Talk:Western betrayal

Talk archives: Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Lopsided structure of article

The article could be interesting, but I have to say it appears to be only half of what is needed. What it consists of now are the arguments why a decision appeared to be controversial, but there is no substantial rebuttal to the arguments. For example, in the part about Churchill and Stalin's discussion concerning a landing in the west, it mentions Churchill's odd contention that the Germans had "nine divisions" in the west. Churchill may have believed that but it is completely untrue. In 1942, there were 35 divisions in the west and this had increased to 40 by 1943 (Harrison, p. 142.) Any discussion of this possibility would have to identify the numbers of divisions and aircraft on both sides at a given date to realistically assess what the chances of military success might have been. Given the often below-average performance of Allied formations before 1943, a landing in 1942 could well have led to a decisive Allied defeat in France and perhaps even a permanent closure of the western front dictated by an armistice with the Germans. 1943 was also problematic because the Allies were still building troop strength, and even when the invasion took place in 1944, by the time the Allies got to the German border it had become clear that there were not enough infantry divisions as well as serious manpower concerns that compounded the problem. The Germans became rather famous for statements like "if the other side had only pushed hard at this moment ...", but history documents that no matter how hard the Allies (or Soviets) pushed, the Germans were always capable of providing spirited resistance. The morale and cohesion of the German forces did not notably diminish in the west until the Rhine River was crossed in March 1945 and in the east, it remained hard-bitten to the end.
Another example - Western allies were fielding 91 full-strength divisions against 60 weak German divisions whose overall strength was roughly equal to only 26 complete divisions. -- This strength quote is picked from a point in the campaign in which the invasion force has been brought up to full strength in 1945 -- at which point a massive offensive was launched and which did not really stop until Germany was defeated. The article really needs to bring out the rest of the story in these sections, because as it is, the information brought out in it appears to selected in such a way that it supports the notion that there was a controversy of some sort, but does not provide any information that would indicate there were valid reasons for something not to happen, such as the inability of the Allies to push into Germany in late 1944 (they tried that with numerous offensives but all ground down primarily because of logistical and manpower issues.)
The current approach to the article only examines issues from a viewpoint of revisionist history without mentioning key aspects that often explain the events took the course they did for very mundane reasons such as problems with logistics. Given an approach where the controversies would be examined in a more balanced manner, followed by dispassionate analysis of the situation, the article could provide valuable lessons on how to interpret history with due attention given to the various influences that affected command decisions. That is unfortunately not the case with the current state of the article; it appears more concerned with making accusations that are supported only by cherry-picked citations that appear to bolster the article's arguments. As is pointed out above in the case of Harrison's work, reading further into the cited material makes it clear that the article is ignoring very pertinent information regarding the topic at hand. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is lopsided, no doubt about that. I was under the impression that wiki editing is supposed to be done collaboratively, and that some knowledgeable and interested individuals would actively contribute (rather than just criticise) by providing properly sourced analyses, counter-arguments or whatever. That is clearly not the case. I personally cannot claim to have read everything ever published about WW2, whereas collaborative editors between themselves could have broadened the scope of endeavour if they really wanted a "balanced" or NPOV article.

Speaking about lopsided though, the burning issues, facts, matters etc that I raised first in the Western Betrayal article, (which were vigorously disputed for "anti-Western bias" etc etc), and now in the renamed and reworked Controversial Command Decisions article, should properly have been dealt with in the main WW2 article in the first place. That article, by the way, and as far as I can tell, cites only one Soviet source. Yet nobody who feels strongly enough about lopsidedness or NPOV bothered to complain then about "anti-Eastern bias".

I have read the flurry or inter-administrator correspondence together with the criticisms above, and I can see where all this is heading. If administrators who don't want to accommodate the Soviet view want to scrap the article, then so be it. If they want the article to remain a collaborative work in progress, then so be that too. But I personally don't want to get involved in point-scoring and endless debates with people who's views clearly support only the dominant Western narrative, and who's own productions may lend themselves to charges of (anti-Eastern) lopsidedness. Communicat (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe other articles lack balance, then, as you point out, "edit collaboratively" to introduce more balance. Introducing new lopsided articles is not a constructive way of addressing perceived lack of balance in existing articles.

Please do not assume you understand the views and knowledge of others. I would be strongly surprised if the majority of editors with a strong interest in the Second World War do not realize that many decisions were controversial. I have no issue with these controversies being discussed on Wikipedia but it is important to approach the issues with an open mind to the situations of both parties in an given controversy, otherwise one takes only one side of the dispute and yet another unbalanced article is produced.

You should consider your titles for articles with more care. If your intent is to highlight the Soviet view of events in the Second World War, then why not title the article "Soviet View of the Second World War" or something similar -- it would also make it more straightforward to write and remove the impression that a lopsided "controversies" article is being written -- and by its very nature, a reader would expect to encounter the Soviet POV.

Anything written on Wikipedia is by definition subject to criticism. Most of the time, "criticism" is expressed by deletion or replacement of existing article material, often without any prior notification. You should note I have not attempted to force changes to your articles and that I made my view of the articles clear, both on the articles' talk pages and on your talk page. A lot of editors on Wikipedia don't receive that courtesy. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy. Yes, I agree that WW2 was riddled with controversial command decisions, sometimes conspiratorial, sometimes just because of the fog of war. But length restrictions would make it impossible to do justice to them all.

Controversial command decisions were made by all sides during, before and after the war. The most infamous and controversial Soviet decision, possibly, was the one resulting in the Katyn massacre. The editorial neutrality of the article should become apparent if or when all such decisions are consolidated into a cohesive whole in this start-class article. Communicat (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, as a result of the rescue tag I'm taking a look at the proceedings and may get involved. I will, however, take issue with your calling the Katyn massacre "possibly" a "controversial command decision". First, because Stalin called the shots, and either gave a thumbs up or down on such matters, and second because this kind of behavior (murdering hostages, opponents, and prisoners) was more or less ingrained in the Soviet system for quite some time before Katyn. It hardly needed a debate in order for the decision to be implemented. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Munich Agreement etc ?

I haven't looked at this page for ages, but why was the concept of 'Western Betrayal' (whether or not it is a fair concept) been conflated with command decisions? Ongoing Czech grievances about the Munich Agreement are often described as a sense of 'Western Betrayal', just as much as Russian grievances about the postponement of D-Day are. The title redirect is very misleading. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For some possible explanation, have a look at contents of the longggg section above commencing 3 Mar 2010 headed "Anti-Western POV bias". Communicat (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation formatting

There are syntax errors in identifying citations; the tag "ref" should be preceded by "<" and closed with ">". These are reversed in the case of several citations in the article, preventing the citations from appearing in the proper area of the article and cluttering the article text. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll watch out for that.Communicat (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for rescue

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Communicat (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Communicat (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Forget rescue. It ought to be deleted wholesale. It does not warrant its own article (these "controversies" should be mentioned in individual articles that deal with the subject of the "controversy" in question). The fact that it has its own article at all means that certain POV is tacitly approved here at WP. Get rid of it. Jersey John (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Everything into the individual articles and then delete this article. Varsovian (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I recommend against summary deletion. I think the article aims to document a school of thought among Polish historians, or Eastern Europeans historians. The test of its suitability as an article is whether those historians have made notable contributions to the field, and whether those contributions can be sourced. I'm not convinced that the article meets that standard at the present time, but I think it's worth an effort at rescue. Innocent76 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting this article would equal a spit on the face to several communities in countries like Poland or the Czech Republic. The "Yalta betrayal", or however you call it, did exist, live with it. Gregorik (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why Spain?

I don't see what the section of Spanish Republicans and their complaints has to do with the Yalta conference, or alleged Western betrayals in Eastern Europe. I think that section should be removed from this article. Can anyone think of a reason why not? Innocent76 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why Yugoslavia?

The same question as the above can be asked for the section on Yugoslavia, and this has been brought up here before. I have alleviated this WP:UNDUE violation by explaining it in the article, but it could still be argued that it is pointless to talk about it here (rather in History of Yugoslavia). The lead section states clearly that the concept of betrayal is based on the breaking of pacts and reneging on military alliances. In the case of Yugoslavia, such a straightforward action did not happen (even the Tehran conference conclusion wasn't a betrayal of Yugoslavia as a whole, only of a particular faction that turned out to be out of the mainstream, so to speak). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One could argue that the Chetniks betrayed the Allies rather than vice versa [1]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not Ukrainian People's Republic?

It is hard to find a more textbook example of betrayal of an ally than that at the peace of Riga (signing the separate peace treaty specifically forbidden in a previous treaty and accepting 120 million roubles in gold to sign the separate peace treaty). Is there any reason why this act of western betrayal should not be in the article? Varsovian (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope

I'm not saying anything new here, but this article has come up on my radar from time to time, and I honestly believe that while it does represent a valid historical viewpoint, the scope of this article needs to be significantly tightened. A proper definition of what "Western Betrayal" or "Yalta Betrayal" is needs to be provided. The introduction in itself is too sprawling: it reads too much like "whenever the Soviets did something bad in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Western allies didn't immediately take a strong enough line against the USSR that was Western Betrayal". Mentioning the Hungarian Revolution and quotes by George W. Bush seem way off topic. Sending Vlasov and Ustashe members back to Soviet-occupied countries is likewise an interesting form of "betrayal", as the Western allies had no formal treaty responsibilities towards Axis military forces (besides the Geneva Conventions). Memel and Spain really don't belong, and those sections read like "some people in x country were unhappy that the US and UK didn't do Y", which gets towards weasel words issues. The Baltic States section is questionable as well, considering that it contradicts the official US position of regarding their occupation by the USSR as illegal. Furthermore, it would be great if a mention could be made of the CIA's covert operations supporting armed resistance in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and the Balkans (as in Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes).

