Talk:History of Poland/Archive 1

India
Is there a sense mentioning one of many Polish refugee camps and one of many functioning Polish embassy? I'm talking about that mentioning of camp in India during WWII. Szopen 09:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I asked Nichalp to elaborate it a bit. Halibutt 10:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Spelling convention
I have a question: why are the names like Władysław, Bolesław spelt in such a strange way? If Polish diacritics are frowned upon while discussing Middle Ages history, how are we going to spell Józef Piłsudski?--rwerp 19:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is still no official policy on that. Polish spelling is used for majority of modern names (20th century onward), but the earlier names seem to be a bit murky. See Naming conventions (names and titles) and Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers. Estabilishing a policy on this is on my 'to do' list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Anon Potsdam POV
While it may contain some useful details, it was POVed and I removed it from main space. It would better fit to History of Poland (1945-1989) anyway, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

1) Many people think Poland was compensated with territories from Germany. This is wrong (this was just the idea of Stalin), because this areas were originally given to Poland by the Allies (USA and Great Britain) just for administration (as aimed against the soviet power). The Potsdam Conference acted clearly on the background of Germany in the borders of 31. of December 1937. It just ordered the "human and ordered transfer" of Germans out of the occupied (by Nazi Germany) polish territories (Article XIII of Potsdam Agreement). But Poland, Czechoslovakia etc., took advantage of the situation after the capitulation of Nazi Germany and ordered by decree the expulsion of nearly all Germans. Alone from Silesia, where the Germans settled for over 700 years, were expelled at least 3,5 mio german people. Many of them were murdered and violated or perished by starvation or frostbite. Some polish people call Silesia and other former german territories Regained Territories but this is anachronous at all.

Anon returns --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC): 2) This happened without the agreement of the Potsdam Conference, because it just ordered the "human and ordered transfer" of the Germans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungaria. The so called Regained Territories belonged in that time still to Germany. They just were given by the Allies to Poland for administration.

Early history of Poland
I think the Early History of Poland section spends way too much time talking about the supposed Scandinavian connections of Mieszko I. I don't think this material, which appears in the Myths from Polish history article, should get any space in a small section that's supposed to summarize several hundred years of Polish history. And there is barely any information about the rozbicie dzielnicowe and subsequent reunification. If no one objects, I'll remove the Scandinavian reference and expand the other part. The Scandinavian material will still be accessible from the "Myths" link at the bottom of the article. Appleseed 16:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold :) Halibutt 20:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I took a stab at it. Let me know what you think. Appleseed 19:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not just a myth. It was once one of the theories and it appears fromt ime to time in popluar writings (though, it is generally considered to be untrue). This was serious enough for serious historians (Labuda for sure wrote about it) to counter the arguments against it. But, since it is still accessible, after some though I agree with that. Let's hope no German with theory that Poland was built by Germans/Vikings (similar to infamous Helga) will appear again and there would be no need to reintroduce the paragraph once again. Szopen 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the topic; I was only going by what was said in Scandinavian connections to Mieszko I. True or not, the reason I took it out was that it seems to be a footnote in the history of Piast Poland, which this section tries to condense into a few short paragraphs.  Appleseed 18:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

On a sidenote, the entire early history of Poland is poorly covered - just check most of the links from Kingdom of Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Potsdam Conference
The Allies didn´t order the transfer of Germans from their ancestral homelands like Silesia, where they had settled over centuries (Silesia belonged to the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation since the 14th century.) To call territories like Silesia "Regained Territories" it needs quite a lot of ignorance. This is my opinion. By all means, it is anacronous at all!
 * I think this is properly explained at the Regained Territories and Silesia articles. Yes, Silesia belonged to various German-related states since 14th century, but 1) before it, it belonged to Poland (and Czechs) for several centuries and 2) even until 20th century it retained a large Polish-speaking minority. Besides, I don't see a problem with this - the name exists and is used in English language. If you have sources (preferably academic) that argue it is a wrong/biased name, feel free to write about it at the RT article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Piotrus, before the 14th century there didn´t exist an idea of nationalities like with beginning of the 20th century. The Polish-speaking minority existed mainly in Upper Silesia (near Poland). Lower Silesia was mostly German. One example: The region Kłodzko (Grafschaft Glatz) belonged for a long time to Bohemia, than to the Holy Roman Empire (predecessor of Germany) and then to Prussia (Germany) – but never to Poland. Now it belongs to Poland. But who granted it to Poland? It was August Cardinal Hlond, who deceived the German and the Czech bishops (Kłodzko was German but ecclesiastically it belonged to the archdiocese Praha.) Praha was furios about Cardinal Hlond and wrote a letter to the Vatican with five pages! Wikiferdi


 * Your point being? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The Allies ordered an human an ordered transfer of Germans in territories which had been occupied by Nazi-Germany like for example the "Warthegau" in Poland.

The Allies ordered this because immediately after the capitulation of Nazi-Germany the expulsion of the Germans had begun - quite long before the Potsdam Conference. This expulsions where full of cruelty (violation of women of each age, murder, starvation, frostbite etc.) - You can compare this a little bit with the recent expulsions in Serbia.)

Well Poland expelled by decree the Germans - to create an ethnically pure / homogenous state. We call this "ethnically cleansing". It´s a terrible word (and action).


 * This is were you seem to overlook few facts. Again, I'd advise you that a better place to discuss it is in the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, German exodus from Eastern Europe, Oder-Neisse line, Potsdam Agreement and Curzon Line articles. History of Poland has no room for details (i.e. detailed description of the post-WWII migrations). It mentions it and that's it, more details are invited in the above articles. As for ethnic cleansing, it is never a pleasant event, but you seem to overstate its negative connotations (see its definition in the article).


 *  Well, Piotrus, you can write until you are blue in the face (please take this not as an insult), but ethnic cleansing is an atrocity and against international law and human rights. Serbia was punished because they did this recently to the Albanians. Wikiferdi


 * I would be the last to advocate ethnic cleansing, however as the article on it states: "At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide". So on the lower level, it it is not 'terrible', on the upper, definetly is. But I guess we are discussing semantics here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, to your specific points: 1) it is wrong to accusse Poland of those policies. Poland (Polish government) had little or no say in that matter: it was either not invited at all to conferences that determined it fate (like border changes at Yalta or German resettlement at Potsdam) or the represantatives send to post-1945 events were from new communist-controlled governments that were basically a mouthpiece for Soviet Union. Of course it does not mean that Poland was innocent, but it should be noted it was carrying out policies agreed upon by the allmighty Western Allies and Soviet Union, with Soviets controling its very government via their people.


 * Well, Piotrus, I think you are wrong about this. It was definitely not decided by the Potsdam Conference to expell or transfer the Germans from Silesia etc. Who composed the Bierut – decrees? The Allies? They were already written before the Potsdam Conference started. There are a lot of testimonies which verify that in Poland before WWII existed the idea of “regaining territories”. I thinks it´s insolent to blame the Allies for what Poland etc. did. Wikiferdi


 * You write: "Who composed the Bierut – decrees? The Allies? " Nope. The Soviets. Sure, pre-war Poland had many strange (from today's POV) ideas, up to a colony on Madagaskar :) But post-1944, under communists control, Poles had very little to say about it. As I wrote: the general policy was signed by Western Allies and Soviet Unions, with no Polish representative at Yalta or Potsdam, and later detailed agreements and actions were signed/carried out by Soviet-controlled puppets in the People's Republic of Poland (btw, you may want to read up on History of Poland (1945-1989), a Featured Article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

2) My main problem with your above paragraph is that it is confusing and chronologically incorrect. You write: "This happened without the agreement of the Potsdam Conference, because it just ordered the "human and ordered transfer" of the Germans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungaria. The so called Regained Territories belonged in that time still to Germany. They just were given by the Allies to Poland for administration." Yet the Yalta came first in January 45, determined the change of Polish borders (which happened contrary to the wishes of Poles!), then Potsdam in August 45 enforced the resettlement, so the territories in question do belonged to Poland (or in reality, to Soviets, whose Red Army administration was the real power on most of those territories)


 *  Well, Piotrus, the Potsdam Conference was the last conference with the final validity. And the Potsdam Conference acted explicitly (as mention various times at the beginning of the conference) on the background of “Germany in the borders of 31st of December 1937" – rather before the Yalta Conference. Wikiferdi
 * Source, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

3) Germany was the only country that hasn't recognized those facts (until 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany) and it did refer to those territories as German Eastern Territories Under Polish Administration" (Deutsche Ostgebiete unter polnischer Verwaltung); this was however only a German POV, not shared by anybody else. Bottom line was: Germany lost the war, Allies&Soviet dicated the terms, both Germany and Poland had no choice but to do as they were told. Are you arguing that they were thus not in Poland's borders and thus not subject to Potsdam Agreement? Again, you may want to discus it at the more specific articles, but it is of little importance here, and I would recommend you give specific quotations from your sources to back up such a controversial POV.


