Talk:Soviet Invasion of Poland/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Soviet claims

This has been discussed but since I was reverted I repeat it here. Soviets claimed that 1) "Poland ceased to exist" in view of the successful invasion of Poland by the Germans; 2) the stated goal of the Soviet action was to "protect the Ukrainian and Belarusian population in the wake of the imminent collapse of Poland". Refs brought to the article concur with those claims as well. The Soviets said nothing about the Polish government, whether it also ceased to exist, etc. This was about the Polish State or, like Stalin jokingly put it, the "Polish so-called State". Please do not editorialize on the facts. --Irpen 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your edits on the stylistic grounds, you are factually incorrect in your above remarks. In the note delivered by Soviet government to Polish ambassador on the 17th of September (Polish, sorry I couldn't find an English translation), the Soviets stated that the 'Polish government has fallen appart and shows no signs of life' (Rząd Polski rozpadł się i nie przejawia żadnych oznak życia). Honestly I think the difference between 'government' and 'state' in this context is purely semantical, as both existed on the 17th of September (and afterwards), and Soviet claims are pure falsehood. This note also quite nicely explains that this 'justification' was needed to back up another falsehood - that Soviet cared about 'their' minorities in Poland. On a sidenote, the first note contains an amazing number of false statements, such as 'Warszawa przestała istnieć jako stolica Polski' (Warsaw stopped being the capital of Poland - even through the siege of Warsaw lasted for another week and a half); 'within ten days Poland lost all of its cultural and industrial centers' (Warsaw, Gdynia, Wilno, Lwów - just some of the cities still in Polish hands on the 10th of September)... Soviet propaganda and diplomacy at it's best, I have to say. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to defend the Soviet claims. All I am saying is that neither should they be misrepresented nor editorialized. --Irpen 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pan Prokonsul, was the government of Poland in Warsaw on Sept. 17th? If it is so, than Soviet claims about Warsaw not being the capital of Poland are baseless, but to my knowledge the Polish government by that time was enroute to Romania, if not in Romania already. Also, please state some proof that the Soviets did not care about "their" minorities in Poland. Ko Soi IX 17:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
First, the Polish government crossed to Romania AFTER receiving information that Soviets invaded, not before (see article, we have refs for that). If the Soviets did not invade, the plan was for the Polish army to defend the Romanian bridgehead area were a temporary capital would be created. Until it would, Warsaw was still legally the capital of Poland, as Polish government has not issued any act stating it wasn't. It's as simple as that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Disinfomatsya Continues

Irpen,

In regards to my anonymous additions dated Nov 16, to the Soviet Invasion of Europe and your removal of them on grounds of POV, I must reply. I question your so called loyalty to NPOV. While on the one hand you wish to remove sentences describing the Soviet rule of Eastern Europe as "communist occupation of Eastern Europe", you feel it's perfectly legitimate to allow sentences to remain which repeat the lies of an evil regime which declared it's conquest of Poland as "liberation from oligarchic capitalism."

Additionally, you smear by association with McCarthyism, references to the Western intelligentsia's well known resistence in discussing the conquest of Poland or the genocide at Katyn by the Soviets, while simulteneously continuing the references of the Eastern European intelligentsia's silencing of the Soviet conquest and genocide. You can't on the one hand accuse those who discuss the Western intelligentsia's silence of McCarthyism, while simulteneously pretend balanced scholarship by discussing the discredited Eastern intelligentsia's silence. That is hypocrasy at best and disinformation at worse.

End your hypocrasy by not objecting to citing Western intelligentsia censorship or remove reference to the citation of Eastern intelligentsia censorship. Of course, if you do the later, you will merely be repeating the evils of the past Communist occupyers of Poland by continuing their tyranical censorship of their murderious and evil deeds. Furthermore, by such actions you will be continuing the duplicity of the Western intelligentsia in supporting the monstrosity called Communism by silencing discussion of their occupation of Eastern Europe. I suppose if that is done, I would suggest you throw all false cover to scholarship away and suggest this talk should also be put under the McCarthyism group in keeping with the wishes of your masters.

Free the Oppressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.100.170 (talk • contribs)

Piotrus, what's your opinion on should I bother answering this? --Irpen 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I'd first caution our dear anon to adhere to WP:NPA and related policies; while we all have our POVs this is no reason to accuse you of 'keeping with the wishes of your masters' (sic!). His above comment certainly crosses the line, and I'd note that if he continues to behave impolotly this can lead to a block. Further I fail to see what anon's arguments about McCarthism and such has to do with this article - I don't recall you adding anything along those lines, thus his rant above is in many parts simply 'off the wall'. Last but not least, I'd suggest to our anon to read WP:V/WP:RS (please source your additions), and also remember that this article is primarirly about events of 1939 and thus we should not bloat the aftermath section with info about events that took place afterwards (ok, maybe events up to 41 are relevant, but afterwards they quickly loose relevance to that article). On that note, Irpen, would you care to comment on Talk:Partitions of Poland, where anoter delightfuly POVed anon is representing a rather opposite point of view? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Millions arrested by NKVD

