Talk:Operation Vistula/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naming

Wouldn't Operation Wisła or Operation Vistula be more correct? Directly translating the Polish word "akcja" into English "action" does not convey the correct meaning. Furthermore, it sounds uncomfortably close to the German aktion.

To see my point, consider that Akcja Burza is usually translated as Operation Tempest, not Action Tempest or Action Burza.

Another example: Unternehmen Barbarossa is translated into English as Operation Barbarossa, not Enterprise Barbarossa which would be the literal meaning (see dictionary entry).

Balcer 20:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I gave to it some thought before choosing the name. Here are my conclusions:

1. both "Wisla" Action and "Wisla" Operation (and also the same variants with Vistula) give similar number of google hits

2. Leon Kieres used the word "Action" referring to both "Wisła" Action and Anti-Polish Action OUN-UPA 1

3. definition from the American Heritage Dictionary 2 police action - A localized military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war. Which I think is the case here. It was an action undertaken by government against its own citizens, not a military operation against a hostile army. --SylwiaS 21:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but a "police action" is an action by the police. Action Vistula is not action by the Vistula. In this context, "action" doesn't make sense in English. The correct term is "operation." Operation does not necessarily imply military action. Many civilian efforts (e.g. charitable efforts like [Operation Hope]) use the term operation to describe a concerted effort toward a specific. (Also, number of Google hits is not always the best way to decide how to title an encyclopedic entry) LuiKhuntek 13:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote for "Operation Wisła." logologist 00:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that the word ‘action’ can never go with a code name? It’s quite important, because in Polish we also normally use the term ‘operacja’ (operation) rather than ‘akcja’ (action), Akcja “Wisła” is an exception, not a common usage. However, making the exception in this case is important because of the meaning of the action and the way in which it was undertaken. So I would rather stick to the term ‘action’ here unless it’s absolutely impossible to be correct and understandable in English.--SylwiaS 13:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, we could go either way here, though I believe the current title is the best as it's both correct in English (eventhough others might seem more correct) and is the correct historical name under which it was known at the time and ever after. It's harmless and I believe that a redirect from Operation Vistula would be more than enough. Halibutt 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

All the possible redirects are made. --SylwiaS 13:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

But why the latinized "Vistula," and not the Polish "Wisła"? It is a Polish river, and we're no longer in the Middle Ages. logologist 23:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I originally named the article "Wisła" Action, but someone moved it here without discussion on the talkpage. I think it should be "Wisła", and from what I see on the picture in the article, in Ukrainian it's "Wisła" too.--SylwiaS 00:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone being Mikka, I'll ask for his input. In the meantime, I vote Operation Wisła.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support Operation Wisła and all the arguments put forward by Balcer and LuiKhuntek. logologist 06:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

When I was moving the page there was not so pronounced nationalism in Wikipedia, and the river was named "Vistula". I also looked into the sources (there were not so many of them) for preferred usage. Unfortunately my Egnlish is not perfect, and I completely disregarded the word "operation". Now the Operation Vistula would be my preference. mikka (t) 05:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Operation Tempest is called in Polish Akcja Burza, Operacja Burza, or even Plan Burza. It would be probably simply called Operacja Burza if everyone was then in an agreement that AK was official and legal Polish Army. Normally operations held by Polish Army are called "Operacja" e.g. Operacja Samum. So my question remains. Is it impossible in English to have other words than "operation" going with a code name? E.g. what are particular police actions called like, or even terrorist actions? It's not a rhetoric question. I really don't know and would like to learn before making up my mind.

On the other hand, I've found an article on the website of Polish Embassy in the USA. There the name of the action is not translated at all. Maybe it's a solution, we might keep the Polish name and give an explanation of the name in the article:

Beginning in April, 1947, approximately 150,000 Ukrainians, Bojkos and £emkos (ethnically akin to the Ukrainians) were forcibly deported from their homes in southeastern Poland and resettled in northern and western Poland; ironically, several thousand were held for up to two years by the Polish communist authorities at the former Neu-Dachs concentration camp (a former sub-camp of Auschwitz, in Jaworzno, Poland), where the Germans had incarcerated Jewish, Polish and other prisoners less than three years earlier. There was significant publicity and controversy in Poland over the fiftieth anniversary of Akcja Wisla in 1997. --SylwiaS 11:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Some examples, availabe on Wikipedia, of "operations" that are not even military in nature — bearing out LuiKhuntek's observation above: "Operation Paperclip," "Operation Peter Pan," "Operation Provide Relief."

