Talk:Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)/Archive 1

"Yalta and the Soviet Occupation" section

Whatever the Poles feel about the Soviet policies in the post-war years, to use the same term "occupation" for the Red Army participating in partitioning Poland with Nazis in 1939 and for the Soviet Army liberating the territory from the genocidal Nazi regime is inappropriate. Additionally to the fact that the Soviet control was incomparable to the Nazi one, it is obvious that in 44-45 the Soviets were advancing through Poland to finish off the Nazi Germany, something they absolutely had to do as no one else would do that for them. Please rephrase the section title and the text accordingly. --Irpen 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What other word then occupation would you use, to reflect the fact that Soviet troops stayed in Poland for - oh, 45 years - after finishing of Nazi Germany? I'd also note that History of Russia, a FA, states clearly: With Eastern Europe under Red Army occupation... Although if we are revising FAs, I'd say that this one needs some NPOVing as well, as I think it seriously downplays the Soviet occupation and exploitation of Eastern Europe (and other parts of the world) during the Cold War period.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I first thought you were not serious. I am surprised to see such a statement from an editor with expertize is historical topics but fine, I will explain this to you if I have to. The country is under occupation when the foreign troops directly control it militarily in order to suppress the resistance to the hostile alien rule. There is also a second meaning of the term, which is the act of seizure itself (usually the term "occupation" is used rather than "invasion" when there was little or no resistance). To give you specific example, in 1939, the German army invaded and the Red Army occupied. As for post-39 times, the 39-44 was German occupation. Not denying that Soviet troops were stationed in Poland until 1993 and even that Soviet Union to varying extent dominated over other countries of the Eastern Bloc, to say that Poland was under the Soviet military occupation all this time is an utter nonsense.

I object to improper usage of strong terms in Wikipedia (it is fine of course when they are used properly). Sometimes wrong terms are used for the lack of editor's understanding. For example in this very article the map (drawn by the same user who introduced "occupation") incorrectly applies the word "annexed". The territories were attached to Poland in result of international treaties and agreements rather than "annexed by Poland" because annexation is a unilateral act by definition. This was perhaps and honest mistake, but "occupation" here is simply POV pushing.

What we see here is a typical example of inappropriate terminology used to shift the article neutrality towards a very specific POV. It sadly became widespread in Poland related topics. That every time when I attempt to address the improper terminology usage I encounter such a resistance is very sad. I can't help but see that the articles are being distorted here and there just to spurn those Russians and this is really annoying (despite, as you know, I am not a Russian).

Perhaps you would be interested to take a look to the article in Trybuna whose author (a Pole, obviously) wrote in bemusement:

Aby nie mącić jasnego widzenia rocznice wyzwolenia kolejnych polskich miejscowości przez armię radziecką przemianowaliśmy na rocznicę zniewolenia. A monument marszałka Iwana Koniewa, który ocalił Kraków od zniszczenia, wyekspediowaliśmy do Rosji.[1]

The author makes a rather ironic but seemingly correct statement:

"Dla Polaków w zasadzie każda rocznica jest dobra, by dokopać Rosjanom.

In such "by dokopać Rosjanom" climate it is not surprising that modern Polish history books say (cited from here, original article by Jerzy Urban published in "Nie" magazine)

"W porównaniu z terrorem hitlerowskim "wladza ludowa" wielu ludziom wydawala sie systemem bardziej znosnym."

See? It only "wydawala sie"! No wonder that after such books published now in Poland we get articles in Wikipedia spreading many strange ideas. Urban also wonders sarcastically:

Po tej lekturze ciekawi mnie, które kolejne pokolenie uczniów zamiast pokornie poddawac sie mlócce rozumu zada wreszcie pytanie: po jaka cholere ci idioci, marszalek Rydz-Smigly i minister Józef Beck, zdecydowali sie na wojne z Hitlerem?

Well, it seems to me that using the same term for the the '39-44 period and for the later years is the first step. I am happy to know that Not everyone in Poland thinks along those lines. The author of this article, while admitting that "Zostałem wychowany w duchu skrajnej nienawiści do Rosji takiej czy owakiej" remembers "okupację hitlerowską, która miała się tak do radzieckiej, jak śmierć do życia." I am sorry he is not writing for Wikipedia... --Irpen 08:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my fault - I must have misunderstood you. Yes, you're correct that 'occupation' is the wrong word here. Although I do think that the comment about 'zniewolenie' is pretty correct. There is no denying that Soviets did not plan to exterminate all Poles like Nazis did, but they did try to exterminate all Poles that showed signs of wanting to be independent of 'big brother'. You are correct that some people tend to demonize Soviets, but you also have to agree that there are those who go the other way around: how many people in Russia say that Poland is ungrateful for being liberated in '45 and leave it at that, or even believe that Poland was a beneficiary of Comecon? The mere mention that Russia should pay compensations to Poland and other Soviet block countries for 45 years of exploitation is enough to freeze almoast any Polish-Soviet discussion. Our recent discussion about Katyn, with some Russian Wikipedians still trying to whitewash the Soviets or even outright deny their invovlement in the massacre is a perfect illustration of the troubles we are both facing. It's often not the case of 'glass half full, half empty' but of people arguing its either completly full or completly empty :/ I feel confident, though, that working together we can moderate the 'nationalists' in both our camps, as we have done in the past. I'd appreciate it if you'd try your hand more at editing/proposing alternate wording then just tagging articles with POV signs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, how "those who go the other way around" are related to whether I raised my objection to this article properly or not?

As for "compensation", I have not heard of those demands of Poland but now that you told me, I find it incredible. Should Ukraine start to raise the issue that Poland "should pay compensation... (to Ukraine)..for..(20).. years of exploitation (1919-1939)"? Or perhaps for 200+ years between the Union of Lublin and the third partition. Or should Russia, as a legal descendant of the USSR in most issues of international obligations, should raise the issue that Poland has to compensate to the widows and children of the Soviet soldiers who where killed in the course of liberating Poland from Nazism. I mean, I can't beleive you brought this issue here!

"I'd appreciate it if you'd try your hand more at editing/proposing alternate wording then just tagging articles with POV signs"

As you know, I do plenty of editing and not "just tagging articles with POV signs". You also can't deny that I tagged all three article (this one, PLC and PLMC) in an entirely appropriate way. I raised clear objections at the article's talk that you admitted were reasonable. So, why are you dissatisfied with my input towards making Polish articles better? When I feel like I have sufficient background and time, I edit articles. When I lack one or both, but I know enough to see that the current version is problematic, I don't "just tag" but explain what's wrong with current version at the article's talk. The result is usually, that my objections are accounted for, which means they were reasonable to begin with, and article is changed for the better. So, what is that you don't "appreciate"? --Irpen 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"the issue that Poland has to compensate to the widows and children of the Soviet soldiers who where killed in the course of liberating Poland from Nazism."

And Home Army members. Oh and please use a serious source-NIE is a sensationalist tabloid published by former chief propagandist of communist regime. --Molobo 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, attacking the speaker rather than addressing the issue is a known method of demagogy. If you have nothing to say on the issue, better say nothing. --Irpen 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I would the same if you used Irwing as source on German policy. --Molobo 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, the article in "Nie" is not used to source anything in this WP article! Otherwise, pls point which phrase in our article is sourced to Nie? The article in Nie is used at the talk page to illustrate the russophobic distortions of history in the current Polish high school curriculum that have probably affected you (judging from your edit pattern. That you even attacked Ded Moroz illustrates it just perfectly). Urban cites Polish textbooks and what he cites does look like falcification of History. Are you saying his quotes are false?

I suggest that you read three articles I linked above (the other two are from Trybuna and not Nie, btw). Instead of thanking me that the article about Polish hisotry after I raised objections is somewhat NPOVed, you and Piotrus go after myself telling me what you don't appreciate my effort to make coverage of Polish history in WP more objective, hense better. Sorry, I am the wrong guy to blame here. --Irpen 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Trybuna ? The same Trybuna that is the main supplier of pro-communist propaganda ? Please Irpen star using objective sources. --Molobo 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, both Nie and Trybuna are as leftist as you can get. The latter is a direct descendant of the Trybuna Ludu (People's Tribune), a Polish version of Pravda; no wonder it supports the pro-Commie point of view. Which, of course, does not mean that their mirrors on the right side of the scene (Dziennik Polski, for instance) are any better. Halibutt

Halibutt, please no general discussion stuff. I brought links to three particular articles that write about the Russophobic trends in Polish society, press and educational system. If the articles are wrong in any way, please point specifically where. I read Polish press occasionally (translated though, because my Polish is very poor) and I can confirm that anti-Russian histeria in Polish press is abundant. Yet again, if the article I linked misrepresents the modern Polish textbooks, please say so rather than go into general discussion that the paper is "pro-Commie". I don't make general statements about someone being a Russophobe. I point to specific reasons that makes me think so. --Irpen 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, indeed Poland got under foreign (Soviet) military occupation in 1945. It was not until several years after the war that the sovereignity over most of the territory was passed to Polish civil authorities. Poland was still occupied, though not as directly as in 1944-1948. As to compensation, no Polish government raised the issue so far as the 1990 treaty on withdrawal of Russian troops and other treaties with former USSR considered the case closed. Neither Poland will pay for COMECON, nor will Russia have to pay for COMECON, economical exploitation of Poland or lack of war indemnities from Germany that were to be paid to Poland by the USSR. The case is closed and I see no reason to bring it here - other than to heathen the dispute.

As to occupation, the problem of whether we should be grateful to the Soviets or not has been active in Polish political and historical thought ever since 1944 and is far from resolved. Do you think we should elaborate on the problem here? Halibutt 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring the issue about compensation here. Piotrus did and I was totally surprized that the issue even exists in anyone's mind and commented on that. --Irpen 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, please stop pasting stuff here from other sites. It makes this talk page hard or impossible to follow. The link is usually enough. You may add a short quote, when necessary, but please no tens of kilobytes worth pasting. This obstructs the discussion rather than helps it. --Irpen 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I read Polish press occasionally (translated though, because my Polish is very poor) and I can confirm that anti-Russian histeria in Polish press is abundant Please give examples. --Molobo 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I will, but at talk:Russophobia and when I get to that. You give me too much work with your edits and I have to postpone things I planned to do. In the meanwhile, please trim the pages long stuff you pasted here and format it to make it easier to read, as I explained to you above. --Irpen 03:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As for comparison of Soviet and Nazi occupations of Poland - [2]. Halibutt 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check what section we are talking about and what the link you posted is related to. Quote you are pointing to: "If we were to asses the comparative damage of the Nazi and Soviet administrations in the parts of Poland each ruled over Sept. 39 through June 41..." And the footnote: "Note that in this time frame the comparison would be limited to the period that preceded the Holocaust". Please site relevant information to the Yalta chapter in question. --Irpen 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I noted it. But still it is a decent explanation of why people in Poland view the brave Soviet soldiers not only as "liberators". Halibutt 06:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. --Irpen 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Urban has been claimed by polish court as comperable to Goebbels

Urban cites Polish textbooks and what he cites does look like falcification of History. Are you saying his quotes are false? Why should I trust the man that was the chief propagandist of communist regime ? Should I next disprove every text of Goebbels ? --Molobo 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, what is Goebels doing here? I forgot that attempting to reason with you is useless. I hope other Polish editors will improve this page. --Irpen 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Goebels and Urban were responsible for directing propaganda of their regimes.Using their achievements as source of objective information isn't recomended. In fact Urban has been named Goebbels of the Martial State several times. When Urban went to court he lost the case, and Judge didn't object to naming Urban with such name-saying that people have right to call him so as their style of propaganda is comperable. You can read it on the Polish wiki.[3] Therefore I suggest using other sources then those of Urban.

--Molobo 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Molobo, please get it. Urban was not used as a source of anything in this article. As for him going to court, I think that that it was silly. The press is free to call him Goebbels, Poland is a country with free press, after all. Such comparisons illustrate no one but the writer who makes them. Of course, the press in free in Poland as long as these are Russians or those label as pro-Russian being attacked. When writing about the Pope, it is a different matter, as Urban himself learned the hard way. --Irpen 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"the issue that Poland has to compensate to the widows and children of the Soviet soldiers who where killed in the course of liberating Poland from Nazism." Treatment of Poles under Soviet rule: http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/chodakiewicz1.htm Communist Torture in Contemporary Sources... --Molobo 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

moved to: Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945)/sources#Communist Torture in Contemporary Sources.

Soviet occupation compared to Nazi Occupation

http://www.ialhi.org/news/i0305_9.html The Soviet Takeover of Eastern Poland Jan T. Gross. Revolution from Abroad: the Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorusssia. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2002. xxiv + 396 pp. Notes, bibliography, and index. $44.89 (cloth). ISBN 0-691-09603-1. Reviewed for H-RUSSIA by Johanna Granville, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (May 2003). Occupation by a Spoiler State: the Soviet Takeover of Eastern Poland (1939-1941) --Molobo 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to: Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)/sources#Soviet_occupation_compared_to_Nazi_Occupation

Missing information

The article misses a lot about Soviet atrocities against Poles and their cooperation in this manner with Germans. You can find extensive information on scale and methods used in atrocities against Poles by Soviets here: http://felsztyn.tripod.com/id15.html --Molobo 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I Removed claims Soviets wanted to help Poles.