How much time and how large staff is required to arrest millions of people in two years? Any sources cited? Inego 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrected already. Indeed strange. --Irpen 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deported, yes. Arrest, probably overstated - or likely the source that came up with that phrase did not differentiate between those two terms.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Pan Prokonsul, please provide legitamate sources that prove that "millions" were "deported". Ko Soi IX 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

Currently, the article reads like a slur written exclusively from pro-Polish point of view. It paints a black legend of the Red Army. This is a nationalist approach which has little to do with writing encyclopaedia. There is plenty on Katyn and repressions against Russophobic elements, but nothing is said about how this military operation helped change the course of WWII. If the Soviet border was not pushed as much as west as it was as a result of the "invasion", Hitler would have taken Moscow within weeks after the outbreak of the Operation Barbarossa. In this case, we would live in a very different world now, with no Wikipedia or Poland around. But perhaps the most striking thing is that no mention is made that the "invasion" brought about the unification of the Ukraine and Belarus and resulted in the creation of these two states as we know them. Did any Ukrainian or Belarusian editors review the text? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Soviet border was not pushed as much as west as it was as a result of the "invasion", Hitler would have taken Moscow within weeks after the outbreak of the Operation Barbarossa. - Interesting speculation. According to another intruiging speculation (see Talk:Viktor_Suvorov/Archive1) by a certain Mikoyan, Stalin dismantled his defensive fortifications (which also could have stopped the invaders before Moscow!) due to 'shifting the border' into West (so that the forts had become useless then). Er... which way is it then? or may-be it would have been better if Stalin hadn't altogether divided Eastern Europe with his pupil Hitler? So that the latter wouldn't have had the impulse to start a war against Poland?Constanz - Talk 11:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that you share the ideals of appeasement and engage in original research. This is simply inacceptable. Please stop speculating and stick to the facts. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And do you have any sources to back up your POV? Because now it is you who engages in OR and is speculating, Ghirla.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla here. I'm putting the "totally disputed" tag and here's why:

  • the ref #3 is an utter mess. Never on earth such an important thing should be referenced like that. The "over 2 millions" is an estimate made underground and should not qualify as an academic source, for information and POV problems. The other historians should be referenced seperately and a list of books given (e.g. where does R. J. Rummel give the number of 1,200,000?, the link to "Refugees in an Age of Genocide" does not work). In short, all these sources thrown together do not leave a good impression at all.
    • Link rot while annoying is not a reason for disputing the sources - book info and page numbers are given and enough. I agree that '2 milions' need a source, but it is explained in footnote, and the main text gives lower estimates (hundreds of thousands) than some academic English refs in the footnote (1,5 million).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The aftermath section is a huge mess suffering from heavy POV and is very one-sided.
  • The ref #15 is an unknown website. Hardly qualifies as an academic source.
    • The ref mentions the website belongs to Ośrodek Karta. It's a NGO ([1]), which seems notable ([2], [3]) and relible (a brief look at the pages above indicates it 1) cooperates with high schools 2) was awarded a prize by prestigious Polish newspaper and 3) has some beneficial status from Polish government ('organizacja pożytku publicznego' - an organization of public benefit). It seems it is quite a reliable and verifiable source.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry Piotrus but I'm not buying it. That does not make that source academical, as unfortunately, papers and governments seem to be, well, POV. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ummm, per WP:RS: academic English language sources are preferable, but others are acceptable unless it can be clearly shown they are biased (like Stalin Society or Vilnija). KARTA is a respected NGO, no different then, well, Wikipedia itself. It is recognized by Polish government as a 'public utility NGO' (which gives it tax benefits); it receives prizes from prestigious journals - it seems quite firm in the 'reliable' side of the equasion. Unless you can point me to a specific policy that inclusion of this source violates, or to a neutral source that shows how KARTA is in fact very biased, I don't think it can be classified as a non-reliable (and usage of statistic from it POVes the article).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ref 14: http://www.usatruth.by.ru is a heavily POV site and should in no case be used as a reference, as it clearly fails academic criteria.
    • The upper number seems to high, most sources I know (ex. PWN:[4]) give 230,000 number for Polish POWs aftr the capmaign (in Soviet captivity). If you prefer, remove the higher number - but after reviewing your comments it seems the only real error you have found. If that's all, I am afraid there is no need for the totaly disputed tag.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Despite their country attacked by both of its powerful neighbours, some isolated..." - the phrase is factually erroneous, as it appears highly improbable to me that a garrison would be surrounded by both attackers.
  • Some important refs are missing, like for "After a tactical Polish victory at the battle of Szack, the Soviets executed all the NCOs and officers they had managed to capture".
  • Finally, the lead suffers from slight POV as well.

