Talk:Operation Ostra Brama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Ostra Brama article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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

Contents 1 conscripted or imprisoned? 2 Another Polish Victory 3 Total dispute 4 Dispute Not Resolved (yet) 5 Geographical names - why Polish? 6 German accounts don't seem to know about this many-days battle 7 Full Circle 8 Merger 9 pl:Aleksander Krzyżanowski 10 Requested move 10.1 Survey 10.1.1 Survey - Support 10.1.2 Survey - Oppose 10.2 Discussion

[edit] conscripted or imprisoned?

Whera are some mistakes in this text: 1. Captured Home Army soldiers were forced to join the 361 regiment of Red Army, not pushed to GUŁAG.

Source?Halibutt 12:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another Polish Victory

Sigh, I wish it was. Somebody, please correct the gibberish about the Soviet Airforce surrounding the insurgents. Dr. Dan 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, militarily it was an allied victory as the Germans were indeed pushed back. However, it was among the most bizarre victories of WWII, much like the battle of Warsaw in January of the following year.. Anyway, the article does not state that the Soviet airforce surrounded anyone. As far as I remember the book I read on the Nowogródek Home Army Area, the partisans retreated to the forests and hid there. However, their camps were discovered by Soviet airmen and the Red Army and the NKVD surrounded them soon afterwards. Feel free to reword that if you feel the need. Halibutt 03:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reworded. "encountered" really seemed like almost some Soviet airbase personnel ran into them or similar. --Lysy^talk 17:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It reads much better now. Sorry to disagree, but if you call this a "Polish Victory", I'll be hearing confessions, Saturday. Dr. Dan 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, do you mean it was German victory ? --Lysy^talk 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean it was an uprising and to equate it with a "victory" for Poland, is to cheapen Poland's actual victories. Dr. Dan 23:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In the big picture, the whole WW2 was a terrible disaster to (nominally victorious) Poland. Probably Poland as a country was one of the biggest loosers of the war. Since this article is about the uprising only, it seems fair to call ot a victory, contrary to the Warsaw Uprising, which capitulated ot Germans. Is "victory" too strong word, maybe ? Any alternatives ? --Lysy^talk 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not attempting to claim it as one. Dr. Dan 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: if the result was not victory then what was it ? "German defeat" maybe ? Does it sound better ? --Lysy^talk 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's your baby not mine, call it anything you like. All I'm doing is expressing an opinion on the talk page. I wish I had a better solution. Irpen says all engagements that Poland is involved in, are Polish victories, regardless of what happened, according to Polish Wikipedians. In order for me to disagree with his opinion, I have to read about more engagements. This one seems out of whack. Dr. Dan 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Then read Battle of Volodarka, Kiev Offensive and, after stocking up all the patience you may have, read their talks. The Volodarka still makes a bizzare claim that it was a Polish victory. Kiev carried a weasel "inconclusive" until my involvement and, recently there was another attempt to weaselize it by calling a defeat "political" as if it was an election rather than a military operation that went bust. I recently added the info on the vandalism in Kiev by the Polish retreating troops and found that also framed as "Soviet propaganda" although it was sourced to a book of a respected post-Soviet historian. To this development, I am still preparing myself to respond. Hadn't got to that yet. --Irpen 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For me the issue is a lot simpler, in the horrible event known as war, there are a lot of activities that take place that shouldn't be catergorized as victories or defeats. Certainly many events that don't warrant such catergorization, exist. In any case, it is not an issue of what sounds better. Dr. Dan 15:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Irpen overreacts a tad, as he usually does. If you want to read more on Polish defeats in 20th century, I'd recommend the following articles, as there are plenty of them. Siege of Warsaw (1939) would be a decent starter, but I'd also recommend Battle of Zadwórze, which was somehow symbolic. But then we also have Westerplatte, Battle of Mława, Battle of Łódź (1939), Battle of Radom, Battle of the Bzura, Battle of Modlin, Battle of Lwów (1939), Battle of Tomaszów Lubelski (both of the battles, actually), Battle of Grodno (1939), Battle of Wytyczno, Battle of Kock (1939) (not exactly a victory of the Germans in terms of military action, but still)... and so on. I wonder why didn't Irpen mention those articles at all when claiming that according to Poles Poland won all battles.

