Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945)/Archive 2

It was the SU, not Russia. Eastern Poland was annexed to Belarus and Ukraine, not to Russia. Xx236 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It was done on Russian order as Russians had main say in SU.Moreover at that time it was unthinkable that almighty SU would some day disintegrate with Belarus and Ukraine becoming independent nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.108 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

,azism{{fact}}, and during 1939 they had refused to agree to any arrangement{{fact}} which would allow Soviet troops to enter Poland. The dillema, as Poles perceived it, is best illsutrated by the famous quote of Marshall Edward Rydz-Śmigły, the Commander-in-Chief of Polish Armed Forces. "With the Germans we run the risk of loosing our liberty. With the Russians we will loose our soul{{fact}}", he is quoted to have said on the Polish refusal to the take up on the Soviet offer. The Soviets than turned to concluding the treaty with Germany (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) which was signed in August, 1939 ending the possibility of Soviet aid{{fact}}.

Halibutt, while I am working on the article, pls elaborate on some of your "citation needed":

• Do you need proof that Soviets were alarmed by the German expansion? You want citation for that? I think this is pestering.
• You haven't heard about Soviet offers to Poland? Seriously? OK, I will provide the citations.
• WHat "citation needed" to a common sense statement, that a powerfull ally is a deterrent
• You need a citation that the Poles feared Stalin's communism?
• You need a quote that they feared Hitler's nazism? (btw, this phrase is from the odler version)
• You need a quote that Poles refused Stalin to allow the troops movement?
• Rydz-Smigly quote, see for instance google search for: poland +lose+soul+stalin, and click the very first link. You should have tried that rather than pester me with "citation needed"

And so on and so forth, please make "citation needed" request reasonable. Otherwise, it is another form of trolling that can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy to find answers.

Finally, no one is blaming Poland. This is twisted logic. I gave the bacvkground info that Poles indeed had reasons to be uneasy about the Soviet Union. Please conduct discussion reasonably. Another Volodarka, should not happen. --Irpen 04:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that you're working on it and that's precisely why I added the fragment here and not to the main article. Now on to specific issues.

• Yup, we'd need a proof that the Soviets had reasons to fear the German expansionism towards the East. Especially that if it wasn't for the Nazi-Soviet alliance, the Soviet would most probably have no border with Germany to care for. What your version suggests is that the Soviets feared a Nazi agression, so they made it possible by helping them, which seems like an absurd.
• Secondly, I never heard of any serious Soviet offers to Poland in 1939. There were some proposals presented to Poland by France during their talks, but I never heard of any direct diplomatical agreements or talks about a possible alliance - hence a citation would be a good idea.
• The next thing is that your following remark is a pure speculation. Such (dubious) alliances would have likely been a meaningful (?) deterrent (dubious) to Hitler's expansionist plans (still dubious, he did not fear the most powerful army at the time, why should he fear the largest one?) since they were to be backed by the Soviet military might (just like the French and British were...)..
• As to Stalin's communism - I would have to see some high-ranking Polish politician saying explicitly in his memoirs or any other public statement that he feared Stalin's communism half as much as he feared his imperialism/expansionism/you name it. There was no struggle of ideologies between Poland and Soviet Union and I doubt anyone feared communism as such. It was not why Soviet Russia was dangerous, White tsarist Russia would be equally dangerous to Poland.
• As to Nazism - see above. The ideology was even less of a problem here. A large part of the Sanacja, especially its right wing, had a long-lasting affair with Mussolini's fascism and shared much of fascist fascinations with Hitler (state monopolies, cartelisation and pro-state ideology, for instance). Poland did not fear Hitler as such nor did it fear his ideology. What was dangerous was Germany's revanchism, remilitarization and expansive policies, not the ideology of nazism as such.
• As to the troops movement - see my doubts about the alleged proposed alliance. I have read once or twice that the French embassador signalled Beck that there was a possibility of drawing USSR into a defensive alliance, but there were no direct proposals from either side I heard of. Anyway, as to the troop transport, even if it was some problem during the Franco-Russian and Anglo-Russian talks of 1939, it must've been a tip of an iceberg rather than the main problem as you state in your version. See for instance [1]: The Soviet plans for expansion at the expense of the neighboring states to the West became clearer during negotiations between the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France. The negotiations lasted almost four months and ended in fiasco. The main obstacle to concluding the British-French-Soviet mutual assistance pact was the Soviet insistence upon guarantees for the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Rumania, Turkey, Greece and Belgium whether or not those countries wanted such guarantees and insistence that the guarantees should be against direct and indirect aggression
• I did not pester you with anything. I merely asked for citation, in accordance with the verifiability policy. I simply found the quote quite strange and I assumed it must've been either taken out of some context or simply used in some other context. I wonder what source did Meissner use for that, though I'm afraid we'll have to do with what we have. Is his work available somewhere?

And so on, and so forth. Halibutt 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Halibutt, I will provide you with citation to those of your requests, that are non-frivolous. I will give them here because I am no expert in wikistyle. This should be enough though. I spent some time at my browser's history to give Piotrus web-links for PLC that he said he needed for "inline citations". Yet, I didn't see him adding any to the article, so I think it was just a waste of my time.

Finally, I request you and Piotrus to curb Molobo's activity rather than encourage it. It is really aggravating to be wholesale reverted after spending hours on trying to write the best I can. Thanks, --Irpen 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I could add the sources to the article myself - provided you find them and post them here. Halibutt 13:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Molobo pasted a huge chunk from the Red Army article (followed by Piotrus pasting a picture). I think this is an extremely poor idea. There must be a reason why we have different articles in Wikipedia and I suggest this is removed in toto. Besides, Molobo should have at least had a decensy to aknowledge that he copies another article word to word since copying without aknowledging is a copyvio even of a liberal GFDL which allows pretty much anything, eben the derivative work, with a simple aknowledgement that Molobo failed to provide. Anyway, if others think it is a good idea to paste stuff from narrow article to a wider ones just to advance their views, I think we can paste stuff from other articles too. How about pasting most of the Operation Wisla article to History of Poland (1945–1989)? Separate articles are there for a reason. But if the community wants to dump stuff from narrow articles to the broad ones, dumping from one article should be balanced by dumping from another one because NPOV policy is even more fundamental to Wikipedia than good style. --Irpen 05:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see that my request to remove stuff pasted from other articles is being ignored. One more time, I request this pasting of material from Red Army to this article by Molobo undone by himself or other Polish editors. If others would show their approval of this Molobo's action by ignoring my repeated request, should I take it that it would be also OK to paste long paragraphs from Operation Wisla, Anti-Semitism#Poland and other articles in "History of Poland" series? I explained in the entry above why such pasting seems to me a bad idea but if others disagree, fine. Let's then paste stuff around. --Irpen 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether the info is redundant here or not. I think it is rather relevant...what do others think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to rework the article in a few days to bring it back to normalcy. Despite Polish wailings and grievances, real or imaginary, some solid facts should be reflected in the article at last. We need a separate section on Poland's alliance with Hitler in order to invade and partition Czechoslovakia. Aggression should not be covered up. We should also mention that the so-called dismemberments of Poland, like dissolutions of all colonial empires, were beneficial in the long term:

• a) they led to the creation of modern Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania, previously oppressed for centuries under the Polish yoke;
• b) they were instrumental in the Allies' victory in the WWII. If the people of Western Ukraine and Belarus hadn't been reunited with their brethren, Hitler would have launched Operation Barbarossa considerably to the east of the actual 1941 border, which would lead to the speedy capture of Moscow and to his eventual victory in the war. The Americans and Britons, with their several hundred divisions, were not any better at war than the French and the Poles. If not for the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, we would have probably all spoken German today. And the Jewish-Polish persons here would hardly be able to spit in the face of Russia like they do now. --Ghirla | talk 09:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler would have launched Operation Barbarossa considerably to the east of the actual 1941 border, which would lead to the speedy capture of Moscow and to his eventual victory in the war. Or he would face Stalin Line fortifications which were abandonded as a result of Molotov Pact. --Molobo 11:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also calm down-this is about Soviet Union not Russia. Isn't it claimed SU wasn't Russia ? --Molobo 11:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia partitions belong to History of Poland (1918-1939), not here. And yes, I definetly agree more inline citations are needed. I'll be looking forward to you providing them to back up your claims as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Czechoslowakia betrayed Poland during 1920 Polish-Bolschewik war - they just entered to Zaolzie - which was being disputed by international commision. And Poland didn't allied with Hitler - we just entered and reclaimed our land.

