Talk:Warsaw Uprising

Archives
Untitled Archive 1 Archive 2

Details on mentioned crimes by Russian auxilaries?

At the start of the article we can read that "Atrocities by Russian auxiliaries on the German side included a raid on a ward of Polish female cancer patients, who were raped in their beds, burned alive, then shot as they tried to escape" but this is not mention anymore in the article, neither are we presented with the sources for this claim. Would like to know more about this event and want to know were the author got his info from! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.24.64 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured? The article needs a lot of work to be done.

As per my edits, there is a huge amount of work to be done to meet the FA criteria. A small list of what should be done follows:

1. Add references where needed (about 40 sentences for now, and I haven't fully read two sections...).
2. Look through #W-hour and #Capitulation and correct all the untrue sentences, expand these section a bit.
3. expand #Eve of the battle (and Lead up to the Warsaw Uprising as well) to cover more political and military reasons and actions taken by the AK just few days before the Uprising, #Capitulation to include information about the AK leaving Warsaw, about Gen. Okulicki taking the position of Commander of the Home Army and the reasons of Bór-Komorowski going to slavery, shorten #Soviet stance (remove doubled information, write more about Berling's landings in Warsaw).
4. do the whole to-do list (e.g. include Cultural representations of the Warsaw Uprising into the main article, polish the style, copy-edit, remove red links, proofread and so on)

I feel the article doesn't meet the FA criteria for now. There were and still are bits of untrue statements -- e.g. the sentence stating it was Bór-Komorowski who signed the capitulation order in the presence of von dem Bach-Zelewski. In fact, it was not him--the act of capitulation was signed by Kazimierz Iranek-Osmecki, Zygmunt Dobrowolski and Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. The article contains many such examples and they all need to be re-written or removed. --Teodor Jan Ranicki (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You can start right away, feel free to improve the article. By definition, no WP article is "ready". //Halibutt 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I second Halibutt. WU has fallen behind our standards, and keeps on falling, despite our occasional attempts to improve it. Help from a new editor would be vastly appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

L-hour

I see in the talk archive some discussion about "W-hour" as opposed to "L-hour". Polish radio says "w" stands for "battle for freedom". Davies admits in a frustratingly patronising way that he's translated as many Polish words as possible into English. (He also contracts everyone's surnames to an initial letter because he thinks Polish surnames are too difficult for English readers. Paradoxically, I find this makes his book more difficult to read rather than less.) Anyhow, I wonder if his "L-hour" is "Liberation-hour"? I don't speak Polish, but an internet-based translation gives "Wybawienie" as meaning "Liberation". Any comments? DrKiernan (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Davies, p.430, does says "L" stood for Liberation. I think this may be a fair but loose translation of "Wybuch". DrKiernan (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It may not. "W" in the W-hour probably means "Wybuch", but I also recall seeing it could stand for "Wystąpienie"; however, both of these words do not mean "Liberation" ("Wybawienie"). I will have to look it up in some archives ("Polskie Siły Zbrojne", v. III "Armia Krajowa" should do), as neither Kirchmayer, nor Borkiewicz go into details in here; the Internet isn't a good source in here as well, as results in Google do vary a lot. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My first thought would be w for wolność (Polish for freedom...). Second - wyzwolenie (liberation). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I went to library yesterday and looked the whole thing up in some books ("Polskie Siły Zbrojne", "Studium Polski Podziemnej" -- google it for more information). As far as I see, and I have seen the original plan of Rowecki [Raport Operacyjny W-154], there was no information about what does the "W" letter stand for. However, Rowecki has mentioned the word "wybuch" (outbreak), so we can suspect it is what "W" means. There are two ways, then: (1) no specification of "W" was given and (2) the meaning of the letter was given in the interior correspondence and orders of AK, not in the correspondence between AK's Commander and Commander in Chief. Any ideas how to solve this problem? Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Borowiec, who fought in the uprising, says in his book (p. 79) that "W" stands for walka meaning "combat". DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've recently bought myself Przygoński's Powstanie warszawskie w sierpniu 1944 r. and he definitely says "W" stands for "Wystąpienie" meaning "outbreak" or "intervention" (military). Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, look at the PW symbol... It means Polska Walczaca, which means Polish Fighting. Davies is more like a drama writer then historian, he tries to turn the historical accuracy into a fairy tale, sorry. Also The "W-hour" doesint have to mean anything, if its not obvious dont push it, its like trying to translate "Operation Overlord"... Its a code name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.218.44.84 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Weapons

Weapon list on 1 August: "300 machine pistols" and "60 submachine guns", is wrong, but I don't know what author understood under this terms. There was probably not one machine pistol in the whole uprising - most probably it refers simply to submachine guns, but what is 60 then? Pibwl ←« 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I don't know much about firearms but I'm guessing that one of these (probably the 300) is supposed to be the Blyskawica gun which in the relevant article is interchangeably called either "submachine gun" or "machine pistol". It's possible that the 60 refers to RKMs - not sure what the English translation is but I think they were Light machine guns - maybe like an earlier version of the Soviet RPKs. That seems like a lot of RKMs though.radek (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, an equivalent of RKM is LMG (although LMG covers also somewhat heavier weapons, known in Poland as LKM, like Lewis gun, or UKM, like MG-34 ("universal machine gun")). The correct English term for weapons like Błyskawica and MP40 is submachine gun (a confusion might come from a fact, that submachine gun in Polish is "pistolet maszynowy"). Pibwl ←« 14:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed this to "300 submachine guns" and "60 assault rifles", as estimated by pl:Aleksander Gieysztor and given by pl:Władysław Bartoszewski, but I don't know the makes. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems probable. Only assault rifles available could be MP-43/Stg-44. Submachine guns were of course a variety of Stens, Błyskawicas, MP-38s/-40s and other less popular models. Pibwl ←« 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a ref for the number of weapons produced/captured during the uprising? I've added the refs for the vehicles and some other items; one of the captured SdKfz's even has an article on pl wiki: pl:Szary Wilk (transporter opancerzony).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Tiger tank - where did you find it? :-) There were certainly none on the Polish side - unless some miraculous source has been discovered recently, that I don't know about :-) (there was probably one PzKpfw-IV captured, but it was lost some hour after, in a stupid way, without any combat action, when a soldier just drove it accidentally towards the German side). And there was also Jagdpanzer 38 captured, which might be added, but it stood in vain as a reserve, until a building collapsed upon it. Pibwl ←« 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiger is mentioned here: "German Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger. One tank was captured on August 4th in Ochota district. It was pressed into service but was lost on the same day." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no reliable source saying it was Tiger. Probably it refers to the same vehicle, which, according to Jan Tarczyński "Pojazdy powstania warszawskiego", was most probably PzKpfw.IV (there is no material reference). However, due to its very short career, lack of combat usage, and probably even lack of "commissioning" as insurgent vehicle, it's not worth to be mentioned as insurgents' weapon. On contrary, two Panthers created an "armoured platoon" and were actively used. I have doubts if Jagdpanzer 38 deserves to be listed - it could be used, but it wasn't. Pibwl ←« 19:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A question

