Talk:Warsaw Uprising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warsaw Uprising article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Warsaw Uprising is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 6, 2004.
Poland Portal
Warsaw Uprising is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Incorporate all the sub-articles into main article
  2. Check the newly-expanded sections for repeated info, consistency and such
  3. Copy-edit the article, polish the style and text flow
  4. Add {{fact}} tags where appropriate (the more the better)
  5. Replace the tags with in-line references
  6. Eliminate red links
  7. Proof-read
  8. Report the changes at the FAR page
Priority 7  


Old material has been moved to Talk:Warsaw Uprising/Archive1 the archive since it discussed an old update project. Mozzerati 19:19, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Potential sources

I've been looking for sources online. I think that these could be valuable particularly for maps etc. some things

Copyright © London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association (Copying permitted with reference to source and authors)

Is that an acceptable license for Wikipedia? Reference has to be given anyway to track sources.

I've emailed the author to see about copyright status / permission. Some of the maps look good, though I'm not sure where they are from.

The author replied, we can use the materials, but they come from a Polish book from the 1970s. I'm not sure what that means for the coypright status. Certainly, copies taken prior to the 1980s are probably out of copyright in the e.g. the US (since Poland wasn't signatory to copyright treaties at the time.)Mozzerati 07:19, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

"The Polish Underground State: A Guide to the Underground, 1939-1945" Stefan Korbonski, pages 187-193 according to internet sources there is a fair amount of analysis of Stalin's position on Warsaw.

The maps seem to be scanned from Jerzy Kirchmayer's book and as such are subject to copyright laws (Poland, contrary to the USSR, did sign the conventions and the book had several reprints lately). However, the maps on polishresistance-ak.org come from their own publication and could be used as fair use, with source cited.
As per Korboński's book, it's really great. Unfortunately I don't have it at home. Anyone? Halibutt 07:32, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Copy editing

Because of a suggestion in WP:FAC, I've been doing some small copy editing. More and better work could be done, but I've removed some over-wikification and cleaned up some verb tenses.

Some question always arise in ythis sort of edit. For instance, did the Allies really send missions to all the other resistance movements? The problem is whether to remove the "all" or change it to "all the other". Also, "At the same time the government asked ...several times" is unclear, since asking several times usually takes a while. A little clarification of the timing would be in order from someone who knows the data. Oh, and is it accurate that these other missions had already been dispatched at that time?

The Soviet propaganda "underlined" that the Home Army was, so to speak, sitting on its hands while the Red Army fought. Implicitly that sentence agrees that the Soviet claim was true. If that's not conceded, "claimed" would be better, but I can't assess the facts of the case. Dandrake 03:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

hi; thanks for your help. Please be aware of the page split (discussed just before). it's appreciated if you can do most of the copy editing in the split pages (doing both is even better :-) since the main page should soon have many of it's longer sections replaced with summaries. Best of all would be helping to move material around and, having checked that it's stored somewhere, summarising it in the main page.Mozzerati 06:45, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
I dont feel competent to work with the content or even the structure of the article, but I'm editing again, and will get to the split pages afterward. Question: In "Reasons for failure" it says "This is consistent with Soviet later treatment of many Home Army soldiers, who were usually imprisoned, tortured and executed." I'm fairly sure we want "frequently" rather than "usually"; the latter would mean that most or nearly all the soldiers were treated that way, while the text says that "many" were. But I don't know the facts. Dandrake 00:10, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Usually would would apply to "imprisoned". E.g. "on one single night in February 1949, up to 5000 people were arrested" (Norman Davies, English Paperback, P568). It would also apply to "tortured" where some form of torture was standard in any NKVD prison/prison camp/concentration camp/gulag as part of "interrogation". The death rate in Gulags around this time was 80%, so I really wonder if, of those who were available to them, the NKVD didn't kill more than 50% of the AK soldiers they could access; (remember, many of the survivors survived because they were liberated in the west of Germany and were never available for the Soviet forces to kill). Still I can't find any more exact reference to clear that up. We should try to find some statistics. You should remember that, actually the concentration camps were NOT closed at the end of the war. They were used for Nazi and AK prisoners (sometimes more or less together).
insurgents 40 000 [1] (ND) (well known)
pre existing members of AK
killed in uprising 15 000
killed before end of war  ???
liberated in the west
"liberated" by Soviet forces
stayed in Poland
returned to Poland

and also the fate of civilans

residents in warsaw in 1944 1 000 000
Killed in uprising (inc. insurgents) 250 000
civilians deported from Warsaw 700 000
(of which) sent to concentration camps 50,000 [2]
(or) sent to labour camps 150,000 [3]

