Talk:Invasion of Poland (1939)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Invasion of Poland (1939) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2005.
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Invasion of Poland (1939) is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(comments)

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Polish strenght and ORP Gryf

AFAIK in 1939 Poland has 39 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, 2 motorised brigades, 3 mountain brigades and some National Defence and KOP units. ORP Gryf, largest Polish war ship, should be on the navy list.--Mrc 19:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the Polish army order of battle in 1939? I'll let Halibutt answer the division number question, as he created that article. Good point about Gryf, he is often forgotten. But are you sure he was the biggest? Gryf links (for article 'to do': [1], [2], [3] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact we had 41 infantry divisions (you forgot about 50th, 55th and 60th) and one cavalry division (well.. improvised and combined so it can be ommitted in the battlebox). As to the cavalry Bdes - that's right. The same goes for motorised. The problem I have with mountain troops is that if we count 39 Infantry Divisions, then we must mention the two mountain divisions separately (2 divisions -21st and 22nd - and 3 additional Bdes).

Of course ORP Gryf was the biggest birdie we had until 1943 when ORP Dragon and later ORP Conrad arrived (well, except for ORP Bałtyk which was a pre-WWI battleship, but was completely obsolete and used as a hulk). --Halibutt 08:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, 41 divisions, including 55th i 60th divisions. By the way, maybe somebody knows if that two divisions were organised after September 1, 1939 or earlier? --Mrc 19:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The 60th Kobryń infantry division was half-improvised from the troops present in the area of the Battle of Kobryń - hence the code-name. It had almost all men, but was severely lacking heavy equipment, especially the artillery (it had only three batteries out of usual regiment). Other than that it was supplied better than most other reserve units since before September 12 it was supplied with all the arms and equipment from the military depots of Dęblin by... drivers of Warsaw buses that were evacuated and then started acting as trains - with the difference that they were harder to catch by the Luftwaffe. It is probably not known to the wider audience that those drivers used on purpose what could be called a chaos organisation: instead of forming a column, they set off with supplies at the same moment, but each followed a different path. Anyway, the division was really successful, first defending the hopeless positions against the 19th Motorised Division of the Guderian's Panzer Corps and then fighting its way down to the Battle of Kock.
On the contrary the 55th was a standard reserve division attached to the Kraków Army from the first days of the war, with three infantry regiments, 1.5 regiments of artillery and all the other stuff. It was in combat from the first hours of the war in Silesia, and then shared the fate of its army, with the difference that it evaded high losses and remained in decent shape until the First Battle of Tomaszów. If we only had more such commanders as Kalabiński...
Hope I was of some help. Halibutt 21:29, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Mrc 21:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote an article about ORP Gryf. --Mrc 13:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great :) Keep up the good job :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anon changes:

  • casualties1=65 000 killed 133 700 wounded 680 000 POWs to casualties1=65 000 killed 133 700 wounded 694 000 POWs
  • casualties2=16 343 killed 27 280 wounded 320 MIA to casualties2=10 343 killed 30 280 wounded 320 MIA

I hesitate to change it since it is minor and I have no sources for one way or another. Halibutt? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

German KIA, Polish Campaign: 16,343
German MIA, Polish Campaign: 320
German WIA, Polish Campaign: 27,280

http://worldatwar.net/wars/ww2/poland39/ 48 casualties of which 16k were killed...

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/EuropeatWar/blitzkrieg_poland.htm

German Polish
Killed 8082 to 10572 66300 737
Wounded 27,278 to 30322 133700 1859
Missing 3404 to 5029

Which brings again a question: why there is no number for missing in Polish losses? And why the losses were so much higher, if in several battles i've read the differences in losses were not that stunning?! Szopen 09:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a note on casualties brackets. One thing I spotted is the sources citing low end German casualties and high end MIA - I guess they are some early German statistics and that eventually those MIA were transformed into KIA. More questions: the figure of 880 Polish tanks in the warbox is from where? Sources in text give about 130 7TPs and 300 tankettes. The only source I see gives 107 German planes shot down, what source gives ~140? I have no idea about lack of Polish MIA. Perhaps some Polish printed sources would be useful here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Loses from PWN: (according to Biuro Odszkodowań Wojennych): Polish ~620,000 total: 66,000 killed, 134,000 wounded, 420,000 POWs. ~15,000 killed in fights agaisnt Red Army or executed immedietly after surrender, ~250,000 POWss. German ~45,000 KIA and WIA, ~1,000 tanks and armored tanks (30% of all used in the campaign) and 700 planes (32% used in the campaign). Red Army (official :>): 2,500 KIA and WIA. Losses from Britannica: Germans: ~45,000. Poland: 700,000 POWs, KIA/WIA/MIA unknown (yeah, that's Britannica :>), evacuated: 80,000 Polish soldiers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "September Campaign"

Someone changed the sentence, "Germans and Poles usually refer to it as 'the September Campaign,'" to: "From the German perspective the war is called the [!] 'the September Campaign.'" Why this change? In Polish, it is commonly called "Kampania wrześniowa" ("the September Campaign"). logologist 14:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. That term is quite popular, mostly due to post-war commie propaganda which used it over and over again. After all both the German and the Soviet propaganda tried to downgrade the Polish WWII effort, hence the name of the campaign which was coined to suggest that it took less time to defeat Poland (Septemberfeldzug in German).
However, the term kampania wrześniowa is barely used by any Polish historian, be it rightist or leftist. Also the Generals themselves who wrote diaries and memoirs refer to it by other names (most notably Defensive War and Polish campaign, but Campaign of 1939, Polish-German War of 1939 and War of 1939 are also used). It should also be noted that after WWII even German historians started to use the name Polenfeldzug - Polish Campaign.
So, all in all, the term "kampania wrześniowa" might be popular, but is far from accurate and barely used by historians and other serious publications. Halibutt 17:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have, over decades, spoken with many Polish veterans of September 1939, and the only term I recall them using is "kampania wrześniowa," with no derogatory or tendentious connotation. For the Poles — at least, for those Poles — September 1939 was just one campaign in their war. logologist 19:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably much younger than you are, but I had the opportunity to speak to lots of WWII vets (most notably those who fought in the Battle of Monte Cassino), and most of them used the terms Wrzesień (September), Klęska (Defeat, as in "after the defeat I found myself in Russia") or wojna obronna (Defensive war). But this might be due to the fact that most of them fought on the other front of the war in 1939, that is both against Germany and Russia. Take note that the very term "campaign" would suggest that there was only one front, while in reality there were two. Halibutt 21:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've spoken, and do speak, with Polish veterans who fought in September 1939, who fought at Cassino, who fought in both those venues and elsewhere, and they all speak of "the September Campaign" or — by way of shorthand — indeed of "September." But my veterans have never spoken of a "Defensive War"; I've seen it in a book title but never heard it, and to my ear it sounds like "political correctness." But I guess that's what comes of spending nearly all one's life away from the living springs of a nation's p.c. logologist 01:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't treat Wrzesień as a shorter form of Kampania wrześniowa. IMO the earlier is used on purpose and not as a shorthand. As such it fits perfectly well into the Polish 20th century months which serve as proper names for various historical periods (i.e. Październik - 1956; Grudzień - 1970; and so on).
As I said, apart from my grandma and grandpa, who were using either the term wojna wrześniowa ("September war") or simply the wojna z niemcami ("war with the Germans"), I've spoken only to a fistful of vets who attended yearly feasts in my school (named after the Heroes of Monte Cassino). Perhaps those you've spoken with used different terms. Which doesn't change the fact that the term Kampania wrześniowa is far from being the most popular among historians at least since the times of Moczulski's "Wojna Polska", one of the first monographies of the Polish-German_Soviet conflict of 1939. I don't know if it's a matter of p.c. or anything else, but most books I have on the topic use lots of names for that conflict and kampania wrześniowa seems to be one of the least popular. Halibutt 03:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about what it is called in Polish tho, this is English WIkipedia. very few ppl in english have ever heard the term, indeed everyone I have talked to have never heard the term, it is usually called the invasion of Poland, simply as that in English. "Polish Defensive War" makes it sound as if Poland was perfectly innocent, instead of revealing the fact that the Polish army had made raids accross the border since the end of WWI and the establishment of the Polish state (which were often stopped by the Freikorps), indeed the Germans made up a false occurence of this relatively common happening to declare war in 1939. I think a vote should be taken like on the Danzig/Gdansk topic where we agree on one term for all pages, as I see Halibutt likes to go to every page on WWII and change invasion of poland or polish september campaign to "polish defensive war". I am not saying to totally ignore the name used by Halibutt, but instead just have it as a sidenote after the title, like Gdansk/Danzig. why all this POV pushing Halibutt?Jadger 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

While I prefer the PSC to PDW myself, I am amazed to hear about the 'frequent Polish raids' across the border. Fantastic revelation - could you provide sources for this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

they became less frequent once the NAZIs took over, as the Poles knew that the NAZIs meant business. I will try and find sources for u. but from the sources I do remember, the Attack on Sender Gleiwitz was made to imitate Polish attacks accross the border that happened shortly after WWI, for instance the 1st to 3rd Silesian Uprisings, which were aided by Polish army units.Jadger 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, what? 1st and 3rd uprising were "POLISH ATTACKS" across the border? AIDED by Polish army?!? Besides, it is really hard to argue that Poland was somehow guilty of 1939 Nazi attack Szopen 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No u misunderstand, Poles were not who started WWII, they had previously made border clashes with Freikorps, which in any authorative book on the freikorps tells of such happening. however they did assist in the uprisings in Silesia, for instance in 3rd Silesian Uprising topic

"The insurrection began on the date planned early in May, because the population had already been terrified by many acts of violence from the Greater Polish Army as well as German paramilitary groups."

now at this time it was a part of Germany, this proves my point, as why would they be scared of the Polish army if it had never made cross-border raids? the answer of course is that indeed they did make cross-border raids and patrols. The first and third (I said first to third, meaning second as well) were antagonized by both sides wishing to crush the other, they were not simply polish attacks or German attacks upon the other. do u really think that the Nazi propogandists would make up an fake polish attack out of the blue so to say? of course not, every lie has to be based in some way on some slight truth, in order to be believable.Jadger 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources with quotes, pretty please. From books printed after the 1980 or primary documents. Szopen 10:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

already told u, check the Silesian Uprising pages, there are references on there, as for other primary sources, read Goebbels' speech upon the declaration of war on Poland. sure it has lots fo propoganda in it, but this propoganda cant be made out of thin air, it must be based on atleast a little bit of facts which are outlined.Jadger 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia for a while and rarely do I see a statement which simply leaves me speechless. Before I respond, Jadger, could you please let me know what level of education you have completed (high school, college, university)? It might help me craft my response. Balcer 05:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have completed a bachelor in History at University (I am not going to divulge more personal info), and I don't know why my education level matters. Goebbels would not of made up this idea of Polish raids if there was not atleast a history or a threat of it, read any authorative history of Weimar Germany, the Freikorps not only crushed the left but they also repelled raids by the Polish army. just will u atleast look at the Silesian uprisings page on the wiki, it clearly states that the Polish army was interfering and aiding the rebels and antagonizing.Jadger 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)in

If you are indeed educated in history, then you must understand the importance of using objective, scholarly sources in your research. Hence you must understand that a propaganda speech, by definition filled with exaggerations and some lies, aimed at influencing public opinion for an immediate political end, is not a good source of objective knowledge. This is especially true for World War II which has been extensively studied, and about which thousands of high quality historical works exist. In short, if you want to demonstrate anything here, do not quote Goebbels, but go to your local university library and find some reliable sources written by impartial historians. Balcer 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, like the IPN's cataloging of alleged war crimes that were made in communist Poland. Don't even dare to suggest any bias or propaganda coming from these sources. You would have had stopped your education with kindergarten. Dr. Dan 02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is the best ww2 article I have seen nice job

Great job everyone

(Deng 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Invasion of Poland 1939

Anyone opposed to changing this article's title from "Polish September Campaign" to "Invasion of Poland 1939"? logologist|Talk 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Only after Polish-Soviet War is renamed to Second Polish Invasion of Russia and Polish-Muscovite War - to First Polish Invasion of Russia. This has been suggested before. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If we were to follow your suggestion, those two articles wouldn't be the only ones to be moved. Appleseed (Talk) 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I favor Polish Defensive War, and the current title is my second choice. Appleseed (Talk) 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We should simply use the most common names of the wars. However, if we are to use strong terms where applicable (no doubt invasion is applicable here) I would ask same users to support renaming articles about Polish invasions to the East to "invasion" as well. We now have a Polish-Muscovite War and Soviet-Polish War. Please invasion their titles too. Same standards everywhere. --Irpen 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew we could count on our siblings in this case as well :) As to what Irpen wrote above, please take note that it's a complete absurd. In fact both Poland and Russia invaded Ukraine and Belarus in 1919-1920, with the only difference being that Poland entered Ukraine to drive the Soviets out (as no Ukrainian government invited them), while the Russians later invaded Poland. If the Polish-Soviet War was an invasion of Russia, then how come Polish forces did not enter a single inch of Russian territory? But this is of course OT here
As Appleseed, I'd go for defensive war. However, invasion of Poland seems the second best choice for me. It has the merit of being completely neutral in this case (contrary to the case of 1920, where the use of the term "invasion" is problematic, to say the least) and definitely less POVed than the current title. //Halibutt 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If this was indeed an invasion of Poland, then how come Soviet forces did not enter a single inch of Polish territory? They seem to have occupied (or rather liberated) the Ukraine and Belarus from centuries of Polish oppression. Hence, my preferred title (as concerns Soviet Union) is the Ukrainian-Belarusian Liberation War. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
<Sarcasm mode>Yes, Ghirla, you raise a valid point. There can be little doubt that Russian forces even during their furthest drive east (Battle of Warsaw (1920) did not enter Polish territory: Poland was after all but a (rebellious) province of the larger entity, the (former) Russian Empire, one which unfortunately succeeded in refusing the generous invitation to join the Soviet paradise on equal terms as a republic. And Warsaw is a well known Russian city, only by an accident occupied by Poles for, oh, few hundreds years since its founding. This would fit nicely with a theme common in infailable Russian historiography which sees that war as part of the Russian Civil War.</Sarcasm mode>. Seriously, Ghirla, you are feeling OK today?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Pick up a book in English on WWII, find the chapter on this period and history, and odds are its going to be titled "The Invasion of Poland". That is why it should be named so here. Drogo Underburrow 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest we forget about what is this article called on wiki and ask ourselves what is it called in academic sources. There are compelling arguments (see #"September Campaign" (II)) for the name change, although for the moment I'll abstain.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Print.google.com returns 36 pages with \"september campaign" 1939\ and 2780 pages with \"invasion of poland" 1939\. Ahasuerus 17:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt's and some other responses were fierce but off-topic. Now back to the topic. Are we going to rename Polish-Muscovite War into a "Polish invasion of Russia"? There is plenty of sources that call it such. It is also called "Polish internevtion". Maybe Halibutt would prefer that one? The bottomline is that invasion is a strong word and, as per common sense, there is no need to use strong terms in article titles. I went length into that here. Please take a look at this one month old discussion. If we abandon the rule to avoid strong words in titles, we should call the Polish invasions fopr what they were as well. And I am talking the article titles. Davies uses Polish invasion of Tesin (I can give a page #). Multiple source use Polish intervention or Polish invasion of Russia for PL-Muscovy war. Let's just think whether strong words is a thing to use or to avoid in Wikipedia article titles. There are academic souces that use strong word (examples above) and we can then rename a bunch of articles. If we prefer strong words NOT used in the titles, we should clean up the massacres and martyrdoms from a bunch of PL related article. For now, I see double standards: Polish users like to use such terms for articles where Poland was a victim but not when it was the perpetrator. Details here. --Irpen 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is that there were more than two participants in the conflict, so unless you want to call it the German-Polish-Soviet War of 1939, you have to look for another naming convention. Similarly, you can't call the 2003 conflict in Iraq the Iraqi-American War of 2003 because there were other belligerents involved, hence 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, "invasion" can be controversial for other reasons -- see above -- but it does have the added benefit of being the standard term used by academics. Ahasuerus 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Invasion of Poland, 1939 or the likes is good, as that is what it was, and that is what it is most commonly called in English. I also like it as unlike other names it does not say only the one attacker, as sometimes it is called German attack on Poland, which ignores the fact that the Russians and Slovaks also attacked and took land.

