Talk:Polish–Soviet War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Polish-Soviet War)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articlePolish–Soviet War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2006.
Article milestones
March 8, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 17, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
November 17, 2006Featured article reviewKept
February 28, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
September 16, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article


Talk Archives[edit]

Date of conflict[edit]

By whom is the war considered to have started in February 1919 when the Bolsheviks were virtually pinned down by Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich, and the Cossacks? Evan Mawdsley, whose work marks the Polish campaign as spanning April-October 1920, writes:

"In the spring of 1920 the Civil War seemed almost over. Then on 25 April 1920, the Polish Army advanced across the plains of the western Ukraine. It marched 150 miles in two weeks, took Kiev on 6 May, and threw bridgeheads across the Dnepr. With this began the most dramatic campaign of the Civil War...The Poles had the better part of the engagements (small in scale) in 1919 and early 1920 because the Red armies were fighting for their lives in the south and east. Vilna was taken by the Poles in April 1919, and Minsk, the center of Belorussia, in August; in January 1920 the stratgic town of Dvinsk was seized, and on 5 March so was Mozyr."

Read N. Davies, "The white eagle, red star" for detailed account of the start of the conflict. Actually Davies does not write much about earlier attack of Red Army on Vilnius, for example, which imho should be considered the real start of the war. Szopen 08:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stated claims of Bolsheviks[edit]

The Bolsheviks proclaimed the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and agitated for a worldwide communist community. Their avowed intent was to link the revolution in Russia with an expected revolution in Germany

This is selective propaganda. The Bolsheviks took this stance only after Poland's aggression in the Kiev Offensive:

But our enemies and yours deceive you when they say that the Russian Soviet Government wishes to plant communism in Polish soil with the bayonets of Russian Red Army men. A communist order is possible only where the vast majority of the working people are penetrated with the idea of creating it by their own strength. Only then can it be solid; for only then can communist policy strike deep roots in a country. The communists of Russia are at present striving only to defend their own soil, their own constructive work; they are not striving, and cannot strive, to plant communism by force in other countries.” [Krasnaya Kniga: Shornik Diplomatischeskikh Dokumentov o Russko-Pol’skikh Otnosheniyakh, 1918-1920, p88, quoted from Carr, EH, The Bolshevik Revolution 3, p165, London (1953)] [1]

no it isn't! The soviets ALWAYS wanted communist agitation in other countries and to attack others. Some quote from Commies is no good YankeeRoman( 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC))


If the annexation of Belorussian and Ukrainian territory a hundred years prior to the conflict can be considered a cause of war, then why can't the expansion by Lithuania and Poland into Russian lands in the 14th century during the Riurikid dynasty be considered a cause for the "partition"? The Russian perspective of the "Polish partition" was that they recovered lost territory taken by the Lithuanians and Poles.

Polish expansion:

  • Would you please register and sign your texts?
  • What about the Russian expansions, producing the biggest country of the world?

Xx236 10:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

behaviour of some commanders like Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz or Vadim Yakovlev[edit]

Bias, bias, bias. Where are the cruel Soviet commanders listed? Vadim Yakovlev is mentioned because he joined the Poles. There were many Soviet commanders like him. Xx236 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet or Soviet-Polish ?[edit]

  • Does the choice of name reflect the aggressor (usually named first, as I understand)?
  • Why is the infobox titled Polish-Soviet War, but the forces are listed with Soviet in the left and Polish in the right? Is that a cunning comment on political sides? Listing them according to the geographic situation would be more intuitive.-- Matthead discuß!     O       12:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the convention is to go by alphabet (Angolan-Zimbabwe war, not the other way around). I don't think anybody payed any attention to the infobox direction, feel free to adjust it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

two nascent states[edit]

Not true. Poland was a nascent state, Soviet Russia was a revolution, without borders. Xx236 14:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The casualties.[edit]

I think that the casualties are a little bit excessive.

Persecution of Jewish population[edit]

Casualties’ estimates must be pretty close to the actual casualties. “War” by DK ISBN: 9-780-7566-5572-3 states 80,000 killed or wounded and 60,000 taken prison on the Russian side and 50,000 killed or wounded on the Polish side. Polish Wikipedia gives 100,000 – 150,000 casualties on the Russian side and 60,000 casualties on the Polish side and it has a detailed breakdown of both Russian and Polish forces. Advance of Polish troops was accompanied by persecution and pogroms against Jewish population. On 5 April 1919 thirty-five Jews were killed in Pinsk massacre[1]. Similar hostilities, resulting in fewer casualties, took place in other towns. Not only soldiers, but also high rank officers of Polish Army were extremely brutal towards local Jewish population[1]. For example in Lida soldiers under the command of General Dambrowski stopped several elderly Jews and cut off their beards with swords and knives[1]. During the pillage of Lida Jewish homes were looted, 30 Jews were killed. Violence against Jews caused uproar and condemnation in Polish parliament. Ignacy Daszynski, leader of Polish Socialist Party, called soldiers that commit acts of violence against Jewish population "hooligans in uniform"[1]. However Minister of War General Jozef Lesniewski, in his written reply to the speaker of parliament, deffended anti-Jewish violence of Polish units in Lida, reffering to Jews as Communist-minded community and stating that Polish Army had the right to kill their adversaries[1].

Now, we have already discussed this here h[Talk:History_of_Jews_in_Poland#Old_talk]. This events were wildly exxagerated in western press, for example "massacre in Pinsk" was execution of few Jewish by panicked young officer who was imposing and order in the city. The report of Morgenthau can be found here: Szopen 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC) :: 3. Pinsk, April 5, 1919.

Late in the afternoon on April 5, 1919, a month or more after the Polish occupation of Pinsk, some 75 Jews of both sexes, with the official permission of the town commander, gathered in the assembly hall at the People’s House, in Kupiecka Street, to discuss the distribution of relief sent by the American Joint Distribution Committee. As the meeting was about to adjourn it was interrupted by a band of soldiers, who arrested and searched the whole assembly, and after robbing the prisoners marched them at a rapid pace to gendarmerie headquarters. Thence the prisoners were conducted to the market place and lined up against the wall of the cathedral. With no lights except the lamps of a military automobile, the six women in the crowd and about twenty- five men were separated from the mass, and the remainder, thirty-five in number, were shot with scant deliberation and no trial whatever. Early the next morning three wounded victims were shot in cold blood as soon as life revealed itself in them.

The women and other reprieved prisoners were confined in the city jail until the following Thursday. The women were stripped and beaten by the prison guards so severely that several of them were bedridden for weeks after, and the men were subjected to similar maltreatment.

It has been asserted officially by the Polish authorities that there was reason to suspect this assemblage of Bolshevist allegiance. We are convinced that no arguments of a Bolshevist nature were mentioned in the meeting in question. While it is recognized that certain information of Bolshevist activities in Pinsk had been reported by two Jewish soldiers, we are convinced that Major Luszynski, the Crown Commander, showed reprehensible and frivolous readiness to place credence in such untested assertions, and on this insufficient basis took inexcusably drastic action against reputable citizens whose loyal character could have been immediately established by a consultation with any well known non-Jewish habitant.

The statements made officially by Gen. Listowski, the Polish Group Commander, that the Jewish population on April 5 attacked the Polish troops, are regarded as devoid of foundation. We are further of the opinion that the consultation prior to executing the thirty-five Jews, alleged by Major Luszynski to have had the character of a court-martial, was by the very nature of the case a most casual affair with no judicial nature whatsoever, since less than an hour elapsed between the arrest and execution. It is further found that no conscientious effort was made at the time to investigate the charges against the prisoners or even sufficiently to identify them. Though there have been official investigations of this case, none of the offenders answerable for this summary execution has been punished or even tried nor has the Diet Commission published its findings.

This what Morgenthau reports says, and there is no now way, that this subject can be avoided in this article. M0RD00R 09:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Read also please Gibson report, in which Gibson stated something like "any army would do the same". However, inserting the reports of incidents provoked by undisciplined recruits and mobs during chaos and war is a bit... controversial.

