Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland

Some additional sources

You are probably aware of this, but here is an interesting link to Yale Law School's collection of documents concerning Nazi-Soviet relations from 1939 to 1941. [1]

The material is quite interesting. Here we have a telegram [2] from Ribbentrop to be relayed to Molotov on September 3rd, urging the Soviets to move against Polish forces and occupy their sphere of interest and Molotov's response [3] on September 5th expressing their concern that excessive haste may injure the Nazi-Soviet cause and promote unity amongst their opponents. Martintg 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, they are very interesting read. I believe we use some of them in this article already, but thanks for bringing that up.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have used those sources a bit, and those are also referred to in books like Wortbruch by Werner Maser and the famous Stalins Vernichtungskrieg by Joachim Hoffmann. This article - Soviet-German cooperation - should be developed further by Martin's sources. Constanz - Talk 16:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST Review request

Feel free to read and comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

This must have been a joke. The article is just poor. Starting from an inflammatory name and going into the content. Prelude needs much info on the pre-war diplomatic maneuvers that ended up with PL and SU on opposite side, including but not limited to Poland's rebuff to repeated by the Soviets offers to create an anti-German alliance with the Western allies and Poland's broaching an anti-Soviet alliance with Germany. The article is not structured, needs a wider spectrum of pictures (currently two pictures show one and the same thing, the Soviet and Germans officers on the ashes of Poland) and generally is too far from neutral to meet even much lower than FA, the GA standard. I am failing it miserably. --Irpen 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, Irpen, is that neutral reviewers (see WP:MILHIST review above) have so far not found any POV here. Of course, it fails to adhere to your 'Great Russia/Soviet POV' - but that is yours POV alone. Just like your habitual objections to my articles on FA, you are free to criticize this article - but don't expect anybody to listen seriously. And please don't remove relevant templates - are you now trying to censor your opponents on the talk pages, too?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I will not allow you to provoke me into responding adequately to your offensive "Great Russia/Soviet POV" remark. I expect you were looking forward for the response that would have given you an excuse to go complain somewhere to seek blocks, as you usually dis. Objections are stated clearly, go work on them if you want. Regards, --Irpen 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't need to provoke you - you use personal attacks ('Piotrus, will you ever stop this polonocentric WP:TE' anyway. Your objections are unreferenced and based on your POV solely: per WP:NPOV we don't have to pay much attention if the article fails to represent the view of a single editor - and a proof enough of this is that we have featured several articles like Katyn massacre, History of Solidarity or Polish-Soviet War despite your strongest objections. I am sure GA reviewer will look at your comments, but as they are non-actable, I don't think NPOV will be an issue raised by a neutral editor.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly my point, Piotrus. Saying that your edits fit under "Polonocentric WP:TE" is not a personal attack, unlike if I would have called you a Polish nationalist, which I never did. And your presenting the entry above as a PA just above is the best example of how you do this misrepresentation to get your opponents sanctioned or blocked, thus "solving" the content dispute. I never even interfered with Katyn Massacre. Solidarity passed FA very narrowly and only because few, if any, editors from easter than Poland, cared to comment. Your drive to push even more Polonocentric Pilsudski article to FA is more representative, really. PSW, is not so bad after I started to work on it about a year ago, over all your attempts to obstruct me there, and I will further improve it.

My comments to this article are very specific and not just "this is POV". Inadequate prelude section, poor structure, forkness, are specific and actionable enough. --Irpen 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While this is not the best place to discuss civility, I consider accusing ediotors of WP:TE a personal attack. Saying that they have some POV-view is not: I accept I have a Polonocentric one, I just wish you'd admit you have a Russocentric one. As for the rest of your remarks, I will just let interested readers count votes and nationalities at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity (more users from EE supported it then not... which is a good sign that most users are reasonably neutral).

To address your other concerns: feel free to expand prelude by showing us it is indeed incomplete - WPMILHIST reviewers raised no such concern. Poor structure: as above. Forkness - huh? Sorry, your criticism is too general and unreferenced to be actionable on (although its better then your calling History of Solidarity a 'unreformable POV-fork'...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling any criticism of oneself or even a disagreement a WP:PA is a gross violation of WP:AGF. And disruptive too. Just cut it.

I will expand the prelude all right. --Irpen 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just please, don't use Soviet sources... In the meanwhile, I will indeed expand the article further (after all, it should one day be FA class) with proper references like this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an implied equivalence between the German invasion and these events in the article. In fact, that seems to be the WP:POINT. Notice that there is an Invasion of Poland (1939) article that doesn't seem to have a German Invasion sub-article. I don't know how to fix that. The problems with the English should be easier to correct. Jd2718 05:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure by what you mean 'implied equivalence'. Invasion of Poland is a higher-level article describing what was primarily a German invasion; the Soviet one formed only a part of that larger campaign (as can be seen in the infobox) and was somewhat smaller and less notable. It is, basically, only one of several major parts of the invasion of Poland - roughly equivalent to a subarticle like Battle of the Border or Battle of the Bzura (or pl:Obrona Wybrzeża w kampanii wrześniowej 1939 about defence of the coast) which basically describe a 'subcampaign' - a related series of battles in the larger campaign (invasion of Poland). As for Irpen's claim that the article is POVed, he is welcome to present sources supporting his POV (and please, Irpen, no Soviet-era scholarship).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See above, --Irpen 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A few points

• I've completed a light copy-edit. I didn't have time to go into detail and really scrape into the sources. On the face of it, the references are OK, though there are some dead links—for example, notes 25 and 33, and the second of the external links. I didn't look at many of the links, but I wished more of them could have been to history books, with page references, rather than to websites, some of which—for example, the Szack encyclopedia—looked a little flimsy to me. Note 21 has a bunch of links that only prove that a book exists, rather than referencing a specific page, unless I'm mistaken. ISBNs prove a book's existence well enough, I think. Weblinks, in my opinion, should provide an opportunity for a reader to find out more (to be fair, some of those in the article do that).

• In the list of battles this isn't entirely clear:

• Battle of Lwów (1939) (second half) of September 17 to September 22

I take it the second half is the only part of the battle in which the Soviets took part, but I don't think the parenthetical information is helpful there. I didn't cut it because I'm not sure what the full length of the battle would then be.

Rephrased, I hope its more clear now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• What is "the yoke of pans"? Perhaps needs clarifying.

As above, and moved to commons (it was a caption).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For me, the yoke of pans is having to do the washing up when I could be on Wikipedia. qp10qp 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• What government operated in Poland after the government-in-exile had left? Was there a puppet government? Were there collaborators? Was part of Poland under Russian control (the article tells of 13.5 million Poles under Russian control: were they inside or outside Poland?) I didn't feel fully informed on this aspect.

The article notes that: Within weeks, the Polish government in exile had established itself on foreign soil, where it set up the Polish Underground State to provide military and civilian resistance in Nazi-occupied Poland. There was no puppet state until 1943 (Union of Polish Patriots, I added a note on that), and there were some collaborators since the very beginning, primarily among non-ethnic Poles (this is also mentioned: in some cases non-ethnic Polish populations, particularly Ukrainians and Belarusians, welcomed the invading troops as liberators.[20] The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists rose against the Poles, and communist partisans organised local revolts, for example in Skidel). Do you believe we should expand on those issues? Keep in mind that in some cases a subarticle may be a better idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just felt there was a gap in the information. Usually an invading force co-opts locals to run institutions. How were things run after the Soviets arrived (I can guess what things were like in the German part, from thinking of Norway, France, the Channel Islands)? It might help against the accusations of POV if it is acknowledged that there are grey areas of behaviour under an occupation. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would have liked more from the Soviet point-of-view. I grant that it is difficult to feel sympathy for people who invade a country and imprison and kill many of its citizens, but by point-of-view I just mean information about what they were trying to do. The article rightly makes a lot of the reunification of Ukrainians and Belarusians, but it also says that wasn't a main goal of the Soviets. I'd guess that, given what they'd been through in the Great War, they were trying to engage in preventative action. They must have assumed from the western powers' unwillingness to ally with them that western Europe would be happy to see them attacked by Germany and to watch Russia and Germany burn each other out. The Russians may have also allied with the Germans for fear of having a hostile Germany installed in Poland and the Baltic states. This is all my guesswork: but I feel the article should cover the motivations, whatever they were.

The Soviets certainly wanted to increase their sphere of influence, both to be able to spread their communist ideology and to create more buffer space between relativly unfriendly Western nations. There are also some speculations as to whether Stalin was polonophobic (ex. [4], Davies IIRC). Certainly this can be expanded further.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I might look into this myself, in general histories. Because strategic issues were obviously crucial: if it was just about wanting to spread ideology or exercise polonophobia, then the question arises "why this particular month in 1939" and in so rushed a manner? Clearly the Soviets were acting in a pre-emptive way. This is not so unusual: it seems that Britain would have occupied Norway had it been quick enough; it certainly occupied the Faroes—and I expect the Faroese would have a different POV on that to the British. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Was the proposed "anti-German alliance" also an anti-fascist alliance (I'm thinking about Italy as well)? I would like to have read more about the aborted plans for an alliance with the allies, because "late 30s" is a bit vague to me. How were they "rebuffed"? Who by? At what talks?

I have not read much about it, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it up. It's important. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would have liked more detail of the action. Also, since this wasn't so long ago, perhaps some more quotes, especially from participants.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by 'detail of the action'. As for quotes, they are usually discouraged per MoS and should go to Wikiquote anyway.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean there is that for me the manoeuvres came over as a little vague. There may not have been too much fighting, but detail of engagements would be interesting.