[edit] Suggestions for forther work

I think that some new articles could be useful:

  • Civilians in the Warsaw Uprising covering in much more detail what happened to civilians, how massacres made them support the uprising, what they did to supported the uprising, what happened to them afterwards. The statement that 700,000 went to concentration camps is probably wrong since Norman Davies states that many were released into the countryside. How many, exactly, were killed in concentration camps and how many used for slave labour is an important question showing the level to which the Germans kept their promises.
  • Political Manoeuvring around the Warsaw Uprising covering exactly how the American and British politicians reacted to requests for help and how Soviet politicians managed to block this.

Also important is to add material about the way newspapers, especially in Britain, represented the uprising and how that was linked to Soviet propaganda.

Mozzerati 19:19, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) (actually taken from an old comment)


[edit] Soviets stopping??

This was added recently:

It is also worth mentioning that due to the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviets stopped their offensive in Poland to let the Germans suppress the uprising. Some historians speculate that if they hadn't done so, they would have occupied all Germany rather than the eastern part only.

First important point, this should be attributed. Please name at least one of "some historians", preferably a well respected one.

I think there's a valid point there in that the Soviets, with Polish support, were in a very reasonable situation to end the War earlier since they were extremely well equipped and armed, so moving forward, in an easy fasiion, would have been likely to let them take more territory before the Germans had had a chance to regroup and destroy large portions of the local German forces. However, there are two other sides to this; it is likely that Stalin had already accepted an agreed division of Germany with the other Allies and as such, he didn't want to expend effort on taking parts of the country that he might have to give back (at this time, the Soviet war effort had a very high level of American funding and supplies, meaning that the Soviets/Stalin had to take into account issues America felt strongly about, one of which was not Poland). The other part of the second side is that the Warsaw uprising gave Stalin the protection from a counter attack that he needed in order to be able to concentrate on the Balkans where "facts on the ground" were likely to matter more than in Germany. Note the American's lack of support in attacks on the East of Germany because "this would be in the German sphere of influence" (quote from memory, so inaccurate).

I propose a more full section be added to the legacy article which discusses speculation on the effect of the Warsaw uprising on the war. It's impossible to be historical in this case and we can only document the points of view of different experts. Mozzerati 06:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Okay, lets make one thing clear: Soviets did not stop, they were stopped by Germans. Red Army had overextended its logistic base (they had been advancing constantly since beginning of Bagration) and when they approached Warsaw, they were thrown back by German counterattack which included 4 Panzer divisions. Soviet vanguard took 90% casualties, and they were forced to withdraw almost 100km. It was only later when they were able to advance to east bank of the river. The article does not contain these events, and gives incomplete picture of Soviet actions and situation at the time. It gives an impression that Soviets could have broke through German defences had they wanted, but this is unsupportable, and that it was done in January 1945 (with fresh, reinforced forces and extensive preparations) has no relevance in that discussion. It is unquestionable that there were political motivations - Stalin wanted to consolidate his position in rest of the Eastern Europe before finishing off the Germans, and of course he probably felt little sympathy towards Polish Home Army anyway. However, although the Soviets could have certainly done more to help the Home Army, it is questionable whether they could have taken the city. --Mikoyan21 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here we have Mikoyan with his usual Soviet apologetics (and no reference to his figures). As for a historian needed, I would quote professor Wojciech Roszkowski :

The Warsaw Rising broke out on August 1, 1944. The Soviet troops halted their offensive and watched the slow defeat of the rising. What's more, Stalin did not allow British aircraft, coming to Warsaw with supplies, to land on airfields behind the front, less than a hundred kilometers away from the capital. Aircraft coming as far as Italy had to return home without landing. The Western allies practically accepted the Soviet monopoly on the Eastern front, and their support was negligible.

