Talk:London Victory Celebrations of 1946/Archive 1

ARCHIVES - PART ONE

Polish or English?
IT IS NOT TRUE, THAT 303 SQUADRON WAS A PART OF ROYAL AIR FORCE!!! It was part of Polish Air Force - the independent force, having also other squadrons: 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 315, 316, 317 and 318!. The commanding officers of 303 sqn 1941-1946 were Polish, pilots and mechanics were Polish - it is the historical fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.91.103 (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think you've made a mistake. The RAF 303 (Polish) Squadron, as its name indicates, was an RAF squadron. It had an RAF logo on its side as well as a smaller Polish Air Force logo. For a time, it even had a British squadron commander. Most of its pilots and ground crew were Polish, and it was the highest-scoring RAF unit in the Battle of Britain. Chumchum7 (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth parade?
I moved the following unreferenced claim from main article:

However, this was also a misunderstanding as it was a parade of British Commonwealth & Colonial forces, and only flag parties of foreign allies took part. 303 Squadron was part of the RAF, not the Polish air force. For example, no Russian forces paraded nor Brazilian forces, although Brazilian forces fought at Monte Cassino. The size of Allied participation was irrelevant. Incidentally, China which also claim to be the fourth largest Ally, was not invited neither.

This explanation is proven false by the references I added. From 'The Illustrated London News - Victory Parade Number, issued June 15, 1946': ''Headed by the Guards band the representatives of Allied forces were led by the United States, whose contingent included the Marine Corps. After the American contingent came the troops of China, occupying the place in the procession originally reserved for USSR, and behind them cane contingents with a bewildered variety of flags and uniforms - France, Belgium, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway and Transjordan. Apart from the USSR, only Poland and Yugoslavia were not represented among our Allies.... And also from 'Question of Honor' book: American troops, who were in a place of honor at the head of the nine-mile parade, were followed -- in a kaleidoscope of uniforms, flags, and martial music -- by Czechs and Norwegians, Chinese and Dutch, French and Iranians, Belgians and Australians, Canadians and South Africans. There were Sikhs in turbans, high-stepping Greek evzoni in pom-pommed shoes and white pleated skirts, Arabs in fezzes and kaffiyehs, grenadiers from Luxembourg, gunners from Brazil.  As we can see, both'' Chinsese and Brazilians were represented; Poles were not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A review of the official programme of the celebration makes it clear that with the exception of honour guards for the flags of each nation invited and representatives of certain airforces (i.e. United States of America (both Army and Naval), France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia), only units from Commonwealth/Empire nations took part. Varsovian (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section
I propose deleting the section regarding the date of the parade. It is very clear from The Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations that the parade took place on 8 June 1946!
 * Dear Varsovian, please read this[][] so you can get a wider piture. Sorry but I don't have time at the moment to discuss this with you but I will in a near future.--Jacurek (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are severe problems with both those. I place no faith at all in “A Question of Honor: The Kosciuszko Squadron: Forgotten Heroes of World War II”. The authors claim “none Of 303's Pilots took part in the fly-past. None marched in the parade. For they were all Polish -- and Poles who had fought under British command were deliberately and specifically barred from the celebration by the British government”. This statement is flatly contradicted by the memoirs of General Anders, The Times newspaper, Dr Ostrowski and Mr Falkowski (and indeed this WP article). I also place very little faith in Kwan Yuk Pan’s article. He claims “the country [Poland] was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946.” This is of course flatly contradicted by the official programme of the parade. He goes on to say “The ground was laid two years ago when Mr Blair formally expressed regret to Poland for the 1946 parade snub.” A scan of the letter he refers to is at http://www.polandinexile.com/vp4.htm. The word “Blair” is nowhere in the letter and the letter actually says “We very much regret that Polish contingents did not take part”. Not ‘that Polish contingents were not invited’! With these problems in mind, I propose that these two sources be used for nothing more than support for the statement that “The parade is also notable for claims that all Polish servicemen were excluded from taking part.”Varsovian (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Varsovian, the link to the letter you provided is unrelated to the 1946 Parade fiasco.--Jacurek (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Polish participation section
Rather than follow the model of Jacurek (constant editing of article, i.e 17 edits in under three hours!), I will list here the points of the current wording which I feel can be improved. If there is no discussion within 24 hours, I will rewrite the article as needed.

“some claim they are erroneous because one Polish air force unit was invited to take part in the parade.” We are agreed that at least one Polish air force unit was invited. Therefore it is a logical impossibility that Poles were excluded. Therefore the words “some claim they” are not needed. The Official Programme of the parade states that Poland was invited to parade her flag, along with an honour guard, and representatives of her air force, not just a single unit. I propose removing your insertions.

“On 6 July 1945 the British government officially recognised installed by the Soviet Union Polish communist Provisional Government of National Unity” Is it accurate to describe this government as communist? The Prime Minister: Edward Osóbka-Morawski from the Polska Partia Socjalistyczna, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Agricultural Reform was Peasants’ Party leader Stanisław Mikołajczyk. Neither were communists.

“the London-based legitimate Polish government in exile.” The word “legitimate” is opinion and not neutral point of view. The Provisional Government of National Unity was internationally recognised and represented Poland at the United nations.

“Therefore the 1946 invitations to the victory parade were sent to the new Soviet installed communist Provisional Government of National Unity” The fact that the invitations were sent to the Provisional Government of National Unity is confirmed by The Times newspaper quote (quoted in Dr Ostrowski’s book, I am attempting to find an online scan of the article in question) and by Mr Falkowski’s article

Rudolf Falkowski’s work is not self published. It is written by Rudolf Falkowski, who flew with 635, 639 and 303 squadrons, and first appeared on www.polishsquadronsremembered.com which is created and maintained by Wilhelm Ratuszynski.

“the Polish Armed Forces in the West which represented Poland and its government” The internationally recognised government of the time was the Provisional Government of National Unity. More importantly by June 1946, the Polish Armed Forces in the West were not under the command of the Polish government in exile

“invitations were extended to representatives of only one Polish airmen unit” All the sources I have seen (including Dr Ostowski’s book and Mr Falkowski’s article) refer to western command Polish fighter pilots, not specifically to 303 squadron. Please provide sources stating only one unit was invited.Varsovian (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek: Please stop inserting into this article the erroneous claim that only one Polish unit was invited. There are now multiple sources (including two references from the minutes of the British Parliament from June 1946) confirming that the invitation was extended to both the government of Poland and to representatives of the Western Command Poles. You have not provided even a single source, let alone a source as reliable as the minutes of the British Parliament from June 1946, which states that only a single Polish unit was invited. Furthermore, your text contradicts the content of the official program of the parade, which clearly states that more than a single Polish unit was invited. Varsovian (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Self Published sources?
Jacurek: Could you please be so kind as to point out the sources which you consider to be self published?

If you are refering to Dr Ostrowski's work (which is actually published by the University of London), please check the links given to Hansard: everything said in The Times article quoted by Dr Ostrowski is also said in Hansard.

If you are refering to Mr Falkowski's article, please see my comments on this page: the article is written by Rudolf Falkowski, who flew with 635, 639 and 303 squadrons, and first appeared on www.polishsquadronsremembered.com which is created and maintained by Wilhelm Ratuszynski.

If you are refering to Mr Lucas' article, please note that the English text on his blog is a translation of the Polish language article which was published in Wprost.

If you are refering to Hansard, please read Hansard.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could please use this discussion page to discuss changes you wish to make to the article before you change the article.Varsovian (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed
Jacurek: Could you please outline the facts which you consider to be inaccurate. I will be happy to provide you with direct quotes from the online records of what was said in the British Parliament that will prove the facts which I inserted into this article.

I fail to see how your current actions (i.e. flagging this article as having disputed accuracy and containing self published sources and calling for expert attention while you fail to engage in any discussion at all about the subject) help WP in any way.Varsovian (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek: You have inserted two [dubious – discuss] notes in the article. I will explain why they need to be removed:

“The parade is also notable for claims [dubious – discuss] that all Polish servicemen were excluded from taking part.” Source [1] states “Poles who had fought under British command were deliberately and specifically barred from the celebration by the British government, for fear of offending Joseph Stalin. …. Yet, as the great long line of marchers proceeded down the Mall on that June morning in 1946, and as the crowds cheered and basked in the postwar world's rebirth of freedom, proud Poland remained in the shadows.” Source [2] states “Even though Poland made one of the largest contributions to the Allied war effort and there were thousands of Polish troops stationed in the UK at the time, the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946.” Those are clearly claims that Poles were excluded from the parade. Or do you have any other reason for inserting [dubious – discuss]?

“Although this is considered by some as one of the causes of the feeling of "Western Betrayal" in Poland, such claims are erroneous because Poles were invited[dubious – discuss] to take part in the parade.” Why is this dubious? Hansard reproduces discussions in which it is clearly stated by the British Foreign Secretary that Poles were invited. The memoirs of General Anders say that Poles were invited. The Times newspaper of the time says that Poles were invited. I can understand a modern day journalist from the Financial Times making a mistake when writing about history but it is impossible that General Anders was wrong and highly unlikely that the official printed transcripts of British parliamentary debates (i.e. Hansard) has been altered to insert statements which were never made. Then there is the official program of the victory celebrations which clearly lists Poland as a nation invited to participate. There are even British government records from the time showing how many staff cars the Polish attendees were allocated! What would you consider to be sufficient proof?!Varsovian (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek: Could you please outline the facts which you consider to be inaccurate. Please do this within the next 72 hours or I shall again remove the banner which you have posted at the top of this article. At present the only person who appears to dispute the factual accuracy of this article in its current form is you. I say "appears" because we don't know if you actually do dispute the factual accuracy of this article and we certainly don't know which facts you dispute: we only know that you keep posting banners on this article.Varsovian (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Varsovian, everything in this talk page already. Please read my comments and references, C. comments and references, Loosmark comments and references, Piotrus ciomments and references etc. There is no need to repeat and I will not repeat myself. You are against an opinion of 3 editors + 1 (myself). DO NOT REMOVE tags.--Jacurek (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"such claims are erroneous"
I'm removing "such claims are erroneous" because that is not encyclopedic style. Loosmark (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, could you please use correct style to point out that such claims are erroneous? I'd do it myself but I'm limited to iPhone only access until Monday and that means I can only write simple messages: if I try to edit the article, I'll probably just mess it up! Varsovian (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "claims", as you call them, present a valid position, are properly sourced and presented with only 1 sentence. The opposite view is now widely spread throughout the article thanks to your efforts to rewrite the article. And don't worry wikipedia will do just fine till Monday without your edits from "limited to iPhone only access". Loosmark (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * “A valid position”? “The opposite point of view”? You seem to misunderstand the situation here. There are no points of view here! We are talking about a very simple fact: either Poles were not invited to the parade or they were invited. There is no room here for valid positions, there can be only one truth. And the fact is that despite claims that Poles were not invited, Poles were invited. This fact is supported by all the available historic sources. The claims that Poles were excluded come from sources written the best part of six decades after the parade and are at best totally erroneous hearsay. I will rewrite the introduction to this section to make it clear that the claims are not accurate.


