Talk:Polish–Soviet War/Archive 2

Not POV anymore?
As it seems to me that we have reached a compromise on User:172/Polish-Soviet_War and the article is unprotected again, would anybody object to removing the POV tag? 172, since you put it there in the first place, can you remove it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would. Some of my questions were not replied so far and instead were moved to the archives. Also, I still dispute the new header, especially the mention of 1926 which, in my opinion, serves some strange agenda, but definitely not the neutrality of this article. Halibutt 12:23, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved all old talk to archive since it was very large and *most* of it was not relevant anymore. By all means, plese bring back the unresolved issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid there's no need to. 172 didn't care to answer the questions back then and I doubt he will answer them at all, this would be just a waste of space here. Anyway, here's my proposal of the header:


 * First three paragraphs unchanged


 * fourth paragraph: the sentence A formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, was signed on March 18, 1921, dividing the disputed territory between Poland and Soviet Russia. sticked to the third paragraph, the rest of the paragraph moved to the aftermath section, with the following change: the sentence Pilsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen and in 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a coup d'etat. turned into Pi&#322;sudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen, and the national democrats lost the post-war elections. Also, the new president Gabriel Narutowicz elected in 1922 was a leftist politician.. While I agree it has equally small relevance to the article, the new sentences at least fit into the time-frame of the article, while the 172's version was out of the blue.


 * The fifth paragraph (The war is referred to by several names...) moved back into a separate names of the war (or similar name) section, between the header and the Prelude section.


 * These are the major problems I have with the new uber-header, I have several other, mostly minor objections as well, but these can be fixed later.

--Halibutt 02:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections from 172 or anybody else in the coming 48h, I agree we can make the change. Although was GN leftist or socialist? Remember that right/left distinction is European, and not really recognized in those terms in US, for example (I think). Anyway, I am back to work on the non-lead sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it is more then 72h with nobody discussing this issue either here or by doing any changes to the article, so I am going to remove this tag. Anyway, I think it is bizzare...'this article may be POV' - why not 'this article may not be POV'? :) Either it is and we have a dispute here or it is not and we don't, end of story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To do
Incorporate materials from archive and sandbox to article, especially on Weynard mission. Time to work, ppl! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely not "Weynard" but "Weygand"? Logologist 00:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Allied Mission, more details
Norman Davies, in White Eagle, Red Star, has some details about the French Military Mission. Quoting the key passages:

''... the French mission commanded considerable respect and influence through the activities of its 400 officer-instructors. These men, distributed among the cadres of the Polish Staff, were entrusted with the task of training the officer corps in the art of military science and in the use of French army manuals.''

(these manuals were important since, to quote from another passage: ''Only in July 1919 (my note: to clear the confusion in the Polish army) it was decided to rely exclusively on French army manuals and procedures, and to submit to the instruction of General Henrys and his military mission.)

Continuing, Davies describes a typical officer in the mission:

''Typical of them was a young captain, Charles de Gaulle. Newly released from internment as a prisoner of war at Ingolstadt in Bavaria, de Gaulle had been anxious for active service; as the son of a patriotic Catholic family, he was attracted by the prospect of an anti-Bolshevik campaign in Poland. In May 1919, he joined the 5th Chasseurs Polonais at Sille-le-Guillaume and in the body of Haller's army travelled with them to East Galicia. At the end of that campaign, he was transferred to Rembertów near Warsaw where, in the former school of the Tsarist Imperial Guard, he lectured on the theory of tactics. In July and August he was attached for a short period to a Polish combat unit, and raised to the rank of major. In 1921, he was offered a permanent commission in Poland, but preferred to develop his ideas and experiences by returning to France as a lecturer on military history at Saint-Cyr.''

As these passages illustrate, the discussion of the Allied mission in the lead is still inaccurate. The mission was not dispatched in the summer of 1920 as the lead now seems to suggest, but in fact functioned since 1919.

Furthermore, if any specific names connected with the mission should be mentioned in the lead, it should be those of General Adrian Carton De Wiart, the commander of the British mission, and General Henrys, the commander of the French mission. These men were in Poland for many months and actually contributed something. General Weygand arrived in Poland around 24 July 1920 and left on 25 August, 1920. We already agreed that his advice as to military operations was ignored by Pilsudski and the Polish Staff. And his contribution to the administrative organisation of Poland's army could not have been that large - after all what could a single individual accomplish in one month?

Weygand's name is only mentioned prominently in connection to the Polish-Soviet war because of the myth that he was responsible for the victory in the battle of Warsaw. Let's not perpetuate this myth.

Since the introduction was so heavily fought over, I will not touch it for now, but I invite 172 or Piotrus to incorporate the above information as they see fit. Balcer 04:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strength
Please correct the ridiculous number of 5,000,000 of Tukhachevsky forces in the battlebox. Such crowd would have trampled the whole Europe. Mikkalai 21:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it looks a bit high, also it seems to be an estimated highest size for the *entire* Red Army in years 1919-1921. I cannot find the source to back this up ATM, could you provide a better estimate, preferrably source? I think it should be in Davies book, but I don't have access to a copy right now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is some data by Davies, who of course frequently admits that accurate figures for this chaotic period are always difficult to obtain. Furthermore, the numbers were vastly different at various times.


 * In the Spring of 1919 conscription produced a Red Army of 2,300,000, with an additional 550,000 men conscripted in February 1920. However, in 1919 very few of these were sent west, so these numbers are not very relevant.


 * In September 1919 Polish army had 540,000 men under arms, 230,000 of these on the Soviet front.


 * Balance of forces in April 1920, at the start of the operations in Ukraine. At this point the Red Army South-West Front had, on 20 March, 83,000 men, but of these only 29,000 fighting men. Soviet authors writing in 1930 give Poles a superiority of 52,000 to 12,000 in this sector. Again however, the situation was extremely chaotic and these numbers are largely meaningless.


 * Key period around August, 1920. At this point, due to the consolidation of the Soviet regime, the Red Army increased to about 5 million men.  This number was far greater than the number of weapons available, and only one in nine soldiers could be classified fighting men. In the course of 1920, almost 800,000 men were sent to the Polish war, of whom 402,000 went to the Western front and 355,000 to the armies of the South-West front in Galicia.  The Soviet manpower pool in the West was estimated at 790,000.


 * In 20 August, 1920, Polish army had reached the strength of 737,767, so there was rough numerical parity between the Polish army and the Soviet forces acting against it.

