User:172/Polish-Soviet War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an attempt to reach a compromise version of the introduction to the Polish-Soviet War article (protected now).

Contents

[edit] 172's sandbox

"Polish-Soviet War" denotes the war (February 1919 – March 1921) that determined the borders between Soviet Russia and a newly independent Poland. The war ended with Red Army being defeated by Polish forces.

An armed struggle between the Bolsheviks and Poland resulted from Russian attempts to recover territory lost by Russia to Poland in World War I and from Polish attempts to secure eastern territories previously annexed by Russia in the late-18th-century partitions of Poland. The frontiers between Poland and Russia were not clearly defined in the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles and were further rendered chaotic by the repercussions of the Russian revolutions and the Russian Civil War. In this context, Poland's head of state Józef Pilsudski envisioned a new federation with Lithuania and Polish influence overwestern Ukraine, centered at Kiev, forming a Polish-led East European confederation as a bulwark against German and Russian power.

In 1919 the Poles had the upper hand, gaining control of most of the disputed territories. Border skirmishes then escalated into open warfare following Pilsudski's attempt to take advantage of Russia's weakness and to effect a major incursion into the Ukraine in the winter and spring of 1920 (the Kiev Operation). He was met by a Red Army counterattack in April 1920. This Bolshevik counter-offensive proved very successful, throwing Polish forces back westward all the way to the Polish capital of Warsaw. For a time, in midsummer, the fall of the city seemed certain. This development generated great excitement in Moscow, where delegates to the Second Congress of the Third International, then in session, followed with enthusiasm the progress of the Russian forces. The delegates began to see Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany, bolstering the fortunes of the Communist Party of Germany.

Meanwhile, Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers led to an Allied intervention, including U.S. aid, and, as its senior military representative the France French General Maxime Weygand, who was at once dispatched to Poland by the Allied governments. The intervention started to improve the organization and logistics of Polish forces. In mid-August the Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory at the Battle of Warsaw. The Polish forces advanced eastward, and the war ended with ceasefire in October 1920 and a formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, signed on March 18, 1921, which split disputed territory in Belorussia and Ukraine between Poland and Soviet Russia. The territorial provisions were generally favorable to Poland. Pilsudski's reputation as the architect of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen and in 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of political uncertainty and weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a military coup d'etat. The Soviet retreat in August 1920 proved a setback on the part of some Soviet officials to promote a Communist revolution in Germany or to gain a military strategic edge against it. The war enabled Poland to retain its independence from foreign domination until September 1939, when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided the country.

[edit] Piotrus's sandbox

"Polish-Soviet War" (also known as the Polish-Bolshevik War and the Polish-Russian War) denotes the war (February 1919 – March 1921) that determined the borders between Soviet Russia and Poland. The war ended with the defeat of the Red Army.

An armed struggle between the Bolsheviks and Poland resulted from Russian attempts to recover territory lost by Russia in World War I and from Polish attempts to secure territories annexed by Russia in the late-18th-century partitions of Poland. The frontiers between Poland and Russia were not clearly defined in the the Treaty of Versailles and were further rendered chaotic by the Russian revolutions and the Russian Civil War. Poland's head of state Józef Pilsudski envisioned a Polish-led East European confederation as a bulwark against German and Russian imperialism. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began to gain an upper hand in the Russian Civil War and advance west.

In 1919 the Poles gained control of most of the disputed territories. Border skirmishes then escalated into open warfare following Pilsudski's attempt to take advantage of Russia's weakness with a major incursion into the Ukraine in early 1920 (the Kiev Operation). He was met by a Red Army counterattack in April 1920. This Bolshevik counter-offensive was very successful, throwing Polish forces back westward all the way to the Polish capital of Warsaw. For a time, in midsummer, the fall of the city seemed certain. This generated great excitement in Moscow, where delegates to the Second Congress of the Third International, followed with enthusiasm the progress of the Russian forces. The delegates began to see Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany, bolstering the Communist Party of Germany. Meanwhile, Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers led to an Allied action. French General Maxime Weygand became the senior military representative of the mission, and was at once dispatched to Poland by the Allied governments. The mission, although numbering only about 600 advisors, started to improve the organization and logistics of Polish forces. In mid-August the Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory at the Battle of Warsaw. The Polish forces advanced eastward, and the war ended with ceasefire in October 1920.

A formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, was signed on March 18, 1921, dividing the disputed territory between Poland and Soviet Russia. The territorial provisions were generally favorable to Poland. Piłsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen and in 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a coup d'etat. The Soviet defeat was a setback on the part of some Soviet officials wishing to promote a communist revolution in Germany and other Europan countries, economically devastated from the First World War. The war enabled Poland to retain its independence until September 1939, when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided the country.

[edit] Comments on the current version

Great idea 172 about using this sandbox to flesh out a compromise on the lead. I suggest we comment here on the current version, and specifally describe each change we are making, to avoid any reverts in the sandbox (that would be low :>). This not an article, so we don't need two separate pages, don't you think so? I also think it would be informative to include the two old disputed versions for quick reference and to ensure we don't drop any important link or piece of info. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you responding to it... I removed the text of the old versions that you added. It'll just make things too confusing, as no one is supporting either of them any longer. We should also work in separate sandboxes until we no longer have any differences. We don't want to get in an edit war over a draft version, after all. 172 20:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All right, if nobody wants the older versions, I wont mind. Two sandboxes - why not. I will try to make mine resemble yours but...we shall see. But reviewing your responces, I have yet to see you say anywhere that you were wrong and my version is better, and your sandbox text is almost identical to the one you wrote in the start and is locked on the protected page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My (Piotrus) changes are below. If you decide to change the above text, please post below with your reasons why for each major change.