--Jadger 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, once you eliminate all permutations of Polish-XYZian War of 1939, you are left with some form of the current title, Polish September Campaign, vs. some form of Invasion of Poland 1939. The former is more NPOV while the latter is more much common in history books. Given the region's history, NPOV may be the more important consideration in this case, although I wish it was more specific, e.g. Polish September 1939 Campaign. Ahasuerus 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the most natural and neutral way would be Polish-German-Soviet-Slovakian War of 1939, but this title would be a nightmare. As to what Irpen wrote above: if my comments on P-BW were OT, then how come your comments on the same conflict are not off topic here? Did you check the name of this article? //Halibutt 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, the topic here is the optimization of the names. I pointed to a global problem we have in many Poland related articles. Your post, OTOH, strarted with allegations about some users having been related by blood (siblings!).

I can't think of any other user than yourself who contributed more to the current bizarre mess with titles ("massacres" being used in articles where Poles were victims and invasions not being used when Poles where the perpetrators). The situation was described in detail earlier and prompted no action since, sadly, the Polish Wikicommunity either shares or is willing to tolerate there double standards used for titling the articles. --Irpen 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the talk is about here. "The Invasion of Poland" is what the books call it. End of discussion. That is its English name. Drogo Underburrow 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
As much as I tentatively agree with you, would you also apply this reasoning to moving the Battle of France to Invasion of France? It is also more popular (890 Gooble Books hits vs 680).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Last time I checked this was not the talk page for the French invasion. I'm tired of reading about other fronts and campaigns here. Its a diversionary tactic. Can we stick with the issue at hand, and not try to solve the world's problems? The "Invasion of Poland" should be the name of this page, as its clear that that name is the most common one. 'Polish September Campaign'? I never heard of that until I read Wikipedia. Where did that come from? Drogo Underburrow 21:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The Polish campaign or The Polish campaign of 1939 is quite common (817 print.google.com hits for \"polish campaign" germany\), although not as common as \"invasion of poland" 1939\ (2780 hits). Perhaps The Polish campaign of 1939 (to dab it from other "Polish campaigns") could be a reasonable compromise? Ahasuerus 21:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Totally support the Ahasuerus' title. --Irpen 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
personally, I think we have lost site of the purpose, as I mentioned before, when I first tried to find this article (years ago now) I typed in something along the lines of German invasion of Poland and it did not find it, I had to find the WWII article, then find the links from there. this has probably been solved now, but we are not talking about being Politically Correct in as much as what do users call it? a majority of english speakers know it as such, so it should be named as such on the wiki. --Jadger 02:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There should certainly be a bunch of redirects for different versions of 1939 invasion of Poland. Whether the main article should be called XYZ or ZYX is a different and, in the grand scheme of things, somewhat academic question as long as it's not blatantly misleading or POV like renaming the American Civil War article to the War of Northern Aggression would be. Ahasuerus 02:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

then I support the current name, as it is the same as Ahasuerus' title except it has the time period in the title.--Jadger 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article named "Polish September Campaign"? Where did this name originate from? -- Drogo Underburrow 18:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read the discussion above - there are three name threads altogether and the first one answers your question.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read it. I don't see any explanation on the origins of the name. Who named this article, and on what basis did they do it? Just who, besides Wikipedia, calls it this? Drogo Underburrow 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We have a request for help in the military history task force. I'm native German and can present the German point of view. In popular German literature "Überfall auf Polen" "Descent on Poland" is often used. According to wikipedia regulations we have to use the most common name (not limited to names used in scientific disputes). The names presented in this discussion are names used in by science of history. Let's see it like this. German regime had it thoroughly prepared, an incident was faked and Polish troops stood little chance against the Soviet-German alliance, although their intelligence had not left them unprepared.
But a big problem does pose the use of "Einmarsch und Besetzung von Tschechien" Invasion and occupation of Czechia on 15th March 1939. Perhaps with a different name for the events in Poland the military resistance there should be stressed, as the Poles were a major part of the allied forces during the WWII. While I must admit "Einmarsch in Ploen" Invasion of Poland is not an unheard of name for the events to me.
  • German article point of view:


Polenfeldzug 1939

Polish campaign 1939

Der Polenfeldzug gilt als Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges in Europa.

The Polish campaign is regarded as start of the Second World War in Europe.

Unter dem Decknamen Fall Weiß griff die deutsche Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 ohne vorherige

Under the codename Case White the German Wehrmacht attacked on 1th septembre 1939 without prior

Kriegserklärung Polen an. In der populären deutschen Literatur ist deshalb auch oft vom „Überfall auf

declaration of war Poland. In the popular German literature therefore either often "Descent on

Polen” die Rede, obwohl dieser Begriff umstritten ist.

Poland" is used, although this term is controversial.


In der Geschichtswissenschaft wird die Bezeichnung Polenfeldzug von einigen Wissenschaftlern kritisch

In science of history the term Polish campaign is viewed critical by several scientists,

betrachtet, da er nach ihrer Argumentation den Charakter des Angriffs nicht genau wiedergibt und den

because it does not reflect exactly the character of the attack and the

polnischen Widerstand verharmlost. In vielen aktuellen Publikationen wird daher der Begriff

Polish resistance gets played down. Because of this in many current publications the term

Septemberfeldzug verwendet.

September campaign is used. Wandalstouring 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigns of this campaign

There are some interesting articles on pl wiki about campaings withing this campaign that should eventually be translated:

I would like to divide the battles in Template:Campaignbox Polish September Campaign between those campaigns (theaters?). I would think that Battle of Bzura should also be classified as a 'larger-then-your-average-battle' campaign, and we would probably need something for Romanian Bridgehead (last stages of the war), and possibly battle of Warsaw (1939) may be separate. Any comments on that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Other related articles to translate from pl wiki:

Well, apart from the battle for the borders, which is generally accepted as a separate part of the war, there are no separate campaigns to follow. Of course, we could split the list of battles onto separate lists for all the army-sized fronts, but this would not be a good idea IMO. //Halibutt 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article title (for Halibutt... AGAIN)

As the topic title has already been discussed on this talk page, I would like to finally close the matter once and for all. Halibutt keeps trolling and watching my contributions, after everytime I change "Polish Defensive War" to the standard "Polish September Campaign" he will revert my work. I feel it has already been discussed extensively on here, and as "Polish September Campaign" is more acceptable and less POV then "defensive war" and so we should conclusively say on here that one term is to be used. The article title has already been settled on here, so why do you insist on changing it's name on every article except this one to your POV version which it has already been stated is rarely if ever used, my dear Hali?

--Jadger 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the proper term is "Polish September Campaign" (avoid redirects, rename this article first) I would like to strongly caution you to remember WP:CIV and avoid WP:PA. Refferning to actions of an experienced editor like Halibutt as 'trolling' is a serious accusation and unless you can prove that Halibutt is indeed 'trolling' you should apologize for this.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  00:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Illusions of grandeur anyone? I don't monitor Jadger's contribution list, I merely watch my own watchlist.
As to other issues, I see absolutely no need to change [[Polish September Campaign|Polish Defensive War]] into [[Polish September Campaign]], as both names are perfectly legitimate. And that's been discussed here ad nauseam as well. The latter reflects German&Soviet POV, the latter reflects Polish POV, but both are used. In that case that's what the redirects are for. And especially so in the case of the part of the "September" campaign that took place in October. //Halibutt 09:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


well, when I edit more than 10 articles on Polish military units and/or significant people from "polish Defensive war" to "Polish September Campaign" on one day, and the next day all of them have been reverted to the previous POV version by another person, what else am I to think? Not to mention that multiple times he has also reverted my grammar and spelling corrections to an incorrect version the next day after I make them simply because it is me doing the editing. But please, do not take this off topic, the point is, why push a POV Molobo, when a title has already been agreed upon? and so what if the September Campaign extended a few days into October? the Hundred Years War didn't last 100 straight years. Not to mention that both are not used, Polish Defensive War has never been used in English Language scholarly work, if it has, point it out, the only time "defensive war" is used is in Polish sources. This has already been discussed above, and even your fellow Poles admit "September Campaign" is more common in Poland than "defensive war" (as stated in previous discussions here).

--Jadger 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. You must really be overworked because you just referred to Halibutt as Molobo... --Hohns3 05:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. But what is there that makes you wonder? To paraphrase your own statement, when you are on an editing spree, trying to remove the name you dislike from several articles written by yours truly, it seems really likely people will revert you and ask for clarification at the talk page. That's exactly what I did. Yet, I don't call you a troll nor do I suggest that you're watching my list of contributions...
A title has indeed been agreed upon, eventhough a proper WP:RM is nearing as, judging by the lengthy discussions above, the current title is used mostly by wikipedia, while many (most?) wikipedians would like a more neutral name. However, whatever the title of the article is, we are by no means restricted to it. There is no rule urging us to use only the name of the relevant article.
As to the name itself - fellow wikipedians tend to differ. Some point out that the Defensive War is more prominent in Poland, others point out to the fact that English speakers use Invasion of Poland almost exclusively. Let's wait for the move voting and see what happens. //Halibutt 08:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I noted there was an error on those pages and tried to correct it, it frustrates me when people revert my correction.
as in the discussion above, even "September Campaign" is more common than "defensive war" in Poland."However, whatever the title of the article is, we are by no means restricted to it. There is no rule urging us to use only the name of the relevant article." by your logic, I can change every article link on wiki to say "tooty fruity" such as: tooty fruity, and that would be totally normal and acceptable. the first paragraph thus would say:
The Polish September Campaign or the "Polish-German War of 1939" (also known in Poland as the "1939 Defensive War" (Wojna obronna 1939 roku), in Germany as the "Poland Campaign" (Polenfeldzug), and codenamed tooty fruity ("Case White") by the German General Staff), was the tooty fruity invasion of tooty fruity by tooty fruity, the tooty fruity and a small German-allied tooty fruity contingent. The invasion of Poland marked the start of tooty fruity as Poland's western allies, the tooty fruity and tooty fruity, tooty fruity on Germany on tooty fruity. The campaign began on tooty fruity tooty fruity, one week after the signing of the secret tooty fruity, and ended on tooty fruity tooty fruity, with Germany and the Soviet Union occupying the entirety of Poland.
personally, I prefer to leave tooty fruity out of the wiki articles. Like in the Treaty of Augsburg, "he who rules, chooses". thus, on the Polish wikipedia you can call it whatever you want, even the Polish version of tooty fruity, but on the English wikipedia use the english version, I would not be against changing it to "invasion of Poland" as I already said in previous discussion, but in no circumstance should it be "defensive war" which absolutely reaks of the worst POV.

--Jadger 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, guys, is that that important? As long as PDW is used by some English sources, why not use it from time to time? It is not POVed or anything. Although personally I would prefer to avoid redirects and so I'd recommend to Halibutt that if he thinks PDW is better, why not go for RM? PS. Both of you, please don't even think of engaging in revert wars on that. If I see them, I will come down hard on both of you - consider this a friendly admin warning.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not revert warred, although Halibutt has tried to antagonize me into doing so, see the history for: [[Polish 8th Infantry Division‎]Henryk Sucharski‎Podhale rifles etc. etc. the list goes on and on, if you you look at his contributions lately, you will see most of it has been changing it to "polish defensive war".

--Jadger 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Take note that I have recently removed all redirects using AWB, so there's no need to worry. And that's the reason why so many of my edits were related to the matter recently. In fact it seemed that there were more articles linking to Polish Defensive War than to Septemberfeldzug, which IMO is fairly instructive.
Everything is ok now, as there are no redirects, while the name is ok. If we are to follow the rules of the treaty of Augsburg, so be it. He who writes the article, chooses. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Don't get me wrong, Jadger, but I have yet to see you actually write any article on the matter, while most of your edits are either related to removal of some facts you're uncomfortable with (German WWII war crimes) or names switching (as is the case here). Why not focus on something more constructive?
As to WP:RM - perhaps it's high time we started it? //Halibutt 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
all you have done is changed links from saying "Polish Defensive War" to "Polish September Campaign|Polish Defensive War", that is still forcing the same jaded POV. just because you and Molobo have had more time on your hands to edit more articles to say "Polish Defensive War" doesnt mean that the term is more commonly used, it just means you need to get out more and converse with actual people.
see my first point, while technically not redirecting, your edits are still doing the same thing. We are following the treaty of Augsburg as you have accepted than, and as it was stated, this is English wikipedia, not Polish, so no use of Polish "defensive" war on English wikipedia. You have no ownership rights to the article just because you have helped to write it, it is an open encyclopedia to all to edit, but not to edit to there jaded POV, so please stop Halibutt. And what is more constructive than removing half truths and whole lies, and jaded POVs halibutt? I guess since you have run out of sensible arguments on the topic you are going to attack my person now? tu quoque.
I notice you have ignored my request for you to show a single English authoritative source that uses "Polish Defensive War".

