Talk:London Victory Celebrations of 1946/Archive 2

Proposed new section covering lack of Polish participation
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 stating 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 London-based 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; j) that the lack of Polish participation is often viewed as an example of 'western betrayal'.

Are there any other facts which need to be included in a section regarding the lack of Polish participation? And what will the sources for the other facts be? The sources which have over time been edited out of the article support all the facts outlined above. Varsovian (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm moving this by Varsovian from my Talk page to here:


 * Let me put it this way: all the sources from the time state that Poland was invited and all the serious sources (i.e. professors of history) and the people who were actually involved (i.e. the man to whom the invitation for Western Command Poles was sent (i.e. General Anders) and the man who sent the invitation (i.e. the British Under Secretary of State) all agree that both groups of Poles were invited. All the sources which claim Poland was not invited are either of the 'Ania's Poland page' variety or pop-history. Of course we should include both but make it clear who is saying what and on what basis. Varsovian (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ostrowski
Varsovian, you used a citation from Ostrowski to back up your sentence saying Anders was sent an invitation. I assumed your good faith, and I just read your citation out of interest. Given you were using it to back up your point that the Polish Armed Forces in the West were invited, I was surprised by this part of it:

to give the Soviets credit, when they held their victory parade in Red Square, representatives of the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were invited to attend and marched alongside the victorious Red Army - this is more than can be said for the British response. After the British Government decided to switch its recognition from the Polish Government-in-exile in London to the Polish Provisional Government in Warsaw, it no longer felt obliged to invite the armed forces of the exiled Government to the victory parade that was to be held in London in 1946. Instead it asked Warsaw to send its men to attend. This move not only created a great deal of bitterness among the Poles in the West but brought about an outraged cry of "unfair" from many leading Britons. The day before the parade Harold MacMillan wrote to General Anders:

"I tell you this frankly; that with all the legitimate joy and pride in every British heart will be mingled much sorrow and even shame. My thoughts will be with you and your troops."

This appears to directly contradict what you are saying Ostrowski says. Please can you clarify this apparent contradiction as soon as possible, before I make deletions to the section as per WP:BOLD. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to read on a bit further:
 * As the mood of anger and indignity rose - many saw the invitation of Warsaw's people as the ultimate insult to the Poles in the West - and the British press took up the issue, so the British Government relented and invited a delegation from the Polish Air Force to take part. The airmen who, no doubt would have wanted to march, declined the invitation as the British had not invited the Polish Army or the Navy. As "The Times" reported at the time:
 * "The Polish Government accepted, but the contingent has not yet arrived. 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."


 * Clearer now? Varsovian (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not clearer. You cited Ostrowski to assert the Anders Army was sent an invitation. This is not what Ostrowski says.-Chumchum7 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I cite Ostrowski to asset that Western Command Poles were invited, I do not assert that any Polish Army units (east or west) were invited. Ostrowski very clearly says that they were and he also gives a quote from a newspaper of the time supporting that, he's a pretty good source for this! Varsovian (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ostrowski says that Polish airmen were invited only after the British press took up the issue that the Polish armed forces in the West weren't invited. Then the newspaper quote says: "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." Clearly Ostrowski says the Polish airmen were invited only after public pressure, and only stayed away as a clear protest that their compatriots were uninvited. His whole point is about the British mistreatment of the Poles. He goes on:

When the Belgian towns of Bevernwaas and St Nicolas proposed to present banners to regiments of the 1st Armoured Division who had liberated them, the idea was vetoed by the Foreign Office [FO]:

"In the circumstances we feel that any public ceremonies of the nature contemplated by the Belgian town would be inappropriate at the present juncture." [16]

The key element in the equation was not to offend the Provisional Government in Warsaw and so, by extension, to offend Moscow. The Foreign Office tried to persuade the Belgians to stop the presentation ceremonies or at least to tone them down so as not to draw attention to them. The Polish Armed Forces in the West had become a political embarrassment to be hidden away. In any case Foreign Office would not agree to General Maczek or the Polish Chief of Staff, General Kopanski, attending.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So we are agreed that Ostrowski says that representatives of the Western Command Poles were invited. Good. The article clearly says that those pilots stayed away and for what reason. I'd be happy to see the full quote from The Times in the article. As for Belgian issues, perhaps that would be better in the Western Betrayal article? Varsovian (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Harold MacMillan
Doesn't putting the quote before the explanation of why there was no Polish participation somewhat colour the minds of the readers? I'd suggest that if it has to be included (and I see little reason why it should), it must go after the explanation as to why no Poles were there. Varsovian (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. It is verifiable that Harold MacMillan spoke of British "shame" about their treatment of the Poles at the time. This may be controversial and a difficult pill to swallow for some readers, but it is verifiable. To my mind this is the whole point about the section. Polish grievances at the time were genuine, and Macmillan said so. And it is verifiable that there was controversy at the time. The later invitation to the airmen, Ostrowski writes, was only after media pressure on the government - Ostrowski is saying that invitation was effectively a 'sop'. It would be misleadingly simplistic of us to say the Poles were invited, with the inference that their complaints are unfounded. You are entitled to disagree with my understanding of Ostrowski, but we are going to need a 30 to move beyond these entrenched positions. Especially now that section blanking has come in to play. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, let's leave it in. Of course, we'll need to mention that MacMillan was an opponent of government which had done the inviting and that it was in his interests that that govt be embarrassed and/or discredited. However, you have made no explanation as to why his reaction should go before the events which he is reacting to. Would you like to give one? The whole point about this section is that Poles were invited (despite you using Ostowski to support your statement that "the circa 228,000 Polish armed forces in the West were excluded from participating."). Yes they did have genuine grievances but those grievances do not change the fact that both sets of Poles were invited. As for section blanking, if you'd entered into the dialogue which I started two weeks before introducing the new section, there wouldn't have been any need to remove the section. Varsovian (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

3O
Just a heads up I've asked User:TransporterMan for a WP:3O on this. He seems to be very fair and objective and pays very close attention to Wikipedia guidelines. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I must decline the invitation for a number of reasons.
 * My personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian prevent me from issuing a Third Opinion in disputes between editors with whom I've been previously involved in order to avoid claims that I'm either not neutral or, worse, am wittingly or unwittingly involved in canvassing.
 * Moreover, neutral Third Opinions are for the situation where, as one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once put it, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This dispute has been going on for months, has involved multiple editors, and has been directly involved in WP:ANI and arbitration reports and actions, not to mention ongoing ARBCOM discretionary sanctions applicable to this subject area. An offhand Third Opinion is not likely to help to settle it at this point.
 * Finally, unlike the dispute at Polish_303_Fighter_Squadron which was a fairly objective issue about adequate sourcing, this one also involves issues of undue weight and phrasing and quality of content on a subject matter about which I have some personal feelings and connections, in that I have personal connections with and warm feelings for Poland.
 * In short, I cannot hold myself out as being satisfactorily neutral on this issue. I would ordinarily suggest that you go ahead and list this at the Third Opinion Project for some other 3O'er to opine upon, but for the reasons noted in my second bullet point above, it's not really an appropriate dispute for that project. Some other form of dispute resolution is in order, but what it's really going to take, ultimately, is consensus. I'm sorry, but I can't help you with this one. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy, informative and courteous reply. Once again, you've proven your ethical standards. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to this request. You wouldn’t be the only one who has personal connections with and warm feelings for Poland: personally I’ve been living here (i.e. Poland) for the past decade and a half. I agree that what is needed is consensus but it seems that that will be very difficult to come by (especially when some editors look at sources which clearly state that both Eastern and Western Command Poles were invited but did not attend and then claim that the sources state Poland was ‘excluded’ from the parade). Would Third Opinion Project be the right place to ask about an idea first proposed by Jacurek on 8 October last year, i.e. that a separate article about the lack of participation of the Polish Armed Forces should be created? We are all agreed that Poland did not participate in the parade, perhaps this article should state simply that and a new article can discuss the reasons why Poland did not participate and give a very detailed step-by-step account of the events which led up to Poland not participating. Apart from anything else, none of the sources stating that Poland was excluded are from less than 62 years after the event and it’s hard to see the connection between sources written more than six decades later by people who were not even alive at the time of the event and the actual parade. Varsovian (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Polish participation section as of revision 351508454
I think that the best way to deal with the problems related to this section is to discuss it bit by bit and comment on the problems in each sentence as they come up:

The parade is notable for controversy that the circa 228,000 Polish armed forces in the West were excluded from participating.[12]As is clearly stated in the source used to support this assertion, representatives of the Western Command Poles were invited. Why has the false claim that they were excluded been included? And why has is been attributed to a source which clearly states the exact opposite? As to the number, how many of the 5,600,000 man Chinese Army (which had fought before, during and after the times Poles fought) were invited?

At the time, Harold MacMillan wrote to General Anders: Why is this information given before the events which MacMillan is writing about have taken place? MacMillan wrote after the invitation sent to Anders had been declined by the Poles it was addressed to. Why do we cover the reaction before we mention the action?

''I tell you this frankly; that with all the legitimate joy and pride in every British heart will be mingled much sorrow and even shame. My thoughts will be with you and your troops.[12]'' MacMillan was an opponent of the British govt which had done the inviting, it was in his interest that the govt was embarrassed and/or discredited. Why is this not mentioned?

According to at least one source, the British press took up the issue, after which the British Government "relented" and invited Polish airmen to take part.[12] Why is this information given before the events which the press were writing about have taken place? Why is this information not included in the same sentence as the other British reactions, i.e. those of the RAF and opposition politicians? And why do we mention that only Polish airmen were invited? We do not mention that only American airmen were invited. Western Command Poles were invited in precisely the same way as all other non-Commonwealth/Empire nations.

However, representatives of the internationally recognised Provisional Government of National Unity were invited.[12] As has been mentioned in all of the reliable sources, both representatives of the internationally recognised Provisional Government of National Unity and Western Command Poles were invited. Why has this information been removed?

''The invitation to parade the national flag and send an accompanying honour guard was sent to the internationally recognised Provisional Government of National Unity in Warsaw, not the London-based Polish government-in-exile.[13][14] According to a statement made in the British parliament by this invitation to send representatives was accepted [15] but no representatives actually arrived. The Times newspaper reported at the time “The Polish Government accepted, but the contingent has not yet arrived.”[16]'' I think that this section is perhaps out of logical order: the Times report quoted here was made after the Western Command Poles had rejected their invitation, so shouldn’t it be included after that rejection has been covered?

Following pressure from the RAF [17] and opposition politicians [18], the British government invited [19][3] 35 [20] of the 89 Polish pilots who had flown in the Polish RAF units during the Battle of Britain to march in uniform [21]. As noted above, pressure from the British press should be included here (although it would be good to actually have a link to example(s) of such pressure).