1) added This was a major setback on the part of some Soviet officials which wished to promote a communist revolution in Germany. to the end of first paragraph. I believe this phrase has been agreed on by all parties in Talk:PSWar, and should cause no complains? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The German Revolution refers to the uprising that culminated in the overthrow of the Kaiser and the establishment of the Weimar Republic; it does not coincide with the chronology of the Polish-Soviet War. The link should be to the KPD, not the German Revolution or the Spartacist League, as the Spartakusbund became the KPD in late 1918. It should read, "major setback on the part of some Soviet officials which wished to promote a Communist revolution in Germany," with "Communist" linking to the KPD article. Also, it should be mentioned toward the end of the intro along with the Pilsudski coup, where we are also dealing with the consequences of the war. BTW, you agreed earlier to let the Pilsudski coup stay in the intro. Mikkalai also supported it, writing: "Pilsudski coup is worth mentioning, because it was a consequence of authority he enjoyed after defeating Bolsheviks, hence of direct relevance." I don't know why it was removed in the intro draft above. 172 20:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All right. For compromise sake, I agree to moving that sentence to the end and for mentioning Pilsudski's coup (but in a shorter sentence). Please see if you agree on my version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Piłsudski's coup perhaps need mentioning, but definitely not in the header. The header should include some 5 sentences giving a general overview of the 1918-1920 conflict, not the General situation in central Europe between 1918 and 1939. Also, Piłsudski became a national hero long before the war started. When he came to Warsaw on November 10th, 1918, he already was a national hero (his colleagues from P.O.W. were working on his legend for quite some time). The effect was that the following day the Regency Council pledged allegiance to him, soon he was also named the commander-in-chief of the renascent Polish army and gradually all local self-governments, established in the months of agony of Austria-Hungary and Germany, also became subject to Piłsudski. Practically he had dictatorial powers before the war really started. Also, his legend was already there. The only political outcome of the War for Piłsudski was that the new constitution severely limited his powers and in 1922 he gave up all his posts. That could be mentioned since it is directly related to the aftermath of the PBW. The coup of 1926 is a completely different matter. If you want this information to be added, you'd have to add that the 1926 coup had at least several important reasons - the war being one of the less important here. Halibutt 09:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
The Pilsudski coup must be mentioned in the intro, along with the setback to Soviet communism and the German and Russian invasion of 1939, because it was a consequence of authority and prestige that he enjoyed after defeating the Russians, and is hence of direct relevance. Applying this reasoning to another topic, you'd probably favor mentioning that a consequence of the Russian Civil War was the formation of Cheka to respond to the various threats to Bolshevik rule, which laid the groundwork for the of the Stalinist police state. 172 10:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you still failed to provide me a proof that the lead should include a shortened version of history of Central Europe and not the shortened description of the war itself. Both his coup, the CheKa, Lenins death, war NEP, could (but not necessarily) be mentioned in the aftermath section since that's what this section is for. On the other hand mentioning the Polish Defence War of 1939 anywhere in the article makes no sense for me. Of course, both wars were somehow related, just as the Polish-Bolshevik War was related to previous Polish-Russian conflicts of 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. But do we really need to include all of them into this article? Check the title, it's not about the history of Europe. Halibutt 17:26, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, you still failed to provide me with a proof that something of direct consequence of the war and of direct relevance does not belong in the intro. Note that the same language is used in the public domain LOC handbook on Poland found here I will not accept a version stating that a consequence of the war was a setback for international communism if it does not also add the consequences for domestic Polish politics. 172 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please not that Britannica mentions the setback for communism but sais nothing about Polish politics. If you are willing to use Britannica to support Weynard, I insist on using it to drop Polish internal politics reference. Is there anybody else who supports 172 on this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Mikkalai also supported it, writing: "Pilsudski coup is worth mentioning, because it was a consequence of authority he enjoyed after defeating Bolsheviks, hence of direct relevance." I will agree that the main consequence concerning Poland should be dropped if you agree that the main consequence concerning Russia should be dropped-- the setback for any possibility of spreading the revolution westward. I doubt that you'll agree to this, because of your POV, so the past way to end this stalement is to incorporate all of the important points. 172 10:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am in favour of dropping many things from lead. From Wikipedia:Lead section: article close or over > 30,000 characters (and our is) should have lead of three paragraphs. And my own rule of thumb is - if it is over one screen, it is unsuitable for a good article and must be shortened. Let's drop Weynard, 1939, coup, Cheka and all aftermath stuff from the lead, pretty please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well-said. We can't have it all in the lead, whether it's relevant at all or not. Also, the link posted by 172 doesn't work for me (Temporary file open error. Display failed.). Any ideas? Halibutt 05:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
