Talk:Military history of Poland during World War II/Archive 1

Old talk
Does this need to be a separate article? Why not add this detail to the main article on the history of Poland during WW2? 193.131.186.150 13:09, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Because I intended it for listing of details not really be worth to be included into Polish history, a handy list of links. things like Peenemunde, Zegota, Mine detector, Polish pilots, Famous battles (Narvik, Tobruk, Falaise, Arnhem, Monte Cassino), underground actions (sabotage, printing false "German underground newspapers", armed resistance), etc etc etc.

I've started to do it before i quite wikipedia after my edit wars with frau HJ (it was no protecting page scheme then, and i got tired when my evry edit was reverted). I hope i will clean it "Very soon now" szopen

V-2 Capture and Delivery
I found some interesting info's on that but in Polish. , and. I think they should go to the Operation III Most article when sb has the time to translate it. Mind you, this operation is only the delivery part.

And this describes the capture:

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Try Józef Garli&#324;ski, Hitler's Last Weapons: The Underground War Against the V1 and V2, London 1979, ISBN 0904014231. Polecam! Halibutt 17:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to write up a V1/V2 section for the Home Army Wiki page (perhaps it would be better here? But that page is so short...). However, from everything I've read I don't think the claim that the intelligence and capture of the V2 by the AK "became vital to improving Allied anti-V-2 defenses" is credible, simply because the British never developed any kind of defenses to the V-2. The stuff that worked with the V-1; shooting them down, a balloon barrier etc. didn't work with the V-2 because it traveled at too high of an altitude. The British basically had to take it or try to destroy the launching pads. On the other hand, the intelligence provided by the AK which led to the bombing raid on Peenemunde did delay the development of both V-1 and V-2 by more than half a year - which was crucial in the light of the Normandy invasion. The capture of the V-2 and the Most operations were definetly a significant intelligence coup on their own terms but I think it is doubtful they contributed much to ending the war sooner or lessening the damage done to London. radek 22:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To be precise the knowledge that you can't defend your towns against a V-2 is as precious as the defense itself, as it saves efforts and directs the attacks towards the testing and firing grounds. However, the delivery of a V-2 and its complete plans was not a defensive measure as such. Halibutt 23:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Opening of World War II
World War II is generally deemed to have opened with Germany's invasion of Poland. Nevertheless, it is true that some Asian countries had by then already for years been at war with a future Axis power, Japan. It therefore does not seem to me inappropriate, as suggested by a user, to refer to the Polish September 1939 Campaign as the opening of the European theater of World War II, even if that does beg the question of precisely when WW II did begin. Logologist 09:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * While this is essentialy correct (European theater), I believe the question of WWII start has been extensively debated at Talk:World War II. As you yourself wrote, Japan was at that time a FUTURE member of the Axis (Comintern pact aside), and by the same logic one could argue that since Poland was allied with Romania, also a future Axis ally, Poland belonged to both Allies and Axis camps :) And the Japan Asiatic conflicts of 37-39 were not really a World War, they were simply local conflicts that expanded worldwide in time. Still, same could be said about the Polish September or various other conflicts; nobody really planned for World War II. And as the WWII articles sais in lead World War II was a global conflict that started in 1937 or in 1939 I wont mind if you stresst the fact that '39 is the start of War in Europe - but it should be noted that this is one of thr two most common dates of World War II start. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification: the change from "World War II" to "The European theater of World War II" was not made by me but by Chinosaur.  Logologist 15:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The conflict did not become a World War until the involvement of the British and French empires, which were world-wide ones consisting of a significant proportion of the planet. That's why both the Second and First wars were called World Wars, because fighting took place all over the world, as opposed to being confined to particular areas, and geographically widespread parts of the world were simultaneously in states of war. And that's why the Second World War did not start until the French and British became involved on September 3rd 1939. Once they were involved the war automatically became a global one simply due to the involvement of their widespread colonies, and their combined large naval power which extended worldwide. That's why you could have a naval battle off the coast of South America with none of the 'local' countries involved.


 * Once Britain and France became involved then by-extension so did; Australia, Algeria, South Africa, New Zealand, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), French Indo China (Vietnam), Canada, Singapore, Malaya, (now Malaysia), India (now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), Syria, Hong Kong, West Indies, Burma and numerous others I could mention. It was their combined involvement that made it a World War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Numbers, numbers
Do we have any sources supporting the claim that Poland was the third/second ally in the opening of the war? I.e. size of Polish troops 1) before the fall of France 2) before entry of USA/SU into the war? Order of battle (list of units, their creation date, etc.) would also be useful. Halibutt? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * During the opening stages of WWII Poland was indeed the second Ally, as it mobilized roughly 1 million of soldiers. Just compare that with the tiny British Army of the time. When it comes to all Polish military formations of WWII (that is both the ones loyal to the government and the ones loyal to Moscow), it is assumed that roughly 2 million men passed through the front-line units (not counting sympatizers, intelligence and all that stuff).


 * Also, at the end of WWII the Polish forces were quite numerous. Roughly 200.000 in the West, (100.000 in the 1st Corps plus Navy plus 1st Armoured plus PAF), roughly 300.000 at home (that is in the Home Army) and some 400.000 loyal to the USSR. So, without all the minor resistance organisations, at the end of the War Poland was still contributing some 900.000 men to the Allied cause. Just compare that with 1.250.000 men of the French forces at the end of 1945. Halibutt 21:47, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

All this first paragraph is absurd. The Polish forces were not the fourth allied force, let's be serious. France had almost 500,000 troops when the Normandy invasion broke out, plus 100,000 resistance fighters. When the allied troops landed, the number of resistance fighters rose up to 400,000. At the end of the war, France had over 1 million troops. They were present in Africa (West, North, East and Madagascar campaigns), in Asia (Syria-Lebanon, Indochina), in Pacific (at the very end, agree), on sea (Mediterranean and Atlantic), and in Europe (Battle of Britain, Western Front, Italian front, and even a airforce squadron in the Eastern Front!). Try to be objective next time, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.134 (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Marek2 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Are you really sober when writing these fancy figures and considerations ? You seem to make a confusion between opinions or feelings and actual facts. Marek2 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? You can't answer me so you accuse me of being drunk, don't you? What original it is!! Look at the Military History of France in WW2, I invent nothing. All the battlefields I have quoted are detailled. In the wikipage for the Free French forces: ''By September 1944, the Free French forces stood at 550,000 (including 195,000 French from North-Africa and 295,000 Maghrebis).[14] This number rose to 1 million by the end of the year. French forces were fighting in Alsace, the Alps, and Brittany. In May 1945, by the end of the war in Europe, the Free French forces comprised 1,300,000 personnel, and included seven infantry divisions and three armoured divisions fighting in Germany making it the fourth allied army in Europe behind the Soviet Union, the USA and the United Kingdom.'' In the wikipage for the French forces of the Interior: Estimated to have a strength of 100,000 in June 1944, the strength of the FFI grew rapidly, doubling by July 1944, and reaching 400,000 by October 1944. That is fact. The fourth Allied Army was French (and exactly from the French Empire), but like most British, you always donwsize the French efforts to useless symbolic stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.224 (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Marek2 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC) These figures are simply erroneous. According to French sources (Paul Gaujac, Le débarquement de Provence, Histoire et collections, 2004, p.180) the maximum numbers of the French Army were : 265.000 in Jan-Feb 1945 for the 1st French Army (de Lattre commanding) + 114.000 French Forces of the Interior (enlisted former underground). So your figure of over 1 million is simply ridiculous, whatever the origin of theses figures, no French source would ever dare claiming this ...BTW, I'm French myself.Marek2 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Learn History, especially if it is your country's one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.22.3 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Errouneous? Check yourself! Why should I care you claim being French? Datas and figures are given but you deny reality! Gaujac spoke only of the 1st Army, you already forgot the Atlantic Army Detachment and the Alpine Army Detachment. Moreover, I was giving you 100,000 Resistants, you give back 114,000 so I guess my datas are perhaps below reality. 265.000 is simply too low. In 44, there were already 233,000 Colonial soldiers! (check the film Indigènes), you must add the former Vichy Army of North Africa, all the exilees of De Gaulle, the 2nd DB of Leclerc, the Free French Navy and Airforce. In September 44, the Resistants did grow to 400,000 men -ironically called the Resistants of September because they made their choice late- who were incorporated in the army as De Gaulle ordered it.


 * The combined armies of the British Empire totalled around 4,000,000 men, including around 2,000,000 Indian volunteers. The French Army around the time of Dunkirk was around two-million men in size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

September campaign
Why there's no simple frase about communist invasion? Poland was attacked by two countries: Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union. It was essential fact. Alfred Jodl have told during Nuremberg Trial, that German army had had the munnition only for four days more when fighting ended. So nazi ally invasion - the Soviets - was crucial. Without it Poland could win the september campaign and there wouldn't be II WW with it's tens of millions victims.


 * September Campaign has its own large article where this is discussed at lenght, although I'd appreciate source (preferably online) with the Jodl quote - I'd love to add this to relevant Wikiquote article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that the USSR entered Poland after the German Reich invaded and after the Polish army left Poland right? You can stop your nazi propaganda now.