 *  Well, Piotrus, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, who is Spanish-born US-American and employed at the UN, has very emphasized very often the problem with this ideology. Fortunately Nazi-Germany lost the war, but this didn´t give the allowance to do atrocities against Germans. The Allies (USA, Great Britain, France) knew this. Well, maybe in a certain way Stalin fooled them, but they didn´t order any expulsion (!) and just the “human and ordered transfer” of Germans out of Nazi-Germany occupied Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungaria. I write it here because here appears an historical falsehood. Maybe I write it on another site, too. Wikiferdi


 * I guess it is semantics again. Realpolitic and such. Sure, the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was organised badly and carried in a criminal fashion, and that was not the main intention of the Western Allies/SU. But they ordered the expulsion per se, and those in place (who have been victimised by Germans for many years) have carried the operation with unfortunate lack of compassion (to say the least) for Germans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

4) I agree this was a cruel ordeal to everyone's involved (do remember then not only Germans were subject to those migrations at that time, the entire Eeastern Europe was 'on the move' due to the Allies/Soviet agreement - Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Jews...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 *  Well, Piotrus, the expulsion of the Germans was the biggest (ever in history) – around 14 mio! About the Jews I haven´t to say much. It was the biggest systematic atrocity of Nazi-Germany. Also the Poles suffered a lot from Nazi-Germany. Germany has apologized for it. Who has apologized for the atrocities especially against the expelled Germans? This were war crimes, too. I never have heard that Poland, Russia, Czechia … trialed anybody involved in this outrage. Wikiferdi


 * Around 16,5 milions - likely the biggest in 20th century, although some Soviet Union deportations may be close (or bigger - need sources on that one). I didn't refer to the German-carried 'migrations' during the IIWW, but to the migrations of Poles, Ukrainians, Jews and others simoultaneous with the German one. While it affected fewer people (I don't have hard numbers atm but I'd say ~5 millions) it is a different migration (ordered by SU mostly) then the German one you refer to. As for "Who has apologized for the atrocities especially against the expelled Germans?" - I will tell you who - Poles, for example. 1965, 18 November - Polish bishops send a groundbreaking "Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops", in which they declare: "We forgive and ask for forgiveness". See 'Orędzie biskupów polskich do ich niemieckich braci w Chrystusowym urzędzie pasterskim (z dn. 18 listopada 1965)' - sorry, couldn't find an English translation. I am sure you can find a German one, I don't know how to translate this to search for it though. As for trials, I can recall at least one name of the top of my head: Salomon Morel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you like to read more about this you can look for books (or in the internet) from US-american Alfred-Maurice de Zayas (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). For example: "ZAYAS, Alfred M. de: Nemesis at Potsdam. The Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans. Background, Execution, Consequences." Wikiferdi
 * Is this publication online? In exchange, I recommend you take a look at my sources: Norman Davies God's Playground (part 2, chapter on 'People's Republic of Poland') and S.Schimitzek, ''Truth or conjecture: German civilian losses in the East, 1966. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 *  Well, Piotrus, I will take a look in the Internet about your proposals. The homepage of Mr. de Zayas is www.alfreddezayas.de. Mr. de Zayas said: There are a lot of eyewitness accounts of the expulsion in the archives of the Allies and also Switzerland (Red Cross) – you don´t have to consider the German testimonies. In this archives is enough to comply with the terms of “genocide”. Wikiferdi


 * Well, what it certainly wasn't a genocide, seems like Mr. de Zayas doesn't know the definition of this word. The expulsion of Germans was neither a deliberate murder nor the destruction of a social identity. Be careful with this - as Davies notes, only far-righters use such demagogical terms, grossely overestimating the number of casualties in attempt to stirr emotions on this matter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Potsdam Conference
Hello Piotrus!

Here some answers for discussing:

Ethnic cleansing generally

Each mandatory population transfer is a crime against humanity and international law. Item 3 Section B of the Nuremberg accusations against the Nazis was the “forced deportation of civil population” Item 4 Section A deals with crimes against humanity including mass deportations.

The “Germanisierung” policy (to make an ethnic homogenous aryan state) of Hitler was condemned.

“Homogenisation” – an idea for which the Nazis were condemned – and you want to defend it (“not to overstate its negative connotations”)?

Mr. de Zayas said with regard to the legal aspects of expulsion, that were such expulsions to take place today, there is no question that it would constitute the violation of various provisions of international law. (He is UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Don´t forget this.)

I propose to discuss this point on the discussion site of ethnic cleansing.


 * I am not defending anybody. What I meant is that ethnic cleansing may refer to migration as well as genocide. But I agree ethnic cleansing is a right term to what happened to Germans in Eastern Europe after IIWW (but genocide would be a gross overstatement). It was a sad, terrible event - one of many in the aftermath of the war the Germans started. They lost and paid the terrible price. I won't argue if it was fair or not, as it is hard to measure human life, besides, it is something decided without any input from Polish authorities and thus not that relevant to this article. Yes, you are right that if it were it to happen today it would be unacceptable - but only if it were to involve in a democratic country. But this and many similar things are acceptable in totalitarian countries, and are still happening (read about Darfur conflict, for example, or Congo Civil War, for two genocides from the top of my head that are happening now with little consideration from the rest of the world). UN may and does condemnt most of such events. And this is usually where it ends, on condemnation. It seems our discussion is drifting OT here. Feel free to respond on my talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans

Following thoughts I take for the most part from a reading of Mr. de Zayas in Pittsburgh (http://www.meaus.com/Expulsion_of_Germans.html)

There he quotes from Victor Gollancz's (he is not German) book “Our Threatened Values” (page 96):

"If the conscience of men ever again becomes sensitive, these expulsions will be remembered to the undying shame of all who committed or connived them... The Germans were expelled, not just with an absence of over-nice consideration, but with the very maximum of brutality."

Mr. de Zayas pronounces: “Some critical voices might say they have an axe to grind, that they are just trying to excuse themselves. But you have extensive documentation -- American, British, French documentation that prove the nature of the expulsions as an exceedingly cruel and brutal expulsion.”

In August of 1941 President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill had agreed in the middle of the Atlantic on the ship Augusta on the so-called Atlantic Charter. This Atlantic Charter provided that neither would seek territorial or other aggrandizement, and they both undertook a commitment to oppose "territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."

Mr. de Zayas asserts that Robert Murphy, the political advisor of General Eisenhower, and later the political advisor of Clay during the occupation in Germany, had been one of the first official voices in the American government that opposed the Expulsion, and to criticize the manner in which the Expulsion was being carried out.

So, as a result of this and all the memoranda of Murphy, the American government had repeatedly protested at Warsaw and at Prague and had tried to get some cooperation from the Czechoslovak government and from the Polish government.

“But unfortunately the Soviet occupation forces in those areas encouraged both the Polish and the Czechoslovak governments in the Expulsion, so there was no way for the U.S. to effectively stop it.” (cf. Mr. de Zayas)

Maybe we can continue to discuss this on the discussion site of Expulsion of Germans after World War II


 * There is one simple problem with this account. Somebody assumes that Polish or Czechoslovak governments had anything to say in the matter of the expulsions. They were simply carrying out orders of the Soviets, under the thread of the Red Army. They could refuse to cooperate - as Stanisław Mikołajczyk did if you want to look up some specific people and events - and be exiled/shot and replaced by more cooperative ones. Once Stalin took hold of half of Europe, there was nothing anybody could do, except wage a war on him - something Western Allies were not prepared to do, not only for the Germans, but for their Polish allies as well (you may want to read up on that here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Potsdam Conference: Collaboration Polish communists with Stalin

I am under the impression, that for you Polish communists were “Soviets” (Russians). Well they were Poles and so they collaborated with Stalin similar as the Vichy–regime in France collaborated with Hitler. (Which are your sources for your opinion about this item?)


 * Polish communists undoubtedly had Polish citizenship (well, most of them). And you are right to compare them to Vichy government. What sources do you ask for, exactly? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Poland should undertake responsibility for this part of her history although there is surely no „collective guilty“ (Germany undertakes responsibility for the Nazi crimes although not all Germans were Nazi. Hitler was elected in the last barely “free elections” only by around 40% of the Germans).


 * As I wrote, Poland did apologise to Germans for its part in the expulsion. What else would you mean by 'taking responsibility'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Has Poland ever charged Russia with invading Poland in the east at nearly the same time as Hitler invaded in the west? I have never heard about an apology etc. from Russia. Do you?


 * There was never such an apology. Germans have apologised to the world for the IIWW. Poland has apologised to the Germans for the expulsion. Russia...Russia however, is another matter. Russian policy is to still declare that they freed half of the world, that they never invaded Poland - only 'secured endagered minorities', that they helped estabilish a democractic and free government of Poland post-IIWW, that Poland was never under their control, etc. There was some debate on this during recent Victory Day's celebration, I am sure you can google some more discussion on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

On another board somebody mentioned that it was Churchill who gave Stalin the idea to move Poland from east to west. But who gave Churchill this idea? During WWII the Polish government was in London in exile … Mr. de Zayas, who spoke with many prominent eyewitness, states that Churchill could agree to transfer as many Germans from East German territories as Polish people were to transfer from East Poland. But not more than 2 - 3 mio! (The West Allies weren´t interested in a large number of expellees/refugees because they were responsible for the nutrition of the Germans in their occupation zone.)

Well, Poland was not a part of the “big three” in Potsdam but the government of Poland was invited to Potsdam to express their opinion: They said that in this controversial areas (East Germany) would live just around 1,5 mio Germans and they would leave voluntarily after the harvest (cf. de Zayas).

