Talk:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

What are we doing here again? Is it so important that your view appears in the title page? DJ Clayworth 22:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] From VfD

[edit] Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies

  • Agree, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was a subject of book written by former US embassador to Poland, Bliss Lane. The feelings that prevailed among Poles after WW2 make it event worth notifying. Cautious
  • Keep it, but make NPOV. Eon 20:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The above user has made 5 edits and is probably a sock puppet. Maximus Rex 20:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I made google for Bliss Lane betrayed. Do it yourself. The entry exists. However, it retrieves mostly some religious pages. Eon 20:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • A start would be to NPOV the name - Texture 20:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it seems interesting. Democryt 20:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The above user has made 4 edits and is probably a sock puppet. Maximus Rex 20:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Secretlondon. Jwrosenzweig 20:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Article seems like it could be included in a paragraph of Polish history, talking about the border changes. At the least this article needs to be renamed to a more neutral point of view. Cfrobel 20:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: important topic. Can be NPOV'd, starting w/ the title. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • There is already an article on the book. In fact all the info in this article is already there. Redirect or delete. (I'd have been much more sympathetic if it wasn't for the title). DJ Clayworth 21:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Revision of borders of Poland (1945) contains specific info about territories that is not mentioned in I saw Poland betrayed. The book, & its title in particular, can't give an NPOV report on the political/territorial situation. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 22:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Your change doesn't make a lot of sense. There were 3 betrayals: borders, free elections and goverment. Stalin wanted Poland to have some borders, to make elections he wins and to have government he nominates. In all 3 areas he got approval from the West, accroding to Bliss Lane breach of US constitution. Your text covers only 1 area. Shall we create: Western position on forming new government of Poland (1945) and Western position on faked elections (1947) ? Cautious 18:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - change the title - Texture 22:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - we have an article on Poland's history between 1939 and 1945. john 23:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A tentative Keep if it can be made NPOV. Maybe someone can present some of the other viewpoints on this issue? MK 05:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete- Article has POV in title and not much substance.GrazingshipIV 05:56, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and incorporate any useful data into other articles. Szopen
  • I agree that title was inappropriate at best but this doesn't condemn whole article IMHO. The article is a stub, if somebody could point out how it could be expanded - keep it, if not - delete & merge with Polish history pages (now it really looks like excerpt from it). However the best we could do with it is to make it article for Potsdam aftermath in Poland - neither Potsdam conference nor History of Poland (1939-45) has no real mention of it.
Moreover in advent of German Expellees activism at Wikipedia and Polish response to it, we really need some Potsdam aftermath overview article - for all nations that Potsdam affected. Would parties engaged in Polish-German edit wars agree?
Forseti 08:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue is a matter of the whole behaviour of western countries since before the WWII starded until today and not only of changing the borders in 1945. It covers much more than Poland also. The whole affair is as much (or even more) the cause of todays' Europe political shape as the WWII itself. It is also a serious cause of negative sentiments towards western countries, it won't go away if we keep silent about it. So this should not be "delete/keep" discussion but "how do we make it so that it is not inflamatory, but describes the situation truthfully". Matusz 12:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It defintely needs expansion and un-POVing (I can do it), but it's worthly. Especially that the topic of "western betrayal" is an important factor in Central European hstorical consciousness and politcal thought. It is connected not only to the Yalta and Curzon Line articles, but also to Nazi collaboration, History of Czechoslovakia, NATO, psychology, history of Poland, Soviet Union and anything related to countries under Soviet occupation. I'll start to work on the article right away.Halibutt 14:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep under new title. Good topic, good article. List original name on redirects for deletion as soon as the deletion or otherwise of the article is decided. Andrewa 15:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Recycle encyclopedic info under new title or integrate into an existing article. --Humus sapiens|Talk 20:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Reform the title, keep the article! It ought to become an aritcle of major importance. It will be improved if the Poles learn NPOV, otherwise it will be only another pit for them in which to continue World War II - one more or less, what difference would that make?--Ruhrjung 20:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Reform the article, keep the title! We should name things what they are, a betrayal will always be a betrayal, no matter how much you try to "NPOV" it. But I agree that the article needs much care. Kpalion 22:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it under the same title. 1) Most people in Poland share this view. 2) It was true after all — Central Europe was given away to Soviets (who started the damn WW2) in Yalta. Taw 12:59, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Central Europe never belonged to the West, so how could the West give it away? The United States and Britain just acknowleged the reality that the Soviets were going to occupy Eastern Europe. And most people feel it was the Germans who started WWII. MK 15:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep it! I agree with Taw. Gdarin 11:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, factual. Kim Bruning 14:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! Poland together with Britain and France were the "original" Allies. Today nobody remembers it. Allies won the war, but Poland lost. People need to know why. Space Cadet 13:22, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD (2)