Generally speaking, this article suffers from some moderately annoying POV, a remark I already made to Piotrus on a number of articles. Hence, I'm restoring the tag, although I'm confident that these can be solved, as the body of the text is pretty OK (with some minor stuff to correct but still). I'll try to give a hand but does not mean you can't either.

Finally, geopolitically speaking, whatever Stalin's might initially be, it is doubtless that the fact of having a border several hundreds kilometers westwards played an important role in the failure of the 1941 blitz. This, however, is not a POV problem but should be imho documented in a separate section of the article.

For those who attempt to remove the tag, please read the above first let me remind you that it constitutes vandalism. I hope it won't come to that, but a reminder never hurts... --Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected one error, I'd appreciate it if you could find time to NPOV the language, as you have done so successfully in the past. I have removed the tag as I don't see that article contains any errors or factual inaccuaracies save for possible 'POV-ed language' a minority of involved editors seem to detect (which is quite likely, of course, thus I invite you to help us remove this bias).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Border's importance for Barbarossa

It is far from clear that moving the border several hundreds kilometers westwards in 1939 helped the Soviet Union in 1941. The main reason the Germans were able to get to Moscow in late 1941 was because they destroyed much of the Red Army in the initial border battles. Hence, if the performance of the Red Army in those initial battles would have been better, the Germans would never have gotten to Moscow in the first place. So, the question really ought to be, if the border had stayed in its 1939 position, how would the initial battle have gone? Let's consider just a few points:
  • 1. As already mentioned, moving the border west caused the dismantling of the Stalin Line, while the new Molotov Line was not completed by June 1941. So, if the border was not moved, the defensive strength of the Red Army would have been stronger.
  • 2. Lack of facilities for the Red Army in newly acquired territories. Thus, the reason the Red Air Force was to a large extent destroyed on the ground was because they had to cram a lot of planes into the small number of airfields available.
  • 3. By way of contrast, in 1941 Germany was able to launch the northern half of its attack from its own territory, utilizing fully the excellent facilities and rail lines of East Prussia, continually developed since the 19th century for precisely that purpose. This may be why the Soviet forces in Belorussia and the Baltics were so heavily defeated in the first week, whereas in contrast the Soviet forces in Ukraine resisted relatively well (until attacked from behind by German forces in Belorussia in September, 1941)
  • 4. Since the Red Army in June 1941 was defending newly acquired, still to a large extent foreign territory largely resentful at being incorporated into the Soviet Union, the morale of the Red Army units probably suffered as a result, making its initial performance worse. Quite simply, it is hard to be inspired by defending a population which is secretely gathering flowers and preparing bread and salt to welcome the Wehrmacht. In other words, if the border stayed in its 1939 position, in the first weeks the Red Army would have fought harder, defending "Soviet heartland" from the start, so to speak.
I hope this makes clear that the military confrontation between Nazi Germany and the USSR was a very complex affair, and very few things in it are "doubtless". Balcer 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, this is not my theory as it is developed in some sources (I'll have to relocate them though).
If, however, you want my personal opinion, a defense line would be of little use against blitzkrieg tactics, as the disatrous French and English performance showed in 1940. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In 1940 the Maginot Line proper was bypassed by the Germans (the heavy fortifications did not cover the border between Belgium and France), so it played little role in the outcome of the battle. In my opinion, in 1939, if the border had not moved and the Stalin Line remained fully operational, it would not by itself have stopped the German attack, but it would have slowed it down in the critical initial period, making the overall initial performance of the Soviet army much better.
Anyway, even the Germans themselves, the creators of Blitzkrieg, continued to believe that defensive lines were useful, since they built the Atlantic Wall and other fortifications.
Finally, even some portions of the Stalin Line that were successfully manned and armed in 1941 actually did their job pretty well (see [5])Balcer 19:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Those are all very interesting speculations, but sources are needed to back any of them up, one way or another, guys. The one I can think of now is Stalin's Missed Chance: Soviet forces were cought in the middle of preparing for their own offensive, thus were unprepared for a defensive war. That said, I would tend to agree with Grafikm that having additional buffer territory is useful - although Balcer is right in pointing out it was much less effective than sheer numbers would have us thinking. But as interesting as those speculations are, they have nothing to do with POV tag one way or another.