Talk:Polish-Soviet War/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Main picture

Since Battle of Warsaw (1920) is FA already, I think we need to find another pic for PSW warbox (since they are usually chosen for the main page). I think map of the entire war would be the best - any chance sb could find one we can use of make one (wink, Halibutt, map specialist, wink :>) ? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If anybody can do this, here is the map I'd like to adapt for this article: [1]. I can help with translation, but I need help with graphic editor. Anybody? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I will start on it. --iMb~Meow 17:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tnx a lot! Here is the link to Halibutt map of Poland in 1939, should be helpfull: [2]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I started to work on the map for the war of 1919-1920 (which could also be used for the war of 1939 and other events of the inter-bellum. So far I have prepared the borders and the frontlines, the map should be ready soon. Halibutt 05:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
The map looks great. I have no comments except those that praise your work :) Looking forward to warmaps, I'll renominate this for FA after they are added. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
More maps to follow, including:
  • Polish/Czechoslovak/Lithuanian/German/Ukrainian claims
  • The plebiscites
  • Major battles of the Polish-Bolshevik War
  • Perhaps also some WWII maps based on this one
    • Polish Defence War,
    • Warsaw Uprising and the Operation Tempest
    • Poland partitioned between the Soviets and the Germans
    • Armia Krajowa inspectorates
    • suggestions and ideas are highly appreciated :)

--Halibutt 16:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

You are my hero :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to the lead paragraph

I understand that this is an FA and extra care is needed, but I viewed lead needed corrections and with disagreement between my and Lysy's edits I suggest we discuss this here.

First of all, let me quote how EB article gets to it:

"Russo-Polish war (1919–20), military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine. It resulted in the establishment of the Russo-Polish border that existed until 1939.
Although there had been hostilities between the two countries during 1919, the conflict began when the Polish head of state Józef Pilsudski formed an alliance with the Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petlyura (April 21, 1920) and their combined forces began to overrun Ukraine, occupying Kiev on May 7."

As one can see, Britannica says that the war started with Kiev Offensive (1920). I suggest we, at least, return to a version which doesn't point to a specific side which started the war. --Irpen

Can we return to the version before your edit which implied that Poles attempted to "capture lost territories" and Russia attempted to "recover controlled territories" ?
We all know that both Polish and Russian propaganda pointed the other side as the aggressor. As well that both Poles and Russians propaganda claimed their respective victories. The fact is that Poles did not attack Soviet Russia before Russian attack in Vilnius in January 1919, and that Poles were defanding Vilnius and Russians were the attacking side then. --Lysy (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The issue here is whether to consider this a part of the war (see below). --Irpen 21:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Second, regarding the "spreading of the revolution to Europe". This is at least debatable. Bolsheviks really had more importnat things to worry about at that time and even this talk page above discusses this. This is a notable version of Soviet motives, but not undisputable enough to be in the lead. --Irpen

Well, according to Soviet secret orders, it seems undisputable. I agree that some sources would be helpful here to support this claim, though. --Lysy (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Depending on how one views what started the war, the version of "attempted to defend just recovered territories" while EB says "...attempted to seize Ukraine" is not appropriate for the lead. --Irpen

Let's try to make this more neutral then. Both sides had their plans to grab more territories one way or another. Then, at certain stages of the war either Poles or Russians had to defend themselves. The objectives of each party changed in the course of the conflict. The big looser of the war was the Ukraine. Pilsudski even apologized for this for what it's worth. --Lysy (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I don't see the reason to link to such trivial notions as war as border. I will revert for now, but I hope with this explanation my revert will not be considered hostile. I am willing to discuss any disagreements. Please, also check Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920).

--Irpen 19:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Any revert is hostile ;-) Reverting is harmful for constructive discussion IMHO, as it adds this emotional twist that we don't need :-). --Lysy (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Then I am sorry. I would not take it personally, though, if my version is reverted provided that a similarly good faith explanation followed. I agree with you that maybe some rephrasing would help further. However, I am sure about a couple of things. --Irpen

I'm sorry - I was kind of joking here. Thanks for your consideration, though. --Lysy (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I do not deny the RA's Vilnius attack. But we cannot just say that the war started with the Red Army Vilnius offensive while EB says it started from Pisludski's Kiev offensive. We either don't point who is an aggressor, or say that it was Poland, as per EB. --Irpen

I think the article should not describe either party as the aggressor then, as this clearly is disputable and a matter of POV. EB is not a bible anyway. --Lysy (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, at that point both states existed already, both were somewhat endangered and both viewed to expand into the buffer territories and viewed the past possession of these lands (100+ and 5 years prior, respectively) as a justufucation of their natural right to do so. "Recapture" certainly applied to Kiev offence which is still softer than "capture". A softer word is needed for the other side. Maybe recover is too soft. How about "retake controll"? --Irpen

Hmm, Soviets never controlled these territories. They were Polish/Lithuanian/Ukrainian grounds that were under Russian control for the most time since the Partitions of Poland, then they were under German control. But they were completely new to Soviets, so it can hardly be said that the Red Army tried to recapture them. Does it make sense ?
I would say that Poland attempted to recover these territories, while Soviets wanted to gain them for the newly constructed state. --Lysy (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The original declaration of Ukrainian independence was by a socialist Rada (parliament), which eventually split into two parts: pro-Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik (but still left-leaning). The first part migrated to Kharkiv, while the other was overrun by a number of coups (the last one brought Petlyura to power). The remaining pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian faction claimed to be receiving help from their proletariat brothers in liberation of their homeland (Ukraine) from the Germans, Poles, etc. Remember that the territories were used to form “independent” Ukrainian and Byelorussian states that on their own accord formed the Soviet Union. This point of view was later used for legal dissolution of the USSR.--EugeneK 01:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Exactly so. Therefore it can be said that Soviets attempted to capture these territories, but not recapture, as it would indicate that they already belonged to Soviets before. --Lysy (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Except that "Soviets" does not mean "Russians". The Ukrainian Soviets claimed that, with the help of their friends from all over the former Russian Empire (mostly Russian), they were liberating themselves from Poland and their struggle resulted in an independent Ukrainian state. Therefore, by driving Poles out of the Ukrainian homeland they were neither recapturing nor capturing, but liberating it. Some time after the liberation was completed, the independent Ukrainian state chose to form a union with the other Soviet republics (USSR). Of cause, this point of view may be contested, but it has been formalized in many legal documents. Probably “expand the influence” may be a better term than “conquer” or “re-conquer”, as this was the Soviet policy for the 70 years of their existence. For example, Mongolia was under Soviet influence, but was never formally conquered or added to the union. User:EugeneK
I understand that this was actually a home war in Ukraine with Ukrainians fighting against each other. Some of them were supported by Soviet Russia, while others were supported by Poland. Both of them would probably claim that they were liberating their country. At least Petliura did. So I don't think this argument can be considered valid here. This particular article is about the war between Poland and Soviet Russia. Poland used to control these territories before the partitions, including most of the Ukraine. Soviet Russia never did, as it did not exist before, so could not reclaim the territories it never had. It could only conquer, or otherwise acquire them. I'm sorry for being that explicit, but I'm trying to make sure you understand my point here. --Lysy (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the "world revolution", the plans of revolution expansion are notable, but I don't see them to be anywhere close to the main motivation to be in the lead. --Irpen

I think we could remove it until any sources to support it are provided. --Lysy (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I would change the outcome from current version to "inconclusive (each side claimed victory)". Let's try to work it out. --Irpen 21:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, I think Tukhachevsky considered it as a Soviet defeat. Let me doublecheck it in his book, though. Anyway, anyone claimed it was a Russian victory at that time or was this version a later invention ? --Lysy (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've just checked. According to Tukhachevsky, the Bolsheviks were defeated in the war. Do you have any sources from that time to claim otherwise ? I know that later Soviet propaganda attempted to rework all history but it seems that it was clearly seen as Polish victory then. --Lysy (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Woysyl, thanks! My current reply is in my recent edit. Now point to point. EB is not a bible all right. But EB is an importnat enough indicator of one of mainstream views (in cases when there is no single view) and we cannot just contradict it and say the opposite pointing to the Vilnius as the start of the war. Now, regarding "recover, regain, expand, intrude, invade" issue. There is no question that both sides were aggressors towards the neighboring states. The main piece of real estate in the war was Ukraine and Ukrainian view is important. Whatever Petlyura was doing and allying himself, Ukrainians, unsuccesfull with their own attempts of independence, did view the Poles with more hostility than the RA and the number of Ukrainians that were fighting on each side, if anything else, is an indicator. Poland existed already and it wanted to expand. It somewhat succeeded. Then the Red Army, which was not disconnected from pro-Soviet Ukrainian forces, retook an initiative. Reds were also fighting to get territory under their control, no doubt. At Warsaw, they got their ass kicked and situation reached a draw. Each side got a piece of UA, each side kept the control of their "proper". Each side initially wanted it all. I say, this is "inconclusive". Is the current version acceptable? --Irpen 22:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, as per your research of Tuchachevsky, let's then change the outcome from "Inconclusive (both sides claimed victory)" to "Inconclusive (Poland claimed victory)". We should still keep it "inconclusive" rather than Polish victory, since both sides won, both sides lost and it was kind of a draw with the disputed land divided. How about that? --Irpen 23:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Tuchachevsky admitted Polish victory. Tuchachevsky was not Polish obviously. In other words: militarily it was Polish victory, politically-wise it was inconclusive as Poles did not manage to take advantage of their victory. --Lysy (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we only differ in two things now:
  1. the recover/invade wording seems difficult, but I think we will work it out
  2. I don't think the result was inconclusive if the RA chief commander admitted he's been defeated. Who would know this better then himself ?
--Lysy (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
This remind I and User:172 of how we fleshed the first version of the lead for FA. You may want to check archive of this talk page for our past comments and compromise. Both of your versions seem fine with me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I read the archive with interest. I still disagree with "Minor victory" wording. The survival of PL independence is not the victory of PL in the war, because it was not at stake at its beginning. Yes, it got in the picture after Bolshevik successes but they were rather unexpected to the Bolsheviks themselves. France, as a nation, survived the Napoleonic war. It still lost. "Large territorial concessions" doesn't fit here too, in my view. Both sides (RU and PL) got chunks of the territory and not on account of each other but of the buffer areas. Each wanted all, each got part. In the course, the very survival of PL suddenly also became disputable. Thanks god (this is my POV) PL stayed on.

Now, a view of Tukhachevsky, is a thing to consider. But we have to understand that he was in charge of an attack, that went bust. He lost his attack but no one lost the war. Both gained and who really lost, were UA and BE. As for PL and RU they both won some, just less than they might have wanted. So "Inconclusive (Poland claimed victory)" is an appropriate wording, I think.

As for the remaining edits: (1) I removed "after its being partioned for over 100 years" which I myself inserted in the lead recently only because the lead is getting too long. It's fine with me if it stays though. (2) While there were ethnic Poles too in the territory Poland "sought to recover", it tried to "recover" the areas which it lost not just 100, but a good 200-300 years ago (Kiev, for example). Pisludski's adventure (sorry if the word offends anyone) was an aggression with no doubt. OTOH, some of the gains were all but "unfair" and "expansion", is the right word, I think.It is still softer than more blunt language of EB ("attempt to seize UA"). I am just not sure, whether Piotrus and Lysy are still around to reply soon, so my daring to go again back to the article and correct should not be taken as a disregard. This is Wiki and everyone has an edit button. BTW, Kiev Offensive (1920), is in similar need of attention. With best regards, --Irpen 23:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Slowly I'm coming to a conclusion that Poland won the war but was not able to exploit the victory. According to your reasoning (I'm exaggerating here on purpose, I know) one might claim the WW2 was inconclusive because economically Germany is a superpower compared to apparently victorious Russia. War is a military operation. Whether its result is further exploited by treaties and concessions is a question of political skills, and that's a different story.
As for Tukhachevsky, I consider his opinion here to be of critical importance, because:
  • He was the chief commander of one of the forces. He would have claimed victory if he could.
  • His opinions were taught at Moscow Military Academy in 1923. It's much more credible than Soviet propaganda.
  • He concluded that the real result of the war was decided after the Polish counteroffensive stalled. Both sides were exhaused, and each were preparing to launch new offensive. He claims that RA had the potential to reverse the fate of the war then but failed. Poles were first to launch their offensive and won the war only because of this.
  • It was not any apologetic memoirs of him, but the lectures given to RA officers explaining why Soviets lost the war and how this could have been avoided.
Let me try to translate few sentences from his lectures here (blame me fo poor English translation).
About August 19-22, 1920: "The enemy, who has learnt his boldness from us, attacked with ferocious speed, which doomed the fate of the 4th Army", "3th and 15th Armies lost most of their forces but could not save the 4th Army", "Our only hope was that the enemy would stop or slow down only for a moment to reorganize his supplies. But the enemy did not do it.", "This is the end of our magnificient operation, in face of which all the European capital had to shake and was reliefed only when it was stopped", "Poles, who had put all their energy into their counteroffensive, lost their breath and could not exploit the results of their success", "We've had all conditions to turn the victory back to our side.", "The fate of the war depended now only on who would prepare sooner and who would first launch his new offensive", "Poles started their offensive first and our defeat was decided. Our cavalry army arrived too late".
Conclusions: "The essential conclusion of our campaign 1920 is that it was lost by bad strategy, not politics", "The basic reason for our failure was bad preparation of our military commanders", "Discoordinated behaviour (...) resulted in our final catastrophe.", "This experience will not be forgotten by the Red Army".
Piłsudski differed with many of Tukhachevsky's opinions but obviously he also had no doubts that the final victory was Polish.
So, let me ask again: who claimed then that it was Soviet victory ? Did anyone ? Or was it only later fabrication of Soviet propaganda machinery ? --Lysy (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Here we go again…The common counter-claim is that the result was a stalemate, regardless of the claims of Polish or Soviet propaganda. This was very very very extensively discussed here. The arguments were: partial achievement and partial abandonment of goals of the two warring parties, excessive losses on the Polish side, setbacks suffered by both parties (including the Polish setback in their Ukrainian campaign and Soviet setback, admitted by their leader, in 1920 incursion in Poland), retention of sufficient Bolshevik force to conquer most of the Russian Empire, etc. The non-Russian sources that appear to view it that way include EB, which is not the definitive, but, clearly, a respectful source. The statement like “inconclusive” or “Polish victory (commonly contested)” appeared to satisfy the participant of this discussion. So, why are we at it again?--EugeneK 14:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand your arguments and repeating them does not make them any more valid. I do not agree with them and I ask for independent research sources to support the claim that the result of the war was considered a Soviet victory then. And again, we should not be performing any original research here, but rely on independent credible sources. To quote it from Wikipedia's official policy: all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. Could you please doublecheck that EB considered the result of the war to be Soviet victory ? I do not find the statement like “inconclusive” or “Polish victory (commonly contested)” to be satisfying unless we are able to cite independent sources to support this. Anyway, an encyclopedia cannot cite another encyclopedia as a source, as this would clearly lead to indefinitely reproducing any mistakes introduced earlier. --Lysy (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Lysy, there is no real need to misrepresent my position. As you may still remember, my only edit was to mention that Polish victory is contested, not that the Bolsheviks won. And I had a discussion about it with you too. Even “Inconclusive”, if I remember it right, was first mentioned by Piotr.

The Polish reference (sorry, I cannot independently check it) is at the end paragraph of the discussion about the Russian-German alliance/treaty (non-Russian reference). Throughout the discussion I gave you an example of a post-war Bolshevik song that glorified the war (contemporary non-Polish reference). Neither EB, nor Encarta, nor Soviet Encyclopedia came to an explicit conclusion that the war was won by Poland. Of cause, there are other sources that did. Importantly, “victory”, unless an unconditional surrender has happened, is not an indisputable fact, but an interpretation of the facts. How can we achieve objectivity? We can rely on the truly primary sources, such as the treaty of Riga. We may also rely on de facto results of the war. In either case we will see that in 1921 Bolsheviks dominated more land than they did in 1919. They also had less money. They also remained strong enough to finish the conquest of most of the Russian Empire. These facts are not contested by anyone so far. Therefore, based on the facts only, Bolsheviks did not lose the war and did not win it either. Of cause, the victory claims of the warring parties and their allies are inherently biased (e.g. both claimed liberation of Ukraine). The claims of what the warring parties “really” wanted are not factual, but speculative in nature (e.g. whether it was more important for the Bolsheviks to have Poland in the Russian-dominated USSR than it was for Poland to have Ukraine in the Polish-dominated Miedzymorze). Therefore, the interpretations of a victory based on such speculations (whether the original source of such speculations could be pointed out or not) are also inherently speculative. Should we have something like “Polish victory (according to Davies)” in the battlebox? Indeed, as this discussion shows, a large group of people, hopefully, acting in a good faith, could be presented with the same information and speculations about PSW and yet produce diverse interpretations as to the validity of the victory claim. This is an experimental fact, not an interpretation, POV, etc., and the current page is the primary source to prove it. Why not to reflect this fact in the battlebox, regardless of whether someone is pleased with it or not? --EugeneK 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my 'minor Polish victory' because in the Treaty of Riga it was the Soviet side which offered territorial concessions to the Poles, not the other way around. Now, it was not a major victory (which would, IMHO POVed opinion be the creation of Międzymorze) but I don't see how one can dispute that if side A give B 'major territorial concessions', it was side B which won? Of course, as I wrote earlier, since this seem to be a recurring topic, I am all for making a footnote explanation of various arguments and explaining POVs from 'draw' to 'Polish victory'. Although as Lysy wrote - is there any publication that claims it was a Soviet victory? Come to think of it, I believe they may be some - those who go with evidently biased line of reasoning: 'PSW was the Poles invasion of Russia, and Russia won by defending its existence' :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
"Minor Polish victory" seems reasonable to me as well. "Inconclusive" does not. It may be worth mentioning 30 million rubles of compensation to Poland. It would be rather difficult to believe that Soviets won the war and then suddenly agreed to pay monetary compensation to "defeated" capitalists white Poland. Franlky I expected that if anyone claimed the Soviet victory, Tukhachevsky would at least be mentioning it in 1923. --Lysy (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Lysy and Piotr, how about the Polish source that Halibutt has mentioned? As for the contemporary Soviet claims, a Bolshevik rally song composed shortly after the events states something like that: "The Polish landlords will remember our Konarmian bayonets". People don’t threaten their neighbors by the memories of fights in which they consider themselves beaten. By the way, what are the non-encyclopedian and non anti-Soviet (e.g. American of the Cold War era) sources that claimed a conclusive Polish victory? In general, a demand for unbiased sources is contradictory because any claims of victory are political. Therefore we may be better off deciding it based on the facts. Shouldn't we rely on common sense in reviewing the facts? Do you dispute that the Polish-controlled areas after the war were smaller than what was offered to them before the war? The fact that Bosheviks had to pay cash argues that in reality (not to be confused with propaganda) they did not win either. BTW, Bolsheviks couldn't be trusted with treaties, but why did their words become more trustworthy in Riga?
As for the facts, neither country got what it wanted and neither one was ruined. Do you agree?
Once again, it is a simple fact that Polish victory is contested, even on this page. Do you agree?
BTW, do you see a contradiction in claiming that Soviets were conquering Ukraine that they, allegedly, never controlled before, and the claim that the Poles are the victors because they retained a part of the Ukraine after the war (major territorial concessions from the Bolsheviks?), while the Bolsheviks retained the rest?
--EugeneK 20:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Poland obviously controlled more after Riga in 1921 then it did in 1919. Then, of course, so did the Reds. I think that we are all forgetting the important issue here. Both Poland and Bolshevic Russia had no set borders when they started fighting. As the text mentiones, they both fought over territories that in reality didn't belong to either party (they fought over Ukraine, Bielorussia, etc.). In the begining of the conflict, neither side had any clear goals (border lines) to reach. So in the end, the only estimate of which side won is the Treaty of Riga, and as was mentioned, in the Treaty it was Bolshevicks that sounded like a deafeated party, giving Poland both terrotiroal and monetary concessions. In military terms, Red Army was defeated, and Polish Army was victorous (just an example - the Konarmia nearly disintergrated after fall 1920). Finally, as Russians attempted to seize Warsaw and failed, and Poland never attempted to seize Moscow (and thus didn't gail) I'd say Poles scored more tactical victories then the Soviets. Thus I definetly think that the result was a Polish minor victory (using Panzer General terminology :D). PS. Most Polish sources explain the victory like this: 'Soviets attempted to conquer Poland and miserably failed'. Of course this is only a part of a bigger picture, but it sounds logical to me. Soviets failed, Poles did not. PS2. Ok, Poles failed to form Miedzymorze, but as far as Polish border went they got all they wanted. Soviets did not cause they wanted Poland and beyond. Do you see the logic of that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Soviets got to "wanting Poland" in the course of the war, not from start. And they didn't get it. Poles got to wanting more of UA as they reached Kiev (not from the start) and they didn't get it. Russians attempted to seize Warsaw and got their ass kicked. Poles attempted to seize Kiev, seized it and them got themselves kicked too. This is going in circles. Let's just find that sources outside of PL claim that PL one the war, not the battle. --Irpen 22:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Polish source mentioned by Halibutt are you referring to. There's been so much discussion ... could you help by showing Halibutts edit, or maybe giving the name you're referring to. Thanks.
As for your questions about the facts: I agree that neither Poland nor Soviet Russia got what they wanted and neither one was ruinedbeyond repair, for sure. But I do not know of any serious sources claiming that the result was Soviet victory. Since you claim so, I'm asking you to provide either primary or secondary sources to support it. Until they are provided, I assume that such claims are just a product of Soviet propaganda, and all the claims presented on this page so far fall into original research category. As for "Bolshevik's offer for peace could not been trusted" - this is based on known facts of Soviet preparations for their offensive at the same time; they were simply trying to win more time. Piłsudski knew this from reading Soviet codes and if he waited longer, probably Poland would end up as yet another Soviet republic. If you ask me for sources confirming Polish victory, I'll suggest Tukhachevsky's lectures that I have at hand, but I'm sure there'll be many more. It's hard to claim that Tukhachevsky was biased in favour of Poles at that time (although allegedly he was of Polish origin). As for Poland retaining Western Ukraine, I'm afraid I'm missing your point here, maybe I need some sleep ;-) --Lysy (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If all sources that claim Poland won the war (not the miraculous battle of Warsaw) are from within Poland, we need to take this conslusion with caution. From what I can see, Tukhachevsky is talking about loss of his offensive and not the war. This reminds me of a soccer game that one team is winning 1:0. Then at the last minute, it turns to 1:1, and there is a psychological effect of defeat of the side that almost won and the triumph of the side that almost lost. Let's just find non-Polish sources that say that PL won the war. Until then, I oppose the current edition which not only changed "inconclusive" to "PL victory" but even doesn't mention "commonly disputed". From what I see in the discussion, the article itself, from the sources quoted (no outside of PL sources that give it victory with Tukhachevsky admitting lost battle but not the war) and from the real facts on the ground, the most logical outcome I see is "Inconclusive (Poland claimed victory)". --Irpen 21:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, Tukhachevsky covers much of the war, not only Battle of Warsaw. He starts with Poles already in Kiev, then covers all the Soviet offensive, until the final defeat. It seems that you don't you want to accept his account as a credible primary source because it does not support your view :-(
For the sake of discussion I should note that it was either you or EugeneK who changed "Polish victory" in the first place, and you should be providing sources to support your version. You provided none and request me to provide sources to support the original version (having references already there) instead. Well ? --Lysy (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I could follow this line of reasoning, but please, show me which non-Polish prmiary/secondary sources claim this inconclusive result? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I only found non-Polish sources that describe the war and don't name the winner. To me, this is synonimous to inconclusive. --Irpen 22:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
How about Norman Davies, "Europe. A History", Oxford University Press, 1996 ?