 * I would like to note that your comments here and on my talk page and your own talk page seem unnecessarily confrontational and impolite. I do not appreciate being called a liar and would be most grateful if you could possibly adopt a civil tone in all further discussion with me. Thank you in advance for your efforts to do so.Varsovian (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not called you a liar. Please show where i called you a liar or withdraw the false accusation. Loosmark (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At User_talk:Varsovian you state "yes "Varsovian", you are a new user. right. just an advise next time you try the new user thing try to behave like one, you might look more convincing." Do you wish to claim that your comments imply that I am telling the truth when I say that I am a new user? Or do you instead use sarcasm in an attempt to imply that I am a liar, and an unconvincing liar at that.


 * I note that you have made no attempt to in any way discuss your assertion that the fact that Poles were invited to the parade (a fact confirmed by all the available historical sources) is simply a "Point of view". Perhaps you would like to stand next to a woman who is giving birth and shout loudly "From a valid point of view this woman has never been pregnant!" ? Being invited is in a certain way very much like being pregnant: one can't be 'a little bit invited' (especially not when all the available sources say that one was invited). Instead of discussing your assertion you simply revert the correctly sourced statements of fact and replace them with ungrammatical erroreous claims.


 * Despite your repeated veiled comments about my good faith, " I understand very well what mission you were on", "provocations orchestrated by the usual suspects" and the comment already quoted above, I shall make no comment at all about your good faith and shall simply ask you to explain from what point of view it is possible to state that Poles were excluded from the parade by the British government given that all the historical source data shows that Poles were clearly invited by the British government. Until you have done so, could you be so kind as to not revert the article. Thank you.  Varsovian (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I had reservation about you being a new users, even an administrator had them. But anyway despite writting a long rant you haven't showed where I have called a lair. Therefore I ask you again to either show where I've called you a liar or withdraw this incivil falsification. Loosmark (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You had reservation about me being "a new users"?! Could you possibly refrain from stating that I am operating multiple accounts? Or when you say that I am "new users", do you mean that 'one user' has exactly the same meanins as "users"? As for your claims about me saying that you called me a liar, I was very carefully as to what I did and did not say. Could you perhaps quote the text in which I called you a liar? Or would you prefer to withdraw this incivil falsified claim? Judging by the way in which you have withdrawn none of the veiled comments about my good faith, I am sorry to say that I shall not hold my breath whilst waiting for you to do so.


 * I note that you have made no attempt to engage in any discussion as to the content of the article whatsoever. I again ask you to explain from what point of view it is possible to state that Poles were excluded from the parade by the British government given that all the historical source data shows that Poles were clearly invited by the British government. Kindly do not revert the article without first providing such explanation here. Thank you.Varsovian (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, I can provide you the quote, you said: I do not appreciate being called a liar. So, again where I've called you a liar? I've already explained a couple of days ago why your behavior looked suspiscious. An administrator had similar doubts, will you acuse him of being a liar too? Loosmark (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done, you have provided a quote in which I have said that I do not like being called a liar. Now kindly provide a quote in which I say that you have called me a liar. Or do you really not see how 'I do not appreciate being called a liar' and 'You have called me a liar' are two different statements? While you are looking for those quotes, perhaps you could provide the quotes in which you explain why my behavious looks suspicious? So far you have only said " next time you try the new user thing try to behave like one, you might look more convincing".


 * Do you actually have anything at all to say about the article? I'm particularly interested to hear you explain from what point of view it is possible to state that Poles were excluded from the parade by the British government given that all the historical source data shows that Poles were clearly invited by the British government. Which is why I have asked you several times now to do so. I wonder why you have ignored each and every one of those requests. Varsovian (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, so you did not mean that I've called you a liar. Right, so what for have brought that up again? Loosmark (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't. You have. When you said "I have not called you a liar. Please show where i called you a liar or withdraw the false accusation." As for why you have brought this up, I wouldn't like to comment. Although I do note that you've been very willing to discuss this and have made very little effort to explain from what point of view it is possible to state that Poles were excluded from the parade by the British government given that all the historical source data shows that Poles were clearly invited by the British government. Varsovian (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation
The "invitation" was given to the communist authorities in Poland which werent recognised by the the governament in exile and by the Polish veterans. That much is clear. Your statement that The claims that Poles were excluded come from sources written the best part of six decades after the parade and are at best totally erroneous hearsay. is original research and original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Varsovian please stop pushing your POV into the article. Loosmark (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No it was not given to only the internationally recognised government of Poland (which is what I assume you mean by "the communist authorities in Poland"): an invitation was also given to representatives of the Western Command Poles. Read the sources given, in particular Hansard. Or the memoirs of Gen Anders if you only trust Polish sources.


 * You claim about original research is highly amusing! Perhaps you would like to read the sources which claim that Poles were excluded, then note the dates when those sources were written. I look forward hugely to your explaination as to how simple mathematics (i.e. working out how many years after the parade those sources were written) is 'original research! But then I also look forward to you explaining how the status of Poles being invited is in any way a 'point of view'.... Varsovian (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you have no idea what was going on, read Hansard your own source, McNeil said this: We have not invited the Navy and the Army, but we did invite some of the Poles who flew in the Battle of Britain, to march past in the R.A.F. contingent. Let me repeat again: We have not invited the Navy and the Army, but we did invite some of the Poles who flew in the Battle of Britain, to march past in the R.A.F. contingent. Loosmark (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Marvelllous. Thank you for quoting that section from the source for me. Now it has been shown that you know some Western Command Poles were invited, it will be impossible for you to claim that Western Command Poles were not invited. So we are agreed: some Poles were invited to the parade by the British government and they were not excluded from the parade. I'll edit the article accordingly.Varsovian (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Nobody disputes that the Poles who flied in the Battle of Britain were invited to the parade, it's a well known fact. However no other airmen were invited and at the same time the Army who fought alongside Britain from 1939, and who suffered great losses and spit blood on every possible battlefield accross Europe was not invited, the Navy who was involved in a number of major operation from the hunt of the Nazi battleship Bismarck, to the protection of artic conwoys from Nazi uboats likewise. McNeil states that clearly. Loosmark (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the sources. Kwan Yuk Pan says in the Financial Times (source 2) " Even though Poland made one of the largest contributions to the Allied war effort and there were thousands of Polish troops stationed in the UK at the time, the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946. Stalin, who had established communist rule in eastern Europe, indicated that he did not wish Poland to be represented and the British authorities agreed for fear of offending their ally." and Olson & Cloud say (in source 1) “Poles who had fought under British command were deliberately and specifically barred from the celebration by the British government, for fear of offending Joseph Stalin." Those are the 'claim' I have been referring to (they are quoted above on this page). As to the Polish army and navy being excluded: no units from the armies or navies of any non-Commonwealth/Empire nation were invited to the parade. Poland is a non-Commonwealth/Empire nation. No units from either of the two largest allied armies (i.e. the Red Army and the US Army) were invited. Varsovian (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Red Army had their own parade in Moscow and apart from that, unlike Poland, they fought on the eastern front and not together with the British. If you think that Poland being a non-Commonwealth nation is the reason for not being invited then provide the source which says "Poland was not invited because it was not a Commonwealth nation". Until, then it's nothing more than your speculation. Loosmark (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean the Moscow parade which Polish forces attended? Have a look at the WP page and you'll see Polish forces marching in it.
 * Of course it'll be impossible for me give a source which says "Poland was not invited because it was not a Commonwealth nation": that is because POLAND WAS INVITED!!! Even you agree to that fact (see above). Why do you keep saying that Poland was not invited? Poland actually received a double invitation: one for the government and one for Western Command Poles.
 * I have already provided a link which shows that units of Poland's army and navy were not invited because Poland was not a Commonwealth/Empire nation: the official programme of the victory celebrations. Read it and you will see that first came representatives of allied forces (except Britain and Commonwealth/Empire nations) each parading their flag (Poland is shown on the list here). Then came army, navy, and airforce and units of British Empire Dominions. Then came army, navy and airforce units and civilian services of the British Colonial Empire. Then came the British navy and maritime forces. Then came the British civilian services. Then the British Army. Then more British civilian services. Then representatives of selected allied airforces (Poland is shown on the list here). Then came the Royal Airforce. Can you see a slots there for any units of any army or navy other than those of Commonwealth/Empire nations? Can you see where the US Army marched? Where the French Navy marched? Only units from armies and navies of Commonwealth/Empire nations were invited. Was Poland a Commonwealth/Empire nation? No? Then perhaps that might just possibly explain why no units of her army or navy were invited, don't you think?Varsovian (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you see where the US Army marched? yeah as a matter of fact I can http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6SWwL_KAb4 at 0:42 Loosmark (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You must mean the bit at 0.43 to 0.47? The bit where the narrator is saying "Yanks too join in the big celebration proudly parading old glory". Thank you so much for finding a film which so nicely confirms my statement above that "first came representatives of allied forces (except Britain and Commonwealth/Empire nations) each parading their flag". Very nice of you to make the effort. It is lucky that the article currently says "It should be noted that, with the exception of the honour guard for each nation’s flag and the bands of certain nations, no units of any army or navy from any non-Commonwealth/Empire nation were invited to take part.", otherwise we'd have to rewrite it to make it clear that each nation which paraded its flag sent an honour guard for such flag.