It works on my browser. Please try again [1] 172 10:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2) added Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began their advance west, codenamed Target Vistula, with the ultimate aim of linking up with communist symphatisers in the German Revolution. to the third paragraph, to show that not only Poles moved east but at the same time, Soviets moved west. I don't mind if you rephrase this sentence, but an info on simoultaneous Soviet move is important here, otherwise it looks like Poles were the sole agressors. Soviet did move west from their power base in Central Russia and met advancing east Poles in Ukraine, so both sides met 'in the middle'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is an obscurity next to early 1920 incursion, and it makes little sense to compare the two. Nothing comes up in a Jstor search [2] Not even a Google search-- hardly research-- comes up with anything other than one or two pages aside from those related to the Wikipedia article. [3] Further, there is a factual accuracy dispute on the Wikipedia article, which should be settled before we consider giving it such prominent attention in the intro... linking up with communist symphatisers in the German Revolution This idea of the link is discussed elsewhere, in reference to the reaction of the delegates at Moscow. 172 20:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Also, consider the comments by Mikkalai earlier on the talk page:
Deletion of any mention of the Operation Target Vistula
I am working hard, but I still don't see any plans remotely similar to such grandiose plans as early as 1918. Russians were merely securing what Germans were leaving, and not only in the Wistula direction. At the same time they moved, e.g., into Estonia. Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bolshevik "annexation" (or "liberation", whatever) of anything was initially without contact with regular Polish army. When the sides finally met in their drives to grab more land (which was not theirs in the first place. Other nations lived there), natural skirmishes happened. But such things are never called the beginning of a war. Also, Pilsudski-Petlyura allianse is no better than, say an alliance of Litbel with RSFSR in a sense that Pilsudski hardly cared about fates of Ukraine. He cared about Poland (rightfully). Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As Target Vistula is mostly based on other's work, I will agree for a temporary removal of its reference from the lead until better arguments are provided. However, it must be clearly stated that the war was not caused by Poles agression; thus a mention of Soviet westwards advance must be made. I changed my sentence to read now: (refering to 1919) Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began to gain an upper hand in the Russian Civil War and begun their advance west, with the ultimate aim of linking up with communist symphatisers in the German Revolution. - is this all right with you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And plese note this quote, from Britannica 2001 edition: An armed struggle between the Bolsheviks and Poland resulted from Russian attempts to carry the revolution westward and from Pilsudski's federalist policy. Will you now accuse Britannica of inventing things or being POV?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, their woring is fine. The problem with your version was "...ultimate aim of linking up with communist symphatisers in the German Revolution" part and the link to Target Vistula. 172 03:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed this form my version, but added relevant links to the next paragraph. Is this better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm working on expanding the Operation Vistula article. So far it is based mostly on White Eagle, Red Star by Davies and several mentions in Kijów 1920 by Wyszczelski. I'd have to browse through Piłsudski's Rok 1920 for more details. However, so far there were no serious objections to the article as such, it only needs more sources and more details. Halibutt 09:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
3) replaced Open hostilities between Poland and Russia originated from an attempt by the Poles to take advantage of Russia's weakness and to effect a major incursion into the Ukraine in the winter and spring of 1920 (the Kiev Operation). A Red Army counterattack in the north, launched in early summer, carried Russian forces in a series of rapid advances to the gates of the Polish capital of Warsaw. with In 1919 the Poles had the upper hand, gaining control of most of the disputed territories. When Pilsudski, attempting to take advantage of Russia's weakness, carried out a military thrust into Ukraine in 1920 (the Kiev Operation), he was met by a Red Army counterattack in April 1920. This Bolshevik counteroffensive proved very successful, throwing Polish forces back westward all the way to the Polish capital of Warsaw.. This text has more details, more ilinks and I think it is quite NPOV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It covers up the fact that it was an act of belligerence that led to the Soviet counteroffensive and the beginning of an open state of war between Poland and Russia. It is too misleading. 172 20:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid we have a major disagreement here. Besides skipping the entire year 1919 (about half of the war), you are saying that Poles started the war, which is a major error. Neither Poles nor Soviets wanted the war in 1919. What begun as a struggle about Ukraine in 1920, when both sides have seen that the other is not prepared, developed into a full scale war from April 1920, but this was caused as much by Soviet attempt to gain Ukraine as by Polish ones, and the Soviet claim to Ukraine is at best as dubious as Polish (let's skip repating the 'who would be better' arguments). I have to insist on my version here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, further contextualizaiton concerning 1919 should address these concerns. So, I changed the following: "The war had its origins in 1919, when Polish forces began securing eastern territories previously annexed by Russia in the late-18th-century partitions of Poland." It now reads: "An armed struggle between the Bolsheviks and Poland resulted from Russian attempts to recover territory lost by Russia to Poland in World War I and from Polish attempts to secure eastern territories previously annexed by Russia in the late-18th-century partitions of Poland." 172 03:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Warsaw was also part of the territory lost by Russia to Poland in World War I. Was the Russian wish to recover it one of the causes of the war? The statement now seems to imply this. Balcer 06:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As raised by yours truly on the talk page, the very word origins is not the best solution here. Halibutt 09:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I changed my wording above in "172's sandbox," getting rid of the word "origins." 172 10:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let me remind you the following: The local Polish population of Vilnius and Minsk and elsewher formed self-defense units. In Minsk Polish minority was so small so city was abandoned without fight. In Vilnius first Red local communists (ont formally part of Red army) were trying to take over the city IIRC in end of December 1918. Polish self-defense units (formally part of Polish army since end of December 1918) striked against it (but both forces came from inside city, AFAIK) in January the 1st. Red Army attacked Polish self-defense units January the 2nd.