--Jadger 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, no need to make it personal, huh? I'm certainly not going to retaliate and start speak of you rather than yoiur arguments. Don't assume that and do not try to provoke me. Please.
As to the rest of what you wrote above: there is no "jaded POV" in using various terms for the same phenomenon. The Polish name for the war, while being more accurate than the German Septemberfeldzug (the war was ideed a defensive one for Poland, while it was not fought exclusively in September and, technically, it was a German september campaign), is by no means any more or less POVed. It's simply the Polish name for that conflict. How come the German name is less POV than the Polish one?
As to my recent switch from [[Polish Defensive War]] to [[Polish September Campaign|Polish Defensive War]]: that's precisely what WP:REDIRECTs are for anyway. At the same time there are people who believe that redirects lower the page rankings in google and prefer to avoid them, hence the double titles one sees commonly and hence the increased bot activity lately. Such a solution has also the merit of a decent compromise, as both names are now equally visible for every user of wikipedia. Just point your mouse over the link and you'll see.
Finally, as to the Augsburg rule you proposed: I'm all for it. Let's leave it up to the authors to decide for themselves, just like we allow them to chose from all other synonymic terms. Why restrict that to the name preferred by Jadger? Why exactly should we ban all other names? I agree noone owns articles on wikipedia. However, by common sense people whop write articles should have a freedom of choice of proper words at least no lesser than those who merely campaign for changing a word or two here and there. Halibutt

you retalliate? I dont think so, I was only pointing out some of your major character faults, just like you did, as you were the one that made it personal, starting with: Don't get me wrong, Jadger, but I have yet to see you actually write any article on the matter, while most of your edits are either related to removal of some facts you're uncomfortable with (German WWII war crimes) or names switching (as is the case here). Why not focus on something more constructive? that is put in a nice way, like if I were to say, "no offence Halibutt, but your an asshole". Of course I have not said that, but putting the no offence at the start like you placed dont get me wrong makes it alright to say w/e you want.

both names are not thus equally prominent for users of wiki, as the one only shows up in the coding, when a reader reads the article they do not 98% of the time read the coding to find any hidden words. especially since the two names are not equal, "polish Defensive War" is not used by anyone outside of Poland as has been shown on here, so why do you insist a Polish name should take precedence over the terms commonly accepted everywhere else.

However, by common sense people whop write articles should have a freedom of choice of proper words at least no lesser than those who merely campaign for changing a word or two here and there. of course, but within reason, that does not mean that they can push their own POV simply because they have written an article, as the articles are collaborations, you cannot claim to have written this article and use whatever name you want on it and all links to it. this again goes to my argument above, if I were to have written this article, I could not make every link say [[polish september campaign|tooty fruity]] or in every instance of the use of John Lennon's name on the wiki call him [[John Lennon|Johnny Boy]]. Of course John Lennon never went by the name "Johnny Boy", and neither has the invasion of Poland ever been called "defensive war" by anyone sensible or atleast a little knowledgeable.

--Jadger 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Which means you got me wrong precisely because I asked you not to... Let's stick to the topic then. The other name is not hidden, it's there. As both are 100% acceptable, I see no problem with that - and I'd appreciate it if you explained why do you. Simple statement of some alleged "Polish POV" is not enough, I'm afraid.
As to the usage of the term - the Septemberfeldzug is not used much outside of Germany and Russia either, as has been already shown above. Yet we're using it - and it's fine with everyone, you included. BTW, there are more examples of such double naming. Just check Gdansk to see what I mean. And apparently there's no problem with that either.
As to the final remarks: if we followed your logic, that would mean that people who do not write a single word on the topic except for such naming wars should not be allowed to push their own POV either, should they. I'm glad we agree on that - or do we? As to the usage of the term - it is currently the most prominent in Poland, so it's not that it's not accurate, POV, bizarre or invented. It's a simple statement of fact BTW (as I already mentioned). On the other hand I could toss an equally misleading remark that the German term is used in English only by people not sensible or at least with little knowledge. //Halibutt 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are not 100% acceptable, if both were 100% acceptable you would not have a problem with my calling it the september campaign, and would not revert my work. If both were 100% acceptable, we would not be going through this dispute.

we are not using Septemberfeldzug, stop misrepresenting my position in order to make your position seem correct. I have not only changed your reverts to september campaign but also to German invasion of Poland in 1939 but you still reverted that, I have tried to find a middle ground, you have just blatanly pushed me around.

LMAO, "statement of fact", if I were to be as non-sensical as you, I would claim that all my edits are simple statements of fact and not provide any credible sources. for instance, I am simply stating a fact when I say that all pigs can fly. not to mention that it is not a statement of fact, as it was not a war, but a campaign, if it were a war, where is the peace treaty that ended it? there was a treaty to end WWII, but not to end the Polish Defensive war, so technically Germany and Poland are still at war then rite?

my remark was not misleading, the only person other than yourself any english wiki user has ever encountered that uses "defensive war" is Molobo. while to you he was a marytr, to everyone else he was not sensible and possessed very little knowledge, as even you noticed on occasion.

--Jadger 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Both indeed are acceptable to me. I have a problem with your campaign to remove one name and promote the other, without making any other changes to the articles in question. However, both names are indeed acceptable to me, while I prefer one over the other (for the reasons I stated above).
Did I revert "German and Soviet invasion of Poland" somewhere? If that's the case then I'm sorry, I must've missed that one.
It's a misunderstanding. My statement of fact referred to the fact that "Poland fought a defensive war in 1939" is a simple statement of fact, while "Poland's military activity in 1939 was limited to the month of September" is not. The latter would be true in the case of Slovak forces, but both Polish, German and Soviet forces started the fight in August (border incidents) and continued it well into October. //Halibutt 06:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As to the campaign vs war. The earlier term is usually used to describe actions by specific parts of military forces during specific period, rather than the entire armed forces of certain states. Hence all the campaigns of the American Civil War, hence the 1917 campaign of WWI and so on. At the same time wars do not have to end with a peace treaty. WWII did not have such an ending treaty and its' result was the unconditional surrender of Germany rather than some re-play of Versailles. Similarly, the Polish-Lithuanian War did not end with a peace treaty either. So what? Technically, if we were to follow such logic as presented in your comments, we'd also have to write an article on Polish October Campaign, not to mention French May Campaign, French June Campaign, and so on.
Oh, and Molobo was not a martyr to me, not more than Nico was to you. No need to post such arguments in an otherwise friendly discussion. If we were the only two guys to prefer that name over the other - what's wrong with that? //Halibutt 06:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i speak for all humanity when I say WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU MAKE NO SENSE!!! Polish October Campaign? you make no sense, as stated earlier, names dont have to encapsulate everything (e.g. Hundred years War) but you do not call something it is not, we do not write articles about squirrels and refer to them as human transportation, so why do you call a campaign a war? The Polish September Campaign did not use all the forces of any nation except Poland, which explains why it is only ever called a war in Poland, while everywhere else it is seen simply as a minor campaign in comparison to the ones to come later.

WWII in Europe ended with Germany's unconditional surrender, they signed a treaty declaring their unconditional surrender.

"If we were the only two guys to prefer that name over the other - what's wrong with that?" well when wiki is supposed to be based on consensus and two people (now one) insist on pushing their own name for an article against all others' efforts, well then it throws the very foundations of the wiki out the window.

if you are so sure that you're correct and think "polish defensive war" should be used, lets hold a WP:RM to make it fair and make sure you cannot combine votes from multiple options (see talk:jogaila), we will first hold a vote to see if the name should be moved from Polish September Campaign to Polish Defensive War. After that, we can hold a vote on whether to move it from Polish September Campaign/Defensive War (whichever wins) to Invasion of Poland or similar as discussed previously.

--Jadger 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing that since you have not responded to discussion in 3 days (and made ~250 edits since then) that you have either admitted defeat or are unwilling to continue a discussion on the topic as I have backed you into a corner by offering the WP:RM. consider this a warning, tomorrow I will start moving all them back to Polish September Campaign unless you continue the discussion here.

--Jadger 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. It is called a war in Poland.
  2. It took place in September and October
  3. Sure, there's a guy who started a campaign of changing all instances where other names were used to this bizarre September Campaign, even though there was no double redirect there. But why do you write about it instead of changing your ways?
  4. I do not plan to move this article to Polish Defensive War as I doubt such name would gain much support. I'd rather hold a poll to determine what's more popular: invasion of Poland, Polish campaign, Defensive war, any would do - and all are actually used. Feel free to start it, but until then please refrain yourself from further reverts. Or at least start writing articles instead of simply changing names to the ones you like. Please. //Halibutt 06:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, in some edit summaries you referred to some compromise proposal I allegedly refuse. What is it? I must have missed it. //Halibutt 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. as in the previous discussion, it is not even that popular in Poland, we cannot pretend that the term used by a few Polish historians takes precedence over everyone else. We are not writing from a Polish perspective here.
  2. and so what? as I have stated before, names do not have to cover everything, for instance war of 1812 took place from 1812 until well into 1815.
  3. this "bizarre" september campaign? LMAO, u cant be serious, Polish defensive war has never been spoken once in English except in reference to your or Trollobo's POV pushing. As in the prior discussion, it is a lot more common than Polish Defensive War. by your reasoning Halibutt, we should change the name of the Oklahoma city bombing article to [[Timothy McVeigh Defensive bombing]], why not? the same things that are wrong with that new name are wrong with polish defensive war
  4. it would not gain much support? try ANY support. Why must I start the poll? you are the one who suggested it and want to change everything to the Polish POV.

P.S. well, i changed the terming to [[polish september campaign|invasion of Poland]] and you still reverted, if you would actually care to read your edits rather than just use popups then you might see your numerous errors. I was also talking about the WP:RM that you proposed, and I agreed above, but now what is this? you are reneging yet again? hmmm... so you're just going to continue to try to draw me into a revert war? If [[polish defensive war]] will gain no support in a WP:RM, why do you continue to use it in articles?

now, for me and everyone else, be honest and please tell us why you are carrying on your silly crusade to change all the links to an article from its actual name to a name that only you use. I will not stop correcting your POV pushing until you can atleast come to a certain agreement and stop trying to procrastinate and hope this goes away. and don't you dare ignore discussion again and simply push your POV while ignoring the problems with your edits, while others raise alarms to your "work" on the discussion pages.

as for "writing own articles" I have barely enough time write now to stop your POV pushing, how am I supposed to write articles when there are more pressing matters in "daily upkeep" as I shall put it nicely" of the articles I have currently contributed to. another note, I dont have an axe to grind like you, so I dont feel the need to make up articles and fill them with links to the IPN spouting words of hate and blatantly false acussations against Germany and its people.

--Jadger 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This dispute was listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion, however since neither party is being civil I can't offer any help. Please let me know when yuo've calmed down. Fagstein 07:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Jadger, but you still failed to respond to my question: which rule prohibits us from using various names for the same phenomenon? Is there some wiki regulation that bans that? //Halibutt 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to ask what's wrong with the compromise I suggested? You had a problem with redirects leading to Polish Defensive War. I took my time to change all of them to avoid redirects and to make future name change easier. Is there a problem with that? //Halibutt 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. well, why dont you go to every article where "Gdansk" is used and change it to [[Gdansk|Danzig]], let's see how warm of a reception you would get for that as well. I would like to refer you to DNFF, where one of the major ways of identifying trolls is how they circumnavigate rules in new and creative ways, like you have done.
  2. that's not a compromise, that was surely not your intention "to make future name change easier", it would be easier to leave it at [[polish september campaign]] than to keep changing it to [[polish september campaign|polish Defensive War]] as it would require a lot less typing to just leave it as its proper name (the former). not to mention that you claim that both names are equally acceptable, but you seem intent to change every link from [[Polish september campaign]] to [[polish september campaign|polish Defensive War]]

--Jadger 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. In order to prove that I circumnavigated the rules, you'd first have to point me and others to the rule I allegedly circumnavigated
  2. Apparently you forgot that I did not change a single link from [[Polish September Campaign]] to [[Polish September Campaign]]. Not one. I changed all [[Polish Defensive War]], [[Polish Defence War]], [[Polish Defensive War of 1939]] and others to [[Polish September Campaign|Polish Defensive War]], so the names were already there in those articles. I left them untouched, simply changing the links below them to avoid redirects. And, frankly speaking, I followed your advice to follow the rule of cuius regio eius religio. Whoever wrote those articles and decided to use the Polish Defensive War name - it was his right to chose it. Others, who chose September Campaign, should also be happy as not a single link was changed. Note that I did not change a single link in any articles you've started either (were there any?). What I protest is your violation of the compromise you yourself proposed and changing all the links you find to the ones you like - for no apparent reason. //Halibutt 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. did you actually read what I said, or did you just skim through it missing most of what I said? see:[article].
  2. you did not follow my advice, you skewed it out from what it actually means. "he who rules, chooses" by the treaty of Augsburg, the English Language rules on the English wikipedia, you can call it whatever you want on the Polish wikipedia, but do not think that just because you started the article that you have control over what is added in subsequent edits. when have I violated the compromise i proposed? I changed a link from [[Polish Defensive War]] to [[Polish September Campaign|invasion of Poland]] and then you subsequently reverted it back to the former. My edits were not against my compromise, NOW STOP SKEWING MY WORDS, AND PUTING OTHERS IN MY MOUTH.