Well, we could continue to discuss this on the site of Potsdam Conference


 * I am not sure what are you trying to say here. Let me repeat: Poland had no vote in anything regarding their fate. Read up on Polish government in exile, Władysław Sikorski, Western betrayal and History of Poland (1945-1989). Majority of Polish politicians were opposed to the border shift (who wouldn't), and thus to the expulsion of Germans, but they could do nothing to stop them. Western government did not listen to the Polish government in exile, and Soviets simply chose the members of Krajowa Rada Narodowa and Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego so they would do everything they were told do. If you are thinking Poland do anything to change the fate of Germans, you are mistaken. Remember that Poland who fought the Germans did not win the war...together with most of the Eastern Europe, we lost it - to Soviets - and had nothing to say about our fate or that of ours neighbours. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Potsdam Conference: Did the Allies really order the expulsion of the Germans?

The expulsion excesses had begun quite long before the Potsdam Conference took place and long before it concluded. Piotrus, if you are really convinced that Poland just fulfilled the orders of the Allies, please tell me who gave the order to expel the Germans (immediately after the end of WWII), when, where and with which resolution …?

And what´s about August Cardinal Hlond? He forced the German bishops to resignate long before the Potsdam Protocol.

We could discuss this on the site of Potsdam Conference or August Cardinal Hlond or both.


 * Again - Polish government in exile had no control over anything in Eastern Europe, and PKWN government was a Soviet marionette. Thus, to answer your question, any and all orders regarding expulsion came from the Soviets masterminds, and I quite agree they were not the ones to show compassion or care for legality of their actions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Apologies from Polish respectively German bishops

As I know, this apology was composed by both, Polish and German bishops. However, I am pleased about it, but what makes me sad is, that the bishops as they came back to Poland were called “traitors” by the Polish people who said: “We never forgive and we never forget”. So the Polish bishops had to almost revoke this letter and they wrote another “pastoral letter” in the beginning of 1966 which has relativized this excuse. Please could you solicitate me this letter? I am keen on knowing what is written there.


 * If you mean translate, I have not been able to find one yet. And yes, this initative was much opposed - but not by Polish people, but by the goverment of the People's Republic of Poland. Don't confuse them, and if remember, that PRL was a communist dictatorship, so the government policies did not represent the will of the majority. On the contrary, they represented the views of the Soviets and the small Polish minority that worked with them (members of the Party and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually I was thinking of an official excuse of politicians who speak for all and not clergymen who just represent one (small) group of a people. And here it doesn´t exist a clear excuse towards the German expellees – this is what I know. Piotrus, you mention Salomon Morel. Isn´t he that Jew whom Poland wants to trial – he isn´t trialed so far because he lives in Israel? Don´t you know somebody who is already convicted? I know something about a Pole who was the commandant of the concentration camp Lamsdorf (or similar) for Germans. He was indicted but I think so far not convicted.


 * If you give me a name I can check up on this in Polish sources. Note that Morel was only accussed after the regime change in 1989. In PRL, the government line was that expulsion was just and no attrocities happened (of course, they also meant that millions of Poles killed of forced into exile were also ignored). That's dictatorship for you. Only for the past 15 or so years Poland can honestly analyse its past. Better half of Germany, on the other hand, had a democratic government, respecting civil rights such as freedom of speach to come to terms with its past. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Was the expulsion of the Germans a “genocide”?

Well, Mr. de Zayas, UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, said this. Also US-American politicians said and say this (even Mr. President George W. Bush has a similar attitude towards the expulsions of the Germans). If you have problems with this, maybe you can say this to Mr. de Zayas directly? Write in his guestbook: www.alfreddezayas.com
 * I would guess it is full of internet trolls already. Of course Mr. De Zayas, UN High Commissioner of Human Rights as you so kindly remind me many, many times, has much more authority then me, a lowly Wikipedian :) Still, I have my right to disagree with him. You may of course want to quote him in relevant articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

About "Norman Davies"

From the Site of Wikipedia on Norman Davies I took following sentence: The Jews "accuse him of minimizing historic anti-Semitism, and of promoting a view that the Holocaust occupies a position in international historiography which tends to minimize the suffering of non-Jewish Poles and even denounce them as anti-Semites."

Well Mr. de Zayas also is Professor an he is employed at the United Nations and at the President of the Pen Club. So I think this source is more reliable in this things.

Wikiferdi


 * Let me say that I value Mr. Davies, whose works I have read, much, much more then Mr. de Zayas, whose works I have not. You are of course free to have your own scale of values. This is what Wiki is all about. We bring our sources, ideas and such, often different, and try to work out a good compromise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed: "There is a controversial between historians around the world wether the Allies (especially Russia) or Polish politican together with Russia were constitutive for the expulsion of the Germans. Some historians see the Potsdam Protocol as a sanction for it. Others do not because they state that the Allies didn´t agree on a border between Poland and Germany at Potsdam." Too much weasel words - please exchange 'some historians' for specific names. Besides, you confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. And once again I'd like to remind you that Polish politicians had little say in anything that the Great Powers decided. Please, give the names of Polish politicians responsible for Potsdam or other policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish involvement in Potsdam
Poland was invited to the Potsdam Conference on Juli 24 (1945) to explain their POV.

In the following I quote from:

James L. Gormly: From Potsdam to the COLD WAR. Big Three Diplomacy 1945-1947. Scholarly Resources Inc. Delaware, 1990 (ISBN 0-8420-2334-8)

James L. Gormly was educated at the University of Arizona and the University of Conneticut, from which he received a Ph.D. in history. The author of numerous articles on U.S. foreign relations, in 1987 he completed The Collapse of the Grand Alliance, 1945-1948.

He is currently a professor of history at Washington and Jefferson College in Washington, Pennsylvania, where he chairs the department.

Quotations:

"The president (Truman) complained that there were now five occupation zones because the Soviets had turned over the area extending along the Oder and western Neisse to the Poles. This was in violation of the Yalta agreement. The president did not see how economic controls or reparations could operate if Germany was thus broken up." (p. 49)

"Churchill spoke strongly against giving the Poles control over an area in which some eight million Germans lived. Stalin insisted that the Germans had all fled and that the Poles were needed to fill the vacuum." (p. 50)

"On July 24 the Polish delegation arrived in Berlin, headed by Prime Minister Boleslaw Bierut and including Mikolajczyk and Foreign Minister Wincenty Rzymowksi. They consistently held to the position that the Oder and western Neisse rivers should be the frontier, and they vehemently argued their case before the foreign ministers, Churchill, and Truman, in turn." (p. 50)

The next day Churchill said to Stalin:

"The Poles are driving the Germans out of the Russian zone. That should not be done without considering its effect on the food supply and reparations. We are getting into a position where the Poles have food and coal, and we have the mass of (the) population thrown at us." (p.51)

"To the Soviets, reparations were more important than boundaries, and Stalin might have sold out the Poles if they had not so vociferously protested when, in spite of his 'illness', he consulted with them during the evening of July 29." (p.55f)

End of quotation

Well, I would say Germany and especially the expelled Germans had little to say about the expulsions. As Prof. Gormly writes, Poland was ensnarled in this dark chapter of postwar history. -- Wikiferdi 08:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It does prove that the communist Polish government was in favour of the change (not suprising, one should remember that it mostly did what Stalin told them to). Still, it shows that the Poles were there (which conference does your quotation refer to, exactly? Potsdam, I assume?) and could argue and ask (explain their POV, as you write), but the eventual decision was not theirs, it was the Big Three who made it. Poles had the right to state their case, but not to vote. I wonder how much anything the Poles said could influence what the Big Three already agreed upon. Remember also that the Poles were divided, the Polish government in exile was opposed to the border change. Also, I wonder what does prof. Gromly mean by 'Stalin might have sold out the Poles'. You are right that Germans had even less choice then Poles. Poles were 'nominally' among the Allies. Germans were paying for the war. I wonder, were there any German representatives at Potsdam? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Sowjets broke the Allied compromises and Poland was not sad to obey the Sowjets

In Article IV (Reparations from Germany) of Potsdam Agreement the Allies write that Poland shall be compensated by the reparations made to U.S.S.R: "The U.S.S.R. undertakes to settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of reparations."


 * Which it never did. Your point? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In Article IX the Allies write that Silesia etc. shall be put under Polish administration so that it "should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany".

According to Potsdam the Sowjets didn´t have the right to take reparations from Silesia etc. because it wasn´t part of its occupation zone and Poland didn´t have the right to take reparations from Silesia etc. because it should be compensated from the reparations made to U.S.S.R.


 * Soviets rarely cared about ink on pages. Tour point? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In the Atlantic Charter 1941 the Allies decided not to make "territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned".


 * Stalin surely had a good laugh at that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In Article IX b) of Potsdam the Allies "reaffirm (!) their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement" - which never took place because Stalin and Poland created accomplished facts by expelling nearly all native Germans from Silesia etc. and taking reparations from their area - this was clearly against the Potsdam Agreement (and Yalta) and against the Atlantic Charter.


 * Stalin, yes. Poland, no - there was a strong opposition to it (see 3xTAK referendum). But since the pro-Soviet communist minorityy held the power (or rather, were the puppets through which Soviets held the power) due to Red Army/NKVD assistance, little could be done. Majority of Poles didn't want the change of borders. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

--Wikiferdi 09:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"within and without"?
"the possibility of Polish independence was kept alive by events within and without Poland throughout the nineteenth century."

