Talk:Military history of Poland during World War II

Fake source
There isn't any sources said polish army was bigger than france. France had 1,300,000 served at the war end.Polish didn't even had 1,000,000.

The man how wrote that wrong message didn't give any source, why would I need to give a source about french army was larger than polish??? Waylon1104 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Waylon1104 "why would I need to give a source about french army was larger than polish" - because that's the Wikipedia policy, per WP:V. Look at the sourced footnote we have: "Numerous sources state that Polish Army was the fourth biggest Allied fighting contingent. Steven J. Zaloga wrote that "by the war's end the Polish Army was the fourth largest contingent of the Allied coalition after the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain." Jerzy Jan Lerski writes "All in all, the Polish units, although divided and controlled by different political orientation, constituted the fourth largest Allied force, after the American, British and Soviet Armies." M. K. Dziewanowski has noted that "if Polish forces fighting in the east and west were added to the resistance fighters, Poland had the fourth largest Allied army in the war (after the USSR, the U.S. and Britain)".  Now, if you can find one or more sources that say that Polish Army was fifth biggest, or that French army was larger than Polish, we can add this information to the article. Otherwise it's WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problem.
 * Also, regarding "France had 1,300,000 served at the war end.Polish didn't even had 1,000,000." Plausible. But AFAIK Polish Army + resistance was much bigger than French until French territories became liberated (see related footnote at Polish_resistance_movement_in_World_War_II). Realistically we are really comparing oranges and apples here, and the best we can do is to cite what reliable sources say, like this footnote does. You may have better luck looking for sources on French army being fourth biggest, people like these claims and often forget about others. (Polish historians forget about French, I am sure French historians forget about Poles too). On a side note, I am surprised there is no article for French contribution to World War II, this would be a better place to discuss that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Waylon1104 There is no information about 4th, 5th, 6th or 10th in the source you based your edit on, plus the source does not mention the Polish Army at all. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Waylon1104 - this article is not about France, the fact that you googled a source claiming whatever is irrelevant. GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella @Piotrus @Waylon1104 Generally, like Piotrus already said, we are really comparing oranges and apples here. We are looking at the whole of World War II, not only 1944 or 1945. The French Army in May 1940 numbered 2.24 million - according to p.69. France had 1.25 million troops in March and then 1.3 million troops in June 1945 - according to . It would make sense and would even be rather nice to see a graph comparing the strengths of the French under arms versus Poles (in the sense of Polish citizens) throughout the war. My guess would be that there might be a few years were Poles outnumber the French on the allied side (perhaps 1942), but overall, the balance would be in favour of the French.
 * Clearly, at the very end of the war in 1945, France had more troops than Poles throughout all armies combined - 249k in the Polish Armed Forces in the West (source found on Polish Armed Forces in the West) + <400k in Berling's army . Even if we are super generous and add 400k for AK, that still makes 1.05 million. Which is less than France's 1.3 million. I would be in favour of changing those statements about Poland being the fourth ally, because Poland, unlike France, never fielded >2 million soldiers at any point in time throughout the war. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We go with what sources say. --> Quote - Poland had the  fourth  largest Allied army in the war (after the USSR, the U.S. , and Britain) - page 276. This article is not about France. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quote page 216 - Inside Poland there were large resistance forces, the Polish Home Army (AK) being the fourth largest fighting force on the allied side, ranking behind the Soviet, American and British but  before the French . GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is not about France, but if France had the fourth largest Army (as the numbers indicate), and being fourth is a position that only one country can hold, not two simultaneously, then if France is 4th, then Poland cannot be 4th. Sometimes historians do make mistakes that are incompatable with what is known by looking at the numbers. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So we should go by your WP:OR calculations not what the sources say? C’mon man 🙂 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are making a false distinction. If we follow the sources, then Poland clearly was not the fourth ally by size of contribution, simply because it never fielded 2 million soldiers at any point in time throughout the war. You don't even have any numbers proving that Poland was the fourth ally by size of contribution. Even if you discard the calculation I did only regarding Poland (which was also generous towards it), France undeniably contributed more than Poland ever did.