-G


 * Dear anon 'G', you should read up a little on the campaign, preferably starting with Polish_September_Campaign. Who do you think fought in the Battle of Grodno (1939), just to name one example?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pics
This article could use some of the pics I posted in the following locations: --Halibutt 13:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk:Warsaw_Uprising
 * 2) Talk:Polish_September_Campaign
 * 3) Talk:Armia_Krajowa

Battle of Britain
According to an article by J. Cynk of 2001, a ratio of Polish victories to others was lower, than described here. After corrections, the British (in 1943) counted 2692 aircraft shot down in a whole battle, 203.5 of it by Poles (7,56%) - 110 of Sq.303, 16 of Sq.302 and 77.5 of Poles in British units. After war and after research in German sources, a total count was decreased to 1733 shot down. There is no precise information available how many were shot down by specific units, so it should be estimated proportionally, that the Poles shot down about 131. In the whole battle, the British had 2927 fighter crewmen, in it 145 Poles (5%). In most important 3rd and 4th phases, RAF had approximately 1450 pilots, in it 90 Poles (6,3%), who shot down 10,3% aircraft in these phases. One more statistic: all RAF fighter pilots in the battle had one victory per 38 missions in average, while the Poles alone had one victory per 18.3 mission (131 victories).

So I propose to write about 5% of pilots, 7,56% of victories in total and 10,3% victories in decisive 3rd and 4th phases. Pibwl &larr; &laquo;  19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sourced data is always better then unsourced. By all means, move your sourced (with footnotes) data in the article and move the unsourced here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Churchill's evaluation of ULTRA
We note that:
 * After the war, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told King George VI: "It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war."

I don't think we should include this in the article because, as I understand it, no modern expert would now agree with this evaluation. Even people who are keen to push the importance of ULTRA's contribution to the war (like Bletchley Park museum, and the author of the British official intelligence history) don't go as far as to say that ULTRA won the war. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Churchill quotation was cited with evident approval by the Imperial War Museum, in London.
 * "The author of the British official intelligence history" (Harry Hinsley) undermined his credibility by distorting and minimizing the Polish contribution to Ultra (as Bletchleyite Gordon Welchman pointed out, there would have been no Ultra without the Poles' contribution). logologist 23:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it unfortunate and very regrettable that many Polish writers &mdash; and, presumably, Polish people in general &mdash; believe that the Polish contribution to ULTRA was deliberately distorted and minimised by British writers, something you implied above. Being a closely guarded secret, the full Enigma story took a while to emerge in full, and initially only part of the picture was available to any writer. The truth is much more likely to be that inaccurate writers were simply ignorant, rather than arrogant or malevolent. I believe Hinsley corrected his mistakes in later volumes of his history. In Kozaczuk and Straszak's recent Enigma book, there is an appendix by Zdzisław Jan Kapera surveying the British literature on Enigma. Kapera comments that, "we understand that some of Hinsley's mistakes were due to lack of access to the original sources or to Polish publications, but some of them were certainly the unexpected effect of the then current bestsellers (Winterbotham and Stevenson)...Let me state that in the last volume of his work Hinsley corrected many of the original inaccuracies and in the main satisfied those interested".


 * More to the point, Hinsley wasn't an expert on the Polish history, but, having served at Bletchley Park, could be expected to have a good grip on the British work. And, of course, it is the British use of Ultra intelligence under discussion. Hinsley, being British and having served at Bletchley Park, would have every reason to claim the largest credit possible for the effects of ULTRA. Therefore, when, as the official British intelligence historian, Hinsley estimates the impact of ULTRA only as shortening the war, rather than winning it outright, he is entirely credible. Indeed, I was under the impression that the consensus of modern historians was that ULTRA wasn't a decisive factor in winning the war outright (although many argue it shortened it considerably, saving countless lives).


 * You also mention the Imperial War Museum. I do know that museums aren't always totally rigorous with what they say. I recently visited the British Science Museum (another London museum and a very respectable institution) where they exhibit an Enigma machine. Unfortunately, the caption claims that it had been invented by Swedish engineer Arthur Scherbius...in fact, Scherbius was German.


 * If the modern consensus is that ULTRA wasn't a decisive factor in winning WWII, then to use quotes to that effect is a poor choice. Let me be clear &mdash; I certainly don't want to deprive the Poles of the credit they deserve, in the same way that I don't want to deprive British or American codebreakers of similar credit &mdash; but we must not claim for them more than is the truth. Or, indeed, more than any modern expert in the field would claim. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Harry Hinsley, in an October 19, 1993, speech on "The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War" (linked to the Harry Hinsley article) says:
 * 1. "Ultra was the [my emphasis] main reason why the British were able to reduce the depredations of the U-Boats in the Atlantic in the second half of 1941."
 * 2. "[T]he problem of undertaking the Normandy landings if th[e] two defeats and controls of the U-Boats hadn't occurred would have been very pronounced."
 * 3. "[E]ven if the U-Boats had prevented [the Normandy landings] from being attempted only until '45, we would have found it an infinitely more difficult operation to do than in 1944.  The Germans would have completed the Atlantic defences, they would be bombarding Britain with 'V' weapons on a massive scale, all of which was in the event cut off by the '44 Landings.  And they would have had a much bigger Panzer Army to deal with the problems."
 * 4. "[W]e started sending [the Russians] a summary of signal intelligence a week before they were attacked by the Germans in '41."  As an example of the ongoing importance of these summaries to the Soviet effort, "a Russian counter-factual historian [might] say that if we [Soviets] didn't have the Ultra which we got in various ways [officially from the British government, unofficially from Soviet spy John Cairncross, working at Bletchley Park], then we wouldn't have been able to win the battle of Kursk and Hitler would have been able to carve up Russia.... Stalingrad of course is another [case of the importance of Ultra intelligence to Soviet strategy and tactics]."
 * 5. "My own conclusion is that [Ultra] shortened the war by not less than two years and probably by four years [my emphasis] — that is the war in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and Europe."

Much can happen in 4 years. In that context, how does one even go about defining "victory"? Whose victory? logologist 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Today, historians tell us that the defeat of Germany would have taken place with or without ULTRA, but that with ULTRA, the war ended earlier than it would otherwise have done, and possibly much earlier. The Churchill and Eisenhower quotes are not useful here because they are not in line with mature modern schlarship, and we're only trying to provide a one or two sentence summary for this article. (It would be worth putting their comments into ULTRA, however). &mdash; Matt Crypto 09:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the best solution be to live those quotes with an explanation that this view has changed over the decades? Btw, can you provide any references to this - quotes by other famous people or academic ones? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be a good (and necessary) solution in the ULTRA article, but I would argue that we don't have the space for it here. I think it's too far from the topic to warrant a digression into how views on the significance of ULTRA differ and how they have been refined over time. The quotes from Churchill and Eisenhower paint an extreme viewpoint, and, I'm led to believe, now a disfavoured one amongst historians. (Some quotes below from various books on Enigma/Ultra). &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "We may at once dismiss the claim that Ultra by itself won the war...we may safely conclude that the Allies would have won even if Ultra had not given the superiority in intelligence which they retained until the end of the war.", F. H. Hinsley, "The influence of Ultra in the Second World War", in Codebreakers: the Inside Story of Bletchley Park, 1993.

Hinsley was asked this question directly in 1993: :
 * "Q. Would we have won the war without Ultra?


 * My own view is that given that the Soviets survived the German attack and the Americans came in as they did, the combined forces of Russia, America and the British would eventually have won the war. The long term relative strengths of Germany and those three counties were such that Germany was bound to lose in the end. But how lengthily and with what damage and destruction we should have succeeded I don't know. I think we would have won but it would have been a long and much more brutal and destructive war."


 * "So, did ULTRA win the war? Some writers claim that it did. But even as hyperbole this is nonsense. The Allies would have won without it --- though at a much greater cost in men and materiel. Some historians argue that `Without ULTRA...the Allies could not have won the Battle of the Atlantic.' This too exaggerates. So does the view that ULTRA stands `at the top' of the factors that influenced the outcome of the Atlantic battle. The most important factor was the construction of an unbelievable number of vessels by American shipyards --- so many so fast that even the total effort of all Donitz's U-boats was doomed to ineffectuality. Also more important than ULTRA was air cover...What effect, then, did ULTRA have? Can it be estimated how many months of war the solving of the naval Enigma saved? Any answer must be hypothetical....So, taken in isolation, it may be concluded that ULTRA saved the world two years of war, billions of dollars, and millions of lives...But events do not occur in isolation...something entirely external to them [the codebreakers] would have taken control of events: the atom bomb. If Germany had continued fighting into the summer of 1945, the first nuclear weapon would probably have exploded not over Hiroshima but over Berlin. And the war would have ended then, no matter what the codebreakers had done, or had not.", David Kahn, Seizing the Enigma, 1992.


 * "The breaking of Enigma cyphers played a significant part in the Second World War. The value of its contribution varied from time to time and from theatre to thatre, but from the middle of 1940 it was an ever-present factor. To say that it won the war or even that it won a particular battle would be a silly exaggeration as well as a gross over-simplification of how wars and battles go. But without a doubt Ultra made a big difference, sometimes a vital one.", Peter Calvocoressi, Top Secret Ultra, 1980.


 * These men and around 10,000 other people, the vast majority of them women, who worked at Bletchley Park did not win the war, but they certainly shortened it, saving countless lives of the conflict [view attributed to Ralph Bennet], Michael Smith, Station X, 1998.
 * "But did code breaking `win' the war, or even shorten the war, as is so often claimed? There the answer is more equivocal...[digression on whether the question is even meaningful/worthwhile]...there is no end to such a chain of speculation. Nor is it really necessary. Churchill and Stalin probably were both closest to the truth when they recognized that what really won the war was American industrial might, an unstoppable force once unleashed...To question the more glib and extravagant claims for the effect of the code breakers' work on the war does not, and should not, take away one iota from the magnificence or the importance of their accomplishments." Stephen Budiansky, Battle of Wits: The Complete Story of Codebreaking in World War II, 2000.