I will have to go and read the policy about quotes because I have always used them in articles and was taught at university to use them. Plenty of Featured Article have quotes, I've noticed. As long as the quotes are from published material and are only appraised through secondary sources, they help bring articles to life, in my opinion. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I've just read relevant parts of the MoS and can find nothing discouraging quotes. If you mean that huge quotes are discouraged, of course you are right; but otherwise, they help particularise articles, I think. In the case of war, they remind us of the human element. A quote from a participant or two would in my opinion add a touch of narrative sophistication to the article—though, of course, this is not essential. qp10qp 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• We also hear nothing from the rest of Europe. What were the reactions of the allies to the Russian invasion? What strategic dominos were knocked over (quite a few, I should think) by the Soviets' actions?

I have added a sentence on that: Britain and France denounced Soviet actions as unjustified and reconfirmed their obligations to Poland. I think there was also some moderate outcry in other countries, particulary among Polonia, but not much official (at least I haven't read anything along those lines).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will check this out. I've always assumed that the world was outraged. Apart from anything else, there was now no doubt what Hitler was up to. To fight Russia and Germany at once would have been a frightening prospect. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• We're told that the Battle of Tomaszów Lubelski was the second largest battle of the campaign, but we hadn't been told what the biggest was. By checking the link, I can see that it might be the Battle of the Bzura (are we counting battles against the Germans?), but in the article that one is described as a "major" counter-offensive, so I didn't like to add the point, in case I'm wrong.

Fixed,I believe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I find the term "Ruthenian territories" a little imprecise in:

The cultural assimilation into Polish culture (Polonization) of the territories with large Ruthenian populations...

I assume there were many Ruthenian territories outside Polish influence (what does "Ruthenian" mean at this stage in history?). I also think the Lithuanian position needs mentioning, given that there was a battle at Wilno (to them, Vilnius). Unlike the Ukrainians and Belarusians, they couldn't have welcomed the Soviets. Whose side did they fight on?

Not sure how to deal with Ruthenian issue, the issue of Polonization is really minor (I have already shortened it per some previous comments). As for Lithuanian government, I believe it was neutral - it held no love Soviet Union, and even less for Poland (a rather significant misjudgement, as time would soon tell). If you refer to the ethnic Lithuanian population in Poland, remember that their numbers were quite small (even in Wilno). Nothing I read indicates they acted in any special way - some were probably drafted into army or militia and fought along Poles, others - civilians - just waited...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way: the word "Ruthenian" is not at all a clear one to English-speaking readers. Is it actually necessary to the article? The other thing is that I am not clear, and I don't think most readers will be, what the geography of Poland was to the east at this time. The article almost gives the impression that Lithuania wasn't quite there and that only the Polish in that area count. I think I will have to go and read up about that aspect because I cannot grasp it from the article. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't quite sure what was meant by "Russification" in the following:

Through both voluntary and forced cultural assimilation, Polish culture became dominant in the western Ruthenian lands, while Russian culture predominated in the eastern lands, where Russification had a significant impact.

Of course, I know what Russification involved in non-ethnic-Russian countries within the Russian hegemony, but how would it affect ethnic Russian communities within the Soviet Union itself? ("Sovietization" would be a different thing, I presume.) Does this passage refer to Russification of Belarusians, Ukrainians and Poles who lived in Russian areas rather than Polish? It is made vague to me because the position of these "eastern lands" is not specified. I'm groping about as a general reader, here.

Yes, it does refer to that. If you think it was unclear, feel free to improve it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will adapt it, because "eastern lands" doesn't in itself mean anything to me. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if some of the above questions reflect mere ignorance on my part. I enjoyed the article and want it to reach a high standard, perhaps an FA, one day. I know the article is up for peer review and GA, and so I've tried to frame the above questions in the spirit of those processes. (But I'm well out of my specialist areas on this one.)

qp10qp 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for those excellent comments, I will try to address all of them in the coming days.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll drop you a note on your talk page. qp10qp 01:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I note your changes and congratulate you on the GA status. Even if that is disputed, future improvements to the article should overcome objections. Hopefully, then, the long haul towards FA can begin. qp10qp 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Good article nomination Failed

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

More specific comments:

• GA criteria 1 - Well written: Some parts were lacking, examples follow:

• The Soviet government, having suppressed all national and resistance movements in the Belarusian and Ukrainian territories (aided in the latter case by the great famine of Holodomor),[16] saw the conflict in Poland between the Polish government and national minorities[17] as an opportunity to unite the eastern and western branches of Ukrainian and Belarusian people within the Soviet state and regain control of the lands once conquered by the Russian Empire in the aftermath of the 18th century partitions of Poland.{18]

• Comment:That's quite a long sentence and the odd reference placement makes it difficult to read.

• Soviet reaction was however delayed by several factors: on diplomatic front, the uncertainty over the Western Allies reaction; on logistic front, the rapid pace of German advance coupled with the time needed to mobilize the Red Army; and finally the ongoing distraction of the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars.[19

• Comment: Long and winding, too many semi colons indicate a sentence that should be split up. Missing commas around "however."

• Copy edit: The whole article could use a good going over by a pair of eyes unaffiliated with the writing of the article. May want to think of a peer review.
• Dates: Full dates should be linked to work with user prefs. Individual dates and years can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• References: The placement of the inline citations should be worked into the text at the end of sentences, the inline cites in the middle of sentences is very, very distracting.
• This sentence: The Soviet invasion was one of the factors that convinced the legitimate Polish government the war in Poland was lost; nonetheless by the time of the Soviet invasion, Polish top political and military commanders were already realizing that the war was lost.

• Comment: Very confusing should be reworked, as it is it is redundant and lacks context.

• Redundancies: This sentence, However, the Polish Underground State would soon be organized and would continue to function throughout Second World War in Nazi-occupied Poland.

• Comment: Just watch for overuse of the same words so close together, the copy editing should take care of those problems.

• GA criteria 2 - Verifiable

• References: Overall pretty good, I did notice that a few facts in the 'Military campaign' section needed refs, especially those concerning the second largest battle.

• GA criteria 4 - NPOV

• Word choice: Be very careful when using words such as 'however' and 'although' and their ilk. They can very subtly imply a POV. It is especially important when dealing with a topic that may enflame tensions or emotions such as a momentous event in history like this one.
• This sentence: The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists rose against the Poles, and communist partisans organised local revolts, for example in Skidel, robbing and murdering Poles.[22]

• Comment: Surely there are some examples of nationalists and partisans who rose against the poles but didn't rob and murder them. This kind of statement can advance a POV without many editors even realizing it.

What about mentioning some sources?Xx236 11:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redundancies: Continually pointing out the same facts can advance POV, ex: And so, at around midnight on 17 September, half a day after the Soviet Union declared that the Polish state no longer existed, and only days after the Soviet government manufactured that justification for its actions,[10][9][23] the Polish government crossed into Romania.

• Comment: This fact keeps popping up, it gives the article a tilt in the direction of Poland.

• GA criteria 6 - Images

• Looked good. While it would be nice to have all free use images, that is not always possible. Also the gallery was a bit much, recommend placing any of the free images on Commons and making a page ther, Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), and then using {{commons}} to link from the see also section.

Thanks for your work so far, once the above concerns have been addressed feel free to resubmit the article for further review. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerns addressed?

1. Thanks to efforts by Qp10qp and Rich Farmbrough, I hope that prose and MoS issues are addressed.
2. Refs added regarding the first and second largest battle claims - feel free to tag anything else with 'fact' templates.
3. NPOV: I removed some unnecesserary howevers and althoughs, as well as the indeed not NPOV loking sentence about 'robberies and murderies'. I don't see anything else that looks POVed, but as a POVed editor myself, I'd appreciate any other specific examples (or just feel free to reword them to be more neutral).
4. Images: commons category has been created and images on Commons removed from gallery.