Czechoslovakia partitions should be moved here because it is connected with WWII.--Nixer 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide source that describes the photo, its origins, where it was made, and documentation of citizenship and ethnic background of people involved

--Molobo 18:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is given, please stop pestering. --Irpen 20:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen I did, and the description was different then what you claimed. I hope you won't mislead us again in such way. --Molobo 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not mislead anyone. If I wanted to mislead, i would not have given the link to the source. The cation I wrote for the image is entirely correct, it describes exactly what's there and in no way I have to use the original caption of the PD image. I wrote the caption that would be best for the article since it provided relevant information. Information is always good.

Molobo, one more time, please deal with your pasting or pasting may be continued not to your liking. Please use edit summaries in your edits. And please do not use inflammatiory summaries and section titles, both in articles and at talk pages. --Irpen 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a 'reasonable trust' issue. Assuming that the caption 'Советские войска вступают в Лодзь' means 'Soviet army liberatin Lodz welcomed by Polish popuation, then I see nothing wrong with including the picture with Irpen's caption. A confirmation of this photo's caption from some more official page would be useful, but if we would require this of every picture, then most of the pictures on Wiki would have to be contested.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC) The image is described as Soviet soldiers enter Lodz. That is all it says. It portays a false image of Soviet occupation, presenting only one sided view. Pictures of Home Army soldiers, Polish prisoners and murdered civilians should also be provided. IIRC whatfor has some. Perhaps there we could find some ? --Molobo 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 'Советские войска вступают в Лодзь' means "Soviet troops enter Lodz". In no way this prevents us from writing a different caption if it better describes what's on the image and is artricle related. The image does illustrate that the soviet occupation for the Poles was a change for better and one has to be totally out of his mind to deny it. I don't think civilians ever waived to German tanks entering their cities. --Irpen 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In no way this prevents us from writing a different caption if it better describes what's on the image and is artricle related Hold it for a moment Irpen-you added link RED ARMY troops under [Soviets], for your information, Polish troops could be named Soviet also-so this is your first mistake of making POV, secondely how do I know this is not a Soviet propaganda photo, like thousands of others ? Thirdly how do I know the people on the picture are Poles ? The image does illustrate that the soviet occupation for the Poles was a change for better and one has to be totally out of his mind to deny it As seen here Irpen, even don't deny that it was occupation. Furthermore making claims "it was better" is totally not proper to make towards this situation-is cutting of your nose better then cutting of your hand ? There is no denying that Soviets led a brutal regime of terror and murdered thousands of Poles, while exploiting the country. In that context it is inproper to name it better-it was lighter occupation then German one, but still one filled with terror, executions and despotism. I hope you are able to understand it. --Molobo 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, if we agree to accept the original caption at face falue (Soviet troops enter Lodz), the caption I wrote is acceptable, because if these indeed are Soviet troop and this is indeed Lodz, my caption simply describes the pic. If the pic is fabricated than of course it is meaningless and should not be there at all with any caption. I have no way of knowing about it, but this could be said of most of the pictures at Wikipedia. Within the reasonable WP standards, the picture is acceptable. I repeat, that if I wanted to mislead anyone, why would I add a source to the image's page? --Irpen 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And now two years later you don't? What's going on here? The image was here for years and now, first, OR-ish caption and then removal, and then Molobo popping up, seemingly by accident, in two pages to revert to your version. --Irpen 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, two years later, we have plenty of better photos to illustrate the article with; no need to use this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And what's wrong with this one? --Irpen 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, of course; several editors spend months discussing nothing but artistic valors of this picture... why are you so insistent on adding this particular image to this article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that you forgot to answer the question. --Irpen 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

moved from user talk:Irpen

I would like to encourage you and your folks to stop the revert war at the article on history of Poland. You have your POV, Molobo has his, but this is not a reason to follow his steps. I'm sorry to say so, but your actions are no better than his in this matter and I could equally ask yourself to try to talk to yourself(...) I hope you will change your mind at some point and will realize that such extremist POV pushers harm rather than help. This is not meant to be an offense, rather a remark that you can't engage in a revert war, push your own POV and then ask all the people involved to protect your actions from people behaving just like you do.

Having said that, I will ask Molobo to stop any edits to the article on History of Poland (1939–1945), provided you refrain from editing it yourself. If you are indeed willing to work on the article and not simply try to make it present your POV and then withdraw (which, I hope, is not the case), then perhaps we could use some good old negotiation tactics: first, we shall revert the article to some pre-revert-war version (Piotrus' version of Feb. 1 seems a fine choice), and start working on separate issues at the talk page. Possibly we could even create a temporary sub-page with proposed wording of each chapter anybody added anything to (be it you, me, Molobo, Piotrus or Santa Claus). In case of a conflict between two versions, we could list the issues raised, create a proposed compromise wording and apply it to the article if agreed, on a case-by-case basis. What do you say? There were enough reverts today to ask for revert and protection of the article anyway, but I hope it is not necessary at the moment. Does such a solution suit you? Any better ideas? Halibutt 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I would like to see exactly in which way my editing was harmful. I was not edit warring. In each of my edit I tried to include as much of Molobo's suggestions as I could. The Piotrus' Feb 1 version was not neutral as I explained here when I POV-tagged a section. Piotrus told me that he would "appreciate" if I engage in more editing in disaproval of my placing a clearly explained tag. I tried the best I can and than Molobo roamed in. The first thing he did, was pasting an inflammatory piece from a different article directly into the text. Than he was trying to POV even the section titles. At the same time he provided some refs. I included each and every of them and reworded the text accordingly. I spent hours on the article only too see Molobo reverting me all the time. If you want a freese, fine. I don't care which version then. But if this I have POV problems with it, it should be frosen with a POV tag. I think the article is better now after my input. But if you disagree, fine. Kill all my work and have your article. I feel bad that I wasted so much time then, but I will live with it. The article with explained at talk POV problems should have the POV tag not removed. This is the only thing I am firm about. Other than that, I knew when I was writing that my writing was to be "edited mercilessly". Deletion is also editing. --Irpen 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the POV tag stays as long as the article is protected. Ideally we should revert the article to a version by some uninvolved party, but the problem is that the last time the article was expanded by someone from the outside of our small club was... well, long time ago. That's why I believe Piotrus' version (with the POV tag, if you find it necessary) seems the best choice for me. We could also ask someone uninvolved to revert at random, but I doubt it would be the best option.

Also, note that I do appreciate your input, eventhough some of it presents little more than a Soviet POV. I hope that you equally value our contribution to the article. The solution I propose is not a means of discarding your changes, but of settling the disputes started by your (and Molobo's) edits. I see no better solution to this problem, though perhaps you do. If so please let me know.

I proposed the same solution to Molobo and Piotrus (check their pages to see the exact wording). If they agree, we could start right away. Just give me some time to prepare the list of issues and formatting before we start the discussion. Halibutt 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am opposed to any major revert of the article. I think that the article is experiencing a fairly standard phenomana, i.e. 'wiki-growth in pains'. It worked for many others (History of Belarus), for example - I see no reason why it would not work for this. The more users join, the merrier - I just hope there will be less revert warring and more talking/content adding.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt: Even though it will lead to the time I spend writing for an article wasted (I know from experience), fine with me. Trash it and freeze the article to the stage that preceeded my first edit as long as there is a POV-tag because the issues that prompted me to get involved (described at talk) are not addressed in that version. There is no need to discard the image I added though, because it clearly illustrates the article. Too bad, you find my input "a little more than a Soviet POV" but I will live with it. --Irpen 22:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus: not doing a major revert is fine with me as well. My problem is that Molobo undoes all my work with such persistence, while I try to add the refs and ideas he brings (I am not reverting and that's the difference). Also, I have a big problem with the text from a different article having been pasted by Molobo, as I explained at talk and to which no one answered. Do as you wish. If my input is undone and I am requested to refrain, fine with me as long as the POV tag is there to reflect the issues I tried but failed to address. --Irpen 22:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The text is no longer pasted but reworded to fit this article, you didn't give many references, you also deleted information without any explanation such as the one of executions of Home Army members during Soviet occupation. I am however ready to engage in discussion over this article here. --Molobo 22:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please stop that. I browsed through the recent 60+ edits and listed most (all?) major issues raised by any of the sides during the revert war. Feel free to comment, propose wording and add citations and references to where they belong. Halibutt 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Me, Irpen, Molobo and Piotrus agreed to settle the current conflict here, at the talk page, without editing the article itself for some time. The proposed solution we all agreed upon is:

1. We revert the article to some pre-revert-war version (Piotrus' version of Feb. 1 seems a fine choice)
2. Then all of the people involved refrain from editing the article on their own. We could even block the article for some time. There were enough reverts there today to ask some admin to revert at random and block the article anyway, so such a solution is in accordance with the rules, though there is no need to block it right now.
3. We add the {{maintained| {{user4|Irpen}}<br>{{user4|Halibutt}}<br>{{user4|Piotrus}}<br>{{user4|Molobo}}<br>{{user4|whomever}}}} tag to the talk page, just in case anybody wondered
4. We prepare a list of issues at the talk page or some temporary sub-page of the article (I could do the basic formatting). Ideally such a list would be broken down onto separate sections: one for a mere list of issues (numbered) that all parties believe should be mentioned in the part in question; one for the various wordings during the revert war, one for discussion on various issues raised, their sources and so on; and one for the proposed compromise wording.
5. After a compromise is reached on each of the sections, we apply the changes to the main article on a case by case basis.
6. Then we ask for peer review of the article and move along to other issues.