Fauntleroy
The man's name wasn't "Faunt-le-Roy" but "Fauntleroy," as you will discover if you look at the enlargement, which gives the two men's names. And I think Cooper's full name was actually "Merian C. Cooper." Logologist 06:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Goes to show that even books and articles can be wrong :) Tnx --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major expantion
In the push towards FA I am expanding the article translating majoirty of info from the following sources:, ,. Feel free to wikify, correct language and copy info into relevant subarticles, but please dont remove anything until I write here I am done - I want to have the big picture in one article first before we decide what to move (move, not copy) to subarticles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review
As we are waiting for a map, we can as well go through a peer review processes in the meantime. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article reads a bit Polo-centric
This article is not entirely POV, really, but it just seems to read like it is... can't really explain it, but such formulations as: "Pilsudski's combination of far-reaching predictions, and understanding, with his soul and body of a fighter; also, his integrity." seem to me to be a bit on the overly praising side, nearing POV. Nevertheless, this is a good article.
 * Well, this may be a bit over the top. Feel free to make it more NPOVed if you have an idea how to. Tnx for the comments, I am glad you enjoyed the article. You may consider reigstering and signing your comments, dear Anon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the lead should mention that the Polish-Soviet war ended in what might be called a partitionment of Belarus and Ukraine. Belarusians and Ukrainians were hoping to have their own independent states, and it seems insulting to refer to those countries simply as "disputed territories". – Kpalion (talk) 23:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the Ukraine. However, Belarus was neither a subject of the international law nor was it existent at the moment the Riga peace treaty was signed. Certainly we could mention that some of the Belarusians wanted to have their own state, but we should not go to far in that. Halibutt 00:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is a piece of Polish propaganda written by Poles. Even without reading the text you can see that on the amount of the Polish self-glorifying images. The Soviets didn't want this war, the first action they did in 1918, was seeking peace on the western border for any price. After that, they were struggling for survival in the Russian civil war. The last thing they wished was a new war. On the other side, we have an aggressive Greater Poland fan Pilsudski, who wanted to restore Poland "from sea to sea", as it has existed in the 17th century. He wanted no "federation", he wanted Greater Poland. And he aimed at subordinating areas, where Poles were only a small minority or were even completely absent. And no one can make me believe that Poles were welcomed in Ukraine or Belarus. Belarusians didn't even do anything for independence, they feeled almost Russian and wanted to stay in Russia. The Ukrainians' attitude towards Poles can be seen in Volynia in 1943-44. Moreover, you hardly can expect objectivity from an article declared one of a "priority task" by a so-called "WikiProject Polish Army". Therefore I will mark this biased article as NPOV. Please let is so, until the article is reedited in an unbiased and objective way, mentioning all points of view. Voevoda 02:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * To maintain an NPOV tag, you really need to be much more specific about problems in the article &mdash; above you seem to be making an argument about something, but the only thing you mention about the article is the images. I've had a quick look, and I see both Polish and Soviet posters labelled as "propaganda" &mdash; seems neutral enough to me. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This article has passed through some thorough peer review, and has been scrutinised by a lot of people. Because of this, the tag shouldn't remain unless you provide some convincing, specific evidence of bias &mdash; maybe you're right, but you haven't yet shown how. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article was written by persons why relied mostly on Polish POV and sources. I have an impression that people with Russian POV (and with knowledge in the subject) did not really work upon the article. "Common knowledge"-type Russian POV is stronlgy biased by the Soviet POV. An independent non-pro-communist Russian research barely started.
 * So I'd say there is no reason to panic. If there is an additional information, Voevoda is welcome to add. Mikkalai 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. However I think that we should discuss them here, especially in case of new sections. The article is long and new material should be preferably added to subarticles, with just a short sentence or two here - this is what should happen to the POW section, which should be moved to Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How could someone mark the result of the war “Polish victory” if even the article itself indicates that both countries claimed the victory, neither one fully reached its goals, Polish casualties (as mentioned in the article) greatly exceeded those of the Bolsheviks, Polish imperial ambitions (“a Polish-led confederation comprising Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and other Central and East European countries”) were thwarted, etc? Literally, only a blind person would not notice the bias of the article, which is full of the artwork and photographs that are glorifying the Polish troops. Would the “unbiased” author claim that similar materials depicting Bolshevik troops driving Poles out of Ukraine and Byelorussia (as Microsoft Word spells it) do not exist? Why would the author repeatedly mention that the Jews and Byelorussians are behind the attempts to establish a Bolshevik rule in Polish lands, while even he acknowledges the role of Felix Dzerzhinsky in this process? Should it be mentioned then that at the same time Poles (Dzerzhinsky, by far, wasn’t he only one) and other non-Russians tried to establish communist rule over the rest of the former Russian Empire? Why would the author take time to explain how badly trained and prepared was the Polish army (despite the presence of experienced high-ranking officers and foreign instructors and volunteers) and yet fail to acknowledge that the Bolsheviks were a ragtag band of poorly trained and undisciplined man, who were led by the commanders with, at most, junior officer training, and could hardly be considered a regular army at all? The famous literary description of this “army” could be found in Babel’s “Konarmia”. If an ability of an untrained army to inflict a greater damage upon a better organized adversary is considered a victory, Bolsheviks, not the Poles, should have scored the point. The statement that the liberation of Kiev from the Poles was a bitter day for Ukrainians is a pure expression of the author’s bias. How about the scores of Ukrainians in the Bolshevik army? How about the Ukrainians who were not Bolshevik supporters, but had no desire to be ruled by Poles? Many similar examples are found throughout the page. The whole interpretation of the conflict from the Bolshevik side is hardly mentioned. For them, this was the process of a communist revolution within the boundaries of a single country (Russian Empire). In their view, a multinational Bolshevik army was fighting local “capitalists” and nationalists (not only in Poland, but also elsewhere), which were supported by foreign governments. That view has to be mentioned when the author presents the position of the left-leaning European politicians, who opposed Poland. The fact of Polish ethnic majority in Wilno (Vilnius), which is used to explain Polish annexation of the city, may be correct, but is not obvious. For example, the history of the city states that it had less then 200000 citizens shortly before the World War II, while 70000 of its Jewish citizens were later murdered by Nazis. Considering that not all the Jews were murdered (including the ones deported during a short Soviet occupation) and some non-Jews lived in the city as well, it is not obvious that Poles had the clear majority. Actual census numbers would help to justify the author’s statement. If the supporting data is unavailable, the statement should be deleted. Overall, it is surprising that a page so obviously biased was selected as one of the best pages. This may be explained only by the fact that, in comparison to the Poles, Russians are much less proficient in English and still lack an adequate Internet access to affect the functions of Wikipedia.

lost footnote
I was fixing the references and notes and found this lost soul. I've deleted it for now, but maybe someone knows where it should be?


 * D'Abernon, 'The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World: Warsaw, 1920'.


 * I believe that entire quote was moved to Wikiquote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polish POW camps
I'd be interested to learn more about these Polish POW camps and the fate of the Russian POWs there. Any references ? Lysy 06:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My question as well. I will look into it. What is written is mostly correct, although I we should note that the newly recreated Polish state had tiny budget, insufficient for construction of good POW camps. And the mentioned ephidemics is And it attempted to provide some medicine to counter the ephidemics. On the contrary, I read that Soviets had executed many thousands of Polish POWs. I need to back this with references. This section should be moved to Aftermath... article, with few sentenced remaining here - it is important, but the article is too long. And external links need to be footnoted ASAP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that Battle of Warsaw (1920) has a phote entitled 'Soviet mass execution graves of Polish POWs' or sth similar, which took place somewhen before the Battle. And IIRC the full text (I am not sure if it is in main or sub now) had at least one refference to another execution, after the Battle of Warsaw, by Gaj's retreating Cossack cavalry (who decided that POWs would slow them down and decided to execute them instead of releasing them). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * On this forum I started a discussion about Polish camps for Russian POWs. Since there is not much info available online, I obtained the book by Zbigniew Karpus from the Warsaw University Library and I'm currently reading through it. I'll post some info on the topic as soon as I finish. From what I can tell, the Russian allegations that hundreds of thousands of Russian POWs were slaughtered are unsubstantiated and false, especially that there is no proof so far that there were as many Russian POWs in Polish captivity. The Polish sources quoted by Karpus (easily available from the Central Military Archives and the Archive of Modern Documents in Warsaw) give the number of POWs taken during the entire war while the Russian articles posted by one of my friends provide the number some 2 times higher - without any sources however.


