User:Cautious/Editing Polish-related articles

Editing Polish-related articles deals with the problem of frequent edit-wars that plague Polish related topics.

(...)

The Poles were incredibly stupid to insist on a border
which had no ethnographic or historical validity, when there was no chance it could be defended. Adam 13:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) Geez, Adam, i am out of breath. The discussion with you is simply impossible. "incredibly stupid" is sooo inviting. And "no historical validity"? And curzon line has exactly what historical validity? No "ethnogrpahic validity"? And curzon line has? Outside Curzon line before WWII still lived 5 millions POles, and many of the territories outside Curzon lines (including my ancestors home around Grodno and Middle Lithuania) had Polish majority, while in others population was mixed - Poles and Jews prevailed in cities, and others outside. Szopen

I agree that there was no simple ethnic border between Poland and the peoples to the east. But the 1922 border was just whatever the Poles could grab while Russia was too weak to stop them. Yes there were 5 million Poles there, but they were outnumbered by others. Wherever you drew a border there were going to be millions of people on the "wrong" side. The point is not that the Curzon Line was a better or worse border than the 1922 border, but rather that it was an indefensible border in the circumstances of 1944, and the London Poles were stupid to throw away whatever bargaining power they had over the issue of the border, when the real issue was who would hold power in Warsaw. Roosevelt and Churchill might have been willing to stand up to Stalin on that issue, had the London Poles antagonised them so thoroughly with their histrionics over their sacred right to rule over great slabs of Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Adam 13:48, 19 Mar 2004

This is outrageous for me, that Churchill and Roosevelt were willing to sacrifice their ally so easy. Moreover, they seemed to be more tough on German borders, then on Polish, probably becasue they assigned more strategic value to Germany. At least Stalin wanted to compensate Poles for territorial looses. Ah, small problem, he paid with somebodys else land. I wouldn't buy a car from any of those guys. Cautious 12:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The statement of the idea that Stalin "wanted to compensate" Poles for anything illustrates a deep misunderstanding of Stalin - whose actions, including the massacres of the captive Polish officer corps in 1940 and against the Polish Home Army after the war, indicate that he would have preferred that Poland ceased to exists. Stalin's "compensation" of Poland with the eastern tertories of Germany was simply an attempt to push his sphere of influence as far westward into the heart of Europe as possible. By shrinking giving eastern Germany territories to Poland he could push the post war Russian sector of Germany westward.

And what were Churchill and Roosevelt supposed to do? Declare war on Stalin? The Poles were incredibly stupid to insist on a border which had no ethnographic or historical validity, when there was no chance it could be defended. Adam 13:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- I don't understand. Are you saying that the Poles should have ceded the territories that had been lost to the Soviet Union's invasion in 1939. Are you saying the Poles should have rewarded Stalin by giving him the land he won by conquest in league with Hitler?

Geez, Adam, i am out of breath. The discussion with you is simply impossible. "incredibly stupid" is sooo inviting.

And "no historical validity"? And curzon line has exactly what historical validity? No "ethnogrpahic validity"? And curzon line has? Outside Curzon line before WWII still lived 5 millions POles, and many of the territories outside Curzon lines (including my ancestors home around Grodno and Middle Lithuania) had Polish majority, while in others population was mixed - Poles and Jews prevailed in cities, and others outside. Szopen