''However, those pilots declined to attend because no Polish army or navy units were invited. [22]'' Army and navy units from no non-Commonwealth/Empire nation took part in the parade, only honour guards for national flags. Why has this information been removed?

''The reasons for the representatives for the Warsaw government not arriving were never explained but some Polish veterans stated that the Polish government was ordered by the Soviet leadership to not send representatives. [3].'' Perhaps this section can be fleshed out? Ostrowski gives two alternative explanations.

Since 2002, there has been increasing discussion about Poles being excluded from the parade [23][24][25][26][27]. Why is the clearly false claim that Poles were excluded made yet again? Poles were not excluded from the parade: Poles were invited and did not attend. They may not have liked the invitation and they may feel that it was sent to the 'wrong' Poles, but Poles were invited: they excluded themselves by not turning up. Varsovian (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsovian (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Varsovian, WP:Verifiability states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability... not whether editors think it is true." Consequently, though you may have had good intentions, you should not have deleted the PBS citation when you blanked the section that you started. So I'm putting the PBS citation back in as per strict Wikipedia policy. Also, your ideas about Chinese troops and Harold Macmillan's bias are interesting, but they're not in keeping with WP:OR. From my perspective, a lot of your notes above seem to miss Wikipedia guidelines in a similar way. So with sincere regret, I'm declaring I find it too difficult to communicate with you any longer. My suggestion for a positive step on this page is now Request for Mediation. On that note, I read with dismay on your Talk page that you have already had very stern warnings from administrators about your editing. It appears you were already given good will notice, and you have been given a fair chance. I have assumed your good faith for a long time, but I have now reached the point where I do find your pattern of behaviour of concern, and I will continue to refer this concern to administrators, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue
The Polish participation in Victory Parade is again overshadowing the article. Much of this content really belongs in other articles. Bobanni (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a fair point. Personally I'd be happy to cut it all down to the Ostrowski block quote, but I don't think that is going to be fair for everyone. As you can see, the volume of the section has been created by two editors wanting to ensure all POVs are fairly included. That resulted from a conflict ideas, but IMO some kind of WP:CONSENSUS has now been established, all based on WP:VERIFIABILITY. I'm sure you'd agree there is a trade off between WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. On the one hand, we want to keep it streamlined; on the other, we want to include as many divergent views on the subject as possible. Cut the section down, and one or other editor will see an imbalance.
 * This brings me to my overall point: it is verifiable that the Polish aspect has been argued about by politicians, historians etc more than any other aspect of the London Victory Parade. Consequently, my case is that I agree it appears undue at first, and you are right to have flagged it, but under closer analysis of the context this proves not to be the case. PBS effectively says the Polish aspect is nothing less than one of the first notable moments of the Cold War as a whole. And British politicians at the time went on the record to defend themselves, with very important comments about the Polish aspect - this was their right and we should include it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this article should not cover Polish participation past a very basic statement that Poland was one of the three allied nations which did not participate. The issue about lack of Polish participation needs to be in a separate article (which I'll be happy to co-write). However, I can not agree that the Polish aspect has been argued about by politicians and historians: all of the serious historians agree that Polish representatives (from both Eastern and Western Commands) were invited. But for now I'll have to add to the article the fact that the claim that Tony Blair apologised is a lie. Varsovian (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Status of Polish airmen
The Battle of Britain article states that Poland did not take part in the Battle of Britain. Polish airmen within the RAF did take part, but the are defined as being part of the British - not Polish - armed forces, after lengthy debate at that article. Verifiably, Polish airmen were invited to the Victory Parade because they were RAF veterans of the Battle of Britain, not because of their new capacity as airmen of the Polish Air Force, which is what they were serving in at the time of the Parade. The PBS quote doesn't directly contradict this. Moreover, one is in violation of WP:SYNTH,WP:OR and WP:NPOV to use phrases such as "however, this is in direct contradiction of..". Also, I've already given a first note about WP:CLAIM - this is the second. WP:CLAIM is related to the principle of WP:Verifiability: ''The threshold for inclusion is verifiability.. not what editors think is true.'' I maintain that my last edit established WP:NPOV. So all I could add would be a revert to that edit, which I'm going to refrain from doing. So I'm bowing out, adding a neutrality tag, and will be handing this over to WP:NPOVN and/or Request for Mediation and/or WP:Arbcom and/or Wikiquette alerts. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The PBS quote states "Troops from every Allied country were invited to march along the parade route–except one." This is very clearly contradicted by The Times, Dr Ostrowsk, Norman Davies, Rudolf Falkowski, Ernest Bevin, Hector McNeil (the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs quoted in the article) and the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations. All of those sources say that Poland (i.e. the internationally recognised government in Warsaw) was invited. Poles serving in under both Western and Eastern Command were invited and no amount of revisionist efforts by the likes of Moszynski will change that. As for Polish forces during the BoB, see No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron. Varsovian (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

POV problems
The part about the lack of the Polish participation suffers from heavily original research interpretation of sources by user:Varsovian. In the following days I plan to restore NPOV use of sources based on wikipedia guidelines. Dr. Loosmark 13:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly when The Times newspaper wrote "The Polish Government accepted, but the contingent has not yet arrived. 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" what they actually meant was that Poles had been completely excluded from the parade at the personal instruction of Stalin. And General Anders is simply lying when he says that Polish pilots were invited. And so is Rudolf Falkowski. And Ernest Bevin. And Hector McNeil. However, press releases written by a liar such as Moszynski and other high-class sources such as "aniaspolandpage" are perfectly acceptable to you.
 * Frankly your pointblank refusal to accept that Poles were not excluded from the parade by the British government is a perfect example of why this article should not even mention anything more than the fact that Polish forces did not participate. Varsovian (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Loosmark, welcome back. Based on my recent experience here, I recommend you tread very lightly and make an extra special effort to adhere to WP guidelines on this page. If you haven't already, please look through my editing history here over the past few days. You'll see it has been a de facto edit war, with editors talking at cross purposes. I believe I have been aiming at NPOV and have been referring to WP guidelines and policy more than to my own personal interpretation of history. But I can't work here any more because to my mind Varsovian is being disruptive and ignoring WP guidance and policy. I have tried to explain why I think that. The section blanking, seemingly in response to the article going the wrong way for him, is especially depressing for me. I've also raised a longer term issue filed on his Talk page. Consequently, I may in due course be filing formal complaints to Arbcom and requests for administrator investigation into what is going on here. So this is a heads up that behaviour on this page may well be closely watched already, by administrators. None of us are beyond reproach, and we all need to watch our own behaviour, myself included. Awareness of how our own behaviour looks to others is the key. As is very strict adherence to WP guidelines. Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Chumchum7 I totally agree with your comment above and I share your concerns, in fact I have long ago lost the interest on working on this article due to Varsovian's behavior. Dr. Loosmark  14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would care to work on the article which directly addresses the area of this topic that you are interested in? Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 Varsovian (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please be so kind as to cease your accusations against me and your discussion of me. If you would like to discuss me, you are most welcome to do so on your own talk page. This is the talk page for the London Victory Parade of 1946, kindly discuss that topic only here.
 * As for your comment regarding section blanking, kindly note that all of the information has been moved to another article and a link to that article left in this article. The only way to deal with editors who continue to assert that "Poland/Poles was/were excluded from the parade" is to go into considerable detail and provide lengthy quotes. Doing that in this article would violate WP:WEIGHT. As with your other accusations (such as that I am a racist and that I edit in bad faith), I would be most grateful if you could possibly see your way clear to stopping, at your very earliest possible convenience. Varsovian (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Loosmark, thanks for your support. For the record, I'm now going to take a WP:Wikibreak for precisely the same reason why you suspended work on this article. When I come back, it may be for formal procedure. Good luck with your work here. Trust in WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. Be well and stay COOL. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When you return from you wikibreak, I would welcome your input at Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. Varsovian (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus to completely delete the part regarding the lack of Polish participation and making that into a separate article. I urge to restore the previous situation and initiate a discussion about it, if you want a separate article. Dr. Loosmark  15:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That Poland did not paticipate is still mentioned. However, the detailed information regarding that is now in a separate article where it can be given the in-depth analysis it deserves without violating WP:WEIGHT for this article. Please help me with the work on that separate article, we'd work better together than we do in opposition! Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no WP:WEIGHT problems, one of the things which makes the parade notable is the lack of the Polish participation. Please work together with other editors and avoid making controversial decisions alone, without initiating the discussions first. If what you have done has the support of the majority of editors here you will have no trouble gaining consensus for your move. Dr. Loosmark  17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<-|

The idea that Polish participation may be better as a separate article was first raised by user:Jacurek on 8 October 2009 saying “perhaps a separate article about the fact that Polish Armed Forces were not invited should be created.” Then on 25 October 2009 I myself proposed that a separate article be created. In your reply to that proposal you do not have even a single word of objection to that proposal, instead you accuse another editor of being a racist. On 29 October a completely uninvolved editor, Stephan Schulz, creates a new section titled “ WP:WEIGHT issues”. I again propose a new article. Nobody objects, including you. On 21 November another uninvolved editor, Bobanni, comments “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.”. I again agree that a new article is needed and nobody objects to the idea of a separate article. As we have had many different editors complaining about WP:WEIGHT problems and/or proposing that a separate article be created to cover Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 and the only editor who has ever had a word of objection to that proposal was me (and I have obviously now been convinced of the wisdom of creating such an article), we can very much conclude that the new article has overwhelming support from editors and that consensus has already been gained. As for your comment that “one of the things which makes the parade notable is the lack of the Polish participation”, that information is still contained in the article but in order that it can be given the detailed attention which it clearly deserves it is now in another article which is linked to this one. Varsovian (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

. And also on 6 October you stated “The "invitation" was given to the communist authorities in Poland which werent recognised by the the governament in exile and by the Polish veterans.” Clearly we are very much agreed that Poles (both Western Command and Eastern Command) were invited and have been for six months. Varsovian (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the information about the lack of the Polish participation is not contained in the article. The only thing remaining now in the article is: Of the major allied nations, the only states which did not take part despite being invited were the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Poland. which equals the Polish situation with the Soviet. Not to mention you have POV pushed your idea that the Poles did not come dispute being invited, something we disagree on for months. Dr. Loosmark  11:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the article states Poland did not take part? Good. However, I am utterly baffled by your statement “your idea that the Poles did not come dispute being invited, something we disagree on for months”: you yourself stated on 6 October “Nobody disputes that the Poles who flied in the Battle of Britain were invited to the parade, it's a well known fact.”