--Jadger 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Correct me if I'm wrong: you claim that there is a wiki rule prohibiting to use links like this one, and that I have violated (or circumnavigated) it. However, so far you was unable to provide me with a link to such a rule. If so, then I'm afraid I cannot agree with you.
  2. Then it was a misunderstanding. I understood your Augsburg remark as a suggestion that the person to write the article probably knows what he or she is doing and that it's the most logical thing to leave the naming in such a vague matter up to the author. However, from your comment above it seems that what you actually meant is that the naming should be left up to User:Jadger. Anyway, I must have missed the article where you changed [[Polish Defensive War]] to [[Polish September Campaign|invasion of Poland]], as in most cases the only change you applied was [[Polish Defensive War]] to [[Polish September Campaign]], to which I oppose. Sorry if such a change occurred, I'd be less trigger happy in the future - which does not mean that I will all of a sudden support your campaign of changing names. //Halibutt 08:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. please Hali, stop twisting my words. I will provide the link again [article] to what I am talking about, please read it.
  2. everyone is equal when it comes to editing articles on wikipedia, that is the point of wikipedia, the original author has no right to say what goes on an article, that is plain and obvious. I don't think you understand the word "rule" as English language rules on the English Wikipedia, you don't see me going on the Polish wikipedia and anglicizing article titles, but according to you that would be perfectly legal and allowable, maybe I will do that then. Why do you oppose a move from [[polish defensive war]] to [[polish september campaign]] when you have said in this discussion that they are both acceptable?

--Jadger 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

The purpose of this poll is to establish the two most reasonable names for the conflict in question and to check which names should be brought to proper WP:RM. Feel free to add second and third choices as well as pros and cons to the relevant sections. As the matter seems to be touchy, please stay civil and avoid arguments like it's wrong because it's supported only by Nazi propaganda. Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 08:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish september campaign

[edit] supporters

[edit] pros

  1. A variation of Polish 1939 campaign or Polenfeldzug --Jadger 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. quite neutral as the fighting occured in Poland, in September and indeed was a campaign. --Jadger 21:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cons

  1. The name was coined for political reasons to make the Polish war effort look less significant as the conflict did end in October and not in September //Halibutt
  2. there was not any major fighting in October, and the name is simply a slightly different version of Polish Campaign of 1939. see similar instance war of 1812. --Jadger 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. This name takes only the German view into consideration, as it calls the conflict a campaign. For the Germans it was merely a campaign, for the Poles it was a war, fought by several states on various fronts //Halibutt

[edit] Polish defensive war

[edit] supporters

  1. Third choice (better than the current title) //Halibutt 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pros

  1. Used in modern Polish historiography //Halibutt
  2. Quite neutral in that indeed Poland fought a defensive war against foreign invasion. //Halibutt

[edit] cons

  1. Barely ever used in English historiography //Halibutt
  2. Inherently POVed similar to invasion of Poland(1939) below. --Jadger 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. was not actually a war. but a minor campaign in WWII --Jadger 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. much like "polish september campaign", the war as it is called here, did not take place throughout all of 1939, but only a couple of weeks. --Jadger 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. it was not a defensive war, as Poland indeed attacked German positions and attempted an offensive at Battle of Bzura calling it a "defensive war" is ludicrous, or else we should rename all war articles to "____ defensive war", the blank being filled in by whatever nation declared war second, for instance the Franco-Prussian War would be renamed prussian defensive war.--Jadger 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Poland (1939)

[edit] supporters

  1. First choice //Halibutt 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. First choice, describes exactly what happened. Balcer 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. my only choice,I am not going to try voting multiple times like Balcer and Halibutt to make the voting inelligible like on talk:Jogaila--Jadger 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. I'll put my vote here. Everyone knows what "Invasion of Poland (1939)" is talking about. Fagstein 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. The most commonly found name for the event which precipitated the Second World War in the English language. At least, in scholarly sources. Dr. Dan 02:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. My choice as well (213.70.74.165 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
Wait a second. We all agree then (all meaning everyone who seems to care about this issue at this point)! In that case continuing this any further is nonsensical. Can we just stop this poll here and now and propose a move to Invasion of Poland (1939)? It will save us all time. Balcer 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Balcer, remember that WP:CON trumps WP:STRAW every time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This hasn't even been open 24 hours, allow a little time for others to participate, I would be happy with closing this and moving the article to this title, as long as Halibutt stops calling it "polish defensive war" on links to this article, that was the whole point of this. --Jadger 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently a consensus could not be reached through a simple discussion, so a straw poll was something logical to me. However, AFAIC we don't have to let it stay here for ages, WP:RM is nearing anyway. //Halibutt 08:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pros

  1. Seems to be the most natural name used by large part of English speakers //Halibutt
  2. Avoids the war/campaign/battle problem nicely //Halibutt
  3. Avoids the problem of how many states to include in the name on the attacking side //Halibutt

[edit] cons

  1. Some believe the word invasion is inherently POVed //Halibutt

[edit] Polish 1939 campaign (or Polish campaign of 1939)

[edit] supporters

  1. Second choice //Halibutt 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Also my second choice. Seems neutral. Balcer 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. First choice [ Polish campaign (1939) ] - in line with accepted article naming. --Nixer 20:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What accepted naming? Do we have a NC on that? I don't see even the French Campaign (1940)... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pros

  1. Used in German historiography (Polenfeldzug - Polish campaign) //Halibutt
  2. avoids limiting the Polish defence to September //Halibutt

[edit] cons

  1. Much like September campaign, this name takes only the German perspective into consideration. From the Polish perspective it was a war rather than a campaign, fought by several states, on several fronts. //Halibutt

[edit] Polish-German war of 1939

[edit] supporters

[edit] pros

  1. quite neutral //Halibutt
  2. stresses that the conflict was in fact a war rather than a campaign. Multiple fronts, many countries involved, and so on. //Halibutt

[edit] cons

  1. Does not mention the Soviets //Halibutt
  2. was not actually a war. but a minor campaign in WWII --Jadger 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. much like "polish september campaign", the war as it is called here, did not take place throughout all of 1939, but only a couple of weeks. --Jadger 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. This name gives the impression the war started and ended in 1939, which is obviously incorrect. Balcer 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Did I forget some name? Feel free to add it to the list. //Halibutt 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, serious people in Germany do not say "Polenfeldzug" (because that notion had been already used before 1945). Instead of "Polenfeldzug" most historians, school books, etc. say "Überfall auf Polen" (=assault/raid on Poland) in Germany. I have to admit that my English translation could be optimized as - at least - "Raid on Poland" sounds somehow shitty (ps: the already proposed notion "Invasion of Poland" comes quite close to "Überfall" but is not the same). However, this notion does not exclude the Soviet role, does neither say war nor campaign, does not limit the actions to September, etc. (213.70.74.165 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

So, what would be the name you'd support? //Halibutt 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

in reference to Polish September Campaign cons: the point Halibutt makes does not really matter as there was not any major fighting in October, and the name is simply a slightly different version of Polish Campaign of 1939. see similar instance War of 1812 which lasted well into 1815. --Jadger 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

not only the German perspective sees it as a campaign, but everyone excluding Poles does as well. If it was a separate war from WWII as Halibutt claims, then how can its start be the start of WWII (as it is)? And also, when did this war end? as the article so proudly proclaims that Poland never surrendered, and there was no fighting in this "war" after Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany did not surrender to Poland either. --Jadger 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

please only vote for one article title, this is a poll, we don't want you to start combining multiple votes like you did on talk:Jogaila--Jadger 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the German Wikipedia and the article is called "Polenfeldzug" (=Polish campaign) there, but the article`s title is as well heavily disputed on the German discussion site as it refers to a notion which has been used before 1945. However I would propose "Attack[Assault] on Poland" [as for the titles at choice, I would prefer "Invasion of Poland"]. (213.70.74.164 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

And again, Jadger puts some strange statements into my mouth.
  1. I don't claim the Polish-German-Soviet conflict was not a part of WWII. The Continuation War was part of WWII, same as Slovak-Hungarian War, Sino-Japanese War, Great Patriotic War, and many more conflicts called wars rather than campaigns. All were part of the WWII, yet were also separate wars on their own. As Germany took part in most of them (this way or another), from German perspective they were but campaigns of the same conflicts. However, for the countries invaded these often were separate wars.
  2. As to October: what would be major fighting? If three days long battle of Kock is not enough, then what is missing?
  3. Feel free to vote on any name you'd support, the reason for this poll (as stated right above it) is to determine acceptable names, not the name. It is not yet a WP:RM. //Halibutt 06:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

the sino-Japanese war started long before WWII, the Great Patriotic War is a communist propoganda term for the fighting between Germany and the USSR, the Slovak-Hungarian war was isolated fighting that was not a part of WWII, but took place at the same time and did not involve any of the countries/alliances that were at war at the time in a major capacity. the continuation war was a separate one, as it states on the article "The Continuation War is so named in Finland to make clear its relationship to the Winter War" it is named so in Finland, it is meant to determine it from other fighting finland partook in during WWII.

Battle of Kock: 250 KIA, that is not classified as major fighting, more German civilians died from the strategic bombing practically every nite later in the war.

--Jadger 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And was not the war of 1939 isolated? Were there any Allied offensives in the west? Or perhaps Poland's allies did bomb German war industry and airfields to help Poland? Nope... But if you don't like the examples, there's still the Winter War, the April War, the Greco-Italian War, the Pacific War... all were parts of WWII, yet were separate conflicts. //Halibutt 12:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
A Question: Sorry to interupt you Gents, but I have a question for Halibutt. The other day when I was attempting to suggest an alphabetical arrangement for another geographical dispute, you suggested that the shorter of two names typically takes precedence over the longer name, e.g., Polish-Lithuanian or Sino-Japanese. What happens when the letters of the entities are the same length? Like Polish-German or Polish-German-Soviet? Does Polish go first like in your two examples above? Is there a formula that Halibutt uses (obviously not alphabetical order), that puts Polish first? Just curious. Dr. Dan 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. I have mentioned to you many times, that you come up with some pretty oxymoronic statements from time to time. Here's a new one ...all were parts of WWII, yet were seperate conflicts. Really, like Antietam and Gettysburg were parts of the American Civil War, yet were seperate conflicts? And the answer to that 60,000 dollar question is, what?
It's not about letters. Linguistic processes hardly ever have anything to do with letters, it's sounds and syllables that count. Anyway, I have no idea what is the typical, most natural order in this case. I suppose it's the logical <attacker>-<defender> war, but I can't say for sure and perhaps it's the other way around. As to other issues, indeed the battle of Antietam is not the same as the battle of Gettysburg. Both are part of the same conflict, yet were separate engagements on their own. //Halibutt 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to answer my question. Anyone else able to help him answer either question? Sorry, Halibutt no cigar this time. Dr. Dan 00:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hali is trying to twist yours and his words around to mean different things. for instance, when he said: "...all were parts of WWII, yet were seperate conflicts" what he meant by conflict there was in the modern connotation as a war, e.g Arab-Israeli conflict. but once you had shown his errors Dr Dan, he changes the meaning of conflict in his posts to mean conflict as in smaller, more personal fighting, such as a bar brawl being a conflict between two people, or as the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg being conflicts between armies rather then your connotation as conflict being war between nations (as in the american civil war was a conflict).

--Jadger 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for sorting it out. It strikes me as a very oxymoronic statement, but English is not his native language. So maybe it's not as much twisting the words around, as one just has to keep a friendly eye on him, and help him out once in awhile. I wish you hadn't brought up the Arab-Israeli conflict, as a pacifist, this latest misery in Lebanon has truly brought out the pessimist in me about the future. Dr. Dan 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

perhaps, but only Hali knows his true intentions, the rest of us can try to determine by his actions, and that seems to be what he did in previous discussion.

--Jadger

Jadger, thanks for changing yet another discussion into your I don't like Halibutt campaign. As to my intentions - I though they were pretty clear: I wanted to reply to Dr.Dan's question. And so I did. No need to seek some double bottom or alleged problems with communication.
As to conflicts, I meant the most natural meaning one could find in any dictionary - or in wikipedia, for that matter. If we are in disagreement, there is a conflict between us. Bar fights, battles, skirmishes, wars, campaigns, uprisings, insurrections, revolutions - all are armed conflicts. Some are part of other conflicts, others are unrelated. Battle of the Bulge was unrelated (at least directly) to Antietam, yet was related to Invasion of Normandy, as both were parts of WWII. Battle of France was not directly related to Punic Wars, but was directly related to Siege of Tobruk, as both were parts of WWII. So were Polish Defensive War, the Winter War (at least to some extent), the Pacific War, Sino-Japanese War, and all the other conflicts I mentioned above.
Now let me repeat the argument I already stated above several times:
  1. From German perspective, the entire WWII consisted of a series of campaigns.
  2. This is not so in the case of other states, at least some of them. For Poland the war of 1939 was not a campaign but rather a separate war. It consisted of hostilities on more than 2 fronts, against 3 states, and so on. But this was not a "Polish campaign" for the Poles. Same for other states that shared a similar fate: Norway did not fight a Norwegian campaign, only to pass on to some other campaign of the same conflict. Germany did.
//Halibutt 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused, could you rewrite that into English? Dr. Dan 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What is it that you don't understand? //Halibutt 06:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL Halibutt, now who's having "illusions of grandeur"? "the pacific war" was a media name for the Pacific theatre of operations, never actually used, like your describing of "Second Polish Republic". just like "the war in iraq" is not a separate war from the war on terror, but a part of it, hence why it is war in Iraq, not "a war in Iraq". it is hard to describe, it is mainly semantics, but here is another example: the war of 1812, one can say "the war in Canada" and "the war in America" and still be talking of the same war. MY POINT about your use of conflict is that you will use the word conflict, then when proven wrong you will say you did not mean conflict in that way.

BTW: I love your game of "which one doesn't belong", it really is quite childish. As I said earlier, the Sino-Japanese war was related to WWII, but was not the same war as it started much earlier than WWII. will you please notice at the bottom of the article Winter War that it is listed as a "contemporary war", not a part of WWII.

  1. no one can disagree with that, most people, not only Germans know that.
  2. the article on "the norwegian campaign" as you call it is called Operation Weserübung on the english wiki (also see Norwegian Campaign), perhaps you should campaign to have that changed to Norwegian Defensive War as well. Not to mention that Britain and France both were the major combatants against Germany, not Norway.