Conversely, the Polish authorities at the time may intentionally have used akcja to avoid military terminology and make Operation Wisła sound more like some sort of "civic action." logologist 21:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have also seen reference to a US Navy program, likewise not of a belligerent nature, called "Operation KISS." (The KISS principle, incidentally, might be applicable in our Operation Wisła context.) logologist 21:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "action" is, of course, used to denote "combat" or "a military encounter," but is not used in the name of a specific plan or project, e.g. "Operation Crossroads." logologist 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. So my first choice is Akcja Wisła in Polish, but if no one supports it, I'll agree for Operation Wisła--SylwiaS 06:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd support Operation Wisła as well. Or mabye Operation "Wisła" ? I don't think the name of the operation should be translated. We do not translate Operation Market Garden or Fall Weiss into other languages, do we ? Also "Wisła" is pretty well understandable in English. I think it's better to stick to the codename in original version. I prefer "operation" over "action" for the reasons already explained. English "action" has a little different meaning than Polish "akcja". --Lysy ^(talk) 16:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Some Google Books magic: Operation Wisla - 5 hits, Operation Vistula - 9 hits, Action Vistula - 5 hits, Action Wisla - no hits. Therefore seems that the most common name would be Operation Vistula, after all. See also discussion at Talk:Operation Tempest. Maybe we can devise a naming convention, similar to what is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Geographic names?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Google Books is not able to handle "ł" correctly. Try e.g. Gdańsk. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lysy. Why translate the operation's original Polish name into Latin, of all things? Much of the world is already distorting Polish history and nomenclature, as it is; why add to this? Operation Wisła. logologist 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

All right, I assume we have reached consensus to rename it to "Operation Wisła", correct ? --Lysy ^(talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I was trying to move it, but since a redirect already exists it didn't let me do so. How do I merge it?--SylwiaS 12:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Done - I deleted the redirect and moved this page there. Can you guys fix the double redirects? I don't have time right now. In future, such moves can be requested on Wikipedia:Requested moves.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would still recommend Vistula. There is a Polish Wikipedia, but this the English Wikipedia. The Polish orthograpphy , particularly using the "ł" is a problem for native speakers of English, and for computerized searches. The river is usually called the Vistula in English, and it is an international river. I would think that this is similar to calling that Italian city Rome and not ROMA in Wikipedia.Pustelnik 12:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Last issue of Polityka weekly brings a mention of two additional operations named after the Vistula river. One was a Warsaw Pact plan of providing Poland with nuclear warheads for Polish ICBMs in case of a full-scale war with the west. The other was quite similar and was a NATO plan to strategically atom-bomb all the possible river crossings on Vistula in case of WWIII. Sadly, the author wrote the article in Polish and I'm not sure what were the original names. Halibutt 03:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found this [1]. Maybe we could add a paragraph about it, or write about it in the article about the river?--SylwiaS | talk 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's with a picture [2]. I think it should have its own article.--SylwiaS | talk 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And two more [3][4]--SylwiaS | talk 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Died

Removed, for clarification:

the majority of the remained died.

Executed? Died in prison? In the bed? Who and how counted "majority?" mikka (t) 17:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll come with particular statistics soon, but it's ok with me to remove it for now, since there is nothing in the article that would answer your questions. --SylwiaS 14:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed empty sections

Nonprofessional appearance. Please put TO-DO things into talk pages instead. mikka (t) 20:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Modern legacy

Since it was mentioned here, I would be interested to learn more about "Józef Piłsudski's forces plundering of the Western Ukraine". I have not really heard about the plundering aspect. Is it factual ? (BTW: maybe it's worth an article of its own ?) --Lysy ^(talk) 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I could quote more from the modern works of the history of Ukraine, but I will need to look. For now, please see this reference I brought up elsewhere earlier from a respected Ukrainian weekly [5]:

В сентябре 1919 года войска украинской Директории попали на Подолье в так называемый «треугольник смерти». Они были зажаты между красными русскими Ленина и Троцкого на северо-востоке, белыми русскими Деникина на юго-востоке и поляками на западе. Смерть смотрела в глаза. И не только людям — всему только что рожденному государству. Поэтому, верховный атаман Симон Петлюра просто вынужден был или согласиться на предложенный Пилсудским союз, или фактически капитулировать перед большевиками, как сделали тогда или через год-два Владимир Винниченко и Михаил Грушевский. Решение это — очень болезненное. Польская шляхта была историческим врагом украинского народа. Кровоточила свежая рана ЗУНР (Western Ukr. Republic) — именно в это время пилсудчики распинали украинскую Восточную Галичину (распинали exact translation "were crussifying", loosely means "torturing" or "plundering"). Но все же Петлюра согласился на мир и союз, признав украинско-польской границей будущую границу советско-польскую. Следует отметить, что при этом Пилсудский получал меньше земель, нежели ему предложил Ленин, и в придачу еще и войну с огромной Россией. Надднепрянцы же фактически бросали на произвол судьбы в беде своих братьев-галичан. Но Петлюра решил использовать последний шанс сохранить державу — в союзе с поляками. Попробовал. Было не суждено.