 * Anyway, I'll let you know as soon as I finish the book. It's available also in Russian and English, in case anyone wanted to use it as a source. Halibutt 13:29, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

There can also be a confusion of the origin of these camps. Huge number of Russian POWs were left in the territory of Poland since WWI. AFAIK when the Polish-Soviet skirmishes started, these POWs were not released to Russia (definitely not, as of January 2, 1919, when Soviet Red Cross mission was murdered in Poland). Mikkalai 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, in WWI about 3.9 million soldiers of the Russian Empire were taken prisoners by the Central Powers, and quite a lot of them must have found themselves on Polish territory after the war ended and the Central Powers disintegrated in November, 1918. However, this matter is clearly outside the scope of this article.  Still, it is a very interesting topic and should be discussed in some article, presumably one dealing in general with large movements of people in Central/Eastern Europe at the end of WWI.
 * Can you provide more details about the murder of the Soviet Red Cross commision? I have never heard of this, but of course I am far from being an expert. Balcer 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in Davis book. They were supposed to be exiled, but were instead shoot during the transport by their 'guards'. It is unknown if this was ordered or simply invented by the guards, and if they were punished (at least Davies doesn't describe this in much detail). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pilsudski, Miedzymorze and Dmowski
I removed the following addition, since it is erroneus: Some historians see the policy of Pilsudski in re-creating Poland, as it existed in the 17th century, subordinating many non-Polish areas, and point at the lack of willingness of the involved nations for any kind of projects together with Poland. From what I read (Davies comes to mind as a reference, since I just reread the relevant fragment yeasterday :) ), Pilsudski was in favour of a confederation, giving the 'non-Polish areas' either large autonomy or total independence (he spoke of the 'right for all nationalities for self-determination'). Unfortunaly, it seems he was in minority, as Polish factions were dominated by Dmowski nationalist faction (which did advocate mostly what the paragraph stipulated, but were content with 1st partition (1772) borders, not the much larger pre-1772 borders), and it appears that Lithuanian side, at least, was also dominated by their equivalent of Dmowskis, which effectively torpedoed Pilsudski's plan and led to the long standing feud betweeen respective govs instead. I need materials on Latvia and Estonia views here (Latvia, from what I tell, was fairly pro-Polish, since we gave them their capital - an interesting contrast with Lithuania...). And Ukrainians - at least Peltura ones - have agreed with Pilsudski, but were betrayed in Riga, for which Pilsudski apologised to them. It is all written in the relevant subarticles - see causes... and aftermath... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * On relevant note, see .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong POV article
I wonder, how this POV article became featured.I removed one of POVs: that by Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Soviet Union allied itself with Hitler. Using similar arguments, I can say, that Poland allied itself with Hitler in 1938 sharing Czech Silesia between themselves, but "surprisingly Hitler invaded Poland and got Silesia back" on 1 September 1939. In fact, MR Pact was non-aggression pact, yes, it may be considered as against Poland, but the aim of it for the USSR was to protect itself from anticommunist and antibolshevist Nazi Germany.

Piotrus said, that he doesn't use Polish sources. But in fact he did. I see, that he used Western sources only to get facts, but along with this he introduced his own opinion, which fits pretty well to the former campaign in East European countries: whitewashing Hitler and blackwashing Soviet Union, which defeated him. You speak about Soviet propaganda, but forget about propaganda in Western countries and in recent EU members. 213.115.184.126 15:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, while the official part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact, the secret part was an alliance to partition Poland and the Baltics. Read the text. As to your example, you're trying to oversimplify things. I don't know of any secret document signed between Poland and Germany regarding Czechoslovakia. Do you? Lysy 15:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think describing it as an alliance is problematic. While the west certainly viewed it as an alliance, Stalin never saw himself as the ally of Hitler.  The term "alliance" suggests a commitment to aid one another militarily.  Aside from the very limited case of aiding one another in Poland, which Stalin very specifically justified in a way which was not "I am coming to the aid of my ally Hitler," there was no obligation on either side to provide military aid.  Indeed, Hitler provided no aid to Stalin's war against Finland, and Stalin did not provide any direct aid to Hitler in his campaigns in the west, although he certainly gave him a lot of economic resources.  At any rate, the question of whether or not Germany and the Soviet Union made an "alliance" is so caught up with the question of what, exactly, an alliance is, that I would prefer not to use the term. john k 21:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I can think of one clear example of direct military aid to Hitler from USSR which involves the operations of the German auxiliary cruiser Komet (see ). This warship was allowed to transfer through the Soviet controlled Arctic shipping routes, guided by Soviet pilots and preceeded by Soviet icebreakers, in order to break out into the Pacific and attack Allied shipping there.  Another case of close cooperation is the transfer of the incomplete German heavy cruiser Lutzow (see ) to be finished for the Soviet Navy, with the help of German technicians.  At the time, in 1940, the planned tonnage of this ship classed among the top ten most powerful units of the Kriegsmarine.  Balcer 22:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And there is the case of technology-for-resources exchange that has been going on since mid-1930s I believe. Weren't some German tank or plane prototypes tested in USSR to avoid post-Versailles restrictions on their construction in Germany - in exchange for providing Soviets with some designes and such? Similarly, there was the naval technology for resource transfer in the late 1930s, IIRC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Alliance: An alliance can be: an agreement between two parties, particularly: a military alliance formed between states.
 * Military alliance: A Military alliance is an agreement between two, or more, countries; related to wartime planning, commitments, and/or contingencies; such agreements can be both defensive and offensive. Military alliances often involve non-military agreements, in addition to their primary purpose.
 * What is not clear here ? The Soviet-German alliance perfectly matches the definition. Lysy 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss until you can provide a source beyond other wikipedia articles. That said, the Soviets, and their supporters among historians, fervently denied that the pact constituted an alliance. john k 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What can I say ? If you believe that Wikipedia's article defining alliance is not correct, then you should go there and try to improve it. I think it's a correct definition but I'm curious to see your arguments against it. Lysy 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is poor form to cite a wikipedia article as a justification for how another wikipedia article should be. Wikipedia is not a valid source for anything.  Certainly not for a dictionary type definition. john k 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the Soviets and such bothersome items as truth and facts often didn't get along to well :> Seriously, now. If we are unwilling to use wiki definitons (which I can understand - Lysy, consider a discussion where two parties change the defintion then say they are right based on that... :>), there is always the Google Define, which does yeld very similar results to our own current Wiki defs (from WordNet lexical database at Princeton: an organization of people (or countries) involved in a pact or treaty; a formal agreement establishing an association or alliance between nations or other groups to achieve a particular aim). Does sound like a MRPact to me. I would argue that based on those definitions any Non-Agression Pact *is* a form alliance. Still, I would be willing to fix the sentence, since it is a bit misleading. Suggestion 1: add 'temporarily' to allied. Suggestion 2: replace 'allied' with some better word (treaty? agreeement?). I'd prefer option 1 but I am open for other suggestions, after all, I am not a native English speaker. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the definitions, I'm happy to discuss the merit, but don't take "it's not good because it's wiki" as a serious argument. As for the treaty, while the public part of it was indeed a non-aggresion pact, the secret protocol was nothing less but a classical example of offensive military alliance, where both parties even in advance shared the territories they planned to invade. Is also left Soviets no other choice but to join the invasion once Germany started the war. Otherwise their obligations in the alliance would not be fulfilled. Lysy 05:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not "it's not good because it's wiki," it's "this is a worthless citation because it's wiki." I often use wikipedia as a source for factual information.  But I'm pretty dubious for its use as a definition of something as generic as an alliance.  Why not just use the dictionary?  If you used wikipedia to show that, say, John Paul II was pope in 1985, then, okay, whatever - wikipedia's usually pretty good for that stuff.  But as a definition of something?  Such things are highly capable of abuse, and, as Piotrus showed, it's perfectly easy to find a definition somewhere else.  At any rate, while I would agree that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had many characteristics of an alliance, both sides were very specific in not describing it as an alliance.  It seems wrong to just call it an alliance, when this is not what either side felt it to be.  I'd prefer to say that the Soviets signed an agreement to partition Poland with Nazi Germany, or some such.  john k 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * John, I am afraid I have to disagree on both points. While I don't think using wiki definitions in wiki discussions is 100% safe (as I said above), I don't think it is completly worthless. And excuse me if I won't put much trust in what Nazi and Soviet called their relations. It is obvious that for the interested parties the term alliance was difficult - if not outright dangerous. Both side new it was a temporary alliance, and that their people would have trouble understanding the necessity of fighting a former ally - so they painted it as a treaty, not an alliance. And anyway, the alliance protocols were secret, so the official, public treaty, was in fact not an alliance, and thus both sides could claim it was not an alliance, as long as the secret protocol was secret. Using your logic, we would have to dispute things like Holocaust (since Nazi denied them), Katyn Massacre (since Soviet denied it), and hundred of others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is apparent both from the careful wording and the political situation in Europe at that time that both sides attempted the pact not to appear as an alliance. This is one of the reasons why the additional protocol was kept secret and why the alliance was disguised as a non-aggression pact. Mere signing it caused enough outrage in Europe even without the knowledge of its true intentions. It is well known that later in the course of war Stalin attempted to pretend that it was his pure defensive measure to sign it and that from the very beginning he expected war with Nazi Germany but only wanted to gain some time to arm and prepare his defences. It's also known how surprised he was with the German invasion of Soviet Union later.
 * While I do not have any strong opinion here, I'd be happier to learn why shouldn't we call it an alliance ? Is it because the signing parties pretended it not to be an alliance or just because we should be politically correct towards Soviet supporters ? Do they have any arguments other then they don't like it ? Lysy 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A bit OT, but how accepted is the theory that Soviets prepared for attack on Germany and their early losses were compunded by the fact that they were suprised in the middle of preparing for an offensive? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not very accepted at all, I think. john k 14:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not just go with the Merriam-Webster dictionary which gives one meaning of alliance as :
 * alliance - an association to further the common interests of the members; specifically : a confederation of nations by treaty
 * Clearly this is very broad and the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact would fit under this definition.


