Talk:Soviet reaction to the Polish crisis of 1980–1981

Re:Request
First off, this article is oddly detached from what apparently is its parent page - the "Soviet reaction" is there, whereas the subject of the reaction isn't. There's an article Martial law in Poland which seems to be it, but its name is really unintuitive (suggest renaming by at least adding the date).

The article appears to contradict itself as well - the first paragraph says that the Soviet Union forced the Polish leadership to impose martial law, but from the body of the article it seems that the Polish authorities were more eager to forcefully suppress the opposition than the Soviet ones. The Politburo firmly and unanimously rejected the demand for military backing. seems to flatly contradict the initial notion of forcing the Polish leadership under the threat of military intervention.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.250.136 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The mood in the Politburo might well be very different in 1980 and in 1981. It was, according to the sources. Guys, the sources are there, most of them are even online, afaik, and not particularly long. Colchicum (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The degree of Polish and Soviet governments' willingness to commit Soviet troops to Poland appears to be a hotly debated issue even now. There's no hint in the article that it is (aside from a brushing reference to 1997 talks).

The Polish political crisis of 1980-1981... challenged the Soviet control over the satellite countries of the Eastern Bloc - How did it challenge Soviet control of, say, East Germany? If Romania was under Soviet control at the time, why did its representative botch the whole bluff attempt by voting against it? --Illythr (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is debated by Jaruzelski himself, primarily because it casts heavy doubt on his role as savior of the motherland that he has played for years. This is indeed an omission, but there is zero evidence in the archives to support his theory and it doesn't seem to be taken seriously by historians these days. If you know some research supporting his position, bring it here. Re East Germany -- by threatening to interrupt supplies, obviously. The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and all. Colchicum (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1997: historian Krystyna Kersten presented ["O stanie wojennym. Raport dla sejmowej Komisji Odpowiedzialności Konstytucyjnej")] document. This is an official rapport for polish constitution tribunal comity. Kersten's raport is also mentioned here. Mentioned article (in polish) describes Soviet preparations in-depth (I haven't verified the article so far). K. Kersten was a respected historian cooperating with anti-communistic organisation, she was rather not biased towards Jaruzelski. Unfortunate, the rapport is published only in corpus: [Krystyna Kersten, Pisma rozproszone. oprac. Tomasz Szarota, Dariusz Libionka, Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, Toruń 2005, s. 424-465] rather not available online (available in University of Warsaw library). Ryszard Kuklinski Wikipedia page also contradicts your "... zero evidences in archives ..." statement. Kuklinski was CIA agent who provided them with Soviet intervention plans. How he could pass to CIA something not existing? Kuklinski was important to CIA - Clinton's administration insist to acquit Kuklinski before Poland could join NATO [see note 14 in Kuklinski page for reference].
 * I am a young person biased towards Jaruzelski-as-traitor opinion, currently investigating '81 Martial law. So far, it seems like Jaruzelski indeed has at least some reasons.
 * This article is heavily biased and the following statement: "Contrary to the interpretations of US intelligence, no preparations were underway for even minimal Soviet intervention at the time martial law was imposed, according to declassified Soviet archives" is simply not true.
 * I recommend changes and invite you for a discussion. I rather doubt (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion copied from DYK nominations page
Created by Colchicum (talk). Self nom at 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... that in 1981, before the imposition of martial law in Poland, the Soviet Politburo was ready to reconcile itself to the possible loss of control over the country to Solidarity?