--Irpen 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I know this article (I remember you've recommended it before). I do not want to discredit it, but on the other hand I would be reluctant to consider a popular (even good) magazine a credible encyclopedic source. I'm sure you'll agree that quite often people who write articles for magazines have more freedom to present their personal opinions as if they were historic facts. As I said, I'm not trying to discredit it, but rather to encourage you (and anyone who could help) to look for some sources to support the story. Maybe there was some plundering indeed, or maybe these are just rumours ... --Lysy ^(talk) 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you can add a "dubious" tag to this claim for now if you wish. I will try to find more on this later. As soon as a bigger problem plundering the Ukrainian topics on Wikipedia is solved (which I see happening soon) I will have more time, I hope, if the work and personal matters allow. --Irpen 20:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard, either, about Piłsudski's forces "plundering" in western Ukraine. Regrettably I do know, from eyewitnesses, about undisciplined Ukrainian troops during the Polish-Ukrainian War entering Poles' homes, opening chess sets in a search for valuables, and collecting householders' hats. logologist 02:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, may I say that I haven't heard about the Massacre of Poles in Volhynia from the Ukrainian or Russian sorces either. That only proves, that any national historiography is inherently biased. We certainly broaden our worldviews by participating in this international project. --Irpen 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Now, I'm a bit puzzled by the brutal suppression of the post-World War I Ukrainian drive for self-determination in Galicia. Was it brutal indeed ? --Lysy ^(talk) 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I added Massacre of Poles in Volhynia to "See also" not as a justification (I do think that Operation Wisła cannot and should not be justified) only because of how Polish communist government used the massacre for the operation. Those two events were more connected that you might think e.g. the soldiers sent to Operation Wisła were mostly people born in Volhynia. Also Lemkos and Boykos were deported to the same places where Poles from Volhynia were resettled after leaving USSR. There were not enough houses in the recovered territories, and all the people were forced to live together, even with Germans who still didn't go to Germany. When the Ukrainians were coming, local press was warning that murderers of Poles arrive. Of course, after some time they all came to know each other better, and eventually they made good neighbours, but for the first years people of all nationalities didn't sleep at night out of fear that the others would come and kill them. Operation Wisła was not a revenge for Volhynia, it was also not just a try to pacify UIA (UIA wasn't active in Beskid Niski where Lemkos lived). Actually, this action was so senseless and stupid that till today historians wonder what the communists wanted to achieve. Anyhow, UIA and Volhynia were used by them as excuses, and we know that one of their goals was to gain more sympathy from Poles before the coming elections. The operation wasn't as successful with UIA as they hoped and certainly didn't help them with the elections though. I agree, however, that now it may suggest that Operation Wisła was a proper solution as a reaction to the massacre. If you think it's ok, I'll put the link back after the article is developed and includes the information.--SylwiaS 17:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Earlier I was asked for more scholary metnions of the "brutality" of the suppression of Ukrainian independence by Pilsudski. We are talking only about the Western Ukrainian Republic here as mauradeering during the Kiev Offensive is a separate question. Here is the quote from

• Ярослав Грицак (Yaroslav Hrytsak) (1996). Формування модерної української нації XIX-XX ст. (Formation of the Modern Ukrainian Nation in the late 19th–20th centuries). Kiev: Генеза (Heneza). ISBN 966-504-150-9., (in Ukrainian). Available online.

Quote:

Непримиренність обидвох сторін випливала із різниці їх психологічних постав. Для українців це була боротьба за власну свободу проти національного поневолення. Вони з розумінням і повагою поставилися до визвольних змагань поляків, але лише при умові, що ці змагання не будуть вестися на українській етнічній території. Абсолютно протилежною була польська позиція. Поляки відчували себе історичною, державною нацією, якій належить право на Галичину. Українське збройне повстання вони сприймали як пряме продовження "варварських бунтів", "гайдамацької різні" XVII -XVIII ст. А українське військо було для них лише "бандою", яка не заслуговувала ні на пощаду, ні на людське відношення. Іншим важливим психологічним моментом було те, що поляки почували себе на стороні переможної Антанти, тоді як українцям здавалося, що весь світ повстав проти них. Це надавало боротьбі особливо відчайдушного характеру.

I will try to find time to translate that, if needed. --Irpen 01:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain this single word: "відчайдушного" in the last sentence for me ? --Lysy ^(talk) 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It means "desperate". I left a message at MichaelZ' talk asking him to translate this paragraph. As a native EN-speaker, unlike myself, he will do that faster and more grammatically. --Irpen 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Be back in an hour or two. —Michael Z. 2005-12-7 04:36 Z

Here's what I've come up with. I haven't seen the context, so I may be missing some nuances, but I think it's a reasonably literal translation. I'm not at all sure of the meaning of пощада, or that I captured the intent of людське відношення in this case. And thanks for translating відчайдушний, which I've never heard nor appears in my poor dictionary. —Michael Z. 2005-12-7 05:46 Z.

Пощада means "mercy". "людське відношення" means "human treatment. I corrected in your text. Thanks so much for your effort! --Irpen 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The irreconcilability of the two sides was the result of differences in their psychological dispositions. For the Ukrainians, this was a struggle for their own freedom from national subjugation. They had set themselves to the liberating struggle of the Poles judiciously and earnestly, but only under the understanding that this contest wouldn't take place on ethnic Ukrainian territory. The Polish position was diametrically opposite. The Poles considered themselves a historical nation-state, bearing the rights to Galicia. They perceived the Ukrainian armed uprising as the direct continuation of the "barbarian revolts", the "Haidamak slaughters" of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. To them, the Ukrainian army was just a rabble, deserving neither mercy nor humane treatment. Another matter of psychological import was that the Poles felt themselves to be on the side of the victorious Entente, while to the Ukrainians it seemed that the whole world had risen up against them. This imparted to the struggle a singularly desperate character.