Is this sentence correct? Or was the possibility of independence kept alive by events within and outside of Poland? Or inside and outside of Poland?
 * In this context, "without" does mean "outside of." Check a good English dictionary.  logologist 04:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It not is a real history of Poland. It is a sweet idyllic "syrup" plus antirussian propagation.
1) Middle Ages. The most part of Poles since the middle of the fourteenth century were serfs. Landowners gained almost unlimited ownership over serfs. The Polish expansion on the East (which began from annexation of Halich in 1349), in ancient russian principalities, carried the serfdom to the Ukrainians and Belorussians... Ben-Velvel 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Was Galich Rus' annexed by Poles or by Lithuanians in the 14th century? Also, I don't think that "The Polish expansion on the East, carried the serfdom to the Ukrainians and Belorussians." statement is correct, as Russian serfdom developed rather independently (see that article, which clearly states that Russian serfdom developed indepedently in 11th century). Serdom came with feudalism, and spread through entire Europe, one nation carrying it to another, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In Kievan Rus' of 11-12s centuries relations between the peasant and the landowner did not developed in the serfdom.There were only preconditions of strengthening of dependence of the peasant from the landowner. Then there was a destructive Mongol-Tatar invasion and as a result the serfdom in eastern Russia was generated in the beginning of 17th century only. However since Mongol-Tatar invasion the former western Russian princedoms went under rule of Poland and Lithuania and received the serfdom from Poland Ben-Velvel 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And the eastern under the control of Muscovite Russia received the even worse serfdom from Muscovy (see Talk:History of Belarus where I mention some differences between the two serfdoms). Your point?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on the period. At 14-16 centuries there was no serfdom in Russia; peasants of Poland(PLC) became cossacks and moved on a southeast. Cossacks uprising of 1649 in the eastern Poland was substantially revolt of serfs and consequently it was so bloody. Ben-Velvel 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a specialist in Russian history, so I wont comment on that. Not all of Cossacks came from PLC, but you are basically correct in stating that the bloodiness of their uprisings stemmed at least partially from the fact szlachta tried to make them into serfs. But I think this part of our discussion is a bit of track. As I wrote above: your point?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

2) WWII.

You have overlooked the aggressive policy of Poland before the second world war. Poland has easy divided Czechoslovakia (annexation of Tessin) together with Nazi-Germany. [User:Ben-Velvel|Ben-Velvel]] 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This minor issue is already covered at Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia, and it is really minor - nothing as serious as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, for example.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why has Poland not received military support from France and England in September 1939? On the western front Germany had no military forces. The West has refused to support Poland (probably by virtue of secret agreements with Germany) and the USSR should solve questions of its security independently. Ben-Velvel 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the article about the Western betrayal. While why can deplore the Western appeasement, they did not strike the bargain with Hitler to divide Poland like Stalin did. All things considered, inaction is better then active agression (and that's what Soviets did to Poland on the 17th of September).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely overlooked who has liberated Poland from German concentration camps, who saved Poles from Nazi-genocide and violent germanization, who stoped ethnic cleansings in polish villages in West Ukraine? I can remind. Soviets. 600 thousand Soviet soldiers died for your lifes. You must thank Soviets for big independent state of Poland including historical polish Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia. It is not compensation for east regions. East regions, populated mainly by Ukrainians and Belorussians, were not the historical Polish territoies. Ben-Velvel 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * While the fact that Soviets evicted Nazi Germans from Poland should be stressed in the article, there is little point in trying to paint Soviets as heroes: for Poles, they were just another breed of occupants. They had behaved little better towards Poles then Nazis in the course of the IIWW (see Katyn massacre), they replaced germanization with russification, they certainly did not create any independent Poland (People's Republic of Poland was a Soviet puppet state), and restoration of the so-called Recovered Territories came at the cost of losing Kresy. And while you are right Kresy were not clearly historical Polish territories, neither were they Russian. For the Ukrainians and Belorusians I don't think change from Polish pans to Soviet commissairs where a significant improvement (holodomor, anyone?). And Poles will certainly thank Soviets for the 'liberation', if they apologize for genocide (Katyn) and 40+ years of post-IIWW occupation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Piotrus, in 90s Russian government completely investigated war crime in Katyn and apologized for it. It was war crime (12.000 victims), instead of a genocide. It is comparable to death of tens thousand Soviet war-prisoners in the Polish concentration camps after the Soviet-Polish war of 1918-1921... On the contrary during WW2 Germans have carried out in Poland a genocide, having killed 6 million person.Killing of 6 million person within 5 years is the genocide. And if you had 40+ years of German occupation then for today in Poland would not live the Poles.Ben-Velvel 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Ben-Velvel, you are incorrect, please see the article on Katyn Massacre, which I ensured is well referenced. The 'tens of thousands Soviet war-prisoners death' issue is discussed at the Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) article, and it clearly states that the prisoners died of epidemic. While it is deplorable, there is clearly a difference between providing inadequate facilities (in a country created just few years ago and in the middle of the war) and executing the prisoners in cold blood as a part of a plan to wipe out another country's intelligentsia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very simple question. Why you do not accuse Ukraine of a genocide of Poles? In 1941-1943 Ukrainian nationalists (OUN, Nachtigal, Ukrainian Insurgent Army etc) have killed more than hundred thousand Poles in Galicia and Volhynia. Present authorities of independent Ukraine define Ukrainian Nationalists of WWII as fighters for independence and accordingly should carry responsibility for this genocide.  It seems on political reasons the Polish authorities try to hide the truth about a real genocide of Poles during WWII. Ben-Velvel 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian nationalist organisations, not Ukrainian states, killed Poles and carried genocide. OTOH, Soviet STATE murdered hundreds of Polish officers and caused directly or indirectly deaths of thousands and thousands of Poles, deporting hundreds of thousands Poles into Siberia, where in some camps death was almost assured. unsigned comment from 06:23, 10 January 2006 by Szopen
 * Ukrainian nationalist organisations of WWII are completely legalized by the modern Ukrainian government. They are completely free from any charges.  On the contrary the war crime of Katyn has been investigated and condemned by the modern Russian government. Thus the Soviet state is not identical to the Russian state and the ruling elite of the USSR has consisted of representatives of all Soviet national republics, of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (for example the chief of secret police Dzerzhinsky) and so on. Basically modern Georgia carries the same responsibility for war crime of Georgian Stalin as well as modern Russia...  You rather unfairly condemn modern Russia for Stalin's crime, but I did not hear, that you thanked White Russian army of general Wrangel which rendered the big help to Poland during the Soviet-Polish war in 1920, having started the offensive against bolsheviks in the south of Russia. Ben-Velvel 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing Ukrainian attrocities, although if you want to write more about them, feel free to do so, minding that this is a fairly general article and smaller events may be mentioned better elsewhere. I don't think I (we?) am condemning *only* modern Russia. Common Russian never had (nor have...) much to say in how their country is run. Bolshevick 'wierchuszka' was quite international compared to Tsarist or later Communist governments, though. As for Wrangel, I don't think he did much to help Poland; Piłsudski's offered White's the proposition of alliance which they disregarded with the known consequences. By the same token one may praise (or demand the praise for) UK+France for their support to the Whites at that period.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very big forces of Red Army fighted against attacked forces of Wrangel, in a peak of the Soviet-Polish war. But England, France and Poland did not render practically any help to White Russian Forces when began Red Army offensive against Wrangel.Ben-Velvel 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns065.htm Quote: Telegram
 * You have absolutely overlooked who has liberated Poland from German concentration camps, who saved Poles from Nazi-genocide and violent germanization, who stoped ethnic cleansings in polish villages in West Ukraine? I can remind. Soviets.

VERY URGENT MOSCOW, September 9, 1939-12:56 a. m. Received September 9, 1939-5 a. m.

No. 300 of September 8

I have just received the following telephone message from Molotov:

"I have received your communication regarding the entry of German troops into Warsaw. Please convey my congratulations and greetings to the German Reich Government. Molotov."

SCHULENBURG

Called for common border with Germany: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns080.htm Quote: Telegram

STRICTLY SECRET Moscow, September 20, 1939-2:23 a. m. Received September 20, 1939-4:55 a. m.

No. 395 of September 19 Molotov stated to me today that the Soviet Government now considered the time ripe for it, jointly with the German Government, to establish definitively the structure of the Polish area. In this regard, Molotov hinted that the original inclination entertained by the Soviet Government and Stalin personally to permit the existence of a residual Poland had given way to the inclination to partition Poland along the Pissa-Narew-Vistula-San Line. The Soviet Government wishes to commence negotiations on this matter at once, and to conduct them in Moscow, since such negotiations must be conducted on the Soviet side by persons in the highest positions of authority, who cannot leave the Soviet Union. Request telegraphic instructions.

SCHULENBURG

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns082.htm Quote: Stalin and Molotov asked me to come to the Kremlin at 8 p. m. today. Stalin stated the following: In the final settlement of the Polish question anything that in the future might create friction between Germany and the Soviet Union must be avoided. From this point of view, he considered it wrong to leave an independent Polish rump state. He proposed the following: From the territory to the east of the demarcation line, all the Province of Lublin and that portion of the Province of Warsaw which extends to the Bug should be added to our share. In return, we should waive our claim to Lithuania.

Stalin designated this suggestion as a subject for the forthcoming negotiations with the Reich Foreign Minister and added that, if we consented, the Soviet Union would immediately take up the solution of the problem of the Baltic countries in accordance with the Protocol of August 23, and expected in this matter the unstinting support of the German Government. Stalin expressly indicated Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, but did not mention Finland. I replied to Stalin that I would report to my Government. SCHULENBURG

As can be seen above while Germany toyed with the idea of puppet state formed out of conquered Poland, Soviet Union pushed for common border with Germany.