Here is my suggestion. Definition

Section 1: History of this term. Where has it been used, by whom, why is this significant?

Section 2: Focus on broken pre-war military committments, ie the Munich Agreement, Anglo-Polish Military Alliance, Franco-Polish Military Alliance, etc.

Mention Katyn and Anders Army, etc. but refer the reader to the appropriate articles, of which there are many. Also avoid any command controversies, as noted in above discussions.

Section 3: Focus on the Tehran Conference, Yalta Conference, Potsdam Conference, and Percentages Agreement.

Anything about DPs, or Operation Keelhaul or the like: mention, but refer to those articles. Same for any Cold War issues, which should be kept to a minimum in my opinion.

Section 4: Criticisms of this term/viewpoint

Section 5: References, etc.

Then I think this article would be back on track. Remember, keep it specific: once it veers off into "this terrible thing happened and the West didn't do much" then we get more political, and also way more open to critical refutations. Just focusing on pre-war treaty obligations and end-of-war conferences will keep the article focused.209.235.2.8 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an old post, but I can't help noticing that this is a good recommendation, which unfortunately has never been followed up on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Czech territory acquired by Poland at the Munich Agreement

I added two words ("and Poland") to the section on Czechoslovakia to more accurately portray that Poland itself gained territory from the Munich Agreement. I included two cites. Although the concept of Western Betrayal has merit, it is also important to imply an opposing view, which is that Poland helped along the betrayal itself in several ways, one of which was happilly grabbing up land from a small nation as the result of Hitler's diplomacy at Munich.Leidseplein (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed another editor reverted the two word addition of "and Poland" mentioned above, although it was cited from reliable sources. The reason "and Poland" should be included is for one simple reason: it is true, (as made clear in Munich Agreement). Deliberately trying to hide the fact that Poland gained territory from the Munich Agreement at the expense of Czechoslovaia and because of Hilter is denying readers the right to read ALL the facts, and not merely facts which tend to justify the "Western Betrayal."

I ask editors to discuss on this page proposed removals of well cited facts before removing them unilaterally. Leidseplein (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate and strange insertion

[2] (with edit summary Poland took land from Czech at Munich) and the reference [3] which is this one [4]. My reversion of this addition was reverted [5] (with edit summary Discuss reverts of fully cited two word additions on talk page please before trying to impose your POV on the world).

The edit and the double revert are problematic.

The addition is problematic because:

1. This is an article on "Western betrayal" - in sources Poland is not mentioned as one of the "betrayers" but rather as one of the "betrayed". This tries to flip this for unclear reasons.
2. The edit summary is mistaken - Poland did not take "land from Czech at Munich". Polish annexation of Zaolzie happened AFTER Munich but not AT Munich. Basically, a small slither of land that was disputed between Poland and Czechoslovakia since 1920's, that was part of Czechoslovakia was given to Nazi Germany at Munich. Polish government, realizing that the area that was under dispute was going to be transferred to the Nazis, told Czechoslovakia that they were going to preemptively take it. And at that point Benes pretty much said "whatever" (it wasn't going to be Czech anyway).
3. The area concerned is a very small piece of land

   

   the barely visible part labeled with a "2"

   It's a bit strange to add "and Poland" to "Germany" but for example, completely ignore the much larger areas seized by Hungary, with Hitler's approval (unlike the annexation of Zaolzie which was done AGAINST the wishes of Nazi Germany, and probably against those of Chamberlain and co., but with approval of the Czech government). Like I said, it's a bit of a strange edit.
4. The source added does not support:

4.a. the fact that "Poland took land from Czech at Munich" - what is says is that Poland occupied areas with Polish minority around Český Těšín, there's no "at Munich" in that sentence (and for a good reason - it wasn't a Munich)

4.b. any kind of link between the Zaolzie dispute and "Western Betrayal".

Basically, what you need here is a source which links Munich and Zaolzie and Western Betrayal. Absent that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

The double revert is problematic. The burden lies on the person adding the text to present adequate sources for text which may be/is challenged. My first (and only) revert was obviously a challenge to the text and as such part of the standard WP:BRD cycle. At that point it is up to the editor wishing to restore the content to take the next step, "discuss", rather than revert. Two reverts within a short period of time are not a violation of WP:3RR but they can be interpreted as edit warring, especially if they are not backed up by any kind of effort at discussion.

Furthermore, an edit summary that uses phrases such as trying to impose your POV on the world is unnecessarily combative and fails to assume good faith. Contrast that with my edit summary (but 1) this isnt considered to be part of WB 2) different circumstances than German occupation of Sudetenland) which directly focused on content rather than accusing any editor of wrong doing. As such an edit summary which accuses me of trying to impose your POV on the world can be seen as a violation of WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE.

Please provide an actual source linking Poland to the concept of Western Betrayal in this manner. Discuss challenged text on talk, and when doing so focus on content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Reason Poland should be listed as a gainer of territory from the Munich Agreement

The point of this article is to explain a point of view called the 'Western Betrayal', which in a nutshell is a view commonly held in Poland that the western Allies in WW2 betrayed Poland. In order for a reader to fully appreciate the facts that we are told led up to the betrayal, a reader should be informed of ALL THE FACTS, not merely the facts that tend to support the idea of a 'Western Betrayal'.

Specifically, in this case we are told in the article that the idea of a Western Betryal began when Germany took land from Czechoslavokia after the Munich Agreement. Isn't it VERY relevant that Poland itself also took land from Czechoslavakia as a result of the Munich Agreement????

Isn't the fact that Poland BENEFITTED from the Munich Agreement through a territorial increase relavant to the assertion that the 'Western Betrayal' was born by the results of the Munich Agreement??? In other words, since Poland itself also happily participated in the grabbing Czech land, like the Germans, doesn't the reader have a right to see that what the proponents of the 'Western Betrayal' now condemn (namely the Munich Agreement) was in fact at the time happily used by Poland to Poland's own advantage?

The only addition I think is appropriate is simply adding two words -"and Poland"- to the line in the Czechoslavkia section of the article, so readers know that Poland itself benefitted from the Munich Agreement which was allegedly the birthplace of the whole 'Western Betryal' concept. Leidseplein (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As explained above the situation was different. What you need here is a source which connects the Zaolzie dispute to "Western Betrayal" - especially since the situation was different (Poland took land, with Czechs agreeing to it, that was going to become part of Nazi Germany anyway). You can use caps and multiple question marks all you want, but that does not make your arguments stronger. Sources do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree. Wikipedia does not require all sources to mention the 'Western Betrayal' for them to be used in the article about the 'Western Betrayal'. A BALANCED representation of the facts includes mentioning that Poland itself benefitted from the Munich Agreement because it is now the Polish idea of 'Western Betrayal' we are told in the aticle originated because of the Munich Agreement.

Just as editors so strongly oriented towards a pro-Polish POV prove, any source discussing the 'Western Betrayal' is unlikely to mention that Poland itself gained from the Munich Agreement since that tends to imply Polish hypocrisy (taking territory when it suits them) and Polish complicity with Hitler. Leidseplein (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that the claim that "The point of this article is to explain a point of view called the 'Western Betrayal', which in a nutshell is a view commonly held in Poland that the western Allies in WW2 betrayed Poland. " is also false. That's not the point of this article. For starters the term has currency outside of Poland (as the article extensively explains) and even outside of Eastern Europe, as it is used in Western sources (and hell, more or less by Churchill himself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require all sources to mention the 'Western Betrayal' for them to be used in the article about the 'Western Betrayal'. - strictly speaking this is true but it's also irrelevant - it doesn't require that a source mention the terms "Western Betrayal" and "Fiji" together either, but adding stuff about Fiji to the article would not follow Wikipedia policies. The situation with Zaolzie was complicated and the proper place for discussing stuff like this is in the relevant articles (like the one on Zaolzie). The Polish occupation of Zaolzie is not regarded in sources as part of "Western Betrayal". The Polish acquisition of Zaolzie happened after Munich and with Czech agreement. The only country "betrayed" here by the Polish action was Nazi Germany which got less territory out of Munich then it was going to otherwise. The whole area is very very very small and the issue in Polish-Czech relations at that point was negligible, yet somehow this canard/red herring gets dragged up for all kinds of reasons where it's simply not relevant.

Adding "and Poland" here is a classic example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

"Polish complicity with Hitler" is straight up POV pushing and false.