I agree that there was no simple ethnic border between Poland and the peoples to the east. But the 1922 border was just whatever the Poles could grab while Russia was too weak to stop them. Yes there were 5 million Poles there, but they were outnumbered by others. Wherever you drew a border there were going to be millions of people on the "wrong" side. The point is not that the Curzon Line was a better or worse border than the 1922 border, but rather that it was an indefensible border in the circumstances of 1944, and the London Poles were stupid to throw away whatever bargaining power they had over the issue of the border, when the real issue was who would hold power in Warsaw. Roosevelt and Churchill might have been willing to stand up to Stalin on that issue, had the London Poles not antagonised them so thoroughly with their histrionics over their sacred right to rule over great slabs of Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Adam 13:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I recorded subject of this discussion on my favourite page: User:Adam Carr/anti-Polish bigot. To the point: Using words stupid referring to Polish veto to accept amputation of the half of the country by genocide regime, is meaningfull. It describe you as person obsessed with anti-Polish bias and bigotry. If you use your criteria, there is a legitimate reason to annex territories of almost every country on the planet. You believe, that you know exactly what Poles should do in complicated circumstances of WW2. Stalin also was convinced that he knows. Polish resistance was also called by Nazis stupid and meaningless. Russians called Polish nationality unreasonable. I am proud to be a person, so many people consider to be difficult to drive. Cautious 14:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Adam et consortes, could you please stop it? It was you who decided that the article should be brief and informative, without too much in-sight into ethnography or history of Poland. If so, then your present discussion is just a waste of time - it won't be included in the article anyway. And calling anyone's national heroes "stupid" certainly does not help in settling down a compromise. So, could we please focus ourselves on the article? There are my questons that still haven't been answered, there are proposals still not discussed.


 * As to Roosevelts plea to reconsider was too unimportant and half-hearted to be important - both in history and in the article. A simple sentence stating that "the new line has been proposed by Stalin and accepted by Churchll and Roosevelt in Teheran and Yalta would do.Halibutt 13:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

...their sacred right to rule over great slabs of Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukraine. You should know, that before Stalin created Polish Peoples Republic, there were never any Poland, that was a pure country. Always included Lithuanians, Belorussians, Ukrainians and Germans, of course Jews. It was one of the values of Poland as a country between different cultures. Hitler and Stalin found the only way to create "clean" Poland. Do you think Poles should look forward such a solution themselves in 1943??? Cautious 14:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course none of this is going in the article. I conduct these arguments for the sheer pleasure of displaying my anti-Polish bigotry. On which subject see my comment at User:Adam Carr/anti-Polish bigot. Adam 14:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I invite anyone interested to read
History of Poland (1939-1945), People's Republic of Poland, Jan Karski, Wladyslaw Sikorski, Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka, Zegota and Boleslaw Bierut and decide if these are articles written by an anti-Polish bigot. Adam 14:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Mate if anything some of the people who attack you must be the bigots - i think people like them must have maps on the walls of their homes with L'viv and Vilnius crossed out and Lwow and Wilno written in for that seems to be the attitude that drives them. PMA 14:48, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I was in the process of creating a summary of the articles
affected by Polish/anti-Polish (or pro-German/anti-German and pro-Ukrainian/anti-Ukrainian) disputes. Finally, I got pissed off and erased the project. In my opinion of the day®, anything pertaining to Poland ought to be changed only after acceptance by Wiki-"consensus" of 80% or thereabout. ;->
 * --Ruhrjung 15:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The problem is, that Polish history, especially 20 century, were kind of extreme. All those concentration camps, forced migrations, ideologically motivated falsification of the history. Throughout history Poland made a trip from Baltic sea towards Black sea and other way around. Poland had been once multiethnic entity and 10 years later pure ethnically nation. There are plenty of people with fresh wounds and ALL OF THEM WANT TO BE HEARD THROUGH WIKIPEDIA. However, this doesn't mean that we are all stupid. It only means that all this interactive writing of history doesn't make any sense. Cautious 17:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would strongly urge both User:Cautious, User:Nico and others involved in these issues to start trying to present and balance the different existent points of view.

I get sad when I again and again see attempts to provoke people one for different reasons dislikes. I have no problem to understand the mutual dislike, but I think wikipedia suffers from the warfare. I do also think wikipedia offers a road towards the remedy, if it would only be used. The road is NPOV (.Halleluja!.), including the acknoledgement that in many cases there are more than one valid truth.