I don't understand the sentence "It became obvious that the advancing Red Army might not come to Poland as a liberator but rather as "our Allies' ally."[8]" Could the editors make it clear? Vb (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ally of our allies doesn't mean our ally. I am not sure how to make it more clear...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm, i try to make it clear. Poland was attacked in 1939 both by Germans and USSR. USSR attacked Poland on 17th september... They make us "knife into back" (i'ts my translation, i hope you understand it) because Polish army was still fighting. Next, nazis and USSR shared Poland between themselves. So, west Poland came into Nazis and east came into USSR. You know that nazis killed many Poles and Judes but the same happened in polish east teritory (just search something about masacre in Katyń). In 1944, when after Yalta Poland was sold to USSR by Churchill and Roosevelt we didn't know what Russians would make with Poland. And they made new Axis here. Red Army once again started to kill Poles, soldiers of Home Army etc. During the II World War we had two enemies. Sorry for my english, i hope you understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.54.176.34 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear 80.54.176.34. Although the facts you presented are correct, your interpretation is correct only partially. I absolutely agree that Katyn massacre was an outcrying crime. I agree that Stalin had to take some measure to support Warsaw uprising. However, I cannot fully agree with your other points. Although Polish army was still fighting, it became clear that Poland was doomed: France appeared to be unable, or unwilling, to attack Germany from the west, the UK had neither army nor capabilities to deliver any substantial help to Poland. With regards to the Soviet "stub in the back", let me remind you that during pre-war period Soviet-Polish relations were between hostile to moderately hostile (not only due to the Soviets). In addition, in 1938-39 Poland vehemently opposed to any anti-Hitler pact where the USSR would participate. Although different point of view exist on that account, many reputable western historians think that that silly position of the Poles eventually lead to a failure of anti-Hitler triple alliance negotiations. Therefore, the Poles may be partially (note, I write "partially") responsible for WWII outbreak. Let me also remind you that eastern Poland, occupied by the USSR, was situated generally east from so called Curzon Line, and the Poles were a minority there (although a considerable minority). Therefore, I see no considerable difference between the seizure of eastern Poland by the Soviets and the seizure of Český Těšín with the surrounding area by Poland.You also forget that as a result of WWII the territory of Poland decreased insignificantly, as Poland acquired valuable territories in Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia etc. With regards to killing of Polish civilians, although everyone agrees that that took place, no evidences exist that it was an official policy of Soviet authorities (as opposed to Nazis). Home Army was a paramilitary formation, not civilians, and I am not sure about who attacked first. You also forget about Polish military units fighting on the Soviet side.
Once again, I don't claim you are completely wrong. My point is that everything was not as simple as you are trying to represent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he is more right than you are. Read about Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which violated the first treaty even before Soviet invasion on Poland 87.207.20.199 (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Soviets were responsible for starting World War II by agreeing to invade Poland in conjunction with Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939. (109.159.10.114 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC))

link to documentary film

Can be added link to documentary film Forgotten Soldiers? <link removed> It's worth to promote this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.187.5 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Berlingowcy

I probably didn't understand something but the info box looks a little bit inconsistent. Berlingowcy are listed in the casualties section, but aren't mentioned in the belligerent section, although, AFAIK, they weren't subordinated to the Polish Underground State. It is also not completely clear for me why Berling is absent in the commanders' list. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best thing would be to put the Berling casualties at the bottom with a short caveat. Something like "Additionally, XX Berling troops".radek (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, they were fighting and dying, but they didn't deserve to be named among belligerents. Did I understand you correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?radek (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No you did not understand correct. Berling's troop weren't part of the uprising proper, they were trying to cross the Wisla to help but were unable to do so. Of course the main culprit for their failure is @sshole Stalin but that's another story. Loosmark (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Berling's troop weren't part of the uprising proper". Wehrmach also wasn't a part of uprising. The info box is intended to list not the participants of the uprising, but belligerents. Therefore, the question is, were berlingowcy the belligerents, or not? I believe, the answer is obvious....--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't think saying that Stalin was an asshole (not @sshole) would be incorrect or uncivil... --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehrmach also wasn't a part of uprising. uhm what? the "Wehrmach" as you call it directly fought against the uprisers so i don't get what exactly is your point. Loosmark (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wehtmacht directly fought against the uprisers", and berlingowcy fought directly against Wehtmacht troops, therefore, they were belligenents, although, as you correctly pointed, not the participants of the uprising. Berlingovcy participated in the hostilities directly related to the uprising, they are listed among casualties (about a quarter of total casualties). Obviously, they must be among the belligerents, and Berling must be in the commander's list. In my opinion, division of the Poles onto first sort and second sort Poles is unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Berling on the commanders list?!? Total absurd.:) but maybe his troops could be listed in the belligerents section????--Jacurek (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, it is an absurd, but I still got no reasonable explanation why it is an absurd. Berling was not a commander of rebel forces, however, it commanded troops that were involved in Warstw uprising related hostilities (and that sustained about 1/4 of total losses).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, the Warsaw Uprising was lauched by the people of Warsaw and the AK units located there. They were the main combatants, Berling's units never managed to force the Vistula. To put it brutally they were of no help to the uprisers (i'm not blaming them, it was impossible to do more due to Soviet commies not wanting to help due to ideological reasons). Loosmark (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You probably misunderstood me. I am not insisting on incorporation of berlingowcy into the belligerent list. However, if they are not in that list they also should be removed from the casualties list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think berlingowcy should be mention in both places, although clearly labelled as such. They were not subordinated to the Underground States, but unlike the Soviets, they considered themselves its allies - and paid the price for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So are we going to include Polish troops of Berling in the belligerents section? If yes we it will need also short but clear explanation of their role and that it was spontaneous action without the Soviet approval. Are you up for the challenge Paul?--Jacurek (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I believe, it should be explained clearly that, whereas berlingowcy weren't the participants of the uprising, they were belligerents, and, accordingly, Berling, who was not subordinated to any of the uprising's leaders, should be in the commander's list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My only objection is Berling in the commander's list.--Jacurek (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We can deal with via footnotes - add a footnote to Berling and his troops that will briefly explain it. Now, as for Berling, I am not sure - did he know and authorize crossing the river? I recall contradictory sources - one saying he didn't know about it, other saying he did, as well as contradictory sources about why was he relieved of his post soon afterwards (some say it was because of this escapade and differ on whether it was because he supported it or didn't discover it till it was too late, others say it had nothing to do with this either way). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, Berling did not have full control of his troops who crossed the Vistula river. Some soldiers started to cross more or less on their own. There was possibility of revolt in the First Polish Army and Berling was also fighting his own conscious. Details have to be checked because it was a while but in my opinion he absolutely should not be among the commanders of the Uprising because he was not in charge and did not even communicate with the real Uprising leaders.--Jacurek (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Toward an unbiased article