Just as editors so strongly oriented towards a pro-Polish POV prove - this is another WP:BATTLEGROUND statement that violates WP:AGF and borders on a personal attack.

any source discussing the 'Western Betrayal' is unlikely to mention that Poland itself gained from the Munich Agreement since that - problem for you is that no source, "pro-Polish" or otherwise, discusses Zaolzie as part of Western Betrayal.

tends to imply Polish hypocrisy - more hyperbolic rhetoric, battleground and POV. Please stop making such inflammatory statements or we'll wind up at a board other than 3O.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the threats, hypocrisy and false appeals to Wikipedia guidelines, and despite your threat, this was already referred to a board other than 3O early on. So, I will end my input for now and wait to see where this ends.Leidseplein (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not call me a "hypocrite" - that is a personal attack. What "other board" are you referring to?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No double reverts

Another editor claimed I reverted the article twice - by using the term 'double reverts' and called this in such unquestionable authority, 'problematic'. This is NOT true, there was no double revert. I added two words ("and Poland") to the article and then added cites. Another editor reverted this addition without discussing on this user page. I then reverted to my addition that includes the added words with cites because I believe so strongly in Discuss challenged text on talk, and when doing so focus on content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC). Leidseplein (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad, it was a single revert. Still, it was done immediately and without an attempt to discuss things on talk. I was in the process of writing my post above when you reverted me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic factual inaccuracy

In regard to the above it is not true that "Poland gained territory at Munich". I notice that Leidseplein has switched to the wording "has gained territory from Munich" which appears to be an attempt to insinuate the same thing but tiptoe around the fact that it didn't.

Munich awarded a bunch of Czech territory to Nazi Germany. Seeing that the Germans were going to seize territory which Poland had a dispute with Czechoslovakia over, Polish government sent a note to the Czech government telling them that they were going to take it instead. The Czech government agreed. I guess one could describe this as "from Munich" or "as a result of Munich" but without a proper explanation, that kind of phrasing obviously grossly misrepresents the situation.

This is beside the fact that no sources link "Western Betrayal" to Zaolzie. This conversation in fact should be continued somewhere else, like at Zaolzie. Here it's just WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic factual accuracy and proposed solution (compromise)

The article currently reads:

The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany and Poland,

...which is accurate if it includes my proposed solution

The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany, Poland and Hungary,

Attempts to deny printing in this article the FACT that Poland gained territory in the wake of Munich is simply an attempt to advance a pro-Polish/anti-Western POV. It is exceptionally INCONVENIENT to the whole idea of a Western Betrayal if a reader learns that Poland happily took Czech land itself (where we are told the idea of Western Betrayal was born). No doubt at the time Czechs felt they were betrayed by the west for not protecting Czceh interests against POLAND, when ironically Poland itself later would suffer the same exact fate IT SO HAPPILY CONDONED in the wake of Munich.

I propose sticking to the facts as outlined in the article on the Munich Agreement - namely that not only Germany, but also Poland and Hungary took Czech land, an act which gave birth to the idea of Western Betrayal.

And despite all the false accusations and appeals to Wikilingo, it is NOT original research to report the FACT that Poland acquired land from Czechoslavakia after Munich - it is, instead, merely embarassing, embarassing to those who so passionately believe in the Western Betrayal.

Leidseplein (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, please thread your comments properly otherwise it looks like you're having a conversation with yourself which makes following it extremely confusing.

Second, adding "and Hungary" does not address the underlying WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problem, which is that no sources mentions Polish acquisition of Zaolzie as part of "Western Betrayal"

Third, Hungary is a different case from Poland. The Czech lands acquired by Hungary were transferred with approval of Hitler and Nazi Germany (and implicitly Chamberlain and others). Zaolzie was transferred to Poland with Czech agreement.

Fourth: Attempts to deny printing in this articlethe FACT that - no one's disputing any facts (well, except that this was done at Munich). But facts can in fact be misleading when they are presented out of context or in irrelevant situations. That is, in fact, why we have policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as well as WP:TRUTH, on Wikipedia. Respect'em.

Fifth, I am going to ask you one last time to stop accusing other editors (me) of "pro-Polish POV" or "anti-Western POV". There's no POV here, your addition simply is irrelevant, and violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Note that I am not, nor have I so far, speculated on your own motives here.

Sixth, if It is exceptionally INCONVENIENT to the whole idea of a Western Betrayal if a reader learns that Poland happily took Czech land itself then find a source which states this. Otherwise all we have is your own assertions and interpretation. WP:OR.

Seventh - No doubt at the time Czechs felt they were betrayed by the west for not protecting Czceh interests against POLAND - find a source for that claim. This is your own ... "guess" of how Czechs (what, all of them? every single one? how do you know?) supposedly "felt" 70 years ago. I could not think of a more classic example of WP:OR.

Eight - ironically Poland itself later would suffer the same exact fate IT SO HAPPILY CONDONED in the wake of Munich. - alright, here you are just trying to enflame tempers by making purposefully battleground statements.

Ninth - I propose sticking to the facts as outlined in the article on the Munich Agreement - namely that not only Germany, but also Poland and Hungary took Czech land, an act which gave birth to the idea of Western Betrayal.; yeah, except the article on the Munich Agreement does not say that. It does not say that the acquisition of Zaolzie by Poland "gave birth to the idea of Western Betrayal". You've invented that part out of thin air. And it can't say that because there is no source which says anything like that.

Tenth, if by despite all the false accusations you mean that I said you reverted me twice, I've already corrected myself. I don't see anything else that can be called a "false accusation". You are the one discussing editor's (mine) supposed motives.

Eleventh, in regard to appeals to Wikilingo - yes, following Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is important. We have them for a reason. And the reason is so that we don't put nonsense like this into articles.

Twelfth - it is NOT original research to report the FACT that Poland acquired land from Czechoslavakia after Munich - it is original research to pretend that the dispute over Zaolzie had anything to do with "Western Betrayal".

Thirteenth - it is, instead, merely embarassing, embarassing to those who - Cut. The. Personal. Statements. And. Attacks. Out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Leave it too Wiki readers to Decide whether Poland's Acquistion of Czech territory is relvant

I was asked by a third party to point out that in the article Western betrayal it says,

After the Communist Party assumed all power in Czechoslovakia in 1948, the betrayal was frequently referenced in propaganda. This interpretation of history was official and the only one allowed.

My point is that there should not be ONE interpretation of history allowed on Wikipedia as advocated by another editor - let Wiki readers decide whether the fact that Poland acquired Czech land after Munich is relevant to the story of how the 'Western Betrayal' began in Poland. Print the full facts, and be more inclusive of the facts, don't exclude facts or advocate only edited facts that support the premise of the article.

Leidseplein (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What "third party" are you talking about? I don't know what you are talking about in the rest of your comment and I don't see how Communist era views are relevant to the issue under discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that there should not be ONE interpretation of history allowed on Wikipedia as advocated by another editor - let Wiki readers decide whether the fact that Poland acquired Czech land after Munich is relevant to the story of how the 'Western Betrayal' began in Poland. Print the full facts, and be more inclusive of the facts, don't exclude facts or advocate only edited facts that support the premise of the article.

Leidseplein (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody here, certainly not me, is advocating "ONE interpretation of history" on Wikipedia or anywhere else - please don't try to misrepresent me or my statements. I am simply asking you to provide sources to back up your OR.

And let me restate the question - who was this "third party" that asked you to edit here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be according to reputable sources what is said about Western betrayal (the common word across a whole range of countries and languages and scholarship being the operative "betrayal"). And, clearly, that is, in turn, rooted in foreign policy which dates to the close of WWI. No one woke up one morning to say, out of the blue, "Hmm... does X really need all its territory? Let's give it to someone we think is more deserving... or Let's give a chunk of X to Y just to shut them up...." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no "he said/she said" here. The French, British et al. governments don't dispute what they did and therefore there's something for readers to decide here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite passionate denials, there ARE sources that mention Poland's acquistion of Czech territory in the birth of the 'Western Betrayal'

Basically, what you need here is a source which links Munich and Zaolzie and Western Betrayal. Absent that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH..Volunteer Marek(talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC

Fine, as always, your wish is my command:

:Communist party member even linked the recognition of Kosovo to the infamous "Munich betrayal" in 1938, when Western European powers decided that frontier regions of what was then Czechoslovakia were to be given to Nazi Germany, Hungary and Poland. http://aktualne.centrum.cz/czechnews/clanek.phtml?id=606315

Naturally, since we followed your explicit, not-to-be-contradicted instructions and found a source that links Munich and Zaolzie and Western Betrayal, this discussion is now over and you can not help but agree that adding Poland to the list of countries which took Czech land is now required. Leidseplein (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a start. However, that's pretty thin - not even sure if that source is reliable. Can you find an academic source - like a book or a journal article - to back up the claim? The source you ... wait a minute, who is this "we" you're talking about? Are you editing along with someone else? This is getting strange.

Anyway, find a respectable academic source. Not some online webpage that makes a mention of the subject in passing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll find a 'respectable academic source. Not some online webpage...'

....as soon as someone finds respectable academic sources to replace the first 15 online webpages cited in the article Western Betrayal including such gems as the entertainment site Warsaw-life.com. I means its only fair to apply the same ridiculously harsh standards to all sources in the article, right? Its a total mystery why some sources that are focused on Warsaw nightlife are perfectly acceptable for an article like this, while mainstream Czech news sources mentioned frequently in Wikipedia, such as Aktuálně.cz are not????? hmmmmm

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktu%C3%A1ln%C4%9B.cz

Leidseplein (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree that some of these sources do not belong in the article and I'll go through some of them and remove them. In the mean time see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just cuz there's already crappy sources in the article that's not a good excuse to add more crap. Second, you should be aware that per Wikipedia policy "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources".

Also please look at WP:RS:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. - your single source does not directly support the information as it is presented in the article.

For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context. The nature of the article is of particular importance. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. - your source mentions the issue only in passing, unlike some of the other articles-as-sources you are pointing out which are specifically devoted to this topic.