Below is a list of issues that are currently disputed by the parties involved. Halibutt 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Discussed above
2. Added by Irpen, removed by Molobo, then added back by Irpen and filled with {{fact}} tags by Halibutt
3. Proposed wording:

Discussion
If we have such section we should also include the fact that Poland refused to join Hitlera gainst USSR in exchange for Lithuania and parts of Ukraine, and mention Soviet Rappalo treaty, as well as Soviet sabotage operations in Poland and support for various organisations aimed against Poland. --Molobo 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the material I wrote goes into too much detail. We have several articles in WP devoted to pre-WW2 events and we better keep this stuff there. I only added this to add some context to the section Molobo pasted (see below). I hate removing stuff from Wikipedia. So, as I saw article loosing its balance after Molobo's pasting, I saw it necessary to add some context to what preceeded the pact. Molobo's suggestion to add more here is not a good idea. We should have less rather than more about the diplomacy issues in such a broad article as "History of a country". This all belongs to the Pact article as well as several others. --Irpen 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen here. There are numerous dubious statements in that section and some of them (most?) are related to Soviet-French and Soviet-British relations rather than directly to Poland. Shortening the section and including only the supported statements could be a decent move. Any proposed wordings? Halibutt 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1. A large section added by Molobo
2. Then removed by Irpen as Pov-pushing.
3. Original wording: In accordance with a secret protocol annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Germany asked Soviet Union on 3 September[2] to engage its troops against the Polish state. Molotov congratulated Germany on reaching Warsaw on 9 September and assured Germany that the Soviet Union would deploy its troops >>within the next few days>>. He also informed German officials that to make Soviet involvment plausible, Soviet authorities would issue a declaration about coming >>to the aid of the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians "threatened" by Germany<< [3][4]. Molotov further stated that The Soviet Government unfortunately saw no possibility of any other motivation, since the Soviet Union had thus far not concerned itself about the plight of its minorities in Poland and had to justify abroad, in some way or other, its present intervention[5]. On September 17 the Red Army marched its troops into Poland and co-ordinated its movements with German forces[6]. After brief negotations between Stalin and Hitler, the Soviet advance halted, roughly at the Curzon Line, as determined by final negotiations between both states[7]. German and Soviet forces held a joint victory-parade in Brest-Litovsk on 23 September 1939, led by Semen Moiseevich Krivoshein and by Heinz Guderian[8].
4. Proposed wording:

Discussion

This section goes in too much detail over a narrow issue for such a general article as the "History of Country". I do not object to the factual accuracy of the material, but to the fact that such an unnecessarily detailed account of the events was added to the article purely to tilt the balance. As I explained, reasons exists why we have narrower and wider articles in Wikipedia. The broad history articles cannot possibly present every detail of everything by duplication the narrower articles in the broader text. Molobo, unable to write anything himself, chose a quick-fix to add an unbalanced bias to the article. Why didn't he add it also to the Poland article itslef? Especially to the introduction paragraph? Why not go all thew way? If such an approach of POV pasting the material from narrower articles to wider ones is seen by community as helping rather than damaging the broad articles, I suggest we paste some lines directly from Operation Wisla and Anti-Semitism#Poland directly into other History of Poland articles. If the community thinks that narrow articles are there for a reason, this passage should be removed. --Irpen 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to what was added to the article and not why or by whom, okay? Anyway, the content could indeed be shortened with the rest moved to some other article. Probably Polish Defensive War, World War II or Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact could do. Any ideas as to what should be the final wording? Halibutt 00:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Proposed wording:

• In accordance with a secret protocol annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Germany and Soviet Union coordinated their invasion against the Polish state, with Germany insisting on urgent use of Soviet Army against Poles with the outbreak of war, and Molotov informing his German partners that the action will be delayed, while also congratulating them on fast conquest of Poland. Molotov also stated that to make Soviet involvment plausible, Soviet authorities would issue a declaration about coming "to the aid of the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians "threatened" by Germany", despite the unfortunate fact that thus far Soviets weren't concerned about the plight of minorities in Poland and had to justify abroad, in some way its present actions.Finally on September 17 the Red Army marched entered into Poland and co-ordinated its operations with German forces. After brief negotations between Stalin and Hitler, the Soviet advance was halted oughly at the Curzon Line, as determined by final negotiations between both states.To celebrate their quick victory German and Soviet forces held a joint victory-parade in Brest-Litovsk on 23 September 1939, led by Semen Moiseevich Krivoshein and by Heinz Guderian.

• Of course links would be added after each sentence to diplomatic exchange between them.This isn't difficult as its available on Yale :)

--Molobo 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This original version is too long. I hope someone will propose something shorter. --Irpen 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, repeating the original wording is not the best solution here. How about the following:

"In accordance with a secret protocol annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Germany asked Soviet Union to engage its troops against the Polish state. Molotov assured Germany that the Soviet Union would deploy its troops within the next few days and that, in order to make the Soviet involvment plausible, Soviet authorities would issue a declaration about coming to the aid of the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians "threatened" by Germany. On September 17 the Red Army invaded Poland and co-ordinated its movements with the Wehrmacht. After brief negotations between Stalin and Hitler, the Soviet advance was halted, roughly at the Curzon Line, as determined by final negotiations between both states. After holding a joint victory-parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 23 1939, the two states divided Poland along the so-called Border of Peace."

We could expand on the Border of Peace (what a term... Ministry of Truth anyone?) and the territorial changes a bit. On the other hand the actual military actions could be described in the main article (in this context it would be the Polish Defensive War) Halibutt 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, you must be joking. You really think that the fact that there was a parade in Brest-Litovsk carries enough importance to be mentioned in such a broad article as "History of PL". OTOH, the invasion of Český Těšín is not mentioned neither in this nor in previous article AT ALL and the deportation of over 100 thousand of Ukrainians is not considered worthy to be mentioned AT ALL in the next article of the series where this crime is found worthy of 15 words only, and even those words present it only as a "suppression of UIA". And what is the "Border of Peace" doing here? Why a separate article, btw? Elaborate on this write a paragraph or two right in here! If this article have already existed, Molobo would have pasted it in by now. And why such a short quote of Molotov's phone call? The more the better! This selective picking and expansion is a perpetual problem of many articles. This is neither the first nor the last one. Am I just knocking my head against the wall? --Irpen 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We could simply add a photo of the joint victory parade of Soviets and Nazi's near the sentence instead of mentioning it in the main text. I do agree with Halibutt's version.--Molobo 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Irpen, will you? No reason to get upset, we're trying hard to find some compromise wording and such comments as yours above are not helping. Let us stick to slightly less emotional tone, ok?

As to other issues - I don't think that this paragraph should mention the Action Wisła of 1947 nor the Cieszyn crisis of 1938. Both belong to other articles, feel free to add them there. As to this para specifically - I do believe that the victory parade is rather a decent symbol. Of course, instead we might add some other examples of Nazi-Soviet cooperation, but what's exactly wrong with this one? So far your argument is that the article on XXX doesn't mention YYY so the article on ZZZ should not mention 123. What would be your proposal? Halibutt 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Initially the title was Yalta and the Soviet Occupation (1943–45)
2. It was changed to Yalta and the Soviet Domination (1943–45) by Piotrus
3. then to Yalta and the Soviet take over of Poland(1943–45) by Molobo
4. Then to Yalta and end of the war (1943—45) by Irpen
5. Finally to Yalta and the Soviets by Piotrus

--- Discussion
The previous description of the chapter was Yalta and the Soviet occupation. Why change it ? Many authors use the term. Was Poland not occupied against her will ? Another title I proposed was "Soviet takeover"-again did Soviets not takeover Poland. Perhaps the lightest title was enforcing Soviet control-again we have multiple examples of Soviets enforcing their control over Poland. Why not use Yalta and Enforcement of Soviet control over Poland ? It is a correct description. --Molobo 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically all of the above are correct. Poland was occupied by the Soviet army, its power was taken over (by force, a de-facto coup d'etat and then by forgery of the elections). Poland was also Soviet-dominated and this all happened at the end of World War II. That's why I would go with the version by Piotrus (number 5). It's the easier way to end the dispute for me. Halibutt 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree since the chapter will describe in detail the process of taking over Poland. I see no reason why takover can't be used. Lets ask Irpen why takeover Is POV and wait for his answer.