If different POV:s are outlined in the articles, then I hope it would be easier to address them also in the important initial sentences of the articles.

regards! --Ruhrjung 19:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe
I will explain to you stupidity of Polish people, by writing the part of history, you are supposed to know, since you wrote so many articles about Poland. Polish contribution to World War II "In 1941 after an agreement with Stalin, the Soviets released many former Polish citizens, from which a 75,000-strong army was formed in the Middle East under General Wladyslaw Anders, (the so-called Anders' Army). " Soldiers of this army, were the majority of London Poles. They were coming from Poland East of Curzon line and went to England through GULAGs. They just learned, that their colleges were massacred by Stalin in Katyn massacre. They realized, that the approval of Curzon line means: They prefered to have Poland intact, to return to their homes and unite with their families. According to you, this was stupidity. Cautious 15:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) they will be denied return to their homes,
 * 2) their families will be murdered by Stalin's NKVD.

I only want to state that I'm glad you moved this part of your discussion from Talk:Curzon line. It did not belong there.Halibutt 15:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * PMA, i am one of Poles accused of &quot;nationalism&quot; and whatever. If you will track my activity in wikipedia (many years, i think i am here longer than Adam) you would never see me ranting about L'viv and VIlnius except when i was enraged about policy which forced former German names on Polish cities and calling nationalism any attempt to even ARGUE with that, while former Polish cities are called by today's names without any problems from Polish contributors.
 * However, Adam just wrote a sentence which indicate that he indeed has no idea about what he wrote about. 1) Part of Lithuania ruled by Poland before 1939 had strict Polish majority, which voted for incorporating into Poland, and almost no Lithuanian minority (there was much more &quot;Belorussians&quot; there). 2) Polish border was effect of war with soviets started in 1919 more by SOVIETS than by Poles, and was not &quot;everything Poles could grab&quot; since Polish delegation was offered much more and refused to accept, on basis that this would not good for good relationships between two countries (i am almost quoting Polish position in Riga here).
 * Also, it's hard not to understand Poles. Polish borders were guaranteed. Poles were on side of victors. POles were allies. Yet we were treated as mere pawns without right to express our own opinions. As defeated who should accept anything we could do. Even if London Poles would accept Curzon line, this wouldn't change the effects (Soviets had no problems taking power in Czechoslovakia) and wouldn't change outcome of Civil War in Poland
 * I am not calling you &quot;anti-Polish bigot&quot;. But i think you are &quot;witch hunter&quot; who decided that any Poles who tries to explain complicated situation in central Europe is Polish chauvinist. Westerners usually know Polish history from eyes of Russians and Germans and take that for truth. Then when presented view from Polish eyes, they call it biased, not noticing that view from R and G is biased too.

Szopen
 * Szopen i know you from other forums and have great respect and like for you - its someone like Cautious (and his previous username AM) that i dislike - especially after he/she tried to frame me for "stealing" their user page a few months ago - such behaviour is unacceptable and trying to call the Polish Corridor article "Polish Pomerania" when that name is almost never used in the wider world is the kind of thing AM did and which i didn't like. PMA 15:37, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I offended you some time ago. It was, when I was complete ignorant about wiki and somebody had stolen my nick. However, I consider some of your German-related edits as POV, although you seem to have good will. Polish corridor should be an article about German propaganda item, related to revisionism of Versailles Treaty. Currently it is complete nonsense. Cautious 18:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * But you have to improve your thinking, your reactions and your behavior. You consider someone having a POV is neither a reason to get upset, nor to get rude. What you ought to do is to edit the article in a way that complemets this someone's POV with other relevant POVs – like your own, for instance.--Ruhrjung 20:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, call me a nitpicker, but the name Polish Pomerania at least was close to the original (Pomeranian voivodship), while Polish corridor is totally unoffcial and non-descriptive. Halibutt 16:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, indeed when it comes to Polish history listening to both German and Russian versions is not equal to listening both sides of the story.Halibutt 16:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No, but it reflects badly on Wikipedia to try to give the impression that those years under foreigners never existed at all.--Ruhrjung 16:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Look at the page history of Poznan to see a remark by another of the Poles like AM/Cautious (the Teutonic scoundrels remark). PMA 17:58, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * This name war is disgusting. What is interesting, Poles doesn't have problems with German names on their own page. However, refering to Polish cities by German names on the international pages is considered wrong. Cautious 18:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Partial explanation is that people like Nico drop there not as often and wecan revert his Warszawa (niem. Warschau once, not twenty times in a row.Halibutt 01:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that this article is no longer called "Adam Carr is an anti-Polish bigot." I think that captured the essential issue here, which is that of the conflict between the historian and the propagandist in writing articles on topics related to Polish history at Wikipedia. (It probably happens in other areas, too, but I am not involved in them.)