 * Although the film is rather grainy, I'm pretty sure that the honour guard with the flag is two rows of US Army, two of US Navy and two of US Marines. Interesting that the three branches of the US services which were not invited to send representatives to the parade made up the US flag's honour guard. I wonder if other nations whose airforces were invited also made the same decision as to their honour guards. Could you perhaps review further footage and have a look for that? Then we can add the extra information to the article.Varsovian (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quality of the movie is poor, some of those definitely look like the US Navy to me but I don't know, maybe some expert could clarify that for us. But anyway what you seem to not understand is that there is a fundamental difference between the US Army and the Polish Army in that the first simply cooperated with the British Army on the strategic-tactical level while the Polish Army was basically a part of the British Army, for all practical purposes they were just the same as for example the Scottish or the Canadian Army. So first accepting the Polish Army as the integral part of the British Army and then claiming they weren't invited because they were not part of the Commonwealth is just ludicrous and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the reason for not inviting them. Loosmark (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting point, but one that is somewhat let down by the small fact that Scotland didn't have an army at all during WWII (and the tiny point that even if it did, with Scotland being part of Britain, of course that army would be part of the British army) and the fact that the Canadian Army was not an integral part of the British Army during WWII. The First Canadian Army actually included one of the best known Polish units (the 1st Polish Armoured Division). Also included in the Canadian First Army was the US 104th Infantry Division: so if you want to claim that Polish troops were an integral part of the British army, you'll need to agree that American troops were also an integral part of the British army (which would somewhat put a hole in your point about the US Army simply cooperating with the British Army on the strategic-tactical level). If you want to claim that one Division does not a rule make, check out the US II Corps (part of the British First Army), the US Ninth Army and First Army (both part of the British 21st Army group), and the US 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions (both part of the British 21st Army group). You could claim that Polish army units were not invited because the British wanted to kiss Stalin's arse, but if that is the case, why did the Brits invite Western Command Polish airmen? In fact, why did they invite Poles at all if they were so worried about what Stalin thought?Varsovian (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was clearly a difference between the Polish and the US Army but i don't care to go into details now because it is obvious. Simply look at the facts: unlike the Americans the Poles fought together with the British in every possible battlefield, starting from Narvik, France 1940 trough Tobruk and so on and so forth. And what exactly does this "Western Command" term you keep repeating mean? Anyway they invited only the airmen who flew in the 1940 Battle of Britain, probably because of their importance and also because they were so much respected by everybody that not inviting would probably mean a complete loss of face. But as McNeil put it: "we invited some Poles". Clearly at least the representatives of the Polish Army and the Polish Navy should have been invited similarly to the US Army, call it "to guard the flag" or however you want to. This view is properly sourced and belongs into the article. Loosmark (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference but you don't want to go into it? Are you sure it isn't 'I don't know enough to go into it'? From your comments about the integration of the armies, I'd say that might just be the case.
 * "unlike the Americans the Poles fought together with the British in every possible battlefield" could you please go into detail about the Polish contribution to the war against Japan? I can go into considerable detail about the American contribution.
 * "Clearly at least the representatives of the Polish Army and the Polish Navy should have been invited similarly to the US Army, call it "to guard the flag" or however you want to." I completely agree. But they were invited! An invitation to parade the flag was sent to the internationally recognised Polish government (which you should be careful about calling 'communist', unless you do wish to slur the memory of Stanisław Mikołajczyk). They accepted the invitation and then didn't turn up. Surely you don't mean that the British government should have invited two set of Poles to parade two identical Polish flags?!
 * " This view is properly sourced and belongs into the article." Which view? The view that Poles should have been invited to parade their flag with an honour guard? If so, it's there: "The Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations on 8 June 1946 in London, England lists Poland as a nation scheduled to take part by parading its flag with an honour guard". Varsovian (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look Varsovian I really don't wish to discuss this with you anymore, you seem to be completely obsessed with proving that Poland was invited. Since you are a new user on wikipedia, or rather as you corrected yourself later a "new user who edited from IP adress before", let me explain you how wikipedia works: If there is properly sources material in the article you can't just delete it, if you disagree with that you have two options: either prove that the source is not reliable or/and introduce a source which says that the other source is wrong. You judging sources based on some Official Programme is original research and a definite no no on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS the "Official Programme" is hardly a prove of any invitations since we don't know under what circumstances and by whom it was made. Loosmark (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I really do fail to see how reading the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations is 'original research', do explain. Alternatively, do not explain: let's say (just for the sake of making things easier here) that we completely ignore the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations (which doesn't actually contain a word about precisely to whom any invitations were sent), there is still the small matter of Hansard. That does clearly and repeatedly state to whom any invitations were sent. Or does reading Hansard also count as 'original research'?
 * You say that I need to "prove that the source is not reliable". Seeing as the sources which claim Polish Armed Forces in the West were excluded are from nearly 60 years after the parade and the sources which say that Western Command Poles were invited are from a few days before the parade, wouldn't you say that the sources have been proved to be not reliable? And to answer my own question, yes you would say that those sources have been proved to be not reliable. You yourself agree that some Western Command Poles were invited while the incorrect sources say the opposite!
 * I have no idea why you say that I am "completely obsessed with proving that Poland was invited": you have already agreed above that Poland was invited!!!Varsovian (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "You haved agree above that Poland was invited!!!" huh!? i'm starting to think you are a troll. Please read again what i wrote, i "agreed" that some airmen who flied in the 1940 Battle of Britain were invited and nothing more than that. No other airmen were invited, no representative of the Polish Army was invited and no representative of the Polish Navy was invited, not even to "guard the flag" as you call it. Those were the men who fought shoulder to shoulder with the British from 1936 to 1945, 6 years, the only ally who did so. Those people were most certainly not represented by the puppet commie government, so the British knew that by sending the invitation only to the communist authorities they were de-facto excluding them from the parade. Loosmark (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Troll? That is extremely civil language, isn't it? Do you or do you not agree that some Western Command Poles were invited? Yes you do: you say above "i "agreed" that some airmen who flied in the 1940 Battle of Britain were invited". So you directly contradict 'sources' (written some six decades after the parade) which support a viewpoint which you say "is properly sourced and belongs into the article." You can talk as much as you want about who fought with who and for how long over what but the very simple fact remains that Poles, both Western and Eastern Command Poles, were invited to the parade on exactly the same basis as all other non-Commonwealth/Empire nations. I note that you call Stanisław Mikołajczyk (Deputy Polish Prime Minister, Minister of Agriculture and Agricultural Reform in 1946) a "commie". Do you have any proof of that claim?Varsovian (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

--Jacurek (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that you make no attempt to in anyway discuss the topic of the article and instead both assume (and publicly state) that I am editing in bad faith and adopt uncivil language towards me. Is there any reason why I should not file a Request for Comment on user conduct with regard to your behaviour?Varsovian (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Article in not about London Victory Parade of 1946
Article in not about London Victory Parade of 1946 anymore. Section about the lack of the Polish participation overshadows the information about the parade itself. Needs major clean up, perhaps a separate article about the fact that Polish Armed Forces were not invited should be created..--Jacurek (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. London Victory Parade of 1946 still directs to the article.Varsovian (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that in your opinion there is too much information about the lack of Polish participation and not enough about the parade? If so: firstly I disagree, the parade is now mainly noted for claims about the lack of Polish participation and this article provides valuable information about such; secondly, I'm happy to add more information about the parade itself if you would like. Shall I add such?Varsovian (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a major expansion, it is currently about the exclusion of Poles from the parade - a notable subsection, but it shouldn't dominate the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll write a new section about the parade itself (route, marching order, participants, time and date). I should have time to do that later this week.Varsovian (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of banners posted by Jacurek
Jacurek: Could you please be so kind as to point out the sources which you consider to be self published. Could you please outline the facts which you consider to be inaccurate. I will be happy to provide you with direct quotes from the online records of what was said in the British Parliament that will prove the facts which I inserted into this article. Could you please also explain why you feel that this article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

Please note that I first requested that you provide the above information 12 days ago (despite having. If you do not respond within the next three days, I will remove the banners myself. I see no reason to wait more than two weeks for somebody to engage in discussion. I will post a courtesy notice on your talk page to ensure that you are aware of this request.Varsovian (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to provide you with direct quotes from the online records of what was said in the British Parliament that will prove the facts which I inserted into this article. This just proves you still don't understand how wikipedia works. Articles here have to be based on secondary sources not your interpretation of the primary sources. What you have to do is find a book with those records where some expert concludes that the records say this and that which then proves that and that. Loosmark (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A secondary source? Hansard may well be a secondary source. According to No original research "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources". Hansard is not a record of everything which is said in the British Parliament. However, let's say (purely for the sake of discussion) that Hansard is a primary source, No original research says "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Could you please be so kind as to point out the 'interpretation' which is being performed by looking at the words of the British Foreign Secretary saying " It is not true that we have not invited any members of those fighting Poles to take part in the Parade. Let me be quite honest. We have not invited the Navy and the Army, but we did invite some of the Poles who flew in the Battle of Britain, to march past in the R.A.F. contingent. ...  We have to invite someone on behalf of the Warsaw Government, and I regret to say that the Warsaw Government has not yet provided the forces which they promised to take part in the parade." and concluding that the British government sent an invitation to the Polish government in Warsaw and another invitation to Poles who flew in the Battle of Britain? Do you really need an expert to tell you that the British Foreign Secretary saying "we did invite some of the Poles who flew in the Battle of Britain .... We have to invite someone on behalf of the Warsaw Government" means the British government invited those two groups?!


 * Although all of this is of course utterly moot anyway. You say "What you have to do is find a book with those records where some expert concludes that the records say this and that which then proves that and that." I would refer you to Dr Mark Ostrowski's “To Return To Poland Or Not To Return - The Dilemma Facing The Polish Armed Forces At The End Of The Second World War” and to Władysław Anders's “An Army in Exile”: two books which say very precisely that the British government sent an invitation to the Polish government in Warsaw and another invitation to Poles who flew in the Battle of Britain.Varsovian (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From Chumchum7's talk page: Your opinion appreciated on London Victory Parade of 1946
In my personal opinion there is a quite serious attempt of falsification of facts by user Varsiovian on this article[] who clams that Poles were invited to the parade etc. I suspect Varsovian to be a sock of an established editor who is trying to provoke me into the edit wars but this is not important. I would appreciate your opinion on the facts of the Polish participation in the parade. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please tell me what the precise disagreement is about. In my opinion most of these disputes can be solved quite easily by adding caveats such as "According to some sources... But according to other sources..." The book by Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud is my best source on this. My recollection of their account of the Parade is that the RAF Poles were invited but the invitation to land forces was sent to the 'Lublin Poles' rather than the 'London Poles'. The Lublin Poles ignored the invitation and the Brits told the London Poles to go home. The 228,000 Polish land forces in the UK were confined to barracks and the RAF Poles boycotted the event in solidarity. If I remember correctly, I think a handful of Polish RAF fliers (I think it was 3 of them) may have taken the Polish flag to the Parade, but this small group was definitely meant as a protest. But I would need to double check all this.Chumchum7 (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacurek: I would greatly appreciate it if you could stop calling me a sockpuppet. Either file a formal complaint about me or stop throwing the accusation around. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could refrain from accusing me of editing in bad faith. If you can not refrain from accusing me of being a sockpuppet and from accusing me of bad faith editing, I shall be left with no other choice than to file a Request for Comment on your behaviour. This is your final warning.
 * I do not ‘claim’ that Poles were invited to the parade: I provide links to five sources from the time which confirm that Poles were invited to the parade and four modern sources (two of which provide their sources) which all very clearly state that invitations were issued to both the ‘London Poles’ and to the government of Poland. The ‘evidence’ you offer is merely two modern sources, neither of which provide their sources.