The second deletion debate for this article (from July 6 to July 18 2004) may be found at Talk:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Riga

How about a reference to the Treaty of Riga ending the Polish-bolshevik war (yap, I'm playing advocatus diaboli)

It's very nice of you, but I don't really understand how does it add to the article? Was it considered a betrayal by anyone or what?Halibutt 07:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yap, the Ukraine was quite annoyed.

[edit] Work in progress

I'm working on a new, much wider, version of the article here: User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. I'd appreciate your help in finishing it. Halibutt 08:15, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No article with a heading like "Western betrayal" can possibly be NPOV. You are just asking for trouble by proceeding this way. Why don't you add material to the relevant History of Poland articles? Adam 00:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I'd have to split it onto seven or more different articles (history of Poland, World War II, History of Finland, History of Czechoslovakia, Curzon Line, Oder-Neisse Line, Polish September Campaign, Polish government in exile, Yalta Conference, Potsdam Conference, and so on). Of course the very word 'betrayal' is rather unNPOV, but that's the way it's being called (at least in Poland) and it seems much better than the alternatives (like The concept of the Allies breaking the pacts with Central European countries during the WWII). Moreover, it's about the phenomenon called with this word, not about betrayal per se. If you read through the article, you've probably noticed that it does not judge whether it was or not a betrayal. It only gives the data that is used by those who assume that the pacts and alliances were broken.
Anyway, it's still in the working stage and I would appreciate your contribution rather than critisizing before the thing is finished.Halibutt 05:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It can be the most brilliant article in the world, but if you run it with that title you will be immediately attacked. The word "betrayal" cannot go in an article heading. If it is an article about what the Poles thought or think about the events in question, call it Polish attitudes to World War II or Polish historiography of World War II or History of Polish-Soviet relations or something like that. See my Greco-Turkish relations for an example of how to handle such questions. Adam 06:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But what title would you propose for that article? It's not a history of Polish-Allied relations but just a small part of it. Perhaps it's some sort of a History of Allied relations with Central European countries and the attitude of their societies towards different Allied policies, but such title, although descriptive, is simply too long. Halibutt 06:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allied policy towards Eastern Europe, 1939-45. Adam 06:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice one, I'll use the name Allied policy towards Central Europe once the article is finished.Halibutt 07:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Allied policy towards Central Europe, 1939-1945 would be better, because there was also an Allied policy towards Central Europe, 1914-1918. But at least that will be an acceptable title. You have to be careful, however, not to write just from a Polish perspective, or you will be reverted at once. It's OK to write "most Poles felt the western Allies betrayed them." It's not OK to write "the western Allies betrayed the Poles." I'm sure you see the difference. Adam 08:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You really didn't have to mention that since I'm perfectly counscious of the difference in meaning of the term betrayal in English and in Polish.Halibutt 08:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not the difference in meaning between English and Polish, the issue is the correct way to write an encyclopaedia article. "The western Allies betrayed the Poles" is an opinion and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. "Most Poles felt the western Allies betrayed them" is a statement of historical fact, and does belong in an encyclopaedia. Adam 08:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If someones' behaviour perfectly fits the dictionary definition then it's not an opinion but a fact. However, I gave up the term used in Poland mostly because of possible edit wars. Check the new version of the header and tell me if you like it.Halibutt 09:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the word "betrayed" is a moral judgement, and therefore always an opinion. If you state "the Allies betrayed the Poles" as a fact you will start an edit war which you will eventually lose. You should describe what happened and hope that readers will form the same opinion about it that you do. Adam 09:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You didn't read my article, did you.Halibutt 10:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes I have read it. Its problem is that it has obviously been written to prove a case, to prove that the Allies betrayed Poland in 1939 and again in 1945, and that they could have saved Poland if they had wanted. Firstly, that isn't true, and secondly, that is not what encyclopaedia articles are for. The problem that you, Szopen, Cautious and all the Polish editors have at Wikipedia is that you want to use Wikpedia to argue a case about Polish history, and to assign blame for what happened to Poland between 1939 and 1990. Well, that's not what encyclopaedias are for, and that's why you all keep getting in trouble. If you post this article, it will be reverted and listed for deletion and all the usual stuff. The fact is that you can't use Wikipedia as a bulletin board to argue a case about European history. Adam 13:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Geez, Adam... You try hard, but apparently not hard enough because I still don't feel offended. I did not write this article to prove anything. I only prepared an article that not only states that some believe that__blahblahblah <fullstop>, but also gives the necessary data to prove the theory right or wrong. I didn't give any interpretation so far, only plain facts. I don't blame anyone for anything in Polish history (well, maybe apart from the most obvious cases like Stalin for GULag or Hitler for Auschwitz) nor do I try to misinform anyone.
I understand that you might not agree with the very concept described in the article, but please be so kind as to tell me what's wrong with it instead of telling me that no matter what's inside, it will be deleted. If the article gives impression that wikipedia supports either side - where's the sentence that should be changed and/or modified. One can't deny that such a phenomenon exists and as such should be described by the encyclopedia. We can either make a short article saying that It exists<full stop> or a longer one - just as I did. Are longer articles worse?
Also, if you feel some facts are disputable - say it! If I - non intentionally, I swear - put any interpretation instead of pure facts - say it. I'm a journalist myself and I know that mere choice of facts to be quoted sometimes is an interpretation, but if this is the case, then it simpl6y needs some counter-arguments, not deletion. Please, try to be a little more constructive since your comments so far seem a little.. I don't know, different from what I got used to. Also, how about moving our discussion to the respective talk page here: User talk:Halibutt/Allied policy towards Central Europe?Halibutt 14:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • You try hard, but apparently not hard enough because I still don't feel offended. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to help you.
  • I did not write this article to prove anything. But if you go on repeating nonsense like that, no-one will be able to help you. Of course you are trying to prove something: that the Allies betrayed Poland - why else call your article that?
  • please be so kind as to tell me what's wrong with it. I already told you. It's not an encyclopaedia article, it's an argument that the Allies betrayed Poland.
  • if you feel some facts are disputable - say it! The problem is not really with your facts. The problem is that you use your facts like a lawyer trying to prove a case rather than like a historian. Historians put facts in context, and they put all the facts, not just those that suit a particular line of argument.
  • your comments so far seem a little.. I don't know, different from what I got used to. No doubt. This might be because I am a historian and I know the difference between history and polemic. Also I have had months of arguing with Polish editors here and I have got used to a brisk style of debate with them.

I am going to bed now. Tomorrow I might have a go at writing an alternative draft of this article. I doubt you will like it much. Adam 16:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I replied HERE.Halibutt 18:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy of Polish government in 1938

Of course, what happened to Poland under Hilter and then Stalin is terrible and the Western Allies bear some degree of blame. However, I have read that Polish leaders were greedy, opportunistic, and stunningly short-sighted. They went along with Hitler in the partitioning of Czechoslovak in 1938, just one year before Hitler/Stalin (in grim irony) partitioned Poland:

The Poles and the Hungarians, after threatening military action against the helpless nation, now swept down, like vultures, to get a slice of Czechoslovak territory. Poland, at the insistence of Foreign Minister Jozef Beck, who for the next twelve months will be a leading character in this narrative, took some 650 square miles of territory around Teschen, comprising a population of 228,000 inhabitants, of whom 133,000 were Czechs. Hungary got a larger slice in the award meted out on November 2 by Ribbentrop and Ciano: 7,500 square miles, with a population of 500,000 Magyars and 272,000 Slovaks.