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is always interesting how the Soviet Union (and before that Russia), the largest country on the planet, always required more buffer territories to protect itself (and so could justify all its territorial expansion, since the buffer of today needed in turn its own buffer tomorrow). Did increasing the Soviet territory by about 1% through the gains in 1939-1940 really make all the difference in the war against Germany? How can anyone claim that with any confidence? Let's assume the worst case scenario that with the 1939 border as the start line the Germans had advanced 300 km further than they actually did and took Moscow. Would that have caused Soviet defeat? Who knows, but looking at historical analogies taking Moscow did not ensure Napoleon's success in 1812, so there are no guarantees it would have done so for Hitler in 1941. In fact, the Germans themselves seemed to have understood this and did not actually move against Moscow until late in the 1941 campaign, securing Ukraine and its industries first (and then they did not even bother to try to take Moscow in 1942). Anyway, in 1941 most of the Soviet government was evacuated from Moscow but this did not seem to have impaired the functioning of the Soviet state. Balcer 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, playing the devils advocate (I mostly agree with you), I do recall reading that if Moscow was taken, this would deal crippling morale blow to the Soviets and cut vital communication links...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, look at a map, and think why 300 km westwards were far more important than 10000 eastwards :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to predict what would have happened in an alternate timeline (no one will ever know). My goal in this discussion is simply to question the certain belief attested to by some participants that moving the Soviet border west in 1939 was unambigously good for the Soviet military position in 1941, and that without any doubt the German blitzkrieg would not have been stopped otherwise. These beliefs are not self evident at all, and contrary arguments can be easily presented. Thus claiming that if the starting line for the German attack in 1941 was the 1939 border, then Moscow would have been overrun within weeks and the Soviet Union would have collapsed, is precisely playing with alternate history, and thus is pure speculation and should have no place in this article. Balcer 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the thesis about the Soviets persistently dreading a foreign invasion looks rather weird in the evidence that on June 22, 1941 the Red Army outnumbered the Wehrmacht 4-5 times regarding tanks and planes (Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg, newer Russian sources).
But as mr. Mises has well put: It is, they say, not Russia that plans aggression but, on the contrary, the decaying capitalist democracies. Russia wants merely to defend its own independence. This is an old and well-tried method of justifying aggression. Louis XIV and Napoleon I, Wilhelm II and Hitler were the most peace-loving of all men. When they invaded foreign countries, they did so only in just self-defence. Russia was as much menaced by Esthonia or Latvia as Germany was by Luxemburg or Denmark.([6])Constanz - Talk 10:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Funny thing - since there is no real proof that the USSR tried to invade, pathetic attempts to prove the soviet aggresive designs such as having the most tanks emerge every now and than. Surely, if one forgets that USSR had the largest land border in the world, than the huge number of tanks might seem suspicious - but, for instance, USA and UK had two of the strongest navies in the world. How many tanks can be made from steel required for one battleship? So is that a clear illustration of american or british aggresive designs? Ko Soi IX 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Attempts to show that the Soviets were planning to start an invasion of Germany in the summer of 1941 and were only stopped in the nick of time by the German attack are highly dubious. And the large number of Soviet tanks is misleading, as most of them were only rather weak light tanks (mostly T-26) already verging on obsolescence. Still, this talk page is definitely not the place to discuss this fascinating issue, so let's stop this thread here and now. Balcer 03:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I am reading some of these comments and I can't really believe my eyes. Some of you are claiming it was good that Stalin in 1939 had moved Soviet borders some 300 km west, because later it put SU in a better position. It is like saying that I burned my neighbor's house because I wanted a better strategic position for my house against a hostile neighbor. Besides, in 1939 Stalin and Hitler were close friends, so please... Tymek 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what's immoral in RL takes place left and right in international politics which is a very cynical business. As for Hitler/Stalin's "friendship" assertion, I take it that you have no idea what you are talking about. In pre-war years, Josef Beck was meeting Hitler on the regular basis. Does it imply that they were friends? --Irpen 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I did not mean Stalin and Hitler as personal friends. I meant Hitler's Germany and Stalin's SU as close allies since August 1939. I have an idea what I am talking about. Tymek 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does not seem so. May I suggest you take a look at one of the recent reviews of the subject: Bernd Wegner (Editor), From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia and the World, 1939-1941, Berghahn Books (1997), ISBN 1571818820. --Irpen 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sov1939.jpg

The dude at the left, resembling to Stalin apparently was the hardcore version of Brezhnev. --Brand спойт 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of pictures, can somebody verify Image:17.09.1939.jpg? It has no source and may be soon deleted from Commons, and as far as I can tell it just show 'some tanks somewhere'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Meaning it ain't a big loss if it gets deleted, agreed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is good NPOV article