I made substantial edits to the article in an effort to move it closer to the standards of objectivity one would expect in a good encyclopedia. The article had contained a large number of speculative and partisan remarks. To cite just one among many examples, the article had contained this statement: "It is speculated that Stalin did not aid the Home Army because he concluded that it would oppose his aim to dominate Poland." The only reference given was [22], a 114-page survey essay by David M. Glantz. (Incidentally, it does not appear that this essay was ever subjected to vetting by an academic publisher.) The Glantz essay, however, does not remotely support the above quoted speculation. On page 84, following a discussion of engagement of Soviet forces during the time they failed to provide reinforcement to the Polish resistance, Glantz concludes: "Political considerations and motivations aside, an objective consideration of combat in the Warsaw region indicates that, prior to early September, German resistance was sufficient to halt any Soviet assistance to the Poles in Warsaw, were it intended. Thereafter, it would have required a major reorientation of military efforts from Magnuszew in the south or, more realistically, from the Bug and Narew River axis in the north in order to muster sufficient force to break into Warsaw. And once broken into, Warsaw would have been a costly city to clear of Germans and an unsuitable location from which to launch a new offensive."

I am not insensitive to the antipathy to the Soviet leadership on the part of prior contributors to the article; however, expressions of opinion are out of place in an encyclopedia.

HeraclitusEphesus (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation of the huge mass deletion you made doesn't even close to be satisfactory therefore i'm forced to restore the text. Btw your activity on wikipedia is very interesting, all you have done is you made 8 edits on the Holyfield-Tyson II article in March and now after 6 months you re-appeared to mass delete sourced material from The Warsaw Uprising article. Something doesn't quite ring right here. Loosmark (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to partially agree with HeraclitusEphesus. I write "partially" because, although this concrete Glantz' work didn't pass a vetting procedure, David Glantz is a highly reputable military historian. However, I read this Glantz' work and I confirm that this work cannot serve as a support of the article's statement removed by HeraclitusEphesus. In addition, since Glantz is a well known Eastern Front expert, his opinion that:

"Political considerations and motivations aside, an objective consideration of combat in the Warsaw region indicates that, prior to early September, German resistance was sufficient to halt any Soviet assistance to the Poles in Warsaw, were it intended."

is extremely valuable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Re: "Btw your activity on wikipedia is very interesting, all you have done is you made 8 edits on the Holyfield-Tyson II article in March and now after 6 months you re-appeared to mass delete sourced material from The Warsaw Uprising article. Something doesn't quite ring right here." Let me remind you that it is a direct personal attack that is prohibited by WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First check what was deleted, it is far more than the section sourced to Glantz. Also it is well known that the sicko Stalin prevented the Red Army to help the Warsaw uprising, as well as he forbid the allied planes with help to land on Soviet territory. You can write about the "great German resistence" as much as you want but those are facts. Loosmark (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Since my comment related to Glantz only, I don't have to check everything else. With regards to Glantz, his point of view was severely misinterpreted in the article. He is a reputable military historian, and you must provide at least equally reliable source to refute his claims. Your claim that "it is well known" is a pure WP:weasel words. BTW, although my personal attitude to Stalin is highly negative, one has to keep in mind that the Red Army's combat capabilities were high, but not unlimited, so, independently of Stalin's decision, something could be done only at very high cost. Would it be fair to save 20,000 Poles at cost of 100,000 Russians?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. In addition, I agree that there were some steps Stalin could made to help the Poles, namely, to help Western allies to provide air support to insurgents, or something else that required no extensive Red Army involvement. He did nothing and that clearly demonstrated that he was not interested in the uprising's success. However, we must separate Stalin's dirty policy from Red Army's real military capabilities. My point was that the Red Army was unable to help Poles, and fortunately Stalin was unwilling to do that. I write "fortunately" because had Stalin ordered to help the Poles at all cost, the Red Army, probably would help, but the cost would be really terrible...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that my explanation failed to convince everybody. Let me try again. Here are more examples of the commentary that I attempted to remove: "The Soviets and the Poles had a common enemy—Nazi Germany—but other than that, they were working towards different post-war goals; the Home Army desired a pro-Western, democratic Poland but the Soviet leader Stalin intended to establish a communist, pro-Soviet puppet regime." "They feared that if Poland was 'liberated' by the Red Army, then the Allies would ignore the Polish Government in exile in the aftermath of the war." "The Red Army's order to halt just a short distance away on the right bank of the Vistula, and not to link up with or in any way assist the Resistance forces, is blamed on post-war political considerations and malice by Stalin.... The destruction of Polish resistance guaranteed that they could not resist Soviet occupation, that it would be the Soviets who 'liberated' Warsaw, and that Soviet influence would prevail over Poland." "Possibly because the operatives were unable, as part of a repressive totalitarian regime, to express opinions or report facts which diverged from the party line, they 'deliberately resorted to writing nonsense'." "Due in part to the lack of Soviet cooperation, and often active Soviet aggression, the Warsaw Uprising and Operation Tempest failed in their primary goal: to free part of the Polish territories so that a government loyal to the Polish government-in-exile could be established there instead of a Soviet puppet state." "Memories of the Uprising helped to inspire the Polish labour movement Solidarity, which led a peaceful opposition movement against the Communist government during the 1980s."