"These excesses were apparently not premeditated, for if they had been part of a preconceived plan, the number of killed would have run into the thousands instead of amounting to about 280." In other words, you want to insert an info about 280 killed into an article about war in which died tens of thousands. Szopen 10:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, on this same page: "The Pinsk outrage, April 5, 1919, was 30 days after the capture of the town from the Bolsheviks by the Poles, but was a purely military affair. The town commander with judgment unbalanced by fear of a Bolshevik uprising of which he had been forewarned by two Jewish soldier informers sought to terrorize the Jewish population (about 75 per cent of the whole) by the execution of 35 Jewish citizens without investigation or trial, by imprisoning and beating others and by wholesale threats against all Jews. No share of this action can be attributed to any military official higher up, to any of the Polish civil officials, or to the few Poles resident in that district of White Russia.". Calling this a massacre or pogrom is hardly NPOV. Szopen

The 1920 Diary by Isaac Babel has been recently translated and publish in NY. Here is google-books link. The accounts are vivid and without doubt genuine. --Irpen 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
His diary is a work of fiction even if based on his own experiences. The fact however remains that M0RD00R adds info about excesses in which 300 Jews lost their lives and attributes this excesses to advance of Polish army. In the same time the same excesses were committed by members of Red army, Ukrainians, Whites etc but strangely M0RD00R find it necessary to underline extreme brutality of Polish oficers, forgetting to add that Polish military authorities did their best to prevent such occurences. Szopen 10:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No one blames Polish government for massacres. What can it be blamed for is the complacency about those massacres "Though there have been official investigations of this case, none of the offenders answerable for this summary execution has been punished or even tried nor has the Diet Commission published its findings" (Morgenthau report) Preconceived or not massacres happened, and it caused international outrage. Really there is no way that this subject can be put aside. The fact that Morgenthau commission was not even mentioned in this article before, is simply astonishing. M0RD00R 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your previous post I must say that I've just started working on this article, and I am planning to put Morgenthau commission findings next. I suggest to calm down a bit and not rush into quarrels. M0RD00R 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Inded, why the peculriar focus on the Polish side?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest mentioning that in the relevant subarticles - Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War, primarily?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this should be mentioned not only in the main article but there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M0RD00R (talkcontribs)
Wrong approach. Whatever is placed in that article will permanently remain at the backburner outside of the view. The right approach is to properly integrate the material of that article into the main one. I made a mistake by creating at the time a "controversies" section of this article and dumped it all there. It was an easy-lazy approach on my part as I should have integrated that material into the proper sections of this article. Pogroms by Polish forces belong to the 1920 section where all other events are described. A narrow POW issue may deserve a section on its own and even a separate article but not a nonsensial "controveries".
Finally, to counter Szopen's claim, Babel's 1920 Diary is NOT a fiction book. That would be the Red Cavalry he wrote later partially using his diary notes. Diary is a mere documentary. Take a look at it and some raving reviews it received when it was recently published in English. --Irpen 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that contoversies article leaves an impression of a skeleton in the closet. It is not even properly linked from the main article! And isn't a war one big controvercy? Well I certainly do not agree with distortion of the real picture of any war by leaving grim facts on the sideways. M0RD00R 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Removing of all information about this important issue isn't the way to go. Integration of information, as proposed by Irpen, might be the best solution. The issue is much bigger than just two words "Some pogroms". Pinsk massacre, international outrage, Morgenthau commission - this simply must be in the main article. M0RD00R 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? In the scope of the war, it is a minor issue. This article is already very long and was featured without most of the controversies. They are notable to be discussed in seprate articles - but they are not more notable then most battles, or orders of battles, or specific subarticles. The pogroms are mentioned. The reader is reffered to the subarticle discussing controversies primarily related to the fate of civilians as well as POWs. That's good enough. If you'd like to expand the mention of pogroms, please discuss it here: there is certainly no need to have a separate section on them (undue weight, there are many more events that had more casuatlies related to this war that are linked in a similar way).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article's length is not a problem. The quality of what's in there is the only issue. Those who are not interested don't have to read. A separate section on pogroms is indeed undue weight. The separate section on controversies (my fault at the time) is bad style. Careful integration of the material in the main text is the way to go. --Irpen 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I must agree on that. Even though I think that the pogroms were major international event. So notable, that even US President Wilson intervened and appointed commission to investigate it. The reason I've created this section, is that I didn't find any information about those events in this article, as if it never happened. M0RD00R 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed they should be mention, but a summary is enough here, the details belogn elsewhere (Controversies, commission article, etc.). The article now mentions pogroms, I have expanded the note to also mention they were important enough to warrant a US commission - I believe that's enough for this general article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Still it's not informative enough. Still the "Skeleton in the closet" remains well hidden. Still so called "Controversy" article is not properly linked from main article. What kind of picture we are trying to present here? War is just a process of relocation of military units from one geographical location to another, and that is all to it? No civil casualties, no Pinsk? What is educational value of that?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M0RD00R (talkcontribs).
If you look at other war articles on Wiki, you will see that few of them discuss civil casualties in detail. There are too many war related controversial and civilian casualties to discuss in the main body. 300 Jews died according to the Morgenthau report. Over 50 times as many Soviet POWs died during this period in influenze-infested POW camps, but we agreed long ago to discuss that issue in separate article. 10,000 or more Ukrainian deaths during Soviet pacifications that begun in 1920 are only mentioned in a single sentnece in the controversy article. Over 20 Polish soldiers and medical personel were murdered in Cichinicze. Soviet Red Cross mission was murderd in Poland (btw, Irpen, this may be added to the controversies article, I can't find it?). We don't have the number on Polish POWs deaths, and no data on non-Ukrainian civilian lossess yet. The 'Jewish deaths' skeletion is not in this closet because there is simply no room for it, and there are bigger ones out there which would like to get in first, anyway. The controversy article is linked from this. Feel free to expand it with referenced info you have. One day, the controversies article will do justice to all victims of that conflict.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle box order[edit]

It's a Polish-Soviet War, not a Soviet-Polish War. --HanzoHattori 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Revolution in Germany[edit]

The article contained the sentence "He [Lenin] believed that Soviet Russia could not survive without the support of a socialist Germany." I removed this line, because the source for it was from "Rebirth of Poland". I don't consider that a legitimate and credible source on what Lenin believed. Maybe someone can back that sentence up with a quote from one of Lenin's works. - Opetyan 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna M. Cienciala is a reliable source, a professor and expert on Eastern Europe.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So an Eastern European expert can tell us what Lenin beleived? Again I want to repeat if someone could find any reference in Lenin's actual works it would be much more definitive. Opetyan 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Prehistory of the territory where conflict broke out: Medieval Kievan Rus, various Russian principalities etc[edit]

The territory, where this conflict broke out, was a part of the medieval Kievan Rus, and after the disintegration of this united Russian state (in the middle of 12th. century) belonged to the Russian princedoms of Galich, Volhynia, Kiev, Polotsk, Lutsk, Terebovl, Turov-Pinsk etc. The majority of these principalities have been ruined during the Tatar-Mongol invasion in the middle of 13th. century. Some territories in Dniepr region and Black Sea Coast for long years lost Russian settled population and became so-called Wild Steppe, f.e. territory of the princedom of Pereyaslavl. After the Tatar-Mongol invasion these territories become object of expansion of the Polish kingdom and the Lithuanian princedom. For example, in first half of 14th century Kiev, Dniepr region, also the region between the rivers Pripyats and West Dvinas are captured by Lithuania, and in 1352 the Galich-Volyn princedom was divided by Poland and Lithuania. In 1569, according to Lublin Union, the majority of the Russian territories possessed by Lithuania, passed to the Polish crown. The Serfdom and Catholicism extended in these territories . The local aristocracy incorporated into Polish aristocracy. Cultural, language and religious break between the supreme and lowest layers of a society arised. The combination of social, language, religious and cultural oppression leads to to destructive popular uprisings of the middle of 17th century, which the Polish-Lithuanian state could not recover from [2]. In many territories incorporated into Russian empire in 1772-1995, the domination of the Polish aristocracy was kept, in the territories incorporated into Austro-Hungarian empire, the domination of the Polish aristocracy has been added with active planting of German language and culture. During the First world war Austro-Hungarian authorities undertake reprisals against Russia-oriented people of the Western Ukraine and the Polish left-nationalist movement led by Pilsudski got the support of the Central powers for struggle against Russia. After the beginning of the revolution in Russia, the Polish forces restore independence of Poland and decided to annex all territories that were parts of the Polish-Lithuanian state in 1569-1772.Ben-Velvel 10:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to move it here. Why it's relevant to the article? Also, why repeat highly POVed and sometimes untrue statements (e.g. decided to annex all territories phrase...) Szopen 10:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculously, you destroy absolute trustworthy information about a history. Is the history of Kievan Rus a "POV"? Or is it simply inconvenient to the Polish propagandists? Ben-Velvel 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Prehistory is a term often used to describe the period before written history. Prehistory can be said to date back to the beginning of the universe itself, although the term is most often used to describe periods when there was life on Earth; dinosaurs can be described as prehistoric animals and cavemen are described as prehistoric people. Because, by definition, there are no written records from prehistoric times, the information we know about the time period is informed by the fields of palaeontology, biology, palynology, geology, archaeoastronomy, anthropology, archaeology—and other natural and social sciences. The date marking the end of prehistory, that is the date when written historical records become a useful academic resource, varies from region to region. In Egypt it is generally accepted that prehistory ended around 3500 BCE whereas in New Guinea the end of the prehistoric era is set much more recently, CE 1900.

Wow, these territories must have beeen seriously backward then. Ben-Velvel, your edit made my day. Please continue. --HanzoHattori 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, someone archive this page because it's ridiculous too. --HanzoHattori 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But what does it do with the rest of the article? The territory was once part of ancient Rus. Moscow was one of heirs of Rus, Poland-Lithuania was another one - but you use incorrect "Russian" term instead of "Rusin" in descirption of this territorries, which excludes Polish-Lithuanian part of heritage and mimics centuries-old Russian propagand that they are the only true heirs and they are only gather their old lands... Then you add "aristocracy" and "language, relgious and cultural oppression" which is simply untrue (with except of maybe the religious oppression). Finally, the untreu statement that Poland decided to annex all territories, which is later explained as untrue.
What your additions add to the article besides creating the impression that Poles were, as usual, evil imperialistic oppressors?