 * No, we do not agree. My full quote from 6 October is as follows: 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. It's obvious that in my quote from 6 October I disagree with you, that you take the first sentence out of the context and make it look like as if I agreed with you, speaks volumes about yourself. Dr. Loosmark  11:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You stated that some Western Command Polish pilots were invited (and then went on to say that some weren't). You also stated that “the communist authorities in Poland” were invited. But you dispute that we are in agreement that Poles were invited to the parade. I’m confused. Could you perhaps explain how it is possible that some Poles were invited to the parade (a fact which you have repeatedly stated) but at the same time no Poles were invited to the parade? And if you could possibly refrain from making personal comments about me, that would help this discussion (and be in keeping with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). Varsovian (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is very complex and it most certainly can't be reduced to "the Poles were invited but did not come" which you keep repeating over and over and over and over and over again. Only the representatives of the Polish Airmen which fought in the BoB were invited, all other Polish Airmen were not invited. Worse, the Polish Army (which fought together with the British on every battlefield across Europe from Narvik, through Tobruk and Sicily and Italy to the battles in France and the Netherlands in 1944) were not invited. Likewise the Polish Navy. Their feeling was that they should have invited too and its something that was properly sourced. Thanks to your 6 months' efforts the only thing about it remaining in the article is the following line: Of the major allied nations, the only states which did not take part despite being invited were the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Poland. The lack of Polish participation is now equaled with the lack of Soviet one. Of course the small detail that the Red Army did not even fight on the Western Front battlefields doesn't matter. Dr. Loosmark  16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Were Poles invited? Yes (both Western and Eastern Poles). Did they attend? No. Does the article state that? Yes. Is there an article which covers the Polish participation in detail? Yes. Simple really. Varsovian (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First lets get the terminology right, there were no such thing as "Western Poles" and "Eastern Poles". The Polish Armed Forces in the West which were under the command of the legally recognized Polish government in Exile were the only Polish Forces which fought in the West and they did so from 1939 all the way to 1945. There were not invited expect for a small number of pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain from July to October 1940. Dr. Loosmark  18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Poles were invited and did not attend. Which is precisely what the article says. I'm glad we've sorted that one out at last! Varsovian (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of God's Playground as a source
Please note that on page 431 of this book (the 2005 paperback version, your page numbers may vary) Davies very specifically states “The heart of the matter is that Polish political history [in the post-war years] was governed not by the Soviets alone, nor by the Polish communists alone but by the subtle interdependence of the two. It is true that in these early years the Polish communists could not have survived without the support of the Soviet army, and the host of Soviet advisors. But it is also true that the Soviets could not have run Poland in the way they had chosen without the co-operation of the Polish communists. In this sort of relationship, the weaker party can often call the tune.” This is very very far from saying the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was “Soviet-controlled”. It would be most helpful if editors could refrain from editing into the article their own opinions and even more helpful if editors could refrain from doing that while giving as support sources which state the opposite to that editor’s opinion. Varsovian (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote above verifies that the Soviets ran Poland in the way they had chosen. According to my thesaurus, the verb 'to run' is a synonym for the verb 'to control'. Polish communists did cooperate to help the Soviets run Poland - that isn't under dispute. Moreover, my use of the phrase "Soviet-controlled" was a good faith edit based on this direct quote that can be found 2 paragraphs before the quote above, in God's Playground, Vol II, 1983, page 575: "Contrary to what was assumed at the time in western countries, there was never a period in Poland when free competition between the communist movement and the non-communist parties was permitted. Power passed directly and smoothly from the German Occupation Forces to the Soviet Army, from the Soviet Army directly to the Soviet-controlled Provisional Government, and, at the time of Elections in 1947, from the TRJN to the PPR." I edited honestly, and in good faith. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While your interpretation that of Davies is no doubt very interesting, we are actually talking about whether the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland was Soviet controlled. Your interpretation of "Power passed directly and smoothly from the German Occupation Forces to the Soviet Army, from the Soviet Army directly to the Soviet-controlled Provisional Government" misses one crucial point: there were two provisional governments, PKWN and TRJN. Power passed from the Soviet Army directly to the Polish Committee of National Liberation (which as the relevant WP article tells us "The Polish Committee of National Liberation ... was a provisional government of Poland, officially proclaimed 21 July 1944 in Chełm under the direction of State National Council ... in opposition to the Polish government in exile. It exercised control over Polish territory re-taken from Nazi Germany and was fully sponsored and controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." and according to Time "To Chairman Osubka-Morawski and his colleagues Joseph Stalin tendered high honor last week. They went to the Kremlin to sign an agreement whereby Russia recognized the Committee's right to administer liberated Poland. The pact followed the pattern of that signed by Russia with the Czechoslovak Government, which has its own civil officers ready to enter Czechoslovakia on the heels of the Red Army.) and from there on to Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland (which featured elements of both the PKWN and govt in exile). It is impossible that a historian such as Davies is unaware of order in which power was transferred and thus he must clearly be referring to the Polish Committee of National Liberation when he says "from the Soviet Army directly to the Soviet-controlled Provisional Government". Varsovian (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The PKWN was the Polish Committee of National Liberation, whereas the Provisional Governments were the TRJN and the RTRP. Of course a historian such as Davies is aware of the transitions between them. He is pointedly talking about the transition of power as smoothly progressing through these administrations from the end of German occupation to the start of the PPR, without competition from non-communist groups, and with the backing of the Soviet Union. This is his point. Anyway, Davies clearly says that all these had Soviet "patrons" and even "masters". He says the Soviets "ran" Poland at this time, and that "there was never a period in Poland when free competition between the communist movement and the non-communist parties was permitted". This is unequivocal. Whether we describe Poland as 'Soviet-occupied', 'Soviet-run', 'Soviet-controlled' or 'Communist', the purpose of such a description is to not mislead the reader into thinking that the 228k Poles were on good terms with the government in Warsaw. They weren't. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the purpose, how about we mention that they had been members of Polish Armed Forces in the West? That would be probably more accurate than stating that they had been under British command (given that 1st Armoured Division saw its action as part of the First Canadian Army). Varsovian (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Polish Armed Forces in the West is a generic term rather than the title of an organization - and it wouldn't indicate the political issue at stake. What should be indicated is that they had served in the the name of the pro-western (though unrecognised by 1946) Polish government in exile; it should also be shown that Poland at the time was either 'Soviet-occupied', 'Soviet-run', 'Soviet-controlled' 'communist-led' or 'Communist' - as verified by Davies. With these two pieces of information, the reader will understand the point. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the reader is interested in the political loyalties of these men during WWII, he can click the link which would be provided if we used this term and read all about it. Just as if they are interested in the lack of Polish participation in the parade, they can click the link about that; or if they are interested in the Polish government of 1946, they can click the link about that. Varsovian (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What this article is about
As the title of this article shows, this article is about the London Victory celebrations of June 1946. It is not about the lack of Polish participation therein (although the fact that Poland, the USSR and Yugoslavia did not participate should be mentioned) or the Polish government of 1946 or the political loyalties of Polish troops or 303 Squadron of the RAF. All those topics are covered in the articles about those topics. Would it be too much to ask that this article covers the topic of the London Victory celebrations of June 1946 and that other topics which editors feel are related are either linked in the article (as the the Polish government of 1946 currently is) or linked to in the "See Also" section (as the lack of Polish participation currently is)? Varsovian (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Poland had been excluded from the parade, the British government invited only 25 Polish pilots who had flown in the Polish RAF units during the Battle of Britain. I consider adding a separate section to this article dealing with the lack of Polish participation.--Howelseornotso (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What thoughts do other editors have? Thank you for taking the time.--Howelseornotso (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other editors may wish to note the difference between 'Poland was excluded' and 'only xxx Poles were invited'. They may also wish to note that the govt of Poland in 1946 was invited. Other editors may also wish to note the existance of a completely separate article dealing with Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. Other editor may also wish to tire of Pole POV pushers. Varsovian (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be most helpful if user Varsovian could refrain from calling others POV pushers and from editing into the article his own bizarre opinion.--Howelseornotso (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but not only do you repeatedly edit into the article info unrelated to the topic of the article (for example which was the fourth largest allied army, but you fail to mention which was the largest or second or third largest), you also edit into the article 'information' which contradicts what you say here. Here you admit that Polish airmen were invited but you edit the article to claim they were excluded: that is POV pushing. Varsovian (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Howelseornotso on this last comment. However, on the subject of a section I disagree - but only because in fact, a significant paragraph in Polish armed forces in the west has already covered this. The place for a section is there, and all it will take is a sub-heading to be added there and a link to it in the body of the article here. In this article, I think there should be about three lines on the Polish controversy, efficiently and concisely indicating the political issue at stake. There should be links to Polish armed forces in the west, but also to the Polish government in exile to distinguish it from "Soviet-run Poland" or Poland's "Soviet-controlled Provisional Government". At the same time, these three lines should not be removed outright. It is a verifiable controversy connected to the subject and according to WP guidelines it must be mentioned here. According to WP guidelines, there is no justification for repeated removal of a brief explanation of controversy, in favour of a new page - it sets off warning lights about possible WP:TE and WP:POVFORK issues. Thanks, am off for another WP:Wikibreak.-Chumchum7 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a supplementary thought, there may be a case here for a 'Political Controversy' section, which is less focused on Polish grievences but more focused on what the Polish controversy meant politically at the time. Given further research for verifiable material, one may find that the initial exclusion of the Poles, the public pressure, and then the government "relenting" with an invite to Polish RAF veterans - has relevance to such issues as British politics in the 1940s, the Labour government of the time, the popularity of Uncle Joe, the Tory opposition, the runup to the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 and even the communist takeover of eastern Europe and the early murmurings of Cold War. The Polish controversy around the Parade definately was covered by the press at the time, it was debated in parliament, and it was an international relations incident: for these reasons the controversy might merit its own section. The focus would not be on how the 'Polish armed forces in the west' felt mistreated, which is covered in the article about them, but on the British political controversy around the parade. WP guidelines demand us to include such controversies. This is just a passing hunch. Am off now for a while. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, adding a separate section dealing with 'Political Controversy' surrounding the parade sounds like a great idea. Exclusion of Poles had become a political embarrassment to be hidden away and is has much  relevance to  1940s British politics, Labour government and so on.--Howelseornotso (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to understand that no matter how many times you say 'Polish exclusion! Polish exclusion! Polish exclusion!', the simple fact will remain that Poles were invited and they refused to attend. None of your claims can ever change history. Varsovian (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to the RAF's Polish veterans is not the same as an invitation to the Polish Armed Forces in the West
It was not the Labour Government 1945–1951 but John Slessor who personally intervened to ensure his Polish RAF veterans were welcome at the Parade, just as he ensured his Irish RAF veterans were welcome at the parade. This does not mean that the Polish armed forces in the West were invited, in the same way that it doesn't mean the Irish Air Corps was invited. If an invited RAF vet who was Irish had gone and joined the Irish Air Corps by 1946, it doesn't mean that the Irish Air Corps were invited. Same goes for the Polish RAF vets. If Irish or Polish RAF veterans by 1946 had jobs in a Cadbury's cholocate factory, joined the priesthood, were flying in the Polish Air Force or ran away to the circus, it didn't mean that Cadbury's, the Church, the Polish Air Force or the circus were invited when these RAF vets were invited. The belated cave-in to Slessor was a Labour government swindle - they fobbed off our Allies with fake gratitude when in fact they ONLY invited the RAF and Labour's COMMUNIST friends in Warsaw. The Polish armed forces in the west were EXCLUDED, plain and simple. PBS and Laurence Rees are right, and I resent the arrogance of an editor here who seems to think he knows better than two esteemed British historians (Rees and Davies) and a respected American public service television channel (PBS) which cooperated on a great series with the British public service channel (BBC) to establish these FACTS. The British invitation was addressed to the RAF and to the puppets in Warsaw. It was never sent to the Polish armed forces in the West, to Anders or anyone like him. The RAF and the Conservative Opposition protested against this to the Labour government, and this protest should be known. For what its worth, it was not, I think, a British betrayal - but a pinko Labour government betrayal. On the subject of Labour at the time, see also fellow traveler and useful idiot....... Hotterwings (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, hang on, Ernest Bevin hated communists with a vengeance. He was a free trade union hero and spent years trying to stop Soviet funding for British strikers. Communist sympathy at the time was really among the likes of Kim Philby. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This said, the comparison to the RAF's Irish veterans is useful. I first added the word 'absence' rather than 'exclusion' - but you may have convinced me. Technically, the Irish armed forces were indeed excluded, even though Irish citizens who had served in the RAF were not. It is a useful thought. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the talk page is not difficult to realize that most editors agree with the fact that Polish veterans of Monte Cassino, Market Garden and most of Polish airmen were not invited to the parade in 1946 and the Polish grievances are genuine. Unfortunately, an editor with bizarre agenda and a pattern of behaviour of concern (in the past he suggested that Chopin was a bastard ), tries to find arguments that it was otherwise. Back to topic, please read the last post of the user Chumchum7, I think what he says makes much sense. I do not have time now (most of the time I spend editing the French Wikipedia) but I intend to deal with this topic in its time.--Howelseornotso (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you mention Davies as a reliable source. If you care to look at the Guardian article by Davies about this topic you will note that he specifically says that the invitation was sent Anders personally. Care to rethink? As to the accusations regarding my comments on Chopin, p I'd ask editors to read them properly and do not lie about them. Varsovian (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * []--Howelseornotso (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * []--Howelseornotso (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * []--Howelseornotso (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * []--Howelseornotso (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kindly either quote where I suggested Chopin was a bastard or withdraw the accusation. Varsovian (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if, instead, I drop my participation in this exchange?--Howelseornotso (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I mind if you stop lying about me? No, not at all. Varsovian (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Norman Davies in The Guardian: 'The exclusion of the Poles from Britain's 1945 victory parade'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/nov/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.87.139 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. You may wish to note thar this article is about the London Victory parade of 1946, not 1945. Varsovian (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You know it was a mistake and you have already had warnings from administrators about your editing[]. I am far too busy right now to get involved in pointless discussion here. Good luck.--Howelseornotso (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Davies gets the year wrong? If he has problems with such basic data, no wonder he gets th more complex stuff wrong! Very much calls into question his status as a WP:RS, doesn't it. Please could you be so kind as to not lie about me: I have had one warning from one admin, both singular, despite your claims that both are plural. Varsovian (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Victory Parade controversy
"Commentators have said larger public issues contributed to the Victory Parade controversy, including the hope that Polish troops would return to Poland rather than gain British citizenship; the hope that the Yalta and Potsdam conferences would be respected; divergent British interpretations of Soviet influence in Central and Eastern Europe including the hope for fairness at coming referenda such as the 3xTAK; and the onset of the Cold War." All of these refer to Polish participation in the Victory Parade (as indeed does all the content currently in this section): is there any reason why the section should not be moved over to the article about Polish participation in the Victory Parade? That Poland did not attend is something that should be mentioned in this article but, to quote user Bobanni, “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.” The consensus of editors here is very much that a separate article should be created (the only editor who ever disagreed with the creation of that article was me and I've now changed my opinion), so the article was created: would it be too much to ask that editors put content related to Polish participation in the Victory Parade in the article about Polish participation in the Victory Parade? Varsovian (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing work over the past month as shown by diffs and discussion
I'm looking for input on the London Victory Parade of 1946. There has been a lot of editing on this recently, and I would like editors to come take a look at the article and especially at the diffs over the past 1 month. It would be great if we could get some guidance on editing and feedback on progress and to what extent policies and guidelines have been successfully employed, and next steps for getting this article upgraded. If I've left this request in the wrong place, please let me know. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