Assisted German Army and war effort: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns077.htm Quote: I replied with emphasis that of course Germany was firmly determined to fulfill the terms of the Moscow agreements precisely, and I referred to point 2 of the communication made by me to Molotov on September 16 in accordance with the instructions of the Reich Foreign Minister (see telegram No. 360 of September 15 from there). I declared that it would be suitable for the High Command to withdraw to the line which had been agreed upon since, in this way, troops could be made available for the western front. Stalin replied that he had no doubt at all of the good faith of the German Government.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns072.htm Quote: 3) From the communication made to you by Molotov on September 14, we assume that the Soviet Government will take a hand militarily, and that it intends to begin its operation now. We welcome this. The Soviet Government thus relieves us of the necessity of annihilating the remainder of the Polish Army by pursuing it as far as the Russian boundary

Quote: 6) Since the military operations must be concluded as soon as possible because of the advanced season of the year, we would be gratified if the Soviet Government would set a day and hour on which their army would begin their advance, so that we on our part might govern ourselves accordingly. For the purpose of the necessary coordination of military operations on either side, it is also necessary that a representative of each Government, as well as German and Russian officers on the spot in the area of operations, should have a meeting in order to take the necessary steps, for which meeting we propose to assemble at Bialystok by air.

--Molobo 14:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC) http://represii.org/eng/1939.html On 26 December 1939, Stalin thanks Ribbentrop for his birthday wishes, noting that the Soviet-German friendship has been strengthened by jointly spilled blood. In order to implement agreements concerning joint actions against the Polish underground, the Gestapo and the NKVD agree to cooperate. A joint training centre is created in the Polish city of Zakopane. In March 1940 the staff of the NKVD and the Reich Main Security Office attend a meeting, where these questions are discussed. By summer 1941 the NKVD has handed over to Germany more than 4,000 people, among them families of individuals arrested in the USSR and executed German Communists. In the course of military actions the commanders of forward units of the German and Soviet armies conduct an exchange of special communications officers. Special military parades take place in Grodno, Brest, and other cities even before Warsaw's capitulation. For example, at a military parade held in Grodno, Soviet corps commander V. Chuikov attends the pass in review with a German general, and General Heinz Guderian and Soviet brigade comman-der S. Kryvoshein attend the pass in review in Brest. --Molobo 14:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/sesupp1.htm The undersigned plenipotentiaries, on concluding the German Russian Boundary and Friendship Treaty, have declared their agreement upon the following:

Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Retch:

J. RIBBENTROP

By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.:

W. MOLOTOV --Molobo 14:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read interview of Pawel Wieczorkiewicz in Rzeczpospolita of 28 september 2005. Poland dreamed of a joint campaign with Germans against the USSR...

«The partition of Russia has fundamental importance for our policy in the East. Our position will depend on, whether we shall accept participation in this partition. During this favorable historical moment Poland should not stand aside. Our task to be prepared both morally and material. Our overall objective is to weaken and crush Russia ». From the report of the Polish Joint Staff, 1938 «Z dziejów stosunków polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materiały», T.III. Warszawa, 1968, S. 262, 287.

Fact is fact. Till 1939 the USSR was in strong opposition to nazi Germany, supported republicans of Spain who struggled against German and Italian troops. USSR twice was at war against Japan which was an aggressive ally of Germany.

However in 1938 Germany signed the Munich treaty together with the Western Powers and together with Poland divided Czechoslovakia.

In 1939 Poland refused to participate in any measures of collective safety and then USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, wishing to prevent the German attack.

On September 17, 1939 German armies were in 150 kilometers from the Soviet border... Ben-Velvel 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? You are really trying to built a illogical/fantastic contraption on some unrelated facts, Ben. Between 39-41 German forces were 0 km from Soviet border. So what? Do you really believe that Soviets 'entered' Poland to protect the eastern population? And Stalin was the saviour of Russia?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the winter 1941 German armies have been stopped in 20 kilometers from Moscow. Moving on the West of the Soviet border  in 1939 has played a main role in 1941 in the battle of Moscow. If Russians have lost the battle of Moscow, then Germany would win the Second World War, then both Russia an Poland would disappear. In battle of  Moscow your destiny was solved also. Ben-Velvel 22:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think so. Germans even if they would defeat Russians, they still would have to fight with British and then probably Americans. If Battle of Moscow would be lost, hitlerite terror would be harder and more Poles would lost their lives, but in the end the outcome not necesarily would be Nazi victory.
 * The British and the French in 1940 have been crushed by Germans. Americans have appeared in Europe in 1943 in Italy where almost two years participated in slow and insignificant war against small German forces, and only in July 1944 Americans have landed in France. By this time the German military machine has been already broken on East front. And after July 1944 small German forces resisted to Americans on the Western front. In general three quarters of German losses concern to East front and three quarters of German overland forces acted on East front.Americans had theoretical opportunity to win Germans only by means of the nuclear weapon. Ben-Velvel 00:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem no to understand, There is a woman. One guy wanted to killed her, second guy was first helping him, but when they went into conflict he saved her by killing the first one - and then he raped her. Should the woman be grateful to the second guy? Well, she was only raped, not killed, right? Before 1941 Soviet and Nazi terror consumed roughly similar number of victims, i have read - not counting the Jewish Poles, that is. Szopen 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben-Velvel, I know it's a digression and a rather minor detail, but I think a lot of the Katiusha Rockets were dragged over the Oder river, in 1945, on Studebaker trucks, by people eating spam. Dr. Dan 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Polish Empire & Cleanup
This page definately needs cleanup. It has no working images, there are user comments in the middle of the page, some of which extend the page horizontally much farther than it should, and it lacks organization, which makes it very hard to read understand, and learn from. I also worry about POV concerns, but those were covered above. This page definately should not be merged with History of Poland. The Polish Empire has enough history of it's own to deserve it's own page. --Rondmc170 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

polish progroms
shouldnt the Jedwabne pogrom and the Kielce pogrom be mentioned?--Tresckow 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. Perhaps if the article is expanded. But currently we should rather not try to mention all the little events, otherwise we will be cluttered with stuff half the stuff from Category:History of Poland (1945–1989) (for that section only). Not that it would be bad, we should try to be comprehensive - but we need to keep balance, too. PS. Please note that those events are discussed in the more specific histories, like History of Jews in Poland and History of Poland (1939-1945) and History of Poland (1945-1989).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish Catholics
Should this article address how Poland came to be (or to remain) Catholic, whereas many other countries of "Eastern Europe" are variants of Russian Orthodox? In general, it might address Polish Catholicism more generally. Cbmccarthy 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Early" Early History
Why is there absolutely no information on Polish history prior to the spread of Christianity?
 * If you have such informations, please share them with us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Unedited text
For months now this page has had an enormous slab of unedited text, apparently copied and pasted from elsewhere, at the top of it. I think this should just be deleted - everything down to the Table of Contents, including the spurious 'bibliography' entry. Any objections? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch list this History of Poland, as there was pasted this text, M.K. (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish witch trials
Hello! I'm interested in witch trials, and think that every country should be represented in the subject. As for Poland, it's hard to find anything about this on the net. If there is anyone here interested in the subject, I think it would be most interesting to have a Polish with trial represented here on wikipedia. Most countrys are alredy represented. I have heard about only two cases; two old women burned in 1793, and Barbara Zdunk, executed in 1811. These where mentioned on the net with very few words. Does anyone here know more about these cases? or any other? I would be grateful just for a stub or a name to google. --Aciram (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You will have hard time to find more. compared to other countries, in Poland there was almost no witch trials (hence the name, "country with no stakes", which isn't totally accurate).
 * claims In Poland 10 to 15 thousand died as a result of witch trials, which is number hard to believe (IMHO, waaaaaay to high). Mostly in western part of Poland, under influence from Germany, where the was more protestants. Generally, burning the witches was mostly protestant thing.


 * To your data I can add 1775 In Doruchowo (Dorochowo?) 11 woman were burned (3 died during process), which impulsed Sejm to made a law forbidding witch trials and banishing tortures.


 * Zdunk was accused not only about witchcraft. And she was burned under order of Prussian authorities, so hardly "in Poland", rather "on Polish lands". Szopen (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply and bibliography here; if somebody would like to write an article - I am a bit busy now - it would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answers! Unfortunately, I can't read Polish. To "cover" a country in this subject there should be info about; first case, last case, the largest case, and the most famous and well known case. I hope someone want to write about this! I appreciate all google tips: names, places and years, which I can use to google my way to this information. --Aciram (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unrecorded Swedish war or myth?
Just ran across the following. Not from scholarly source itself. Just wanted to know whether to follow it up: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3133603

Thoughts? Student7 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See Polish-Swedish wars. In particular, you are referring to the War against Sigismund.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see this is discussed in a forked article (which may not be summarized, but that's okay I guess). Student7 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally Erroneous Caption
The caption under the photo of the ruined castle her says it's in "Olsztyn, near Częstochowa" Olsztyn may be considered to be near Częstochowa in the sense that Glasgow is near London, but they're at opposite ends of Poland, the subject of the article. Maybe the author meant Olkusz. Somebody should figure this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.102.241 (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Walesa Kwas.jpg
The image File:Walesa Kwas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

@World War II
Could somebody supply reliable sources to this numbers?

During the war, about 6 million Polish citizens were killed by Germans, and 2.5 million were deported to Germany for forced labour or to extermination camps such as Oświęcim Auschwitz.

