Talk:Polish Underground State

Old talk

I'm currently working on a whole series of articles covering both armed and political struggle of Poland in World War II. This is going to be the main article of the whole series, with short description of what the Secret State was, how it was formed and what happened to it. This article will also cover the political structure of both the Polish Government in Exile and its country-based branches (including the secret parliament). The main navbox would include links to the following:

• a list of political parties and their military branches
• Underground courts, tribunals and police
• Underground teaching - secret universities, colleges and military schools
• Underground press and media
• symbols of the Secret State
• a list of related topics and related reading

It might take several days to complete this project. Please be so kind as to leave this article as it is for now, I promise to let everybody know as soon as it is ready. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Another question is whether this page should be here (as Karski suggests) or at Polish Underground State (as per Władysław Bartoszewski)? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:04, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Split

This article will soon be expanded and/or splitted into several subarticles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization. I am not sure which should be the state page and which should be the history page article, though... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Any particular reason the last sentence of the introduction trails off like that? --Astronouth7303 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not any I can think of. Perhaps we should ask Halibutt, who was the last editor - it do seems like he just forgot to finish the edit?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

GL and AL

GL and AL weren't parts of the secret state, they killed or denounced hundreds of Polish activists. They should be removed from this article.

The article ignore Polish underground adminstration. Xx236 09:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

it is used to refer to all underground resistance organizations in Poland during World War II, both military and civilian.

By whom? The Polish article defines the Secret State and the English one doesn't even mention that definition. Xx236 09:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OPW (Obòz Polski Walczącej)

I need to verify an archival reference, possibly for use in this or other articles, to an underground (?) organization called Obòz Polski Walczącej (OPZ), active in Nazi-occupied Poland. Searches in the English-language and Polish Wikipedias have been inconclusive; a search via Google yielded only Polish-language sites I'm unable to read. Thanks, Deborahjay 09:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Request fullfilled :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this secret state have a name?

Does this secret state have a name? I would like to know this. Jelleh 30 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it had any 'official' name other than those given in the article. In many regards it was the legal continuation of Second Polish Republic, but underground and with parts of the governement in exile.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamlist issue

Please add de:Polnischer Untergrundstaat to the article, the Spam Protection Filter won´t allow me to save. -- Robertberlin 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Evv 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Time Frame

Including this entity in the templates of Polish States is dubious. But should it remain, a time frame of its existence should be included in the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One may make the case for Polish government in exile, perhaps, but it was just a government - this was the country. There is a plethora of publications analyzing this unique phenomena, as no other occupied country had such a complete underground administration; hence I think it fits well into the template.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And what then is the timeframe of its existence? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what structures we recognize as minimal; from 1939/1940 to 1945 is a relatively safe bet.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Would the General Government also fall under the mantle of a Polish State? Keeping in mind Vichy France or the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, for example. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Would Republic of Central Lithuania - or even more to the point, Wilno Voivodeship - fall under the mantle of the Lithuanian state? I think not, although it/they make a good 'see also's.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I asked the question in earnest. You seem to have a problem with it. But O.K., if a "my opinion" as an explanation might satisfy you, the Republic of Central Lithuania was a puppet state of Poland, surreptitiously created by the order of the Naczelnik Państwa (no speculation there). The Wilno Voivodeship was the result of the annexation of said "Republic" following rigged elections (You, might argue these elections were fair, but then again plenty of "former" Polish Communists and their offspring might argue that the elections in Poland were on the up and up too, when it was practical to do so). But like those rigged elections by the Communists, so were Zeligowski's. Since the Lithuanian Republic continued to exist in spite of some hope, in Warsaw, that by annexing the Capital of Lithuania, Vilnius, its spiritual "heart", Lithuania might decide to join Miedzymorze, it chose not too. So no, in the context of our discussion, I wouldn't consider these entities to be under the mantle of the Lithuanian State. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Short earnest answer is "no". GG was not part of a resistance, it was more of a German colonial administration. The area was not a puppet state, neither had it any goal of collaborating with Poles throughout the war, Germans made determined effort to avoid mentioning word Poland in each and every document or administrative naming regarding the region. The government and administration of General Government was made completely out of Germans. The final goal of General Government was to be become a German province, with Poles being ethnically cleansed and mass murdered to make room for German colonists. See General Government for more details.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are interesting. And the PRL, do you believe it was a puppet state? And what was it's final goal? Dr. Dan (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While this belongs more on PRL discussion, the short answer would be that it was certainly puppet state until Gomułka's Thaw in 1956, after which the term satellite state may be preferable (although the literature differs on those terms, as usual - you can find a citation for virtually any term, any era, if you look long enough :).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely agree with you that one can always find a citation to back up a claim, if one looks long enough. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not totally inclusive

While the Polish Secret State represented both the majority and the mainstream of Polish political parties and resistance organizations, it was not totally inclusive (the two notable exceptions include the communists and some of the right-wing extremists). The current Polish Secret State is hence misleading.