I don't claim to be a specialist in Polish history. But I am a professional historian with a wide knowldege of modern European history and a shelf-ful of reference works. None of them are written by Germans or Russians as far as I can see. In fact one of my major sources is articles by Jan Karski, a fine Polish patriot. I am perfectly capable of writing standard encyclopaedia articles on Polish history.

Where there are gaps in my detailed knowledge, I am entirely willing to accept information and correction by people who have that detailed knowledge. Anyone who looks at the Page History of History of Poland (1939-1945) and People's Republic of Poland will see that I worked constructively with Polish contributors to create better articles. There were frequent arguments but they were resolved.

The allegation that I am "anti-Polish" is laughable, which is why I am not as seriously offended by it as I ought to be. I have great admiration and respect for the Polish people and their long struggle for independence and freedom against a succession of oppressors. Why else would I bother writing the articles cited above, and other articles on Polish subjects?

When I said "the Poles" were stupid to take a particular position, I of course meant a particular group of Poles, not the Polish people as a whole. This is obvious in the context of the discussion and to suggest otherwise is just malicious misrepresentation.

It is not the historian's job to simply repeat any country's official history. There is a big difference between admiring Polish patriotism and accepting all the romantic mythology of Polish nationalist history. This is the version of Polish history which is taught in Polish schools, and even universities, and which contributors like Szopen and Cautious reflect, perhaps unconsciously. This is not a problem unique to Poland (it also happens in Russia, Japan, China and the United States, to varying degrees), but it is Poland we are discussing here.

One example of this is the obsession over place-names evident at so many Wikipedia articles. Polish nationalist editors insist that Gdansk has always been called Gdansk and can never be called anything else, even though it was called Danzig, both officially and by most of its inhabitants, for several hundred years. This kind of foolishness doesn't just reflect patriotism, it refelects both national chauvinism and national insecurity.

I am accused of "anti-Polish" bigotry for saying that Poland's 1922 border had no historical or ethnographic validity, and that the Polish government in exile was foolish to insist on retaining it during the negotiations on the postwar frontiers of Poland.

I stand by those statements. But whether I am right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that they are expressions of historical opinion, not judgements on one nation or another. If Szopen or Cautious were arguing with a Ukrainian nationalist, they would be accused of "anti-Ukrainian bigotry" if they suggested that L'viv had ever been anything other than part of the sacred soil of Ukraine. That would be just as foolish as their accusations against me.

Adam 02:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly you are right. Polish pont of view may vary signficantly from Western pont of view. Just take a look on any "Should the Allies fulfl their promises in 1939" discussion...