As to this particular engagement, I would rather point out that the Soviet side is seriously under-represented in the article, which is obviously my fault. However, I would really like to see some better wording that would fit the battlebox. Perhaps a Polish-Soviet victory would satisfy Irpen? No idea. Halibutt 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aparently, Halibutt remains calm and respectful, as he usually is.[1], [2] As to this particular engagement, we could speak of a victory or defeat of an overall Battle of Vilnius (or of Wilno if W is so dear) whose outcome was "German defeat". Of this operation, the uprising was a part. In itself, it didn't have any of these outcomes. Liberation of Vilnius from Nazis was achieved thorugh a joint operation: an attack of Soviet army and the internal uprising. There is an outcome of the operation but speaking of outcomes of each part of this operation makes little sense. However, Wikipedia has its own peculiarities regarding the military conflicts. I've spoken on that previously. --Irpen 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So we shouldn't be speaking of the result of particular battles but rather of wars as a whole? The French won the battle of France of 1940, Poles won in 1939 and so on? May 8, 1945 erases all the earlier failures? Strange logic. Of course, at times there might several views as to what is a separate battle and what's not, and this seems like yet another of such situations. What for Poles and Canadians is a battle of Falaise, for others might simply be a minor part of the Operation Cobra, which in turn for some might not be a battle on its own but rather a part of Battle of Normandy, which in turn was a part of the Allied invasion of Europe, which in turn... Similarly, what for some is battle for Hill 400, for others might be a part of the Battle of Hurtgen Forest, which yet for others was solely a part of the drive to the Siegfried Line... I guess the matter which of the battles is noteworthy enough to be represented separately (and have its outcome listed) depends on one's POV. For me each battle that was somehow noted by the post-war historians deserves a mention. For Irpen only the major battles are notable enough to have their result clearly stated. Am I right? Halibutt 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total dispute

Additionally to the problem with the Uprising (beeing part of the battle) is called the battle itself and the strange claim of Polish victory for the military engagement that ended up with the Red Army control of the city, the article misses another part of the story, the tacit limited scale collaboration between AK and Nazi occupants in the area. [3] [4] [5] that resulted in a less than full force participation of the AK in this uprising as per a book I linked. Its author is generally sympathetic to AK and his overall conclusion is that "the Polish Army was by and large untainted by collaboration". However, the events in this particular location (Vilnius area) exemplify that the limited collaboration did exist before the operation and, largely due to it, (as well as the obvious issues the AK had regarding the incoming Reds) "only a third of available AK force fought with the Soviets for its liberation" (Halibutt, note that the L. word that so annoys you here and there belongs to Tadeusz Piotrowski, I simply quoted him.

Omission of the controversy is a serious factual error. Calling German Army retreat from Vilnius after the Soviet assault a "Polish victory" is a neutrality error. I will mark the article with both and will let the editors know when I see the problems addressed.