So: From formal point of view it was Red Army which started it, since self-defense units formally were from just two days part of Polish army, while the local reds were not part of Red Army. Right? Soviets then continued the offensive to the west. The war was no started in 1920, nor the open hostilities. After all, if in 1919 there was peace, then with whom fought Polish units which then took again Vilnius and other territories? With ghosts?

BTW Davies mentions the fights in VIlnius but still does ont consider them start of the war, but rather the Bereza Kartuska.. Wonder why? Szopen 10:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bereza Kartuska was quite unique in that it was the first real battle, fought entirely by organised armed forces and without any help from the self-defence, the Red partisans and other such groups. Halibutt 17:26, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Re: From formal point of view it was Red Army which started it Let's keep the "who started it" POV out of the article. It can be argued the other way. 172 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uhm? First time ever on wikipedia i'v heard about keeping out POV out of article. Artciles shouild either be NPOV, or in cases when it is impossible, present all POVs - at leat that what was wikipedia policy three years ago, and i have not heard that it has changed recently. If it can be argued the other way, then it should state somwehere that there is difference on what consider beginning of the war (as in: some consider 1920 POlish offensive start of the war, because... other consider some other point 1919 as start of the war, becasue ..."

Note, that i don't know about status of bolsheviks in Vilnius. If they were formal allies of - pardon anachroonism -soviets from Moscov, then formally it was Poland who started :))) Szopen 07:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4) added Vladimir Lenin to the sentence The delegates began to see Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into the labor class of a disorganized postwar Germany., according to the information from the article paragraph on Lenin he was one of the main advocates of this view. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Remember on the talk page, when I showed you a source stating that Lenin abandoned this effort for a while in the face of criticism by Polish Communist Julian Marchlewski, who considered the revolutionary line unrealistic. So, it is too difficult and opaque to pin down Lenin's shifting positions in a specific context for the purposes of the introduction. It is sufficient to mention that this idea was touted by some in the ruling party, and get into specific leaders later. 172 20:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh well, I mostly wanted him ilinked in the lead. It is a minor point for me. I removed him for now from my version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5) replaced Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers led to a high-powered Allied intervention, including as its senior military representative the French General Maxime Weygand, was at once dispatched to Poland by the Allied governments. Shortly after its arrival, the Poles, in a dramatic reversal of military fortunes, with In 1920, France sent a 600-strong advisory mission to Poland, which had done essential work in stiffening the administrative procedures of the Polish forces. I can't think atm how to include the note on Blue Army here, but feel free to do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weygand and the underpinning Western motives of the intervention are no longer mentioned. So, this is not an improvement. As a compromise, we can use my original text while taking out "high-powered." 172 20:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Considering that I have yet to see one source about big French role, and the current discussion has since lots (even recommended by you) sources that argue otherwise, I am actually thinking of removing the note on French mission entirely. For now, as a compromise, I will not do any changes to my version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote it to read Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers convinced Western governments to send aid to Poland. French support improved the organisation and logistics of Polish forces.The details like who was in the mission and how big it was I think are irreleavant to the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From Britannica 2001: Western governemnts sent a military mission, headed by the French general Maxime Weygand, to advise the Polish army. (...). Except for an alliance with the Ukrainian leader...Poland fought in isolation. No comment :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's keep it in the intro then, still with the note that the victory was Pilsudski's and the removal of "high-powered" before military delegation. 172 03:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I doubt this belongs to the intro at all. The very purpose of the header is to give a general overview, not some details. And believe me, a contingent that constituted some 0,012 of Polish forces deserves mention, but only if other (much bigger) contingents are mentioned. Weygand's mission could be mentioned in the body of the article and his staff could be mentioned in the OOB section, but the lead should be restricted for really important matters. Halibutt 09:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Weygand's mission illustrates the significance of this conflict on the international stage, with the Allies finally realizing that the Bolsheviks had the very real possibility of nearing the German border. It is quite relevant. It belongs in the intro. 172 10:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Britannica does mention the mission and that it was caused by Western fears. However it also mentiones the fact that the Western aid came to late and had little consequence to the war, as the Poland fought in isolation. Would you agree on my version: Meantime, Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers convinced Western governments to send aid to Poland. French support started to improve the organisation and logistics of Polish forces. It mentiones the reson, the help, but also is constructed in the way to show that the support while useful was far from 'high-powered' and decisive. It will be expanded after the lead, as we have gathered quite a lot of new data regarding the mission (names, numbers, that don't need to go to the lead). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, Weygand's mission must be mentioned, as it is in Britannica and just about every brief overview that I'd ever come across before finding my way to this article. Look, I know that the users here want to give all of the glory and a lot of glory at that to the Poles, but I see no reason to go to such there is no reason to go to such great lengths to keep just two indisputable, factual sentences out of the intro. 172 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're doing it again, 172. There's no need to refer to users here and what you think they want to do. Concentrate more on the arguments, which are the key here. Please. And could you tell me what's wrong with the compromise solution proposed by Piotrus? Halibutt 05:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong is that it does not mention Weygand. I don't see what the big deal is about adding a few extra words. Are you afraid that it'll dimish Poland's glory or something? 172 10:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6) replaced the Poles, in a dramatic reversal of military fortunes, in mid-August administered to the Soviet forces before Warsaw a severe and decisive defeat at the Battle of Warsaw, still referred to as the "miracle of Warsaw" by some Poles. The Soviet forces were then forced to retreat. with In mid-August the Polish forces achieved an unexpected victory, against all odds crippling the four Bolshevik armies at the Battle of Warsaw. The Polish forces advanced eastward, and the war ended with ceasefire in October 1920 and a formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, signed on March 18, 1921, which split disputed territory in Belorussia and Ukraine between Poland and Soviet Russia. The territorial provisions were generally favorable to Poland. This has more ilinks, incuding mentioning the ceaserife and treaty of Riga with dates. Note that this moves begining of the next paragraph into the end of the current one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My proposal in the sandbox included the links to the ceasefire and the Treaty of Riga. unexpected victory, against all odds crippling is also too emphatic. It almost seems like the article is chearing on one side over the other. 172 20:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All right. I removed the the words you didn't like and replaced with based on your own Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory at the . Better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, very good. Note the corresponding changes in my sandbox. 