I believe this paper strictly follows the NPOV policy. It could be emphasized even more that Soviet Union began World War II on the side of Nazi Germany, which is undisputable fact. Biophys 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a joke, it ain't funny. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As we all know, WWII began from invasion of Poland. Both countries attacked Poland almost simultaneously (according to Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement that supposed to be simultaneously). So, they acted exactly as allies against the Poland, and in fact they are allies according to M-R agreement. Of course, each of these "allies" was only wating to attack another. But they were actually allies before June 22. At least, Stalin was delivering a lot of strategical resources to Hitler until June 22, and he did a lot of other things. I am not even talking about very friendly and polite meetings between the Soviet and German military forces in Poland. Biophys 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"A lot of other things", of course, I see ... So, maybe we should talk about Americans and English providing Germany with technologies and resources as well? Or perhaps about a certain Józef Beck who sold his own soul to the Third Reich? Unless, of course, we should talk about the totally crappy attitude of UK and France during the very same period? There are always "claims"... and behind them, are skillful political games... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If saying that Beck 'sold his soul' was supposed tobe a joke, it ain't funny.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Read Gafenco's "Les derniers jours de l'Europe", it makes a verrry instructive read. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So is Black Book of Communism. Feel free to expand Beck's article, but please don't smear his name unless you have reliable proof that he 'sold his soul to the Nazis'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's open this wonderful book: Grégoire Gafenco, "Les Derniers Jours de L'Europe", Egloff, Paris, 1946.
Page 46: "Beck trusts Hitler's parole completely and unquestioningly".
Page 70, describing a discussion between himself and Beck. Beck says the following: "Contrary to all his predecessors, Hitler recognizes the Bolshevik threat [...] How, after all that, can Germany be interested in a war with Poland? If the Polish bastion falls, Europe gates will be open to Soviet expansion. Does Hitler want that? Sure, he wants Dantzig back, but he will never pay such a prince for acquiring just one free city."
Gafenco's commentary after all that, p. 76: "Beck sold himself to Hitler".
Do I need to explain why Beck's point of view was completely inadequate? Note this is an exact transcription by a material witness. I know some people like to build myths but heh... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The list of politicians who misjudged Hitler's intentions and trusted him excessively is long, and includes Stalin himself. Does it follow that they all "sold themselves to Hitler"? Obviously not. Anyway, I would hesitate quoting books from 1946, written right after the war without good access to archives and full of raw emotion. Recent sources (say published within the last 20 years) would be much better here. Balcer 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of the section must be a joke. Several editors stated several well explained challenges and they are not addressed. Ghirla's edit was disrespectfully reverted on the wholesale. The reader needs to be promptly warned that the article is unacceptable. I do not expect tags placed in good faith and supported by several users who explain their objections removed instead of being addressed. --Irpen 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Americans and English provided strategic resources and military equipment to the Soviet Union, not to Germany during WWII. So, they were good allies of Soviet Union during the war (not later), just as Soviet Union was a good ally of Germany before June 22, or contemporary Russia is a good ally of Iran and Syria, or China is a good ally of North Korea, or US is a good ally of Israel. I am trying to be NPOV here.Biophys 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you know that USA lend so much money and provided Germany with so many technologies before WWII that a special Congress report was ordered during WWII to understand what happened? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This may be true or not (I did not study this question about USA), but I looked through this aricle, and it it seems pretty much NPOV to me. Authors made a significant and hard work for Wikipedia and deserved a good credit for it. This is only my opinion, of course. Biophys 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is your opinion :) Be ready, however, to accept the fact that other people have an opinion different from yours, and that, when conflicting, opinions are resolved by citing sources :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also maintain, that Soviet Union began World War II on the side of Nazi Germany, which is undisputable fact. - as already noted by Biophys. Take into account the raw materials&supplies the Commies gave to the Nazis etc. Another interesting thesis is that - given the gross unpreparedness of Wehrmacht for a longer war - Stalin had decided to intervene and stab Poland to back just when the Nazis had started to suffer from e.g lack of fuel, which might have been an advantage for the Polish side. This idea has been advanced by Viktor Suvorov, referring to Polish historians. So it needs further confirmation.Constanz - Talk 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
First, Suvorov's work is disputed by both Russian and Western historians, so one should use extra care when quoting them.
Second, everyone was giving supplies to the Nazis, including USA and Great Britain by the way, a fact that deserved an inquiry by the congress when all this equipment was thrown at the UK... Sweden provided Germany with 1/3 of its need in iron ore for a very long time, yet politically it was neutral. So the fact is not as obvious as you would like to believe. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And you suggest British-American aid (?) to the Nazis is comparable to that by the USSR? Well, some British supplies really went to Nazis - via USSR! I.e UK - USSR had a commercial agreement in November 1939, and the Commies of course immediately began delivering the goods they got from Britain -- to their buddies Nazis. Constanz - Talk 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, Sweden and Switzerland were also Nazi allies, as they provided much need resources to the Germans... Ko Soi IX 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of proportions? And did Switzerland/Sweden participate Nazi military actions?Constanz - Talk 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. But without Swedish ore the Nazis would not be able to sustain their war machine. As for trade between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - Soviet Union was not the only one prominent allied country that traded with the nazis. In exchange for grain, oil, poor ore and some other resources the USSR would be getting factory equipment, etc. So it is logical to conclude that this trade did more to strengthen USSR than Germany. But it's not even the point. For example, Poland participated in partition of Czechoslovakia with Germany. Using your logic, that makes them a hitlerite ally. But if it so, than what problem do you have with Soviet Union attacking a German ally (albeit former)? With such logic you should cheer for USSR's diplomatic and military victory. Also, if USSR was Germany's ally, how come they did not declare war on France and UK? And last but not least, please tell me, exactly which supplies USSR was getting from UK and reselling to the Germans? With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Werner Maser Wortbruch (1994) will answer to all these questions.Constanz - Talk 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
PS. Maser gave detailed table on the friendly trade of the two Great Dictators. And check this one as well: [7]. Constanz - Talk 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try to find Maser's book asap. However, the USSR was not a German ally as it did not declare war upon France and UK. I think the proper term would be passive collaborationist (пособник). Ko Soi IX 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