I would have tried to work on it myself, but I won't for the reasons that must be prefectly understandable to us, the old buddies, who meet over another article just after we met at the last one. In short, I find it wasteful to work on the articles seeing someone often just itching to undo most of my work. This time, I would just express my good faith disagreement and will wait for my opponents to address them. Regards, --Irpen 05:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The uprising started the day before the Soviets entered combat. So perhaps the battle was a part of the Uprising?
2. Feel free to add it to the article. I don't believe such an omission is a grave problem as the author himself states that it was limited, tactical and did not affect the overall situation of the AK. But of course you are free to add the facts if you please. Be sure to add something on the Soviet Partisans and their behaviour, and perhaps on the Polish, Belarussian and Jewish self-defence against the Soviet hordes...
3. I don't agree with Piotrowski's conclusion that the number of soldiers to actually take part in the fighting within the city was limited because of the collaboration with the Germans. What he doesn't mention is the number of AK soldiers to continue the Operation Tempest in other parts of the area outside of Wilno, including the Naliboki forest, Nowogródek, forests around Lida and so on[6]. Also, the number of 5000 AK soldiers is somehow dubious. Immediately after the uprising the Soviets have arrested roughly 5000 AK soldiers of Wilno ([7], [8]), while most of the fighters retreated to the Rudniki Forest, where they were attacked by the NKVD. So, if 5000 took part in the uprising and all were arrested, then who withdrew to Rudniki?
4. Piotrowski writes books. He is entitled to his point of view. We write encyclopaedia. We should strive for NPOV. In other words, Piotrowski could even write that the treacherous Red devils arrived to a Polish city to slaughter and subjugate. We can't write that - nor can we use POV terms.
5. Omission of the book by Piotrowski is not a factual error - it's simply omission, nothing more. Want to add it - feel free to do so. However, I shall remove the tag as even the source you cited mentions that the collaboration did not affect the fights. Perhaps it would've been a serious problem if we did not mention the fact in the article on Home Army in the Wilno area or the Operation Tempest in the Wilno Area, but here it's completely OT. Especially that the collaboration mentioned by the book is related purely to areas outside of the city - and in another Home Army inspectorate of Nowogródek.
6. You have a point that calling it a Polish victory is an error. How about changing it to Polish victory over the Germans and Soviet victory over the Poles? Or perhaps simple German and Polish defeat would do? When writing this article long time ago I simply decided not to consider the Soviet operations against the Poles a part of the Wilno Uprising itself. However,if you believe it should be included - go for it. //Halibutt 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1. No. The larger thing cannot be a part of the smaller thing. The Battle consisted of two parts, the Polish uprising and the Soviet assault. The result of this was the city's libertion from the Nazi occupation (again, the respected scholar uses this word, I am simply following him) and placing the city under the Soviet control (with the sad consequences for the Poles and I don't endorse the repression of Polish civilians that followed). If that's the Polish victory, you think, it's time for the article's RfC.
2. I know I am "free" to add it. I just know your habbit of reverting much of what I write especially with the courteous "using popups" edit summary. My time is valuable to me to waste it on the small addition. If I will write it, I will set aside sufficient time not only to the rewrite but for the followup attacks from you know who. As for Jewish self-defence, I am not sure this belongs to this article which is supposed to be about the AK's uprising.
3. If you and Piotrowski disagree, I think Piotrowski wins and not because you are less of a scholar. Even if you were Normann Davies in real life but disagreed with Piotrowski as a wiki-editor, that would be worthless.
4. All respected scholars do right with NPOV, or at least attempt to. If you have reasons to beleive that Piotrowski is an anti-Polish partisan, please bring them up. Otherwise, find other reasons to dismiss him.
5. The main inaccuracy of the article is that it invents just another Polish victory. The Battle of Volodarka "victory" wasn't enough to satisfy your great pride despite a small uproar that discussion caused. This, however, is by far less obscure event and should you persist with the Polish victory, the article RfC will generate enough attention to seek the consensus of the community, which was never achieved in Volodarka.
6. I do agree that Soviet anti-Polish actions were not part of the uprising or of the battle for the city. However, Soviet assault on the Nazis in the city was. Partly their goals to kick the Nazis out coinsided with the Polish goals but this was a very short-time coinsidence. The entire operation Tempest, as well as this part of it, had its goal to diminish or eliminate the possobility of the Soviet control of the territories the London exiled government considered Polish as well as of the Poland itself. Soviets would have taken on Nazis and kicked them out anyway, with or without the courageous but suicidal risings of the Poles. The London government knew it all too well. It decided to send almost armless people against the German army machine to the assured death just in order to have a chance, however small, that the Soviet takeover would have been prevented. --Irpen 03:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to hate these battleboxes. Like it or not, some battles are extremely complex events, and trying to condense the outcome of the whole event into victory for this or that side is an exercise in gross oversimplification. Could we not simply agree that for some battles, we don't have "victory for A" or "victory for B" but just See text. This will indicate to the reader that the situation is complicated and that he actually has to use his brain to decide on his own who really won.