Many thanks. Still, it does not mention any brutality in Galicia. Do we have any specific information on what was this brutality ? --Lysy ^(talk) 16:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"No mercy" and undeserving of "humane treatment" isn't enough to warrant "brutal"? Fine, I will look for more quotes. --Irpen 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it hints brutality very well. But it would be much nicer to have some firm facts that would leave no questions about this. I'll look for some sources to support the "brutality" term as well. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, you have added this link to "Формування модерної української нації" but this is very broad. Is there any more specific part of it that should be looked at, that would support the "brutality" ? --Lysy ^(talk) 16:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In Serczyk's book, I've read that both sides of the conflict were desperate and brutal, which basically supports what you wrote, but still is quite general. Maybe we could try to formulate the sentence in another way ? --Lysy ^(talk) 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you agree with my recent edits, I'd suggest to move the further discussion to Talk:Polish-Ukrainian_War, where it really belongs. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the link to a book chapter where the quote about "undeserving mercy and humane treatment" above was taken from. I can't link to a specific paragraph, because the chapter is not sectionized any further. I think the link to the book is excessive since the quote from it is at talk already but since you added "dubious" claim, I thought I need to add the ref in response to your "dubious" template. --Irpen 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant the other link, I thought you've added two. Anyway, I've added "dubious" and not "fact" only to signify that there's ongoing discussion here and avoid more people asking the same questions again and again. From your reaction I assume that you mistook "dubious" for "fact" tag. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can can use Stalinist in one context, we can use Pisludski in this one. Pisludski was in full command of situation, knew exactly what he was doing and had authoritarian tendencies. The quotes support brutality towards population not just towards the "insurgents". Or should we call them "terrorists" [6] for neutrality? --Irpen 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm lost again. Which one is the quote of "brutality towards population" ? --Lysy ^(talk) 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

They both do, but especially the Zerkalo Nedeli which uses "пилсудчики распинали украинскую Восточную Галичину". Hrytsak's chapter speaks in more general terms but the military operation in the enemy's ethnic territory which lacks mersy and humane treatment can only be brutal. This is not a complicated inferrence like "Bolshevik defeat" in Volodarka. It it plain is sight. However, if this does not follow so obviously in view of others, fine. Let's just say that Zerkalo Nedeli is the only quote for now. --Irpen 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I think we should try to look for some more specific information. So far I've found that some 10,000 Poles and 15,000 Ukrainians were killed in the fights then, and that the fight were quite vicious on both sides. But I have access to Polish sources mostly, and they may be biased (but then they may be not). Therefore, I'd suggest to leave this sentence neutral for now and try to research more sources on PUW itself. It may turn self-evident, when we come back here then. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I agree that details on this belong to PUW, however the context here requires a mention. We cannot even agree yet on a brief sentence but perhaps we will find an acceptable form. --Irpen 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that we would better discuss the PUW article and then when we find an acceptable solution there, it would save us a lot of smaller disputed on derived atricles, like this one. But that was just a suggestion. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Another operation

I have a question. In the beginning Akcja Wisła had another name. It was planned together with a similar operation which was undertaken by Russians in Ukraine. If I remember correctly, one was named "East" and the other "West". Does anyone know anything about the other action? Is there an article on Wiki about it?--SylwiaS 16:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right - "East" and "West", but I don't know anything more. Meteor2017 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

NYT quote moved from the article

I move the quote here--SylwiaS 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times, April 18, 1946 wrote : SANOK, Poland, April 17 – "A strong, well-organized and elusive band of Ukrainian nationalists and German deserters, estimated at more than 3,000 under the leadership of a German colonel, in a fortnight have succeeded in transforming this sector of the Carpathian foothills of old Galicia into a virtual partisan stronghold. With the burning of three large villages on a single night two weeks ago, they have made 10,000 of this area's total pre-war population of 135,000 homeless and are resisting with complete success all efforts to quell what is tantamount to open insurrection. By burning an average of two bridges a day for the last three months, they have completely disrupted communications in this thickly populated but primitive backwoods country and have made it virtually impossible for security police and two Polish divisions to rout them out. By stealing cattle and demanding tributes of a million zlotys [about $10,000] they appear capable of holding out indefinitely in their wooded hide-outs ...".

I moved the following messages from my talk page since they belong to the article--SylwiaS 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(editing; however, I would like to see a source for the NYT article) ps. Pani Sylwio ! bardzo proszę o dokładne przetłumaczenie tego teksu na język polski 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Ruth

Proszę bardzo: edytowanie, jakkolwiek chciałabym zobaczyć źródło tego artykułu z New York Times (tego, który edytowałam a nie jestem nawet pewna czy istnieje; a jeśli tak, to czy rzeczywiście powinien się znaleźć w artykule o Akcji Wisła)--SylwiaS 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, could you use English. I understand Polish writing but with a significant degree of difficulty.

Sylwia, I checked the quote and it is correct. I can email you a full article if you send me your address via "email this user" link. I am not sure though, that such an extensive quote belongs to the article. --Irpen 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation: Ruth asked me to carefully translate my comment into Polish. I translated the comment adding in the brackets that the request for sources referred to the article I edited, although I'm not even sure if it exists; and if it does, then if it belongs to Operation Wisła article.

I'll add now that my objections are:

1. NYT proved on many times not to be a credible source (see History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Independence_and_Polish_Jews

2. The article is about Operation Wisła, not so much about any earlier events referring to Polish-Ukrainian relationships. Otherwise, if I count well, we would have to start from the Cossacks and unwillingness of Polish nobility to give them the noble rights, and later describe Chmielnicki Uprising, Ukrainian struggles for independence in the beginning of 20th century, Polish-Ukrainian War, participation of Ukrainians in WWII, Volhynia Massacre, activites of UIA and Polish Home Army during the war, and probably there still is something I forgot about. All the topics already have their articles, so I would rather stick to the operation alone.