extending request to RFCHistory
Experienced, objective, and informed input requested on this busy article. I've also left requests for comment elsewhere. Please give feedback on diffs and discussions over the last month, on our success at meeting guidelines and policy, and pointers for next steps. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Norman Davies: "Rising '44"
First of all, the quote in our article which starts "In consequence..." is obviously in consequence of something, logically after another point which Davies is making, in the previous sentence. Here is what it says in my copy of the book: "The faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade, when HMG realized that the Warsaw Government was not going to send any representatives. In consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent..." Davies' point here is that the British made a faux pas. On the same page, he also says 'an official invitation was sent to the Government in Warsaw, before someone noticed that the Warsaw regime had not been Britain's ally' and twice refers to it as an 'embarrassment'.

Secondly, Davies made corrections to his first edition. I have ISBN 0-330-48863-5, which seems to be the corrected text, which in this section (page 507) now refers to Kopanski being Chief of Staff, rather than Bor-Komorowski.

Thirdly, this copy of the book has the lines: "the Victory parade in London passed off without the participation of any units, colour parties or representatives from Poland.... The only Polish servicemen and servicewomen to join the parade were a sprinkling of the fliers and ground crew who attended in their capacity as members of the various RAF formations into which they had formerly been integrated."

Fourthly, Davies quotes this was a "Parade of Defeat" for a Pole. The overall message from Davies about the military ceremony, and an important point for military historians about this article, is that while the British had a lot to celebrate about at the parade, the allies they had gone to war for did not consider it victory at all. This is indeed the theme of the PBS/BBC documentary by Laurence Rees, World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Davies is of course entitled to his interpretation of the facts (and given the viewpoints from scholars quoted at Norman Davies, his interpretation is hardly surprising) but of interest to us are the facts that he confirms: that Poles and Poland were invited to the parade. I very deliberately left out the part about “not corrected until the very eve of the parade”: a statement made in parliament the day before the day of the parade shows that on that point either Davies is wrong or Hansard is wrong. Seeing as Davies has in the past been wrong even about the year the parade was in, I’d submit that it is likely Hansard is right.


 * It is interesting that Davies has made corrections in the second edition. Has he repeated the statement that Poles took part in the parade? Has he repeated the statement that invitations were sent to invitations the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals?


 * “fliers and ground crew who attended in their capacity as members of the various RAF formations into which they had formerly been integrated.” is a direct quote from the text which I put into the article. I left out the words “a sprinkling” as it is very vague. One could easily argue that 25 (i.e. the number of Polish pilots who were invited) is just a sprinkling to a parade which is nine miles long (which this one was).


 * Again Davies is entitled to his interpretation of the facts but he does appear to overlook the fact that the only foreign nation to take part in the Moscow Victory Parade was Poland. Funny that Poland should not consider the victory to be a victory at all but it still took part in a victory parade. Varsovian (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Battleground editing on this page
This is a pretty blatant WP:POINT violation, bordering indeed on vandalism. Editors of this page are advised to make some serious efforts at bringing their dispute resolution into better shape, or it will start raining WP:DIGWUREN restrictions soon. BTW, Chumchum, I would appreciate if you could clarify if the 78.30.* IPs were you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have since reworded the edit which you object to so as to remove the repeated wording. I'd have no problem with it being edited down further (although we should mention that a number of other nations did not have the same reaction as Poles). A number of editors suggested that the solution to the problems here would be Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. However, that solution seems not to appeal to one editor, given that he's just proposed it for deletion despite it having gained WP:CONS here. At one point I even removed the section which I had added to try to defuse the war but I was immediately accused of section blanking . Varsovian (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fut.Perf., thanks for stopping by. Yes indeed, the 78.30.* work on the 7th April was mine. By the way, this also happened on the 5th April, when the link posted by 78.30.* on the Talk page was mine. I should have flagged that when I made the Requests for Comment. If it happens again, I'll file a note here. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

'Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946'
This linked article is being considered for deletion in what is meant to be a fair and open manner. I filed to have the article considered for deletion rather than speedily deleted, to enable everyone - and outsiders - to give their rationale. Please go ahead and share your views at:

Articles for deletion/Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946

Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The dilemma faced by Poles
In what way is the decision faced by Poles as to whether or not they returned to Poland after the war connected with the London Victory Parade of 1946? And if it was really so important to them, why the majority of them choose to remain in the UK when they were welcome to go anywhere in the Commonwealth (or to return to Poland)? Varsovian (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
1. I disagree that user 72.254.92.238 made an 'IP attack'. I found her or his edits to be objective, helpful and in keeping with WP policy and guidelines. I support that user's edit here:, and others may also support it. So here User talk:72.254.92.238 I have invited the user to get a username and come back and join us.

2. This is yet another WP:AVOID issue, especially WP:CLAIM, which I have already flagged on this talk page. My references to these guidelines above appear to have been ignored.

3. Also here, there is a massive WP:PRIMARY issue: in the guidance Wikipedia tells us that primary sources are subordinate to secondary sources. Wikipedia tells us this is because we are not historians, lawyers or journalists entitled to martial primary sources in order to establish a case, but encyclopaedia editors compiling secondary sources with cases. So again, this paragraph seems to indicate WP:POINT issues that the administrator Fut. Perf. identifies above, and has given stern warnings about.

4. Consequently, I have opened a new case here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-25/London Victory Parade of 1946. It is meant to be an open and objective process.

