Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1920)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Battle of Warsaw (1920) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
February 2, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Old talk

I'm working on expanding this article at User:Halibutt/Battle of Warsaw (1920). I'd appreciate any help from you. Halibutt 04:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyone..? Halibutt 11:42, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
As to the recent changes by Logologist and my revertion:

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "Siberian Brigade," I plead sheer ignorance, combined with suspicion that someone had injected an error. What was this Brigade? If it's legitimate, by all means please reintroduce these items. I'll make wording suggestions, if I have any serious ones. "Bolshevist," or "Bolshevik"? "-ist" suggests an ideology; "-ik," a person or group. What did the Russian government at the time call their country, "Bolshevik Russia"? The "Bolsheviks" were a party, not a country designation. Any other distortions I might have introduced? Overall, it's an interesting article. Logologist 00:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a problem with the name of Russia at that time since the Red government used the name Russia simply, without any adjectives. It wasn't until 1922 when the Soviet Union was proclaimed. The problem is that until then there were half a dozen Russias there, ranging from Kolchak's and Denikin's, through Ungern von Sternberg's to the Soviets-to-be. Not to mention the Russians that were fighting alongside the Poles (that were quite numerous, several brigades AFAIR). That's why the country is usually called with all those informal names. And that is exactly why the name of Polish-Soviet War is far from being correct.
As to Siberian Brigade, if you read Polish there's a fairly good description of its fascinating history here. To make long things short, these guys formed a division fighting alongside Russians during the late stages of WWI, then took part in the Civil War fighting their way through Siberia, got to China and Mongolia, from where they managed to finally get to Poland. Polish Army wanted to send them home, but they volunteered again and were soon joined by approx. 5000 volunteers from Western Poland. Then they formed the core of the new Siberian Brigade, one of the most experienced and battle-proven units Poland had at that time (no wonder why, these men were on the front for almost two years... As such, it was the core of the Sikorski's 5th Army, these were the toughest guys he had. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:21, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Nyah, on the second thought there's no need to struggle through all the Polish diacrytes, you can find all relevant info on the Siberian Brigade article page I created overnight :D [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 04:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the moving article on the Siberian Brigade.

Did Poland conduct substantial wars with other Russians in this period, besides the Bolsheviks? If not, where's the confusion in calling this conflict the "Polish-Russian War"?

Regarding the reinstated matter about the Siberian Brigade and the 18th Infantry Division, some questions:

  • By "C-i-C" ("C-in-C"?), do you mean "Commander-in-Chief" = Pilsudski? If so, why not say "Pilsudski's"--or skip "C-i-C" altogether? If the concept of "C-in-C" is kept, I would spell out "Commander-in-Chief" for clarity.
  • Were both units--Siberian Brigade, and 18th Infantry Division--commanded by Gen. Krajowski? It's not clear, as worded. Logologist 05:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The confusion is right there, in front of your eyes :) Poland did not fight other Russias at the time, yet such a name would suggest that there was only one Russia at the time or that Poland fought against all of them. Of course, this is a minor problem, but still it needs to be worked out before we move the article anywhere. The correct page for this discussion is so far Talk:Polish-Soviet_War#Name. Check there.
I noticed that much of your (otherwise great) improvements are of styllistic nature more and not necessarily grammar corrections. Of course I don't oppose that and you can chose any version you like. I'd leave the C-i-C there, but it's up to you. :) Also, you have to bear in mind that the C-i-C reserves are not the same as front reserves, area reserves or army reserves, that's why I think the mention of C-i-C is needed.
Finally, as to your latest clarification - it seems fine to me. I like the word "strengthened" more since "reinforced" would suggest "replacing the lost units/men with new troops" while it was not a replacement, but again, it's a matter of personal style. I'm fine with yours. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:28, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


"To reinforce" means exactly the same as "to strengthen," but in a military context sounds more convincing to my ear. "Reinforce" comes from French roots, "strengthen"--from Germanic. Where English has this verbal redundancy, the different words--while basically meaning the same, and to some extent interchangeable--tend to be applied to somewhat different contexts.

I've seen "commander-in-chief" abbreviated "c-in-c," never "c-i-c."

I gather "c-in-c reserves" would be strategic reserves held at the discretion of the c-in-c?

Prose may be perfectly "grammatical," yet--when cavalierly styled--still unsatisfactory as prose.

More about "Polish-________ War," at the site indicated by you. Logologist 10:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Cambridge dictionary shows some difference. It is a minor one, but still. To reinforce is to provide an army with more soldiers or weapons to make it stronger while to strengthen is to make something stronger or more effective, or to become stronger or more effective. In this context the latter definition would serve better since the difference was not in number or equipment but in quality (thus the troop became more effective without having to be stronger in numbers or arms). However, it's a matter of style probably. I see no need to start a never-ending discussion about one word :)
Being a strategy wargames fan I've seen all version of the abbreviation used, ranging from C-i-C, through C-in-C to CIC and CiC. I have no idea how to check which one is correct. Perhaps it would be better not to abbreviate it in any way? As to the reserves - yup, that's the thing. Sometimes there are strategic reserves divided onto the part under command of the General Staff, part of the CiC, and part at disposal of the Front commander. Every war is a mess, but one can never understand how these officers tend to complicate it even more :) [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:56, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical question