 * "...the breaking of the Naval Enigma is thought to have enabled the Allies to end the war two years earlier than would have been the case without it." (Hugh Sebag-Montefiore, Enigma: The Battle for the Code, 2000).


 * Without Enigma: The Ultra and Fellgiebel Riddles by Kenneth Macksey (2000) apparently (I haven't read it yet) argues that the importance of Ultra has been exaggerated. A review says that, "Ample evidence is produced and clearly presented to show that whilst an important contributor to the Allied victory, the exploitation of Enigma was only part of a much greater effort, and its role has indeed been exaggerated to the detriment of other, less publicised intelligence gathering techniques." (see also ).

Having said that, Kozaczuk and Straszak do differ from other writers Enigma: How the Poles Broke the Nazi Code (2004):
 * "There are, of course, many factors that contributed to the shortening of the war, but it is widely believed that Ultra saved the world at least two years of war and possibly prevented Hitler from winning."

&mdash; Matt Crypto 17:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone appears to be quoting Hinsley about those "two years" (actually, in the 1993 speech he does say "not less than two years and probably... four years"). Hinsley, however, also says in the same speech: "[A]lone among the governments of those years, the British Government as early as the 1920's concentrated all its cryptanalytical effort in one place which it called the Government Code and Cipher School." Which is not true: Poland did the same, perhaps earlier than the British. And as Matt Crypto pointed out, Hinsley was also wrong initially in his assessment of the Polish contribution to Ultra. Could he — and everybody else who echoes him — now be wrong in their assessment of Ultra's influence on the outcome of the war? logologist 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think all the above are simply aping Hinsley &mdash; Budiansky, Kahn and Calvocoressi, in particular, seem to be arriving at the same conclusion using their own thought. Yes, of course, Hinsley could conceivably be wrong, but, to a large extent, it's not for us to work out whether he is right or wrong. Our job, as encyclopedia article writers, is simply to produce high-level summaries of human knowledge about a topic. I would argue that, at least from what I've read on Enigma and ULTRA (only a fraction of what's been written, of course), the more responsible writers are careful not to say that Ultra "won the war"; in fact, they go out of their way to emphasise that that wasn't the case. I do think it's a little unfair of you to cast doubts on Hinsley simply because he has made mistakes. I don't think any writer in this field had managed to avoid factual mistakes in their writing -- not Welchman, Kozaczuk, Rejewski, Winterbotham, or Bertrand, etc. But Hinsley has had access to more sources than most others. While researching for the official history British Intelligence in the Second World War, he was allowed free and complete access to British archive sources on ULTRA and WWII, sources which are not available to the public. Because of this, Hinsley and his coauthors were in a unique position to evaluate the value of ULTRA to the British war effort, and I would suspect this is, in part, why Hinsley's sober evaluation is seen as compelling by other writers. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Prior to recent edits in the articles on the Polish contribution to World War II and Ultra, did any editor say that "Ultra won the war"? The intent had been to reflect the judgment of some who followed Ultra during the war, including Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower and the much-maligned and indeed sometimes mistaken F.W. Winterbotham, who in 1974 blew the cover off The Ultra Secret and cautioned that the war's outcome "was, in fact, a very narrow shave, and the reader may like to ponder... whether or not we might have won had we not had Ultra."  logologist 21:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem as I see it. We give quotes from people (Churchill and Eisenhower) who, despite their importance as historical figures, now represent a minority/obsoleted position in the scholarship of the subject. Moreover, we don't present balancing quotes from the many authors who state explicitly that a simple "ULTRA won the war" view is "nonsense" or "silly" (to quote Kahn and Calvocoressi). I've tried rewriting that section avoiding all quotes, but rather characterising the positions regarding ULTRA instead. I suggest we go into more detail, including the Churchill and Eisenhower quotes, only within the main ULTRA article itself. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, on the Imperial War Museum's website (you mentioned them earlier), it says that "Codebreaking did not win the war, but it probably helped to shorten it - perhaps by a year or more." . &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If you find out how the Imperial War Museum reconciles this conclusion with the Churchill quotation they cited in their "Secret War" exhibit, please let us know. Also it would be interesting to learn how the Museum manages to summarize the Polish contribution with the laconic and disingenuous observation that "In the 1930's Polish cipher experts secretly began to try to crack the code. Just before war broke out they managed to pass models and drawings of Enigma to British and French code-breakers." It would seem the Museum is still relying on Winterbotham's discredited 1974 account rather than, say, on Wikipedia. logologist 02:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiki is no paper, so we do have space. While I'd agree that all of the quotes and a good summary of your arguments belong in ULTRA, not here, I think that a short summary of both sides should be mentioned here. There is another factor of this argument that may be not clear to some: to Poles, Enigma/ULTRA is quite important. While I'd never compromose Wiki NPOV to promote a Polish POV, I do hope we can reach a consensus that is both NPOV correct and satisfies the feeling of involved parties. Having said that, I think that the current version of the article after recent Matt's edits is very good (if missing some sources - which historians say support what point, in what publications - this would be useful to avoid 'weasel words'). I do hope that all the removed quotes (and more you gave above) will find a place in another article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Red Square Parade image
This discussion in relation to the image that an anon user tries to remove from the article is moved from user talk:Irpen
 * Please do not troll on wikipedia

While I would like to assume you'r edits on Polish contribution to World War II were done without malice aforethought, simply out of lack of knowledge on the topic, i'm afraid it would be naīve. As another user has allready explained to you the texts you have linked to refer to the Polish Army under the command of the legal Polish Government, this was greated by you first with simple reverts and later with attempts to insult the person that corrected your "mistake". While you certainly have the right to express whatever political views you like and generally your attitude towards the Poles, please do so on apprpriate internet fora and don't disrupt wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.93.187 (talk • contribs)

The anon or anons supplied his/her/their picture removing edits with the following edit summaries:
 * this is an article about Polish forces not puppet communist forces that took over Poland on behalf on invading USSR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.90.151 (talk • contribs)
 * Communist forces aren't representative of Poland in WW2 (ibid)
 * Communist forces aren't representative of Poland in WW2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.93.187 (talk • contribs)
 * perhaps you could read the articles your compatriot linked instead of blindly reverting to his version, you'd then notice it speaks about the representatives of the Polish state not about any Poles (ibid)
 * (trollish summary not quoted) (ibid)

Response: Dear anonymous, please avoid personal accusations and attacks. Those don't warrant a response. As to the essense of the issue, the article speaks about communist backed forces already and it should. Putting ideological issues aside, these forces played a significant enough role in the WW2 to have their contribution mentioned. The image is illustrative to the article and should not be stricken down for ideological reasons. Additionally, you should avoid attacking your opponents. --Irpen 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen you realise of course that Swierczewski hunted down Home Army and signed death sentences against its members ? Your additions seems highly provacative. Putting his picture here is as neutral as putting Vlassov at the top of article about military history of USSR during WW2. --Molobo 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not the photo of Swierczewski. This is the photo of the Parade and many people are there. I won't add the photo of S. himself to the article since it would have been irrelevant. The image shows the victory parade with the Polish troops marching there, of one of the Polish forces that contributed to the WW2 by fighting Nazis. 150 Polish veterans marched at that parade and some of them are still alive. I don't mention S. in the caption for the article because it is irrelevant in this particular context. I mentioned him under the image in the image file only to give as much info about the image as possible for others, actually telling all I know. Don't try to sensor history. S. marching somewhere would be irrelevant for this article. Polish army members, no matter of which division, are relevant. It is ironic that some wikipedians just confirm what the caption says about the info of the parade being sensored in Poland. They try even to sensor it from the Wikipedia. How about adding the diffs with the image removal as refs to the statement that the fact that Poles did march at the victory parade is attempted to be suppressed. --Irpen 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some one could Read The Fine Articles the three Russian wikipedians are linking to and try to explain to them in Russian that those articles do not claim there weren't any Poles at the parade in Moscow, only that there weren't representatives of the Polish state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.93.187 (talk • contribs)

Please Irpen that were people who murdered Home Army soldiers and established the regime of terror with Stalinist rule in Poland. Please stop this, this is highly inproper as representative image of Polish contribution in WW2, just Vlassov would be in "Soviet citizens contribution in WW2". --Molobo 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is nice POV comparing a nazi collaborator with people who joined to fight for freedom of their country in an allied army representing the country that took the largest impact of nazi wrath and defeated them. Sorry but that grievance is original research and a POV, nothing more.--Kuban Cossack 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, during the WW2 these people where fighting Nazis. They made an important contribution in the War. This is what the article is about, the Polish contribution on the War against Nazis. Vlasov was fighting for Nazis, that't the difference. Don't suppress the info from the article based on your ideological preferences. For example, among the Ukrainians who fought Nazis those who fought for the Red Army and those who fought in the UPA would be equally relevant, unlike those who fought in SS Galicia. You sadly confirm what the caption says, about the info being suppressed by some in Poland. When will you finally start writing instead of removing, reverting and pasting? --Irpen 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Molobo, during the WW2 these people where fighting Nazis.