Overall, all infoboxes should contain only simple, straightforward, incontrovertible facts (population of a city, date of birth, postal code). Anything at all that is controversial should be discussed in the text, not in the infobox. Balcer 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to exclude the outcome except for when it's obvious and universally agreed, like Stalingrad, Moscow, Kiev I, Kiev II, Berlin, etc. --Irpen 04:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

1. So what is it that you actually propose?
2. Note that I never reverted any of your good faith edits, what I revert is your POV pushing. If the city was indeed liberated by the Soviets, then so was Moscow liberated by the Poles in 1610.
3. Note that I disagree, but it's the sources I used that contradict his statements. Does any source win as such?
4. No, I don't believe in any conspiracies. I simply believe that wikipedia should follow the rules of NPOV, while scholars do not have to. If we are to write in wikipedia what every respected scholar has ever written, then just watch me go through every article on your beloved Russia and add notes on treacherous Russians, barbaric Red Army drinking water from urinals and rape of Europe. It's all there in the books. Should we add it to wikipedia as well?
5. Now you've crossed the line. I promised myself not to feed you any more yet I'm doing this again. I'll have to work on this.
6. POV. //Halibutt 09:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and finally if we are to consider all statements found in books acceptable in our encyclopaedia, then allow me to explain the Soviet actions with Soviet greed and expansionism[9]. Does it suit you? //Halibutt 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am tired to talk and not being listened to. I request the comments from several users that you would hopefully respect. As for your name calling, this will have no effect. As for your reverting me "using popups", it's even funny. --Irpen 03:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing part of what is being disputed, but what about the following solution: call the result a Polish and Soviet victory (Nazis were defeated, after all), with a footnote explaining that following the victory, there was a conflict between the allies. I'd recommend avoiding the term liberation, but I think in this article again this can be solved by saying that the city was liberated from the Germans by Poles and Soviets, together. Other issues you are discussing are I think not that related to this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, here is the problem as of now. The article is about the operation of whoever that resulted in nazis being kicked out from the city. The operation consisted of two parts: the Home Army uprising (part of the Operation Tempest) and the Soviet assault (part of the Battle of the Baltic (1944) that was in turn a part of the Great Patriotic War). This article describes both and should be, as such, called Battle of Vilnius, whose result was the "Soviet victory".

At the same time, the article about the uprising could exist on its own, of course, but its result was not a victory of any of the participant (PL vs DE), but the "Soviet takeover of the city".

Whether Halibutt would have preferred the Soviet Union not being able to libe.. occu.. enslave and subjugate whatever was between Moscow Oblast and Berlin (I assume Smolensk should be non-Russian as well) is indeed unrelated. Similar is unrelated by alleged desire of the Sovietization of the Europe (or the world) and restoration of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Warsaw coupled with whatever that in opinion of some I would like to see in the world and in Wikipedia --Irpen 04:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think two of my friends here need to cool down a little. Come back to this a little later after giving this issue some greater thought. What complicates this matter (besides a little nationalism to boot), is the result, IMO was neither a Polish or Soviet Victory. It essentially was the expulsion of the Germans from the area. And maybe the Germans were not inclined to make any kind of a stand in the area at that time. It seems to me the Germans were already on their "tactical" and inevitable retreat as the war of attrition took its toll on them. It might be helpful to ask would the Germans been out of the city, when they left, if the uprising did not take place? Furthermore, had any decision been made by the OKW, to defend the city or to fight the Soviet military operation which caused the German departure. As I remember, they abandoned Paris, tactically, without much ado. To claim the result was a "Victory" seems to imply that the uprising was a success. It seems to have had moments of success, but ultimately was not the reason the city was evacuated. Is the consensus that it was a success? Dr. Dan 14:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the Germans were thinking of stabilizing the front somewhere, and one option was to do it along a line passing through Vilnius. Hitler even declared the city a fortress (see [10]). But the establishing of this defence line did not succeed, and it might be that Hitler's orders were not followed to the letter (Google Print annoyingly does not show the next page!).

