Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kiev Offensive (1920) 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!
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Polish military history task force

Kiev Offensive (1920) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents 1 POV 2 The goals 3 Українська Народна Республіка 4 New lead vs copyvio old text 5 References 6 Again find myself reverted 7 POV dispute 8 Recent Irpen's edit 9 Dispute 10 Ukrainians - missing 11 Technical problems 12 Ukrainian loyalties 13 Petliura's Legitimacy 14 Polish Vandalism 15 Ukrainian combatants 16 Changing Before the Battle 17 GA concerns 18 Russians/Ukrainians 19 GA Status 20 Article's title 21 References and citations 22 Liberation 23 I invite editors to improve the article, especially the lead

[edit] POV

Is this page a joke? It is ridden with so many self-evident controversies! First, it claims inconclusive result of the operation, while it describes a clear Polish failure. The Polish objective was to conquer Kiev, which failed and turned into a Polish retreat. Note that this is not about the result of the war, which was, indeed, inconclusive. Second, the article correctly states that the majority of Ukrainians viewed this operation as another Polish invasion and were opposed to the Poles and their collaborators. At that time there were multiple warring fractions, each claiming to represent the Ukrainian people. However, throughout the article the invading force is always called Polish and Ukrainian, as if Poles had a strong Ukrainian support. “Poles and their collaborators” may be a more appropriate expression. Third, the page dedicated to the entire war clearly and, apparently, accurately states that the Poles were driven by a desire to establish a Polish-dominated mega-state in Europe, while this page pretends that the Polish motives were to give independence to Ukraine. Etc., etc, etc…

A page like this may be suitable to boost patriotism in Polish elementary schools, but not to serve as a reference in an international encyclopedia. (forgot to sign, but seems to me as written by User:EugeneK. --Irpen)

It is not a joke. It was written mainly by Poles from what they know. If you can fix something, please do this. See wikipedia's rule: be bold. mikka (t) 19:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The article needs attention indeed. I just quickly opened a "Russo-Polish War" in today's EB. The very first phrase in EB is "...military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine" while our article article is saying smth about "stated goal" and just mentioning that there is also some "Ukrainian view". Also, this one said: "Polish... allied with Ukrainians". Britannica for some reason dares to say: "Józef Pilsudski formed an alliance with the Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petlyura (April 21, 1920) and their combined forces began to overrun Ukraine, occupying Kiev on May 7". I will leave this with a POV tag for now. Once I do some research, I will try to correct more, but I would be happy of someone does this, which would save me time for other article. Please no flames. --Irpen 21:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, if you think this is POV, what do you think about the whole page on the Polish-Bolshevik War?--EugeneK 04:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That article is written in good faith. It is not fully objective but only because RU/UA/BE editors didn't care enough to participate in it. I hope this is changing now. --Irpen 06:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Besides Polish-Ukrainian War is just crying for attention from Ukrainian and Russian editors. Same as above, I am not accusing its writers in POV pushing. It simply present a side, most emphasized when history is tought it Poland. We just need more editors, that's all? --Irpen 06:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As Mikkalai noted, this could use input from the Ukrainian side (please try to cite sources though). I guess Międzymorze does fit the description of 'a Polish-dominated mega-state', however I do think it would have been better then what happened in OTL. And Piłsudski did formed an alliance with Peltura - were there AT THAT TIME any other Ukrainian factions still controling any part of the country? IIRC, Peltura defeated them all except the communist backed one, so I'd consider him the legitimate Ukrainian government of this (short) time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Piotr, The only faction defeated by Petlyura (in a coup) was the pro-German Ukrainian government of Skoropadsky, who, in turn, came to power after overthrowing the first formally independent (although pro-socialist) Ukrainian government installed shortly after the Russian revolution. At the time when Petlyura was recruited by the Poles, he was already a beaten-up refugee in Poland, while other Ukrainian factions (e.g. Mahno) were still active, while the Ukrainian Bolshevik government claimed to represent the majority of Ukrainians. Remember that Petlyura was never an elected president and had neither legitimacy nor public support, while the pro-Bolshevik faction could theoretically claim the legacy of the first independent government/parliament (which was elected in a manner of “Soviets” elsewhere) and the support of a sizeable fraction of the population. --EugeneK 04:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the update. I guess in that case he can hardly be considered a 'hero'. I wonder how would've the government of Ukrainian looked like if there was no outside interference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I read an answer of a responder to survey in UA about Petlyura. Few responders answered positively but the most revealing was the answer that Petlyura is a "Ukrainian Stalin, but unsuccesful". I neither support nor reject this POV and presented it here just FYI. --Irpen 21:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the lead but I can't quickly address an entire article which I would like to do eventually. However, its current shape is obviously not neutral. Just check this quote currently there:

It was a bitter day for the Poles and Ukrainians on June 13 when Kiev was evacuated and left to the Soviets. Petliura's Ukrainians, although few in numbers, fought bravely and with fierce determination throughout the rest of the campaign.

I hope I don't need to elaborate what's wrong with this. Besides, it is a copyvio as per this.

I call on everyone interested to read recent discussion at Talk:Polish-Soviet War. It is longish but productive as the article is undergoing changes with mutual agreement of editors from several backgrounds. One repetition from there I would like to do is to quote the observation Tadeusz Machalski, a participant of Gen. Rydz-Smygly's "victorious parade of liberators" in Kiev on May 7, 1920. This observant saw this as a huge political mistake: "Ukrainian people who saw in their capital an allien general with a Polish army... didn't see that as a liberation but as a new variety of occupation..."[1]. It goes on...

Anyway, if the editors already on board can see my point and start addressing these issues, I would be happy to help. While at it, please check the Battle of Volodarka. Please no flames. --Irpen 06:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As to the result of the battle - it was indeed unconcluded. The main objective of the Polish side was not to take the city of Kiev, but to surround and destroy as many of the Bolshevik units as possible, which would seriously disrupt Bolshevik preparations for an offensive in the north. However, the plan failed, mostly because the Soviets declined to fulfil the orders from above and did not fight a major battle which, with all probability, they could not win. Similarily, the Soviet counter-offensive was not aimed at recapturing the city itself, but at outflanking and destruction of the entire Polish army stationed there. However, due to evident insubordination of Budionnyi and his disregard for orders from Moscow, the Russian forces first focused on capturing the towns and supply dumps rather than capturing the withdrawing Poles in a huge pocket. Because of that, Rydz-Śmigły managed to withdraw his forces from Ukraine with little losses, even though he started the withdrawal several days too late. So, all in all, neither the Poles nor the Russians achieved the main strategic goal of the offensive in Ukraine.

Capturing the city of Kiev was only a political goal, which was surely achieved, but did not change the situation much as the Ukrainians were less than willing to construct their own state under Petlura's rule. However, the military significance of the town was close to none - and it was apparent both to Poles and to Russians at the time. Halibutt 17:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, please carefully reread a recent discussion at talk:Polish-Soviet War suggested above and kindly reconsider your reverts and responces here and at Wolodarka (if W is really important, so be it). Besides, think about it dispassionately. According to almost every single battle article in WP an entire war consisted of Polish victories (some even decisive), with a couple of battles "unconcluded", and in the end we had a questionable "Minor Polish victory" of the war itself, as several editors, including Piotrus and Lysy agreed. I think you view this whole string of articles from a wrong angle. Again, please read the discussion at Talk:Polish-Soviet War and think it over. I will not revert for now because I really don't want to annoy you unnecessarily. I hope you will do something yourself. --Irpen 17:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, my problem is that I don't see how this operation might be seen as a Polish military defeat. It was a political failure of Piłsudski's plans, but not a military defeat of the Polish army. Similarily, it was neither a defeat nor a victory for the Bolsheviks, who did not win anything by recapturing the areas lost in the spring. Shortly after the Poles withdrew (almost untouched!), they got bogged down in the south with the forces they were trying to destroy - yet failed. Halibutt 23:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to argue another circle here. Somehow, other editors, including some of your compatriots see it differently (see this article's history and other discussions). I hoped I could convince you to undo your revert, but since I failed I will proceed for now by changing the outcome myself. I suggest you wait for what others say about it, but I cannot prevent you from reverting at once, of course. OTOH, you may try to address some severe problems with an article below. I am not trying to make you do my job. It just makes more sense if you start this, since the article was mostly written by you and it is easier for you to remember what and how you wrote. Similar problems need to be addressed at Wolodarka's article which I am not touching for now. --Irpen 23:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As to specific concerns raised by an anon (?):

1. Is this page a joke? - I doubt it. I tried the best to describe what actually happened.
2. It is ridden with so many self-evident controversies - please be so kind as to name them then.
3. it claims inconclusive result of the operation - see above
4. The Polish objective was to conquer Kiev, which failed and turned into a Polish retreat - wrong, see above
5. Second, the article correctly states that the majority of Ukrainians viewed this operation as another Polish invasion and were opposed to the Poles and their collaborators - I would have to see a source to such a remark. Were there any polls?
6. throughout the article the invading force is always called Polish and Ukrainian, as if Poles had a strong Ukrainian support - the divisions present in Ukraine at the moment were indeed Polish and Ukrainian - and that's what the statement suggests. Whether Petlura had a significant or insignificant support seems quite irrelevant here, just like the support for the Bolsheviks. The fact is that it was a joint Polish-Ukrainian operation. And the two states, regardless of their actual strength, were allied.
7. “Poles and their collaborators” may be a more appropriate expression - don't you think it would be far too POV?
8. this page pretends that the Polish motives were to give independence to Ukraine. - see above.

Halibutt 23:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign in and this was corrected later by Irpen.

See the first paragraph in this thread. As you know, the page used to start with “The Kiev Offensive (or Kiev Operation) was an important military operation, carried out by Polish Army and allied Ukrainian forces during the Polish-Bolshevik War, from April 1920 to June same year. Its goal was to create independent Ukraine.” This goal is contradicting the goals mentioned in the PSW page. Also, in the battlebox Ukraine was mentioned as a combatant on Polish side. This could only refer to the puppet government of Petlura. By the same token you should have mentioned the pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian government, as another “Ukraine” on the Bolshevik side. This misrepresents the authority of Petlura, who, as the article now carefully states, experienced “mixed” attitudes of his alleged subjects. At the time of war he represented a non-existent state and he was briefly a self-proclaimed leader prior to his exile. As I have mentioned above, his claims to legally represent Ukraine are questionable, to state the least, and have to be weighed against those of other parties, while the article and your comments apparently appoint him as the sole and rightful Ukrainian leader.

The noble goal of killing as many Bolsheviks as possible and run, perhaps existed, but the article gives no sources to support it and, instead, it used to provide the goal of installing Peltlura in Ukraine, which failed. This goal was, indeed stated by the Polish government and the results of the operation should be checked against this, and not some imaginary goal. The claim that Poles and their allies had no intentions to capture and retain Kiev is rather peculiar and paints a picture of a sleep-walking army that unintentionally enters cities. Will someone change the title from “Kiev (!) Offensive” to “A Brief Bolshevik-hunting excursion”? Now we need to get some Russian-Soviet patriot here to claim that the goal of the Soviet invasion of Poland was to kill many Poles (according to PSW article, Poles indeed suffered heavier losses) and run, because Bolsheviks didn’t really want Warsaw or any other towns that they have taken.

While the claims of a minor, or even a complete Polish victory in the PSW may still be viewed as good-faith considerations, the claims that the Kiev operation did not result in Polish defeat are too obviously biased. Which is strange, because the author is so objective that calling the people (regardless of their ethnicity) who collaborated with Poles "Polish collaborators" is viewed by him as a strong POV.

I also admire Irpen’s optimism that this page may ever recover from its POV status (not in terms of the actual label, which someone will eventually delete, but in terms of the actual content). Seeing “minor Polish victory” in the battlebox two days from now would not be shocking at all. And the alleged copyvio doesn’t help either. Pardon me, if my frustration is too obvious.--EugeneK 05:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Eugene, I'll try to reply in points so that it is easier to follow the discussion and reply to specific concerns rather than to whole comment.

1 This goal is contradicting the goals mentioned in the PSW page - I already mentioned here and here, we should distinguish between the military and political aims. The earlier were achieved by neither the Poles nor the Russians, as both armies failed to beat the opponent or force him to fight a major battle. On the other hand, the political aims of Piłsudski (but not the polish army or the Polish government; Międzymorze was Piłsudski's personal dream) were not achieved and with the loss of Kiev (or rather with the slow support for Petlura among the general population) his dream of an independent Ukraine ended.

2 Also, in the battlebox Ukraine was mentioned as a combatant on Polish side. This could only refer to the puppet government of Petlura. By the same token you should have mentioned the pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian government, as another “Ukraine” on the Bolshevik side - are you arguing that the Soviet Ukraine was independent from the Soviet Russia? Strange... As to the Petlura's Ukrainians being puppets of Poland - I'm still waiting for you to prove that. Unless you provide some evident sources we'll have to stick with facts, which are that Poland recognized Petlura's Ukraine as a sovereign state, did not interfere in its internal relations and was even binded by an alliance with that state.

An independent government is the one that does not depend on another government for its existence and function (sorry, if it sounds self-evident to most people). Vichy France is a well-known example of a non-independent government. Similarly, Petlyura’s government was re-installed in Kiev by Poles (as I have mentioned elsewhere, it was never elected in the first place) and existed there for as long as Poles were there to support it. As for the “bound by an alliance” argument, Poles knew what this “alliance” was worth and ignored it in Riga. By the way, if you believe Soviet Encyclopedia, independence of Petlyura’s government may be questioned even before his initial defeat, as in early 1919 his government has accepted French protectorate (which was too late to stop the Soviets). It is also customary (albeit not absolutely necessary) for a truly independent country to have its own independent military. You have mentioned on another page “a regiment-sized 6th Ukrainian Infantry Division of the 2nd Polish Army under General Antoni Listowski”; that is, an allegedly small Ukrainian (although Polish diaspora was forced to join this, rather then the bona fide Polish units) force which, as you stated, was under Polish command. This is non conclusive, but suggestive of Petlyura’s dependence. As for the Soviet Ukraine, it originated in December of 1917 and maintained political ties with its main benefactor, Soviet Russia, and other nominally (one may argue that “nominally” is a POV) independent Soviet states. At its early days it was as dependent on (or independent of) Soviet Russia as Petlyura’s second government was dependent on Poles, except that it later became a founding member of the UN and survived (with a name change) the dissolution of the USSR. Since Ukraine is now out of the battlebox, the argument is somewhat pointless. --EugeneK 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In my view an idependent government is one that is capable of having its independent foreing policy. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

3 This misrepresents the authority of Petlura, who, as the article now carefully states, experienced “mixed” attitudes of his alleged subjects - no, it only mentions that there were two states waging a war against the Bolsheviks. Of course, if you feel that the article should mention the failed conscription or the internal situation of Ukraine after several years of constant war then so be it, but still, not mentioning Ukraine in the battlebox would be a huge POV (unless you can prove otherwise).

see above.--EugeneK 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

4 At the time of war he represented a non-existent state and he was briefly a self-proclaimed leader prior to his exile. As I have mentioned above, his claims to legally represent Ukraine are questionable, to state the least, and have to be weighed against those of other parties, while the article and your comments apparently appoint him as the sole and rightful Ukrainian leader. - nothing of that is present in the article. On the other hand, by the time the Bolsheviks entered Kiev for the first time, the Petlura's faction was about the only descendant of all the states that were once based in Kiev - and was seen as such at least by Poland, France and Romania. Note that at the time the only other Ukrainian factions there were the Western Ukrainians (already beaten by the Poles and Denikin), who did not claim sovereignity over all of Ukraine and indeed failed to come into terms with the governments in Kiev, and the Russian-supported Reds. So, all in all, Petlura was seen as a legitimate leader at least by those who signed the alliances with him. And his administration and army, badly scattered but still existent, remained loyal to him and to his rule (even after both Poles and Ukrainians were pushed back, the Ukrainians fought bravely alongside the Poles until the very end of the war. Marko Bezruchko is one of my personal heroes of that war. Anyway, if his claim to the Ukrainian government was opposed by someone, then it might be mentioned in the article on Ukrainian history or on Petlura himself, but such discussions should IMHO be kept outside of the battlebox. Also, if the Ukrainian divisions of the Ukrainian army deserve no mention in the battlebox, then should we call them Polish?

see above. --EugeneK 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

5 The noble goal of killing as many Bolsheviks as possible and run, perhaps existed, but the article gives no sources to support it and, instead, it used to provide the goal of installing Peltlura in Ukraine, which failed. This goal was, indeed stated by the Polish government and the results of the operation should be checked against this, and not some imaginary goal. - any sources for that? The military convention mentioned no such thing while the Polish orders I mentioned (and linked above) state exactly the military aims of the Ukrainian operation. Also, take note (which I already mentioned somewhere) that the initial part of the operation did not assume capturing Kiev at all!

See Lysy’s comments in the goals section. No one claims that the official Polish goal was to include Eastern Ukraine in the Polish national state. None of your linked arguments indicates that Polish military goal was not to eventually establish and maintain military presence in Eastern Ukraine, at least throughout the war, and not to eventually push the Soviets permanently out of the area. If you have sources, please share and quote. Not maraudering on the occupied territory is a standard official policy for any civilized occupying army. Waving or not waving flags have nothing to do with the goals of the campaign, not to mention that the memoirs of Polish combatants (like the one that serves as your bias for the flag claim) are known to occasionally resurrect ghosts (remember Kuzma Kruchkov?). Apparently, there is no doubt that Polish political and military goals were not met. As for the Bolsheviks’ ones, it appears that an army forced to retreat may have two goals: 1) to stop the retreat and to recapture the lost territory (does anyone have non-Polish sources which indicate that at the beginning of the Kiev operation Soviets have bigger ambitions on that specific front?), and 2) to punish the intruder with heavy casualties, etc. At the level of the specific campaign, the success of the second goal is questionable. The success of the first goal is unquestionable. Since we seemingly agree that only one of the parties met one of the alleged goals (you do agree that Poles were repulsed at the end of the operation), how about “partial Soviet victory” in the battlebox?

Has anyone got hold of Nowik's book on Soviet codes broken in 1919-1920 ? Also I remember that about 10 years ago there were secret plans of Soviet invasion of Poland would in archives in Moscow. I don't have any sources at hand, however. I believe that Nowik in his book uses the documents he found in Polish archives to prove that Piłsudski knew of Soviet plans and therefore decided to attack first. From this viewpoint the Kiev campaign may have saved Poland as it did not allow Soviets to complete the preparations for the invasion. Then it could be seen as Piłsudski's success. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

6 The claim that Poles and their allies had no intentions to capture and retain Kiev is rather peculiar and paints a picture of a sleep-walking army that unintentionally enters cities. - yet this is what actually happened. Just check the Polish orders of the epoch and you'll be seriously surprised... At the start of that operation Piłsudski prepared no long-time plan for the war with Russia. The main aims of the operation were to probe the Bolsheviks in the southern front, capture the main railroad hubs behind their backs and surround one of the two armies present in the area. Only then Piłsudski wanted to see what happens if he drove a little further since there was such a possibility. Do you really believe that if it wasn't for an unexpected breakthrough and Bolshevik withdrawal, the Poles would capture Kiev with... some 200 men travelling by a tram?

It is not uncommon for am army to conquer a city without a fight and do it faster than it has expected This does not mean that the army would never fight to capture this city (unless there are explicit statements that support such a claim).