While gladly murdering Polish Home Army soldiers as well. So either you are claiming that Home Army soldiers are Nazis (I really hope you are not), or deny they represent Poles, both points of view would be hardly ideological-and as Home Army was the legitimate fighting force of legitimate Polish government in exile that represented Poland abroad, they can hardly be seen as representive of Poland in WW2. There are many much more interesting pictures that can present Polish contribution in WW2 then pictures of puppet communist officers who weren't in Poland before 1944 (or 1920 when they fought together with Bolsheviks against Poland).
 * You sadly confirm what the caption says, about the info being suppressed by some in Poland

You just don't get it Irpen. Nobody here in Poland denies that there were such people, but they don't represent Poland but Soviet forces that murdered Home Army and Polish civilians, and thus can't be seen as represantative of Poles. The fact that many soldiers didn't have any other choice but to enlist in order to escape Gulags makes it legitimate to name their number, but the people you want to put as represtatives of Poland are simply Soviet communists who invaded Poland and murdered its people. --Molobo 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't suppress the info from the article based on your ideological preferences.

I am eager to hear your analysis of my ideological preferences on my talk page. So far I haven' presented any. --Molobo 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Polish Army in the East was Soviet-controlled does not reduce its importance. It's a shame that there is so little written so far about Wojsko Ludowe (just a redirect), 1st Polish Army or Armia Ludowa (both stubs). On the other hand, there are quite a few related articles to be written (List of Polish armies in WWII), so I am not sure if there is any anti-Eastern forces bias. The photo is certainly notable, and I see no harm in adding it to the article. I do think, however, that the Kuban Kazak comment (below) is POVed and should not be in main. A balanced discussion of the Victory Parade - why Poles were excluded from the London one, especially (see, ) - should find a place on Wiki (but again I am not sure if this article is the right place for it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Disputed caption:

an event largely forgotten and often officially denied in today's Poland (Denial at site of Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland), , (denial in article written by then Prime-Minister of PL:original+full version in PL+BBC translation in EN).


 * The photo is certainly notable, and I see no harm in adding it to the article

The fact that those on the photo murdered Polish Home Army members. Making it a main photo on the page that should represent Polish contribution is a POV. Also the main general wasn't in Poland before 1944 and in fact fought against Polish army in 1920 on the side of Bolsheviks. --Molobo 01:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Armia Ludowa was not Armia Krajowa, but nonetheless it was a Polish unit, and when all is said and done, the regular soldiers fought well and deserved their parade. Perhaps if we change the caption from Polish soldiers to Armia Ludowa soldiers, and list all people on picture, it will help? The general you refer to is Świerczewski, right?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I also don't get the parnoia. Pictured a Poles who indeed fought Nazis and marched with honor. They played a major role in several battles including the Berlin one. If they are guilty of crimes against Poles, that's a separate issue and this is already elaborated in Wikipedia. I would have not identified Swierczewski when I uploaded the image if I wanted to cheat. No way Molobo would have identified him on his own on the small scale of this pic. S himself is just one of 150 people who marched. --Irpen 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's get things straight and explain this all misunderstanding. This aren't soldiers on the photo, but officers. In addition these are soviet officers that led units created out of Poles in Soviet Union and which have been subordinated to Red Army. They only became Polish officers when Communist Poland has given them command over Polish military-but that was done AFTER the parade. As the parade happened the ONLY legitimate and internationally reckognised Polish forces that existed were those under supervision of the government formed in exile which was internationally reckognised as representing Poland till 5 VII 1945. As the Parade was happening before that date those officers aren't representing Poland. In fact most of them are simply Soviet citizens who haven't been in Poland till 1944. And in fact this reckognised-Irpen himself gave evidence to this-no Polish official reckognises them as representants of Poland as shown by statemnt of Prime Minister Marek Belka he gave. There is no denial-there simply weren't any Polish officers in that parade. Świerczewski and others like him were Soviet officers. Of course the fact that they murdered Home Army and Polish citizens further makes the photo POV. There are really better photos to represent Polish contribution in WW2 then such a POV photo of Soviet officers-Battle for Britain, Operation Market Gardne, Monte Cassino etc. --Molobo 11:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Molobo has a point in that Świerczewski is rather not representative to the Polish war effort. The only time he commanded a Polish unit in the field was during the Dresden operation, which was a complete disaster for the Poles (eventhough after 1945 the commie propaganda portrayed it as yet another brilliant victory of General Walter). Apart from that, he focused on fighting against Poland throughout his life, be it during the Polish-Bolshevik War or against the Polish Secret State. And the fact the guy wore a Polish uniform is because he was ordered to do so by his Red Army superiors. On the other hand he was born Polish, much like Dzierżyński, Rokossowski and many other Soviet commies. Halibutt 12:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this photo has a much more symbolic and breathtaking quality and could be much more representive to Polish war effort: [] A Polish flag waving at the ruins of Monte Cassino. I think it could be a good photo for the start of the article replacing those Soviet commanders. --Molobo 12:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a rather good idea. As well as photos of 303, Błyskawica, Maczek's brigade, Sikorski, Cichociemni, KEDYW... there is a lot to chose from. Although I'd like to have at least one image related to the forces in the East, but preferably of real soldiers, not 'aparatczyk's like Ś. Note that we already have the 'Polish flag over Berlin', presumably related to East forces.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Molobo and Halibutt habitually singing in unison and competing as to who would outdo each other in misconstrued nationalism... yawn. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of images that we can use in the article is restricted by its size. Articles are not galleries. I would certainly welcome more images but not as another attempt to remove the one already there. The army unit marching at the victory parade represents an overall contribution of the army towards the victory. This is a more content carrying image than images of particular events of the war. That Ś happened to be seen in the image is no reason to remove it. I would not censor the images of the Victory parade only because Stalin, which is clearly a more frightening murderer than S., was at that parade as well. If Molobo is eager to add more images, he has to spend time expanding the article so that more images would fit there. That would take some time and is much more difficult than revert warring, but also much more fulfilling. Try it! --Irpen 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if not for the fact that this image is of rather poor quality, and it's caption is not complete: who are the other peoeple in the picture besides Ś.? What unit is marching behind them? I am sure we can find better (nicer looking, better described, at least as relevant) pictures. Until such pictures are added, however, I oppose removal of this particular image (na bezrybiu...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AL size
200,000? The quoted source from this edit  does not support that number, while the source provided by Molobo ( for 30,000) does. Or am I missing something?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Check page 27 of the book I linked to, second column closer to top. --Irpen 04:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, 27 - I haven't read so far. This material is quite interesting, definetly should be used to expand Armia Ludowa article (tnx you both). I think you are both right and the confusion is because Molobo thinks of AL - the partisants (which at best numbered around 60,000) and you think about Wojsko Ludowe (or Ludowe Wojsko Polskie, which Zaloga calls the Polish People's Army), which doesn't have it's own article (only a stub section in AL and a redirect to History of the Polish Army). Note that 1st Polish Army was part of that latter formation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I shall correct all of this right now, using Irpen's information. --Molobo 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

nubers and formations

 * Title was "I think"

We should concentrate on numbers and formations in the article-actions are best reserved for articles on those formations. There is so much Home Army did that it would dominate the article. --Molobo 14:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please title sections and format your comments properly. How meaningful would the "I think" be in TOC? --Irpen 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw residence
Irpen do you have an independent, objective historical source confirming that these are residents of Warsaw meeting Red Army and it is not a faked Soviet propaganda photo ? Both Soviets and Nazis used photo propaganda quite heavily and we have to be sure that it is authentic. --Molobo 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The photo is sourced to the state archive of the Russian federation. If you want to dismiss state archives from WP, start with http://www.ww2.pl/. --Irpen 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The photo is sourced to the state archive of the Russian federation. Well Russian federation is known for its attachment to Soviet version of history while the same cannot be said about current Polish state which distances itself from communist propaganda. I don't deny that the photo is a propaganda photo made by Soviets. But is there some independent site that confirms that these are normal inhabitants of Warsaw and for example local communist party members ? Please give a link to an nonbiased site-I am afraid Russian government can't be seen as neutral in this matter. --Molobo 18:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And the site maintained by the Polish government is unbiased by your logic. Please don't troll. --Irpen 18:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If Polish government is biased please point out so. Shall I give examples of pro-Soviet rhetoric and attachment to Soviet propaganda expressed by Russian government of today ? --Molobo 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It works both ways. Better not start this. --Irpen 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry ? If you believe some data here is biased point it out. It isn't a secret current Russian government feels strong attachment to Soviet Union views of history. Thus it can't be seen as objective when talking about "liberation of Poland" or presenting such data. I am only asking you for a analysis of the photo from a neutral site. --Molobo 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Armia Ludowa numbers
Armia Ludowa had 6.000 soldiers not 30.000. --Molobo 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I used the number from the site you lnked to. Sorry if I misunderstoob. My Polish is poor. Please translate this to Enlish. And please start titiling sections properly, leaving edit summaries and formatting your text. --

30.000 members but only 6.000 soldiers. In the article we only give soldiers as a rule. Home Army had over 500.000(or even 600.000) members according to some estimates. --Molobo 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy edits in haste
Molobo, I have an impression that you make your edits in rush. Please take your time to copyedit yourself. Your habitual POV pushing is a separate issue. --Irpen 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but my edits are referenced and come from Polish PWN Encyclopedia and other respected sources. I am sorry if they conflict your beliefs or the beliefs of Soviet Union and the Russian government of today that it holds towards Poland. --Molobo 19:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