I hope this addresses most of the above comments?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it, just resubmit it to GAC and I'll re-review it. IvoShandor 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to post a full review. All of the concerns above were addressed to my satisfaction. I don't normally re-review articles, but you were persistent and worked hard to get this article up to the standards, thusly rewarded. Congrats on making the Wiki a better place to learn. I now know just about everything pertinent on the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 thanks to this article. Kudos. IvoShandor 13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There is still room for improvement, but yes, I think we managed to create a pretty good account of this event here :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Of course, there is always room for improvement, as you noted. : ) Good luck in the future with it. IvoShandor 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the concerns listed above (see #GA nomination) have been addressed. I am removing the tag. --Irpen 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to delist an article at least do it right. IvoShandor 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been posted at GA Review. In the future if you intend to delist an article please do so according to the procedure laid out at Wikipedia:Good_article_review. IvoShandor 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have as much the right to fail the article as anyone does to pass it. I was not aware that Piotrus is so bold as to resubmit the article immediately after it was failed by another editor. --Irpen 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, with the recent edits and additions the article now fails the stability criteria. IvoShandor 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment? Where did I say you had no right to delist it? No where. IvoShandor 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that Piotrus should have notified me that he chose to immediately resubmit the article after I failed it. We would not be having this conversation then. --Irpen 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have been a nice courtesy, surely. The reason I put up the review is because this looks like a long standing dispute between you and Piotrus, which gives the impression that you may have delisted it for other reasons than stated. Anyway, I am not saying you are pushing a POV because of a dispute with another user, just that that is how it tends to come off. I am trying to assume good faith which is why I posted the review, the more opinions the better. IvoShandor 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is very little personal in my "long standing dispute with Piotrus". We had quite a few content disputes and we were able to resolve some but failed yet in others. I occasioanlly criticized him when he tried to employ seeking the opponents' blocks as a mean to "win" such disputes but this is the only non-content matter between us. Several of the articles we worked at together are FA's whose neutrality is asured by the involvement of many sides. --Irpen 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just telling you my perception, which is, for all intents and purposes, reality. Noting the comments above which went back and forth with accusations of "personal attacks" I just saw that it had occassionally boiled over. Indeed, your affiliation with the article may represent a conflict of interests, which is why GA Reviewers cannot have been a major contributor to the article they are reviewing. Regardless, I support the delisting but for my own reasons. IvoShandor 07:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, the consensus of everyone but you is that concerns have been addressed. The reviwers at WP:MILHIST (see peer review above) now suggest a A-class review for A-class status. Please don't remove the GA tag because yuor POV is not represented; a neutral reviewer has assessed this as a GA-class, and you are most certainly not a neutral reviewer. If you wish to remove the GA tag, please submit a review at WP:GAR.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I could tell you do not re-add GA tag just because the article represents your POV but I see no chance in convincing you of that. Anyway, the article is unacceptable. The title is deliberately inflammatory and the text conveniently omits too many important things. I wrote on that above but since you are pushing me I will have to postpone all projects of my most immediate concerns and give this article a good once over. --Irpen 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing which Soviet sources you try to use this time (I am afraid that's too late for Russian Imperial historiography, is it?). Please don't remove GA status without consensus on GAR: this is the only way GA can be delisted - your opinion is not enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, the GA status was accorded by your sneakily resubmitting the failed article which I missed. This is wikilawyering in its worst. GA nominations are passed and failed by individual editors and I will not tolerate your attempts to POV push by trying to sneakily attach all sorts of prestigious labels to the articles thus making them look more respectable. I will ignore the rest of your uncivil rant per WP:DFTT. --Irpen 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, bottom line is that you are the only editor who think this should be delisted. The right thing to do is to get more comments and ask others for their opinion; I have done this (with MILPR and other venues) and the comments suggested applying for an even higher (A-class) status, not delisting. And please referain from personal attacks - I have no obligation to inform you about resubmitting an article you might have missed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well, Piotrus. I see you are committed to keep the label through revert warring. Nevertheless, the user needs to be warned about the article. I will not revert your third single-handed restoration of the GA label. However, concerns were listed, they are not addressed. I am tagging the article with {{POV}} as you refuse to engage into a meaningful discussion. --Irpen 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What concerns? Your repeated claims that this is 'Polish propaganda' and such, unbacked by any sources? Feel free to tag this article with 'Irpen-POV' template ('This articles does not addhear to Irpen's views'), but POV tag is not justified (you've been trying to convinve others this artcle is POVed since its creation and failed - just give it up). And yes, until you present any reliable sources to back up your claims of POVness, there is no room for any meaningful discussion. You CANNOT just slap a POV tag on an article and claim 'it is POVed' without any sources to back up your views - when will you finally learn that? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, the GA label was attached not through a consensus but through an agreement of just two editors and was possible only because I missed your attempt to drag the POV-inflammatory article to a GA status immediately after it failed the nomination. I just keep getting things from you that I do not expect despite my thinking that I know you well enough. Once I started editing the article, you immediately transferred your revert warring from the article's talk to the article itself with your making new edits to the article and sneakily reverting mine without even mentioning that in the edit summary. I can't work like this. Not until you calm down. I am POV-tagging the article again and will return to it only when my attempts to edit it will not be subjected to your attacks. --Irpen 21:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact. The GA label was attached in due process. Fact. No other editor shares your 'this article is POVed view'. Fact. You can edit this article - you have promised to do so in the past - but never carried this out (enough to address your own objections). Fact. You have not presented a single source to back up your claim this artcle is POVed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the "promotion" of the article being sneakily and narrowly done, I said it all as well as to most of the rest. As for my not being able to edit, here is how you revert even my innocent attempt to move the ref from the lead to the main body. Not that you went on the the Polish forum to canvass more people to your side (another trick you favor), I only raise my hands (for now) in despair. I will edit the article when I do not see my attempts to improve it being subject to your harassment. --Irpen 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Describing this edit as a revert is a fallacy - just as all of your other arguments. And of course you still fail to even address my request for you to present a single source to back up your POV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please do not confuse POV with sourcing. Article full of sources can easily be POV. One way to do so, is to misrepresent sources. Another way, is to cherry pick facts and conclusions conveniently omitting those that do not fit the POV that the editor is pushing. What's omitted is stated. The deliberately inflammatory title you picked is there. Do not turn tables and present this as an argument about sources. --Irpen 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough with this attitude

The neutrality flag is preposterous considering the extend to which sources and inline citations are being provided here. This is one of the best-referenced articles I've seen and indeed it is very well written. Most certainly it deserves the GA status. The continuous and perplexed opposition of User:Irpen is not rational in light of the exemplary depth of the article. --Poeticbent  talk  06:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame to see two such excellent editors arguing like this: if only they would be assertive and restrict their comments to specific issues and avoid or ignore the coloured language with which comments are being embroidered.

As long as no information referenced from reliable sources is removed, I see nothing wrong with giving Irpen the time and space he needs to add whatever material he feels is necessary to balance the article. If contradictions result, let competing approaches co-exist in the text, as policy advises. I would certainly like to see more Russsian/Ukrainian/Belarussian material in the article, but the subject is too specialised for me or random GA assessors to judge POV imbalance, as it stands.qp10qp 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a read of the Talk Page to see what the issues are about, and my impression is that it would be best not to argue about who said or intended what at the time, etc. because direct reference to primary sources tends to be deprecated in these circumstances, but instead to refer to some synthesising analysis from neutral historians. General histories written outside the countries involved would probably provide formulations suitable for an encyclopedia—superficial though they might seem to those who know the subject from in-depth histories by writers of their own nationality. --qp10qp 13:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I am looking forward to seeing Irpen actually use some references and explain what is POVed here (other than the general 'Polish propaganda...').-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Qp10qp, the problem with all these sources is that Piotrus applies the following double standard: for him, any Polish writer is totally exempt of bias (although he may be a direct witness) while every Soviet source on the subject is of course "propaganda" and lies. The other thing is this whole article is attempting to make Poland look like an innocent victim, which it wasn't. Poland gamed a very risky and dangerous gamble and lost. Unfortunately, it reaped the fruits of its own foreign policy. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to use sources to expand on that POV. Soviet historiography - which, incidentally, means both Soviet Unions and People's Republic of Poland - is certainly very biased and should not be used as a source, as it explained with references by the last para of this article. Also, the article uses both modern Polish and Russian sources, and I don't recall any of them being a subject of a disagreement - the only disagreement we have are Irpen's claims on talk without any references. This is not enough to justify a POVed tag. PS. Could you translate Молотов на V сессии Верховного Совета 31 октября цифра «примерно 250 тыс reference and add info on year of publication and such?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Flagging the article without being specific is counterproductive. Besides, there's a major difference between external policy and military invasion which User:Grafikm_fr is attempting to downplay (see above). Please point to concrete issues in Talk and allow others to address it properly. --Poeticbent  talk  15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I can't find many actionable objections on this page, but I am prepared to address Irpen's point about Russian intentions because that is specific. Piotrus may not remove referenced material; and so the answer is to add balancing material, as is recommended by policy. In other words, do the work. Grafikm, It has been seventeen years since the Soviet system ended, which means there must be many histories now that cannot be questioned on the grounds of Soviet bias. To be fair, Piotrus has made it clear that he'd welcome valid additions to the article. But this is all talk; the answer is to edit. (It looks like I may have to find some sources myself to address the criticism of POV, if no-one else is prepared to do it. But, like Poeticbent, I need some specifics to get my teeth into.) qp10qp 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that flagging the article should be accompanied by a detailed enough and reasonable explanation and should be used as a last resort. I felt I had no choice. Piotrus was dragging the GA label on the tendentious article and when I just started to edit it, he even reverted my innocent attempt to move a ref from an intro to the main text without actually altering anything. With such an attitude, I had no hope I have any chance to edit this article. But fine, I will try to give it another shot and will see whether Piotrus would turn to blatant obstructionism again.