 * As for the way that USSR and Germany described the treaty at the time, we don't have to accept what these regimes chose to call their arrangement. Especially when the name is such a blatant euphemism, as this nonagression pact resulted in millions of people being conquered or taken over by the two signatories.  In general, goverments often give pleasant sounding names to very unpleasant actions, and it would be ridiculous for us to always take them at face value.  To give an obvious, more recent example, we should not accept unquestioningly the US government calling their invasion of Iraq liberation. Balcer 06:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you think about Munich Agreement September 30 1938? I'll site non-Wikipedian, non-Russian source :Shortly after 0100 hours the Munich Agreement, allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia, is signed, by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, French Premier &#1049;douard Daladier, Italian leader Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain says "This is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." Very strong alliance, isn't it? What is the difference between secret "alliance" (MR Pact) and open "alliance" (Munich Agreement) and which is better? I think, that MR Pact was a sort of answer to Western States on Munich Agreement: "if you, the West, deal with Hitler in such way, why we Soviets couldn't do the same?" But Wikipedia's "serious historians" prefer to call Stalin's treaty alliance and just keep silence concerning Munich Agreement. Just read through the timeline in the source mentioned to understand what NPOV is like. BTW pay attention to "18/04/1939 The USSR proposes a ten-year alliance with Britain and France" there, which was not accepted by the West. And also look at "18/03/1939 The Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, suggests to British Ambassador Sir William Seeds that delegates from the UK, Soviet Union, France, Poland, and Romania should meet to discuss collective action in the event of war with Germany. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tells the Cabinet that continuing negotiations with Adolf Hitler is impossible." there. 213.115.184.126 09:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * For starters, Western Powers didn't claim Czechoslovakian territories, they simply allowed Germany to take it. As for Poland, it didn't undermine Czech government before and during the Treaty, they just grabbed what was near when it was apparent that it was either 'take it yourself or let Germany take it all' situation. IIRC, Hungary also took a significant part of Czech in 1938. You rise an interesting point with the British refusal for NAP with Soviets (although one should remember that Soviets were rather famous for breaking treaties when they felt they were no longer in their interest). There is quite an interesting theory that both German and Western diplomacy wanted a conflict between Nazi's and Soviets, and the entire war with the West happend more or less by accident. But this is OT and largly irrelevant to our 'alliance or not' discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting view: ones "just take territories", others "ally to take territories". For starters, please, point an exact place in MR Pact, where is said: "USSR and NG form an alliance". For myself "a step for peace" in Churchills words about Munich Agreement sounds much alike MR Pact words: "non-aggression". The questioned paragraph also pretends to "communist propaganda" POV on all Soviet sources, i.e. indirectly and "naturally" raising one sources (Western and Polish) and denying others (Soviet and even Russian - as pro-Soviet), although one of countries in question is USSR/Russia and its POV should be present. Very nice FA. 213.115.184.126 13:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt that personal attacks on your opponents and calling them Wikipedia's "serious historians" is a good strategy as it could quickly lead us to a flame or edit war that we do not really need at all. If you don't treat wikpedia seriously then what are you doing here ? While switching context to Munich Agreement certainly would be a good tactics from the point of view of rhetorics, why don't we finish our discussion on MR Pact first. Could anyone explain why he thinks it was not an act of alliance between the Nazis and the Soviets ? Any arguments other than pointing around ? Lysy 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the wording crucial? Why not just describe the events?  There have been alliances that have proven evanescent, there have been agreements that have been durable.  Only interests persist, and even those evolve.  logologist 09:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. I don't see any reason to change it. Why is the wording so important ? Lysy 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither have I seen any arguments or defintions that would warrant change of the term alliance. We are refering specifically to the secret protocols, not to the official NAP anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you reject even non-Wikipedian and non-Russian sources (where there are no words "alliance"). I say once again, even your apriori rejection of all Soviet sources as "propaganda" is a strong POV, not speaking about your strange criteria for "reliable/non-reliable sources" .I'll not just "point around" giving you clear links to my sources, if you continue discussion representing your own Polish view (two of you are Polish) without pointing non-Wikipedian sources for "alliances", and if you go to the edit war, I think, editwared should be FARC nominated first and I'll do that. 213.115.184.126 12:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alliance or not ?
It's a bitter satisfaction but why I'm not surprised that our anon here attempts to force an edit war instead of trying to explain why he believes that the pact did not create an alliance. Can you discuss it first before you force your POV please ? So, one more attempt: Why do you think the secret protocol of M-R Pact did not constitute an alliance between Nazis and Soviets ? What was it missing ? Lysy 13:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I point you a source in Russian including the whole treaty with secret protocol (from the book published in Moscow in 2000, the source is pointed there). Please, point me a word which translates as alliance. The key words used are "division of spheres of influence", "neutrality", "non-aggression" etc. As an option, please, point me an English translation with a word alliance or a serious history research in English where this word is used. 213.115.184.126 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I know the text, it's full of euphemisms and the fact that it does not contain the word "alliance" does not mean that it was not an alliance. We all know too well the exact intentions and immediate consequences of signing this pact, don't we ? Lysy 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, point a serious research on this pact in English with this word, less rhetoric, please. We all know, but differently interpret. 213.115.184.126 15:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, *this* serious research ? How about Stalin's Role in the Coming of World War II by R.C. Raack in World Affairs (vol. 158, no.4). I'm sure you'll claim it's not serious enough now ? But seriously, since it fits very well the definition of alliance, why would you want to conduct a research on this ? Why does it seem that important for you anyway ? Lysy 16:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See below. I hoped you'll provide a weblink, not non-verifiable source. I'll give a hint :-): search in Britannica or Encarta or smth similar. 213.115.184.126 17:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you asked for an example of "serious research on this pact in English with this word" and you got it. I'm not surprised that you do not like it. You never mentioned that it has to be from Encarta, though. Lysy 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is another one:
 * The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler by Roberts, Geoffrey R., Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989 ( Amazon link, review link)
 * Lysy - if it's you who wrote that part - please do not confuse the established figure of speech "Unholy Alliance" with the usage of the word "alliance" in other contexts, such as politics and diplomacy. "Unholy Alliance" typically refers to two unlikely partners joining forces to damage or threaten the interests of a third party. In many ways, an "Unholy Alliance" even is the opposite of a regular alliance. -Thorsten1 17:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it was not me. But this book indeed seems to refer to alliance, see the review at . Lysy 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I (Balcer) wrote this. Of course USSR and Germany were unlikely partners, given their pre-1939 propaganda, so that the term "Unholy Alliance" is apt.  Still, "Unholy Alliance" is an opposite of "Alliance"???  Excuse me but I am not following your dialectics here.  I always thought the opposite of alliance was war, or at least a total lack of cooperation. Balcer 17:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Please refer to my earlier explanation on the different connotations of "alliance" and "pact" somewhere on this page - sorry, but I'm losing my way in this ever-growing mess. Maybe it'll become clearer then. If not, here I go again: In politics, an "alliance" typically refers to two or more partners with similar perspectives joining forces to continuously cooperate on a broader range of issues which do not have to be precisely defined, such as NATO or the Warsaw Pact.
 * In this case, though, we're looking at two parties which appeared to be on the brink of war engaging in a very short-lived agreement, as their otherwise polar interests happened to converge on a particular issue at a particular moment. That is not what an English speaker would normally refer to as an "alliance" - although it may well be called an "unholy alliance". Take "unholy alliance", subtract "unholy", and the meaning can be quite different. To use your above example: "The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler" sounds OK; "The Unholy Pact: Stalin's Alliance with Hitler" sounds awkward. The English languages has other words for such situations where two parties work together, but fall short of actually forging an "alliance": treaty or pact; if you want to add a moral connotation, you can use "collusion". The long established, neutral term is Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact, and I see no reason why we should replace "alliance" with "pact". Period. For the time being, I will no longer post in this thread, as it is eating up too much of my time. --Thorsten1 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. While I still think that 'alliance' is correct and NPOV, I would also agree to the use of 'agreement', 'treaty', or even 'pact' (which does seem to be a most common use!), since for this article the MRP is a minor issue anyway, and we are wasting time discussing this. The important thing is stating the fact that the Second Polish Republic was destroyed 20 years after the war, not the details of how and why - it is not important for *this* article. I also ask our anon - who does show some promise, not engaging in rv the main article, and do provides some interesting info (below) - to present the sentence here in the NPOVed form. Hopefully we can work out an agreement soon. I also invite you to register and show other POVed examples you see in this article, so we may try to fix them. Finally, our anon may be interested in reading through past archives of this talk page (above) to see how this article was previously NPOVed by a Russian wikipedist (172), who, unfortunately, seems to have left our community :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Just searched with google for words "Stalin" and "Hitler". BTW "Unholy" is already POV issue (see NPOV def.)?