7 Now we need to get some Russian-Soviet patriot here to claim that the goal of the Soviet invasion of Poland was to kill many Poles (according to PSW article, Poles indeed suffered heavier losses) and run, because Bolsheviks didn’t really want Warsaw or any other towns that they have taken. - I don't really get your humour, the Bolshevik invasion was aimed at capturing Poland, which is pretty obvious. However, specific operations at various points in time had different objectives. For instance, the Russian counter-attack of late May and early June was not aimed at re-taking Kiev but at destruction of the Polish armies amassed there, which would've helped the Reds to break the Polish defence in the north, in Belarus, where the major breakthrough was expected by both sides. In short, on May 26th, 1920, Budionnyi's forces started an assault not aimed at Warsaw or Poznań but on Zhmerynka, Khvastiv, Korosten or Vasilkov. That's how wars are waged.

8 While the claims of a minor, or even a complete Polish victory in the PSW may still be viewed as good-faith considerations - I replied to that on Talk:Polish-Soviet War.

I called these “good-faith considerations”, which means that someone may consider this in good faith, that is, an honest person may consider the facts and honestly support these claims. This is nothing but a compliment to people like Piotr and Lysy who presented the Polish arguments for the discussion. For God’s sake, what are you arguing with now?--EugeneK 15:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

9 claims that the Kiev operation did not result in Polish defeat are too obviously biased - so prove me wrong. You claim you know the Polish aims eventhough you haven't quoted a single source. On the other hand, the sources I provided prove that the aims of the operation were different from what you state.

I referred to the statement apparently made by Poles in Wikipedia. As for your sources, you haven’t yet quoted a single one that supports your claims and indicates that Polish goals were anything other than what Lysy listed in the “Goals” thread. (With an understanding that “liberation” is a POV) --EugeneK 15:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

10 the author is so objective that calling the people (regardless of their ethnicity) who collaborated with Poles "Polish collaborators" is viewed by him as a strong POV - perhaps I overreacted a bit, since in most Slavic languages the word collaborator is strongly shaded by WWII collaboration and is not neutral. However, why not call them Polish allies instead?

I don't mind--EugeneK 15:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. Halibutt 18:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

2. An exiled government is still a government. While the legitimacy of its sovereignity over certain territory might be disputed, in this very case the discussion on Petlura's legitimacy is purely academic, as his claims to Kiev were more or less the only claims that were there at the time. The other parties were the Whites and the Reds (who, according to international law, lost the rights to that area in the treaty of Brest). Anyway, his government was at least seen as legitimate by Poles, French and the Germans. As to the military - after almost two years of constant fights with the Whites, the Reds and the Greens, the forces of Petlura were seriously limited (7 understrength en cadre divisions at most, if memory serves me right), but still formed a significant and independent force. For the operation they were placed under Polish strategical command, but this is nothing strange in military operations of such a scale. Nobody is arguing that the UK is not independent just because French or Americans were the commanders of fronts in which British units fought in WWI or WWII. Similarily, the general command over the entire front was in Polish hands, but the units were subject to Ukrainian government, Ukrainian law and Ukrainian commanders. Also, most of the units (all but the abovementioned 6th division) fought as a strategic force on one sector of the front and not as auxiliary units for the Poles. But even the 6th division, although separated, was commanded by an Ukrainian general (Marko Bezruchko), who even briefly was a commander of a larger Polish-Ukrainian task force (during the defence of Zamość). Anyway, I would still insist on adding Ukraine back as I fail to see the analogy between the Ukrainian People's Republic and the Soviet Ukraine. The level of independence of the latter seems quite negligeable (if any) and the state did not even have its own military command at all.

5. Creation of independent Ukraine was raised by the Polish government even before the military conventions were signed between the two states. Anyway, the Polish military and political aims for the operation can be drawn from a variety of documents. The facts I mentioned above are simply a proof that the promises were kept and that no Polish military or civilian authority was created in Ukraine - eventhough it was a common practice. Contrary to what you say, not maraudering on captured territory of an foreign nation was not that common back then and even now is common mostly in the cases where the two states are allied. Note for instance the Russian pillage of Ukraine after the Russian offensive.

As to the documents: - Polish military operational orders collection, November 8th, 1919 - June 6th 1920, Centre for Keeping the Historical and Documental Sources, Moscow, Polish division has most of the Polish orders of the time. Among them is gen. Haller's proposal of an action in the Ukraine, the main aims of which were to be capturing the nods of Koziatyn and Zhytomir so as to outflank and destroy either the Russian 12th or 14th army. There are also the orders and reports of maj. Julian Stachiewicz, Polish CoS, who was ordered by Piłsudski to prepare a plan of such an action. The only time Kiev is mentioned in the document is when the author notes that capturing Zhytomir would cut the 12th Army out of its reserve centre in Kiev. Yup, you guessed it, this was the plan executed by the Poles in April-May of 1920 - yet it does not mention Kiev... The plan is explained by Stachiewicz in great detail in Działania zaczepne 3. Armji na Ukrainie, Warsaw, 1927 (available in most central libraries in Warsaw). - The direct orders of Piłsudski shortly before the battle (as mentioned by himself, Stachiewicz and Wyszczelski), who had to chose whether to attack the 12th or 14th army. According to Piłsudski's letter (May 1, 1920) to Skulski, Polish Prime Minister of the time, the 14th army has, until recently, been the most active and it is possible that it received the most reinforcements, so we could benefit more from its destruction. However, by attacking in the south we would have no other option but to attack frontally instead of surrounding the enemy. - Orders of the Polish General Staff issued on April 13th and April 14th, in which the Polish staff created a re-organized OrBat for the offensive and mentioned the tasks of each of the groups. - The final order of April 17th (Dyspozycja operacyjna dla ofensywy na Ukrainie; published in Tadeusz Kutrzeba, Wyprawa kijowska 1920 roku, Warsaw, 1937). It mentions specifically that the orders of the Polish forces are to outflank and destroy the enemy. The orders were as follows: the assault Operational Group under Rydz-Śmigły was to capture Zhytomir and the bridges on Teterev; Rybak's group along with the 4th division was to assault Ovruch and Korosten in order to cut the Soviet Western Front in two and outflank the enemy. Similar tasks were for the Cavalry Division (later renamed to 1st Cavalry Division), which was to take Koziatyn. Finally, the 7th cavalry brigade was to cut the communication lines so as to prevent the 12th army from retreating eastwards. The orders also mention that the operation should be completed 3 days after its start and that the aim of the Polish forces is securing the Zhytomir - Berdyczów - Rajgródek - Chmielnik - Bar - Wierzbowiec line. There is no mention of Kiev whatsoever... Do you need more documents? Just let me know. As to the Russian ambitions on that specific front and non-Polish sources - I guess you should try the Direktivy komandirovanya krassnoy armii, it's a fairly decent collection of materials - and it is pretty common in many libraries in the East. All is there, including orders to Budionnyi and Yegorov...

6. But then we can't discuss of the aims. There is no proof that the aim of the operation was Kiev. The fact that it was actually taken is just a result of the fact that the Reds successfully withdrew, without putting up any serious resistance. But the initial plans of the operation assumed reaching the lines mentioned above and seing what happens - most probably moving the reserves to the Belrausian front.

8. See Talk:Polish-Soviet War

9. I already did. Your turn now. Cheers, Halibutt 03:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

2. I would assume that you are aware that the treaties of Brest were voided according to the Armistice agreement that ended WWI in 1918, long before the Kiev operation I do not know the size of Petlyura’s army, but the article only mentioned two incomplete divisions and the fact that local Poles had to join them, rather then Polish units. The treaty of Riga, in which Poland conclusively negotiated over the Ukrainian lands as its own, argues against an independent foreign policy on the side of Petlyura. And the “alternative” Ukrainian state survived from December of 1917 until nowadays (with a name change) and even became a founding UN member after WWII. Which proves that a country may pretend to have a foreign policy without being independent (my POV). I am sure that Vichy France was also part to some treaties, etc. The main test of independence from Poland (could it exist without Polish troops on its soil?) Petlyura’s 2nd government failed.

5. Did Poles promised to establish a state for Petlyura without Kiev? If they had promised him Kiev, how come it was not in their goals (at least, long-term) during the offensive?

I truly envy the amount of time you afford to dedicate to this issue.

I assume that the “libraries in the East” are not in the Eastern US, so my chances of getting them are pretty slim (unless East refers to China where I will be later this fall). With that, I have to assume the accuracy our quotes. None of this orders claim any goals besides territorial conquests. The quotes unambiguously state that the goal was to conquer and secure places like Zhytomir. If such a town still existed after all the fighting around it, were Poles able to secure it (that is, met their goals), or were they pushed away (that is, failed in their goals)?

6. How “seeing what happens” refers to the promise of establishing Petlyura as the ruler of the Eastern Ukraine? Did Poles intend to keep their promise and install a new regime in Kiev or not? I am trying to follow your arguments, but I am hopelessly confused.

Halibutt, I understand that “Polish defeat” is completely unacceptable to you. I understand that you still designate the campaign as “unconcluded” (which in English means “unfinished”, as opposed to “inconclusive” which means “uncertain”) and your determination is unrivaled (good luck to Irpen). I, on the other hands, was drawn into the whole discussion out of a stupid habit of checking the links from the WIKI main page, which lead me to the PSW and this page, which to an untrained eye looked obscenely biased (my POV). I would expect that many non-Pole with a rudimentary knowledge of the conflict would have the same feeling about the page even you delete the POV mark. Please consider this for your future projects, if you want your theme of Polish glory to gain credibility among the non-Polish visitors. Sometimes, admitting a loss may make the other claims of victories more credible. As for me, I have neither time nor means to test the correctness of your sources and their translations (as we have found out with our friend Lysy, some little mistakes may be quite misleading) and you, probably, know it. So, how about “Soviet victory” or even “Partial Soviet victory” for a compromise? I hate “minor victory” statements, because it seemingly refers to the significance of the issues as stake (e.g. the significance of PSW was tremendous), while “partial” refers to the achievement of goals.

My final thought: who came up with requirement to have “victory” or “defeat” in the battlebox? Why not to state the factual outcomes (e.g. “Polish offense was repulsed” or “Polish-Soviet border was determined”) rather than our opinions about them? This is done by other encyclopedias, as well as many pages on Wiki.--EugeneK 04:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Yup... so what? The Germans gave the Ukraine to the puppet Ukrainian state a month before the treaty of Brest. Then the Russians officially ceded all those areas to the axis, which ended up the matter as far as the international law goes. Anyway, what does it have to do with this article? Would it really benefit from the Ukrainian army being omitted, regardless of your personal views on the political history of Ukraine? Seriously?

5. Nope. The Polish-Ukrainian treaty is easily accessible, if not in the web, then in any serious book on the period. I mean any book. Basically, it was a military alliance joined with a political convention with delimitations of borders between the two states. There was no mention of any cities there, only promises of common joint fight against the Russian agression. As to the Zhytomir remark - I'm afraid I don't understand what's exactly your point here.

6. And who made such a promise? Certainly not the Polish government. Read the treaties and check what's there. Nobody promised to establish anyone anywhere. Check the sources for yourself, please. The government was already there, Poland simply accepted it as the legitimate government of Ukraine and signed an alliance with it, pretty much the same way as the French accepted Dmowski's committee as the sole representation of Poland and then signed an alliance with it. Nothing strange with that, really, unless you view Petlura as someone who was "invented" in Warsaw and brought to Ukraine from abroad, in some sort of a "revolution from the outside" a rebours...

As to the rest of your remarks - please, prepare a list of things that are POVed and need NPOVing. Preferably with serious arguments and quotations rather than "I have no idea what's the thing all about but there must be something fishy" remarks. That would be much more helpful - and would spare us lots of work. As to the result of the campaign - you're right, I still fail to see how such a dramatical failure of both sides could be seen as a victory for any of them. In short, the operation could be divided onto three major stages: Polish assault in which the aim was to destroy the enemy armies and then be able to move northwards (in which the Poles failed), then the take-over of Kiev and a series of offensives and counter-offensives, which changed absolutely nothing (well, Piłsudski's orders were to defend the border at all costs, so perhaps that period could be seen as a Polish tactical victory) and the third phase: the Bolshevik offensive with the aims of encircling the Poles and defeating the Ukrainian front (in which the Soviets failed). If the main aims of all the operations was the city of Kiev, then the decision of how to call the entire series of operations would be much easier. However, from military point of view Kiev was a secondary objective - for both sides. Soviet victory would be quite misleading since they did not achieve any of their goals for the operation... If we really have to conclude it with two or three words, then I would vote for Polish and Soviet defeat. How about that? BTW, there were many more evident Soviet victories (I mean campaigns we might call victorious without inventing facts) during that war. Why not focus on those? Halibutt 05:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The goals

Whatever the real (or stated) Polish objective would be:

• liberating Ukraine
• destroying Soviet armies in a grand battle
• capturing Kiev

it is apparent that the Poles failed in this operation as neither of these goals was eventually achieved. Anyone who claims otherwise should provide the sources to support the alternative view, I believe. --Lysy ^(talk) 06:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The second seems the most supported - and you're right it was not achieved. But as I already mentioned, the Reds did not achieve their goals either... Halibutt 13:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Українська Народна Республіка

How can we describe Ukrainian People's Republic in a non-biased way ? Saying that this was a puppet state seems POV. Saying that it was the rightful state of Ukraine seems not correct either (as the controversial Ukrainian Soviet government existed at the same time). Any ideas ? This reminds me of the situation in Poland immediately after WW2, where the official Polish government was in exile, while Soviets brought their of communist government, imposed it onto the people and eventually gained international recognition for it, while the government in exile was slowly forgotten and left for extinction.

Maybe look at it this way: If Piłsudski and Petliura succeeded in 1920, nobody would contest the state of Ukrainian People's Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet government would be forgotten. From the western perspective, Petliura seemed as the rightful representative of the country, isn't it ? Did anyone other then Soviets recognize the Ukrainian Soviet government then ? --Lysy ^(talk) 06:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, UNR or UPR is often applied to a string of governments, perhaps incorrectly. A good place to start is Ukrainian People's Republic itself. It is well written, mostly by a single author (user:Mzajac), based on a modern book on UA history, although the article covers only part of this chaotic time. For now, I cannot say anything more on the issue but I will see what I can find. --Irpen 07:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New lead vs copyvio old text

Compare current article text:

"It was a bitter day for the Poles and Ukrainians on June 13 when Kiev was evacuated and left to the Soviets. Petliura's Ukrainians, although few in numbers, fought bravely and with fierce determination throughout the rest of the campaign. In the face of almost unlimited Russian reserves and the slow growth of the Ukrainian army, Polish and Ukrainian forces were ordered to retreat. While the units managed to withdraw in order and relatively unscathed, they were tied down in Ukraine and lacked sufficient strength to support the Polish Northern Front and strengthen defenses at the Auta River during the decisive battle that was soon to take place there."

And look at this site:

"Despite beating the Soviets on several occasions, the willingness to defend Dnieper Ukraine and confidence in their ability to withstand the Soviet offensive, they were ordered to retreat. They managed to withdraw in order and relatively unscathed but it was a bitter day for the Poles and Ukrainians on June 13 when Kiev was evacuated and left to the Soviets. Petlyura's Ukrainians, although small in numbers fought bravely and with fierce determination throughout the campaign."

Especially interesting is that the external site above is not even listed in references. I can't tell off hand whether there is anything else and how many more lines of text is copied from elsewhere. Maybe the site above copied this from another source in the ref list or maybe whoever placed it here asked for and received a permission.

I don't know for sure how this is treated by policy and I suspect this may get deleted with edit history. If so, I would like to have newly written lead stored here for preservation in case the history that contains the copyvio gets deleted.

---

The Kiev Offensive (or Kiev Operation) was a Piłsudski led attempt of Second Polish Republic to wrestle the control over Ukraine, or a significant portion of it, from warring Ukrainian factions and Soviet Russia. A first major military operation of the Polish-Soviet War, the battle was carried from April to June 1920 by the Polish Army in alliance with some Ukrainian forces under the nationalist leader Symon Petliura on one side, and Bolshevik led Red Army, also with the Ukrainian participation, on the other side.

Initially succesfull for the Polish army, which captured Kiev in May, 1920, the battle was dramatically reversed, partly due to the mixed attitude of the native Ukrainian population, but mainly because of the growing pressure from the Red Army counteroffensive. Polish and Petlyura's Ukrainian troops allied to them were forced, to retreat from the area.

---

Please do not edit the text here and apply your edits to the article directly. This here is only for storage purposes. --Irpen 16:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I like your edits. I worked on this article some time ago, and I thought I have rewritten this earlier - apparently not. What I don't understand is why wasn't the site linked in references. Now that I think about it, I think I took those quote from some usenet of forum post of a person who said I can use it on wiki and didn't tell me they were from a site. Good that you cought that up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, honestly I am a bit surprised to see that you thought that "It was a bitter day for the Poles and Ukrainians on June 13 when Kiev was evacuated and left to the Soviets. Petliura's Ukrainians, although few in numbers, fought bravely and with fierce determination throughout the rest of the campaign" phrase is usable in any case. I did not know who added it, honestly, but I've seen your work elsewhere and I don't remember you inserting such poetry in the articles. I suppose it just slipped though. Never mind, since Lysy or myself have already changed that. My changes were mostly limited to the lead but in view of my following post, my part is concluded for now. Unfortunately :(, --Irpen 07:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Irpen, you said that you've used the review of "Dramas of Ukrainian-Polish Brotherhood" film as a reference. I cannot find where is it being referred to within the article ? Other than that I repeat what I've tried to explain earlier, that you cannot use a popular weekly magazine as a scholarly reference for an encyclopedic article on history. If you find it interesting reading, you could link to it in "other reading" or "external links" or similar section instead. I'm not trying to imply whether the magazine itself is biased or not, but it is not a serious source for reference. Imagine what would happen if other people would start using Polish newspaper and magazine articles as references. We need to limit ourselves to primary and secondary sources. --Lysy ^(talk) 06:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote to an article, parlty, based on what I read in these articles. People use NYTimes elsewhere. I would not refer to from-ua.com. Since WP is not a Britannica yet, I consider refs to the papers and magazines of high level acceptable. If you insist, you can move them back to expernal links. The difference between further reading or external links really is that this material is not a suggestion to a reader where to look for more but citation to the source of the info I used for this article. --Irpen 06:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Using magazines as references could be acceptable for current affairs, political or maybe social issues, as an illustration but not as a researched source for history article. I do not want to remove these links, as they may provide interesting information, but I feel incomfortable having them cited as references. I'm not against Зеркало недели specifically. I would say the same if you referred to NYT or other magazine or paper (or other encyclopedia as you know). Citing magazines is also extremely dangerous here, as it's increadibly easy to find a magazine article to support any claim. I'm sure you know it and would not like to see someone using dozens of Polish magazines for reference now. It's also difficult to argue that one magazine is credible, while another is not, as this is a mater of POV usually. Can we move it to "external links" please ? --Lysy ^(talk) 07:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, as for the US affairs, I would doubt a ref to People (magazine) but would be happy to see a ref to Atlantic Monthly, even if not for a current events article. ZN is in the middle but closer to the latter. How about dividing this into "Academic References" and "Other References" or something similar. If you see such solution unacceptable maybe you can find a different term. "External links" seems a little disrespectful for the level of these articles, expecially the one about Pilsudski, but I would take that too. Peace! --Irpen 07:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Would "further reading" me less disrespectful then "external links" ? Let's try this. I'd be afraid of future discussions resulting from academic/other references subsections. --Lysy ^(talk) 08:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Lysy, I am conserned about "further reading" a little bit, because usually it is saved for bibliography that was not used for a particular article but is a recommended reading for anyone interested. Maybe an additional "Online references" section after "references"? Anyway, this is less important and I am not motivated enough to keep up with a more serious argument ongoing at these pages. Just tired to point to what seems to me obvious to no avail. I would like to thank you for the work we did here. As for my battle outcome disagreement with Halibutt, maybe I am just plain wrong and don't see it. --Irpen 07:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Again find myself reverted

That's an overkill, Halibutt. You reverted my entire edit, which included a factual addition and not just the change of an outcome. And I see you reverted the Battle of Wołodarka, even pointing out in your comment that "it would be hard to find a major battle won by the Bolsheviks in that war" too. That's exactly what EugeneK was warning about here yesterday.