172 03:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7) deleted The Poles were not able to exploit their new advantage fully, however; they signed a compromise "Peace of Riga," signed on March 18, 1921, which split disputed territory in Belorussia and Ukraine between Poland and Soviet Russia. The territorial provisions were generally favorable to Poland. As a further consequence of Pilsudski's military and political victory, the armed forces became an important national institution in the new government. In 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of political uncertainty and weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a military coup, assuming the posts of minister of defense and general inspector of the army. Pilsudski's coup is mentioned in the Aftermath section, and as was stated on the talk page, there are many many things that could be included as the 'results of the PSW in few years', but the lead is already too long. Let's leave those things for the Aftermath, shall we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You agreed earlier to let the Pilsudski coup stay in the intro; and since then Mikkalai has noted that it is necessary. I don't see what has changed. 172 20:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I said, I think it is irrelevant to lead. But if you insist on keeping it that there, I will insist on adding my own 'important direct consequence' - one for you, one for me, a compromise way (nobody's happy :D). My text now reads: Piłsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen and in 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of political uncertainty and weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a military coup d'etat. In Bolshevic Russia, the Soviet failure to spread communism into Poland was a major setback on the part of some Soviet officials which hoped it would be the first step in a worldwide communist uprising. The next Soviet attempt to carry revolution west by force of arms would wait until 1939, when Soviet union joined Nazi Germany in attack on Poland. Are you satisfied? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The invasion of Poland was a consequence of the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany, hardly an attempt to spread communism by force. Those days were long over, with Stalin's "socialism in one country" having repudiated Trotsky's "permanent revolution." Stalin's intention to occupy the Baltic States and as much as he could of Poland was designed as a countermove to German entry into Poland, serving the purpose of keeping the Germans at a distance. Stalin continued to look at the Germans with deep suspicion, despite the rapprochement. You can replace that addition with, "Poland retained its independence until September 1939, when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided the country. 172 03:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See my comments above. If we mention the 1926 Piłsudski's coup d'etat, we should also mention other things: the new Polish constitution (limiting the powers of the president for fear of Piłsudski becomming too powerful), creation of the USSR (integration of USSR in face of a defeat), reorganisation of the Red Army and reintroduction of military ranks (again, an exact result of the war), Soviet New Economic Policy as a result of both the Civil War and the PBW, the rise to power of Stalin after Lenin's death... If we mention all of the above in the header, the 1926 coup could also go in. Otherwise - it doesn't belong there. Halibutt 09:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Not really. The domestic political impact on Russia was far less significant than on Poland, where the war was the difference between autonomy or foreign domination. Just to give you an idea, the U.S. Library of Congress handbook on the Soviet Union does not even mention the Polish-Soviet War a single time or Pilsudski [4] [5] The principal impact on the Soviet Union was the setback for the spread of Bolshevism, which I support mentioning. 172 10:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt has some interesting info about the War first limiting the Pilsudski's power. That requires some rethinking of the sentence construction - I feel that it is complicated enough that it should not be in lead, but if you two can work something short, I will be willing to include this. Nice to see you working together, finally :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to rethink the sentence. The limitations on Pilsudski's power turned out to be formalities in the end. Note that the same language is used in the public domain LOC handbook on Poland found here 172 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is too long. Why should the coup deserve more mention then the battle of Warsaw? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. But both should be mentioned. 172 10:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, the end of dreams of spreading the revolution thingie should be mentioned. As to the LoC book on Soviet Union - the fact that it doesn't mention the war with Poland does not add to its credibility, does it. Of course, the impact on the internal affairs of Soviet Russia was not tremendous, but the same happened in Poland. Note the March constitution of Poland that was specifically designed against Piłsudski: it limited the powers of president almost completely. Also, it limited the power of the commander in chief and introduced a strong separation between the state and the army. Mentioning that Piłsudski gained power because of the war would be like stating that Churchill lost the elections because he won the war. Halibutt 17:26, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
the fact that it doesn't mention the war with Poland does not add to its credibility First, the U.S. Library of Congress Federal Research Division A Country Study handbooks are are cited by researchers and academics ubiquitously and are of undisputed reputation. Second, the war has never received too much attention in Soviet and Russia studies and is typically regarded as one of the theaters of conflict in the civil war. As I stated earlier, this war was far more significant to the Poles. 172 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, I know what the LoC is and I also know their publications. Some of them are highly regarded by historians worldwide, others are simply choice of documents. In any case, they present someone's point of view. Anyway, you also wrote that The limitations on Pilsudski's power turned out to be formalities in the end. Could you elaborate a bit? How come those formalities made the Polish president merely a representative of the government, without any real powers? Or perhaps I'm getting something wrong? Halibutt 05:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
This is a diversion. The addition of the content in my sandbox concerning the Pilsudski coup is undeniably factual. Perhaps it can be shorted, but there is no use denying what happened. 172 10:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8 One more about Pilsudski goal. I decided to simply cut most text out, this is discussed in detail later, no point in arguing about a too short sentence - I believe this should please anybody: removed In this context, Poland's head of state Józef Pilsudski envisioned a new federation with Lithuania and Polish domination of western Ukraine, centered at Kiev, forming a Polish-led East European confederation as a bulwark against German and Russian power. . Replaced with In this context, Poland's head of state Józef Pilsudski envisioned a new East European confederation as a bulwark against German and Russian imperialism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Remember that I provided you a reference to my wording of Pilsudki's objectives on the talk page from the public domain LOC handbook "Polish domination of western Ukraine" needs to stay. 172 20:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Temporary file open error. Display failed.. Please provide a better link. I agree with comments Halibutt and others made on the Talk page regarding this, and I disagree with your version here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try the link to the LOC handbook again [6] Sorry if the link didn't work at first. 172 03:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How about "Polish command of western Ukraine", the word domination may also infer subjugation, which would be incorrect and in direct contradiction to the confederation Pilsudski imagined.Milicz 14:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Domination does not necessarily mean subjugation. The LOC handbook wording is neutral and accurate and we ought to base our word choice on it. 172 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it does not necessarily mean subjugate, but you do concede that a reader may infer that it does or feel that it implies as much. So why would we not use a more neutral term that does not carry the same connotations? Terms such as authority, command, or rule, for instance "Polish rule of western Ukraine", you have the meaning that you want, and we don't have the connotations associated with domination that I don't want. Unless of course you like the other inferences in the word domination?Milicz 17:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just a note, but this all has significantly shortened the lead, which is GOOD. Lead should fit on one screen, and preferably should have no more then 3 paragraphs. See Wikipedia:Lead section for details. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But why to mention the subjugation/authority/command/domination/whatever, when such a statement is not supported by facts? Neither Piłsudski planned such a domination, nor he did enforce it. As I already said, he withdrew large part of his forces from Ukraine before the Russian counter-offensive started and prevented his staff to organise even some token local administration. All administration was created by the Ukrainians themselves. Also, the Polish Army did not draw recruits from there nor did it plan to do so. All recruits went straight to the Ukrainian army of Petlura. Is it what you call domination? Halibutt 05:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allied contribution