Can anyone present a serious source which uses the word "alliance" to refer to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Given that my proposed language provides the same basic information (that the Nazis and Soviets agreed to partition Poland between them), but without controversy, I don't see what the issue is. john k 14:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * See above.


 * I'm sorry, but I have been following this meandering thread with increasing confusion. What is this fuss all about? As far as I understand, the person behind the IP address is taking offence with the statement that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an "alliance" because it defames Stalin. First off, there's little left to defame about Stalin. And while I agree that the paragraph in dispute has a slight Cold War feel to it, and that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact does not precisely match most common definitions of the term "alliance", there can be no doubt as to the nature and substance of the pact, which spoke of an "friendly agreement" regarding Poland's future. ("&#1042;&#1086; &#1074;&#1089;&#1103;&#1082;&#1086;&#1084; &#1089;&#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1072;&#1077;, &#1086;&#1073;&#1072; &#1055;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1072; &#1073;&#1091;&#1076;&#1091;&#1090; &#1088;&#1077;&#1096;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1101;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090; &#1074;&#1086;&#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089; &#1074; &#1087;&#1086;&#1088;&#1103;&#1076;&#1082;&#1077; &#1076;&#1088;&#1091;&#1078;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1086;&#1073;&#1086;&#1102;&#1076;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1086;&#1075;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1080;&#1103; ".) Whether you call this "friendly agreement" an alliance, a pact, a treaty or whatever doesn't make much of a difference, does it? Why not stick to the conventional nomenclature, call it a pact and be done with it? --Thorsten1 15:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, I don't think it's worth the time we're spending on it. I would however prefer WP articles to be written to reflect the facts and not to be politically correct only to satisfy Soviet POV. This discussion does not belong here anyway. Lysy 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to prolong this any more than necessary, but this is not a case of "facts" vs. "political correctness". Irrespective of Wikipedia's current definition of the term "alliance", in international politics the word is usually used to denote a lasting agreement between partner states with similar perspectives on various issues, often reinforced with institutionalised organisational ties - NATO and the Warsaw Pact being good examples. In this case, we are talking about a pact between two antagonistic partners who in many respects were polar opposites, but happened to find themselves agreeing on one particular issue at a particular moment in time. So they sat down and drew up an agreement that they would not interfere with each others' aggressive plans against third parties for the time being. That is not what you'd typically call an alliance in English. Which does not make it any more morally defensible. --Thorsten1 16:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you say so... But I assume *your* English is a bit different than *mine*. In mine alliance does not to be a huge multinational pact as NATO or Warsaw Pact neither it has to last longer than two years or so or be reinforced by institutional ties. But your mileage may vary ... Lysy 16:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It may vary indeed. If you're interested, please refer to the linguistic drivel I just added somewhere above. With all due respect, it strikes me as pretty significant that stubborn insistence on particular words tends to come from people whose first language is not English. Remember we had quite a similar discussion on whether or not Poland was "betrayed". --Thorsten1 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't represent neither Soviet nor Russian POV at all. Even the references are English, but three Polish. As I said, it is Polish-American POV in its excellency, although the war is Polish-Soviet. 213.115.184.126 16:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any American POV at all here. I think you are very much overestimating the importance of the topic to the American public. As for the missing Russian perspective, you are free to add this and provide references. But please do not change undisputed facts because they do not match the Russian perspective. --Thorsten1 16:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is rather Polish with excerpts from American sources for more or less NPOV issues.I am here not to rewrite the article, It requires serious work and I have no time for this. It was FAC, I looked through it and found at least two strong POV issues, I objected. It was not handled, instead, it was ignored. I could FARC-nominate it immediately, but was involved to useless in its great part discussion. Perhaps I'll do it and state my reasons there.213.115.184.126 17:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, but the sentence about "communist propaganda" should be removed too. 213.115.184.126 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to the sentence: "Until 1989 [...] the Polish-Bolshevik War was either omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books, or was presented so as to fit with the 'truths' of communist propaganda." I can't see how this statement of fact could offend anyone except those who think "communist propaganda" is an oxymoron. --Thorsten1 15:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I should accept the following factual its variant:Until 1989 [...] the Polish-Soviet War was either omitted or presented as a victory for Soviet Russia in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books. 213.115.184.126 15:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether or not the war was presented as a victory or not. It is whether the war was presented as a traditional clash between two nations, or a new kind of war between two ideologies or classes, i.e. the reactionary, bourgeois, nationalist Polish upper-class vs. the progressive, internationalist working class, which just happened to be led by Russian nationals. Thus, "[...] was either omitted or presented as a victory for Soviet Russia in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books so as to fit with communist propaganda" would be an acceptable version. --Thorsten1 16:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't quite recall it ever being presented (in Poland) as a victory of Soviet Russia, rather just silently ignored or interpreted as a victory of ugly bourgeois pre-war Poland over progressive Soviet revolution. But mayby it's just my memory that is weak ? Anyone heard of it as a *victory* of Soviet Russia ? Lysy 16:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about that, too, but I can't seem to find my archive of Soviet bloc textbooks right now, so I decided not to question that part of the statement. Especially since, as pointed out above, the question is not "who won", but "who won". If you get my drift. --Thorsten1 17:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * At least in Soviet sources it was, I have one near me now. Thorsten1 if you change "propaganda" with "ideology", I'll treat it as compromise variant. 