--Jadger 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. LOL, Jadger, now who's having illusions of grandeur? But seriously, so far you failed to explain how was I twisting words, as you put it. Please do so.
  2. How come I was proven wrong? Did someone argue that an armed conflict is not a conflict? Or that perhaps wars, battles and skirmishes are not all conflicts? But this is merely nitpicking, as it doesn't even touch the basic question here. I used the word once, then was accused of twisting words (a thing I'd like you to elaborate on - or apologize), then I explained what I meant. Is that really so important here?
  3. Your examples perfectly prove my point. Wars can be part of other wars, it's all a matter of convention one adopts. There are even battles that are considered parts of other battles. Nothing wrong with the term "war" used in such a context, no matter whichever way you turn the cat.
  4. If that is so clear to everyone, then why do you insist on forcing the German-only POV here?
  5. I don't see a reason to change the name of that article, mainly because of what you pointed out above: contrary to Poland, the case of Norway was much more simple as there was the entire Alliance (almost, except perhaps for the Canadians and the ANZACs) fighting against the Germans, so it's clearly a part of WWII and a campaign of it. Whether the Allies took part in the defence of Poland is rather disputable. //Halibutt 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, I'm still a little confused by some of your remarks. For example the new assertion...There are even battles that are considered parts of other battles. Which ones come to mind? Dr. Dan 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Lots of, actually. Battle of Dunkirk was a part of the Battle of France; Battles of Radzymin, Ossów, Ossowiec and many more were parts of the Battle of Warsaw (1920); Battle of Villers-Bocage was a part of the Battle of Normandy... and perhaps hundreds more. Battle of Chamboise could be described either as a separate battle, as part of the Battle of Falaise, or as part of the entire Operation Totalize or... //Halibutt 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Halibutt, if you will notice Battle of Normandy is properly called Normandy Campaign (its in the campaign box to the right side) and the Battle of France was a campaign as well, it is also called the battle for France, which puts it in a totally different context. As you said about the "second Polish Republic" it is mostly a media term.

And BTW, battle is a very vague term, used for multiple types of engagements, that i think we can agree on, what we were referring to is WAR, which is a different matter, so stop changing the subject. I think you had better brush up on your english skills or stop playing dumb before continuing to use wikipedia

--Jadger 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


But that's exactly what we're doing here: we're choosing one name used by some people and drop other names, also used by some. The German called their military actions in Poland case white. All the other names are just that: names used by historians, soldiers or journalists. These are conventional names. And we're discussing some convention here.
As to your nitpicking, what is a "proper" name for a conflict that is only loosely defined? The Battle of Normandy is also called the Invasion of Europe, Landing in France, D-Day, Battle for France, Liberation of Normandy, perhaps even Normandy Campaign or Campaign in Normandy. Yet, you do not propose to use just a single name for that conflict, nor do you engage in a campaign to make all links to the article uniform. Or do you?
War is as vague as any other military term related to various types of military engagements. We have the Franco-Prussian War (one front, two sides, limited timespan, limited area) and World War II (multiple sides, multiple fronts, area covering almost the entire globe and a lengthy timespan). We have even war against the terrorism (unknown number of sides, no fronts, no clearly defined area nor a timespan). We have conflicts called wars that are actually quite different one from another. Same goes for campaigns, battles, skirmishes, assaults, charges, defences, sieges and so on. It's all the matter of which name is used where and by whom. I still believe there's no rule prohibiting the usage of multiple names for the same phenomenon. At the same time you pretend there is one. I asked you to post a link to such rule, which you failed, so stop changing the subject...
Also, my English seems fine enough. Did I make any serious mistakes that prevented you from finding that rule? //Halibutt 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, but the difference is that no one is calling the Normandy Campaign the German defence of Western Europe from the Allied Scourge. There are no problems with the name "Normandy campaign" as there is with "Polish Defensive War". Wikipedia is built on consensus, so what "some people" call it doesn't matter, it is the majority, people in POland may call it the defensive war, but that has already gotten all that is warranted in the opening line of the article, we do not have to change the English language to suit some Poles.

--Jadger 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Polish Wikipedia calls the article "Kampania Wrzesniowa". I do not speak Polish, but I guess that "Kampania" means "Campaign" (Czech: Invaze [Invasion], German: Feldzug [Campaign], Spain: Inavsiòn, French: Offensive, Netherlands: campagne). Hence, nobody calls it a war not even the Polish Wiki. (213.70.74.165 08:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Jadger, still having difficulties finding that rule?
213.70.74, the Polish wiki article begins as follows: Campaign of September or Poland's defensive war are names applied to the first phase of WWII... (and so on). Both names are used, though I must say I liked the earlier version more, as it used to say that "September campaign" is a popular name for the Poland's defensive war (and so on). Anyway, both names are used. //Halibutt 10:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the heading is called only "Campaign" and we are talking about the heading for the English side. (213.70.74.165 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

And how do you imagine multiple article titles? WP:TITLE does not suggest we moved the article on 1944 landing in Normandy to Battle of Normandy, Invasion of Europe, Landing in France, D-Day, Battle for France, Liberation of Normandy, Normandy Campaign or Campaign in Normandy. //Halibutt 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should actually have no problem with the article`s name any longer as almost everyone voted for "Invasion of Poland". Hence, why don`t we call the article accordingly and Halibut may state in the introduction that the event is also called "Polish (September) Campaign" in many countries respectively "Poland`s Defensive war" in Poland. Furthermore, we could link all other notions to the side. (213.70.74.164 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Sure, that's what the whole fuzz is all about. //Halibutt 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

that is fine, but what I am wondering is if Hali is going to continue to call it [[invasion of Poland|Polish Defensive War]] on linking pages, that is what started this whole thing.

--Jadger 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I will, just like I will continue to call actors living in Germany [[Germany|German]] actors (and not [[Germany]] actors), just like I will continue to mention that something is a part of [[History of Poland (1939-1945)|World War II history of Poland]] rather than is a part of History of Poland (1939-1945) and so on. It's a matter of style and it is up to the author to decide which wording suits him best. As long as it's ok with the rules (and it is) and with common sense, I see no reason not to. //Halibutt 22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

it is not the same as [[Germany|German]] actors as that is not POVed, and does not have so many things wrong with it as Polish Defensive War does. If you will notice above, it is the one with the most cons, and that is without going into detail, and put mildly. it would be fine if you would put "Invasion of Poland (known in Poland euphemisticaly as Polish Defensive War)" on articles, like the danzig/gdansk idea. If it is up to the author, then your revert war will continue, BUT since wikipedia is based upon consensus, the consensus was to not use Polish Defensive War, because a more suitable title exists. By voting for invasion of Poland to be used, you inherently voted for the disuse of Polish Defensive War.

--Jadger 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the German Wikipedia and the article is called "Polenfeldzug" (=Polish campaign) there, but the article`s title is as well heavily disputed on the German discussion site as it refers to a notion which has been used

what about calling it Polish Defensive War|Polish September Campaign on the linking pages? (80.226.167.223 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Jadger, still having problems finding that rule? Let me help you then, there is no such rule in Wikipedia.
As to other remarks, I'm afraid you're not being serious here, so I see no need to reply. Or am I wrong?
Anonymous IP, I'm not sure it's the best option. Why not use common sense and allow the author of the article to chose the wording he or she seems fit, just like in the case of all other articles in Wikipedia?
Anyway, perhaps it's time to move it to WP:RM. //Halibutt 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, you are dead wrong Halibutt, AGAIN! it is not up to the author to decide the title, Wikipedia is built upon consensus, and the consensus above clearly states that "polish defensive war" should not be used when we have much better options available to us. if it up to the author, then I can start the article Pro Man-Boy Sexual Intercourse Association and put your name down as the founder [[User: Halibutt|Pres. John Doe]], I created the article, so I can do that if I want (according to you). after all, according to you, that is "common sense".

not all rules are written down Halibutt, as I outlined in previous discussion (and it is also outlined on the article about trolls), you have found a way to sneakily avoid the rules.

Hali said: "...just like in the case of all other articles in Wikipedia? " Why don't you take that reasoning to the Jogaila article, if that were true, this discussion would not be happening

--Jadger 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, that's not nice if you are questioning Halibutt's sexuality. He personally asked me how I liked the Communist Polish Girls (communist Polish girls, by my reckoning), and I think you are being a trite bit mean to insinuate that he has anything to do with Nambla. Your arguments are valid about the article, but please leave out these personal insuations. Maybe you weren't serious. Thank you, Dr. Dan 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not meaning to offend, I was simply pointing out how, if the rules Halibutt has made up were actually to be applied universally across wikipedia, then there would be chaos and obvious miscontruations to this "rule". Now Halibutt, perhaps you can provide a link to this "rule" on wikipedia that the author can make up whatever name he/she wants for an article.

--Jadger 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, I'm not making up a name for any article here. I'm merely using alternative names, which is perfectly ok with the rules. Neither your suggestions of trolling or your personal remarks would change that. Also, it's not about accuracy as you suggested above, as all names are perfectly accurate in that they are indeed used. It's about style more than anything else.
Also, the case of Jogaila is pretty instructive as nobody's planning to change all links to Władysław II of Poland to Jogaila, especially that the current title has been adopted in violation of both WP:RM and WP:CONSENSUS. //Halibutt 07:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

if it's about style and nothing else (as u claim), than you should not mind if I edit the articles to be more smooth flowing and have the proper title as agreed by our consensus. Is that correct? or since you have more time on your hands, perhaps you could help out, or atleast not revert POV corrections.

P.S. leave your conjecture on talk:Jogaila on that page, there were more votes for Jogaila than any others, but you decided to combine votes for two different names to try and push your version.

--Jadger 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind if you edit the articles to be more smooth flowing and have the proper title. However, I do object to your mission to eradicate all mentions of the name you don't like for no apparent reason. Also, I do not revert POV corrections. I do revert POV additions, but this is a different thing. Finally, I'm not sure how's your Jogaila example related. People there have broken the wiki rules and forged a voting. Here nobody's planning to do that. //Halibutt 23:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

the Jogaila example is related as a warning to people to watch for the trick you and others tried to pull in the Request Move there. you combined votes for two different names and claimed it was a majority (kind of like the events the name Bolshevik came from), while the majority was in fact with Jogaila, although I will admit a slim majority. Perhaps you can show us how they forged a vote otherwise? sockpuppets? anon votes? what then tipped the scales against you that you must cry foul Hali? nobody is planning to do that here because I have already prewarned in order to stop you from trying to pull the same trick off twice.

eradicate the name I dont like for "no apparent reason"? it is a pretty obvious reason, the name I remove is inherrently POVed.

--Jadger 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, if you continue your personal attacks and accusations agaisnt Halibutt, this may be reported to WP:ANI and result in some unpleasant consequences. Cool off and stop accusing others of bad faith.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 00:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Polish September Campaign → Invasion of Poland (1939) – as per the lengthy discussion and voting above, as well as in the archives. //Halibutt 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support //Halibutt 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Fagstein 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Dr. Dan 14:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Syrenab 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC). I hope that this will end the endless discussions, we have more important work to do!!
  • Support. Folks at 137 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jadger 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC) probably won't end the "discussion", as Halibutt has stated he will not use this name on linking pages.
  • Support. Balcer 01:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (some of Irpen's suggestions are worth to cosider as well) abakharev 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - per discussion above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - but I do support the suggestion by Irpen. Errabee 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - I prefer "Polish-German War" or "Polish 1939 Campaign" as they're more NPOV. It must be moved, right, but just not there... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Lysytalk 19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. (194.9.5.10 08:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)). Votes by anonymous IPs are not valid. Balcer 11:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I'm just not totally convinced that this is the NPOV way to go yet. —Khoikhoi 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not NPOV and not how the combatants themselves described the action. Use redirects from "Invasion of Poland" bearing in mind it was invaded again in 1944. It was also a Russian invasion in 1939 not just a German one.Michael Dorosh 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Provisional support (see below). It makes sense and reflects what happened but I support the rename if only at the same time:
If moves are chosen selectively only for events when Poland was a victim and not a perpetrator, than oppose the promotion of the double standards in Wikipedia. --Irpen 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support only if Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) is renamed to Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618) --Ghirla -трёп- 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reading the article, that war is described as "a series of wars", and not as an invasion. This article, meanwhile, is clearly described as an invasion. I don't think we should rewrite history just because it doesn't seem fair. Fagstein 22:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support per Ghirla and Irpen. --Kuban Cossack 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is the name people will expect. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Conditional votes, should be counted "oppose" unless the condition is met

was called by Balcer as Questionable/ambiguous votes. --Irpen

support only if some other article gets moved is not a valid option in this formal survey. As stated at the beginning of the survey, the options were only support and oppose. I invite everyone listed below to choose one or the other option. Also, please limit your vote explanation to one short sentence.Balcer 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Let the closing admin judge whether these are valid votes or not. Please do not call my vote questionable. I know what it means and I explain it my the section title. --Irpen 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] consistency with other articles

Below is the discussion that followed a vote by Irpen

In other words, four other articles have to go through a full RM process, gain concensus support, and be moved, before you can vote support here? Do you have any idea how long that would take? Please, be logical and just vote oppose, or modify your terms. Balcer 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No Balcer, I just want the titles of the articles to either all use neutral terms like "incident", "war", "event", "campaign" throughout or use the strong terms like "massacre", "invasion", "conquest" and "slaughter" also throughout but not using one approach or the other selectively depending on which nation was a victim and which was a perpetrator. I prefer the former solution (avoiding strong terms in the titles and saving them for the articles where they could be referenced) but I could accept the uniform application of the latter solution, but not the double standards. --Irpen 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So now you are launching into a general discussion on what Wikipedia naming policy should be, in a vote on moving just this single article. This is inappropriate and distracting. Anyway, please consider that "invasion" is actually a quite neutral term, which does not necessarily have a negative connotation (consider the commonly used term Invasion of Normandy or, say, Allied invasion of Sicily for good illustrations of this). Balcer 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, for whatever reason the Normandy article is not entitled an "invasion" and Sicily makes but the only exception of the "positive invasion" title (see below Balcer 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)). English is not my native language but from my tenure at Wikipedia my perception is that "invasion" tends to have a strong negative connotation. I clearly remember that not only Molobo but even Piotrus corrected articles to exclude the usage of the "invasion" from cases when Poland was a perpetrating side and not even from titles but from within text. See this (and the edit summary) for just one example as well as the discussion that followed.
So, if there is an overall consensus that when the term is widely used by scholars, it can go to the title, no matter whose side happends to be a victim in the particular case, there are plenty of sources that call the Polish actions I listed as "invasions". I've been around long enough to expect the "oppose" to such moves from several well-known to me editors who still support the move of this article. Let's just agree on the usability of the "invasion" term. If it is usable in titles, this article without a doubt could be titled as an invasion. If we can only use it for the articles where Poland was a victim, I oppose the double standards. --Irpen 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Other examples of "positive" invasions in Wikipedia: Invasion of Lingayen Gulf, Allied invasion of Italy etc. More generally, note that we also have Polish invasion of Russia. Balcer 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I remember, the term "invasion" was being disputed (incl. by yours truly) only in the cases where it was absolutely not clear who "invaded" whom. Just like in the case of Polish-Ukrainian War that AAMoF was an Ukrainian invasion of Poland, if anything. On the other hand there are clear-cut examples of invasions and this one seems to be a great example. //Halibutt 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why; unlike this event those other names are perfectly fine and non-confusing. Oh, tnx for reminding me I still have to translate the pl:Radziecki atak na Polskę w 1939 (Russian invasion of Poland in 1939) :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, Polish invasion of Russia is not an article but a dab navigation page. Such pages take no position of the possible POV of the title and are designed to direct readers who might have been looking for one of the events listed to an article where they are described.