I have read the article that 172 himself suggested as a reference, Paderewski, Polish Politics, and the Battle of Warsaw, 1920, author M. B. Biskupski, in Slavic Review, Vol. 46, No. 3/4, Autumn - Winter, 1987 pp. 503-512. Here I will quote a key passage:

According to assurances given the Poles at Spa, an interallied mission was cobbled together to go to Poland and report on the situation and make recommendations. The British three-man contingent was led by Lord D'Abernon; Paris added the diplomat, Jean-Jules Jusserand, and General Weygand, chief of staff to Marshal Ferdinan Foch. Contrary to subsequent legend the mission achieved little; indeed, "the crucial Battle of Warsaw was fought and won by the Poles before the mission could return and make its report". Subsequently, however, the myth that the Allies saved Poland was begun, a myth in which Weygand occupies the central role.

So, the idea that French advisers contributed significantly to Polish victory is a myth. A very interesting myth, to be sure, created for complex political reasons, and it should definitely be discussed somewhere in this article. In fact, given how prominent it was in Western historiography, it might even deserve a separate article on its own. But let's not perpetuate it by putting French advisors in the introduction without much explanation, hence leading the average reader to assume they played a key role.

Furthermore, the number of 600 officers comes from a link I found through Google, so I am well aware the factual accuracy may be in doubt. Still, browsing various references I just could not find any reference to the actual number of officers that served in the Allied mission. This probably implies that the mission could not have been large.

No, note one of the footnotes on the page to which I referred you. He is naming other authors that emphasize Weygand's role. I used that reference to back up the fact that other authors still emphasize the French intervention, not because he was one of them. Go to one of the articles mentioned in the footnote. 172 20:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the article in Slavic Review, which I assume you consider to be a reputable journal (otherwise why would you point others to it) has the article (quoted above) which unequivocally dicounts the French intervention as a significant contribution to Polish victory in 1920. I can only hope that you will display some intellectual integrity and take this into consideration in your edits. Your current sandbox version unfortunately implies a causal relationship between Allied invervention and Polish victory, and hence is in direct contradiction of the article I quoted. Balcer 20:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry that it was removed. That was an accident... Yes, of course it is a prestigious journal. But this is beyond the point. Prestigious journals publish works by authors all the time that are arguing against each other. At times they even run series of articles that are responses and counter-responses by authors arguing against each other or offering critical reivews of each other. The point is that Biskupski is conceding that his own thesis is not (yet?) a matter of consensus, that there are different POVs that are themselves expressed in academic journals. Since this is the case, in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, Biskupski's cannot be the sole stated view on Wikipedia. 172 21:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Biskupski's article was written in 1987. As he writes, at that time a concensus was developing among Western historiographers about Pilsudski's dominant role, but some support for the "Weygand version" persisted. To illustrate this support, he cites an obscure French reference from 1975 as the most recent pro-Weygand version. Now we have the year 2005, thirty years have passed since 1975. You have not suggested any other references that would support the thesis of a large Allied role in Poland's victory. I have not come across them in my searches, though admittedly I am not a historian by training. So please if, as you imply, there is a lively controversy about this issue, please point me to an article, written, say, within the last 10 years and in English (so that my American university might have it in its library), that supports the version with a huge Allied contribution to Polish victory. If you can't, it would strongly suggest to me that the version of events in Biskupski's article has in fact become canonical, and the myth of Allied intervention saving Poland is one of the fossils of historiography.
Re: unfortunately implies a causal relationship between Allied invervention and Polish victory. My version states, "...the strategic concept underlying the Polish action belonged unquestionably to Pilsudski." It is not attributing the victory to Weygand, but rather just mentioning him in the context of the Allied intervention. 172 21:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate you giving the credit to Pilsudski. My problem is with the two sentences at the beginning of the paragraph. To paraphrase them: Western fears lead to Allied intervention, Weygand is dispatched. (here no mention of what Weygand was actually doing). Then in the next sentence: Shortly after his arrival, the Polish military fortunes reverse and they win. Any way I look at it, these two sentences imply: Allied (hence Weygand's) intervention was the essential prerequisite to Polish victory. Even you think this is debatable (I think it's patently false)Balcer 00:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I haved since changed the wording to "Shortly after its arrival, Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory in mid-August at the Battle of Warsaw" so as to avoid this confusion. 172 10:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But why to mention Weygand in the lead in the first place? I need one strong argument that would suggest that it belongs to what Wikipedia:Lead section describes as the perfect lead. "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow". If Weygand's role belongs to the short definition of the PBW - then please be so kind as to prove it. Why was he more important than any other detail or any other particular commander? Polish chief of staff is not even mentioned and after all it was him who created the plan of the counter-attack Piłsudski envisioned. Halibutt 10:57, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to leave Weygand in the lead, but to also specify very clearly that, even though his actual role as adviser to the Polish staff was minor, after the battle he was incorrectly proclaimed by many to be the main architect of the Polish victory in the Battle of Warsaw. Balcer 18:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep, but this is expanding the lead for information of limited importance. This should be explained in the main body, not lead. And on further note: out of several ppl discussing this (10 now?), only one insists on Weynard in lead. Pretty please, can we compromise him out? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synchronizing the two leads - differences as of 15.01.2004, 1500 CET