213.115.184.126 17:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. --Thorsten1 17:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair. In fact it would be worthwhile even to add another sentence mentioning that in Soviet sources it was presented as a victory, I was not aware of this, and when I read Tukhachevsky's lectures I thought that he pictured this as a Soviet defeat not victory ? Lysy 17:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (namely: in paid access through http://encycl.yandex.ru/) 3rd ed., 1973 article about Civil War in Russia. There are cited Lenin's Complete Works, roughly translated as:"...Soviet defeat near Warsaw didn't mean the loss of the war..." and further, after October 12 1920 treaty "... Poland got its border 50-100 km to the west from the one suggested by the Soviet government on Spring 1920 without the war.Therefore the objective result of the Soviet-Polish war was the victory of Soviet Russia." 213.115.184.126 17:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, this article is even in FREE access. Follow the link Click on "&#1055;&#1086;&#1083;&#1085;&#1099;&#1081; &#1090;&#1077;&#1082;&#1089;&#1090; &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100;&#1080;...". Search for "&#1055;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1072; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1080;&#1083;&#1072;" within the article and you'll find that place. 213.115.184.126 17:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would add: "In later Soviet ideology the result of the war was depicted as a victory of Soviet Russia." at the end of this paragraph, allright ? Lysy 17:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a minute. 213.115.184.126 17:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's hardly enough now, when I found encyclopedical source (although the Soviet one, but encyclopedical). The reason, why Soviets presented it as a victory, i.e. this excerpt should be added somewhere: "... Poland got its border 50-100 km to the west from the one suggested by the Soviet government on Spring 1920 without the war.Therefore the objective result of the Soviet-Polish war was the victory of Soviet Russia." 213.115.184.126 18:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Provided you add this, you can add a reference to GSE into "References section" (the reference to GSE 3rd ed. English translation is in the article Great Soviet Encyclopedia. At leawst one Russian source will be among Polish-American ones. making the article less POV. 213.115.184.126 18:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I understood it. So how about: "In Soviet ideology the result of the war was and still is depicted as a victory of Soviet Russia, based on a claim that Soviets were happy to offer Polish eastern borders 100km eastwards compared to what was achieved as an outcome of the war" ? Lysy 18:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * First, "westwards"."Happy" is a POV. 213.115.184.126 18:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "In Soviet ideology the result of the war was and still is depicted as a victory of Soviet Russia, based on a claim that Soviets offered Polish eastern borders 100km westwards compared to what was achieved as an outcome of the war" ? Lysy 19:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should expand on this a little. Saying that Poles won the war is way to general - good for warbox (with a note, perhaps), but in the aftermath we should expand on it (although it already is extensive, perhaps it may use more expantion). Neither had the Soviets really lost the war. In the end, both country survived, and neither was destroyed - or even crippled. Perhaps the result should be described as unconclusive? Gotta check Britannica and other sources for 'who won' in them. Consider the following factions: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Pilsudski who wanted to create a federation - failed
 * Dmowski who wanted to create a large, centralised and nationalist Poland - won
 * Peltura's Ukrainians, allied with Poland, who wanted an independend Ukraine - failed (and generally all Ukrainians failed in this)
 * Bolshevik faction who wanted to promote a commie revolution in Poland and through it, Europe (the bridge faction) - failed
 * Bolshevik faction who wanted to rebuild after RCW first - won (especially as they kept Ukrainian fields and Dnietroplavsk (IIRC) industrial center).
 * Lithuanians who allied with Soviets to get Wilno - failed
 * Did I forget anybody?
 * I also say, that this article needs much work. Perhaps I'll add FARC here and will not continue discussion - I have no time for it. Just I think that it's raw for FA yet. BTW Thorsten's "compromise" is not honest he said he will change "alliance" with "pact" and the sentence should include "represented as a victory". 213.115.184.126 18:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't quite see your point. You took offence with "communist propaganda", but suggested that "if you change "propaganda" with "ideology", I'll treat it as compromise variant.". I found that acceptable as it basically conveys the same meaning, and you seem to feel better with it, so I restored the paragraphs you had deleted, replacing "propaganda" with "ideology" as per your request.
 * Regarding "alliance" vs. "pact", that is a completely unrelated issue. I found myself fighting on two fronts here: Towards you I was arguing how the word can be used, while you felt it musn't be used; whereas towards the Polish (?) colleagues I was trying to explain that the word doesn't need to be used when they apparently felt it had to be used. I think that pact is a much better choice, because an alliance is something significantly - but not totally! - different. If you want to go ahead an replace "alliance" with "pact", I fully support you. I was just too lazy and not emotionally involved enough to do that myself. Also, I will certainly not object to "presented as a victory". However, I think that the Soviet POV should be dealt with more extensively than that, and I assume you are more qualified to take care of that than I am. --Thorsten1
 * I added FARC template.I haven't time to rewrite this article for Polish (?) colleagues. Just I said it's not FA yet on its FAC page not long ago. My arguments were not taken care of, instead, the article was promoted. Therefore, now I place it for FARC. My mistake was to go into this useless discussion with my points already pretty clearly listed. 213.115.184.126 20:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear 213.115.184.126, I'm disappointed that you decided to fling down the gauntlet on the rather immaterial issue of whether or not this ought to be a featured article. Even in the unlikely event that your motion will pass, the article itself will remain as is. If you think that the specific Russian POV is underrepresented, which can hardly be denied, you should try and put it into the article yourself. This can be done with relatively little effort, simply by starting another chapter. I would be glad if, rather than putting on an obstructive FARC side show, you would continue to help with the article itself. --Thorsten1 20:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the Nazi-Soviet Alliance - both countries not only agreed to partition large part of Europe between them, but also cooperated both militarily (joint siege of Lwów, parade in Brze&#347;&#263;...) and economically. This fits perfectly well both the Encarta and Encarta definitions.