source: 'The Days of Freedom. On the 60th Anniversary of the Warsaw Rising.' (A booklet published and delivered by the 'Warsaw Rising Museum') Constanz 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Note, that the uprising lasted THREE MONTHS. I think it is sensible that indeed Soviets were stopped in first month; but they then waited for THREE MONTHS, while not allowing western allies to use their airports to carry the materials for the insurgents. Szopen 10:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Quick correction. As the Uprising started on August 1st and ended on October 2nd, it lasted 2 months (63 days), not 3. Balcer 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's good that some interest in this article is reawakening after a long slumber. Actually, I have extended the discussion of the Soviet role in the subsection Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising. I welcome any comments.
As for the Battle of Radzymin (1944) (we already have an article on it!), it was not a great setback. A Soviet Tank Army racing far ahead of the main body was surprised by a German counterattack and got severely mauled. However, a single Tank Army was only a small fraction of the total fighting power of the Red Army at the time. This local defeat certainly did not impede the Red Army from advancing within a dozen kilometers of the Warsaw city center by August 1st, 1944. Balcer 05:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The fundamental point is this: regardless of Stalin's intentions, were the Germans able to put up resistance to the Soviet advance? Obviously they were. Would the Germans want to prevent a Soviet advance on Berlin? Clearly. If so, where would they try to stop this advance? The Vistula. Once the Red Army crossed the Vistula, Germany's defence had entered a desperate phase. If they couldn't stop the Red Army taking Warsaw, they couldn't stop it taking Berlin. We know now the German armies were destined for defeat, but at the time this wasn't a given, and the German high command certainly wasn't going to go down without a fight. Subsequently there has been a long-term campaign (starting with Churchill if not earlier) to make out that the Red Army's halt at the Vistula was purely reflective of Stalin's plan to take over Poland and that the German military had nothing to do with it. This clearly has no rational basis.--Jack Upland 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are asking a wrong question. Nobody is denying that Germans were trying to hold on to Warsaw and stop Soviets from crossing the river. The question is: Could the Soviets have attacked earlier and done more to aid the Uprising?. And the answer is pretty clear: they could have done more but didn't. For Soviets there was much to gain by doing nothing: a few weeks respite allowed them to strenghten their forces on the front (logistics, etc.) and ensured that the Soviet main contender for control over Poland (i.e. the Poles of Armia Krajowa) would bleed to death and that Operation Tempest biggest gamble would be a spectacular failure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that. However, I think that distinction should be made between "doing more" and "successfully doing more" ie. could Soviets really have gained a major breakthrough had they co-operated with Home Army? In the view of the events and forces involved, I don't think that is all that likely. It is true that one Tank Army did not represent major part of total strength of Red Army, but the real question is, how much the setback affected to balance within that threatre of operation, and it that light, its' signifance is considerably greater. One should also ask, if crossing Vistula and capturing Warsaw would have been so easy for Soviets, why they didn't do it once Home Army capitulated? Instead, Warsaw was taken only next year with completely new offensive.--Mikoyan21 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point about "succesfully doing more," but the fact is that succesful or no, they could most certainly have DONE MORE! Sure, the tank battle in Radzymin did hurt the Russians, but it is akin to General McClellan retreating from the outnumbered and outgunned defenders of Richmond at Seven Day's because he lost some men. Even if Radzymin delayed a supposed Soviet plan to invade Warsaw, it would likely included "rear guarding operations" against the AK for "lost or destoryed supplies" that either did not exist or would "mysteriously turn up" right back in the Red Army supply piles. He wanted Poland and he was MORE than willing to kill anybody who would stand in his way. Why not, he killed anyone who opposed hime anywhere else. Yes, I do believe that the Soviets were exhausted and I can understand a week or so rest time, but these guys did NOT fight in Bagraton, the advance the had participated in was quite a bit shorter than Bagraton. And the Soviets claimed that there were four armoured divisions, one of which was SS and the other the dreaded Herman Goering Division, when in reality the massive Soviet force was facing the 73rd infantry Division, which was GROSSLY understrength, and without ANY help whatsoever. This situation is akin to having around 100 armed men facing off with a Mariachi Band. An UNDERSTRENGTH Mariachi Band. And that is not as big an exageration as you may think. Now as for the Western Allied Airlifts, war is tragic and inevitably, mistakes shall be made, and one or two of the Allied planes shot at could be attributed to that, BUT GIVEN THAT THE RUSSIANS ACTUALLY DOWNED MORE ALLIED PLANES THAN THE GERMANS, SOME OF WHICH WERE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT leaves one a leetle (intentional misspelling) bit more uncertain as to the cause. Even if one goes to all lengths to excuse some of the Soviet activities that could have an excuse, no matter how flimsy, one still must concede that the Soviets did several things hurtful to the rebels that cannot be so easily explained away. ELV