 * Chumchum7: Olson and Cloud actually say “Yet, despite its accomplishments in the war, none Of 303's Pilots took part in the fly-past. None marched in the parade. For they were all Polish -- and Poles who had fought under British command were deliberately and specifically barred from the celebration by the British government, for fear of offending Joseph Stalin.” That clearly contradicts your memories as outlined above, as well as Hansard for the time, The Times newspaper, the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations and the memoirs of General Anders. I would very much think that your memories (and Hansard and The Times and General Anders) have got it right and Olson and Cloud have it wrong.
 * I do not feel that it would be appropriate to say “According to some sources … but according to others …” All of the sources of the time say Poles were invited, the eyewitness reports say that they were, the expert sources from now say that they were. There are certainly claims that Poles were not invited but those are entirely refuted by far more reliable sources. The idea that equal weight should be given to sixty-year-old second and third-hand sources as is to official sources from the same week as the parade and eyewitness reports is abhorrent. Varsovian (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In brief, what was the main point of disagreement between Jacurek and Varsovian about this article anyway? I don't have time to read through their debate!Chumchum7 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacurek claims that only one unit of Poles was invited to the parade and previously claimed that all Polish servicemen were excluded . I quote five sources from the time and four modern sources which confirm that both 'London Poles' and 'Lublin Poles' were invited to the parade (BTW: according to Hansard and other sources from the time, the 'Lublin Poles' accepted the invitation but then didn't send any representatives)Varsovian (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, if your 9 sources have a unanimous view of the event, I propose the article asserts what those 9 sources say. But Oslon and Cloud's alternative reading of the event should also be noted in the article. That is a fair, even-handed solution and offers readers a wealth of information from which they draw their own conclusions. Even sheer weight of sourcing doesn't always establish the truth: Lets not forget there are probably more sources saying the Polish cavalry charged Panzers than sources saying the Polish cavalry never did this as they were in fact dragoons or highly mobile infantry - who dismounted to fight as an infantry unit armed with highly effective anti-tank weapons.Chumchum7 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article currently says "Although the parade is also notable for claims that all Polish servicemen were excluded from taking part by the British government [1] [2], and some consider this as one of the causes of the feeling of "Western Betrayal" in Poland, Poles were actually invited but chose not to attend." Would you say that such wording is suitable? There are indeed more sources which say Polish cavalry charged tanks but that myth has also been debunked. Oslon and Cloud provide no sources for their alternative reading of the event and it flies in the face of more serious historical works and both official and unoffical sources of the time. Varsovian (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you say the myth has been debunked, but try asking a total stranger what he knows about Polish cavalry, and tell me what answer you get. Now, that sentence you quoted me stinks of POV and possibly anti-Polish sentiment. The parade is notable for the absence of Polish troops, it is not notable "for claims that all Polish servicemen were excluded from taking part by the British government". If the claims are more important than the absence, those sources better be all about claims rather than absence. Moreover, the idea that Poles chose not to attend needs to be explained, if it is true in the first place. Why did the Poles choose not to attend? Why did 30 Polish officers commit suicide around that time? Chumchum7 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Poles chose not to attend and why is indeed covered by the article: "But as The Times noted in June 1946 “Unfortunately, it seems that none of the Polish servicemen who fought in the West under British command will take part. Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them." " The fact is also mentioned in six of the sources provided (three from the time and three modern). How is it is anti-Polish sentiment to state the fact that Poles were invited but chose not to attend? I do not have any knowledge of 30 Polish officers committing suicide in May/June 1946, do you have any sources you can link to for me? I think that you may be getting confused with the Yalta Conference.Varsovian (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Olson and Cloud mention the 30 suicides - but you dispute their authority, which is your right. I'd say the British government and press were all desperately trying to whitewash the fact that they had not achieved their statutory war aim of creating a free and independent Poland after the war. Think of the scandal, that after 6 years of going to war in defence of Poland, Poland wasn't free. Brits at the time wanted Poles to shut up and go home. The sentence above implies the Poles were just being difficult. In fact they were protesting against the Stalinist takeover of their country that the Brits didn't seem to want to know about. Even if at the Parade the Polish absence was a boycott by Poles, rather than a snub by the British, the UK government would have been deeply embarrassed by what was happening to Poland. Of course they didn't want it to be known about. Suppressing of Polish grievances became part of the war effort, and therefore propaganda in official records and newspapers. All sources can be treated with healthy scepticism.Chumchum7 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read what I said. Olson & Cloud mention 30 suicides in relation to the Yalta conference, which I believe predated the victory parade by about a year and a half. Do you mean that these Poles killed themselves because of a parade which hadn’t then been announced for a victory which hadn’t yet been won? You do seem to be looking at the situation of 1946 with the benefit of hindsight: Poland of 1946 was not certain to be unfree. Stanisław Mikołajczyk resigned as Prime Minister of the government in exile to return to Poland and become the other Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture in Poland!
 * I do wonder why you say in connection with the victory parade “Suppressing of Polish grievances became part of the war effort”. The parade was in June 1946. The war effort finished at the end of the war: September 1945. Why did the war effort continue for nearly a year after the war?
 * I also wonder why you say that “Brits at the time wanted Poles to shut up and go home”. The Polish Resettlement Act 1947 and the Polish Resettlement Corps, plus the hundreds of camps for Poles, would appear to suggest otherwise. As would the words of Churchill “'His Majesty's Government will never forget the debt they owe to the Polish troops... I earnestly hope it will be possible for them to have citizenship and freedom of the British empire, if they so desire.”
 * But let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right: let’s say that British official records and newspapers of the time are “propaganda” and “the British government and press were all desperately trying to whitewash” something. If that is the case, why in his memoirs does General Anders say that Free Poles and representatives of the internationally recognised govt of Poland were invited to the parade? Was he part of the establishment lie? What about Rudolf Falkowski? When he says “Though by then, every Englishman was a S.O.B. in our eyes” is he repeating propaganda designed to suppress Polish grievances?Varsovian (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets agree to have differing opinions on this. I don't have the time to spend any more time debating. I have offered a solution, which is to include all accounts of the event, properly cited. For your information, my opinion, which I don't want to go into a debate about, is this: My use of the phrase 'war effort' includes the effort in the latter 1940s to ensure war did not break out again and to be on the ready for further hostility. This included enforced conscription for years after the war, continued rationing, contingency plans such as Operation Unthinkable as well as propaganda in newspapers, radio, film and in public announcements. Tories tended to be more pro-Polish and anti-Stalin. The Labour government of Clement Attlee hero-worshipped Stalin, who had a psychotic grudge against Poles. There was a concerted effort by some politicians and labour unions to encourage Poles to go home and to tell them to shut up that Britain hadn't achieved its statutory war aim. The 30 suicides after Yalta was a protest, the boycotting of the parade was a protest. Hence the connection between the two. Mikołajczyk was notoriously naive. Everybody knew what happened at the Warsaw Uprising and about other Soviet tactics. I wrote most of the the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 wiki and I found the quote “'His Majesty's Government will never forget the debt they owe to the Polish troops... I earnestly hope it will be possible for them to have citizenship and freedom of the British empire, if they so desire.” The Act was a solution to the fact that Poles werent going home. Churchill's quote was tantamount to a guilty apology and an admission that the Free Poles would not have a home to go back to. Not everyone understood the implications of his quote. It may be true that the Free Poles were invited, and if so it is likely they boycotted the event because their wives an children back in Lwow and Wilno were being raped and murdered by the NKVD. That's it. See World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West. Before you go casting stones accusing me of looking at it with hindsight, think about your own prejudices. Fold in all the sources offering as many perspectives as possible. And both you and Jacurek please leave me alone and try to resolve your conflict amicably.Chumchum7 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I do actually agree with almost everything (everything except the choice of one verb) which you have written: British politicians and trade unionists really do have a lot to hang their heads about with regard to the years immediately after the war (in fact from August 1944 onwards). I have been trying to resolve this with Jacurek but he refuses to reply to any of my attempts to engage in discussion....Varsovian (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You state "The parade is notable for the fact that almost all 228,000 Polish servicemen who had served under British High Command in World War Two were excluded.[1][2] Instead, Poles from the Soviet-installed Stalinist regime of Communist Poland were invited, but chose not to attend." Firstly, you have already agreed above that Western Command Poles were invited, so the word "instead" is incorrect and misleading: both sets of Poles were invited. Secondly, the two sources you give both say that "all" Poles were excluded, please provide sources which support your position that "almost all Poles" were "exluded". Thirdly, do you have any proof that Mikołajczyk was a Stalinist? Fourthly, why is the 'exclusion' of Poles any more notable than the exclusion of the thousands of other non-commonwealth/empire forces? From a NPOV, why should Poles be more noteworthy than any other nation which was excluded?Varsovian (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring by user Varsovian
User Varsovian is edit warring on this article against opinions of at least 4 editors. Please refer to the edit history and this massive talk page.--Jacurek (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This talk page got completely ruined by Varsovian who keeps replying to every post with long rants instead of answering concise and to the point. Frankly I have lost all interest to discuss anything here because the discussion is in a state of complete mess. Loosmark (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources you give do not say what you claim they do. They both say "All Poles", not "Almost all Poles". Find sources that support you position and are accurate. Concise enough?Varsovian (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT USER Varsovian? Looks like nobody even wants to discuss this with you anymore. This article is so not reliable right now because of you. You ruined it. Check versions in other languages, they say completely different story that you are pushing here. You keep edit warring pushing your WRONG version against opinion of 4 editors involved so far. YES, this is what it is right.--Jacurek (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The version of the article you have three times reverted to says "The parade is notable for the fact that almost all 228,000 Polish servicemen who had served under British High Command in World War Two were excluded.[1][2]" Sources and  actually claim that all Poles were excluded by the British government. 'All' is not the same as 'almost all' and furthermore: not a single editor agrees with the claim that all Poles were excluded by the British government. Even you agree that some Poles were invited: look.
 * I find your claims that "this article is so not reliable right now because of you. You ruined it." to be most puzzling. Since I have started contributing to this section it has gone from an incoherant text which contradicted both itself and the three sources it quoted (two of of which were from the 21st century) to one which is coherant and has 13 sources from both the modern day and the 1940s. It has been suggested to me that you might consider the article ruined because it no longer perpetuates the lie that all brave Poles were excluded by the horrible British but I would never suggest that you would want to edit in bad faith or lie (despite your repeated accusations that I edit in bad faith and am a sockpuppet).Varsovian (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice about the other language versions. I am in the process of collecting sources so as to give the article a complete rewrite and significant extension. Having made a few calls, I will be able to have the new text translated into and posted on Polish, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Hebrew, Czech, Hungarian, Finnish, Swedish, Icelandic, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Korean, Vietnamese (probably), Norwegian, Afrikaans, Yiddish (probably), Welsh, Kashubian and Pennsylvania German Wikipedias. Are there any other language Wikipedias which will need a copy of the revised article?Varsovian (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article in Trollian. Loosmark (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Might I suggest that you read Civility before making any further contributions? That might make it easier for us to work together to develop consensus. Thank you in advance for your assistance.Varsovian (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, as soon as I have time I plan to work really hard together with you to reach a consensus and improve the article. In the mean time I was wondering if you could make few more calls and have the new text translated into Mandarin Chinese, Cambodian (probably) and Eskimese too. Loosmark (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is good to hear. Don't worry about the timeframe, I'm fairly busy myself too right now and probably won't have time to write the new version of the article until this weekend. I look forward to discussing it with you. As for the languages, Mandarin Chinese will be no problem (a very good friend of mine recently married into a Chinese family who speak Mandarin at home) and Khmer should be possible but I'll need to check with the friend of mine who spent a few years in Cambodia (I'm pretty sure he's still with the girl he met there and she certainly was Cambodian). Unfortunately I have no idea what Eskimese is, could you go into more detail about the language?Varsovian (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's the language that other friend of yours speaks at home, you know the one who married that Eskimo chick. Loosmark (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I believe that you must have confused me with another editor. While I do have friends who have taught at Canadian schools in that region, to the best of my knowledge none of my friends have married an "Eskimo chick".Varsovian (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Varsovian...did British government at the time invited Eskimos to the parade? Can out find out for me? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations gives no further detail as to Canadian units invited past "Canada" and no further details of US units invited other than “United States of America (Army and Naval)” (in the Allied air forces section. It is possible that Canada and/or the US Army and/or Navy air forces had Eskimo only units but there is no evidence of any of them being specifically invited or excluded. I am aware of the largely Eskimo Alaska Territorial Guard but that unit was most certainly not invited (as it was not a Commonwealth/empire unit or an Allied air force unit). Hansard makes no mention and I can find nothing on google. If you would like the article to mention that Eskimos were specifically excluded from the parade, I would have no problem with such inclusion provided that it is properly sourced. However, the absence of sources saying that Eskimos were invited should not be taken as any proof that Eskimos were excluded.Varsovian (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was joking you know..:) It was a joke ..should I back it up with more relible sources?:):):)--Jacurek (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can back it with sources if you like but it would be more beneficial to WP if you tried to actually discuss the article.Varsovian (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Example
This article is a very good example how one dedicated editor can manipulate Wikipedia. The fact that the Poles were excluded from the parade is now totally twisted to the point that the unfamiliar reader thinks that the parade is only notable for the CLAIMS that the Poles were not invited. Please note that the new editor Varsovian (huge experience for a new editor) pushes his version against the opinion of 4 editors by posting long messages and edit warring.--Jacurek (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The very simple fact is that Poles were not excluded from the parade. This is not my version: this is the reality supported by multiple reliable sources. Look at the multiple sources which clearly state that Poles were invited and that one group failed to turn up while another group boycotted the event. If that does't convince you, have a look here : that is where you agree that Poles were invited to the parade and chose not to attend.Varsovian (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