Szopen 11:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you will not destroy entirely this paragraph, in quiet conditions :) I soften formulations Ben-Velvel 11:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it's simply wrong ("prehistory" etc) and badly written. Second, it's OT. This article is called "Polish-Soviet War", so it's about the Soviets not the ("prehistoric") Kiev Rus. --HanzoHattori 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This territory has not fallen down from the sky. During its history it was the possession of Russian dynasty of Rurikids (and Russian state) or the possession of Jagellons. The claims of both opponents for this territory had the historical reasons. The times of Kievan Rus or Kiev, Polotsk and others Russian princedoms are not mesozoic era. It has the same value as well as the Polish possession of this territory of 16-17 centuries. Ben-Velvel 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Soviets? The Soviets claimed they had nothing to do with the "feudal" legacy (they were actively destroying it as much as they could), and they wanted revolution and (their) "people power" everywhere. I don't know, do you claim Lenin was a Rurikid? Or something? Also: Mesozoic era - please stop being totally ridiculous (hint: there was no man there at all, but yeah, "prehistory" alright). --HanzoHattori 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not the fan of communists, but this authority won civil war in Russia and began to supervise all territory of Russia. Authority of communists does not mean that Russia should be divided into hundred pieces by interventionists. Ben-Velvel12:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What? Poland was a "piece of Russia" too before the revolution. The Bolshevik state officially broke all the links with the Russian Empire.. What are you talking about? "Interventionists"? Rurikids? "Prehistory"? This whole thing is... just silly. --HanzoHattori 14:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You write absurd. Interventionists are troops of the foreign states, as for example Poland. In contrast the Russian White Army (supporting Rurikids) is a participant of the internal Russian civil conflict. I have given the information about the history of this territory (the prehistory of this war), to show historical preconditions of the conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland of Pilsudski. Ben-Velvel 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You previously wrote "The times of Kievan Rus or Kiev, Polotsk and others Russian princedoms are any mesozoic era." --HanzoHattori 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Dont you make typing errors, even when write in foreign language? If you dont make, you are simply the superman, I congratulate :). I repeat specially for you "The times of Kievan Rus or Kiev, Polotsk and others Russian princedoms are not mesozoic era." Inhabitants of Kievan Rus were not barbarians and savages, and their culture in many respects surpassed culture of the western Europeans. Ben-Velvel 12:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
But you wrote (repeatedly) they even didn't have the written history. (They probably had, but you claimed they didn't.) --HanzoHattori 14:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not write it!!! They have the written annalistic history. These annals are issued for example here: Full Collection of Russian Annals, St.Petersburg, 1908 and Moscow,2001, ISBN 5-94457-011-3. For some reason you ignore it.
You say it was "prehistory". Prehistory is the history before (pre-) history.--HanzoHattori 14:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
In a context of this article the "Prehistory" is the prehistory of this war and the history of this territory till 1918. Ben-Velvel 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
But Kiev was not part of Russia. It was part of Rus. Szopen 13:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
In the paragraph this question is not mentioned at all. (Though the territory of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus [where the Moscow princedom developped later] is the part of territory of Kievan Rus. Both in Kievan Rus and Moscow Rus the dynasty of Rurukids and Orthodox Church dominated.(Neither Jagellons nor Catholicism) Ben-Velvel 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What the Orthodox Church has to do with the militant atheist Bolsheviks??? Rurikids with Lenin?? The Trotsky's idea of "exported" global communist revolution with the ancient Kiev Rus? Okay, I quit. This is retarded. --HanzoHattori 15:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
In 1917 Lenin, Trotsky, Dzierżyński carried out the task of the German Joint Staff to achieve the defeat of Russia in the WWI. Pilsudski had the same purpose. Pilsudski also hardly was a descendant of king Jagello and prince Giedymin. Your words about communist ideas of Trotsky and Lenin do not explain the reasons of intrusion of Polish troops to Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus in 1919.Ben-Velvel 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
what? You made me stare on the monitor like this: "..................." whatttity mcwhat WHAT No, no, wait. Don't answer. never mind, don't --HanzoHattori 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not necessary to mention continually Lenin and Trotsky, especially if you don't know well the biography of these characters. (In 1917 Lenin is the revolutionary and destroyer of the Russian empire who have arrived from Germany. In 1919 Lenin should care of integrity of Soviet Russian state). I express very simple idea, the Polish invasion of Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus in 1919 in many respects has been dictated by polish historical mythology.Ben-Velvel 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This section needs to be eliminated. Does the wiki entry about Barbarossa also include a section about the 12th century? Do entries about Napoleonic France have sections about Charlemagne? It is silly.Faustian 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No.[2] Even despite the obvious hints like the operation's name, the Drag Nach Osten ideology, the Teutonic symbolica displayed, etc. --HanzoHattori 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, this section has no place in this article. The prelude is sufficient background.Faustian 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Poland has taken Silesia and Pomerania from Germany though these territories were under german authority during many centuries. For example Szczecin was German city from 1309 till 1945 and Wrocław was German city from the times of Emperor Barbarossa till 1945. Poland seems proved the rights on these territories by means of historical proofs. Ben-Velvel 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This was your comment as of Operation Barbarossa, right? --HanzoHattori 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Operation Barbarossa is your theme. I've given the example how the events of 12th century have relations to events of the Polish history of 20th century.Ben-Velvel 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure 12th century events have a relation to events of the 20th century. This is true of virtually everything. So what? That doesn't mean that such information belongs in this article. The articles on World War II, nor the European Theatre of World War II for instance, don't include anything from the 12th century, sensibly limiting their background or preceding events sections to brief overviews of about 20-30 years. Really, this section needs to be removed. It detracts from what otherwise is an exellent article. Faustian 18:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for the 'prehistory' section, any interested reader can easily find information about history of that region. Further, there is no need to add 'not counting 20 000 dead POWs' to the battlebox, they don't list dead POWs anyway and number of dead Polish POWs was similar. PS. As I see it, we have 4:1 to 'not include this section', per WP:CONSENSUS this seems enough.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you give the historical information about the partitions of Poland, it is necessary to give the historical information about previous Polish expansion to the East. It is the balanced view. PS.I don't find in the article the information about tens thousand dead Soviet POWs. Ben-Velvel 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
See Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) and Polish prisoners and internees in Soviet Union and Lithuania (1919-1921). And you raise an interesting argument with partitions, perhaps a reasonabl compromise would be to move your and selected fragments of the current article to Causes of the Polish-Soviet War?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't find in the article the information about tens of thousand dead Polish POWs and civilians. Xx236 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath is biased[edit]

What about Soviet crimes, controversies, post-war policy? I don't know why this article has a star, it doesn't deserve it.Xx236 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Army strengths[edit]

The sourced army strengths in this article contradict each other. How should we address this? Jacob Haller 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you list the contradictions here? They are probably ranges, and differed greatly during the two-years of the war.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For the Red Army[edit]

  • Infobox states:
  • 382,000 personnel, Western Front [after Krivosheev]
  • 283,000 personnel, Southwestern Front [after Krivosheev]
(including rear-area personnel)
  • 5,000,000 reserves
  • Opposing forces states:
  • 700,000 [undefined whether this is personnel strength or front-line strength] on the Berezina, January 1920. [after Davies]
  • 800,000 [undefined] either reinforcements or total strength; text is ambiguous. [after Davies]
  • 402,000 of these in the Western Front
  • 355,000 of these in the Southwestern Front
  • String of Soviet victories states:
  • 108,000 infantry [undefined] and 11,000 cavalry [undefined], Northwestern Front [after Lawrynowicz]

(I added the Krivosheev figures which are for July-August, i.e. the peak strengths).

For the Polish Army[edit]

  • Infobox states 360,000 combatants, 738,000 reserves
  • Chaos in Eastern Europe states:
  • 540,000 [undefined] by September 1919, of whom 230,000 were in the east
  • Opposing forces states:
  • over 500,000 [undefined] [after Davies]
  • String of Soviet victories vaguely suggests less than 120,000 on the Berezina.
  • and states 120,000 on an undefined 200-mile front (is this north or south of the marshes? not both).

Other issues[edit]