Could you just quote, what exactly he is saying? --Irpen 23:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but will you consider him as a credible source, regardless of whether you like his version or not ? --Lysy (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This is in response to the Q above and to a remark a couple of paragraphs above that I just "don't you want to accept things that don't support my view". To start with, I don't have much of the "view" on this. Didn't have anyway, since I knew about these events only in general. This article, as well as PL-UA War and Kiev Offensive articles stroke me as one sided just by the way they feel first of all. I didn't and still don't say that they were written by POV pushers. I know some of the article's contributors through other topics well enough to safely assume good faith. It is just written from the Polish perspective and stayed so because knowledgeable RU/UA authors didn't bother to participate.

A couple of edtiors, myslef not a very "knowledgeable" I admit, finally got to it and we got to agreement in several changes. There are two sticking points for now as far as the lead is concerned. "17-th century" issue and the war outcome. Arguing got stuck in a circle or two and we just need to check outside. I do not consider Davies a final authority but he is certainly one of respectable authors. I am interested to see his account. Should I promise to agree not matter what he says? I agree that what he says is important to consider in the outcome of our discussion. What's more that you want me? There is really no need to get into accusation here towards "you and EugeneK". It is no doubt good for the article that we got some of our hands on it as it already evolved towards a version that is acceptable to more parties, hence a more neutral and better version. --Irpen 23:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, and I appreciate your input. I apologize for loosing my temper when I was under impression that you are discarding all, even Russian sources supporting "Polish victory", while not providing anything to support your claims. According to Davies: "Red Army has lost its first war." and "Lenin asked for peace." --Lysy (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin's mood of buoyant optimism

What are the indications that Bosheviks were in “a mood of buoyant optimism” in 1919? Wasn’t this the time when the Whites under general Yudenich were besieging Petrograd , the Whites under Denikin (in 1920 - under Wrangel) were still controlling a piece of Ukraine and the Japanese still were going strong against the Bolsheviks in the Far East? The diplomatic account would point a mood of mortal fear: in 1919 the Bolsheviks expressed a constant willingness to offer concessions and peace treaties to almost anyone, from the White to the Poles. The fact that most of those offers were rejected suggests the Bolsheviks were not viewed as superior contenders at the time. If the statement about “a mood of buoyant optimism” is unsubstantiated, would the author please remove it?

Well, as you know the Soviets always were very peaceful, offered peace to everyone and were even keen to "fight for peace" ;-). In this particular case, Polish intelligence was able to read Soviet ciphered letters and knew that the Lenin's offers were fake, and a larger military offensive against Poland was in preparation at the same time. --Lysy (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just checked Tukhachevsky's lectures and he explained that Bolsheviks were in very favourable condition. He claimed that Denikin and Kolchak were already defeated and that Bolsheviks succeeded to reach peace with Latvia by then. He further concluded that it was an optimal timing from the Soviet perspective, as Bolsheviks were able to relocate almost all of their forces to the west to confront the "White" Poland. --Lysy (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lysy, the information about the peace offers to the warring parties could be found in Britannica. Note that in 1919 two offers of peace (US tried to mediate) to the Whites were refused by the Whites. Since I am not familiar with the original content of Lenin’s letters (I assume that you are and in this case I would take your word for it), I cannot deny that he was happy and optimistic at the time when Petrograd was besieged, etc. As for Denikin, he was at the peak of his offensive on Moscow in October of 1919. Later he was repulsed and resigned, but the army (now under Wrangel) remained a formidable force until its defeat in November of 1920. Lenin’s stated policy, which caused furious debates among the top Bolsheviks, was to go for any concessions that would lead to peace and survival of the nascent Soviet state. That is why the description of Lenin’s mood seems questionable, not to mention that the terms used to describe it are too emotional for a factual historic account. Is it possible that Lenin’s optimism was dated 1920, not 1919?
BTW, to the best of my understanding, Tukhachevsky, who spearheaded the march on Poland, was widely criticized at that time for starting a poorly prepared operation. I wonder whether in his lectures he may have tried to present the situation otherwise in order to defend his name. In regard to most of the Bolshevik troops deployed on the Western front: according to the article, it was only about one third, not to mention that Poles were not the only active Bolshevik adversaries in that region, especially in 1919.--EugeneK 01:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Lenin: while the objective situation might have been difficult, he might have still kept his optimism, there's no contradiction in that. But you are right that Tukhachevsky's account on this concerned 1920 and not 1919. Regarding the "peace offers", they did not mean that Lenin was not secretly preparing a military offensive at the same time. As we know now (and Piłsudski knew then from his cryptographers, reading Soviet messages), this exactly was the case. One would not take such "peace offers" from the Bolsheviks for their face value at that time (and similarly later, when Soviets invaded Poland in 1939 in spite of being bound by an earlier non-aggression pact). As for Tukhachevsky's lectures, he blamed his defeat on poor command and bad preparation, so it does not seem like he was trying to defend his name. Piłsudski on the other hand, attributed Soviet defeat to the lenghts of the distances and the fact that Tukhachevski did not have the resources to supply his fighting on such remote front. --Lysy (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have an impression that Lenin’s words about Poland and Bolshevik bayonets are taken from his inspirational address to the young volunteers marching up to the front (already existent). In this case, it is not surprising that the leader sending his troops into a battle sounds overly excited and optimistic (The speech also promised the total victory of communism in their lifetime), although he understands that the reality is much more precarious and uncertain. I admit that my knowledge of Lenin’s speeches is quite rudimentary, but would it be possible for the person who used the quote in the article to check and reveal to the others what was its original context and date?--EugeneK 03:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone (was it you ?) considered EB here as the ultimate source of knowledge. Here's a quote then: An armed struggle between the Bolsheviks and Poland resulted from Russian attempts to carry the revolution westward and from Pilsudski's federalist policy. --Lysy (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but how does it show the timing and the context of the quoted text? --EugeneK 14:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you consider EB to be credible enough, it should convince you that "carrying the revolution westwards" was the real Russian intention not "liberation" of any nation. Then the quote about the bayonets seems to be perfectly in context. --Lysy (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, if you also agree that, as EB states it, the war started by the Polish march on Kiev. But this has nothing to do with my question. As for the quote, there is context in which it may seem prefect for someone and the context in which it actually appeared. I am sure that, if your veiw is correct and substantiated and the Bolsheviks willingly started the war in mid-1919, you would have no difficulty finding a Lenin's text that inspired the Polish war and would date to 1919. Let's try to stick to historical accuracy, rather than to what seemingly fits better if put in a different context. --EugeneK 17:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't see much of a problem here. Lenin became optimistic AFTER the Whites were defeated. Before this, he haven't seriously considered spreading revolution westward by force. After the White's collapse - from threatening the very existence of the Reds - he became 'buoyantly optimic', convinced to much extent that Red Army was undefeatable, and thus ordered the push westwards 'as far as they could go'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the Whites and other anti-Bolshevik factions were not conclusively defeated when, according to the article, the war started. They remained a formidable force and fought against the Bolsheviks in Ukraine almost all the time during the PSW, at least if you date it the way the article does. The way the article shows gun-happy Lenin inspiring the war in 1919 appears historically inaccurate and misleads the reader. In general, the article would leave a much better impression if it were less judgmental and emotional and more factual.--EugeneK 21:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article's credibility would benefit from sticking to facts more. Any controversial quote would better have its respective citation reference as well. --Lysy (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the outcome of the war: Polish victory? Inconclusive? Discussion

Between Lysy and EugeneK is copied from User talk:EugeneK

You mentioned that Polish victory of Polish-Soviet war is commonly disputed. Would you comment on this ? Thanks. --Lysy (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The dispute about the claim of Polish victory is obvious even from the discussion about the wiki page. Basically, Poland failed to establish a Polish-dominated mega-state in Europe and was repelled from Kiev and most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. However, it was able to garb parts of Ukraine, Lithuania and Byelorussia, as well as to preserve its own independence. Bolsheviks were able to withstand the Polish offensive and preserve their state (remember, the conflict coincided with a civil war and a massive multi-national assault on the Bolshevik regime) and to get control of most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. By the end of the war both countries seemingly expanded their influence at the expense of the tird nations.
Moreover, Polish losses, as mentioned on the page, by far exceeded those of the Bolsheviks, while, probably, not even including the losses of pro-Polish Ukrainians. The claims of moral victory (“little Poland stood up to big Russia”) are also questionable, because the Russia at the time was essentially a non-existent state, tied up in multiple conflicts, with an irregular army (parts of which shifted alliances in battles) led by amateur commanders, and with no regular industry or lines of supplies. It faced an army led by skilled professionals and assisted by major powers of the time. Not surprisingly, Russian communists always portrait the Polish conflict as a great success. Since of the two major warring parties both claimed the victory, the statement that Polish victory is commonly disputed sounds like a simple fact.
PS You are welcome to move the discussion of my comments to my page. This would ensure that I read it in a timely manner.

Firstly, I need to state that my view may be somewhat biased (the Polish way). Anyway, stating that Polish victory in this war is disputed is quite shocking to me. As far as I understand it, the Bolsheviks attacked Poles in the beginning of 1919 but then in the course of war most of their armies were annihilated in the Battle of Warsaw and the remaining two armies retreated. I understand that this may be the question of Russian national pride, but usually the retreating army is the one that was defeated. This war was silently ignored in the official history of Poland in the times when Poland was under Soviet domination after WW2. To me this is clearly the sign the Soviets attempted to hide their defeat. --Lysy (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Similarly to the Polish propaganda, Soviet historians always view the Polish assault into Lithuania, Ukraine and Byelorussia as the beginning of the war, while ignoring the earlier minor skirmishes of Bolsheviks with ethnic Poles (even the original wiki page claims that those were spontaneous and did not include regular units). Soviet historians maintained that their country (the leftovers of the Russian Empire under the Bolshevik rule), which was severely weakened by the civil war and foreign intervention, was attacked by the Polish “capitalists” and nationalists, who crossed the boundaries of their ethnic state and also brought a few puppets of Ukrainian origin with them. The international (not just Russian) Red Army, which included Ukrainians and communist “good” Poles (who were the commanders of that army), drove the “bad” Poles farther west than the original border suggested in the pre-war negotiations. Ukraine and Byelorussia were partially liberated and made independent, but then, with a few other newly independent territories, chose to form a union known as the USSR. The army that retreats after a battle is generally believed to have lost the battle. A country that retreats and looses its territory and wealth may be considered a looser in the war. Both armies have retreated and advanced, at least locally, several times, including a Polish retreat up to its capital (Poles won the battle of Warsaw, not the battle of Moscow or St.Petersburg). Both suffered great losses (although the Polish losses were much greater. In fact, the claim that the Red Army was lost in that war does not add up: both armies started with equal numbers on that front, Russian had huge resources of manpower elsewhere, Poles suffered greater losses – who ended up with more soldiers left?). Both were tired (although the Bolsheviks still retained enough force to re-conquer the bulk of the Russian Empire and repel other invaders). Neither lost territory at the end (although by going for the war Poland lost a chance to get a bigger piece of the contested land). Neither gained fully what it wanted. Neither was willing to pursue the war any further. Isn’t it a classical stalemate, regardless of what any propaganda calls it?

The Soviets hardly considered this war as a separate conflict, but rather a part of the civil war that engulfed the former multinational Russian Empire, of which Poland was only a part. The avoidance of the topic by later Polish communists is very understandable, as the war buried the hopes to form a Greater Poland, and most of the Poles fought against their future communist masters. Similarly silently ignored in the Soviet states were all the successful Russian and Soviet wars that “liberated” many of its neighbors (e.g. Caucasus, the Baltic states) against their will.

I can understand that this conflict, being the last chance for Poland to restore its medieval greatness, is a touchy topic for Poles and a hot topic for Polish propaganda, especially at the time when the relationship with its eastern neighbors are at the all-time low. I also understand that the original article was written by Polish patriots who obviously stressed every Polish success and hushed down every setback. But I would like to reiterate that it is a simple statement of the fact that Polish victory in the war is commonly disputed, at least by the people who are aware of a non-Polish viewpoint.

The statement that only the Russians dispute Polish victory is a very misleading one, and you could easily find non-Russians (including yours truly) who are uneasy about an obviously polo-centric nature of the article. If we are to contribute to an international encyclopedia, we have to maintain some objectivity. Please, reverse the statement to “commonly disputed” or, if you prefer to be more objective “stalemate.”


Talking about non-Russians questioning Polish victory: "Perhaps the result should be described as unconclusive?" is a suggestion apparently added to the discussion by the Polish author of the original page.

Thanks for discussing this with me. I'm not convinced and will probably continue the discussion on Talk:Polish-Soviet War page. I have reverted my edit as you can see. I'm not sure if "unconclusive" is the best way out either. Both Polish and Russian propaganda claimed the victory. It's hard to judge as long as we are not able to determine the initial goals of each side, and I believe these changed in course of the war. Neither side attained the initial objectives (other than officially claimed "selfdefence"), neither was completely defeated. Both were weak and heavily involved at other theatres in the same time. --Lysy (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that this war resulted in a complete defeat of Piłsudski's federalist dreams. However, this was but one of the possible political outcomes of the war. At the same time Poland achieved all of its' strategic goals:
  1. Badly beaten the Reds while they were still weak enough to be beaten
  2. Secured a decent border in the east
  3. Concluded military and diplomatic pacts with almost all notable countries of Europe, France and Romania being the most important at the time, at least from Polish-Russian perspective
  4. Forced the Russians to accept the new border
  5. Forced the Russians to pay huge war indemnities (and they paid all, to the last penny!)
  6. Forced the Russians to return all works of art robbed during their rule over parts of Poland
  7. Even forced the Russians to pay for the economical exploitation of Poland in 19th century.
If that's not a Polish victory, then what was lacking? Nobody in Poland wanted to seize Moscow or establish a White Russian state there, you know? Halibutt 23:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, you are trying to break into a house that's not locked. This is extensively discussed and agreed already. There are more urgent issues to address now at this and related articles, don't you think? --Irpen 23:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Another view: There simply is no one on the Bolshevik side who believed the USSR got anything out of this war. The Commissar of War: Leon Trotsky, OPPOSED the war from the get go, Stalin sabotoged it and the political conditions for a socialist victory at Warsaw were non-existent. The Russians simply don't claim victory.

Secondly, while the Russian *lost* the war, they did prevent further expansion of the "Polish Empire" from becoming a reality. The Poles LOST some of of the Western Ukraine, pleasing Ukranian nationalists to no end, AND pleasing Rakovsky's Soviet gov't in the Ukraine also. Lvov wasn't returned to Ukraine as Ukrainian communists and nationalists had hoped, but wait 19 years and that's that. Regardless of Poland's dreams of empire, the dream died in their victory.

Thirdly, whatever was settled by the 1920 agreement vanished FOREVER in 1945 when the boundries were declared and the USSR kept almost everything it wanted from 1939. In large part the stage was set by the 'victory' of the Polish forces in 1920

--David Walters, December 2, 2006

Dreams of Polish empire? Mr. Walters, have you read the discussion? As you know, Polish negotiators at Riga refused to accept more territories, as you know no political party in Poland dreamt about Polish empire. ND had the plan to acquiring only as much territory, which could be safely polonised - they got something short of their expectations, but they weren't the Polish state. Szopen 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lands that Poland tried to re-conquer – how long and when did they belong to Poland.

The topic of when the Ukrainian lands were under Polish control seems to evoke a controversy and multiple edits. It appears that Kiev and the adjacent areas came under Polish rule in 1569 under the Union of Lublin, were liberated by Ukrainians around 1648, and came under Russian protectorate a decade later. If this topic has to be mentioned in the article at all, would it be appropriate to mention that these territories were controlled by Poland only for a century and were lost in the 17th century?--EugeneK 15:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As for Ukraine, our discussion above shows that it's a matter of POV whether Poland attempted or liberate it or not, depending on whether you'd ask the pro- or anti-Bolshevik Ukrainians. The article lead currently reads:
...a result of attempts by Poland (...) to expand into the territories she had lost control of in the end of 18th century...
This obviously does not concern Ukraine, as Poland did not seek to "expand" into Ukraine at that time but attempted to recreate a friendly (and possibly dependent) Ukrainian country with Petliura nationalists. Mentioning 17th century in the article would suggest that Poland tried to conquer Ukraine, which was not true during Polish-Soviet war. --Lysy (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Yep. It is true Poles wanted what we consider today 'Western Ukraine' (i.e. Lwow territories). But neither Pilsudski nor Dmowski factions wanted Kiev territory. Pilsudski wanted Międzymorze, Dmowski didn't care about Kiev one way or another - and during the Riga negotiations, it was Dmowski who controlled the Polish negotiators. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity: It obviously was not "Western Ukraine" that Poland lost in 17th century but Eastern. That's why the lead section does not mention territories lost by Poland in 17th century, but end of 18th century only. Otherwise it would be confusing. --Lysy (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn’t Międzymorze a Polish idea of the USSR (a Polish-dominated union of quasi-independent states)? To say that Poles wanted an independent Ukraine within the Międzymorze, is the same as to say that Soviet Russia wanted an independent Soviet Ukraine within the USSR. Isn’t it fair to say that Poland tried to extend its influence over (if not legally incorporate) Eastern Ukraine by installing a puppet government in Kiev?
--EugeneK 19:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it was Piłsudski's idea of Eastern-European federation. I don't think he assumed any Polish domination there. This said, I'm sure he hoped Poland would have much bigger influence upon independent Ukraine under Petliura than Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, I know of no plans to incorporate Eastern Ukraine into Poland in 1920. On the contrary, Poland promised the Ukrainian People's Republic the military help against the Red Army in exchange for the recognition of Polish-Ukrainian border on Zbrucz River. The shameful fact is that Ukrainians were later betrayed by Poles, who let the Eastern Ukraine fall into Soviet hands in March 1921. --Lysy (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Re what Pilsudski (sorry, I have no diatrics in my kb) "assumed", his infamous quote is revealing. Translated back fro RU/UA (I haven't seen it in EN) it says, "An independent Poland first of all, and then we'll see which one"[3]. Maybe "in what borders" is a more exact translation, but the meaning is here. It is somewhat less quoted than his famous "Without independent Urkaine there is no indpependent Poland".

The view of modern Ukrainian historiography (see sources I added to the article) is that Pilsudski made an allialnce with the by-Dnieper Ukrainians, represented by Petlyura, first of all to have a free hand in brutalizing the Western Ukraine. He held his troops from attacking the Soviet Russia when Bolsheviks were in their hardest times, because he had reasons to believe that if White movement wins, it would be worse for Poland. He may have initially wanted only the Western UA for the PL proper, and the rest in some federated PL dominated state. As Eugene pointed out, we just don't know how that would differ from RU dominated SU. The fact is that he conquered Kiev which was held by Poland not in 18th but in 17th century. As the Russian saying goes, the appetite kicks in while one eats. Similarly, Bolsheviks may have got to thinking of the "Soviet Poland" once they rided there in an unexpected success. So, the 17th century certainly applies to the time of Polish control of the land PL wanted to dominate (directly or via (con)federation and we have no clue how puppet the Kiev gov would have to be to be satisfactory). This above are just speculations, I admit. But we can do nothing else in "what if" situation. Poland's expanding to beyond 18th century is a fact on the ground.