Added links to diplomatic exchange between Nazis and Soviets regarding Poland. Added link to information about NKVD operations against Polish forces. --Molobo 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And I NPOVed the article. The tag will stay untill more reasonable Polish editors will return to the article that is now coopted by a Polish nationalist extremist. --Irpen 23:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please state the reasons for the tag.According to the policy they should be mentioned.The material I used is from Yale University which documented diplomatic exchange between Soviet and Nazi states regarding Poland and article by dr Jan Moor-Jankowski. Holocaust of Non-Jewish Poles During WWII. Courtesy of Polish American Congress, Washington Metropolitan Area Division.As well as Andrzej Paczkowski. Poland, the "Enemy Nation", pp. 372-375, in Black Book of Communism. Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, London, 1999. Neither one is an nationalists to my knowlege. Please also state the source and expand the information on your allegations that Soviets wanted to "help" Poles. --Molobo 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, once less extremist Polish editors get to this article, I will resume my participation in its editing. For now, I will wait. However, I will post a couple of reasons that justify the POV tag shortly. --Irpen 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism and NKVD vs. AK

It is controversial, but is this reason enough not to use it as a source and thus put it on the same level as publications of Irving/Stalin Society/Holocaust Denialists? Or are you denying that Soviet arrested, deported or executed many of Home Army members that assisted them in fights against German army?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying it. I simply request to add a ref to something more acceptable. Please deal with pasting that I wrote above. Thanks, --Irpen 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is BBoC not enough for such a short sentence?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another "Polish nationalists extremist" source:IPN http://www.ipn.gov.pl/a_091105_grot_rogut.html --Molobo 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, thanks for the link. As I said, I did not remove the info and we might not even need a ref for such a well-known fact. But if we are adding refs, something more respactble than BB is preferable. May I ask you not to revert me? Please, Molobo. I spend time to write as good as I can and it is aggravating to see such a disrespect of my work. Your rephrasings (of section title, inside of it, etc.) basically tell the same things, but just in POV terms. Please stop it. Also, finally, please address my objections to pasting stuff from other articles and please don't do it anymore just to make a point. Thanks, --Irpen 18:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Irpen I find BB as highly respectable. Certainly your opinion seems very POV towards what is respectable as you trust highly in propagandist chief of communist Poland Jerzy Urban or newspapers like NIE or Trybuna-which aren't regarded in common view as respectable sources.As to your edits-they seem highly POV- I even went to satisfy you and changed occupation of Poland by Soviets to takeover-yet you insist on erasing all data that would document the forcefull implementation of Communist regime in Poland and Soviet atrocities made on Poland. --Molobo 18:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I did not erase anything. I just rephrased same info to NPOV terms. I did not erase the link to BB. I requested something else to be added to this infamous propaganda booklet or remove it. I don't question the claim it supports. I repeat Trybuna and Nie are NOT used in the artcile as a source of anything. The neutral phrasing fot that time is "end of the war". You want to POV alter it, that's all. No data baout atrocities is erased. Write a chapter in your sandbox and paste it to the article (but do not paste from other articles to here though). And do not blank stuff. The source of image is given. --Irpen 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I requested something else to be added to this infamous propaganda booklet or remove it Please cite source claiming it is a an infamours propaganda booklet. Anyway now we have IPN.

The neutral phrasing fot that time is "end of the war" Prison camps, executions of political opponents of foreign control, fake elections, mass terror. How should we describe such activities by Soviet Union in Poland ?

And do not blank stuff. The source of image is given. I don't read Russian neither do I undestand it. Please give translation. --Molobo 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: being controversial doesn't mean being wrong. Calling the book 'infamous propaganda booklet' without giving any sources does look like one's personal POV. Was this book discarded by the academic community as have Irving's works? If not, then I think it is a valid source.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying it is wrong on this issue. It is acceptable as a ref, unlike Irving, but I request an extra ref from a more neutral source. In fact, it is cited to back up something so obvious that no ref is needed at all IMO. I did not add a "fact" remplate to the phrase. I only added it once the BB was added. --Irpen 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

POV-tag at "treatment of citizens..." section

The tag has no reasons listed. If none will be placed here I shall remove it. --Molobo 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation is provided in comments. --Irpen 20:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain. I don't know what your short sentences on comments indicate. --Molobo 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This section needs expantion, references and should be counterbalanced with a section on German actions. I'd actually rename it to 'treatment of citizens by occupying powers'. If references are given, I don't think that the POV tag would be necessary.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The information was taken from Polish PWN encyclopedia: http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/53025_1.html --Molobo 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tnx. Please include references in the article in the first place, it will save us the need to request it later. Interestingly, note that PWN uses term 'occupation' (albeit only for 39-41 period).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, based on your comments ("I AM LEAVING THIS NEW UNREFERENCED MASTERPIECE BY MOLOBO HERE BUT UNTIL THE BACKGROUND OF THE SENTIMENT OF THE POPULATION OF THE TERRITORY TOWARDS POLAND AND REASONS FOR IT ARE PROVIDED FOR BALANCE AND THE SECTION IS REFED TO RESPECTABLE SOURCES, THE TAG WILL STAY") I think that POV-section is not the right tag, as this is not the Wikipedia:NPOV section. I am replacing that template with wikify and stub notices, as the problem of this section (now referenced) is that it's too short and not wikified.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this section has no right to exist untagged in the current form, even if referenced. The issue has to be put in the context of Nazi's treatment of Pole's and to the Polish treatment of non-Poles in this territories prior to Soviet occupation in 1939. --Irpen 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to write such expantion, although you yourself mentioned several times that we should avoid references to times post-45, so I'd assume you'd want to avoid putting too much about pre-39? I think this perhaps would be better put at either History of Poland (1918-1939) or something like Minorities in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why this section is POVed, otherwise the tag is not justified.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, are you kidding? "Soviet occupation implemented a political regime similiar to police state, based on terror". Also see above about the lack of context for the sentiment of the population of the territory towards Poland and Poles and the reasons for it. Additionally, strong statements have to be referenced. Also, I suggest you try to explain to both Halibutt and to Molobo and better yet in English not in Polish why the picture is apropriate and should remain where it is. I am tired to defend it from obviously bad faith pestering. --Irpen 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, are you kidding? "Soviet occupation implemented a political regime similiar to police state, based on terror". I don't get what you mean ? Are you arguing Stalinist Soviet Union wasn't based on terror and a police state ? --Molobo 22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that this is a POV statement. When something is bad, one needs to be precise how bad it is rather than dump the worst possible terms to POV the article. Ohters argue that for the Ukrainians the Second Polish Republic was a Police state and, due to the crimes of AK, "based on terror". No one adds this stuff to the articles but the trolls. -Irpen 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but what are you arguing here ? Is is POV to say that Soviets engaged in terror and police state ? Evidence and examples are quite available and it is rather well established historic fact. I can give countless examples of torture, mass executions, fake trials, intimidation etc. Just what are you arguing here ? --Molobo 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I an arguing that user:Molobo, unlike the scholars, is not allowed to generalize over the crimes of the Soviet regime and conclude on his own that this qualifies for Police state or "based on terror". Such strong statements have to be attributed to the reputable scholars if there are such who said so. And please no quotes from Polish high schools text books. Reputable scholars please. --Irpen 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's from Polish PWN Encyclopedia entry on Soviet Occupation. --Molobo 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Reputable scholars please. Wojciech Roszkowski:

[4] Masters (1971), Doctorate (1978) and professor (1995) Lecturer at the Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., USA (1988-1989). Vice-rector at the Warsaw School of Economics (1990-1993), director of the Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) (1994-2000), Kościuszko Chair of Polish Studies, University of Virginia, USA (2000-2002). I have a couple of his books. --Molobo 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, the entire section is a translated summarized version of PWN Encyklopedia, the most reputable Polish encyclopedia. I eventually plan to expand it with informations from a book by reputable scholar Jan Tomasz Gross. Gross, in the blurb of his book, uses pharases like: 'terrors of the Soviet occupation' and 'totalitarianism'. He also uses the term 'police state' in his book.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What's independence

There were lots of independent countries during the period of Cold War. Great Britain, France, Communist China in later period etc... --Molobo 20:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, there were some others. But most were not. There was nothing specific about Poland in this respect. Please title sections appropriately. "Irpen" is not the proper section title at talk:History of PL page. --Irpen 20:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I see you reinserted this stuff despite my explanations. I hate reverting people even though I have to revert you from time to time. I added "dubious" and let the others judge. The discussion at talk will guide them. --Irpen 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm confused with your comment as well. Are you trying to say that Poland was independent under Soviet occupation or that it is not independent now ? --_Lysy^talk 20:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am saying the Poland was a souvereign state. It was no more or less independent that most of the world. In this context, emphasizing that it was not independent is a POV writing since it aludes to there was something special about Poland at the time. The consept of independence is context dependent. For the time of Cold War Poland there was nothing unusual about Polish status. To call it lack of independence in the article about history without any context is POV. It would have been fine in the Concept of independence in the 20th century or other article devoted to the international relations. --Irpen 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the fact that there were other non-independent countries make Poland more independent ? I don't think so. There was Soviet army in Polish territory throughout all the period, everybody was forced to learn Russian in schools. (BTW: I'm sure both contributed to 20th century Russophobia in Poland) etc. No basic citizen freedoms. How could anyone possibly call it independence ? --_Lysy^talk 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm we are either occupied by Vatican or USA now I believe ;) Anglo-Saxons I have seen also quoted but its a bit rarer in use :P --Molobo 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, there were some others. But most were not. There was nothing specific about Poland in this respect Doesn't matter how many were how many weren't , the only thing that matters is the description is correct as you admit. --Molobo 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, my response it below Lysy's message. --Irpen 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am saying the Poland was a souvereign state.

Not really. Officials from Soviet union were placed to control ministers, and the country was stationed with Soviet troops. All decisions were consulted with Moscow and on several times Soviet troops were used as a threat towards Polish government.

It was no more or less independent that most of the world.

Fortunetely most of the world wasn't part of Soviet Bloc and Brezniew Doctrine. In this context, emphasizing that it was not independent is a POV writing since it aludes to there was something special about Poland at the time. Yes, while the Western Europe enjoyed freedom and democracy(like Britain or France) Poland did not.

"The consept of independence is context dependent."

According to Soviets ?

"For the time of Cold War Poland there was nothing unusual about Polish status. To call it lack of independence in the article about history without any context is POV. It would have been fine in the Concept of independence in the 20th century or other article devoted to the international relations."

Not really-all countries on Wiki have that stated in their entries-that is whetever they are occupied, have satellite status or are puppet states. I am removing the tag as you have provided nothing serious besides personal rant. --Molobo 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Souvereign state is a notion in the international law and even puppet states can be called as such. Soviet troops stationed in Poland, after the power was transferred to the Polish administration, were in no way an occupation army. They did not interfere with local affairs (like in Prague or in Budapest) and where a part of the cold-war stand-off. Of course their presence had a psychological effect, but still, troops stationed at designated bases is not the same as the occupation army that controlls an everyday civilian life. That Soviets had influenced the Polish leadership and played the role of who would become a leader, is again, a very different thing from "occupation". I do not deny anything, Molobo. I am just requesting to use correct terms. --Irpen They did not interfere with local affairs (like in Prague or in Budapest) and where a part of the cold-war stand-of Except of course when they marched on Warsaw in 1956 and hinted doing so again in 1981.

"That Soviets had influenced the Polish leadership" Here is how the "influencing" looked like: http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje42/text05.htm

Za naszym posrednictwem, dzieki Benowi, caly kraj dowiedzial sie w ciagu kilku godzin, ze 19 pazdziernika Chruszczow, Molotow, Mikojan i Kaganowicz w licznej asyscie sowieckiej generalicji wyladowali na Okeciu i ze Ochab, Gomulka, Cyrankiewicz i inni postawieni zostali wobec ultimatum poniechania wyboru Gomulki na pierwszego sekretarza albo zmiazdzenia ich przez sowieckie czolgi Thanks to our mediation, thenks to Benowi, whole country learned in a couple of hours that during 19 October Chruszczow, Molotow, Mikojan i Kaganowicz in assistance of a large group of soviet generals landed on Okącie and that Ochab, Gomulka, Cyrankiewicz were faced with ultimatum of withdrawing election of Gomulka for the First Secretary or being crushed by Soviet tanks. --Molobo 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting quote about Soviet liberation and occupation: from Neal Ascherson's book, The Polish August: "The Stalinist epoch in Poland was at once sinister and grotesque, a period in which the party ruled through open police terror... Poland was opened to almost uncontrolled Soviet economic exploitation, through one-sided terms of trade, while the bureaucracy was in some areas thoroughly penetrated by Soviet advisers. All this was accompanied by deafening propaganda devoted to imaginary successes and to equally imaginary espionage or subversion plots against the regime."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Treatment of the Polish citizens under Soviet occupation

Discussion

Based on history of Poland 1914-1997 by Wojciech Roszkowski and the study of Gross:

While Germans enforced their policy based on theories of racism, Soviet administration used slogans about class warfare, and dictatorship of the proletariat. In addition Soviets exploited past ethnic tension between Poles and other ethnic groups, inciting and encouraging violence against Poles for example using slogans such as "Poliakam, panam, sobakam sobachaia smert!" (To Poles, landowners, and dogs, a dog's death!). Poland was portayed as capitalist state based on exploitation of workers, ethnic minorities. Circa 230.000 Polish prisoners taken by Red Army were handed over to NKVD in October 1939, at the same time Soviet Union denied such people the status of POWs. Authorities arrested many known Polish politicians such as Kozłowski, Sapieha, town mayors, members of city councils , activists of political parites, union members, judges, priests, professors, writers, social workes, former generals, railway workes, post workers, foresters.