However, there is still a problem with an inflammatory picked title of the article. --Irpen 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

One somewhat specific thing that Grafikm mentioned is the Polish foreign policy in the 1930s. While much of it is outside the scope of the article, the prelude section may be further expanded with some information on Polish foreign policy (see Józef Beck). As for the Soviet intentions and actions, I have expanded upon them - again, this may be further expanded, but I am not aware of any area that is lacking here (we have referenced information on their intentions, plans and actions, after all). Also, we need to keep in mind the balance of the article: one of the possible outcomes may be creation of an article on Prelude to the invasion of Poland (using some material from Invasion of Poland itself), as the prelude section should not be too long compared to the other sections, after all. PS. Polish foreign policy and Beck actions - if this is what Grafikm was reffering to - are nicely address by Davies in this short excerpt: [5] I don't see anything that merits being added to this article (although Beck's article can certainly use expansion and copyedit). Here is another ref: [6]; both note that Polish diplomacy was not the most crucial factor here - the bigger players would do what they wanted anyway...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proportion is always uppermost in my mind. Perhaps some of that vague Ruthenian stuff can go in compensation (see my recent notes under "A few points", further up the page). I think we need to seriously address any POV criticisms now, even if the article is rendered temporarily uneven. Once the article has achieved acceptance, then we can get stuck into a deep copyedit with an eye on good structure and prose. Finally, see if a bid for FA is feasible. qp10qp 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - but to address any concerns they need to be more specific than they are now, I am afra-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sharpening up the prose here and there, trying in particular to improve endings of paragraphs, a key element in good prose and fluency. I'm also tweaking out little nudgings, repetitions, and rhetorical touches which might seem POV to someone who feels the article is Polish POV'd. My approach is to try and make the framing of facts more objective. In case it raises an eyebrow, I took out the following because I felt it was a repetition of information already presented in the article:

In fact, the Soviets were acting in collusion with the Nazis, intending to carve Europe into the Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence specified in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

The references are covered elsewhere. I think we need to have more confidence that the facts will speak for themselves and trust the readers to see through the statements of Stalin, Molotov and co without authorial nudging. This is an area of fine judgement, of course; but I'm trying bring FA standards to bear now. qp10qp 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another cut (I'm presenting these here per good practice, as it may appear to remove referenced information):

...half a day after the Soviet Union declared that the Polish state no longer existed, and only days after the Soviet government manufactured that justification for its actions,...

Once again, the restatement seems to me unnecessary. The reader is shown that the Polish government still existed, which is sufficient, in my opinion. Two of the references are covered elsewhere and the third (Dariusz Baliszewski, "Most honoru", Tygodnik Wprost, Nr. 1138 (19 September 2004). Retrieved on 24 March 2005) strikes me as disposable. Feel free to disagree. qp10qp 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal that the following be elucidated and cut down

• The Polish-Lithuanian union of the fourteenth century began the cultural assimilation into Polish culture (Polonization) of the territories with large Ruthenian populations. This process intensified after the Union of Lublin in the sixteenth century. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russian Tsardom fought over the mostly Ruthenian territories for centuries in a series of Polish-Russian Wars. Through both voluntary and forced cultural assimilation, Polish culture became dominant in the western Ruthenian lands, while Russian culture predominated in the eastern lands, where Russification had a significant impact.

In my opinion this paragraph is unclear and largely unnecessary. Ruthenian is a difficult word for English speakers in this context, since the general reader will be thinking in terms of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. The last sentence of the above is to me virtually indecipherable, as it stands (though I know what it's trying to say).

I'd prefer something like: "Poles and Russians had fought for centuries over the lands now part of Ukraine and Belarus". And leave it at that.

Also, with more detailing in the prelude section, something has to give.

qp10qp 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably too detailed for this article. Although I'd prefer living as many ilinks as possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I plan on completely rewriting the prelude section tonight but I will see how it goes with Piotrus' charmingly welcome attitude to my edits. I tried once and it did not work :(. --Irpen 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, Irpen must be given the time and space to make his edits, without anyone standing over him (there's nothing worse). Once the work is done, then we can look at the overall shape of the artcle. qp10qp 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Molotov quote

I'm not comfortable with the source given for the Molotov blockquote (goodness knows why the capitals), as follows:

CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR INTERNATIONAL EVENTS FROM 1931 THROUGH 1943, WITH OSTENSIBLE REASONS ADVANCED FOR THE OCCURRENCE THEREOF. A 421 page chronology with citations to original source documents. Published by the U.S. Government. Last accessed on 15 March 2007.

The referenced page is full of random material, fractured and mysterious referencing ("Vyacheslav Molotov, quoted in Times, Sept. 18, 1939, p. 5".....Er, it's The Times, and was such a statement really only on page 5?), and poor English. I'm not sure whether this is the fault of the material itself, or, as I suspect, of some amateur typist who knocked the website up in their spare time. For me this page doesn't qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy.

That might pass; but it leaves the quotation in our article with the gruesome opening sentence: "Events arising out of the Polish‑German War has revealed the internal insolvency and obvious impotence of the Polish state." The dear Times would surely never have printed such a piece of bad grammar, and nor should we, I think. More worryingly, I cannot elsewhere verify the phrase "who even formerly were without rights". It won't come up on any Google or Book searches, which makes me suspect it's inaccurate (it's certainly awkward). I could get round these problems by inserting a "have" and replacing the iffy phrase with ellipsis, but that would be to edit the text using original thought. It is possible to replace the whole quotation with a translation from a different source, but I hesitate because only the term "White Russians" is used elsewhere, not "Byelo-Russians", and I don't know if that is offensive. qp10qp 04:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The best solution would be to move this to Wikiquote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My objection to the source would apply on Wikiquote, too (I just think it's been amateurishly transcribed). For the purposes of this article, I would prefer a one-sentence summary of what Molotov said, referenced to a couple of history books. If no one objects, I'll carry out such an edit in a few days' time. qp10qp 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to the source, it is not some amateur webpage, but a publication of US Government (Congrss). Thus it seems reliable enough to stay on our projects.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, we just can't use a quote with grammatical errors and with an unverifiable phrase in it. Secondly, the webpage as a whole is full of mistakes, sloppiness and disorganised references and structure and holds to lower standards than we aspire to on Wikipedia. However, we could quote a scholarly transcription/translation from another source and lodge that in Wikiquote. qp10qp 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My general view is that overly long quotes are not desirable in articles, regardless of their accuracy or sourcing (unless it is a very well known public pronouncement). They belong in Wikiquote, or at best in the footnotes. Balcer 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see to it. qp10qp 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an alternative version:

Events arising out of the Polish-German War have revealed the internal insolvency and obvious impotence of the Polish state. Polish ruling circles have suffered bankruptcy… Warsaw as the capital of the Polish state no longer exists. No one knows the whereabouts of the Polish Government. The population of Poland have been abandoned by their ill-starred leaders to their fate. The Polish State and its Government have virtually ceased to exist. In view of this state of affairs, treaties concluded between the Soviet Union and Poland have ceased to operate. A situation has arisen in Poland which demands of the Soviet Government especial concern for the security of its State. Poland has become a fertile field for any accidental and unexpected contingency that may create a menace for the Soviet Union...Nor can it be demanded of the Soviet Government that it remain indifferent to the fate of its Blood Brothers, the Ukrainians and White Russians inhabiting Poland, who even formerly were nations without rights and who now have been utterly abandoned to their fate. The Soviet Government deems it its sacred duty to extend the hand of assistance to its brother Ukrainians and White Russians inhabiting Poland.

Here we have correct grammar for the opening sentence, and "nations without rights" solves the problem of the phrase I was worried about (that extra word).

This is referenced to a reliable source:

Extracts from Molotov’s broadcast speech on the soviet invasion of Poland, 17 September 1939. Mirovoe Khoziaistvo, 1939, 9, p.13. In Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy. Volume I:1917-1941. Jane Tabrisky Degras (ed.) 1953, Oxford University Press. Pages 374-5.

I'm going to place this on Wikiquote and then return to the article, remove the obtrusive blockquote, and enter a short paraphrase instead. qp10qp 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done it. qp10qp 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Things to add

One thing that is missing in this article is the mention of the fact that the proposed demarcation line between German and Soviet territory was revised in the course of the invasion. The original German-Soviet pact of August 23 set the demarcation line along the San, Vistula and Narew rivers. Afterwards, in the course of further negotiation conducted during the invasion, the demarcation line was moved further east to the Bug river, which was formalized in the agreement of September 28, 1939. (see [7])

This shifting of the demarcation line created a great deal of confusion in the second half of September for all sides. The Germans, for example, were reluctant to advance into the area around Lublin, because they thought this was to go to the Soviets and they were afraid of clashing with the spearheads of the Red Army. The result of this delay was that some Polish units survived much longer than they otherwise would have (the units fighting in the last Battle of Kock (1939), for example).

The fact that initially the Soviet Union planned to take the ethnically Polish areas in the Lublin and Warsaw provinces seems to reinforce the view that the reunification of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands was not the only goal of the Soviet Union in this invasion. Balcer 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have refs for that? We could add your text directly to the article in that case (second para of the aftermath would probably be the best place).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The location of the demarcation lines is demonstrated by the text of the German-Soviet agreements provided in the link. As for the effect of this on the fighting, I don't have references on hand at the moment. This is why I made the suggestion in the talk for now, instead of just editing the article. Balcer 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

With relatons to maps see Image:Mapa 2 paktu Ribbentrop-Mołotow.gif and pl:Grafika:Wrzesien.gif. And particulary, Image:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Never a main goal?

I removed the following and place it here for consideration:

This had never been a main goal of the operation.

For me the reference to Schulenberg's telegram is problematic, since I daresay the Soviets were not being totally frank with the chap. Reading between the lines, I suspect that the reason the Soviets told Schulenberg so belatedly of their decision to use the protection of Belarusians and Ukrainians as a justification for their intervention was that they'd been stringing him along to believe they might have joined the invasion earlier. It seems to me therefore that the "rescue" goal and the "non-existent state" justification must have been inextricably intertwined. (Also, never say "never", because the Soviets made it clear that it was a goal, however disingenuously.)

Another point is that no matter how cynical and evil we may think the Soviet leaders were, the prospect of patriating the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands to the USSR must have occurred to them before the last minute, to say the least: after all, it was a trump card (trumpery card, we might think). I expect it was something the leaders had often talked about in the previous decades, if only as an opportunity to spread their ideology. It might be possible to find among the hundreds of books on this subject alternative sources to Schulenberg for the notion that protecting Ukrainians and Belarusians had not been a main goal of the Soviet campaign, but I suggest we leave it out, as, however well referenced, it remains speculation and might strike some as POV speculation. qp10qp 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Caption oddity

Anyone know how the following should look?