POV title

Also, it amazes me that certain editors think that the usage of the I.. word in the title is NPOV when the war or operation fits the dicdef of "invasion" but just run to oppose the usage of the word in titles when a certain side in the conflict was a perpetrator. Kiev Offensive and Polish-Ukrainian War being renamed to "Polish invasion of Ukraine (year)" or the 17th century Polish invasion of Russia are fiercely opposed by the same users who insist in invasioning the titles and content of the articles about 1939. Double standards anyone? POV-Title by my book. --Irpen 07:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And now the title is supposed to be POVed? Shall we rename it to Soviet entering Poland (1939) or Soviet liberation of Poland (1939), Irpen?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And in that case we could certainly add the 'Kissing pic' so as to illustrate the main thesis of the re-worked article.--Constanz - Talk 10:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Constanz, all your agruments on this page revolve around WP:POINT and reductio ad absurdum. This is not constructive at all. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't heard much facts by you, anyway. I also gave statistics, and the citations should illustrate the case as well.Constanz - Talk 10:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How about Unification of Ukraine and Belarus? -- Petri Krohn 10:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a possible different article, but certainly not a valid title for this one, I would think. Not any more than American Civil War was reunification of United States, or Russian Civil War the creation of the Soviet Union are better titles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Your argument would make sense if the Poles (and the Ukrainians and Belorussians) had resisted the Red Army. It seems that the "invasion" was to large extent peacefull. The Soviets did not "soften" the target by artillery barrages or air strikes. The "resistanse" seems more like retaliatory raids on Soviet forces rather than any serious attempt to prevent them from entering.
Also, we have Anschluss instead of Nazi invasion of Austria. -- Petri Krohn 02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The Soviet casualties during the operation amounted to about 1000 killed in action. These were much bigger casualties then those suffered by the American army during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, just to name one example. By your logic, would you support the move of Invasion of Iraq to Entry of the American army into Iraq? Considering the laughingly small Polish forces that were left on the Eastern border to face the Soviets, the fighting, where it occured, must have been quite fierce, given the Soviet casualties. What were the casualties of the Wehrmacht during the Anschluss? Balcer 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Yo answer Piotrus' question, if we avoid Invasioning titles, an alternative would be "Polish Campaign (1939)" but since we need to distinguish between two, the title would be Red Army Polish Campaign (1939). We can discuss other alternatives. Piotrus' proposal of using liberation in this article is not made in good faith and is aimed at inflaming matters. Additionally to invasion, POV is to call Western Ukraine and Belarus - Poland. We do not need to diacuaa the issue here and can avoid it altogether. --Irpen 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