People imprisoned were accused of working for the Polish state based on article 58 of codex of Ukrainian SSR or article 45 of the codex of Russian Russian SFSR that dealt with the crime of "counterevolutionary action". Previous work for Poland was interpreted as "crime against revolution and proletariat". Special Soviet courts, often denied the the accused the right for defence, and based their sentences on fictional accusations and forced testimonies.

How about that for beginning ? Fellow up will include deportations, gulags and their conditions, short mention about the murder of Polish prisoners and Katyn, and living conditions on Soviet occupied territories. --Molobo 10:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on writing the para from the scratch. Halibutt 11:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly done. Take a look at User:Halibutt/Soviet and tell me what's missing. Halibutt 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, given lack of backup and Piotrus' advice to put it on trial by fire, I will replace the current stub-like wording with that one. It still needs some work and, with time, it might grow into a separate article (if I understand that correctly this is what Irpen suggested at my talk page). Anyway, waiting for comments either here or at my talk page. Halibutt 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, too bad you could not wait because this stirred the hornet's nest. Molobo immediately resumed the reverting of unrelated parts of the article and now we have to deal with this one too. Some comments:

• You put verbatim some text Molobo posted earlier. (Like: While Germans enforced their policies based on racism, the Soviet administration used slogans about class warfare, and dictatorship of the proletariat.) I suggest you check with Molobo whether this is his writing or someone else's because he is known for pasting stuff from outside pages all around Wikipedia. If this is the case, this is a copyvio that needs addressed before we even get to the statement itself. Simialrly, check the rest posted by Molobo if you are using it.
• Lviv University. Please address the current way this is addressed. If I remember correctly, it was evacuated to Rostov-on-Don during the war in order to preserve this excellent academic school. It was restarted after the war and greatly expanded and it taught not only history. All academic disciplines were expanded making it one of the leading research and studying institutions in Ukraine. ALso, notably, it was not russified unlike many other institutions in UA and remained primarily Ukrainophone throughout its history. That is if this belongs to the article at all. This all happened after the war and the article only goes to 1945.
• "Exploiting" past ethnic tensions needs context to make sure the reader gets a clue what the hell it is all about. Without getting into the hundreds of years of Polish benevolent rule of its Ukrainian subjects, at least the Policies of the interbellum following the crushing of Ukrainian movement for self-determination, as well as violation by Poland of its international obligations towards Ukrainians is needed at least
• "... among Ukrainian minorities".. Well, perhaps the Ukrainians were the minority in Poland overall, but not in Galicia and Volhynia, please correct that.
• "large number" murdered is totally unencyclopedic. Please numbers.

Please address these issues for now and please try to convince Molobo not to use this opportunity to resume revert wars regarding other parts of the article which he already started. --Irpen 06:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I saw no need to wait as the section was a sect-stub and I considered it not a part of your original disagreement with Molobo. Besides, after some initial chatter on proposed solutions the discussion stalemated with neither you nor Ghirlandajo posting any proposed wordings or sources. Perhaps with the except for your bizarre love for Poles liberating Moscow and Soviets liberating Vienna, that is. As to specific issues:

1. Indeed, I incorporated some of the previous version. I didn't care much whether it was Molobo's or anyone else's. Google does not show any links for those phrases, and I see no other way to check whether it is a copyvio or not. Unless proven otherwise, I believe we should give the author the benefit of a doubt.
2. Lviv University... perhaps what you write could be added to the article on the university itself, but this is outside of the scope of this article. Of course, the university was severely Ukrainized rather than Russified (true). Lots of professors arrested, others allowed to return to it provided they teach Soviet vision of the world. After 1945 it indeed became primarily Ukrainophone, though I doubt it could be said of the first Soviet occupation. Anyway, this seems well outside of the scope of this article.
3. Again, you'd need to point me to what you actually mean. As to international obligations, perhaps you mean that Poland was obliged to organize a referendum in Western Ukraine in... 1945 (or 25 years after 1920). Of course, Poland failed to abide by the LoN ruling, which however can't be blamed on the Poles, can it. Or perhaps there are some other details you might want to inlude? Anyway, I agree with you that we could point to some other article for a batter explanation. How about linking the statement to, say, history of Ukraine?
4. The same problem would be raised if we called that a "Ukrainian majority" (which it was not). Any idea how to reword that?
5. I sourced the "large number" and will look into it a tad more this evening.

Halibutt 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, we frozen this article in order to allow for some issues to be solved at the talk page. However, you should take part in what is being discussed at the talk page, otherwise I see no need to blame the end of the cease-fire on anyone. I addressed the issues above, could you be so kind as to address the issues below? Halibutt 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, as for my "bizarre love", I don't quite get what you mean. It is either too a good joke for me to understand or too a bad joke that only an author understands. Now, to the issues:

• Lviv University. I don't know which university you went to where perhaps the teaching was restricted to the anti-"Soviet vision of the world" but the universities I went to, as well as most others, teach more on specific scholarly disciplines than some "vision of the world". You know, like Math, Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Biology, Medical sciences, etc. "Visionary" subjects, like history, too of course but this is not the most widely tought subject, while of course also important. At any rate, if you say the post-war history of the University is not important, please remove your "reopened soon after the war ended, but from then on could teach only the Soviet vision of history." First this is about after the war, so "out of scope" as per yourself. Secondly, it is incorrect since "vision of the world" was a very small part of what it was teaching. I personally know wuite a few scientits graduated from this University and they seem to know much more than a "vision".
• on the context of Ukrainian feeling towards Poles in Galicia and Volhynia, what caused that as well as on them being called the "minority" in the area, I did not bring this to the article. But since you did, I will elaborate myself because you seem unwilling. I will get to it as soon as I have time. I doubt you will like the result, but well... What I write never pleases you, does it? Sorry, I am out of time for now... --Irpen 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your devotion to "liberation" is well explained in the section on image caption.

It is perfectly related to this article as a) the war referred to is the Polish Defensive War of 1939, which is within the scope of this article. And the university was Ukrainized and Sovietized during that time. You know, Polish students, but Ukrainian and Russian language of teaching, Soviet vision of history, linguistics, biology (Lysenko, anyone?) and so on.

You got me wrong, I'm not unwilling to expand on anything, I'm simply curious as to what is it that you mean. Anyway, how about my proposal to link it to History of Ukraine? Halibutt 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And the university was Ukrainized and Sovietized during that time. I actually have first hand witness descriptions about what happened in Polish educational system under Soviet occupation from http://www.osw.waw.pl/, in one of their published books. I could give you information about that next week if you desire. Of course it's rather different from Irpens praise of Soviet activities. It describes in detail what changes were made in teaching, how Polish students were treated, and what was the attituded of population towards new rules and teachers, as well as having some direct memoirs reflecting the atmosphere. --Molobo 13:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with Irpen's changes, eventhough some of he wrote is a complete nonsense.

* Citizens of Poland were forced to take Soviet citizenship. changed into Citizens of Poland of non-Polish ethnicity had to take Soviet citizenship.. A complete nonsense as all inhabitants of those areas (excluding those in prisons, concentration camps and bound for population transfer with the Nazis) were forced to adopt Soviet citizenship, be them of Polish, Jewish or Swedish descent. Halibutt 12:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As to what I wrote above, a simple google book search might be instructive here. Also, I'm sure there was a faculty of Ukrainian (and most probably Russian as well) at the university long before the town was occupied by the Soviets. There's more on sovietization and ukrainization of the university here. More on general history of that university (including the status of Ukrainian language before and after the 1879 statute) can be found here. The most important part is that after that date the students could even pass exams in Ukrainian, provided there was a competent professor speaking that language. Halibutt 14:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the Soviet citizenship, I simply found your quote misleading since it implies that the entire Polish population was Sovietize. However, correct me if I am wrong, most of whatever Polish population was left at the Soviet side of the new border was transferred to Poland after the war. I can't remember where I read about this action, but I am pretty sure I read it somewhere. The Soviets had their claim on entire Ukrainian and Belarusian population and used it as a justification of '39 occupation. Perhaps they would have liked to get rid of Polish statehood as a whole, but they saw such an aim unrealistic and in the end of the day didn't object to a separate Polish state, as the country of the Polish nation with Polish, rather than Soviet citizenship. That they made sure it becomes the Soviet satellite state is also true but that's a different issue. However, powered with the link you provided in the google search, I can see that what you wrote is certainly false. From what I read, we can reasonably say, that people where "pressured to take" Soviet citizenship. Read your links and see for yourself[5], [6], [7].

Finally, as far as the Lviv University is concerned, I can't check your Polish sources. I wish I knew Polish. But I am pretty sure my info is correct. Everything there is from the universities own web-site. --Irpen 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OMG... sure, most were expelled after the war. However, it was after the Nazi-Soviet alliance was broken, after the Sikorski-Mayski Agreement made the earlier Soviet pacts with Hitler null and void, after the Soviets agreed to an amnesty thus releasing many Poles from the Soviet paradise and so on. The chapter you added your own views to is specifically dedicated to the 1939-1941 period.

As to the rest of your assumptions- you are perfectly entitled to them. However, these are nothing more but your own expectations of what would USSR be should there be no war with Hitler. What ifs do not belong to an encyclopaedia, do they.

As to the specific question of Soviet citizenship, nobody asked the inhabitants of those lands (unless of course we accept the elections as an expression of anyone's will). The people that indeed were asked were the refugees, in huge part Jewish, so they couldn't chose not to accept Soviet citizenship anyway. Call it pressure, call it blackmail, call it anything you please. In any way many (if not most) of those who decided to leave the Soviet paradise and try their luck in German-occupied Poland were sent to Siberia anyway, so the questionnaire did not matter much. But of course you're right that one could refuse to accept the Soviet citizenship, just like an Auschwitz prisoner could refuse to bow his head before a camp guard. At least in theory.

As to the university's website and your recent changes of the article... well, wrong again. You're applying double standards here to prove some point. If the tuition fee was indeed prohibiting the rural population to enter the university, then it worked for Poles, Jews, Ukrainians or Germans alike. At the same time you suggest that the tuition (quite a common thing in all universities of the world) was specifically anti-Ukrainian, which is just plainly wrong. Especially that a large percentage of students was Ukrainian anyway (1907 Ukrainian students' riots, anyone?). In 1934/1935 the Greek Catholic students constituted some 13% of all the students there (some half percent were Orthodox).

Same goes to your Polonophile traditions remark, which is a complete nonsense and a blatant POV. Is Moscow University Rusophile, Oxford Britophile and Sorbonne Francophile? Also, the chair of Ukrainian was there since times immemorial. The first faculty of Ruthenian, as it was called back then, was opened in 1767. Germanized by the Austrians, the university again admitted lectures in Ukrainian in 1850 (at the same time there were no lectures in Polish there). In 1871 for the first time since the partitions the University was de-Germanized. And guess what, the two lecture languages allowed were... Polish and Ukrainian. It was then that Ivan Franko started his studies there. The basic language was later changed to Polish and Ukrainian remained the basic language in the case of faculties where there was a significant number of Ukrainians (mostly theology). And again, this had nothing to do with alleged polonophilia, but with the fact that there were practically no Ukrainian students there at that time. It was not until 20th century that the percentage of Ukrainian students exceeded the percentage of Ukrainians living in Lwów. The official site of the modern university, while severely Ukrainocentric, mentions that Ukrainian Language and Literature have been taught at the University since 1848 when the Department of the Ukrainian Language and Literature was founded by Ya. Holovats'kyi (1814-1888), author of the works "A Grammar of the Ruthenian (Ukrainian) Language". [8]. Was it the Soviets to open it? In 1926 it was closed down only to be reopened the following academic year. It was headed by Yaniv even after the Soviets took over the city. The faculties that indeed were opened and were not there before were the following: Marxism-Leninism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Political Economy, Russian Language, Russian Literature, History of the USSR and History of Ukraine. If that's not Sovietization then what is it? Halibutt 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, don't comment out statements you find incredible. Just use the proper {{fact}} tags instead. Halibutt 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And finally, I really do not understand some of your doubts. The rule of NKVD arresting anyone they please and keeping everyone at bay by means of terror is a typical example of a police state and rule of terror. Doesn't it fall under the common knowledge' category? Should I provide citations explaining that the Party ruled the people by means of a secret police terrorizing anyone? Or is a link to Stalinism enough?