The scare quotes around "liberated," references to "puppet regimes," "repressive totalitarian" regimes, "pro-Western, democratic" governments, "peaceful" opposition movements, divining Stalin's malicious motives, etc., will be regarded as editorializing by any reader I can imagine.

In addition to the mis-citation of Glantz mentioned earlier, there is an over-reliance on the Norman Davies source, which is the only reference cited for the above speculations and assertions of opinion.

At this point I think it is pointless to keep going back and forth deleting and undeleting the biased commentary. I will leave the article as it stands, with my edits removed, and simply point out that an article that is very obviously seeking to glorify Poland and vilify the USSR will not be trusted by readers even in those places where its facts are correct.

HeraclitusEphesus (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Sorry to hear that my explanation failed to convince everybody" Not correct. Your comment regarding Glantz was justified, I just fixed that problem (maybe, the new text needs some rearrangement now, however in its present form it correctly reflects what Glantz says). With regards to your other points, I simply didn't have enough time to analyze them. On the first glance, the overall tone is too propagandistic for WP, however, it is hard to say if all your deletions were justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

UNA and RLA as separate belligerents

I am not sure mention of these military units as separate belligerents is justified. 14th division was a WaffenSS division, it personnel took personal oath to Hitler and they were directly subordinated to German military command. Ukrainian government in exile (if we can speak about it seriously) had no authority over this unit. Similarly, Vlasov had even no visibility of independence. "His" divisions were in actuality 600th and 650th German infantry divisions, they were a part of Wehrmacht, and, therefore, they cannot be considered a separate belligerent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed both of those (possibly Kaminski and Dyachenko sould be removed from commanders list too). I am not sure if UNA and RLA even existed at that time. Also if they actually participated then they should be shown only if their participation was major, and even then they should be shown like Estonian conscripts are shown in Battle of Tannenberg Line article, not as separate combatants.--Staberinde (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the removal, as they were simply different units under German command. But I do want to note that participation of non-Germans in the quelling of Warsaw Uprising is often stressed in some sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Western Betrayl"

Why is "Western Betrayl" on the "See Also" list? I don't see that the Polish uprising has anything at all to do with Soviet Propaganda. I am deleting it from the list.

Berling troops

Berling troops did briefly participate but I think technically they were Red Army troops. We may need a USSR flag instead of the Polish one. Incidentally Berling was fired by Stalin after he participated in the WU, some sources even indicate B may have acted unilaterally. Of course, this Berling or Soviet participation was too little, too late and consensus sees the Soviet role in the WU is extremely dubious. SO a third column may be the solution, indicating the reality that the Berling or Soviet contribution should not be seen as united with the AK struggle. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph needs to be edited--it looks like someone cut themselves off mid-sentence ("The Soviet advance stopped short, however, while Polish resistance The Uprising began on 1 August 1944, as part of a nationwide rebellion"). I don't feel like I know enough about this topic to do it myself. Stf8907 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Looks like a GF mistake by an IP here [1]. Am fixing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Insurgents"

The accuracy of this somewhat anachronous term seems doubtful. The wikipedia page Insurgent defines it as follows:

"An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents."

In this case the Polish forces involved in the Warsaw Uprising were subordinate to the Polish Government-in-Exile, a widely recognised state at the time which also operated regular formations alongside the French and then the British army. I'm not sure if this word is used in good faith, or as part of a contemporary political agenda, but it doesn't seem the most appropriate. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dwight Macdonald

Dwight Macdonald has been often compared to George Orwell, but Macdonald's analysis of the Warsaw Uprising was much sharper than Orwell's, imho. His writings may deserve mention (or interest editors):

• Dwight Macdonald, 'Warsaw', Politics, 1, 9 (October 1944), 257-9
• 1, 10 (November 1944), 297-8
• 1, 11 (December 1944), 327-8.
  • Collected in Memoirs of a Revolutionist: Essays in Political Criticism (1960). This was later republished with the title Politics Past.

To avoid OR, one may cite

• 'My Kind of Guy': George Orwell and Dwight Macdonald, 1941-49 David R. Costello Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 79-94 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036310

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish

This sentence in the article doesn't make sense:" By 16 September, Polish forces under Soviet high command reached a point a few hundred meters from the Polish positions, across the Vistula River, but they made no further headway during the Uprising, leading to allegations that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin could not advance because the Red Army had been exhausted from the previous campaign." Allegations because they were exhausted? What is really meant? Wereldburger758 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, AFAIR the original sentence was more like: "...leading to allegations that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin wanted the Uprising to fail." I'd support correction back to that. It seems someone has come along and inserted the reply that the Red Army couldn't advance rather than wouldn't advance, without knowing what the word 'allegation' means in English. Also "from the Polish positions" should go to "from the insurgents' positions" for disambiguation. Also "made no further headway" should go to "made little further headway" as there was actually a small Berling Army landing on the west bank per Forczyk (2009). -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will you change it? Wereldburger758 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Burdenko

The head of the Katyn commission was Burdenko, not Rudenko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.173.81 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Soviet casualties in the infobox