HEY VARSOVIAN, and what about the fact that 4 Editors do not agree with you and your "sources" because the only unit invited was the 303 pilots and the puppet communists from newly created Polish communist state:), Legitimate Polish army representative and its government was not. But you know? Maybe just forget it, this compromised article is all yours now:)I also lost interests in it. You caqn move on to "improve" the next one...:):)--Jacurek (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite your repeated claims otherwise, there are not four editors who agree that all Poles were excluded. In fact there appear to be none (even you agree that Poles were not all excluded). So perhaps the 'fact' you refer to should not be in the article. I would prefer that you do not leave this article to me: I feel that the best quality article would come from us working together. However, in order for us to do that, you will need to discuss what you wish the article to say and why it should say that. If you can not (and instead engage in discussions as to whether Eskimos were invited), we will not be able to work together effectively.Varsovian (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, nobody can work with you Varsovian because you either posting same (over and over and over) comments or just edit war. Did you notice that nobody even takes you seriously anymore? The article is yours, o.k.:) Yes, you have it, the parade is now famous for "claims" that Poles were not invited. Hey, and nobody is edit warring here other than you. Too bad, he?:):)--Jacurek (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, please get outside mediation from an experienced editor, preferably someone entirely neutral with a penchant for lesser spotted dogfish or some other unrelated subject.--Chumchum7 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From PBS web site for user Varsovian
[]''Troops from every Allied country were invited to march along the parade route–except one. The British government did not want to anger the new Stalin-approved Communist government in Poland by including the Polish fighters who had fought so valiantly with the other Allies in the war, so the Poles were left out.'' + 12 other links to sources in the article.