All I said is not to do edit in haste to "outrun" your opponent. That way you often unintentioanlly delete referenced info (in addition to what you delete intentionally). You don't bother to spellcheck yourself and create incomplete sentences just because you rush to push your version in. Similarly, to meaningless article disconnected section titles (like "I think") and lack of formatting your entries, not using edit summaries is all just making the life of others difficult and damages the article rather than improve it. --Irpen 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen I don't think adding Soviet propaganda will improve the article. We don't add Nazi one here, for example that Poles are paid by plutocrats etc, or images of Germans in charge of Polish territories with descriptions "German rebuilding of Poland" or "Hans Frank visits happy Polish workers"(I have such pictures at home btw). Why don't you create an article on Soviet propagand where such information should be more fitting ? Also your constant insistance on providing false data despite repeated remarks that it is wrong speaks badly about your aim of objectivity.--Molobo 20:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please reread what I said above. This is aside from POV disagreements. Don't edit in haste, do proofread what you write rather than try to "outrun" your opponents in pushing as much of your views as possible in the minimum time. Make sure you don't delete refs and paragraph separation blank lines, make sure there are no unfinished sentences, format your entries, don't forget to press "preview" buttons even when leaving a message at talk pages, title sections properly and leave edit summaries. Don't try to write an encyclopedia sitting on your left hand. --Irpen 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Direct your personal remarks at my talk page and don't start offtopic personal remarks on article's page. --Molobo 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is related to this article. I will have to put aside some time later for it to undo your damage. It is just awful, and not just POV but simply damaged in haste. --Irpen 21:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please point out what is POV and adress isuess already presented regarding the information of the article. --Molobo 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't get it, Molobo! I spent at least 3 hours trying to add info to the PL related article yesterday using several sources and referencing them, proofreading my text and trying to make it encyclopedic. It might not been fully NPOV but it was a result of a long dilligent work I tried to do for the PL-related article. Than you come and go over my edit in a couple of hasty sloppy edits just messing them up. If you want to NPOV them, just do it properly rather than destroying my work, erasing links to sources and filling the article with incomplete sentences filled with typos. Again, I am not talking of POV problems here. I am talking about respect to other people's work that is missing when you carelessly go over other people's careful edit with your only goal to alter the POV of the article. Even if this is not your goal or not your only goal, do whatever you do less carelessly. --Irpen 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I repeat-please point out what is POV and concentrate on the article. --Molobo 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point here, Molobo, is do not damage the article by editing it in haste. POV problems are a separate issue. --Irpen

I think you damage it more by giving data you know is false. Molobo

People's Army

 * title was "Sadly"

Irpen continues to add false information about the number of soldiers of Armia Ludowa. I think this speaks for itself as to his contribution here.
 * Molobo, maybe my Polish is poor. The source is linked. Let another Polish editor take a look and change it. How many times did I ask you to title sections properly. What's "sadly" supposed to mean to the reader who sees it in TOC. --Irpen 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Polish is poor yet you claimed to read Trybuna Ludu ? Anyway 30.000 members, 6.000 soldiers. --Molobo 17:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish commanders and side by side
Not really, Soviet created Polish formations were led by Soviet officers like Świerczewski or Żymierski who were Soviet citizens and Soviet officers. Irpen's source itself gives info that 40% of commanders were Soviet officers. In reality those formations were part of Soviet Army not an seperate fighting force. Thus the sentence cannot be seen as neutral as it isn't true. Of course writing that it fought "side by side" is also untrue-it was part of Soviet forces just like any other Soviet formation. --Molobo 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The book I linked, as well as any others, call these formation "Polish units", "Polish forces", etc. The article doesn't hide that they were created in the Soviet Union. They were integrated in Soviet forces, and fought under the Soviet general command, but similarly the troops in the west were figghting under the British command. --Irpen 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

They were integrated in Soviet forces, and fought under the Soviet general command, but similarly the troops in the west were figghting under the British command. Your comparision if flawed and incorrect. Polish forces in the West were under the guidance of Polish government of exile which was the legitimate government of Poland, furthermore they were controlled by secrete police executing anybody speaking badly about the queen. But leaving this aside you are further incorrect. These were formations created by Poland and commanded by Poland. Formations in SU were created and commanded by Soviet Union and any degree of autonomy or self-will was impossible. Furthermore they were commanded by Soviets like Świerczewski or Żymierski not Polish ones, with Berling being a figurhead of the Soviets for a very short time and with no control whatsover. The difference is that while Polish forces in the West were Polish forces in the West the formations you speak of were made from Polish people but part of Soviet army. Out of respect for desperate people who tried to escape gulags and prisons of SU they are given here as example of Polish contribution.But as whole, that is as military formations they represent SU not Poland. Thus they can't "fight side by side" its an absurd sentence. Soviets and Soviets fought side by side ? --Molobo 17:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet propaganda photos
I am afraid Irpen's insistance on using Soviet propaganda as measur of truth is hightly disturbing.We shouldn't add for example Nazi photos of Ukraine with description "Ukraine liberated from bolshevism" neither should we add Soviet photos claiming liberation or greetings from civilians. I kindly ask again Irpen to either start an article on Soviet propaganda or stop using it to describe factual events. --Molobo 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Molobo, the photos are referenced better than most photos at Wikipedia. The book I linked to (neither Soviet nor Russian, BTW) uses the term "liberated" as well. Take another look. The context here is lebration from Nazis, I explained the difference to you many times. --Irpen 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Even books contain mistakes or POV, many authors were influenced by Soviet terminology or vision of history, we here at Wiki don't have to repeat their mistakes. Saying liberation is false as it was occupation by totalitarian state at the same time. Please use neutral word like "taking over". --Molobo 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Would you also say that the United States "took over" France as opposed to liberating France? Or are only the so-called "democratic" countries capable of liberating?

Do you understand the word "liberate"? You don't liberate enslaving. But yes, the USA didn't exactly liberate France and Italy, because Communist rules weren't allowed there. I'm very sad about it. Xx236 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, in that case the word "liberate" should never be used refering to anything liberated from anything. Since liberty is subjective, it is impossible to liberate. Is that what you are saying?

Moscow Parade
Again Polish government doesn't reckognise Soviet officers taking part in the parade as Polish officers-Świerczewski and his collegues were simply Soviet officers. These are soviet officers that led units created out of Poles in Soviet Union and which have been subordinated to Red Army. They only became Polish officers when Communist Poland has given them command over Polish military-but that was done AFTER the parade. As the parade happened the ONLY legitimate and internationally reckognised Polish forces that existed were those under supervision of the government formed in exile which was internationally reckognised as representing Poland till 5 VII 1945. As the Parade was happening before that date those officers aren't representing Poland. In fact most of them are simply Soviet citizens who haven't been in Poland till 1944. --Molobo 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Re legitimate governemnt, it is a separate issue. These were Polish troops and the book calls them such. They fought bravely and deserved their parade. The photo iz not of Świerczewski but of the marching troops. I would not cut the Soviet parade pics out of the articles simply because Stalin is seen no mater how much I hate seeing him. This is a notable foto of a notable event related to the article, because it is about the Polish troops as books call them. --Irpen 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re legitimate governemnt, it is a separate issue. No this is connected to this issue. As of the time of Parade that is 24  VI 1945 the only legitimate government of Poland was the government in exile. Puppet communist government of Poland was reckognised as representing Poland only on 5 VII 1945. So at the time of the parade thos officers couldn't represent the state of Poland. Now is the question-were they Polish citizens ? The officer representing them is Karol Świerczewski-who was a Soviet officer not a Polish one and quite obviously Soviet citizens obedient to Soviet state. Thus he can only represent Soviet Union not Poland as only after 5 VII 1945 he was to become a officer of Communist Poland. Thus both state and personal representation at the photo is of Soviet Union and a Soviet officer. Furthermore as you yourself pointed out Poland doesn't reckognise those officers as Polish. These were Polish troops I am sorry but you are mistaken. No troops are present at the photo. Only officers. The only one identified is a Soviet officer not a Polish one. the book calls them such See above explanation, the author made mistake, at the time of parade they couldn't represent Poland. They fought bravely and deserved their parade. I think murdering Polish citizens, Home Army fighters and occupying Poland in the name of genocidal totalitarian regime with history of mass murder against Poles requires certain other qualities of character Irpen. Thus leaving international law aside those Soviet officers neither objectively can represent state of Poland as they are officers of Soviet Union, nor should they be placed here as example of Polish contribution in WW2. The proper terminology is then Soviet officers of Polish formations of Soviet Union. A short desciption of their atrocities is also in order in the main text. --Molobo 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The photo iz not of Świerczewski but of the marching troops They are no troops on the photo, only officers. Only Świerczewski is given at description. Polish government says they were no Poles on that parade. As Świerczewski is a Soviet officer at this parade and the government of Poland says they were no Polish troops there. This is correct. Soviet troops arent't Polish ones. --Molobo 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

would not cut the Soviet parade pics out of the articles simply because Stalin is seen no mater how much I hate seeing him. I don't care about Stalin. Soviet an Nazi regimes were notorious in their propaganda use of photos. We can't take those photos as correctly describing events they portay. --Molobo 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw offensive
A hightly POV statement that doesn't reflect the reality. Only when the city was ruined and destroyed did the Soviet forces entered the city. Claiming their offensive "drove Nazis out" is out of place here. --Molobo 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Molobo, the article states clearly that the troops stand by while Nazis were suppre4ssing the uprising. This fact is not ommitted. the article clearly states that the city, when it was entered, was ruined. However, claim that the Soviet offense drove Nazis out is factually correct. I wish Poland could do it by itself right in 1939. However, it didn't happen and neither its "allies" did anything much at all despite providing a safe place for the exiled governemnt and fiercely compassionate rhetoric. It was the Soviets, who drove the Nazis out. It is a fact and you are not the only one who is upset by that. I wish Poland could crush Hitler by itself or got some real help from its "allies" in doing that. That would have saved much of Europe. --Irpen 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start the offtopic discussion on why Poland was occupied by Soviet Union and not liberated by its allies. As to the current formulation it is POV and not neutral as it is formulated in a way the conceals the real situation. Only when AK was destroyed and the city ruined Soviet decided to enter the city would be much more neutral formulation. --Molobo 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Counter government
Formulation is POVed. Soviets didn't create the communist puppet government to give people of Poland a choice between two political options but to take over Poland as a country. It wasn't a counterweight to anything. --Molobo 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See this. --Irpen 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this book isn't much credible in this matter. In fact Stalin ordered to survey Polish PoWs for preperation to create his own Polish formations before Nazi invasion. The rest were determined as anti-soviet and murdered. As stated before a more precise then Zaloga's formulation is in order. --Molobo 00:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

