|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Move
- 2 London Poles
- 3 Sikorski: "the most talented"?
- 4 Polish Government in Exile
- 5 which had majority Ukrainian and Belarusian populations, should remain in Soviet hands,
- 6 Ireland, Spain and Vatican City (till 1979) were the last countries to recognize the Government in Exile.
- 7 State of war with Soviet Union
- 8 Establishment
- 9 Retroactive recognition
- 10 Katyn
- 11 Armia Krajowa
- 12 "Third strongest"?
- 13 File:Tomasz Arciszewski.jpg Nominated for Deletion
I moved to a more simple location. There were no other Polish governments in exile, so the dates in the name of this article are not needed.Halibutt 09:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Proposed insertions in the opening: The Government of the Polish Republic in exile also known as the London Poles and derisively by the Soviet government as the Sikorski regime, maintained a continuous existence in exile from the time of the German occupation of Poland in September 1939 until the end of the Communist rule in Poland in 1990.Nobs 16:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think that's too short. I've expanded it a little, to say more about what the government did (more than simply exist) and the change in relationships after 1945. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- You click on the red link, which brings up the editor and then put #REDIRECT [[Polish government in exile]] as the total article content. DJ Clayworth 02:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks good and I beleive that will help. Nobs 14:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Often we are stuck with terms newspaper headline writers used from the time (FDR, Big 3, London Poles etc) to communicate ideas that won't fit on a headline, Like "Ike" instead of "Eisenhower" or "Free French" instead of "French National Committee". It takes up less space. Even "Nazi" was easier to use & print than "Weimar Republic" or "Germany". There is nothing derisive about the term, and I beleive, it has actually become the standard term of reference when searching CIA, NSA and other U.S. government search engines and archives. Nobs 17:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Google search: "london+Poles" = 429. "Polish government in exile" = 14,500. Even discarding Wiki and its mirrors it seems london Poles are a distinct minority. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Can anyone find a date they went out of business. Evidently they continued long after 1945 and this should be noted. Nobs 19:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- The last exiled President of Poland, Ryszard Kaczorowski, resigned his post on December 22, 1990, after Lech Wałęsa was sworn in the Polish Sejm. The following day he created a Liquidation Commission which, by December 31, 1991, closed all the offices of the Polish government and passed all responsibilities to the Warsaw-based government. Does it answer your question? Halibutt 20:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- So then we can rightly state, and have evidence to conclude, that the current democratic government of Poland is the legitimate successor state to the legitimate government of Poland. Nobs 20:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, the current Republic of Poland is direct successor (both in terms of legality and even symbols) to the pre-war and wartime Republic of Poland. Even the presidential insignia were passed to the first democratically elected president of Poland as soon as it was possible.
- After all the legal basis for the existence of the government in exile was lack of peace treaty ending the war and lack of possibility to elect new authorities in Poland. When the Sejm and the President were elected, the government lost its rationale. After the 2+4 conference and the final peace treaty between Poland and Germany, the last of the reasons was gone. Halibutt 21:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Note that members of the Polish Government in Exile are included in the official website of The Chancellery of the Prime Minister - for example see Council of Ministers » History » Prime Ministers of Poland » Edward Szczepanik who was the last PM 
- Tom Szczepanik 02:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Sikorski: "the most talented"?
From the article:
"In an unfortunate coincidence, Sikorski, the most talented of the Polish exile leaders, was killed in an aircrash near Gibraltar in July. He was succeeded as head of the government in exile by Stanisław Mikołajczyk."
I know little about the history in question here, but the description of Sikorski as "the most talented of the Polish exile leaders" seems to be more of an opinion than fact. I would suggest changing the text at least to "Sikorski, considered by many people to be the most talented..." or (ideally) coming up with a better justification for referring to him as such. Colin M. 13:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it would be a weasel word anyway. Almost everything I read agrees Sikorski was 'the most talented' Polish contemporary leader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Polish Government in Exile
May I suggest that the capitalisation of this page should be changed from "Polish government in exile" to "Polish Government in Exile" with capital G and capital E. That is how they wrote about themselves in their quarterly English language journal "Polish Affairs" e.g. No 127 (Final) 1990
- Tom Szczepanik 02:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
which had majority Ukrainian and Belarusian populations, should remain in Soviet hands,
Not true, some mostly Polish regions remained in the SU, eg. Wilno. Xx236 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ireland, Spain and Vatican City (till 1979) were the last countries to recognize the Government in Exile.