Will this convince you, what else do you need user Varsovian?--Jacurek (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Great find Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't really think this will be the end of this cabaret, do you:)?--Jacurek (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bet on it, no. At least I hope the one kilometre long posts are a thing of the past, although to be honest I wouldn't bet on that either. Loosmark (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these links. I note that you expect us to rely on sources which both you and Loosmark have already agreed are erroneous (you have both already said that some Poles were invited but some of the sources you provide say that they were not) and that you consider sources which say all Poles were excluded suitable to support the statement almost all Poles were excluded. I won't bother to remove the erroneous sources or the ones which fail to support your position: I'm rewriting the article and you can rest assured that all of the sources you give will remain in the article (they'll just be in the correct place).Varsovian (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not agreed that this source is erroneous, in fact I have not previously even talked about this source at all. I request you stop making up stuff like that. Loosmark (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have said on this discussion page "Huh? Nobody disputes that the Poles who flied in the Battle of Britain were invited to the parade, it's a well known fact." The source above says that "the Poles were left out". In other words this source flies in the face of what you say 'everybody accepts' (assuming that you would say that everybody accepts something which you say nobody disputes). Please accept my apologies if my statement was badly worded.Varsovian (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Poles were left out" refers to the majority of Poles who fought together with the Britts from 1939, namely the Polish Army, the Polish Navy and >90% of the Polish Air Force. I suggest you stop beating a dead horse. Loosmark (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the Polish army and navy were left out: they were not from a Commonwealth/Empire nation! That is why the US army and navy were not invited! Do you see Americans throwing their toys out of the pram about this grave insult? Reagarding your commment as to >90% of the Polish air force: the Polish government decided not to send Polish air force representatives; of the 89 pilots from the four Polish RAF squadrons which took part in the Battle of Britain, 25 were invited.Varsovian (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Write an email to the source and try to convince them they are wrong. Till then we are going to have to go with the source rather than your theories because original research is forbidden on wikipedia. (And only 25 out of 89? What, the other 64 didn't risk their lives to stop the brutal attack of the Nazis?) Loosmark (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need to convince them that they are wrong: you know full well that they are wrong. However I have a few source from the 1940s which say that the parade was Commonwealth/Empire (plus flags and selected airforces only). I'll make sure that they go in.
 * As for your comment about only 35% of Polish pilots being invited: India contributed 2,500,000 personnel to WWII, do you think that 875,000 (i.e. 35%) of them were invited? Three and a half million British served in the army during the war, do you think that 1,225,000 of them were invited? More than a million Australians, 350,000 of them invited? If just those three nations had received invitations of the same proportion as the Poles got, the parade would have taken days! Varsovian (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that they are wrong, and even if I would it doesn't matter because wikipedia is based on sources, not what you or me or john from the street thinks. Also your machine-gunning those mega high numbers is useless, the Battle of Britain was an unique event where faith of the world relied on a small number of highly skilled pilots. And Polish pilots played a very important part in it. Let me quote Sir Winston Churchill: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." Loosmark (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes wikipedia is based on sources: and all the ones which claim Poles were not invited are from 50+ years after the event! There's your problem. All of the sources from the time (and the serious scholarly studies) are unanimous: Poles were invited, not excluded. The article will reflect that.Varsovian (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with sources written 50+ after the event. Wikipedia uses countless such sources, so if you don't get that such sources are perfectly ok, I'd say we indeed have a big problem. Only that the problem is yours, not mine. Loosmark (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that they are perfectly acceptable for WP. That is why I have left them in the article. I haven't mentioned that some of them come from the same press release (which was released last month) but will happily do so if you think it appropriate.Varsovian (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Parade
Parade is notable for lack of participation of Poles. Section will be restored.--Jacurek (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are Poles more notable than Russians or Yugoslavs? Why is the Polish army more notable than the US army?
 * I note that your immediate reaction is not to discuss anything but instead to assert that your opinion is the only one which counts and to immediate start edit warring.Varsovian (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that the Russians and Yugoslavs have not fought together with the British Forces from 1939 but instead this is more appropriate: Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It will be restored to the earlier version. As of now the article is a total garbage.--Jacurek (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed discussion of the article. Could I perhaps ask you to go into a tiny bit more detail as to the parts which you consider not to accurately reflect the numerous sources which are given? That would very much help us to find a consensus position here. I assume that you do wish to follow WP policy here.Varsovian (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive problems with this article created
''In the twenty-first century claims began to appear, mainly in various news media, stating that Poland had been excluded from the parade [22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. While the origin of these statement is uncertain, they entirely contradict sources, eyewitnesses, memoirs and official records from the 1940s.'' - this line is total is absurd.--Jacurek (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part is absurd? That the claims are from the 21st century or that they entirely contradict all sources, eyewitnesses, memoirs and official records from the 1940s?
 * Although the word 'claim' is perhaps not NPoV. I propose changing it to 'statements' (and fix the grammar mistake in the sentence too).Varsovian (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is fun :) too bad I have to go back to make some editing at the Expulsions of Germans from E.E. article :) and have no time for this one now :).--Jacurek (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is not about the parade anymore
I'm removing all unnecessary information about Soviet, Yugoslavs etc. since this article is about the parade and not them. The only notable thing is lack of Polish participation which should stay according to the majority of the editors (4)except one.--Jacurek (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for your point of view. If you could possibly address the 12 sources from the time which you've deleted, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Varsovian (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively just delete all the sources which don't suit your point of view. Just delete all of them. That's how the Communist censors used to do it on your country, so how can we expect you to behave any better. Your utter contempt for WP is a disgrace and one which I will make sure gets you more than a 1RR ban for this time. I tried hard and repeatedly to work with you but you couldn't do it. Goodbye. Varsovian (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Parade section should be expanded
Since this article is about the parade therefore section about the actual parade should be expanded (I started doing that but I was reverted by user Varsovian) and section about the lack of Polish participation, which dominates the article, shorten to the version before the latest revert of user Varsovian (temporarily blocked from editing). Before I do that I would like to hear the opinions of other editors previously involved. Thanks a lot and I hope to hear your thoughts tomorrow. Cheers--Jacurek (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Split this into two articles?
It seems that we are not going to reach a consensus compromise on this article. I would say that there is so much evidence and so many facts that need to be mentioned when discussing lack of Polish participation in the parade that we should split this into an entirely new article because it overwhelms the rest of the article. The current article should simply have a very very NPoV statement which all sources agree on. I would suggest something along the lines of “Of the major Allies, only the USSR, Yugoslavia and Poland were not represented.” All the sources agree that none of those countries were represented: the differences come when talking about why Poland was not represented. Do any editors have any thoughts about this proposal?Varsovian (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I have heard this garbage theory that we should only have statements which "all sources agree" before. And it was by another anti-Polish editor who started to edit these topics recently. Loosmark (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please be so kind as to point out where I say that we should have only statements on which all sources agree? I am very willing to have both sides put and put in detail but a certain Polish editor keeps on removing one side and all sources which do not agree with his version of history.
 * While you may not mean it to be, your tone continues to be incivil and hostile, it is not in the slightest bit helpful. I would be grateful if you could moderate it. I would also be grateful if you could be so kind as to either report me as a puppet or cease to making allegations and insinuations about me.Varsovian (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Provocative removal of notable material by Varsovian
I think this is serious matter and should be looked at. Varsovian once again removed notable material[].--Jacurek (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain how the material I removed is any more notable than the 16 sources or detailed text which you removed. Could you also explain how the phrase "Provocative removal" fits into the policy of Assume good faith. Surely you do not mean to say that I am editing in bad faith, so why the word 'provocative'?
 * As noted in the section immediately above this one, I propose that this article is split into two articles: one covers purely the parade and makes no mention of the debate regarding lack of Polish participation; the other covers the debate regarding lack of Polish participation, to which Poles invitations were and were not sent, other groups which were not invited, other groups which did not participate and the possible reasons for the lack of invitations and/or participation (as the case may be). At present the article briefly deals with the one fact which all sources agree on: that Poles did not participate in the parade. If the topic of why they did not attend merits further discussion, let's either discuss both sides in this article or discuss both sides in a dedicated article.Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just make an outside observation here: neither of the two versions you guys have been revert-warring over is good. While Varsovian's version is certainly better in terms of encyclopedic detail and neutrality, it has the serious problem of being "original research" in large parts. You need to cut down on those elements that appear to present an argument against your opponent's position based on your own reading of the primary sources. Instead, you need references to secondary sources that discuss the backgrounds of these events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was the problem, "original research" and in my opinion manipulative selection of sources and wording which compromised the notability of the fact that the Poles were not there. Just please look at the endless argument of other editors who did not agree, this is not just my argument and Varsovians. Lack of the representative of Polish Armed forces who fought under the British command for 5 years is really only notable thing and not lack of Soviets or Yugoslav partisans who did not fight under the British command. Poles were not invited to the parade because U.K. government at the time did not want to upset Stalin who took control over Poland and wanted "Soviet" Poles to attend Victory Parade in Moscow instead. Almost every source about the parade notes that. I provided 12 sources including latest PBS "Behind the close doors" series[]( Please scroll down to the end of the sourced article). --Jacurek (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost every source says that Stalin wanted Poles to attend Victory Parade in Moscow instead? Not even a single source says that! It is interesting that you mention the 12 sources you provided but have not a word to say about the 16 which you deleted, or is that what you meant by manipulative selection of sources?Varsovian (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thank you for your comments. Could you possibly point out the original research which you think is in (the longer version of the article which I posted, the one with 28 sources). I agree that there are two primary sources being used there (Hansard and the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations) but for both there are also secondary sources which confirm the content of the primary sources. Would the article be better if all mention of primary sources was removed?
 * Also, do you have any views as to making this article two articles? One to be about the parade and one to be about Polish participation in (or lack thereof) in the parade. Thank you in advance for any additional time which you may be able to spend on this article.Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sources
I have noticed that a number of sources given do not actually reflect the current content of the article:

says " Troops from every Allied country were invited to march along the parade route–except one. The British government did not want to anger the new Stalin-approved Communist government in Poland by including the Polish fighters who had fought so valiantly with the other Allies in the war, so the Poles were left out." Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article (i.e. “almost all … were not invited”). Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says "Despite the enormous sacrifices, and a death toll of almost 1 million soldiers, Poland was not invited to participate in the 1946 Victory Parade in London." Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article. Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “The end of the war saw 140,000 Polish soldiers settle in Britain despite the efforts of the British government to persuade them to go back to Poland. To add to their humiliation and fury, they were excluded from the London victory parade in 1946 in a bid by the British to appease Stalin.” 140,000 is not “almost all 228,000” the article mentions. Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article. Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “For they were all Polish -- and Poles who had fought under British command were deliberately and specifically barred from the celebration by the British government, for fear of offending Joseph Stalin.” Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article. Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “Even though Poland made one of the largest contributions to the Allied war effort and there were thousands of Polish troops stationed in the UK at the time, the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946.” Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article. Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “When over 130 allied nations marched in the great 1946 Victory Parade in London, the Poles were excluded to appease Stalin.” Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article. Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “every Allied power but Yugoslavia, Poland and Russia marched”. Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article. Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. is a verbatum copy of http://www.aniaspoland.com/polish_forces.php (both reproduce the same press release) and so should be removed.

Rather than rewriting the article (something certain to cause problems) I propose removing the sources which do not support the current content of the article (please note that the current wording of this section was not written by me).Varsovian (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

''In Europe, the Poles had the largest contingent from an occupied country fighting with the British–their forces in the West ultimately numbered 200,000 men. In September 1939, the Polish armed forces had battled the Germans for two weeks before being blindsided by the Soviet Union’s attack from the east. With only minimal help from Poland’s allies, France and Great Britain, and with most of his forces fighting the Germans, Poland’s commander-in-chief Marshal Edward Smigly-Rydz ordered his soldiers in eastern Poland to withdraw south into Romania or Hungary, hoping to save them for future battles. By the end of the month, some 90,000 Poles had made their way into those two countries. A few more escaped through Lithuania and Latvia.''

''The Polish government-in-exile, which moved to Paris in September 1939, quickly began reassembling units, using soldiers who made their way across Europe as well as members of Polish communities living abroad. By 1940, about 43,000 of these troops joined the Polish units forming in France and fought alongside the French when Germany attacked that country in May. Around 20,000 Polish soldiers were evacuated by Great Britain’s Royal Navy after the fall of France in June. They were taken to Scotland, where they worked in coastal defense.''

''Polish Air Force squadrons in the Royal Air Force (RAF) played an important role in the Battle of Britain (July 1940–June 1941), shooting down a disproportionate number of German aircraft. They also manned supply flights to Warsaw during the 1944 uprising. By the end of the war, around 19,400 Poles were serving in the RAF. Polish fighters in the British army are remembered most often for their heroic efforts in the Italian campaign and their success in capturing the monastery at Monte Cassino in May 1944, where elite German troops had halted the Allied advance for months.''

''The other European countries that Hitler conquered contributed fewer troops for battle, but their efforts were also vital to the Allied cause. In 1946, an immense parade was held in London to celebrate the Allied victory. Troops from every Allied country were invited to march along the parade route–except one. The British government did not want to anger the new Stalin-approved Communist government in Poland by including the Polish fighters who had fought so valiantly with the other Allies in the war, so the Poles were left out.''