. In a long term, the Soviet military operation resulted in the unification of East Slavic people living on different sides of the Soviet-Polish border and in the creation of the modern states of Ukraine and Belarus. unfortunately I still don't see any sources here, that would undermine my assumption, that this is a personal evaluation of the events by Ghirlandajo (or WP:OR).Constanz - Talk 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sources? Look at the map of modern Europe. Ko Soi IX 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Constanz, after dePOVing and expanding, the above sentence has some merit - please see the new last section of the aftermath. On the other hand, I wonder if this is all relevant: the Soviet treatment of the Ukrainian and Belarusian population in the aftermath of the invasion is surely as relevant as its treatment of ethnic Poles - but the creation of independend states in 1990s is as relevant as, let's say, history of Solidarity and fall of Soviet Union in general - all history is a chain of events, but we should avoid drawing causal chains over long periods - not because they don't exist, but because there are too many (which do we chose? why independence of Ukraine/Belarus only, why not that of Baltic States, Central/Eastern E. states, reunification of Germany, Cold War, Putin...etc.).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On the ru wiki, the article is called 'Cоветско-польская война 1939 года' - which if I understand it properly means Polish-Soviet war of 1939 (Two hits on Google Print). On Polish one it is 'Radziecki atak na Polskę w 1939' - Soviet attack on Poland in 1939 (2 hits). Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 context is used by 90 books. The title seems to be widespread in English academic publication - so unless you can present another popular, non-OR title that is more neutral, I am afraid we are stuck with that one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That brings us back to Polish invasions of ... in 16xx and 1918-1920 which are called as such in multiple sources brought up at the multiple talk pages. Opposed by your double standards. I am so tired of this tendetious POV pishung approach. --Irpen 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And I am so tired of your selective ignoring of references. Please show - like I did above - that for those periods those names are more popular. As far as our past discussions showed, they are NOT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I again invite everyone annoyed with the current title to consider that invasion is quite simply not an intrinsically loaded or negative term in English. There are plenty of invasions in Western historiography and culture which are considered to be positive developments, by most or at least some people: Invasion of Normandy, Invasion of Iraq, Invasion of Sicily, and on a lighter note the British Invasion of 1964 quickly come to mind. So, arguments against the title based on the actual usage in references are welcome. Arguments against it based on the notion that it somehow expresses a pro-Polish and anti-Soviet POV are to say the least misplaced. Balcer 03:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's right. If Invasion of Iraq is used by the Americans themselves and title Soviet Invasion has considerably more hits than listed alternatives, then, naturally, it should be preserved. Constanz - Talk 08:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but not the Polish eastwards invasions. That they were Polish makes them unusable for the titles. It's not Massacre, Murder, Martyrdom or "treatment". Invasion, when perpetruated by Poland suddenly becomes a loaded word and unacceptable for titles. --Irpen 09:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we to understand then that you see no intrinsic problem with the current title of this article, but you do object to the titles of some other articles? If so, do you think this is a valid reason to continue tagging this article with an NPOV tag? In my opinion putting a warning tag on article A because one does not like what is in article B is counterproductive. After all, a tag is supposed to reflect problems with this article, not with some others. Balcer 09:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No you are not to understand... I am uncertain about the best solution, partly because of being non-native speaker. Invasion seems to me too a strong word and I am against the strong words (including the "M" words) in the titles (not the texts). If, however, many editors will keep telling me that there is nothing non-neutral in the term "invasion", I would be willing to accept it as a general standard. For now, I see only double standards that the term is NPOV if "invasion" happens to be of Poland and POV if the invasion happens to be a Polish one. --Irpen 09:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq has just punched a big hole in your argument. Care to rephrase it? And how can we accept "invasion" as a general standard? What would that mean exactly? Surely we cannot use it for all military operations out there. Balcer 09:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, you are missing the main point here (on purpse?). Some events are univerally reffered to as majority of sources as 'invasion'. This is one of them. Others are not (i.e. Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618)). On the other hand, I do agree that if we have cases where several names are more or less applicable, we should avoid the use of 'invasion' - thus I did prefer Polish September Campaign or Polish Defence War for this event (and in such a case we could have this article at Soviet part in the Polish September Campaign or sth along those lines). Unfortunatly, most of the editors saw the 'Invasion of Poland' as a better name for this event - thus it is rather a moot point to discuss the issue here, as 'Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)' is the most logical subarticle for the battles between Soviets in Poles in 'Invasion of Poland (1939)'. If you don't like it, suceed in renaming Invasion of Poland (1939) into sth else, and than rename this subarticle.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that POV-title template was reinserted into this article without any steps, which would indicate the willingness to resolve the dispute, as prescribed by Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I'm removing the template, and if there is a true conflict, I would recomment a survey on the article's name, or any other real steps of dispute resolution process.

Speaking of the current title, I partially agree with Irpen as the territories occupied by Soviets were predominantly populated by Belarisian, Ukrainians, and others. Still, "invasion" is not something unacceptable; it may be called "attack"; probably the most neutral is "takeover"; but not "liberation". In any case, it should be "Soviet [something] of Poland (1939)".