 * Contains unsourced statements like "As soon as the crisis broke out with the mass strikes in Poland, in August 1980 the Soviet Union started to conduct military preparations across the border". If you read sources, then you see that article statements and interpretations contradict to those from the sources. Overall, estimate of Russia is more negative than in the sources. Moreover, the sources explicitly state that untill declassification of state documents it is impossible to evaluate the role of and reaction of Russia. Nowhere in the article it is mentioned that these statements and conclusions are based only on declassified docs and many of them stay undisclosed still. Which is very important point ommitted. Vlad fedorov (talk)
 * Everyone here is able to read. The sources speak for themselves. Thanks for popping up here, I wonder what "estimate of Russia" is there at all. Colchicum (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently not everyone is able to read, you are not. So, specially for you, as the very first source confirms, "Moscow's initial reaction to these startling developments was predictable: calling up reservists, increasing the combat readiness of the Soviet Northern Group of Forces (promptly detected by Solidarity because of its ability to intercept secret communications), and dispatching warships for "friendly" visits to Polish ports." And the hook is sourced almost literally. Colchicum (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Colchicum, please tone down your battleground speech. You wanna push through too quickly very fresh and unreviewed article edited only by you, so, please, calm down and answer to these questions:
 * 1) In the article you have written that Soviet Union started "as soon as" military preparations, not indicating that it was only "initially", and what you have cited above from the source frankly doesn't sound like "military preprations across the border" cause these are only specific actions which were claimed to be detected by Solidarity. Please adapt the meaning of those closer to the source and source these statements appropriately. Furthermore this is very pertinent and undetachable from preparations "As the CIA correctly put it, Moscow's "military preparations were undertaken in anticipation of a political decision which would determine whether military forces would be moved into Poland". This properly describes what was done. And no political decision was made.
 * 2) Why positive texts on Soviet Union are ommitted? For example "Yet, unlike on previous such occasions—East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968—the Kremlin abstained from resorting to military force to avert the presumed threat to its vital security interests. Instead the Polish military under Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski performed this task by itself, thus preventing a radical disruption of the established East-West order in Europe"? Is this part of your political agenda? I can't see clearly in the article if SU or Jaruzelski was responsible for violence.
 * 3) Why Brezhnev reaction is described in part like decision to crackdown? Why the following is missing? "Yet he also placed exaggerated hopes in the curative effects of the considerable material assistance the Soviet Union was providing Poland to prevent its economic collapse"?
 * 4) Could you please change your bizzare "The Brezhnev Doctrine was effectively dead" to "The Brezhnev Doctrine was effectively overturned in this case", you should remember Afghanistan to address the original statement.
 * 5) Why attempts of Siwicki to shift responsibility to SU are ommitted? "Siwicki made a bid for the alibi by proposing to supplement their concluding communiqué with a statement intended to justify the impending crackdown to the Polish nation and the wider world".
 * 6) Why is it not reflected that US thought that Jazruzelski acted like Russian puppet while in reality he was acting on his own? Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind to stop disruption of this board and use proper venues for your grievances which have nothing to do with the hook? Talk:Soviet reaction to the Polish Crisis of 1980-1981 or even Soviet reaction to the Polish Crisis of 1980-1981 itself are thataway. You can't see clearly in the article if SU or Jaruzelski was responsible -- so what? This is not the topic of that article, and you are free to add some information if you think it is necessary. Why should I care at all who was responsible for what? The only one who has a political agenda here seems to be yourself. The article is on-topic and thoroughly supported by sources. Your discontent is not. Colchicum (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Colchicum, your inability to answer the questions on the content of the article which you have created and nominated here and your personal accusations actually speak against you. I am just talking on the content of the article, not on you. Besides, your article is not even rubricated and is just a pile of text, when you try to understand where is what. Why not rubricate it choronologically, for example? The guilt of Jaruzelski is abosuletely relevant to the article as it creates a background whithin which the reader should evaluate Soviet reaction. If you don't care about background, sorry, then you just pursue your political agenda here in WP. Your text is not neutral and NPOV, which I think is important in nominating the article here. Cheers. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose to the text of the hook. The current hook states someones opinion, not a fact. We cannot possibly know whether someone was "ready to reconcile with something". I think a reasonably well hook would be something along the following sentence form the article: "For the first time however, Kremlin abstained from military intervention unlike on previous occasions such as the Prague Spring of 1968 or the Hungarian Revolution of 1956" - Altenmann >t 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, scholars can know this, you cannot. I see. Either the mainstream scholarly opinion is good enough for DYK, as it normally is, or the article is not for DYK at all and then the nomination is withdrawn. Who else should be pleased among the freaks and ignorants with reasonably well-mutilated hooks? Hindutvadis? Holocaust deniers? Fomenkoists? 9/11 conspiracy theorists? No way. Colchicum (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly POVish article bringing a war of opinions to DYK and main page. References are insufficient for this topic and are bare urls. Should not pass in such form. Comment to the arguing parties: perhaps it is better to discuss this issue at other talk pages? Materialscientist (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Materialscientist. The article is not really NPOV, and per R2, we don't put such articles on DYK. ≈ Chamal (sock) Master · talk 13:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename and Expand
This articles needs to be renamed as "Polish crisis of 1980–81" and expanded to include Background, the crisis and Soviet reaction as a section. Srinivasasha (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)