Anyway, even attacking the rear guard of an enemy that is retreating can be a legitimate battle. Just because the Germans had a disastrous summer in 1944 and were retreating on all fronts, this does not necessarily diminish the importance of the battles fought as they were pursued. Balcer 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Balcer. The article itself, unfortunately lacks information on the the German side of the issue.

• What was the strength of the German garrison there?
• What is the consensus to changing the name of the article to Operation Ostra Brama. It seems to me the more accurate title of the event. Uprising has a somewhat different connotation in English, and tends to be more associated with populist involvement. The article does not seem to imply that there was wide spread poular involvement, like in the Warsaw Uprising. Dr. Dan 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I hereby propose the solution as follows. The article to be renamed to the Battle of Vilnius (1944) and structurized to make sure it covers two very interrelated events: the uprising (part of Tempest) and the Soviet assault (part of the Battle for Baltics and the Great Patriotic War). I don't object to the uprising having its own article in any way, but this isn't such an article. It is an article about Vilnius libera.. kicking the Nazis out of the city by two forces. As for the results, I see several variants:

1. Soviet victory
2. Soviet control of the city
3. German defeat
4. "See article..."

But "Polish victory" is an outright nonsense. Polish goal was to replace the German administration by the Polish one. The goal was by no means achieved. The city was placed unde the Soviet control and Polish soldiers were forcefully drafted into the Soviet controlled Polish People's Army. --Irpen

P.S. Whether the relationship between AK and Nazis deserve a mention on this article is a separate issue I would like to solicit opinion. I think a brief mention with refs is on order. --Irpen 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

While your solution seems reasonable, I don't understand what's wrong with 'Polish and Soviet victory'. After all you yourself admited that the battle consited of two parts; one of those was a Polish victory, the other - Soviet victory (which incidentally included not only their victory over the Germans but over the Poles, too). PS. I am looking forward to seeing this article expanded with info on Soviet part of the battle.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact Irpen is wrong, as the battle basically consisted of five parts. The first ill-fated Polish assault on the western outskirts (a Polish defeat by all means), the Polish uprising in the city centre, the Polish assault from the south (tactical success), the Polish-Soviet joint assault from the south-east (success) and then the Soviet operations against the Poles (a Soviet victory by all means). Finally, there's also two follow-up battles that are usually put together, one of them being a Polish assault on the withdrawing Germans (again, a Polish success) and the Soviet assault on the Polish partisans who withdrew from Wilno (again, Soviet success). //Halibutt 18:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, and how would you like to go from here? Could we take into account my suggestions or we'll just keep fighting and exchanging sarcastic remarks? --Irpen 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Not Resolved (yet)

I'm beginning to think two seperate articles might be better than one. I think there are two seperate events taking place, and because of their close proximity to one another, they are erroneously commingled. As for the uprising, Operation Ostra Brama, seems the best choice for its name. As for the second event, there really doesn't seem to have been a "battle," so that name should be reconsidered as well. Piotrus, there is obviously a desire to "składać hołd" to the AK, with your desire to keep this "victory" in there (even if you have to share it with the Soviets). Is it worth it? I think we need more information about the German garrison strength, and OKW analysis of their options in this region, to help with a NPOV resolution of the matter. In the article Battle of Berlin, there are several pictures of the Polish Army's participation in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and references to their contribution. Should "Decisive Soviet Victory, " be changed to Polish and Soviet Victory as well? Dr. Dan 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh BTW, I almost forgot, Happy May Day to all, and to all a good night! Dr. Dan 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical names - why Polish?