I must also say, your behavior at this article and on this talk page stands in stark contrast - in fact, it is very very different - then the reasonable advice you provided via 3O at Siege of Kolberg and the comment you left at my talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the heading title of this section is, again, unnecessarily inflammatory - what "passionate denials"? I've been calm and polite through out this whole exchange.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some of the sketchy sources. Some of the other ones you refer to, however, are in fact written by academics, they just happen to be online somewhere. I do agree that in general the article could use a good clean up. But like I've already said, the fact that there's already junk in the article is not a good reason to add more junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:the fact that there's already junk in the article is not a good reason to add more junk

Really, is there no end to the new excuses and reaching complaints you will use to try and keep facts you don't like off wikipedia?

The mainstream publication

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktu%C3%A1ln%C4%9B.cz ...is only junk to editors who dislike what it says, to Wikipedia, the Czech media market and any unbiased person, it is as high quality as any source in this article

Actually I agree that some of these sources do not belong in the article and I'll go through some of them and remove them.

That would be a tremendous waste of time. I do not try to hide my POV by attacking sources, citing wikispeak and using false claims to guidelines that you learned when you felt disciplined by other wikipedians, etc... and those who do are easy to spot a mile away because they do it over and over again in the same type of articles.

...I'm fine with the whole article even if it includes about.com and Warsaw nightlife websites because the article was generally accurate. I don't stand on formality, cite rules to achieve the goal of spreading my worldview on Poland, and I don't use red herrings to achieve my POV, I'm happy to let all POVs express themselves reasonably....which is what I did when I talked about the Kolberg article and what I'm doing here. You will never see me attacking a source if the statement using it is accurate, likewise I never demand extreme source regimins (or sources at all) for statements that are plainly true, even if I don't like what is said. Note you're not attacking the truth of whether Poland took the Czech territory - you are demanding in all your glorious 13 points this fact be banned in this article...and lamely standing on misapplied wiki policy to support your demands for censorship. ... You just don't want this fact in there because you're passionate about Poland, I understand, so am I. But hiding the truth won't win converts to a more enlightened view of Poland in the war, which is plainly your noble goal, in fact these hiding efforts always backfire.

I must also say, your behavior at this article and on this talk page stands in stark contrast - in fact, it is very very different - then the reasonable advice you provided via 3O at Siege of Kolberg and the comment you left at my talk page

My outlook and approach is always the same - all POVs and all facts should be portrayed, I'm using the same outlook and approach here as I did on Kolberg, it's just that here you are trying to censor facts and present a POV without equally and adequately letting opposing views or facts which challenge your POV enter the article.

I've been calm and polite through out this whole exchange:

That's a laugh and actually explains everything - one thing about becoming an adult is the ability to apply the demands, standards and criticisms you make on others to yourself - first. I'd love to go on,but by wife demands I end for bedtime. Goodnight and good luck.Leidseplein (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It would at least help matters if you could concentrate on talking on the issue at hand rather than writing essay about what you imagine my motives are. It would help even more if you stopped making personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, some editors are allowed to write about 'canards', make threats, talk about my work on kolberg, ask me to explain their feelings of weirdness, call my work 'crap', 'irrelevant', 'nonsense', post non-topical questions on my talk page, etc... and with all the stern motherly authority they can muster at such a young age, dramtically announce a 'problematic' double revert accusation when there were no double reverts, (whoops, someone had to retract that, thanks for the long attempted distraction though),

BUT,

others are strictly instructed to concentrate on the issue at hand and keep out of the realm of the personal. Standards should only apply to others, not oneself, afterall. Leidseplein (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material that doesn't bother ME

To illustrate my motivations and how I don't stand behind false appeals to wiki guidelines and diversionary attacks on reputable sources, I will point out that I have NO PROBLEM with the limitless parts in this article that go unsourced including:

1. two paragaphs and more in the 'phoney war' sub-section (in the Poland Section)

2. the entire subsection in the 'Atlantic Charter' (in the Poland section)

3. the entire subsection 'Katyn and the Soviet pressure' (in the Poland section)

4. several paragraphs in the 'Yalta' subsection (in the Poland section)

5. almost the entire 'aftermath' section (in the Poland section)

6. the entire sections of both 'Cossacks and White Russians' and 'Baltic States'

7. almost the entire section on 'Yugoslavia' (all of during the war' and almost the entire 'after the war' subsections)

I repeat that I'm not demanding sources and citations for this incredibly large unsourced material and I don't complain about the huge size of the Polish section in this article vis-a-vis othe nations BECAUSE THEY ARE FACTUALLY MOSTLY TRUE or widely accepted, and as such, any complaint about sources would only be PEDANTIC and serve only to waste editors time. Taking a redundant, selectively applied and severe stance on sourcing is one way to attack facts another editor doesn't want mentioned, (such as the fact Poland acquired Czech land after Munich), but not applying their new-found zeal for 'academic non-online sources' to a largely unsourced article is the best evidence here that neutrality is not anywhere near this entire article or another editor.Leidseplein (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Prooposed Compromise to Editor Dispute

It seems me and another editor have a dispute centered on two issues

1.

Two words ("and Poland") which appear in the first line of the Czechoslavakia section, and now reads

The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany and Poland, losing the system of border fortifications and means of viable defence against the German invasion

Another editor wants the two words and Poland removed, because, (we are told in the article) Poland is a primary victim of any Western Betrayal. Therfore mentioning that Poland acquired land in the result of the Munich Conference is perceived by this editor as weakening Poland's claim to a Western Betrayal.

2.

Among a diarrhea of diversionay flase claims, a pontificating 13 points of attack, personal insults and red herrings, another editor's second point with which I strongly dispute is the false claim and red herring that any source mentioning Poland's acquisition of land in the wake of Munich must also mention Western Betrayal to be included in this article.

As a courtesy, I provided such a source which meets the tough standards another editor so fervantly demands for a mere two words in this article while happily ignoring mountains of unsourced material elsewhere - namely, I provided a mainstream Czech news outlet. In other words, the other editor and I disagree about validity of sources - in fact I say ANY RELIABLE SOURCE about Czechoslavkia on the days after the Munich Agreement can be used in the Czcechoslavakia section and not merely sources diplaying a pro-Polish POV which mention Western Betrayal.

Leidseplein (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I offer 2 more compromises in addition to the compromise offer ignored above:

In order to move back to my real passion of writing entirely new articles and to avoid a waste-of-time dispute over two words, I propose either of two compromises:

1. add a qualifying sentence after 'and Poland' in the Czech section which explains Poland's land grab in Czech was small (or words which otherwise lessens its impact) (naturally, I impose no pedantic source requirements for this qualification sentence), OR

2. Remove the 'and Poland' reference in the Czech section and I will happily write a new section in the article titled something along the lines of 'Debunkers of the Western Betrayal idea' which will explain in detail mainstream published opinions against the victimization mentality of the 'Western Betrayal', including of course Poland's land grab attempts in Czechoslavakia and Lithuania as well as Polish collaboration with Hitler prior to the Polish invasion. As with the dozens of articles I've contiributed to Wikipedia this section would contain top notch inline citations in virtually every line.

Which compromise is most acceptable?

Leidseplein (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please consider accepting one of these compromises so we can move on away from this trivial argument.

Leidseplein (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

When offers of compromise go unanswered

Marek is no longer satisfied with resolving this issue on this page and has asked for arbitration, which I encourage everyone interested in this article to read or comment on by clicking on 6 below

[6]

Leidseplein (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article begins, "Western betrayal, also called Yalta betrayal, refers to the foreign policy of several Western countries between 1919 and 1968 regarding Eastern and Central Europe. These policies violated allied pacts and agreements made during the period from the Treaty of Versailles through World War II and to the Cold War." This combines two different issues, whether the British accepted violation of Versailles in favor of Germany during the inter-war period and whether they sold out Eastern Europe after the Second World War. The article assumes that the western allies were wrong on both counts. Can anyone explain what scholarship links these two issues? TFD (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Increasingly scholarship has taken a more holistic view of the first half of the 20th century, in particular, tying the egregiously punitive actions taken against Germany at Versailles and inevitable subsequent breech of conditions all the way through to the post-WWII landscape of territorial control. Those holistic views take into account French, British, et al. policy toward other sovereign parties throughout the time period in question: the close and aftermath of WWI sowing seeds for the next conflict through WWII and aftermath. There's no "combination of two different issues," rather, you are dealing with scholarship regarding an appropriate continuum of policy on the part of the great powers. There are plenty of sources in this regard. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion on Zaolzie / Trans-Olza, Poland and Western Betrayal

Response to third opinion request (Zaolzie / Trans-Olza, Poland and Western Betrayal):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Western betrayal and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

After reading through the disagreement, I recommend the following edits and adding of sources: 1. Alter the first sentence and add a second sentence to the first paragraph of the Czechoslovakia section, as such: The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany, losing the system of border fortifications and means of viable defence against the German invasion[15][16][17][18] (see Fall Grün - the country was eventually invadded and occupied in March 1939). Linked to the Western betrayal — as a "natural consequence" — is the forced annexation of Czechoslovakia's Zaolzie region by Poland. 2. Add the following as a second paragraph in the Czechoslovakia section: As a "natural consequence of the Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia", and based on a variety of motives, the Polish government forcibly annexed the small but long-disputed Trans-Olza/Zaolzie region of Czechoslovakia. References —Infoman99 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

​

Very thorough 3rd opinion, thanks for your efforts, it is appreciated. That solution seems reasonable.Leidseplein (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmmm... it's in the right direction, I do have a few quibbles though.