In the source I added one can find an observation of one of participants of Rydz-Smigly "victorious parade of liberators" in Kiev. This observant saw this as a huge political mistake: "Ukrainian people who saw in their capital an allien general with a Polish army... didn't see that as a liberation but as a new variety of occupation...". --Irpen 21:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

He did transfer the control of Kiev to Peltura, I believe. I plan to do some serious research on Miedzymorze in the coming years. Since it never happened, we can never be certain how it would look like, but it would definetly be better to Ukraine then the Soviet dominations (how many millions of Ukrainians died from hunger in Soviet Union, for example)? I know that the situation in Poland, especially in 1930s, was far from perfect for Ukrainians, but do keep it mind it was because the Dmowski faction controlled much of the government, and after PSW the ideals of Miedzymorze were forgotten. From what I read so far, if Miedzymorze was created, it was supposed to be something between a miltary alliance (like NATO) and a political union (like EU), whith each country having its own elected government, but closely allied in terms of military and economy. And, obviously, Pilsudski did envision Poland playing a leading role in Miedzymorze. But whether it would be like US in NATO or Soviet Union in the Warsaw Pact - we will never know. I'd like to believe it would be the former but this is just my POV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
As to the idea of Międzymorze, which seems to be largely misunderstood here - it is highly doubtful Piłsudski wanted to create it as a sort of an unitary state. After all the first state to be asked about such an alliance was Finland, which was hardly conquerable or controllable for Poland back then. As to the alliance with Petlura - Piłsudski would might want to swallow his piece of cake after the war, but this is a mere speculation. On the contrary, the fact is that a free Ukrainian buffer state, strong enough to be a decent ally, was what Piłsudski had in mind when he signed an alliance with - badly beaten and expulsed from his territory - Petlura. He diverted much of his forces from the north, where the major battle was soon to take place, to give the Ukrainians a chance to establish their own army and defend their territory, while Polish forces could move freely to the north. Such a friendly stance towards the Ukrainians was a major problem for the Polish logistics at the moment (many sources quoted by Wyszczelski - see the bibliography - support that). The orders from above forbidden the Poles to gather food or supplies in the Ukraine and all had to be transported from Poland. Also, the Polish forces were forbidden to conscript people in the conquered territories and all were to be joined with the Ukrainian units - even the numerous volunteers from the Polish diaspora living in Kiev itself. Finally, there was no Polish military nor civilian authority created in the area and all authority was immediately passed to the Ukrainians so as not to create an impression of a foreign occupation.
Of course, after several years of constant warfare on their territory and soon before the harvest time, the Ukrainians were not exactly keen on joining yet another Ukrainian army, which is why the conscription to Petlura's army mostly failed, but this is a completely different story. Anyway, all in all the Polish units in Ukraine were not occupants. There is even one memoir quoted by Wyszczelski, in which one of the Polish officers recalls an order forbidding the Polish units to hoist the Polish flag above the trenches not to hurt the Ukrainian feelings. Piłsudski was really careful as he knew the price perfectly well... Halibutt 23:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Another note: By order of Rydz-Śmigły, all Polish units were withdrawn from the city of Kiev and the garrison duty was carried out by the Ukrainian 6th division only. (source: original order quoted in Tadeusz Kutrzeba (1937 (underground reprints in 1988 and 1989)). Wyprawa kijowska 1920 roku. Warsaw, Gebethner i Wolff. ). Halibutt 00:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Any Polish claim upon Rus territory is automatically worthless. Today's Byelorussia and much of Ukraine along with European Russia composed Kievan Rus which was the first Russian state,lasting from 880 to 1240. The Mongols unleashed aggression upon the Rus lands while the Lithuanian barbarians conducted a ruthless policy of expansion into Rus lands. The merger of Lithuania and Poland resulted in the diminished sovereignty of the former. The Polish gentlemen proceeded to mericlessly exploit the Rus serfs, provoking insurrection by the hero Khmelnitsky. Russia proceeded to liberate Rus territory after 1634. In the so-called "Polish Partitions", Russia had in fact taken back land which had been stolen by the Lithuanians 400 years earlier. Byelorussia and the right bank of Ukraine were freed from the Polish-Lithuanian yoke.

[edit] Breaking the circles in arguing

I carefully reread all the arguing above (it was not easy, had to use history+compare time after time since it got chronologically/spatially split widely) and I figure we should just conclude since no new points are being brought up for a while. I would still like to see the entire context of Davies' conclusion but, generally, we have enough sources to say that the outcome was a "Minor Polish victory". I will change the article as such. Please add a footnote, as Piotrus suggested (I just don't know how to do it), since this is not universally agreed outcome.

On the second issue (lost in the 18th or 17th-18th century) I still disagree with current situation of 18th century only being mentioned. In the course of the war Poland did conquer Kiev (it's 17th century possession) and we cannot say how would the history turn further should the Poles managed to stay or install Petlyura there. We know what Pisludski said and even his own statements changed from one occasion to another. We have no way to know how overwhelming the Polish domination in Federation would be. Polish rule in Volhynia was pretty harsh. This is somewhat different, since PL viewed this as part of Poland and not federation but still indicative. Anyway, this is all hypothetical.

Conquest of Kiev and a pompous victorious parade of Rydz-Smigly is a real fact on the ground. As a compromise between "lost in the end of the 18th century" and "lost control of in the 17th and 18th centuries", I will use "lost in the end of the 18th century or earlier". I would like to thank everyone for the discussion that was interesting so far and will continue, no doubt. Regards, --Irpen 04:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Irpen. While I'm not 100% happy with the proposed compromise, I believe that's what makes it a compromise, after all. I appreciate our (EugeneK, Irpen, Piotrus) discussion here, respect your POV and thank you for respecting mine. As always, I found it quite educative for myself, esp. regarding the situation in Ukraine in 1920. I've also found some more sources in the meantime, that I'll research as time allows. As for the Tukhachevsky and Davies opinions I gave, I sincerely tried to quote them without any biased intentions, that is I did not select only these sentences that support Polish victory, and ignored the ones that would support Soviet victory. I also did not cite Piłsudski's book that I have at hand, as I don't expect you'd consider it a neutral source. --Lysy (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
For footnotes use, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. It's quite a useful tool. Update: I had troubles adding the footnote to the warbox, so I added it to a lead. If you want to add footnote to the warbox, it is possible we need to use an older version of footnotes formatting (without {{}} brackets, its all described in the above link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
As to the 18th century controversy - I doubt it should be a real problem here. We might speculate what would've happened in Ukraine if it succeeded and whether Piłsudski would keep his alliances with Petlura or not. However, this would be a mere speculation and a huge POV. Unless you post some facts that would clearly prove otherwise, I believe we should stick to what actually happened and not to what might've happened. And the fact is that the Poles did not occupy Kiev - the authority over captured Ukrainian areas was immediately passed to Petlura's Ukrainians (see my comments in the talk page of the article on the Kiev Offensive). Halibutt 23:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
And after the Bolshevik occupation the authority was transferred to the truly independent Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. And everyone believes that this republic was not a puppet of Moscow, just like Petlura was not a Polish puppet… We both are kidding, aren’t we?--EugeneK 03:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If you believe that the Ukrainian authorities were not independent, then you'd have to prove it I'm afraid. Halibutt 08:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Ukraine was a place of a genocide. I doubt very much that even the worst Polish government were able to do the same. Ukrainian leader would have been a partner for Poland. Ukrainians were divided and lost millions citizens 1930-1950. Xx236 13:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Kiev and Volodarka (or even Wolodarka)

I would like to draw the attention of the editors who participated in the discussion above to Kiev Offensive and Battle of Wolodarka articles. They are even more problematic and we need more of reasonable editors to discuss it over to make discussions at talk productive. I left my opinions there already. Thank you. --Irpen 17:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Żłobin

I doubt that Polish name of an Ukrainian place was correct in an English text. Xx236 14:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the Ukrainian name of Żłobin ? --Lysy (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Zhlobin perhaps? Halibutt 14:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI: unless I am wrong, ZHlobin is in Belarus. My pleas to cite Davies' usage made many months ago remain unanswered. Other Ukrainian/Russian names are: Fastiv/Fastov, Vasylkiv/Vasilkov, Volodarka/Volodarka, etc. I am not saying which ones to use. I am saying check non-Polish literature (White Eagle, Red Star by Davies). I was promissed that it would be looked up and I am still waiting. --Irpen 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Lysy, I found some refs about PUW, I will discuss them separately. Irpen

[edit] Map

There is a problem with all general maps (region of Upper Silesia). It state Katowice in 1919 while it should be KATTOWITZ. Katowice and part of Upper Silesia became part of Poland as SILESIAN AUTHONOMY in 1922!!!


There is a problem with the map of August - Wilno was a part of Lithuania after passing it by Soviets in July (12.) this map doesn't include it.

Yes and no. The treaty of July 12 indeed passed the sovereignty over the area to Lithuania, but in reality it was not until their defeat in the battle of Warsaw that the Soviets indeed started to withdraw from the area and allowed Lithuanian units to enter it. As the map shows front lines rather than political or historical borders, I decided to represent the actual state of affairs and not the one postulated by the treaty. Halibutt 13:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But is should be at least indicated that that area wa rather under Lithuanian than Polish control (the political border is stiil included in the map but - according to status quo - it is wrong). I know that nowadays most of 1919-1922 maps prefer to "give" Wilno to Poland but it is not fully correct. So please - at least somehow mention that theoretically Wilno was a part of Lithuania in August 1920.

But it was not under Lithuanian control at the time. Or rather, to be precise, some parts were and some weren't. The post-war borders are marked for comparison only - and it is clearly stated at the image page. As to the legal control over the area, the Bolsheviks "gave" it to Lithuania on the basis that the Bolshevist Russia was successor to Imperial Russia which was seen by them as the owner of the area. At the same time Poland was "given" the area by the Ober-Ost Germans who received it from Imperial Russia in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. So, both positions were equally strong in terms of international law, with the exception that Imperial Russia had previously ceded the area to Germany and lost all rights to it. And only then did it re-claim the rights to it and ceded it again, this time to Lithuania. If you know a way to replace the entire article on Central Lithuania by a single map then please be so kind as to let me know. Halibutt 18:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see UR point but I still claim that the control of that area was more "Lithuanian" then "Polish". At that time of course. I understand that "Lithuanian" in that case means rather "Soviet" but it is still not Polish. Depending only on International Law isn't a good idea - then e.g. the day the war began should be different etc. I feel that this problem is too complicated to show it using single map ...

[edit] Irpen's edit

Recently Irpen significantly reworded one of the parts of this article. Instead of adding {{dubious}} or {{fact}} tags all over the text, I decided to paste it here for discussion:

Original version: Polish politicians found it hard to accept Lithuanians demand for a complete independence and their territorial demands, especially on ceding the city of Wilno, Lithuanian historical capital which had nonetheless a Polish ethnic majority. Polish negotiators made progress in negotiations with the Latvian Provisional Government, and in early 1920 Polish and Latvian forces were conducting some joint operations against the Bolsheviks. The main Polish success lay in signing a military alliance with the Ukrainian People's Republic of Symon Petliura. Petliura had, after his government's defeat by the Bolsheviks, found asylum in Poland and now headed a new Ukrainian Army. The Polish-Ukrainian War ended around July 1919 and from September both Polish and Ukrainians loyal to Petliura fought together.
Irpen's version: Poland refused to accept the Lithuanians demand for independence and their territorial demands, especially for the city of Wilno, Lithuanian historical capital which had at the time a Polish ethnic majority. Polish negotiators made progress in negotiations with the Latvian Provisional Government, and in early 1920 Polish and Latvian forces were conducting some joint operations against the Bolsheviks. The Poles could claim a success in signing a military alliance with the exiled Ukrainian government of Symon Petliura, who ended up in the Polish exile after the multiple military defeats, from the Bolshevik forces in central Ukraine and from the Polish army who succeeded in gaining control of the largely ethnically Ukrainian territories in Volhynia and Galicia. In exchange for the recognition of Polish territorial gains with the border along the Zbruch river, Petliura was promised the military help in regaining the control of Kiev for his government that was supposed to join the Polish-dominated Międzymorze Federation. However, Ukrainian forces loyal to Petliura that fought in the war in alliance with the Polish army never exceeded two divisions.

---


  1. Poland not only did not refuse to accept the Lithuanian demands for a complete independence, but also recognized Lithuania as an independent state. One should distinguish between a territorial dispute and a state conflict. As early as in 1918 the existence of independent Lithuania was recognized by Poland.
  2. The city of Wilno did not have the Polish majority "at that time". It used to have a Polish majority both before and after that time; I fail to see why should we use such terms.
  3. The Poles could claim a success - well, in fact they achieved a success as the alliance in fact was signed. Again, I don't understand what was wrong with the original wording.
  4. the suggestion that Petliura was in part defeated by the Poles is factually wrong. Poles fought against the Western Ukrainian Republic, but not against the Hetmanate or the Directoriate (that is the Kiev Ukraine). In fact, one of the reasons why the two Ukraines never fully merged was that Kiev was seeking ties with Poland even before Petliura rose to power. And the Poles respected the rights of Kiev to the lands across Zbruch even before the alliance was signed. All in all, there were no fights between Poland and Petliura.
  5. whether Międzymorze was to be Polish-dominated or not is highly dubious (as can be seen at Talk:Międzymorze, for instance
  6. the size of Ukrainian units is also inaccurate. Prior to the Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine, the forces of Ukrainian People's Republic had 12 weak divisions at their disposal (numbered 1 through 12), as well as several independent brigades and regiments. After the reorganization during the Kiev Offensive Petliura had 5 divisions and a cavalry brigade. However, all of the divisions were in fact severely understrength by Polish standards (but not Russian!) and, combined, did not exceed the strength of roughly 2 fresh Polish divisions - or 3 average infantry divisions. However, stating arbitrarily that he had exactly two divisions is misleading.

Halibutt 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 4), I think we concluded that Miedzymorze would probably be Poland-dominated in the same sence that today's EU is German and French dominated, not in the sense that the Warsaw Pact was Soviet-dominated. As Miedzymorze was never implemented and our dispute there was never finished, I think we should avoid using it as an example until we now more. As for 5), I'd love to see this information about Peltura's military strenght and different division sizes added to main text - it's quite relevant and important.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
While Irpen's view was discredited here, he decided to move his allegations to Polonophobia article where he started writing on Polish attempts to force Ukraine to become a puppet state and gain its territory.[4] --Molobo 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I simply haven't replied yet. Unlike you, my opponents here gave some reasonable objections and I am writing an equally elaborate response and considering what to take into account. While you mostly just scream, other people do discuss things. --Irpen 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC) other people do discuss things. Or delete other people's posts. --Molobo 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This was a TOTAL POLISH VICTORY

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a nutjob commie!

The communists LOST and lost badly! (Romanyankee78 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

This was indeed a Polish victory, but far from being a total one. Militarily Poland got all it could hope for and even more. However, politically the peace of Riga was far from being one-sided. In fact both Polish nationalists and Russian commies cooperated during the Riga talks against Piłsudski's vision, which resulted in making his plans for stability and security in Central Europe obsolete. So, militarily it was a striking Polish victory and a disaster for Lenin. However, politically the Polish victory was much more bitter than one might think. Halibutt 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, could you, or some other world-renown cartographer, produce the map of the area for January 1919, indicating who controlled what? As this has been an issue before, you may mark differently de jure and de facto boundaries. I understand that at that time there were Reds, Whites (more than one faction?), Greens, non-Bolshevik Ukrainians (more than one faction?), Bolsheviks, Byelorussians (was there a separate pro-independence force?), Entante, and various Baltic faction. I could imagine that Romanians and Germans could be there too. We will then see the factions whose holdings increased by April 1921 and proclaim them winners, and those that lost ground- losers. Once and for all. This would ease up the question of winners and losers, which causes the constant debate on this page. Any non-believer then could be peacefully re-directed to the sources of your map. If possible, the references may include the names of the treaties (BTW, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not involve Imperial Russia; it was signed by the Bolsheviks and nullified by the terms of German surrender in WWI). I realize that it will take a heroic effort, but you have done similar things before, and you keep on putting quite a bit of effort in the never-ending discussions on this page anyway.--EugeneK 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In Bruce Lincoln's "Red Victory: A History of Russian Civil War",(already cited in the article) in the conclusion of the relevant chapter "Give Us Warsaw!" he first quotes Pilsudski praising Polish troops at the end of the war for having successfully defended an independent Poland and contrasts this with a quote from Lenin who says "We have won ... Anyone who examines the map will see that we have won, that we have emerged from this war with more territory then when we have started." He then goes on to offer his own opinion of the outcome: “In fact both sides could claim victory in the armistice of October 1920 and the peace (at Riga) in March”. Judging who won by territorial changes is also not conclusive. For one, it depends on when one believes the war started (Lincoln argues it was at Bereza Kartuska in Feb 1919, 15 months prior to the Kiev offensive, as it’s in the article now). Also the final border was 100 miles east of the Curzon line established by the allies but 50 miles west of the boundary proposed by the Soviets during failed peace talks in April. The peace also allowed the Bolsheviks to focus on whoopin’ Wrangel, but then again, I don’t think Pilsudski ever wanted Wrangel to win. Something like "disputed Polish victory" or "both sides claimed victory" while sort of ugly verbally is probably most accurate. And I'm pretty damn far from being a commie, and hopefuly a nutjob as well.radek 07:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you deny that this was anything but a POLISH VICTORY then you must be a nutjob! The treaty favored them and that it was THEY who were forced to come to terms with poland! Just citing some obscure book is not good enough. Lenin saying they "gained more land" is meaningless. It is a mute point. the poles ran the soviets back to russia, then got a favorable peace. It says from a book I have "The treaty of Riga granted Poland much of what Pilsudski had orignally envisioned for his nation" 100 Decisive Battles. It seems to me there are a lot of people in denial for the commies here and on other boards in which they lost Romanyankee (68.227.211.175 01:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Ah, such passion :) As far as Lenin goes, he may have tried to paint a rosy picture in his public statements, but in his secret report to the IXth Conference of the Bolshevik Party on September 20, 1920, he called the outcome of the war "In a word, a gigantic, unheard-of defeat" (see The Unknown Lenin, ed. Richard Pipes, Yale University Press, ISBN 0300069197 Document 59, p.106). Ahasuerus 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You bet. the soviets sued for peace. In the civil war the south sued for peace and then got a favorable outcome, but it is common sense that the north won. Same thing here. Romanyankee(24.75.194.50 13:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Almost, but not a total one. The Poles failed to keep Kyiv. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blonde Knight of Teuton (talk • contribs) 26 August 2006.

Total enough RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Americans in PBW

Hi all. I noticed an anon adding some fancy info here. At first I thought it's a vandalism, but even if it is - there is a grain of truth in it. Indeed the Bolshevik weapons supply was low and indeed there were lots of Polish Americans (as well as some 200 Americans) serving with the Polish Army. However, is the 20,000 figure reliable? Seems way too much... Halibutt 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A reference is needed. There certainly some American volunteers (Kościuszko Squadron comes to mind), but 20,000? The rifle production figures also need a reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilno - not Polish or Lithuanian?

I reverted anon contribs (below). Source is needed before they are moved back to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it seems as if Wilno/Vilnius was neither Polish onr Lithuanian but that the majority of inhabitants at this time were Jews and Belarussians. One of the many ironies of conflicts in inter-war Europe.

[edit] 20,000 Americans took part!