The Opposing forces section states that "The Soviets had many military depots at their disposal, left by withdrawing German armies in 1918-19, and modern French armaments captured in great numbers from the White Russians and the Allied expeditionary forces in the Russian Civil War." Of course, the Germans left more depots in Poland than in Ukraine or the Baltics, and the French supplied more tanks to Poland than to their expeditionary force at Odessa. The British supplied 74 tanks to Denikin, but Wrangel still had most of these. Similar considerations probably apply to the other armaments. Jacob Haller 23:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem are uncited numbers in infobox: 5,000,000 Soviet reserves and Polish forces of 360,000 combatants, 738,000 reserves. 108,000 infantry and 11,000 cavalry and 120,000 also comes from Lawrynowicz (the ref is online and in English, feel free to check it). 540,000 has two references and I just verified it with Davies. As for other numbers, the problem is that various authors don't distinguish between front and real line troops, and don't use as many inline citations in their works as we would like. I am however not sure what we can other then constantly add more information and hope for clarifications with time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC) PS. Davies in WERS (Polish edition, p.85) notes that in spring 1919 Red Army numbered 2,300,000, and received reinforcements of over 500,000 in the following year, but only a small part was sent at first to the Polish front. He gives the following breakdown for the massing forces in 1920:
1 January 1920 - 4 infantry divisions, 1 cavalry brigade
1 February 1920 - 5 infantry divisions, 5 cavalry brigade
1 March 1920 - 8 infantry divisions, 4 cavalry brigade
1 April 1920 - 14 infantry divisions, 3 cavalry brigade
15 April 1920 - 16 infantry divisions, 3 cavalry brigade
25 April 1920 - 20 infantry divisions, 5 cavalry brigade
More from Davis. From p.142-143: In early-mid 1920 the Soviets had about 790,000 people; Tukhachevsky estimated that he has 160,000 "combat-ready" (front-line?) soldiers; Piłsudski estimated those forces at 200-220,000. Kakurin (?) estimated the forces of Soviets: 90,5098 bayonets and 6296 sabers; and 86,000 bayonets and 6,292 sabers for the Poles (but only 37,000 "on the frontline"). Next, Davies concludes that the Soviets had the clear advantage of about 50,000 on the frontline. On p.187 Davies notes that the Soviet army during its invasion of Poland suffered high "temporary" casualties (desertions, stragglers) up to 25-40% in some units. On p.196 he notes increased size of the Polish army in summer due to volunteers and increased recruitment, in the midsts of the invasion: Polish army reached 737,767 people, and notes it was on parity to the both Bolshevik fronts. Next, he notes that half of that number (on the Polish side) was trained and sent to the front; it included 28,000 cavalry and 33,000 artillery personel. On p.202 Davies notes that during the battle of Warsaw Polish forces might have even had superiority in numbers and logistics.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Division-counting should avoid some of the problems of rifle-counting. According to Krivosheev, p. 11, the total manpower of the Soviet Armed Forces (Red Army, Red Navy, etc.) had reached 4,424,317 by June 1st, 1920; the front-line troops totaled 1,539,667 by then and 1,866,313 by November 15th (p. 15). This includes the admin, logistical, etc. units of the field armies (as opposed to those of the military districts); the actual combat troops make up about 2/3 of the strength of the field armies and perhaps 1/4 of the total. Jacob Haller 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Krivoshee numbers (382,000, 283,000) - what time of the war (month, if possible) are they for?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
July-August 1920. I suspect that certain slightly higher figures (around 400,000 for the WF) reflect the beginning of the July offensive, and that these are around the beginning of August, but can't be certain. Jacob Haller 13:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That would make sense. I made several edits to the article to reflect our discussions; don't hestiate to edit it further.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

behaviour of some commanders like Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz[81] or Vadim Yakovlev[edit]

Either Soviet names will be added or I remove the two. Soviet Union censored any data about Soviet crimes, Poland allowed to publish data about Polish crimes and allowed external investigations. Xx236 07:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The list of grievances of all sides should be moved as much as possible to controversies of the Polish-Soviet war.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Academic Babel[edit]

Can someone read the paper: Kinship and Concealment in Red Cavalry and Babel's 1920 Diary Carol J. Avins Slavic Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 694-710

Xx236 07:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From Babel[edit]

"Ahead - terrible things. We crossed the railroad tracks by Zadvurdze . . . The military commissar and I ride along the tracks, begging the men not to butcher the prisoners . . . I didn't look into their faces, they impaled them, shot them, one they undress, another they shoot, moans, yells, wheezing . . . This is hell. How we bring freedom - terrible." [3] Xx236 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Polish victory" returned[edit]

In various wiki articles that mention this war, Poland is named the victor. How so? Poland attempts to grab land in the Ukraine, the Red Army pushes back to the gates of Warsaw... how did Poland win?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

This war didn't end at the gate of Warsaw, after polish victory in Warsaw battle bolsheviks were pushed back east again, one month later polish forces won again in battle of Niemen river and next in the final polish autumn offensive all 3 russian armys at polish front were defeated and polish foces recaptured Minsk, and at this moment war ended (so absoluty not at the gate of Warsaw)

regards Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the article, pay attention to the result note in the infobox and the aftermath section. Note that the war didn't start in April 1920 but in February 1919, with the Bolshevik Target Vistula offensive stopped in spring/summer 1919 first. Poles failed tp secure independent Ukraine for their Petlura-led allies from UPR, but they prevented the Red Army from carrying the revolution to Poland and further West. There are reasons why Lenin in his secret report to the 9th Conference of the Bolshevik Party on September 20, 1920, called the outcome of the war "In a word, a gigantic, unheard-of defeat" ([4])... PS. This issue has been also discussed above, look through the archives too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on! A peace treaty should not be used where it is. We can say that nobody "won" the war. But, if what I have read is true, the Russians sued for peace. How is this different that World War I? The Germans sued for peace, and we agreed. Yet, the 'World War I' article deems the Allies victors. Why not change the result to 'Treaty of Versailles'? If you don't understand what I am trying to say; I am trying to say that when a war results in an armistice, the victor is the side who agreed. Not the side who sued. Suing for peace = conditional surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As had been said above, a white peace treaty is not by any means a victory for either side, especially for the aggressor (in this case Poland) who invades and then is forced to agree to an unconditional treaty. (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Treaty of Riga was not a white peace. As for the aggressor, the Soviets attacked (in 4-6, January 1919) the Vilnius where they were Poles. Only after that Poles started their offensive. And not the Poles were forced to sign a peace, only the Soviets (See Battle of the Niemen River). The Soviets offered the Poles even Minsk but Polish delegations represented by opponents Piłsudski (were opposed to his plans of federal states Międzymorze) refused join Minsk to Poland to prevent plans Piłsudzki.Kcdlp (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Both sides won a defensive war, but while Poles never intended to get as far as Moscow - just to secure the old PLC borders - Russians wanted to overrun Poland and turn it into another soviet republic. The war ended with the Polish borders being somewhat less then PLC (but that was also due to the disagreements between Polish politicians about how far the borders should stretch; in the end the faction that won preferred to claim less territory then Soviets were willing to offer!). It's quite clear who was the victor here, even if it was not a total victory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The plan of the International under Lenin was to conquer Poland and then spread revolution to Hungary, Austria, Romania, Italy and Germany. Pilsudiski anticipated the Soviet invasion by striking an alliance with Petlyura to create an independent Ukrainian republic. Recognised historians, like Fuller, realise that the Polish victory at Warsaw 1920 and in the war stalled these Soviet plans. Following the defeat in this war, the Soviet union turned into "revolution in one country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And Pilsudsky's plan was the establishment of Intermarium, turning Poland into a regional power and expanding its territory manyfold. These plans were also dashed (no independent Ukraine either), making the outcome of the war kind of a mutual defeat: far-reaching plans of both sides were shattered, whereas the immediate results were rather inconclusive. As Poland did gain some land in the end, it was still a limited Polish victory. The Battle of Warsaw certainly was a decisive Polish victory. The whole war itself - not so much. --illythr (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Pilsudski's plan was to maintain an independent Poland and help creating an independent Ukraine allied to Poland. The plan of Lenin and the International was to turn Poland into a Soviet Republic and then continue launching the Revolution from its territory. The outcome of the war was an independent Poland. This was sufficient for the Polish opposition to Pilsudiski. The Soviet war aims in Poland failed completely. Please respect the historical facts, including the quotation of Lenin's assessment, and take POV-opinions elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
With respect to interpretations of Lenin's assessment, I would dispute that this consists a concession of defeat in the war as a whole: the quotations are from a speech that was delivered prior to peace talks with Poland, and does not reflect an assessment of the entire aftermath of the conflict. Concessions of defeat apply to the significant defeat in the Battle of Warsaw and a justification for the abandonment of the Soviet Republic's most ambitious war goals, but Poland also abandoned its most ambitious war goals in the peace process. Moreover, the article should not prioritize the evaluations of those involved directly in the conflict (let alone evaluations made before the conflict ended!), but rather seek to reflect a post-facto academic consensus, which other sources in the article identify as being disputed--to overrule these assessments in favor of content from a secret speech given by Lenin is original research. Per these sources, I propose that the infobox say "Disputed between minor Polish victory and indeterminate outcome".Rosguill (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

behaviour of some commanders like Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz or Vadim Yakovlev.[edit]

No Soviet commander responsible for cruelties has been branded in the article. At least Budyonnyi should be.Xx236 09:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about references[edit]

  • Note # 1 contains un-quoted interpretive text that is normally placed in the article itself, rather than in a note. Has this practice been discussed on WP?
  • Note # 54 Witold Lawrynowicz appears to be an organic chemist who contributes to history articles on non-academic websites [5].
  • Note #56 A. Mongeon - the sponsor of this reference website is commercial. It's difficult to determine the author's academic credentials, since there are numerous entries in Google search and in Google book search.

Novickas 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Removed one. Novickas 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes should be split from references, just as they are in Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). Feel free to do 'sofixit'.
He also publishes articles in newspapers and popular science history outlets. Seems reliable, although of course if he'd contradict an academic publication we would chose an academic over this.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to replace this ref with something better; he doesn't state anything controversial and the para can be easily referenced with WERS or GP or similar publication (which, unfortunately, I don't have with me atm).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Re your revert at [6] and the contested use of Witold Lawrynowicz as a source - since I don't wish to revert, either attribute the statement to a Polish chemist, or continue the discussion at Reliable Sources. Novickas 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and ask RS experts if doctorate in chemistry means we can consider author of dozens of historical publications unreliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious book[edit]

Keenan, Jeremy, The Pole: the Heroic Life of Jozef Pilsudski, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 2004, ISBN 0-7156-3210-8.

was here for a long time until Novickas finally removed it today. Thanks for catching it. Can we find out who added it and why? We can of course go dig deep in history, but maybe there is a simpler way. TIA, --Irpen 20:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction:the book is in every language Wiki article about the event. Somebody perhaps made a practical joke.--Molobo 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It was not even used as a reference, but simply further reading. Some kind of mistake... if you care, feel free to dig through history and present us with information on how it originated, of course - but I have content to create.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not much digging, Piotrus. Dividing article's history in halves, this was just 5 clicks away. Here is how it was added by you. No surprise you were "too busy" to find out who did it. And no, this was added by you as a reference, not further reading.