How strong was the Polish population before and after the war?

How many Polish citizen were killed by Germans and how many were killed by Russians etc.?

Wouldn't it be better to specifiy these items and also the Jewish part of these Polish population?

The Poles which were deported to Auschwitz, are they already counted in the "6 million"?

Wikiferdi 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants should provide relevant data. See also historical demographics of Poland for population figures.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't find exact numbers of pre-war and post-war population in Poland on these sites.

Wikiferdi 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At World War II casualties talk page there was once very good discussion with references about that. 6 millions deaths is including all Polish _citizens_, which also include non-ethnic Poles. For ethnic Poles not included in "Jewish Poles" category, the number is between 2 and 3 millions, vast majority of those killed by Germans. Szopen 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * vast majority of those killed by Germans

Why are you so sure about this? How much is "vast"? Once in Poland the Nazis were also blamed for the Katyn massacre and later on it was disclosed that the Soviets were responsible for it.

Wikiferdi 17:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, except few communist lunatics in deep Stalinist period, none blamed Nazis for Katyn. The Katyn was simply not talked about throughout whole period, even though everyone knew what's that. What's more, earlier estimations of how many Poles died from hands of Soviet seems to be a bit overexxagerated, e.g. no serious historian claim now 1.5 million of deported Poles to Siberia. We are not sure whether Soviets killed 100.000 or 300.000 thousand, but we are sure that Nazis killed more, a lot more - they had much harsher politics (Soviets e.g. didn't shoot random people in random executions on the streets or razed whole villages) and a lot of more time (and also a lot less respect for Polish lives). Soviets killed hundreds of thousands while Germans millions. That's why it is safe to say Germans cause vast majority of Polish civilian losses during WWII.

Actually. the pages in wikipedia detailed that 350.000 Poles died as result of Soviet terror, and about 2 millions as result of Nazi terror (Historians are saying here rather from 1.8 to 2.5 million ethnic Poles, I saw different estimates). Also you have some 100.000 killed by Ukrainians and don't know how many killed by Lithuanians. But just adding the victims of main concentration camps will give 200.000 lives, add to that civilians who died during Warsaw Uprising (of which many thousands were deliberately killed in mass executions) and you have already more victims that Soviet terror. And now you can start adding to that more, e.g. in September and October 20.000 shot during only operation Tannenberg (not counting other executions and not counting other intelligenzaktions, which consumed another tens thousand), then add 20.000 victims of pacification actions (75 villages destroyed completely, and 750 affected by different form of mass executions), add victims of street executions, hostages, people who died during expulsions, slave labourers ... Szopen 09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On what are these estimates based? Had the Red Cross or other international authorities "counted" the "Nazi victims" - or the Red Army or other Soviet authorities? - Well, in that time when they were killed.
 * I saw different estimates

Wikiferdi 02:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As - almost - always, there is "Auschwitz extermination camp", whick is untrue, as the Auschwitz was the concentration camp, and the nearby Birkenau was the extermination camp. Hence the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp(s) term. - n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.75.108.135 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Soon a Good Article?
I think this article could be nominated for WP:GAC soon... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No way! The folks that inflate Polish POV in this article are not even willing to adhere to the simple Danzig/Gdansk agreement. I had to replace more than two dozen false uses of "Gdansk", not counting some missing Thorn, Elbing, Breslau etc. Also, the German contribution to spread the Renaissance in the area of modern day Poland are denied. Until mid-16th century, Cracow had many German burghers, merchants, scholars, artists etc., which is carefully concealed. Hopeless. -- Matthead Discuß   15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthead, I understand you are concerned because of your experiences with EEML-like stuff. However, Orczar does not fit into this category. He is editing very responsible and close to the sources, and if he uses Polish instead of English names, that is because the source only has the Polish name. I very much respect Orczar's work and I am confident that if there are issues, they are minor and can be solved one by one, together with Orczar, without any drama. This is certainly no case of deliberate POV injection. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to write an ethnically neutral article, not conceal anything. Orczar (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.4.252 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article length
As this article approaches 200,000 bytes in size I could use some feedback on that issue. I started this work just to provide a better merge for the prehistory material. The "finished" (in the preliminary sense) Piast and Jagiellon sections are not overly detailed I feel, but the issue is the size of the total, which if countinued would result in an extraordinarily long article. The Piast section is 39 KB long, Jagiellon 66 KB and the Commonwealth already at the first half of the 17th century 46 KB. I could continue working on the general history and it could be decided later how to use this material, for example merge portions with more specific articles and abbreviate the whole for the overview article. Or may be someone has other ideas.

Orczar (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Details could be always moved to subarticles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

On 20 July 2009, the article had around 196,900 bytes. Due to numerous (often rather small) edits by Orzcar, it was expanded to 200k a few days later, and has reached 300k on 24 January 2010. The 340k mark was reached on 9 March 2010. Now, Special:LongPages last updated 23:53, 16 April 2010: 1. (hist) ‎List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War ‎[436,388 bytes] 2. (hist) ‎List of Fellows of the Royal Society ‎[391,274 bytes] 3. (hist) ‎List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ‎[391,108 bytes] 4. (hist) ‎Line of succession to the British throne ‎[390,859 bytes] 5. (hist) ‎Timeline of United States inventions ‎[388,058 bytes] 6. (hist) ‎Licensed and localized editions of Monopoly ‎[361,427 bytes] 7. (hist) ‎History of Poland ‎[345,609 bytes] 8. (hist) ‎United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics ‎[339,380 bytes] 9. (hist) ‎2009–10 Coupe de France 1st through 2nd Rounds ‎[329,515 bytes] 10. (hist) ‎List of Spanish football transfers summer 2009 ‎[315,062 bytes] The intro alone has 16411 characters, covering more than a big modern PC screen, and according to Lead_section, it would even deserve an intro for itself, consisting of two or three paragraphs. According to Splitting, articles > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided, and those > 60 KB Probably should be divided. So, if Wikipedia guidelines apply also to the History of Poland, some partitions are necessary. Oddly, the corresponding article in German Wikipedia used to be the biggest there, too, being twice the size of the German equivalent to History of Germany (here, 114,238 bytes, less than a third). On the other hand, Polish WP "Historia Polski" has just 47,115 bytes, not even close to make their list of the 1000 longest pages, and it's even slightly shorter than the German history article there. -- Matthead Discuß   16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed this (unfinished) article needs to be split, sections merged with other articles etc. Orczar (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Piast dynasty section material was moved to "Poland during the Piast dynasty", a new article
Orczar (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jagiellon era section moved to "Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty", a new article
Orczar (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth section moved to "Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the early stage (1569-1648)", a new article
Orczar (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Size reduction
Working on further reducing this article to the short sections in the beginning of it now, moving longer developments into separate articles. Orczar (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance is needed to correct the Eastern Europe article
The Eastern Europe article is fraught with errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Poland is a Central European state rather than a Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with the Eastern Europe article
The Eastern Europe article is fraught with errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Poland Czech r. Slovakia Hungary are Central European states rather than a Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. It is un-encycopedic! (just read English Britannica and German Brockhaus) Gregorik (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.88.240 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's History
I’m reading this pseudo history/conversation and I’m astounded. Like everything on Wiki, it is extremely amateurish. The history of Northern Europe was not complicated until the influence of Asian and Hamitic-Semitic cultures. The people of Northern Europe were living in small groups and always on the move – the architects of today’s world. The population of Northern Europe was small as they were concerned about quality not quantity. The knowledge was passed verbally and by example. The grandiosity, power hunger, blind greed are not North European traits. In addition they were not classified as Celts, Slavs original meaning Glorious (as stated in and early texts and many western history books i.e. “A brief history of ancient medieval and modern peoples” etc.) or Teutonic. There was no primitive hierarchy present, until cross breading with Asian and Hamitic-Semitic populations, which forced on Northern Europe God and Christianity-viciously killing people who had understanding of Universe and harmony with nature (including burning babies with so called original sin.) PS. In Poland, serfs were always only migrants or Poles cross-bread with migrants. They were in need of fertile land and Poles were in need of labor. Most Western, Eastern, Southern Europeans assimilated and consider themselves Poles. Semitic population only when cross-bread with Poles and only if they continued to live there considered themselves Poles (not always.) Remember to think for yourself – messengers motive is her/his own interest - especially changing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.144.66 (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Prehistory and protohistory
Is it a purpose that there is nothing write about the germanic settlement until the 'barbarian migration'? In todays Poland area lived(latin): Gothones,Rugii,Burgundiones,Gepidae,Vandilii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.78.106.4 (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a very brief section. Poland in Antiquity has more on Germanic settlement. Orczar (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Marie Curie
Marie Skłodowska-Curie: I can't find her. Soerfm (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy Mary, Mother of Jesus! The references!!
I will sort them out forthwith. Bear with. ;D LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Extermination of Jews and Poles
If about 90% of Polish Jews were killed during World War II, as opposed to less than 10% of ethnic Poles, does it make sense to speak of "Extermination of Jews and Poles"? Orczar (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Nazi Germany didn't manage to exterminate as many Poles as Jews, as Jews were their priority. Nevertheless it did engage in extermination of ethnic Polish population during the war, and planned for Poles as a nation to disappear somewhere around 50s.If you wish I can add sources confirming this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Old talk
/Gathering scientific evidence and bibliography - moved out of main namespace

BTW, i posted Dagome Iudex in latin. i will soon post article with discussion about Scandinavian beginnings of Mieszko. (first version) szopen