AK and antisemitism
The link given by Irpen gives only one incident in which soldiers were punished by Home Army. I propose to move this to main Home Army article as it is an sporadic incident. Current formulation made by Irpen doesn't reflect text in the source he added. Irpen is free to expand the main Home Army article about Home Army and its relation with Jewish partisans and people. Here it doesn't seem fit. --Molobo 03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The link I give is actually very sympathetic to AK and shows that it was not anti-Semitic as an organization. The book accuses NZS plainly and mentions that the Home Army in less certain terms. The article reflects just that. It speaks about NZS's involvement in attacks on the Jews, speaks only about the degree when talking about AK and speaks about AK-ZOB cooperation. Perhaps it could be said better. Let's see what others think


 * And I am surprised by your wanting to move this to separate article. Wasn't it you who pasted stuff from narrower articles to a wider ones in order to move them off-balance? This mention here is brief and, unlike your moves of material, written anew. --Irpen 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am happy to discuss this calmly. Your previous actions over my edits were made simply in great haste. If something is wrong with my edits, and you want to correct it on the spot, rather than dicuss girst, please do it properly. Don't rush into it creating disconnected cut off phrases, duplications of entire paragraphs and lost links and refs. ---Irpen 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The link I give is actually very sympathetic to AK and shows that it was not anti-Semitic as an organization. The book accuses NZS plainly and mentions that the Home Army in less certain terms.

Actually the link provides a completely different picture then you try to present. Mainly that the fights were mainly between Soviet partisans that contained Jewish members and Polish resistance, and incidents of behaviour hostile to Jews were met with harsh punishment by AK. Irpen you can find books that claim more direct that AK is antisemitic, murdered openly Jews etc. --Molobo 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ZZW and ZOB were Soviet partisans? What's next? --Irpen 06:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The usual historical hard facts Irpen, which in free countries are easly published by historians: For example http://www.warsawuprising.com/paper/chodakiewicz1.htm ''However, the main unit of the ŻOB  subordinated itself tactically to the AL in the Old Town only. This was because the Home Army was only willing to accept the Jewish fighters as individuals rather than as a cohesive unit.30 Later, the ŻOB  unit admittedly stuck with the Communists, after their desertion from the Old Town, in the northern suburb of Żoliborz as well.'' http://www.warsawuprising.com/paper/chodakiewicz1.htm This is, once again, a contentious matter. The AK most likely recognized that the Jewish fighters lacked experienced officers and preferred to integrate the fighters into already existing units. Moreover, the pro-Communist leanings of people like Yitzhak Zuckerman, which he acknowledges openly in his memoirs ( A Surplus of Memory: Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993], 523, 527, 533), were doubtless known to the Home Army, or at least strongly suspected, so caution was justified. According to Marysia Warman (née Bronisława or Bronka Feinmesser) of the ŻOB command, “ When the Polish uprising broke out, Antek [Zuckerman] and Marek [Edelman] went to the higher officers in the Polish [Home] army and asked them to take us as a group, as the Jewish Fighting Organization. They refused. ‘Individually, please come, but not as a group; we won’t give you any commander.’ So they went to the Armia Ludowa, and they took us as a group. They gave us a commanding officer.” See Marysia Warman in Mothers, Sisters, Resisters: Oral Histories of Women Who Survived the Holocaust, ed. by Brana Gurewitsch (Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 288. Another close collaborator of Zuckerman, Simha Rothem (“Kazik”), recalls that “the AK disappeared, leaving us in doubt about whether to join them. Some of our members argued against cooperating with the AK because it was an extremely right-wing organization ... In the end Antek [Zuckerman] and I were assigned to negotiate with the command of the command staff of the AL [Armia Ludowa—People’s Army] in Starówka (the Old Town.)” See Simha Rotem (“Kazik”), Memoirs of a Warsaw Ghetto Fighter: The Past Within Me (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994), 120. Compare their accounts with the less reliable opinions expressed by Ainsztein, Jewish Resistance, 674; and Anka Grupińska, “Czekając na wiatr,”  Rzeczpospolita: Plus-Minus , 17-18 April 2004. Ainsztein claims that the AK commanders rejected Zuckerman telling him that “there was no room for his men in the Home Army.” Grupińska is equally misinformed. --Molobo 06:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Resectioning
I have resectioned the article. It now starts with the PSC (which could use some expantions as to how much losses were inflicted on the Germans, how did it cause them to delay the attack West, etc. It than moves to Polish underground (and we need a dedicated article: Underground resistance in Poland (!), and than to Intelligence, which ties into the the Polish Armed Forces in the West. I put sections in air force and navy here, as the Eastern forces had no navy (although they had some air force, IIRC). Than the Polish Armed Forces in the East describes the Eastern forces, and finally we have the Battles sections (which we may want to replace with a link to List of Polish battles - why duplicate it here?) and Technical inventions section, which is the rather unique and can hardly be incorporated into any above sections. Note that we have a lot of subarticles about the various formations (AK, 1st Corps, etc.) but we really need articles which will gather ALL info on resistance, forces in the West and East (as the red links above show what we are missing).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

NZS
Actually it contained Jewish soldiers and liberated a concentration camp. I will expand the article on that, since it seems Irpen wants the contribution to expand on Jewish -NZS relations. Actually that is a bit not accurate, but I shall explain later. --Molobo 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be advisable to expand it in the NZS article - this should be a summary. But as the current article is not that long, I guess we can do it here and when lenght becomes a problem move some stuff to subarticle (although preferably it should be copied at the same time it is added here).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalisation
I added information with sources but sadly user Ghirandajo simply deletes it without comments. --Molobo 07:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Molobo, you know that unlike Piotrus and Co I never feed the trolls like you. Please go away. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo I have a lot of scholary material about Soviet policy regarding my homeland that I still wish to contribute. Cheers. --Molobo 07:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Molobo, your "scholarly material" is called jingoist propaganda. It has no place in Wikipedia, sorry. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

IPN is jingoist propaganda ? Actually they have been accused of being antipolish :) --Molobo 07:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Poltical officers were completely made of Soviets and didn't contain Poles
????????????? Sokorski was Polish, wasn't he? Xx236 14:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets created also political military police, based on thousands of secret informants.
It isn't duplicate and it belongs here. You won't teach me, which Soviet crimes belong to the history of Poland.

" At the end of August 1944, the main officer staff was Russian, they came from the Soviet secret services like the NKGB, the NKVD and the military branch of counter-intelligence called SMERSH. In December 1945, the number of Poles in GZI did not surpass 43%, but year later (1946-1947) has grown up to 77%."

Xx236 12:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces in the West
Polish Armed Forces in the East

There was no symmetry - the Polish Armed Forces in the West were Polish, in the East were Soviet, to control Poland. Xx236 12:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) There was symmetry - as both Polish forces (and arguably, the Eastern - more) fought for liberation of Poland from the nazis. Ko Soi IX 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda?
Irpen lies: ---COMMENTED OUT NONSENSE STATEMENT FROM PROP SOURCE---As a result the majority of Poles viewed these formations as simply Russians who wore Polish uniforms. ---

The source is an interview with a Polish historian. The original statement is: "Bardzo duża część społeczeństwa uważała, że jest to armia przebrana, że to Rosjanie w polskich mundurach".

The statement is about public opinion, not about facts. Polish refugees were seen as "Russians" and Polish nationalists from Silesia as "Germans".

Xx236 12:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Effort
Words like "crucial" or "significant" (as it was before) are not accurate. Over 95% of Axis were taken out by the Big Three and China. Get your facts straight, stop gloryfying Poland. Churchill called her a "hyena" for a reason. With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please give context and citation of Churchill's remark. Nihil novi 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I withdraw my claim and apologize if I offended anyone. The reason for such remark was my initial reaction upon discovering the Polish version of history. Context had to do with the actions of Polish gov-t in the late 1930s, if I remember correctly; goes along with "the bravest of the brave ruled by the foulest of the foul". At any rate, I lost interest in this, so a citation will not be provided. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Main involvements of Polish forces
While I think the template is a nice touch, we need to discuss critieria for selections of battles/conflicts. I removed battle of Studzianka (red link is not a major battle).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody suddenly deleted this template. I spent so much time constructing it... 93.105.95.134 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Really the entire contribution?
It seems on first glance that the article's title and its content do not precisely match up. The contributions listed here are all anti-Nazi. As far as I can tell, this is not balanced by an evaluation of support given to the Nazis. Perhaps the authors of the article would like collaboration listed elsewhere. Or perhaps Polish collaboration is a historical artifact. However, as it is the article reads as the work of Polish apologetics. Remarkably, it manages to present a counter-argument to claims of Polish collaboration and apathy without explicit mention of said collaboration. not to mention the Holocaust I have no axe to grind with Polish contributions to the Allied war effort, but the text as it is appears to be only part of a two sided argument whose other half is implied or forgotten. Maybe all that is needed is simply a change of title to something along the lines of "Polish contribution to the Allies during World War II".