Which means the USA had a hand in beating the pinko's Romanyankee(24.75.194.50 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Your point being? And please, cite your sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that they had a hand in defeating the pinko's. And it is this source or did you read the article? Romanyankee (68.227.211.175 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

The "20,000 Americans" figure is usually the one given for TOTAL American troops involved in the Russian Civil War (not counting volunteers such as Kosciuszko Legion). But most of these were in Vladivostok and some under British command in North Russia. Few, if any of these were anywhere near this conflict.radek 21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, There were not 20k americans there. 5k in north russian and another 5k in vladivostok. The air legion and probably a good number of polish-americans fought here. There were token forces in the civil war and rarely fought the soviets. They were they to protect the ports and reestablish the eastern front. If anything they fought more often in this conflict

yankeeroman(24.75.194.50 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] End of the war

The information under the heading “End of the war” is questionable. Apparently, some negotiations were going on as early as March. The talks in Riga started in the middle of September. That is when the Soviet offers were announced. Obviously, they were not inspired by the October advances of the Polish army. Would someone care to re-write the paragraph? --EugeneK 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you quote to which March negotiations you refer, and what Soviet offer were annouced there? Some negotiations were going through the entire war, but the Riga negotiations were most definetly inspired by Mircale at Vistula and ensuing Polish victories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The earliest Soviet offer, according to the Russian-language source that I found in this page (Mikhail Mel'tiuhov; hard-to-read, but full of references)is, in fact, dated February 1919. Many other offers and counter-offers are discussed in the same source, but this is not the point. There are no doubts that the talks in Riga were inspired by the “Miracle”. However, the article claims that the Soviets asked for negotiations after the October (!) successes of the Polish army. This could not be true, since the talks started in September. --EugeneK 04:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You are reffering tho the part: 'After the mid-October... Bolsheviks sued for peace', right? We could indeed use further clarification, as there is no doubht that 1) negoatiations in Riga were going since September 2) fighting did not stopped till mid-October. It is entirely possible that it was only in mid-October that Soviets in Riga sued for peace, and before that the negotiations were not going so well. We could use more references regarding the Peace of Riga - but that discussion may be better continued at that article's talk page (Talk:Peace of Riga).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In Riga in September the Soviets made two offers: on September 21st and 28th. Poles made a counteroffer on the 2nd of October. On the 5th the Soviets offered amendments to the Polish offer. Poland accepted. The armistice between Poland on one side and Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Russia on the other was signed on the 12th and went into effect on the 18th of October. From Mel'tiuhov. --EugeneK 06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Great - I was looking for those details on Google Print but couldn't find anything so specific by now, and I am getting sleepy. Could you append the relevant articles with the above info and reference? Tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Tnx. Could you add the references too?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I have mentioned the reference in this talk, and this book is already mentioned and linked to on the page. If you find it necessary, please insert the link properly, as I am not good at formatting. You have resurrected the phrase that the September talks were inspired by October battles. The sequence of months in traditionally accepted calendar is September – October. Unless you have evidence that this was not the case in 1921, please do not resurrect the erroneous phrase. BTW, you have mentioned earlier that you do understand my point and encouraged me to make the edit. If you feel that a particular military encounter has to be mentioned, please find an adequate context for it. Thanks.--EugeneK 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Eugene, I am not suggesting that the Riga negotiations were started after the October advances, but there is no denying the fact that Polish army advanced through September into October, and that this likely had impact on the Soviet negotiators. The phrase is correct, although if you want to make it clear pleae improve it - I honestly don't see what's wrong with it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A nice suprise

With the article to be main paged in a few days, I finally went to the library to fulfiil Irpen's request about checking Davies PSW book. To my considerable suprise I found that University of Pittsburgh Hillam Library has more then two shelves stacked with books related to the PSW, Polish and English (and Russian, but I can't even read their titles :( ). All of them are withing few meters of a Int-comp workstation, and the library is 25 minutes from my place :) Anyway, here is a list of publications that I can easily access (forgive me for the lack of Polish letters):

English
  • Norman Davies, Lloyd George and Poland, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, 2000, ISBN 837017924X
  • Norman Davies, White Eagle, Red Star, St. Martin Press, 1972, no isbn?
  • Thomas C. Fiddick, Russia's Retreat from Poland, 1920, Macmillian Press, 1990, ISBN 033351940X
  • Michael Palij, The Ukrainian-Polish Defesnive Alliance, 1919-1921, University of Toronto, 1995, ISBN 1895571057
Polish
  • Marian Kukiel, Moja wojaczka na Ukrainie. Wiosna 1920, Wojskowy Instytut Historyczny, 1995, ISBN 8385621741
  • Tomasz Jan Kopanski, 16 (39-a) Eskadra Wywiadowcza 1919-1920', Wojskowy Instytut Historyczny, 1994, ISBN 8390173352\
  • Tadeusz Kawalec, Historia IV-ej Dywizji Strzelcow Generala Zeligowskiego w zarysie, Gryf, 1993, ISBN 8385209245
  • Mieczyslaw Pruszynski, Dramat Pilsudskiego: Wojna 1920, Polska Oficyna Wydawnicza BGW, 1995, ISBN 8370665608
  • Grzegorz Lukowski, Walka Rzeczpospolitej o kresy polnocno-wschodnie, 1918-1920. Polityka i dzialania militarne., Wydawnictwo Naukowe Universytetu Adama Mickiewicza, Poznan, 1994, ISBN 8323206147
  • Grzegorz Lukowmski, Rafal E, Stolarski, Walka o Wilno. Z dziejow Samoobrony Litwy i Bialorusi, 1918-1919, Adiutor, 1994, ISBN 8390008505
  • Antoni Czubinski, Walka o granice wschodnie polski w latach 1918-1921, Instytut Slaski w Opolu, Opole, 1993, no isbn?
  • Marian Marek Drozdowski (ed.), Miedzynarodowe aspekty wojny polsko-bolszewickiej, 1919-1920. Antologia tekstow historycznych., Instytut Historii PAN, 1996, ISBN 8386417218
  • Grzegorz Golegiewski, Obrona Plocka przed bolszewikami, 18-19 sierpnia 1920 r.', NOVUM, 2004, ISBN 8389416433
  • Janusz Szczepanski, Wojna 1920 na Mazowszu i Podlasiu, Gryf, 1995, ISBN 8386643307
  • Janusz Odziemkowski, Leksykon Wojny Polsko-Rosyjskiej 1919-1920, Rytm, 2004, ISBN 8373990968
  • Stanislaw Alexandrowicz, Zbigniew Karpus, Waldemar Rezmer, Zwyciezcy za drutami. Jency polscy w niewoli (1919-1922), Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, 1995,ISBN 8723106274
  • Stanislaw Rozstworowski, Listy z wojny polsko-bolszewickiej, Adiutor, 1995, ISBN 8386100117

The above list is only of publications that seemed to me directly related to the PSW. I skipped over publications about the Polish-Ukrainian War, aspects of Second Polish Republic and virtually anything that didn't have a title clealry indicating its connection to the PSW. You can browse the library catalogu here. If like me to check any of these publication, let me know!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main page pic

We have so many nice PD paintings, why are we using this black and white phote with nothing much on it? Which other picture would you like to see used instead?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to use a real-life picture over a painting. Raul654 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Besides, using this painting to illustrate the entire article is POV since it shows the victorious Poles kicking the Russian asses. In some cases such images are appropriate, for instance when they briefly and precisley summarize the war and reflect the moment that no doubt took place (like the Red flag over the Reichstag). This one was clearly drawn to inspire the patriotic feelings in Poland. While useful in the school textbooks, I doubt it is equally useful in Wikipedia. --Irpen 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There are quite a few other paintings besides Warsaw one to chose from.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wolodarka image then? I wonder whether this "battle" exists as a separate significant event of the war outside of the Wikipedia coverage. BTW, what is its outcome per WERS? --Irpen 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find V/Wolodarka in index. Can you give me the approximate location in book where I can check it for you? The picture is quite nice, I think much nicer then the photo.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That you didn't find it, I am not surprized. I doubt that picture reflects anything that actually took place. --Irpen 03:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh? The article has quite a few references, if not inline. Are you suggesting it is a fictional battle?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that that whatever skirmish took place there doesn't qualify to call it a "battle" similarly to not having separate articles for every house of Stalingrad. Such articles could exist, but they should not be called "battles" and listed in campaignboxes where they create clutter. I've seen many books on this war (read fully only one unfortunately) and didn't find Volodarka in any of them at all. I am not saying the references there lie. I simply question the interpetation and the presentation of these events in Wikipedia. And the outcome, when Wikipedians derive it on their own. As for the "occupation" term, it is crystal clear that by the end of PUW, the land was occupied by Poland and at the height of Kiev offensive, half of Ukraine was occupied as well. I took your objection as beeing specifically to using the word in the lead. I could see that and accepted, but since you opposed to using less strong word in other articles, the factual occupation belongs back to where it was as well. --Irpen 03:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we need some way to introduce order into campaignboxes; it is inevitable that as Wiki expands we get more and more articles about small battes. I made a few comments about this at the talk of PSC, in summary, I suggested dividing PSC into several theaters and listing battles under them. If each theater would have its own article, then more minor battle can be listed in the camapignbox specific to the theater, and we can continue this until we reach the last notable house is Stalingrad :) I completly suggest using inline references for all outcomes (and for every single fact, if possible). As for occupation, as I expalaine on your talk page, I could accept the o. word in lead if it is used both for Polish and Soviet occupation of Ukraine. And given that this lead is already quite long I'd prefer to avoid anything that would require explanations like the fact that territories around Lwów had mixed populations, with x% in rural, y% in city, with faction a supporting Poles, faction b being neutral, faction c being pro-Soviet, etc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, by the end of the PUW, there was clearly one occupying side in Western UA. At the height of the Kiev Offensive, there was also one occupying side all the way to the Dnieper.

Are you suggesting that the Soviets were not occupying anything??--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I accepted the removal of what you perceive as a strong word from the lead and I went ahead and did a similar change in two other articles. Nowhere the clarity was affected and nowhere it implied any whitewashing. However, I was reverted by you three times. Instead of forcing you into keeping the word there by restoring it (you wouldn't be allowed to revert for the forth time), I choose to restore the consistency and left the other articles your way. The brevity of the style of the lead is important, I agree. It's not my approach to take on an article, alter the lead POVing it and leave. You can see that I edited many places in the article in accordance with sources and other articles we have. Maybe the lead needs rewriting. I don't mind that. However, when we say that Pilsudsky "envisioned" smth, we should clearly say what it was. The lead did describe his "visions" and I simply added what's highly relevant. You then forced Lenin's "vision" "for the balance". I did not interfere.

First, I'd have think that it was you who'd break the 3RR first by introducing your new version for the fourth time. Technicalities aside, I didn't appreciate your comments in edit summaries of either of those articles that if your changes are reverted you are going back to insert your POV in this article. Finally, I believe I explained my reasoning for my opposition to your changes on your talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me who insisted on the Pilsudski's vision there at the first place. I simply brought it in agreement with reality. Same applies to the Polish position towards Ukrainian lands it forced under its control. The right term should be used when we speak about if at all. If strong terms are not right for the intros, fine with me and please don't revert me in other articles. If, however, you do use the strong term in intros, please don't insist on their selective usage. If you insist on "balancing" it with the Soviet position in the lead, fine with me as well. Rewrite it. More later, --Irpen 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All should be balanced. I don't insist on Piłsudski's vision there, but if it is, it should be balanced by Lenin's. Although I am still not happy with this, becaus Dmowski is also important, and possibly others, which would bloat the lead even further. As for the Ukraine, you again force the lead to bloat on a topic which is more relevant in the article about Polish-Ukrainian War, but for this war can is minor and sufficiently described in prelude. If you insist on saying that Poles occupied parts of Ukraine, then you are creating a false impression, as this 'occupation' has to be understood in the right context: 1) many of the disputed areas had Polish majority in cities like Lwów 2) while Poles were fighting with Ukrainians, so were the Soviets, and Petlura, who signed an alliance with Poland and agreed on the borders, had much greater legitimacy and independence (stemming from the elections) then the puppet state of Soviet Ukraine 3) Soviets were also occupying parts of Ukraine, and unlike Poles they had no intentions of transfering any parts of it to any government with whatsoever semblance of independence. This all needs to be explained before the sentence 'Poles occupied parts of Ukraine' is sufficiently put in the context. Without that, a POVed impression is created that Poles were the 'bad guys' and Soviets were the 'good guys' (or at least not as bad, as they didn't occupy anything), recreating the myth that it was the Poles, especially with their Kiev Offensive, who started the war (as they occupied some territories and wante to expand their borders and whatever), and Russians (whose intentions or territories I don't see you elaborating upon) did nothing but just defended themselves.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I do know that this article took a huge amount of work to write and I took a modest part on it. Perhaps, Wikipedia isn't ready yet for the articles on such huge and controversial events on the mainpage. Proposals of modifying the editability and exposure of the recent edits (as well as preservation of peer-reviewed versions) are frequantly brought up. Nothing came out yet. But at least we should try to do our best with the current system. My editing to this article is nothing but that and I believe the Piotrus' are as well. It simply may not be enough. --Irpen 04:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
As I believe I have told you before, the passing through a FAC process is equal to community accepting that an article can apprear on the front page (I believe the Wikipedia article being the sole exception so far). If you feel that the article was not ready you had ample time to use the FAReview or FARC processes, or to edit the article before it appeared on the front page, especially as the information about the date it appeared there was available for weeks. Waiting for the main page day and introducing controversial edits into the article, especially lead (which as sandobx will show took weeks to work out, including a period the article was protected while the lead was constructed in talk, painstakingly, word after a word) is not the best way to deal with the problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox picture

Moving back to the pic issue, how about the map I moved to the infobox? A neutral and more informative map of the conflict is much more informative to the reader than the painting whose artistic value as well as neutrality may or may not be debated. --Irpen 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, no. Maps are *THE WORST* images to use on the main page. (In order from best to worst, the list goes something like: real life pictures, paintaings/lithographs, flags, and maps). Raul654 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree but if you feel so strong, so be it. That's the least important issue of the article. --Irpen 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

When shrunk to 100 pixels wide, a map isn't much more than a blob of color, that's why it's basically useless as a main page picture. Raul654 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I did not like the way you single-handedly shuffled the images in the article and I've restored the previous layout. Please try to discuss it first and let's do it one-by-one. Particularly the map you put into the infobox made not much sense, as it does not illustrate the war. --Lysytalk 07:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as the previous image was not readded anywhere. For the above reasons I have restored the old scheme of images which has worked through FAC and ever since.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I initially readded the painting to the proper section, see this before making baseless accusations. Lysy reverted me.[5] The propaganda painting you insist on being in the infobox carrys so little info and truth that I render it almost offensive there. But fine. If nationalist work of art is what you prefer in the infoboxes, please be consistent with your preferences. I will replace a map with an image that illustrates the Russo-Polish War (1605-1618). Please do not revert there. --Irpen 16:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the painting is allegoric illustration of the war. Secondly, I'm happy to have it replaced with a map in the infobox, but a meaningful map, illustrating the war, not just a map of Poland. --Lysytalk 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a map of Poland, this is the map that shows the war theatre and the final post-war borders set only due to the war outcome. The painting's being an alegoric illustartion of the war is a POV. Surrendering Kremlin to Pozharsky is even more allegoric. You reverted me there though. This image is of poor quality, debatable artistic value, biased towards one side and heavily POV. It's fine for the article but not the infobox where the image should be neutral towards all sides of the conflict. --Irpen 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving artistic tastes aside, what other image would you propose? Raul seems to prefer pictures to maps, can we find something that would satisfy everyone?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Raul spoke about pics vs maps only as far as the mainpage image is conserned and not about the infobox where he didn't interfere. --Irpen 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I still don't think that this map is very informative, it doesn't tell the raeder much - it is by far just 'a map of Poland'. A scence from the war would be much better to illustrate the article. I see your point about the Kossak's painting beeing too POVed, and I am open for other suggestions, but I don't think that leaving a map there is a good idea.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] language problems

The language in this featured article is chock-a-block with grammar, and other, infelicites. An extensive phrasing edit is really needed. ww 05:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased beginning

The text presented on the Wiki page today is biased. It ignores Soviet imperialism, see Soviet declarations of bringing freedom to Western workers. It ignores the existence of the Ukrainian nation (unfortunately too weak to create a state at that time). I don't know if it is Soviet propaganda or rather political corectness and ignorance - two fight so they are probably equally guilty.

If the Poles didn't annex the land East to the Curzon line, at least one million people would have died 1921-1938 during collectivization, Great Terror and famine. Xx236 06:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and the article, until just some hours ago, did present the whole Pilsudski led adventure as an entirely self-less endeavor aimed to help Ukraine. This is now corrected to what it truly was. Both sides were perpetrators for the Ukrainians at the time of the war. WHat happened later is irrelevant for the war article. Besides, in the first decade, the development of anything Ukrainian blossomed in the Eastern part and was suffocated by the nationalist Dmowski-style policies in the western part. True, things in the east turned for worse in 30s. What does it have to do for this article? --Irpen 06:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The terrible Dmowski was responsible for the death of maybe 10 Jews till the war and maybe thousands during the war (the results of his ideology after his death). The Soviet Union was responsible for Holodomor, during which millions died. If you want to criticize nationalists, why don't you mention uk:Донцов Дмитро Іванович, who might have influenced UPA (more than 50 000 civilian victims, Polish, Ukrainian and Jewish). The Ukrainian culture allegedly "suffocated", e.g. more Ukrianian journals existed in Polish Lwów than in Soviet Lviv 1985 (my source is "Dzvin" of that time). Xx236 08:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor happened later, to be exact in the 30s. In 20s the policies in Soviet UA was Ukrainization while Poland was carrying the Polonization and shutting down the Orthodox churches. At the same time UAOC in the Soviet Ukraine gained significant following (with the Bolshevik's blessing). Ukrainian culture anything but suffocated in 20s in Soviet Ukraine. Read Ukrainization article. What happened in the 30s was terrible though but is totally irrelevant to the supposed Pilsudski's generousity in helping Ukraine. His course of action was: 1) crush Western Ukraine and make sure it is subjugated within Poland, 2) attempt to install a puppet pro-Polish gov in Kiev, 3) when (2) failed, sell out his "allies" to Bolsheviks in order to keep what he conquered in Western Ukraine, 4) maintain the anti-Ukrainian policies in Western Ukraine until the end of the Second PL republic. This has nothing to do to this article though. Read Polonization and History of Poland and use their talk pages. --Irpen 16:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I still cannot understand how one can actually compare the Soviet MANSLAUGHTER of Ukrainians with Polish attempts to suppress Ukrainian culture WITHOUT killing Ukrainians and arrive at the opinion that the Soviet Russian regime was far better because it helped Ukrainians develop their culture! To me human rights and a democratic/semi-democratic government is much better than the totalitarian, nazi-like Soviet government of the 20's. Yet perhaps I will be considered biased by some post-Stalinists and other radical left-wingers. To me it is much better for a person to be alive and persecuted for speaking his own language than to have freedom of using it and be murdered by an oppressive government. I DO NOT support radical nationalism, I am just trying to be unbiased in my approach.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.129.101 (talk • contribs)

Irpen, the result of the Soviet-Polish war was the death of hundreds thousands people who stayed on the wrong side of the border, partially because of the Endeks games in Riga. Xx236 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petliura’s party winning elections?

Someone inserted a claim that Petliura was the leader of a party that won elections in 1917. If I understand it correctly, the referenced source actually claims that the largest party in the elected Ukrainian legislature (which was supposed to represent Ukraine at an All-Russian congress) was Ukrainian SR (“socialist revolutionaries”): 71 out of 120 seats; while Ukrainian social democrats had only 2 out of 120 seats. Petliura was a Ukrainian social democrat (Labor or “worker’s” Party), not an SR. So, it is unlikely that his party gained a majority at that stage. Another possible parliament-type body was Central Rada, which was not really elected. It evolved over time and was composed of representatives of various social, political and ethnic groups, including Ukrainians leaving outside of Ukraian. Even for Central Rada, there are no indications of Petliura’s party (if he had been a leader of any party at this time) holding a majority. As many other sources on Petliura indicate, he came to power in a coup after overthrowing a pro-German government. Could the author of the claim about Petliura’s electoral successes substantiate the claim or remove it altogether? --EugeneK 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Talk:Kiev_Offensive#Ukrainian_loyalties. I'd prefer to wait for User:Faustian to comment on this before we make any changes, he seems to be our expert on this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is too long

It appears this article has grown beyond a reasonable length. Please, instead of trying to add various details to make one or the other side look worse or better, try to consider what should be cut from the article, or spun off to its own article. The section on "Controversies" looks like a great candidate for that.

Also, I invite Irpen to stop indulging in his obsession about Kiev bridges. In war infrastructure is destroyed, please try to accept this. If those bridges had remained standing, they would surely have been blown up by the Soviets in 1941. Still, if you really care so much about bridges, maybe you should add a note about retreating Russians blowing up the Warsaw bridges to the First World War article (or at least Eastern Front (World War I) article). Balcer 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, pls check the history. I added just one sentence about bridges and felt not too strong about it. Piotrus' in turn pasted the whole paragraph about the Red's atrocities from Kiev Offensive to "balance" that. Then you removed the brigdes but left Piotrus' addition. I thought, fine, we keep the controversies out and removed the paragraph too. I was however reverted by Halibutt with the summary revert removal of large chunks of text. The article then presented the Reds as vandals and the Poles as the humanists, which is simply incorrect. Since Halibutt didn't allow me to remove the info Piotrus pasted, I added the factual and referenced info to balance it and moved it to a section. Maybe that's not optimal. Pls talk to other participants who were adding this and reverting me. I am open to discussion. I would feel bad to see my work lost though and don't mind a separate article. Bulak's stuff can go to his article too. --Irpen 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that the Poles and the Reds were completely equivalent? After all, we have the Red Terror article, but somehow no Polish Terror (or equivalent) article. It seems to me that Bolshevik forces and secret services used brutal measures as a matter of course, whereas on the Polish side such actions were rare and exceptional. Balcer 07:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Equavalence of the Soviet State and the Second Polish Republic is not in the picture. However, to leave the Red violations in and completely remove any mention of the similar Polish actions is not NPOV. And, yes, we need an article about treatment of minorities in the interwar Poland and others. No one equates it to Red Terror but not only the treatment of minorities article doesn't exist but Anti-Semitism in Poland was blanked into a redirect, for instance, and my adding info to the "Polish contribution to the WW2" article was blanked not even by Molobo, but by Piotrus. We are facing the "Poland can do no wrong" sentiment through most of Wikipedia since there are not enough non-Polish editors with sufficient interest to contribute to 20s century Poland controvercies, while there are plenty to dump all the evils on Russia, largely due to a Cold war mentality or the fervent Russophobia of some editors (definetely a minority, but rather a vocal one).

As far as the bridges go, also note that the bridges withstood the events of the city changing hands between Reds and Whites (several times), Germans and Ukrainian States (several of them) and no one dared to blow them. I read much material of the mastepiece chain bridge and, as you perhaps know, to destroy the chain bridge is a piece of cake. Enough is to damage one chain link and the bridge falls, and no one destroyed that chain link until the Poles did. It is an amazing fact that the bridges withstood the great war, the civil war, the intra-Ukrainian wars and they were still there. Perhaps, people who considered this land theres (reds, whites and Ukrainians alike) didn't dare but of course for Poles this was an allien territory and the immediate benefit outweighed everything else.