You get online and the first thing you did was revert my edits in both articles. You had no way of knowing of course, that I was writing at this page at the very same time but actually EugeneK and myself said more than enough here. I was not able to respond yet to your just posted new message Talk:Battle of Wołodarka but you reverted to what you wanted anyway. Fine, you can have it your way. I withdraw for now. I will need time to get to the mood on writing for these articles. I insist on POV tags on both since I don't see my objections adequately addressed.

On a side note, I made some research and found another book and online reviews which I wanted to elaborate on in the article but I will leave this to others for now. Just not to have my search effort wasted, here is the link to a book and some online reviews for it. "Michael Palij, The Ukrainian-Polish Defensive Alliance, 1919–1921: An Aspect of the Ukrainian Revolution" [2] The material as a whole plays to both sides of this argument but I will leave it to others to use it. I hope other editors, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and of course the rest, will keep working on this article and be bold to disagree and discuss this. I will try my efforts at other topics for now. With best regards --Irpen 07:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, don't get this too personal. I indeed reverted your unexpected, unsupported and unsourced change of the outcome of the battle, as I'm still waiting for the others to provide some evidence (as you so far failed to do this). The factual addition was in my honest opinion not only unneeded there (this article is not on the history of UNR), but also bad English. Believe me, it was not a blind revert just for the sake of it.

As to Battle of Wołodarka, let's keep the discussion on it there. BTW, perhaps you hadn't noticed, but I also added examples of the battles won by the Bolsheviks, so there must be somnething wrong with your understanding of my remark. Ask specific questions there and I'm sure we'll come to terms.

As to POV tags - so far you have not presented any source to prove that the Polish orders of the time were fake and that the true aims of the Poles when they entered Ukraine were different from those expressed by the Polish command. In other words, you smell something fishy here, but I have yet to see a single proof. Be bold, but please provide evidence when asked to. Anyway, as to this article - was the battlebox outcome summary the only thing that was disputed? If so, then I removed the tag and added a brief explanation on what is actually disputed - the way I understand it. Is it ok with you? Halibutt 11:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute

I adressed all issues raised by Irpen and explained the outcome in a separate footnote, which should sum up the outcome controversy. Yet, Irpen re-added the POV tag. So I'm kindly asking him to list all the issues that are left for us to fix here. Also, currently the tag suggests that there is a POV dispute going on, while I believe there is none left and that the matter is settled. Isn't it? Is there anything left? Irpen, when you add the tag again - be sure to add the discussion as well. Halibutt 02:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

...And..? Is the POV tag still needed? Halibutt 08:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to remove some sentences suspected to bear potential POV and now removed the tag. Let's see if there are any specific objections left. --Lysy ^(talk) 14:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Irpen's edit

See [3]. I have some questions:

• why 'political asylum in Poland' was changed to 'exile from Ukraine'?
• 'military defeats...from the Polish army'. Did Peltura ever fight with Polish forces? At Talk:Polish-Soviet_War#Irpen.27s_edit Halibutt argues this was not the case.
• why the sentence 'recognized each country's independence and guaranteed respecting cultural and ethnic minority rights within each country.' was replaced with 'his government that was supposed to join the Polish-dominated Międzymorze Federation'? This is a signifiant POV shift: the old version portrayed Peltura's as a more equal partner (sacrificing some territory but getting real independence), the second in essence implies he would be close to a satellite/puppet state
• Consider another change: Meanwhile Polish military intelligence was aware of Russian preparations for an all-out attack on Poland to Meanwhile Polish military intelligence was aware of Russian preparations for an all-out effort to repulse the invasion. Does this need any comment?
• 'Before withdrawal from Kiev the Polish army destroyed much of its infrastructure...' - Irpen, can you use proper VISIBLE inline referencing system? Unless one is editing the text, this addition appears as unreferenced.

While I agree with the removal of the word 'political' from the outcome (it was strange, and the defeat was military as well), and the Meltyukhov addition is referenced (so unless sb can provide contrary sources it should stay), I think that all edits in between are highly POVed. I don't suggest reverting to previous version, but some middle ground must be created. I'll take a stab at it, but comments are welcomed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I found sources denying Polish destruction of Kiev. From [4]: The Poles denied that they committed these acts of vandalism, claiming that the only deliberate damage they carried out during their evacuation was blowing up the bridges over the Dnieper, for strictly military reasons.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I would consider adding the {{NPOV}} tag again... Halibutt 05:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried looking for any sources again ('Kiev'+'1920'+'destruction/destroyed') but couldn't find anything. English sources would be much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

They year 1920 is not even mentioned in our History_of_Kiev#1918-1941. I tried looking for 'history'+'Kiev'+1920', but again there is nothing about any damages suffered by the city (other than the bridge being destroyed - btw, in 1941 it was destroyed again, by the Soviets this time [5]). At least I have a selection of various 'history of Kiev' elinks that we may want to add to History of Kiev: [6], [7], [8] (this one describes some destruction of the city by Denikin's forces), [9]. So I am really beginning to doubt that the destruction of Kiev, reported by Trotski, was anything more than normal damage suffered by the most cities during the fight and in that case popularised by Soviet propaganda.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, the source is listed. If its being non-English renders it unusable in your opinion, please fins an English source to any claim supported by Polish only source added to WP by Molobo (especially) as well as Halibutt and yourself. I see double standards here. --Irpen 21:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't say that we should remove this source, I just say that we should be specific, as this particular reference looks rather dubious to me. It is making the claim that 'Kiev was made almost unlivable' - something that big would surely be repeated by many other sources, wouldn't it? Two questions: this article you reference (in Russian and Ukrainian) is it an academic article or a popular science/news article? And does Mikhail Meltyukhov gives any references for that part?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, one more time, Meltyukhov's book is not a tabloid to say "Meltyukhov writes". I can attack many claims you make using Polish sources by changing it "Polish web-site claims". He is a very respected historian and referring to his work as you would refer to the Sun tabloid is unacceptable. His book being in Russian is as much of a problem as many Polish books being in Polish you are using all the time. I suspect that you attack the info simply because it puts Poles in an unfavorable light. Well, the truth is that like any nation, Poles committed acts of savagery among many honorable actions they also did. --Irpen 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am confused: is the online reference his entire book, or is is his article, or is it someone's article quoting him? I don't 'attack' his book, but it doesn't strike me as a very NPOV source (note, please, that I don't mean we should remove it). Anybody who writes "The failures of the Polish army only whipped up its vengeful vanalism." (vandalism?) seems like a rather POVed writer - something that a 'respected historian' should avoid. I'd expect to find such language in the 19th century book, or a tabloid, but not in the 21st century respectable academic book. This, and the lacks of any other sources collaborating his story (well, outside the well known for his neutrality and careful research Trotski...), leads me to suspect that as I wrote above this is just a (unintentional repetition of?) Soviet propaganda piece, portraying normal results of city warfare as some terrible Polish attrocity. but again as I have no proof for that I by no means insist that we add such interpretation to the aricle: instead of weasel wording the sentence to make it seem like it is about a common NPOVed fact I merely ask that we note that (as far as our current sources tell us) this is a statement made by this historian (and nobody else).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I can find more info on this in Russian easily. I simply chose to refer to an academic work rather than some web-sites. I changed the ref to make sure the quotes are from the book, not "some recent article". As for noting that some info in Wikipedia is merely a statement made by this source, I would agree if we decide to change the standards and require such disclaimers uniformly. I see plenty of info in Wikipedia, referred only to Polish web-sites. As such, not only I can't check it (I practically don't read Polish) but I can't even know how credible is the source. Would you mind weaselizing the claims referred to such sources as "according to a Polish web-site xyz.pl..."? --Irpen

If that's the best reference we have, the user should be warned about it. Again I see no problem with mentioning whom we cite - especially when we cite 'respected historians' this addds the credibility to the article. I'd have thought you'd be happy to see Meltyukhov name appear in the main article, as it raises his visibility and may attract more people to edit his article? Note that I may no assertions in the text about the his credibility, I just note that 'recent publication by x states that'. It is not 'weaelizing' but on the contrary, it's just more referencing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well then. May I suggest you go over History of PL 39-45 article and modify all info refed to exsculesively Polish sites as "Polish web-site XYZ claims". While at it, please give another thought on whether the info on Parade in Brest and Molotov's quotes that Molobo copied there from narrower articles belong to such a broad article. If you think it's all right there, I will copy what I wrote about the parade here to History of PL, 18-39 article. --Irpen 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And while you are considering whether to cleanup the History of PL article, let me answer the questions you asked here earlier.

• "asylum changed for exile": Exile more accurately describes the Petliura's situation. Petlura came to power through the coup d'etat overthrowing the governemnt of Skoropadsky, who also came to power in a coup supported by Germany. OTOH, the Soviet Ukraine's government from Kharkiv could claim its legitimacy to the initial Central Rada since it was based on the pro-Soviet leaning factions of the Rada. Thus, Petliura's claim to be a legitimate leader of Ukraine was questionable to begin with. Secondly, he was indeed in exile, on the run from the country he claimed to have ruled.

• • • The above point is, sorry, ridiculous. In the elections of 1917, Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries (Petliura's party) won about 60% of the vote while the Bolsheviks won around 10%. (source: Subtelniy's Ukraine: A History, published by University of Toronto Press). You give legitimacy to the government representing the tiny pro-Soviet factions of the Rada while denying the legitimacy of the government led by one of the main figures of the party representing 70% of the Rada. Andrew, May 10, 2006

• • I see your point. Perhaps we both have the cake and eat it: he was exiled and asked for asylum, right?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• "the old version portrayed Peltura's as a more equal partner..." Nothing can be further from truth. Poles had a well-functioning organized army and Petliura was a leader with questionable legitimacy claims whose military force was of laughable scale and who was on the run from the country he claimed to have represented. Poles needed the legitimate reason to make their operation look not like an invasion. In similar fasion one might claim that Osobka-Morawski was an "equal partner" of Stalin when they were signing "agreements".
  • I tentatively agree, but it would require more research how constricted the Ukrainians were. For example, were they given the level of autonomy more similar to IIWW Polish forces in the West or East? Polish gov-in-exile had a much more leeway then the Union of Polish Patriots.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Changing "an all-out attack on Poland" for "all-out effort to repulse the invasion. We are talking about Kiev operation here and an attack on Kiev could have been called an attack on Poland some hundreds year ago but not in the 20th century. The Polish army invaded Ukraine and captured Kiev. A counterattack on the Ukrainian city occupied by the Polish forces is not an attack on Poland.
  • Well, perhaps 'the invasion of Ukraine' will be a good compromise, as it surely was not an 'invasion of Russia' - and I'd like to avoid this confusion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• "vandalism". Vandalism is not necessarily a POV term. Destruction of the civil facilities is vandalism, it's just a right word. We may argue that the claim of destruction is false. To this I can only say that I wasn't there as well as anyone who is editing the article. We have a historic book that says it happened and we have no books that say that it didn't happen. We only have a source that say that Poles denied that. That's not the same things as the statement that the claim was indeed false. Soviet Union denying the Katyn incident didn't make the events untrue. Meltyukhov is certainly not the only source where one can find information about the damaging of the city infrastructure. However, he is a serious historian and a specialist of the subject. His book belongs to the post-Soviet historiography and cannot be presented like Soviet propaganda claims as Piotrus tried. Besides, the destruction of a unique for its time bridge is even admitted by the Poles themselves and, as such, cannot be presented with a "Soviet propaganda stated..." tongue in cheak form. I translated the full quote from Meltyukhov from Russian to English in the article's references list. As you see, Meltyukhov, only refer's the cathedral's destruction to the Soviet propaganda. But not other objects. The bridge destruction is also referred to an article in the Western publication (Ukriane-Observer). If the Poles deny everything but the bridge, we can state the denial in the article. But one cannot call the data referenced to a respected historian's book simply a "A Soviet propaganda".
  • Right, we have a source that it happen and a source that it did not. I think we have cleary estabilished that the bridge was blown, and the cathedral wasn't. As for the others, we have a claim for and a claim against, this is why I think we should note that this is uncertain. Otherwise, before 1989 one could argue that - to use your example - 'Katyn Massacre didn't happen, although some claimed otherwise'. Currently, the text states that the city was destroyed by the Poles and than, as an afterthought, adds that the Poles denies this. I think that at least adding the info that the destruction of Kiev by the Poles is a claim made by this particular historia and Trotsky is justified, just as we state below that it was the Poles who denied the claim. If you have other Russian sources making the same claim, we can either list it or upgrade the sentence to 'Russians' or 'Russian historiography', but given the Poles denial below I think the current sentence is constructed in a misleading way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am looking forward towards similar skeptical views towards the Polish sources used in History of Poland (1939-1945) as well as for opinions whether minor details like Molotov exchange and Brest parade belong to such a wide topic article, as well as a lengthy section about "treatment of Polish citizens". I could go there and try to do a clean up myself but I normally don't just delete stuff, but try to make changes to an article to preserve the text flow and encyclopedicity. It takes time and I hate seeing my time wasted when I am reverted on the spot. As such, I would like to get assurances that others agree that minor or excessive details don't belong to wide topic articles. If others disagree, I think we should add the parade and the city distruction details to the History of Poland (1918-1939) article. --Irpen 06:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I created the subarticle (red, the last time I checked) just so we can move the 'copied and excesive' materials there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

What's the problem? Poles got kicked out from Ukraine, so it was a military defeat. Granted, they did not get mauled as badly as the forces in Belarus, and for many units it was a rather organized withdrawal, but it was a defeat nonetheless. After all the red counteroffensive did not stop before Warsaw. It wasn't decisive military defeat, not like what happens to Bolsheviks at Warsaw. Please, can you agree here on the wording? I think that just 'Polish defeat', with a note to explanation, is the best way to go.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish defeat is fine with me. For some users it it migh be hard to accept that the Poles used to loose battles, but that's how it was. I will reply to your post above separately. --Irpen 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, read any book on military operations in the area. In short, the aims of both sides were not to gain land as Ukraine was at best a secondary front for both sides. Sure, important from a political point of view, but completely irrelevant to the military operations of both sides. Both Poles and the Bolsheviks tried hard to destroy as many divisions in the area as they could - and both failed. I happen to have both Piłsudski's and Rydz-Śmigły's orders for the operation at hand. Needless to say none of them mentions the capture of Kiev. What they do mention is the destruction of Red forces in the area. Similarly, Russian directives were not aimed at regaining Ukraine but at outflanking the Poles and destruction of the Polish southern front.

From purely military point of view the operations in central Ukraine - both the Polish offensive and the Soviet counter-offensive which deserves its own article, BTW - ended with no victory for either side. Sure, it was a political defeat of the Poles as Piłsudski's dreams of free Ukraine had to be dumped afterwards. But calling the Polish operations a military defeat is just plainly wrong. And it's not about Irpen's ad personam arguments above, it's not even about common sense. It's about military strategy.

Also, contrary to what Piotrus wrote above, the Poles were not kicked as badly as in Belarus as they were not kicked at all. Not a single Polish unit destroyed. Also, it was not an organized withdrawal for many units as all units were withdrawn in order. Finally, the Polish losses in the operation were minimal at best and the Russian counter-offensive in the southern front never even got close to Warsaw as it was stopped in Ukraine (battle of Lwów (1920) anyone) and the single attempt to break through the Polish front (battle of Komarów) was a complete disaster... for the Bolsheviks. Poland did loose battles and operations in the Polish-Bolshevik War, both minor (battle of Zadwórze) and major (Berezina), but this one was not a defeat. A strategic withdrawal at best, but not a military defeat in any way.

Having said that, I would agree for the current wording as long as there's an explanation that the operation is described as a Polish military defeat almost exclusively in Soviet sources. However, I still believe that the text should explain that the result was either inconclusive (as noone won) or a Polish political defeat. Halibutt 03:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I hereby ask Irpen to provide sources that would say that the outcome of the operations was a decisive Polish defeat. Wyszczelski's book is a monography of the entire campaign and devotes several dozen pages to the description of the consequences, but in the end he states that both the Polish and Russian operations ended as a failure. Polish version of Davies' book does not mention the alleged Polish defeat, neither does my high school handbook. Are there any scholarly works to call it a Polish decisive defeat?

BTW, such a term would suggest that the Polish army was badly beaten, while such wording IMO should be applied exclusively to battles like the battle of Warsaw (1920), which were decisively won by one of the sides. Other battles were usually less evident - and this one is among the most notable examples of that category IMO. In Talk:Battle of Wołodarka Irpen once suggested that the battle in question could not have been a Polish victory since the Russian army was pushed back and not destroyed. I wonder why does Irpen apply double standards here... Halibutt 05:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, please don't misstate things. At Volodarka, I said that there could not have been the Polish victory not because the Soviet army was not destroyed but because the only result of the battle was that everyone stayed were they were and that in a less than an week Soviet offence the Poles withdrew. So, the achieved nothing in Volodarka except not loosing in at once. This is not a victory, but an inconclusive result which became conclusive in the following Soviet offense. I suggest the interested parties study the article's talk page. As for "decisive", here, I am fine with the "polish defeat" without "decisive". But please do not push the weasel "Political defeat" to the result of the military operation. Political victory and defeat may be in a political battles, such as the election and stuff. --Irpen 06:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment from talk:battle of Wołodarka: But here, I would agree to "inconclusive" since mostly it ended with everyone retreating to their original position. In the case of this operation it was exactly the same. After several weeks of fights everyone basically retreated to their original positions. Double standards anyone? Halibutt 13:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see the obvious difference, I will elaborate (later, I don't have time at the moment). In the meanwhile, I suggest you reread WP:TROLL#Pestering. --Irpen 14:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you suggest that I'm a troll and that I'm pestering here, then you might want to help me by quoting the easy-to-find answers. Otherwise please stick to the topic and avoid personal remarks. Halibutt 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Halibutt that it was not a decisive defeat, but nevertheless as I stated above it was a defeat: Poles were forced to retreat. So either Polish defeat or Russian victory should be the outcome of this campaign.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Davies, WERS p.127, calls the operation a political and military fiasco and argues it has been a military defeat too. He calls Kutrzeba and others who argue that it wasn't a 'pre-war Polish apologists' and points out that Soviets drove Poles from Ukraine without any reinforcements - all the forces, including the Konarmia has been assigned to the theatre in March.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainians - missing

I think we are missing information on Ukrainian forces: I don't even see the names of their units in 'Poles/Ukrainians' sections. Who was their commander? Was Petliura a military commander (and thus go to battlebox), or was he just a political leader?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Marko Bezruchko commanded the 6th Ukrainian division, while Colonel Oleksander Udovychenko commanded the Third Iron Rifle Division.