I think this article as it is should be in Polish language, since you use Polish geographical names. For non Polish they are meaningless, impossible to locate on a map (Miedniki, Rudniki are Medininkai, Rudininkai).

Because long ago at Talk:Gdańsk we've established a consensus not to use anachronisms, not to rename the battle of Stalingrad to battle of Volgograd and so on. The places you mention are in Polish because that was their name until then. Don't worry, people will find'em as that's what redirects are for ;) //Halibutt 09:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, when modern (actually original) names are mentioned, the page looks better. Still, according to you, there is no doubt that under the German occupation these places where Polish :) On the other hand, according to the Gdansk/Danzig logic, they should be written in German. This point of yours is very weak and under discussion.

Not really, we agreed to use the names of the time, except for the Gdańsk case itself. //Halibutt 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"However, as the area was a part of Poland until 1945..." According to who? It was part of Poland until 1939. From 1939 it was part of Lithuania, from 1940 part of Soviet Union, from 1941 to 1944 occuppied by Germany, then again part of Soviet Union. According to the rules of geographical naming of Wikipedia, Vilnius can called as Wilno only during the years of Polish-Lithuaninian Commonwealth 1569-1795.

Halibutt, it was pointed out to you many times that your resurrection of the Stalingrad/Volgograd issue is irrelevant as an attempt to defend your trend to polonize names in articles. It was clearly explained that in the case of Stalingrad the city was actually renamed. OTOH, Miedniki/Medininkai Rudniki/Rudininkai, Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius is just one and the same name in different languages. It is indeed important to choose what language's version to use in particular contexts but this has nothing to do with the places that where actually renamed. So, please stop bringing it up again and again.

And while at it, why don't we see the article Varshava Uprising (1794)? If we go by the "something was part of something" logic, this would make sense. I don't argue for renaming. I am just showing that your arguments for polonizing placenames all around are often flawed. In many cases, Polish names that you inserted in the articles need to be purged (like ridiculous Wasylkowce, Wołodarka in PSW articles, why Kijów and Mińsk aren't there, btw?). It is just that people don't always have time for this and endless arguing with you that usually follows (like Talk:Jan Kiliński) and many other places). --Irpen 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the uprising was mostly Polish (AK) thing, I think it is fair to use Polish name here (same with Warsaw Uprising (1794)). The modern city name is in the first line of the article, so I do not see the problem abakharev 02:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this was no more and no less a "Polish thing" than a "Polish invasion of Ukraine" dubbed Kiev Offensive rather than "Kijow Offensive". I am not suggesting to rename the article yet. I simply don't see why the Lithuanian placenames within the article text should be under the Polish names, see above. --Irpen 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is entirely different. Population of Vilnius was Polish and population of Kiev was not. This said, unlike Halibutt, I do not think that the "Danzig/Gdańsk" is a reasonable convention. --Lysy^talk 06:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? If so, what are ridiculous Wasylkowce and Wołodarka doing there (whatever those are)? --Irpen 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Lisy, you say "Population of Vilnius was Polish", as if everybody there were Poles. Population of Vilnius has been multicultural since the times of written history. You cannot label everybody as Poles.--Juraune 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

While multicultural, Vilnius population was predominantly Polish/Jewish at that time (that is at the beginning of WW2). Of course it changed significantly both during and after the war. --Lysy^talk 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To those following, or caring about this debate, I say, Irpen has kicked some butt. Dr. Dan 03:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC) p.s. Can anyone come up with German statistics on this matter, at all? I don't want to find out that the German garrison in the city consisted of 553 men. What battle actually took place? What were the casualties? What "poular" uprising took place, if any?

Regarding the naming of Vilnius, I suggest the following, in descending order of precedence:

1. Lithuanian name - Lithuania was indepedent before being occupied by the Soviets, and Vilnius was a part of it before this. 2. English spelling Vilnius, with translations into the other languages followed in brackets at first mention), since this is the English Wikipedia. 3. German spelling (Wilna), since Vilnius was under German control until the end of the battle, by definition.

