Jump to content

Talk:Karol Świerczewski

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

Anti-Communist?

[edit]

Why name Home Army anti-communist and not independence movement ? Their struggle wasn't against communism but for independent Poland. Why such terminology ? --Molobo 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Ukrainian Insurgent Army continued fighting in the South-East of Poland, with ethnic cleansing crimes committed on the Polish population in this region." It's a pity you gentlemen follow the Polish propaganda. There were no 'ethnical cleansing' made by Ukrainians AFTER WWII, there were only crimes commited on the local (both Polish and Ukrainian) population of the new Polish-Soviet borders area, made by Polish Ministry of defence and Army and Soviets in 1946-1947. That's why Swierczewski was killed by the Ukrainian nationalists - he was responsible for the deportations and ethnical cleansing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.52.99 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of Poland

[edit]

Irpen made that addition-it is hardly appropriate. Świerczewski died in 1947, People's Republic of Poland was created in 1952... --Molobo 02:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected myself. If I got it wrong again, you are welcome to correct it but no need to call names in every article. Give the gov's name and leave the description to the gov's article. --Irpen 03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still didn't answer why "anti-communist" and not independence movement ? --Molobo 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered before at talk:History of PL in the debate of what we call independence. Poland was a satelite state but from the international law POV it was as independent as many other states during the Cold War. For what a sattelite state is a correct term, non-indepent simply isn't. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia were not independent, but not Poland. And don't start this all over about Soviets dictated Poles what to do. This is largely true but doesn't justify using the wrong terminology. --Irpen 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but what are you talking about ? This about AK not about international law regarding Poland. Poland was completely controlled in that time by Soviets who used mass deportations, executions and terror to take it over. AK wasn't fighting for ideological goal of anti-communism but for Poland to be independent. Are you arguing that AK's fight was to destroy communism and not a free Poland ? --Molobo 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter

[edit]

Does anybody know the origins of his nickname ? --Molobo 12:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was nicknamed in Spain after his handgun (Walther Model 4 and Walther PP). · Naive cynic · 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland was independent ?

[edit]