I'll send you my address.--SylwiaS 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree that this lengthy quote doesn't belong to this article. The article is about the action of PL gov and not about the Ukrainian nationalists. Yes, the context is needed but should not be made look like a justification of the deportation of an entire population. Sylvia, I emailed the NYT article to you. --Irpen 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Sylwia !, czy ja dobrze zrozumiałam, czy ty napisałaś, że nie wiesz co masz robić, jeśli ma się poczucie bezsensu tego co się robi, lepiej się za to nie zabierać. Ps. dlaczego p. Irpen odnosi ten art. z NYT do kwesti usprawiedliwienia przesiedleń, przeciaż w tej relacji nie ma o tym mowy, ja bym raczej połączyła ten wątek z problematyką kolaboracji ukraińskiej w okresie 1939-1944, np. z przęjęciem władzy na tych ziemiach przez Ukrainców od wrzes. 1939 do maja 1940, formowaniem oddz. Waffen SS w sanockiem oraz Małp. Wsch. etc etc... 19:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Ruth

I didn’t write that I don’t know what to do, and I do not have the feeling of senselessness. On the contrary, I try to create an encyclopaedic article in the spirit of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Irpen was right pointing out that such a long quote in an article which still doesn’t cover many facts related to its merit (which is the Operation made by Polish communistic gov, not the activity of UIA on Polish territory), sounds like justification of the action. If you want to create an article about the collaboration of Ukrainians with Germans during WWII, you are free to do so. This article is about deportation of almost 150,000 innocent people of Ukrainian descent. Majority of them had nothing to do with the activity of UIA, they did nothing to deserve their fate. Poles were among the victims too, did they also collaborate with UIA or Germans? The article already mentions UIA and links to an article about the organisation, and I think it’s enough, unless we want to prove that the Operation was a revenge of Polish people on Ukrainian people. Yet, Polish people didn’t organise the action, only their unwanted government. Please, write your answer in English.--SylwiaS 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bilbiography

I think I'd like to remove the book of Edward Prus from the references. I've scanned it before and while struck by it's quite emotional tone, I have included it as I thought it could be useful for future references. Now I have read it more carefully and I'm afraid the major agenda of this book was to whitewash the operation. The conclusion is almost that the relocations were blessful for the backward Ukrainians as they got better homes in the west of Poland. Anyway, if it stays it should be used as a reference with caution. --Lysy ^(talk) 14:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You can either remove it, or we can make a section like: Operation Wisła in propaganda, and add it there. It would be also good to add "Łuny w Bieszczadach" to a section like that. It's a book glorificating struggles of Polish heroic soldiers in fights with "Ukrainian bandits". It was written soon after the operation, and for many years was the main historical book about it.--SylwiaS | talk 14:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's about the book:

Pl: Jednocześnie mitologizowano okres wysiedleń z lat 1945-47, kiedy to ludność ukraińska cierpiała z powodu prowadzonych deportacji. UPA działającej na ziemiach dzisiejszej Polski przypisywano niepopełnione zbrodnie, w tym celu publikowano nawet sfałszowane śródła historyczne. Jan Gerhard potrafił np. w „¸unach w Bieszczadach” rzeczywisty atak na oddział WOP przedstawić jako masakrę transportu chorych i rannych żołnierzy. Akcję „Wisła” ukazywano jako operację humanitarną – ewakuację ludności cywilnej w obronie przed bandytami.

En: Simultaneously the period of evacuations in 1945-47, when the Ukrainian people suffered because of the deportations was mythologized. UIA, that was active on Polish territory, was charged with uncommitted crimes. Due to accomplish that, false historical sources were published. Jan Gerhard in “Łuny w Bieszczadach” presented an actual attack at WOP (Border Protection Army), as a massacre of transport of ill and wounded soldiers. Operation Wisła was shown as a humanitarian action – evacuation of civic people to defence them against the bandits.[7]--SylwiaS | talk 15:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Brutal suppression by Pilsudski's forces

"the brutal suppression of the post-World War I Ukrainian drive for self-determination in Galicia by Józef Piłsudski's forces."

Ummm.. Ok, let's say the Polish-Ukrainian regular wr was brutal suppression, but by PILSUDSKI's forces? I cannot quite get why his forces, not "Polish" or something like that? Szopen 11:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess someone simply wanted to push his or hers POV here. Halibutt 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt. before speaking of someones trying to push something why not check the history for who this someone is and why not read this very talk page for the quotes that were already given (Talk:Operation_Wisła#Modern_legacy)? Same applies to another editor who raised the issue without reading talk. --Irpen 16:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Look above, there is an ongoing discussion about it. However, I think that we may change it to "Polish". After all Piłsudski didn't have his own private army.--SylwiaS | talk 12:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's being discussed above at #Modern legacy. Both Irpen and myself are looking for sources to support the alleged brutality. Until these are found, I'll add {{dubious}} to the sentence to stress that it's a subject of an ongoing dispute. Done. --Lysy ^(talk) 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened next