 * Whether or not it was an alliance, it is not normally called an alliance, and I see no particularly compelling argument to use that word. john k 14:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither there's any obvious reason to change it. And you've already seen examples where it actually is normally called an alliance. We don't really need to go through this again, do we ? Do you think it's worth our time ? I'm still kind of curious: Why is it so important for you not to mention that Soviets allied with the Nazis on this ? Lysy 16:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Lysy, one might just as well reverse the question: Why is it so important to you to call the "friendly agreement" an "alliance", when "pact" is a less ambiguous and established term? This is getting tedious, but I find myself between a rock and a hard place here. I was trying to explain to the anonymous Russian user why the agreement can arguably be called an alliance, with the emphasis on arguably. At the same time I'm trying to explain to you guys why "alliance" is nevertheless not the best choice. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, an alliance is "a formal agreement between two or more nations for mutual support in case of war. An alliance provides for combined action on the part of two or more independent states and is usually defensive in form, since it obligates allies to join forces if one or more of them is attacked by another nation. Alliances are typically defined by a treaty, the most critical clauses of which are those that define the casus foederis, or the circumstances under which an ally becomes obligated to aid a fellow ally.". And: "Alliances in modern times have required a joint effort far more integrated than was called for by alliances in earlier times. Thus, for example, in the coalitions of World War II, combined agencies for military and economic planning were a common and conspicuous feature. Even in less tightly knit alliances, such as NATO, great importance has been attached to close and cooperative action , both military and political [...]" (emphases added). Although other usages are possible, the above is a very good exemplification of what the average person thinks of when they hear or read the word "alliance". And it is obviously quite different in nature from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which included no clauses on mutual support, was not defensive, did not obligate either party to do anything, let alone to aid the other party, did not specify a casus foederis, did not include any kind of political integration and cooperation - and the last thing it was was defensive.
 * To play the devil's advocate once again, applying the loose definition favoured by the "Polish" faction ("an association of two or more nations united by a formal treaty for some agreed-upon purpose"), one may go as far as calling the Treaty of Riga a Polish-Soviet alliance - as it included an agreement to cease hostilities and divide territories between the two parties, ignoring Ukraine's and Belarus's desire to become independent. Likewise, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact included an agreement not to start hostilities and divide territories between the two parties, ignoring Poland's and the Baltic states' desire to remain independent. Get my drift?
 * Certainly, an alliance may cover up a collusion, but it typically does not, and not every collusion comes in the guise of an alliance. This one happened to come in the guise of a non-aggression treaty, which constitutes a much weaker degree of mutual obligation than an alliance. Which obviously does not preclude it from being called an "unholy alliance" in metaphorical language.
 * I believe that the reason why the "Polish" faction is insisting so vehemently on calling the Nazi-Soviet agreement an "alliance" is the very same reason why the "Russian" faction is so vehemently against it: Because it implies a much closer affinity between Hitler and Stalin than is commonly assumed. However, I do not think that we should have that discussion in the article. --Thorsten1 20:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the war of 1919-1920 being portrayed as a Bolshevik victory - I found a quotation from one of Soviet history books (sadly in Polish). It's available here. The war is portrayed as if it was a Soviet victory, though not complete. First there are the angry Poles who were given the right to secede by the Russian Revolution, but the Polish imperalists were not grateful and started a war against the peace-loving Russia. Then the Poles grabbed Kiev, but were repelled and chased back to Warsaw by Budennyi. The latter did not manage to capture Warsaw, but Poland lost too much and was orced to ask for peace. The Bolsheviks showed mercy and agreed. "Belarus and Ukraine got back their lands that had been taken by the Polish imperialists. However, a part of the Ukrainians and Belarusians living in Western Belarus and Western Ukraine had to remain under Polish yoke". Halibutt 06:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion
Good, now that you finally realized that you had no valid arguments (no, I don't expect that you would admit it), can I remove your FARC template please ? This article has been recently promoted, therefore it does not qualify for WP:FARC at all. Your objections during the candidate period were not supported by anyone but yourself. Lysy 21:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Battlebox
Shouldn't "DoW" read "PoW"? DoW wikilinks to "declaration of war" which is clearly inappropriate!
 * I commented it out of the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Polish Victory?
I see this was already discussed a bit under a different heading, but I feel this merits a separate, serious discussion. While I certainly wouldn't argue that the war ended with a Soviet victory, neither was it a Polish victory. Poland started the war, suffered bad reverses that put its very survival in doubt, and then won a major victory at Warsaw that allowed it a decent peace. How is that a victory? Rather than my wasting time thinking of silly examples from history that fit a similar definition of victory, can we perhaps agree that the end result was more like a draw, with Warsaw being a notable Polish success? It gained a few disputed territories and lost others; it certainly did not achieve its war aims.
 * again, Poland DID NOT start the war. It's hard to show who started it, but I think there is common agreement that more points to Soviets with their Vistula offensive than to Polish counteroffensive and then offensive to Kiev. Szopen 06:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As it is explained in the article, neither side can be considered to have started the war, although Bolsheviks did consider it a theoretical possibility to invade Poland, and did so when opportunity arrived - while not a single Polish plan I am aware of called for invasion of Russia (note that and Ukraine is not part of Russia). As for victory, as I argued above, this is truly murky - perhaps I will add a note on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, If that's not a victory then what is it? Halibutt 07:38, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Poland defended and secured her independence against a much stronger enemy
 * Poland managed to defeat a much stronger enemy and break his neck for enough time to rebuild the country after 123 years of partitions
 * Poland got in the peace treaty most of the claimed territories
 * Although Pi&#322;sudski's plan of Mi&#281;dzymorze failed and Ukraine did not get her independence, Poland got a decent eastern border based on easily-defendable natural lines
 * Poland forced the enemy to pay not only the war indemnities and reparations, but also reparations for economical exploitation of Poland during the 123 years of partitions (and the Soviets payed the debts to the last penny)
 * Poland forced the Soviets to return both the industry and the pieces of art "evacuated" from Poland by Russian both in 1915 and in 1920

I admit I know little of the details of who started the war; I know only that I have never read an account that does not consider that Poland started the war (these are English-language historical works--British and American). I honestly didn't think this was controversial. Frankly, this idea that the Bolsheviks were out to spread revolution to the West at this time is rubbish. I don't care what Lenin or a few Politburo leaders said--it's one thing to say "we need to encourage revolution" and another to actually send troops. The Russian Civil War was by no means over, and Lenin was not about to actually start a war. While Poland isn't my field, I have done extensive work on the Bolshevik takeover of Georgia at this time (they invaded February 1921) and they were unable to send troops there to annex until then because of the ongoing civil conflict in Russia. Pilsudski, on the other hand, was quite willing to start a war, and for the self same reason of Russia's internal problems (cf Time of Troubles). As this article reads now, it's hardly a convincing account of how Russia started the war.