As far as I can tell, the big picture was like this: the Secret State was primarily composed of the Big Four (PPS-WRN, SL, SN and SP) who formed the Political Consultative Committee in 1940. SP as far as I can tell never had a resistance organization. SD was not a major player and survived mostly in exile, again, I don't recall it had any resistance organization in occupied Poland. GL WRN was quite loyal to the Secret State, as were for the most part BCh of SL - although parts of the latter would later join the communists (we need to find more info on how big of a part switch sides in 1944). The far-right NOW and NSZ of SN were split between pro-Secret State factions and pro-autonomy factions. I am not completly clear on the relation between the Secret State and Camp of National Unity (OZON) and its OPW who seem to be subordinate to the Secret State and AK but perhaps not to its full extent. KN of ONR would eventually join AK, but Związek Jaszczurczy was for the most part independent and represented the founding part of NSZ (when part of NOW joined AK) and later when NSZ joined AK was the secessionist part (basically ONR recognized the government in exile but not the delegatura representatives). Finally, I never heard of the Bund, Hashomer Hatzair and Betar being part of the Polish Secret State; although honestly I would have to research what was the political representation of Polish Jews after the 1930 dissolution of the Bloc of National Minorities. That of course makes the inclusion of ŻOB and ŻŻW a question mark.

Certainly, PPR (communists) and its GL/AL military arm were NOT part of the Polish Secret State and can be removed from the template. I would like to mark some of the right-wing parties and organizations who did not fully endorse the Secret State somehow (color, italic) - and as for the Jewish organizations, we need to do some more research.

Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If the infobox is the main problem here, feel free to change it. OTOH when making it, I thought it was better to add all the main players, including the Soviet puppets who had nothing to do with the state, its institutions and functioning whatsoever. //Halibutt 01:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am toying with the idea of keeping them but marking them as 'non-a-part-of'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the template.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Name - secret vs underground

Here's a thought. The Polish term is Polskie Państwo Podziemne - Polish Underground State. Now, Polish Secret State yields 12 hits on Google Print ([1]), and Polish Underground State yields 416 ([2]). With all due respect to Karski, even the Polish wiki distinguish between his book (pl:Tajne państwo) and the article about the underground state. Hence I'd like to suggest a move to the Polish Underground State, unless there are any compelling argument to keep the current title? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Realistically a move to the Polish Underground or "Resistance" makes more sense (at least in English). With even more due respect to Karski, an article using the current name, about him and his book, would be more appropriate than as the title of this article. Calling this entity a "state" seems to be strechiiiing the definition of State quite a bit. Including it on the template of Polish States seems strange to say the least. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, Polish resistance movement in World War II is not the same as the Polish Underground State, as it 1) includes communists and other groups described above who 2) were not related to the civilian side of the struggle (ex. this and this).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Even more simply put, this "entity" could only be considered a State by someone who would hope that no one would have the temerity to question the absurdity of its being called one. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say let's move it to Polish Underground State. As long as both terms are mentioned in the header all seems fine. //Halibutt 01:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

State? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Google hits should settle this easily. If Poland and you, considers this entity a Polish State, it can be one. No further objections. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem article

I'm having a problem with this article. I feel that it is just a renaming of the non-communist resistance, and didn't have the cohesion needed to be called a state. If only a few (or only one) recent writer uses this term, then it is also ahistorical. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you would care to look at the discussion right above you, you will note the existence of about 400 books in English using this term. I think the notability is quite assured.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout - to do

Based on chapters from Salmonowicz:

• history: 1939-1940: birth, growth: 1941-1943, the end: 1944-1945
• structure: political parties, Government Delegate's Office at Home (Government Delegate's Office at Home), Council of Ministers at Home (Krajowa Rada Ministrów), military (SZP-ZWZ-AK), civil society
• "walka cywilna" (civilian struggle): economical, small sabotage, underground social security, Catholic Church, Jewish Affairs
• press and information service
• culture and education: Education in Poland during World War II, literature, theatre, music, graphical arts, radio, photography, film, sports,
• underground legal structure
• planning for the future: plans for Poland after the war - politics, economy, culture, borders
• evaluation