Same goes to your doubts concerning the class struggle. It is a basic concept of Marxism, highlighted even in the 1980's, though not as strongly as during the life of Stalin. What's strange with that? Halibutt 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• See Gross: [9] It turned out, however, that the actual conferring of citizenship required each person's consent. One could, despite threats. Once could despite threats refuse the Soviet passport
• Moscow University certainly was Russophile. The difference was that it was a Russophile institution of the ethnically Russian territory. Lviv University was a Polonophile institution in the territory with ethnically Ukrainian majority that Poland failed to Polonize in the interbellum similarly to how it failed to Polonize them by the hundreds years before in the real and hypothetical tollerant commonwealths.
• Tuition: well of course tuition itself would have stopped anyone from impoverished background. However, a poorer rural population was walled off disproportionately. Rural population was primarily Ukrainophone.
• The text you pasted from Molobo is indeed directly from Gross. Please rephrase it.
• I will add the "fact" template when I find the information possible but needed a ref to be sure. However, the usage of "dictatorship of ploretariat" in late 30s seems like nonsense, an outdated anachronism. The Stalin's 1936 Soviet Constitution was called a consitution of the of the Socialism achieved in general, it made "proletarian dictatorship" obsolete granting suffrage (however meaningless) to an entire population. So, I can't leave this nonsense in the article unless it is referenced, and even then, it should be there attributed to the author, who probably made a mistake.
• "Police state" is a specific term and cannot be applied arbitrary. I mean there are different names for different things and even bad things have different words to call them. Not every mass killing is a Genocide. There is a difference between the words authoritarian state, totalitarian state and dictatorship. It is not up to you to apply the "common knowledge" to classify the states as you see fit. -Irpen 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lviv University was a Polonophile institution in the territory with ethnically Ukrainian majority

According to all data I had seen Ukrainians didn't constitute a majority in those areas. True Poles didn't form the overall majority of people but they were the largest group. "Police state" is a specific term and cannot be applied arbitrary Oh what then a word to use for a state that introduced school classes urging children to give reports on views of their parents, giving financial rewards for such information ? There is a difference between the words authoritarian state, totalitarian state and dictatorship Term totalitarian dictatorship is quite accepted for Stalinist USSR. --Molobo 23:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. According to Soviet law one could also refuse to take part in the elections, refuse to take part in staged trials or refuse to take part in the May Day demonstrations. And..?
2. Perhaps it could give you a clue that nobody tried to polonize Ukrainians in the interbellum... \
3. Just like rural population around Kraków was too poor to send their children to Jagiellonian University, rural population from outside Oxford was too poor to send their children there and so on. Of course, the free of charge education with points granted for one's background rather than knowledge and with no tuition fees was one of the gains of communist system and I don't deny that. However, linking it with some alleged national struggle is a nonsense. As to what you wrote about Moscow, it is also wrong. Lwów University was a Polish university in a Polish city, just like Moscow University was a Russian university in a Russian town, at least until the Soviet seizure of power. It is simply a normal thing in non-communist states that universities educate higher classes with peasants being a minority there.
4. I'd say be bold... or tell me which text is it.
5. Then remove the dictatorship - or add the proper tag. However, commenting out remarks you find dubious is not the proper way to do it. It's like holding an article hostage to your own views.
6. So what is the term you'd apply to Soviet Russia during the stalinist years? Anyway, I'll link to some books calling Soviet Russia a police state for now and will see what will you come up with. Halibutt 13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Soviet law one could also refuse to take part in the elections, refuse to take part in staged trials or refuse to take part in the May Day demonstrations. And..?

According to the publication of Elżbieta Trela Mazur such people were imprisoned or killed or be subject to expulsion. --Molobo 23:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users Halibutt and Irpen should rejoice at this splendid news. In order to have an informative analysis of Soviet policies in occupied Poland during 1939-1941 I acquired a throughout scholary work on this issue, mainly Educational policy in occupied eastern areas of the Second Polish Republic in 1939-1941 by doctor Elżbieta Trela-Mazur(here are her qualifications[10] and the publication Forms of constraint applied by the Soviet authorities in relation to the people of Wilejka region by renoknown scholar of Slavic studies in Wrocław Professor Franciszek Sielicki. Both publications present an excellent analysis of Soviet occupation and are full of various interesting data. --Molobo 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the dictatorship of proletariat Irpen was so angry about, there is a pretty decent source there. In addition, the same slogans were used by the commies as late as 1950's, so I really see no reason why is Irpen constantly deleting the sentence he doesn't like. BTW, by definition the basic difference between Social-Democracy and Communism is that the earlier doctrine opposes the dictatorship of proletariat and revolutionary changes. Which is why, for instance, until 1947 the Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe opposed the imposition of d-o-p in Poland (as mention, for instance, in their own page here). And not that such slogans were important anyway, as the verbal reality of the Soviet paradise was quite different from what was actually happening there (1984 anyone?). //Halibutt 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a full quote from the source used for "Dicatorship of Proletariat" assertion. It would be helpful to know how solid the source and its author is. It sounds like nonsense to me even if sourced. I am not removing it, I am requesting additional info.

Besides, Halibutt, please don't be lazy. You deep-reverting undoes much work in restructuring, paragraphing, etc. You may badmouth me on my talk page and here all you want. By amount of rude remarks to my address you've earn yourself a honorable second place after AndriyK already. In no way being rude and aggressive makes you more convinsing.

Polonophilic traditions of the University info is restored. It is a fact and it is important in this particular context. That Krakow was also Polonophilic is a very different thing. Krakow was a Polish university in the ethnically Polish territory. Lviv, was a Polish University in the ethnically Ukrainian territory which makes the issue a bit different. Tuition was the barrier for anyone with impoverished background, true. However, a rural population, beeing on the poorer side, was walled off disproportionately. Rural population was primarily Ukrainophone. That tuition in Krakow walled off the rural population didn't result in ethnic discrimination, only discrimination of the poor. It is quite different, when the tuition is also an ethnical barrier and it is notable.

Why did you delete "(legislative body)" near Supreme Soviet? Or you think it is too obvious?

Krivoshein was a redlink while his article exists. I corrected it. Why does anyone need to emphasize that his paternal name was "Moiseevich"? His article is titled just Semyon Krivoshein without paternal name. Why use it here except to emphasize that he was Jewish? It creates an unnecessary point that Jewish and German commanders celebrated the defeat of Poland? I hope I am right that this wasn't the original intention.

Besides, is the parade so important to be mentioned in such a broad article as History of Country? It's not a September Campaign article. Is this the most important parade in the history of Poland? Why don't I see other Parades in this or other articles in the History of PL series. For instance, the 1920 Rydz-Smigly's "parade of victors-liberators" on Khreschatyk, Kiev, about which Tadeusz Machalski (the future general) wrote in his diary: "Ukrainian people, who saw in their capital an alien general with the Polish army... didn't view is as the act of liberation but as a variety of a new occupation. Therefore, the Ukrainians, instead of enthusiasm and joy, watched in gloomy silence..."[11] I will surely add this info to Kiev Offensive, but how much up in article's breadth would Halibutt want me to go with this info? Would "Polish-Soviet War" main article be OK? Can I also add this to History of Kiev? Can I add this to History of Ukraine? To Military History of Poland? To History of Poland itself? I hope my message is getting through....

Next: we cannot have claims that are sourced to the author who is not sure about them himself ("allegedly" dog's death). With the author's own disclaimer, it is too weak to be used.

I don't understand the complaints that I comment out the material, that I think doesn't belong to the article, instead of deleting it. I leave it in the article so that it can still be discussed and rephrased. It's still being there would make finding a compromise easier. Who is hurt by hidden comments? Halibutt calls this "vandalism" similarly to how he calls most anything he disagrees with. I have to refer my honorable opponent to WP:VAND#What vandalism is not.

Why was my dividing the text in paragraphs reverted? Oppression of media is better related to oppression of religion rather than to a separate, while notable, citizenship issue. And so on and so forth. I take hours to merge useful stuff from my opponents and it is upsetting to see them beeing lazy reverting. --Irpen 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

ignoring the comments at talk and pretending they are not there

On April 10, Halibutt, despite the explanations above, reverted me yet again with the following frivolous summary: "remove Irpen's speculations - unprovable and not responded to at the talk page". In fact, the explanations above are here for two weeks by now. If you have nothing to respond, please don't pretend I said nothing. Best regards, --Irpen 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Resistance to the Soviets

1. A dispute between Molobo and Irpen whether the Soviets clashed with anti-Communist resistance or with all sorts of independence movements, be them anti-Communist or anti-anything.
2. Also, a dispute whether the fact that the Soviets usually responded with executions, deportations and arrests of Home Army members that assisted them in fights against German army should be mentioned or not.
3. Proposed wording:

---

Discussion

Polish nationalist hysteria

I find the following a ridiculous statement fuelled by Polish nationalist hysteria:

"Both occupants wanted not only to gain Polish territory, but also to destroy Polish culture and nation. The inhuman policies of both Hitler and Stalin were clearly aimed at the total extermination of Polish citizens, both Jews and Christians. Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide. [1]"

To suggest that the USSR sought to "destroy the Polish culture and nation" and aimed for the "total extermination of Polish citizens" is patently absurd. The only way it can be considered true is if one considers imposing a different polical and economic system on a country to be "destroying" it - a rather strange position. Most would consider the statement to read that Stalin set out to physically eliminate the Polish population which obviously did not happen. Poland is still with us. If Stalin had intended to eliminate Poland I am sure it would not be.

The USSR imposed its political and economic system on Poland with ruthlessness, this is very different from genocide, so we should not use such emotive and innacurate terms. Booshank 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

...Stalin's aim to ensure that an independent Poland would never reemerge in the postwar period. The prisons, ghettos, internment, transit, labor and extermination camps, roundups, mass deportations, public executions, mobile killing units, death marches, deprivation, hunger, disease, and exposure all testify to the 'inhuman policies of both Hitler and Stalin' and 'were clearly aimed at the total extermination of Polish citizens, both Jews and Christians. Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide.' That's an academic source for you to read through.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Academic? A partisan review is a nationalist Polish diaspora magazine. But that aside, Piotrus, you saw Piotrowski's book, right? That very book of which this "academic" article claim to be a "review". Booshank has a point. Have you seen a piece in the book that would suggest that Stalin's aim was to exterminate Poles, as Hitler wanted to do with Jews. And really honestly, do you think this was the case? However much this masterpiece article reeks with POV, I won't be surprised if it gets rated "B-level". I won't interfere though. Article speaks for itself. I tried to de-POV it at some point but long since give up. I don't even POV tag is since this is redundant. --Irpen 05:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked if Piotrus really believes that Stalin intended to exterminate Poles. Let my express my opinion as well (for myself). I see destruction of nation's upper classes (intelligentsia in this case) as the first step towards exterminating it. Assuming of course Stalin knew what he was doing, but his success seems to confirm that he was a genius. Hitler and Stalin used the same techniques (e.g. arresting university professors and deporting them to concentration camps etc.). This is also why issues like Katyn massacre, handling the Warsaw uprising or mass deportations of intelligentsia seem so important to the hysteric Poles. The structure of the nation was damaged beyond repair for many years by these and similar actions, that many (myself included) believe were deliberate. --Lysy^talk 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that crushing the intellectual elite undermines the national character to a great degree. No one here is questioning that it happened. The issue is whether this amounts to be called a "Genocide of Polish nation" just like the Hitler's official policy, known as the Final Solution. The answer is no. Bad things have their names and using worse names for things already bad undermine the credibility of the article. --Irpen 06:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Genocide is rather physical elimination and Stalin did not need to do this, as he could afford to slowly assimilate the weakened nation, as he almost managed to do with Ukrainians. I believe Hitler's intentions could have been more "physical" (see e.g. Łapanka) but as this did not happen and there are not many documents available, all these are mostly speculations for now. --Lysy^talk 07:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And in view of that, please have a second look at the quote from the article in the top of this section. I italicized it for clarity. Now you can see that there might be a problem here. If this is what the so called "academic source" says, it speaks for the source. Piotrowski's book does not make such sweeping generalization. --Irpen 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to see a lead of an article like a summary of sourced statement presented in its body. Also, I consider using words like "clearly" quite inappropriate in this context. Let's not rush and wait to see what Piotrus thinks. --Lysy^talk 07:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the lead first of all to not include nonsense, like the statement "Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide.<ref name="JOG"/> " Where "JOG is the Review of the book by Piotrowski that does not say such thing. Besides, we agreed that the term is inapplicable. This speaks much about the, as Piotrus called, "academic" source. It puzzles me why you reverted to this statement claiming that it was "not discussed". --Irpen 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the merit. But I disagree with speedy edits while Piotrus who apparently is of different opinion so far is not here. I'd rather prefer or harmonious behaviour. I've moved the "genocide" sentence out of the lead. As for "not discussed" I did not see Mikka discussing it but rather flying and impatiently changing the article. --Lysy^talk 08:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikka's edits naturally followed from the discussion here at talk. --Irpen 08:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue of alleged "genocide" in Soviet Union was discussed countless times in wikipedia in various places. Soviet policy was elimination of "social enemies", not nations. Time to learn it. As for destruction of culture, I have to agree, whatever the goal was, the result was a significant degree of destruction, or, rather, twisting into socialist way. I don't know how to put it correctly, therefore don't edit. But no one in his mind would claim that Polish culture was totally destroyed or itwas a goal. `'mikka (t) 09:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also time to learn that one does not always take the official Soviet policies or doctrines for their face value. I thought you would know this. I agree that no mass scale Soviet genocide of Polish nation happened. As to whether it was planned we don't know. And personally I doubt it was. --Lysy^talk 09:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Are you defending restoration of this nonsense citation referred to the prop review of a serious book? Instead, try to find this nonsense claim in the book itself. Until then, please seize restoring this. Since for now the Genocidal claim is not there, I agree on removal of the POV tag even thought the article just reeks with the Polish POV elsewhere in the text. --Irpen 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've already learnt that Irpen and Lysy will not always understand each other, especially if we get into nuances that we (at least I) would probably not care to discuss with many other editors. Not a big deal. I guess we can live with that. --Lysy^talk 09:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

While genocide is obviously a strong term, please take a look at it's definition: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. As Stalin's aim, especially during the years 39-41, was to destroy Polish elites, I think that this term is applicable here. Ipren asks if Piotrowski has stated that Soviets attempted genocide on the Polish nation: while I have unfortunatly run out of the number of pages to preview on Google Print, from p.32 the following fragment should answer your question: "...Nazi-Soviet attempt at genocide...". Another book useful in this disscussion would certainly be the one that uses this term in their title: Blank Pages: Soviet Genocide against the Polish People, A.& M. Malcher, Pyrford Press, 1993, UK. Sarmatian Review is an official academic publication by a US university, and Ipren's attempts to portray it as some "nationalist Polish diaspora magazine" only show his unfamiliarity with academic press. Because of this I think we have enough to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS and use the term genocide in relation to Soviet polices towards Poland. Nonetheless I'd recommend that we mention that while Nazi genocide is undisputed, Soviet genocide is a more controversial term, not the least because (as this interesting reading suggests, among others) we still don't have full access to Russian archives, and thus the Soviet side of Polish tragedy is much less known then the Nazi one. PS1. From [12]: "Because of the circumstances of the Katyn Massacre, i.e. the fact that it was planned down to the very last detail by the highest party and state authorities of the USSR and carried out by the state apparatus under their authority, and on account of the scale and cruelty of the extermination of thousands of innocent people and the motives of the perpetrators, there is justification in considering the permissibility of applying the qualification of genocide within the meaning of art. 11 of the convention of 9 December 1948 [...] Hence, this action assumed the status of genocide as described in art. II of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The view whereby the extermination of Polish citizens is an act of genocide was also expressed in the USSR?s stance during the trial of Nazi war criminals before the Nuremberg Tribunal after the end of World War II." PS2. Please, also, keep in mind that a lot of books with 'genocide' in title discuss Soviet activities in Poland: [13].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just came by here, but I would certainly say that Nazi Germany and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union, wished to destroy the Polish elite, especially the intellectual elite, and to essentially destroy Polish culture. Their methods of doing so do, I think, fall barely inside the now-accepted definitions of genocide. It's not a blatant and uncontroversial case, though. The use of the word "genocide" in passing is likely to be misleading: one should be very clear as to what they actually did, and to mention that it falls within the now-codified definition of attempted genocide. - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Material that may belong here

The following may belong here or in a related article; it was cut from Ethnic Germans, which was certainly not the appropriate place for the material.