Halibutt, we may argue about PUW but the 17th century Polish attempts to install the puppet rulers of Russia by force, 1920 Pilsudski's attempt to install a puppet gov in Kiev by force, as well as the 11th century pludering of Kiev by Boleslaus in order to install his son-in-law there (by force) are clearly Polish invasions. Since in all these affairs it is absolutely clear "who invaded whom" as you put it, I will submit those article for RM later today when I have time and I would expect you to rally your votes in support. Once we see the new rule of "invasioning the article titles" taking hold, I will change my vote here to an unconditional support. Like those cases above, this is also an invasion. The only issue is whether we are using strong words in titles, as far as Poland is concerned, only when Poland happened to be a victim. --Irpen 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the 17th century Polish attempts to install its pupper ruler in Moscow. With respect to the 11th century action in Kiev, it was more complex than that and involved internal Kievan struggle in which the Poles played a major albeit supporting role. Titling it a Polish invasion would be giving Poland too much credit. With respect to the Kiev offensive of 1920 - the term is too controversial, as there are legitimate arguments for and against it being an invasion, thus warranting a nuetral word. We've gone over this before in the article, but an offensive designed to create a Ukrainian state that involved about 18% Ukrainian troops led by Ukraine's deposed leader, Petliura, against a force that had invaded a previously democratically elected Ukrainian government (of which Petliura had been a member by the way), cannot be equalized to what happened to Poland in 1939. Faustian 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Faustian, with respect to 1920 there is no controversy whatsoever that it was an invasion. We can hypothetically argue whether that was a "liberating" invasion or the "occupying" invasion but it fits perfectly the definition provided in the invasion article. As for you argument about the collaboration of Petlura with the invader and Petlura's claim to legitimacy, it was well discussed and whoever of the 1939 editors is interested can go to the other article's talk. The percentage of Ukrainians was significant on both sides, Petlura's faction in the Central Rada was small and in no way gave him a more significant legitimacy claim than to the Kharkiv exiled govermnet based on the pro-Bolshevik factions. Anyway, the dispute on who was good and who was bad belongs elsewhere. That action was clearly an invasion. And no less the invasion was the 17th century affair aimed at elimination of Russian statehood in toto as well as installing the Papism on whatever is left from it. --Irpen 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See, Irpen, this is where we differ: I most certainly view calling the 1920 Polish offensive an invasion controversial, and I think it was much more a liberation that the later Soviet counteroffensive which was much more of an invasion. But then of course we would go to the never ending speculations about how democractic would Międzymorze be and how undemocratic Soviet Union was, and this would end us here again. I can agree to disagree, why can't you?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See, Piotrus, I can agree to disagree. If we are talking this over a beer and you say this and I say that, we just order another set, move on and "agree to disagree". Here we have to agree whose version is reflected in Wikipedia. I am fine with the article being disagreeble to me if I see it as a reasonable compromise. I do not see the current state of affairs when the articles about events when Poland or Poles were victims are titled by loaded terms, such as Koniuchy massacre, Massacre of Lwów professors, Massacre of Poles in Volhynia, Katyn massacre and even the List of Polish Martyrdom sites. Now we are discussing loading the title of the major article here and, at the same time, same users who find such loading proper, vigorously oppose using the appropriate terminology for the article describing the events where Poland or Poles were attacking their neighbors themselves.

I say, avoid the massacres and invasions in titles in general. Use them in the articles where they can be referenced. However, if this community finds the POV words in titles acceptable, how come even the 17th century armed attempt to eliminate the Russian statehood still does not qualify to be called "an invasion" while we have all these massacres and martyrdoms in the titles around us. --Irpen 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And the answer is? Dr. Dan 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you surprised? --Irpen 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course not! Dr. Dan 03:47, August 29, 2006
Right, see the time spans above? Anyway, the Polish invasions seem to remain at the war/campaign/expedition/offensive names and, if I know anything about the current climate, will stay at those names. --Irpen 03:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And the answer is below, just read the discussion. In short, Irpen is twisting facts by throwing both invasion and massacre into one bucket. Massacre is a loaded term and should be used with care (only in cases where it is really used, like in the case of Katyn massacre which beats all alternatives by a huge margin). At the same time invasion is merely technical term, without any emotional load in it. Equally someone with some other phobia could suggest that we avoided the word horse or plane or father. //Halibutt 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[The proposed title is] not NPOV and not how the combatants themselves described the action. Use redirects from "Invasion of Poland" bearing in mind it was invaded again in 1944. It was also a Russian invasion in 1939 not just a German one.Michael Dorosh 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael, Invasion of Poland, 1939, doesn't specify German or Russian participants. It is very neutral and relates to a historical fact. Dr. Dan 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not neutral. What happened in 1939? Germany and a little later the Soviet Union entered the Polish territory. That's the facts. Calling it (or not) "invasion" starts the POV. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
So, are you saying that the Nazis and Soviets did not invade Poland in 1939, but "entered" ? Invasion: a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government. --Lysytalk 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Erm, Lysy, earlier this year, I was pointing out the dictionary definition of "liberate" and was told by several people that it was POV. So please decide: either we consider the dictionary meaning, in which case both "invasion" and "liberate" are OK, or the consensual meaning. But I won't tolerate double standards because the protagonists are not the same... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In support of what Grafik just said, no one named the Battle of Kiev as "Liberation of Kiev" or the Battle of the Dnieper as "Liberation of Left-bank Ukraine". The articles are titled in the most neutral way possible. At the same time, the Liberation is used in text in accordance with its scholarly use and such usage is referenced. Same here, lack of the word in the title won't prevent the authors from using the word in the articles. At the same time, and unsurprisingly, none of the supporters of the invasioning this article's title expressed any support for a similar change to the Polish eastward invasions that very well fit the dictionary definition. Various reasons were brought up at Talk:Kiev Offensive#Article's title and Talk:Polish-Muscovite War (1605)-(1618)#Article's title. So, talk about double standards? --Irpen 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The words liberation or occupation can be considered POV where there exist alternative points of view. Invasion is not a POV loaded word like "liberation" or "occupation", it's just a statement of a fact. Moreover, I hope nobody contests that what happened in September 1939 was an invasion (well, maybe some of the more twisted Nazis or Soviets would, but we should not be promoting Nazi or Soviet POV on wikipedia anyway). What is the problem of our Russian editors then ? --Lysytalk 10:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, the Germans only correcting the wrongs of the Versailles, while the Soviets were only protecting the minorities. No invasion whatsoever... //Halibutt 06:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm mildy against the word invasion. Not for any political reasons, but AFAIK invasion is usually the start of a military campaign. For example, I would assume that the phrase "German invasion of the Soviet Union" is a reference to Barbarossa, not the Soviet-Axis War as a whole. Beowulph 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Move closing

May I ask why was the article moved if the results of the vote where: 11 supports:

  1. Halibutt,
  2. Fagstein,
  3. Dr. Dan,
  4. Syrenab,
  5. Folks at 137,
  6. Jadger,
  7. Balcer,
  8. Alex Bakharev,
  9. Piotrus
  10. Lysy
  11. Valentinian

6 opposes (including "conditional supports" with confition not met)

  1. Errabee
  2. Grafikm
  3. Michael Dorosh
  4. Irpen
  5. Ghirla
  6. Kuban kazak

Conditional support were clearly marked as "should be counted as oppose" unless contition met which it was not.

Since when 11 vs 6 is considered consensus as the message states that "The result of the debate was move". Please move the article back and continue the discussion, if necessary. --Irpen 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Only "support" and "oppose" votes were proper, while voting "conditional support" was questionable to say the least. You had your chance to change your vote to pure oppose if you really disliked the proposed title, but you chose not to. I suppose the admin took this into account. Plus two of the oppose votes were "weak oppose". In fact only two people voted a clear, unambiguous "oppose". Balcer 12:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, please don't make the arguments along the Dimpled chad lines. The voters who vote "conditional support" made their intention loud and clear that if the condition is not met, the vote means oppose. I never thought you would come up with the response along those lines. --Irpen 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw this move request after six days (the regular move request length is five days) and noticed that things were close and that discussion was still continuing. So I relisted the move request to gain a better consensus. I then came back six days later again (once again, instead of the five days later) and re-evaluated the situation. Only one !vote had been made since the relisting. There had been discussion in the discussion section, but it essentially was the support and oppose !voters on two different ends. Considering the conditional support !votes as oppose votes it was 11-7 (not 11-6) in favor of the move, which makes 61.1%. For a move request, sixty percent is usually considered enough for a move to go through (see Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators#Determining consensus). As also mentioned above, two of the oppose were weak opposes, reinforcing the conclusion to move. Even some of the conditional supports reinforce the conclusion to move; Irpen, for instance, said in regards to the proposed new name, It makes sense and reflects what happened before saying other pages should be moved as well. There was also some debate over whether those other articles (not just the ones mentioned by Irpen) were comprable. However, please don't think I disregarded the conditional support !votes or counted them as supports; I'm just saying I took a look at what they said. So, based on the pre-RM discussion, the 61.1% in favor of moving, the weakness of two oppose !votes, and the comments in the conditional supports, I drew the conclusion that the page should be moved. -- tariqabjotu 10:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would like to state that I am satisfied with the Tariq's explanation. Even though I beleive this move reinforces the double standards at Wikipedia on the usage of POV terms in the titles with respect to one particular country, the move was clearly made in good faith and all votes were counted as they were meant to be cast, contrary to what I suspected, with Balcer reconfirming my suspicions. In view of the explanation above, this settles it for me and I hope we can correct the current double standards situation with the other article's titles. But that belongs to other article's talk. Thank you, --Irpen 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get on with useful work

I withdraw my previous vote in favor of name change. After reviewing all the discussion and also looking at many other articles about WWII, some called "Battles", some called "campaigns", And taking into account the large number of links that already exist to the article under its present title, including being recognized as a "Feature article". I Recommend that we quite wasting time on pointless arguments.

Syrenab 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

there are also a lot of links to it under a false name that is only supported by one wikipedia user, *cough* Halibutt *cough*, does that mean we should change it to "polish defensive war". Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and the consensus says to name it "invasion of poland" not polish defensive war or polish september campaign et al. and just because an article was featured doesn't mean it can't still be improved.

--Jadger 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, 22 out of roughly 1000 links are to a Polish Defensive War redirect, while a huge majority of links are to the current title, apparently supported by... no one? As soon as we move the article, I'd be more than happy to run the AWB once again and change the links to the new title. //Halibutt 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it is more than 22 because I have personally changed more than 22 to the article title from that "polish defensive war" then of course, you reverted my work. the current title was supported in previous to our poll and discussion, so that does not matter, If I had voted three times like you Halibutt, I would of supported it second because it is better than the rest except invasion of Poland.

--Jadger 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Check what links here and count for yourself. The title is going to be changed anyway, so no need to waste our time on this discussion any longer. Also, refrain from such accusations, it was merely a poll to determine the name vote on, and the rules of the voting specifically said that multiple votes are welcome. //Halibutt 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guns and other stuff in Axis and Soviet side of the box

Are the guns and stuff only German or not? I asked this before and received no answer. Kurt.

Hello? I am not posting this for fun. Kurt.
Dear Kurt. Please consider registering - it will be easier to talk to you then. For now, check footnotes - footnote 1, somewhat confusingly appended after Polish numbers, in fact discusses both numbers. See also Talk:Polish_September_Campaign/Archive_1#Numbers.2C_numbers. And yes, the number refers to German side only, not counting the Soviets and the Slovaks.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
He is registered (User:Kurt Leyman). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

We have articles on the Battle of Sicily and the Battle of Normandy and the Italian Campaign rather than "invasion of...", so I don't understand how "Invasion of Poland" even becomes an acceptable alternative....? I think perhaps more members of the Military Task Force need to weigh in here.Michael DoroshTalk 20:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have Allied invasion of Sicily and Allied invasion of Italy. Balcer 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Well spotted. BLUSH. That should probably be reviewed too..., as it doesn't seem to match the convention of using the "most commonly applied names" agreed on by the Military History Project. I'll look into that...**flees**.Michael DoroshTalk 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm native German and can present the German point of view. In popular German literature "Überfall auf Polen" Descent on Poland/Raid on Poland is often used (Please note the economic constraints of the unfunded Mefo bills using a Ponzi scheme. A seizure of foreign goods within a timelimit was vital to fund them and avoid an economic crash). According to wikipedia regulations we have to use the most common name (not limited to names used in scientific disputes). The name currently used is common in new publications of science of history.
Let's see it like this. German regime had it thoroughly prepared, an incident was faked and Polish troops stood little chance against the Soviet-German alliance, although their intelligence had not left them unprepared. But a big problem does pose the use of "Einmarsch und Besetzung von Tschechien" Invasion and occupation of Czechia on 15th March 1939. Perhaps with a different name for the events in Poland the military resistance there should be stressed, as the Poles were a major part of the allied forces during the WWII. While I must admit "Einmarsch in Polen" Invasion of Poland is not an unheard of name for the events to me.
  • German article point of view:


Polenfeldzug 1939

Polish campaign 1939

Der Polenfeldzug gilt als Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges in Europa.

The Polish campaign is regarded as start of the Second World War in Europe.