Note the person thrown off the peasants' backs is the caricature image of Pilsudski in the Polish military uniform holding the whip ({{lang-uk:канчук, [kanchuk]). The "Polish masters" were summarily referred to as "kanchuks".

I presume kanchuk means whip. But I'm not sure what is intended by the bracketing here, which is obviously awry. Could someone who understands the intention possibly clean it up? qp10qp 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Description of the image in Wikimedia Commons reads: "Soviet WWII propaganda poster depicting the joint Soviet-Nazi occupation of Poland as liberation of peasants from the yoke of pans [landowners]. Note the villain is wearing a parade uniform of the Polish army." There's nothing said about "Polish masters" in the poster, contrary to its caption in the article. "Tsarstvo kanchukiv" means the rule of the tsarist whips. I changed the wording accordingly. --Poeticbent  talk  15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

minor wording error

• "to the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact until end December 1989" is that "to the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact until the end of December 1989"? --Ling.Nut 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was a typo, which I've now corrected. Cheers. qp10qp 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• while I'm here, "Soviet Union and Germany divided the territory of Eastern Europe into their respective spheres of influence." Whose sphere was Poland in? --Ling.Nut 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Poland was split between them. I'll clarify that tomorrow and also add more about how the spheres of influence were changed somewhat in a later agreement. qp10qp 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. qp10qp 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Utter falsehoods of historic and political nature

I skimmed this article earlier, just to see how it was doing, but was too busy to give it a real read. Only in recent moments have I been able to do so.

What I'm seeing is bias. Not psychological bias, but intellectual bias. It seems that the or some of the author or authors is/are all but clueless when it comes to the USSR's history. From an objective standpoint, that is, looking at it from a purely structural point of view in regards to historical accuracy, using the term "Red Army" in place of "Soviet Army" is nothing short of unacceptable. Looking at the term's full implications, past its historical meanings, doesn't make it any more appropriate. The term Red Army, in reference to the USSR, is used only to refer to the Bolshevik revolutionaries that overthrew the Tsar before the USSR even existed. Once the USSR was officially founded, the Red Army (Краснаяа Армия) was outlawed, just like every other revolutionary group. Tsarist soldiers and revolutionaries of all types either joined the newly formed Soviet Military, joined one of its para-military sub-entities including the Main Intelligence Directorate and the Committee of State Security, became outlaws or exiles, or just gave up their militant practises in favour of peaceful civilian life. So you see, using the term Red Army to refer to the Soviet Military Forces is historically incorrect because it refers to an entirely different time in history. In this case, it's off by twenty years. If it had really been the Red Army invading Poland, I think the outcome would have been a lot different...

In addition to the historical inaccuracy behind using this term incorrectly, it is also politically inaccurate. Using it to refer to the Soviet Military Forces gives the implication that all Soviet soldiers, or, if you read deeper into it, all Soviet citizens, are/were Communists. This is wrong because... Well, it simply contradicts reality.

Another falsehood within the article is a particular line comparing Nazi Germany and the USSR, saying that they are similar in that they were "antidemocratic." Seeing as this is also entirely inaccurate, and as far as mistakes go, a rather unreasonable one to make, what with the USSR becoming a superpower and as such throwing its democratic/communist philosophies all over the place, the only thing that I can do is give whoever wrote this the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he or she was referring, in actuality, to a mistake that was made at the time? Possibly a misconception of the times because of the temporary alliance with Germany? Or maybe people of western European nations were under that impression due to negative propaganda or maybe it was a popular idea for them because of Stalin's iron fist leadership style. (Non-sequitur, yay!)

Finally, and least consequential, is "heads-up" rather than a grievance. The name "USSR" carries a seperate connotation from "Soviet Union." The latter is informal, and has the connotative meaning of referring to the country as a whole, whilst the name "USSR" is typically used to indicate reference to the government itself, either because the government was the focus of a discussion, or because the government was being used as a national representative for the purpose of the discussion. Just a rule of thumb that the name USSR is more formal, and more appropriate for matters of international activity, especially within the context of an encyclopedia.

I've presently proofread the above for English grammatical and spelling errors three times. My English skills are not superb but I used a sheet of grammatical notes and a thesaurus and checked three times, to insure that the above paragraphs will be clearly understood.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, some of the editors here are obviously not familiar with Soviet history, so if anyone would like me to find a source for these statements, then by all means do ask.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MVMosin (talk • contribs)

To address various issues raised here:

1. Red Army vs Soviet Army: it is an interesting argument, however this is not the place for it. Soviet Army redirects to Red Army; if you want to change it you should raise that issue at Talk:Red Army and gain consensus to change the name. So far it appears the consensus of the editors has been to use 'Red Army' instead of Soviet Army. Certainly, references to back up your view would help, but let me repeat it is an argument that should be first won at Talk:Red Army.
2. I am afraid I don't follow your argument about the error of using the word 'antidemocratic' when reffering to the Soviet Union. Although SU used the term democracy in its propaganda, and held mock elections, it most certainly was not a democracy (just as it was not really communist, but that's another story).
3. The note on the different usage between Soviet Union and USSR is appreciated, although it seems that so far we have mostly ignored that difference. If you could produce evidence (preferably academic citations) backing that use, I am sure we could slowly change the usage of those terms on Wikipedia, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Thank you for telling me this. I will take that advice right away.
2. Actually, most influential men of Soviet office are elected by a variant of the democratic process, which is not at all dissimilar to that used to elect the US President... If you were to claim that both the USSR and US lack/ed democratic governments, I would agree, as it is actually a representative system, which is clearly different. But, even if they are not democratic by definition, that does not make them "antidemocratic." That term implies... No, it outright states all sorts of things. Prominent among them is the falsehood that the Soviet government ever made some sort of attempt to antagonise democratic process or development of such process within its boundaries or in any other territory or nation, with the intent of doing nothing more than opposing democracy. The USSR has utilised its various assets to sabotage particular democratic processes in history, however, that was a means to an end, and that end was usually some sort of immediate goal, rather than a greater one, and if it ever was some grand scheme to change the world, the change in mind would never have consisted of "abolishing democracy because it's inefficient/we don't like it/it's icky/<insert proposed argument and/or fallacy here>."
3. Like I said, that wasn't a grievance. I'm comfortable enough with my admittedly neophobically motivated patriotism that I don't demand that the country be bowed down to before spoken of. I was just giving, like I said before, a warning on that. It might come up in the future. It might not ever come up. Hopefully nobody will be offended by the interchanging use of the words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MVMosin (talk • contribs)

I have removed the antidemocratic from the text, I agree it is oversimplification. As for Red vs Soviet Army, please gain consensus at Talk:Red Army for a change of this term throughout Wikipedia; currently lots of sources we cite use Red Army and we should be consistent with them per WP:V. Remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability (and if you disagree, Wikipedia:Verifiability is the place to discuss it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said in my last post, I will head to Talk:Red Army right away. In regards to that problem, as well as the other, I appreciate your help and co-operation in resolving these issues. MVMosin 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read about the Red Army of World War II (PDF) in an excerpt from SOVIET ARMY, WORLD WAR II by Breaker McCoy, (2006, 205 pages; 23 chapters). – There's no doubt that everywhere in the West or perhaps everywhere outside the Soviet Union the names Red Army and the Soviet Army were always interchangeable. --Poeticbent  talk  22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will only comment on one issue. The official name of Soviet military changed from Red Army to Soviet Army in 1946. So, Red Army throughout the text is correct for 1939. As for someone's habit to equate the Nazis with the Russians by their evilness, there is nothing more to say to what was already said times and again at many talk pages. Shrug. --Irpen 01:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

MVMosin is certainly correct in assuming that the editors are not familiar with Russian history in the way that Russians will be—personally, I am always hoping for Russian editors to work on shades of emphasis inevitably overlooked in an encycopedia written in English and largely based on sources written in English. However, I am not sure that your objections above are actionable, though I will look through the wording to see where terms may be adapted without loss to the sense.

You say "using the term "Red Army" in place of "Soviet Army" is nothing short of unacceptable". In reply, I would point out that the article does not use unique terms chosen by Wikipedia editors but merely those terms commonly used in the history books from which we draw. You could certainly argue that those books themselves are biased, but that is beyond our remit to address. To give an example of the usage "Red Army", Gerhard.L.Weinberg, in his book A World at Arms: a Global History of World War II says, on page 198: “The southwest corner of Lithuaniua had been promised to Germany in a secret agreement of September 1939, but the Red Army had occupied it as part of the full Soviet occupation of Lithuania in July 1940.”

Peter Kenez, in A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End, says on page 133, "The Germans tried to push the Jewish population of the newly occupied region into Soviet occupied territories but the Red Army closed the border to Jews." A search of Google shows that most authors use the term Red Army for this period, and so we are only adhering to Wikipedia's criterion "Verifiability, not truth", otherwise expressed as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." I mention Kenez because it is from his book that the phrase was taken which describes the western allies' view of Germany and the Soviet Union as antidemocratic. On page 130, he writes: "“There were, in fact, politicians in Western governments who would have happily seen the two antidemocratic forces of Europe destroy one another.” I note that Piotrus has now removed this referenced word, and I am relaxed about that (though I would instead have edited the sentence to underline that it was a western viewpoint at the time): the phrase merely indicated a historical fact about how western governments thought of the Soviet Union in those days and should not have been read as a biased political judgement made by this Wikipedia article. (And notice that it was carefully—antithetically, in fact—counterbalanced with a Soviet view of the west: "For their part, the Soviets believed the western allies could not be trusted on the principle of collective security, since they had failed to assist Spain or Czechoslovakia against the Fascists and Nazis".)