[edit] Technical problems

For some bizzare reason, every single edit I make to the page corrupts Irpen's new reference ([10]). I'd appreciate it if somebody could see if this is my localized problem or something larger (corruption shows on preview/show changes for me), and - assuming this is my problem only, and that my edits as visible avove are non-controversial - apply them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian loyalties

I have made some minor changes with respect to the beginning of the article. It stated that "many ethnic Ukrainians viewed it as a Polish effort to seize Ukraine and rallied to fight in the ranks of the Red Army." How many?

I removed that part because it suggested that Ukrainians played an important role in repelling the Pilsudski-Petliura Kiev offensive, implying that they were opposed to it. In the elections of 1917 60% of the people of Ukraine and over 70% (77% in Kiev gubernia) of the people populating the territory captured by Pilsudski and Petliura voted for Petliura's party. This contradicts the impression made by the original article, that Ukraine's population was as strongly opposed to Petliura as for him. An excerpt from the online Encyclopedia of Ukraine article:

Here is data about the elections in Ukraine to the All-Russian Constituent Assembly in December 1917:

In Ukraine the 7,580,000 votes cast were divided in the following way: the national groups (non-Russian parties) won 61.5 percent (among them the Ukrainian SRs won 45.3 percent); the Russian SRs, 24.8 percent; the Bolsheviks, 10 percent; and the Kadets, 3.7 percent. Of the 120 deputies elected in Ukraine, 71 were Ukrainian SRs, 2 were Ukrainian Social Democrats, 4 were from the national minorities (1 Pole, 2 Jews, 1 Moslem), 30 were Russian SRs, 11 were Bolsheviks, 1 was a Kadet, and 1 was from the Union of Landowners. In six districts where the bloc of Ukrainian socialist parties (SRs, the Peasant Association, and Social Democrats) presented a single list of candidates, it won a clear majority of the votes: 77 percent in Kyiv gubernia, 71 percent in Volhynia, 60 percent in Chernihiv gubernia, 60 percent in Poltava gubernia, 52 percent in Katerynoslav gubernia, and 33 percent in Tavriia gubernia. In Kharkiv gubernia and Kherson gubernia the Ukrainian and the Russian SRs ran together; therefore the Ukrainian SRs received only 12 percent of the votes in the former and 25 percent in the latter gubernia.

source:

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\A\L\All6RussianConstituentAssembly.htm --user:Faustian

Not only Ukrainians but most respected historian view the Offensive as a Polish attempt to seize Ukraine. Check, for instance, Britannica Article:

Russo-Polish War (1919–20), military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine.

...the conflict began when the Polish head of state Józef Pilsudski formed an alliance with the Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petlyura and their combined forces began to overrun Ukraine, occupying Kiev on May 7.

So, while your view that Poland was liberating Ukraine may be interesting, it is against the established biew in historyogtaphy and cannot be pushed into the article, especiallu its introduction. --Irpen 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue of liberation or invasion is an interesting one, but not quite relevent to the implied claim in the introduction that there was some sort of equivalency between the number of Ukrainians fighting for the allied Polish-Ukrainian forces and those fighting for the Reds. This was why I had taken out that quote. Most sources suggest that most Ukrainians were apathetic and did not take sides in that struggle; Petliura was only able to recruit about 20,000 soldiers. Do you have evidence that a similar amount rallied to the Red Army to expel the Poles/Petliura? I have not come across any hisotrical work suggesting this; Babel's memoirs mentioned ethnic Ukrainian cossacks fighting for the Reds, but they were from adjoining Russian territory Kuban, not from Ukraine itself. If you can't find a source documenting significant Ukrainian rallying to the the Red Army during the Kiev offensive, I don't think the original quote should stand. Indeed, the data from the last elections in Ukraine suggest that if anything the Ukrainians were more sympathetic to Petliura. So I will respectfully change the wording from "many" to "some" until someone can show a significant number of Ukrainians rallying to the side of the Red Army during that conflict.

Coming back to the issue of liberation versus invasion, Britannica's wording is not definitive, as for example the actions of Allies during World War II could be worded in a similar way. Petliura's relationship to Pilsudski may have been analogous to DeGaulle's relationship to the American and British allies. Faustian 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the electoral information appears to be well sourced and I see no reason why it should be excluded. While we could use more academic sources, I see no reason why Petliura's role should be minimized. After all, he was one of the most prominent Ukrainian leaders of his time, wasn't he? Second, Britannica is far from perfect, as has been demonstrated again and again. I think Faustian has a good point demanding references for the numbers.

Regarding liberation, I'd strongly discourage the use of word, it has recentl become a sore spot in quite a few articles. The only force that can be seen as doing the liberating here were Peltura's forces - as the only clearly Ukrainian unit on Ukrainian territory. Certainly it does not apply to neither Poles nor the Reds. Polish Międzymorze has never happened, it's motives are still disputable, 'Soviet liberation' is usually an oxymoron is and the end result in the Riga was certainly not a liberation for Ukrainians.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The electoral information should be not excluded but added to various article on the History of Ukraine but not to the article about the specific miltary operation that, btw, took place in some time and many events after that election.

I have no intention to use "liberation" here.

That Petlura was the most prominent leader of the time is doubtful but he certainly was prominent. However, an amount of support he could still garner in 1919-1920 following the defeat of Skoropadsky is uncertain and should not be derived from 1917 election results. --Irpen 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As I promissed, I added the source that quantifies the Ukrainian participation in the Red Army. From "Ukrainian Armies 1914-55" by Peter Abbott added to refs:

In Feb 1918, the Kharkiv gov of an "alternative" UPR formed 5 "armies" of 2000 men each. In Nov. 18 to repell the Central Powers two Ukrainian "divisions" were formed, reinforced by two Russian ones. In Jan 1919, the Ukr. SSR begab to form a Ukrainian Workers' and Peasants' Red Army which by mid-1919 had some 100,000 men. The comman was later tranferred to Russia and the members were integrated into the Red Army as 12th and 14th Armies... The Galician UHA joined the Reds in Han 1920 and retained a separate identity for a while. Finally, "Red Cossacks in Ukraine" began as first a regiment and then a brigade in 1919. During the PSW the UA authorities arranged for their transfer to Ukrainian front where they were expaned into a division (later a corps).

All the info is from the above referenced book. --Irpen 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Meltyukhov one? Oh, I see you mean the Abott one. Seems reasonable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. To put things in perspective, in early 1918 in comparison to Kharkiv's Bolshevik puppet government's 10,000 troops the forces of the Ukrainian National Republic numbered around 100,000. Most of the "Ukrainian" troops in the Red Army were recruited from industrial centers east of the area controlled by Pilsudski's and Petliura's forces during the Kiev offensive and thus consisted of ethnic Russians. Ukrainians tended to fight on the side of Petliura or of numerous local war lords (atamans)who at times allied themselves with the Reds but who basically acted independently. Nikifor Grigoriev and Nestor Makhno were the most famous of these. There were no prominant Ukrainian commanders from within the Red Army, and the neither of the first two leaders of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Georgyi Pyatakov and Stanislav Kosior were even ethnic Ukrainians. The issue of the Galicians fighting for the Reds in an interesting one and deals with their opposition to Petliura's deal with Pilsudski relinquishing claims upon Galicia, rather than belief in a Polish invasion of Ukraine. I wonder though, if the Ukrainians in the Red Army were volunteers or conscripts. The Bolsheviks were efficiently conscripting soldiers throughout territory they controlled (a major reason for their victoryt in the Civil War). Petliura's men, and those of other non-Bolshevik forces such as Makhno's army, were mostly volunteers.

My sources for the info were: Subtelniy's History of Ukraine and Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine, University of Toronto Press: Toronto 1996, ISBN 0802008305

With respect to the election results, you made a good point that the situaion in 1919-1920 could have been different than in December 1917. However the burden of proof should be on you to show that attitudes were different. Actions such as the constant anti-Bolshevik partisan activities by various local otamans such as Makhno suggest that wasn't the case.

Accordingly, I have taken out the phrase "the Ukrainian population viewed it as a Polish effort to seize Ukraine" because there doesn't seem to be evidence that the people as a whole thought so. I have also added the Ukrainian National Republic to the column of combatants and changed Soviet Russia to Red Army to reflect the fact that the latter were not exclusively Russian forces. Because the Ukrainian troops were integrated into the general Red units the Ukr. SSR probably shouldn't be listed as a seperate combatant Faustian 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you on most point, I had changed back Red Army to Soviet Union before I saw your reply. We can't have a country facing an army, and I'd suggest that the composition of RA, as you outlined above, should be added to the article to make it clear. As Soviet Union is a greater level entity then any of it's SSR, and none of them held any real power, I do agree that it shouldn't be indicated that it was an independent political entity.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you either don't list puppet govs as participants, or list them all. UPR was a valid gov of Ukraine some years before that, but not when Petliura was on the run and had to beg Pilsudski for military help and sell out the WUR's Ukrainians for that.

With respect of election results, I don't see the "burden of proof" as my opponents suggest. There is nothing obvious in expecting that political preferences of people stay with the same forces for years, especially in such turbulent times. There are no more reasons to assume the loyalties remained as they were than that they changed.

I moved a ref that presents the "Ukrainian view" towards their "liberators" to the top of the article where the resoted phrase is. Finally, the note, Piotrus altered was indeed formally a joint note of two govs. The independence (or lack of it) is a separate issue. The fact is that formally it was a joint note. --Irpen 23:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the liberation (why quotation marks?) of Ukraine by Pilsudski/Petliura, Norman Davies in his book Europe: a History discusses it, writing on page 935 of that book "The Poles and Ukrainians marched into Kiev, and were welcomed as liberators." Davies is a senior member of the Wolfson College, Oxford, and a fellow of the British Academy. The book was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year and has been praised by the Guardian, The Times, etc. A generalist work, he did not devote much space to the issue although he was the author of a highly regarded book on the Polish-Soviet war and is a noted specialist in eastern European history: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/johntusainterview/davies_transcript.shtml

Your claims that Petliura's was a "puppet government" and that its status is equivalent to that of the Soviet Ukrainian government are unfounded. It was no more a puppet government than was the Polish government in exile a British puppet government, or DeGaulle's government an American/British puppet government. Petliura's government represented the parties that won 60% of the all-Ukrainian vote and over 70% of the Right-Bank/Kiev vote in the December 1917 elections while the Soviet Ukrainian government represented the forces that won only 10% of the votes in the elections, and were situation in the Russian-inhabited industrialized eastern fringe of Ukraine that were not even occupied during the Kiev offensive. Unlike in the case of the Soviet forces, Kiev was handed over to the Ukrainian authorities and was under the control of Petliura's, not Poland's military. Here are relevent quotations from another discussion on wikipedia's Polish-Soviet War page:

...As to the alliance with Petlura - Piłsudski would might want to swallow his piece of cake after the war, but this is a mere speculation. On the contrary, the fact is that a free Ukrainian buffer state, strong enough to be a decent ally, was what Piłsudski had in mind when he signed an alliance with - badly beaten and expulsed from his territory - Petlura. He diverted much of his forces from the north, where the major battle was soon to take place, to give the Ukrainians a chance to establish their own army and defend their territory, while Polish forces could move freely to the north. Such a friendly stance towards the Ukrainians was a major problem for the Polish logistics at the moment (many sources quoted by Wyszczelski - see the bibliography - support that). The orders from above forbidden the Poles to gather food or supplies in the Ukraine and all had to be transported from Poland. Also, the Polish forces were forbidden to conscript people in the conquered territories and all were to be joined with the Ukrainian units - even the numerous volunteers from the Polish diaspora living in Kiev itself. Finally, there was no Polish military nor civilian authority created in the area and all authority was immediately passed to the Ukrainians so as not to create an impression of a foreign occupation.

Of course, after several years of constant warfare on their territory and soon before the harvest [probably meant planting - Faustian] time, the Ukrainians were not exactly keen on joining yet another Ukrainian army, which is why the conscription to Petlura's army mostly failed, but this is a completely different story. Anyway, all in all the Polish units in Ukraine were not occupants. There is even one memoir quoted by Wyszczelski, in which one of the Polish officers recalls an order forbidding the Polish units to hoist the Polish flag above the trenches not to hurt the Ukrainian feelings. Piłsudski was really careful as he knew the price perfectly well... Halibutt 23:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Another note: By order of Rydz-Śmigły, all Polish units were withdrawn from the city of Kiev and the garrison duty was carried out by the Ukrainian 6th division only. (source: original order quoted in Tadeusz Kutrzeba (1937 (underground reprints in 1988 and 1989)). Wyprawa kijowska 1920 roku. Warsaw, Gebethner i Wolff.). Halibutt 00:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Equating Petliura's government with that of Soviet Ukraine is somewhat like equalizing the legitimacy of the Polish government in London exile with the Polish Communist government in the wake of World War II, or De Gaulle's government with the French Vichy regime. I realize the issue is somewhat more complex, given that Ukraine had a pro-Soviet Russian population on its territory (particularly in areas east of the the furthest advance of Pilsudsky/Petliura) and that Ukraine was a chaotic place. But the election of 1917, the anti-Bolshevik guerilla activity throughout central Ukraine lasting until late 1921 don't suggest a lot of support for the Soviet Ukrainian government. Accordingly, this wikipedia entry shouldn't suggest that this support existed (perhaps I should add a post-script about Ukrainian resistence in Ukraine through 1921 in order to provide relevent context?)

Because unlike the forces of the Ukrainian People's Republic, Soviet Ukraine did not field its own units and could not act independently of Moscow it would be wrong to list Soviet Ukraine as a separate combatant; I have therefore removed them (for the same reason, it would be wrong to list Dzerzhinsky's Polish Revolutionary Committee as a seperate combatant in the Polish-Soviet War). Because Soviet Ukraine did not field a single military unit, how can it be listed as a combatant? Because the Soviet Union did not come into existance until 1922 the label seems problematic: clearly it was controlled by Moscow but included Ukrainians soldiers integrated into the Russian units. Soviet Russia might be the best label unless someone has a better idea.

I have made changes according to what I have written, above, and have also added figures about the number of Polish/Ukrainian troops involved, taken from Subtelny's Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8020-5809-6.

Faustian 13:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think quite a lot of the above info should be moved into this and related articles. As for the Soviet Union naming problem - it was also discussed in the PSW talk and should be there (or in the archives). Briefly - we considered using 'Bolshevic Russia', but the proposal did not have majority support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The election data discussed here says nothing about support for Petliura, because his party got 2 out of 120 seats.

He belonged to one of the allied Ukrainian socialist parties that won those elections. He became the chief of that legitimately elected government's military.Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Faustian conveniently forgot to mention that “Only 54 of the 79 electoral districts reported the results of the voting”. The apparent victory of Ukrainian socialist revolutionaries does not indicate their support for the Poles.

No, but it reflects support for the Ukrainian socialists, a prominant member being Petliura.Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is not clear whether the supporters of this party would be closer allied with their Russian counterparts (both SR parties cooperated in some districts; left wing of the Russian SR party joined the Bolsheviks) or with the Polish Republic.

When Ukraine declared independence in January 1918 the Russian SRs split from the Ukrainian SRs.Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is even less relevant because the Polish-supported return of Petliura occurred three years after the vote, so one could only speculate about the possible votes at that time. In fact, there is a lack of evidence that during his return Petliura has been an acknowledged leader of any political party that existed in the 1917.

Petliura was the military chief of the elected legitimate 1917 Ukrainian government. It was brought down by a German-engineered coup. That German-engineered government was then overthrown by Petliura. The Directorate was composed of the legitimately elected Central Rada's military head (Petliura), the head of the central Rada's General Secretariat (Vynnychenko)Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While there were several anti-Bolshevik factions (e.g. Mahno), they cannot be considered pro-Polish either.

True. Although by that time Makhno made a truce with Petliura in which neither side atacked the other. Makhno did not resist the Polish-Ukrainian invasion. Writing from exile, Makhno regretted not cooperating more with Petliura whom he considered a legitimate politcal figure in Ukraine, unlike both Reds and Whites (source: "The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno" by Palij).Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We know that Ukrainian Galicia was strongly anti-Petliura and operated separate military units within the Red Army.

Consisting of no more than a few hundred men.Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also mentioned that plentiful ethnic Poles from what was considered Ukraine were recruited into Petliura’s units, so the number of ethnic Ukrainians in his army could not be judged from the number of people in his units. These units may be treated similarly to the “ethnic” (e.g. Polish) units in the Soviet army during the WWII.

Do you know what percentage of those units were composed of wethnic Poles?Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also some confusion in the remarks by the same people that Petliura was able to find 20000 supporters, but fielded an army of 100000.

During the Kiev offensive Petliura recruited about 20,000 soldiers. He fielded an army of 100,000 in late 1918/early 1919, over one year earlier.Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Same stands for the claims that the Bolsheviks were non-Ukrainians (e.g. Russian recruited from the East) and that the Cossacks in the Red Army were actually Ukrainians, but from another area. Also, if one dismisses the participation of 100000-strong pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian army (formed by UkrSSR) because it might have contained some ethnic Russians, wouldn’t the same be true for Petliura’s units with ethnic Poles?

It's not a matter of "some" ethnic Russians. It's mostly ethnic Russians, recruited from almost totally ethnic Russian urban areas of eastern Ukraine (such as Kharkov). This wikipedia article breaks down the membership of the communist party in Ukraine[11]. As can be seen, as late as 1925 only 36.9% of the Ukrainian Communist Party's membership were ethnic Ukrainians. This is not an exact indicator of the ethnicity of Red Army units, but it provides a good estimate.

Ethnic Ukrainians either fought under Petliura or more often fought under various otamans, the most famous being Makhno and Grigoriev. The latter groups often made alliances with the Reds (Grigoriev captured Odesa while flying the Red flag) but were under seperate command and frequently fought the Reds. I haven't come across any references to any of the otamans being on the side of the Reds during the Kiev offensive.Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The obvious difference between the legitimate governments in exile during the WWII and that of Petliura’s was that they originally came to power through legal means, while Petliura’s short-lived power was originally grabbed in a coup.

A coup in which leading mmebers of the (former) legitimate government returned to power.Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Another question is whether counting the opinions in Ukraine we can ignore those of non ethnic Ukrainians (Poles, Russians, Jews, etc.). The fact that a leader of pro-Bolshevik Ukraine was born in Poland doesn’t make this entity any less legitimate than a Polish-installed government of Petliura or a German-installed hetmanate.

By the way, emotions and propaganda aside, in the treaty of Riga Poland legally acknowledged that it fought Soviet Ukraine. Legally, the only reference to Petliura’s supporters was that Poland in the future would prevent any anti-Soviet formations from operating on its territory. --EugeneK 03:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a tricky way for the Polish negotiators to "give up" Ukraine, by continuing to recognize it - albeit as the Soviet puppet government. Faustian 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the long absence. I have noticed that Faustian has again added some misleading comments. I am sorry to go for such a length, but apparently some history (most could be found in Ukrainian Wiki) has to be brought up to clear the confusion.

1. The election results do not support Petliura’s legitimacy. The elections were conducted in parts of Ukraine to choose representatives to a constitutional assembly that should have decided the fate of the former Russian Empire. These people were not elected with a mandate to establish an independent country. In any case, Petliura’s party, as other Marxist Social Democrats throughout the Empire (including Bolsheviks), suffered a disappointing defeat. The overall winners were Social Revolutionaries, a non-Marxist party with strong agrarian support. This electoral failure prompted Lenin to grab power by force. SRs and SDs would occasionally form tactical alliances, but would quarrel most of the time. In fact, this quarrel was greatly weakening Central Rada and the government that it eventually formed. For example, during the initial confrontation with the Moscow Bolsheviks, the loyalties of SRs were questioned because the left wing of their party in Russia allied itself with Bolsheviks.