5. For the record: I'm not Polish and I don't speak Polish.

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Deleting sourced content is rarely helpful. Deleting sourced content which deals with the invitation sent to Poland and the reasons why it was rejected verge on vandalism.
 * 2. Moszynski is the author of a number of press releases which claim that Poland was completely excluded from the parade. His press releases clearly fly in the face of historical record and verge on revisionism. The modern-day myth that Poland was not invited to take part is one which this article needs to address.
 * 3. We are not entitled to martial primary sources. However we can read letters and quote from them.
 * 4. It would have been good if I had been notified of this case. However I’ll refrain from filing a Wikiquette alert about this bad etiquette.
 * 5. For the record I’m not British. Varsovian (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I have now filed a complaint here: -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That is despite you being told here that ANI is not the right place for your complaint and you being told here  that you need to discuss the issue with me on my talkpage before filing a dispute at ANI. Are you actually trying to give the impression that you are trying to use any and all procedural actions to silence a content opponent and thus have content you object to removed from the article? Varsovian (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"before someone noticed that the Warsaw regime had not been Britain's wartime ally".
This quote from Davies is confusing me somewhat. Clearly the Provisional Government of National Unity could not have been Britain's ally in the war against Hitler as it was formed after the end of the war in Europe. So is Davies trying to say that the Provisional Government of National Unity was not Britain's ally because it did not exist during the war in Europe or is he trying to say that Poland was not Britain's ally in the war against Japan? My understanding was that Poland declared war on Japan in December 1941. Does Davies mean that the Provisional Government of National Unity did not recognise and/or honour this declaration of war? Varsovian (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move from ANI
Let me try restating my earlier remark: you are the one drawing the conclusion that he is contradicting other reports. You may be right, but you are the one who is stating this. You need to find a reliable source that says the same thing. Doing otherwise violates WP:SYNTH. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the article currently states "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " Would it be permissible to insert the words "(i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade)"? The text would thus read "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade (i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade) Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " This would very much draw attention the fact that what Davies says flatly contradicts by historical sources but it doesn't actually say that Davies' statement contradicts historical sources. Varsovian (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI has been evaluated and closed
The ANI filing here resulted in an arbitration enforcement warning here. The ANI is now closed. As can be seen at these links, the evaluating administrator has advised that continued misconduct (namely, failure to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process here or in the wider Eastern Europe topic area) should be reported at the WP:AE noticeboard in accordance with the procedures documented there. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest version
This is my proposed version of the Political Controversy section. Cleanup is still required above it, especially all those subdivisions of troop numbers. As I've already said on this page, I supported the removal by another editor of this "claims" paragraph, which appears to be the paragraph-equivalent of a WP:ATTACK page with similar WP:BLP issues. I have listed the other breaches in the paragraph in my edit summary, and refer to administrators' advice about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH received at the ANI ruling here. I am now going to try and take a Wikibreak. Be vigilant. Be cool. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The point about proposed changes is that one proposes them before making them. Nevermind. There are clear problems with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:V in the format of the article which you propose. I'll list them here when I have time (hopefully today) and leave them up for editors to discuss before any changes are made to the article. Varsovian (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to version of 27 April 2010
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsovian (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 April 2010 Varsovian (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:WEIGHT 1,026 words about Polish participation, 650 words about every other aspect combined. If we're going to keep that balance we should change the name of this article to "Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946" because that is what this article is mainly about!
 * 2) Paragraph ordering. The text regarding the initial invitation being sent to the international recognised government of Poland has been moved to the very end of the article. So we discuss the effect of events before we discuss the events themselves. Very much like trying to write an article about the collapse of the WTC and leaving the bit about the buildings being hit by planes until the last paragraph, i.e. it only makes sense if you want to convince your reader of a particular something. I submit that the events should be covered in their chronological order (which is also the cause and effect order).
 * 3) The continued insertion of the unsourced claim that “Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin apologized to General Anders about the affair.” This is simply WP:TE. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the source actually says “The exclusion of the Poles from Britain's 1945 victory parade” but still the source is used to claim that an apology was issued with regard to the London Victory Parade of 1946, which goes way beyond WP:SYNTH! The claim that this was a mistake by Davies is one which brings obvious problems with WP:BLP and casts a negative light on professional competence of Norman Davies. We must include what the source actually says, not what we might think that the source meant. But or course we will have to leave out the word “however”.
 * 4) The removal of the sourced information regarding 89,300 of the Poles who were not invited having formerly served in German armed forces. The reason given for this removal is “which verifiable source has made the connection to post-German forces? If no source does this, its WP:SYNTH”. However, the text makes no connection between the status of those 89,300 deserters and their not being invited. Therefore there is no WP:SYNTH as claimed. I submit that the sourced information be restored. Furthermore, I note that WP:V “requires anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source”. If the statement “former members of the Waffen SS were unlikely to be welcomed by the crowds at the parade” were to be made, I submit that it is not likely to be challenged and thus does not need to be attributed to a WP:RS. However I do not suggest that such statement should actually be made in this article.
 * 5) The inclusion of the statement “Many Polish troops, particularly those among Anders' Polish II Corps, publicly opposed the postwar peace treaties, which entailed their homes in the Kresy region being ceded to the USSR.” This has absolutely nothing to do with the Victory Parade and so needs to be moved to another article.
 * 6) The inclusion of Rees’ statement about Poles not feeling welcome in the UK. Surely that information belongs in the article about Western Command Poles. If we are to have it here, NPoV requires that we also provide information about the Polish Resettlement Corps, which had already been announced at the time of the controversy about the parade invitations.
 * 7) The inclusion of the letter from Olson and Cloud’s book. I have very very serious reservations about using this source at all. It states bluntly (in the very sentence before the one about the letter) that “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.” and that statement is one which disagrees with every piece of serious historical work and every historical record. I also note that according to Olson and Cloud (here ) Britain and France declared war on Germany on 1 September, another statement on which Olson and Cloud disagree with every piece of serious historical work and every historical record. As regards this specific letter (of which I have been able to find no trace), one does wonder how those ten British parliamentarians knew that Poles would not be at the parade. An invitation had been sent to Warsaw (a fact now hidden away at the very end of the article), accepted by Warsaw (a fact confirmed by Hansard of 3 June) and on 5 June 1946 a British government minister said “the Warsaw Government has not yet provided the forces which they promised to take part in the parade.” Has not yet. How were ten parliamentarians able to know before a government minister that Poles would not be at the parade? I submit that the letter has been quoted from so that the context has been changed. I further submit that if we do include this letter, we include the rebuttal statement made by a British government minister on 5 June “I will say what I have already said, that we have asked for forces representative of both Governments.”
 * 8) Information as to the invitation sent to the government of Poland. I have recently discovered HC Deb 21 May 1946 vol 423 c64W . It states “His Majesty's Government contemplate the inclusion in the R.A.F. contingent in the March of a representative party of 25 Polish airmen (including one officer) who fought in the Battle of Britain. There will he no separate representation of other Polish armed forces now in this country, since these do not form part of His Majesty's Farces, but the Polish Government have been invited to send a contingent of three high-ranking officers, three aides-de-camp or staff officers and a flag party of three men, followed by a detachment of 24 men representative of the Polish fighting services.” Although this is a primary source, I feel that we can quote Mr McNeil’s words verbatim, i.e. “the Polish Government have been invited to send a contingent of three high-ranking officers, three aides-de-camp or staff officers and a flag party of three men, followed by a detachment of 24 men representative of the Polish fighting services.”


 * This has been up for more than two weeks now. Any discussion from any other editors about the above changes (which I plan to introduce into the article this week)? Varsovian (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The so called proposed changes were discussed and refuted a couple of times already on this very talk page. Please re-read the old discussions. Dr. Loosmark  10:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you can not have read the proposed changes carefully. If you have could you perhaps point out where, to give just one example, Hansard from 21 May 1946 is discussed? Also, language such as "The so called proposed changes" is not helpful to this discussion, perhaps you might like to have another look at WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Where Hansard was discussed!? I hope you are joking. It was explained to you at least 20 times that the Polish Armed Forces in the West did not recognize the Communist Authorities in Warsaw and did not feel represented by them. Would you send an invitation to the Iranian opposition to Ahmadinejad? Would you send an invitation to Dalai Lama to the Chinese government? No? So please stop repeating that an invitation to Soviet backed authorities in Warsaw was an invitation to Polish Armed Forces in the West. It was not. Dr. Loosmark  12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I specifically asked you to point out where Hansard from 21 May 1946 is discussed. If you can not do so, you can just admit that. That source clearly states that 25 airmen who fought in the Battle of Britain (and hence were part of the Polish Armed Forces in the West) were invited. This source is confirmed by the memoirs of General Anders, the work of Dr Ostrowski, the memoirs of Falkowski (whose words have now been almost completely purged from the section about Polish participation) and others. Do you have any civil comments on any of the proposed changes? Varsovian (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I will answer you specifically about "Hansard 21 May 1946". Wikipedia is based on facts not on what were the contemplations of His Majesty's Government. I am pretty sure at various points they were contemplating all sort of things (for example Churchill contemplated to land in Balkans and meet the Soviet armies east of Vienna and Prague and try to keep them out of as much of Eastern Europe as possible). Let's work with facts rather than with various contemplations. Dr. Loosmark  13:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case we have several reliable secondary sources which confirm what the primary source says. I note that you have still made no attempt at all to discuss where this point was previously discussed, despite your assertion that it has already been "discussed and refuted a couple of times already on this very talk page." If it has been discusses a couple of times, surely you can give at least one example of such discussion. Varsovian (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a secondary source that there were contemplations please present it. (Although frankly I don't see much point in it). Dr. Loosmark  14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above, this source is confirmed by, amongst others, the memoirs of General Anders, the work of Dr Ostrowski, the memoirs of Falkowski (whose words have now been almost completely purged from the section about Polish participation). Varsovian (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOR. Dr. Loosmark  15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to describe quoting from the memoirs of General Anders as original research, there's no point having this discussion. I note that despite repeated requests to do so, you have still not made no attempt at all to discuss where this point was previously discussed, despite your assertion that it has already been "discussed and refuted a couple of times already on this very talk page." Would you like to now admit that you were mistaken when you made that particular claim? Varsovian (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The memoirs of General Anders' are not original research however your conclusions based on his memoirs are original research. Dr. Loosmark  08:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The memoirs of General Anders state that 25 Polish airmen who had fought in the Battle of Britain were invited to the parade, i.e. his memoirs precisely confirm the content of the primary source. I note that yet again you make no attempt to support your laughable claim that this has already been "discussed and refuted a couple of times already on this very talk page." Varsovian (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 25 airmen invited means just that, 25 airmen invited. It does not mean that the Polish Forces in the West were invited, unless you want to claim that the 25 airmen fought with the Polish Army, with the Polish Navy and elsewhere. As you well know we had extensive discussions about this exact topic(s) on this talk page, it's either here or in the archive. And please avoid using terms as "laughable", as they are against WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Dr. Loosmark  11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I specifically asked Loosmark to point out where Hansard from 21 May 1946 is discussed. He refuses to do so but instead yet again claims that I made a statement which I did not make. Therefore there is no point in continuing discussion with him. However, I am happy to discuss the proposed changes with any other editor. Varsovian (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