It would be interesting to mention how many of the resettled were able to return, when, where and how. I know that some of the Lemko returned after 1956 but do not have any specific information. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that they did too. I even met some of Lemkos families in Beskid Niski. The problem is that they were returning mostly unofficially, and they were often hiding their ethnicy until the end of 1980s, so it may be difficult to find any official reports. I read something about their returning on IPN webpage, but without any numbers. Also, I remember reading as a kid some terrible old story about Lemkos returning to their home, then taken by a Polish family, and killing the family to have their home back. So maybe the gov was aware of their coming back and tried to produce some additional propaganda about it. I think that the gov policy changed with time, and they weren't so much interested in people living in very small villages in places difficult to approach, without any good infrastructure etc. I know that in 1980s Lemkos still avoided speaking their language among strangers, but on the other hand there were some Unit churches working and Unit priests serviced to masses, so the religion couldn't be unofficial then. I think that some returned officially while others not. Maybe we could find at least the official numbers referring to Lemkos living there today.--SylwiaS | talk 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Since about mid of the 1980s there's "ЛЕМКIВСЬКА ВАТРА" folk festival organised yearly by Lemko people in various places in Beskid Niski, where everyone was proud to speak the language. But this is probably not about Operation Wisła any more but about Lemko heritage. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Finding that information might be hard, it's easier to find information about present situation of Lemkos. Here are some facts from guide-book "Beskid Niski", Rewasz, Pruszków 1999, ISBN 83-85557-59-8:

It is estimated that there live no more then 80-100.000 Lemkos in Poland (about 8-10.000 in Lemkivshchyna). Villages where bigger groups of Lemkos live - Łosie, Krynica, Nowica, Zdynia, Gładyszów, Hańczowa, Zyndranowa, Uście Gorlickie, Bartne, Bielanka, and in eastern part of Lemkivshchyna - Mokre, Szczawne, Kulaszne, Rzepedź, Turzańsk, Komańcza. Also in towns: Sanok, Nowy Sącz and Gorlice. Meteor2017 20:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I added it to the article and the book to references. Is Rewasz the name of publisher or the author?--SylwiaS | talk 01:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A publisher. --Lysy ^(talk) 06:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

See Also

Why is does it link to the NSZ page? Am I missing something?radek 22:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link.--SylwiaS | talk 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish or Polish-Soviet action?

Was this operation carried out solely by Polish People's Army, or was Red Army also involved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Officials from Soviet Ukraine cooperated in the action.--MarekZob 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And Czech too. Per [8] and [9], I filled this for future expansion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would it be correct to call this an act of Ethnic cleansing in the opening paragraph? It fits the definitions given in the ethnic cleansing article, and in that article it is given as an example. Ostap 03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jaworzno trahicznyj symwol.jpg

Image:Jaworzno trahicznyj symwol.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Headline

As it is now - ... carried out by the Soviet installed communist authorities in Poland with assistance... - the headline may make some people think the action was carried out by Soviet authorities. Please rework. --193.151.57.7 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tweaking the headline. Also the article has no sources about assistance from Soviet Union and Communist Czechoslovakia - please correct. --193.151.57.7 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the support was primarily that they sealed their borders with Poland, but I'm not able to check this in the sources at the moment, so I've added a requests for citations to the article for the time. --Lysy^talk 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for starters http://www.twojebieszczady.pl/upa/upa5.php"Zwrócono się także do władz sowieckich i czechosłowackich o zablokowanie granic Polski. Granicę sowiecką zabezpieczała 64 Dywizja NKWD, natomiast Czechosłowacja powołała dopiero w czerwcu grupę operacyjną "Teplice"."--Molobo (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Po sowieckiej stronie granicy pilnowała 64 Dywizja NKWD, dowodzona przez ppłk. Dunina. Od strony Czechosłowacji granicę uszczelniła specjalna grupa operacyjna „Teplice”, na czele z gen. Janem Hermanem. W ramach wspólnych działań przeciwko UPA wymieniono się oficerami łącznikowymi, umożliwiono też wzajemne korzystanie z radiostacji wszystkich trzech krajów. Każdy oddział, w razie pościgu, mógł swobodnie przekraczać granicę kraju na głębokość do 30 kilometrów." [10]--Molobo (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia gives: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akcja_Wis%C5%82a Sowieci wyznaczyli do akcji po swej stronie jedną dywizję pancerną, specjalne oddziały antypartyzanckie oraz oddziały Wojsk Pogranicznych NKWD do blokowania granicy. Czechosłowacy utworzyli specjalną grupę operacyjną oraz oddali do polskiej dyspozycji środki transportu do pomocy w przegrupowaniu polskich wojsk. --Molobo (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this mostly confirms my suppositions and even goes a little further. It would be good to have a reference to reliable sources, though, as this is what the anonymous editor thinks is missing. --Lysy^talk 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So it seems that provided sources do not state "support", just "sealed the borders". This should be reflected in the article.

Also, Soviet installed Polish communist authorities is disputable and is a subject to different POVs about how much Polish authorities were installed by Soviets.