The above quote comes from _The Surrender at Munich: September 29-30, 1938_ in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

So, any talk of "betrayal of Poland" should include some mention of "betrayal by Poland" for honest NPOV. I certainly don't want to place blame on individual Poles. However, for full NPOV, we must try to imagine the perspectives of people struggling through this horrible time. People did not stand together against Hitler and, so, the world had to suffer so much.

EmRick

I agree. Although first of all it deserves an article of its own. Second: Hypocrisy is a little too harsh. Show me politis without hypocrisy. Besides Czechs were never the original Allies with Poland, France and England. Third: Let's keep the proportions. There was nothing Poland could do to save the Czechs, after Munich. Space Cadet 17:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If there was any nation betrayed in the 30s, then it was Czechoslovakia whose alliance with France (signed in 1935!) was flushed away and replaced with new and more perspective one with Hitler. And if there was nothing Poles could do for Czechs, they could still do something for themselves, right? The Czech witnesses do well remember that Polish intruders behaved worse than the Germans a few months later. Qertis 12:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree too. However, the very word "betrayal" should be defined first. My project version uses the most strict definition as a basis when dealing with Poland in WWII and before it: betrayal equals breaking of the treaties. In this sense Poland did not break any treaties with Czechoslovakia, since after the Cieszyn Silesia conflict in 1920 neither side wanted to sign any. There was no alliance, not even a non-aggression treaty or declaration of goodwill. In this sense it's hard to argue that the Czechoslovakia was betrayed by Poland. Also, AFAIK the history of Czechoslovakia, in the Czechoslovak society there was no sense of betrayal from the Polish side since during most of the interbellum Poland has been portrayed as a cruel, blood-thirsty dictatorship, one of the allies of Czechoslovak enemy - Hungary. The sense of betrayal was much stronger with the western powers, who were seen as warrants of peace and new world order.
OTOH, if we forget the world "betrayal" and use some other synonym for "a bad thing", then I must agree. Generally, Polish contemporary historians agree that the Cieszyn Silesia ultimatum of 1938 was a good move but in the worst possible moment. Halibutt 18:07, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

This page is pure POV. You might mention once in the World War II page or in the History of Poland page that some Poles consider this a betrayal, but certainly an article is not needed. It is impossible not to interject with POV, especially when it is written almost exclusively by Poles, and will in all probability never be seen by anyone but its writers (or taken very seriously, who would come here looking for this?) Therefore I have reposted it at VfD as suggested to me by Halibutt--naryathegreat 23:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the Phony War is something else entirely and has nothing to do with Poland. That is the period of little warfare in the winter of 1939 and early 1940. And what would the western allies really have done? Shouted at the Germans? They could never have sent troops. Poland had no chance. It is high time you got over the blemish in Polish history.--naryathegreat 18:54, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article make some mention of the fact that Poland was under a crpto-fascist dictatorship long before the Nazis arrived, let alone the Stalinists? That last line about Stalin promising to allow free elections seems pregnant - Poland hadn't had a free election since 1926.