--- You're going to have to do better than: It was a wise political move to maintain sovereignty and remain independent from the German state. --MichaelTinkler

Re the tribes -- are they tribes or peoples? I'm not trying to be troublesome, but Baltic ethnicity has been a thorn in my side for a couple of months now. Personally, I would like to see only pertinent information, with links to each ethnic/cultural group involved...JHK

This article is *really* unNPOV and repeats lot of Polish nationalist propaganda. --Taw
 * ...et tu Taw contra me ? ;-)) --Kpjas
 * yup, this Introduction really needed lot of NPOVification. --Taw

Old Introduction:

History of Poland is over 10 centuries long. It has been and to the present day is determined by Poland's geographical location. Poland has always been regarded as a bridge or barrier between the West and the (savage) East. From 966 AD Poland was included into the Latin Christian World and it was planned to make Poland as a forefront spreading Christianity eastward and defending the West at the same time. On numerous occasions Poland's existence was endangered by aggressive expansion of her neighbours that were greedy for new land - in 10 and 11th centuries the Czech and then Germans, Swedes, Russians and Austrians. There were times when once the grand and mighty Polish state was reduced to a small dukedom that was almost totally dependent on Russia. Worse still, Poland was altogether wiped out from the maps of Europe for many years until 1918 when after the World War I it regained independence. One of the features that best characterizes Polish people is that they stand strengthened in times of oppression and hardship. It is very well illustrated by the first line of the Polish national anthem : "Poland will not perish as long as we are alive..." Now, Poland is a proud nation of indisputable sovereignty, united with her allies in the NATO and aspiring to become a full member of the European Union.

Taw, I will be happy to copyedit for better English, sections, etc. In answer to your question about the use of the word 'duke', do you know what he was called in Latin documents of the time? I'm fairly familiar with those titles, and could probably come up with a correct translation in historical context. I am pretty sure that the title usually given is indeed Duke, but that meant something different in the 10th c. than in the 12th, and was also different for east and west...JHK

The problem is that in Polish we have only one word 'ksiaze' for many different concepts. In this case, Mieszko was just a crownless Christian ruler of a country. I'm not sure about his relation to the Emperor. It changed too often during early Polish history, and all crownless rulers are called 'ksiaze' anyway. Iirc he wasn't Emperor's vassal. --Taw
 * That's why I thought it would be good to see the Latin -- anybody know where to find it? JHK
 * Oldest Latin documentation ('Dagome iudex') calls him 'iudex', which is probably a translation of some tribal function. But such name isn't used by Polish historical terminology, so it's not very useful. --Taw

Given the iudex thing, does anyone know (or have a good dictionary) any other possible translations for iudex (besides judge) in this context? JHK - What kind of evidence is *this* depending on:
 * The masses did not identify with Poland until the advent of nationalism in the 18th-20th centuries.

I changed it to 'do not seem to have identified' pending further explanation.

BTW, Dagome Iudex is, IIRC, not the oldest document with reference to Poland. Is one of the oldest, but not _the_ oldest, unless i am mistaken. Widukind, Ibrahim Ibn Jakub etc wrote about Poland and Mieszko earlier.

And, in summary of Micheal Tinkler changes i saw "queation", but i can't find any his question here? User:szopen

Removed for the main page : In 1985 the Sczeczin bishop Jan Galecki praised the Catholic clergy of Poland for the roll they played in the establishment of "Stabilisation of the Western Territories". This roll of getting rid of minoritieswas defined by the highest ranking church official of Poland Primate Cardinal August Hlond over many years. This is more a rant to justify some sulky feelings of resentment against Poland than Polish history in its own right. It was Hitler and his politics that was detrimental to the prosperity of the German Volk than Polish nationalists etc. Kpjas

Removed: Since the death of the Polish moderate leader Pilsudski in 1935, Poland's rulers have been openly nationalistic, lead by the highest authority in Poland the Primate of the Catholic Church of Poland, Cardinal August Hlond.

This just didn't make sense in context of where it was in the article, nor did it make sense in English. I also took out (again) this bit Kpjas objected to, because it didn't really fit.

Also, I revised much of the article to maintain chronological order and to introduce more NPOV. Then I noticed the bloody thing starts up again with the Middle Ages. I will try to incorporate the bottom section of the article, which has a lot of great information, into the upper portion and break it down into coherent chronological parts. JHK

Removed from the article: ''The Polish Roman Catholic Primate, Cardinal Hlond, returned to Poland from exile at the end of the war. One of his actions unpon arrival was to expel many ethnic German members of the clergy. There is still debate as to the reasons for Hlond's actions. Doubtless there were different motivations in different cases. Hlond was certainly a supporter of Polish nationalism, and this may have had something to do with the expulsions. But it should also be noted that some of the clergy had been seen as Nazi sympathizers, or even collaborators, and this may have had something to do with Hlond's actions. Finally, the expulsions, not only of German clergy, but also the majority of the ethnic German population, must be considered as part of the Soviet-supported reprisals against the Germans at the end of the war." SC


 * This is one of Helga Jonat's leftovers. -- Zoe

Removed:
 * This popular statement is however very misleading, because what is now referred to as 16th century Poland, includes a number of other non-Polish states.


 * From this time Poland was under the variable influence of Roman Catholic Church. During the Counter-Reformation, when many of Poland's neighbours had different religions (Protestant Swedes and Germans, Orthodox Russians and Ukrainians, Muslim Turks, not to mention many Jews living in Poland at that time), it became popular to say that 'Polish means Catholic', and much propaganda stressing this connection appeared. For example it was said that Poland was a forefront of Christianity, referring mainly to the wars Poland fought against Muslim Ottoman Empire throughout the 17th century.


 * The masses do not seem to have identified with Poland until the advent of nationalism in the 18th-20th centuries.

These are personal opinions that are put in to prove that Poland was not what it is claimed by (Polish) historians to be. I expect facts and balanced opinion based on scientific evidence from this article and not opposing Communist nationalistic propaganda with anti-Polish propaganda. Kpjas 07:46 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Consider breaking this article into series. I think it has already been done, but there lacks a series box, like in History of Russia.

The public domain text from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/pltoc.html can also be copied here. --Jiang 23:29, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I;ve made few major changes. First, i removed constant mentioning that those and those prince joined Silesia to German empire (silly considering that in opinion of some whole Poland was formally part of HRE, HOLY ROMAN empire, not GERMAN empire). Second, i've corrected scale of Mongol invasion. It was exxagerated by XIX century German historians, but scaled down by Polish historians in XX century. Third, i corrected "Mieszko vassal of empire" mentionings. Mieszko and Boleslaw were keeping some of their lands as fief from empire, more or less formally, that for sure. Their exact relationship with empire is under very heavy studies from about 60 years.

I've also added mentionign that German law does not mean German settlers, and corrected mentioning that German settled only "easy" lands. Germans also settled in sparsely colonised regions of Sudety, for example, so it is not true. The article is IMHO in mess. Someone would hav to correct it, put all sudden mentionings of "Popielids" etc into correct places.user::szopen

The interests of the Russian-Soviet Empire in the Nazi-Soviet pact were to incorporate as much as possible of the nations they had already MOSTLY sujegated. That's why the border was placed were it was in the agreement! They didn't care for the strange math that chooses to count over two nations (Ukraine and Belarus') as a group instead of separately, in order to make the Poles look relatively more substantial! Genyo 16:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Western Betrayal
I'm preparing an article on the concept of Western Betrayal User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. Please feel free to drop in and help me finish it.Halibutt 09:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)The sell out at Yalta.

FDR and Churchill conspired indirectly to hand over Eastern European countries to the Soviet Union.

1. If the Allies had launched their D-day invasion through North Germany near Denmark. They would have ended the German war before the Soviets had time to cross to the western banks of the Dnieper. Thus preventing formation of the Eastern Block and limiting the extent and intensity of the cold war.

2. The Allied invasion of Europe actually took place in Italy 1943.

3. The Italian campaign was a waste of time. It was severely compromised in the North. Because of the Mountainous terrain. Allied soldiers made little progress. Only a few miles northward each month.

4. The Allies 1944 Normandy invasion was terribly mismanaged. Allied soldiers were shot at from the sea cliffs by German Soldiers. This delayed eastward troop movements.

5. Furthermore Army Generals who commanded troops at the Battles of the Arden and Ardenelles were feckless and should have been tried for treason and executed. They sent their troops to slaughter. And pinched escape transports for allied troops.

All of the events listed in #1 to #5 prolonged the European war. And permitted the Soviets to advance to east Berlin. Do not ever forget that: 6.The Allies repatriated Germany all the way through to the city of Berlin. Only later to withdraw to the West Germany boundary.

7. Leaving the absurd situation of partitioning a city. Also it is important to remember that:

8. The Czech republic that is the sudetenland and the city of Praque were also repatriated by the allies. Only to absurdly withdraw and leave the country to the Soviets.