 * Do you have any specific examples that you believe should be mentioned? It's much easier to discuss certain facts than such general remarks. Besides, the level of collaboration in Poland was definitely low (no doubt in part because of fairly efficient underground legal and policing forces). Sure, there were collaborators like everywhere else, but whether the matter should be discussed here or elsewhere is another topic.  // Halibutt 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish First Armored Division
This page doesn't seem to mention the Polish First Armored Division, which fought as a unit of the First Canadian Army. I'll check again. If it doesn't have it, I'll add it in. Climie.ca 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy who thinks he owns Battle of Berlin article wants "sources" for the Polish involvement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Berlin

"If you have reliable sources which mention the Polish contribution then by all means add the details you wish to (with of course citations)." Funny that. I added, he removed, becuase no "citations". (I have other problems with him there, too.) --HanzoHattori 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Is it just me, or does the first paragraph imply that were it not for the Soviet invasion, Poland had realistic hope of resistance against the Germans? With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Szopen 09:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With the gov-t running away to Romania, collapsing Polish front and overall superiority of the Germans? Seems very tendentios to me. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you agree with Soviet historiography/propaganda claims, than it cannot sound otherwise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about Soviet propaganda. Maybe, Polish propaganda/historiography? Didn't the Polish gov-t escape to Romania (around the same time the Russians invaded)? Didn't the Germans break the Polish front in the border battles by September 5th, catching the Polish army, like they would later the Soviet, not fully mobilized or deployed? Sure, this alone didn't mean sure defeat for Poland, but without help from her Western allies, it was just a matter of time. As far as I understand, Polish war plan was to defend until the Western front draws away as much Germans as possible, and than go on a counter-offensive. It's quite possible, that if the Soviets didn't invade, Poland would resist a while longer, but... Poland lost the war the moment her Western allies decided to do nothing. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Polish government escaped to Romania AFTER Soviet aggression. Polish Army was caught by the Germans not fully mobilized, but this was because of Britain and France who urged Poland in late August 1939 to stop mobilization. Soviet aggression was the last nail to the coffin, that is true. However, on September 17 several Polish units were still fighting and resistance was being organized on the Romanian Bridgehead. We can only speculate what would have happened had the Soviets not invaded. With utmost respect Tymek 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point. It's simply a speculation, and should be treated as such. Originally the Germans outnumbered the Poles in infantry 1.5 times, in artillery 3 times, in tanks 4.2 times, in aircraft 2.7 times, not to mention qualitative diferences, also in favour of the Germans. By September 17 the situation didn't get any better for the Poles.' I think it would be better if the Soviet factor is downplayed, since the Soviets were waiting for the Germans to defeat the Polish army, partially because they had to legitimize their agression - and it's safe to say that it's extremely unlikely that Poland could resist the German invasion long enough for their western allies to mount an offensive if the Soviet Union didn't invade. But than, of course, Soviet invasion was the last nail to the coffin. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true to due to the Western betrayal, Polish army was doomed: the Polish Plan Zachód assumed that Polish forces would be able to hold for several months until pressure from Western Allies would draw enough German forces away from the Polish front to allow Polish forces to launch a counteroffensive. As the Western Allies - without telling Poland - planned to wait the war out via trench warfare and when Germans would tire, demand Poland's restoration during negotiations, Polish Army would have been almost certainly been defeated one way or another. However, both Poles and the Western Allies assumed that Polish Army could hold for several months. Whether it could - we don't know, Germans were succeeding in their primary objectives but the Polish fall-back plan to Romanian Bridgehead was never really implemented due to the Soviet invasion. What we know is that Soviet invasion meant that Polish Army couldn't hold the Romanian Bridgehead area for the planned several months, and the Polish Army resistance ended two weeks after the Soviet invasion. As such, Soviets certainly sped up Polish defeat, and rendered both Polish and Western expectations of being able to hold the second front open moot.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tak, and that's why I contest the wording of the opening paragraph, because, as you said "we don't know", and the so-called "realistic hope of conventional resistance" is really not realistic, but speculative, and should be treated as such. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you propose to reword it then?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, "After a successful German offensive, the Soviet Union's invasion from the east on September 17, 1939, ended whatever hope was left for Polish conventional resistance in the Romanian bridgehead."? Or, maybe we could expand this a little. Basically, I want to show that it's questionable that it was the actions of the USSR that sealed the doom of the Polish Army, while anknowledging that the invasion from the east certainly sped up the process. Or a better one: "After a German offensive, that defeated the Polish army, the Soviet Union's invasion from the east...ended whatever hope was left...", although it's a bit of an overstatement, the Polish army suffered several serious defeats, but was not destroyed at the time of the Soviet invasion. Unfortunately, I'm not as well informed about this matter militarily, as I wish I was; to me the first sentence left the impression that it was the Russians, not the Germans, who defeated the Poles. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II&action=edit&section=35
 * Is the current version of the lead satisfactory?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's good. With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If Nazi Germany had not allied with the Soviet Union, the war probably would not have started in 1939 or would not have started at all. Obviously, these are speculations, buy Ko Soi's suggestions are out of place. He wrote "I want to show that it's questionable that it was the actions of the USSR that sealed the doom of the Polish Army". Well, dear Sir. It is beoynd doubt that USSR sealed the doom of Poland, and no impartial historian has doubts about it Tymek 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me reword it. Sure, one can say the actions of the Soviet Union sealed Polish doom and sped up their demise; It's not what I'm contesting. I doubt there is consensus among historians that were it not for the Soviet Union, Poland would be able to succesfully defend itself. The message I was getting is that the Poles would've defended themselves from the Germans, ot at least had a good chance of doing so, were it not for the Russians. In my opinion, there is not much ground for such an optimistic statement. Do you want citations, supporting this? With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to deny the obvious and I do share your opinion that the war had already been lost by September 17, 1939. Poland would have defended itself for a few weeks (or even months) longer, but it had no chance to win this war. The fact is that with or without Soviet invasion, Germany had already emerged as the winner. I am a Polish patriot, but I am not blind and quotations are not necessary as far as I am concerned. Regards Tymek 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we have agreed, now all that has to be done is to somehow word it in an accurate fasion. I'll think about it and propose it here before changing anything. For the note, just because I'm a Russian patriot, it doesn't mean that I'm willing to close my eyes to certain parts of my nation's history. Cheers. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we have to wait for opinion of other contributors. Also - please, no justification of the USSR and its activities Tymek 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "no justification"? With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people here and there try to justify Soviet aggression against Poland and other nations, which cannot be tolerated, as nobody justifies the Nazis and their invasions of other countries. I am not stating that you are one of them, I am just asking. Regards Tymek 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just your POV. Really, it was more complicated than this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be apologetic of Soviet agression (although, in my opinion the Soviet leadership did the right thing; but that's just my POV. In Russian historiography there is no consensus on this matter) or of certain crimes my ansestors commited to your ansestors (like Katyn), but without explanation of Soviet motives, as well as mentioning how their propaganda justified the invasion, the article will have too much of a pro-Polish bias. If we don't mention the disputed status of the so-called Eastern Poland, hostility between USSR and Poland, discrimination against minorities in Poland (of course, this was not the reason for invasion itself, but the sad facts of this were used for propaganda purposes), etc, than we will be disregarding the policies of wikipedia, mainly, NPOV. Such things are facts, not justification for a crime. Just like it's a fact that Poland took part in partitioning of Czechoslovakia alongside with Nazi Germany in 1938. Or like it's a fact that the Soviet Union broke it's own treaties with the circumbaltic dictatorships and annexed them. History is dirty. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "If we don't mention the disputed status of the so-called Eastern Poland" - mutual border was established in Riga in 1921 and neither side disputed it. In fact - the Soviets offered more than Poland wanted, including Minsk. "hostility between USSR and Poland" - how about the 1932 non-aggression pact? "discrimination against minorities in Poland" - true, there was discrimination, but it is a paradox that a country that created Kuropaty, Bykownia and Holodomor was "protecting" the Ukrainians and Belarussians in then-Eastern Poland. Greetings Tymek 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By disputed status I meant that those lands were contested by Russia and Poland for centuries, not their legal status. The non-agression pact has nothing to do with the fact that Soviet military planning viewed Poland as the most likely enemy for most of the interbellum. I bet it had something to do with Polish soldiers in Kiev. There was no paradox. As I said, the Soviet Union used this thesis as a justification of agression. How real this was is, of course, highly debatable. It's unknown, who is responsible for Kuropaty, and the deal with Holodomor is not as simple as the current ukrainian gov-t claims - and, btw, my grandfather's peasant family endured it; not a single person died in their village (of about 500 people), guess they were lucky. With respect, Ko Soi IX 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know anything about Soviet military planning, but I am certain that Polish military did not even think about attacking the Soviet Union, as this would have been equal to suicide (see Plan Wschod). Polish soldiers in Kiev - well, this was in 1920, by 1939 the situation significantly changed. Holodomor - it obviously is disputed but I would rather believe Ukrainian government. As for Kuropaty - we will not know the truth as long as Lukashenka is president of Belarus. Your family was lucky, indeed. Greets Tymek 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely, charging alone against the USSR would be suicide to Poland, but in case Poland would be a part of a coalition, such an agression could be possible. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Polish Flag Monte Cassino3.jpg
Image:Polish Flag Monte Cassino3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Brisv e  gas  09:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing
I'm beginning to do grammar and language usage edits section by section. I think that the organisation and information contained here is quite helpful, but it's a little hard to read. I have no intention of changing content, just streamlining. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:ORP Sokol 1.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Added
On number of troops forced to keep watch over Poland.--Molobo (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