2. Moreover, Central Rada, which proclaimed itself a representative of the Ukrainian people, was not formed based on these elections, but included a great number of representative of various ethnic (including Ukrainian diaspora), political and professional groups, who never were elected by a popular vote. Higher political activity and better organization of SDs could have contributed to their greater role in Rada, which could not be inferred from the earlier popular vote.

3. It may be noted again that the authority of Rada over Ukraine was not unquestionable at the time. Claims for the whole territory or its parts were made by Moscow Bolsheviks, Russian provisional government and White army (which tried to protect the unity of the former Empire), Poland, Galician Republic and too many chieftains and warlords to be mentioned. In fact, Rada originally proclaimed autonomy, rather than independence; and the pro-Bolshevik faction that moved to Kharkiv proclaimed their Republic before the Kiev Rada proclaimed total independence. (This Soviet republic and not “Ukraine” in general was recognized by Poland after the war: Petliura’s “state” had a different name and Fausitian’s claim of Polish “tricks” is unfounded.) I can foresee the speculations about the ethnic composition of various competing factions, but, considering that the area in question was multi-ethnic and did not have universally acceptable borders, there is no reason why the wishes of non-Ukrainian inhabitants of the land had to be ignored.

4. The self-proclaimed Rada eventually appointed the leader of SDs, Vynnychenko, to lead the de facto government. Apparently, Petliura was a member of this government as well. This did not last long. The conflict between SDs and SRs resulted in SDs quitting, so, technically, Vynnychenko was not the head of the last pre-hetmanate government.

5. After Germans withdrew, Vynnychenko seized power by force and pronounced the rule of his Directorate. Originally, Petliura was a member, but not the leader, of this junta as well. However, Vynnychenko had a strong pro-Russian sentiment and made some friendly moves towards the Bolsheviks (Later, he would meet Lenin to apply for a high-rank position in Bolshevik government, but failed. He was very positively viewed by Bolsheviks until Stalin’s crackdown on “nationalists”). This worried the French, who, at the time, were still a major European power and feared Bolshevik influence in the East. Pro-French Petliura was able to outmaneuver Vynnychenko, who in the ensuing conflict had any de facto power taken away, and had to give up his post. Petliura would go on to proclaim Ukraine to be a French protectorate, but that was too late to stop the Bolsheviks. He was promptly kicked out, and, in a highly unpopular move, he offered parts of historic Ukraine to the Polish Republic in exchange for military support.

To summarize: Petliura was a member (but not the leader) of a party that could not muster public support in open elections, and a member (but not the leader) of one (but not the last one) of the governments, which was appointed by one of many self-proclaimed local governing bodies. He gained the power by joining a coup and then ousting the coup’s leader (who, in fact, for a while was the leader of a previous government). If this is what Faustian claims to be a legitimate head of state and representative of his country, than what is a usurper? Wouldn’t any former government or military official be entitled to grab power and run the country, or at least, to invite a foreign army to do it for him? In fact, this was one of the favorite Soviet strategies that led them into Afghanistan, among other places. --EugeneK 03:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eugene, do you have reference to any of your bold statements? The election results speak for themselves [12] and are the only real objective data showing the will of the Ukrainian people. To quote from the Encyclopedia, "Of the 120 deputies elected in Ukraine, 71 were Ukrainian SRs, 2 were Ukrainian Social Democrats, 4 were from the national minorities (1 Pole, 2 Jews, 1 Moslem), 30 were Russian SRs, 11 were Bolsheviks, 1 was a Kadet. In six districts where the bloc of Ukrainian socialist parties (SRs, the Peasant Association, and Social Democrats) presented a single list of candidates, it won a clear majority of the votes: 77 percent in Kyiv gubernia, 71 percent in Volhynia, 60 percent in Chernihiv gubernia, 60 percent in Poltava gubernia, 52 percent in Katerynoslav gubernia, and 33 percent in Tavriia gubernia. In Kharkiv gubernia and Kherson gubernia the Ukrainian and the Russian SRs ran together; therefore the Ukrainian SRs received only 12 percent of the votes in the former and 25 percent in the latter gubernia."

Your first point about the loyalty of the SRs being questioned seems irrelevent, as the Russian SRs and Ukrainian SRs ran as separate parties in most districts. When Ukraine declared its independence, most of the Russian SRs sided with the Bolsheviks. The latter two groups combined were, however, a minority of the elected representatives. While the wishes of the national mionorities need not have been ignoredm they should not necessarily have been given veto powers over the wishes of the majority.

I agree that those representatives were not given a mandate for independence. At the time that they were elected, the Russian government in Petrograd had not been illegally taken over by Bolsheviks. But despite the situation not being completely black-and-white, it was clear which parties were elected by the majority of the people - the ones whose representatives would first declare autonomy and then, after the Bolshevik coup and invasion of Ukraine, independence from a Russia illegally ruled by the Bolsheviks.

The head of the Rada all the way through autonomy and then independence, Mykhailo Hrushevsky [13], was a member of the Ukrainian SR party, the winner of those elections in Ukraine. He was the legitimate president of Ukraine whom the Germans overthrew. Vynnychenko was elected as deputy head of the Rada and headed its central executive body. He was granted central executive authority in Ukraine by the Provisional Government in Petrograd. [14]

My grandfather knew Vynnychenko well and after V.'s death was invited to become the caretaker of his estate and archives in southern France (my grandfather didn't do it because his medical practice in the US was being established and he did not want to start life over, again, in a country where he didn't speak the language). A lot of Vynnychenko's letters were donated by our family to Columbia University's Vynnychenko archives.

I did not not discuss Vynnychenko with him in detail, but my grandfather had a much more positive image of Petliura than your comments would seem to indicate they would.

With respect to your point 3, I agree that the authority of the Rada was questioned by foreign forces - Moscow Bolsheviks, Whites, and the Provisional Government. The democratically elected Galician government voluntarily united with the Rada in 1918. Within Ukraine, the forces allied against the Rada representative minority forces within it from a particular geographical area (essentially, Bolsheviks and Russian SR's from Kharkov)

You mentioned diaspora pressure groups, and other nonelected organizations somehow taking control of the Rada. I am not denying this, I would like to hear more. Can you provide referenced evidence of this happening?

Please note that all of the area under Pilsudski's/Petliura's control during the Kiev offensive was that area that had voted for the Ukrainian SRs/SD's during that election.

I will address points 4 and 5 later... Faustian 19:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petliura's Legitimacy

Dear Faustian, there are many sources of this information, but the most readily accessible one is the Ukranian version of Wiki (articles Українська Центральна Рада , Володимир Кирилович Винниченко, etc.). You may pay attention to the description of the composition of Rada, conflicts and aggressive rhetoric between Ukrainian (!) SRs and SDs (and please do not present them as a single entity: 71 to 2 elected deputies tells you which ones had the popular support),

The two groups were close enough that they presented a single list of candidates in Kiev, Volhynia, Chernihiv, Poltava, Katerynoslav, and Tavriia provinces. And they subsequently cooperated in declaring Ukrainian autonomy and independence.

Please stop using the tactical cooperation as an indication of political identity. In fact, the same parties would occasionally join others in some distrcts. By now, I gave you enough references indicating that the parties were distinct and were viewed as such by the population.

Combining to field one candidate is more than mere "tactical cooperation", isn't it?

By the same token you could claim that all French parties are the same because they joined forces against the ultra-right, or because the right and the left in Russia are the same because they sometimes join in opposing Putin.

Both Ukrainian SR's and Ukrainian SDs were Ukrainian nationalist leftists, and were not on opposite ends of the political spectrum. The relationship between the two thus was not like the relationship of the right and left in Russia or the Gaullists and Socialists in France (vs. Le Pen). A closer analogy would be the Canadian Liberals and New Democrats, or British Labor and Liberal Democrats, or (modern) Ukrainian Communists and Progressive Socialists. The Ukrainians SRs and SDs were close enough that they had the same candidates in most of the provinces.

Vynnychenko was thus the legitimate head of the General Secretariat (essentially, the prime minister) of Ukraine/the Central Rada. And he was recognized as having executive authority in Ukraine by the Provisional Government in Petrograd.

Not true. After he resigned he had no legal authority.

Yes, but before he resigned he was the legitmate head of the government, and his authority was explicitly recognized by the Russian Provisional Government in St. Petersburg in July 1917 (Magosci, page 477).

And, btw, Petliura was the Minister of War.

And. moreover, the Central Rada government was recognized diplomtically as an independent state by the Soviet government, as well as Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, about about 14 other countries.

Could you provide the proof of this? Especially, that the Soviets recognized the Kiev, but not the Kharkiv goverments. Keep in mind that by conducting negotiations you do not recognize someone's authority: police may negotiate with highjackers, but not recognize their right to fly a plane.

Magosci, page 485, "According to the provisions of Brest-Litovsk and supplementary treaties and agreements signed between February and September, both Soviet Russia and the Central Powers recognized Ukraine as a sovereign state. Soviet Russia agreed specifically 'to conclude a peace at once with the Ukrainian National Republic' and to clear that territory of Soviet troops."

withdrawal of SDs from the government prior to hetmanate (the last pre-hetmante government of Golubovich was not brought back by the Directorate!),

This is true. Vynnychenko was the prime minister until he resigned in January 1918, several months before the German coup.

And at this point lost any legal claim to rule the country.

I don't think that legality in this case is in black and white. The former prime minister is more legal than someone with not even those credentials (the Bolsheviks).

conflict within the Directorate. English Wiki states that Mykhailo Hrushevsky, who indeed could claim legitimacy of a Rada-appointed leadership and the popular support of his SR party, “did not, however, approve of the Directory and soon found himself in conflict with it.” So, the Rada-appointed president and prime-minister were in the country, but Directorate ignored them and could not claim any legitimacy through this connection.

The situation is not as simple as you imply. Neither Hrushevsky nor Golubovsky participated in the political situation at that time;

Only because the power was usurped.

No. Neither Hrushevsky nor Golubovich made any attempts to regain power after the Hetmanate's collapse. I have not seen any evidence that they even wanted power, or that they felt that Vynnychenko's rule was illegal. All I have read is that they disapproved of Vynnychenko. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

Given that the most recent prime minister was out of the picture, the previous one (Vynnychenko) ruled.

the Directorate did not struggle against them, nor did it usurp power from them. Rather, it usurped power from the Skoropadsky government that itself had illegally taken power from the Rada. Indeed, there is no evidence that Hrushevsky or Golubovich wanted that power back. So instead, it rested on the previous (and clearly legitimate) prime minister Vynnychenko. To make a very rough analogy, it would like after the United States were occupied, Clinton came to power in an uprising against the puppet government(rather than the last president Bush), unchallenged by Bush despite some grumbling.

The legitimate way of restoring a republic is to expel the invader and to offer the offices and the full authority back to whomever you consider legitimate leaders.

To people who didn't want it? What then?

Rada-appointed president and prime-minister were readily available, but instead of being offered their offices back found themselves “in conflict” with Directorate. This conflict means that they were in disagreement with the Directorate, but were ignored.

I don't know the details of this disagreement. I know that they did not actively seek to regain power.

BTW, do you have any quotes by Hrushevsky in which they even denied the legitmacy of Vynnychenko or Petliura?

Not a nice way to treat a legitimate ruler. In your example, this would be like Clinton taking power, despite Bush still being around, and eventually losing it to one of the retired generals. Not legit.

How about, Clinton and the Democrats leading the uprising and then taking power, Bush Jr. and the Republicans complaining about Clinton but neither seeking power nor challenging Clinton's right to rule?

Also, Petliura was not a mere "retired general" but the Central Rada's Minister of Military Afairs (head of the military, sort of like Secretary of Defense).

In this admittedly rough analogy, the Bolsheviks would be the followers of Ross Perot, who had no legimtate claim to power.

Petliura was the military chief of the Directorate and the head of its "moderate" political wing (Vynnychenko headed its left-wing).

Petliura was to the right of the mainstream SD party and eventually left it.

I agree that the political situation in Ukraine was not completely clear. But surely the legitimacy of the Directorate cannot be compared to that of Soviet Ukraine (see below).

You can see a progressive decrease in legitimacy in this sequence: popular vote (not in Petliura’s favor)> Central Rada (self-appointed, split into pro- and anti-Bolshevik entities)> Vynnychenko (appointed by Rada, supported by the anti-Bolshevik fraction after the split, quit, came back in a coup)

Not a coup, but a popular uprising against a foreign-installed puppet. According to Magosci's History of Ukraine, (page 495), "The Directory initially attracted mass support, largely because it called for the expropriation of lands held by the state, the church, and the large landowners...the Ukrainian National Republic found legitimization for its actions at the congress of workers which convened in Kiev on 22 January 1919."

Vynnychenko pushed for the same radical reforms that other left SDs (Bolsheviks) and left SRs preached from Moscow and Kharkiv. Us your source and many other indicate, these ideas were widely popular among Ukrainians, but not so among Entante, which was in talks with Petliura behing Vynnychenko’s back. When Petliura came to power he quite SD party to further distance himself from this reforms.Note, that the Bolshevik-like ideas and reforms were popular, so, logically, their reversal would not be. That why the support was attracted "initially". Which is another clue that the Polish-backed second government of Petliura (no communism building there!) was unlikely to muster public support (the infamous “conscription problem”).

Good points (and it should be pointed ut, the Bolsheviks themselves did not support those reforms, hence the massive peasant uprisings against the Bolsheviks by Nestor MAkhno and other otamans).

> Petliura (the one whose legitimacy we were originally discussing).

Petliura was the military head of the Directory and the head of the moderate faction within it and thus a major figure in its government. He did not force Vynnychenko from power in a coup; Vynnychenko resigned in part due to the Bolshevik invasion that demonstrated the failure of his policiy of conciliation with the Bolsheviks. Petliura was not installed in power by foreign forces nor did he usurp power by force.

Please confirm the claim that Vynnychenko resigned because of the Bolshevik invasion. Other sources mention conflict with Petliura, who pushed Vynnychenko aside.

The issues were not seperate. Within the Directory there was a conflict between the leftists (Vynnychenko) and moderates (Petliura). The former favored accomodation with the Soviets, and the latter with the Entente and then the Poles. When the Soviets invaded Ukraine against the objections of Vynnychenko, his position proved unteneble and he resigned.

Subtelny, page 361: (with the French and Whites to ukraine's South and the Bolsheviks massing from the North) "The Directory obviously could not confront both intruders and had to come to an understanding with one of them. As might be expected, Vynnychenko and his colleagues from the radical left favored an alliance with Moscow, while the moderates and the army insisted on an agrreement with the Entente. However, the issue was decided by the Bolsheviks when - as their representatives conducted peace negotiations with the Directory - their troops attacked Kharkiv."

By the time of Kiev operation, Petliura brushed aside and alienated both SRs (e.g. Hrushevsky) and SDs (e.g. Vynnychenko), so that the reference to SRs' former popularity is totally invalid or, at least, is not in Petliura's favor.

There is a direct relationship between Vynnychenko's government and the clearly legitimate Central Rada.

There was no inherent "clear" legitimacy in Rada (a non-elected self-proclaimed organ) and the resigned official has no legitimate claims either.

The Rada represented the people of Ukraine, and was as legitimate as, for example, the Provisional government. This claim is supported by the results of the elections already described.

Could you imagine Clinton moving into the White House despite the objections of Bush Jr?

I have not seen objections by Hrushevsky to Vynnychenko taking over. Can you provide them? There is a difference between not liking someone's policies and questioning their right to rule.

There is another direct relationship between Vynnychenko and Petliura.

Yea, and a very bad relationship.

And direct. Petliura was a member of the Directory (its second most important member, right after Vynnyechnko) and its military leader.

On a separate note, if you have this information (not the speculations), please share it: how much of the Ukrainian territory and for how long was effectively controlled by Petliura’s goverments.

According to Magosci's and Subtelny's Histories of Ukraine, Petliura and the Directorate consistently had effective control only of Zhitomir and/or Podol regions during most of 1919 and 1920. Neither they nor the Bolsheviks nor the Whites had effective control over most of Ukraine at this time; it was a free-for-all dominated by numerous warlords.

To be more specific (information taken from Magosci's and Subtelny's books on Ukraine):

The Directorate captured Kiev from Skoropadsky and the Germans in the popular uprising on December 14, 1918 (having surrounded the city and captured most of central Ukraine by November 21st) and controlled it until February 1919, when Bolsheviks invading from Kursk captured the city. At this point, Vynnychenko resigned and was succeeded by Petliura, who combined the offices of head of the Directorate as well as supreme military commander.

From February 1919 until August 1919 Petliura maintained shifting control over various cities in right-bank Ukraine such Vynnytsia, Rivne, and maintained consistant control over western Volhynia and western Podolia, whose principle city Kamianets-Podilskyi served as the provisional capital of the Directory.

In August 1919, fortified by Galician troops, the Directory, whose army totalled 100,000 troops, recaptured most of the right bank Ukraine up to the Dnipro River; on August 30th Kiev was liberated but abandoned to Denikin the following day due to Galicians' reluctance to fight against the Whites. This was followed by fights against Reds and Whites and a typhoid epidemic that wiped out most of the Ukrainian military such that by October Petliura was reduced to controlling western Volhyn. After his deal with the Poles, some of the remnants of the Galician army in Podolia allied with the Soviets ro with Denikin.

By early 1920 Petliura was in control only of the northwestern part of Volhynia.

Moreover, the forces that you mention did not mark themselves as “foreign”: Bolsheviks and their allies in Kharkiv were the first to proclaim an independent Ukrainian republic,

As has been indicated, the Bolsheviks and their allies only got about 1/3 support in the elections in 1917, and this amount was mostly limited to eastern Ukraine. The area taken by Pilsudski/Petliura (including Kiev) had very little Bolshevik support.

they did not vote for Poles either. They voted for SRs that Petliura sidestepped and, according even to your sources, supported the Bolshevik-style reforms of the SDs, that Poles did not support and that Petliura left.

At the All-Ukrainian COngress of Soviets that the Bolsheviks themselves organized on December 17, 1917, "the Ukrainian parties brought in their supporters from the countryside and swamped the approximately 100 Bolshevik delegates with over 2,000 of their own. Furious, the small Bolshevik faction abandoned the congress, moved to Kharkov, denounced the Central Rada as the "enemy of the people", and proclaimed the creation of the Soviet Ukrainian Republic." (Subtelny, page 350).

According to Magoscy (pg. 482), the Bolsheviks only came to power in Ukraine with the help of Antonov-Ovseeko's army from Russia.

This is what Magosci says avbout the Bolshevik government that ruled Kiev from February - August 1919:

"The Ukrainian Soviet Republic was Ukrainian in the territorial, not national sense. It was headed by Christian Rakovsky, a Russophile of Bulgarian-Romanian origin, whose adminsitration was dominated by Russians or Russified Ukrainian Bolsheviks with little or no sympathy for Ukrainian cultural aspiration..."

Rakovsky and the "Russified Ukrainian Bolsheviks" might have had a different opinion. Magoscy (or Magosci) may not be the utlimate authority to dictate national aspirations to Ukrainians.

He's a highly respected historian who described the way things were. The Bolsheviks by their actions showed that they were a party of a national minority in Ukraine (albeit an important one), limited geographically and ethnically. And this was relfected in their electoral support - virtually nonexistent in Kiev and points west (the lands taken during the Kiev offensive).