1. I would put the phrase "Linked to the Western betrayal — as a "natural consequence"[1] — is the forced annexation of Czechoslovakia's Zaolzie region by Poland" at the end of the paragraph after the Churchill quote. As it is currently written the paragraph is a well written coherent whole with good flow which nicely explains the origins of the concept. Slapping that into its middle would break it up and make for awkward reading. I would also change the "is" to "was" which I think would be the proper tense ("linked" is past tense, the "forced annexation" occurred in the past). Or...
2. ...It seems you are suggesting to include this "natural consequence" twice, once in the first paragraph and once as an additional paragraph by itself. I think that's not quite correct, why repeat a phrase more than once? Especially twice, one right after the other? Maybe just put in the second paragraph and that's it.
3. I'm not sure how the third reference is related. It also appears to be unnecessary so why include it?
4. As long as we're providing this "context" the parts from the sources which state: "The forceful annexation of Trans-Olza was not dictated by mere greed, nor was it a factor in the fall of Czechoslovaka but a consequence of the Western surrender of the Sudetenland to Germany" seems particularly relevant and more reflective of what the source is actually saying than quoting the "natural consequence" (which could mean a lot of different things) out of context.
5. Second, from the second source "Munich provoked such general indignation in Poland that we feared mob assaults on the French embassy, and particularly on the British embassy; we also feared demonstrations against the government. [...] we spent a long time discussion whether we should mobilize in defense of Czechoslovakia. [...] We took the path of recovering Zaolzie. It was a scrap of booty, thrown [to us] by way of consolation" isn't quite in line with the proposed text it is supposed to be sourcing. In particular it is about: a) Polish indignation at the Munich agreement - this is not in proposed text. b) fear of assaults on the French and British embassies as a manifestation of this indignation - this is not in the proposed text. c) the fact that Polish government considered mobilization in defense of Czechoslovakia, in opposition to Western powers and Germany - this is not in the proposed text. Only the last part is used in the proposed text, but if we're gonna put that in "for context" then we should include the rest as well.
6. Honestly, I still think that including discussion of Zaolzie here is unnecessary and undue and hurts the quality of the article - a proper treatment of the subject opens up lots of cans of lots of worms and an adequate discussion of the topic is outside the scope of this particular article (of course it should be included in articles on Munich, or the First Vienna Award or Zaolzie).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree only with Infoman's original suggestion. The actions/wording Infoman suggests has my vote. Leidseplein (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

New Editor, Same Issue

I notice that a new editor has unilaterally ignored the tremendously valuable 3rd opinion provided above; I request editors whose only interest in this article is the matter of Poland's annexation of Czech territory (and whether or not this fact should be presented or hidden to Wikipedia readers), to discuss proposed changes here or simply follow the third opinion.Leidseplein (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the third opinion provided above was next to useless and the original addition of the text pointless. No one's trying to "hide" Poland's annexation of Czech territory. This simply isn't the article for it. Hence I am not surprised at all that other editors have the same problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your neutral POV efforts, obviously you have no particular POV about Poland or the Western Betrayal and your history here means you should be trusted. Those who have been sanctioned and banned multiple times for ignoring and trying to circumvent the 3o and other dispute resolution processes and those who were caught in a conspiracy to flagrantly gang-attack editors and articles they didn't like should be trusted on this matter given their great record of respecting Wikipedia. Those with published evidence of email traffic where they discuss using puppets to avoid 3r and other editing rules, those who've discussed in public sources how to circumvent the whole Wikipedia process, and those who spend most of their time on Wikipedia in disputes AND trying to trap other editors they don't like via Wikipedia lawyering ...those are definitely the kind whose opinion should be trusted here...The DOZENS of previously pro-Polish editors like myself driven away from doing anything that might be construed as helping your tortured cause (like write Polish articles) is the result of the terrible efforts. How surprising the 'other editor' appeared magically out of nowhere to edit this one point that you feel doesn't show Poland heroically enough for you. Best wishes in the inevitable nonsense you will now begin yet again over this two word edit dispute...Leidseplein (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

First, see WP:OUTING. Second, see WP:SARCASM. Three, see WP:NPA. Might as well note that your statements about me - again, you're focusing on editors rather than content - are false, whether deliberately or accidentally so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly:

- my understanding how the encyclopedias should work which lead me to the decision of deletion of the "two words" was to correct the false information they created when inserted (as was briefly explained when deletion was done); it is not clear if the author of the insertion is still aware of it or it is some other intention of this, he undid my corrections restoring the sense of a sentence that implies very "revolutionary" approach to Munich agreement and its aftermath (btw. such "revelations" deserved to be written down on the above mentioned agreement page of Wikipedia if not more, if trustworthy); the addition in my belief was done on the basis of the then source [15] which was also resurrected after my deletion (as an unreliable one), I did open it and read that: ‘...Communist party member even linked the recognition of Kosovo to the infamous "Munich betrayal" in 1938, when Western European powers decided that frontier regions of what was then Czechoslovakia were to be given to Nazi Germany, Hungary and Poland...’ the same more lengthy news of czech electronic newspaper says in czech language: "...Kromě Klause proti uznání nezávislosti Kosova sociální demokraté a komunisté, kteří například přirovnávají uznání Kosova k 'mnichovské zradě'" not the same info, different accents applied. One has to ask about the historical quality and worthiness of such a source information in the context of Wiki or even a History; another source attached was then [16] the page of Chemical Institute of Prague introducing the history of Czech Republic to English speakers where is written: "...Adolf Hitler used the opportunity and, supported by Konrad Henlein's Sudeten German Party, gained the majority German speaking Sudetenland through the Munich Agreement. Poland occupied areas with Polish minority around Český Těšín,..." not a word about polish participation in Munich agreement and etc; but why to write about something that the author himself accepted as worth rectification and agreed to accept the so called "Third opinion on Zaolzie / Trans-Olza, Poland and Western Betrayal" where the obvious misinterpretations were corrected, because Secondly:

My belief is not to create redundant information in encyclopedic sources, the idea to salvage the intentions of the author of insertion of the "two words" and to correct it in the way the author of Third opinion did (separating Poland in the context of the participation in 'mnichovské zradě') wasn't strange to me but please read the first words part of this sentence; there are separate pages concerning both Munich Agreement and Zaolzie and the "Third opinion..." remarks should be inserted there if providing new data.

And thirdly he reverted to his original insertion without taking into account any proposition to rectify the problematic content of page. Achensenamon (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Title POV concerns

A title that presupposes its topic orientation is a bit of a concern. Although some parties and historians may describe this as a "Western betrayal", this is not really an appropriate title for the article, which should use a more descriptive title that characterizes the matter better. Even more so when the first paragraph itself contains weasel words and notes that "some historians" dispute the concept and "some misjudgments" took place at the time.

I suspect we could find a more encyclopedic title - the present one comes across as quite non-neutral which is a shame in this article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the article most certainly has some POV and OR problems, particularly, as you note, in the lede. Having said that, the article is about a concept called "Western betrayal" so it doesn't make sense to have it titled something else. I mean, the only thing I can think of that would be more descriptive would be "Western betrayal (concept)" but that's a bit of over doing it.

But I'm all for cleaning up the lede etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Even that would be an improvement - it changes it from a discussion of an alleged actual Western betrayal (characterized as such in WP's voice) to a discussion of the concept of one, on which Wikipedia doesn't have a formal opinion. A slight improvement. Can we reach a fully descriptive title though?

Western foreign policy consistency during the Nazi era and Cold War During the 20th century, the political policies of the West (principally the United States, Great Britain and allies) underwent great changes as a result of shifts in global politics, due in large measure to the fragmentation of old empires and alliances, World War II, and the Cold War.[CITE] This article examines the consistency of Western foreign policies to other European countries and nominal allies in that period. At times these have been described as being inconsistent with past treaties, public commitments, or stated principles, or perceived and described as a "Western betrayal" in historical texts and analyses.[CITE] They continues to be a source of anger today[CITE]......"

Not perfect by any means, but any use as a starting point to work from? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a very good title for several reasons. First, just in terms of aesthetics it's not very good; it sounds like a clumsy euphemism, which is actually what it is. Second, in a related manner, it's sort of OR - there are sources which discuss the concept of "Western Betrayal" and while I'm sure there's sources out there talking about policy consistency I don't think they actually consistently call it this. Third, it's not really accurate - in fact, a cynic might say that western policy towards Eastern Europe has been very consistent but that's not the problem. The concept is about something other than consistency of policy, it's about perceived ... betrayal. By ... Western states. So I think as an article title "Western betrayal" actually works pretty well and I don't think it's POV or an endorsement of the view any more than having an article titled Geocentrism is an endorsement of the proposition that the sun revolves around the earth.

So from your proposed intro I'd keep just the last sentence. Maybe something like:

Western betrayal refers to the view found in some historical texts and analyses, as well as political discourse, that the foreign policy of several Western countries between 1919 and 1968 (? - VM) regarding Eastern and Central Europe has been inconsistent with past treaties, public commitments, or stated principles. The term can cover various phenomenon depending on the context, including the Munich Conference (Munich Betrayal), the Phoney War, the Yalta Conference (Yalta Betrayal) or certain aspects of Western policy during the Cold War.