Overall, this article's exposure at the mainpage showed that there is something terribly wrong with FAing. I don't know when it passed the FA scrutiny, perhaps it was a different version or perhaps too few people east of Poland saw the nomination. Note how many significant NPOVing changes I made during the very day of its mainpage exposure and Piotrus accepted them all, which means how far the article was from being ready for the mainpage (and also that Piotrus is a reasonable and good faith editor, rather than Polish POV crusader, but that's a side note). This article needs to be brought to normalcy as it keeps the precious FA label and I hope that the Polish September Campaign is not getting to the mainpage any time soon because it is even more POV and, yes, carries a FA label too. --Irpen 08:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered just for a moment that maybe your changes were accepted because everyone is tired of fighting revert wars with you? I for one have had enough. Your behavior over the rather trivial question of the bridges illustrates that having any reasonable argument with you is rather pointless. I will avoid any interaction with you on Wikipedia from now on. Balcer 10:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree with Balcer that this section needs to go because 1) it is too detailed and 2) it is prone to controversy and was not accepted by the FAC process. I am not sure if we should move it to the Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War or to a separate article of its own (I am afraid the second version may result in some VfD fan/NPOV extremist nominating it for deletion). I'd also like to point out that we have a very similar precedent (moving a controversial section to a subarticle), both with Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants and with Soviet partisans in Poland, both splits initatied by you, Irpen (so I am sure you'll see the merit of this proposal). On this note I have also to agree with Balcer to some extent on other points he raises, i.e. that Kiev bridges (while a great article I apploud you for, Irpen) is not that relevant here (but can be mentioned in a subarticle), and that you seem to be loosing cool recently with some revert situations we have seen in Poland-Russia related articles (PMW, PSC, KO, HoPs, SPiP...). As I consider you usually a reasonable and valuable contributor, I'd really like to remind you about the existence of talk pages and that if one is reverted, it is good to raise the issue on talk page and see what community has to say about it. We are all aware of our POVs: I and Balcer, for example, will (to some extent) inevitably and often unconciously represent the Polish POV, while you Irpen are surely aware that you are affected by Russian POV. We both should not let our relations deteriorate to the level of a revert war. As you note yourself, this article has been accepted by community as a FA-class NPOVed article (you can see the exact version following the link from FA template above). If you feel that it has changed too much from the time it was FACed and is no longer NPOVed, then we have a process exactly for that: Wikipedia:Featured article review--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel like attacked by a pack here. But, fine, the article is more important. Balcer, you charge that my edits were accepted because others were "tired" of me rather than that they were reasobanble. Have you actually checked the history on what changes you were talking about? Because Piotrus wrote a following edit summary commenting on my changes: "minor changes, I think your other edits are ok" You say that "you had enough". So did I. Especially, of one sided articles reflected the Polonopholic positions that spread even from Polish topics to purely Ukrainian and Russian topics like Smolensk getting the Polish name to the intro, Polonizing Victory Day and even Russo-Japanese War, Catherine the Great, Suvorov and even Tyutchev and Ded Moroz, Ukrainian Kiev, Kaniv, Chernihiv and I can keep counting if you need the list expanded. Have it ever occured to you that that's others who may be tired of this? I don't remember ever a Russian name in the first like of the Warsaw article for instance.

Piotrus, you want this section spun off? Fine, start a separate article, I don't mind that if a passing mention is left in here. Note that (read my prev entry) I only added one short sentence about the bridges to which you pasted the whole paragraph fom Kiev Offensive, followed by Balcer's deletion of bridges (he left your addition intact though), followed by my accepting keeping this out and removing the piece you added, followed by me seeing myself reverted by Halibutt so that only red atrocities remained in the article. Only then I added more. I feel like becoming a target of attacks and seeing myself reverted for an honest attempt to only start bringing this article to normalcy. I felt tempted not to waste time instead and POV-tag the article, explain the problems at talk leave it to you to fix. WOuld it have been a better solution. I hope this can be resolved peacefully and to the article's benefit and that Balcer's words were caused by overexcitement but I feel strongly that this tradition of biased articles needs to start being addressed. --Irpen 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything biased in the article. I however see a lot of original research on your part, wrong translation of Polish words, and using Soviet sources as factual statements. I personally believe that we should have a Wiki rule against using Soviet sources as anything else then sources on themselfs since they are propaganda pieces of totalitarian regime similiar to the Nazi one. I hope that such idea will gain support and be implemented. I of course will restore neutrality to the article, seeing how much Irpen's contributions seem to be loaded with emotional content and the heavy usage of Soviet and nationalist sources. --Molobo 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, your comments illustrate perfectly why trying to write articles in collaboration with you is so frustrating. Let me summarize clearly:
  • For you, almost every edit you make is connected or in reaction to some edit in another article. Thus you introduce some irrelevant information in article A, and then when confronted over it, you charge that this edit is valid because of what happened in article B. I am sorry, but I simply cannot keep track of all the battles your are fighting with Polish or other editors all over Wikipedia.
  • You are obsessed with balance. Thus I am almost afraid of making any edits in articles you are involved in, as I may be reverted on sight for disturbing some balance that you have defined for the article which must be adhered to.
The solution to this is: treat each article individuallly, and stop obsessing so much about balance. This strategy of trying to always insert a fact putting Poland in a bad light next to every fact which puts Russia in a bad light is getting tiresome. It testifies to some kind of emotional insecurity or subconscious sense of inferiority. Balcer 19:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me also add that this last failing can be seen to occur in edits by other editors as well. So, let's all mature emotionally and accept that it is OK to have a sentence in an article, by itself, which puts Poland or Russia in somewhat unfavourable light. The world will not end over this. Balcer 20:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, generally you're right, but //Halibutt in one article wrote that... //Halibutt 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"I feel like attacked by a pack here". What about a more NPOVed common, like "I feel like I am going against a consensus here"? Of course I am sure you'd point out that all who disagree with you are Polish, making them obviously biased. To which I'd reply by saying that you are free to post ask for commonets from international community, plus as I have pointed already this article is FA-class meaning it can (and it should if you really believe it is not NPOV now) be peer reviewed at W:FARev or W:FARC.
Balcer raises good point about balance: not all attrocities are equal, and balance 'for all costs' is not a good idea. Speaking of whch, nor are all the references equal. For example any source published in Soviet Union about issues like Polish-Russian relations is generally less trustworthy then a source published in 'the West', simply because Western sources would benefit from freedom of the press and be independently peer reviewed. In general Western sources would be both more NPOVed and more accessible to most of our editors then any Polish or Russian source. We should be careful when we state claims that are controversial and hard to verify, and/or come from less trustworthy sources. On that note I'd not really be careful with using 19th century sources, we have quite a few examples recently (WU1794) of how POVed (and inaccurate) those sources can be.
An example related to our PSW article(s). When you add controversial information, translating it from a fairly uknown Russian source (like the books of Mikhail Meltyukhov) it would really help if you 1) could find a review of his work in English academic press or 2) state in text that it is a fact/claim that only he in his recent work states, not phrase it like it's a well known fact (see WP:RS for more on how to do this, this is actually a policy). Granted, inline citations for the most part do just that, but from time to time when we find a really controversial piece of information it is good to state it clealry in main body who supports that version. Finally, regardint the move of this section, I'd like to propose that it would be moved in it's entirety to Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War (it is too fresh and POVed for a FA class article).
Another example: note that WP:RS discourages use of popular press (so we should all try to replace citations to Zerkalo Nedeli, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Wprost or Gazeta Wyborcza with academic references (those in turn would be best if they would be in English and online).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Consensus"

Piotrus, please don't use the word "consensus" to describe what this really is - the agreement among several Polish editors on certain points of the article. The truth is that most non-Polish, non-Russian and non-Ukrainian wikipedians (unfortunately we almost totally miss the Belarusians in the project) don't give a damn about the PSW to make a single factual edit. I trully appreciate the native speakers copyediting myself (and my Polish, Russian, Ukrainian colleagues) but face that they bring almost no material to these topics. I don't blame them for that, but this is the starting point. So, first of all, what we have is the Polish editors agreeing and the non-Polish editors disagreeing. The former is not surprising and Elonka spoke of that lately at the Polish board. I am not surprised about such things anymore ever since, what seemed to me an open and shut, VfD case, the voting on the deletion of the Polish Black Book receiving zero (!) delete votes from Polish Wikipedians. Not only Halibutt and Witkacy, but even Balcer and yourself didn't vote delete. So, let's call this article for what it was, the Polish-Russian-Ukrainian article based entirely on the Polish POV and, unsurprisingly, Polish editors call this "a consensus" (please no offence, I believe that originally it was written in good faith, it's just that Polish historiography, as any other national historiographies, tends to be biased). You may want to ask, why then non-Poles who care (Russians and Ukrainians) didn't do much for the article to this day. Perhaps part of the answer is here. Read the talk page of this knowledgeable editor who simply gives up. So, please no more of this consensus vs Irpen stuff. You said yourself that you agreed to most of my changes and that was only when the war crimes issue popped up, we got to this stage of bad faith accusations.

That brings us to the points brought up by Balcer. This is all good what he says that taking some abstract "balance" to an absolute could be improper. But did Balcer actually check the article history before assigning the faults in "overbalancing"? Let me remind that it wasn't me who started "balancing". I added a single sentence about bridges destruction. As I said, as a born Kievan who knows and loves his city, I find this notable. Whoever been to Kiev knows how wide the Dnieper is there and how the bridges are both crucial and difficult to build. Whoever read anything about the history of the issue (and DDima and myself elaborated much on that in the Bridges of Kiev article) can't not know what an immense value, both day-to-day and symbolical, was attached to the masterpiece chain Nicholas bridge, the pride of the city. Perhaps telling is that no one dared to destroy the bridges of many of the powers that took and left Kiev at the time (Reds, Greens, Whites, any of the yellow-and-blue ones or even Germans) despite everyone had their own military needs. Perhaps, they all, but the WWI Germans, considered this territory and its assets as their territory and their assets and, also, didn't want to alienate the Kievans, unless absolutely necessary. This makes them all certainly different from the Polish troops' attitude who invaded without any doubt that this is not their land (Germans don't really count since their withdrawal was orderly and they knew they would not be attacked) and, hence, the Poles didn't really care enough to not destroy the bridges.

So, I saw this notable, but as I said, I felt not too strong about it if it were removed. It was not me but Piotrus, who after my one sentence mention of bridges pasted the whole paragraph about the Red's atrocities from the Kiev Offensive article with the summary "Counterbalance with info from BB" (The Black Book of Communism). So, who is that you accused "obsessed with balancing"?

No one but myself sees the bridges destruction important? Fine, we keep it in Kiev Offensive and Kiev bridges for now. Entire section needs gone? Also fine, provided it is spun off to a separate or a different article rather than simply blanked. Although, Piotrus' analogy about spinning off in other articles doesn't strictly apply. In Soviet partisans, the extra section was simply redundant since from the Soviet partisan perspective, the "...in PL" topics are covered in respective sections of other Soviet republics. Halibutt's alternative view that considers the SP in PL as a separate issue is a legitimate angle, though for a separate article. Also, as for H of PL, again, the extra sections "Treatment by the occupiers..." written (unsurprisingly by the same editor) also disrupted the article's text flow and the chronological flow of events. While a legitimate topic in itself, in such article as History of PL the material should be covered in the section that cover the specific period of time. OTOH, in the War article, treatment of the POW's seems relevant if not overly detailed. But I am open to compromises. If others want to see an entire "controversies" section spun off, go ahead. Just think for the best title for this text.

Also, should I have been out for revert warring (which I never am), why would I scrupulously edited the article following others' corrections to my edits? While some of mine edits were reverted by some here, I don't think I ever reverted, except some very few obvious cases. Take the infobox picture case. I was totally amazed that Piotrus preferred the propaganda painting by Kossak (who is the one pictured in the upper left corner, btw?) to the neutral map with the borders that this war brought about. I moved the image down and tidied up the entire layout only to be reverted on the spot by I don't remember who was telling me that Kossak's image allegorically illustrates the article (!). Why not use this image then??? And, note, that the image no less allegorical was for some reason not liked by the same editors in the other article's infobox.

Instead of calling the situation I am trying to address a "consensus", just think for a minute that I didn't post a note at the Russian and Ukrainian portals that would have immediately proven that the consensus here is a joke. I didn't want a revert war but the article's improvement. Instead, I get an assault by the Cabal.

Finally, to Piotrus' point about usability of sources, as an occasional reader of Wprost or Gazeta Wyborcza and a regular reader of Zerkalo Nedeli I seriously mind comparing the most respectable Weekly in Ukraine with the tabloid that publishes stuff like this or this. ZN has an English version that I invite Piotrus to check out before even comparing it with Marek Krol's tabloid. The articles for the weekly history section of Zerkalo are written by noted scholars and I am using exclusively those articles rather than speculations from the articles devoted to the modern politics. --Irpen 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I cannot reply in detail to this long essay. Let me just make a few quick points.
Again, Irpen, you are true to form, dragging out an incident from almost exactly a year ago to tarnish "Polish" editors. If we are such a coherent and nasty group, surely you can find some more recent incident to illustrate your point. Anyway, voting is meant to be free. Holding people's votes against them a year after the vote is just not fair.
Note that I did not accuse only you of "overbalancing", but I added that this is a recurring problem in articles we are working on.
As to the bridges, are you seriously suggesting that the Poles should have left them standing? The military significance of these bridges was huge, and if the Soviets could have used them, their logistics would have vastly improved and their drive on Warsaw in 1920 would have been that much easier. Do you seriously believe the Poles should have risked the very existence of independent Poland to please Kievans? Anyway, if you think they should, then please make similar edits attacking the Soviets for blowing up the very same bridges in 1941.
Furthermore, bridges built in the 19th century were nice landmarks, but they were not great works of architectural heritage to be preserved at all costs (like ancient churches etc.). Attaching too great a significance to their destruction is just wrong. Keep in mind that the retreating Russian army blew up all of Warsaw's bridges during their retreat in August 1915. That should be mentioned in the "History of Warsaw" article, but I would consider anybody who tried to enter such information into "World War I" article or its major subsection as seriously unbalalnced .
Let me again make it as clear as possible: according to the commonly accepted rules of war in Europe, blowing up bridges by retreating armies to deny their use to the enemy was common practice. Trying to create the impression that the Polish blowing up of the bridges was something particularly horrid simply does not square with the perception of these things at the time.Balcer 08:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I am not holding anyone's votes against anyone. We all made mistakes in the past, myself included. I simply wanted to point out that 3-4 Wikiepdians of similar backgrounds all agreeing on something is not a consensus, especially if the topic is controversial, like the war between the country of those Wikipedians and some other country.

You specifically accused me in overbalancing and only later added a note about others.

As to the bridges, fine, as I said. If this section goes, they go with it. If they just get removed, no big deal either. I still stand by my reasons why this section is a different case for deciding on spinning off that examples brought by Piotus (see above). But again, want to spin it off, go for it. Just don't blank it into an empty space.

You don't need to reply to my as you call "long essay". Suffice is that you read my entry and see my points. Regards, --Irpen 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are anti-Polish quotes presented instead of NPOV ones?

Id like to point out that Wikipedia isnt a place for grinding one's own axe. The point isnt to take a cherry-picked quote and present it as a holy fact, but to take a pool of quotations and views and carefully extract the NPOV. The disputed paragraph (Kiev offensive) is scandalously one-sided, with a narration that even the Great Soviet Encyclopedia wouldnt be abashed of. NPOV tag goes up until Ghirla's and Irpen's hogging isnt dealt with. Reichenbach 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments but learn to talk civilly, whoever you are. The above tirade doesn't justify the NPOV tag, but I will not remove it since I also think the article is not neutral but rather strongly Polonophilic. Until this moment I was trying to NPOV it rather than just tag it but I didn't do even a half of what's necessary. Until that time, I don't mind the tag. --Irpen 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as far as this paragraph conserned, it is not at all bad IMO. It puts the events in an entirely correct context. More later, --Irpen 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is not one entirely correct context, unless youre representing a specific historical agenda, which unfortunately proves you are. Hardly a surprise that it seems polonophilic to somebody who displays chronic polonophobic and nationalist tendencies in his editing. Reichenbach 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't support sockpuppetry, be it by Russian, Polish or Martian editors. Considering that Reichenbach (talk · contribs), who registered only today, seems quite familiar not only with wikipedia syntax and Irpen's edits to this article, but also with Ghirla's edits (and he has not been editing this article for quite some time), I feel very strongly that some more experienced wiki editor is engaging in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Please stop this behaviour and use your real account, whoever you are. Such behaviour is never helpful, no matter what side and POV do you represent/fight.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am fine with your tag removal. While I felt the article is not NPOV, I already spent much effort on it and intend to spend more on this and related articles of the PSW series since this is a fascinating topic and covered rather one-sidedly up to now. If the user above, however, persists with tagging, the tag should provide a complete explanation. If the tag is not there, fine with me as well, as I am working on it and the article, IMO, is progressing with mutual ammendments. I will respond to you and Balcer in the above section separately. --Irpen 22:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I framed Roshwald's quotes into neutral and encyclopedic language, with the references directing the reader to the exact sentence. As for my knowledge of the Wiki machine (and its users), I was a anonymous lurker for a long time (having had referenced facts reverted with the demeaning "rv anon" summary quite habitual of some users)), finally having decided to come out of the shadows, as "anons" seem to be considered third-class contributors. Thanks for the warm welcome, though. Reichenbach 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Reichenbach, if you are a new editor, then you have my sincerest apologies. On the other hand, as you should be well aware, this is a controversial subject that has seen its share of sockpuppets and bad faith. I'd suggest that to avoid such accusations, and create 'a good name', you try to contribute to some non-controversial articles, write some stubs and generaly do things that sockpuppets don't. Again, I apologize if you are not a sockpuppet.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I took your advice and finally created an account, as we'd talked before... Anyway, apologies accepted. Reichenbach 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reichenbach, you cannot alter the original quotes. This is effectively putting the words in the scolar's mouth. The articles are written by us. The books we refer to are written by others and we cannot change a word in them. --Irpen 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Western public opinion, swayed by the press and by left-wing politicians,[citation needed] was strongly pro-Soviet. Many foreign observers expected Poland to be quickly defeated and become the next Soviet republic.[citation needed]
I wish I had a copy of a British paper with the headline "Hands off Soviet Russia" to back up the removed claim, which I'd read about- was it Davis?. Reichenbach 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that what's questioned is not that the public opinion was pro-Soviet but it was so specifically due to a left-wing propaganda rather than other reasons. As such, the paper would prove nothing. There were certainly pro-Soviet publications in the West where many people at the time were not exactly happy with their conditions and blamed the rich and lack of social justice for that. To prove such claim you need a scholar's opinion that the pro-Soviet views where propaganda-caused rather than that they simply existed.

Also, your restoration of "totalitarian Soviet Russia" as a single alternative to the Polish-dominated mega-state is nothing but an unreferenced speculation.

Finally, the quotation marks near "alliance" were there for a reason. Calling the agreement between Pilsudski, who had an immense popularity among his people and a real army behind him, with Peltura, who was on the run with the nominal force, an ALLIANCE is a joke. Remember that Petlura came to power through a coup overthrowing another puppet gov (pro-German one) that also came to power through a coup. By this token you can call the stuff Osobka-Morawski signed with Stalin an "alliance" as well. --Irpen 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me disagree with your alliance. First, I'd appreciate if you'd find some academic sources, preferably English, that argue it was not an alliance. Second, if you insist on callying it an "alliance", how do we call the "alliance" of Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine, which nonentheless you insist had some degree of independence (citation needed... :>). A cursory search on Google Books gives quite a few publications, none of which seems to use the term alliance in quotatin marks or otherwise indicate it was less then an alliance (albeit between two unequal, but independent sides, example: Daves, GP - I see no 'quotes' around alliance). An interesting quote I stumbled upon: [6]" "Ukrainian peasantry was both anti-Bolshevik and anti-Polish" (how does this go with your statement that most Ukrainians supported the Reds?). Those books (plus I'd expect few more with other spellings of Petliura's name) have a wealth of information we can use to expand the Kiev Offensive, Petliura, and related articles in the future. PS. A good comparison of Polish-Ukrainian and Soviet-Ukrainian relations is here: "Whereas Polish democracy was alien, unrepresentative and eventually curtailed, Soviet communism was brutal, totalitarian and eventualy genocidal. [...] (following page) Soviet Ukraine suffered more from Stalin's rule than any other European part of the USSR." Something to keep in mind for when we will be writing that article about treatment of minorities in SPR which you have in mind, I believe.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out where I used the word ALLIANCE with respect to Soviet UA/Soviet RU mutual standing? I don't think I did. Pre-USSR Soviet UA was a nominal state with certain signs of statehood and insignificant legitimacy claims (derived from a small Bolshevik faction to Rada). While the original UPR was a real state to a degree a representative of its people too, the Petlura's one governemnt claim to represent it was questionable. Anyway, I didn't use an alliance for UkrSSR so the point is moot. --Irpen 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I never said that "most Ukrainians suported the reds". I said that many Ukrainians fought the Poles (in the Red ranks) which is true. As for Soviet communism being totalitarian, true but irrelevant to this article. The T. word is an anachronism if applied to that time's events. This is similar to talking about human rights concept or the Genocide concept in the context of the biblical times.