--Molobo 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it should also describe the internal affairs of Poland after Yalta, the flight of Mikołajczyk, the forgery of the elections and so on. This was not done entirely with Soviet hands and what happened in Poland in those years was not solely related to the Soviet domination. Molobo, why not agree to some compromise and simply settle the dispute? Is the word domination so important in the title? Halibutt 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Irpen added the Image:Lodz liberation.jpg picture with the caption Soviet troops libreate Łódź, from the Nazi occupation.
2. The caption was then changed to various other versions, including the original caption of Soviet troops entering Łódź.
3. And the Molobo's version
4. Other proposed wordings are:

Discussion:
I must say I support the original caption rather than the one proposed by Irpen. My main problem with it is that the word liberation is quite POVed. During WWII everyone was liberating everyone else, including the Germans liberating Russians from the Soviets, Soviets liberating Poles from the Germans, Germans liberating Poles from the Soviets and so on. Some more neutral description would be definitely less problematic IMO. Halibutt 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, The image description pushed by Irpen is incorrect-we don't know the ethnic background of the people on the photo.We don't know if they are Red Army soldiers as Irpen claims. We don't even know the exact source of the photo. The only description says Soviet soldiers entering Lodz. Sadly Irpen refuses to calm down and restores the photo even now. I would also like other photos to be presented in order to balance the image of Soviet takeover of Poland. If we have photos of people greeting Soviet soldiers then we should also have photos of people being executed by Soviets, Home Army members arrests etc. Whatfor has some pictures of this type-perhaps they can be found there ? --Molobo 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I like Irpen expanded caption, but the word liberation is as POVed as occupation (post-1945) and those terms should be avoided (although 'liberation from the Nazis' is not that factually wrong, it is misleading as to what happened afterwards).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Some Examples of pictures demonstrating the reality of life under Soviets:

• http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa5/z47_1.jpg
• http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa5/z54_1.jpg
• http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa5/z59n.jpg
• http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa5/z88.jpg
• http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa5/z93_plan.jpg (a very interesting example-a plan of action by NKVD against a Polish unit)

Is it possible to use some ? --Molobo 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Start with fair use, but I acutally emailed the author of the site sometime ago about his photos and he was willing to give us permission (IIRC it was the case of Witold Pilecki article - but since he doesn't 'own' the photos, he cannot give us permission for free license).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Liberation from Nazis" is not misleading in any way. And comparing it to claims that Germany where "liberating" Ukraine from Soviets is frivolous. Yes, and the reson is exactly what happened afterwards. Compare the situation in Ukraine under Soviets and under Nazis. Similarly, compare the situtation in PL under Nazis and afterwards. No one can say in good faith that they were "equally bad". Perhaps Molobo can, but he lost the ability to surprise me. If we agree to accept the original caption at face falue, the caption I wrote is acceptable, because if these indeed are Soviet troop and this is indeed Lodz, my caption simply describes the pic. If the pic is fabricated than of course it is meaningless and should not be there at all with any caption. I have no way of knowing about it, but this could be said of most of the pictures at Wikipedia. Within the reasonable WP standards, the picture is acceptable.

As for Molobo's proposal to add other pics, we could add more pics that are relevant and illustrative of this broad article. Mugshots of NKVD prisoners don't illustrate such broad articles in any way. Yes, pictures of repressions are hard to find. I tried but failed to find a picture that illustrates the plight of Ukrainians for the Operation Wisla article. I did not resort to adding mugshots to the article. --Irpen 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Liberation from Nazis" is not misleading in any way

One occupation changed for other.

And comparing it to claims that Germany where "liberating" Ukraine from Soviets is frivolous

Actually they presented it so sometimes. Quite a lot of Ukrainians believed.

Compare the situation in Ukraine under Soviets and under Nazi

Holodomor between 5 and 10 milion people murdered. Not counting other persecutions. Nazis-circa 5-6 milions murdered according to Davies. No one can say in good faith that they were "equally bad" The fact that they weren't as genocidal as Nazis doesn't make Soviet occupation good. --Molobo 01:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, the question of whether Holodomor was Genocide is discussed at talk:Holodomor. You have no authority to prejudge the isse. The res isn;t even worthy of an answer. One thing though. Learn to use edit summaries! --Irpen 01:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Agreed the question about Genocide of Ukrainians under SU isn't the topic. So lets state the questions relevant:

• the picture says Soviet soldiers enter Lódż.
• it doesn't say what year-how do we know its not after the war ? Without the date on the photo we have no knowledge if your claim that they are liberating Poland from Nazis is true.The photo could have been made after the war just as well. This could as well be postwar transfer with some communist symphatisers cheering them.

Please address that issue. --Molobo 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem is with the wording, as liberation is POV. We could equally say that the Soviets entered the area to switch the German occupation to their own. Similarily from some POV the Red Army liberated Berlin in 1945. Anyway, the term itself implies that, prior to the liberation, the liberated area was not free and afterwards it was. In this context this seems absurd as the area was neither free under Nazi occupation nor under Soviet one. Why not stick to the original caption? I'd say it's the most neutral as it describes the pic without giving the moral value to the action depicted. Halibutt 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The wording is not "liberation", the wording is "liberation from Nazis" and this is certainly what it was. Once someone writes an objective Comparison of Nazi and Soviet occupation of Poland article, it would be more obvious. You want just "Soviet troops enter Lodz"? Why not then "Soviet Army moves in to occupy Lodz"? I think that would be even better.

I added the pic showing the population greeting the Soviet troops who just kicked the Nazis out to the original version of the article hoping that the obvious irony (with the text presenting Soviet as pure evil) will spark the debate and cause some change in the section. Instead Molobo ended up removing the picture from the article. I can imagine what modern books used in Poland say about it from the quote "W porównaniu z terrorem hitlerowskim "wladza ludowa" wielu ludziom wydawala sie systemem bardziej znosnym." See? It only "wydawala sie"! No wonder that after such books published now in Poland we get such articles in Wikipedia. However, there must be people who still remember the Nazi occupation. Maybe some of them you know. Go ask them whether it only "wydawala sie systemem bardziej znosnym" compared to Nazis! What Molobo thinks I already know. He obviously learned from those books. --Irpen 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase your comment: and why not the original caption? You admitted yourself that you changed the original caption in order to prove some point. While in this context your point (that it was not that black and white, to state it shortly) is quite acceptable, it is still a point to prove and not the original caption. If you want to state some point more strongly, proposed some changes to the wording of the article and not to the picture. How about that?

As to your comment with a quotation - it is off topic and I'd like to continue it in some other place. In short, note that the majority of Polish citizens somehow survived the war. There were barely any families not touched by the Nazi terror, but the number of people who survived with their lives was huge. On the contrary, the Soviet system did not allow for a peaceful existence outside of it. Either you were inside - or you were not. For instance, for university professors either you were a party member or you were jobless. For former AK members the choice was either to live in hiding or to live peacefully in Siberia or some Commie prison. To paraphrase the Rydz quote you like so much with the Nazis you could loose your life, with the Soviets you had to chose whether you loose your life or your soul. Of course, the rule of terror was not as strong as during the Nazi years and the number of victims was lower. Which does not mean that any of the occupations could be described as better. Both were comparable to some extent and both were different from each other. Fortunately, we're not here to give moral judgements. That's why I believe words like liberation do not belong here. Be it liberation as such, liberation from the Nazis, liberation of wrist watches, liberation of one's life or whatever liberation we could imagine. The author of the picture defined it as a picture showing the Red Army entering Łódź. Your POV is that the Red Army liberated the city, some other POV's might be that the army conquered the city or subjugated the city. Why not stick to the facts? Halibutt 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Now this comment tells more than Irpen did here. As long as it supports his views, the original caption is ok. However, when anyone suggests that we sticked to the caption - he abandons the discussion and returns to revert warring. Halibutt 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, if you have a grudge against me going around from one talk page to another doesn't help you make a case that I am this or I am that. It just makes you look not credible and waging some crusades based on the unrelated grudges.

Now, to the issue. You accuse me at several places within a last couple of days in spreading the term "liberation" everywhere. Firstly, I didn't use "liberation" I said "liberation from Nazis". Secondly, I used in the articles in the discussions only in relation to liberation from Nazis context, be it Lviv, Lodz, Ukraine or Poland (otherwise please point out where and when I used liberation to '39 occupation of Galicia and Volhynia or Baltics for that matter).

Now, "as long as it supports his views" thingy, you are simply incorrect. I said the caption is appropriate simply because it is more descriptive and fitting the article's context. It was you who were calling for "the original caption". Now that I found the similarly looking but better quality image with the original caption saying what I was saying all along, of course I am pointing that out to you. Besides, you cannot say anymore that the picture is not authenticated. It is from a State Archive of the Russian Federation, and even has an author name.