Unter dem Decknamen Fall Weiß griff die deutsche Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 ohne vorherige

Under the codename Case White the German Wehrmacht attacked on 1th septembre 1939 without prior

Kriegserklärung Polen an. In der populären deutschen Literatur ist deshalb auch oft vom „Überfall auf

declaration of war Poland. In the popular German literature therefore either often "Descent on

Polen” die Rede, obwohl dieser Begriff umstritten ist.

Poland" is used, although this term is controversial.


In der Geschichtswissenschaft wird die Bezeichnung Polenfeldzug von einigen Wissenschaftlern kritisch

In science of history the term Polish campaign is viewed critical by several scientists,

betrachtet, da er nach ihrer Argumentation den Charakter des Angriffs nicht genau wiedergibt und den

because according to their argumentation the character of the attack not exactly reflected and the

polnischen Widerstand verharmlost. In vielen aktuellen Publikationen wird daher der Begriff

Polish resistance gets played down. Because of this in many current publications the term

Septemberfeldzug verwendet.

September campaign is used. Wandalstouring 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Usually "Überfall auf Polen" is translated with Attack on Poland. While attack means opening hostilities, the German "Überfall" means opening hostilities in an surprise attack and also means robbery. Wandalstouring 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Poland (1939)?

How about just plain-old "Battle of Poland (1939)" I think that would circumvent the POV problems. A google search of "battle of poland" turns up about 800 google hits. I don't really know if that's enough to reflect the title as a common moniker. On wikipedia, there seems to be a bit of a president for referring to campaigns as "battle of foo" (eg. Battle of Normandy, Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Second Battle of the Atlantic, etc.). Mike McGregor (Can) 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt thinks it is a war though, and most others think it's a campaign, not battle. and all those examples you gave (precedent) are names media has given those campaigns, much like War on Drugs, there is no declaration of war by the USA on Crack Cocaine, it is a way to dramatize speech for maximum effect. a consensus has already been agreed upon I believe, only one or two people raising doubts now.

--Jadger 06:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Poland does not necessarily refer to this event. Wandalstouring 11:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of names for this event in other wikis:

  • Polish wiki: Kampania wrześniowa (September campaign)
  • German wiki: Polenfeldzug 1939 (Polish campaign 1939)
  • Dutch wiki: Poolse campagne (Polish campaign)
  • Norwegian wiki: Felttoget i Polen i 1939 (campaign in Poland in 1939)
  • Spanish wiki: Invasión de Polonia en 1939 (Invasion of Poland in 1939)
  • Czech wiki: Invaze do Polska (Invasion of Poland)

So where is the problem to have it under Polish September Campaign? Polish as well as German wiki authors could agree to this name. Sorry, I could not read the Russian version. I strongly argue to stop this POV pushing in English wiki. As long as no majority of Poles or Germans objects the same name in their native wikis there is reason to make such a fuzz here. Wandalstouring 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that both the German and Polish editors involved in the voting above support the rename to "Invasion of Poland (1939)". --Lysytalk 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt claims that 'Polish Defensive War is less POVed and is more commonly used in Poland, despite it being shown in previous talk on this page that that is false, and the only people to ever support the term were him and Trollobo, totally defying the wikipedia policy of consensus.

--Jadger 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I see Halibutt supported the rename to "Invasion of Poland (1939)" above. What's your point ? Also what is your purpose in twisting User:Molobo's name into "Trollobo" ? --Lysytalk 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
As a (sad) monoglot who only speaks English, and who is no expert on this period in eastern Europe, I would seek accessible info in the English-language wiki. I don't know how it's referred to in the U.S., Canada or any other English speaking place other than Britain. Here, this topic is thought of as the "Invasion of Poland" (without any insult intended to anyone and no particular POV intended or even recognised). Since this is the English-language Wiki, it seems appropriate to use this title or similar. I assume that other language wikis are free to entitle articles to serve their own audiences, and perhaps have a duty to do so. What would interest me, however, is the fact of the differing national POVs - I hope that this would be included in the article. For my own education, I'm genuinely interested in why "Invasion of Poland" might be POV - it may be anglo-centric but that's the viewpoint of most of our readers and doesn't imply closed minds. Please reply (courteously) to my talk page to avoid more clutter here. Folks at 137 21:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
German and Polish users here are not representative. By showing what is used in the native language wikis all the arguments about what is more or less common elsewhere are no longer valid because this is the common ground reached there and it counters all arguments calling the current English title POV, especially a negative POV for Poland. Anglocentric is not the matter and a POV debate over "Invasion of Poland" is pointless as it is a common expression and English names for this event have their international counterparts. So there are no arguments against the use of wikipedia standards. I will report any abuse or misforming of usernames as an insult.
The only question is:
  • Do we orientate on what is preferably used in English popular works or in contemporary English scientific works? Wandalstouring 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lysy said:":No, I see Halibutt supported the rename to "Invasion of Poland (1939)" above. What's your point ?

I wasn't just meaning on this specific poll, but over the whole of the the discussion page, no one besides him and Molobo EVER supported it, other Poles even said that September Campaign is more commonly accepted in Poland. --Jadger 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stay on the topic here, discuss personal matters on your talkpage. Wandalstouring 09:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanking for removing your rather uncivil personal attack upon me Halibutt, especially since Morondger does not even rhyme with jadger.

--Jadger 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak/Slovakian

What is the point of these recent Slovak/Slovakian edits, anyone ? --Lysytalk 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

According to www.leo.org online dictionary "Slovak" is the correct form. Nazi created some derivate terms for the Eastern nationalities, today no longer in use.Wandalstouring 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-war German population

In the section "Prelude to the campaign", there is section that reads:

Both Danzig and the Polish Corridor constituted territories Germany was forced to give back to Polish state after World War I and Hitler roused German nationalism by creating a propaganda campaign about "poor persecuted" Germans in Poland and the need to "liberate" them(Germans at the time constituted 2,3 % of Polish population).

The final part of the statement is not sourced and it is in contradiction to the number used in the Second Polish Republic article. In the Second Polish Republic article, the 1939 German population of Poland is estimated at 5%.

allow me to interject...the 2.3% of the population was a bad english molobo edit from when we had a long drawn out revert war about four months ago. Piotrus and I analyzed this, trimmed down the article section a bit and highly NPOVed this section. Somebody on the 25 of August pulled a revert that slipped by all of us....
Signing in without "signing in", --72.94.90.144 11:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
2.3% is a number quoted by Davies, a respectable scholar; I have restored it with an inline ref.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There are probably modest NPOV issues involved, as well. The wording of the long sentence aggressively diminishes the seriousness of the concern of a German diaspora, both real and imagined. It also seems to confuse the point. If some considered it a just war to reclaim certain parts of lost territory that are somehow intrinsically German, then Polish resistance would be considered aggression against this reunification. In that case Germany would need to be prepared to defeat Polish resistance in a broader war in order to secure German lands, and talk of percentages in the abstract becomes unfruitful. There is a logic to it independent of our possible criticism.

--Donald Hughes 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was how Nazi propaganda attempted to depict it. It does not imply that it was the true motivation of course. --Lysytalk 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

what was this true motivation then Lysy? perhaps you could shed some light on the subject. Also those population percentages are for all of Poland, perhaps someone could find population percentages for the areas mentioned above, as stating the population percentages for all of Poland skews it to a somewhat pro-Polish perspective, i.e. they were such a small group of people, when in fact they were concentrated in the areas above, not around Vilnius or Warschau or Krakow.

--Jadger 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, LON numbers give the German poulation of the Free City as being a "great majority" but i have yet to find a secondary source to verify that. I also agree that there is a touch of NPOV in the statement about the german population of Poland. Germany takes great pains to distinguish the polish corridor from Poland proper as far as military rationale went, the subsequent invasion being an artefact of the war over Danzig. I fear that there is the faintest shade of "argumentum ad Hitlerum" here. Just because they're nazis doesn't make everything they say wrong, just most of it. The worst part about the war is that this invasion of poland arises from rational concerns in the Senat and Volkstag, referenda, and illegal actions of the polish government - Danzig is defended, after all, dispite the LON constitution. It may be true that Germany was just making apower grab, and needed an excuse to take poland, but that excuse can still be right, and the war can still be legal. Attempts to reduce the legitimacy of these arguments (through non-historical means, of course) serves to detract from the greater anti-nazi case. I'm not trying to paint any malicious intention onto what was said, but it's a cause for more care. (sorry about the lack of signature, but i'm computer illiterate, and i have yet to figure out how to make an account)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.78.1.9 (talk • contribs).

Dear anon, welcome to Wikipedia. You may consider registering, either way, to sign you can click the signature button in the edit window which will add --~~~~ this string to your post, which will be transformed into a signature when you save it. As for your arguments, could you elaborate on the LON constitution (which sadly still needs its own article at Constitution of Free City of Danzig) and how it forbade Danzig to be defended? I don't think it denied the Poles the ability to defend their extraterritorial post-office, did it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] petition for removal of link

[[6]] should be deleted I feel, as reading the first few paragraphs, if one was to believe what was written, it would surprise them that Aachen wasn't taken by Poland 1 week later. Of course I am overemphasizing this just like the author was, but is this truly a good reference? If you read his contact page [[7]] it is pretty clear he has been objected to many times, also here [[8]] he shows that he obviously does not know much about the subject, And the Nazi extermination machine did not achieve yet its full momentum the final solution and organized German extermination camps was not set up until 1941, Uncertain yet of the outcome of the conflict, German officers still were more reluctant to commit outrageous war crimes, than they did later during the Second World War. LMAO, this was the end of invasion of Poland, after their surrender, how much more certain can you be?

i see this source as highly dubious, what do others think?

--Jadger 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to even discuss or petition this. The source is an amateurish site run by some anonymous "Former Naval Person" who doesn't properly cite his own sources. Wikipedia should only cite sources that are more renowned and/or verifiable than WP itself, which obviously isn't the case here. --Thorsten1 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the page is not used as a reference but rather as an external link. As such, it seems perfectly ok, especially that it's one of the very few English language pages devoted to the 1939 war. But still, in many of the articles published there the author does cite the references properly. Secondly, I'd yet have to see what is wrong with the page's content. Jadger's comment above, with a quote taken out of context, proves nothing. Indeed, in 1939 the German officers (and even the HQ), were still not sure of the outcome of the war, as there was the second biggest army in the world standing at their western borders. So what? Also, from the contact page it seems clear only that the author of the page does not fondle anybody's nationalistic schizophrenia or treat inferiority complexes. Nice tactics, if you asked me.
Having said that, I'm restoring the link until some arguments are provided. //Halibutt 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit, there was no need to restore it as apparently it was duplicated - and the duplicate is still there. //Halibutt

And I'm the one taking his words out of context? fondle anybody's nationalistic schizophrenia or treat inferiority complexes That is pretty clear to a native English speaking user that what he means is he has upset a considerable number of people with his website, and they have commented on it, and he has stuck his thumb up at them. What he means is that he is debasing his opponents and calling them names, rather than admitting he may not be 100% correct. As for citing his references, he does so on only for one of the pages, nowhere else. Not to mention his severe lack of credible English, using a word I had never heard before "Hitlerite" is there a town called Hitler? that's what it sounds like. Not to mention severe errors, like here: At night and dawn 3 September the Germans made two sorties; this time instead of SA and SS they were made by a battalion of naval cadets. [[9]] The Germans could not believe that such a tiny outpost without serious fortifications could resist so long. They saluted Polish soldiers marching into captivity, and protected them of Danzig townfolks, who wanted to lynch them first time I've ever heard that.

Another serious mistakes on the Westerplatte page alone: "The defenders of Westerplatte saw a completely different picture: they repelled all the German attacks, they did not experience shortages in weapon and ammunition, two greatest powers - England and France - declared war on Germany, and due to lack of radio-communication they were not aware of the real military situation in Poland's hinterland." Now, if they were out of radio contact, how could they find out that UK and France had declared war? and how would that make them think they would be rescued? the Allies where thousands of miles away.

I'm surprised you support this link Hali, as it states contrary to your ideas, that Poland was already defeated after only a couple of weeks: "Therefore by the mid-September the German command achieved its main strategic and operation objectives. The Polish army was not yet completely destroyed, but it was already surrounded and deprived of strengths and possibilities for operational counter-action. The enemy possessed complete command in the air, and complete control over the land operations." sounds like simple wrapping up operations after mid-september to me and every other native English speaker.[[10]]

this of course is just a start, I don't think it is necessary to go through the whole webpage and note it's deficiencies, or else we'd have to cite the whole website on this talk page, which would be a waste of space.

Halibutt, consensus is against you, 66.6% and this has been open for two weeks. Don't REVERT

--Jadger 13:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem of having it as an external link ? Is it that it does not fit your agenda ? External links can support present POVs as this brings more diversity tot he article. If we consider it biased, all that needs to be done is to comment it accordingly. --Lysytalk 15:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to delete a link because it represents some one else's POV. Restored link, added caveat though. -- Petri Krohn 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto.
Jadger, whether your interpretation of what some people wrote to the author of the page is true or not is completely irrelevant here. The guy might be under attack by some neo-Nazis, or by reasonable historians, there's no way we could tell that - and I doubt there is a need to.
As to the word Hitlerite - again, you might want to read up more books on WWII as it's pretty popular. But again, it seems like your personal problem, nothing to do with the page in question
As to the soldiers marching into captivity being mocked and attacked by the crowd, it's a fairly well-known fact, read up any monograph on Westerplatte and you'll see for yourself. Besides, the fact that you never heard of it points that the page is useful and informative, as even you learnt something from it.
As to radio contact, again you're assuming some crazy things, I guess any monograph could solve all your troubles. In short, there was barely any contact with the C-i-C, but the Radio Warsaw broadcasts were available, and so were the broadcasts of the German language radio in Danzig.
And here we differ, Jadger. If I don't agree with some link completely, I let it be. If you don't agree with some link completely - you try to remove it. As to what you wrote next, please be so kind as to provide at least one deficiency. So far you only provided several quasi-arguments, like "I never heard of it, so it must be false". //Halibutt 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, please use an english search when trying to say it is common in English [[11]]. not to mention the third best site with "Hitlerite" is Urbandictionary.com, a site that is a wiki like here. It also has the "words" hitleriffic, Hitlermart, Hitlery Clinton, etc. etc. the reason I have never heard it is because it has never been used by anyone credible. Perhaps you want to add hitleriffic, Hitlermart, Hitlery Clinton articles to wikipedia also hali.

please, I atleast tried to be reasonable and presented a reason for it not to be included, you simply personally attacked me and claimed I have an agenda.