One Jewish survivor, Marek Edelman, mirroring the feelings of older Poles said

They say there were evil and good Germans. But why didn't I have the luck during this whole time of finding a good one? I didn't meet a single good German, only those who hit me in the face. Yes I am sorry for the girl that died during expulsions. But I have no pity for the Germans as a nation. They put Hitler in power. German society lived for five years from occupied Europe; lived from me, and my friends. To me they gave two slices of bread, while Germans ate as much as they wanted. That is why it is important that they continue penance. Let them cry for long, long time - maybe then they will finally realise that to Europe they were the executioner[…] They don't deserve mercy, they deserve penance. And that for many generations, because otherwise their arrogance and haughtiness shall return

The original Polish is

Tak, szkoda mi dziewczyny, która z małym dzieckiem zginęła podczas wypędzenia. Ale nie mam żadnej litości dla narodu niemieckiego. Bo to on wyniósł Hitlera do władzy. To społeczeństwo niemieckie przez pięć lat żyło z okupowanej Europy: żyło ze mnie i z moich przyjaciół, bo mnie dawali dwa deko chleba dziennie, a Niemcy jedli do woli. Dlatego tak ważne jest, by dalej musieli pokutować. Niech długo, długo płaczą - może wtedy dojdzie do ich świadomości, że byli katem dla Europy[...] Nie należy się im miłosierdzie, należy się im pokuta. I to przez wiele pokoleń, bo inaczej wróci ta ich pycha i buta.

The source is Nie litować się nad Niemcami, Tygodnik Powszechny, NR 33 (2823), 17 August 2003. Accessed online 8 July 2006.

- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope and Title Change

I am not sure if recent changes - specificlly, renaming 'Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers' to 'Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)' and merging parts of 'History of Poland (1939-1945)' here are beneficial. First, treatment of Polish citizens had a clearly defined scope. Occupation is much broader, and I see no difference between occupation... and history... names - I'd even suggest merging them (based on title). However 'treatment...' was actually split from 'history...' to be a subarticle describing treatment in detail. I believe the article should be renamed back and brought to the previous state.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a judgment call whether to be bold and just move the article or to propose the move first and discuss it. Obviously, I chose the first option. It may have been too bold.

My sense is that this article should discuss the "occupation" (i.e. the non-military aspects of the period) while Invasion of Poland can handle the military side. I had a visceral reaction to the old title because it just doesn't sound like a title that you would expect in an encyclopedia. Clearly the topic is encyclopedic but the title doesn't sound quite right. The bulk of the article is still about the treatment of citizens under German and Soviet occupation but I think this new title is better. Obviously, I will bow to consensus if other editors disagree.

--Richard 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly object to the recent development. Yes, the article was unencyclopedic but the topic is valid in its own right. By moving the article and pasting into it the pieces from the other article, the content fork to History of Poland (Year1-Year2) has been created. Moreover, unilateral controversial moves is a definite no-no. I suggest restoring the status quo and proceeding from there by discussion on what to do next. --Irpen 21:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please never ever move articles on the whim. Editing is one thing and being bold is often a good idea. But not moving the articles. Moves spilled much more blood than any edit wars in Wikipedia. I will move it back and remove the copy-pasted pieces. We can than continue the discussion at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On a second though, I see the point of the new title beeing better indeed. But not the content forking. I will just remove the pasted pieces and I will leave it to others to move it back, of deemed necessary. --Irpen 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad Irpen sees my point about the title. I apologize if moving the article was too bold. I will therefore wait to see if any other editors have an opinion before venturing to move it again. As it stands, Irpen seems to be in favor of the new title Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) but without the text that was copy-pasted from History of Poland (1939-1945) while Piotrus seems to be opposed to the new title.

I've explained my reasoning for the proposed move. Anybody else have an opinion?

--Richard 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Leopold Lewin

Can someone translate this?

Leopold Lewin (ur. 1910 w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim, zm. 1995 w Warszawie) - poeta.

W latach 1939 – 1944 w ZSRR. Autor m.in. wierszy z tzw. nurtu realizmu socjalistycznego (np. wiersz "Pieśń Partii Zjednoczonych").

--Richard 08:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Leopold Lewin for you :) In the future, you may want to ask for that on WP:PWNB. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Development

Richard, thanks for your hard work and large effort you are putting into the development into the article. On the side note, this Piotrus' was his usual style "more-bang-for-a-buck" act. Tendentiously POVing the article by going straight to the intro with POV-pushing. First, it is clear that the Poles were the minority in both Belarusian and Ukrainian lands respectively. Putting the emphasis that they comprised a plurality overall distorts the picture the causal reader gets. It's like giving the average body temperature over the whole pool of patients in the hospital. Further, why the stuff that the Nazi policies were harsher than the Soviet ones removed and replaced by genocide talk referenced to a review in a Polish diaspora journal? And if the ref must be added, why put it straight to the intro? Piotrus did just one meaningful edit here and of course it was this one.

Genocide is a serious word and can only be used if this is a widely accepted in the mainstream view of the issue, not an opinion of a single article. --Irpen 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, it is you who is POV-pushing - and without any references. You write "it is clear that the Poles were the minority in both Belarusian and Ukrainian lands respectively" (no ref) and remove my reference about Poles being the biggest ethnic group... Same goes for your claim that Nazis were worse than the Soviets (we have refs comparing them, and IIRC Gross argues that Soviets were harsher, will look for it). And it is important summary of stuff discussed later, thus belongs in lead - those are not minor details, they are crucial points.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the ref Piotrus to address your pestering. Please do not tell me you have not seen it. --Irpen 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was not denying Ukrainians and Belarusians together outnumbered Poles - it was actually stating that... Please don't remove again referenced facts not to your liking.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus snuck in a revert while I was editing the article and I found out via an edit conflict. It is probably easier for him to edit my version than it is for me to redo my edits so I am going to save my version over his last edit. Piotrus, if you hate my edits, then revert them but please consider just making your edits over mine as I think (naturally) that my edits improve the article.

--Richard 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I have no idea what 'snuck revert' are you talking about.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, the point was not that Ukrainian +Belarusians outnumbered the Poles. The point is each of them outnumbered the Poles in their respective ethnic territory. Don't tell me you did not know that this was an idea. Further, the point about the article is not only its being referenced, but that the material is presented in the proper place rather than tendentiously inserting the same stuff all over the articles. No more Russian Enlightenment-style trolling please. --Irpen 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I am now waiting for an apology for an accusation of trolling.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that your activity at RE was not aimed at disrupting the article? --Irpen 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the part of that article that I edited is most developed and referenced, no, the only disruption there were your constant attempts to prevent me from expanding and improving that article. As, apparently, is the case here, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That article was finally improved when the irrelevant info you were pushing there was cut out. This is the same I am trying to achieve here, keeping the article on topic and avoiding tendentious presentation of giving certain issues an undue weight. --Irpen 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the well-referenced info I added to the article - about Catherine's eventual turning away from the ideals of the Enlightenment - remains there with support of majority of editors; only a minor fact about the origins of the Russian Imperial Library was judged too detailed and I after some discussion I agreed that it can be removed. Thus despite your claims, my actions benefited the article - which can hardly be said about your edits when it comes to Poland-related articles, where you constantly try to remove any references to crimes committed by the Russians or Soviets.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop this back and forth bickering please? I think the real question should be: what is the relevance of the majority population status of the Byelorusians and Ukrainians in Poland during WWII? Did they collaborate with the Soviets against the Poles? Did the Soviets show them preferential treatment over the Poles? Were these part of the Kresy territories that the Soviet Union annexed after the war? If so, then let us document all that and provide citations to back it up.

I'm not 100% sure how germane the above discussion is to this article but let's get the facts out on the table first and then decide whether they belong here or somewhere else.

--Richard 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• what is the relevance of the majority population status of the Byelorusians and Ukrainians in Poland during WWII?
  • The relevance is that these people were ruled by the alien to them government that imposed the nationalist policies on them, denied the promised autonomy and suppressed their national culture in various ways. This made those people resentful of Poles and Poland and initially supportive of the Soviet takeover. Also, for those nations the Soviet takeover signified the final unification of their nations in the one state which remains of the utmost importance in their national histories to this day. The reference for that is in the article.
• Did they collaborate with the Soviets against the Poles?
  • Yes.
• Did the Soviets show them preferential treatment over the Poles?
  • Yes.

--Irpen 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To comment your story:

• The "unification" of Byelorusians in 1941 led to massive Russification. As far as I know the only Byelorusian high-school isn't supported by the government.
• Ukrainians are divided after 60 years of unification. The first activity of the Ukriainian government 1939-1941 and 1944-1950 was massive extermination of nationalists. BTW - prove that Ukrainian culture fluorished under Soviets. I used to read Ukrainian journals during the perestroyka and I remember that there existed more Ukrainian journals in small partially Polish Lwów than in great Ukrainian Lviv. Those Polish nationalists... Xx236 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to discuss the population ethnic distribution in the lead. As you will note, this issue was added there by Irpen, apparently so to give the impression that the Soviet occupation was welcomed and beneficial to the non-Poles (particulary after his unsourced claim that Soviet occupation was less harsh than Nazi one). Contrary to both of his claims, note what Piotrowski writes quoting Davies: "In many ways, the work of Soviet NKVD in Eastern Poland proved far more destructive than that of Gestapo", and not only to Poles - see his description of how Soviets murdered Ukrainians and Belarusians. Yes, Polish goverment was not known for its benevolent policies towards the minorities - but it was much better than its eastern neighbour. PS. See aftermath section of the Soviet invasion of Poland, where most of the points Irpen and you raise are addressed: importance of reunification of Ukraine and Belarus under one government and Soviet policies towards those ethnic groups. PS2. From promised review of Gross book, few more quotes for Irpen and other interested people that should be incorporated to article: 1) "Thus, despite the Red Army's unkempt appearance, the Soviet occupiers proved to be--according to Gross--greater victimizers than the Nazis. He argues that, in sheer numbers, more human beings (regardless of ethnic background--Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc.) suffered under Soviet occupation between September 1939 and June 1941 (i.e., before the Holocaust began) than under German occupation"; 2) " in the 1939-1941 period alone, Soviet-inflicted suffering on all citizens in Poland exceeded that of Nazi-inflicted suffering on all citizens." and 3) "The Soviet-imposed myth about "communist heroes of resistance" enabled them for decades to avoid the painful questions faced long ago by other Western countries".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

From Polish Wiki

There are several articles from pl wiki that should be translated and interlinked. The list is below. Note that currently this article on en wiki has no link to pl wiki.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• pl:Stalinowskie represje wobec ludności polskiej 1939-1946 -> Stalinist repressions of Polish people (1939-1946)
• pl:Jeńcy polscy w niewoli radzieckiej (od 1939 roku) -> Polish POWs in Soviet Union (from 1939)

Other religious

Polish lutherans were also persecuted - 30% of the clergy died including bishop pl:Juliusz Bursche. Xx236 08:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

roughly a million people were sent to the east

Soviet documents don't confirm the numbers. Xx236 13:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate round numbers like "a million". Such round, even numbers are always suspect. Can you present both sides of the issue? How many do the Poles say were sent to the Soviet Union? What do the Soviet documents say? --Richard 15:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Accorging to Soviet documents 309 000-327 000 were deported 1940-1941. The number doesn't include people arrested, P.O.W.s, drafted, deported locally.Xx236 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

about 100,000 Poles killed in 1943-44 during the massacres of Poles in Volhynia

100 000 in whole Ukraine, up to 80 000 in Volhynia - see the quoted article.Xx236 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Give us some more details, provide some sources. I'll put it in. Or you can put it in if you prefer. --Richard 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean the article you have quoted Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Xx236 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you're not aware of the history of this article, it used to be called Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers but I recently changed the title and expanded it substantially. Just to be clear, much of this article was cobbled together by copying summary intro sections from other Wikipedia articles. So, if I quote something, it doesn't mean that I personally know about the subject in detail. I just wanted to have a single overview article that told this tragic tale. I do not claim to be an expert on this subject. Most of what I know I learned here on Wikipedia. (always a dangerous proposition since some of what is on Wikipedia is very wrong) --Richard 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuh. I just confirmed it. That text was in the original Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers article before I started working on it. Anyway, the point is that this is not "my article" in the sense that I did not write all (or even much of the text). Mostly what I did was assemble the pieces from various Wikipedia articles. I have read most of it but, as I said, my knowledge of the subject is not at the expert level so there could be some wacky text here and there.