So, better spend your time on de-POVing your new section, particularly the "minority" or "University" issues. I will add more suggestions to it when I have a little more time --Irpen 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And again you take everything personally. It's not a grudge against you. It's a grudge against your POV crusade that makes you hold on to the controversial "liberation" at all cost. I proposed a solution that could be acceptable to all - but you, apparently. Is it so important that we spread your point of view in this article? Would the caption be more POV without your POV in it? Halibutt 11:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, what crusade? What all cost? I specifically described in what context and for what time "liberation" is appropriate. It is 44-45 liberation from Nazis. If the view that all Russians and Soviets did to Poland was subjugation and the word "liberation", even in the narrow context of "from Nazis" makes you loose sleep, and if such views are fashionable among Poles, keep than in Polish Wikipedia. Here, we ought to not allow spreading these nationalist myths. Be it that Polish centuries old expansionist tendencies to the east was motivated by idealistic Prometheism and other noble motives of civilizing the Barbarians and bringing them salvation through Papal Christianity, or that Poles are and were so exceptionally tolerant to other cultures and religions compared to everyone else, or that Russian and Soviets had nothing else to worry about throughout their history but to plot another plan of subjugation of Poland and the Poles.

The fact is that Poland was liberated from Nazis by the Red Army. I wish the Polish Army could do it on its own and I wish Polish "allies" really helped Poland to begin with rather than betray it next after Czechoslovakia. What where their motives, be it a cowardice, the desire to encourage Hitler to go east to rid the world of the Soviet threat by Nazi hands or was it stupidity and miscalculation, we can't tell for sure. There are lots of theories. In the end of the day, all the support Poland received from allies was mostly demagogy, fiercely compassionate rhetoric and providing the refuge for the powerless exiled government. In the end of the day, it was the Soviets who broke the neck of the Nazi machine. If it makes you unhappy I can't help it. But the wording of Wikipedia has to reflect the simple fact who in fact was responsible for ridding Poland of the Nazi regime that might have plotted the final solution of the Polish question. --Irpen 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And I specifically described why your POV is unacceptable, at least to yours' truly. Yet you continue to push it, so I guess it's fair to assume that after a dozen or so reverts in a couple of days it is legitimate to say you hold on to your POV at all cost. And please, refrain from populism. The caption itself has nothing to do with the thousands of Soviet soldiers who fell in Poland, many of them believing they're bringing true liberty to Europe. I guess you'd find it hard to believe, but I visit the Soviet military cemetery in Warsaw every year to light a candle or two there. So please accuse me of lack of compassion to the Soviet victims of WWII. On the other hand, there is a huge difference between a simple, man to man level (fallen soldiers on any side) and a larger view (the one usually described in encyclopaedias). The latter is specifically linked to political, historical and military consequences of actions. As such, your caption does not suggest that the soldiers depicted in that pic believed they liberate Poland. It suggests that the Soviet Union liberated Poland, which is not right. IMO the view that the Soviets pushed out the Nazis only to replace them with a new occupation is equally legitimate and should also be expressed. However, the simplest solution would be to avoid both and use the caption that would be brief and informative, deprived of any POV, be it yours or mine. If you really want to expand on the concept of liberation, do so in the article on liberation, or write some article on Soviet entry into Poland, in which both the Soviet and non-Soviet views could be presented. However, in such a short caption such a wording is unacceptable.

You are right that in the end it were the Soviets who broke the neck of the Nazi dragon. However, it had little to do with liberation, and the word (regardless of the context it is used in) is POV as hell. Halibutt 13:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I haven't had time yet to respond to the above but I am going to. Anyway, at least that image is now one of the better sourced images around since initially there were attempts to remove it due to claims that who know what this is anyway. In this respect, please take care of this image for the massacre in Volhynia article. If you have a thin nerve, don't click. For me, it is hard to edit that article because of it. Anyway, we need some confirmation that that's indeed murder of children described in its caption. --Irpen 08:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote: you know the old joke from the 1940's about Russian watches? In short: a man runds down a street shouting The Russians brought watches, the Russians brought watches (in Polish the Ruskie zegarki przywieźli means both They brought Russian watches and The Russians brought watches). A guy walking down the street tells his friend I'll go and see, perhaps they brought mine too. Halibutt

Halibutt, in view of your response, which left me speechless, I have nothing more to say to the issue. And please don't start the "it may be difficult for you to accept" stuff here. I know that Soviets were oppressive. And I also beleive that there were some watches stories. That said, I now regret I uploaded this picture at all. I thought that Molobo's views are on the fringe but now, that I see that they are mainstream, at least among the editors who work on the article, I have no hope that this section can be NPOV unless a new row of editors gets actively involved in this article. --Irpen 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have written elsewhere, I agree with Irpen regarding the caption, and I think we should use the photo in the article. I don't understand what left you speechless in Halibutt's responce. I think it's perfectly normal to comapre Nazi and Soviet occupations: both were different in some respects, similar in others. They are as comparable as Mongol/French/Polish/German invasions of Russia are, to give you an example that may be more familiar. On the subject of jokes, and speaking as a collector of communist-era jokes, it remained me of another one: Czasy są cieżkie, powiedział żołnierz Armii Czerwonej zdejmując zegar z wieży. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First let us wait for Irpen to provide evidence that indeed the photo is made during Soviet takeover of Poland from the Nazi's. The original photo isn't dated-it could very well be made after the war or in military parade etc. --Molobo 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a second image at Image:Lodz liberation2.jpg. It was already raided by Molobo who must have been stalking me since he raided the image before I linked it to any articles. Anyway, the new image is very much like the old one except the old one seems cosmetically photoshopped. The new one is from tanks and armors site and the descrption there says the name of the tank, Lodz and 1945 (see link). Lodz was indeed liberated in 1945 (January) if I am not mistaken and people are not wearing the warm season clothing. Of course there is nothing else I can say to authenticate the image, other than the site and what I see there, but it already exceeds many images at Wikipedia by an amount of information. I will replace the photoshopped image by an authentic one simply because it is better. One or the other in no way affects our debate about the caption, since as far as caption and applicability is related, the images are the same.

As I haven't seen Molobo ever compromising over anything, I do not expect him to agree but there are also others. Also, please keep the watch jokes to Talk:World War II atrocities in Poland for obvious reasons. I mean, I do not deny the issue but it is sensitive enough not to through around in the debates where it does not prove anything. I would not object to discussing the looting at the articles about it, but History of Poland article is broad enough and there is no need to insense the editors from FSU countries whose grandfathers were in that war, and about half of those didn't get back. Anyway, it is irrelevant to decide on the image caption. --Irpen 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about comparison, you don't need to give me any familiar examples. I am aware of them. the term occupation for our article has two meanings. As per Webster:

• the act or process of taking possession of a place or area
• the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force

It is fine to compare the occupations in the second sence. But here we are talking about the Soviet forces moving in to describe the caption to the pic. There is a huge difference between the Soviet forces moving into Poland in 1944-45 and German forces moving in 1939. Who in Poland can say that they would have preferred that Soviets would have not gone all the way to finish off the Nazis. Was there anyone else to do it if the Soviets would have stopped at the Curzon line and let Germany of the hook. Or do you think that allies would be able or willing to finish off the Germans without the Soviets at the time? I don't want to say that Soviets went all the way because they were on the salvation mission. They certainly had their own reasons but their moving into Poland in 1945 cannot be compared to the Nazi's attack in 1939.

I do not want to comment to the rest said by Halibutt and Molobo. I made my case. I cannot rewrite the article, only I can porpose changes but if the article will not be neutral it will be POV tagged and this would be done not to prove my point but for Wikipedia's reputation. If consensus desides, that my objections are without merit, fine. But thanks god this is a topic with a broader appeal than Volodarka and there will hopefully be more opinions than four, so if this comes to a vote, the outcome would be meaningful (and I will accept it). That memories of that three versus one vote fluke in Volodarka and my explusion still make me shudder. --Irpen 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen unless you find the date of the photo we cannot now if your POV that this describes the process of changing occupation from Nazi regime to Soviet one is correct. In 1945 the war ended on May, it could very well be a parade in autumn or early winter. Anyway as to your Who in Poland can say that they would have preferred that Soviets would have not gone all the way to finish off the Nazis. This overview of IPN article on Polish population's view on Soviets concludes that: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn/7/biuletyn7_12.html