This is a second time this sort of thing is found in relation to this topic. The first time was. Remember

"it was a sad day for Ukrainians" when Poles had to leave Kiev.

POVed copyvio that you also pasted from external web-site. Sad indeed (but because of destruction.)

That you refuse even to acknowledge this so called "mistakes" makes no sense really as diffs are there. --Irpen 21:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus likely copied it from another language Wiki site as usefull list of further reading, is there any fact referenced to the book ? Or are you accusing Piotrus of making a fake book on purpose ?--Molobo 21:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. I asked a question and did not get the answer. I checked facts which are that the book was added as a "reference", not further reading, and this was not the first occasion the fictitious stuff was added by the same editor. I am not interested in your assumptions, Molobo. I can make my own ones. I asked the question. Did not get the answer and found it myself. Unless Piotrus wants to add something, that's all there is to it as far as I am concerned. --Irpen 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's have one thing clear. If it's a "Fictitious book", how come it exists ([7], [8], [9], [10])? When I was expanding the article way back in 2005, I probably found some online source mentioning it as a reference and added it to the relevant section; also back then Wikipedia distinguish clearly between refs and further reading and inline citations were not commonly used). The book, which exists, should be readded to further reading. And Irpen's accusations that I am adding "fictitious stuff" merit only an apology on his part.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The book does not exist, Piotrus, and its popping up at a couple of sites is a fluke. You can check with Duckworth, if you want. They did not publish such book. You can also check for yourself that there is no notable Jeremy Keenan who ever wrote about Poland. Duckworth would not publish history books from unknown authors. There is another author under this name but he wrote on the whole other topics. Perhaps they were duped that someone was writing such book for them and it was added to some online database and from there it penetrated to the databases you link.

And how can adding it to the "reference" section be called "added to a relevant section?" Did you use it as a reference for the info you added? Did anyone? But first of all, the book is fictitious in the first place. Same as your earlier added claim about "sad day for Ukrainians", a copyvio too. --Irpen 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't particulary care if this book is in further reading or not, as the article has been completly rewritten since it was in references section (and it was noone else but me who moved the dubious non-inline refs to further reading, too). And if I was indeed duped by some internet hoax back then, well, so was Amazon and WorldCat. It's a shame that you now scoop down to attacking editors for some source they used in 2005, but I guess it's a sign of the dying WP:CIV. In any case, it's EOT for me - especially as I know much better then to expect any apology from you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This fictitious book made it through the review process at two Featured Articles (this one and Battle of Warsaw (1920)) and one Good Article (Józef Piłsudski). Novickas 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious book (2): What's going on here?[edit]

Novickas, you deserve a huge barnstar for uncovering this fiction and moving the WP another step towards integrity and away from the nationalist myths of "heroic lives"

Now, to respond to Piotrus. I assume that your habitual "EOT" when you don't like something is perfectly WP:CIV by your book. Strange concept of civility that is by mine, but fine. Amazon was fooled, you say, about the book's existence. Fine, but amazon did not try to make any work look like it is referenced to the book that's bogus. Amazon's computer picked it up from some database and copied it to theirs. This was a totally automatic process. A certain WP editor, however, manually added the non-existing book to the references sections of an article. That's a whole lot of a different ballgame.

"It's a shame that you now scoop down to attacking editors for some source they used in 2005", no Piotrus. This is not what I did. We are not talking about the source you "used in 2005". This is a source you did not (and could not) use in 2005 while claiming that you did. We did not have a developed inline refs section then, but we did know the difference between "references" and "further reading" back then as we do now.

What we have here is a pattern of distortions, be it making an article look like it is referenced to a heroic book, which never existed, pasting copyvioed, unreferenced and POVed paragraph about Ukrainians' "sadness" about the Polish withdrawal from Kiev or misrepresenting of what Morgenthau said in connection with Pinsk massacre (Talk:Pinsk massacre#.22These excesses were.2C therefore.2C political as well as anti-Semitic in character.22). And every time such things are brought to light you just turn back to quoting WP:CIV and deny what is in plain view.

"Especially as I know much better then to expect any apology from you." Also, same old, turning to the demanding of apologies (for what?) but at the same time it is you who has to apologize to the Wikipedia readers for posting bogus books that you have never seen as references or making statements referring to the info that is just not there (Morgenthau) or for pasting copyvioed unreferenced stuff about the "Ukrainian sadness" about Pilsudski leaving them to their own devices.

But indeed, I know much better then to expect any apology from you.. --Irpen 02:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Novickas, you deserve a huge barnstar for uncovering this fiction and moving the WP another step towards integrity and away from the nationalist myths of "heroic lives""

Irpen I'm surprised by your change in opinion, I don't recall you giving Balcer barnstar's after he discovered Ghirlandajo inserted a complete fake quote that didn't exist in a book he used as reference:

"A certain WP editor, however, manually added the non-existing book to the references sections of an article. That's a whole lot of a different ballgame." I see you changed really much, last time a much worse situation happened, where a whole quote was given that didn't exist at all and which portayed Poland in very bad light you had this to say: "The way it is referenced in the ru-net sites with the volume and page numbers doesn't make an impression of the forgery. It might have been helpful to add "cited from..." to the reference under the quote but other than that, placing the quote in the article was totally appropriate. Personally, I doubt it is fake but I might be wrong. In any case, I am not inclined to go into trouble of getting the correct volume of the series and look through it for a quote, especially with my virtually non-existing Polish. As the particular reference points to nowhere (and I have no reason to think Balcer is not telling the truth), we should keep the quote out, at least until we find an original volume and page number"(Irpen's comment from archive page linked above)

Now if insertion of wholy fake quote was given such light treatment I see no reason why a copy of a list from another wikipedia page should be treated harsher, especially as it referenced nothing. --Molobo 02:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is nice, Molobo, that you jump to speak up for your friend. Too bad, though, that your eloquence is misplaced. Ghirla's quote was found on an existing site, not a fictitious one. That site gave a volume and page number. Ghirla then merely repeated the info from the external source. He should have back then stated that the sources is "cited through" the other source. I said so then and I say so now. This here is a different story. Pitorus references the article to a bogus book. Ghirla saw the quote, Piotrus did not see the book. See the difference? Unreferenced copyvio about sad Ukrainians. How did that make it through? And Morgenthau stuff is just plain false. But anyway, nice you defend your friend, even by attempting to deflect the discussion off-topic by pointing towards others instead of discussing the issues at hand. Too bad he just civilly "ends the topic" left and right. But I do know better than expect any different. --Irpen 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Irpen but Piotrus is just a fellow co-editor not my friend.
  • "Ghirla's quote was found on an existing site, not a fictitious one." And I am certain Piotrus found the reference list on existing Wikipedia article. Also Ghirlandajo didn't link to a site-but to a book.
  • "That site gave a volume and page number" And here were given catalog numbers also.
  • "Ghirla saw the quote, Piotrus did not see the book" I am fairly certain Piotrus saw the book also on existing site.
  • "See the difference?" What I see is insertion of a false quote referenced to existing book and copying a list of books from another wiki site. The first seems more serious in my view.
  • "But anyway, nice you defend your friend, even by attempting to deflect the discussion off-topic by pointing towards others instead of discussing the issues at hand. Too bad he just civilly "ends the topic" left and right. But I do know better than expect any different" Dear Irpen-first of all I don't know Piotrus besides Wikipedia-we are in no personal connection, I would be glad if you concentrate on articles rather then on alledged Wikipedian's relationships, as well as making Cabal accusations which are contradictory to assume good faith rule(as far as I know you are supportive of that rule).As to rest-well I just compared the case to similiar if in my view-worst-situation in which for some reason you dismissed the problem at hand.--Molobo 03:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, Just to clarify, your claim that Amazon just picked it up automatically via catalog search is false. On the German version of Amazon this book has a synopsis, which was certainly not machine generated. Also, it is still offered for sale (EUR 40,90). Was the price automatically generated as well? If one ordered the book, I wonder what would arrive.
The most likely explanation here is that the book exists, but was self-published by a totally obscure author in a very small run and hence is not available in libraries or catalogues.
Hounding Piotrus here for an edit he made in January, 2005 is an example of petty vindictiveness. We have to remember that the standards for referencing at that time were much more relaxed. At that point Piotrus was editing for less than a year and was not even an admin. No real harm was done, no false information was introduced into Wikipedia, no incorrect fact was justified and made more credible by quoting the book. Overall, a typical "accident at work", so to speak, which can befall any prolific Wikipedian.
Finally, the key ruling of Piotrus' Arbcom was the amnesty for all involved editors, giving us a chance to let old grudges be bygones and to give us a chance at a fresh start. By bringing out a 2.5 year old edit (!!) to attack Piotrus it seems to me you are blatantly violating that ruling. If you continue with this practice, I will bring this to the attention of Arbcom, to see if they would agree with that interpretation.Balcer 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, please do not attempt to scare me by the ArbCom. I am very much mindful of it. I am also aware that I am being thoroughly investigated anyway. Black book's removal from the WMF's servers (once its owner was caught maintaining it there) is no proof that its maintenance seized since its author never acknowledged doing anything wrong.