 * Dear anon. You may want to read Norman Davies book for an interesting and perhaps most recent, well-researched and comprehensive account of the war, which explains why Poland did not start the war. Basically, as explained in the text, the war did not start with Kiev Offensive of April 1920, but evolved from earlier local conflicts of 1919 (or to be correct, late 1918, following German withdrawal from the Eastern Front). We don't claim that Russia started this war - but it should be noted that neither did Poland. There is not a single document, for example, which would outline any Polish plan for war against Russia. Pilsudski did plan advance east, but only as far as Polish pre-partitions of Poland territories lied. Those territories did encompass territories of today's Ukraine and Bielorussia, true, but a single meter of Muscovy territory. Unless you claim that Ukraine, Bieloruss, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and all territories ever claimed by the Russian Empire are in fact Russia, you cannot claim that Poland prepared for invasion of Russia. Pilsudski didn't plan or want a war with Russia, the entire war was fought over which country would dominate the Ukraine/Bielorussia territory, then moved on to Polish soil. I - who wrote most of this article - try to show that initially neither side wished a war with each other, and it was simply an escalation from smaller conflicts. As you yourself point out, until 1920 Russia could spare very little forces to the eastern front - as shown in the article. Only by 1920 it was safe enough on other fronts to send serious forces east. The Bolshevik did *want* to spread their revolution west, but they (well, most of them, at least) also realised they had no strenght to do this - not until 1920. At that time, they did try to spread their revolution west - you cannot deny that they tried to do so east of Muscovy, in Ukraine, Bielorussia and then in Poland, can you? The amount of Bolshevik propaganda - and we know propaganda is far from truth - makes it almost impossible to determine what were their true plans and what was simple propaganda. But again I think we can hardly dispute that if situation permitted it, Red Army would move west (or south) from Poland, if its neighbours were in turmoil (and as the article shows, they were). Of course we can never know if it was sufficient turmoil for Red Army to be succesfull - they might have stopped at German and Czechoslovakian borders after few minor border incidents. We are unlikely to ever know - it is 'what if' alternative history, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, the entire article is quite Polocentric and even more anti-Communist. Starting with the title: Polish-Soviet War? The Soviet Union wasn't formed until 1924; no Russian would ever call the war by that name, and it's just not correct. (Yes, Norman Davies is wrong--sorry, it's an anachronistic name). It should either be Russo-Polish War (of 1920) or Polish-Bolshevik War. As to the general POV of the article, take a sentence like this one: "Certainly the Bolsheviks' defeat in the war prevented Poland from becoming another Soviet republic and likely saved Germany, Czechoslovakia and other nearby states from suffering a similar fate." Hey, as someone who has studied the Soviet Union, I know it wasn't exactly Disneyland. But A)this is an encyclopedia and B)did Germany, Czechoslovakia, and "other nearby states" really benefit from having Nazis instead of Bolsheviks? Did 6 million Jews? Other sentences don't really stand up to close inspection: "The TKRP had very little support from the Polish population and recruited its supporters mostly from the ranks of Bielorussians and Jews." We're talking about Belarus here mostly, right? Granted, there were more Poles there then now, but they were still a distinct minority against Belarusians and Jews (off the top of my head, it wasn't more than 20%). An equally POV statement from the opposite side would read something like "Pilsudski's government had very little support from the majority non-Polish population in the occupied areas and the TKRP quickly found supporters among the long-oppressed Belarusians and Jews." The article is peppered with statements like these, which are an indication of the deeper and pervasive bias that comes when an article is written from only one side. I regret that I don't have the expertise or the time to correct this, but I hope that someone will. In the meantime, it's suprising that such a one-sided article has been featured. --James Honan-Hallock (wrote the Polish victory comment earlier--sorry for the no name thing)


 * Dear James, you may want to register, so in future you won't be anonymous. I believe the issue of name is explained above (and in article itself). I also prefered and argued for Polish-Bolshevik War, however Polish-Soviet War is by far more popular term, and Wikipedia is no place for orginal research - our policy is to use the most common term, not the most correct one. On a minor note, it was NOT A WAR OF 1920, it started in 1919 and ended in 1921. As to the sentence you point out, it does not say that Nazis were better or worse, it simply shows that they were spared the Soviet rule. There is not disputing that, now, is it? I don't have the source for Polish population % in Kresy, there are other users who will likely join our discussion and provide you with numbers, but TKRP was supposed to be a governement of POLAND, not Blelorussia, so I think it is easy to understand why the fact it had almost no Poles in it is stressed in the article. Finally, think about this: we have many Russian (and Bielorussian, Lithuanian, German, Jew, etc.) users on Wiki, and I believe they have read the PR, the FAC and the very article - and yet they didn't voice any objections. Taking into the account that as you write you are no specialist in the PSW subject, please consider the possibilty that the fact that this article passed Peer Review and Featured Article review means is not a POVed mistake, but a proof that it is in fact correctly researched and neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Allow me to humbly disagree here. I have a strong suspicion that Russian contributors absolutely don't care about certain historical issues or don't have historical experience. In particular, in this context they have no axe to grind. At the same time Poles in English wikpedia are extremely vigorous in writing artices on their history. I cannot blame them for bias, since they have a naturally biased worldview, so to say. While I disagree with some their contributions and sometimes make corrections (not frequently, since I am an old lazy computer geek, arther than an historian), I don't see it inherently wrong and extremely biased. I used to see much worse texts here, which have eventually been straightened.
 * So, James, if you have any solid statements to put into the article, or to remove some false statements, welcome. Mikkalai 21:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that a featured article is by definition perfect. I agree with some of James's criticism in principle, although not in degree. The article would definitely benefit from having a better representation of the Russian rationale - not because it is more correct or valid, but because it would provide readers with a fuller picture. I also agree with James on the language: Even if there are no or few factual errors, some wordings do have an anti-communist or anti-Russian ring to them that may make skeptical readers doubt the article more than they otherwise would. Specifically, this is true of the statement that the Polish victory "likely saved Germany, Czechoslovakia and other nearby states from suffering a similar fate" - as true as this may be, it still conveys the traditional Polish Messianic autostereotype and the ante-murale myth. What I do not agree with, however, is James's insinuation that the Polish victory, by stopping the communists from taking over more parts of Europe, somehow prejudiced the Nazi aggression some 20 years later. Neither should we make too much of the title. Piotrus is right that the name Polish-Soviet War is more established. Arguably, it is also historically correct - after all, the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic was formed as early as 7 November 1918, even if the attribute "Soviet" is mostly associated with the Soviet Union (formed 1922). Thus, the attribute Bolshevik is not necessarily better; also, in many languages the word "Bolshevik" has a more negative connotation than "Soviet" and thus might even achieve the opposite of what James is calling for.--Thorsten1 09:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Breaking the RUssian codes
Hey guys, shouldn't it be included in article? http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,53600,2855976.html

Especially one sentence is quite revolutionary for some discussions here: "Dzięki temu polskie dowództwo wiedziało, że Sowieci, zgłaszając propozycje pokojowe w styczniu 1920 r., jednocześnie przygotowywali armię do uderzenia na Polskę." (my translation: "Because of that Polish HQ knew, that Soviets, making peace proposition in January 1920 were simultunously preparing army to invade Poland.") Szopen 09:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm. This is no sensation, we already know this - see Polish-Soviet_War. Sure, some details may be expanded, and the article added to references (better online Polish then 1928 print Polish :D). I think the only important fact of this 'discovery' is that the Battle of Warsaw depenended less on mircale/luck and more on Pilsudski's and Polish High Command knowledge of Russian plans. This would explain why Polish forces broke through Mozyr's group weak point, although there is the matter of many accounts that even Poles were suprised by the level of success. Perhaps this points to the fact that Polish High Command expected Soviets to react faster and better, instead of their armies desintegrating so hoplessly as they did...but this is my speculation here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish name(s) for this war
Halibutt favors the term, "Polish-Bolshevik War," and states that there was "no Soviet Union" during the "Polish-Soviet War" (1919-1921). True, there was no "Soviet Union," until 1922, but there was a "Soviet Russia." Conversely, there was no belligerent country called "Bolshevia."

Lysy, on the other hand, questions whether this war has, in Polish, often been called "Wojna bolszewicka." I have the impression that the Polish generation that fought the war often did call it the "Bolshevik War."

By what name do contemporary Polish historians and the Polish public refer to this war? "Russian War"? "War of 1920"? "Russian War of 1920"? logologist 00:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the belligerent state was called with various names at that time, Bolshevik Russia being the most notable IMO. Hence the name. And most of modern publications on my bookshelf call it either the Polish-Bolshevik War (wojna polsko-bolszewicka) or Polish-Russian War of 1920 (wojna polsko-rosyjska 1920 roku). Very rarely it is called wojna polsko-sowiecka, as this term is usually used by right-wing histolrians to refer to the Polish-Soviet conflict in 1939.
 * In rare cases when the war was mentioned in books published during the communist rule in Poland, it was referred to as wojna polsko-radziecka, which was a complete anachronism, since the term radziecki was coined after WWII (obviously for propaganda reasons: the term sowiecki, although meaning more or less the same, had much worse connotations in Poland). Halibutt 09:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)