Somehow, the 5th German panzer division, the 3d SS Totenkopf was forgotten, so now we have only 4 panzer divisions facing the Russians. I blame Stalin only for irresponsible attack with insufficient force and no reserves, which resulted in destruction of the tank corps. He really-I mean, really- had to sit there and wait. Begletz 04:54, 2 February 2007

If resistance forces wanted/expected help (as is implied when it is said that they are started because Soviet troops were near) then they would've consulted with Stalin or somebody else in Soviet command. This is a rather obvious thing to do, Churchill and Roosevelt did it before D-Day. I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that Soviet troops were not overstretched and could continue to fight. This situation is not much different then early 1945 when Soviet troops were in a striking distance to a Berlin but had to run around for a long time to secure their flanks and to stop possible counter-attacks. And trust me in 1945 they wanted to take Berlin and finish the war. The actual size of German forces in Warsaw is actually irrelevant. Nobody knows with 100% certainty location of enemy troops during a battle. Soviet commands had to do what they had to do to win the war. Sometimes it means you have to be cautious. Do you really think that rushing in the battle is the right thing to do, just after you lost a tank army in an ambush? If so, you are not alone, Soviet command thought the same in 1941, but after huge loses they learned better… But seriously with your logic you can assume that with all that forces Soviets could just walk to Berlin in a few weeks (I mean if they could take Warsaw without reinforcement, why stop there, let’s just keep on going, right?) I am not sure which examples of Soviet troops shutting down English planes you are talking about, but I am sure there were some. Friendly fire is part of the war (and still is, look at Iraq/Afghanistan wars for examples) and unless you have some evidence to contrary I would assume that this is what you talking about. The only thing that you can say is that they did not want to consult with Stalin, but that’s a complete stupidity on the part of resistance. Have they talked to Stalin and waited a little, Poland would probably go through the same history as it did anyway, but today’s free Poland would had children of these people who needlessly lost their lives during the resistance. Looking at the picture of Mały Powstaniec (Little partisan) I can’t believe that children that young had to die for somebody’s ego. Poor guy.

P.S ELV I think you are constantly mixing Russian and Soviets, Stalin (or Beria who was NKVD chief) was not Russian leader; he was Soviet leader and so on, they were not born in Russia nor were they Russian by nationality. In top level positions there were relative few Russians. [VicTalk]

Not attacking is one thing - refusing the allied planes to land in Soviet territory or shooting to allied planes which carried help for insurgents is quite an another thing. Szopen 08:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixup caption

How do we fix the formatting of the following caption: "During the Uprising much of Długa street was reduced to ruins. The Bank Polski redoubt can be seen to be one of the few buildings in the street still standing in the 1944 photograph shown here on the left. The image on the right shows the bank still bearing the scars of the Uprising in 2004"? The spacing is all wrong and the font-face appears to be courier... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

hmm looks reasonable to me on both Konqueror and Mozilla; It comes out with a proportional (though quite small) font, the same one as the body text. The main bad thing is the lack of a proper margin. Mozzerati 17:11, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
Improved, though a perfect solution would use the appriopriate CSS classes, rather than putting the CSS in the article. Richard Taylor 01:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Resources

Good original source material for this article should also include General Bor-Komorowski's own account--"The Secret Army" The Macmillan Company, New York, 1951. Another good first hand account of Polish Resistance in WWII is "The Story of a Secret State" by Jan Karski, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1944.

After the war General Bor-Komorowski was a very angry and hurt man--he felt betrayed by the Western Allies. In his own words...