The "some" in the above might sound like a bit of weaseling but I don't think it's possible to get around it - the idea is widespread enough to be notable and merit its own article, but at the same time it is important to indicate that this isn't a universally accepted view. Also, I have no idea why the cut off date given in the present text is given as 1968... Prague Spring maybe? Oh yeah, the term might also be used in the context of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 but there I'm not sure off the top of my head.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about what the article is about, explains pretty well why this is a POV problem as a title. The article is about "perceived" betrayal. "Betrayal" is not necessarily settled as being the consensus view by mainstream historians. Yet it presents it as both of these in Wikipedia's voice.

That said, the modified intro text goes a long way to improving it. Listing some of the events and matters it has been applied to gives it a more neutral dispassionate tone. But adding "(concept)" in the title wouldn't be bad either, since that makes it clear the article is discussing the concept (NPOV) rather than asserting the reality (POV). Change "has been" to "was". "Some" is fine so long as it's citeable - a selection of 2-3 credible cites evidences it.

The rest of the intro has serious POV issues too - essentially asserting a view rather than analyzing a concept or perspective. But they are a little easier to address once the basic frame is improved. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro text removal

I have removed the following from the introduction:

"Supporters of Yalta are sometimes outraged at the notion that Yalta was a betrayal of Eastern and Central Europe without considering the fate of Poland . Polish forces had fought the Germans longer than any country since the beginning of the Second World War. They fought alongside the U.S., British and Soviet troops in most major campaigns in Europe, including the final battle of Berlin, with the strength of the Polish Armed Forces in the West peaking at 249,000, 180,000 in the East and over 300,000 in underground AK. In the final stage of war the Polish troops on all the European fronts, excluding the Home Army, amounted to some 600,000 soldiers (infantry, armored troops, aircraft and navy). This made the Polish Armed Forces the fourth largest after the Soviet Union, United States and British Armed Forces. The Polish government in exile was an official ally of the U.S. and Britain. All this did not prevent Roosevelt from acquiescing in the installation of a communist government in Poland. Even as the men of the Polish 1st Armoured Division, determined to link up with the American 90th Division under Gen. George S. Patton's Third Army and to close the trap on the German armies in Normandy, were battling the German Army and the Hitler Youth SS Panzer division, Roosevelt was planning to hand Poland over to Stalin."

In this we learn something about "supporters of Yalta" (whoever they are); that "some supporters" (unspecified) are "sometimes" (unspecified which/when) outraged (POV/tone/non-encyclopedic); that the subject of their "outrage" is that Yalta was a betrayal without considering the fate of Poland (whatever that meaningless English sentence means); and that Poland did a number of great things in the war, recited in full detail, along with a full length historical narrative, all of which are very important in some articles and places - and completely off topic for the introduction here.

The introduction summarizes the article briefly and dispassionately. It is not a place for a large paragraph of Polish outrage and facts about how important/big/significant Poland was in the war. That can be added later if important. Not only it's impossible as drafted to work out what it means (who exactly is objecting or angry about what exactly) but it's full of POV issues and actually doesn't add much to the introduction. Removing this block of text also makes the introduction a lot easier for a reader to understand the topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally I agree with FT2.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC on article focus and title

The scope of this article is: Perceptions and evidence concerning the inconsistency and unreliability of Western foreign policy towards its notional allies during the post-WW1 era, Nazi era and Cold War. A concept of "Western betrayal" is genuinely discussed or alluded to in a range of sources, and genuinely was (and is) a common term used to allude to the issue, but titling the article this way assumes a view in Wikipedia's voice. So it's not clear what would be a good rename or improved approach. There is some discussion above and at the NPOV noticeboard, copied below for convenience. Discussion sought to work out what to do here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Summarized to date (short)

From article talk page [T]he article most certainly has some POV and OR problems, particularly, as you note, in the lede. Having said that, the article is about a concept called "Western betrayal" so it doesn't make sense to have it titled something else. I mean, the only thing I can think of that would be more descriptive would be "Western betrayal (concept)" but that's a bit of over doing it. [...]–Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC) [T]here are sources which discuss the concept of "Western Betrayal" and while I'm sure there's sources out there talking about policy consistency I don't think they actually consistently call it this. Third, it's not really accurate - in fact, a cynic might say that western policy towards Eastern Europe has been very consistent but that's not the problem. The concept is about something other than consistency of policy, it's about perceived ... betrayal. By ... Western states. So I think as an article title "Western betrayal" actually works pretty well and I don't think it's POV or an endorsement of the view any more than having an article titled Geocentrism is an endorsement of the proposition that the sun revolves around the earth. [...] the idea is widespread enough to be notable and merit its own article, but at the same time it is important to indicate that this isn't a universally accepted view.–Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Your comment about what the article is about, explains pretty well why this is a POV problem as a title. The article is about "perceived" betrayal. "Betrayal" is not necessarily settled as being the consensus view by mainstream historians. Yet it presents it as both of these in Wikipedia's voice. [...] adding "(concept)" in the title wouldn't be bad either, since that makes it clear the article is discussing the concept (NPOV) rather than asserting the reality (POV).–FT2 (Talk | email) 09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC) From NPOV noticeboard Title NPOV issue. We should surely be using a more neutral title here, even if this is a term some parties use to discuss the matter. Eyeballs? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC) That's a bad title. it's very parochial. I tried working out which particular betrayal it meant before going there, it was on the list of possibilities but it would be better as the Yalta betrayal I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Agree with FT2 and Dmcq. Needs better title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Not necessarily. We're just supposed to use the most common name in English. If "Western betrayal" is the most common name used in English, then it doesn't matter whether it's neutral. Proper names which incorporate non-neutral terms - such as Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Reign of Terror, Bataan Death March, Intolerable Acts, Great Leap Forward, etc. are all legitimate article titles. Try finding some standard reference history texts which cover this subject. If they're calling it "western betrayal", we should to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I did a newspaper search for the term "western betrayal" -- major papers in the US & Britain and worldwide -- and I did not get any kind of sense that the term western betrayal had some coherent meaning. Rather, it sometimes referred to criticism of foreign policy actions of nations such as Britain and France towards eastern Europe on the eve of WW2; but there were many other senses too -- it's been applied towards policy towards Afghanistan in recent years, Iraq. The time frame -- 1919 to 1968 -- too huge. You see, Bataan Death March refers to a specific event; ditto your other choices above. But Western betrayal is so vague that, in my view, is practically meaningless, and may be a catch-all term for original research. My sense is the article has major issues, including the title; perhaps it should be broken up into separate articles about foreign policy?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made my points above already, so here I will just reply to Tomwsulcer's last point - that he didn't find it in newspapers. Ummm, "Western Betrayal" is an academic term used in political science and/or history. So it's not surprising it's not found in newspaper (especially present day ones). But that's irrelevant. On the other hand, looking at google books we've got more than 300 hits [7], many of which are key works by prominent authors, like Tony Judt's Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945: [8]. Likewise, google scholar yields 150+ hits [9]. I'll look on jstor soon when I got easy access to it.

So:

1) As FT2 concedes, the term IS used quite often in sources, hence it is a notable concept and

2) As Quest for Knowledge points out, the fact that somebody may perceive the title as POV is irrelevant, as long as most reliable sources use the term. (Nice examples too - I was trying to think of some before but it was late at night and all I could come up with was "Geocentrism". Pretty lame of me).

So the title should stay as is. Btw, I do think FT2 is doing a good job improving the article and removing some of the POV and OR. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To respond to VM's point -- what I'm saying is that the term western betrayal lacks a consistent and specific meaning. And my searching through newspapers reflects this, since newspaper articles will pick up treatment by academics who use the term. For example, if I did a newspaper search of Bataan Death March, it will pick up usage by academics, historians, reporters, and others who refer to a clearly-defined incident over a specific span of a month or so. It's a clear term. In contrast, the term western betrayal, whether used by reporters, by academics, by foreign policy experts, is all over the map. Merely getting google hits in books is insufficient in my view. Are we talking about Czechoslovakia's feeling about foreign policy decisions by Britain and France on the eve of WW2? Poland's? Hungary's? Which countries were the betrayers? What was betrayed exactly? When did this happen? The time span -- 1999 to 1968 -- covers half of a century -- policymakers in the 1920s were dead by the 1950s and later. So, what are we talking about here? My sense is if you ask a historian or foreign policy expert to define western betrayal, they'll respond -- well, what do you mean exactly? They won't know what we're getting at either. My sense is IF you'd like to keep this content, make the article "Western betrayal" shorter, almost like a disambiguation page perhaps, but have it point to more specific articles which are spun off from this one -- one possible article might be British and French betrayal of Poland on the eve of WW2 possibly (although I don't like this title wording particularly).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am open to consideration of alternative titles, but I cannot think of one. Overall, I agree with VM above. Also, this article needed a good rewrite and referencing for years..., and is certainly one of the (low intensity but still) magnets for POV-pushing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The title is perfectly good. People who use the term with approval use it, people who claim the term's analysis is fundamentally flawed use it. Try and ensure the focus of the article is on the term itself primarily, and only use exemplars derived from the highest quality sources which actually discuss them as exemplars (or counter-proofs against) the term specifically, and use main article bridge outs to articles which deal with the incidents in depth. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the RFC request in my watchlist and it sparked my interest. For starters, "Western Betrayal" refers to a very specific series of events (mostly) in post-WWII Europe. As mentioned above, the description is widely used in academia and can be found in peer-reviewed journals. What else could the article be titled? I think the article could be streamlined a bit, perhaps including an infobox enumerating casualties and those affected? At least a hundred million people became refugees during the betrayal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert but it seems that "Western Betrayal" is the most commonly used term so we should use it. If course, the article itself can discus historian's differing views on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Another POV article that presents a thesis that Munich and Yalta were the same thing, fascism and communism are the same thing. TFD (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is about the the article name. I suggest you start a separate one about the article itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"The appropriateness of describing these as 'betrayal' is a matter of dispute between historians"

In one of the paragraphs in the lede, it says, ""The appropriateness of describing these as 'betrayal' is a matter of dispute between historians" but the rest of the paragraph does not discuss the appropriateness of the term 'betrayal'. Instead, it discusses other disputes between historians. I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove the opening sentence to that paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The existing text is (unfortunately) largely written from one viewpoint and it is more of a recital of events rather than a discussion of the term and characterization of how historians and different perspectives see it. See the section on Czechoslovakia for an example - not one view by a credible historian or analyst, much less a balanced reflection of academic views. Just one side represented.