Dislike for the Soviets was expressed not only in jokes.On the streets of polish cities one could encounter signs "Away with the Soviets", "Away with the executioner Stalin", "Away with watchmakers" ,"Away with tormentor of nations-Soviet Army", etc. When on 3rd May 1946 on the streets of tens of cities demonstrators appeared shouts were heard such as "Away with Soviet occupation", "Give Wilno and Lwow back to us" "We don't any neighbours to protect us", people singed Rota with words "May Soviet storm break down in ashes and dirt" . In the following days comment were"on the 1st May they made Soviet holiday, but didn't allow us to hold ours on 3rd of May". Two months later during the referendum writings were discovered "Where is Wilno and Lwow", "Away with Stalin", "Away with Russia", "We don't want Soviet occupation","Away with Russians from Poland", "What are Soviets doing here" Party propagandists had to deal with anti-soviet attitude during meetings on many occassions. "Hostile" questions were asked often for example"Why does Red Army occupy Poland", "why were our eastern lands taken away from us", "where is nafta where is coal", "why are they taking away livestock and polish government doesn't stop this", "why didn't AK members return from Russia","Why isn't there any coal in Poland, supply the country then take away[our goods], "why did Soviets took away our fellow citizens", "why did Red Army take the watches", "why did the Red Army disarm Ak and why AK members were arrested", "why do Soviet patrols patrol the streets", "Why did the Soviet Union attack Poland in 1939","why did the Soviets take so much machinary from factories to Russia", "why wasn't there any help for Warsaw Uprising", "When will Lwow and Wilno return to Poland", "when will Soviet occupation end", "why are they still Soviet officers in Polish Army", "why constantly it is talked about Treblinka,Majdanek, Oświęciem and nothing about Katyn" Soviet Union was seen as country of poverty. Stories went about hunger, being the result of collactivisation of villages, people spoke about extremely low food rations allowed to workers,about primitive conditions of life. People doubted about praised in official propaganda achievements of socialism, and believed that every achievement of industry, if they are true at all, are the result of plunder in other countries.Despite the recent victory over Germany, military might of Moscow was doubted, and people deceived themselfs that Western Allies will be able to defeat in few days, weeks at most the Soviets, with using for example the atomic bomb.

It's just a fragment of course Irpen, but I translated it to you, to give how Polish population viewed Soviets, I know you might be surprised if you had to do with official Soviet propaganda before, but Poles generally hoped that Allies will liberate them, and you see Soviets were seen as primitive plunderers and occupiers, that they hoped would be defeated-for example with atomic weapons. Of course I translated it also since the public attitude to Soviet presence is also going to be part of the text I hope. --Molobo 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, could you please try to format your comments next time? The text above seems pretty unreadable... Anyway, let me ask here one more time: and why not the original caption? Now that we're working on balancing the article, there's no need to suggest anything with the picture. We might simply expand on what was seen as liberation by some, occupation by others and as a combination of both by the vast majority of people (at least I think so). But does it mean we should imply that a Polish tank entering a military base in Łódź surrounded by cheering Bulgarian tourists (as it is equally possible to the version invented by Irpen) is in fact a Soviet tank liberating anyone? Halibutt 09:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Invented? Halibutt, watch your mouth. That said, I will respond after Piotrus on this. Actually, I will hardly be able to say anything new. I explained myself clearly above (about picture). As for the working on "balancing" the article, as Halibutt wrote, I am afraid it will go off balance once Piotrus removed the "inuse". But let's try. As the first thing, please propose any changes that affect the article (other than technical) at talk first. I don't have time to argue alone with more than one overopinionated editor (and even for one for that matter) and if Volodarka reccures, that is POV pushing by forse, rejection to valid objections by removals of explained tags single-handily of by statistically insignifact four person voting, I will not let it go, like the last time. I don't need the second set of memories of being humiliated and expulsed by mere persistence of some. --Irpen 09:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's get some things straight before this discussion gets out of control again. You did not provide sources to the caption you created. The original caption said that it depicts Soviet troops entering Łódź. It said nothing of civilians, nothing of the Nazis, nothing of occupation and nothing of liberation. Everything except for the fact that these are Soviet troops and that they enter the city of Łódź is your own creation. Highly likely, but unprovable - unless you finally find some source claiming that these are indeed Polish civilians and not, say, freed Russian slave labourers or French prisoners of war. Also, the event depicted could have happened in, say, 1951 during some Soviet manouevres, as the original caption does not mention the date. So, please don't get offended when I label your creation as such; I see no reason to "watch my mouth".

As to my original question - I still believe that the word "liberation" is as POVed as it gets. Why do we need it in the caption? Similarily I could start adding the same set of captions to various Russian-related articles. For instance: German troops en route to liberate Murmansk from the Bolshevist menace, Angry Soviet marine slaugtering innocent German civilian, Soviet soldiers liberated from the blood-thirsty regime of Stalin, Russian civilians fleing the Bolshevist paradise under cover of friendly German troops, Berlin Sport Club's bicycle section on a weekend trip to Balaton, and many more. All of these would be equally invented - and equally POVed. Get the idea? Halibutt 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea that I am getting is that this time you are just trolling to which I will not respond. --Irpen 13:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, is that your reply to Halibutt's post above? It's something I would expect of a certain editor refert to RfC before, but I never thought you were capable of such behaviour.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, what behavior? I didn't call anyone a troll. I said that someone is trolling which many non-trolls occasionally do. The difference is that trolls, unlike non-trolls, don't do anything else but trolling and this certainly is anyone but Halibutt. However, this attack on the picture was nothing but pestering. With such burden of proof almost any picture in any article can be questioned except those about wich the authors testified under the oath in courts.

Check for instance this picture from this very article. The caption says: "Polish infantry in action" and by its location in the article I assume that this is "Polish infantry in action in the Polish Defence War". Right? No one was adding tags to it like was done here. How do we know that this is in action and not the training? How do we know it is in Sept. 39? The image I provided is no more dubious than any other image in Wikipedia. That someone may be displeased that Nazis were kicked out from Poland specifically by the Soviets rather by AK or that after the years of the experience under the Nazi's rule the Polish populations saw the Soviet army as liberators as you wrote yourself, too bad. But personal displeasure towards everything Russian is no reason to either censor the picture, no subject it to an unheard of questioning, nor to censor the caption.

The picture is much relevant to the article's text. There is no question about it. If the point is that the picture is fabricated, this is a whole different story, but than almost every picture from every article needs to be removed. If we accept the picture, as we accept others, the caption should be left as well. --Irpen 06:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Manoeuvres is also an action, so the caption is ok, contrary to what you propose as the caption to that tank picture. Especially that we have a source to claim that it's the Polish infantry in September of 1939. Also, there's nothing POV in stating that "the unit depicted is part of the Polish Army". No POV words like "liberation", "occupation" and so on. See the difference? There is a difference between Polish infantry in action. and Russian tank liberating the Defense Visual Information Center. The earlier is statement of fact supported by sources and verifiable. The latter is but an opinion - or an invention.

Anyway, Irpen, I was neither pestering nor trolling. I was asking for moderation - or source. As I believe you have no source, then perhaps you might be willing to propose some compromise? We have two extremes here: "Red Army liberating Łódź" and "Red Army occupying Łódź". Why can't we meet somewhere in between? Halibutt 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, it seems you are trying this again, to wear the opponent down with circling around with the incredible patience but still get it your way.

First of all, it does not say "liberation", it says "liberation from Nazis".

The source of the image is given at the image page. The original caption does give the date (1945) which you didn't bother to notice when you were throwing your "dubious" all around the image because you were not really interested in anything but to disqualify the picture. Besides, the photoshopped version of this same image can be found in this Ru lang article "Великая Отечественная война Советского Союза 1941—45" where it is near the bottom and the caption even has a more exact date "Январь (January), 1945", an exact time of the events.

Now, I am repeating this also: if you are indeed going to argue the "maybe '51" thing, you should argue whether the image belongs to the article rather than with what caption. Now, please reread the discussion if you need, but please don't ask questions already answered. I've never ever seen you agreeing to anything and I've also seen you have enough patience and stubbornness to persist as long as it takes to get it your way. But it is not going to happen each time. If you really have time on your hands, why not go fix the Polish September Campaign#Prelude to the campaign section in another article which even happens to be "Featured" despite just this one section gives contradictory dates of the revocation of the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact (August or April 28, 1934) and weirdly goes on events not chronologically but selectively to make sure that partition of Czechoslovakia is inconspicuous enough being not on the top (it returns to mid-30s in the second paragraph while cruising through end-30s in the first) and so on. --Irpen 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A u vas negrov ubyvayut... Irpen, we're talking about this picture in this article. So far you provided no serious argument to convince me that POV vocabulary is indeed necessary in this caption. You started the discussion about this article by claiming it is POV. However, two POVs do not make one NPOV article. You won't make this Polish propaganda article better by adding Soviet or Nazi propaganda to it. And the word liberation belongs to propaganda vocabulary, especially in the context of WWII. Why exactly can't we stick to the original caption?

I can think of three possible solutions to this problem:

1. We might stick to the original caption
2. We might remove the picture altogether, though this is not the option I would support
3. We could add the term liberation to every other picture depicting any army in the world. Nazis liberating Russia from the Soviets, Poles liberating the Kremlin from the Russians, Soviets liberating Hungary from the counter-revolutionaries, North and South Korea liberating each other...