"But it was entirely incomprehensible to us why the Allies were giving up to slavery and partition their most faithful and oldest ally of the war.

Their decision erased and tore to bits all the principles of the Atlantic Charter and allowed brute force and violence to be inflicted on Poland--the 'inspiration of nations'--and to prevail over right and justice. Poland was to give up 46 percent of its pre-war territories, while a clique of usurpers and Kremlin agents, 'supplemented' by 'members of other parties' in a manner devoid of any practical effect or meaning were to be imposed on the nation as a government by the three signatories of the Yalta Pact. Moreover, these decisions were made with complete disregard for the existence of the body of legal Polish authorities, as well as of the wishes of the nation itself.

It was clear to us that Yalta was-tantamount to blotting out our country's independence. This blow, so heavy and unexpected, shook us to the core."

Get his book. It is a great read and brings to life the story related in the main article.

[edit] Quotes

It appears my quote section has been lost in all the recent changes. Where do you think it should be moved then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • before the Uprising:
    • More then 1,000 members of German Ordnungspolizei and Sicherheitspolizei had died in the course of their normal police duties, this does not include the losses during the participation of any special operations. Alongside those losses, the number of 500 casualties among the various officials of all administration sectors deserves a separate mention - from the speech of Hans Frank on 18 November 1943
first section of main article
    • If not for Warsaw in the General Government, we wouldn't have 4/5 of our current problems on that territory. Warsaw was and will be the center or chaos and a place from which opposition spreads throughout the rest of the country - Hans Frank in 14 December 1943, Cracow
first section of main article
  • during the uprising
    • Contrary to our expectations, the enemy has halted all of their offensive actions alongside the entire front of the 9th Army. - from the operations journal of German 9th Army on 16 August 1944, entry shows the German amazement with Russian response to the Warsaw Uprising
added into lack of support article.
    • The 9th Army has crushed the final resistance in the southern Vistula circle. The insurgents fought to the very last bullet. - from the German report on 23 September (T 4924/44)
this is the only one which seems to be still missing; It should go in the middle of the battle, but in the right section; not sure which Mozzerati 21:19, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
  • after the uprising
    • one the most deadly fights since the beginning of the war, as difficult as the fight for Stalingrad - Heinrich Himmler to other German generals on 21 IX 1944
this is in the caputulation section

I distributed them through the article(s) (preserving them all, I hope). I think that they have the most effect backing up the statements which they are related to and that having a separate quotes section tends to expand the article too much. If there should be such a section, it should probably be in the article about the media and should discuss also places where these quotes have been used. Mozzerati 20:25, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

I dont mind them being distributed in the text, but I think all but the first 2 have been since edited out. Do you think we should put them back in the text? The 'during the uprising' first quote belong in 'Lack of outside support' section, second is for the middle of the 'Batt'e and 'after the uprising' can be put either at the very start or somewhere after 'The capitulation'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've tried to check them. There's only one I wasn't able to put in place (see above) Mozzerati 21:20, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Category:Warsaw Uprising is itself a sub-category of Category:Polish history (click on Category:Warsaw Uprising to see this), so it is redundant to have Category:Polish history on this page (it also self-understood that Category:Warsaw Uprising should be expected to be a sub-category of Category:Polish history). This should explain why Category:Polish history is not needed on this page. IZAK 09:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable to me now. What about Category:World War II campaigns and theatres - you removed this before once. Why - and did you change your mind now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More pics

I uploaded some pics from the Polish wiki, I think they might be useful here. You can check them in the Szare Szeregi article. Halibutt 12:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Boy-scouts acting as field post during the Uprising

Girl-guides in the same role
NonFreeImageRemoved.svgImage:PAST motopomp flame.jpg

Firemen's pump used by the Home Army soldiers as an improvised flamethrower during the siege of PAST building, in the early stages of the Warsaw Uprising. As the car was damaged, the fuel was pumped directly from its container.

PAST building burning during the Warsaw Uprising

cont.

German POWs taken after the capitulation of the PAST building

cont.

cont.