AK membership
[I've moved this discussion from the top of the page into the correct location.] Where to report Mr. Varsovian for misrepresenting the sources in footnote? He says Armia Krajowa had only 8000 full time member but the Leslie book doesn't say that at all! He keeps doing it repeatedly.PTwardowski (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact quote at is “The AK soldiers were divided into three groups. The first and most important group consisted of full-time members, the ‘professional conspirators’, who formed the hard core of the resistance and remained underground ‘under false identity with forged documents and labour permits’. All the senior AK officers belonged to this group. The ‘professional conspirators’ received no payment other than a small monthly allowance to cover their living expenses. The second category of AK personnel consisted of those who served in the partisan units, living in uniform mainly in the forests and fighting the Germans openly. Until 1944 this group was equally small. In 1943 it consisted of 40 partisan units in the field with strengths varying from 30 to 100 men. The largest group consisted of part-time members, leading, as it were, double lives.” So we have two “equally small groups” of full-time members. One consists of 40 groups of up to 100. We’ll take the upper limit and conclude a total membership of 4,000. The other group is “equally small groups”. Four thousand plus four thousand is eight thousand. I would be most grateful if you could kindly refrain from calling me a liar.
 * I've revised the text to include the date and the fact that 8,000 is an upper limit. We could consider including the lower limit too. Varsovian (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly has that number to do with the London Parade? Dr. Loosmark  12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that information regarding size of contribution to WWII have no place at all in an article about the London victory parade. Unfortunately other editors disagreed with me and constantly inserted such information. I would be very happy to see all information of that kind removed from that section. Do you agree? Varsovian (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, I don't agree. The size of contribution is very important. What I meant is that the size of Home Army, Yugoslav partisans and similar is not important. However the Polish contribution on the Western front is very important because that's why they felt they needed to be invited and it is also what differentiates Poland from China, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union who didn't fight in the West. (that and the fact that Poland already fought together with the Britts when Stalin was still Hitler's ally, when the USA and Yugoslavia had still not entered the war and the French capitulated to the Nazis.) It all needs to be in the article and in fact probably needs to be expanded. Perhaps we should add the info that the Polish 303th squadron was the best scoring in the Battle of Britain according to most sources. Dr. Loosmark  14:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So the size of the contribution is only important when assessing the Polish contribution. OK, in that case more information about the Polish contribution is better than less and we thus need to include the fact that full-time membership of the AK in 1943 was no more than 8,000. As for 303 Squadron, we could include the fact that they claimed more kills than any other squadron but we'd then need to include the fact that they overclaimed (as proved by the fact that on one day they claimed more kills than the entire RAF combined managed). Your comment about China is interesting: I note that the article doesn't list China as taking part. I wonder if we can find any sources which address the issue of Chinese invitation and/or participation. China's contribution to WWII dwarfs that of Poland. Varsovian (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the British only the Poles had a sizable army in the West contributing to the War effort from 1939 to 1945. That is very relevant. Provide a source that the size of AK full-time membership had any influence one way or another on the London Parade or stop trumpeting that the AK "only" had 8,000 full time members. The overclaiming in the Battle of Britain is not a topic of this article and in fact if you recall it was already discussed on the 303's squadron talk page (around the time you got caught using a source you have never seen in your life but you have seen it mentioned in a webforum.). Same goes for China, nobody cares if you think that the Chinese contribution "dwarfs" Poland's contribution. Find a source which says that China should have been invited to the London parade or stop tiring us with your theories. Dr. Loosmark  15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you learn from the last time that you were banned for lying about what another editor said? I did not use the Alcorn source: that source was introduced into the article by another editor. If you had any familiarity with WP:AGF you would know that we must assume good faith on the part of editors who introduce sources into articles: I assumed good faith. It is not that I think that the Chinese contribution dwarfs that of Poland: the fact (as shown by WP:RS) is that the Chinese army was more than 12 times the size of the the Polish army. Why weren't they at the parade (if they weren't at the parade)? Were they invited? If not, why not. If you want to write an article which is exclusively about Polish participation in the London Victory Parade of 1946, go and write one: leave this article to be about the British celebration of joy at the war ending. Varsovian (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I request that you withdraw the accusation that I was banned "for lying about what another editor said", it's not true. As for the source on the 303 squadron, I have not said that you have "introduced" that source, we already had this discussion on that talk page, and you have not used that defense back then, right? But again it's irrelevant for this article, if you really wish we can discuss it on the other article. I see that you still go on about the Chinese Army even you have not provided a source which would say that China should have been invited. If you want we can add a line saying that editor "Varsovian" from Wikipedia thinks that China should have been invited or something. This article is not about the British "joy", it's about the London Victory parade and the lack of Polish participation is very notable, like it or not. Dr. Loosmark  16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Terribly sorry, you were actually topic banned for that, I do apologise. As for China, I wasn't suggesting that the article says that China should have been invited (only one nation on the planet obsesses about its invitation to this parade), I merely observe that the article needs to mention that no representatives of the 5.6 million man Chinese army were invited to take part (if they were in fact not invited). Encyclopeias are supposed to present all the facts, not just the ones that certain nationalists think are important. We could also include a bit about how not inviting has not led to anything like the amount of whining and lying (all off WP obviously) that is associated with the decision not to invite representatives of the army or navy of the 228,000-strong Polish Western command forces of whom a mere 89,300 had fought against the British before deciding to join the winning side. Varsovian (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not topic banned for "for lying about what another editor said". Please stop with bogus ad-hominem attacks. That the article "needs" to mention that China wasn't invited is your person opinion not shared by anybody else. Since the Chinese did not fight in the European war theater there was no real reason to invite them. I don't know who are "certain nationalists" you mention nor what "lying off WP" do you have in mind. I think you should elaborate a bit although I suspect it's more of your un-sourced personal opinions. Dr. Loosmark  17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I've reviewed the evidence and conclude that Loosmark's interaction with others in this topic area has violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF, notably through comments like "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors" ([138]) and "20,000? riiight." ([139]) This is compounded by an completely inappropriate reaction to this request - his defence consists not in addressing his own conduct, but in making accusations against Faustian, the editor making the request, and in doing so seriously misrepresenting Faustian's comments." Could you perhaps go into detail as to the sources which state that not inviting China was unimportant? You might wish to note that the London Parade was a celebration of the victory in both the war against Germany and the war against Japan: China played a major role in the war against Japan (as shown by the fact that she contributed an army 14 times larger than the one Poland contributed to the war against Germany). If we must mention that representatives of 228,000 Poles were not invited, we need to mention that representatives of 5.6 million Chinese were not invited. As to the off WP lies, have a look at the comments by the man who claims he secured an apology from Tony Blair for Poles not being invited. Varsovian (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My "misrepresenting Faustian comments" was just that: I misunderstood what he said and I should have been more careful, I never had problems admitting my own errors. But the error was made in good faith. Trumpeting like you did that I was banned "for lying about what another editor said" is misleading because lying is consciously writing untrue things. And besides that incident happen nearly 1 year ago in a completely different topic area and its relevance for the discussion on the London Parade is zero. So please stop with it or go discussing year old incidents somewhere else please.
 * I don't have to provide sources that not inviting China is unimportant, similarly as I don't have to provide sources that another million things which are not in the article are unimportant. You want to push that into the article so the "burden of proof" is on you. Dr. Loosmark  17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And btw do you have source that the man who wrote to Tony Blair lied or is that yet another of your personal opinion? Dr. Loosmark  17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "lying is consciously writing untrue things." That would correctly describe your repeated claims that I called Chopin a bastard. As for the source: yes, we have a copy of the letter sent to that man (which incidentally isn't even from Tony Blair). Varsovian (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I read that letter and I did not see anywhere anybody being called a liar, in fact there is no mention that anybody said anything untrue. Anywhere. So basically you have no source but continue to defame that person. Dr. Loosmark  18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Interaction with user Loosmark
User Loosmark has repeated insisted that the failure to invite representatives of the 5.6 million Chinese who fought with Britain against Japan is so irrelevant that it should not even be mentioned in this article. However, he does not see any problems with the majority of this article being taken up with information about the failure to invite representatives of the army and navy from 228,000 Poles who fought with Britain against Germany (89,300 of such men having also fought with Germany against Britain). While Loosmark is presumably acting in good faith, the contrast between these two positions is so sharp that I feel that Loosmark is simply incapable of being objective with regard to this article in the context of his nation. I will therefore no longer be engaging in discussion as to anything which Loosmark says about this article and Polish participation unless another editor requests that I do respond to Loosmark's comment. The endless discussions between he and I are doing nothing to help the article; all that they are doing is cluttering up this talk page. Varsovian (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not "repeated insisted" that the alleged failure to invite representatives of the "5.6 million Chinese" who allegedly fought together with the British is irrelevant. All I am saying is that you have not produced any source which would say that the Chinese should have been invited (n)or that the Chinese had any problems with not being invited to the London Victory parade. Dr. Loosmark  18:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Battleground editing on this article has been reported at AE
See this filing for my complaint about Varsovian's editing of this article. The process is open and all editors can contribute to the discussion. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual Problems With This Article
I'd like to chime-in in reference to the factual inaccuracy pertaining specifically to the following passage: "[...] as of 1943 no more than 8,000 [Home Army Soldiers] were full-time armed members" ??? Between 1942 and 1943, National Armed Forces, the second largest Polish Anti-Nazi resistance organization had upwards of 70,000 to 100,000 full-time members in its ranks alone! The number of "armed" Home Army Soldiers who fought and died in the Warsaw Uprising alone, is roughly between 20-30 thousand souls. Similarly, one ought to revisit number Armed Home Army Soldiers who participated in the Operation "Ostra Brama" as well. I am surprised that such factual inaccuracies found their way into this article, and were neither questioned, nor corrected by other editors. Best Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Thank you for your contribution Robert. The upper number of 8,000 in 1943 is supported by the source given. However, do you feel that WP:REDFLAG might come into play here? I get the feeling that it might ("Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.") and so will remove the text while we discuss it here. Varsovian (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Political Controversy section
This section is currently a complete mess. Information which supports one PoV has been pushed to the front of the section and information about the fact that both sets of invitations sent to Poles has been minimised and scattered. We have the response of the British government to criticism given in two different places. We have the Davies quote which is entirely unsupported by historical records given before the historical records which Davies disagrees with! The same is true for the quote from Olson & Cloud, the one which was specifically denied at the time by the British government.