 * The source for Poland had the fourth largest Allied army in the war (after the USSR, the U.S., and Britain) is Dziewanowski, M.K. Poland in the Twentieth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977) p.143. When you check that page, this is what is written:
 * During the Allied invasion of Europe in 1944, two Polish army corps were fighting in the west, scoring impressive victories at Falaise and Monte Casino. The Polish army founded in Russia also gave a good account of itself and eventually participated actively in the capture of Berlin. At the end of the war the Polish government in London alon had at its command some 200,000 men. If one adds to this the nearly equally numerous Polish forces coming from the USSR and the Polish underground movement of some 300,000 people, the Polish component of the Allied forces ranks in fourth place, behind the USSR, the United States, and Great Britain, but well ahead of France and other Allied nations with far greater resources. So, Dziewanowski's calculations yield <700k Poles under arms in 1945. Unbeknownst to him, the French at the same time had half a million more soldiers, as we know thanks to other sources.
 * Seemingly, the sources claiming that Poland was the fourth ally by size of contribution are doing so based on ignorance instead of fact. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I would guess that all the claims about Poland being the fourth ally seem to ultimately go back to Dziewanowski, because he is the earliest source among the ones currently listed that support the statement. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep doing your WP:OR mathematics. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I am doing is not WP:OR, because multiple sources list France among the major allies (which are generally four countries) of World War II, with zero mention of Poland. You not addressing the numbers, when this is the very essence of the contributions question, seems disingenous, especially when they can be easily found and compared. I know that sensational claims about Poland being the fourth ally sound good to those who are favourably predisposed to Poland, no matter if they are professional historians or Wikipedia editors, but ignoring objective numbers as well as their comparison is simply against common sense. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but GCB makes a valid point about OR. When reliable historians make mistakes, we need other reliable historians to call them out. Otherwise, we can only quote differing accounts, like Williamson (unfortunately I only get snippet view for him so I cannot even get the full quote to, well, quote). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the logic but we need sources for that. Also, how if at all do we substract collaborationist Vichy forces from this (ex. Syria–Lebanon campaign, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if it is somehow proven that the Polish army was larger than the French (usually only Free France counts), the question still remains whether the Polish army was larger than the Yugoslav forces, or whether the Chinese army should be included in this list. It really doesn't matter. At the end of the war, there were three large Allied armies (American, Soviet and British) and several medium ones, it is difficult to establish a specific order because their numbers were fluid and difficult to determine due to the fact that they operated in the underground.
 * I just wouldn't include this information. Marcelus (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella @Piotrus I agree with Marcelus that this information should simply not be included because their numbers were fluid and difficult to determine which makes such comparisons problematic. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. We have reliable sources for that. It would bew good to find out more sources comparing the size of medium armies, but we have reliable scholars making estimates, and very little cotradiction in sources. All is good. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources I gave did mention polish had the fifth largest Allied army in the war. Why don't you approve it? Waylon1104 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The both sources claimed Polish was the fifth largest Allied forces. You can't be unreasonable. Waylon1104 (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's progress. You mean this and this? In the future, please link the sources here for discussion, and preferably quote from them. Anyway, the first source is not acceptable (Xlibris is a self-publishing company). The second, by David G. Williamson, seems ok, but I don't see it clarifying that the French were the fourth? (People keep forgetting the Chinese, btw). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Waylon1104 - Why don’t you create an article French contribution to World War II, that might be an interesting article and you could use that source you googled there. This article isn’t about France. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Name of this article
"contribution to World War II" is ambigious, it could also be read as "contribution to starting the war". How about renaming this to Polish contribution to Allies in World War II Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Polish contribution to Allied victory in World War 2? Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marcelus Sounds good. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with me too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella @Marcelus @Piotrus Shouldn't the article title be more in line with how other similar articles are titled? Following the examples of Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II, Military history of the United States during World War II, Military history of France during World War II, I would suggest that this article should be called Military history of Poland during World War II, which is now only a redirect to History of Poland (1939–1945). Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea to consider too! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s a good idea also, even better. Thanks @Cukrakalnis - GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I think we have an agreement here, I'll make a request at WR:RM for a technical move. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, done! ─ The Aafī   (talk)  03:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)