Polish and Soviet parade on the ashes of Warsaw; January 17, 1945

From the archive of Eugeniusz Lokajski:

Ant E Wolski Tolek byELokajski.jpg

Tomb of Antoni Wolski Tolek

Home Army soldiers preparing for an assault

Assault

Polish soldiers reading a German leaflet during the Warsaw Uprising
Lokajski - Poczta Główna (1944).jpg009

After the battle

How to incorporate all of those into the article? :) Halibutt 08:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please add this one too. --Irpen 04:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Kubuś"

[edit] Kaczyński and war time losses of Warsaw

I reworded the comment about Kaczyński sticking to Deutsche Welle. However, I don't really think that its place is here. The losses are fact related to Warsaw Uprising. Kaczyński's presidency is not. So it should be rather placed in the article about Kaczyński. Also, I don't understand German, so I removed the other sources, but if they mention the war losses as well, I have no objections to put them back. If they mention only German opinion about Kaczyński, like the BBC one, then again, it should be put in the article about Kaczyński, not here. I wrote there that the critique made by Mocek was wider than that, because in all Polish sources I found the war losses are not mentioned, while some other elements of Kaczyński's campaign are criticized by Mocek. Clearly Mocek is critical about the new president in general. Please, write your comments here if you disagree.--SylwiaS | talk 16:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We should leave the information how much damage the Geramns inflicted according to estimates.The information on reaction to this information by German media is more fitting in articles on President Kaczynski and German-Polish relations. --Molobo 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What is this section doing here? "Silesia" is going to file a claim against Germany for destruction inflicted by Germany? Hello, but Silesia was German until the end of WWII so how can Germany be sent a bill for destruction inflicted on its homeland? Is the idea that the Germans should have repaired everything in Breslau, etc. before they were expelled? I suppose the same applies to Stettin? Perhaps in that case the Soviets should bill Poland since the Warsaw Uprising destroyed so much property that could have been useful to them! And most important of wall, what has Silesia, etc. have to do with an article about the Warsaw Uprising?Bdell555 12:39, 25 February 2007 (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.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • 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.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

[edit] Losses

  1. s of troops:

Ok, I can see that the Germans may have had 25,000 troops in the city at the beginning of the Uprising, but that they used only those to subdue the rebels is just idiotic. When Berlin got word of the AK's Revolt, they pulled out all the stops: SS, FJ, Engineers, Luftwaffe, Heavy Armor, most of which were vets. They VASTLY outnumbered the Home Army. I am changing it. ELV—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.158.221 (talk • contribs) .

German strength 25,000 German losses 26,000

Am I missing here something?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.13.8.14 (talk • contribs) .

  • You are missing German reinforcements. From the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger article - "The regiment arriving in Warsaw numbered 881 men and officers, and during the battle they received reinforcements of 2,500 soldiers, losing 2,733 in progress, and leaving only 648. Casaulties in the battle reached 315%" Mieciu K 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia isnt doing so good,

If this article is one of the best of the service. Cause its full of nonsense, from the names of the units, numbers of troops commited by each side, the names of the weapons ie whats listed as machine pistol is actually numbers of submachine guns and also the loses and type of personel lost of each side. I suggest somebody that actually knows something about the subject rewrites the whole article as now its nothing more than ultra nationalist polish chest beating with little or no connection to what actually went down, but so is for most of the knowledge you get from todays tv documentaries and internet from where sure the authors got their "info".

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Note that Sub-machine gun and machine pistol are pretty much the same thing. It all depends on the terminology one prefers. In both Polish and German MP is simply a synonym to SMG. //Halibutt 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update needed

As can be seen from comments above, this article is overdue for a rehaul. Today it would not qualify for a GA class, not to even mention FA class. The first major issue is adding inline references; a good copyedit would not hurt neither.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA status

an FA article with stub sections?? Might be time to call WP:FAR. nadav 05:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

In accordance with the recent FAR procedure, me and Piotrus decided to improve this article to modern FA standards. It's apparent that, while a decent article back in 2005, in 2007 this article would not pass all the tests. In-line citations, sources, text flow, sub-articles... there's plenty of work to do and we'd really appreciate some help from you. In order to coordinate all efforts I'll add a {{todo}} template to the top of this page shortly. Feel free to comment - and join us in the tedious task of improving this article. //Halibutt 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact spamming is pointless. Every sentence needs an inline cit, if I fact spammed it it would look ugly to casual readers. I have begun adding refs, we should concentrate on that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote moved