I will list the current differences soon. We are getting closer to a compromise, it seems. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May we finish the discussion that we are having above before attempting to synchronize the two leads? Our conversations here would just be the same as those that we are still having above. We're not ready for this. 172 19:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I am getting slightly tired. You are slowly replying, have nobody else supporting your POV *and* you have not provied much references. I want a compromise, but I would like it this week. And please remember - a compromise means that you have to agree with me from time to time as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If there are no further comments, we have two choices. Either one side of this argument concedes to that the other version is better so we can avoid any revert war (sides being me, Halibutt and others vs. 172 and...umm, anybody else?) - or we have to refer this for arbitration. If there are no meaningful responces and we are stil in a stalemate, I will ask for an arbitration in 24h. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry that I have not had the time to work on this article in the past few days. I will change some of the text in my sandbox to bring it closer to your version and wait to find out what you think. Re: have nobody else supporting your POV That is not true. Mikkalai has come out in support of a number of my proposals. In addition, you are at an initial advantage, working with a number of users with a strong Polish patriotic POV.
172 10:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


* Paragraph 1:

    • 172 version has and avoided ceding territory of historically Polish claims back to the Russians. Can we drop it? historically Polish claims is a bit unclear, not all claims avoided being ceded, some could argue that they were Polish-Lithuanian claims, and what about Russian claims? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This has now been resolved. Both Pars 1 are identica. Good :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 2:
    • Difference:
      • 172 ...a new federation with Lithuania and Polish influence over western Ukraine, centered at Kiev, forming a Polish-led East European confederation as a bulwark against German and Russian power.
      • Piotrus ...a new Polish-led East European confederation (Miedzymorze) as a bulwark against German and Russian imperialism. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began to gain an upper hand in the Russian Civil War and begun their advance west.
        • I think that mine descrption of the Miedzyorze is simply less POVed either way. If we were to add details, it would have to expanded into several sentences - why? Is there anything in my first sentence that is objectonable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Influence is better then domination. But as the federation was supposed to include not only P,L and U but also Belaruss, the two other Baltic states and possibly Czechoslovakia and Hungary, I think that either we mention them all all drop references to L and U from the text. Unless there is a specific reason you want the text to stress those two and the Polish influence over western Ukraine? Please remember that in the plans for Miedzymorze the matter of western Ukraine was not clear, the Polish influence over it was a fact only after treatty in April 1920. I did add 'Polish-led' to my text - gratned, Pilsudski envisioned Poland as the dominant power in the federation. There is also the matter of my usage of imperialism and your less specifc 'power' - don't you agree on the word imperialism? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Second, a mention that Bolsheviks were winning the Civil War and this turned more attention west is I think true, and gives good introduction to the next 'war' paragraph? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 3 and 4 of 172 version and 3 of Piotrus version (merged info into single paragraph):
    • Diffrence:
      • 172 Open hostilities between Poland and Russia originated from an attempt by the Poles to take advantage of Russia's weakness and to effect a major incursion into the Ukraine in the winter and spring of 1920 (the Kiev Operation). A Red Army counterattack in the north, launched in early summer, carried Russian forces in a series of rapid advances to the gates of the Polish capital of Warsaw...Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory in mid-August at the Battle of Warsaw, still referred to as the "miracle of Warsaw" by some Poles.
      • Piotrus In 1919 the Poles had the upper hand, gaining control of most of the disputed territories. When Pilsudski, attempting to take advantage of Russia's weakness, carried out a military thrust into Ukraine in 1920 (the Kiev Operation), he was met by a Red Army counterattack in April 1920. This Bolshevik counteroffensive proved very successful, throwing Polish forces back westward all the way to the Polish capital of Warsaw. For a time, in midsummer, the fall of the city seemed certain...
      • My secod sentence is this paragraph includes two ilinks moved from Paragraph 2: ...and support communist symphatisers in the revolution in Germany'. Is this wrong? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Next, the diffrence between mentions of French/Allie mission:
        • 172 Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers led to an Allied intervention, including U.S. aid, and, as its senior military representative the France French General Maxime Weygand, who was at once dispatched to Poland by the Allied governments. Shortly after its arrival,...The Allied mission had indeed done essential work in stiffening the administrative procedures of the Polish forces; but the strategic concept underlying the Polish action belonged unquestionably to Pilsudski. Meanwhile, Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers led to an Allied intervention, including U.S. aid, and, as its senior military representative the France French General Maxime Weygand, who was at once dispatched to Poland by the Allied governments. The intervention started to improve the organization and logistics of Polish forces.
        • Piotrus Meantime, Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers convinced Western governments to send aid to Poland. French support started to improve the organisation and logistics of Polish forces. Meanwhile, Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers led to an Allied intervention and aid. The senior military representative of the mission was the French General Maxime Weygand, who was at once dispatched to Poland by the Allied governments. The mission, although numbering only about 600 advisors, started to improve the organization and logistics of Polish forces.
          • Reasons are explained mostly in the discussion above. 172, would you agree on my version of this sentence? It is shorter, and your lead is getting too long (over 1 screen).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • I now based my new version on yours. Differences include: I dicarded the part about US aid, since I have yet to see any sources for their aid being official and substantial (I read only about few dozens of volunteers). Second, I added a note on the mission size (~600 advisors). Is this ok with you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 4&5 of 172 version and 4 of Piotrus version:
      • Differences (Aside of sentence orders (172 in the begining, Piotrus in the end of the paragraph)):
        • 172: The Soviet retreat in August 1920 proved a setback on the part of some Soviet officials to promote a Communist revolution in Germany or to gain a military strategic edge against it. The war enabled Poland to retain its independence from foreign domination until September 1939, when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided the country.
        • Piotrus: In Bolshevik Russia, the Soviet failure to spread communism into Poland was a major setback on the part of some Soviet officials which hoped it would be the first step in a worldwide communist uprising. The war enabled Poland to retain its independence from foreign domination until September 1939, when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided the country.
          • The differences are quite minor. Basically 172 phrase is promote a Communist revolution in Germany or to gain a military strategic edge against it while mine is which hoped it would be the first step in a worldwide communist uprising. As I find the gain a military strategic edge against it pharase confusing, I think that my sentence is more easy to understand but conveys the same meaning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Finally, the Pilsudski's coup and Polish aftermath:
          • 172: As a further consequence of Pilsudski's military and political victory, the armed forces became an important national institution in the new government. In 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of political uncertainty and weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a military coup, assuming the posts of minister of defense and general inspector of the army
          • Piotrus: Piłsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen and in 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of political uncertainty and weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a military coup d'etat.
            • In light of ongoing discussion and Halibutt facts, I am not very happy with my sentence. I would be happy to see Halibutt version of it, as he seems to know more about it then me.
              • Well, I am still not happy with it but I can live with it. Since it seems like we are going to agree on other matters after all, I think that inclusion of this in the lead is not so bad :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I won't help you with this one, as I'm still strongly against putting this piece of info in the lead. This was neither directly related to the military or political side of the Russo-Polish conflict, nor was it an exact outcome of the war itself. Also, the whole matter happened 6 years afterwards.
I'd be more than happy if there was a separate article on the May Coup d'Etat of 1926 and there could be even some link posted to that article in the Aftermath section. However, there's no place for it in the header. Halibutt 04:46, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