So, when speaking of legitimacy - particularly of the specific territory (Right-Bank Ukraine) captured by Pilsudski and Petliura - although the situation was somewhat muddled Petliura comes much closer than the Bolsheviks do.

Arguably, the test of legitimacy is to see which force was most closely tied to the Central Rada. Clearly, Petliura (former Minister of War) was closer than were the Bolsheviks.

Arguably, Central Rada itself had questionable legitimacy and neither one of the later usurpers (Petliura or the Bolsheviks) had a legitimate claim.

Poles thought of Galicia as theirs, Whites thought of the former empire as a single entity, chieftains and warlords were mostly locals. BTW, remember that Galicians supported Rada in 1918, not Petliura’s government (they sent their men to fight him and his Polish allies).

Not in large numbers. Other Galicians stayed in his army.

The Ukrainian sources indicate a deep opposition of Galicians to Petliura. The former first sided with Denikin and then with the Reds. Please correct me with the factual information.

There was indeed, deep opposition to his policy by Galicians, who hated him until his assassination (when he became a martyr even among them). However, the number of Galicians fighting for Whites and then Bolsheviks was tiny. Out of the 50,000 Galician troops who helped Petliura briefly take Kiev in August 1919 (Subtelny, page 372), due to casualtiers, disease, etc. only 4,000 were combat-ready by November 1919 (pg. 374). On 6 November 1919, the Galician commander General Myron Tarnavsky placed his troops under the command of Denikin "on the condition that they would not have to fight against other Ukrainians." Some of these 4,000 later made up the Galician Soviet Army.

Medical practice of your grandfather is a fascinating topic that we may discuss in a separate article.--EugeneK 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I will ad that you made some incorrect statements. You claimed that Petliura declared Ukraine a French protectorate. Neither Subtelny nor Magosci wrote about this seemingly important event.

It was not easy to find an open-access English text of the document. Of cause, Petliura’s fans are not eager to mention it.

My sources are Magosci and Subtelny. Thier books are published by the University of Toronto Press and both are highly respected historians. Magosci is a fellow fo the Royal Society of Canada, professor of history and political science at the University of Toronto and director of the Multicultural Historiy Society of Ontario. Subtelny is a professor of history and political science at York University. They are graduates of Harvard and PRinceton, etc.

The source of the quotes below is a political Marxist website which, unfortunately, does not provide references for those quotes except for the mention of a note by the Soviet leader Rakovsky. The same website also writes about Ukraine, for example, "in this country, whatever men try to build against the proletarian revolution will prove to be built on sand: whatever blood they shed will be in vain, for always the sand will shift from beneath their feet."

Perhaps a French or Ukrainian search may be more fruitful, but here is an excerpt from this web page: [15]

"Here is the text of the declaration it addressed in January to the French commanders:

The Directorate places itself under the protection of France and re-quests the French authorities to guide it on all diplomatic, military, political, economic, financial and judicial questions until the conclusion of the struggle against Bolshevism. The Directorate looks to the generosity of France and the Allied powers in the event of any fresh settlement of the frontier and nationality questions.

According to the terms of the treaty signed at the end of January 1919 with France (represented by General d'Anselme), the Directorate declares the Ukraine to be an integral part of a single and indivisible Russia (so much for `national independence'); it transfers its powers to a coalition cabinet (so much for `the exclusive authority of the toilers'); it abandons the project of summoning a Labour Congress, promises to tolerate no Soviets on its territory, and entrusts the command of its troops to a General Staff composed of General d'Anselme, the officer in charge of Allied troops, one representative from General Denikin's volunteer army, one representative of the Polish Legionaries and one representative of the Ukrainian republicans. In return, the Allies pledge themselves to keep the Ukrainians supplied with munitions. ""

That web page provided no reference for those quotes.

You also claimed that Vynnychenko retained ties to the Bolsheviks until Stalin's time, when in fact he broke off ties with them in 1920 and urged other Ukrainian leftists to reject cooperation with the Soviet regime. Faustian 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this clue: he did it after he tried, but failed to get the position of deputy prime minister in ... the Bolshevik goverment. Sour grapes? --EugeneK 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he was offered the position but refused it: "Late in May 1920 he arrived in Moscow and was offered to occupy the post of the deputy chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic with a portfolio of People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs and co-optation to the Central Committee of CP(B)U. The Soviet authorities wanted to use the name of V. Vynnychenko for political purposes. Becoming familiar with the economical and political situation in the state and comprehending that he was invited for tactical reasons V. Vynnychenko rejected the offer and returned to Vienna. There he criticized the national and social policy of RCP(B) and Soviet government, but made no efforts to lead the movement for consolidation of émigré elements for the struggle with the Soviet power." [16] Faustian 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Vandalism

I have also removed the examples of Polish vandalism in Kiev. It is largely irrelevent to the military aspect of the conflict and seems meant to create the false impression that savage/destructive Poles versus Soviet liberators. One could easily devote a lot of unnecessaary space listing all of the atrocities and damage caused the Reds as they marched westward (not to mention Cheka's arrests and executions), but this would cloud the main issue being the Kiev offensive. The melodramatic words about the beautiful destroyed bridge probably are meant to further this feeling of pathos; destroying bridges is a necessary act of war when retreating. It seems silly that the entry on the Kiev offensive devoted more space to acts of Polish vanadalism conducted during the retreat, than on the capture of Kiev itself! It makes the article sound like communist propoganda. I am frankly shocked that such vandalism was mentioned to that degree, when the destruction, looting, violence committed by the Red forces upon the civilian population were not only far greater but more widely documented. The Red Cavalry was notorious for its plundering and murder as it marched west. One need only read Isaac Babel to get a glimpse. This part of the account of the Kiev offensive is like, when writing about World War II, devoting alot of unecessay space detail about the Soviets' scrorched earth policy (including mining the main street of Kiev) and other acts of vanadalism while not mentioning any German atrocities. Shouldn't we stick to the main story? Faustian 13:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Faustian 14:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best thing to do - and something Irpen should agree with, judging by his arguments about where to put references to parades or attrocities and such - would be history of Kiev article. And I certainly agree with your impression of the effect that the current bloated para, based on a single book, likely based on Soviet propaganda, has. On the other hand, if you have any sources about the vandalism/looting commited by the Reds in Kiev, it would be a great counterbalance to this para.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about such events in Kiev itself following the recapture of that city. But the events occuring afterwards are mentioned multiple in times in Isaac Babel's acount of the counteroffensive iunto Poland, an excellent and well-written eye-witness account of that war from a communist perspective. He understandably fictionalized some of the details in his "Red Cavalry" but my version of the book includes his diary entries. An excerpt, from June 20, "...stories of pillaging by Budyonny's men, shivering and terror (followed by 23 missing pages). There's a reference to such acts: http://historynet.com/mh/bl-battle-of-warsaw/ which comes up immediately when googling "budyonny" and "atrocities".

I'm at work but will look into history books, for more details at home. During a brief search could not find any references on the internet to alleged mass acts of Polish vanadalism in Kiev in 1920. Faustian 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that info on Polish vandalism needs added to the history of Kiev, I don't see it moved from here. This is an exact article for it. I did not add this to a broader articles such as History of Ukraine, History of Poland or even the related Polish-Soviet War. This occured duing this very battle, referenced to a book by a respectable scholar (not to Soviet propaganda) and is clearly relevant. I am restoring it. --Irpen 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second. First of all, blowing up bridges by retreating armies is standard operating procedure, practiced at the time by all armies, including for example by the Russian army when it withdrew from Warsaw in the summer of 1915 and blew up all the city's bridges. How would you feel if a section on such "Russian vandalism" was added to the Warsaw and First World War related articles?

Second, what is this statement about the city being made "practically unlivable". If that is actually true, please cite some references about the population of Kiev leaving the city en masse after the Polish retreat. After all, surely not many could have survived in a "practically unlivable" city. Balcer 18:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, destroying the electric power and sewage for the city doesn't amke it unlivable? Sorry, I don't get the question. Or is that that you deny the factual accuracy of that. I referenced the info to an exact source. --Irpen

Keep in mind that this was 1920, not today when everything runs on electricity, hence one could probably live in Kiev without electric power. So, all I meant to say is that "unlivable" sounds POV and vastly exaggerated. A nuclear explosion or a firestorm generated by massive bombing makes a city unlivable, not this. At any rate, the reference you are quoting does not use that expression at all. Balcer 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed above, the only primary source with allegations to any destruction of items other then bridges is the Leon Trotsky telegraph, at least parts of which has been proven false (the destruction of the catherdal). The second source, Meltyukhov from 2001, must obviously be based on some primary sources, but we have to assume that it is the Trotsky telegraph (unless somebody can find any other primary refs). As I was unable to find a single English source (academic or otherwise) confirming this 'vandalism', I really think that the entire para is dubious, and it should be clearly stated that those allegations are made only by Trotsky and Mikhail Meltyukhov.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Meltyukhov uses as his source the book: Войны польского империализма 1918-1921 or Wars of Polish Imperialism 1918-1921, published in 1931 in Moscow (I am guessing that is what M means), written by А.Пшибыльский (A. Przybylski?) who was presumably a Polish writer, as the book was apparently translated from Polish into Russian. Anyway, a book published in the Stalinist Soviet Union under such a POV title seems to me like a piece of crude propaganda, and not a source with any credibility whatsoever. If that is the only source of information about "Polish vandalism in Kiev", it will simply have to go. Balcer 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also interesting to note that the title of the book by Przybylski is found in only one place by Google, on the website quoting Meltyukhov's book. That also does not inspire much confidence in the source. Balcer 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting little tidbit: here is what the Great Soviet Encyclopedia has to say about Kiev's history in 1920. 6 мая 1920 К. был захвачен войсками буржуазной помещичьей Польши, но уже 12 июня оккупанты были изгнаны из города. Obviously that encyclopedia does not have much love for Poland of that time, as it refers to it as "burgeois landowning Poland", and yet it somehow neglects to mention the "great vandalising of Kiev by Poles". That settles the issue for me. This episode simply did not happen, or if it did, its significance and scale has been vastly exaggerated. Hence, unless better sources are provided than a 1931 Stalinist propaganda book, that section must go. Balcer 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. If that is the only source for that info it should go. There is nothing remarkable about the destruction of railroads in Kiev, given the fact that there was a war going on. The other info seems to have only one source, and a dubious one at that. The whole para seems to take up unecessary space. Faustian 21:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. And just to repeat what I have stated above: my search through various English sources about history of Kiev have found no reference to destruction of anything but the bridges - certainly nothing to indicate some 'vandalism on purpose'. I'd really wish that some people would stop adding obviously POVed propaganda from Imperial Russia/Soviet Union propaganda to good articles. Too often, cross examination with more reliable sources proves them either false.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian combatants

The newest version is must better than previous ones. I have made a couple of changes. One, which is perhaps the most relevent, is in the combatant section. The Ukrainian People's Republic had its own military units invovled in this operation. Indeed, the number of troops in the Ukrainian units was 18% of the total in the invasion, using the figures from Subtelny's (1988) History of Ukraine. So it legitmately belongs as a combatant.

Soviet Ukraine, on the other hand, did not have its own military units. There were many Ukrainian soldiers within the ranks of the Red Army - a fact that is legitmately included in the introduction - but Soviet Ukraine did not in itself field those soldiers. Therefore it should not be listed as a separate combatant, because it as an entity was not combatting anyone. The fact that it was a Soviet puppet regime, created and based in the largely ethnic Russian eastern fringe of Ukraine (Kharkov) rather than Kiev, highlights that fact.

I also deleted the reference to most Ukrainians viewing it as an invasion. The quote you provided was contradicted by Davies' book Europe: A History. It also discusses a particular event in that struggle, when the Poles marched through Kiev, and not the entire episode. As written previously, the Polish troops were replaced by Ukrainian ones, who has exclusive control over Kiev. Subtelny (1988) writes that the Ukrainians were not enthused because of traditional bad feelings towards Poles, historically seen as landlords/exploiters. However Ukrainians did not like the Bolsheviks either. I think ambivalence would be a more realistic term that reflects those people's attitudes. Faustian 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "ambivalence" is a reasonable compromise but I strongly disagree with the removal of the entire reference. Also note, that the quote is not to the later writing historians but the dairy of the direct witness of the event which makes it even more valuable and reliable. Please restore it.

As for the Soviet Ukraine being listed or not, I think it should be. It did have an army initally, later integrated to the Red Army, and it had a formal government that, for example, issued the diplomatic notes to Entente. The truth of the matter is that this was mainly the war between Poland and Russia for the control of Ukraine. Ukrainians caught in the middle split their loyalties. UPR by the time of Petliura's exile was only a nominal state. If you insist on listing it, UkrSSR should be similarly listed.

I will respond to Balcer's note above about vandalism separately. But I am surprized that people refuse to believe and demand more sources even while some are provided. There is plenty of stuff in Polish articles referenced to a single Polish newspaper article by a journalist or some of Molobo's favorite nationalist cites. These events here are referenced to an academic book and people are willing to still fight over them. I will add more when I get to it. --Irpen 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I demand more sources because I have read quite a bit of literature on the subject, and none of the books discuss any "vandalism" by Polish forces as they left Kiev. Here is one example: [17] Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1918-1921, a book which goes into quite a lot of depth about the Polish-Soviet war. yet on Polish retreat from Kiev it simply says: On June 7, Zhitomir fell; four days later the Red Army entered Kiev. All the other books I am able to find on Google Print also simply state that Poles left Kiev, without any mention of vandalism or destruction of civilian property. So, whatever happened in Kiev in early June of 1920, it is not significant enough to be included in this article. Feel free to discuss it at length in the History of Kiev article, which is the perfect place for it. Balcer 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's just separate two issues. The first one is whether the facts are right and the second one is whether they are relevant for this article. If the facts are wrong, there is no issue. We have sources that say it did happen but you are dissatisfied with them. That seems to be a situation. I will look for more but even what we have warrants at least a mention. If the facts are right and Polish troops vandalized the city, there is no more relevant article for this info than Kiev Offensive, the military operation that brought this (along with the History of Kiev). I did not add this to the general PSW article, like Molobo adds the Brest parade even to the History of Poland. I did not of course add this to the History of Poland or of Ukraine articles as well. So, let's concentrate on the facts for now. --Irpen 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, Irpen, on relevence. If it indeed happened, this would be a better place for the info than any other place. But the damage done seemed quite typical of warfare, so why mention it? Should we list a bunch of violent acts committed by Budyonny's soldiers too?. However I am not convinced the facts are right, if the only one source is a Soviet publication from the 1930's and nobody else seems to have mentioned it.

I am satisfied with the new intro, and I think that the reference is appropriate. The eye witness seems credible but he describes one event. Persumably attitudes changed once the Ukrainian troops took over the city. With respect to the combatants, while there had been Soviet Ukrainian units in other battles, at the time of the Kiev offensive there were no separate Soviet Ukrainian units. The "Ukrainian" soldiers were integrated into the Red Army. With respect to its formal "government", the diplomatic notes it issued do not make it a combatant in the war, since none if its (nonexistent) military units took part. The fact that Ukraine's government had been defeated and forced into exile prior to the Kiev Offensive is irrelevent to this issue. It fielded two if its own divisions, under commanders loyal to its government, comprising 18% of the soldiers on the Polish-Ukrainian side. The Soviet Ukrainian government fielded none of its own military units during this struggle.

You are correct that it was mostly a Polish-Soviet Russian conflict. But while the Soviet Ukrainians were an integrated part of the Soviet Russian side and represented a puppet regime run by Moscow, the Ukrainian People's Republic, the creation of the Ukrainian people as reflected in last elections, operated its own military units, and functioned as an independent government. Indeed, it continued to do so after the end of the Kiev offensive, according to Subtelny (1988) unsuccessfully invading Ukraine without any Polish participation with over 30,000 of its soldiers in late 1920, and operating guerilla units within Ukraine until late 1921. The latter facts obviously don't belong in this section but help to show that Petliura's government was a seperate - albeit minor - player rather than (as was Soviet Ukraine) an appendage and therefore deserves to be listed as a seperate combatant (unlike Soviet Ukraine). Faustian 22:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, could you please cease to use Molobo as your main argument? This is not the place for it. Let's just concentrate on the merits of this article.

I can well believe Polish forces blew up Kiev's bridges and disabled its railroad network before retreating, as these were standard practices in wartime. As William Tecumseh Sherman said, War is hell. I really wish that the European armies of the time had an understanding not to destroy infrastructure, as that would have preserved countless beautiful bridges at the very least, but that was quite simply not the case. But I have seen no convincing evidence that these actions in Kiev were somehow particularly significant, or that they constituted vandalism. The simple fact is that all armies of the time routinely destroyed infrastructure as they retreated. This cannot be called vandalism, and it is incorrect to ascribe this to some deep psychological motives. It was a standard practice during a war. As such, it does not warrant a mention here. Balcer 22:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No it does warrant a mention. Destruction of bridges and railroad stations (two stations, not just "rails") is well-sourced, undeniable and not everyone did it. Reds did not do it, btw, when they retreated. The bridges were indeed a treasure of the city as I wrote on Kiev bridges article, so it was a notable event. Whether it was vandalism, we can argue. I agree on rephrasing. Meltyukhov calls this vandalism but this is an opinion, not a fact, unlike the destruction itself. Destruction of the electric power station, water supply and sewage system is indeed vandalism as per very definition of the word. I will look for more sorces on that. If I don't find anythning else, we will negotiate on how to mention it with the disclaimer who said that and that others don't confirm. --Irpen 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, please rephrase the paragraph then, and we can continue the discussion. Also, I think it is clear by now the Poles did not damage the Cathedral at that time (see [18]). That allegation should simply be removed. Balcer 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please note that 1) there might have been military reasons for destruction of those places or 2) they might have been destroyed over the course of fighting by artillery from any side, and that 3) Reds also destroyed things on purpose - I believe above Faustian mentions them mining the Kiev streets in the IIWW. Finally, 4), we still don't have reliable (i.e. writtin by a side that is not-POVed) sources about the destruction of the ps/ws/ss/etc., and even quite a few Soviet sources omit it (like GSE as Balcer pointed above), which seems to indicate it may well be either 1) a minor damage or 2) no damage at all, fabricated into 'wide-spread destruction' by Soviet propaganda. Finally, please note that the EARLIEST claim of this destruction is this Trotsky's telegraph, and nobody can deny it was written as a propaganda (which does not necessaril means all of its claims are false, but it should be treated very carefuly if used as a data).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What's clear is that they did not destroy it. Whether they damaged it is not clear from what we know. But note that as it stands now, it just shows that Soviet propaganda also made false claims as it is clear that the cathedral wasnt't destroyed. If you think, it is an unimportant detail, I am fine with removing it. --Irpen 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remove it. Let's just stick to what actually happened. Balcer 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. --Irpen 00:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer for it to remain, as I agree with Irpen it goes to show that at least part of Soviets claims were false. But I won't insisit on it - at least, not in this article. If we ever go into this in more detail, it should be there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I can live with your version, but I toned it down a little bit. The place to describe the beauty of Kiev's bridges is in the Bridges in Kiev article. Please try to keep your writing objective, and avoid making this article an object lesson about the barbarism of the Poles.