I propose that the article first describes what happened and then provides analysis. The first event chronologically was the invitation to the Polish government, so that should be covered first. Then we can cover the invitation sent to the London Poles. After that goes the analysis from people such as Davies and Olson & Cloud. Varsovian (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

misrepresentation of what the sources say
Varsovian keeps adding his OR that "This statement flatly contradicts available historical records,[25] media reports of the time,[23][26] statements from the British government[27][28] and the memoirs of western command Poles,[3] including those who were invited to attend.[29]" in reference to the claim made by Olson and Cloud that ""the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.""

Ok. First, for this not to be OR and SYNTH you need a source which explicitly states "Olson and Cloud's claims flatly contradict etc." or something close to it. You cannot put your own opinion in the text. Even if Olson and Cloud IS contradicted by historical records, which I don't think it is, you STILL need to find a reliable source which directly refers to their work; remember that the standard for Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Otherwise, the most you can do is put the various statements side by side.

Varsovian also finally added some citations to his OR claim but I don't see how they support even an indirect relationship with what Olson and Cloud are saying. Indeed, the sources provided over all SUPPORT Cloud and Olson!
 * Radeksz is either seriously mistaken or plain old lying when he says that the sources I provided all support Olson & Cloud’s claim that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” The sources all show that some of such Poles were invited, as I shall now show.Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's pretty disingenuous to accuse me of lying here . You tacked on a bunch of citations to support a claim whereas in fact all the sources in the citation support the opposite conclusion.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I WP:AGF and think that you are mistaken. O&C say that the British govt "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." They do not say "barred some of the hundreds and thousands" or "the vast majority of the hundreds and thousands". The other sources tell us that some of the hundreds and thousands were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Plain old lying" does not sound like AGF to me so please drop the act. The rest is just typical weaseling. It is not up to you to interpret primary sources, each of which is in fact about how hundreds and thousands of Polish soldiers were barred from the parade. You misrepresented these primary sources.radek (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Either ... or". You are entirely correct that hundreds of thousands of Polish soldiers were not invited. Unfortunately Olson & Cloud do not say that: they say that the the British govt "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." Varsovian (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts ...media reports"
"media reports" is cited to this chapter. The relevant passages in the text are:
 * "However, to give the Soviets credit, when they held their victory parade in Red Square, representatives of the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were invited to attend and marched alongside the victorious Red Army - this is more than can be said for the British response" - so Soviets invited Poles, but same thing cannot be said for Brits. How does this contradict O&C?
 * "After the British Government decided to switch its recognition from the Polish Government-in-exile in London to the Polish Provisional Government in Warsaw, it no longer felt obliged to invite the armed forces of the exiled Government to the victory parade that was to be held in London in 1946. Instead it asked Warsaw to send its men to attend. This move not only created a great deal of bitterness among the Poles in the West but brought about an outraged cry of "unfair" from many leading Britons." - again how in monkey heck does this contradict C&O?
 * "The only Pole present at the British victory parade on the 7th June, 1946, was Colonel Kuropieska who attended as a diplomatic courtesy" - hmm, ok, so there was 1. I don't think that is enough to contradict O&C
 * "The key element in the equation was not to offend the Provisional Government in Warsaw and so, by extension, to offend Moscow. " - again, this appears to SUPPORT rather than CONTRADICT C&O.
 * And finally we get to something that could be considered a "press report" (actually a letter to the Times): "Sir John Slessor, Marshal of the RAF, also wrote to "The Times" seething at the British reaction: "For gross bad manners and craven ingratitude this is surely unbeatable. It is, alas, only one more example of the sort of thing that makes it difficult nowadays to be proud to be British."" - which also supports C&O rather than contradicts it.

So this appears to be some playing shenanigans with the citations, where a source which actually SUPPORTS Cloud and Olson is given as supposedly CONTRADICTING it. This is a great misrepresentation of sources.
 * Somehow, despite his extensive quoting, Radeksz misses the only media report quoted in the whole chapter. I quote “As "The Times" reported at the time "The Polish Government accepted, but the contingent has not yet arrived. 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." ” (emphasis added and note that all Poles who fought in the battle of Britain did so under British command, see 303 Squadron for example details and Battle of Britain for further information). So when Olson & Cloud claim that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” they are contradicting The Times, as I stated.Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that Polish airmen were invited is irrelevant and already in the article anyway. What Cloud and Olson state is that thousands of others were not invited/barred. The source you are providing supports this. The rest of Varsovian's response is in the same vein. I'm really not gonna bother.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Olson & Cloud do not state "that thousands of others were not invited/barred." Olson & Cloud bluntly state that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were barred. But they can not have been barred if some were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The other source given here is a PRIMARY SOURCE, the Pittsburgh Press. The relevant text is: "Russia refused to send a delegation of fighting men to honor the British celebration. So did Yugoslavia and Poland, the latter because Battle of Britain Polish pilots loyal to the defunct London Polish government had been invited. The Battle of Britain Poles also refused to participate."
 * Complaining that a media report is a primary source: ingenious!Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I'm complaining that YOU, rather than a reliable source, are claiming that these media reports contradict Cloud & Olson. That's not your job - to interpret primary sources. Nevermind the fact that the primary sources support Cloud and Olson.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary sources do not support Olson & Cloud's claim that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were "barred". The primary sources show that some of such Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so that indicates that the RAF Poles were invited (which is already mentioned in the article a few sentences down) but how in the world does it contradict the claim that """the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command"???
 * If one source says that “the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command” were “barred” (not ‘some of the’ but simply ‘the’) it contradicts a source which says that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh......... What? If P then Q does not imply if not P then not Q. This is elementary logic, otherwise all non-nuns would be non-Catholics. Nevermind that this is OR, etc.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If a source states that some western command Poles were invited, it is contradicted by a source which claims that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were barred. That is what the article currently says. Varsovian (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's just for the media reports one, I'll look at the rest in a sec.radek (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts...historical records"
The citation for the supposed flat contradiction of C&O by historical records is another PRIMARY SOURCE, Hansard. The claim that this "flatly contradicts" is pure OR and invention as it (very obviously, doesn't refer to C&O nor could it). At best, this can be presented ALONGSIDE C&O, a SECONDARY source, not in contradiction to it.
 * Historical records have a habit of being primary sources. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, but YOU don't get to decide whether a historical record/primary source contradicts a secondary source. Other researchers and reliable sources get to decide that. Look, the policy on OR has been explained to you already ... what? Half a dozen times? Yet you are still persisting in this and this time around you misrepresented sources to push this agenda. Enough already.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But it's not just that. The relevant text is:

132. Mr. Teeling asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain will take part in the Victory march on 8th June; how many of the Polish armed forces who fought side by side with the British forces, and who are now in this country,, will take part; and what were the terms of the invitation to the Polish forces to take part.

''Mr. McNeil His Majesty's Government contemplate the inclusion in the R.A.F. contingent in the March of a representative party of 25 Polish airmen (including one officer) who fought in the Battle of Britain. There will he no separate representation of other Polish armed forces now in this country, since these do not form part of His Majesty's Farces, but the Polish Government have been invited to send a contingent of three high-ranking officers, three aides-de-camp or staff officers and a flag party of three men, followed by a detachment of.24 men representative of the Polish fighting services.''

So how does this exactly contradict ""the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command."". There's no mention of Stalin. No mention of Communist Poland - unless the reference to "the Polish Government have been invited..." refers to the Communist government of Poland, in which case, once again, it SUPPORTS C&O rather than contradicts it. More sourcing shenanigans.radek (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above for the newspaper reports, the source says that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited and hence a source which claims that “the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command” were “barred” (not ‘some of the’ but simply ‘the’) contradicts that source. Specifically, Olson & Cloud contradict that source.Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts...statements from the British government"
The given citations are, again, PRIMARY sources, Hansard  - basically it seems like a few statements from hansard were taken and arbitrarily split up some into a "historical record" part and some into "statements from the British government" - though they're all essentially statements by a single person.
 * Statements made to the house are not the same as written answers supplied to Hansard. As for the “statements by a single person”, all government statements are made by a single person. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant texts: "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. The action was not taken to please M. Molotov. "

So again, some Polish pilots were invited (already mentioned). And we finally get a claim that this was not done to please Stalin. Ok, then this should be attributed to Mr. Mcneil, not "British government" - however, this is where the PRIMARY vs. SECONDARY sources distinction becomes important. Mr. McNeil may have claimed that it was not done with such a purpose, but it is up to historians to interpret whether this was indeed so or not - politicians claim all sorts of crazy things all the time. Bill Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman. Does that mean we need to write that the existence of the Lewinsky affair is contradicted by "statements from the American government"?radek (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * More confirmation that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited by the British government. Olson & Cloud however state that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” Their statement contradicts the statement made by the British government (in the form of a government minister speaking in the official course of his duties).Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. The invitation of Polish airmen does not imply that thousands of other Polish soldiers were not invited. And this has been said. Several times. And sources have been provided. And the sources YOU provided state the same thing. And yet you pretend that these sources say the opposite of what they actually say.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were "barred" very much does imply that no airmen were invited. Therefore a statement that some were invited is directly contradicted by a claim that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were "barred". How many times will this need to be explained to you? Varsovian (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts... the memoirs of western command Poles"
This is another instance where a source which actually SUPPORTS Cloud & Olson is given as CONTRADICTING IT (flatly, no less) - in pretend like style.
 * As with the other sources, this one tells us that some of the western command Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So? Rest is the same.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

These are the memoirs] of a Polish soldier of the time indeed. However, here are the relevant portions of the text:


 * Apart from the USSR, only Poland and Yugoslavia were not represented among our Allies...." (quote in the original) - does not contradict Cloud and Olson.
 * "It’s almost word for word to what we had heard on radio at the time, as angry and astonished, we listened the commentaries of the BBC man. How the hell it came about; we the first ally of England, fighting side by side the British soldiers from the very beginning of the war, and now, when it’s all over, we are not represented? Argentine, who declared war on Germany practically a few days before Germany surrendered, and now she is represented on the parade?" - does not contradict Cloud and Olson
 * And it was in such circumstances and atmosphere, when in May, as I recall, some of us heard and red in papers, of the forthcoming Victory Parade. Quite frankly, we accepted it with a proverbial "shrug of shoulders" - THEY will not invite US anyway. Hadn’t we fought for that victory? We wanted to go but the invitation was not forthcoming. And then, a week or so later, a slap in the face - only the pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain were to be invited. Stunned? No. Surprised? Not quite, for almost a year now, we went through "Polacks this, Polacks that ".  - does not contradict Cloud and Olson claim, supports it.
 * So the source states “ the pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain were to be invited.” and Olson & Cloud state that those pilots were “barred” but to Radeksz this source “does not contradict Cloud and Olson claim, supports it.” One says “invited”, the other says “barred”: need I say more? Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  A bit of time lapsed, before the reasons came out to surface. Since Great Britain already recognized new Polish government in Poland, and thousands of Polish servicemen, legally Polish citizens, were still in England, it would be diplomatically correct, to invite a contingent of each service from Poland, and together, in fraternal unisons with the "local" soldiers, take part in Victory Parade in London. At the time, we couldn’t get over the fact, that the British Government, dealing with Stalin for several years, were so naive as to think that the so called "Polish government totally subservient to USSR, would sent it’s contingents, to join their compatriots in England. We hated the communists, especially the Polish ones, and would rather vegetate abroad, than to return home and be dominated by them. Later on, we heard some rumors, that apparently, the Polish authorities were ready to sent a contingent of men, but at last moment, received a "message" from Moscow: " What’s going to happen, if your soldiers get captivate by fascists in England and never return?" That did it. As I said, it was probably just a spiteful gossip, but there is a kernel of truth." - again, this SUPPORTS Cloud and Olson.
 * So “it would be diplomatically correct, to invite a contingent of each service from Poland, and together, in fraternal unisons with the "local" soldiers, take part in Victory Parade in London.” is supposed to support the claim that all western command Poles were “barred”? Really?! Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Churchill knew perfectly well, that the Communist Government in Warsaw was just bunch of Kremlin’s stooges, the government he helped to create, and the real master of Poland was "uncle Joe". Perhaps it was in interest of England not to irritate, the new master of the half of the Europe, but Churchill’s whole political carrier was to take decisions against the established scheme of the things. Surely, one more irritation of Stalin would not hurt either of them. - more support for Cloud and Olson. But it's given as a citation for as source which supposedly "flatly contradicts" Cloud and Olson. More misrepresentation.radek (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have shown above, the only misrepresentation here is being attempted by Radeksz. Perhaps he should have read the sources more careful before attempting to claim that stating the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” does not flatly contradict multiple sources which state that some of such Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS
One should work to WP:CONSENSUS, which trumps all discussion. I happen to concur 100% with Radeksz above. This DIGWUREN guidance means that Radeksz should take up the issue at WP:AE. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you 100% concur with Radeksz, could you please be so kind as to explain how Olson & Cloud's claim that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” does not flatly contradict multiple sources which state that some of such Poles were invited? Varsovian (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm getting quite sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again, and I'm guessing Chumchum7 is experiencing a similar feeling. It just doesn't contradict it. Show me where in Olson & Cloud it says "none of the Poles were invited" or something close to it. And, AGAIN, all those sources which you claim contradict Olson & Cloud are PRECISELY about the fact that hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were not invited. Your refusal to acknowledge this, or to listen to other editors on this matter is very troubling. This is also a textbook example for why Wikipedia has a policy against original research.radek (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Olson and Cloud do not say that "hundreds and thousands of who had fought under British command were not invited". They claim that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." (emphasis added). Those two statements are not the same thing. Your refusal to accept basic rules of English grammar is tantamount to tendentious editing. Varsovian (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:CONSENUS: One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "filibustering" the discussion. .
 * From WP:OR: "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.
 * and more relevantly: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 * Claiming, out of thin air, that C&O are "flatly contradicted" by primary sources, without any secondary source to back this up is a textbook example of an "interpretive claim", particularly, since those sources support C&O.radek (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous secondary sources which state that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited to the London victory parade. Such sources include Norman Davies, Dr Mark Ostrowski and Laurence Rees. I note that although we have in the article a quote from Laurance Rees stating that Polish army units were not invited but for some reason that quote ends before it comes to the part of that very same paragraph which specifically states that "Poles who had fought in the Royal Air Force were asked to take part in the parade". What an interesting omission. Varsovian (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that RAF Poles were invited is in the article already and it's irrelevant to the point being made by Olson & Cloud, as I've already said about four times above (in comments to which you replied, hence are surely aware of). No one said that there no secondary sources which state that the RAF Poles were invited, so I don't know who you're arguing with here about that. You're trying to portray this as somebody denying that RAF Poles were invited, but, sorry, no one here, nor Cloud & Olson, make that argument. All the sources you provided, as well Davies, Ostrowski, and Rees, which you are calling on now are about the fact that thousands of other Polish soldiers were NOT invited.radek (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Olson & Cloud very specifically make the claim that RAF Poles were not invited. They state that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." They do not say "barred some of the": they say "barred the". In fact, when we look at the full version of the quote in the prologue as can be independently verified online by any editor, we find it says "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." I wonder why our article has the weaker version of Olson & Cloud's claim, not the one about "deliberately and specifically". Varsovian (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the quote in the article from the prologue (usually a summary which omits some details)? No? I believe usually a prologue comes before the main text, which why it's called the prologue, and "pg. 397" doesn't sound like it comes before the main text, unless it's a really long prologue. Does the prologue state that the RAF pilots were not invited? No. It only states that they did not march - which they didn't, right? If you want to argue with the quote you give above, then find a Wikipedia article that actually includes it, and take it there. And where do Cloud & Olson "very specifically make the claim that RAF Poles were not invited"? "Very specifically" implies something more than your own personal interpretation of the metaphysical meaning of the word "the".radek (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

still OR
With this edit at least you are no longer claiming that the sources in it say the opposite of what they actually say. However, this is still OR - please see my quote from OR policy above. You need a secondary source(s) which talk about the "historical record", "media reports of the time", "statements from the British government" (actually just one dude). While this isn't as blatant a misrepresentation of what these primary sources state as what there was there before, it is still phrased in a very misleading way. First, the phrasing "Other sources" is POV as it is obviously meant to imply that these primary sources contradict Cloud&Olson, which they do not. Second, these sources are still about the fact that Polish pilots who had fought in the Battle of Britain were invited , although of course they note that RAF Poles were invited. So you need a secondary source here which is about the fact that Polish pilots who had fought in the Battle of Britain were invited - otherwise, since this fact is in the article already - it should not be here.radek (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A source which states Polish pilots who had fought in the Battle of Britain were invited? There are many: Davies, Ostrowski, Rees and Anders would be the first four which spring to mind. Ostrowski also refers to a media report from the Time. Rees mentions the very same Parlimentary debate in which McNeil makes the referenced statement (and strangely enough Rees' quote is word for word the same as what that primary source Hansard has). I note that you still claim that the sources support the claim that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." when they clearly state that some of such Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, those sources are about the exclusion of Polish troops, though they mention the exception of Polish RAF pilots. You need a secondary source which is specifically about the exception. And you need 2ndery sources which specifically refer to "historical record", "media reports of the time", "statements from the British government". And you're not gonna base your argument on what the meaning of the "the" is? Again, at best the meaning of this "the" is just your interpretation - hence OR.radek (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to pretend that don't understand how English works, there is little point in continuing this discussion. Trying to argue that English does not use the definite article to refer to all of a specific group of a plural noun is little short of pathetic. As for your request for a source which is "specifically about the exception", as noted above Rees writes about that (see the full quote which is now in the article). See also the work of Krzysztof Szmagier, who also uses the word "Only". And for your request for a "2ndery sources which specifically refer to ... "media reports of the time" " see Ostrowski's work where he states "As "The Times" reported at the time:"(it's the same quote which you somehow managed to miss before". For "2ndery sources which specifically refer to ... "statements from the British government" " also see Ostowski where he states "the British Government relented and invited a delegation from the Polish Air Force to take part." Varsovian (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil and do not call me pathetic again as that is a blatant and offensive personal attack.radek (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, look, let's at least see if we can agree to basic facts as they happened - RAF Poles were invited. Other Poles which served under British command were not invited. Because other Polish soldiers were not invited, RAF Poles refused to attend. Is this, in your belief, an accurate, description (omitting some details about Stalin and what have you) of what happened and what the secondary sources like Davies, Rees, Ostrowski, describe?radek (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that is almost entirely accurate. My only disagreement would be your phrasing "other Polish soldiers": no Polish soldiers at all were invited, only Polish airmen were invited; the other point is whether any Poles participated according to Davies Polish pilots and groundcrew took part, however Davies appears to be the only secondary source to state that (there are media reports from the time but nothing in other secondary sources). Varsovian (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since we agree on what basically happened, why do you try to pretend that C&O are contradicted by other sources? C&O are used to reference the fact that "thousands and hundreds" of Polish soldiers were not invited. The same information is in Davies, Reese, etc. So why can't we just write what happened, source it properly, quotes and all, rather than try to create an impression that there is some great controversy in the literature over what actually happened, or try to imply that Polish soldiers were in fact invited? Again, it's not like the article tries to omit the fact that RAF Poles were invited.radek (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Olson & Cloud do not state that ""thousands and hundreds" of Polish soldiers were not invited." Olson and Cloud asset that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." If they had written that the British government "barred hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." they would state that ""thousands and hundreds" of Polish servicemen were not invited." But they do not write that: they say "the hundreds and thousands" You may also wish to note that the article includes sources which state “the Polish fighters who had fought so valiantly with the other Allies in the war, so the Poles were left out.”, “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.” . “When over 130 allied nations marched in the great 1946 Victory Parade in London, the Poles were excluded to appease Stalin.” , “the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946.” . So there is dispute as to what actually happened! Furthermore, the article doesn’t even mention the fact that soldiers from no non-commonwealth/empire nation were invited (other than the honour guard for the national flag, which Poland was invited to send). The US army wasn’t invited! But when I put that fact in the article, it was promptly removed. Anybody reading this article will come away with the impression that Poland was singled out for special bad treatment when the reality is that Poland was the only nation invited to send both ‘free’ and ‘official’ forces! Varsovian (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - does anything else need to be said, or do you still wish to argue over your own personal interpretation of the meaning of the word "the"? Next time, please actually acquire and read a source before claiming that it is "flatly contradicted" by ... your own personal original research. I mean the source itself, not just the prologue.radek (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, plenty still needs to be said. Unlike you I have picked up the source in question and know that the prologue is part of it and differs from the body of the text. Now that Chumchum7 has provided us with the full quote (i.e. the bit which says that Poles were invited, funny how he's twice quoted paragraphs which confirm Poles were invited but missed out the bits which said that), we have five different versions regarding the invitation sent to Poles! Furthermore, we still have sources which state that Poland was excluded from participating. The section is a mess. What is needed is a clear description of what almost all sources agree happened (i.e. Polish govt invited to send reps, western command Polish pilots then invited also, pilots reject their invitation & the reasons therefor, Polish govt rejects its invitations, parade takes place (with Polish participation according to some sources), Polish govt announces why it rejected invite). Then we can have the analysis and the differing explanations as to why which group was invited at the time when it was invited. By the way, good luck in your attempts to learn to what the word "the" means. Varsovian (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)