Any other ideas? Halibutt 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I said it all above already. You are not going to get different answers to the questions that were already answered. What I recently said is getting even more applicable: "Now, please reread the discussion if you need, but please don't ask questions already answered. I've never ever seen you agreeing to anything and I've also seen you have enough patience and stubbornness to persist as long as it takes to get it your way. But it is not going to happen each time.". As for the other article, I brought it up no as an argument related to this but a suggestion for you on what to do since you seem to have time to go in circles. Contradictory dates is unworthy of the FA and if this is not fixed. I don't know what's worse template: Featured stamped on the article whose section contradicts itself or the FA-template coesting with Template:Contradict-section in the very same article. --Irpen 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Irpen didn't provide the exact date of the picture-I removed it. --Molobo 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

read above. --Irpen 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

1. A dispute between Molobo and Irpen whether one of the aims of the Operation Tempest was to aid the advancing Soviets or not. See also [9] and [10].
2. Proposed wording:

Discussion
AK was acting on the assumption that enemy of the enemy is my friend. I have yet to read about anti-Soviet actions that it carried out before NKVD attacked it first, and it is beyond doubt that Soviets benefited from anti-Nazi actions of AK. Of course, OT wasn't designed to help Soviets - but as an anti-Nazi operation it had this side-effect. I don't see anything problematic here...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1. A dispute whether the Soviet Union annexed the areas east of the Curzon line (as suggested by User:Adam Carr) or simply attached those areas (as proposed by Irpen
2. Proposed wording:
3. Proposed wording:

Soviet Union legitimised its control over areas taken from Poland in 1939 by signing border treaties with representatives of the Polish post war government on 16 VII 1945. However this only affirmed the state of things from one year ago when representant of Soviet backed Polish communists Edward Osóbka Morawski signed a secret agreement to cede those territories to Poland on 27 VII 1944. --Molobo 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Please formulate the question properly. The issue is whether Soviets and POLAND, annexed anything after the WW2 or they got the territories according to international treaties (which is not annexation). I am not denying the word "annex" for '39. I am talking here about '45. I corrected "annex" both for Poland and USSR. Are you serious that it should say that "POland annexed territory from Germany in 45"? --Irpen 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Poland didn't get any German territory after 1945 Irpen. All territories given under Polish administration that were formaly part of German state were only under Polish custody, and only later treaties with Germany affirmed Polish possesion of those areas. As to Soviets-they annexed the territories in 1939 and this was accepted by Soviet created puppet government.This was done in secret, yes in secret, the fact wasn't revealed. The signing took place on 27 VII 1944 by Osóbka Morawski.Source ? Wojciech Roszkowski History of Poland 1914-1997 Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN Warszawa 1998.

--Molobo 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the term Annexation as it seems to fit both the 1939 annexation of Poland by Germany and USSR, as well as the post-1945 annexation of formerly German areas by Poland, USSR, France, Belgium and Czechoslovakia. Halibutt 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Annexation is by definiton a unilateral act. It is simply a wrong term. Poland did not annex the territories. They were given to them by allies. Soviet Union did annexed in 1939, but not in 1945 when the territorial changes were made according to allies negotiations in Yalta. I repeat, only unilateral actions (grabbing and claiming it mine) is an annexation. The incorrect usage of this term proliferates all over WP. I wanted to fix it here, that's all. --Irpen 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The article on annexation says that the term can also imply a certain measure of (...) unilateralism, though it does not say that annexation is always unilateral, as you suggest. Also, the Soviet actions in 1944 were fully uni-lateral as Stalin could have as well signed the agreement with himself instead of Osóbka-Morawski. The latter was a Soviet agent and not a representative of the Polish government. Hence the agreement (and the border treaties with the USSR) were not made legal until well after the war, when the Polish government accepted it ex post as a de facto state of affairs. In terms of international law the Polish-Soviet border of 1944 was little more than a demarcation line, although barely anyone refers to it as such. Halibutt 13:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The postwar european borders were decided not in Polish-Soviet negotiations which was a farse. Neither it was decided in Polish-German negotiations and when PL and DE signed a border treaty means very little. It was decided by allies, a multisided conference and as such, these were not uniletaral Soviet action. Attachement of German territories to Poland was even less unilateral. It was decided not by Poland but FOR Poland by others. What "Annexed by Poland" was doing there at all? --Irpen 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC) It was decided by allies, a multisided conference and as such, these were not uniletaral Soviet action. Soviet-Polish border was changed again in 1951(IIRC the date) on the demand of Soviets, Polish German border wasn't reckognised till 90s de-facto. --Molobo 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the reply by Adam Carr on my talk page might be of some use in this discussion. Halibutt 00:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

1. A dispute whether Poland remained an independent state after 1945 (as proposed by Irpen), a sovereign state (as suggested by Irpen a tad later) or was rather a separate yet not independent state (as suggested by Molobo). Other versions include [11], [12] and [13], as well as a possible term of satellite state or puppet state.
2. Current wording: Stalin annexed the eastern territories, and controlled the new Polish government. However, Poland preserved its status as an seperate/independent state: some influential communists such as Wanda Wasilewska were in favour of Poland becoming a republic of the Soviet Union.
3. Proposed wording:

Discussion
That's a pretty complex issue. Setting aside the semantics, the level of independence varied in time. During the Stalin's era, from 1947 (Mikołajczyk leaves the country) to 53 (d. of Stalin) or 56 (d. of Bierut), the Polish government was little more then a group of yes-men like Soviet puppets. The successive governments had increasing levels of independence, although it was strongly tied to Soviet politics - one of the reasons for Solidarity success was the unwillingess of Gorbatchev to actually use force - Stalin wouldn't have a second thought about sending them to GuLags... All things considered, I'd vote for 'separate'. Poland was a separate state, with increasing say about its internal affairs, but until 1989 it's foreign affairs were Soviet controlled - so it wasn't really independent (or sovereign).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of the proposed wordings are accurate to some extent. Between 1944/1947 and 1950's Poland was indeed little more than a puppet state, with most decisions taken in Kremlin and not in Warsaw. It continued to exist as a satellite state until 1989 and, in terms of international law, was as independent state as Ukrainian SSR was (member of the UN and so on). I'd stick to separate state for the sake of brevity, but we could as well expand on that a bit. What do you say? Halibutt 13:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all "cut the '89 out of here" as one more attempt by Molobo to bring info that belongs to other articles just affect the NPOV ballance. From the POV of international law Poland was independent. In the cold war reality it was a Soviet sattelite state. This, however, belongs to the next article in series. --Irpen 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something is covered in depth in other articles does not mean that we can't mention it here. And the fact that Poland remained under Soviet rule/influence/whatever until 1989 and not, say, 1950 is quite notable, isn't it. Not mentioning that the Stalinism included violence (after all its in the article on Stalinism...) would not enhance NPOV either and would instead harm the article. Same goes for mentioning 1989 IMO - after all not everyone is as well informed as you are. Halibutt 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the Soviet military occupation, it is worth noting that it wasn't until 1956 that the Soviet Northern Army Group gained Polish recognition in a Polish-Soviet military treaty. Before that date the Red Army was stationed in Poland illegaly, without any treaty regulating its presence on Polish soil. The only such arrangement (of 1944, signed by the PKWN) allowed for the Soviet presence up to 200 kilometres from... the anti-Nazi front. Halibutt 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As the estabishment of (pro-)Soviet regime begun in 1944, I think that it deserves a mention here - although I agree that it is sufficiently covered in History of Poland (1945-1989) (a FA) and we can therefore have just some bare summary of 1944-1945 events here, with perhaps some note that it is discussed in-depth in the next article?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1. A dispute whether the situation in Poland after 1944 could be described as some sort of a civil war (as suggested by Irpen) or not.
2. Proposed wording:

Discussion

I wouldn't object here. Although the commie forces were Soviet-controlled, Soviet-inspired, Soviet-created and Soviet-backed, they included not only the Red Army, but also its local helpers - the militia, the KBW and all sorts of similar collaborators. Of course, by the same standards Russia is currently engaged in a civil war in Chechnya, but this is a different matter. Halibutt 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a civil war in Chechnya. Once this is brought up, I suggest that some reconsider displaying ribbons that may be interpreted as support for dismemberment of other nations. But that's up to them, of course. And this is OT. --Irpen 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if Chechya is that good of an example: would we call January Uprising a Russian civil war? But this is rather OT. Back to Poland, the fight of the anti-communist underground is wasn't a full fledged civil war, more like armed resistance. For civil war I think you need to control at least some important territory, and the partisants controlled diminishing areas of wastelands (forests, mountains) mostly. Anti-communist resistance ('antykomunistyczna partyzantka') would probably be the best expression, although I am not the expert on this timeperiod. And History of Poland (1945-1989) (a FA) has a link to Civil war in Poland. Wonder if Sylwia would like to comment on that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Be carefull with naming it anti-communist resistance. You will then put AK and its later versions in the same category on Wikipedia as SS, Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht[[14]]. And I don't think that would be fair. The struggle of Polish organisations against Soviets wasn't as much as ideological desire to overcome communist ideology but to preserve independence of Poland, also remember that AK wasn't the only organisation that opposed Soviet takeover of Poland, there were also movements persecuted such as the remaining units of Bataliony Chłopskie that had more socialistic ideology ideas. Anyway the main point is that the struggle of AK, WiN etc was the fight for freedom and independence not ideological struggle against communism.