There still remains the point that Meltyukhov's allegations are based on a highly suspect source from 1931. I have not been able to find that book in some catalogues of Russia university libraries. Could you try to locate it, to make sure it exists? Also, you mentioned that you will look for more sources. How is that search going? As for Meltyuhkov's respectability, that's not clear to me. He supports the thesis of Suvorov that the USSR was readying to attack Germany. This is a highly controversial thesis among established historians. Balcer 00:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You are probably talking about Meltyukhov's "Stalin's missed chance" book. Well, it does not support the Suvorov's nonsense. This is OT but let me elaborate. Suvorov's thesis was that Stalin planned to invade Germany. Not only such war plans were drafted and the preparations were in order but there was a political decision of invasion. Meltyukhov claims that the plans and preparations for such war were indeed in place and, unlike Suvorov, who worked from London, Meltyukhov bases his book on an extensive study of Soviet archives. However, note, that in mid-20th century all military doctrines were based on offensive rather than defensive wars, even the Polish one! With the development of mobile troops, the defensive tactics were much more dangerous and everyone was planning to fight on the enemies territory. It would be plain stupid of Stalin to not prepare for the offensive war and istead to build defences. OTOH, nowhere Meltyukov claims that there was a political decision (aside from routine preparations) to actually attack Germany. No date was set. Neither a schedule. As such, he does not make a controversial thesis you claim. I will look for a book. --Irpen 00:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your viewpoint. I also agree that Meltyukhov's is significant in Russia. Anyway, this is attested to by the fact that he has his own article on Wikipedia, so people can click on the link and find out about him. The following might interest you. Balcer 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, this must be it:

• Przybylski, Adam (1930). Wojna polska, 1918-1921. (in Polish). Warszawa: Wojskowy Instytut Naukowo-Wydawniczy. LCCN 55053688. 

That the Soviet translation was published under the "altered" name "Войны польского империализма 1918—1921" perhaps isn't unusual for the time. However, I don't think they would falsify the book itself. The page numbers are for the Russian translation I beleive. Anyway, maybe there was another "Пшибыльский" but I think it's the one. I added the original to the ref list. It would be easier for me if you would have provided me with the Polish spelling. Similar to my past request when I spent time to figure that Богданович is Bohdanowicz. Actually, I found info on this senator but that would be a topic for the talk of another artucle that I would start some time. Perhaps it is trivial for you but I had to guess wildly before I could figure this Przybylski. --Irpen 01:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How about: Adam Przybylski: "Wojna polski odrodzonej 1918 - 1921 r."; Warszawa: Nakładem Tadeusza Złotnickiego 1928 (I don't have this book, only found its title). --Lysy^talk 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can be either one I suppose or maybe yet a third one. Anyway, there is little doubt that the book exists. --Irpen 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But then if "odrodzonej polski" was twisted into "польского империализма" in the translation of the title what can we think of the credibility of the translation of its context ? Anyway, it would be best to have some contemporary source by Ukrainian historians, not tainted by the Soviet propaganda. Some "history of Kiev" sources would be best for this IMO. --Lysy^talk 01:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Irpen, for providing this important information. The library of congress link is temporary, so let me paste in the relevant information.

Przybylski, Adam, Wojna polska, 1918-1921., Warszawa, Wojskowy Instytut Naukowo-Wydawniczy, 1930., 239 p. port., 32 plans. 21 cm. A French translation was also published in 1929.

The question remains whether the 1931 Soviet edition translated into Russian faithfully reproduces the original book. Forgive me, but I find that difficult to believe. In those days, the censorship in the Soviet Union was already very strict, and if the original book contained anything against Communism, the Soviet Union, and especially Stalin personally, it is hard to imagine it would be published without being censored or modified first. The only possibility for avoiding this that I could see would be if the book was published as a classified work, accessible only to military and intelligence officers.

Anyway, these questions can only be resolved by tracking down the original, Polish book and checking it out. Of course, this book is by now quite rare. My university library does not have it. It might take a while before one of us can find it. Balcer 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the internet. Excerpts from this book appear to be online, but apparently not the sections we want. Still, there is a lot of interesting material there. See [19],[20]. Balcer 02:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I don't think the Soviet translation would put additional info not in the original. It could have removed some but not add, I don't think. Additionally, we don't know what of the two books to look for and what pages to look for as well. I suppose we can track this down but as it says now, I can't udnerstand what is the problem you have with that. Meltyukhov cites at least two other books. We clearly say that the claim originates in Soviet sources. Is this still insufficient? --Irpen 02:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I can live with the article in the current form. As for the book's translation published in the USSR, I am not entirely sure whether information would not have been added. After all, we have established the the book title has been completely twisted. Anyway, I am asking the questions because at this point my curiosity has been fired up, and I really want to find out more about this issue. What was the Polish "period" in Kiev really like? You must admit it is a little bit puzzling that information about the Polish actions there in June 1920 is so hard to find, and nonexistent in English sources. Balcer 02:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I would avoid citing the Przybylski book as a direct reference. After all, none of us have seen it. We know it exists but we have not seen the relevant contents. I would move it to the general references section. The other way is to cite Meltyukhov and then mention that he is getting his information in turn from the given references. Sorry to nitpick, but we put so much effort into this discussion that we might as well do it right. I can do this change myself, if you like. Balcer 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would avoid relying on Przybylski either as the site you linked (a very interesting one) calls his writing very one-sided and pro-Polish.[21][22] Also, there is a pretty good article there on the Ukrainian-Polish War there[23] whose Wikipedia article as it is now is written strictly from a Polonophilic POV. I have several Ukrainian sources but having an English one certainly helps. We can change the refs in the way you suggest. I don't mind that. --Irpen 03:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously people writing in Poland barely 10 years after the events would have found it hard to be completely objective. Anyway, let's change the citations somewhat to make sure it's clear that the Polish book published in Russia is a source used by Meltyukhov, not by us, the creators of this article, as we have not seen it. Balcer 04:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Irpen 04:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Before the Battle

Upon reflection, it seems to me that it would be useful to provide a somewhat thorough background to events in Ukraine in order to better understand the population's loyalties and behavior. There were major regional differences in temrs of the population's loyalty and support. In the December 1917 elections, althoug the population as a whole voted 61.5% for Petliura's Ukrainian Socialists, in the regions of Kiev, Chernihiv, and central Ukraine the Ukrainian parties obtained over 70% of the vote, while in Russian-populated Kharkiv they received less than 20%. When in December 1917 the Ukrainian government refused to accept the Bolshevik coup in Russia and declared autonomy, the Russian minority based in Kharkiv (hostile to Ukrainian independence) declared their rival Ukrainian Soviet government and called on Russia for assistance. The "Ukrainians" who joined the Red Army were largely Russians from eastern Ukraine, while the Ukrainians were hostile to the Reds but neutral towards Pilsudski/Petliura because although Petliura enjoyed personal popularity the Ukrainians mistrusted his Polish allies (Subtelny, 1988). Should I go ahead and provide a referenced paragraph about the regional differences (I will likely do so early next week)? It may seem like a lengthy diversion, but given that one of the main goals of the Kiev offensive was the establishment of a Ukrainian allied state, such info might be useful in understanding Pilsudski's/Petliura's failure. Faustian 14:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do so, by all means. The only question is - whether this article is the best place for it. I do think that a sectin about 'background/prelude' would do good to that article, but if it would be too long, then you may consider contributing to other articles. I am sure Irpen would be better then me in pointing you to the more appopriate place if this is the case. PS. I do think that the info you used above about the composition and independence of Ukrainian forces on various sides is relevant to this article and should be included in it. Will you do so?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Faustian, first, you misread the numbers from the Ukrainian encyclopedia. Firstly, Ukrainian SR got 45.3 and not 61.5 % of the vote. Second, this happened long before the time we are describing here. There is absolutely no reason to believe that loyalties remained unchanged through this turbulent times, especially since Ukrainian villages were maraudeered by all sides, including the Poles and Petlyura's troops. The pogroms of Jewery by many sides (including Petliura's troop's as well) were notorious. Ukrainians view towards the "alliance" with Poles was ambivalent, as you softly put it here, and for many much worse. Another first hand account of those times, comparable to Babel, is The White Guard by Bulgakov. There is absolutely no reason to state that Petliura had the genuine support of the Ukrainian population based on numbers obtained years prior to that and before the hostilities. We can use them for other articles but not for what happened in this battle years later.

Now, you want to bring the Bolshevik cruelty elsewhere in Ukraine to "balance" the action of Poles. I disagree. Someone would "balance" it by picture of behavior of Poles and their "allied cossack bands", such as of Nikifor Grigoriev or Vadim Yakovlev. I have seen vivid accounts and diary notes by particpants describing the utmost cruelty and debauchery by another Polish participant Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz. I plan to add them to Wikipedia, but not to this article but to his article above. The bottomline is that this "context adding" is irrelvant.

Finally, referring to the anti-communist propaganda "Black Book" (irrelevant to this article for the reasons above, but in general too) should be done with similar disclaimers as the disclaimers attached to the Soviet sources on the insistence of our Polish friends. --Irpen 21:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that Petliura's specific Ukrainian socialist party obtained 45.3% of the vote. However, his party cooperated in the elections with similar Ukrainian socialist parties (they actually combined their forces in several of the provinces) as described in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine article, and these allied parties obtained 61.5%. With respect to Petliura's popularity, Subtelny bluntly states in the History of Ukraine that Petliura was popular among the Ukrainian people, the Poles were not, so the people generally remained nuetral during the Kiev offensive. I agree that the times were turbulent and that loyalty cannot be known with 100% certainty, however the evidence (those elections, the fact that Petliura was only driven out of Ukraine by White or Red armies coming from Russia rather than by locals, the fact that there wasn't significant local resistence to Petliura while there was towards the Soviet forces) strongly suggests that they were. The picture of Ukraine's loyalty should be understood as an ethnic Ukrainian generally part loyal to Petliura (but disorganized) and an ethnic Russian part opposed to seperation from Russia. But perhaps this article isn't the place for that info, so I agree with your removal.

On the other hand, the Bolshevik cruelty is directly relevent to this article because it occurred during the counterattack of the Kiev offensive and was an integral part of it. As Budyonny moved west during the Soviet counteroffensive his troops committed numerous atrocities in part to cow the local population into submission. I do not understand why the Polish destruction of parts of Kiev's infrastructure during their retreat should stay in the article while the Red terror in Ukraine in 1920 during the Red advance should be taken out, given that both sets of acts occurred within the same context of the Kiev offensive (note that I did not insist on mentioning the numerous Red crimes in 1918 or 1919). Either include Budyonny's acts as well as those of the Poles, or neither.

Unlike Babel's Red Cavalry, Bulgakov's White Guards takes place in late 1918/early 1919 and is thus irrelevent for this article. Likewise, Grigoriev was killed in July 1919 so his atrocities have no direct link to the Kiev offensive. If you can find info on Yakovlev's and Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz's actions occuring in the summer of 1920, on territory involved during the Kiev offensive, they belong in. Otherwise they don't.

While the The Black Book of Communism] is clearly anti-communist (in the sense that any book detailing Nazi crimes can be labelled "anti-Nazi") it is peer reviewed and written by respected historians. Its chief editor is a senior researcher of the largest and most prominant research organization in France, CNRS, and the book itself was published by Harvard. It cannot be dismissed as mere "propaganda" and is a legitimate source. It cannot be equalized with a Soviet work published in the 1930's. Faustian 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of the positive reviews of the Black Book: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html?show=reviews

It truly is widely considered a respectable source, not propaganda. Faustian 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA concerns

All-in-all a good article that I have made a few minor copy edits to in order to help with the readability. My concerns, however, are in regard to the two tables at the bottom of the article which, in their present form, don't really further an understanding of the events IMO. "Poles/Ukrainians" can likely stand as-is if the blank columns are filled in or removed; perhaps the same can be said for "Russians/Ukrainians" though it will be smaller yet if the blank columns are taken out. Is it the intention to fill these tables out completely at some point?--Lordkinbote 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was my intention when I created the OOB tables, just like in many other similar articles (battle of the Niemen and battle of Warsaw come to mind). //Halibutt 04:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russians/Ukrainians

Halibutt, this edit by yourself was reverted with the sourc being cited in the edit summary. Your calling a good faith action "vandalism" would have spoken lengths about yourself has it not been known in the past. In the source available online, the situation with the Ukrainan participation is given in detail. I even summarized it at the talk above, but I will repeat it since reading past discussion seems to be too much from you to ask.

In Feb 1918, the Kharkiv gov of an "alternative" UPR formed 5 "armies" of 2000 men each. In Nov. 18 to repell the Central Powers two Ukrainian "divisions" were formed, reinforced by two Russian ones. In Jan 1919, the Ukr. SSR began to form a Ukrainian Workers' and Peasants' Red Army which by mid-1919 had some 100,000 men. The command was later tranferred to Russia and the members were integrated into the Red Army as 12th and 14th Armies... The Galician UHA, unhappy about the "alliance" with the power that crushed Ukrainian attempt of indepenence in Galicia and Volhynia joined the Reds in Jan 1920 and retained a separate identity for a while. Finally, "Red Cossacks in Ukraine" began as first a regiment and then a brigade in 1919. During the PSW the UA authorities arranged for their transfer to Ukrainian front where they were expaned into a division (later a corps).

Overall, the Ukrainian participation on the Red side was huge, even more significant than on the Polish side. There are two ways to present this.

Either you call them Ukrainians for the both sides, or you call them Red on one side and Petlurovites on the other side. The former varian was in the article, the second variant we can discuss, if you like it. I know that you subscribe to the view that this was a joint Polish-Ukrainian affair aimed to liberate Ukraine from Russia. Others, view this as a Polish invasion in fulfilment of their policy to get as much of Ukraine as feasable for themselves and to have a puppet anti-Russian gov in the rest of it. No matter what position of the two we take, the fact is that Ukrainian fought for both sides and the original article gave this information to the reader before your deletion. So it is either: Polish/Ukrainian vs Russian/Ukrainian or Polish/Petrlurovite vs Red. --Irpen 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

By your mindless revert:

1. you deleted the table corrections
2. you deleted the Russian names added
3. You yet again changed the name of the state in the battlebox eventhough the Soviet Union was not formed until 1923
4. you reinstated the question marks in the battlebox, for no apparent reason as empty fields should be left blank

I understand that all of those changes were made in good faith and that you actually believe that making the articles worse is equal to improving them. However, allow me to introduce the same changes once again. //Halibutt 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, the victory was of Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine. Yet, you removed it. Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine existed before the USSR was formed and were valled as such. That the Soviet Russia is called in Poland "Bolshevist" is valuable but misleading. I can even see it used for DAB purposes in the articles on the topics but not in the articles devoted to other things. Cyrillic names here are unneeded and redundant. We normally don't have Russian and Ukrainian words in the middle of the texts, only in the first lines of the article to give a native name. That you like Polish names all around articles is your choice but not Wikipedia's. --Irpen 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the rest, it does not call for the answer. Your statement that I like making articles worse is a valuale opinion of course. And you reverted me paying no attention to an explanation above. Also nothing new. --Irpen 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this before (see the beginning of the "Ukrainian combatants" section) but it would be wrong to list Soviet Ukraine as a seperate combatant. Unlike Petliura's government, it was not merely a junior ally but a puppet of Soviet Russia (made up largely of ethnic Russian workers from eastern Ukraine) with no independent policy. More importantly, unlike the case with Petliura's government no evidence has been presented that it fielded its own units during the Kiev Offensive. You have written that it had some units in 1918, and apparently 100,000 troops in 1919. But specifically what divisions were under the command of Soviet Ukraine during the Kiev offensive? If there were none, than I cannot see listing that entity as a sperate combatant. Rather, it's better to just keep the reference to many Ukrainians fighting on the Soviet side in the text. regards Faustian 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Ukraine fielded the divisions for the Red Army, but the Ukrainian formations there often remained distinct and when some were integrated, Ukrainian communists were displeased. Ukrainian Red Cossacks and Galician UHA were certainly separate Ukrainian units. Many of the German allies in Europe duiring the WW2 were puppet states. They are still listed in appropriate articles. However, I feel even stronger about exclusion of "Ukrainians" from the table and substituting them with "reds". If we go by Ukrainians according to their ideology, the other side should be Petlurovites. If we go by nationality, as someone wrote "Poles/Ukrainians", other side was also "Russians/Ukrainians". --Irpen 22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, which of the Red units specifically involved in the Kiev offensive were under the control of the Soviet Ukrainian government? I didn't see, for example, any reference to Galician UHA units fighting on the side of the Reds according to the table (and, in any case, those guys - numbering only a few hundred or so - weren't subordinated to Soviet Ukraine but would have been fighting for an entirely separate Red Galician entity - a third combatant?). What about the other units? Also, since Petliura represented the government elected by the majority of the Ukrainian people a few years earlier (the link is direct although somewhat twisted) , referring to his forces simply as Petliurists rather than as Ukrainians does not seem correct - those people fought for Ukraine not for Petliura. It might be similar to referring to German armies as "Hitlerites" or American forces in Iraq as "Bush-Cheneyites". I'm inclined towards labelling one side Reds - or Reds (Russians/Ukrainians) - and the other Poles/Ukrainians. regards Faustian 14:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Petlura represented the gov elected by majority is not clear cut. The discussion above and here shows just that. Soviet Ukraine was formally a war participant. It issued notes, fielded soldier and was acknowledged separately in the Treaty of Riga. I am not saying that this was a real independent country or that I view it legitimate. But same could be said about Petlura. --Irpen 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points. however, with particular relevance to the table for the Kiev offensive itself did Soviet Ukraine field its own units or not during this particular offensive? If not, it shouldn't be listed as a seperate combatant. Given that it fielded units in other theaters of the civil war, it should be listed in whatever those were. But I haven't seen evidence that it did during the particular Kiev offensive. regards Faustian 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Ukraine was an etnity that engaged in the war, as such, it should be mentioned in the warbox.

Ukrainians fought for both sides and, as such, they should be listed as Ukrainians, not "Reds". If "Reds", then "Petlurovites". I prefer just Ukrainians for both cases. Those were rather confusing times. Ukrainians fought for their country as they saw that. Similar, UPA was Ukrainians fighting for Ukraine similar to the Ukrainians in the Red army. Some where engaged in the war crimes, both Red partisans and UPA guerillas. Similar enagegd, were Red Cossacks and Petlurovites/Poles. Read the Babel's witness diary available in google books and an unrestricted Russian version at lib.ru. All armed groups of men, sadly, do those things. --Irpen 04:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which however does not yet explain how so the "Russian name" field in the table is not appropriate for putting the... Russian names there. This does not explain what's wrong with labeling the Reds as such, why should we add the non-existent units to the battlebox and so on. Neither does it explain why should we call a state with the name it adopted... 5 years later. We might as well claim that the USSR fought in World War I, why not.