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

March 2011 MilHist assessment

Looking pretty good IMO. I've ticked the supporting materials box for B-Class as the article has an infobox and map, but left the citations and coverage boxes as is. First off, two paras under History don't finish with citations. More importantly, there appears to be a heavy reliance on only one source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've added the missing citations. Regarding the one source, it is a reliable book by an expert on the subject (historian Stanisław Salmonowicz). Is there a policy that makes reliance on one source disqualifiable for certain quality levels? AFAIK even FAs can be created with one source, provided all other criteria are met (unlikely, but I believe it happens). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing looks good now, but re. reliance on a single source, I don't think it's that uncommon for reviewers to seek more balanced referencing, even if the main source is reliable. I have no issue if you want to seek a second assessment from someone else, however I'd have thought a better approach wouild be to make use as references one or two of those sources under Further Reading... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've had GA and FA passed that relied on a single source (recent milhist example - Stanisław Koniecpolski), I will have to ask for another review. I do think that this article can use expansion with another source, but not before a GA/FA level. PS. Also, B-class FAQ already shows that this article has a much higher quality and density of references than required for B-class. Please show me where it is written that "B-class articles should be written using multiple references" or anything similar. B-class requirement is only that "[article] is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations". This article uses reliable sources, and references all points. PPS. Why is the "coverage and accuracy" disputed as well? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always said you're free to seek other opinions, however I don't see why you haven't just added a little data from the sources under Further Reading. I think another reviewer told you something similar on the MilHist assessments requests page. As to your other articles, I can't speak for their reviewers. Re. the B-Class "rules", I assess an article on its own merits and, given there's been a fair bit of diccussion about the subject matter, I'd feel more comfortable seeing a broader range of sourcing even at this level, which is higher than the average project B-class. Others may not share that viewpoint, of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've not added "a little" from those sources because I have not yet read thosse books. This article contains the key information from one expert and comprehensive book, plus a number of related information from other sources, and to see it questioned for B-class is just not something that makes sense to me. You have still not pointed out to a rule that this article fails, other than your own vague interpretation of what a B-class is. I find it not very helpful - you keep demanding something that is not necessary for the B-class (but I do agree with you it may be necessary for higher quality classes, of course). But this is a B-class review, not GA/A/FA class one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

While I still believe the article is B-class ready, I also didn't realize that Garliński's article was available online. I will use it to expand the article shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• That gives me greater comfort (as someone who can't make a thorough judgement call on the merits of one source over all others in this case). I fixed a couple of links in the Decline section and also standardised dates to d-m-y, which you seem to use a bit kore than m-d-y: please check through the rest of the page and standardise. Happy to call as MilHist B-Class now, good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's definitely B-Class. Single source from a recognized, and published, historian shouldn't keep it from being declared a WPP B-Class.Ajh1492 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Greetings, Proconsul Piotrus ;).
• In the lede, we get the opinions of the supporters as to what the Underground State (from now on referred to as the U.S., not to be confused with the U.S.A.) think the U.S. is, but not the opposing view.
• So, in the lede, we get the impression that the U.S. was formed at the beginning of WWII, but we (the readers) don't get whether the U.S. was killed off by the USSR or was simply dissolved by itself. The confusion is heightened as whether the people part of the U.S. were killed/eliminated by the Soviets or not.
• I'd say you are using too many abbreviations. I could hardly follow the article. I guessed at what the abbreviations meant. I will give more comments later, when time allows. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I improved the lead. There is a lot of abbreviations, but I tried to ensure that on the first use, full names are given. I am not sure if using full names later would be any better. Is there a relevant MoS section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations. To cite the appropriate section:

“ When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets. This clears the way for later use of the abbreviation alone [emphasis added]. ” — Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations

—mc10 (t/c) 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did a few tweaks to the article, but overall I saw nothing that needs changing. Some institutions have no recognized abbreviations, some are commonly referred to with full name (Armia Krajowa), and after a sufficient space, particularly when a new section begins, I think it is helpful to remind the reader a full name of the organization. For the most part I do believe that the article adheres to the above rule. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Passed Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 23:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish Underground State. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106180531/http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/specjal_041002/specjal_a_6.html to http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/specjal_041002/specjal_a_6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration

The State opposed collaboration. The subject isn't mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)