At present the article is non-neutral and not really very encyclopedic - it sums up (primarily) a view of one "side" and does not largely reflect a balanced summary. Nor does it contain much of secondary sources and their analysis which is pivotal to any article. It is likely that we will find the characterization as "betrayal" will indeed be disputed or seen as simplistic in a range of academic sources. Historians will point out other reasons that some of these took place, or point out other interpretations of the known facts. None of this changes the topic per se but it's important to characterize the topic by drawing upon reliable sources rather than "making a case" or arguing a position. If the article were well written we would surely find that historians are not unanimous on it and that there is a division of mainstream views and analysis.

Anyway happy to leave it reverted for the while. If it was accurate it will eventually become obvious. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know for a fact that historians are in dispute? What if they're not? I would not be surprised at all if there was no significant debate within the academic community over this. Just because the article reflects one POV doesn't necessarily mean another POV exists within academia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had any past involvement with East European topics. The writing style of the article as was did not give any confidence that it was based on research and academic or other credible reliable sources, I think that's not in dispute. It was a "here's what I know about topic X" kind of write-up, which is rarely good for contentious historical topics.

I took a look at scholarly articles and books to get a sense of the scope of the topic and the secondary sources discussing it, and it seemed on a quick review that there is quite a lot of debate about the term and its meaning and the different perspectives involved. So broadly I would say "yes, it seems so", but it obviously needs more review of high quality sources to ensure significant views are described in a balanced manner - and to also ensure that the views already included are placed on a firmer footing. Either way happy to leave it out per your edit for the while, as your point is valid too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was/is certainly written in a polemic tone (I think at one point in its history it wasn't but then the inevitable happened) but that doesn't immediately imply that a controversy exists among historians (it may). There's a difference between "You guys betrayed us so you guys suck!" and "There was a betrayal". The former is non-neutral (and sort of what the problem with the current version is) but the latter can be neutral (if supported by sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with this, but with a word of caution. It can be neutral but may not be. You still have to be incredibly careful. For an example see the discussions of using "is a terrorist" or "is a terrorist organization" to describe certain people and organizations -- usually the better wording is "is described by X as (possibly prejudicial label)" or to avoid the dubious term if possible. Similar discussions exist for other widely-used-but-potentially-non-neutral labels. Even when there are many reliable sources we need to consider whether there is a mainstream consensus and any weight due to its pejorative sense. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, when there is no dispute over a fact or an opinion, I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to use in-text attribution. For example, the Battle of Stalingrad was a disaster for the German war effort. No historian would dispute this. I think it's perfectly fine to state that Battle of Stalingrad was a disaster in Wikipedia's voice versus saying "According to historians, Battle of Stalingrad was a disaster for the German war effort." Just my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this is from a while back, but I wanted to say that the nature of this topic means the comparison to Stalingrad isn't applicable unless you're referring to the use of adjectives like 'brutal' (which presently describes Soviet rule). The betrayal part is more akin to something like http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555189/Polish-PM-adopts-WW2-rhetoric-at-EU-summit.html in that, even if true, it's inherently controversial. Spieren (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the act of not going to the war with Germany in 1939 is a Western betrayal - that is a fact. I see no historians anywhere disputing that. Allies were obligated to do so, and using a term "Phony War" is just a very, very contrived euphemism invented for Anglo-Saxian purposes to blunt the deed. Thus we can easily argument that the term "Phony War" is controversial in itself and very POV - from the Western perspective. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

When to use and when not to use "[sic]"

Look at the source I provided: [11]. Does the author of this, secondary, source, insert a "[sic]" into Jodl's quotation? No? Then an anonymous Wikipedia editor has no business correcting a published author.

IF you were quoting Jodl yourself directly (which could run afoul of WP:PRIMARY, but let's put that aside for the moment), then a "[sic]" could maybe be justified.

And putting "[sic]" into the sentence is not in any way helpful as it does not adequately alert the readers as to what exactly was written incorrectly. It's just a way of cluttering up text one doesn't like to make it seem dubious.VolunteerMarek 19:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Two things: firstly we can't tell if elsewhere in the book the authors haven't already dealt with this with a caveat, such as: "Many comments mentioning 'England' should in fact read 'Britain', due to the habit of non-Britons conflating the two concepts under the inaccurate term 'England'. Secondly, maybe the authors themselves let it slip through (I can't tell where they are from - perhaps America, where this also frequently happens (Tony Blair, appearing on the Daily Show, even corrected John Stewart when he repeatedly said 'England' instead of 'Britain')).
• If you need further food for thought, ask yourself this: what do Poles call the Battle of Britain? See the problem and how easy it is to fall into it?
• Perhaps we could solve this with a footnote if you (and only you so far) hate the idea of 'sic' so much? Malick78 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If we can't tell, then we shouldn't presume. You shouldn't be trying to "correct" published sources.

Your "food for thought" is completely irrelevant.

A footnote is not particularly necessary and I'm guessing would involve just you slappin' in some original research.VolunteerMarek 19:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems you were just lazy and took the first source you found: here's a better translation that uses the word "British". And for good measure, a further two thousand three hundred and seventy. Perhaps you could read this VM, and we'll avoid such incidents in future: WP:DICK. Have we now established that Poles can't be relied upon to differentiate between England and Britain? Hope so. (And in a lovely poetic twist... why should Britain have helped Poland anyway? You still don't know the name of our country. That should be the test for when one country helps another: "Do you actually know our name?") Malick78 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

I realise this probably crops up often, but the title seems inherently POV. A more neutral one would be Western betrayal (term), highlighting the fact it's a term, not an absolute, uncontroversial concept. What say you? It's a minor change, and quite accurate. Malick78 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that names be neutral. The question here is whether historians use this term. Unfortunately, I don't think we have any subject matter experts here to tell us. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This HAS been discussed to death and the current title is fine [12] - as Malick78 well knows.

And I don't know what you consider "subject matter experts" but historians most certainly do use the term.VolunteerMarek 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There are articles about the new world order, blood libel and unicorns. So long as a term is the one most generally used, then we can use it. TFD (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the term is a) too broad (12,000 hits for "western betrayal" + china -Yalta) b) is very POV, assuming that the term is non-controversial, and c) would not be used naturally be English speakers not already knowledgeable regarding the subject ('betrayal' is an abstract noun, 'western' does little to define it, or say from whose viewpoint - and therefore is not like other POV but common titles such as the Boston Massacre, which, being created by native speakers, are less confusing), and therefore many sources on the net add a phrase to help, such as "the term" or "concept of...", such as here, to help show what is being referred to. Basically, "Western betrayal" is a calque. This issue of non-native-English-speakerness is again present in the first sentence of the article, btw, when we say "Yalta betrayal" without a definite article. It should be "the Yalta betrayal" - see here. Lastly, adding "(term)", clarifies while keeping everything that the likers of that term like, surely. That's the nature of compromise and consensus. (Btw, Deuces, your examples are a) all from English, b) less controversial ('blood libel' as a term doesn't suggest it's true, quite like WB suggests it might be true, in my view)). Malick78 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this has already been discussed to death and you're not bringing anything new to the table. Adding "(term)" in parentheses would be justifiable if there was a need to disambiguate this title from some other - if there was some other "Western betrayal" that the term could apply to. But there isn't. But this is the term most commonly used by historians.

Your google search is meaningless - 12,000 hits on google itself is nothing. Doing the same search on google books gives only 82 results, many of them false positives (i.e. still relevant to this topic) [13]. If however, were someone to write a "Western Betrayal of China" article, then possibly that kind of disambiguation in the title would make sense. Until then there's no need.VolunteerMarek 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd compare it to the article Nanking Massacre, which uses that term, rather than the more popular term Rape of Nanking (or "Rape of Nanjing"). The latter two combined have almost three times the amount of hits on Google compared to the phrase used as the article's official title. Why? As they say here, they want to be more NPOV. If only we could find such compromises here... Malick78 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)]

There is no need for renaming, unless a disambiguation is needed. Per WP:COMMONNAME. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• So why do you think we don't have a Rape of Nanking page? That it's a redirect to Nanking Massacre? The former is the common name. The current name of this article seems childish, to be honest. No English speaker would ever refer to it naturally as such, and the only uses of it in literature are when it's the 'concept' being described. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Because "Western Betrayal" is how historians refer to the subject of this article. Your claim that No English speaker would ever refer to it naturally as such is patently false. Your assertion that The current name of this article seems childish is your own opinion - find a source to that effect. While we're here, your claim above that "Western betrayal" is a calque" only shows that you don't quite understand what the word "calque" means, as this is most definitely not an example of one.