By the way, the main article about Vilnius on English Wiki can, surprisingly enough, be found under Vilnius. It has this to say about the apparently illegal annexation of Vilnius by Poland:

Poland also recognized Vilnius and the Vilnius region as a part of Lithuania with the Treaty of Suvalkai signed on October 7, 1920. However, already on October 9 of the same year, the Polish Army under General Lucjan Żeligowski broke the treaty and seized Vilnius after a staged coup. The city and its surroundings were proclaimed a separate state of Central Lithuania (Litwa Środkowa). On February 20, 1922, the whole area was made a part of Poland, with Vilnius as the capital of the Wilno Voivodship. The Lithuanian government in Kaunas claimed that Poland had illegally annexed and occupied Vilnius and diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland were severed until 1938.

I have serious trouble accepting a POV that says the city name should be spelled in Polish after reading this. Andreas 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have problems with accepting Danzig instead of Gdańsk as well (illegally annexed by Prussia, you know ;-) ? --Lysy^talk 17:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think in terms of recognition for the period we are talking (and my comment only referred to this, not about prior times or how the Polish wiki should refer to Vilnius) about Danzig is better. Otherwise it is a wash, I would have no problem with Gdansk or Danzig, since I assume that it had a an official double name at the time, with the Polish part dropped most of the time? Clearly anything post-war should refer to Gdansk only, since that is the official name now. What has that got to do with anything? Andreas 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that we should try to avoid double standards if possible. There's been a effort to standardise on spelling of geographic names in their historic contents on english wiki, but it's lost its momentum (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)) --Lysy^talk 18:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case wouldn't you agree that the Lithuanian spelling is the most appropriate one, since it avoids double-standards? First they were the last legal owners before the event, and second since it was in use before the German invasion, when the area was returned to Lithuania in the form of the Lithuanian SSR (even if that was under occupation by the Soviet Union) following the carve-up of Poland? Andreas 19:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German accounts don't seem to know about this many-days battle

I just checked Newton 'Retreat of Army Group North', Haupt 'Army Group North', and Ziemke 'Stalingrad to Berlin'. All mention that by 8 July Wilna was already encircled by the Red Army. None mention anything about a rising - which should not be read to mean that there was one, just that it maybe did not register in chaos of the days. This Polish site states that the Home Army co-operated with the Red Army and that the battle lasted from 6-7 July.

Vilnius was declared a Fester Platz in May 44 under the command of Major General Poel, and placed under the command of Lieutenant-General Stahel of the Luftwaffe on 7 or 10 July (he was flown out I believe - he was a sort of expert for Fest Plaetze). On 18 July he received the 79th Oak Leaves and Swords awarded to the Knight's Cross for his defense of Vilna, especially the tieing down of large Soviet forces in front of it.

In conclusion I think that an article on the Battle of Vilnius (under that name) ought to be created, and that this article be merged with it.