Yes, Poland was "independent" and could nicely ask the Soviet forces to leave the country, right ? This "independence" was further demonstrated in Hungary in 1956 or in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Sorry, dear Russian friends, but how can you possibly believe the first water Soviet propaganda ? --Lysytalk 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian friends"? First, I am not Russian. Second, such statements are incivil. To the topic, I am surprized that one of the Molobisms "the 1989 regaining of Polish independence" is reintroduced by other "Polish friends".. er-r-r, "other editors". If you want to emphasize that at the times of the cold war there were only two independent states, go to other articles for that. Poland's politics were indeed dominated by Soviet influences, perhaps it was a client state, but by international standards Poland was an independent country. Did Panama "regained" its independence in 1999? The notion that "Poland regained its independence in 1989" perhaps exists among the POV writers, but by no means it is universally accepted and cannot be brought into the article passingly, as if it's no biggy to just say that. Use those refs in the articles where the issue is the main subject as a frinde opinion of certain writers but not as an established truth mentioned matter-of-factly in the context of a different topic. --Irpen 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you assuming that a country can be only either occupied or independent ? As for references, I'm surprised that you expect references for the obvious fact, but there are plenty of them to be found even with google. Here you are: a recent lecture of the Institute of World Politics, explaining that Polish regaining independence in 1989 was a gradual process. Now, are you able to provide references, not speculations, explicitly supporting your view that Poland was an independent country until 1989 ? As far as I know only Soviet propaganda would claim that. (BTW: what's wrong with using the "Russian friends" phrase ? I missed your point). --Lysytalk 07:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lysy, you're simply messing up several things. First, your comment borders on incivility. Second, let's take two other examples: Japan and West Germany after WWII. They were completely dominated military-wise (and within certain limits, economicaly-wise) by Americans (and Brits and French in the case of the FRG). Could they ask the American forces to leave? Heck no (and Japan could not even have an army). Were they independent? Yes, they had and still have their own government, their own money, their own borders and so on. Same thing in the case of Poland
As for the political lectures, they're inherently POV. And what is also inherently POV is that an American institute considers (of course) that USA were a "good" democratic system and the USSR was a "bad" totalitarian system, hence a former Warsaw pact state was not independent. This is a blatant double standard, as shown above. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, what do you find uncivil in my comment, sincerely ? Second, what is your understanding of independence ? While Germany and Japan from your example were obviously occupied at certain point but gradually developed into independent countries, the countries in Eastern Europe had puppet governments installed, fully dependent on Moscow. As for Soviet vs USA, yes I think that the US had a democratic system, while SU was a totalitarian country. Do you believe otherwise ? If you think that Hungary was independent, than you probably think that it waged a war against Soviet Union invasion in 1956 ? Think for a while why this happened ? Did the Hungarians want to invade Soviet Union or what ? --Lysytalk 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take an example like Panama. Why did Americans invaded it? Because the Panama wanted to invade USA? Not quite so. Was it independent? Well yes, in any way, try to insert the same thing you're trying to insert, in the Panama article and look for a reaction... And I won't even mention Iraq... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least we contend that there was a war between Hungary and Soviet Union in 1956. Indeed ? That's a good start. Now, do you believe that Iraq is independent after the US invasion ? --Lysytalk 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq is not the right example. Panama is. --Irpen 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't know enough about Panama to discuss whether it was dependent or not. I don't know why Iraq is a bad example. Do you consider it independent ? Did you consider post-WW2 occupied Germany independent ? Often the motion from dependent puppet regime towards independence is a process. The same was in Poland and other countries of the region. --Lysytalk 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that we have to adhere to Wikipedia's policies (WP:V, WP:RS). Many reliable academic authors note that Poland regained independence in 1989: [1] (Central European University), [2],(Routldege) [3] (Cambridge), [4] (Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy), [5] Speech of Polish president (ok, that's not academic, but is interesting). Again, feel free to provide refs to the contrary. Oh, and please note that I'd personally prefer the pharse 'regained full independence'. This is a complex issue, but there is no denying that Poland had some degree of autonomy, certainly more then Soviet republics, and a degree that on average increased in time (starting with nearly none until Stalin's death, and if anybody's honestly suggest Poland was 'independend' from 1945-1956, sorry, but LOL).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, do you remember the lengthy discussion that took place on the meaning of the word "liberate"? Hali, you and some Ukrainian POV-pushers were pointed to academic sources using this word at length (including for Poland btw). Yet, I was told many times that these perfectly academic sources were crapzor, not NPOV and so on. Here, we have a similar situation, yet you propose a different solution. So, I won't tolerate double standards: either an academic source is NPOV and then "liberate" and "independence" are OK, or neither of them are, and in this case, we have to rely on common sense to define these words. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grafik, is your common sense that a country with a puppet government can be independent ? --Lysytalk 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how you defend a puppet government. Polish government surely followed the same line as the Soviet government did, but defining it as a puppet is a bit too much. "Client state", maybe, but not a puppet government... At least not more puppet as some American-influenced governments at the same time... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here: Puppet government - A puppet government is a government that, though notionally of the same culture as the governed people, owes its existence (or other major debt) to being installed, supported or controlled by a more powerful entity, typically a foreign power. Would the government of the Communist Poland match this definition ? --Lysytalk 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less than many Latin American governments of the time and even today. --Irpen 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, we are not discussing Latin America, but Poland here. So, Grafikm, do you think that the government of the Communist Poland matches the definition I quoted above ? If your answer is "no", please explain what is missing. --Lysytalk 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, I was told many times that these perfectly academic sources were crapzor, not NPOV and so on - told by whom? By me? Could you link to my statements about that? Please, don't use words of others to accuse me of double standards. Besides, we are not discussing semantics, and comparing situation in various countries is a nice academic execrcise, but not what are we here for. I provided you with refs for a fact. Please provide me with refs disputing that fact, not with refs about other countries or other controversial statements on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gentlemen discussing here: I would like to point to you that this article is first and foremost about "general" Swierczewski. I intentionally put parentheses because I do not consider him a Polish general but only a Soviet staff officer and rather unskilled divisional commander. Please consider rewriting the part of article describing him as "able military commander" or something close to it - because: 1. his military skills were doubtful - check how he fared during battle of Budziszyn (Bautzen) in April 1945 2. his reputation of the "man who was not bowing to the bullets" was mainly because most of the time he was profusely drunk (and alcoholish started to be a problem even as for Red Army standards...Enough of this - just would you check (scientific) source information at http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/pl/398/4918/Karol_Swierczewski_Walter_18971947.html, if you please and one more thing: his nickname was not earned because of use of Walther pistol as sidearm but because of the way he dealt with people he considered to be disloyal or merely in the way - a "warning shot" to the head with said Walther - that was his trademark during Spanish war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.107.183 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Really a competent military commander?

[edit]

It seems there are also absolute different views. [6] --109.192.207.225 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Karol Świerczewski. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead - timing, one of leaders, GL

[edit]
  • I have corrected the sequence of wars.
  • He was one of several leaders, probably outside of the top three.
  • He wasn't a commander of GL.

Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 14:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language

[edit]

One should avoid using such terms like terrorists. It has not been proven, so do not try spread your propaganda. It that manner we can call participants of pro-Polish January Uprising or military operation of Polish Polish Home Army. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

activities in 1939

[edit]

any information about his activities in 1939 (September 17th) during the invasion of Poland by the Red Army?--Cantece (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karol_Świerczewski&oldid=1205686520"