Again, we've been through this half a dozen times, so why waste people's time with the same old tired arguments? Unless that's part of the purpose.VolunteerMarek 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to waste people's time. Don't make unfounded accusations (and AGF). As for calques, if the phrase in Czech is "zrada Západu" (according to the article), and that means "betrayal of(=by) the West" - how is "Western Betrayal" not a calque? Did the Czechs take it from English? Me thinks you do not know what a calque is... (We already know you don't know how to use "sic") Malick78 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you have a very ... "convenient" memory, as well as the super human ability to accuse others of making accusations while engaging in the very same thing yourself. If you care to recall correctly, my usage of "sic" - or its absence - was perfectly correct. If a secondary source cites a quote and does not include "sic" when quoting, then you, as a lowly Wikipedia editor, have no business trying to "correct" the secondary source according to your own opinion.

Anyway, whether the phrase "Western betrayal" is or is not a calque is a red herring (though come to think of it, that's an interesting question - where was the term first used?). The page on calque which you link to explicitly states The common English phrase "flea market" is a phrase calque that literally translates the French "marché aux puces" ("market of fleas")., yet, horror of horrors, the English Wikipedia has an article on this calque term Flea market! Why don't you go over there instead and try to get it changed to "Flea market (term)" or something.VolunteerMarek 23:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you agree that my use of the word calque is correct. Thanks. Anyway, regarding flea market, it's because it's a well-established term amongst normal English speakers. So no 'term' needed. WB isn't as well established. When a flea market is referred to it isn't preceded by "the term" or "the concept of". WB usually is. Now, does anyone else have an opinion? VM is against. No surprise. Other people? Malick78 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, saying that something is a red herring is not the same thing as saying "you are correct". You do have some serious problems with logic.

And also with mistaking baseless assertions of your own for established fact. Specifically, your contention that "When a flea market is referred to it isn't preceded by "the term" or "the concept of". WB usually is" is, again, patently false. Searching for "term Western Betrayal" gives ... 3 gbook hits [14], all of which are irrelevant to the subject of this article. A search for "Western Betrayal" throws up a plethora (plethora means "a lot" as in "more than three") of English language sources. Hell, a search for ""Western Betrayal" -term" throws up a buttload (that also means "a lot") of English language sources [15]. Quit making stuff up.VolunteerMarek 23:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing finer points of "flea market" is all very interesting; I have to note that Western betrayal shows up in multiple languages all in the same context and meaning. "Term" implies it's just a label for something typically called something else, such as "Great Patriotic War (term)" being used by the USSR and Russia for part of WWII. Rename not required, not supported. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge asked me to express my opinion on this subject. Although it is not a field of my primary interest, I decided to check the subject for notability and WP:NOR. Google scholar gives just 132 results for "western betrayal". I haven't analysed the whole list, however, upon reviewing first six pages I came to a conclusion that the concept of "the Western betrayal" does not exist in scholarly literature: "western betrayal" refers to

1. Western betrayal of Africa (Maurice Taonezvi Vambe. Autobiographical representations of the Rwanda genocide and black diasporic identities in Africa. African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 2008, 185-200): "For Melvern (2000) and French (2005), the fate of the Hutu demonstrates the Western betrayal of the African continent"
2. The Western Betrayal of East Timor (Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, The Western Betrayal of East Timor. Z Magazine. http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political2.htm)
3. Western betrayal of Russia [16]
4. Western betrayal of Middle East Christians [17]
5. Western betrayal of promises to the Arab world over Palestine [18]
6. etc.
   In addition to that, several sources in this list are Wikipedia mirrors, so they should be excluded from this list. In connection to that, we need to think if the article about some the Western betrayal fits notability and NOR criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
   PS One more point. Whereas the article depicts some Central European states solely as the victims, it totally ignores the fact that position of some of them (especially Poland and the Baltic states) contributed into the WWII outbreak. Thus, openly anti-Soviet stance of the Poles was the ultimate reason for the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet triple negotiations and to signing of the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. We definitely need to add this information into the article to avoid the article's one-sidedness.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The words "Western Betrayal" or "Western" and "betrayal" are of course used in other context (East Timor, Africa, Detroit, whatever) but this is a primary meaning. Google books returns almost 800 hits [19] and most of them relevant. I'll add as an aside that I've become more and more skeptical of "google scholar" as a search engine as it seems to both return non-scholarly hits AND fails to find lots of scholarly sources - it's one of the "google fail" projects.

Your statements that Whereas the article depicts some Central European states solely as the victims, it totally ignores the fact that position of some of them (especially Poland and the Baltic states) contributed into the WWII outbreak and openly anti-Soviet stance of the Poles was the ultimate reason for the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet triple negotiations and to signing of the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are plain weird and very much represent a fringe view, as I'm sure you're aware. Honestly, I expect more out of you, these claims are just bunk.VolunteerMarek 03:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If most of them are relevant, please, demonstrate that. Whereas France and Britain betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1937, and Roosevelt and Churchill came to some agreement with Stalin in Yalta, I am not sure the concept of the Western betrayal exists. I do not claim it doesn't, however, the burden of proof is on you.

Re fringe, such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe. In addition, I do not imply the responsibility for the outbreak of WWII lies exclusively on Poland, however, Polish egoistic policy also played some role, and this fact should be reflected in the article, as soon as pre-war negotiations are being discussed here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It has already been demonstrated - like I said, this is about the fifth time that this discussion is taking place. Key works like Tony Judt's use "Western Betrayal" precisely in this sense. So do many others, but honestly, I'm too tired of having the same argument over and over again.

such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe - lemme see some links here, what specifically are you referring to? And honestly, do you realize what statements like I do not imply the responsibility for the outbreak of WWII lies exclusively on Poland sound like? I hate to get all Godwin's Law on this, but if there's a weaselly framing of a situation which deserves it then this is it - if someone said "I do not imply the responsibility for getting raped lies exclusively with the victim" (because, you know, she wore provocative clothing or something or obviously "led Hitler and Stalin on"), that'd be pretty much along the same lines. This conversation is degenerating fairly quickly and it's not because of anything I said, just the crazy statements that apparently this issue evokes from some.VolunteerMarek 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar gives just 2 hits for "western betrayal" + Tony Judt. One of them is about "Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia", and another just mentions Yalta Western 'betrayal' (in quotation marks). That is an indication that the Judt is not too popular.

Re the second part, the vision of Poland as some innocent virgin who was raped by evil monsters is somewhat ahisotric. In late 30s, the policy of all major players, including Poland, was egoistic, immoral and sometimes even stupid. Therefore, all of them, in greater or lesser extent are responsible, and later sufferings do not justify that. You correctly hate to use the Goodwin's law, and in this particular case it is especially irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I already said, google books gives almost 800 hits and most of them relevant. Again, maybe the problem is with google scholar not the term. As a personal piece of evidence, I've tried once or twice using google scholar in my own research and have found it completely useless - it's not that a literature didn't exist (it could easily be found by using discipline-specific databses), it's just that google scholar sucks as a search engine. This is probably even more true for disciplines like history where the primary means of scholarly communication is books not articles.

Again, can you give links to the such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe?

Finally, the ongoing moral equivocation in your comments between states like Nazi Germany and Soviet Union on one hand, and the countries which they invaded and destroyed on the other, pretty much shows that a violation of Godwin's law was very much in order. At the very least if you're going to push ridiculous claims like that (the victim of aggression to blame for the aggression nonsense) at least choose your words more wisely.VolunteerMarek 03:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Add: or to put it another way, the statement That is an indication that the Judt is not too popular is just patently ridiculous. Tony Judt. Tony Judt. Tony Judt. Etc.VolunteerMarek 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should have two articles, Western betrayal at Munich/at Yalta. Or perhaps incorporate it into an article about perceived victimhood in East European nations. TFD (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I already said (I find myself using words like "again" and "already" again and again in this discussion), if there's some other article on some other Western Betrayal then we can talk about properly disambiguating the two titles and discussing which is the primary name. Otherwise we go by WP:Commonname. Your suggestion would be plausible if another article existed. But it doesn't.VolunteerMarek 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a discussion of the American oil embargo on Japan is relevant to understanding Pearl Harbor, it is SUPREMELY relevant to discuss the numerous Polish Policies and actions which contributed to their disaster in WW2. The dramatic outrage and hysterical comparisons to a rape victim aside, which besides revealing for the millionth time blatant POV pushing by pro-Polish editors, adds nothing to the discussion except the idea that some parts of factual history don't belong on Wikipedia because it makes Poland look bad or -heaven forbid- may imply Poland had some role in creating its own fate. The fact that Poland was raped does not mean we exclude all the evidence which doesn't nicely place all the blame on the rapists. Most of the English speaking world disagrees with the idea of a Western Betrayal, but this article is merely an essay supporting a one-sided explanation of history - with the opposing view always squelched by he same one or two editors whose mission it is to convince the world their POV is correct. HALF THIS ARTICLE should be devoted to the opposing view and it's Polish focus should be eliminated (or the title changed to reflect accuracy, e.g. "Polish Concept of Western Betrayal," which is the only accurate title for this opinion piece.98.92.207.190 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin of term?

When was its first use and in what language? English? Or is it a translation from Czech? Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)