I'd rather oppose "Soviet-Polish war (1939)" as there was no true scale war. In fact, Soviets were initially welcome at the taken territories. I oppose "Red Army Polish Campaign (1939)", as Red Army was just a military unit of Soviet Union; the army didn't act by itself. --KPbIC 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, Polish wiki uses 'attack'. Would this be acceptable to all involved?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In choosing between "invasion" and "attack", "invasion" seems to be more appropriate English word. --KPbIC 21:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Between the choices (not between choices), invasion is more appropriate, but it is not necessarlily the most accurate. Dr. Dan 05:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Costanz, emboldened by an award from another tendentious editor, you disrupt the Russian noticeboard by mulptiple exercises in WP:POINT. I'm afraid a block is due to cool you off. Furthermore, such comments qualify as deliberate trolling. If you presume to ignore the basic fact that it was Stalin who determined the current borders of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, you'd better stop editing this article. I take no side in the dispute on the merits of these borders, but I don't condone expurgating from the article valid information as to who was instrumental in establishing them. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that you yourself have been warned numerous times (incl me) for your assaulting tone, and have been condemned if necessary. This time, I shall 'not answer to provocations', as they said.
I'd just remind you "Why do you squint at the splinter in your brother's eye, and fail to see the log in your own eye?" - (Matthew 7:3)Constanz - Talk 11:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is too bad that you have nothing to answer. All the blocks against me have been reprimanded by the community and, in the recentmost case, led to the blocking admin being defrocked. I find your ad hominem arguments incivil. My policy towards tendentious editing is strict and I always support bans of tendentious editors, such as Molobo and some other your predecessors. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So far your recent accusations of 'tendentious edit' and 'trolling' (this time not yet 'Russophobia'!) regarding me or others have remained just your thoughts, expressed in an incivil way (don't worry, I don't feel insulted. I know you already. The others [8]know your level as well). Your personal grudge or smth against me reveals sometimes itself in clear 'WP:POINT exercises' as well. Constanz - Talk 11:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the book "Beria" by Antonov-Ovseenko? It was published on Russian. One interesting point I found there is that Soviet occupiers in East Europe were actually worse than Nazi occupiers. Nazi conducted genocide of Jews (so they were worse for Jews). But the Soviet occupiers eliminated the entire "ruling classes", i.e. rich and influential people and "intelligentsia" in every country occupied by Soviet military forces. Of course, the same strategy was applied before by the bolshevik's regime aginst Russian, Georgian, and other "ruling classes". That was a well designed strategy: if one kills the soul, the eyes, and the brain of a nation, then he can do anything with the body. For example, it is very important for all dictatoships to eliminate independent journalists (such as Politkovskaya): they are the "eyes" of the nation. When the nation is blined, it is possible to convince people in anything through the state-controlled media. This discussion is a good example what propaganda can do with people. That was just a comment and my opinion. Biophys 06:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
While it is OK to express your opinions in talk pages (and not in articles), please keep in mind that categories "better" or "worse" are inapplicable to incomparable things. Also I strongly suggest you to clean up your ignorance as to whom Nazis were killing and what else they were doing in Eastern Europe. BTW, what relation to the article content does your last remark about propaganda bear? Whatever your remarks may be, please write some suggestions to the topic of the article or do not write at all. This is not a political discussion board. We are writing encyclopedia here. Various off-topic remarks is waste of our time. `'mikkanarxi 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear mikkanarxi. Yes, I agree, we are making encyclopedia here. That is why I have provided a reference, which is relevant to the subject of discussion: "Beria" by Antonov-Ovseenko (he is son of that Antonov-Ovseenko). Did you read it? Do you need more references and data? They can be easily provided. For example, the number of victims of Communism in Baltic States far exceeds that of Nazism [9]. I also strongly agree with you that political discussions do not belong here. That is why I made my previous remark. I thought this discussion is actually politically motivated. Biophys 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Among Germans, the number of "victims of Communism" (as you call it) exceeds that of Nazism even more drastically. Which does not prove anything. Hitler's allies are simply not representative for such comparisons. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, as to the Russians, the number of Communism victims was also considerably higher than the number of victims of Nazism. But this probably doesn't count much, because Stalin was bad but nevertheless 'own guy'...Wlasow 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop this historical revisionism, WP is not a place to push such kind of extremist agendas (and with a nickname like that, it is not hard to see where your loyalties lie...) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As usual, when one has no arguments left, then namecalling will do. Indeed, if parts of 'established history' are lies, then these lies must definitely be revised. Wlasow 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, obviously all reliable sources of the whole universe lie and must be corrected to state that Andrei Vlasov was actually a liberator and was fighting for Russian freedom. Last time I saw such a thesis was on some Nazi blogs, and it has nothing to do on Wikipedia. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Grafikm, there is no need to discuss user's name unless it is outright offensive. As this is not the case, let's look at edits and ignore whatever one thinks about the name.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Curiously, as I look up Grafikfr's edit history, I see that he is infamous for his own disrespect for verifiable sources, like Britannica...Wlasow 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ghirla, are you warning yourself? I completly agree with your description of behaviour - but it applies to you. I see nothing to condemn in Constanz editing here, while you on the other hand seem to forget about WP:CIV and WP:NPA again, accusing other editors of trolling and nationalism. As Constanz remainded you, you have been blocked in the past for such behaviour. Please moderate yourself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotr, you know that I am immune to your habitual incivility and personal attacks. They continue so long that this has become boring years ago. Returning from ad hominems to the subject matter of this article, I reviewed its sources and concluded that they may not be considered reliable per WP:RS. Most are journalistic articles in an obscure language and not peer reviewed. This is not an encyclopaedic standard. I urge their removal from mainspace to talk for further discussion and examination. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Setting asside your ironic accusations, please tell us which exactly sources have you reviewed and deeded unreliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)