From PBS, source removed by Varsovian (problematic according to him) Could you elaborate a little bit more about it in details etc. ? That would be great. Thanks Varsovian--Jacurek (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be very happy to go into detail about it. That section of the article in its current form (i.e. the one which you wrote and which you have repeatedly reverted to) says "The parade is also notable for the fact that almost all 228,000 Polish servicemen who had served under British High Command in World War Two were excluded". The PBS source clearly states "Troops from every Allied country were invited to march along the parade route–except one. The British government did not want to anger the new Stalin-approved Communist government in Poland by including the Polish fighters who had fought so valiantly with the other Allies in the war, so the Poles were left out." The article says 'almost all' while the source says 'all'. I hope that you can see the difference. I further note that the source directly contradicts the memoirs of General Anders, who says that some Western Poles were invited. According to Norman Davies the invitation to the Western Poles was sent to General Anders and so it is thus exceedingly probable that General Anders knows hugely more about the situation than anybody at PBS. And even if Prof Davies is wrong, it is still exceedingly probable that General Anders knows hugely more about the situation than anybody at PBS. Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no contradiction between saying that almost all 228000 Polish servicemen were excluded and that some Poles were invited like General Anders said. Stop trolling this talk page. Loosmark (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fear that you have not carefully read what I wrote. I do not say that there is any contradiction between saying that almost all 228000 Polish servicemen were excluded and that some Poles were invited as General Anders said. I point out the contradiction between the almost all in the article and the all in the sources I have removed.
 * I have now asked you six times today to moderate your tone yet still you accuse me of trolling this page. Are you familiar with Civility? Or do you consider calling somebody a troll to be civil?Varsovian (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Varsovian, ("the man from Warsaw":) you know that what Varsovian means right?) I'm under the same impression that this is what you are doing here. One does not have to be a brain sergeant to figure that out. You are against the opinion of at least other 4 editors but you keep manipulating the content here. What is your agenda? What do you want to prove here other than in my opinion provoking certain editors by your 100 mile long posts questioning and removing for example PBS sources:) or comparing lack of Chinese presence at the parade to the Polish one etc.? :)--Jacurek (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware of what Varsovian means, I have lived in the city for more than a decade and have written a book about it. My agenda here is that WP should be accurate and neutral, is your agenda the same? I assume that it is. The only person comparing the absence of the 4.3 million Chinese troops who fought a longer war than the Poles is you: you repeatedly say that Poles are more important than the Chinese. Do you really place more faith in the opinion of a PBS researcher than you do in the memoirs of General Anders?! Surely you do not think that General Anders was lying!Varsovian (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What book did you write please? I'm very interesting to read it. Do you know what "M-ka" is ? You lived in Warsaw for ten years, you said above. Please tell me what M-ka is. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read and also respond to my last comment, that line interests me the most. Is this possible you think? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC) From Financial Times: Among the veterans who will march along The Mall on Sunday in a parade marking the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war, few will participate with the same pride as a contingent of elderly Poles. For the Poles and their military standards will be present for the first time in a British victory parade. Even though Poland made one of the largest contributions to the Allied war effort and there were thousands of Polish troops stationed in the UK at the time, the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946. Stalin, who had established communist rule in eastern Europe, indicated that he did not wish Poland to be represented and the British authorities agreed for fear of offending their ally.Now Britain is making amends by putting the Poles at the head of Sunday's parade. "It's very good that it's happening. But it's a bit late in the day," says 95-year-old Witold Leitgeber, a former Polish army captain who, like many others, settled in Britain after the war. Jan Zielonka, lecturer in European politics at Oxford University, says: "Historically, Polish contribution to the war has never been sufficiently acknowledged. Poland provided the fourth largest Allied army in the war yet they were excluded from marching in the celebration because Stalin wanted it so." The invitation to the Polish veterans is the latest in a series of British gestures to respond to historical Polish grievances. Tony Blair, the prime minister, has addressed these complaints as part of efforts to build relations with the European Union's new members, especially Poland. The parade coincides with the start of the UK's presidency of the EU, but British and Polish officials insist that the invitation has nothing to do with the UK's current political challenges in Europe. "It's not about politics. It's about acknowledging the Poles' valuable contributions to the Allies' victory," said the Foreign Office. Officials said the invitation was issued in April, after months of planning. The ground was laid two years ago when Mr Blair formally expressed regret to Poland for the 1946 parade snub. However, putting right the historical record has improved bilateral ties in a broader sense. Adam Rotfeld, Poland's foreign minister, told the Financial Times yesterday: "These issues are important in Poland because Poles have been deceived so often about their history (notably, under communism). This matters to our national identity." In a separate move yesterday, Mr Rotfeld and Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, launched a report on wartime intelligence co-operation between Poland and Britain. Five years in the making, it was prepared in response to Polish complaints that its contribution to the secret war had never been recognised properly. The 586-page report, prepared by a committee of British and Polish historians, details Polish achievements headed by the first breaking of the German Enigma code cyphers in 1932-33 by three mathematicians: Marian Rejewski, Henryk Zygalski and Jerzy Rozycki. They later smuggled their discoveries to the west where they formed the basis of the work of Britain's code-breakers at Bletchley Park. Polish spies also supplied information on Hitler's invasion of Russia, the Germans' secret weapons including the VI and V2 rockets, and the Nazi defences in France in advance of the D-Day landings. The report says that 43 per cent of all the reports received by the British secret services from continental Europe in 1939-45 came from Polish sources. Mr Straw said that without the contribution of Polish intelligence, the victory of peace and democracy would have been far less.

--Jacurek (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already quoted from that exact article: I quote in the first post of this section the precise text which you quote above in bold. The problem is that this source states ", the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946." The article says that 'almost all Poles were not invited. Those two statements are not the same, which is why I removed the source which does not agree with the text which you have repeatedly reverted to. Am I wrong in thinking that you repeatedly reverted to a text because you think it to be correct?Varsovian (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you examine and comment in details on the source below please? Especially third parrgaph from the left. Thanks

Seventy years after the invasion of Poland, leading British statesmen and military leaders from Baroness Thatcher to Lord Guthrie, unite to remind us: “We must never forget Poland’s unique contribution to Britain’s freedom and the defeat of Nazi Germany.” Polish veterans were profoundly shocked to find young people in the UK asking whether Poland fought alongside Nazi Germany in WW2. To ensure that Poland’s contribution to Britain’s war effort is remembered a new book First to Fight is being launched today, ahead of the dedication of the first national memorial to Polish forces in the UK later this month. The Polish veterans ‘last campaign’ is being vigorously supported by Britain’s senior political and military establishment, including Baroness Thatcher, patron of Conservative Friends of Poland, who said in a statement: “Today, as we mark the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland and the subsequent outbreak of World War II, we remember the unique contribution of the Polish armed forces towards the freedom of Britain, of Europe and indeed of the world. Only Poland fought alongside us from the first day of the war to the last. Her people showed extraordinary bravery: many giving their lives as the ultimate sacrifice. But the freedoms for which they fought were to be cruelly denied them in the post-war world. Those who remained in exile could only look on as a new wave of oppression engulfed their country. Some would never achieve their heart-felt goal of returning to their homeland. But, finally, after more than four decades under communist tyranny, the people of Poland were able to set their own destiny. In Britain, we remember the steadfastness of the Polish people; we treasure the bond of history which ties our peoples together; and we look forward to a flourishing friendship which will serve our nations well into the future.” General The Lord Guthrie, former Chief of the Defence Staff writes in the book: “We owe much to the Poles who came to join us in our struggle. There was a time when the only allies the British Commonwealth had were Polish and large numbers died in battle many miles from their country. We are right to remember those gallant men and women, who at a very difficult time in both our countries’ histories were our firm friends and allies.” Contributors to the book and supporters of the campaign include: HRH The Duke of Kent, KG HRH The Duke of Gloucester, KG GVCO Major General The Duke of Westminster, KG CB OBE TD CD DL General the Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, GCB LVO OBE DL General Sir Mike Jackson GCB CBE DSO The Rt. Hon. The Baroness Thatcher Dr Liam Fox MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence Winston S. Churchill MP (grandson of the wartime Premier) Sir Martin Gilbert (Churchill’s official biographer) Frederick Forsyth CBE ‘First to Fight’ recounts Poland’s epic six-year struggle – with some historically significant texts being published for the first time, such as the English translation of Stalin’s signed order to execute 14,736 of the Polish officer corps at Katyn Forest in 1940. The story is brought to life with moving personal stories from Poles who fought in the air, on land and at sea, on many fronts. For example, the myth of Polish cavalry charging German Panzers is put to bed: yes they did charge, but to good effect as recounted by Lieutenant Andrzej Zylinski. Leading the 4th Squadron of the Polish 11th Uhlan Regiment they charged with sabres drawn, breaching the German defences of Kaluszyn. After fierce fighting the town was captured with the almost complete destruction of the German 44th Regiment, whose commander committed suicide. ‘First to Fight’ is being launched ahead of the dedication of the first official war memorial in the UK for the 500,000 members of the Polish forces who fought in WW2 under British command. The event, in the presence of the Duke of Kent, will take place at the National Memorial Arboretum on 19th September. Members of Poland Street Association will also be present at the event disseminating the book. With the publication of ‘First to Fight’ and the unveiling of the Polish War Memorial this September, the last remaining veterans now know that their struggles, and those of their departed comrades, will be duly remembered in Britain for generations to come.

--Jacurek (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have examined that text and discovered that it makes no mention whatsoever of the London victory parade. Was there a point which you wished to make by posting the text here?
 * I happen to personally know one of the editors of the book that source is about. He has done some very interesting research at the British records office and sent me a copy of the British military file in which the allocation of staff cars was made to the commanders of the forces which were invited to the parade: Poland is on that list!Varsovian (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The subsequent exchange, in which Jacurek tries to prove I'm a liar and in doing so reveals he knows less about Warsaw than I do, has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Therefore I have moved it here Varsovian (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A new user moving the discussion to talk page, that's something i haven't seen yet. Loosmark (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please be so kind as to limit you contributions on this page to the topic of the London Victory Parade of 1946 and in this section to problems with sources. If you would like to discuss me, you are most welcome to do so: on my talk page or your own. Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Varsovian (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MOVED BACK FROM MY TALK PAGE:

WP:WEIGHT issues
I find it a bit disorienting that the table of contents now reads * 1 Lack of Polish participation * 2 See also * 3 References * 4 External links I think this gives undue weight to one small aspect of the event. It also violates WP:MOS and WP:LEDE in painful ways. The article either needs major expansion and reorganization, or this needs to be shortened and integrated into the main body. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your observations Stephan Schulz. You are free to work on the article and expand it. I also suggest you take a look how the article, which was stable for years, looked like in September before Varsovian started a series of edit wars on it. Loosmark (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree. The problem is that these days the parade is mainly mentioned in the context of the lack of Polish participation (google 'London 1946 "victory parade" poland' and you get 7,970 hits, try 'London 1946 "victory parade" -poland' and you get 3,930 hits). I would personally like to see the topic of the lack of Polish participation spun out into a new article where it can be discussed in the detail it requires.
 * It's also slightly problematic that all four of the links to other WP articles refer either to articles related to the line and a half about Polish participation or to articles not connected with the current text at all.Varsovian (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:GOOGLE applies here. Your query also is misleading - articles on the victory parade can quite naturally mention Poland without being primarily about this aspect or indeed without mentioning it at all ("WW2 started in 1939 with the German attack on Poland. Now, one year after it ended, the Commonwealth celebrates the allied victory..."). I'd think that most of what has been written about this has been written well before the web. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one of the interesting things about this topic: the sources which were written before the days of the internet say that Poland was invited; of the sources which say that Poland was excluded, the oldest dates from 2001. As far as I can tell the first mention of Poland being excluded comes in a book titled "Keeping the Faith : The Polish Community in Britain" which was published in 2001. I haven't read the book and don't have a copy but two book reviews  and  mention the exclusion. I'd certainly welcome information about any older sources which state that Poland was excluded from participation.Varsovian (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still going on with that nonsense? It doesn't matter at all when a source was written but rather it's the quality of the source that counts. Loosmark (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. That's why I think that the memoirs of General Anders (a source which has unfortunately been removed) are probably of more use than aniaspoland.com (especially when that website is reproducing a press release written by a London advertising executive).Varsovian (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section titles
Recently, I reorganized the article and added some sections. However, the section titles have just been removed, and only one new section title was inserted, 'Victory Parade'. I don't seen why this was done, as it just makes the article harder to read. Also, per MOS, no section should be given the same title as the article title. As such, I would like to reinsert the section titles back into the article. Any objections? LK (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A two sentence paragraph on Polish non-participation does not warrant a section. It overpowers the article.  Bobanni (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sources
We still have a number of sources given which very simply do not say what the article says. says " Troops from every Allied country were invited to march along the parade route–except one. The British government did not want to anger the new Stalin-approved Communist government in Poland by including the Polish fighters who had fought so valiantly with the other Allies in the war, so the Poles were left out." Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article (i.e. “almost all … were not invited”). Either it should be left out or the article should be changed.