British officials of the time habitually spoke both of "the Soviet Union" as a government entity and of the "Red Army" as the army of the Soviet Union. Louise Grace Shaw, in her book The British Political Elite and the Soviet Union, 1937-1939 usefully quotes from contemporary British diplomats; for example, on page 58, she quotes Colonel Firebrace, who assessed the Soviet threat for the British government: in 1938 “Firebrace concluded that the Soviet Union was not ready for war. 'It can be stated with confidence', he reported, 'that the Red Army today is less ready for war than it was in April 1937'....Firebrace also talked of the politicisation of the army: 'In time of war, if the regulation with regard to all orders being jointly signed by the commanding officer and the Comissar is persisted in, rapid and really vital decisions will seldom be made'." This last point underlines the western view that the Soviet Army was not only called the "Red Army" but operated as an ideological army, whatever the political opinions of the soldiers within it. Sources to show the other side of the coin would be a welcome addition to the article.

On the issue of using the term "Soviet Union" to refer to the Soviet government, once again the article follows the practice of most books. For example, Weinberg writes, on page 78, "The complicated diplomatic negotiations of Turkey with Germany, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France in the summer and fall of 1939 had eventually led to an alliance of Turkey with the Western Powers on October 19, 1939.” Clearly, Weinberg is using the term there in a diplomatic context. Kenez says, on page 132, “The Soviet Union resisted the German pressure and waited until September 17, that is until the Polish forces were more or less destroyed, before the Red Army crossed the Polish border and came to occupy territories assigned to it." Here he uses both the term "Soviet Union" in a governmental and diplomatic sense (the pressure was applied through Schulenberg) and also the term "Red Army" for the military force. Lastly, I turn again to Louise Grace Shaw to show that the term "Soviet Union" was applied diplomatically at the time. She mentions on page 59 that "in Firebrace’s opinion, Moscow did not believe there to be a big enough threat in 1938 to make the risk of war worth taking. This is not to mean the Soviet Union would never go to war. The attaché reported that 'the Soviet Union considers that war, if not inevitable, is highly likely some time not too far distant'...He warned, however, that 'this does not...necessarily mean that the Soviet Union would be prepared to fight this year'. This is explicit: Firebrace was equating the "Soviet Union" with the Moscow government.

qp10qp 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that issues larger than this article (Red/Soviet army, etc.) are now discussed at Talk:Red_Army#Vaguely_worded_statements_may_be_contrary_to_facts_without_clarification. Perhaps we should copy the above replies there?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Prelude

The paragraph contains much of Soviet propaganda. It's a Wikipedia, not the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Xx236 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The text starting with "In the late 1930s, the Soviet Union attempted to create an anti-German alliance" contains mostly Soviet propaganda. Even manmy Russian authors reject the story. Stalin considered two options long before August 1939 and he choose the German one because Hitler gave him more than any democratic country was able to give - land and people. Stalin's methods of creation an anti-German alliance were very specific, described in Great purge: extermination of Soviet officers and of ethnic Poles. The same Hitler prepared cooperation with Palestine by anti-Jewish actions. Xx236 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is indeed a cold war propaganda. I am writing the new version of prelude on my computer and will post it when ready. But in the meanwhile, I suggest you check some books on the subject. --Irpen 08:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Die grosse Mehrheit der Historiker - etwa Aleksandr Nekrich, Mikhail Semiriaga, Jonathan Haslam, Geoffrey Roberts, Bianka Pietrow-Ennker und Laure Castin-Chaparro - vertritt die Ansicht, dass Stalin von Anfang an auf die deutsche Option hinarbeitete" [8] ANy more comments about my cold war propaganda?

In regards to the following assertion: "Stalin considered two options long before August 1939 and he choose the German one because Hitler gave him more than any democratic country was able to give - land and people."

What Stalin did or did not do does not constitute the actions of the USSR. The consensus of the Supreme Soviet was that Nazi Germany posed a military, idealistic, political, and economic threat to the Soviet people, and as such sought a way to defend against it. After an alliance with more trustworthy powers proved was rejected, Hitler's offer of a non-aggression pact seemed to be the next best way of avoiding a costly and dangerous war. While your contention is respectable, your assertion (Along with your definitions of both "Russian" and "propaganda") is incorrect.MVMosin 08:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mosin, I'm writing about the Soviet Union, where have you found my alleged definition of Russian?

Well, this statement here--"Even manmy Russian authors reject the story."--seems to afford some special consideration to the opinions of "manmy Russian authors." MVMosin 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Supreme Soviet has never defined Soviet policy, especially not under Stalin. The same Reichstag hasn't defined it under Hitler.

Nowhere did I suggest that the Supreme Soviets defined national policy. My assertion is that their decisions as elected representatives were made in the interests of protecting the country, and were not defined by the whim of a single man. How have you raised a point to the contrary?MVMosin 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mosin, the Supreme Soviets didn't decide and the representatives weren't elected. Elementary, Watson.Xx236 09:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you would choose to use that particular phrase, because this line in Sherlock Holmes continuity, much like your perception of Soviet politics, is, while popular, pure fabrication.MVMosin 09:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you haven't realized that Soviet propaganda included many fabrication and you quote the fabrications. I haven't written Supreme Soviets, but it is an interesting comment to your story.Xx236 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting comment is not the same thing as a point to the contrary. If you wish to call into question the character of Soviet politicans or the legitimacy of the Soviet government, then you are free to do so, but it holds no relevance to this discussion, nor any to the article.

To review on what is relevant, let me repeat the matter at hand for you, should you wish to actually defend your position. You asserted that Stalin was the lone representative of the Soviet Union in regards to agreement to the Nazi non-aggression pact, and that he acted as he did on it in order to gain "land and people" from Poland.

I, in turn, made the assertion that this decision was not made solely on the whim of Stalin, and that, furthermore, the desired result gave Poland's annexation less than total priority.

In order to defend your position, you must raise a point contrary to my assertions. You are yet to do so. Your contention stands to benefit greatly from such action and would gain very little from anything else. MVMosin 10:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalin decided who was to die around him, to be imprisoned or whose family was to be imprisoned. It's called power. Noone in the Soviet Union was able to imprison or kill Stalin (at least till 1953), so Stalin ruled and he was personally responsible for Soviet crimes, like Hitler was responsible for Nazi crimes. Many maps contain lines drawn personally by Stalin, both in 1939 and 1944. I haven't stated that Stalin wanted only (Eastern) Poland, he wanted and obtained many lands.

There wasn't any Soviet government other than the one nominated and fully controlled by Stalin. You misinform people living in democratic countries suggesting that the Soviet system was similar to the ones they know - it wasn't. The eventual Separation of powers was fully staged.Xx236 11:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's this, now--middle ground? Do you mean to say that a factual argument can actually be made, without demonising the Soviets or being Soviet propaganda? Well this is a most interesting development, indeed.

While your views on Stalin's administration are, as are many commonly held views on it, flawed, you seem to have grasped enough of a factually based point to make at least some relevant progress. That is to say, you seem to have finally recognised that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Now, re-examine your original claim. Your initial contention was essentially this: "The claim that primary goals of Soviet policy were limited to deterring German aggression is a fabrication of Soviet propaganda." Now, re-examine this contention, along with any amount of assertion behind it, and pray tell if you see anything wrong with it.MVMosin 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible to demonise the Soviet Union 1930-1940? It was the most evil state of the world, only later overtaken by Nazi Germany 1941-1944. My views are mega-Hyper-perfect comparing to your ones. Xx236 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an evil state. To say otherwise is on the same line that is home to making gays put warning signs on their doors and making Jews wear blue hats. MVMosin 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I suggest you also some reading. Xx236 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Over 20,000 Polish officers perished in the Katyn massacre

Accoerding to the quoted Katyn massacre only 8 000 were officers.Xx236 11:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A very good point. I have changed it to "Over 20,000 Polish military personnel and civilians perished in the Katyn massacre". qp10qp 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The treatment of prisoners-of-war, especially officers, was controversial

The masterpiece of Soviet propaganda. Xx236 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This means that it caused controversy. It did; and as your remark shows, it still does. qp10qp 14:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the quality of you joke low. Xx236 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a joke, it's a point about the meaning of the word "controversial". If you have a different suggestion, please make it. We can look for another way of putting it if this word offends you, but we need to indicate the controversies surrounding the investigations, evidence, etc. The passage you refer to lists Soviet crimes in the treatment of prisoners and amounts to a rejection of Soviet propaganda on this issue. Katyn itself produced controversy in the arguments over guilt between the Germans and the Russians, in the response of the allies, in the cover-ups and denials, in the revelations under Gorbachev, in access to the site, and in comparisons between Katyn and the holocaust. qp10qp 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial are opinions about the killings, not mass executions themselves. The Holocaust was also in some way controversial. Go and write it down somwhere if you are consistent.