First please take a look at the definition of fascism, then read the relevant part of the History of Poland series. Then we can start to discuss your idea. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:59, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed with Halibutt. Dear anon definietly you need to read up and have some proof ready if you are going to announce such controversial theories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Western betrayal

We've finished the Western betrayal project and moved it to the main Wikipedia namespace. It is not yet finished, but the main part of it is ready enough to be commented. I'd suggest redirecting this article there. However, before editing the Western betrayal article please be so kind as to read my comments at the top of the talk page. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with redirect idea. The new version is much better, both in having better information and sources and in being more NPOVed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Would there be any objections if I were to create a redirect to Western Betrayal from this article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion about the title and some additional contents - Yalta

A suggestion about the title and some additional contents - Yalta

I'd say in its present form the article is about as neutral as possible from what is after all a distinctly Polish point of view. The introductory sentence makes clear that the article deals with a specific resentment felt by Polish society, and not actual facts themselves. The one thing that remains irritating, though, is the title "Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies". This implies that there actually was such a betrayal, although this is a statement of moral judgment, not a statement of fact. This is a bit like titling an article about paranoia with "being chased by dark forces", isn't it?

Of course, it is difficult to find an "objective" name for an intrinsically subjective phenomenon. As a tentative suggestion, I would call it "The Yalta complex" or something similar. The Polish notion of having been betrayed by the West did not receive its decisive and finishing touches before the Yalta conference which finally consigned Poland, the West's loyal wartime ally, to Stalin's sphere of influence. Without the Yalta aspect, the whole concept of "Poland's betrayal" seems strangely incomplete; for it was not until Yalta that the earlier events described in the article finally fell into place to form the image of a huge betrayal. A useful spin-off effect of Yalta's inclusion is that it conveniently lends itself as a catchy, neutral, plausible, and unemotional title.

Before anyone rushes to the comfortable conclusion that I am "anti-Polish" or anything: I'm not. I can well understand the perfectly legitimate desire of Polish contributors to explain this issue and the Polish point of view to an international audience. That is precisely why I suggest to make this article as neutral, fact-based, and trustworthy as possible, avoiding weepy accusations from the moral high ground. If disinterested readers get the impression that this is a place where some nerdy Poles ride their own national hobbyhorses, they'll turn away very quickly, and nothing is gained at all - neither for the "Polish cause" nor for Wikipedia at large. I'm looking forward to any comments.