To be sincere, I was hoping that 172 could post some evidence that such a mention is really relevant and needed. This was one of my original questions on the articles talk page and, sadly, it remains unanswered. As such, the addition of such a remark seems totally irrelevant and bad to me. Halibutt 19:23, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Almost done

As of now, I only object to one sentence in Piotrus's sandbox: "In Bolshevik Russia, the Soviet failure to spread communism into Poland was a major setback on the part of some Soviet officials which hoped it would be the first step in a worldwide communist uprising." First, calling it Bolshevik Russia is overkill; it has already been established who Russia's rulers are. Second, reducing Soviet defeat to a failure to spread communism into Poland overlooks other Soviet interests, such as using Poland as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Germans. Third, "worldwide revolution" is also an exaggeration. They were hoping to see revolution triggered in the foreseeable future in Central Europe and Germany, economically devastated from the First World War. Still bogged down by a brutal and difficult civil war, this sentence still gives off the impression that the Soviets had an elaborate scheme for world domination that came realistically close to being realized. Fourth, it should mention Russia's interest in possibly using Poland as a bargaining chip for extracting concessions out of the Germans. I propose the following as a replacement: The Soviet retreat in August 1920 proved a setback on the part of some Soviet officials to promote a Communist revolution in Germany or to gain a military strategic edge against it. Once we get this sentence out of the war, we'll be able to use Piotrus's sandbox as the basis for the new intro. 172 00:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"or to gain a military strategic edge against it" This expression just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Besides being bad English, it seems to imply that the Bolsheviks wanted to confront a communist revolution in Germany militarily, which is surely not what you are arguing. Please, please reword this somehow.
Otherwise I a congratulate you and Piotrus on (almost) having resolved this dispute in a friendly manner. Balcer 01:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No problem rm Bolshevik. And worldwide is perhaps a bit of overkill here. So I can keep the The Soviet retreat in August 1920 proved a setback on the part of some Soviet officials to promote a Communist revolution... part, although I'd like to change retreat into a defeat. As you youself note, it was not only Germany, so perhaps we can say - paraphrasing your own words ...in Germany and other Europan countries, economically devastated from the First World War. How about it? Oh, shoudldn't communist here be lower cap? See my changed sandbox for full sentence. Now assuming we both agree with lead, there are two tasks before us: first, to see if we can rm anything from lead (it is a bit too long) and two, to unprotect the page, add the lead and see if there are any major points of disagreement in the rest of the article (I definetly will expand part on Weynard mission with the new info we collected during our debate). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I striked out some words from my version, which I think are simply redundant and can be removed to shorten the lead without any change in meaning. Ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It looks fine. It should mention that strategic and security concerns were a factor for the Russians too. Remember the point that I was bringing up on Talk:Polish-Soviet War about offering turning over to Germany Polish territory won in the postwar peace treaties in exchange for German economic and diplomatic concessions? This idea was apparently floated too... Tell me when you're ready to have the article unprotected? I'll do it, if you don't mind, or get another admin to do it. 172 16:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wont mind if you unprotect it. I deleted the striked out words from my quote and, changed the place paragraphs divide so the third is about the war, and the fourth about the aftermath. And added the 'also known as...' since it seems whe had lost it in all the commotion. If you have no objectiosn to those changes, I assume you would paste it over after unprotecting it? And the negotiations thing can be added to the main body somewhere - if I forget, feel free to do it. Since we agree on the lead, I doubt we will have any big arguments over rest of the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)