--Jadger 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Jadger, I did not attack you. Your playing on my nerves, but so far I did not cross the line and still have patience to stand such comments as the one above. You indeed tried to be reasonable, but apparently you failed. In short, the only argument against the link so far was that it uses the word hitlerite. Well, aparently some 76,000 authors also used it (judging from the link you posted above), including the government of the USA. Should we remove links to all documents by the American government because it uses the word as well? Sorry, but this seems a tad illogical to me. //Halibutt 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Jadger, although the word isn't as fashionable now as it used to be, Hitlerite has been in use for decades in a wide body of Anglo-American historical literature. Comparing Hitlerite to "Hitleriffic" is just an odious misrepresentation of the facts; you're arguing from ignorance here, and I'm afraid it's not helping your case. In fact, right beside me on my shelf are several volumes from authors who used the term extensively in their prose: Winston Churchill and A.J.P. Taylor. Maybe you've heard of them? Albrecht 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
perhaps we can site one of those credible sources then? rather than this rather amateur distortion of facts.
--Jadger 01:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, my dear. Churchill, United Nations, Anton Pelinka, Sakwa, War and Diplomacy, US Congress, Burke, Germany and the WWII, O'Shaughnessy... There's plenty of authors, I'm sure you'd find something for yourself. Sure, Churchill, the UN and the Congress are all amateurs and perhaps they distort the facts, but the fact remains that they used the word. //Halibutt 06:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv

I certainly will explain myself. Piotrus, if you look at the version closely, you will notice that it is not the one you and Hohns worked on, it is the other one. Someone snuck a revert in there on...00:13, 26 August 2006 Ramand. See for yourself.--72.94.90.144 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you link the relevant edit? I se only 2 edits from 26 August, first on 26 August 2006 by Kurt, and second on 04:46 and 06:06 by Lysy, none of which look like a major revert; I cannot find any edit from 00:13, 26 August 2006. Also, please consider registering.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk <;;/font> 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, since this is somewhat related, anyone who is knowledgeable and has access to good sources on the subject should jump to the Bromberg Bloody Sunday page. I also raised the objection that it is not referred to as the Bromberg " " , because I was almost certain that is how it is referred to.--72.94.90.144 17:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, exactly ? I'm about to revert you recent edit here as it still lacks any reasonable explanation. --Lysytalk 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my fault, the edit is on the 26th of a version on the 25th. Raman's changes on the 26th are here [12], and Leyman's version from the 25th is here[13].
The two can be seen here side by side, with the one I reverted to on the left. Sorry for the confusion. Piotus, the Raman version on the 26th is the article before you and Hohns3 began working on it, and it appears Raman went back in the history pages and brought it back to life. I restored Leyman's section on the Prelude to the War and made a few wc edits, adding some information about the Ukranians, which I will source momentarily. You guys have done a good job protecting this article thus far (demonstrated by the red tape I'm going through here) but this one got by everyone. It appears Raman brought back a version that has the problems of repitition and grammar you discussed with Hohns3 and fixed. Cheers --72.94.90.144 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I have made some changes to the text, I think the current revision is the best. In the future, keep in mind that the tactic of small changes is better thatn major revets, also, please consider registering.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Kids! How Many Germans Do You See?

No problem. I like the current version, too. However, I am a little curious about the German percentage in Poland, and skeptical. I know that the Germans fixed the figures on the post-World War I census in their favor. I also remember coming across a source that detailed how the Poles did somewhat of the same later, identifying the Germans that had assimilated into "Polishness" - i.e. those bearing Polish last names, coming from mixed heritages and so on. That, however, is not my primary complaint, and not just because either side is difficult to prove. I have issues with the quotations placement and feel that the figure is in the wrong place in the section. It says the Germans consitituted XXX in Polish territory, but is misleading - Danzig was not Polish territory, which is precisely what the section details in addition to the Corridor, as both of these areas are where Hitler made an appeal to.... as the article details. I'm going to try to find another place for this statistic, because it does not belong after this sentence.--72.94.90.144 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I found where it can go but now that I had a chance to think about it, I'm second guessing the decision to put this in entirely. Think of it this way: if I was trying to show that the French were a minority in Alsace and the Lorraine and it belonged to Germany, I could say: the French constituted only XX% of the German population, as the statistic about the German population in Poland does. The problem with this is - and I will continue with the Alsace Lorraine model - we are not including just the AL territory, the disputed region, but ALL of GERMANY in the equation. That means regions and cities that were obviously without question historically German, such as Leipzig, Potsdam - nobody doubts that Brandenburg and Saxony are German territories and have German populations - are included. and the same with the Polish example...Warsaw, Lwow, etc. they were not the territories being disputed with Germany. For this reason, I don't think this figure should be included. --72.94.90.144 02:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
While a figure of German population in the Polish Corridor or Western Poland would be more relevant (and obviously higher), I think that it's a useful statistic, showing that contrary to Nazi propaganda, there were few Germans in need of 'liberation' in Poland.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I highly disagree. It is extremely manipulative, like the example I cited. What we need are figures specifically for the region, but I'm afraid these are the controversial numbers I was referring to above. I figured out a way to incorporate the 2.3% figure(up further in the article), but as I said, upon further review, I'm not sure I agree with the statement it makes. Historians have a responsibility with the material they handle and if there is a code of ethnics, this breaks it. Did you know that the German claims to the Alsace-Lorraine are void because the Germans consituted only .5% of the population in AL and France? Lets face it, people are manipulated by statistics, so we have a responsibility not to knowingly decieve them.--72.94.90.144 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kissing pic

As per this, the edit is totally false. First, the stated purpose of soviet operation was not to "liberate" but to "protect". We can say of course that both a hypocritical but we need to be precise. Second, pics of Ukrainians rejoicing to the Soviets are available, moreover this is true. If you want, read this. If you want pics with Ukrainians greeting the Soviets with bread and salt I can add them to the article instead of the drawn posters. --Irpen 11:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The poster says clearly, that wherever Red Army goes, they go there in order to liberate. Poland as well (they were supposed to liberate the people from 'Pan rule') I could't see any pic on the link specified.Constanz - Talk 12:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to support Irpen on that one: there were indeed commies in Poland prior to the war and some of them indeed greeted the Soviets as liberators. This was mostly true to parts of Jewish population, but it happened also among Ukrainians, Belarusians and even Poles. There were even saboteurs fighting behind the front, though it is unknown whether there was any spontaneous activity or were all those cases just Soviet-inspired. The Russian archives remain closed, as always.
As to the pics, there indeed aren't too many. I remember once I saw a pic of a triumphal arch with flowers and some inscription in poor Russian. Interestingly, the pic was made by Polish soldiers who passed through the village on their way to the front. Do I need to mention what happened to those responsible? :) //Halibutt 13:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that we have Image:German Soviet.jpg, I wonder if we are not overloading the article with pictures - and as Irpen pointed out, it's only part of the story (and yes, I think we could use at least one picture of Polish citizens welcoming Russians in 1939, though I don't think we have room of it here). As I wrote before, it would be nice to have a separate article about the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) - all the pics could go there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this pic for the moment. And yes, I think there is too many images (that particular section had four of them for a not-so-big amount of text, which is definitely too much)... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding the battle articles for this campaign

recently, I tried being bold as wikipedia suggests, and edited the battle articles related to this campaign. I changed the clearly POV name Polish Defensive War and Polish September Campaign to the current article title, or [[Invasion of Poland(1939)|invasion of Poland]]. but I was immediately reverted, with my edits being called "vandalism". On a couple of articles, I translated the cited sources that were in Polish, and found out that in one case, it did not talk about the battle in question, let alone the atrocity it is claimed to verify in the article.

So, I came here to ask these questions:

  1. why is it that when I change the link to state this article's title, it is reverted to a previous POV version? was this title not agreed upon after lengthy discussion and the least POV one we could find?
  2. why are people being so hostile and calling my edits vandalism? and why do they personally attack me?

here is one of the reversions of my edit compared to my edit:[[14]] how does capitalizing the word "General"(rank) constitute vandalism? Or for that matter, how does this [[15]] constitute vandalism?

for my edits, I have been told that by placing this article title into the articles related to it, I "INSERTING biased POV, false claims, admiration for the FRITZ and his passed away since XIX century state"

now, can someone civil explain why this article's title isn't acceptable on its constituent pages?

--Jadger 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, my dear, I called only two of your edits vandalism: the ones in which you removed valid references and then claimed some remarks were unreferenced. No wonder they were - after all you removed the references yourself. This is what I call vandalism and I hope you shall not continue such behaviour. This has nothing to do with this article's current title. //Halibutt 09:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I read a translation of the references and nowhere in them was what you claimed. after further review of one, it seems I was wrong, and am sorry, but that does not give you the right to personally attack me. But you changed the actual reference on the other one to a different page.

If "This has nothing to do with this article's current title" then why did you revert all of my edits when all I did in that edit was change the link to this article's title? it seems you are reverting because I am the one doing it, you even reinstated grammatical errors and mispelled words that I had corrected.

--Jadger 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In most cases your edit spree simply consisted of POV pushing, hence my reverts. In two cases you vandalized wikipedia by removing valid references. In another one the "correction" consisted of changing a single BE word into AmE version. //Halibutt 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

well, I'm sorry if I changed lorries to trucks and you took offence to it Halibutt. And in only one case I removed a valid reference, the other one, the page linked to did not say anything at all. and it is not vandalism, as vandalism requires Mens Rea and I had skimmed over a translation of the article and did not see the single sentence fragment that actually refers to the same thing as the article that cites it. Is a single sentence fragment enough to base a whole wikipedia article on? You have already been warned about calling my edits vandalism when they clearly are not. We are going to get nowhere if you are going to keep slandering me and stopping Wikipedia from progressing.

You still ignore my point:what is it about Invasion of Poland (1939) article title (which just for reference, you voted for) that you find so offensive and wrong that you must remove it and replace it with a term only used by the former communist regime in Poland? so please, stop slandering me and answer the question.

--Jadger 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not take offence in that. I simply marked your edits the way they should be and reverted those that made wikipedia worse. In two cases you removed referenced remarks that did not suit your POV just to push yours, which is exactly what I call vandalism. If that makes you feel offended - sorry. But wouldn't it be better if you simply refrained from such actions in the future? If you have a problem with some reference, take it to the talk page. Removing it and then claiming it was never there (as you did in the edit summary) is not the way to go.
As to other issues you mention, I already replied to that above, no need to repeat myself. //Halibutt 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are severely mistaken Halibutt, I do not need to argue with you over whether or not my edits were "vandalism" as an admin already warned you that it was not vandalism and characterizing it as such is extremely bad faith editing.

and please, I seem to miss where you explained that Invasion of Poland (1939) is a unsuitable name for this article, perhaps you could reiterate it here or provide a link to it. After all, it is very confusing that you vote for this article to be renamed to Invasion of Poland (1939) then go about removing the title you voted for from linking wikipedia articles.

--Jadger 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PWN article has rotted

Please note that the currently available PWN article on 'Kampania Wrześniowa' had its address changed ([16]) and was also significantly truncated (without explanation). Archive org however still has the old, larger article: [17] (ISO-8859-2 coding should be selected for proper Polish diactrics).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 6th October

PL wiki says that this war ended in 5th October. Please verify your informations. Pan Wikipedia 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The last battle of the war was at Battle of Kock (1939). In that battle the last engagements were late evening of October 5. The battle group of Gen. Franciszek Kleeberg surrendered at 10:00 of October 6. As far as I am concerned the Invasion of Poland (1939) ended on October 6, 1939.

Syrenab 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old 28/08/1939 order of battle maps found

A poster on usenet newsgroup uk.legal is requesting information about some old maps he found in a rubbish dump in 1948 which appear to show the Polish Army order of battle from 28/08/1939 to 20/09/1939. I thought I'd post details here as you are obviously experts and could perhaps help to verify if these are authentic and/or suggest a military expert who could examine them. What do you think of them ? Thanks, John 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They look interesting, although I am not an academic expert in that area (just an amateur expert, like most Wikipedians :). The title 'Szkic' is draft, 'przewidywane ugrupowania obronne polskie' is 'planned Polish defensive formations', 'znana w Polsce sytuacja npla' is 'enemy situation known in Poland'. The legend is: 'zarządzona budowa przyczołk.' - 'ordered construction of a foothold', 'fortyfikacje pozostałę' - 'other fortifications', 'linia obrony zbudow. p.d.p' - 'defence line build p.d.p.' (not sure what the abbreviation is for), 'nowo zbudowane mosty' - 'newly build bridges', 'zalew' - 'flooding', 'odwody Nacz. Wodza' - 'reinforcement of the High Commander', 'zmieniona dyslokacja odw.' - 'changed location of reinforcements', 'Projektowane Ugrupowanie Gdańskie' - 'planned Gdańsk Group', 'utworzenie Armii Karpaty' - 'creation of Armia Karpaty', 'granice armii' - 'army borders', 'W.J. w mob lub w organ' - 'military units in mobilization or organization'. I certainly recommend scanning other maps, and contacting some expert in academia about them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
They are great maps, some of the best-detailed maps I've seen so far (and believe me, I've seen many). They are definitely not military maps, but rather come from some historical publication. Judging by the date, the set of maps might have been an addendum to one of the publications of the Historical Institute of the General Staff or the London-based Sikorski Institute, which might be a good place to go and ask. This seems even more probable because there are lots of typos, a thing not uncommon in Polish-language books published by British printing houses (for the Brits most of Polish texts seem like a huge lorem ipsum :) ).
As to Piotrus' explanations - there's one tiny error: abbreviation "W.J." stands for Polish "Wielka Jednostka", meaning literally "Large Unit". Until 1945 the name was more or less synonymous to "tactical union" - that is any large unit ranging from a brigade to a Corps. //Halibutt 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree they appesr to be drafts of maps for a publication or a book, but are interesting. I have contacted the owner hoping that he will provide them to me. Syrenab 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments ! :-) John 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/v/Talk%7EInvasion_of_Poland_%281939%29_91bb.html"