 * I also agree that it's not hitorians job to simply repeat the "offcial hstory" but rather to ask questons and try to find answers for them. However, note that your statement that the government-in-exile was stupid was not an opinion of hstorian but an opinion of Adam Carr. And if it wasn't you who said that I would surely be offended. Heavily offended, to be precise. It's easy to condemn anyone who is not willing to accept compromise. However, it's much harder to walk in ther shoes and try to see that compromise through their eyes. Even in Poland such statements are often repeated without any deper thought. Rydz-Smigly was stupid to defend the borders instead of the mainland, government-in-exile was stupid to protest against the Allies selling Poland to the Soviets and so on, and so forth. But have you ever asked yourself about other choices they had? Part of the truth is what one of my hot-headed fellow countrymen (was it Szopen?) already said: most of the Polish soldiers were from Eastern Poland and came to the West through Soviet hell, through their prisons, death camps and through their terror. Any "compromise" stating that only the Red side is right would not please them and it's a mirracle that those brave men fought together with their Allied comrades-in-arms even after they knew that they won't be comming home - ever. Do you think they would've remain loyal to the government if they felt that they were betrayed? doubt it.
 * Other thing is that it's easier to assume their stupidity than to realize that the government knew perfectly that nothng can be done and all is lost yet it protested. For me their behaviour in the last years of WWII was similar to that of Jews fighting in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: they knew they already lost and the last thng they had was ther honour and responsibility. Their pact with Stalin would not change a thing which they knew perfectly well (contrary to the western Allies, who simply did not know Stalins methods). Just take a look at those who decided to save whatever could be saved and returned to Poland. Mikolajczyk anyone?Halibutt 12:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the substance of Halibutt's comments, see my most recent comment at Talk:History of Poland (1939-1945). Here I will just say that his comments are a fine example of what I am talking about. As a Polish patriot he is perfectly entitled to the above views, and I might even agree with him. But this kind of rhetoric is not permissible in a historical article. None of our Polish friends seem to have much understanding of what an encyclopaedia is for. It is not for airing historical grievances in this way. Adam 12:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note that my comment here are not about what should be included in the article. I'm only trying to explain certain things better so that we could understand each other while discussing the article. If my comments are to be made into an article, they should be shortened to mere two or three sentences and added to Polish government in exile, 1939-1990.Halibutt

Well perhaps you could explain that point (in Polish) to Szopen, Cautious, Space Cadet and Mestwin of Gdansk, all of whom, seem to think an encyclopaedia is a fine place to write manifestoes about the grievances of Poland. Adam 13:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Military strength: wrong perspective
My understanding is that your are completely wrong as a historian. First of all, you perceive everything from perspective of power. This attitude makes sense for history prime military powers. Poland ceased to be a power at the end of 17th century. Despite that fact, Poland still exists. If you take into account military power, one of our enemies could have eliminated us all or could have assimiled us to his culture. Nothing like this happenned, despite the fact, that many tried. Despite the fact, that Poland were defeated many times in last 3 centuries and there were only 2 Polish strategic wins (1920 and 1683), Poland and its culture exists. It is simply becasue your logic doesn't apply to non-primary powers at all. Take a look at Jews and Armenians. If the nation has history longer then 300 years, it is likely that he has ups and downs. i.e Armenians had a point in history, when they were only 50,000, but eventually survived. Poland's strength in around WW2 was that despite all the odds Poles didn't accept and acknowledge their defeat. You can call it stupid, but it works. For Poles, Roosevelt and Churchill were traitors and you cannot convine me that I am wrong, because from POV they were. From Churchill persepctive Poles were stupid, because they were not easy to drive. From Polish perspective, they lacked real leader, that can lead the nation through the hard decisions. More to meritum: your golden mean, of surrendering before Stalin, made no sense. Non-great leader that accepts hard conditions immidiately becomes the traitor and Soviet-puppet. In addition, it would mean there is no more something to bargain. OK, we lost Eastern Poland but we got compensation instead. Otherwise Poland would have had size of Hungary. At the other hand, you seem to accept Soviet propaganda, that POland had no rights to Eastern Poland. Stalin thought otherwise, because he paid Poles to resign from their rights. This is final prove that you are wrong. Cautious 10:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to state, that although I wouldn't have used User:Cautious's wordings (above or in the same matter also seen at other talk pages), I do basically agree with the essence of his thoughts on this point. (However, I would have wished that here contributing Poles wouldn't identify so strongly with individual Polish representatives, that they feel personally insulted by assertions like Adam's stupid-remark.) --Ruhrjung 19:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was stupid or offer any other opinions about anything in the article, although I have done so, under provocation, in the Talk pages. What I have done in the article is remove huge amounts of opinion, propaganda and irrelevance, most of it poorly written and showing no understanding of what an encyclopaedia article should be. I will continue to do so. Adam 07:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)