China?
Who writes this crap about how Poland being 4th largest army needs to be taken in prespective? 5th largest after China? What the hell? China wasn't even in the European theater and sounds to me like someone is trying to minimize the Polish forces contribution in Europe here! Since when does China count? China didn't do anything in the European theater! China wasn't in Europe at all! This 5th largest stuff after China is ridiculous and unnecessary. I am tired of these witch hunts on Wikipedia about nationalism,ethnocentrism, and the like forbidding people from holding their own culture as superior, when people are ethnocentric because they were brought up from birth to believe that because it's their culture. Of course they're going to see things like that! It's only natural! This stuff about China is complete crap! Why do you count China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Katyn massacre
According to the European Court of Human Rights the Katyn massacre was a war crime. If not a WWII crime - which one's? I believe that this article should inform about Soviet crimes.Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

False sentence removed
I removed the following sentence: " Despite Hitler's abolition of Poland and his policy of considering Poles sub-human, a few thousand ethnic Poles did volunteer to be German collaborators in the Granatowa policja." As written in Granatowa policja "In October 1939, General Governor Hans Frank ordered the mobilization of the pre-war Polish police into the service of the Germans. The policemen were to report for duty or face the death penalty. Formally, the Polnische Polizei (PP) was subordinate to regular German Ordnungspolizei (Orpo).", they did not volunteer.

Text has been manipulated
''At the low end, Polish estimates often place the number of native Poles at 250,000. Ryszard Kaczmarek of the University of Silesia in Katowice produced a conservative estimate of at least 295,000'' This is not in the source text at all.What it states is that Based on the existing and analogous evidence, Ryszard Kaczmarek concludes that at least 295,000 inhabitants of the incorporated lands served in the German army, 195,000 from category III, of whom no fewere than 75,000 died in the war and 100,000 from from categories I and II The current text implies that there were 295,000 native Poles that served, the source doesn't make this claim at all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ""It is impossible to determine how many ethnically Polish natives it encompassed. Polish estimates commonly put the number at 250,000... Ryszard Kaczmarek concludes that at least 295,000... 195,000 from category III... and 100,000 from categories I and II. But he sees these figures as extremely low estimates and is inclined to accept... a maximum of 500,000. This figure finds some support in reports of the Polish underground of 400,000 to 450,000 Poles from Silesia and Danzig-West Prussia... Theses estimates presume that DVL category III consisted mostly of ethnically Polish natives."


 * In other words at least 195,000, and possibly double that. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You removed that paragraph? François Robere (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I did as it is too much detail for the lead (WP:UNDUE), through a single sentence might be added, I'll have to think about more neutral wording. Overall, conscription of unwilling subjects is not particularly relevant, one might as well try to argue that Polish contribution (collaboration) also included the usage of factories occupied by Poland, not to mention the natural resources or such. Consider: Germans benefited significantly from acquisition of Czech industry and military supplies, but is this really Czech contribution to WWII? Or, if we had an article about Jewish contribution to WWII, how prominent should be the case of Werner Goldberg and like be? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kulczycki doesn't talk about conscription alone: "The participation of non-German Polish citizens in teh Wehrmach resulted from a combination of fators... The early German military successes glamorized the uniform. The spectrum of attitudes included opportunism and adaptation to a situation that frequently changed...". We can move the whole bit to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland if you think it's better. François Robere (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe should be in that article too. But 250,000-500,000 men in Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS is greater than the Polish forces in the West. Huge contribution is not "UNDUE". JoeZ451 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz
 * Unwilling conscription does not belong in either article, and certainly is UNDUE here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: move to Poles in the Wehrmacht (which really needs some attention, BTW) and link in "see also" with other articles. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, through maybe we could use more input from interested editors whether a short section is merited here or will see also suffice. I actually though there are multiple Foo contribution to WWII articles but this is the only one, so in general, we need to think what is its scope. It was clearly intended to show 'positive' contributions and hijacking it into a fork of collaboration in Poland during World War II is not the best idea, to say the least. The difference between voluntary and involuntary contributions is pretty crucial (another relevant article is for example Forced labour under German rule during World War II; many Polish workers were used as slave laborers by Germans - did they 'contribute' to the German war machine? What about Jews in WWII Nazi labor camps? By that logic a Jew forced to dig his grave before being shot 'contributed' to The Holocaust... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullocks, a strawman argument together with misconstruing the citations. To begin with, by your faulty logic fighting against the 1939 invasion should be removed as most Poles were involuntary conscripted to the Polish army. Besides that, service by Poles in the German army was very often voluntary. Poles signed up for the Volksliste for the advantages the status conferred, and the Polish government in exile encouraged this as they wanted to maintain the Polish demographics in the annexed areas. Poles volunteered due to the glamor of service. Poles volunteered so they could chose the unit they could serve in, volunteering so that they would be sent to the safer Western front instead of the more dangerous Eastern front. At the very end of the war, the Germans were losing badly to the Red Army, they became more coercive in calling men in the annexed areas of Poland and in Germany. Polish attitude also changed when they realized the Germans will lose, citation says: "Inevitably, many inhabitants of the incorporated lands took a different view as the war turned against Germany"..JoeZ451 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz
 * Where do you see anything in that source about those soldiers being volunteers and not conscripts? Nobody is denying Poles in annexed territories where conscripted. And you realize that their only alternative was to escape, with desertion being punishable by death? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All sources describe also voluntary service. as well as Belonging to the Nation. Your argument is a strawman. Irrelevant. Service in US forces wasn't voluntary. Deserter Eddie Slovik was executed. Japanese Americans "volunteered" from internment camps to special units: Japanese-American service in World War II, in part to improve their family's prospects. Soviet service in the Red Army was more coercive than the Nazi forces. Dodging enlistment in Soviet Union could lead to entire family in gulag or executed. Barrier troops machine gunned troops that fled battle. Soviet penal battalions held prisoners, sent to the most dangerous tasks like clearing mines. Despite coercion of troops, US and Soviets both contributed to the defeat of Nazi forces. JoeZ451 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz
 * Sure. But the relevant example from your comment would be to try to argue that because Japanese-Americans served in the US Army, then article on the Japanese contribution to WWII should have a section about Japanese-American contribution to the Allies side. As the sources note, Polish soldiers in German army where often deserting and changing sides. Shrug. This is simply not as relevant as other sections. A short section briefly describing the issue may exist, bbut WP:UNDUE must be respected, to avoid creating an impression that this was a significant phenomena rather than a historical footnote. No mainstream history of WWII lists Poland (or Poles) on the Nazi side, and that's the bottom line. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The text referencing the Greifelt trial, other than referencing a primary source, is also a straight-up copy from that source. Please rewrite. François Robere (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That citation is inappropriate and is not scholarly research. I removed it. JoeZ451 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz

Masses of
" Masses of" is proper English, and is used by a scholarly source: "Masses of prewar Polish citizens served not only in the German army but also, not in large numbers, in the Waffen SS. Service in the Whermach had a universal charachter in the incorporated lands...". Piotrus changing this to "A number of": downplays and misconstrues the source. 250,000-500,000 isn't a small number. It is a huge number. The citation writes: "Masses of prewar Polish citizens served not only in the German army but also, not in large numbers, in the Waffen SS. Service in the Whermach had a universal charachter in the incorporated lands... The participation of non-German Polish citizens in the Wehrmacht resulted from a combination of factors...". JoeZ451 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz
 * I have asked User:Nihil novi for 3O, I consider his input re English grammar / usage valuable. Are you a native speaker of English, Joe? I am not. I think masses is, while grammatically correct, not neutral in light of WP:WEASEL guideline. A neutral term like 'number' should be better here. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Masses" is proper English, meaning "a great number of common people". It is used by the citation. "A number" implies a limited or small number. You are misconstruing the citation that states 250,000-500,000 Poles in German service in a universal fashion in the annexed areas. JoeZ451 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz
 * "Masses" is both fraught with unfortunate connotations (cf. José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses, 1929) and unnecessary, since "a number" or "some", in lieu of a specific number, would be more appropriate.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think masses is correct English but if neutrality is a concern I need to read up more on the rules of Wikipedia. Masses does imply majority, does it not? It seems like a literary term more than encyclopedic. - - GI — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhettoInvestigator (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AK-soldiers Parasol Regiment Warsaw Uprising 1944.jpg
 * Jewish prisones of KZGesiowka liberated by Polish Soldiers of Home Army Warsaw1944.jpg
 * Warsaw Uprising by Deczkowki - Wacek Platoon - 15911.jpg