--Windyhead (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

executions

Lets see, on the one hand we have Timothy Snyder [11], and on the other hand we have Paweł5586 [12]. Interesting. I wonder who is the more credible source? I reverted back to Snyder, but perhaps Pawel is more reliable. Ostap 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In Poland we got more reliable source than Snyder. I find some sources than I remove some lies from this topic. Even Łemko community in Poland didnt wrote such thigns about operation Vistula.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, UPA members still live in Poland and got pensions (!!!). All UPA fighters were judged and sent to prisons.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider Snyder more reliable (=more neutral) than many Polish sources. Which Polish sources you think are more reliable than Snyder? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Polish Instytute of Membrance for example. Dr Zbigniew Palski. Snyder is pro Ukrainian. This is the new look of Polish historians on operation Vistula, page VI is begining.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Snyder pro-Ukrainian? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why, I read his book, he claims in Volhynia were similar actions - Polish and UPA. Its not true. UPA killed 60 thousands people - it was genocide. AK and self defence killed about 2-3 thousands and it was revenge. Polish soldiers who were killing lost their families, goods, everything. Often had seen mutilated bodies own family members, thats why they tried to revenge. This fact was confirmed at Polish-Ukrianian historical conferences. This numbers concern only Volhynia (in Poland were killed more Ukrainians). The total number of polish victims are about 150 thousands, total Ukrainian 10 thousands. And it wasnt similar actions, only UPA was very cruel. He dont mention about civilian Ukrainians who were helping Polish neighbours and often were killed by UPA. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Snyder is pretty clear that Ukrainians started the massacres in Volhynia and that Polish massacres were revenge attacks. The figures you cite seem to come from Polish nationalist historians. I would sooner trust an American researcher from Yale weighing the evidence, than either Polish or Ukrainian historians both groups of whom are naturally inclined to their biases. Palski is representative of a particular Polish historical traditon representing the Polish state: [13]. He is a legitimate historian but one with an identified one-sided POV. One can find Ukrinian versions of Palski who completely ignore murders committed by Ukrainian nationalsits and only write about the bad things that Poles did. Anyways, Palski is simply not in the same league as Snyder. Faustian (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A paragraph about numbers of victims and the Polish POV historians which I suspect Pawel values more than he does Snyder: [14]

• "According to the mono-perspectivists of Polish nationality, this genocide began in September 1939 and ended in 1947.49 They consider all Poles who were killed by Ukrainians to be victims of genocide, regardless of the situation in which they were killed. As a result, soldiers killed by communist rebels in September 1939, victims of common criminals, AK soldiers who died in battles with the UPA, Poles serving in "istriebitielnych" battalions (supporting police forces of NKVD) in the years 1944-45, members of the Secret Police (Urzad Bezpieczenstwa) killed in action, any militia, and soldiers of the Polish Army are also considered victims of genocide. In the assessment of the period 1944-47 we come up against paradoxes. A member of the Secret Police or militia killed by the Polish Underground is treated as a collaborator with the occupant. The killing of a similar person by the UPA, however, is treated as a "Ukrainian Nationalist crime."50 Between mono- and multi-perspectivians there is an agreement as to the number of victims in this conflict: 80,000-100,000 Poles and 20,000 Ukrainians."Faustian (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing with Wnuk. He has no respect in Poland. He wrote only one book in this topic, and with cooperation with Motyka. Wnuk is unexperienced historian who shuldnt judge other historians becouse he was involved in conflict beetwen them. He didnt participate in conferences, his text is out of date. Actually he is unknown in Poland. At present only a Gazeta Wyborcza is supporting Ukrainian nationalists. At present day even Motyka claims it was genocide.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rafał Wnuk is a Polish historian, editor of several historical periodicals, employee of the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences and of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance. He specializes in the Polish-Ukrainian relations during WWII as well as in the history of Polish resistance (primarily of Armia Krajowa) in the former eastern Polish regions (Kresy)." Bobanni (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please respect WP:BLP and don't insult living people like Wnuk. He is a reliable historian, until you can present a reliable source that claims otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

A number of editors will not allow this article to use the term "ethnic cleansing".

This term correct defines actions undertaken by Poles. It can correctly by used to sumarize various references including the Polish ones.

The dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing is:"

ethnic cleansing

–noun

the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration.Bobanni (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which dictionary definition? Ethnic cleansing is one of those terms with several definitions, and according to some (but not all) this article classifies. This should be noted in the article - that different sources disagree on whether this operation was ethnic cleansing (but yes, some do state that). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"bad reference"

According to our article, the encyclopedia of Ukraine is created and run by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta published by the University of Toronto Press. How is this "bad"? Ostap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it bad, but I'd hope to see it replaced by a more academic (read: non-encyclopedic) type of a reference, eventually. I'd suggest that interested editors take this issue to WP:RSN to get more comments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You remind me of User:Irpen. He told me something like that before about the same source. Ostap 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There were few occasions I agreed with Irpen. I guess it is one of them ;p --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Operation Wisla → Operation Vistula — Title should reflect common English name as per Naming Conventions. Bobanni (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok for me--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

...everything looks like it's in Polish or Ukranian. Is there an English source which you could point to that uses "Operation Vistula"?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Naming above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I at least skimmed though most of that discussion just now. The problem is, basically everything there (except with the possible exception of a couple posts at the very end) is "just" personal opinions. Now, before anyone starts jumping up and down about that, please keep in mind that I'm not saying anything personal about you (whoever you are). The fact is that it's ridiculously hard to verify anything on the internet, so basically we don't even try. Add some (English!) sources that are considered to be reliable about the subject matter, and then this conversation isn't really even required. The main thing about article names is, whatever the sources seem to prefer is what Wikipedia ends up using.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Google Books:

• "Operation Wisła" 1947: 32
• "Operation Vistula" 1947: 97
• "Action Vistula" 1947: 18
• "Action Wisła" 1947: 9
• "Akcja Wisła" 1947: 120 but mostly Polish
• "Operacja Wisła" 1947: 82 but mostly Polish

On the basis of that, I'd tentatively support a move to "Operation Vistula", per Common Name policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'd feel a lot more confortable if some of those books were actually used as citations in the article, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. What is the difference anyway? Tymek (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  It really doesn't make much a difference, with the redirects and all. Since it's being asked about though, we should address the question.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Worst edit ever

I want this here so everyone can see it: [15] Ostap 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL.Faustian (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check the user's other contributions.radek (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Siberia

>forcible repatriation of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union (Ukrainian SSR and Siberia) >repatriation to Siberia Strange as for repatriation? Isn't it? Smells like another soviet repatriations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.216.149 (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

200 000?

140 000 ?Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC) http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,29004,akcja-wisla---kontrowersje-trwaja-do-dzis.html 140 575.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

removed from lede

During Operation Vistula conditions of the United Nations Charter of June 26, 1945 on the right of self-determination and international laws have been respected. The deported farmers received financial help from the Polish government, and took over homes and farms left behind by the Germans, in most cases improving their living conditions due to increased size of newly acquired properties, brick buildings, and running water.

I don't think this is representative of general historians' opinions to be in the lede. While in some cases this was true, many of the deported did not wish to leave, they did not get compensation and obviously violence had to be used to move'em (that's why this was a military operation).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have no reason to doubt the value of assessment by Dr. Dr Łukasz Kamiński from central office of IPN supported by historical data in the article “Wygnańcy” published by IPN in 2008. I'm also aware of the massive criticism of the operation from the Ukrainian side, but these are the facts, and need to be included in our article from the neutral point of view. I hope you understand, thanks. Poeticbent talk 17:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Państwo polskie udzieliło także pomocy finansowej i rzeczowej przesiedlonym Ukraińcom. Uzyskali oni kredyty i zapomogi, kartki żywnościowe, żywność i zboże. Remontom poddano wiele zdewastowanych zabudowań, np. w województwie olsztyńskim wyremontowano 2427 budynków, a w szczecińskim – 717. Potrzeby były oczywiście dużo większe (np. w województwie olsztyńskim remontu wymagało około 10 000 budynków zasiedlonych przez Ukraińców), ale natychmiastowe ich zaspokojenie przerastało ówczesne możliwości państwa. W latach 1956-1958 władze udzieliły przesiedleńcom kredytów na łączną kwotę 170 mln zł, co na owe czasy było sumą olbrzymią. Znaczna część tych kredytów była bezzwrotna lub została częściowo umorzona w latach następnych. Nie wolno twierdzić, że przesiedlenia w ramach operacji „Wisła” były dobrodziejstwem. Przymus opuszczenia stron rodzinnych to tragedia dla tysięcy rodzin ukraińskich. Niemniej jednak podjęcie w ramach operacji zdecydowanych, radykalnych i niewątpliwie bolesnych działań przyczyniło się do zahamowania przelewu krwi po obu stronach i dało szansę na rozpoczęcie normalnego życia. — Dr. Łukasz Kamiński, IPN

January 20, 2016 edits

I would really like to ask editors to please stop pushing an extreme Polish POV in this article. Operation Vistula is clearly a case of ethnic cleansing, with an entire population being removed without considering who actively took part in the UPA and who did not. What is most shocking is that the Polish Wikipedia article on Operation Vistula is much more balanced. I could translate that article if noone will edit it back to reflect their radical Polish nationalist POV (unlikely unfortunately) as it would be a massive improvement over the sad piece of text that we have now.

The Problems:

1. No Ukrainian sources cited. Only Polish sources, quite extreme ones at that. The Polish parliament has condemned Operation Vistula and none of the country's leaders have defended it. Most of the article rests on material from some Zbigniew Palski

2. Completely irrelevant comparison with the NKVD's anti-UPA operations. Information on these belongs in another article.

3. Internment of Ukrainian intelligencia in the Jaworzno camp completely ignored

4. Polish killings of Ukrainians post-1945 completely ignored. If the UPA conducted "terror actions", then the massacres at Pavlokoma etc can only be considered government-sponsored terrorism. This should be explained in the "Background" section

5. Very much focus on how "good" the Polish government was to those deported. No mention of dispersion of Ukrainian deportees to facilitate assimilation, discrimination of Ukrainians in communist Poland

I would be very happy if a Polish editor would like to work with me on improving this article, making it neutral, including more informaion and sources (not along the lines of all Ukrainian are murderers/the Poles are always right). Right now I'm going to revert it to the (very lacking) version that I wrote because this misinformation shouldn't be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.135.71 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not log in and out User Yaro94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in order to post your rants in here. Removal of content based on separate articles written in Polish scientific journal by two professional historians from IPN: Dr Zbigniew Palski and Dr. Łukasz Kamiński is not acceptable. Poeticbent talk 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)