--Thorsten1 18:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Western betrayal article. It it an expanded version of this article, with Yalta part, many others sections, expanded sources and hopefully an even better NPOV. If not for the recent vandal and protection, this article would be a redirect already. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I admit that I overlooked the link to the new article. I agree that the new article is much better regarding the NPOV, but the problem with the word "betrayal" in the title persists. With the new article being much wider in scope, it is even more difficult to find an appropriate, neutral title, but still think it will be worth the effort. Any ideas? --Thorsten1 17:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There were some suggestions along the line Allies attitude to Central Europe and such, but I am not sure they are more appopriate. Sure, less controversial, but there is the line between painful truth and political correctness that I personally tend to avoid. Wiki being Wiki, if this causes much stirr, I suggest a vote for the most appopriate title to settle this once and for all. ATM I care less about the title then about the article content though... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[quote]There were some suggestions along the line Allies attitude to Central Europe and such, but I am not sure they are more appopriate.[/quote] - If anything, then the inversion "Central European attitude towards the Western allies" would be appropriate (to be more precise - "Central European attitude towards the Western allies' supposed attitudes to Central Europe"...). Admittedly, this is not as concise a catchphrase as "Western betrayal", and renders the whole issue somewhat nondescript and borish.
Well, this article is not only about attidude - it is not a psychological explanation. It contains among other things historical facts that diplomatic agreements were broken, some allies lied to and obligations unfullfilled <snip> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fully acknowledge your view, and I'm far from wanting to whitewash the Allied tactics. But re-reading the factual content of the article, I find it somewhat selective after all. I'll go into this in more detail later on. For the time being, let's accept that there is another side to this story, and someone with a "pro-Allied" stance and a sound knowledge of diplomatic history would not find it too hard to refute most if not all of the facts in question.
[quote]...between painful truth and political correctness...[/quote]. Rest assured that I abhor political correctness as much as the next guy (probably more so). The question is, though, what do we consider the "painful truth"? That the West betrayed Central Europe, or that Central Europe believed it did? That is a crucial differe, after all, and one that gets blurred in the present title.
I'd say 'both'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but that you'd say 'both' is exactly what I'm on about. Please rest assured that I fully understand how the notion of "Western betrayal" was conceived, and in many contexts I would even subscribe to this point of view. However, the present title is a conflation of a statement of fact and one of moral judgment, and there seems to be a minimum consensus that this is counterproductive and out of place here.
[quote]I care less about the title then about the article content though[/quote]. Fair enough, but let's not underestimate the impact a title can have. For readers with a more casual interest and superficial knowledge of the issue, the title is the first impression that sets the tone for how they perceive of the whole article, even if they read it in its entirety. The ultimate goal should be to give a reader with a neutral attitude or even negative preconceptions about Central Europe a good idea of how and why the notion of "Western betrayal" came into being, and thus make them understand certain Central European concerns that they otherwise would have a tough time understanding. We should therefore not allow an awkward or ideological title to stand in the way of a good article.--Thorsten1 19:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. So we need a short yet meaningfull NPOV title. Ummmm. I am out of suggestions ATM... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So am I. But I'm all for keeping the title discussion going until a more acceptable solution has been found. --Thorsten1 15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think everybody here agrees that the usage of term 'betrayal' is not pefect. But as nobody seems to be able to present a sound alternative, I think that for the moment, we are stuck with it. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Many titles have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that this title is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that 'Western betrayal' is the worst title except all those other titles that have been suggest here from time to time --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't ask me, I had a similar discussion with Adam Carr some time ago and the only result was that he decided that the article should be deleted before it is posted and should be reverted as soon as I posted, no matter what's inside... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Halibutt, I've read your discussion with Adam Carr. You may not be too pleased to hear that I fully agree with his point that we should not be building a "case" for a certain moral conclusion here. We should try and enumerate the facts that spawned the notion of "Western betrayal" as accurately and exhaustively as possible - but we should steer clear of moralizing. Let us allow casual readers to draw their own conclusions based on the material. People come here looking for information, and if they discover that somebody's trying to persuade them of something instead, then this will cast a very poor light both on the case in point and on Wikipedia. --Thorsten1 15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I used the name this phenomenon is known in at least two countries, too bad there was no decent book on it in English - we'd have a title ready. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Well, not quite. First off, I think we all agree that the name the phenomenon is known by, is zdrada, not betrayal. Even so, I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the argument about the allegedly different connotations of zdrada and betrayal. The article claims that "in Polish the term zdrada can be used for all situations where a pact was broken while in English, although the meaning is practically the same, it has different connotations." This may sound plausible to an outside reader with no knowledge of Polish; but I have a good enough command of Polish not to let you (or whoever wrote the above sentence) off the hook so easily. ;-) You're making it appear as if "betrayal" and "breach" were actually the same word in Polish, namely zdrada. There may be a certain difference in connotation, but if so, then it is much too subtle to make any difference here. Zdrada is not a neutral term such as breach (naruszenie); rather, it has a very distinct moral connotation indeed, very similar to betrayal, treachery, treason, unfaithfulness, perfidy - all of which are possible translations. Similarly, Stanislawski's authoritative dictionary defines a zdrajca as a "traitor" (ten, kto przechodzi na strone nieprzyjaciela, ie. "someone who defects to the enemy"); as a "denouncer", "informer", "deserter", "turncoat", "renegade" or "deceiver". There can be no denying that every single of these words carries a heavy moral and emotional message, can there? But even if I'm wrong and you're right about the innocence of the Polish word zdrada - in English, "betrayal" does imply a moral condemnation of the action it denotes, and in this version of Wikipedia, we will have to adhere to the English usage, like it or not. To cut a long story short, the broad-brush moral condemnation of Western wartime policies toward Central Europe as conveyed by the present title "Western betrayal" is definitely out of place.
As for there being no books about the subject in English - there are plenty, most prominently Arthur Bliss Lane's I saw Poland betrayed. But the mere fact that Western authors support the "betrayal" theory does not make the term any more legitimate as a title. --Thorsten1 15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Talk%7EPoland%27s_betrayal_by_the_Western_Allies_45ed.html"