I understand Irpen reverted my changes because it was me to make them, but perhaps this could be solved in a more civilized manner? Reverting on the spot without sufficient explanation is not what we should do here. It does not help Wikipedia. //Halibutt 13:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of reverting on the spot, Halibutt should study his own edit history lately. As for Russian names, I don't see the need for cyrillic in the middle of the article. We normally don't have that, unlike the various Polish names added here and there all the time, but if Halibutt likes Russian names there, no biggy, let it stay. Normally, Russian and Ukrainian names are only given to the very subject of the article in the first line and that's it. That's why I removed them. Unlike Halibutt claims, the Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Russia did exist at the time and that's how they were called. He may want to click on the abbot ref already in the article to see that. There was know Soviet Union but that's how the republics called themselves. Soviet Ukraine is not non-existing unit in the battle-box. It was the party of the war and was acknowledged even in the Rida peace. --Irpen 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union did not exist back then. Period. As to Russian names - the tables are there anyway, then why not give the original names, as it is often done in OOBs, be it in books or over the internet. Also, Soviet Ukraine (or Red Ukraine) might have been a part of the conflict, but did not apparently take part in the Kiev Offensive and the subsequent counter-offensive. Similarly, Italy did take part in WWII, but did not defend Tarawa or attack Pearl Harbour. No need to add it there just because it took part in the war. //Halibutt 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, i saw Russian names irrelevant for the English l reader. No need to clutter the article with cyrillic alphabet, similar to how the Polish articles are cluttered with diatrics. But if insist, I do not object. I am not saying the Soviet Union existed. I am saying the name of the Russian side was "Soviet Russia" (it was the official name btw) and not the unofficial liked in Poland and by yourself "Bolshevist Russia". Similar, the name of one nominal Ukrainian state of the time was "Soviet Ukraine" while the other nominal state was UPR (A real UPR also existed but not at that time). Soviet Ukraine was part of the conflict. It issued its own diplomatic notes to entente to protest Polish actions at the territory it perceived as Soviet Ukrainian, it eventually ended up gaining that territory. One thing is that it was not a true state at the time but it was totally relying on Russia. I give you that. But Petlyura's UPR at that time was not a true state either. --Irpen 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A major difference between the 1920 UPR and Soviet Ukraine was that the former was the remnants of a true state (and thus, perhaps akin to DeGaulle's Free French forces that helped liberate Paris) while the latter had never been a true state and was always relying on Russia. But that issue is not as important as, I think, the fact that there is no evidence that Soviet Ukraine did not field its own military units which is what would, I think, make it a combabtant according to the table. Certainly there were many Ukrainians on tghe Soviet side, and that belongs in the body, but no units. FYI Babel described ethnic Ukrainian Kuban cossack units among the Reds, which weren't under the authority of Soviet Ukraine. regards, Faustian 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What matters is the legitimacy claims. Both states laid them to the faction of the original Rada they represented. Are you sure Babel only speaks of Kuban Cossacks? However, fielded its own units of fielded the units for the Red Army, the Soviet UA was an official part of the conflict. --Irpen 00:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But apparently not of this battle. Feel free to add it to the article on war. However, as the "state" did not take part in this particular battle, why add it to the list? For geographical reasons? Battle of Monte Cassino took place in Italy, yet nobody is adding Italy to the list of participants. //Halibutt 06:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status

The concerns of the original reviwer seem to of been alleviated and this article has been on hold far over a week, the boxes at the bottom aren't compleatly filled out, but they seem filled out enough by now. I don't see any major reason to doubt the original reviwers assessment that this is, in fact, a good article, the citation needed tags seem like a concern, but I suspect the extensive book references may contain the citations of the sentences in question, try to look in them and see if you can cite page numbers concerning those sentences. I also suggest somebody find a map of the area and put it in here, I think it would help comphrehension of the battle. Homestarmy 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added relevant maps from the main war article. While we could use something smaller and more specific, hopefully they shed some light on who, what and when :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article's title

I would like to raise the issue of moving this mage to the Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920). The move could be done without any admin involvement and does not require a WP:RM listing but I would like to find the stand of the editors involved in the article before imposing the name on the community by making a move and try to avoid the WP:RM listing unless necessary.

The details of this discussion are at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move. Basically, the issue, as I see it, is whether for the events where the invading party is clear it's OK to use the "invasion" in the article's titles. As my frequent opponent Halibutt said at the referenced talk page, he disputes the usage of the term "invasion" "only in the cases where it was absolutely not clear who "invaded" ". Since there is a complete historic clarity on who invaded whom in this particular case, please express your opinion whether the proposed article's move would be a good idea. If you did not vote at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move yet, please consider reading and voting on that related issue as well.

Last but not least, the current title lacks clarity. It is totally unclear from the "Kiev Offensive" title, what operation, by who, against who and at what time is discussed here. It is easy to call the Battle of Kiev (1941), Battle of Kiev (1943), the Plundering of Kiev (1018) as well as any other event as "Kiev Offensive". The subject of this article is by no means the most notable among them all to occupy the title by default. --Irpen 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The move Irpen is considering will require a WP:RM listing because it would be controversial. Per Wikipedia policy: " In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." Balcer 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This above is exactly the discussion. I think discussion between the editors in the know is the most important. I have no intention to move it on my own unilaterally and that's exactly why I raised the issue at talk. I can submit it for WP:RM if you insist but opinions of the editors who intimately know the subject of the article as well as an overall situation with similar names is most important. I am not trying to avoid WP:RM listing to get an advantage. I simply think it is not necessary, if editors already involved can reasonably agree. --Irpen 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the title is ambigous, and btw, might not comply with WP:MILHIST#Naming_conventions as at least the year should be indicated, as Kiev offensive is too ambigous, because they were several of them. So yes it is a WP:RM, and yes, I suggest we discuss it. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is controversy whether it was an invasion or a liberation, so the nuetral word "offensive" seems better and nonbiased, unlike either liberation or invasion. Faustian 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's the matter of the year too (I mean at least) not just the name. And btw, if you think that invasion is POV, you might want check Talk:Polish_September_Campaign#Requested_move where such a move is being requested. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem with Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920) is that Polish forces were already on lands Ukrainians considered theirs since late 1918. So, by that logic, Poland could not have invaded Ukraine in 1920, because it had already done so in 1918 (and there was no Polish withdrawal in the meantime). In other words, this would be like moving Operation Blue to German Invasion of Russia (1942). Balcer 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Faustian, as Balcer pointed out earlier in a related discussion, "invasion" may not be necessarily bad. The intent of the invasion hypothetically might have been liberation (while I doubt Pilsudski cared about the liberty for Ukrainians) but the action fits the definition of "invasion" without a doubt.

As per the article, invasion is 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. We had the Polish force entering Ukraine in order to install the government they favored over the government they potentially feared. It is an invasion.

The separate issue is whether it is OK to use "invasions" and "massacres" in titles of the articles. Since we have so many massacre-titled articles such as Koniuchy massacre or List of Polish Martyrdom sites or Massacre of Lwów professors or Massacre of Poles in Volhynia and Katyn massacre and several editors not only oppose de-masacring the titles but propose "invasioning" the titles too, see Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move, this is the first article that comes to mind where 1) the title is inadequate and 2) this was clearly an invasion.

Balcer, the "basic problem" you are pointing to is easy to resolve. Additionally to this rename, we could rename the Polish-Ukrainian War to the Polish invasion of Ukraine (1919). We will then have a total consistensy throughout the topic. --Irpen 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this will not work here, because the very specific events described in the current article happened in 1920, not 1919. If you want an article that would describe broadly Poland's involvement in Ukraine in 1918-1920, consider creating one. But this would be a different matter from deciding where this article should be moved to. And if you want to have Polish invasion of Ukraine (1919) and Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920), I really don't see the point. Were these two distinct events that deserve their own separate articles? Balcer 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So, we will have two article then, Polish invasion of Ukraine (1919) and Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920), the latter would be the title for the current article. Total clarity about time, no ambiguity of the title of what this is about, the events fit to the title by definition and, as you say, there is nothing wrong with using the "invasion" since it is oftem positive. --Irpen 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But what is your evidence that these were separate events? And anyway, given that the Poles did not withdraw after the "1919 invasion", how could they have invaded again in 1920?! Balcer 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One was crushing the WUR (Polish invasion of Ukraine (1918-1919)) or we can call it the invasion of Western Ukraine).Tthe other was the attempt to install Petlura in Kiev (1920). Totally separate events. --Irpen 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if these were totally separate and different events, why on Earth should they have the same name? To totally confuse Wikipedia readers? Balcer 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish invasion of Ukraine (1918-1919) and Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920) would not be the same name. These were different invasions and of different times. Do you find the coexistence of Battle of Kiev (1941) and the Battle of Kiev (1943) confusing? --Irpen 19:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, before this gets any more complicated, let me just clear up my viewpoint on this. Since Polish forces were already in Ukraine (or in what many consider Ukraine anyway) continuously since 1919, using the term Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920) is just incorrect. Really, Irpen, using this term would imply that everything to the west of the starting line of the Kiev offensive was not properly part of Ukraine. Surely that view must be anathema to you. Why are you pushing Polish POV? :)Balcer 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Battle of Kiev (1941) and Battle of Kiev (1943), these were two separate battles, with a clear break between them. There was no clear break between "Polish invasions of Ukraine" in 1919 and 1920, in the sense the Polish forces did not leave territory some consider Ukrainian. Balcer 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, the point is not only about "invasion" or not invasion. I think the new name should at least include a year and possibly protagonists, such as Polish Kiev Offensive (1920) or something like that... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I am not opposing any move in principle. Still, Irpen proposed a move to Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920) and that is what I am commenting on. Your Polish Kiev Offensive (1920) would be fine with me, as it does not convey any false impressions or enforce any POV. On the other hand, Wikipedia prefers shorter titles if possible, and for good reason, since for example your title would imply that that there was some other XXX Kiev Offensive (1920) or that there was Polish Kiev Offensive (xxx) in some different year. But these are not big issues as far as I am concerned. Balcer 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I will comment on two issues. With respect to the Polish-Ukrainian war, it can be conceptualized as occurring in two phases. Initially it was a revolt or rebellion of the West Ukrainian National Republic's Polish population against the government (essentially, Lviv city versus the rest of the province). The invasion from Poland in 1919 was the next phase of that war. So it would be incorrect to refer to this simply as a Polish invasion, and clumsy to make separate articles devoted to each phase of that war.

As for 1920 - I will check my sources (I am now at work) but from what I recall Petliura was still at war against the Bolsheviks and still controlled a small territory in eastern Volyn (the western fringe of modern Zhytomyr Oblast around Novohrad-Volynskyi). That would make the Kiev offensive the last phase of a still-active conflict that ultimately began with the Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine in early 1918.

With respect to the word invasion - it is not a strictly nuetral word. Certainly there are exceptions (Normandy invasion) but for most readers it will connote something negative. How would people feel if the Allied liberation of all of the countries of Europe were referred to as "invasions" and the national leaders subsequently installed were referred to as "puppets". So, there would be the American/British invasion of France in 1944 which installed the American puppet De Gaulle, the invasions of the Netherlands, Denmark, etc, the American invasion of Kuwait in 1991, etc. Or if you insist on calling the Polish/Ukrainian offensive an invasion, you can call the Bolshevik counterattack another invasion, and make two separate articles : ) Faustian 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose move to Polish invasion of Ukraine (1920, and in addition to all arguments raised above we should also note that this article describes not only the Polish offensive/invasion but Soviet counteroffensive - which by the same token is also an invasion, albeit in a different direction. Neutral on Polish Kiev Offensive (1920 (do we need a disambig at Kiev Offensive?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: I checked Subtelny's and Magosci's books on Ukrainian history. They stated that by the end of 1919/early 1920 Petliura's control had been reduced to the northwest corner of Volyn. There was no information on whether they were still there in April 1920 when the Kiev Offensive began. However, several guerrilla forces under Petliura's authority each numbering 1,000-2,000 soldiers continued to operate in central Ukraine in the Kiev region until the Kiev Offensive. So there were still UNR forces "on the ground" there. Faustian 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why nobody's suggesting naming the article Kiev operation (1920) (already there in the lead par.) or at least Battle of Kiev (1920)? Seems quite neutral and comprehensive. BTW, is the "Kiev offensive" translation from Polish? Also, why the Polish/Soviet names of the units? In order to keep the data at hand for future articles? Why red heading on the Soviet units table with no coloured heading on Polish units table? I think I get the allusion but is it really needed? Yury Tarasievich 10:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On the side note: I have the 1920s-1930s Polish book on 76th Polish infantry rgt. I understand it is not unique, however, possibly somebody is interested in some quotes or refs? Yury Tarasievich 10:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and citations

While I agree that some citations dont hurt, there is some evident tendentious bias in mass quoting of everything that is extremely unfavourable to Poland several times in the article, in situations where a simple reference would suffice. Any thoughts? See also mother article talk page. Reichenbach 12:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation

While I am perfectly aware that some sources describe the Kiev offensive as Polish invasion, please note that there are other which describe it as an attempt to liberate Ukraine (for example, [24] or [25]). I am not suggesting we adopt either stance, but I'd like to use this opportunity to caution some editors that using either term is not a good editing practice - unless it can be shown that majority of most reliable sources have decided to use one of those phrases.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that those quotes should be added if the other quotes are included. Preferably, neither should be and a simple phrase stating that some consider it liberation and others invasion is enough. The quotes already in the article should, in my opinion, be removed (maybe a separate article about the controversy can be made, in which both views are presented?). It's too much contradictory clutter. Faustian 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a possible to find a reference for most any politically charged statement by, say, picking an out of context sentence, or a writing by the bearer of the fringe out-of-mainstream POV. Someone at talk, for instance, wrote that Battle of Kiev (1941) was liberation of Kiev from Bolshevism. I would not be surprized if the references could be found for that as well.

What matters is how common the usage of the particular term is in the mainstream, how reliable and representative of the mainstream is the source, whether the phrase is out of the context (eg. the very source Piotrus cites uses the term "occupied", write next to liberate[26] to describe the Polish action. Besides being properly sources, it also matters whether the usage fits the dicdef of the word.

• liberate = to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power.
  • Was the Polish action a "liberation"? Note that one can't call this bluntly freeing of Ukraine from a foreign (Russian) power. Ukraine was divided between two Ukrainian powers and one was agreeing to give it in to the Russian domination and another was agreeing to give it in to the Polish domination. From Petlura's and his supporters POV this was indeed a liberation from non-Petlura's power. But as discussed at length Petlura's claim to be a representative (or legitimate) ruler was questionable at best. As such, calling this all Polish liberation of Ukraine contradicts even a dicdef
• occupation = the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force.
  • Not only occupation is well-referenced, it fits the dicdef and common sense,
• invasion = incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.
  • obvious

Note, that EB uses "Pilsudski's forces occupied Kiev" and does not use "liberated" either. EB is not a cherry-picked quote by a certain author like. In fact, EB is as mainstream as one can possibly get (of course this is still not the same as being perfect). --Irpen 04:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I invite editors to improve the article, especially the lead

As such, only the Soviet POV is represented by proxy sources.

• "was an attempt by the newly re-emerged Poland, led by Józef Piłsudski, to seize central and eastern Ukraine"

Several sources state the "reaffirmation of Ukrainain independence in the face of Bolshevist aggression". The current state is unacceptable for the lead, which shouldnt advocate any side's POV. This should be distinguished in the main body.

The stated (so the previous statement is an axiom?) goal of the operation was to create a formally independent Ukraine dominated by Poland,[2] although much of Ukrainian population were ambivalent as many viewed the Polish advance as a new occupation[3] aimed at subbordinating Ukraine to under the Polish rule[4] while others greeted the Polish and allied Ukrainian forces as liberators.[5] With their loyalties divided, Ukrainian fought for both sides of the conflict.[6] Again, this belongs to the body, and fails to mention how Ukrainians felt about Soviet armed incursions and policies.

• "The ambivalence of the Ukrainian population"

Or perhaps low national conciousness after years of Russification?

Reichenbach 13:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Attempt of Poland to seize Ukraine" is what the Britannica's article says. We can of course cherry pick anything, from authors who call it "Polish liberation of Ukraine" to the authors who call it the "Polish subjugation of Ukraine". This is not done. The phrase you question is referenced to the most respected English language encyclopedia with NPOV policy that is the most mainstream source there is (does not mean the most correct but the most mainstream for sure). This is not any side's POV.

How Ukrainians felt about the Soviet armed incursion? However they felt, and note that Petlura who himself seized the power in the coup was neither very popular nor unquestionably legitimate (see lengthy discussion above), the Bolshevik incursion happened earlier. Besides, it was presented not much different from the Polish invasion, that is the allied fource of one of the Ukrainian power factions interefring on the side of its faction.

Ambivalence of Ukrainians towards the Polish intervention is sourced to sevral respectable reference. "Low national consiousness of Ukrainians" you propose, is both an insult and your own POV. --Irpen 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I may tread on everybody's toes now, but what's wrong with using the terms "take" and "occupy" uniformly, regardless of the side? That's what the armies do, after all? For all those issues of "consciousness" and "liberation" are the judgments and mightily depend on who's doing the talking. Yury Tarasievich 19:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yuri, I am totally with you on this. Liberation is a term to be used only when its use is widely supported by the mainstream scholarship such as 1943-45 liberation of Europe from Nazis (from east and west). Nowhere in this article I added liberation. It was added by this edit not by myself. After this Piotrus started this WP:POINT discussion above. If you ask me, liberation does not belong to the article as neither side (Polish, Russian, pro-Polish Ukrainians, pro-Russian Ukrainians) could claim to represent the people of Ukraine. --Irpen 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. And even when dealing with such a mainstream period as the 1943-1945, I wouldn't see any bad in writing about armies taking even "own" cities. The concept of distinguishing what was taking and what was liberating even seems to date from same period. And the (mainstream-agreed) concept of result? Liberation (from Nazis). All objective, all neutral?.. Yury Tarasievich 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, are there any graphics schemes or templates for the charts of such kinds of military operations? Yury Tarasievich 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to iron out Britannica's mistakes. How could this be considered the start of the war if ceasefire negotiations were already being held in early 1920? That's the first example that come to mind. Not to mention that the lead gives preferential treatment to one (flawed) hotly-contested version, and should be trimmed with both views given adequate due weight. Reichenbach 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, because the negotiations have failed??? That's why...

• Why were they held? Reichenbach 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the rest, keep in mind that the current version was painstakingly built through a consensus of quite a lot of editors. You, on the other had, coming and putting frivolous tags everywhere without even getting a consensus on the talk page (see above), did not seek consensus. Such a behaviour is not very constructive and should be avoided at all costs.

All stuff in the lead is referenced, cross-referenced, and was checked by both Ukrainian and Polish editors. Destroying this fragile equilibrium with such an approach is not advisable. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer to wait for more neutral and less menacing editors to give some imput before you frivolously remove the tag. My objections have not been refuted. The lead gives undue weight to the Soviet version of events of a "white Poland seizing Ukraine" to dominate it (hypothetical question aside). Why not the fact of Pilsudskis decleration? This is not equilibrium. Secondary sources should be juxtaposed against primary sources, free of such intepretations. Reichenbach 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest an approach that worked for me in several cases: copy the lead here, and work on two versions, side by side, until they can be merged. This is much preferabble to revert warring in the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is painstakingly built and very well referenced. I daresay, for the non-FA it is one of the most well-referenced articles among others on the controversial conflicts and the refs are mostly to the Western scholars. The lead reflects the article summarizing it rather closely. What Reichenbach is doing is rewriting the lead disregarding the rest of the article making a lead, basically, a POV fork of the article. What we get in result of his activity is a well referenced and carefully built article telling a story that matches that of mutliple sources and disconnected lead produced by Reichenbach telling the opposite story. This is unacceptable. Before we hammer out the lead (if it needs drastic changes) we must first get consensus on the changes within the article that the lead is supposed to summarize. As per this, working on the lead is premature.

On a separate account, I would like to comment on the general approach of maximizing the bang for a buck taken by Rechenbach that is to quick-fix-alter the overall tone of the well-sourced article towards a one-sided POV by simply POV-rephrasing the lead but spending no effort on the article itself, which I repeat, is very well referenced. This hasty approach is unconstructive and borders trolling. --Irpen 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)