--Molobo 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would treat the civil war controversy separately from the how to name the resistance problem. Halibutt 12:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

IPN calls those formations independence movement[15]. Let's stick to naming established by respectable historians. --Molobo 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent anon edit has some useful info that should remain in the article, some that should be moved to history of Ukraine, and some which are evidently biased and should be removed. I'll see what I can do. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Add: http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/chodakiewicz2.htm http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/chodakiewicz2.htm

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz: The Dialectics of Pain: The Interrogation Methods of the Communist Secret Police in Poland, 1944-1955. Glaukopis, vol.

--Molobo 14:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)/sources#Project_inPosterum

Molobo, stop pasting chunks into Wikipedia! It makes the dialog impossible to follow by making pages huge. A ref is enough. And use edit summaries as requested from you multiple times. --Irpen 22:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

One more time I cleaned up this page somewhat from Molobo's pasting huge chunks of text from the outside sites. I did not remove the text he translated from Polish because it is useful for those who don't know Polish to get a clue about his sources. As for simple duplication of the links he provided it is unnecessary, cumbersome and renders the talk page unreadable. We all appreciate good links, we know how to click and we can all read English. If a point or two needs to be made, cite a quote or two but don't paste pages and pages. The goal of the page is for us to discuss. For that us and others who come here, need to be able to see the discussion and read it. If it is hidden in kilobytes of unnecesarily pasted stuff, the page is useless. No one deletes the links and everyone can read them where they are. --Irpen 02:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Plese stop deleting examples of "Soviet liberation" from the article. Let them be here for all to see and cite if necessary. --Molobo 20:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, not a single word is deleted from the article. As for the talk, not a single word is deleted from here as well. Your style of pasting pieces from elsewhere directly into articles or talks is ugly and makes the discussion impossible. I said above many times why this makes the talk unreadable.

All your pages of pasted material were simply moved to Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945)/sources. There it is split to sections according to the sources and every section is singly linked from the appropraite place from the talk "for all to see and cite if necessary". No way you can litter the talk with megabytes pasted from elsewhere making it unreadable. What I did both preserves your quotes and keep the talk page manageable for all interested parties. --Irpen 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Civil wars are usually evenly split in society. The communists however were far outnumbered by the "independents", their only solice the Soviets. Anyway, I tweaked the article a bit to expose the disproportions. Ksenon 18:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I see much complaining and fighting in-text, but precious little talk. This has to stop, and I don't have time today to go deep into history and see whose fault it was, although to some degree all of you are at fault. Can you list the disputed paras here, so we can discuss them and reach a consensus here? It is a tactic that has always worked well, on pages from History of Belarus through Polish-Soviet War to Katyn massacre, and I am sure it will work here. So please, instead of reverting, post in the subsections below the competing versions and we will see about comibing them. My experience shows that while this may take days (weeks, even) it always works and the article ends up much improved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. At least numerically Polish foces were superior to German ones.--Nixer 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true, Poland had large reserves on paper but in reality they couldn't be equiped and weren't called on request by France.

--Molobo 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, but even on paper the number of conscripts was much higher in Germany. A question of scale simply. Bigger society - bigger reserves. //Halibutt 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He also informed German officials that to make Soviet involvment plausible, Soviet authorities would issue a declaration about coming to the aid of the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians "threatened" by Germany'

Why the article presumes what Molotov said to Nazis is true, and what he said to British is lie? What do you expect Molotov should say to Nazis? That the USSR really wants to save Polish Jews?--Nixer 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mayby somebody change both forces numbers. 30000 polish artillery pieces looks funny. 240 german horizontal bombers as well.

And references from IPN, Trela Mazur and other works on the subject of USSR policies during the period of Soviet occupation starting from tomorrow morning. --Molobo 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We already had seen erasing on discussion pages information he didn't like. Now it seems Irpen changes the information provied in referenced sources claiming it is different.[16] --Molobo 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

... is to lie. I never deleted any discussions from discussion pages. I tried to replace the huge chunks of text you pasted from outside sites with wikilinks to these very sites because your text was longer than the discussion between editors rendering the diiscussion incomprehensible. Since you persisted with your stuff being at wikispace, I moved it then to a subpage and carefully linked to it from within the talk page itself. You got yourself blocked for this repeated offense of pasting of outside material to Wikipedia. All my edits to an article are explained either here, or in the dit summaries or in hidden comments. I suggest you chill out. --Irpen 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

All my edits to an article are explained either here, or in the dit summaries or in hidden comments. Your above change isn't explained. I restored original wording.Please don't change it. --Molobo 00:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you use Polish references, please provide us with the translation of the quotes' original wording. Such templates as cite book, cite news, cite web all have the field for quotation. An english version would be helpful. --Irpen 00:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that all citations and such should be translated. English sources are always preffered to non-English. Also, both of you should avoid personal attacks, as a somewhat distanced observer I believe both of you are editing in good faith: please talk more, revert less.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source: [17]

26 сентября передовой отряд 16-й кавдивизии прибыл на станцию Бескид, занятую, как оказалось, 23 сентября венгерскими войсками. Попытка контакта с венграми вызвала с их стороны обстрел из ручного оружия. Ответный артиллерийский огонь советских бронемашин привел к прекращению стрельбы и отходу венгерских солдат в железнодорожный туннель на границе. По сведениям местных жителей, туннель был минирован; ситуация на этом участке границы с Венгрией была нормализована после переговоров

--Nixer 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please translate and give the name of the source. --Molobo 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

26 September forward unit of 16th Cavalry division arrived Beskid station, which, as it became clear, was occupied 23 September by Hungarian forces. Attempt to establish contacts with Hungarians caused fire from their side with hand weapons. Return artillery fire from Soviet armoured vehicles caused Hungarians to cease fire and retreat into a railroad tunnel near the boarder. According to locals, the tunnel was mined. The situation on this part of the boarder had been solved after negotiations.

Source: Meltukhov M.I. "Stalin's lost chance". He also gives source in a footnote "РГВА. Ф.35084. Оп.1. Д.5. Л.62, 90. " which I suppose a link to a Russian archive.--Nixer 16:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well.. this is... well.. really strange. AFAIK Hungarians had not participated in invasion, so the incident was seeming to me like invented at first sight. This could mentioned, but not sure whether in such prominent place in main article. Maybe this should go in some subarticles about September Campaign? Szopen 07:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

However, the detailed description of the Brest parade and lengthy quotes of Molotov belongs to all articles, broad and narrow. Double standards, anyone? --Irpen 07:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, do we have a separate article on that parade yet? If so we can move it there. Perhaps the best way to solve this debate is to create an article on Treatment of the Polish citizens by the occupants and move the excessive material from this article to the new subarticle? Than it will be much easier to argue that some info belongs there, not here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I say exactly this when you suggested to "test this Halibutt's piece by fire". The fire burned much of the rest of the article. For more, see talk:Soviet partisan. --Irpen 20:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If no relevant subarticle on Topic X exists, than adding even the most detailed info to a more general Topic Z is ok. What should be done as soon as possible to keep balance and summary style (as recommended by our MoS) is to create subarticles on Topics X and move the relevant info from Topics Z there, living only a short summary/ilink in Topic X as appopriate. The Halibutt's piece was rather short in the beginning, and thus is fit well into this article. Now that it has grown it should be moved to its own subarticle. What's the fuss about?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Halibutt's piece was rather short in the beginning"

This is how "short" it was in the beginning. --Irpen 05:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So? It is longer now, isn't it? Are you suggesting the information is irrelevant and wiki should not have a long article/section on that subject? I still don't follow you here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the info is encyclopedic and deserves an article. It may deserve a section as well but not in such a broad article as this one. Sovietologists who study evils of the Soviet regime wrote many books (some of them good) that consist entire of this section-style text and some of such books are an interesting and useful reading. However, this books should have different titles than "History of Poland". --Irpen 08:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a "compromise" solution. Let's delete any mention of the part I added here and leave only the pictures of Soviet soldiers. How about that? //Halibutt 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)