I am not violating any ruling of the ArbCom either. The new trick was uncovered now so I am commenting on it now. I did not know that the book was fictitious earlier to comment on that before. Also, no matter how I disgareed with the ArbCom's decision I was not willing to return to it and tried to put it really behind. Nevertheless, my colleague re-raised it himself for whatever reason. If you also want to resurrect the ArbCom, I can't prevent you from doing so but please do not resort to threats.

Finally, your explanation that the book exists, but was self-published by an obscure author contradicts the claim you will find at in the link you provided. That link also claims that it was published by Duckworth a very large and mainstream publisher who won't publish obscure authors. In the modern age of computer databases the erroneous entries propagate and what is behind them may even turn real. I have a real-life experience of using the database error at the company's web-site (a part number for the part that was obscure or long since discontinued but left in the catalog by an error) to force it to make a part just for me. I doubt that would work with the book. You are free to try to order it. I believe it would be placed "on order" first, that "delayed" and than "canceled" as unavailable. I would still advise to not re-add it to the Wikipedia while you wait. Ordering it might actually be a useful thing to do since it may prompt the database correction. --Irpen 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, forgetting the old grudges stated by Arbcom does not mean that we should not clean up old mistakes and errors. Assuming the book indeed did not existed we made somebody's practical joke to propagate into a featured article. Irpen (as many of you) worked a lot on this article and feels understandably angry. One of a reason for such errors is intensive usage of other language wikis, google book searches and book reviews instead of reliable sources. It was indeed a matter presented on Arbcom by M.K. and others. Still the practice I am afraid flourish in 2007 the same way as 2.5 years. Obviously Piotrus is not the only one guilty in using unreliable sources. Alex Bakharev 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning up old errors is great, going into attack mode on editors who made them is not. I see no reason for anger here, the reference to the book was not harmful and was not used to advance an incorrect claim or POV viewpoint. Your sweeping accusation and assignment of guilt is not helpful. Finally, placing full blame on Piotrus where dozens of other editors have edited and proofread this article as it reached FA status is simply unfair. They had their chance to spot the faulty reference, but apparently found nothing amiss. If anything, we have a community, not an individual failure here. Balcer 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious book (3): What's going on here?[edit]

How do unreliable sources find their way into the main space? Sometimes it might happen like this: Step 1 > Step 2 > and author of "Judaized Hitlerism becomes fighter against racist myths. Sometimes it might happen in slightly different way. There is one quote [11] in Wiki that always comes in whenever question of violence against Jews in certain part of Europe arises. First I came across it here [12]. Leaving the question of true identity of Mr. Lastaer aside, let's focus on how did this quote first appeared in Wiki. When I came across it in another discussion the source of it became obvious. Precisely it happened like this: Step 1> Step 2 specialist contacted> Step 3 Specialist provides requested source> Step 4: Welcome to M0RD00R 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I mean. WOW! I am so-o wowed! I hope editors will actually click on M0RD00R's diffs. Especially in the view of some righteous indignation above. And on this background some dare to look condescendedly towards most serious academic sources for the mere reason that they are from 19th century. OMG! --Irpen 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It is better to keep one's emotions in check, Irpen, if one wants to stay objective. Still, your obscene and childish whoops of delight upon reading criticisms of Piotrus illustrate your attitude in this matter quite well. Clearly you are now less interested in improving Wikipedia than in hounding your main opponent.
As far as I can tell, Yizkor book of Rogatin is an interesting and useful source, though as it is a Yizkor book for that community written by survivors, some accounts in it were written by amateur non-historians and thus should not be overinterpreted, or used to justify general conclusions. Still, they are fitting for use on discussion pages. I do not see what the big outrage is about. Balcer 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem ? Piotrus asked me about political situation and orientation of ethnic minority in specific region-Is there a problem giving a book published by Jewish survivors in Israel that describes their choices in war ?
I certainly don't have any prejudice about Israeli publications, although I understand that every publication has its specifics. --Molobo 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, you mistakenly took my genuine surprise and amazement for delight. There is no delight. To the contrary, I am very saddened by this practice on Wikipedia. I said before and I say now that I have no personal grudge with Piotrus. Your accusation that I edit Wikipedia with the aim to hound Piotrus is not worthy of a response even.

I completely ignored the first incident (Ukrainian "sadness" about Polish withdrawal from Kiev copyvioed from the internet blog and not even referenced there) and only after the deplorable Morgenthau twist it occurred to me that I now have to take an effort to check the sources for myself, rather a difficult task taking into account by near-zero mastery of the PL-language. I am not delighted by this. To the contrary, not being able to trust that sources say what they claim to say in annoying and results in a huge waste of time.

Also, again, I am not delighted but saddened by how some editors use the Polish wiki, be it to maintain and develop black-books, plotting how to rid en-Wiki from opponents, or to contact "specialists" who would provide the dubious sources to help POV-push. I am not doing any of it on my ru- or ua-wiki accounts.

I said before multiple tomes that I admire Piotrus' (and Halibutt's for that matter) commitment towards content creation. No matter how many content dispute I had with both of them, I more than once praised them and more than once I stood up for the latter editor, who was subject to unfair accusations. What I want is being able to edit Wikipedia and, in case of content disputes, not to have to watch my back, either for half-a-dozen threads at Wikipedia-space boards, hidden hit-lists or "additional help" called in by Gadu Gadu. I am fine to discuss articles with Piotrus. I am fine to discuss sources too. But I want people to behave decently, with no tricks or sources in the sleeve. What I want most of all is being able to unwatchlist all Wikipedia-space boards and not have to expect that the mere content dispute overflows there. And I want to not have to check the sources for myself when someone refers to them. --Irpen 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are concerned there is a shadowy group of people engaging in some conspiracy, perhaps you should take a wiki-break to cool off. Really, have a good day, wiki is not everything, don't obsess over it. That is all I have to say and I wish you well.--Molobo 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, I did not mean the things that I might have imagined. I mean the things that I saw, like this and many others I demonstrated elsewhere. As late as yesterday, another content dispute about the fitness of academic source was, again, taken by Piotrus to the board reserved for yellowfish stuff and crooks that promulgate the alien origination of Chess. --Irpen 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen at this point I really suggest you take a break, add to that the page is already concentrating too much on your emotional state and theories rather then the article( and personally I see nothing wrong in communicating on Polish wiki, and answering to enquiry about how to edit pages). I think you should rather concentrate on making articles and content then bringing attention to yourself. That is it from me. --Molobo 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Molobo, I did not expect you to admit to any wrongdoing. Please keep your uncivil advises to yourself. I don't really need to respond to this laughable stuff about "content creation". My mainspace contributions speak for themselves. --Irpen 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Since we are all for content creation, perhaps its best if most of this useless discussion gets removed in order no to distort the page with information about Irpen's concerns rather then about Polish-Soviet War? --Molobo 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is laughable how hateful so many people are. The book was set to be printed, and for whatever reason, it was not. Does that mean the book does not exist? Is O.J. Simpson's book "If I Did It?" not exist simply because it never made it to print? --Milicz 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You can call it unexisting or unprinted, does not matter. The issue at hand is the book's addition to the "references" list of the article. --Irpen 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I call it tastelessly casting baseless aspersions upon fellow Wikipedians. The book exists, it was simply never printed. That is all that happened. Amazon, Google Books, and other sites received notice the book would be coming out, it didn't and the article has been updated now to reflect and show that fact. Now if only this would have been done without the needless commentary that went along with it. :/ --Milicz 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was not "updated to show that some book is coming out". This is not what "references" section is for. Wikipedia articles do not serve as announcement boards for upcoming books. The book was never printed, so no editor could have seen it. Nevertheless, some editor extensively edits the article in the course of four days [13] and adds a bunch of material and a bunch of "references" which happen to include the book which was never printed. I would like to develop articles with editors whose references I don't have to check. I think it is a reasonable expectation. --Irpen 01:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether you purposefully miscast what others write, or whether you do it on purpose, regardless, your response completely misses the point. I never wrote what you have quoted, what exactly are you quoting from? Yes, Wikipedia does not serve as an announcement board, but what in the world does that have to do with this situation? Does the title of the book not give you an inkling of what it would be about? Oh, and an editor did in fact see the book, I'm just not sure it was a Wikipedia editor;).--Milicz 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"I would like to develop articles with editors whose references I don't have to check. I think it is a reasonable expectation"