Why are the soviet casualties limited to losses the 1st Polish Army? Other units definitely participated in the Soviet drive to Warsaw - for example: "The second tank army maintained it's offensive on the right bank of Vistula, generally in the northern direction, after a failed attempt to get to the other side of Vistula on the railroad bridge at Demblin. The army acted with a weak covering of the right flank by the 6th cavalry division, while the 3rd Tank Corps, which advanced the furthest, was left without any infantry or cavalry cover. By Aug 3 it was surrounded and nearly destroyed. The 8th guards tank corps suffered heavy losses, while the 16th tank corps suffered significant losses. During Aug 5-6 the Second Tank Army, having lost 284 tanks by than (337 according to german data), was taken out of combat for reinforcement and reforming. On 2 Aug, the 69th and 8th guards armies were forced to go on a defensive, having been hit by a German counter-stroke from the area of Garvolin. The battle continued until Aug 10. As the result, the German counter-stroke was stopped, fortifications in the areas of Magnushev and Pulava remained under control of the RKKA, but the 1st Belarussian Front in this area was left without mobile units and hence without the ability of a mobile offense" "2-я танковая армия вела наступление по правому берегу реки Висла в общем направлении на север после неудачной попытки 25 июля прорваться на другой, варшавский, берег Вислы с ходу по железнодорожному мосту у Демблина. Она действовала при слабом прикрытии правого фланга 6-й кавалерийской дивизией, а вырвавшийся вперёд 3-й танковый корпус остался вообще без какого-либо пехотного или кавалерийского прикрытия. К 3 августа он попал в мешок и был практически уничтожен. Тяжёлые потери понёс 8-й гвардейский танковый корпус, значительные — 16-й танковый корпус. 5-6 августа 2-я танковая армия, потерявшая к тому времени 284 танка (по немецким данным — 337), была выведена из боя и отправлена на пополнение и переформирование. 2 августа были вынуждены остановить наступление и перейти к обороне 69-я и 8-я гвардейские армии, попав под немецкий контрудар из района Гарволин. Сражение продолжалось до 10 августа. В результате немецкий контрудар был остановлен, предмостные укрепления в районах Магнушев и Пулавы остались в руках РККА, но 1-й Белорусский фронт на этом участке остался без подвижных соединений и был лишён возможности манёвренного наступления." Tvoi Ded (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the scope of the article is the Uprising itself not the battle for Warsaw or the wider Soviet push. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Than we have to part with the soviet part of the infobox alltogether. Tvoi Ded (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Soviets "liberated" vs "entered"

Re [2].

Personally I'm not entirely adverse to using the term "liberated" when referring to some instances of the Soviets driving out the Nazis from occupied Poland. But the use of the term should depend on the context and the particular event. For example saying that the Soviets liberated Auschwitz is perfectly fine [3].

Here it is inaccurate. First, it's a bit strange to say they "liberated" the city after failing to support the Uprising for two months. Second, the Soviets more or less entered an abandoned city, with little fighting and little "liberating".

Stating that the Soviets "entered the city" is both accurate and NPOV hence I'm restoring that wording.  Volunteer Marek  19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, my edit does not mention "Soviets" at all, I wrote "liberated from Germans", which is absolutely accurate and neutral: no source exists that challenges the idea Warsaw was liberated from Germans.

Secondly, the statement: "the city was destroyed by January 1945, when the Soviets entered the city" implies some wrong casual between Soviet entry and city's destruction. What is more relevant, is the fact of liberation, not who was a liberator.

Thirdly, if I am not wrong (although I can be wrong here), the units that entered Warsaw were Polish units, although that is hardly important.

In any event, I do not find the criticism correct. Failure to support Warsaw uprising does not change the fact that the city was abandoned primarily due to Soviet military successes. The Germans decided to abandon the city because the course of the events in other segments of the Eastern Frond forced them to do so, and that was a result of Soviet military successes.

In summary, I suggest you to revert back to my wording, which is accurate and neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is mostly clarified in this version, although we may also want to address the fact that Soviets early on took control (liberated?) the right-bank Warsaw, and the uprising for the most part was taking place in the left-bank Warsaw. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, destruction occurred mostly on the left bank, so the mention of the right bank is hardly necessary. With regard to the version mentioned by you, it is stylistically awkward. Is it an adequate price for avoiding the word "liberated"? If yes, your may replace "when the city was liberated" with "when the course of the events in the Eastern Front forced the Germans to abandon the city", which will be totally accurate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the right bank is mentioned here. I'd be fine with "when the course of the events in the Eastern Front forced the Germans to abandon the city". Should I put that in?  Volunteer Marek  21:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What I see here is a group of anti-Soviet users are trying to underestimate the role of the USSR in this event, delete anything sympathize the USSR and add anything that say "Soviet is evil, Soviet is bad." This article is extremely unneutral and strongly anti-Soviet, and it will be more unneutral with the presence of these anti-Soviet influence. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Really, if Stalin had kept his word that the USSR sought no territorial aggrandizement, there would be no problem with using "liberated". However, one power displacing another and not returning legitimate sovereignty to the indigenous peoples (i.e., instead, subjugating 100,000,000 Eastern Europeans) cannot be, by the very definition of the act, termed "liberation" from anything. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite similar things can be say to the western Allies. 123.21.191.114 (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And you are lynching Negroes is not a valid argument. Through quite fitting here :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not only "liberated" or not. It is the anti-Soviet attitude and sentiments in this articles and other WWII articles; and that severely damages the neutrality of the articles. As I already said, someone are trying to underestimate the role of the USSR in these events, delete anything sympathize the USSR and add anything that say "Soviet is evil, Soviet is bad." If you consider the fierce battles and Baltics, Carpathia, East Prussia and Hungary on 1944, you can easily understand why the German could manage to block the USSR at Warsaw. And there are quite a number of sources (both Russian and Western sources) have already pointed out this matter. Unfortunately, the anti-Soviet powers still do not or purposely do not understand this. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what powers you speak of. Nobody is denying that the USSR went to great sacrifice and effort in fighting with the Nazis. However, quite a few of Soviet apologizers seem to ignore that for many, Soviets were about as bad as the Nazis. Case in point, the non-communist Poles, whose destruction Stalin assured on numerous occasions. Read about the Katyn massacre, it may prove enlightening. With regards to the Warsaw Uprising, Stalin chose to let the Germans kill of the Polish insurgents, to cripple a force that he didn't want to deal with (i.e. the Polish government in exile loyalists). He chose to focus on different parts of the front rather then to help them, it's as simple as that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, whereas I cannot fully agree with Шолохов, something in this article look really weird. For example, what is three column infobox supposed to mean? Common interpretation of three column infobox is that each party fought against other two. Can anybody provide an evidence that hostilities took place between AK and Berling units? Obviously, the infobox is a clear demonstration of someone's bias. Yes, the Soviets provided little help, and this help was not provided timely. However, in this particular battle they were no fighting between them and AK (as a reader may conclude from the infobox). This and similar mistakes must be fixed, otherwise Шолохов-type arguments will always have some reasonable ground. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