I do not profess to be incredibly proficient where mathematics are concerned; however, nonetheless I have a query about the information presented in this article. It says here in the "battle in brief" box at the beginning of the page that the Russian order of battle comprised some 114,000 officers and men. Elsewhere here and on the page itself it reports, at the conclusion of the engagement, 20,000 fatalities; 65,000 captured-in-action; and 35,000 interned. This totals some 116,000 casualties: 2,000 more than were present at the battle. This would be an impressive feat, even for the Red Army, to lose more soldiers than had been committed. Was there some sort of SNAFU, or are these figures accurate? If the former, perhaps a judicious re-examination of the source; if the latter, perhaps an explanation of the discrepancy. Wally 03:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I think this article is almost ready for FAC, if we can just resolve this inconsistency and find a source with clear number of opposing sides number of soldiers estimates. Hmmm...Halibutt? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the Reds were never happy with their losses and all their numbers are based on estimates rather than official data. That's why the number of interned in Prussia and POWs taken by Poland is much more certain than the number of KIA, WIA or MIA. Most of my books give the following estimates:

  • Interned: 30 to 35 000
  • POW 65 to 66 000
  • KIA, WIA and MIA (combined) between 15 and 25 000, with the average being 20 000. Those numbers are also quoted by the PWN encyclopedia (with the number of KIA and WIA being more than a dozen thousands (kilkanaście tysięcy in Polish). Unfortunately I don't have the White Eagle Red Star at hand to check the numbers with the most recent publications, but I doubt they are really more accurate.

Finally, the estimates for Red losses count all of the Warsaw operation, from the fights on the approaches to Warsaw, through the counter-offensive up to the battles of Białystok and Osowiec, while the estimate of Bolshevik strength might be only for the units that were close to Warsaw, without the units held in reserve that took part in the latter battles. Halibutt 09:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I will make a note of this. What about the 'strenght' box? Can we simply say that strenght is those involved in the main battle and losses are from larger (time/area) operations? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up to featured article critique

Once again, a good article, even better now. However, some specific issues remain, in order:

  1. Belvedere. What's this? The word links to a disambig article that includes nothing in Poland.
Properly the "Belvedere Palace" (Pałac Belwederski): a modest palace in Warsaw, a few kilometers south of the Royal Castle. The present building is the latest of several that have stood on the site since 1659. It once belonged to Poland's last king, Stanisław August Poniatowski, who used it as a porcelain-manufacturing plant. From 1818 it was the residence of Russian Grand Duke Konstanty, who fled it at the opening of the November 1830 Uprising. After Poland's resurrection following World War I, it was (with a hiatus, 1922-26) the residence of Józef Piłsudski, who died there in 1935. (During the May 1926 coup d'etat, President Wojciechowski fled it before Piłsudski's advancing forces.) During World War II, the building was extensively remodeled for Hans Frank. In 1945-52 it was the residence of Bolesław Bierut, and later of the president of the Council of State. Since 1989 it has been the official residence of Poland's president.Logologist 07:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now linked to Belweder. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. Inconsistent capitalization of fronts. On July 4, 1920, Mikhail Tukhachevski's Western Front began an all-out assault in Belarus from the Berezina River, forcing Polish forces into retreat. On July 19 the Red Army seized Grodno, on July 28 reached Białystok, and three days later captured the Brześć fortress. The withdrawal of Polish forces from the north-eastern front was rather disorganised. Either capitalize them or don't but be consistent.
There actually is a reason for capitalizing the Russian "Front" but not the Polish "front": the capitalized Russian term referred to a military unit, the lower-case Polish one--to a geographical expanse. It is, from our perspective, a matter of a quirk of Russian military nomenclature. Logologist 07:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Consider Front (Soviet Army) and military front. I have now ilinked those terms to the first use of front and Front in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. I actually liked the discussion of the significance of the battle. Please put some of it back in. I know I criticized the "saving western civ" and "saving Christianity" claims, but there is a grain of truth there, and most Americans at least have never heard of this battle (of course plenty of Americans think George Washington beat the Germans in the Civil War, too, but I digress...).
Well, the problem is this more a consequence of the war, not the battle. The reveant info is included in the aftermath and further discussed at the main war article, which I hope can be nominated withing few weeks - the Battle... served as a kind of test what to correct in the main war article :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for writing this article. I learned about something important. Fix the 3 points above and I will enthusiastically support for featured article status. Nice work. alteripse 02:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Italic text

[edit] Suggestions

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.

[edit] Trotsky?

Trotsky is listed in the infobox but not mentioned in the article, what did he do? --AW 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? --AW (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half divisions?

In the section "The Battle plan", we are told that the Polish Central Front consisted of 10 and 1/2 divisions, & the Polish 5th Army 5 and 1/2 divisions. I may be misunderstanding the terminology, but a division is not a measure of manpower but an administrative unit; a division either exists or doesn't exist. Were these "half divisions" under strength divisions (which happens) -- or one or more of the administrative unit next size smaller -- regiments & brigades? -- llywrch 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two explanations, I can't tell which one is true in this case, as I can't find the exact OOB right now:
  1. Polish standard Infantry division in 1920 consisted of two infantry brigades, each composed of two regiments. In many cases the brigades acted separately and were attached to different units. This was also true to infantry regiments. Hence it was quite natural that an army could be composed of, say, 2 divisions and one brigade.
  2. Armies usually adopt the concept of conversion division (not sure what is the English term for this). It's easier to count large armies that way, as one doesn't have to count all the independent battalions, staff companies and such units. Polish Army in 1920 was no different. In staff planning it's quite common to, for instance, treat 10 border guard posts as a single conversion battalion, as the firepower of such units is comparable. //Halibutt 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and a sidenote: during the war of 1919-1920 all divisions fighting on both sides were understrength. It was quite common for a division to be 3000 men strong - weaker than many WWII brigades. //Halibutt 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)