Besides, the Soviet oppression truly hit Ukraine in the 30s. "Suffered from Stalin's rule more than any other" quote may also be true but again, applied only to a much later time (1930s). In twenties, the Soviet policies were not at all anti-Ukrainian, to the contrary (read Ukrainization article I referenced very well) while the Treatment of minorities in Second Polish Republic was quite the opposite of examplary and yet remains to be written. It is the 1920s events that are for this article's immediate consern. Who can ever tell what happens in 10-15 years? This article speaks a lot on what Pilsudski "envisioned" but I doubt even he knew what would happen to Ukraine in 1930s. Neither he cared much, or at all, about Ukrainians as long as Poland was safe and Ukrainians, those barbarians, there didn't cause it any trouble by not wanting to become Poles or wanting at least an autonomy within Poland, what a blasphameous thought. --Irpen 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Many" in "Many Ukrainians fought the Poles" is a weasel word, because 1) many Ukrainians fought the Bolsheviks too (how we comapare many to many?) and 2) it makes people think that opposite to many is few (so "Few Ukrainians fought with Poles/against the Reds". See the problem? Please be more specific; best thing would be to give number estimates for both Petliura and the Soviet Ukrainian army (although IIRC we discussed the problem that neither of those formations was puerly Ukrainian?).
Would you have any citations for what Piłsudski cared about Ukrainians? Other then newspapers, use of which is discouraged by WP:RS, btw? Somebody who did not care for 'barbarians' would probably not apologize to them and call the Riga Treaty a betrayal, I'd think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

When we get the numbers, we will add them. For now we know that Ukrainians that fought the Poles were indeed many (see Abbott's ref) while Ukrainians with Petlura were few and we also don't know how many of the Petlurovites were of Polish ethnicity to begin with. And an empty apology is really just a word. It's action that count, including crashin of WUPR, Polonization closure of Orthodox churces and other unfavorable treatment of ethnic minorities in Second Polish Republic is what counts. As for your trying to suppress using Zerkalo Nedeli, see above. --Irpen 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To be specific, Abott gives the number of 100,000 for the Ukrainian Workers and Peasants Army for mid-1919. I am pretty sure we had numbers for Petlura commanding 20,000-30,000 a year later. We have, however, no numbers for Ukrainians in Soviet units in mid-1920. Abott book gives no impression that Ukrainian support for Bolsheviks was strong. It would seem that Ukrainian forces in RA consisted of Ukrainians from UWPA merged in 12th and 14th armies (which "displeased many Ukrainian Communists"), the 'Galician UHA' which "retained its separate identity for a while", and the "Red Cossacks of Ukraine", a brigade which during the PSW was "expanded into a division (later corps) and 'Ukrainiazed'". Also, weren't Bolshevick using forced concription? We should remember that Peltiura forces were all volunteers, but what about Soviet forces? Considering our sources it would appear that Ukrainians viewed both sides negatively, and majority did not support either one - they just wanted peace.
As for Piłsudski's action, sure, he crashed WUPR, he also risked his and many Poles lives trying to create an independent Ukraine in Kiev operation. As for unfavourable treatment, I see little relevance (didn't we discussed how worse it was in SU just few posts above), although if you can find sources that Piłsudski was responsible for the maltreatment of minorities in SPR, it would be useful for various articles. So far, however, we seem to have sources that indicate he was rather favourable towards minorities.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Relevant: Piłsudski repalced "national assimilation" (i.e. polonization) with "state assimilation" (i.e. loyalty to the state is praised, we don't care about your ethnic background and such). But after "OUN undertook campaign of sabotage" against Piłsudski, to prevent him from gaining Ukrainian loyalties, he retaliated in kind and the situation deteriorated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article about ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union? Do you contribute there Irpen?

Since 1945 thousands texts were printed in Communist Poland about mistreatment of ethnic minorities in pre-war Poland. Every child had to learn about it. Irpen believs he has discovered something new. Professor Tomaszewski alone has published at least 10 books on the subject. Do you know something what Tomaszewski doesn't?

Why don't you mention the context of the Polish "crimes" - Kurapaty, Holodomor, Belarussian and Ukrainian Soviet-sponsored terrorism? Xx236 07:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know we have the Polish minority in the Soviet Union. See also Category:Ethnic groups in Russia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I adressed Irpen. See his contributions in the "Polish minority..." in History. Xx236 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subarticles

While this article is getting better (and longer...), the subarticles are in a poor shape. I'd suggest moving all items tagged with fact, dubious, etc. to subarticles so that this FA does not bloat to much and has no tags (which FAs should not have).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Too soon, if you ask me. This article is a FA due to a quirk coinsidence of circumstances that no Russian/Ukrainian editors saw its nomination. If I knew about the nomination, I would have POV tagged it at that point so that we could resolve the neutrality issues before it gets promoted.
Additionally to POV issues it had a gross amount of unaddressed issues some of them being for instance polonized names of every possible place and person. Not only Wolodarka and Wasylcowce but even more a ridiculous Monachium (!) for Munich corrected only (!!!) when the article got the mainpage exposure. I can easily guess who wrote such name originally and this is very annoying and unhelpful. While in some cases not knowing the non-Polish name is usually used for defense, it won't fly for Munchen.
So, for now, please seize appealing to its FA label. The article needs lots of work and I intend to give it the time it needs. To bad other non-Polish editors are either uninterested or discouraged by non-belief that anything could be done in such instances. --Irpen 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
FA or not FA, this article currently weighs in at 86 KB. According to Wikipedia:Article size articles should be between 30 KB to 50 KB. There are serious reasons for this, not only of style, but due to important technological problems users may experience while accessing a long article (some people may access Wikipedia via a mobile phone, for example, and in that case a long article will cause problems). So, let's quicly decide what should be moved to subarticles and so cut this article to reasonable size. Balcer 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, fine by me even if the whole controverises section is spun off as long as there is a brief summary and a link from a main article even though I explained why this is different from precedents with History of Poland and Soviet partisans.

I object for now to removal of anything else until we settle with the article in general. It is still largely a Polonophile-POV. The work of bringing it to normalcy has just started (not even all Monachium-like things are yet corrected). Let's just work together constructively. --Irpen 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babel

Why the fiction book, censored in the Soviet Union, is quoted, rather than Babel's original journal?

Why only Yakovlev's crimes are quoted? Because he switched to the Polish side? Even the "Konarmya" describes Bolshevik crimes. Xx236 13:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have bibliographical data for his journal? Was it published in English?
Could you elaborate on your Yakovlev's critique?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DA1E39F937A35755C0A963958260

Babel has described cruelties of both sides. If he is quoted (and "Konnarmya" isn't a source, it's fiction, you should confirm the story about Yakovlev from an another source), he should be quoted twice, both on the Bolshevik and Polish side. Meltyukhov books are't reviewed by Western historians. (Piotr has mentioned it before, I have just realized.) Xx236 08:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bolshevik atrocities are also described with the reference to the highly controversial Black Book which received much criticism from within the Western Scholar's community, as you can read from its article. Another critical to reds info is referred to Meltyukhov (about Berdychiv). So both sides' crimes are described. --Irpen 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the Babel thingie as well. I even planned to add some fancy quotes Irpen style to the article, but on a second thought decided not to spark another conflict. After all Babel's diary is a never-ending list of Soviet barbarity... And it is widely known in Poland, really. //Halibutt 08:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] who aimed at control of the same territories, which had been part of Imperial Russia

It's abusrd. I don't like to start a revert war.

Who claimed, he wanted to regain the control on formerly Russian land? In 1920? Western Ukraine wasn't a part of the Russian Empire, so what was the Red Army doing there?

Hello, is there anyone ???? Xx236 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Volhynia was part of the RU empire. As well as Western Belarus. Only Galicia was under the Austrians. --Irpen 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Xz, you may want to use {{fact}} if you think that citation is needed, or {{dubious}} if you think there is an error. As Irpen notes above, this seem to be an overgeneralization, as 'we forgot Galicia'. Any suggestions how this should be reworded?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. Who and when declared on the Soviet side he wanted to recreate the Russian Empire about 1919-1920?
  • 2. Who and when declared that the Red Army will not invide Cracow, Poznan or Silesia?
  • 3. The Soviet ideology was revolutionary, the Red Army was to liberate all workers of the world, not to recreate an Empire.


It's not a case of "dubious". The beginning of the "featured" text contains absurd claims. Why shall I have respect for lies? I can eventually delete them, but I don't like revert war. Xx236 08:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Featured"?

This article is bad. It isn't featured. Xx236 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. //Halibutt 14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In what I agree with Xx236 is that the article indeed needs much improvement. It is still written largely based on the Polish sources which represent only one POV. As I said earlier, I regret I missed its FA nomination. But we can still correct it. I wonder how the article with things like Monachium (which I can guess who wrote in) not corrected could have been promoted. It shows it didn't receive enough attention at the promotion and peer-reviewed stage. I don't doubt the good faith of those who originally wrote it but it was rather one-sided and largely remains so. --Irpen 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I think you meant "the article is still written largely based on English sources, with a significant mix of Russian and Soviet sources introducing Russian and Soviet POV'. Because how other can I count 61 English, 17 Russian and only 4 Polish inline citations?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, not only inline citations count. Look at the general citations. Besides, the degree in which they are used also matters. Russian citations are used for to support a specific claim or word, not for the whole article. Monachium could not have come either from English or from a Russian source or even from an editor who didn't have a specific intent to have it here, because unlike Volodarka "Battle" about which even Davies doesn't know, or "Wasylcowce", in case of Monachum there is no way our friendly co-editor would not know what English name one was supposed to use. And so on... --Irpen 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I am afraid that you'll need better proof then few Polonized names to make a case that this article represents Polish POV. Non-inline citations are generally suspect, but this article has no non-inline citations (further reading are not citations).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, did Davies write a monograph on the battles of the Kiev operation? I didn't know, could you post an ISBN? //Halibutt 06:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Check the sources listed at the bottom of the article. --Irpen 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No monograph there, only White Eagle, Red Star, which is fairly general in scope. Far from being a monograph on particular battles and campaigns of the conflict. Nowhere near Operacja Niemeńska 1920 roku or Operacja Warszawska sierpień 1920 by Lech Wyszczelski, not to mention other authors. Or perhaps you meant some other book? //Halibutt 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a monograph about a particular conflict. Hardly it would ommit any significant battles. I don't deny the skirmish there took place and that it was immortalized by a propaganda painting. This yet doesn't qualify this event to be mentioned in the campaign box at the same level as Kiev offensive. Three books that I know about this war don't have a word "Volodarka". I think it's telling. --Irpen 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether a battle is significant or not depends on the author. As Wyszczelski focused primarily on the military aspect of the specific campaign, no wonder he lists many more battles and skirmishes that took place during the specific period of time than Davies, whose book is a general overview and is focused primarily on the political and diplomatic aspect of the entire war. If we were to limit the number of battles that appear in the battlebox by our own judgement, what criteria would you suggest? After all we have battles of all sizes listed there. Both Volodarka (roughly 1,5 divisions on both sides) and Zadwórze (merely a company on the Polish side and a division on the Bolshevik); we have the entire battle of Warsaw (entire armies) and Bereza Kartuska (not more than 300 people involved). All are notable to some extent and I wouldn't oppose creation of articles of all notable battles of the conflict, regardless of their size. As long as they are mentioned in sources - they are notable to me. However, you might want to propose some other criteria. Size of the forces involved? Mention in the RKKA's archives or Davies? Mention in monographs of particular stages of the conflict? Be constructive, Irpen. Try to. //Halibutt 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Lenin

"Lenin saw Poland as the bridge that the Red Army would have to cross in order to link up the Russian Revolution with the communist supporters in the German Revolution, and to assist other communist movements in Western Europe."

Either Lenin is biased or this article. Be integral and correct one of them. Xx236 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Try to be more specific, I don't understand what you mean.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw this also - can you give a source as to Lenin's ambitions to conquer Europe, I thought he was plenty busy worrying about the Allied Expeditionary force and the White Russians. There may be memos etc about Lenin's plans but I seem to have never heard of them before.

[edit] Russian opinion

"Политическое руководство второй Речи Посполитой (официальное наименование Польши в 1918-39 годах) сразу же приступило к занятию территорий, населенных этническими поляками." Nothing about "divisions". BTW - Western Silesia wasn't a part of Poland before the divisions. Xx236 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this text is in Russian. Care to mention where was it taken from and how is it relevant to this talk page or this article? Besides, the text is wrong in that the "Second Polish Republic" was by no means the official name of the country. To the contrary, it was but a handy name coined by the journalists and used by them. Officially the state was (and still is) named "Rzeczpospolita Polska". //Halibutt 15:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To anyone who can't read Russian, whoever wrote the above said: "The political management of the second speech Pospolitoy (official designation of Poland in 1918-39 years) immediately approached the occupation of the territories, populated by the ethnic Poles".- Justyn Skowronek

[edit] Polish occupation of Kiev

Was it "occupation" or rather cooperation with Petlura? Xx236 09:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on whom you ask. From Polish and Ukrainian (I mean non-Soviet) perspective it was cooperation with Petlura. And especially so because there were no major Polish units stationed in the city itself (Piłsudski really cared for such details, the Polish divisions were right outside of the city limits, but the city's garrison itself was almost purely Ukrainian). On the other hand from Soviet perspective anything that is not a Soviet liberty must be a foreign occupation - be it Polish, Ukrainian or any other. Yup, in Soviet historiography Petlura was a traitor and sort of an external enemy rather than a guy fighting against the Bolshevik occupation of his motherland. //Halibutt 10:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Soviet "historiography" should influence the Wiki, the Nazi one doesn't. The story about Kiev bridges is too poetic for me. It should be mentioned how many bridges were destroyed and how seriously. Xx236 10:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kiev doesn't mention "Polish occupation" and destruction of bridges. Poor Kiev people are unaware of Polish "terror". Xx236 11:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The main article is Kiev Offensive, why the same subjects are discussed here, if the article is too long? Xx236 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to consult the Ukrainian Wiki, Kiev is an Ukrainian city finally, rather than Irpenian. Xx236 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the bridges, you should really ask Irpen. AFAIR he added the story here, to Kiev Offensive, Bridges in Kiev, History of Kiev and perhaps some other articles. On the other hand I never thought such a story would be notable enough to merit its entry into so many articles, but I agree I might be biased a little bit. After all I live in Warsaw, where all the bridges were destroyed several times in the last century... Take Poniatowski's Bridge for instance: built in January of 1914, it was blown up by the Russians the following year. The German Army rebuilt the bridge, but then burnt it again (possibly by accident, BTW). Then it was rebuilt by 1926 - only to be slightly damaged during the May Coup d'Etat later that year. And then again, the Germans came and damaged it in 1939, but repaired it soon afterwards, only to blow it up in 1944 - this time on purpose... During the Warsaw Uprising the Soviets on their side of the river also demolished the surviving bridgeheads, but the bridge was yet again rebuilt after the war. So what..? //Halibutt 11:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a Poniatowski's Bridge article containing those informations.

I believe that one article should contain a broad description, Kiev Offensive or History of Kiev, the other ones short notes only. Xx236 11:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bridges destruction is well sourced and admitted by Poland itself. Kiev had two bridges at the time. Both withstood great war and survived Kiev's changing hands between Russians, Germans, several Ukrainian states as well as several "green" bands until Rydz' army with his "ally" entered Kiev. They blew them up withdrawing. Without any judgemental tone, this is what happened. One English language source (speaks about the Nicholas bridge) is cited in the article. The destruction of the Struve bridge is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Kiev and the hand-book "The Kiev Streets" published in Ukraine. Online refs in Ukrainian are available from the Bridges of Kiev article.
A totally separate question is whether this is an excessive detail for such a broad article. As I said, I don't insist on that. Mention in Kiev Bridges and Kiev Offensive may suffice. On a side note I would like the mention of "Brest Parade" moved from PSC to the Battle of Brest-Litovsk. The Polish Kievan parade of "victors-liberators" is only mentioned in Kiev Offensive and not in this article. Generally, since bridges issue is in the controversies section which is likely to be spun off in general, I don't see the whole point of the discussion. Even if it is left here (in case we keep the "controversies") it is in a separate section along with other such stuff. --Irpen 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The victory parades in Brześć and other cities are unrelated to the issue here Irpen, and I see you continue to connect other articles, in what seems to be desire to pressure other editors to change articles regarding Soviet actions by editing Polish related articles in your own way, later promising changes if Soviets related articles are changed in favour of your POV. The Soviet victory parades(that took place in several cities btw, not only in Brześć) celebrating Nazi-Soviet alliance against Poland are featured in several materials regarding invasion of Poland by Soviets, they show quite well the circumstances of September 1939, Soviet-Nazi alliance and historic events. They are unrelated to this article and I see no reason to mention them here. --Molobo 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is "anti-Jewish pogroms i"

Xx236 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the question. --Irpen 17:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"i" isn't standard English. Xx236 12:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you find a typo, please correct it yourself, instead of wasting space on the discussion page to point it out to everybody. Balcer 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the author of this text and I won't correct this Soviet propaganda. If you are an author, do your job correctly. Xx236 12:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you prefer that this "propaganda" stays uncorrected, why bring it up at all? Balcer 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The crimes - pro-Soviet bias

Polish side claims something (who would believe them). The Soviets have proves (Fiction book) and accounts. Best wishes for all happy authors. Shall I correct everything myself and start a revert war? Xx236 12:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Xx, some more specific comment would be much, much more helpful. Diffs, links, citations would be appreciated - anything that would make your comment above understandable. //Halibutt 15:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already written - "Konnarmya" is a fiction book, based on Babel's journal, so documentary value of the journal is bigger. Why "Konnarmya" is quoted rather than the journal? A fiction book can eventually indicate a problem (Vadim Yakovlev) but not be quoted here and in Vadim Yakovlevas an evidence. This way we have an evidence that Colonel Wołodyjowski was in reality exactly as described by Sienkiewicz - he wasn't.

"Both sides raised charges of other violations of the laws of war"

"The Polish side claimed" but "There is evidence" on the other side.

These are quotes from the article. Has anyone read the article recently?

"pogroms i" is still there. Xx236 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Polish side claimed" is there because that particular claim about Berdychiv originates from a Polish note to Entente. There is no reason to believe that this is untrue but it isn't based on the first hand-accounts that I've seen. Perhaps the Polish note was based on such accounts. I don't know, I've only seen the exerpts of the note. Next, whoever brought up the claim, referred to a highly controvercial politicized writing called The Black Book of Communism. Aside from the controversy with this source, whoever brought the claim, I think it was Piotrus, doesn't provide a quotation, neither a page number. So, we don't know how this is framed, was it based on the diaries of the witnesses, forenscic studies, complaints of the Red Cross, etc? The opposite claims are framed with much better clarity: what is taken from the first-hand witness accounts (Bulak-Balachowicz ), what's from Soviet diplomatic notes and what's from the work on the Kiev history. --Irpen 17:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I will have to agree with Xx236 that this is double standard: many times you have opposed my inclusion of 'Soviet sources claim'. How is that any different? I'd accept changing this to 'Polish note on date stated'. As for the BBoC it was Faustian who brought it up. A cursory glance suggest that the book is not yet in GP anyway :( The first-hand witness account of BB is quite dubious: A Russian website? Quoting whose academic, preferably post 1989 work, if I am ay ask? Mikhail Meltyukhov as I have pointed out is an unknown quality, as other then his Stalin's Missed Chance, his works are unknown to the West, although he is certainly more acceptable then any pre-1989 Soviet research. Finally, Soviet diplomatic notes were known for their propaganda straek much more so then the Polish ones, although this is a minor point and I'd support similar wordings, especially as I have already pointed out in text that this particular note seems to be based on Leon Trotsky's telegraph, and Trotsky himself admited parts of it were false - which is likely a good representation of most of the Soviet "claims".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Babel fiction book is cited beacause apparently it was the source we had access to. If anybody has access to the journal and can verify the relevant citation(s), I'd support replacement (or preferably additoon, two citations are better then one).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Konarmy" is a fiction book. I doubt anyone quotes "For Whom the Bell Tolls" as a "source" about the Spanish war. There can be a section/article "The war in books/films" for such quotations. "Konarmy" has been censored. Xx236 12:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus a "Russian web-site" is actually a pro-White movement one and the article there is actually positive towards Bulak-B, that's where the ref about public executions come from. The claim about him throwing Bolshevik's heads is from the diary of BB's comrade in arms, another Polish officer. Also, clearly shown in the article. Claim about the Poles shelling Borisov is sourced to where it comes from, Russian diplomatic note. So, where something is sourced only to the claims made by the Russians, the article clearly says so. Now, to the claims about Russian atrocities. The Berdychiv issue, was first brought up in the protest of the Polish Red Cross addressed towards the International Red Cross. I will change the "Polish side" to "Polish Red Cross". I have no idea about the origin of the Black Book claims as I wrote above. That its authors have been criticized by an academic community and praised by the Western Press is all I know about this "academic" publication. I suggest you dig out how exactly the claim about Budyony's atrocities is framed there and reformulate this, if you want. Note, I didn't add "According to a higly controvercial Black Book..." before your claim. When we talk about the Trotsky's claim, we note that it was false. When we talk about the bridges, it is not doubted by anyone. If we end up not spinning this off, bridges may go. If we end up spinning off the section, bridges may stay. I have no strong objections against spinning off even though I explained how this here is different from the Partisans and history of PL precedents, where the info was simply redundant.

