of the administrative divisions of Ukraine.) For renaming, please start with the subject of this article: it is WWII annexations of territory to Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR), and not the ones to Belarus and Russia (which were taken from Estonia, Finland, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland). Ukraine is defining for this subject. So for the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability, precision, and conciseness, the title needs to mention Ukraine. And conversely, Ukraine’s history needs this article on this episode in its geographical development, so mentioning Ukraine satisfies naturalness. I no longer care if it says to or in Ukraine (I thought it sounded awkward, but never mind), or whether is says western or west or not (all of these territories are west of Ukraine’s geographic centre). —Michael Z. 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems incorrect, as some annexations to Soviet Ukraine are not included in the article at present, namely northern Bessarabia and the Budjak as mentioned above...if the article intended to include all such annexations, surely it would include these. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, in the section Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia and Northern Bukovina#Annexation of Romanian territory. —Michael Z. 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, okay I see it omits just Budjak for some reason. Of course, this obviates the objections above regarding a title with “western Ukraine,” but it should really be included. Otherwise, what does define this article’s scope? —Michael Z. 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert and lazy, too: Was there any annexation from Slovakia, in addition to Romania and Poland? Also it comes to my mind why each and every annexation from any losing states to any piece of the Soviet Union can be given each own article. Clearly the general consequences of the Sovietization are the same, but the details are different. Also, the beginnings of the operations may coincide. But the solution maybe along the timeline "occupation vs. annexation". Can someone draw a nifty geographical sketch of what went from whom to whom? Maybe visual keys give a better idea how to distribute the info o=into articles? (PL->BE, UK, LA), (RO->UK, ?) How Slovak and Hungarian diasporas landed in Ukraine? Carpatho-Ukraine?Lembit Staan (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the USSR annexed Transcarpathia from Czechoslovakia in 1945 (I think). I also agree writing separate articles for the occupation and annexation of each of these events is unrealistic. Soviet annexation of Western Belorussia is, in fact, the only article of its kind. Not even the Baltic states, which have a considerable amout of articles regarding this period, have an article about the annexation of their countries (Annexation of the Baltic republics redirects to Occupation of the Baltic states). Also, for example, limiting the articles to each annexation would leave some territorial changes out. An article for the 1940 Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia could confuse the reader into thinking Ukraine still holds Zakerzonia, and an article for the annexation of Bessarabia and Bukovina would leave out the Danubian and the Snake islands from Romania annexed in 1948. That's why I believe everything, including territorial losses of Ukraine, should just be covered in Territorial evolution of Soviet Ukraine during World War II. Whether the article's scope should later be expanded into just Territorial evolution of Soviet Ukraine can be left for another discussion. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess...but I once again concur with the proposal for the establishment of Territorial evolution of Soviet Ukraine during World War II, as this really seems to the be the only reasonable (workable) proposal thus far... RGloucester — ☎ 14:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were three discrete events involving territorial changes. Polish territory was added to Ukraine in 1939, Romanian territory was added in 1940, and Czechoslovak territory was added in 1945. Wouldn't it make sense for each event to have its own article? If you want an umbrella article with redirects to each individual article, that's fine. Names will come easier if the articles are logically constructed, based on specific events.Faustian (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article (and its surroundings) more closely, and it looks like the first two events are covered in (nearly) separate articles, and the current article does a good job to describe common consequences of these annexations. The third part is already described elsewhere; a separate page may be concocted later, and the event itself may be briefly mentioned here. But cannot be "seamlessly" melded, because, while sovietization was similar, then details were different, as you may see from a rather detailed section, Zakarpattia Oblast#Zakarpattia in Soviet Ukraine. Therefore I don't see a particular need in a WWII "sub-umbrella" article: all just as well be summarized in the "overall" umbrella, which maybe just an "advanced" annotated list, kind of "Timeline..." article.
Here is the complete WWII related list (in adition to the current one):
(If I missed something, please feel free to insert directly into my list) Lembit Staan (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether articles about these annexations can exist or would just be WP:FORKS. Maybe since we miss an article on the occupation/annexation of Transcarpathia we could use "annexation" in the title instead of "occupation", but I really don't imagine there's enough information for Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. I searched "northern bukovina bessarabia annexation" on Google Scholar and most things I see are reactions or discussions of its legality and not articles talking about the event itself.
I am already seeing this RfC closed as no consensus. Can we at least address the main problem and agree that Northern Bukovina shouldn't be put together exclusively with Eastern Galicia and Volhynia? Super Ψ Dro 09:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move the info from the Northern Bukovyna section of this article to the article Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to improve the latter and streamline this one.Faustian (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and everything in this article about Northern Bukovina is in Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina#Soviet ultimatum. Super Ψ Dro 05:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! So why not remove the redundant info from this article, remove Bukovyna from the article title, and offer a "see also" redirect to Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina#Soviet ultimatum?Faustian (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine for me. Super Ψ Dro 22:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fastest solution to this is removing Northern Bukovina from the article. The info about Northern Bukovina in it is short and it's all found at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. I don't think anyone will be opposed to this but I'll wait until tomorrow to enforce this change. Let's fix this problem once and for all. Super Ψ Dro 21:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The change is done. Super Ψ Dro 19:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_annexation_of_Eastern_Galicia_and_Volhynia&oldid=1210474447"