Russia and the 1918 events
Monedula added the following phrase: ''The downfall of Imperial Russia in 1917 (see Russian Revolution of 1917) was followed by the "Declaration of Rights of Peoples of Russia", promulgated on November 15, 1917 and signed by Lenin and Stalin. That Declaration granted to peoples of Russia the right to self-determination, including the right to secede completely.&nbsp''. With all due respect, no part of Poland was under Russian rule after 1915 and, although this declaration might've been a pretty gesture, it had little to do with both internal and international situation of Poland in 1918. At the moment the central powers collapsed allowing for Poland to be reborn, the nearest Russian administration was some 400 kilometres eastwards from the Polish borders and Lenin might've as well grant Zimbabwe independence - it would have the same effect. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:31, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * The comparison with Zimbabwe is not correct. Poland might have been occupied by Germany, but de jure it still was part of Russia.  The Declaration provided a basis for international recognition of Poland after WWI, so it must be mentioned. &mdash; Monedula 17:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you apparently forgot of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in which Russia gave up all claims on Poland and other Central European areas. Poland was neither de iure nor de facto a part of Russia. The basis for the post-war recognition of Poland were various international treaties, but I doubt this Lenins declaration was among them (contrary to what commie propaganda tried to prove for the last 50 years...). Also, it is a fact that the independence of Poland was recognized by France before Lenin issued his funny declaration. Among the most important bases were:


 * Fourteen Points of Thomas Woodrow Wilson, in which he found the reestablishemnt of Poland as one of the 14 aims of the war (XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.)
 * Versailles Treaty
 * Polish-French Alliance of 1917
 * The edicts of the A-H monarchy starting the future core of the Polish Army
 * the German and Austro-Hungarian Act of November 5, 1916 (Independence of the Kingdom of Poland Act)
 * Creation of the Regention Council and the Council of the State
 * Declaration of Lenin perhaps should be mentioned, but in the detailed article, not here. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:47, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk has nothing to do with the Declaration, because it was concluded several months later (you did non notice that???). And the moves of Germans, Americans and others were not very important, because Poland did not belong to them anyway (and again, the Declaration had come earlier than many of them).  Btw, when exactly did France recognize Polish independence? &mdash; Monedula 09:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup, you're right, I worded it wrongly. What I ment to say is that it was a pure propaganda document, with absolutely no influence on what happened in Poland. On the contrary, the moves of the Entente were far more important since it was them who won the war and it was them who accepted creation of Poland as one of the aims of their war.


 * As to the Franco-Polish alliance, it's hard to tell. The full military and political bilateral treaty was signed in 1922. However, on August 15, 1917 a treaty was signed with Dmowski to allow the creation of an allied Polish army in France and Polish National Commity, a Polish government-to-be. This predated the declaration by three months. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:18, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

To Ruy Lopez
I agree that we should avoid touchy terms. However, in this context the usage of the word "totalitarian" is 100% acceptable. If Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union were not totalitarian - then which states where? The very word "totalitarism" (or "totalitarianism" was coined to show similarities between the two states - and that's what the wiki article on the phenomenon says. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:28, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Totalitarian is just a propaganda term. "Totalitarianism is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all aspects of day-to-day life."  I'm subject to the governing authority (the US government) in all aspects of my day-to-day life - I can't smoke pot or visit Cuba or refuse to pay rent to someone the state recognizes as my landlord.  "It involves constant indoctrination achieved by propaganda to erase any potential for dissent, by anyone, including most especially the agents of government."  OK, at a certain level perhaps this would mean something, although I don't think a Russian farmer in 1938 was indoctrinated any more than an American farmer is today between school, church, work and leisure (watching television, going to a sporting event and singing the national anthem etc.)  It is just a POV propaganda term that is unnecessary to the article, let people make up their own mind.


 * If you want to point to other wiki articles, look at USSR or RSFSR. They are not defined as totalitarian there, because people would not allow it.  If it would be POV to call the USSR totalitarian there, it would be POV here.  And even for Nazi Germany, I don't fail to recognize that the Nazi party came to power through legal, electoral means, and was enormously popular across a strata of Germany society. Ruy Lopez 13:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ruy, but I don't really understand your POV. I see that for you the US of A are a totalitarian regime. I also understand that you feel opressed by lack of freedom of speech, having to report on the police station everywhere you go, having to obtain an internal passport in order to visit your friends in another town, and having to become a party member in order to be promoted in your job or obtain an external passport.


 * But seriously, there is a huge difference between the two states and the rest of the world. If one wanted to follow your logic, he'd have to agree that all (all) political terms are POV, nothing but propaganda and should be avoided. As such, no country's political system should be described since what for some is a republic, for others is a dictatorship... There are lots of such "POV" statements in this very article: fully democratic government, free-market, communists, noncommunists... Why don't you erase those as well?


 * Finally, if there is a definition of some phenomenon and it is interlinked - the people still can decide for themselves. Especially that the definition of totalitarism seems quite decent. The article on Nazi Germany has got a link to totalitarism exactly in the header - and nobody opposes it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:03, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * An internal passport? To drive a car from one state to another you need a drivers license.  To ride in an airplane you need a drivers license.  To take a *train* you need a drivers license.  This seems to cut off all the possibilities of state to state travel without a drivers license, our "internal passport" (although I have not travelled by bus recently).


 * Wal-Mart asks a question on its potential employee questionnaire - Do you believe your interests are the same as your bosses, very much so, somewhat, neutral, not much, definitely not. Guess what happens to people who answer definitely not?  People who do not belong to one of the two bourgeois political parties are often discriminated against in jobs, I was just speaking with someone whom the internal security force (the FBI) sent letters to his boss informing him he was in the Socialist Workers Party and that he was a supposedly dangerous radical, suggesting he be fired.


 * Although even left-liberal people like Martin Luther King Jr. were persecuted by the government a few decades ago for speaking freely, which runs right up to today, and while the wealthy control virtually all broadcast media, it is possible that the US has more free speech rights than the USSR, just as people in the USSR had more of a right to have a job, a right to eat versus a right to speak.


 * Your comment that there is no distinction about how POV a political term is is false. I don't think anyone would argue with someone being called non-communist.  Free market is more troubling, especially since socialist and capitalist markets were almost identical, with production being the real difference, it is obviously a propaganda term.


 * This article is going beyond speaking of Soviet influence over Poland to criticizing the internal character of the USSR. I am assuming you are speaking of the USSR since totalitarian is being applied to the USSR and not Poland in the article.  The USSR was also preparing to be invaded in the late 1930s, something which makes any country more "totalitarian", justa s the US became more "totalitarian" during WWII.  This article should discuss Soviet influence and relations with Poland, not the internal USSR.  Otherwise, this page becomes a place for debate towards issues which are very tangential to the article. Ruy Lopez 16:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm going to back down on this one, it's not that important after all. But some nitpicking first. Guess what happens to people who answer definitely not? Well of course, they get arrested by the NSA, tortured in their secret prisons for years and then sent to some concentration camp or labour camp to make them resocialised. That's obvious, isn't it.


 * The USSR was also preparing to be invaded in the late 1930s, something which makes any country more "totalitarian", justa s the US became more "totalitarian" during WWII. - Ok then, here's the list of the neighbouring countries of the USSR in late 1930's: Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, USA (by sea), Japan, Manchukuo, China, Sinkiang, Mongolia, Tuva, Afghanistan, Tuva, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Romania, Hungary. Could you tell me which of them was planning to invade it?

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:59, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Re: Internal passport comments above. Although no one denies the quite substantial incursion of the federal U.S. government into private individuals' lives, particularly over the last 80 years or so, the situation cannot be compared to the every day reality of totalitarian states like the Soviet Union.  If I am a passenger in someone else's vehicle, I am free to roam the realm (couldn't help myself about the alliteration) without any identification papers.  The requirement of identification on mass transit is an issue of security.  To be sure, the idea of security has often been invoked as an excuse to erode personal liberties, but in the context of mass transit in this era of upheaval, I am comfortable with providing identification in such circumstances.  With respect to licensing people to operate motor vehicles, this is clearly an issue of public safety.  Again, the argument can be made that this is mere pretext, but it cannot be denied that the licensing of drivers increases safety on public rights of way.  Even aside from the issue of ensuring proper qualifications, it allows for the enforcement of traffic laws.  It is utter nonsense to compare the admittedly ubiquitous usage of drivers' licenses in the modern United States for purposes of identification to the prohibition of free travel in the former Soviet Union and other totalitarian states, both historical and contemporary.  It is clear that anyone making such statements has never experienced living in a totalitarian state.  Or if he has, he has fallen victim to the (unfortunately) widespread embellishment of a pretty horiffic past.  As an interesting aside, of all my friends from the former Soviet satellites, the ones most often stricken with the above mentioned "embellishment syndrome" are former security apparatus officers.  I guess one way to justify old sins is by pointing out (to anyone that will listen) that the democratic and free victor of the Cold War is actually more evil than the defeated killer regime of whom one previously had been a pawn.  Just my two cents.  Or grosze, if you will.

--Unregistered user Cactus Jack

Duplicate articles
I came across two boxes claiming to be lists of articles about the history of Poland. It looks as if there is some duplication which needs to be tidied up. --Henrygb 11:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These are an effect of our (still unfinished) work at the WikiProject History of Poland. We are striving to categorise the Polish history onto a set of four or five series. The Polish statehood is simply a series listing all the independent states formed on Polish territory. Halibutt 14:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

A few changes
I just made a few changes to the grammar in the first section. Hope nobody minds.

jonecc

slight modifications
I changed the wording of some sentences in the sections dealing with the history of Poland during WWII and under communist rule, just to make them flow better. No information was added or deleted. - Adam

Descriptio Regni Poloniae
Descriptio Regni Poloniae, oder die Beschreibung des Königreichs Pohlen. ibid. 1647. Erneuret 1657. 1663. in 8. Latine. 1659. in 12 http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/witte/witte2/s407.html