PS. Re "Stalin chose to let the Germans kill of the Polish insurgents", whereas I have no doubts your description of Stalin's intentions is quite correct, I think you are missing one thing (and I probably already explained that in past). As Glantz correctly noted, almost every Soviet successful offensive ended with German counter-strike that pushed the Soviets slightly back. The reason is, as Glantz explains, that Soviet commands forced the Red Army to move forward even when the troops were almost totally exhausted, and only local defeat could convince them that the army needs a pause. In the Warsaw case, Stalin (for totally different reason) gave Red Army a break it really needed. It is quite possible that the attempt to save Warsaw would be very costly of the exhausted Soviets. In connection to that, the arguments from Polish nationalists and from Russian nationalists are quite similar: "We needed help, and we do not care how costly it would be for you", and "we needed a rest, and we do not care about the price you paid for our inactivity". --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with those two columns being combined. I think the footnotes and the mention of actual dates is sufficient. Give it a few days and see if anyone else objects with a convincing argument, and if not, then combine them. Volunteer Marek  03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It would really make sense having 2 columns in the infobox, as there was no fighting between the Polish resistance and the Soviet forces.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I support the removal of the third column from the infobox on the grounds that the Soviet and German military actions in the sector are beyond the scope of this article. The perfect solution would be creating a separate article dealing with those actions; the "third column" losses would go there alongside with tens of thousands of Soviet and German casualties.Tvoi Ded (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

@Piotrus: It seems to be if you were the commander of the Red Army, it would have been suffer much more terrible loss in WWII. I have already said (Paul Sievert also said later) about the military situation of the Red Army at Warszawa. At this area on August 1944, there were many fresh Nazi units, since Germany sent many of its reserve forces and their force at other fronts to defend the Wisla river (including eltie divisions like the SS Divison Wiking). For quelling the Warszawa uprising, Hitler and Himmler also sent there a lot of SS units so that Walter Model could be free to deal with the Red Army. Moreover, the German managed to obtain some information about Operation Tempest and made some sorts of preparation. The distance between rear and front, and the front length were also reduced greatly for the German. Meanwhile, on the Soviet side, the logistic tails were greatly enlongated, the Red Army were already exhausted after two month continously fighting. Many facilities for logistic work at newly liberated Polish and Byelorussian territories were still unavailable because of damage or being heavily mined (that is the reason why even if the USSR had agreed to lend the airport to the US on August, no US pilot would have dared to land on them). The fierce fighting at the Magnushew bridgehead, at river Narew and at Praga already proved that, the USSR could not enter Warszawa no matter whether Stalin wanted to or not. And that is the problem of this article. This focus very little on the military difficulties of the Red Army and makes the readers think that, the USSR had a lot of troops but did not want to enter Warszawa. Actually, I have no opinion about Stalin's intention. The USSR's hostility to the exiled Polish government was clear, and nobody objects that. The thing I want to say to you is, it is not simple as that. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

so-called

A photo caption reads as follows: "Polish victims of the Wola massacre burned by members of so-called Verbrennungskommando." Why is the word "so-called" used here? It has two meanings. The more common one is "So named; called by such a name, with a very strong connotation that the item is not worthy of that name." (Wiktionary). The other one seems to be restricted to science and math (and lacks the negative connotation). I don't see the applicability of either one here.Kdammers (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

unreliable source - biased POV website

The site http://www.warsawuprising.com/faq.htm takes a very one-sided view of why the rising failed, blaming it on the Soviet's wishing for the leadership of the rising to be destroyed without taking into consideration the military situation between the Germans and the Red Army around the Warsaw area that was documented back to at least 1964, and has been reinforced by recent scholarship. By drawing only political conclusions, the "About" statement on this website makes it very circumspect - in my opinion they are not being honest about who supports the site and the reason it was created. See the "The main reasons for the Uprising's failure:" section - while some of this is substantiated by historical scholarly works, the general tone reflects the old Polish-Russian antagonism that goes back for centuries. I'm going to weed out references in the article that utilize it. We need neutral Reliable Sources for articles. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that source is fine. The fact that you personally don't like it doesn't mean it's unreliable.

You mention "recent scholarship". What exactly are you referring to? Most modern sources do put emphasis and blame on Stalin, and this has nothing to do with "Polish-Russian antagonism" but rather with the fact that Stalin was, well, Stalin.Volunteer Marek 09:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That site does not meet criteria usually applied to historical scholarship, so, taking into account that we have a lot of really good sources on that subject, this concrete site should not be used in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, first let's agree that this is a reliable source, regardless of whether it meets the higher standards set out by WP:HISTRS. I've been dealing with other articles which are full of stuff from blogs, personal webpages, and various other random "crap found on the internet" and from what I've been told, for better or worse, all this stuff is "reliable sources" so this * definitely* qualifies as RS. It seems that if this isn't WP:RS then probably something like 90% of Wikipedia articles would have to go (might not be a bad thing).

Having said that I actually do think it meets WP:HISTRS. In particular, as far as I can tell, this is a website of a public nonprofit organization which has had input from professional historians [4]. This would satisfy this point of WP:HISTRS What is historical scholarship.

And at this point I'm going to get a little cynical and venture forth the opinion that the OP above is basically making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT objection (s/he says as much) which doesn't have much substance to it. Note that the particular instance where he removed this ref ALSO had another, fully historical-academic-scholarship ref to it, so it's not really about the text which is being cited being problematic. In fact, his contention that this source contradicts "recent scholarship" has it exactly the opposite. The website actually *represents* modern scholarship (for example the historians mentioned at the page above), it's just that it tries to make it accessible to the non-specialist historian, i.e. the general reader, which is the same target audience as Wikipedia.

So if there's some particular passage in the article which is cited to this source which you really think is objectionable and which can be contradicted by other sources which meet WP:HISTRS then we can talk about that. But if not, then it's really a non-issue.Volunteer Marek 02:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't read what this source say, so I cannot tell if I like it or not. However, by formal criteria the site does not fully meet even WP:V: the site contains no references, no author's names, it is unclear if the content was peer-reviewed, its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is unclear. With regard to Acknowledgements, reliability is defined not by authors' names: the personal blog of even very reputable author has questionable reliability. Again, the source is hardly acceptable for purely formal reasons.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

An interesting point. I suggest taking it to WP:RSN. If an organization is reliable, what about its websites? There is plenty of examples - can we use mostly anonymous and not-peer reviewed content from sites like http://www.ushmm.org/ or http://www.nobelprize.org/ ?

The Warsaw Uprising Museum portal is reliable, although certainly not perfect. I see no reason to remove it; most modern sources have reached consensus that the Soviet inaction purposefully contributed to the Uprising's failure. This is hardly an extraordinary claim. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Insurgent

Stop using the word "insurgent" in this article. The term has a rather negative connotation in the English language, and is defined as a armed revolt agains civil authorities. The Germans were not the civil authority, but the occupiers. --Factor01 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Largest single military effort?