I just don't see a good place for it. It describes German losses prior to the uprising, but we have a nicer quote in Eve and it doesn't really fit the opposing forces. It should be moved to Wikiquote I think... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

“ More than 1,000 members of German Ordnungspolizei and Sicherheitspolizei have died in the course of their normal police duties; this does not include the losses during participation in any special operations. Alongside those losses, the number of 500 casualties among the various officials of all administration sectors deserves a separate mention. ”

—Nazi Governor-General of Poland Hans Frank
Kraków, November 18th, 1943[1]

[edit] FAR close

I closed this a "default keep" on FAR. It had been nominated at the end of April (!) and had to go off the page one way or another. Much work has been done and I assume people will finish the remainder of the to-do list. Marskell 08:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am sure we will be working on it!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  09:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Scouts

What became of the picture of the three boy scouts that used to be in this article?

Don't know but I restored it, we have ample space for that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  09:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Repetition

Sorry I can't be of more help here. This article is obviously hotly debated and I don't know anything relevent. It seems to contain a few bits of repetition. The most notable one to me is the quotation: "I do not consider it advantageous to the long-range general war prospect for me to join you in the proposed message to Uncle Joe." from T. Roosevelt which appears twice. IceDragon64 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining the relationship between the Soviet Union and Poland

The section about Soviet (non) involvement is incredibly long and repetitive, and doesn't really organize the opposing viewpoints well. I think part of this problem comes from the tone, which seems to imply that the Soviet Union in some capacity "betrayed" Poland. There's this weird and unsupportable undercurrent in a lot of articles related to this that seem to assume "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is some sort of natural law, when a lot of historical evidence suggests that many states felt (correctly) that the enemy of my enemy is probably just another enemy.

The historical enmity between the Poles and the Russians (Soviet-Polish war, anyone?) expressed itself throughout the 20's and 30's, and continued in the lead up to the war and during the war. The Soviets tried to stopped the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, whereas Poland actively participated and grabbed some territory, Then in 1939, the Russians split Poland with Germany, and then the massacre of the Polish officers, and so on. It seems somewhat obvious that the Polish Home Army and the Red Army were enemies working at cross purposes, in the same way that the Yugoslav partisans and Chetniks were enemies, and we should explain this dynamic to casual readers.

What might be useful to do is divide the behavior of the Soviets into three sections: one describing the historical relationship, one arguing (proving?) that the soviets refused to assist, and then some rebuttals, counter-arguments, and alternative explanations for why they didn't cross the river. I think this could be done without a separate article examining the lack of outside assistance, which in practice is just a POV fork for talking about what ratfinks the Soviets were. Detruncate (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films about the Uprising made in Communist Poland

My own knowledge of the uprising initially came about due to a Polish film 'Kanal' made in 1956 and directed by Andrzej Wajda. It certainly impressed in terms of the horror of the siege and the bravery of the Home Army soldiers, although it didn't glorify war at all, being part of Wajda's anti-war Three War Films trilogy. The uprising was also referenced in the third of the trilogy - 'Ashes and Diamonds' 1958. My impression as a young and idealistic student seeing these films in the 1960s was that it really brought home the serious resistance that the Home Army put up, with the inevitable human fallout arising from such an horrific battle. Although the films were produced in post-war communist Poland, they packed no punches, and demonstrate that although there was censorship, the message about the Warsaw Uprising was effectively getting through to cinema audiences at least. Stuartsh (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC) I think that Schwere Gustaw can not fire in Warsaw Uppraising becaue of amount of time necessary to mount the gun it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6rser_Karl)Morser_Karl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.87 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] -Featured?

This article has a few fact tags, and could really do with more references and a copyedit. That would probably be appropriate since it doesn't seem like its changed much since its FAR review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal

I came across the Military description of the Warsaw Uprising article as part of the WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 drive. I'm not sure why there is a need for a "Military Description" of the Warsaw Uprising. It is one subject and I think the information should be in one article. --dashiellx (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)