Keeping all that in mind, please identify any problem areas and let's work together to fix it.

--Richard 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Casualties paragraph doesn't inform, who killed 20 000 of Poles outside Volhynia.Xx236 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of Polish citizens under Soviet occupation

There are numbers 1,2, 3 in the text.Xx236 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, can you be more clear? Do you mean references?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Richard 06:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course after coming across the deportation numbers in a fresh source, I updated the first spot not noticing the 1,200,000 stuck in the middle of a paragraph (and with a lengthy! reference) later. I'll look at "normalizing." On a slightly larger note, it does seem to me, at least, that the article is currently a bit choppy--more of a collection than a narrative. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

German robbery

German state and individual robbery should be mentioned. There is a new book by Götz Aly.Xx236 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT So... please write a summary of the most important points and insert it in the appropriate place. --Richard 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fork name?

As far as I can see it, the new name makes it a fork of History of Poland (1939-1945). Other than detailed treatment of the civilians by the occupants, what does that article explain which is not covered by History of.. article? The 'Occupation, annexation and administration' would do better as stand-alone article on Administration of occupied Poland (1939-1945), and this article should be renamed back to Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants (1939-1945) (date is important as we can also have Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants (1795-1918). PS. To facilitate navigation and organization, we can use a template on the main subjects of occupied Poland (history, administration, culture, economy, treatment of population, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I dislike the title "Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupiers" (the former name of this article) because it does not sound like a title that one would expect in an encyclopedia nor is it likely to be something someone searches for.

I understand the argument that this article could be considered a fork of History of Poland (1939-1945). However, I prefer to think of it as a subsidiary article to that one. This article deliberately does not discuss the 1939 partition of Poland or the liberation of Poland by the Soviet Union. Thus, this article is not a fork of History of Poland (1939-1945) which does discuss those military operations.

However, if you insist, we can look at the possibility of merging this article with History of Poland (1939-1945). I think, however, that would make the combined article too long.

--Richard 06:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, merge is not needed. For now I advocate splitting administration section into a new article and renaming this to describe what's left. This article is only about two aspects of occupation, (one after split) and as such is incorretly named at present.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You state that this article only discusses two aspects of the occupation. If you feel that this article does not address all aspects of the occupation, the obvious solution is to expand the scope to address those aspects of the occupation that it does not currently cover. What, in your opinion, are those aspects? --Richard 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That, however, would make it cover the same issues as 'History of Poland...' in that era, leading us back to merge discussion, which is pointless as the 'treatment...' issue was split off 'history' because it was too long in the first place.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current title and scope. You're not. You seem to prefer the scope and title of the previous article. Nobody else seems to care or maybe they're not watching this Talk Page. Feel free to advertise your concern on other relevant Talk Pages (e.g. History of Poland, etc.). Let's see what other editors think. I will abide by consensus. --Richard 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say I was not happy with the previous title either. AFAIR it was coined during some heated debate and I doubt anyone spent too much time thinking on it. I'm not sure the new one fits the proposed scope of this article, but it's certainly better. //Halibutt 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

remained occupied by the Soviet Army until 1952

Why exactly 1952?Xx236 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Northern Group of Forces got SFA from Polish govenment in 1956, and this is commonly accepted as end of occupation, see related article. Similarily Poland received major increse in sovereignity that year (see Polish October).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish territories?

I made some changes according to the history of Silesia:

“ After the referendum, there were three Silesian Insurrections instigated by Polish inhabitants of the area, as a result of which the League of Nations decided that the province should be split again and that the eastern-most Upper Silesian areas, even though a majority there had voted to remain inside Germany. ”

A part (!) of Polish territories which were annexed by Nazi-Germany during WWII was annexed by Poland just some years before - contrary to the plebiscites. Well, I don't endorse annexations at all and what German Nazis did even less, but to be honest, it should be seen that it was against international law, too, what Poland did after WWI.

Wikiferdi 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What plebiscites ? There was only one. The areas where majority voted for Poland were given to Poland by decision of international comitee so it wasn't against international law.

No, there had been plebiscites in Upper Silesia and in East Prussia.

“ In 1919 after World War I, the eastern part, which was partially ethnic Polish, came under Polish rule as the Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship, despite a 60 to 40 percent vote against this, while the mostly German-speaking western part remained part of Germany as the Province of Upper Silesia. (cf. Upper Silesia) ”

I have deleted this passage because it is wrong:

“ These included all territories with Polish population taken by Prusssia in Partitions of Poland that Germany was to return to Poland under the 1918 Treaty of Versailles, such as the Polish Corridor and parts of Upper Silesia, but also a large area east of these territories, including the city of Łódź. ”

Reason: Whole Silesia (Upper and Lower) became separated from Poland since the middle ages as Poland fell apart (definitely after 1335 Silesia was an own entity).

Wikiferdi 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC) "Whole Silesia (Upper and Lower) became separated from Poland since the middle ages" Are you sure ? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppeln_(Evangelische_Kirche) "1645 wurden die Fürstentümer Oppeln-Ratibor durch Kaiser Ferdinand II. an die Krone Polens verpfändet"

You should read the whole sentence: "...sie blieben in deren Pfandbesitz bis 1666." This means these princedoms had been lent (!) to Poland - for not more then 21 years. - There is a big difference between "borrowing" and "owning", isn't it? Wikiferdi 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the article, again

With the creation of the Administrative division of Polish territories during WWII (part of the Administrative division of Poland history series), there is no need for this article to act as a fork in this regard. I'd suggest summarizing the current section, and refocusing on treatment of citizens, now that we have a separate article for administrative division.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about the actions of the German and Soviet occupation forces and adminsitration. The Administrative division of Polish territories during WWII (part of the Administrative division of Poland article is about the organizational structure of those occupation adminstrations. If either article were to be deleted or merged, I would say it was that one and not this one. That article could easily be merged into this one or it could be referenced as a subsidiary article. --Richard 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewish support for Soviets?

Is there any support for the statement that Jews supported the Soviet invasion? My information, based on interviews with survivors is that Jews fleeing Eastwards from the Germans met other Jews fleeing Westwards from the Soviets, at which point they realized they had nowhere to go.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neve Dan (talk • contribs).

While it may be inaccurate to state that most Jews welcomed the Soviets, it would be correct to say that a (poor, young, radical) minority welcomed them and many were indiffrent. This created a sharp contrast between the Poles (who unanimously were opposed to the Soviet invasion) and the Jews. Of course, Soviet Union was no paradise, and indeed, they were refugees fleeing west, meeting refugees fleeing east... For sources, see:

• Yizkor Book Project, "The Death of Chaimke", chapter "Under Soviet Rule"
• Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide.... McFarland & Company, p. 49-65

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And so... what is the conclusion that we should come to? Should the points that Piotrus makes be included in this article? Is this related to the Zydokomuna article? --Richard 01:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion is that some Jews - more then Poles - welcomed the Soviets, many were indifferent. We should not pass any judgments; their logic is quite understandable given the times. As for the relation to that article: to certain extent, yes; the latter however has a broader scope - perhaps a good analogy would be say that while it is generally agreed that lack of focus on Middle East in American intelligence led to 9/11; it is a rather unreasonable conspiracy theory to claim it was engineered by CIA :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But, the question remsins whether the phenomenon was significant and notable enough to warrant mention in this article. Is this just scurrilous trash-talking that should be left out of an encyclopedic article or is it worth mentioning (with appropriate qualifiers) as the basis of later anti-Jewish sentiment which may have been exaggerated and hyped beyond reason?

Just because a sentiment is ill-founded and based on lies and half-truths doesn't make the sentiment unencyclopedic. If the sentiment can be sourced and shown to have affected history in a significant way, it deserves to be presented here. Of course, counter-balancing information to show that the sentiment was not based on rational facts and reasoning can and should be presented as well.

So... did a significant number of Jews support the Soviet invasion in ways that were obvious and significant to non-Jewish Poles of the time? Did they serve in any way as a "fifth column"? Did they collaborate with the Soviet administration between 1939 and 1941?

--Richard 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The best source on that that I could find is the above-linked Piotrowski book, but I don't have it at present. I believe a simple mention, w/out going into details, that some Jews welcomed the Soviets, it's enough. In addition, note that recently FAd Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) states that In some cases, Ukrainians,[m] Belarusians[24] and Jews[25] welcomed the invading troops as liberators.; the ref is to Gross, Jan Tomasz (2002). Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691096031., pp.32-33. The Jews support for the Soviets is as notable as that of any other minority; whether we should go into details in this article or some other - I am not sure.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... did a significant number of Jews support the Soviet invasion in ways that were obvious and significant to non-Jewish Poles of the time? Did they collaborate with the Soviet administration between 1939 and 1941? Well the source from Israel writes: But when on September 17, 1939 the Soviet Army entered the eastern regions instead of the Germans, the Jews without exception welcomed them as liberators and protectors against the Germans and the local population. The Jews welcomed the Soviet soldiers openly and the new power began to deal with the Jews with the same trust with which it dealt with its own brothers -- the Ukrainians. Jews were employed by the Soviet officials in the administration and even in the local militia. Jews went gladly to these tasks since there were very many unemployed craftsmen and intellectuals. Meanwhile the reorganization of trade, industry and economy on a Soviet basis had begun. Cooperatives of shoemakers, tailors, tinsmiths, and bakers were organized. Each of these artels -or cooperatives was headed by a leader with previous craft experience -- in most cases a Jew. Raw materials mere brought from Stanislavov, Lemberg and Tarnopol. In these cities, too, Jews played an important role as the most experienced craftsmen. The Jewish and non-Jewish workers in the artels worked under the guidance of Jewish directors. Control over the factories was in the hands of the Party, which again had greater trust in the Jews than in the non-Jews. The Party knew that we Jews didn't have any political aspirations and only wanted to work and live in peace. The Party also knew that behind the non-Jews there was an underground nationalistic organization which was carrying on sabotage against collectivization. [14] So judging by the text, yes Jewish people due to their different attitude towards Soviets and social situation were treated differently by occupying power and prefered over non-Jewish people to handle task involved in administration. --Molobo 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

      Well, Jews could see Stalin as the safer alternative. Any such hopes were short-lived. In Latvia, the proportionally largest deportation of ethnic population (first Soviet occupation) was of Jews. And at their destinations in the GULAG they were particularly made to suffer, more so than other ethnicities. It's worth mentioning that Khrushchev, one of Stalin's trusted lieutenants, describes Stalin as a rabid anti-Semite.

      In my mother's post office in Latvia (this is under the first occupation), Latvians disappeared and were replaced with Jews. Certainly, one could interpret this as collaboration. (My mother, for example, still doesn't understand the Soviet Union's later anti-Semitic policy given their exploitation of Jews for their benefit during the occupation.) Far more likely than "collaboration" is that when Red Army soldiers stand behind you with loaded rifles ready to shoot you while you work, you keep your head low and hope you're not their next victim.

      Then, considering Stalin's deportations only took place a week before the Nazi invasion, the Nazis were hailed by most as liberating Latvia from the (demonstrably evil) Soviets, especially when they let the Latvian anthem be played. And we all know how "liberating" that occupation wound up being.

      This is not a popular topic, as the quest for retribution and the (baseless) perpetuation of "welcoming" being equated to "joyfully supporting" only brings on mutual recriminations of each being a collaborator for the other evil power, Latvians and Jews then reminding each other "they" were prominent in the ranks of communists--as if anyone who became a Stalinist henchman really still somehow represented their roots. A lose-lose argument if there ever was one. Notice I don't use quest for "justice"--that would require real dialog. My personal opinion is that we're still a long way off, but I remain ever optimistic that I am completely mistaken in that assessment. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is rather long

Perhaps a summary should be in order. Certainly both Soviet and German occupation deserve seperate articles. --Molobo 01:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could split and expand detail into separate articles but methinks this needs to stay as parent, otherwise we'll have to start at "Nazi occupation of 49% of Poland" and "Soviet occupation of 51% of Poland" and move on from there. And, recall, Hitler invaded with Stalin's direct support of Nazi air power. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also difficult to tell the whole France/Britain/treaty obligations/Eastern and Western fronts story if it's in two pieces. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This page has several problems, focus being one of them. I suggested that World War II crimes in Poland is moved to German World War II crimes in Poland; we could merge any related content there from this page and summarize it; than split the Soviet aspect and do the same thing. The Western obligations should be discussed at Western betrayal, not here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Will check out Western betrayal. Some sort of unified account of betrayal at the start of the war counterpointed with Yalta is no less of a challenge. But still needs mention here where needed to set context. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Molobo (article is too long, should be split up into separate articles on the German and Soviet occupations) and disagree with Piotrus about the focus on the crimes of the Germans and the Soviets.

Western obligations should be discussed in Invasion of Poland (1939) and Western betrayal

If no one objects, I will split this article into German occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and Soviet occupation of Poland (1939–1945) while keeping this article as a parent summary article.