I have found this statement in the introduction:

"The Uprising was the largest single military effort taken by any European resistance movement during World War II."

This is a clearly POV statement. For example, there was Uprising in Serbia (1941) that lasted for five months and partisans achive to liberate many towns. There's a lot of similar examples. So, everyone claim that their Uprising was the largest one. --Mladifilozof (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right. In internet everything has a source to prove itself. Uspzor (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The information is totally wrong: Soviet partisan "Operation Rail War", "Concert" and those during Bagration were much larger operation. Rail War for example, employed 177 partisan brigades and 96,000 men.

The Warsaw uprising was probably the biggest of Polish resistance, but not the biggest in Europe. --Bentaguayre (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to dispute this, then you need sources, not personal opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(Also, this isn't "POV" (?), and it's not "internet" - it's from an academic work by two prominent historians).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There you got:

Rail Wars Operation, 96,000 partisans involved, summer 1943: "The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: A Critical Historiographical Analysis", p.244 https://books.google.es/books?id=9aAMe7asxswC&pg=PA244&dq=partisan+operation+rail+wars+96,000+partisans&hl=es&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=partisan%20operation%20rail%20wars%2096%2C000%20partisans&f=false

These two prominent historians claiming Warsaw uprising was the largest of WWII anywere in Europe are wrong. --Bentaguayre (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bentaguayre: Before we proceed with this, please take a moment to read: Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bentaguayre: I am not able to see page 244. Could you quote the relevant part here? (This would come in handy for quoting the source in the article). Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are the problems though. 1) The original source for this claims appears to be this book from Progress Publishers, not exactly reliable for this kind of stuff. 2) a lot hinges on what a "single military effort" is. The Rail War Operation could be seen as a collection of military efforts rather than a single one (same thing goes for the Uprising in Serbia). So we leave the call to reliable sources, which we've got.

Ok, now some common sense commentary. Seeing as how the Soviets had *at most* 11k partisans in Belarus the 98k numbers is extremely dubious. It looks like standard Soviet era exaggeration. And even 11k is probably way too much. Where would these partisans come from? In that area Soviet partisans composed mostly of some officers that had been parachuted in, some Red Army stragglers from Operation Barbarossa, some escaped POWs and local bandit bands which adopted an "ideology" as a cover for "expropriation" from the local populace. So it's hard to see how there could be even 11k of such individuals, nevermind 98k. The locals, having lived through the Soviet occupation, weren't very keen on joining the Soviet partisans (they joined either local Belorussian self defense units or the Polish Home Army).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

summary

I wonder if, in the summary on the right, it should be Result: German Victory. It hardly seems right (or respectful to the thousands of men women and children who were tortured, raped and murdered to refer to what happened as a 'victory'. 'Result: Wholesale slaughter of population' would be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.173.100 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Warsaw Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.poloniatoday.com/uprising6.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.poloniatoday.com/uprising5.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.poloniatoday.com/uprising1.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Children

I have just read "Warsaw Boy" by Andrew Borowiec (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22843465-warsaw-boy ), an account of his wartime experiences that included his being wounded the day after his sixteenth birthday. I also note the sidebar to the article linking to Mały Powstaniec. I suggest that somebody with more knowledge than I might wish to initiate a section on the Polish child-soldiers - it's a fate so removed from our comfortable western existences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.93.192 (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

War Crimes Trials

The book "Warsaw Boy" by Andrew Borowiec (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22843465-warsaw-boy ) makes scattered references to post-war trials that arose from war crimes committed during the uprising, e.g. "We were in no doubt about our fate," said Aleksandra Kreczkiewicz (whose evidence, like Wanda Lurie's, would be heard at the Nuremberg war crimes trials). These are matters regarding which my expertise and library do not permit me to contribute usefully; but I would be appreciative if a more knowledgeable editor addressed the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.93.192 (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo IDs

According to a posting on Flickr, the other two soldiers in this iconic photo are: Kazimierz Gabara (code name "Łuk") - 17 years old, center, and Mieczysław (Ryszard) Lach (code name "Pestka") - 15 years old, right. Sca (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warsaw Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091118145602/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/titleindex.htm to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/titleindex.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910114040/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content: In popular culture

Preserving here by providing this link. Please see also WP:MILPOP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

German losses

the infobox section claims that the German losses comprised 16.000 KIA+MIA. The reference quoted is a private site dedicated to the Uprising, which indeed provides such a figure with no further sourcing.

The issue seems to result from a long-standing controversy.

The figures of 10.000 KIA and 7.000 MIA have allegedly been provided by Bach when in Polish captivity; they were first quoted in a Polish source, and then re-quoted and re-re-quoted countlessly; Bach has later neither confirmed nor denied them in public. The figures of 10.000 KIA and 6.000 MIA were provided as German losses in Warsaw by the Gehlen report, prepared for the Nazi high command in April 1945. However, it is not clear what exactly they refer to; they might refer to overall losses, sustained also in combat with the Soviets.

No scholar has tackled the issue in detail; works released during the last 20-30 years or so refrain from conclusive statements. though the recent ones tend to favour figures in a range of few thousand. Discussion about historiographic theories related to the German losses is available here [in Polish].

Given all the above, current info on German losses seems unacceptable to me. They should either 1) be noted as "discussed", "unclear" etc, or 2) provided as a range of 2.000-17.000 (both figures footnoted), or 3) perhaps detailed as 2.000, which is the opinion which currently seems to prevail (see the link). Alternatively, 4) one might consider a section or paragraph on German losses in the main body of the entry, though this would appear a bit of an overkill to me. --89.64.26.130 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

no response from anyone so far. Will wait until the end of August and unless challenged, will change the casualty figures as suggested in option 2 above. I am afraid a lenghty footnote will be a must. --89.64.26.184 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)'

I did my best to squeeze the info on casualties into a footnote, but failed. It would have been a lengthy, windy, hardly legible footnote which would need referencing itself. Hence, have finally settled for re-editing the "casualties" section. --89.64.27.130 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The German Death toll numbers are being inflated by Polish Nationalists. According to to Krzysztof Komorowski, Bitwa o Warszawę ’44. Militarne aspekty Powstania Warszawskiego, Rytm, Warszawa 2004. Which are the most accurate numbers. The death toll is 2000 Germans Killed. 9000 Injured 100-200 German Civilians killed. http://ciekawostkihistoryczne.pl/2017/07/31/ilu-niemcow-naprawde-zginelo-w-powstaniu-warszawskim/4/