BTW - I have come across many spellings for Vilno, but Wilno must be the most unlikely for anyone not able to speak Polish. I see no possible justification for the use of this spelling, even after reading the above discusion. Andreas 12:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Andreas for your imput, perhaps you can include some of these facts into the article. To Lysy: If the artilcle title was incorrect, that would not be a reason to leave it that way (see history of the article 25 May 06). It's several questions; like what makes better sense in English, and was there an appreciable "uprising" from within. The English definition of Uprising doesn't jive with the events that took place. What is the name of the article in the other languages of the participants?Dr. Dan 14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If the name of the article is not correct, than it should be renamed. To "Operation Ostra Brama" maybe ? And then Wilno Uprising could be turned into a disambiguation page ? --Lysy^talk 17:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to it by the name of the Polish operation, we'll still need an article about the whole battle, since you probably won't discuss Red Army operation much. I'd personally go for one article called Battle of Vilnius (1944), in which Ostra Brama is a section describing the action of the Home Army, since I can not really see how these two operations can be described separately. But that's just me. Andreas 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think Lysy is right. The article is about Operation Ostra Brama, which seems to me the better name, and removes half of the above arguments. I think it should probably be changed. There is some comingling of the Polish activities and the later Soviet activities, but the article is about the Polish Home Army's activities, and one should not lose sight of that fact. I feel there is not enough information about the German side of events, and that could be improved as well. So far no one has responded to the question, if there was a popular uprising of any significance either (like in Warsaw). As for the later Soviet "Battle" (and I don't think there was one), it should be in a seperate article. The battle of the Alamo, and the battle of San Jacinto, are two related events, in the relatively same time period. Yet they are usually depicted as two seperate events, because that's what they were. Dr. Dan 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that is not a good analogy. San Jacinto and the Alamo are removed in time and place. The only thing they have in common is Santa Ana's army. In this case we are talking about the same place and the same time. Remember that by 8 July Vilnius was encircled - presumably not by the Home Army but by advancing Red Army formations. Judging from what little I could find there must have been some combat at Vilnius involving the Red Army (since Stahel did get his decoration for it). Andreas 18:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I struck gold (in some respect at least) in the Soviet General Staff study on Belorussia 1944, edited by David Glantz. Lots of info on the Germans (although this is definitely not end of research, since the general staff studies are decent, but not completely reliable when it comes to the German side. Another book where I found info is Paul Adair's 'Hitler's Greatest Defeat'. In any case, there was a major battle at Vilnius, and 5th Guards Tank Army had some serious losses there. Andreas 14:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, put the information into the article and see if it can pass peer review, and survive other merciless editing. Dr. Dan 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We are currently moving house. I wisely kept the STAVKA study out of the boxes, but my wife would kill me and feed my body to bad-tempered seabass (with friggin laser-beams on their head) if I went into serious Wiki editing. Andreas 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with adding this info to the article, the article is nowhere ready for peer review. Reviewers expect a FAable article and this is nowhere near. See talk above. --Irpen 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. First we need to agree on how to call Wilna. ;-) Andreas 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's secondary. We first have to agree on what was an uprising, what was the battle, what was part of what and how come it was a Polish victory if the result was Poles forcefulyy drafted to the Soviet controlled Polish Forces in the East. We also have to cover the issue of AK's collaboration with Nazis against the Soviets, at least until it became clear that Nazis were loosing and even after that only 1/3 of the AK's force took part in the city's liberation from Nazism. And before my opponent eternal resorts to new accusations, I suggest a reread of what's above. --Irpen 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're correct (and I was joking about peer review), the article still needs more information about the German's activities, strength, and OKW decisions in regards to "Operation Ostra Brama," because there is virtually nothing of substance concerning these matters. The imput of this information would definitely help formulate a better article, and perhaps resolve some of the dissagreements. Dr. Dan 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full Circle

The issue has become more of a mess, than before. It seems we've come full circle. The departure of the Germans from Vilnius, Wilno, Vilna was the result of many factors. This misnamed article, was originally about Operation Ostra Brama, a significant and important contribution to the end of the German occupation of the city, and that should be the focus of the article. The other related matters should be seperated into their own articles or article. Operation Ostra Brama (and it should be thus renamed), was not a Soviet Victory, as they were not part of it, did not plan it, and their subsequent advance into the city is another aspect of the German evacuation and retreat. Dr. Dan 14:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Second that. --Lysy^talk 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Es gibt nichts gutes, ausser man tut es. ;-) Battle of Vilnius (1944) Andreas 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I placed the template to enable people to discuss, even though I currently oppose the proposal to merge the two articles. Please discuss it here Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1944). Thanks Andreas 09:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pl:Aleksander Krzyżanowski

Acording to this article the Poles didn't manage to capture Wilno and had to cooperate with the Soviets from the very begining. This is different then the story in our article, which states that the Poles did manage to liberate the city by themselves.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish long article about the Uprising.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While I can not read Polish, from the Soviet narrative it appears that the Polish did not manage to liberate the city themselves either. What is really needed is the German take on events. Andreas 07:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move