--Richard 07:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary and detail and references

I noted the anonymous edit #'s (deported) had detail and references below. What's the normal style rule? It doesn't make sense to insert references twice in the same article, once in summary, once in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently to be deleted again, this time citing "POV pushing." I'm sorry, but isn't that edit comment making a point of assuming bad faith? PētersV 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

the Soviets deported more than 1,200,000 Poles

• It's an opinion, one of many.
• Poles means also ethnic Ukrainians, Jews, Belarusians. Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• It's hard to believe given the availability of the NKVD archives the numbers of deported in 1939-1940 are somehow subject to "guesswork". The actual number is around 380,000 (including non-Poles), most of them ended up in 'special settlements' (about 210,000) the rest in the Gulag camps. The majortiy survived and left either with the Anders army in 1941 (About 41 000 combatants and 74 000 civilians)joining the British High Command in the Middle East, traveling through Iran, Iraq and Palestine or returned to Poland after the war.

Zemskov, V. N. Spetsposelentsy v SSSR, 1930-1960. Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittersporn, Viktor N. Zemskov The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049 Ranger757 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tadeusz Piotrowski (hardly a Soviet sympathiser) quotes in his book 320,000 total deported, excluding PoWs. Earlier estimates of 1.2-1.5mln were based on anecdotal evidence before NKVD data was available, and are of little value. For example R. J. Rummel's 1.2 mil estimate is entirely based on "Stalin and the Poles: An Indictment of the Soviet Leaders". by Bronislaw Kusnierz (1949)... “compiled by the anonymous authors from the ranks of the Polish émigrés and presented to the English-speaking world by Dr. Bronislaw Kusnierz, Minister of Justice in the Polish Government in exile". Time to stop the confusion Ranger757 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants

This was the original name of the article, then it was moved here. Yet the article still discusses this subject in much detail, and the redirects are used. I suggest summarizing (shortening) this content here, and recreating treatment article with full information, as currently the treatment is given too much undue weight in this article (which indeed should cover many other issues in more detail). Comments? I also wonder if the proposed name "treatment..." is the best choice? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism in article

To lump the Nazis and Soviets together as "genocidal" is not only disingenuous, but engaging in historical revisionism. There is no credible basis whatsoever for referring to the Soviet campaign in Poland as being "genocidal" - none whatsoever. Only a fringe, ultra-nationalist historian would go so far as to call the Soviet actions in Poland as being "genocidal." There is a disturbing trend among certain WP editors to push an aggressive agenda intending to make the Soviets either equal to the Nazis, or even worse. The Soviet actions in Poland and elsewhere were no better or worse than similar actions conducted by other Allied forces throughout the course of modern history. Yet we don't hear anyone describing as fact in such articles the actions of the British Empire or the USA as being "genocidal." Laval (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You or I are not responsible for what the Nazis or Soviets did. The only individuals who insist there is a contest to make out the USSR to be worse than Nazi Germany tend to be those (in my experience) who have an overly positive view of the Soviet legacy and who confuse saying "bad" things about the USSR with saying "bad" things about Russia. In my experience. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Non-partisan sources speak of "German and Soviet slaughter" of Poles. That is not equating, merely observing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. I'm removing the unsourced template.Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Throughout the entire course of foreign occupation the territory of Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (USSR)

What is the meaning of the statement? There was no Soviet occupation 1941-1943. Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

National policy of Germany and SU

The article describes the situation of ethnic Poles and Volks-Germans. Germans constructed a hierarchy of nationalities in which ethnic Ukrainians were above ethnic Poles. Other non-Polish non-Jewish minorities were also preferred. The Soviets preferred non-Poles at the very beginning, started to support the Poles in 1940 (Adam Mickiewicz anniversary). Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

criticon this section. It should be taken out as it is quite biase: Both occupying powers were equally hostile to the existence of sovereign Poland, her culture and the Polish people, aiming at their destruction.[1] -it should rather state that the polish republic contained about 40% national minorities mostly germans jews and Belo-russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.48.155 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mostly Ukrainians.Xx236 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems

I'm very sorry to say that this article has come up for investigation for part of a contributor copyright investigation (specifically, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114). An editor who worked heavily on this article in 2007 had a long history of copying content from external sources sometimes without acknowledgement. In this case, text matches have already been found to [15] - there may be other copying as well. Unfortunately, that website is not compatibly licensed with our own (see [16]).

In such cases, we typically will remove everything added by the contributor, but that would set the development of this article back years. This is the last version of the article before he began editing it. We are also sometimes able to simply remove material that he added or that is based on his edits, although that could be difficult here as his edits to the article are substantial. His first several edits seem to have been copying content from other articles, and this content should be fine.

I know that this article is very important, and I am truly sorry for the setback to those who have worked so diligently to improve the content, unaware of the taint. I hope that you will be able to help address the problem. Content added by User:Pseudo-Richard should be carefully scrutinized. If it did not come from another Wikipedia article, it will probably need to be rewritten or removed. Even if it did come from another article, it might be a good idea to rewrite or remove it if he also authored it there. The investigation is long-running, and it is very likely that additional problems will be found in content he added elsewhere. This would help avoid disruption of this article in the future related to the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In case it is helpful, these are all of his substantial edits to the article:

• Occupation of Poland (1939–1945): (68 edits, 34 major, +55183) (+5748)Y,(+1314)(+132)(+2496)Y,(+9533) (see below)Y,(+1098)(+1251)(+122)(+303)(+1713)(+4403)N,(+124)(+2186)N,(+726)(+1147)(+1302)(+2076)N,(+997)(+1979)Y,(+359)(+250)(+620)(+112)(+1631)Y,(+861)(+215)(+1075)(+1207)(+446)(+2254)N,(+213)(+210)(+5958)Y,(+519)

RE: Copyright problems

Absolutely stunned to see this page totally "monstered" by a copyright problem - an example of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" perhaps? Especially when the "unmonstered" version of this page has a huge amount of information and it is heavily referenced.

I've left a message on the user page for user Pseudo-Richard as some of the text highlighted by the copyright report was added by him on 00:23, 17 March 2007. I'd guess that it's just as likely that Wikipedia text may have been lifted by the external site but maybe he can shed some light on the subject (although that is a LONG time ago).

This page seems too valuable to let sit I would have thought. Escottf (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

While that would be nice, Escottf, unfortunately it's unlikely. :/ This article was evaluated as part of a contributor copyright investigation (specifically Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114), which are conducted when substantial, cross-article issues are detected. I have asked for assistance from WikiProject Poland, but unfortunately help has not yet been forthcoming. The article can be rolled back to the version as existed prior to the influx of content by the specific editor, but otherwise all content added by him would need to be evaluated for issues and potentially rewritten. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl and Escottf. I'm going through the Detector results at this very moment. Please do not edit the article to avoid editing conflict. Things are not as bad as they look. I'm highlighting the DD results and blanking out COPYVIO without rewriting anything yet. The source article is considerably short, five paragraphs in all at the USHMM devoted to "Terror Against the Intelligentsia and Clergy", which is only a part of our article. I'll be finished soon I hope. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! It'd be a shame to lose such a long article. Escottf (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Cluebot prematurely archived my note above explaining the issue. :/ No wonder this was alarming! User:Poeticbent, it would be lovely to have your help here, but I'm afraid the issue is more substantial than the single source. Essentially, all content added by Richard is suspect. It needs to be either scrutinized or proactively rewritten, as he has repeatedly copied content from other places - sometimes other Wikipedia articles (which can be retained) and sometimes external sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I thought it was one source, and one source only, but this is way over my head. I'm stopping for now. Please add possible other paste-up jobs to your report if you can Moonriddengirl otherwise I don't even know where to start. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent, I wish it was that easy. :/ This has been a particularly difficult WP:CCI, which is why it's the oldest one still on the books. Typically, what we do when we find that a CCI subject has copied content from anywhere copyrighted into an article is roll it back or remove all of his content, but Richard's additions were typically quite large to articles and often to very important articles that have been worked on by multiple other people. I don't want to roll this article back 7 years, undoing the work of all of these people. And I myself don't feel like I have the expertise to properly handle this subject, although I'm likely to take a stab at it if nobody else does. But glancing at his other contribs, it's obvious this isn't the only source he copied. Look at [17] - I find this text duplicated in a 2005 comment at [18] (search for "Among the Protestant martyrs were Karol Kulisz, director of the Evangelical Church's largest charitable organization, who died in Buchenwald in November 1939" and you'll find the specific text). That obviously predates Richard's addition. There's enough information there to help me trace it back even further to [19]. Look at the section on "The Polish Martyrology", and there we have it. This is why all of his text needs to be scrutinized or proactively removed, and scrutiny of content added 7 years ago is really hard. The internet can be ephemeral. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you linked the whole archive above, Moonriddengirl, but the article is too long already to be easily rewritten. It would probably be better to just cut in in half, and let other people deal with the consequences. We have a number of similar articles in the Category:History of Poland (1939–45) which can be used. Some of them almost repeat each other. Poeticbent talk 19:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy-paste-up-job partial analysis

Below are the major source-links listed above in a report by User:Moonriddengirl.

1. (+5748) — copied from History of Poland (1939–45)
2. (+2496) — copied from History of Poland (1939–45)
3. (+9533) — copied from Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46) (see below: not copied, only moved between two sections of this article from (-9,490) to (+9,556))
4. (+4403) — COPYVIO from https://ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php lifted 00:23, 17 March 2007 by User:Pseudo-Richard as one massive block of text. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

   ---

   In the following seven years (!) the COPYVIO was embellished by others with additional info and brand new references, making it look more like scattered one-liners from USHMM peppering three different sections (seems to be the norm). Nothing can be reverted. I would suggest that the "Copyviocore" template be removed as inadequate. Dear User:Moonriddengirl, would you please consider replacing it with the following templates (samples included)? This is just a proposal, but if you disagree, please consider deleting this article to see if anybody wants to have it temporarily restored to their user page:
   N {{close paraphrasing|Treatment of Polish citizens under Nazi German occupation|source=https://ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php|free=yes/no|date=April 2014}}
   N {{close paraphrasing|Germanization and expulsion of Poles|source=http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/expulsions-and-the-kidnapping-of-children |free=yes/no|date=April 2014}}
   N {{close paraphrasing|Kidnapping of children|source=http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/expulsions-and-the-kidnapping-of-children |free=yes/no|date=April 2014}}
   ... and so on and so forth, including all other external links from below. Otherwise – with the whole article blanked out – nobody is going to assist us in the rescue mission. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

   ---

5. (+2186) — COPYVIO from http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/expulsions-and-the-kidnapping-of-children — repeated in Wikipedia article Reichsgau Wartheland (possible transfer)
6. (+2076) — COPYVIO from http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/forced-labor-and-the-terror-of-the-camps
7. (+2254) — COPYVIO from https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=472 (first archived in 2004)
8. (+5958) — copied from Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46)

less than +2000

1. (+1979) — copied from Polish Underground State or Polish resistance movement in World War II, repetitious copying within Wikipedia
2. (+1631) — copied from Generalplan Ost
   

Only paste-ups over +2,000 analyzed. Most others seem negligible, more less. Copying within Wikipedia and forking is a problem I talked about numerous times, see Talk:Nazi crimes against the Polish nation#Problems with article, 14 July 2013 as did the others already at the time of their creation, see Talk:Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46)#POV-fork?. It is not illegal to do that. Also, it is increasingly easy, because the text has been preformatted by others. However, it makes Wikipedia suck. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Side note. About five years ago forking became fashionable. I think uncoordination is only partly to blame, because in those days articles above 100K were considered inappropriate except that they kept on growing and growing until the downward recommendations hit the fan. I marked the actual main COPYVIO above but the one in mainspace from Duplication Detector needs to be added also. I think the template can be removed as soon as somebody deals with them one by one. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That's extremely helpful. Thank you, User:Poeticbent! Just for the record, though; it is illegal to fork without attribution. Our text is no more public domain than many of these other websites, and unless the terms of the license are met, copying content is an infringement of the creator's copyright. I'll take a spin through later today and see what we can do - if the close paraphrase is too close, it may be better simply to remove it and let it be reworked rather than restoring it to publication in the interim. But let's see. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, there's an issue - "(+9533) — copied from Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46)" isn't right, because that article didn't exist yet. That article was based on this one. :) Let me dig into that a little further. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so the source of (+9533) remains to be detected - I've eliminated Soviet Invasion of Poland as the source, as well as History of Poland (1939-1945). Any other likely sources come to mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean Moonriddengirl, because the article Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46) which I listed above as the source, was in fact a copy-paste fork of this article originally – created on 17 February 2008 by Piotrus (+38,247) and proposed for deletion a day later on 18 February 2008 – see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946). Therefore the initial actual occurence of massive copyright violations was/and-still-is this specific "Occupation of Poland" article, not the other way around. Poeticbent talk 14:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The paste-up from 16 March 2007 with (+9533) and a summary (quote): Reorganizing (!) is a lost cause! User:Pseudo-Richard did not add this, but only moved it within the same article from here (-9,490) to here (+9,556). – Please take a look at just one sentence from that text. The Google search reveals that the same sentence appears simultaneously in an avalanche of Wikipedia forks (quote): "Polish literature and language studies ware (sic!) dissolved by Soviet authorities." This is like Wikipedia forking–fest gone mad. However, as far as the online sources of repeated copyright violations at that particular time, little can be proven seven years after the fact, and only thanks to Wayback. The (+9,556) of data moved by Pseudo-Richard contained the following violation:

Warning: Duplication Detector Total match candidates found: 19735 from www.franko.lviv.ua. Poeticbent talk 17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The verbatim quote: "literature and language studies ware (sic!) dissolved" appears in 24 Google hits, not in 465 results if you click on the final page. Poeticbent talk 17:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Rereading this, User:Poeticbent, I'm not sure I've understood you - I've interpreted you as saying that Wayback confirms that some of this text was taken from [20] - is that right? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Moonriddengirl, the (+9,556) moved by Pseudo-Richard contained COPYVIO from franko.lviv.ua webpage captured by Wayback. I didn't look who lifted it originally. That's what I was saying. Poeticbent talk 03:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Gah. Okay, thank you, User:Poeticbent. :( I'll see if I can figure out where it entered the article. With any luck, it'll be a passing IP. If not, I'll poke at other content to see if there are other issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that content is present from the first edit, when the article was created (as a properly attributed :)) split by user:Piotrus. It was added here, and it seems never to have been a greater issue than it is right now. I think this is probably largely fine - it does not look like the paraphrasing rises to the level of copyvio to me. Although there are places where it's a bit close, I don't think it's substantial enough to require removal. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Addressing

Would it be possible for someone to highlight problematic parts with {{close paraphrasing}}? If this is done, I can try to rewrite them. A silver lining is that if we ID the source, we can end up with properly rewritten and referenced text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Poeticbent, you have a gift for this. :) User:Piotrus, that may not be easy to do. The typical pattern we see with long-established copyvios is that duplication detector gets less generally helpful when content has been here for a while. It was built to identify the easiest cases - direct language copying - and big chunks of matches can appear quite trivial when somebody changes a word here and there, even though the substantial similarity remains. Do you think it would work, both of you, if we reverted to pre-Richard and I then added back all the content that has been identified as okay? We can list the diffs with text that could not be restored, and you could work from those? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• With all due respect, Moonriddengirl, I am not very supportive of removal of text that may be fine. In the great scheme of things, the chances of anybody ever suing us are miniscule, and a waste of our time; further, if we cannot identify what needs to be removed, this means that nobody else can, and offending content has been sufficiently rewritten. Thus from where I stand any major reverts here would not be justified from legal, practical, nor ethical perspectives. As I noted before, I am willing to rewrite any infringing content (or support removal of large remaining chunks). Any wholesale rewert of few years of collaborative works that in my opinion has succeeded in eliminating most of copyvio issues is not warranted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Piotrus, unfortunately, we cannot retain the content that was copied from incompatibly licensed sources or content that is derivative of it regardless of the odds of our being sued, in accordance with copyright policy and Terms of Use. :/ If you want to rewrite this article (being, of course, careful to avoid creating a derivative work of any copyrighted content) in the temporary space, you are very welcome to do so. I noted that I would be happy to take on the work of restoring content that has been identified as okay if it was reverted (User:Poeticbent seems to have done a very good job of teasing out the origin of text), but if you would prefer to do the full rewrite, that is a perfectly valid and frequently utilized approach. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Moonriddengirl: As I said, I can rewrite any problematic content IF IT IS IDENTIFIED. If we cannot identify what problematic content remains, I do not believe there are grounds for removal, because a perfectly valid AFG explanation is that this content has been already rewritten. If your response is that it is difficult to identify this content, well, that just proves my point - it is no longer infringing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Piotrus, it has all been identified above, painstakingly, by User:Poeticbent. The job now is for a human being to compare the text to the sources and see what copying or close paraphrasing remains. If you want to do that and rewrite issues, feel free. The instructions are built into the template on the page. If not, and I do it, I will be removing problematic text (however little or much it may be), per policy, following which you can reconstruct it however you deem fit - so long, of course, as the reconstruction does not create derivative issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• That sounds good. I'll see if I can help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• @Moonriddengirl: Technical question: should I be editing the text here or in some sandbox? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The rewrite is supposed to happen here: [21]. :) I appreciate your help with this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: I have started the temp article. Correct me if I am wrong, but the content that needs to be revised is limited to the following diffs as identified by User:Poeticbent, yes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1. (+4403) — COPYVIO from https://ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php lifted 00:23, 17 March 2007 by User:Pseudo-Richard as one massive block of text. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

   ---

   In the following seven years (!) the COPYVIO was embellished by others with additional info and brand new references, making it look more like scattered one-liners from USHMM peppering three different sections (seems to be the norm). Nothing can be reverted. I would suggest that the "Copyviocore" template be removed as inadequate. Dear User:Moonriddengirl, would you please consider replacing it with the following templates (samples included)? This is just a proposal, but if you disagree, please consider deleting this article to see if anybody wants to have it temporarily restored to their user page:
   N {{close paraphrasing|Treatment of Polish citizens under Nazi German occupation|source=https://ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php|free=yes/no|date=April 2014}}
   N {{close paraphrasing|Germanization and expulsion of Poles|source=http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/expulsions-and-the-kidnapping-of-children |free=yes/no|date=April 2014}}
   N {{close paraphrasing|Kidnapping of children|source=http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/expulsions-and-the-kidnapping-of-children |free=yes/no|date=April 2014}}
   ... and so on and so forth, including all other external links from below. Otherwise – with the whole article blanked out – nobody is going to assist us in the rescue mission.
2. (+2186) — COPYVIO from http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/expulsions-and-the-kidnapping-of-children — repeated in Wikipedia article Reichsgau Wartheland (possible transfer)
3. (+2076) — COPYVIO from http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/forced-labor-and-the-terror-of-the-camps
4. (+2254) — COPYVIO from https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=472 (first archived in 2004)

Hi, User:Piotrus. I have all faith that User:Poeticbent did an excellent job. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Piotr. Please include also the one identified in mainspace. All best, Poeticbent talk 13:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/terror-against-the-intelligentsia-and-clergy

@Moonriddengirl and Poeticbent: I am done rewriting the plagiarized content. Please note that all USHMM content came from one page (https://ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php), the others are simply copies of parts of the larger text. Can we restore the text now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Merged. :) Thank you, User:Piotrus! And thank you, User:Poeticbent for undertaking your thorough review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 09:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am glad to be of help. Poeticbent talk 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced content

I am going to be moving some content here that I cannot find references for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

About Generalplan Ost:

By 1952, only about 3–4 million Poles were supposed to be left residing in the former Poland, and then only to serve as slaves for German settlers. They were to be forbidden to marry, the existing ban on any medical help to Poles in Germany would be extended, and eventually Poles would cease to exist.

User:MyMoloboaccount added this ref: Keith Bullivant; Geoffrey J. Giles; Walter Pape (1 January 1999). Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences. Rodopi. pp. 32–. ISBN 90-420-0688-9. for this sentence but I am not seeing those facts there. Neither the year 1952, nor the estimate for 3-4 million Poles, not the ban on marrying. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

About Operation Tannenberg (Cymet 2012 seems like a copyvio of our unreferenced article):

In an action codenamed "Operation Tannenberg" ("Unternehmen Tannenberg") in September and October 1939, an estimated 760 mass executions were carried out by Einsatzkommandos, resulting in the deaths of at least 20,000 of the most prominent Polish citizens. Expulsion and murder became commonplace.

The first part of the action started in August 1939 with the arrest and execution of about 2,000 activists of Polish minority organisations in Germany. The second part of the action started on 1 September 1939 and ended in October resulting in at least 20,000 murdered in 760 mass executions by special units, Einsatzgruppen, in addition to regular Wehrmacht units. In addition to these, a special formation was created out of the German minority living in Poland called Selbstschutz, whose members trained in Germany prior to the war in diversion and guerilla fighting. The formation was responsible for many massacres and due to its bad reputation was dissolved by the Nazi authorities after the September Campaign.

Statistics

Losses by geographic area were 3.3 million in present day Poland and about 2.3 million in the Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union.

---

If you can't find references please tag it as such, instead of deleting whole chunks of text. It would make it less time consuming to restore the information back in.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• @MyMoloboaccount: I am thinking about bringing this to a GA level, and one of the things I am doing is removing unreferenced information. It has persisted in this article for years; I am not going to tag it - per WP:V I am just deleting it (moving it here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The specific quote "20,000 murdered" can be referenced to: Pogonowski 1993, p.98, and Davies 1986, p.337 with regard to statistics of the Valley of Death (Bydgoszcz). I wrote about it in my overhaul of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II not long ago:

• Pogonowski, Iwo (1993). Jews in Poland (search word: "20,000"). Hippocrene. ISBN 9780781801164. Reprint by Hippocrene 1998, ISBN 0781806046. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Davies, Norman (1986). God's Playground: A History of Poland: Volume II (search word: "Bydgoszcz"). Vol. 1795 to the Present (2005 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-821944-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Poeticbent talk 03:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Thanks. If you think some facts are useful here, please feel free to add them back with a ref. The 20,000 can be sourced, but not in the context given (OT, Kinsatzgruppen, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge with War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II

This article and War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II cover almost the same topic. How about we merge them? My goal is to reduce the duplication of content, those articles to seem like forks of the same topic. I'd suggest merging the entire War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II here and redirecting it. I thought about the direction of the merger, and this seems better, as the war crimes article contains some OR/POV errors, for example discussing Ukrainian massacres which AFAIK were never officially declared a war crime. So if we want to discuss the big picture, the "occupation" article seems better (more broader) than the "war crimes". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the articles but generally occupation isn't war crimes, maybe both articles should be rewritten? The situation in occuppied Poland was totally different than in Western Europe so an English language reader needs detailed explanations of obvious problems. Polish culture, underground education, underground state are close to war crimes but there exist a strong positive part of the subjects.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have compared several language versions - either a (obsolete) translation of this article (Italian) or two separate articles - German occupation, Soviet occupation (Polish, German) or only German occupation (Russian).Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Merging the article "War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II" with the article "Occupation of Poland (1939–45)" is meaningless and would lead to a lot of confusion in the future. Why? Mostly because as we speak of Poland occupied by German Nazis (the German-occupied Poland between 1939 and 1945) we think about the territory and its history, while war crimes in occupied Poland could be a way to omit some historical facts about the occupation itself and many other issues, if focusing only on Nazi crimes, without mentioning the whole history of German occupation of the Polish country. Those are two completely different topics. Merging the articles could be an occasion to drastically reduce the content by deleting some valuable information. No facts shall be omitted on Wikipedia. My opinion is NO, the articles should not be merged, because they are about completely different, specific and wide topics. It's like merging Nazi crimes against the Polish nation with Anti-Polish sentiment, or merging Żegota with Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust - nonsense! Totally separate topics, totally different aspects, just as in this particular case. Regards. Yatzhek (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

the Soviets deported more than 1,200,000 Poles ?

There are different estimates and Poles means either citizens of Poland or ethnic Poles.Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Slovak Republic (1939–45) participated

The Slovak Republic (1939–45) annected small peaces of land.Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

slovak occupation in south poland

hello,

all concentration camps are in south poland ... this zone was occupied by slovakia in ww2 ... the germans never were in south poland ...

all conc camps are in southern poland ... there was no concentrantion camp in northern part of poland ...

the germans were only in the north part of poland ... so the germans can not be the doers of that, what happened in south poland ... please dont lie ... you must say the truth ...

what ever happened in southern poland, the germans are NOT the makers of that .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.212.223 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

the truth is, that in southern poland there were no germans in ww2 ...

the truth is, that in southern poland there were slovaks and serbs, who occupied the south part of poland ....

oswiecim is in the southern border zone from poland ... oswiecim is the most southern city of poland ...

also sobibor, majdanek, belzec are in the southern zone of poland ... near slovakia ...

the southern zone of poland was occupied by slovakia ... and a little bit by serbia ... and maybe also the russians ... the russians occupied south east poland in 1939 ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.212.223 (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). 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/20130201065133/http://niniwa2.cba.pl/polska_1939_1945.htm to http://niniwa2.cba.pl/polska_1939_1945.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022181155/http://www.holocaust-education.dk/holocaust/ghettoer.asp to http://www.holocaust-education.dk/holocaust/ghettoer.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.shoaheducation.com/aryan.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipn.gov.pl/sled_bialystok_9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516044848/http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/katyn_memorial_wall/kmw_note.html to http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/katyn_memorial_wall/kmw_note.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/33490_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021190059/http://www.indeks.karta.org.pl/represje_sowieckie_4.html to http://www.indeks.karta.org.pl/represje_sowieckie_4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420212451/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/53025_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/53025_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509003357/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/33490_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/33490_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021190059/http://www.indeks.karta.org.pl/represje_sowieckie_4.html to http://www.indeks.karta.org.pl/represje_sowieckie_4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420212451/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/53025_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/53025_1.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Poland wasn't occupied

• Military occupation is based on international law. Poland wasn't occupied but robbed and terrorized. Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I have already written this more rhan a year ago but who cares about facts?Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification

I removed this quotation of Grabowski&Grabowski as on examination of the source available digitally here I was unable to find anything resembling large portions of this alleged quote. Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The quote is from the abstract of the article in question[22]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Does not appear in this form in the abstract - e.g. "deporting and exterminating the Jews and Poles" does not appear there. Quotations are supposed to be exact and precise - and this exact text simply is not there.Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"In August 2009 Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) researchers..."

The book contains contributions by various researchers. Who exactly gives the quoted number?

The 1994 numbers should be quoted before the 2009 ones. Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Poland wasn't "occupied".

Words have meaning. They have their legal and academic definitions. Poland wasn't "occupied", in the understanding of international law. Poland never surrendered, and its legal government continued in France and later in the U.K. The General Government was a criminal German administration, not Poland. Hans Frank was hanged after World War II. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

See "Military occupation". It's something different. Annexation is not occupation. Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Holocaust in Poland" speaks of "the semi-colonial General Government". Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The German War by Nicholas Stargardt describes German rules in the East as colonial. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/06/the-german-war-nicholas-stargardt-review-john-kampfner Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)