What about Portugal and Cuba? Xx236 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- What about them? Cite your sources and update the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding Vatican City, I noticed the the government-in-exile had some rather difficult relations with the papacy during World War Two, essentially because of an alleged complacence on the part of the Holy See towards German invaders. This could perhaps be noted in the article, along with relevant sources of course. ADM (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
State of war with Soviet Union
Why article does not mention that exile government of Republic of Poland declared state of war with Soviet Union in Novemeber 1939 caused by transfer of Wilno to Lithuania?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- This is the first time I have heard such claim. What are your sources for this? Szopen 06:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I know the source for that information is "Советская историческая энциклопедия" (Soviet historical encyclopaedia) volume 11 1968, p. 316, article "Польское эмигрантское правительство" (Polish government in Exile). The full text of the article in Russian:
ПОЛЬСКОЕ ЭМИГРАНТСКОЕ ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВО — было создано 30 сент. 1939 в Анжере (Франция) из представителей польского монополистич. капитала, пилсудчиков и нек-рых оппозиционных «санационному» режиму бурж. и мелкобурж. партий. Признавало в качестве легальной основы своей деятельности реакц. конституцию 1935 и проводило антинац. и антисов. политику. П. э. п. создало на терр. Польши свои подпольные воен. орг-ции (Союз вооруж. борьбы, а затем Армию Крайову и др.), рассчитывая, однако, в основном на помощь зап. держав в освобождении Польши от нем.-фаш. оккупантов. В нояб. 1939 П. э. п. объявило состояние войны с Сов. Союзом. В июне 1940 П. э. п. переехало в Лондон. 30 июля 1941, вскоре после нападения гитлеровской Германии на Сов. Союз, пр-во СССР и П. э. п. заключили договор о взаимопомощи, по к-рому на терр. СССР были созданы польские воинские части. Весной и летом 1942 П. э. п. вывело эти части с терр. СССР на Бл. Восток. Вскоре П. э. п. открыто возобновило свои притязания на земли Сов. Украины и Сов. Белоруссии и совершило ряд. др. враждебных СССР действий, что вынудило Сов. пр-во 25 апр. 1943 порвать с ним отношения. До июля 1943 пр-во возглавлял В. Сикор-ский, с июля 1943 по нояб. 1944 — С. Миколайчик, а с нояб. 1944 по июнь 1945—Т. Арцишевский. После создания в Варшаве в июне 1945 Врем, пр-ва нац. единства пр-ва зап. держав, связанные решениями Крымской конференции 1945, перестали признавать П. э. п. Название П. э. п. впоследствии незаконно использовали мелкие группы реакционных деятелей польск. эмиграции в Лондоне.
- In bold - "In 1939, November, Polish government in Exile declared state of war on the USSR". --Nekto 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hm... Seems absurd to me. AFAIK Poland broke diplomatic ties with SU, but no DoW was issued. Soviet historical encyclopedia, no offense, is not valid sources for me. Any other sources? Halibutt, where are you when I need you? Szopen 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that Poland had not DoW-ed SU, though it would do that if England and France would follow. In november Poland had plans to help Finland fight against SU, but nothing came out of the phase of initial planning - so it seems to me. Szopen 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I know Poland and Soviet Union broke diplomatic relation, but were not in the state of war - it was SU which declared Poland as non-existent, but I never read that any party declared a state of war on another. See also Sikorski-Mayski Agreement. And per Szopen, Soviet encyclopedias are not very reliable - if you could find this fact in the English academic papers it would be much more reliable (per WP:RS).-- 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way I've found in the Polish version of the article this information:
"18 grudnia rząd wydał deklarację, która formułowała najważniejsze cele rządu emigracyjnego. Deklaracja określała Niemcy hitlerowskie jako głównego wroga Polski, potwierdzała stan wojny z ZSRR (która toczyła się de facto, natomiast rozpoczęcie wojny de iure nie miało miejsca) ... "
- Does anybody have the original text of declaration mentioned in the excerpt?--Nekto (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- 18 December 1939. I could not confirm that other than on Polish wikipedia; I've requested inline cites for this and for now I'd call it dubious.-- 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I am reworking this section as it does not match the books I have read. Anyone who disagrees then please at least say why you think this slightly altered version is wrong. Jniech (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
We say that the reception of the symbols of the Polish state by Walesa was in effect retroactively recognizing the legitimacy of the Government in Exile. Do we have a source for this contention? It doesn't seem obvious to me. Retroactively recognizing the government in exile's legitimacy would also mean retroactively recognizing the illegitimacy of the communist state, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Among other things, the Communist state's recognition of its postwar eastern border did not have to be done again after 1989, did it? And the constitution of 1992 appears to have been an amendment to the communist constitution of 1952. So, while there might be symbolic recognition of the legitimacy of the government in exile, there certainly does not seem to have been any legal recognition of the same. This language should be tightened up. john k (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is quite clear that the Polish State does give recognition to the Government in Exile as its Presidents are listed as Presidents of Poland on on the Polish President's Website at http://www.president.pl/en/about-poland/polish-presidents/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
...and the graves were confirmed to contain the corpses of Polish officers who had been killed with Soviet weapons. - They were killed with German weapons, actually. This needs to be fixed in accordance with what the Germans had really claimed. --Illythr (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This assertion seems quite dubious:
- "Even after the fall of Poland, and before the Soviet Union's entry into the war, Poland remained the third strongest Allied belligerent, after France and Britain.
What is meant by this? If I'm not mistaken, immediately after the fall of Poland, there were only three Allied nations (France, the UK, and Poland), so being third-strongest means nothing. As, in their time, Norway, the Low Countries, Greece, and Yugoslavia adhered to the Allied cause, they would have (one would think) have been "stronger" than Poland, having functioning military establishments consisting of quite a few equipped and supplied divisions operating on their own territory (except perhaps for Norway), until they were overrun. This whole thing strikes me as meaningless and should be deleted. Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- When you say there were only three Allied nations, then you seem to be ignoring countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa who all declared war on Germany separately, either on the same day as Britain or soon afterwards.
- Further Norway, the Low Countries, Greece, and Yugoslavia were all neutral until attacked when the strength of their forces were quickly destroyed. It most likely true that the Netherlands, for example, had a larger army but as it lasted only 5 days.
- Polish pilots, for example, were the second largest air force behind the British in the Battle of Britain. I think the point being made is that Polish forces were consistently the third largest between the fall of Poland and Germany attack on Soviets even if for brief periods of times they weren’t. Jniech (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
File:Tomasz Arciszewski.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Tomasz Arciszewski.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tomasz Arciszewski.jpg)