The treatment of prisoners-of-war, especially officers, was controversial - such stament means that the officers obtained less food than average or had to sing Soviet songs. Obviously the sentence describes facts - i.e. the crimes (see the next sentence), not Soviet lies later. Even the lies were criminal, even in the Soviet Union. Austrian court didn't describe Irving's views as controversial but put him into a jail, even if he didn't killl anyone.Xx236 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to propose any specific new formulation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The process of amalgamation

Recent news don't support the story. Ukraine has three Orthodox churches, two languages and mass cultures. The amalgamation is an Ukrainian POW. The Polish one is:

• The massacre of Poles in Ukraine
• The expulsion of Poles
• The destruction of many monuments in Ukraine

also

• The persecutions of Western Ukrainians (I bet you know the number of imprisoned and deads).

The article Orest Subtelny doesn't inform, but it seems that he didn't delight in the amalgamation - neither during the Soviet time nor in independent Ukraine. So his credibility is under zero. Xx236 11:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He is only quoted to indicate the significance of what happened to Ukraine after the Soviet arrival. The expulsions and killings of Poles are treated elsewhere in the article. qp10qp 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we talked recently about removing quotes, I think we can safely remove Subtelny's quote, too (or at least move it to a footnote). I find it strange that the only direct quote in the text is about this issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is still there.Xx236 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet democracy

Is this Talk under Soviet dictatorship, that such lies aren't opposed?Xx236 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the article has been accused of both Soviet bias and anti-Soviet bias in the last twenty-four hours, perhaps it is doing something right. Wikipedia policy is to present conflicting views, where they exist, rather than to decide which ones are accurate. qp10qp 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia policy toward Nazi propaganda? Have Stuermer's anti-Semitic articles the same value as Holocaust survivor's accounts? Xx236 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia's neutrality policy here: Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. --qp10qp 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Read The Holocaust and you will find a small Denial paragraph. Why Soviet denial deserves to dominate this article?Xx236 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet denial? This article was written for the express purpose of depicting an illegal act of Soviet aggression. If "Soviet denial" is as dominating in Wikipedia as you seem to think, then why does this article even exist? For that matter, the fact that this is being discussed is, in and of itself, contrary to your assertion. If suppression of information was at all the issue you claim it is, then it stands to reason that your comments would simply be deleted for sake of efficiency.MVMosin 10:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On that note, please note that some have argued that this article should not exist. Just a thought for the POVs of some sides of this argument.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning NPOV on intent

I don't know why I hadn't realised this before, but the presentation of this article is a severe threat to NPOV. The Soviet governments' official reasoning is mentioned briefly, and all but dismissed without consideration. The very nature of the article, which presents the incident as a military conflict between states, is dismissing (As opposed to logically contradicting, which would be entirely in-line with NPOV policy) the alternate view of the conflict.

A very careful rewording, using more neutral, context dependent terms is in order. For example, in place of invasion, occupation or annexation would be more neutral.

As for the logical viability of the view, (To add to the reasoning of NPOV) there is support of it. This, I found in material already referenced for the article.

Besides the enmity of Germany and the Soviet Union, Poland was forced to contend with rising minority discontent. As Piotrowski points out, 'the political objectives of all radical nationalists were, after all, separatist.' (5) Thus, the yearnings for an independent 'greater Ukraine,' a reunited Belarus or a Jewish state within the Polish one smoldered relentlessly. When war erupted in 1939, 'the radical members of these minorities, rather than supporting Poland in its hour of need, chose to side with the enemy and vied with one another in their support of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, hoping thereby to achieve their objectives at Polish expense.'

The text here states that there was notable dissent in regards to Polish claim to at least part of its land. The legitimacy of this claim may be confirmed (Though quite possibly denied, as well) by the need for the various "armed conflicts" mentioned in the text that were involved in the claiming of Polish sovereignty.

The Soviets' claim that this was a legal annexation rather than an invasion can be supported by the quoted text's assertion that there were those within Poland that supported--by means of armed force--the occupation by Soviet, Ukrainian, or Nazi forces. Of note, is the fact that active, otherwise-motivated aid was, according to the text, lent, which stands out quite a bit from conscription or coerced collaboration that is common during occupations. Also of note is the difference between lending evidence to a claim and verifying it in truth. MVMosin 11:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet's claims should be introduced into many articles, let's be consistent. The Soviets wanted to help many European countries' workers. Why Poland should be preferred because it happed to be liberated? I strongly protest against such NPOV. French invasion of Russia (1812) should be also corrected, if the word invasion is politically incorrect.

separation isn't get under Soviet occupation and to be shot, starved, improisoned, robbed or deported to Siberia. hoping thereby to achieve their objectives but realizing they lost. Xx236 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your statement makes neither sense nor an argument. Please clarify.

And one more thing to note--if you really wish to protest Wikipedia policy as you have stated, "I strongly protest against such NPOV," this is not the place to do so.MVMosin 15:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The best thing would be for you two editors to suggest some different wordings and reference them. Believe me, that approach will be taken seriously around here. qp10qp 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been looking through the article and thinking about possible revisions for NPOV. There are a lot of obvious POV'd phrasings and omissions. For example, it is presented as a war, but there is no mention of a declaration of war or lack there of. The wording "to justify their actions" could provide very subtle implication that the justification itself originated after the fact. Furthermore, there is, as stated earlier, no true argument against this justification. While the lack of argument might seem to aid NPOV, it actually hinders it within this context, as the manner in which such argument is omitted could perhaps imply that such argument is not needed or even that logical assesition of the claim is impossible. The latter case would be severe POVism. The use of the term prisoners of war is also POV, as it quite obviously implies the status of a recognised state conflict--a status which has yet to be established by the article or, for that matter, officially established in any form at all. There is then the wording "as if they were" in reference to the Soviet treatment of "former Polish citizens." The fact that their Polish citizenry was, indeed, former is paid very little attention at all. By the Soviet viewpoint, this was provisional police action by military personnel in the interests of stabilising a lawless area of conflict. Justification of the mentioned "deportation" is implied to be unjustified, if, at least, by omission of mentioning any justification that may or may not have been made. The article then says that the "invasion," such as it were, is sometimes omitted from history. Of course, this omission is implied to be attributed to Soviet denial of crimes, rather than an alternate viewpoint of what constitutes justified or even necessary action. And then there is the use of the word "illusion," the POVism of which should simply speak for itself. I haven't even gotten to the Prelude yet. I will return to this article at a later time in order to make note of further revisions for neutrality. I may also begin writing the article to implement such revisions, and if so, will submit this revised version for review and consensus on neutrality. Any help would be appreciated. MVMosin 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• A quick search for mention of the word "war" in the article revealed a confirmation that, indeed, there was no declaration of war between the USSR and Poland. I'm sure that the Soviet viewpoint wouldn't agree with the assertion that follows, which is, essentially, that breaking off diplomatic ties constitutes a declaration of war, especially considering their contention that there was no longer any state with which to maintain such ties. MVMosin 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• As I see it, I have both stated my reasoning and have presented a logical case, and as such, will tag the article {{POV}} pending adequate revision by myself and/or other editors.MVMosin 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Soviets failed to declare it a war doesn't mean there was no war. And most certainly there was an invasion. We don't even need a duck test: simply following our policies (WP:V) is enough to show that yes, a lot of sources refer to this event as Soviet invasion. Sure, the Soviets might have used legal fiction/propaganda to argue there was no Polish state, no Polish POWs, no Polish citizens, but please, it is obvious (per all modern research) that such claims of Soviets were nothing more than aformentioned propaganda. I am sure that Stalin was convinced genocide in Poland was 'for the greater good'. That doesn't mean there was no Katyn massacre or that in 1939 Poland was liberated, no matter how loudly Soviet propaganda worked on such issues.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that Soviet actions were justified. I am not arguing that the Soviet viewpoint on this issue is the one in the right. I am not attempting to label the article "Polish propaganda" as some have. I am simply arguing that we must present such viewpoints that would within our abilities . It is not our responsibility to verify that any argument on an issue such as this is right or wrong, but it is at least our responsibility to verify that the argument was made, as well as to forego judgment on such arguments.

As I see it, what is most appropriate is to present both sides to the story, in tandem rather than conflict, then present facts as nothing more than facts, and allow readers to apply these facts to draw their own conclusions, for better or for worse.MVMosin 00:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, however to present Soviet arguments as equal would violate WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, since modern research without any exceptions notes that Soviet claims were misleading propaganda.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of these objections could be met with very small changes to the wording: for example, we could say that they were treated "as Soviet citizens" instead of "as if they were Soviet citizens". I believe the article does make an effort to show the Soviets' point of view that the Polish state no longer existed and that they were rescuing Belarusians and Ukrainians. The readers are left to judge that for themselves.

When you talk about POV omissions, this is difficult to address without more information: you are welcome to add, with references, what you think is omitted; but I can honestly say that rather than deliberately omit things, I have tried my best to find information about all aspects and opinions of what happened. You say that the article omits a Soviet justification for the deportations: well, that's true, but I don't know what those justifications were. Please add some by all means (referenced).

Despite what you say, there is a mention of the fact that no war was actually declared; why would you take that as POV against the Soviets? Here: "Poland and the Soviet Union did not officially declare war on each other:[5] the Soviets effectively broke off diplomatic relations when they withdrew recognition of the Polish government at the start of the invasion." That's not POV; it's a statement of the facts, and it makes no judgement on the Soviets' actions at all.

The article doesn't specifically present this as a war in itself, but as part of the onset of World War II. Could you give examples of where you think the Soviet part of the invasion was called a self-contained war? Despite the name, prisoners-of-war can, like the British sailors recently arrested by Iran, be taken whenever one military force captures the members of an opposing military force: by all means supply another name for them, with references, and use the form "called by the Soviets 'depatriated detainees'", or whatever.