Me too Irpen, that's why I am concerned about usage of XIX century tsarist era sources you rely on-and which have been proven to present false situation-as discussion on Warsaw Uprising showed. Or usage of Soviet sources-as the matter of fake quote inserted by Ghirlandajo showed they are quite unreliable. Lastly we are invovled with references being wrongly used to make claims they aren't making-as the discussion on Kiev Expediton showed in regards to some claims. I hope your realisation on reliablity of sources will help us reach agreement on using modern era, objective resources that of easy access for confirmation. So that problems like false quotes from Soviet era, disinformation from tsarist era or manipulative use of references-will become a thing of the past. Lastly: can this discussion be moved somewhere more proper ? It doesn't deal with PSW at all and only takes up valuable space on discussion page--Molobo 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, yet again you try to deflect the discussion off-topic. I replied to you about the usability and non-usability of 19th century sources, about Ghirla's quote end everything else. I am heartened to see you started to care about the proper format of discussion pages. That's a sudden and very welcome conversion. Unless anyone has anything more to say on this issue, I will archive this thread soon. --Irpen 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this book was listed in several high-profile articles, the discussion might belong at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Also - it would be a good thing if it were deleted from pl.wikipedia as well. Novickas 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

just a technical point from a librarian-- there may not have been malice adding the book, just carelessness. It was listed in the WorldCat catalog and elsewhere, However, it would have been clever to notice that no libraries actually had a copy--just the British Library record--it no longer appears in the actual BL catalog--WorldCat is very slow to update. Since the record had pagination, there must have been a copy produced--catalogers don't add page numbers till they see the book, because it tends to change at the last minute. I notice also that though added in the references section, it was a general reference, not used to support a point. Does anyone here happen to know the story about why the publication was halted--there must be a story behind this? Or was it a documented fake of some sort? DGG (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Re clever: It was a very improbable combination of author/title/publisher; Jeremy Keenan is an anthropologist specializing in the Sahara. [14] Surely you can imagine some equally improbable combination that would have motivated you to undertake the extra 20 clicks or so needed to establish that it had never been published. The story behind it is, no doubt, very interesting - Duckworth responded to an email I sent them; they acknowledged the error but gave no details. If you wish, DGG, I'll forward that email to you, but will ask you not to forward it elsewhere, since it contains my name and address. Or you could email them yourself.
Malice was not the point of bringing this up at arbcom, but carelessness - followed, as you can see - by denial and battle. Novickas (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Flag[edit]

The Ukrainian flags are upside down. Bandurist 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure which version of the flag for the Ukrainian People's Republic was adopted by the government, but I know that they were both used: yellow-blue/blue-yellow.. See here.. —dima/talk/ 03:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are various explanations as to why ovcassionally the flag was inverted, but the officially recognised flag is the opposite of the one given here. Bandurist 11:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bitwa niemenska.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Bitwa niemenska.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pushing POV[edit]

Result - Polish minor victory

Polish minor victory ? Poles a)Saved their country, b)Stopped spread of Communism over whole Europe, c)Defeated much bigger forces comparing to their own.

It is not a "minor victory"...

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But they didn't get all that they initially had and Pilsudski's plans for Miedzymorze were dead. Anyways, this one was worked out after a lot of controversy and debate. It's a compromise and compromises by definition don't make either side 100% happy. But they work in that they prevent stupid bickering and make this page stable. So unless there's some new and significant reasons to alter that consensus, "minor victory" is a pretty good compromise here.radek (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As a minor factor, Poles could get much more in Riga peace... We were offered Minsk, if my memory serves me right...Szopen (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong quotation of source ?[edit]

I couldn't find anything in the source about "concentration camp". --Molobo (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if used by a single source, the term is obviously incorrect - should be internment camp. Reminds me of an old discussion from Talk:Bereza Kartuska prison - one can find a quotation for any POVed nonsense; it doesn't mean its correct usually - but it doesn't stop some POV pushers from trying.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Little more details.......[edit]

I personoly think that they could have talked more about the two sides during the era of the Poland-Soviet War consparecy. It is not realy a big problem but I thought I would disscuss the problem.

 Mbratek4014 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)--Mbratek4014 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Slightly OR-ish section headings?[edit]

Hey all, I like your vivid section headings such as "The tide turns:..." and "The Diplomatic Front, part X". I'm just wondering if they comply with WP:NOR and with the stylistic guidelines in MOS:HEAD? I'm asking because I'm writing a computer program to check for MoS violations and it flagged your section headings. Proteins (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think they violate MOS, can you explain how in more details, and/or suggest better headings? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My script flagged it because it interprets the Mos stringently, allowing only a short list of punctuation marks. It objected to the colons in those section headings, under the criterion: "special characters should be avoided". It also objected to the capitalization of "Diplomatic Front", and to the various uses of "the" in the section headings, such as "The tide turns". The feeling that the section headings were faintly OR was my own impression, although on further reflection, I see that they're just colorful.

I don't have nearly your expertise at Wikipedia or with FA's, so I feel a little ridiculous offering advice. But if you sincerely would like a suggestion, I would make those section headings more informative for the casual reader who has not yet read the article, but is skimming the Table of Contents. In what way did the tide turn and turn again? Who was talking to whom in those Diplomatic Fronts? How was the D. F. divided into two parts? Should "Diplomatic Front" be capitalized? I don't have any concrete suggestions, but you might consider those questions from that perspective. Proteins (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't hesitate to offer advice. I might have written much featured content, but I may not be up to date on all details of MOS. I agree that Diplomatic Front should be decapitalized; I am not a native speaker and I don't always know if "the" should be used or not. The headings were indeed meant to be colorful, I have no opinion on use of colons (:) in headings. I am not sure if by making the headings more informative we wouldn't make them too long, IIRC diplomatic fronts were divided by year (less colorful, we could name them "diplomacy in 1919" and "diplomacy in 1920").--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Symon Vasylyovych Petliura[edit]

In this article he is referred to as "Petliura", "Symon Petlyura", "Symon Petlura" and "Petlura", sometimes within the same paragraph. I understand the difficulties of rendering a transliteration of a name from Ukranian (Cyrillic?) script, but as a featured article, it would benefit, in my humble opinion, from a consistent rendering. I have no idea what the preferred spelling may be: his article is titled Symon Petliura, but then uses "Petlura" almost consistently throughout; its talk page has a couple of sections on the spelling, but comes to no conclusion. Has anyone sufficient specialist knowledge to decide on a preferred spelling for this article and apply it throughout? --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The Petlura family (direct relatives and custodians of his estate) living in Canada use Petlura. In Ukrainian, particularly in the Poltava dialect the vowel after the letter l is softened. Resulting in words like Kliasa instead od Klas (classa), Liampa instead of Lampa (Lamp) Molioko instead of Moloko (milk).
  • In French they write Petloura. I go with Petlura, what the family uses in English rather than a direct transliteration from Ukrainian.

Ukrainian SSR[edit]

Ukrainian SSR was not recognized until 1945. It was a Communist puppet state of Russian SFSR. All of the flags of that republic is unofficial as well as the mentioning of it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not recognized by who or whom? Surely it existed if it became one of the signing founding members of the USSR on the 30th of December 1922? In fact, when was the USSR officially acknowledged quite late, but it still existed and histeory continued to be made in the period in which it was not officially recognised.--Bandurist (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction on the "Beat the Bolshevik" poster translation[edit]

Doesn't the title says in Polish, Strike, (or smite) the Bolshevik? Beat does not quite translate right, IMHO. Zapiens (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Name ???[edit]


This article is not about a conflict between Poland and the Soviets, it's about what happened in Ukraine in the latter part of WWI. The name actually seems to be an off-hand creation by an editor [[15]], which was never challenged nor supported.

I suggest "The Ukrainian Civil War 1919-1921".

Horlo (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. I suggest you start by trying to rename WWII into "The Ukrainian Civil War 1939-1945", first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War and Soviet influence on western peace movements[edit]

Please see Talk:Soviet-run_peace_movements_in_the_West#On_the_Russian_Revolution_and_the_Polish-Soviet_War_section. There is a discussion as to whether Soviet foreign propaganda of 1920s should be discussed in that article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No references nor sources on Polish casualties[edit]

Quite a long time ago I posted some well-sourced numbers on Polish casualties (it was a list of all killed and dead from other reasons). Later somebody judged those numbers as less credible than modern estimates (my sources were casualty counts from 1930s) and edited them, but al least his numbers were sourced. The present number of 9x thousands killed is not sourced at all and, moreover, it is much higher than any estimations of Polish losses I have seen. Was it posted by some Russian nationalist or by whom?
Peter558 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at article history, see when and what was removed, and list those changes here. We can discuss them and (preferably) restore the sourced information. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
[16], [17]. Reverted. --illythr (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Outcome of the War[edit]

The "limited Polish victory" thing was ridiculous enough, but "inconclusive"? It's historical fact that Poland won, the editor who changed it has a very clear Russian bias too (check his own page). Not that everyone isn't biased (myself included) but come on. Stuff like this is what makes Wikipedia a joke.Red Hair Bow (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical facts here (as presented in article text) are: both sides failed to achieve their goals, both sides failed to hold what they gained during their respective offensives, the Peace of Riga was considered a setback by all sides. Poland did get a monetary compensation out of it (as well as a recognized border eastwards of the Curzon line), so "Limited Polish victory" is accurate. The prevailing consensus established among the editors over the years here supports either "Peace of Riga" or "Minor Polish victory" as a result. I don't recall who changed "minor" to "limited" but that looks better than either to me. --illythr (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I've had a read of the article and it seems like it was far from a complete Polish victory. So in line with what the article actually says and with past consensus, I agree that "Limited Polish victory" seems best (and not at all ridiculous), and I have changed it back to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No wonder you came to the conclusion, the whole article is vastly pro-polish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


I think this article falls woefully short of FA now. To wit, the following need to be addressed:

  • Image stacking issues. The picture of Józef Piłsudski juts down too far, creating a crapton of blank space in the Prelude section.
  • "With the success of the Greater Poland Uprising in 1918, Poland had re-established its statehood for the first time since the 1795 partition." — paragraph is unsourced.
  • "By late February the Soviet westward advance had come to a halt. Both Polish and Soviet forces had also been" — unsourced.
  • Two one-sentence paragraphs at end of "Diplomatic front, part 1" should be combined.
  • Shouldn't the images be stagged instead of all spammed on the right side?
  • "String of Soviet Victories" needs copyedit — it begins with 3 one-sentence paragraphs. Also, the paragraph beginning "Soviet forces moved forward at the remarkable rate…" is unsourced.
  • "The Soviet armies in the center of the front fell into chaos. " — two-sentence paragraph with too much space above. Combine with another paragraph.
  • "Battle of Warsaw" needs a copy-edit; several sentences in a row begin with "the".
  • Last two paragraphs of "Aftermath" are one-sentence paragraphs.
  • There are about a bajillion red links in the article, including the sources section. These should be checked to see if they have potential as articles.
  • I pruned out a couple personal homebrew websites from the external links.
  • This reference, "A. Mongeon, The Polish–Russian War and the Fight for Polish Independence, 1918–1921. Retrieved 21 July 2007.", should not link to the page.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I'll add those issues to my to-do list for the coming weeks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
To add to this, I think the whole article needs a good copy edit for grammar and better prose. I'm afraid that there are numerous examples where it appears the text has been written by a non-native speaker of English (eg. "the western Europe", "the question of victory", "Polish soldiers fallen in the Battle of Warsaw"). This is not a criticism, but it doesn't do much for a Featured Article's status. Ranger Steve Talk 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I tried fixing capitalization of western; issues by TPH will be addressed in the FAR. I don't see what's wrong with the two other examples, but I'd welcome assistance from an native English speaker. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian/Soviet names for the war[edit]

The following sentence was removed as lacking references and tagged since 2008. I think it would be helpful if a Russian speaker could find a reference to add it back. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Soviet historians often called it the "War against White Poland" or considered it either a part of the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War or of the Civil War itself."

POV - behaviour of some commanders like Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz[111] or Vadim Yakovlev.[edit]

Why no Soviet commander has been listed here? Isaac Babel's 1920 Diary is quoted in this article only once, against Vadim Yakovlev. It's POV to reduce the diery to the critics. Forrest Gump believed "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." But some editors are smarter, they always get what they want. Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The movies[edit]

There is a new Polish 3D movie and the Russians want to produce a movie about Soviet POWs in Polish camps. Polish POWs aren't important for anyone.Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Maps ?[edit]

Could someone please post some maps showing the location and movement(s) of the various major military units that were involved in the war?

Cwkmail (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Poland, whose statehood had just been re-established by the Treaty of Versailles "[edit]

If this statement, in the opening section, is correct, then how is the war claimed to have started in February 1919 when the Treaty was not concluded until June 1919 ? The answer to this apparent chronological inconsistency, is that the polish people had succeeded in re-establishing their state using their own initiatives.Eregli bob (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Eregli bob: good observation; how would you propose to rephrase the current sentence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Culled intro[edit]

I have cut down the over long introduction for this article moving some material into a 'Historical assessment' section. My reasoning is that it is far too long (roughly the same as that for WW2), it uses the same words repeatedly (eg 'state'), and much of the material should be in the main article not the intro. Rsloch (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

Confirming as B-class for WP:POLAND, per milhist and other reviews. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Polish victory?[edit]

Can the war really be considered a Polish victory? It seems more indecisive, since both sides got ~50% of the disputed territory and it ended in a kind of truce. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please search this talk page and its archives for this phrase to find several lengthy discussions on this topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Query @ Wheeke category deletion[edit]

You are deleting Category:Aftermath of World War I: sorry if I am being dim, but I don't understand why.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I presume you refer to [18]. Ping User:Wheeke, this category seems relevant and its removal merits an explanation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note the hierarchy of the categories! Category:Polish–Soviet War ist already a sub-category of Category:Aftermath of World War I. Now the hierarchy is more simply and stringent.--Wheeke (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Polish Victory?[edit]

Polish&Ukranian alliance invades most of the Ukranian territory initially and at the end in spite of Soviet defeat at the Warsaw, Soviets reoccupy their losts. So, where is the Polish Victory? (

ask Lenin- he was pretty clear on the subject. See other threads on this page.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical assessment[edit]

Who exactly says that Soviet Russia won? Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c d e Joanna Beata Michlic, Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present, University of Nebraska Press, 2006, ISBN 0803232403Google Print, p.118
  2. ^ Sergey Solovyov, "History of Russia from the Earliest Times", vol.3-5, ISBN 5-17-002142-9


I see that this article is a GA nominee, but many paragraphs are missing citations. I also noticed at least one "citation needed" tag. I suggest these be corrected, otherwise the article may fail a GA review. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polish–Soviet War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


@Iazyges: To me, these citation needed issues strike as a serious problem. Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures list them as a reasons to immediately fail a GA nomination. They certainly indicate a serious problem with GA criterion 2. (verifiability and no OR), that I can't comprehend would make anyone be "all for" a GA status. And there's not just "a few", but a considerable number of 22.
Also, what missing "battle pages" are you talking about? You are reviewing this article, not any other page. Having red links bears no relevance to any GA criteria (it does for FA criteria, but that's not what the nomination is about).
As an editor with less than 1,000 edits you are a fairly new one. While there's nothing bad about that per se, I have some doubts about whether you have thoroughly familiarized yourself with the GA criteria and instructions, and the underlining policies. GA reviews are conducted against a set of specific criteria and not an overall impression. The instructions clearly tell that having citation needed tags is a serious problem. The underlying policy, WP:V, is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and ignoring it in a process like GA reviews is a serious lapse. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Finnusertop I will admit that it has been a while since i have viewed the policies of the GA nomination, I will withdraw my comment and re-familiarize myself with them. Iazyges (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges (New)[edit]

  • (Should terms be true or false) | Policy number.Iazyges' organization numbers | Terms | Is it true or false?

  • (✓)1a.1 Clear? (✓)
  • (✓)1a.2 Concise? (✓)
  • (✓)1b.1 Correct style? (✓)
  • (✓)2a.2 Has all citations? (✗✗)
  • (✓)2b.1 In text citations from reliable sources? (✓)
  • (✗)2c.1 Contains original research? (✗)
  • (✗)2d.1 Plagiarism or copyright violation? (✗)
  • (✓)3a.1 Adresses main topic?(✓)
  • (✓)3b.1 Stays focused? (✓)
  • (✓)4a.1 Neutral? (✓)
  • (✓)5a.1 Stable? (✓)
  • (✓)6a.1 Images correctly tagged and copyright usage? (✓)
  • (✓)6b.1 Images relevant? (✓)

Overall it meets most of the standards, except for 2, which qualifies it for immediate failure, so at such a time as all citations or most of them are there, it will qualify for it, but as of now it doesn't. Iazyges (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Agree with reviewer. The nominator does not seem to understand the GA requirements, and further, is not editing the article. It sadly seems like a Ï like this article, it seems long, can it be a GA?" type of a nomination by an editor who hasn't replied here despite 48h since this review was posted :(. The answer is quick fail. If the nominator wants this to be a GA, s/he needs to spend several days improving this article by adding and verifying citations, then it can be resubmitted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment[edit]

Based on the above, it is clear that the intention was to fail the article, but the final steps of the process were not taken. As this was a drive-by nomination by someone who did not consult with the regular editors as to whether the article was ready for GA status and what still needed to be done, I'm going to complete the process and register the decision with the FailedGA template on the article talk page. If the nominator wishes to renominate the article, the article's various problem templates should certainly be addressed first, and the consultation (mentioned at WP:GANI) needs to be done. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


I like the way the inclusion of a number of maps shows the progress of the war quite well - but it would make things even clearer if there was a map that shows the borders after the end of the war as well. Is there one available? Lennart97 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Biased lead[edit]

The lead describes Pilsudski's goals. Pilsudski had however to cooperate with the nationalists. Let's compare History of Poland (1918–1939). Opinions varied among Polish politicians as to how much of the territory a new, Polish-led state should contain and what form it should take. Józef Piłsudski advocated a democratic, Polish-led federation of independent states — while Roman Dmowski leader of the Endecja movement represented by the National Democratic Party, set his mind on a more compact Poland composed of ethnic Polish or 'polonizable' territories. (Piotr S. Wandycz, The Polish Question"'in The Treaty of Versailles : a reassessment after 75 years) Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish–Soviet War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

over the city of Vilnius[edit]

The city had several names at that time.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish–Soviet War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Lithuanian participation[edit]

It is very odd that Lithuania has been put side by side with Soviets. The reason is just some speculation about giving "loggistic support" and no further proof or detailisation. Furthermore, its hard to conceive that any support could have been given as the main transport artery Petrograd-Warsaw railwail was under Soviet control

On the other hand, if Latvia has been put on the Polish side, why not Lithuania? In the spring of 1919 the two forces fought side by side in a common front. At the beginning the realtions were fine. A little read here -

I suggest either removing Lithuania from the Soviet side or adding it on both sides (with explanations) Gadafijus (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?[edit]

Infobox contains Polish-soviet war montage.jpg, made from 5 different pictures, and description of this .jpg is description of picture containing 6 parts.

Lien Shan (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)