Doubtful, this is not a verifiable source, only Dirlewanger soliders were 3000 killed. So 2000 is an ordinary and brazen lie. LechitaPL (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Warsaw Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://transnational-resistance.history.ox.ac.uk/2016/08/24/for-our-freedom-and-yours-discovering-the-transnational-dimension-of-the-warsaw-uprising-august-october-1944
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051203000118/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/uprising.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/uprising.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forum.1944.pl/index.php?showtopic=637
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418202629/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/pol/OtherPolish.htm to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/pol/OtherPolish.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

I have just removed this content:

The Soviet Union refused to allow American bombers from Western Europe to land on Soviet airfields after dropping supplies to the Poles.

This needs clarification because the single American supply-run from Britain flew on to Soviet-held Poltava for resupply. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Concerning this sentence: " the Polish Service of Radio Moscow calling for the Uprising to begin while unaware of Stalin's order for the 1st Belorussian Front to stop" - the Polish Service was likely directly ordered by the Soviet authorities to call for the uprising. This needs to be phrased in an appropriate manner. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The solution is to double-check what the source is saying. If it seems to think Radio Moscow would have called for anything else if it only knew what Stalin's military orders were, then we pull up sources showing Radio Moscow was under Stalin's orders. Alas this prompts a second point: the AK leadership knew Radio Moscow was under Stalin's orders too, so the narrative that they were tricked by it is moot, too. The AK leadership were not naive; most of them had lost relatives in Katyn and Siberia, so they wouldn't have taken Radio Moscow at face value either. This supports the thesis that the Uprising was partly a consequence of emotion and notions of honor, rather than political and military objectives alone. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

German Casualty Count

It seems the numbers that were given as German Casualties are overinflated by certian aspects from Polish Society. Only 2000 Germans were KIA.

The numbers are from Polish Historians:

https://ciekawostkihistoryczne.pl/2017/07/31/ilu-niemcow-naprawde-zginelo-w-powstaniu-warszawskim/

The most probable numbers seem to be the one given by Krzysztof Komorowski and Hans von Krannhals: about 2,000 killed, 9,000 wounded and 100-200 murdered civilians.

Also the same numbers are confirmed by IPN:

Marek Getter. Straty ludzkie i materialne w Powstaniu Warszawskim. „Biuletyn IPN”. 8-9 (43-44), sierpień – wrzesień 2004. , s. 70.

And from the German Report by Zalewski:

German losses were 73 officers and 1453 NCOs and soldiers were killed, 242 officers, 8196NCOs and soldiers Wounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.46.212.105 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Doubtful, this is not a verifiable source, only Dirlewanger soliders were 3000 killed. LechitaPL (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely biased anti-soviet standpoint

From reading the article introduction it seems like the Soviet Union was the big enemy and not the german nazis. While this may be so from the perspective of the current polish right wing anti-russian zeitgeist it wasn't nearly so in historical events. This has more a western cold wqar propaganda twist than a contemporary understanding of the events (For example the Koestler quote which has nothing to do, as he isn't even polish and worked from the British Empire as a cold warrior propagandist). The text blurbs makes it seem as the soviets deliberately did nothing while in the actual combat timeline we see they collaborated with air support from september 13, earlier than any other major power other than britain and certainly than the USA which are despicted as concerned saviors. Plus according to the very text of the later timeline Soviet attacks on the ground including with tank divisions existed even on August 26, when the uprising was well still on the way. They provided artillery cover and air support to Polish forces whila mantaining full contact, even trying to advance trought the river after the germans dynamited all bridges, a thing one would never imagine by reading the biased introduction which states "Soviets ignored Polish attempts to maintain radio contact with them and did not advance beyond the city limits". Skewed interpretations directly contradict facts and are unprofessional and propagandistic. Either the conflicting statements should be removed, rewritten as contested allegations instead of uncontested facts, or the article itself marked with a NPOV tag. --186.60.231.7 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the sources? The text you don't like is supported by reliable sources on the subject. Of course the war was against the Nazis, but the Soviets were looking to control Poland. The Soviets encouraged the uprising but then failed to support it well enough. By September, Polish leaders were expressing outrage at the British and Soviet allies. The outrage is probably the tone you don't like, but it's in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

German criminal garnizon

It is not mentioned in the article that Germans garnizons participating in Warsaw Uprising included very brutal criminals of the worst sort who were liberated from the German prisons and converted into soldiers. They were very active in killing, raping and robbing. One of the German generals confessed in Nuremberg in 1946 that he saw another German commander leaving Warsaw with the suitcases full of silver, gold and diamonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.2.232 (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Anon will not stop edit warring

The 17,000 figure has been sourced, no kidding, but the number has been specifically cited as being unreliable by an official source. Due to that, it is inappropriate for it to be in the infobox. Multiple other articles on battles such as the Battle of the Bulge do not include certain numbers that are not considered reliable. However the number has remained in the aftermath section for public consumption, which is where it belongs, but not the infobox given how dubious that statistic is, with the primary source for authors being communist propaganda and the poles themselves, rather than the Germans who actually suffered the casualties and were in a far better position to judge their own losses. Despite this, and even the infobox figure still being generalized as “Over 8,000” in every edit I’ve made, an anonymous editor has repeatedly reverted my edits without giving any concrete reasons, and yet presumptuously threatens me with being blocked (even tho he is not an admin or in any position of authority whatsoever) when he himself has contributed nothing to the conversation but edit warring and making false accusations of lying and vandalism. Anon, it doesn’t matter if there are multiple sources, if the number contradicts the actual German casualty reports, are considered unreliable by an official source, and were primarily used in communist states, it has no business being in the infobox. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The quoted sources do not come from books from the communist period, so you are lying brazenly. Some historians still consider this number to be correct, unfortunately we do not know exactly what numbers are, because German / Nazi data is mendacious and they should not be believed (for example three thousand Dirlewanger soldiers died). This number has not been disproven definitively and can be taken into account as far as possible - all the more so in the face of mendacious German / Nazi information. 95.160.177.162 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)