No POV is intended in "To justify their actions, the Soviet Union issued a declaration that the Polish state had ceased to exist". All sides in any war seek to justify their actions, because military action should only ever be fought on a just basis. Britain, for example, is always justifying itself for its actions in Iraq: we have to make up our own minds whether to buy these justifications; and this article leaves it to the readers to decide if the Soviet invasion was justified. (As for its being called an invasion, the majority of sources calls it an invasion but it is clear enough from the Soviet motivations recorded in the article that they themselves did not.) I don't understand how you can make the following point: "The wording 'to justify their actions' could provide very subtle implication that the justification itself originated after the fact." Didn't you notice that the article says clearly: "Soviet diplomats stated that they were 'protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities of eastern Poland in view of the imminent Polish collapse'"? The notes also refer to Molotov's statement, for which there is a link, as well as to the telegrams of Schulenberg, which show clearly that the Soviets prepared in advance of the campaign their justifications for taking military action. This is normal in war—there are always diplomatic flurries prior to the fighting.

You say, "Furthermore, there is, as stated earlier, no true argument against this justification". Of course there is. The Soviets had already planned with the Germans to divide Poland into two spheres of influence while the Polish state still existed in situ. They kept that quiet for decades because they knew it undermined their statement at the time that they had only acted to save people after they realised that the Polish state had collapsed. Even so, the article does not labour this point and leaves the readers to make up their own minds.

I am quite upset that you have labeled the article POV because my edits, though I am mainly the copy-editor, have gone out of the way to present the Soviet side of things fairly, within the limit of the sources I can find. I would welcome assistance from Russian editors to fill in any gaps in the article. qp10qp 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding on this. I think that, as you said, the incline within the article is due to very subtle wordings. Even so, the article is very thorough and, especially considering other work that is at hand for me, it may take some time before I present my proposed revisions. If, in the course of researching the Soviet view on this matter, I find anything to address your specific concerns, I will inform you immediately. In the meantime, I will be sure to keep up-to-date on any edits performed on the article, any rewordings or revisions, any new references brought to light, and will of course give them consideration in my pending revisions. MVMosin 05:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Polish authors accept your point of view that there was no war. It means that the Polish soldiers were interned, not POWs. It has some legal consequences, I'm not an expert. I'm not sure however if common readers are interested in such legal details. When soldiers shoot it's generally called a war, see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, known in Lebanon as the July War[15] and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War.Xx236 09:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk some concrete wordings then, it's much easier to reach some compromise when we stick to facts and figures.

1. The first example chosen by qp10qp is quite unfortunate. The statement that they were treated as if they were Soviet citizens is quite precise and describes what happened, not how one interprets it. In short, the people in question were not Soviet citizens (neither de iure nor de facto), did not feel Soviet citizens, did not want to become Soviet citizens and were not even offered such an option. Even the Soviets did not consider them Soviet citizens, which did not prevent them from judging them as such and treating them as such. If we changed that statement to as Soviet citizens, much of the implications might be lost. Anyway, I get the general idea behind the proposal, but find the example unfortunate.
2. The depatriated detainees case reminds me of recent US inventions (unlawful combatant was it?)
3. Other than that, I fully agree with what qp10qp wrote above. Besides, if there are no specific objections, how can there be a NPOV dispute? Would it be ok for me to remove the tag? MVMosin, feel free to add it back if you have any specific concerns you see should be addressed. //Halibutt 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "depatriated detainees" wasn't a serious suggestion, as I don't know what the Soviets did call their military prisoners. I wasn't clear enough, perhaps, but I was trying to suggest a formula by which any alternative term should be inserted parenthetically rather than replacing "prisoner of war", which is referenced up to the eyeballs and must not be removed. I was hoping that Mosin would at least propose a different term for "prisoners of war". The only one I can think of is "prisoners", but that doesn't do, because there are special codes for treating military prisoners and there were also civilian prisoners.

On "as...", this doesn't mean that they were Soviet citizens. What about, "they were treated, against their will, as Soviet citizens"? Anyway, I won't argue if someone wants to change it back.

I am looking into Mosin's points one by one, and maybe he should be careful what he wishes for. It seems to me that the more one explains that the Soviets justified their behaviour as a rescue mission and not as an act of aggression, that they treated captives as Soviet citizens rather than as prisoners of war, that they placed them under NKVD rather military supervision, that they sentenced and executed Polish prisoners as traitors and counter-revolutionaries, the worse their behaviour is bound to seem to the reader. qp10qp 13:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Soviets themselves in many cases called the Polish officers kept in their captivity with the term prisoners of war (voennoplennye). This is at least true to the Katyn documents, where in most report the term is used. I'm not sure what was the term used in publicly-available documents (if the fact that the Poles were held prisoner was told to the public at all). As to the rest of the points - no objection on my side. //Halibutt 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to say that a recent amount of work that has fallen on me has prevented me from writing the revisions I would have liked to. I am, however, glad to see that certain changes have been made which I see as helpful to the article. While there are certain other, smaller changes which I will look into (and make note of here) when I have time, I do not believe that the tag is necessary any longer. I thank everyone for their co-operation and understanding on this matter.

"I am looking into Mosin's points one by one, and maybe he should be careful what he wishes for. It seems to me that the more one explains that the Soviets justified their behaviour as a rescue mission and not as an act of aggression, that they treated captives as Soviet citizens rather than as prisoners of war, that they placed them under NKVD rather military supervision, that they sentenced and executed Polish prisoners as traitors and counter-revolutionaries, the worse their behaviour is bound to seem to the reader."

Correct me if I am wrong, but this text seems to imply that the writer believes I am attempting to, I shall say, "touch up" the image made of the Soviet government in this article? I would like to make it clear that I am not pushing an agenda--I am not interested in making the Soviets look better; I simply wish to make sure that the facts are given in an air of neutrality, as I believe they are, more or less, as of now. I would be more than glad to do the same for any article that inappropriately favoured the Soviet viewpoint.MVMosin 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My apologies. Thanks for agreeing that the NPOV tag should go. I have some more edits to do over the next few days which I hope will add a layer to certain pieces of information. qp10qp 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pic

Was I the only one to notice that the pic we have in the battlebox is a Russian forgery? :) Not that it mattered much as it's a nice allegory, but still.. //Halibutt 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather a Soviet forgery.Xx236 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to file

I don't seem to have the programme to open the file at the referenced link to the following:

The Soviets conquered about 250,000 square kilometres of territory, inhabited by 13.5 million Polish citizens, while suffering only about 737 fatalities and a total of 1,862 casualties.[7]<ref name="Gross_review"> [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=119281057047108] Review of [[Jan T. Gross]]' ''Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia''. H-net review, 2003. Last accessed on [[14 November]] [[2006]].</ref>

Can other editors open this?

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=119281057047108

If you can read the source, I would like to know if this reference verifies the whole sentence (kilometres, citizens, casualties), or just the casualties. If just the casualties, I would prefer to replace it here with a reference to Sandford, because Sandford provides a range (the figures for casualties given here are those Molotov reported to the Supreme Soviet on 31 October and in my opinion shouldn't just be stated baldly without qualification—even though the infobox does give more estimates). We could probably also add a small note: "See infobox for more estimates of casualties", or something. qp10qp 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My browsers on various computers open this as a pdf. Do you have Acrobat Reader installed? Try this Google cache, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, now I'm imagining you sitting in front of a great bank of computers, editing thirty articles at once (so that's how you do it!). I do have Acrobat, but the download shield told me to open with "AcroExch Default", followed by a couple of messages telling me that the windows installer had failed to install bla bla bla... So maybe I have the wrong version, or something.

Anyway, many thanks for the cache page: it's actually fascinating reading! Especially the bit about Soviet troops being given advance pay and stuffing pastries. And it suggests the Soviets were crueller than the Nazis at this stage.

Now, this may be the nitpick of the century, but the page describes the figures as "fewer than 3,000 casualties (737 deaths)", whereas our sentence says "737 fatalities and a total of 1,862 casualties", the latter being Molotov verbatim. I think I ought to make this into a range by adding a higher figure and an extra ref, because Sandford says "Polish specialists claim up to 3000 killed and 8,000-10,000 wounded" (no doubt, in the nature of these things, the truth lies somewhere down the middle; and I'm uncomfortable uncritically quoting Molotov's figure in this sentence as if he, of all people, were a reliable source). qp10qp 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is generally the same with all WWII casualties - in most cases there was no American-style body-count and instead modern historians tend to cite numbers given by various politicians instead. This is also true to German losses in Poland in 1939 - barely anyone knows that the commonly-accepted numbers come from a speech by herr Hitler himself. The Polish losses are a mystery as well - the numbers cited in the article on Defensive War come from the war-time reports of a London-based commission to assess the Polish Campaign. AFAIK nobody ever revised those numbers, even though in most probability they are far from being accurate. //Halibutt 09:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Conditions of Polish Independence

I believe that the background of Soviet reconstitution are important to this matter. I am by no means an expert on the history of Poland in and of itself, so I decided to learn more about it, starting with the Wikipedia article on Poland. I was wondering if, both in that article and in this one, we could expand on the Polish reconstitution and its military and political backgrounds. I am curious to learn more about the territorial disputes between Poland and the various powers with which it fought a "series of armed conflicts" in the aftermath of The Imperialists' War.MVMosin 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Poland#Polish_Reconstitution. Please note if you crosspost threads.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be sure to do so in the future. Thank you.MVMosin 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)