Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Soviet invasion of Poland is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2007.

Convoluted lead paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph talks more about the Soviet-Japanese conflict, than the subject of the article. Why? --illythr (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Note: Stale, and no longer applicable. Copy-edited for clarity and meaning, Poeticbent talk 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

From the perspective of modern science, we can justly say that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a criminal organization as defined by the new International Military Tribunal (IMT) category of wartime criminality. As far as its ideological basis prior to the invasion of Poland the campaign of murder and mass persecution of targeted groups across continents was inspired by a piece of writing almost as vile as the Mein Kampf itself, called the Communist Manifesto. Here's where that one characteristic stands out among the invaders.

The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie ... up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule, because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

Wikisource link to Manifesto of the Communist Party/1. Wikisource.  Poeticbent talk 22:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders - Edward Rydz-Śmigły[edit]

Edward Rydz-Śmigły left Poland on 18 September and lost any inluence.Xx234 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Officially, he still counts. I agree we should list someone else in addition, but I am not sure who commanded the forces after 18th; if anyone - the entire command structure was falling apart. Ping User:Halibutt, User:Volunteer Marek? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of POLAND?[edit]

The Soviet invasion was an invasion of Ukraine and Belarus. These regions had been taken bu the Poles in 1923. Neither one of these territories are, nor were, considered polish by other nations. They were considered occupied. That is also why Britain and France did not declare war against the Soviet union får the occupation. Shouldn't this be stated in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.121 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It was an invasion of sovereign Polish territory. The UK and France did not declare war because that would have immediately led to the USSR joining the Axis. (Rhdkke (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC))
They were former parts of the Russian Empire, not of Russia itself. (CharltonR (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC))

The Western powers new nothing about the existence of the secret Nazi Soviet Pact which was denied by the Soviet government until 1989. Stalin insisted that the Red Army troops were transiting through the territory of Poland in order to fight Hitler ... it was one of the biggest deceptions of the 20th century. Prior to World War II, Poland and Soviet Russia maintained peace by agreeing to abandon all rights and claims to the territories of their respective borderlands (paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Riga). Poeticbent talk 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations
  1. Chatham House: "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact International Affairs, May 2011, Volume 87, Number 3.
  2. Watson, Derek (2000). "Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy. The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939". Europe-Asia Studies. 52 (4): 695–722. doi:10.1080/713663077.
  3. Michael Palij (1995). The Ukrainian-Polish Defensive Alliance, 1919-1921. An Aspect of the Ukrainian Revolution. CIUS Press. p. 165. ISBN 1895571057.
Misinterpretation of facts. This is peace treaty. Ofc USSR was forced to accept Polish demands. And even if we accept Polish occupation as something legitimate, Stalin started liberation only after Polish goverment had left, making Poland no man's land. Both of those facts, Soviet claim on those lands and Polish goverment abandoning their land, made Soviet actions both legal and legitimate. And yeah, no one could say a word about that. It is easily seen from dates under your sources: 1995, 2000, 2011. 95.24.170.31 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
As per the original poster's question, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Poland. Claiming that the lands were Belarus and Ukraine is a falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.205.212.35 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soviet invasion of Poland. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Joint invasion of Poland envisaged in the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact?[edit]

The usual refrain that M-vR secret protocols defined the terms for a "joint invasion" of Poland is false. Nowdays the document "is in the public domain", you can read it and I'm afraid you'll find not even a single word about any invasion by either part. One could eventually say that historian xyz says that soviets and nazis agreed to invade Poland when preparing the treaty. Still, saying that the pact envisaged such invasion is reading between the line, which is not what wikipedia should do. Also "joint invasion" maybe deserves a closer look: what exactly is a "joint invasion"?, in particular: does the mere simultaneous presence of two armies on the territory of another state imply ipso facto a joint invasion of that state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.88.210.77 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, WP:PRIMARY says the opposite. It says, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." So if the historians say that "territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state" and "whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State" mean they agreed an invasion, then that's what Wikipedia says. The same goes for the the phrase "joint invasion of Poland", which is almost ubiquitous in history books. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, surely there may be a number of historians who, quoting your own words, «say that "territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state" and "whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State" mean they agreed an invasion», but I'm not sure whether these historians are actually the majority, here; I'd be happy to be wrong on this, but I'm afraid that, if we take enough time to check it out, we'd find out that what really is ubiquitous in (western) history books is the plain and simple assertion "the agreement for a joint invasion is IN the pact" (or that it is a PART of the pact, or that it can be found in the secret protocols of the pact, and other variations on the same theme). As I said before, that specific assertion is false; and in saying this I'm neither saying anything about any possible interpretation of the pact's wording (let alone how majoritarian/minoritarian they may be), nor I'm trying to interpret the pact on my own (btw, an interpetation is… an interpretation; I'm not sure whether, by its own nature, an interpretation can be called either "true" or "false"). PS: would you ever say that Turkey and Israel (and maybe IS and US) are jointly invading/attacking Syria?, would/should wp ever use such words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.186.107 (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)