says "Despite the enormous sacrifices, and a death toll of almost 1 million soldiers, Poland was not invited to participate in the 1946 Victory Parade in London." Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article (i.e. “almost all … were not invited”). Either it should be left out or the article should be changed.

says “The end of the war saw 140,000 Polish soldiers settle in Britain despite the efforts of the British government to persuade them to go back to Poland. To add to their humiliation and fury, they were excluded from the London victory parade in 1946 in a bid by the British to appease Stalin.” 140,000 is not “almost all 228,000” the article mentions. Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article. Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “For they were all Polish -- and Poles who had fought under British command were deliberately and specifically barred from the celebration by the British government, for fear of offending Joseph Stalin.” Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article (i.e. “almost all … were not invited”). Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “Even though Poland made one of the largest contributions to the Allied war effort and there were thousands of Polish troops stationed in the UK at the time, the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946.” Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article (i.e. “almost all … were not invited”). Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. says “When over 130 allied nations marched in the great 1946 Victory Parade in London, the Poles were excluded to appease Stalin.” Therefore it does not reflect the content of the article (i.e. “almost all … were not invited”). Either it should be left out or the article should be changed. is a verbatum copy of http://www.aniaspoland.com/polish_forces.php (both reproduce the same press release) and so should be removed.

Do we want to rewrite the article or remove the sources which do not support what the article currently says? I'd suggest not rewriting the article.Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As more than two weeks have gone by, I'm assuming that nobody objects to the removal of the sources which do not support what the article currently says (or to the removal of the duplicate source).Varsovian (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the removal of sources because I don't find your rationale convincing. Loosmark (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you perhaps go into some detail as to why you feel that the article should use references to sources which do not support what the article says? Could you also perhaps go into some detail as to why WP should encourage or tolerate the use of sources to support text in WP articles which is precisely what the WP article does not say?Varsovian (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please answer the questions above? I would like to find consensus with you on the above issues. Varsovian (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)I now know that you have seen these questions (because you have deleted the copy of them which I put on your talk page . If you continue to refuse to discuss these points I will assume that you have withdrawn your objection to the removal of the sources which do not support the current content of the article.Varsovian (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Varsovian. I am looking very much forward to coordinate and discuss these points with you, unfortunately at the moment I am very busy and you will have to wait till tuesday when I will have more time. Loosmark (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The world will not end tomorrow, Tuesday will be more than fine (I've been trying to have this discussion for a couple of weeks, so a couple more days don't make any difference).Varsovian (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this article
It seems that we have this article the wrong way round: at the moment it is titled 'Victory Parade' and has a section titled 'Victory Celebrations'. However, the parade was in fact part of the celebrations. Should we consider renaming this article "London Victory Celebrations of 1946"? That is also the title which the official programme uses.Varsovian (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds entirely reasonable. I'm going to go ahead and do that. LK (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your move because the article is specificaly about the parade. Loosmark (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is about the celebrations. That's what the programme is called. I'll leave it for now, but if anyone else wants to move it, I support the move. LK (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources use parade and besides wikipedia has articles about parades not "celebrations" Loosmark (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources mostly use celebrations. I checked. Have a look in the sources cited yourself. It is irrelevant what wikipedia has a page on. LK (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what sources have you checked but the ones I used use parade. And no it's not irrelevant how are articles on the same topic named because an encyclopedia has to be internally coherent. Loosmark (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is mainly about the victory parade and the article name should reflect this. Also it should be consistent with the articles on the 1815 and the 1982 victory parades.--Britannicus (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree--Jacurek (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The parade was just a part of the celebrations. This makes the events of 1946 different to 1815 and 1982: those were just parades (unless you want to count the luncheon for selected VIPs as part of the public event); the 1946 event was a celebration which featured a parade. I see no reason why we should use here a title which is different from that which the official programme of the event uses.Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacurek, Britannicus and myself oppose the renaming of the article while you are the only one supporting it. As such there is no consensus for the renaming. You have the standard options of requesting a formal merging discussion or a third opinion, RfC and such. Loosmark (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I am the only editor who supports renaming it, why was I not the editor who renamed it and why have you been discussing the matter with LK above?
 * As Jacurek has publicly announced his retirement from WP, his views are not ones which should be taken into account, which means that we currently have two editors in support and two against. However, I am keenly awaiting Britannicus' reply as to how two events which were parades only can be compared to an event in which the parade was just a part of the celebrations. I am also keenly awaiting your explanation as to why WP should give the event a different title to that which the official programme of the event uses.Varsovian (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you know Jacurek has announced retirement? You have only just returned from break, did you immediately go to visit his talk page or something? Anyway the fact that he retired doesn't mean that we should discount his opinion, unless there is such wikipedia policy which am I not aware of, in that case I hope you will cite the relevant policy. Loosmark (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * His talk page is on my watchlist from back when he and I were attempting to work out our differences. If Jacurek can't come up with a valid reason why two events which were parades only can be compared to an event in which the parade was just a part of the celebrations, I think we will just have to discount his opinion.I am still keenly awaiting your explanation as to why WP should give the event a different title to that which the official programme of the event uses and would like to note that this is the second time which I have requested that you discuss that particular point. Varsovian (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually what is the big deal, call it a parade or celebrations, or what have you. The important thing is to get the contents properly organized into sections that are appropriately named. LK (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point about the sections and have therefore inserted additional sections and moved the relevant parts of the text into those. However I don't agree with you that the name is important: if we can't even get the name of the event right, the article isn't exactly encyclopedic, is it!Varsovian (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight - the whole world does not revolve around Poland
The fact that Poland did not participate in the parade is noted on the article. It should not be the focus of this article. That does not take away the insult that many Poles feel. The article should reflect the joy felt in England that the horror of WW II was over. This probably deserves an article all to itself ie Betrayal of Poland by the Allies. Bobanni (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an article which deals with that: Western Betrayal. However, I do think that the lack of Polish participation needs a separate section in this article.Varsovian (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Article is self-contradictory and misses important information
The article currently states that Poland was invited but did not attend, then states that almost all the Polish servicemen who had served under British High Command were not invited and then says that Poland was excluded at the request of Stalin. Clearly not all of those statements can be true. Furthermore, the article no longer deals with important information about the parade. I propose adding a separate section dealing with the lack of Polish participation in which it can be explained that:

a) the invitation to parade the national flag and send an accompanying honour guard was sent to the internationally recognised government of Poland (i.e. the one in Warsaw, not the government in exile);

b) in the same way as all other non-Empire/Commonwealth nations, no land or naval units from Poland were invited;

c) in the same way as certain allied nations other than Empire/Commonwealth nations, units of the Polish airforce were invited to take part;

d) that this invitation was also sent to Warsaw;

e) that the Warsaw government agreed that it would send such representatives;

f) that following pressure from the RAF and opposition politicians, the British government invited 25 of the 89 Polish pilots who had flown in the Polish RAF units during the Battle of Britain;

g) that those pilots declined to attend because no Polish army or navy units were invited;

h) that the representatives for the Warsaw government never arrived and the reasons for them not arriving were never explained;

i) in this millennium claims (the oldest I can find dates from 2002) began to be made that Poland had been excluded from the parade.

Obviously all of these facts will need to be sourced but that’s no problem at all: previous versions of this article had all the sources needed to support all of the above statements.

What thoughts do other editors have?Varsovian (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My thought is that all these things were already extensively discussed and refuted. You should stop beating a dead horse and move on. Loosmark (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What was discussed and refuted? That Poland was exluded from the parade? You'd be right there! So why does the article still contain the blatently false claim that Poland was excluded? Varsovian (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a rule I don't answer loaded questions. Loosmark (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to comment on any of the facts outlined above? Is there any reason why the article should not discuss the details of the Polish invitation to take part in the parade?Varsovian (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already commented on those claims many times on this talk page. There is no point in addressing them again and again and again and again... Loosmark (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you wish to maintain your position that sources such as General Anders and Norman Davies are wrong and an un-named researcher at PBS is right. Fine. Do you wish to discuss any of the nine statements of fact made above? It would be better if we can work together to reach a consensus on this content. Although I note that you said on November 20 that you would soon be ready to discuss the content and have since then made no attempt to do so.Varsovian (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So you wish to maintain your position that sources such as General Anders and Norman Davies are wrong and an un-named researcher at PBS is right. I also don't comment on straw man arguments. Do you wish to discuss any of the nine statements of fact made above? I have already addressed these claims on this talk page a number of times. Please re-read them. I also hope we will work together for the good of the project. Now I don't have time anymore, I have to go to lunch and then back to work. Loosmark (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly comment on the facts outlined above. If you are unwilling to discuss these facts, I will simply assume that you have no problem whatsoever with them being incorporated into the article. Sorry but a full account of what happened has been blocked on WP for far too long.Varsovian (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bobanni, I agree the whole world most definitely does not revolve around Poland. At the same time, World War Two, which by definition shook the whole world, most definitely started in Poland. Britain declared War over the future of Polish freedom, and that is not my POV but a legally binding resolution in the UK parliament, a British security guarantee and an official British declaration of war with clearly defined war aims. Had Britain achieved its war aims at the time of so-called 'victory' parade in 1946? At the time of the parade celebrating the great victory of the British and the apparent achievement of British war aims, Poles were being beaten, imprisoned, raped, tortured and even executed by the Soviets. Had Britain achieved the victory it had set out to attain? It would be undue weight if the article focuses on the popular relief at the end of the War felt in the UK, without stating in a very clear and very prominent way, backed up by verifiable evidence, that many historians worldwide think the very notion of 'victory' was being abused in 1946. Imagine an article about the Munich Agreement that focused on popular British joy and relief, without including the fact that many academics and members of the general public now see Munich as morally repugnant and a mistake that was one of several causes of World War Two. I don't think we would ask criticism and context of Munich to be reserved to articles on Appeasement and Czechoslovakian history, because the world doesn't revolve around the Czech and Slovak Republics. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few million Chinese who might have something to say about the war starting in Poland. And you may wish to note that the British guarantee to Poland applied only to Poland in relation to Germany.Varsovian (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)