On a side note, I did some rereading on the diplomatic games, but this would be the subject of a separate discussion of the "Diplomatic Front, Part 2: The political games" section. Later, -_Irpen 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus a "Russian web-site" is actually a pro-White movement one
Whites were very hostile to Polish liberation movement(if not to Poles in general, as most Russian nationalists, due to heavy Russian polonophobia) and as source they can't be viewed as objective.
--Molobo 12:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
A website is still just a website and ranks fairly low on reliability scale. Be it pro-White, pro-Red, pro-Putin or whatver, it doesn't matter. Does it give any sources? As for the "the diary of BB's comrade in arms", where and when was the diary published? I know MM cites it (here?) but what is his source? Could you check for me, Irpen?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I am still waiting for your reply on this, Irpen.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Black Book" quotes sources. Are the sources unreliable? Which ones? Irpen, you have a bolshevik agenda, with more than 20 million victims, censorship, false documents, and you accuse academic works of being biased. Xx236 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't gotten to that. Accounts of Bulak are abundant. Will easily find more and add. --Irpen 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As for Konarmiya complaints, I replaced the refs to the Babel's war-time diary, a documentary witness account of events. It was banned in USSR and published only after the fall of Communism. I was also published recently in the US and received many favorable reviews from the western press. Check the google books link as well as google for reviews. It speaks much not only of Pogroms by Yakovlev, but also by the Polish army. The common account about what happened in the Jewish towns usually starts like this: "The Poles were here. They cut the beards..." The rest is much more difficult to read. He also acocunts for Cossack's brutality, but that was mostly looting. However, it is wrong to stereotype. Both sides looted. Will add and reference. Should be easy, the source is in English. --Irpen 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're so in love with Babel, why won't you use it as a reference for the other side as well? The part with slaughtering wounded Polish soldiers on the battlefield was particularly strong, but there were also more of such stories there. Yet you quote only those that present the Polish side in a bad light... Besides, Babel's diary is often criticised for the same thing as his novels are: invention of facts. The dramatic effect is indeed strong, but the factual accuracy is not that impressive ([7], for instance). //Halibutt 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, this criticism is about the Konarmiya fiction book, not the diary, which is a documentary. There are plenty of reviews of the diary available online and the diary itself is on google books. Anyone can check. I think it documents the crimes of both sides and is an important source for the topic. I reread it lately (it isn't too long) and recommend anyone with time and access to do the same --Irpen 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV again

The line "...victories over the white anticommunist forces and their western allies". There was no victory over their "western allies", just the whites. The russians fought very rarely against the small allied forces and usually lost. There was no victory against the allies since they weren't there to fight them at all. Just to watch over territory and reignite the eastern front. Please get that straight as this is not the only article thats stats this. RomanYankee(68.227.211.175 14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

[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.
  • 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==.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

[edit] POV problems

Take a look at the following fragment:

Piłsudski, who specifically argued that "There can be no independent Poland without an independent Ukraine", really meant Ukraine being split from Russia rather than had any real concern for the fate of the Ukrainians. He did not hesitate to use military force to expand the Polish borders to Galicia and Volhynia, crushing a Ukrainian attempt at self-determination in the disputed territories east of the Western Bug river, which contained a significant Polish minority, mainly in cities like Lwów (Lviv)...

Instead of taking a pool of sources and extracting an NPOV balance, we have arguable ones presenting a one-sided interpretation of events, going insofar as to put words in Pilsudski's mouth, presented as divine truth. Wikipedia isnt about plagiarizing selective authors' quotes to suit certain POVs, but writing a collaborative encyclopedia backed (not copied) by a broad spectrum of sources. There are multitudes of sources interpreting the disputed facts differently, does that mean that I get to purge the current ones and replace them with my own nitpicked quotes proving the contrary?

Another possible interpretation to illustrate my point is: "Pilsudski foresaw the dangers posed to the Ukrainians by the Soviets, exemplified in such events as the Holodomor" or, God forbid, something neutral and less charged like "following the Polish-Ukrainian War". This issue needs some straightening out and balancing if the article is to maintain featured status. Reichenbach 16:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good examples. Would you like to take a stab at NPOVing the article?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Would short-of-love to, but Im getting off the computer in a jiffy. Tagged for now. Cheers. Reichenbach 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Kudos to Reichenbach :) //Halibutt 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuania

"Repercussions of this continue (to a diminishing extent) to affect relations between the two countries."

What about Lithuanian participation in Ponary masscre of ethnic Poles and expulsion of Poles after the war? Xx236 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requests

There are several citation requests in main body. If you can help and provide the relevant references, please do so, this is a FAC-level article and we should address such issues as a priority.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Pilsudski

As Piotrus wrote in his edit summary, it seemed to him, as well as to myself, that the fact that Miedzymorze was supposed to be Polish-led seemed to him obvious. So it was to me. Nevertheless, Halibutt, Lysy and anon either just deleted that and tried to replace Polish-led by "democratic" or tried to add the word making it "Polish-led and democratic". While I had to add four refs to support an obvious statement about the Polish domination, the ref added in support of democratic contradicts other refs that defy trhe "democraticness" of Pilsudski. As Billington said in the ref now in the article, Pilsudski affinity to dictatorship betrayed any notion of democracy (see article for the full quote). So, the "democracy" here is not agreeable within refs and, also, clearly defied by history as we all know that Pilsudski did not hesitate to stage a coup against the democratically elected government as well as to rig the election and throw his opponents in jails (see Tadeusz Jordan-Rozwadowski, Polish legislative election, 1930 and May Coup for Pilsudski's committment to democracy). --Irpen 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If we make this personal, let me explain how does it look from my perspective:
  1. There's perfectly-sourced democratic Międzymorze in the text
  2. There comes Irpen who does not like the source, so he deletes both democratic and the source, replacing it with unsourced Polish-led.
  3. While this is also probable, it would need a source. And certainly we don't need to delete reference we have, as it seems to be valid.
  4. And finally, Pilsudski did not stage a coup in Ukraine in 1920, nor did he imprison any Romanian or Finnish politicians in 1919. So your arguments related to 1930's have little to do with this article.
//Halibutt 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Irpen referenced "Polish-led" with four sources. While the source added by Piotrus does claim about the "Democratic" Miedzymorze, another sources added by Irpen ealrier denies that. OTOH, not a single source claims that it was not to be "Polish-led" while several claim so. As surch of the two claims (Polish domination and democracy) one is agreed between sources and the other is not. --Irpen 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, setting aside the fact that as you yourself admit you are a lone voice against a consensus of other editors, I provide a good reference about a democratic nature of Miedzymorze federation. Speculating that it would not be so on the basis on Piłsudski's latter actions, while interesting, is just your own counter-factual speculation, Irpen, but let me counter this speculation with another: people change, and Piłsudski was much more pro-democracy in 1919-20 then five years later. As Halibutt points out, his actions during the May Coup are actions of a quite different, changed man, in a quite different speculation. Setting this aside, please find an academic reference that shows Miedzymorze would not be democratic, or stop removing the current referenced citation to it important characteristic (important, as it is a nice counterbalance to the definetly not democratic Soviet 'federation' we are all much more familiar with).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...And following this, I was reverted by Piotrus, this time with the following summary:

restore reference, I am quite disappointed in you, Irpen. Please read carefuly: "democratic principle of self-determination', 'progressive democratic political culture'. Use talk instead of deletion

Piotrus, too bad you did not check talk before accusing me in not using it. This is plain obvious and I will repeat the arguments just for you. There is no disagreement among the scholars that Miedzymorze was going to be "Polish-led". Many say so and no one says the opposite. As for it being "democratic", there is a source, you added, that says so, but there are sources that say quite an opposite. The Billington's ref was already in the article. I just added another one. Besides, the sources that say otherwise are supported by the latter history as Pilsudski showed zero respect towards the progressive democratic political culture.

Well, then, since you persisted in inserting the statement supported only by selected sources, I purged "democratic" from the lead only (because it is disputed among the sources) and I added the sourced "anti-Democratic" claim in the text to provide the full set of opinions thus fulfilling your request for references that show "Miedzymorze would not be democratic". Regards, --Irpen 21:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I wrote my edit summary before I saw your activity in talk, let me apologize for that. That said, you should read your sources more carefuly. Billington, quoted by you, states: "But his slow consolidation of dictatorial power betrayed the democratic substance of those earlier visions of national revolution as the path to human liberation". Thus Billington who in the previous sentence refers to Miedzymorze admits that it (as an earlier version of national rev.) was quite democratc, but as we all would agree, later Pilsudski with his May Coup has chosen a non-democratic path. But, let me again repeat: the theoretical and never-realised Miedzymorze was to be quite democratic. Perhaps this comparison will help you: Miedzymorze to May Coup was what Marx's communism utopia was to Soviet Union :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I suggest we do not fork the issue about the democraticness of Miedzymorze all over the place. The debate with references claiming it was to be democratic and others that say the opposite belongs to the Miedzymorze article. I initially suggested to avoid this controversy here and kept only the "Polish-led" about which both the sources and the common sense agree. Because of your persitence to add "democratic" as well as three revert warriors that followed you, I added the alternative viewpoint (also referenced) where the thesis is questioned. Of course I was reverted and the sources were erased. I suggest to restore the status quo that is the issue of 'democratic" be discussed in the Miedzymorze article and not forked here and all over Wikipedia. I will restore this variant and let's see how it holds. --Irpen 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What comprimise? Your compromise is removal of the entire 'democratic' reference, where is a compromise in that? I explained above that Billington does not contradic the democratic reference, and I see no reason for removal of this relevant piece of information: we need readers to understand that Międzymorze was not to be some empire, but a democratic, if Polish-led (just as today's EU is France/German-led) federation). Last but not least, I find your calling of other editors 'revert warriors' offensive, and I'd advise you to avoid such terms, which may be viewed as PAs, in the future.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Removal from the header, yes, but not from the body? Who's talking about removal? There are several references that give contradictory results. There seems to be no undue weight problems, so each point has to be properly referenced. I don't see the problem... If you can find a short formulation of those to go in the header, please do... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you persist with forking the discussion that rightfully belongs to Miedzymorze article, I will have to complement your sources with the ones that say the opposite. This is called NPOV, both sides arguments deserve presentation and the reader is left to judge. The version where I presented the reader with two sides [8] was promptly reverted (along with refs I added) by Rechenbach [9] and by Lysy [10]. One more time I propose to leave this discussion to Miedzymorze article but if you or those who revert to your version persist to fork it here, please at least do not revert the sources I will add that view the situation differently and advise your colleagues about the same. --Irpen 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In the edit summary, I have explained that the Truskoff's book is not a proper to be a scholarly research reference in the context of a historic article. Also, I consider all the popular magazine references (mostly Zerkalo Nedely) to be improper. You can always find a magazine to claim one or another thing but it is not a proper source to be quoted for an encyclopedia in the context of historic research. --Lysytalk 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I removed Truskoff. I also made it clear that the ref to Zerkalo is in fact to a book by a professor of History, Oleksa Pidlutskyi. Zerkalo merely reprinted the chapter of this book and this is very convenient for us as it is available online to use. --Irpen 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oleksa Pidlutskyi is a professor of Communist economy. Xx236 08:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm talkind about the (one line above) statement "a professor of History, Oleksa Pidlutskyi".

Xx236 09:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On a sidenote, there are very few google hits for 'Oleksa Pidlutskyi' - is there a better spelling? Perhaps she has some English bio?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

biografia Xx236 10:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet-Ukrainian fights after the armistice

There were Soviet-Ukrainian fights after the armistice, which should be mentioned. Xx236 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, feel free to expand on that using references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as well as PL sponsored post war incursions into Belarus. --Irpen 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Conquest mentioned guerrilla revolts (relatively small, consisting of units of 100 or so armed fighters) in Ukraine until the late 1920s. Nestor Makhno fought the Bolshiviks until August 1921. Faustian 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is another useful source: a short article on Covert Polish missions across the Soviet Ukrainian border, 1928-1933 (p.1, p.2, p.3, p.4, [p.5 - luckily all 5 pages are visible via Google Print). I specifically like the part about Holodomor refugees in Poland hoping for Polish liberation of Ukraine... The author is Timothy Snyder, although the book seems to have been printed in Italy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result, revisited

We have sources that describe the result as Soviet defeat ([11], [12]); that obviously equals Polish victory. Do we have any sources to the contrary? If not, then please stop reverting Polish victory. Of course feel free to expand the footnote which describes why it was not a total victory, but the fact remains that it was the Soviets who were defeated at Warsaw and sued for peace, not the other way around.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been discussed in the past that showed that Soviets viewed it a their victory. Please do not lead your opponents into the circled arguments. It was settled months ago even mefore the mainpage day. All of a sudden here comes Halibutt and starts this all over and you make a revert war undoing other's edits en masse, which is unhlepful. Anyway, since this may degenerate in a 2 vs 1 sterile rv war and since some here have been seen acting such that trying to get an upper hand by seeking the blocks of their opponents, I mark the result as disputed and will ask for more eyes. In the meanwhile, I would like to reiterate that it is upsetting to see hour's worth of work and merging and referncing undone by a 5 sevonds revert. --Irpen 05:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
IIRC the very first note used to explain that the result is disputed, and the article used to have just "Result: Peace of Riga" for a long time. Dunno what changed since... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the discussion above, it seems unconclusive. Further, the references in article itself support Polish victory. Unless the references you mention are presented, I see no reason we should prefere an unreferenced inconclusive over referenced Polish victory/Sovet defeat. As for reverting, Irpen, I am afraid that an hour's work of inserting terms like 'naked agression' will be usually reverted (I am pretty nobody reverted any of your reference additions).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the result is confirmed by two references, please note that FAC consensus was for 'Polish victory'. The consensus was undisputably reached in April 2005 when the article was featured. Last vote at that time took place on 21 April, this is the article after last edit on that day; you can see the article states the war ended with a Polish victory - the point which some users are disputing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Would a 'minor Polish victory' be a good compromise to everyone? Irpen supported it last year, and so did I.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Naked aggression"

Why pushing a POV words like "camouflaging campaign as join effort instead of naked aggression"? I mean I don't care it came from some pro-Soviet source. If this was another offensive in a war, then how you acn use "naked aggression" sentence at all? Not to mention the clear POVness of such formulation Szopen 12:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's written in the ref! What we can do, however, is to put it into quotation marks and point to the source, as to be clear it's author's opinion. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Few references are NPOV. Thus in cases they are clearly POVed we should avoid using their terminology.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And yet it is referred to 5 times in the article, and now you claim it is POV... I don't get it... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. We cannot avoid using POVed references, since most publication has some POV (and NPOV policy is fairly unique to Wikipedia). Usage of references with very strong POV is not recommended, but this is not the case here; the book seems like an average acceptable English academic source. However, we should avoid phrases (including quotations), especially 'poetic', like 'naked agression', which show clear POV.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and citations

From Kiev Offensive talk: While I agree that some citations dont hurt, there is some evident tendentious bias in mass quoting of everything that is extremely unfavourable to Poland several times in the article, in situations where a simple reference would suffice. One good ref would be much better than, say, an obscure citation from "Zerkalo Nedeli" on an article of this scope. Thoughts? Reichenbach 12:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That stuff for "Zerkalo nedeli" is actually an exerpt from an academic book. It is true that it could be precised, but this reference is perfectly valid. Oh yeah, and if "some citations don't hurt", don't revert everything in block please.-- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think citations are useful. Of course it is rather obvious that Polish sources will be likely pro-Polish, and Russian pro-Russian, which is why I discourage the use of them, but there is no rule they cannot be used - unless they make some bizarre claims unverified by most other sources, in which case it we should be more cautious with them. Eventually, as we get articles on individual people (like Oleksa Pidlutskyi) and their publications, we will be better able to judge their POV and reliability. For now, I don't think citations - or references - are a major issue in those articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upsetting development

The article has been stable for months and all of a sudden someone decide again to prop up the glorification of the Polish military hisotry and change the outcome (long time ago settled to a neutral version) to the Polish victory. The tag of war was picked up by several familiar editors who insist on removing the referenced info, along with references, and resolt to sloppy fast hand reverts of the edits that merged lots of info into the article, in fact hours of my work. I leave this in disgust until I see some resemblence of reasonable editing. The article, with the result POVed, sourced statements and sources deleted is tagged appropriately. --Irpen 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please. This is well referenced fact now. Provide references to the contrary instead of resorting to arguments like "this has been discussed" or "I leave in disgust". --Lysytalk 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Result: Peace of Riga" part has been here for months. And the very first note says "The question of victory is not universally agreed on. Russian and Polish historians tend to assign victory to their respective countries. Outside assessments vary, mostly between calling the result a Polish victory and inconclusive." Either the note is lying, or the text "Polish victory" contradicts the source. I don't know which one it is, but either way there is a problem. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Can we remove the disputed tag that Irpen inserted, now, that somebody already removed the "victory" word ? --Lysytalk 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to convince Piotrus first (see his reply just below)... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see no reason for the tag to be there now, that the contentious "Polish victory" has been removed. If anyone feels the tag is still warranted, please provide rationale for it. --Lysytalk 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd still like to see at least one source for a result other than Polish victory; but I don't see the need to insert the tag if the result is removed while we discuss it here (above); however if the tag is removed so should the poetic and POVed phrase 'naked agression' (again, as discussed above).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that describing a "victory" in the Battlebox is by no means necessary. Plenty of wars with more clear-cut victors merely name the resulting peace agreement, i.e. Spanish-American War, Yom Kippur War, Ifni War, etc. So for a conflict like the Polish-Bolshevik War, where the result seems ambiguous/disputed, this method is probably safest. Just a thought from an outsider. Albrecht 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is why the footnote is there. Most sources state that the war ended with the Polish victory. It was also the consensus reached during FAC process last year. Until users who disagree with Polish victory produce references for Polish deafet or inconclusive, I see no reason for the change.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? What does the footnote have to do with anything? The point isn't finding sources that support one result over another (frankly, I just don't care who "won"), it's that in the battlebox, we don't need any label beyond "Peace of Riga." If you wanna speak of a "Polish victory" that's fine by me, but do so in the article text, not the Battlebox. Albrecht 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why that, now ? What do you think the "result" field in the battlebox is there for ? --Lysytalk 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, why? WWII and WWI give 'Allied victory', Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) (another FA) gives 'minor Polish victory' (btw, I'd have no problem in settling for minor). Unless you can present policies/refs to the contrary, I see no reason not to have 'Polish victory (Treaty of Riga) footnotes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice that the World Wars ended with the social, political, and economic disintegration of the defeated powers. Somehow, I think you'll have trouble applying the same label to a war that resulted only in a minor reshuffling of small scraps of land. This just proves that when we try to give wars (as opposed to battles) these normative labels we're not actually saying anything, so widely can the folk definition of victory/defeat vary (was the "victory" a total conquest and a Carthaginian peace or a minor advantage leading to a mere symbolic cession?). When we discussed this issue over at WikiProject MilHist the general idea (although this was never translated to project policies) was to use peace treaties whenever possible, falling back on "victory/defeat" when no such document (or article) existed or when the overwhelming body of historical literature, as well as common knowledge, pointed to one victor. So instead of entrenching yourself behind silly demands for references and policies, what I would suggest is this: Ask yourself, "What informational content am I adding to the article that would justify all this potential confusion and bickering?" If you can't argue the case on its merits then there isn't much I can do here given that I don't have any nationalistic bias to fall back on. Albrecht 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Albert, I certainly agree it wasn't a total victory, but as we have sources that call it a Soviet defeat (which I think equals Polish victory), unless we have sources to say otherwise I think Polish victory, with the link to treaty and a footnote is a good solution. Further, I have no problem with adding a quantifier to the result, to get 'minor Polish victory', which honestly I think should satisfy all sides (Poland never wanted to crush Russia, Russia did, Poland survived and got significant territorial concessions, less then what Russians were prepared to cede - how can this not be a victory?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That is precisely what I'm saying. For months the result was "Peace of Riga" with references to it, something that apparently convinced everybody. I see no reason whatsoever to change that back to something which is 1) dubious and 2) contradicting article's references. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm: our references are for Polish victory (Soviet defeat). I would have no issue with inconclusive if we had references for it, but as long as our references support the Soviet defeat / Polish victory I cannot but oppose other results. How can we reference 'inconclusive' with them?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't we have any references to support the "inconclusive" ? I'm sure some Soviet research would support that version. --Lysytalk 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Great Soviet Encyclopedia, perhaps - assuming it mentions the conflict at all...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, how you're being cynical. I meant something conforming to WP:RS. A work of a recognized historian, not an encyclopedia or magazine article. --Lysytalk 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Show me a reliable source and I will withdraw my objection to inconclusive result. English language academic publication would be however much preferable, I don't think we can call Soviet sources about this war 'reliable', and if we cannot trust their largest encyclopedia, how can we trust their books? Until such reliable sources are shown, I think the 'Polish result' should be restored, as per references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And why can we call Polish sources on this war "reliable", for instance ? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Which one do you mean, specifically ? --Lysytalk 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
All Soviet sources mention that it was not a defeat, because there was some territorial gains compared to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and to the border first proposed during spring 1920. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example, taken from "History of Civil War" by S. Rabinovitch: "The peacy treaty with Poland was signed on conditions which turned out to be less favorable than those proposed before the start of the war... [Poland] had to abandon a significant part of Belarus with its capital, Minsk, as well as a number of other cities. That's why it is always pointed out that the war ended with a result favorable to us".
And indeed, if you gain territory, how can you speak about a defeat? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a possible ref to include in the footnote, if you can expand it with information like publisher, date, etc. Is it online to verify this? Nonetheless I still would like to ask you for English academic references, like the ones we currently use; I am pretty sure we can counter every Soviet refs with a Polish refs going nowhere - thus we should try to use English academic refs (and let me stress again that the 'Polish victory' is supported not by Polish refs, but by English academic refs).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If Mr. Rabinovitch had done a little more research, he would have known that Minsk was offered to the Poles, but rejected by the Polish delegation for reasons mentioned at this article. Reichenbach 11:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, he'd probably notice that the Polish post-war border was nowhere near the Curzon Line proposed during the early stages of the conflict. So in fact the conditions were not less favourable but rather more favourable. But of course it depends on the side you look at it from... //Halibutt 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of considering territorial changes, which depend on which border one takes as the start line (1772, 1914, 1918 etc.), why don't we simply look at which side was winning battles in the final stage of the war? Balcer 16:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Balcer, why not look for the course of an entire war, like Kiev debacle? If not the victory in Warsaw, the outcome would have been "decisive Polish defeat" instead of inconclusive.

In response to Piotrus above, No, I don't find "Minor Polish victory" appropriate either. I accepted it when we where choosing between different victories, defeats, inconclusive outcomes. No one came up with the Peace of Riga at that stage. Now, when we have this option, I see no need for a POV result.

Note, that this row over a stable article was started in a familiar way. Somebody decided all of a sudden, that Polish miltary glory needs a prop up and changed an outcome from a stable version, there for months. --Irpen 16:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, the suggestion to "look over the entire war" is ridiculous, to put it mildly. Guess what, Nazi Germany won most of the battles in 1939-1942. By your logic, does this mean we should call the outcome of World War II inconclusive? Balcer 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The end of the WW2 was a total disintegration of Germany and its seeing it left to the Mercy of the allies. Your analogy does not fly. Poland wanted Ukraine (read Britannica) and did not get it. Soviets found out that they actually may get the whole Poland (they did not plan it in the start) but also did not get it. --Irpen 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The end of WW2 was highly exceptional in international affairs. If totally overruning your opponents territory and destroying his government is the only way a war can be considered a victorious one, then most of the wars in history were inconclusive. If that is really your view, don't just pick on this article, but start to campaign for battlebox changes in Russo-Japanese War, Crimean War, Great Northern War, Falklands War, Gulf War, Austro-Prussian War, to name just a few that a quick search points to. Balcer 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, you, and not me, brought up the WW2 analogy that you now concede was "highly exceptional in international affairs". In some of the other wars, one state fulfilled its goals why the other did not. In PSW, Poland's goal was to achieve a PL dominated Ukraine. This goal was not achieved. Soviets did not have a clear goal in the start at all. When Sovietization of Poland started to seem feasable, it became a goal which also was not achieved. Ukraine, the main bounty in that game, went to Soviets while Poland actually got only the part of Ukraine it had before the war. --Irpen 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The main point remains that in many wars one side does better in the initial period, but then the other side is victorious in the final stage. The initial victories of the side which loses in the end cannot be used as an argument for treating the war as inconclusive. World War II is just the most obvious illustration of this, but one could easily think of others.
I would disagree with your description of Poland's goals. The primary goal was to establish a reasonably secure border with Soviet Russia, which would incorporate within Poland's borders as many areas inhabited by significant Polish minorities as possible. That goal was achieved, for the most part. Setting up an independent (or Polish-dominated, depending on your POV) Ukraine was at best only a desirable goal for a part of the Polish political class (i.e. Pilsudski, but certainly not Dmowski). Even so that goal was obviously secondary, as reflected by the Peace of Riga where the Ukrainian cause was abandoned. In short, being able to set up a separate Ukrainian state allied with Poland would have been a great bonus objective, but the Poles understood that this was a longshot and not really up to them. Once it was clear that achieving the bonus objective was impossible, they settled for achieving their primary aim.
All this is my opinion, and other people can have differing ones. This is why I suggested looking at who won the final series of battles, as a good indicator of who should be called a victor in this war. Balcer 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As for Polish goals and whether UA was to be PL-Dominated or independent, see article sources. Start with EB and continue to Debo. Note that statement that P/P "alliance" envisaged "subordinating UA economy and Military to Warsaw" is not an opinion but a statement of fact on the provisions of the treaty. This goal (seizure of Ukraine) was not secondary, but primary, perhaps dictated by the feeling that the puppet state between RU and PL would guarantee the Poland's safety, but still does not change the facts. The adventuruous Ukrainian invasion led to what happened later and that invasion went bust. Once it was clear that the Polish objective was unachievable, the situation returned to the status quo, with Poland dominating the territory in Western Ukraine and Soviets having the rest of it.
But this all has been argued and reargued. Then someone came up with the solution that allowed to fill the result filled sideling this arguing thus leaving it for an article's text. The conclusion of war was Peace of Riga. Why are you or Halibutt unhappy with that to an extent that sent the article into another havoc which will likely result in the FA label being removed? --Irpen 18:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, what's wrong with this version which you supported a year ago?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, as I pointed out to you in the past, actually reading what others say at talk, is very helpful for the discussions. --Irpen 18:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I carefully phrased my statement so that we would avoid getting into a discussion about Poland's future plans for Ukraine (which were entirely hypothetical anyway) that would only distract us from the discussion at hand. You claim that the war's result was "a return to status quo". What "status quo", exactly? The eastern border of Poland was completely undefined from the moment Poland declared its independence. There was no status quo to return to. The whole war was fought precisely to determine where the border between Poland and Soviet Russia, two new states arising from the remnants of the Russian Empire, should run. There was no acceptable previous border to suggest where the new one should be (the only previous lines being either the 1772 or the 1914 borders, each one completely unacceptable to one of the sides). Of course, I am not counting the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which Poland was not a part of, and which lasted only half a year before Soviet Russia repudiated it. Balcer 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, Polish future plans for UA are not "hypothetical". They are all in the Pilsidski/Petlura treaty.

As for the definign the border, there was a Polish de-facto control of the territory it conquered from crushing Western Ukrainian Republic. Poland decided, it also wants an entire Ukraine as a sattelite state. It did not get it. In the end, Poland ended up with what it conquered before the war. --Irpen 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish plans for Ukraine were hypothetical in the sense that they were never carried out. At any rate, do you really think that Poland, which had a population comparable to that of Ukraine, would be able to oppress any Ukrainian puppet state it created for any length of time? If you think that, then your opinion of Ukrainians and their desire for self-determination must be really low.
Also, remember that Riga defined the whole Polish-Russian border, including the section in Belarus. There was no status quo to return to there. Western Ukraine formed only half of Eastern Poland. Balcer 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish plans for Ukraine are not hypothetical but real and known. They were not implemented but we do not need to hypothesize what they were. The treaty says it all. I don't think PL would have succeeded in oppressing the whole Ukraine. It hardly managed with 1/4 of it in the interwar years, but it is a different thing from saying that it would not have tried. Actually it did try that, both in Galicia and Volhynia (for 20 years after the war) AND in central Ukraine where the action of the occupiers are vividly described by the Babel's diary (a documentary, not a fiction book). I can't tell much of Belarus at this point.

The end line is, what's wrong with Peace of Riga? You want to point me to RJ War? I can point you to Yom Kippur War. What's your problem with the Peace of Riga? --Irpen 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally can live with Peace of Riga, since I do not much care for battleboxes anyway, and really detest long fights over their contents. Still, other respected editors want to include a specific mention of the war's result, and I can see the point they are making. Their claim is backed up with references, and it deserves to be seriously discussed. Balcer 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Debo's other quotes were innaccurate (i.e., when he claimed that Ukrainian participation was inconsequential - Ukrainians made up about 19% of the invasion force and were given full control over Kiev), so I'm wondering what his sources were. Also, I wonder about his claims about the Treaty between Pilsudski and Petliura. When he mentioned Ukraine's obligations but failed to note Poland's reciprocal obligation under the treaty, this indicated to me that he was trying to present a one-sided (and thus innacurate and tendentious) part of the story. This might reflect his choice fo primary sources for his book. I read parts of the treaty in one of Davies' works a few years ago, so my memory is not perfect (perhaps one of our Polish friends can find it?) I know that Poland was granted extensive rights to invest in Ukraine's industries and mines (something the French had in those and other parts of the russian Empire before the revolution) but this was no more domination than that enjoyed by, for example, the French. As for military subordination - it seems to have been something along the lines of NATO. Were Germany, Italy, etc. militarily subordinated to America during the cold War? Certainly such a situation would have involved far far less subordination than that of Soviet Ukraine to Moscow. regards Faustian 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Faustian, what I am actually trying to do now, is getting my hands on both Davies and Debo paper editions to see what they say and what refs they use. There is no doubt that under PL there would have been less subordination of Ukraine than under the Soviet Union. This, however, is not the issue at hand. --Irpen 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we started to discuss plans for Ukraine (non-hypothetical, if not well described on wiki yet) and hypothetical future, I have a treat for the Polish-speaking editors: fragment of (relativly) new short story by Andrzej Pilipiuk, to my knowledge the only one alternative history dealing with what would happen if Prometheism worked out and Poland would 'liberate' Ukraine by invading Soviet Union in late 1920s or early 1930s. A great read, which I strongly recommend, especially as in this book (of Polish author) the main hero is a Ukrainian patriotic 'freedom fighter' (and a positive character at that).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me just clarify my comments above. Undoubtedly some Polish plans for a "new" Ukraine existed, and they were reflected in the treaty with Petlyura, but it is highly doubtful such plans would survive any collision with reality, as is true for just about all plans involving the creation of new states (see Iraq in 2003 for the most recent example). This being especially true in this case since Poland had potential comparable to that of Ukraine and would have simply been unable to impose any arbitrary order by force. Hence I would consider Polish "plans" highly speculative at best, and would not read too much into them, one way or another. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss them. Balcer 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My impression was that Polish firms would get first choice in the construction of mines, and would get a major share of Ukraine's industries, etc. Poland did a lot for Ukraine and expected a lot in return. The situation would perhaps be comparable to, for example, the American/British role in Iran's oil industry under the shah. Ukraine would have been heavily influenced and affected by Poland, but would not have been a puppet of Poland in the way that, for example, the states of eastern Europe were puppets of the USSR during the Cold War. Faustian 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that Polish governement would want some degree of control over Ukrainian military and governement, as seen in Petliura treaties, but certainly elections in Ukraine would also be democratic (as in Poland until 1926). Further, that would mean success (at least partial) of Piłsudski's Międzymorze - whose failure led to him discard democracy; with it, he would have much less reason for a coup. So on one hand we have democratic Poland and Ukraine, on the other - much, much weakened Soviet Union... Once can see how rich ground for counterfactual speculation this is :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As a sidenote, I wouldn't be so sure about the military control over Ukrainian forces. The pacts with Petlura during the war were very, very mild even by contemporary standards. While there was a joint command (not really different from the Allies and Axis in WWII, Central Powers in WWI and other similar joint staffs), the logistics, reinforcement schemes, and all that jazz was kept separately. What's more, Poland did not draw recruits from the Ukrainian territory, nor did it draw supplies from the areas passed under Ukrainian sovereignty. That was a pretty uncommon thing back then. But this of course is OT here. //Halibutt 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Davies, p.263 of WERS, states that the war ended in stalmate, no side can be considered victorious.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Ukrainian Galician Army

The Galicians were quite conservative and thus maintained cordial relations with Russia's Whites (resulting in conflicts with the Reds). So I was suspsicious of the claims abou tthem joining the Reds despite their dislike of the Poles. My suspecions seem to have been correct. From the Encyclopedia of Ukraine (full reference in the article):

"As a result of the retreat of the White Russian army, Bolshevik units on November 19, 1919 reached the garrison of the Ukrainian Galician units near Vynnytsia. The Galician High Command ordered the troops to abandon sick soldiers and to move to Odessa where the army of General Denikin had retreated. To protect thousands of sick soldiers from hostile treatment by the Bolsheviks a Galician Revolutionary Committee was formed in Vynnytsia under N. Hirniak. It refused to obey the orders of the Galician High COmmand and began negotiations with the Red Army for the inclusion in it of the Galician units...the Galician Revolutionary Committee on January 12, 1920 made an agreement with the command of the Soviet 12th army, by which the Galician forces became a component of the Soviet 12th army, as the Red Ukrainian Galician Army (Red UHA). Bolshevik authorities arrested Generals Mykytka and Ziritz and tried to destroy the national character of the Galician units; they did not succeed in this however...the opportunistic nature of the agreement with the Bolsheviks was revealed when the Galician units of the Red UHA encountered the forces of the UNR in April 1920. then the Galician Second Cavalry Brigade commanded by George Sheparovych and the Third Brigade joined the UNR forces. But the Poles disarmed both brigades and interred them in Polish camps. The First Brigade of the Galician Sich Riflemen, surrounded by the Poles in Pykivka, laid down its arms. The officers and men who succeeded in escaping internment entered the sixth Kherson Division of the UNR...after some Galician units went over to the UNR the Bolsheviks punished or deported many of the remaining Galician soldiers." Faustian

[edit] Size

At 101kb, this article is getting too long. Please think what can be moved to the subarticles (see {{Polish-Soviet War}}), please also note that they have not been updated since the article was FAed, and may contain some POVed/unreferenced parts. I'd also like to split off the controversies section, it was added after the FA and we can shave few kbs of the articles by linking it from a single sentence about controversies related to this war.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would first spin off the material on the details of P-P alliance to the Treaty of Warsaw (1920). Second, I would spin off the Ukrainian Galician Army. Those are topics on their own and those need articles anyway. I will try to start those myself unless someone will jump in first. As for the controversies, I would not rush to splitting them as much as the two topics above because they would appear a more of an artificial split. --Irpen 00:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I am somewhat against splitting material to the subarticles mentioned above as they receive next to no attention from editors (including ourselves), thus moving any info into them is more akin to brushing stuff under carpet... :) For the controversies, the article was fine without them, and I think they are as off topic as the Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) - worth mentioning somewhere, but we don't need such a section to discuss them here. Perhaps a short summarized section, if anybody really wants to keep this here...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the controversies section is indeed not the best approach but splitting it to a spearate article hiding them under the rug is even worse. What needs done with it is simply integrating what is really important in this section to the appropriate chapters of the war within the text. --Irpen 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, articles with 'controversy' in title are not good style, but I think that most of those controversies are redundant - they don't need to be mentioned in this article. Prisoner camp controversies should be mentioned in the prisoner camp articles, Kiev's bridges in Kiev Operation or History of Kiev, accusations against particular commanders in the commanders articles - this way I think we can split off most controversies into more relevant articles. As they seem to be attached to both sides more or less equally, getting rid of them should not unbalance the article's NPOV, I hope.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not about balance. It's about information and its relevance. Would knowing of the sides' behavior help the reader to understand the subject of the article better? Of course it would. "Controversies" section looks odd. But the essential info properly integrated in the article's flow belongs there. The article on the Treaty of Warsaw or UGA are natural. "Controversies of the PSW" would look artificial. I expect someone to bring the parallel with Soviet partisans in Poland. That question was answered and the differences were explained. --Irpen 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only difference that the case of Soviet partisans in Poland was a tad unfavourable to the Soviets so it had to go away from the main article, while here the description would be equally unfavourable to both sides so it should stay? //Halibutt 09:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong. I answered that question earlier. Your Poland sections was redundant as the geographic area of operation was covered by other sections. --Irpen 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the UGA, the "Pygmy Wars" website is back up and has a LOT of information (taken, I think, largely from Kubiyovych's Encyclopedia...) Faustian

I split the section and some other pieces, we need to keep this article under 100kb :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a poor step, IMO (splitting the controversies). Whatever relevant and encyclopedic about the side's atrocities in the war belongs to the article about the war. Whatever's irrelevant or unencyclopedic belongs nowhere. The separate article could have been written if someone would be willing to present a detailed analysis of the atrocities. That hasn't happen and the section looks like an artificial spin. --Irpen 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And right after what I said above Piotrus went ahead and spun off the section despite my objections and not even bothering to respond. Nice! --Irpen 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your above comment was posted 5h after I spun off the article. The fact is it was getting too big, and that was the section that appeared after FAC process, containing information relativly unimportant to the war (mentioned in few if more than one publications). It is really easy to see it is a good candidate to be spun off.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I objected to the spinoff proposal in my 04:21, October 29, 2006 entry at this talk. Your spin-off edit took place 17:43, October 30, 2006, that is way after. Thus, after my voicing an objection and the discussion over a disagreement still onloing, you decided to force it your way without a single editor, other than us who disagreed, expressing himself on the issue. Note, that we both agreed on two parts to be spun-off. You, however, kept those but removed the section over which the agreement was just not there. As for this being unimportant, I would rather call it inconvenient. Makes a difference. --Irpen 06:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From your post above I didn't realize how strongly you felt about this section. Nonetheless I believe my edit preserved all important facts and spun off only excesive trivia, not that important to the article. Which information do you think are crucial enough that they should be brought back?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More inline refs requested

As you can see, over the past weeks I have been adding more inline cits to the article, but there are still many unreferenced facts. Any help with referencing facts (and numbers!) would be greatly appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure quite a few of the numbers and facts are in Davies publications, which I don't have at home. If anybody could look through them saving me a trip to the library, it would be nice.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't find refs in WERS for the numbers for Op Kiev (Davies notes there is little data, quotes two sources - one giving Soviets 80,000; other giving Poles 50,000 and Soviets 10,000). Can interested editors fill those citation requests, as well as others about Ukrainian army strenghts?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence removed

I have removed the following senctence. "however as that operation was codenamed 'Target Vistula' it caused much concern among the Poles."[1]

The note in Russian westward offensive of 1918-1919 claims that this name does not exist in the historiography of the period. Also the sentence is trivial and of small notability. Joelito (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is used in WERS, which is the most comprehensive work on that subject. While it perhaps is not important to that general article, 'Target Vistula' as well as other rethoric of the Bolsheviks (about taking the revolution west through Poland) were taken by much of the contemporary Poles as a sign that they intend to invade Poland. Ironically, in 1919 those were empty slogans, and only in 1920 they became the reality - which likely they would not had to if the Bolsheviks used less poetic language :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Encyclopedia Britannica reference

This comment is addressed to Irpen who reverted my change, but of course I would appreciate any input by other editors.

Here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the Russo-Polish War says in its three first sentences:

Russo-Polish War (1919–20), military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine. It resulted in the establishment of the Russo-Polish border that existed until 1939.

Although there had been hostilities between the two countries during 1919, the conflict began when the Polish head of state Józef Pilsudski formed an alliance with the Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petlyura (April 21, 1920) and their combined forces began to overrun Ukraine, occupying Kiev on May 7.

So, the first sentence implies the war started in 1919, and the third that it started in 1920. Which one should we believe? Clearly, we have a case of a reference which blatantly contradicts itself. If we really want to include a reference to Encyclopedia Britannica, we must be honest, and not quote the sentence which favours one point of view.

The article currently claims that: Encyclopedia Britannica considers the Polish thrust into Ukraine of 1920 as the starting point of the war. This is obviously not the whole truth. We must reword the statement to correctly represent what that encyclopedia actually says. I await proposals from Irpen on how to handle this conundrum. Balcer 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, you, as a WP editor, are in no position to editorialize on the outside respectable sources and criticize them on your own. You may bring statements sourced to other sources that support a different POV. You already did that. --Irpen 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not editorializing, this is pointing out an obvious, blatant inconsistency in Britannica, which is clear to anybody who cares to read the relevant article. If a source has two contradictory sentences, we cannot just quote one to support one point of view and ignore the other.
Britannica is not perfect, it contains various errors, and I think we have just spotted one. As we don't know whether it is the 1919 or 1920 date that is in error here (after all picking one of these would be editorializing), I would suggest we drop the reference to the Britannica article altogether. Balcer 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's amazing how confusing Britannica is. Thank you for bringing that out.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commented out uncited text

I commented out text that had citation requests for some weeks now and that nobody referenced (and I looked for that data).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literature needed

Hi. I am currently working at the german version of this article (Polnisch-Sowjetischer Krieg). First me and another user started to de-POV a version that was unbearably stuffed with Soviet propganda formulas. (we used the enwiki-Article). During that I got interested in the topic did some additional work. The article is currently running to be featured article in dewiki. My major problem now is a lack of literature. I have used Evan, Mawdsley : The Russian Civil War(for military issues), Davies, Norman : White Eagle - Red Star (for political issues) and I also searched the Blackbook of Communism. The thing is Davies describes war-crimes and civilian sufferings quite briefly. The other authors miss these issues completely. Could somebody give me the title of a book, which has more information about war-crimes and civilian casualies in the Polish-Soviet War ?? Greetings and Best Wishes Nasiruddin Discussion Nov 16th 19:09 2006

Welcome to en wiki (consider regisering here as well so your edits show as registerd, not anon, in history). We are adding more refs to the article (see also subarticle on controversies of the Polish-Soviet War), but it's not one of the most popular subjects out there. Still, this may come handy. On another note, could you elaborate on the Soviet POV in the article - do you mean this version, or some old variant? PS. If you stumble upon any useful facts or sources, do share them with us!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems you got me wrong ;-) The German version was written like a history book from the German Democratic Republic. We at first used the English article to clean this unbearable piece of crap in the German WP. I have no complaint concerning the English article. It was very useful for us, because it gave us a table of contens, which we only had to fill with some "flesh" from the literature. So thanks a lot for your excellent work here. Also thanks for the bibliography. I will also take a look at the refs. Greetings and Best Wishes Nasiruddin 23:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Partitions

What relevance does the recovery of Ukrainian and Belorussian territory by Russia in 1772-1795 have in this conflict? If history from 120 years prior is to be taken into perspective, then perhaps it should also be mentioned that Lithuania and Poland seized land from Russia during the Riurikid dynasty in the 14th century. The land Poland was trying to sieze was predominantly inhabited by East Slavic peoples who wanted nothing to do with Poland. It would be like trying to justify an attempt by Turkey to invade Greece and Bulgaria on the basis of "undoing Russian aggression".

[edit] Some War Machine!

This war shows that the soviets were never really that much of a war machine that was to be propped up. The russains never could fight on the offensive. They could fight on the defensive. YankeeRoman(70.187.232.85 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC))