Talk:Polish–Soviet War/Archive 1

Moved on January 22 2005 from Talk:Polish-Soviet War

Name

"or considered me to like other dudes. For my information check out Moist Heating pads in heating pads. trackside": this text doesn;t seem related to the article. It occurs at the end of the first paragraph of the "Names and Dates" chapter (name = Eric Vosselmans)

Shouldn't this article be at Polish-bolshevik war instead? The war ended some two years prior to creation of the Soviet Union and the term, although quite frequently used (even in Polish sources), is simply misleading. I'm thinking of moving it. Any objections?Halibutt 20:28, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMO needs change to something else; Russo-Polish also seems appropriate. How about Google-testing the two names. (IMO Bolshevik needs capital B, if you go that route.) --Jerzy(t) 06:00, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

Google test results (using googlefight.com):

*Polish-soviet - 8 880 results, Polish-bolshevik - 878 results. Polish-russian omitted since it would indicate many past wars as well and would not be indicative.

*polsko-radziecka - 1 480 results, polsko-bolszewicka - 1 350 results. polsko-sowiecka - 2 200 results

Polish-Russian would be definetly wrong without a date. Soviet or Bolshevik are much more distinct. Soviet is more widely used, but the argument that Soviet Union was not created untill 1924 is quite convincing. As Polish-Bolshevik would definetly be hard to mistake with anything, I'd vote for it even though it is less used then Polish-Soviet. Popularity of errors doesn't make them correct, simly - redirect :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Russo is not apriopriate, since it was not war against Russia, i believe ;) Szopen 06:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that

• Russia was not involved, or
• Russia was involved, but it was not "against" Russia, e.g. because Poland did not intiate it and just defended itself?

IMO, the term just implies a war involving two countries, like the Spanish-American War, where no one seriously believes Spain was the aggressor.--Jerzy(t) 06:51, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

Well, i think it was not against Russia and not with Russia - it was against Bolshevik state, which generally i think avoided to be called "Russia", isn't it?! Szopen 09:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, AAMoF the war is usually called the Polish-bolshevik war, which is the proper name from the Polish side. Sometimes other names are used, but these seem a little tricky or simply wrong. Russo-Polish War of 1920 seems quite popular too, but the question is whether Russia Poland was waging the war with was the legitimate Russia (there were at least three or four different Russias at the time - Reds, Whites, other Whites, Anarchists...) and if this name was chosen, it'd suggest that Poland fought against Lenin, Makhno, Ungern von Sternberg, Denikin and all the other Russias involved.

The most widespread name (Polish-Soviet War) is simply wrong since there was no Soviet Union at the time. It's like calling the Ceasars campaign in Gaul a Franco-Italian War. Finally, as to the official name of the parties involved in the war: Poland is sure in this context. The problem is with the Reds since the name of the country is not really certain until later in the twenties. The most common name is Bolshevik Russia. That's why I like the Polish-Bolshevik War the most. Halibutt 11:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I added a separate section explaining the names used. Hope that clears the matter a bit. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

The term, "Polish-________ War"

It is surely seldom the case that ALL the inhabitants of one country profess to war on ALL the inhabitants of another. If such unanimity WERE obligatory, hardly any war could be given an unequivocal name. The Americans' "Vietnam War," for example, might have to be an "American-Vietcong-and-some-of-North-Vietnam War." (Note that, in this case, Americans don't even bother to call it an "AMERICAN-Vietnam War.") In any case, as the histories of any number of international imbroglios suggest, hostilities directed at a portion of a country tend to generalize to more, if not all, of its population.

I think I would go with "Polish-Russian War." Logologist 10:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Polish-Russian War or Russo-Polish War would have to go with a date since there were much more Polish-Russian Wars in the past. Also, it's not the problem with "all inhabitants of some country" but with "all countries of that name". Vietnam example is a good one, but I believe it is rather an exception than a rule. In Europe usually most conflicts go with both parties' names (even War of the Roses..). Anyway, I believe we can finish this article and then start a poll on which name to chose, that would be the easiest way I believe. What do you think? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would have to be "Polish-Russian War (1919-21)." Other Polish-Russian wars that can be given more specific names, could continue to be given them. And whoever wishes to continue calling this particular conflict the "Polish-Bolshevik" or "Polish-Soviet War," elsewhere than in the main heading, could be free to do so.

Idea of postponing the decision seems a good one. I think that's what Pilsudski would have done.

Logologist 23:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But at least we should make sure that the name in lead is the same as in title. I vote for moving it to P-Bolshevic W. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objectiosn to this...should we move it then? This is the last issue to be resolved before nominating this article...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me (provided it's Bolshevik and not Bolshevic). Halibutt 15:41, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, my mistake. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Logologist on this one, I think it should be called the "Polish-Russian War (1919-21)." Otherwise I think I could go with "Polish-Bolshevik Russian War". Otherwise it sounds like Poland was fighting a political party. Milicz 18:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What did the Bolshevik authorities call their country in this period? (Not "Bolshevik Russia," I don't think?) Logologist 10:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good question. But I'd rather ask - how did English speaking countries refered to Lenin&Co. from 1917 to the creation of Soviet Union? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both Bertrand Russel and Winston Churchill use the Bolshevik Russia version([1] and [2], for instance). However, both gentlemen could probably use some other popular names, like for instance the simple Reds. Also, the good old John Reed is a tough nut to crack, since in 1919 he published both the Red Russia and The Structure Of The Soviet State. As far as I know he was the first English-speaking author to use the Russian word Soviet in English. Halibutt 14:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

The term "soviet" is simply Russian for "council" ("rada," in Polish), and its use in 20th-century Russian politics in fact predates the Bolshevik takeover. Has there been any "Polish-Soviet" war other than the 1919-20 affair (leaving aside possibly September 1939, when Polish forces were specifically ordered by their high command not to fight the invading Soviets)? Logologist 15:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I know it's a Russia word - but both of us know (I guess) that it's not an English word, it was imported to that language from Russian and I never saw an instance of usage earlier than 1919 (eventhough there were councils in Russia as early as middle ages.

Apart from the 1939 war (that was not a war, although a war it was... I love Polish history...), one could also write about the Soviet fight against the non-communist underground in Poland after 1944. Halibutt 17:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt 17:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Other issues

The following text in the article

It was also important time for Stalin. Many can argue that the final defeat of the Soviet army was caused by Stalin's intrigue. Moreover, in the final stage of the war, he was forced to retreat in panic. Three groups of people, that he met at his way then: Ukrainian peasants, Polish communists, and Polish officers were later subject of persecutions. Ukrainian peasants in millions were starving to death during famine organised by Stalin 1930-1934. Polish communists were decimated, and Polish minority deported to Kazakhstan during Stalin's purges 1934-1938. Polish officers were murdered en masse in the Katyn massacre in 1940.

• belongs in some other article, and
• is too ill-defined to say what the article would be.

Not ready for prime time.

I think it is now better covered with in the Aftermath of the rewritten article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When a "see also" is in the middle of text, as with

(See also: genocide)

it is probably always a bad link. (If you can't mention what you're linking to in a declarative sentence, you can't justify linking them.) In this case, it must be insinuating genocidal intent; find a way to say who says so and their justifications for it. Also, in this case, the article linked makes no mention of these events, and is irrelevant beyond the dictionary definition of "genocide". More connection is needed before linking.

Similarly with

See also: Russian Civil War

Tell us why this is a better link than Innovations in Russian Revolutionary literature.
--Jerzy(t) 07:30, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

That's one is easy. Soviet historiography considered Polish_Soviet war to be part of Western interventions in Civil war in Russia. Second, it was directly tied to Russian Civil War: when Denikin was on offensive, Pilsudski halted advances so not to help him. Szopen 09:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War → Polish-Bolshevik War

Polish-Bolshevik War is a better name, since the war ended by 1921 and Soviet Union was officialy created in 1924. The name Polish-Bolshevik War was also used without objections throughout the article (including the lead) during its recent rewriting (the article will be nominated to FA after the move). See Talk:Polish-Soviet_War for more arguments. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support - consensus to move reached at the talk page. Halibutt 21:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've heard of this before, and it had Bolshevik in the name, not Soviet. SECProto 22:40, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This makes sense, and anyway, WP:RM is not the place to subvert consensus. ADH (t&m) 00:17, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Polish-Soviet beats Polish-Bolshevik 6:1 in Google. As is tiresomely well-established by constant debate, Wikipedia favours common usage over correctness (a convention I strongly disagree with, but nobody seems interested in trying to change it, and case-by-case is not the way). In any case, on correctness terms, Polish-Bolshevik isn't necessarily the best, even over Polish-Soviet (the Soviet Union may not have been formally established until 1924, but Soviets certainly were). Polish-Bolshevik suggests all the fighting was between Poles and Bolsheviks - but many of the participants on the Russian side were non-Bolshevik conscripts. Polish-Russian War (1919-21) is probably the most correct form, because it was a war between the Polish and Russian states and that is how wars are usually named unless there's an alternative that identifies it more specifically (eg War of Jenkins' Ear). Rd232 14:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The war was fought entirely between the Polish Army of the government of Poland and the Red Army of the government of Bolshevik Russia. Note that Poland was fighting only against one of Russias. There were no fights between Poland and Russias of Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, Yudenich or Shkuro. A name Polish-Russian War would suggest that Poland was fighting against the only Russia existent at the time - or that it was fighting against all of them. Halibutt

The Bolsheviks controlled the Russian state; that's what the October Revolution was. If the Bolsheviks hadn't taken power, they couldn't have waged war against Poland. (If they had engaged in violence without first taking over the state, it would have been a terrorist action, not a war.) The fact that others were contesting control of the state and not fighting the Poles is neither here nor there. You can't pack everything into a title - you want to call it the Polish-Russian-(but-White-Russian-on-other-side-from-them)-and-US-British-French war? In any case, as I said, correctness is irrelevant: Wikipedia convention is that common usage dominates, end of story. Rd232 11:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conscripts are, by definition, involuntary; the war was waged by the Bolsheviks. ADH (t&m) 23:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

The emphasis in "non-Bolshevik conscripts" was on non-Bolshevik. Bolshevik is a political label, and most of the conscripts weren't. They were simply Russian. If the majority of the army had actually been Bolshevik, it would be an argument for "Polish-Bolshevik War". The fact that the army was only controlled by the Bolsheviks by virtue of their control of the Russian state speaks against it. Rd232 11:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's the instigator that's said to wage the war, irrespective of the political orientation of those they force into combat. The Bolsheviks were not in control of the whole of Russia until the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922; see Bolshevist Russia (which addresses precisely this issue). ADH (t&m) 17:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not the issue whether they're in control of the whole of its territory; they were in control of the Russian state, and that's sufficient. The term is shorthand for "Polish state"-"Russian state"-War, not "Poles"-"Russians"-War. And at the risk of repeating myself, Wikipedia favours common usage. Rd232 23:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They were not in control of the Russian state. See Bolshevist Russia. ADH (t&m) 23:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Russian, even with dates, is the worst choice, since nobody uses it - therefore it is both uncommon and uncorrect (since as it was pointed out, 'Russia' per se was not a part in the war, as it was in the civil war and some White Russian factions actually cooperated with Polish forces). Basically, the choice is between Polish-Soviet (more common but incorrect since Soviet as in the state didn't exist then) or Polish-Bolshevik (less common, but more correct). Whichever name we chose - PS or PB - they both share the single adavante that they are recongnized as referring to the same war. As I prefer correctness over commonness, I suggested the move in the first place, but honestly, I don't care much either way, I just want this issue out of the way to deny a possible argument against FA status ('fix the name first, then come back'). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of seriously reconsidering the existing convention; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) is the place to do it. (As for the correct name; perhaps the answer is that it isn't a war proper at all, but just another front in what's called - not very accurately IMO given the amount of foreign intervention - the Russian Civil War.) Rd232 23:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "common names" convention does not trump accuracy, and does not purport to. ADH (t&m) 00:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. 232 is right. Bolshevik is not the state. "Polish-Russian", with years is a pretty standard approach, see, e.g., Russo-Turkish Wars. Mikkalai 18:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And how about Bolshevik Russia? Halibutt

What about it? The article (however poor it is now) clearly says that it is an informal term. Mikkalai 22:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Emax 17:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support a move away from references to a non yet constituted Soviet Union, however, Polish-Bolshevik seems not perfect either. Reading the arguments above, I am inclined to think Polish-Russian War (1919-1921) would be the least bad choise. --Ruhrjung 00:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Polish-Soviet seems to be most common name, and there's nothing incorrect about it. That name was used at the time. There was no Soviet Union, but there was a Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. Gzornenplatz 23:34, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. There has never been a country officially called "Bolshevik Russia." In 1917 Russia was proclaimed the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, and in 1922 the RSFSR became part of the USSR. The most characteristic word in the 1917 name was "Soviet" (Russian for "council"). "Bolshevik" denoted the (short-lived) name not of a country but of a political party. There is no clear or compelling reason to change "Polish-Soviet War" (of which there was only one) to "Polish-Bolshevik War." Calling the war by the latter name would be akin to calling the U.S. Civil War "the Confederate-Republican War."

Next war

What was the next war? I am interested, but I have no idea how to find out easily. MisterSheik 22:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe there were no other wars in Europe until the Spanish Civil War. However, there must've been some other, non-European wars. Gran Chaco? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

About the same time Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921) took place. The one afterwards would be Irish Civil War (1922-1923). I wonder if we should note it somehow in the article? See also List of wars. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, there was little or no connection between those conflicts... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

As an aside. The Irish Government was one of the first to recognise the Soviet Government and to open an embassy in the new Soviet Union. They baffled the Soviets with the importance they placed on their request to be allowed represent the the Holy See in Russia! --Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Featured-class article

Following our success in preparing the Warsaw Uprising series, I thought it might be nice to upgrade this article to featured article standard. We're not in a hurry since the best anniversary would be August 15 (Battle of Warsaw), but a step-by-step improvement would be nice. As the first step I decided to prepare a list of battles of the War of 1920 that should be described. Feal free to add some battles I forgot to mention. The bolded battles are a must, all the rest deserve mention IMHO, but were not as crucial. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

1. Target Vistula Soviet offensive (Jan.-Feb. 1919)
2. Battle of Bereza Kartuska (February 9, 1919 - the first battle of the conflict
3. Operation Wilno - Polish offensive towards Wilno (April)
4. Operation Minsk - Polish offensive towards Minsk (July-August)
5. Battle of Daugavpils - joint Polish-Latvian operation (January 3, 1920)
6. Kiev Offensive - I have a decent book at home, could prepare the article myself
7. Battle of the Berezina (May-June)
8. Battle of Warsaw (1920) - almost done (August 15)
9. Battle of Raszyn, Battle of Nasielsk, Battle of Radzymin
10. Battle of Zadwórze - "Polish Termophylae" (August 17)
11. Battle of the Niemen River - not even started, I have a decent monography at home so I could prepare the article (September 26-28)
12. Battle of Zboiska
13. Battle of Minsk (October 18)
14. Battle of Lwów (1920)

No objection here, but didn't we agree to work on Polish September Campaign first? Personally I find both very interesting and relatively unknown to the mass public. I did a major update of this article recently, but don't have any more materials ready. Of course I will try to help when I find some new tidbit of info. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, some battles still need expantion, but the main article I think is good enough to be FAC now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inquiry: "Gej Chan"

Is this a typo? Is it supposed to be "Gen. Gay"? Logologist 17:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is fixed now, it reffered to the Gayk Bzhishkyan, aka Gay Dmitrievich Gay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sidenote: in Polish sources he's referred to as either Gaj Brzyszkian or Gaj Dimitrijewicz Gaj. Halibutt 19:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

DoW?

In Battlebox, we have term DoW used (red ATM). What does it stand for? Perhaps it is typo of PoW for Prisoners of War? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Usually the abbreviation DoW is used to denote the Declaration of war, so probably its' usage in the battlebox is a typo. Halibutt 19:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

So shouldn't we remove it? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Polish nationalist POV

Some one needs to tone down the Polish nationalist POV and hero-worship. I made a start, but I don't have time to finish cleaning up the rest of the article. 172 19:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree with some of your changes. To start with, there are some grammatical problems: ...frontiers between Poland, which had seen the establishment of a shaky independent recognized by the Treaty of Versailles, and Russia were rendered chaotic by....

I kept the part about undefined borders in the lead, but had to rewrite it due to grammar mistakes. Please be more careful next time. Also, when you enter information on events like the Treaty of Versailles of Russian Civil War to the text, please ilink them if they are mentioned for the first time.

So I made a typo and forgot to insert the word "regime." This does not need to be pointed out on the talk page. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No offence meant, but the resulting error made me have to 'guess' what the phrase actually meant, so I put it here in case I understood it incorrectly and you wanted to explain it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The quote you removed was French, not Polish, I moved it to the Aftermath section now, where it is more fitting then in the beginning. The overview section is unecessary, the entire material belongs to lead.

It is unnecessary (spelled with two n's-- see I can point out typos too). But it was a rewrite of something that was already acting as an overview. I did not have time to make major changes to the structure; so, I just tagged something that was already an overview an "overview." Regarding the quotation, I did nothing where it was inserted except insert POV. Please find a more appropriate place for it. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Aftermath section seems like a good enough place already. What do you mean by saying that *you* insterted POV? You really have me lost now. As for overview, it is short enough to be in lead. I don't see the need to gut it and create another section especially for it, when the lead is quite short and withing FA guidelines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right that 'various names' section belongs in lead as well. Good point about Pilsudzki's coup, but it belongs in the aftermath as well, it wasn't part of the war and thus doesn't belong in lead.

If there is a going to be an introductory overview, it can be mentioned there. As I said earlier, the aritcle had one already prior to my edits. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And 'see also' in the text should be avoided at any cost. I don't see any nationalist or hero-worship in the materials you removed, if you would be more specific and quote the specific POVed examples we can work on an improved NPOV wording. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I simply don't have time to edit the rest of the article. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you are to busy to discuss that, I will just stick to my version, as I have spend hours reading sources and writing the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you are threatening a revert war, I have time to join you in one over the introduction (not the rest of the article). The POV in this article borders on mythological hero-worship. The war really originated from a most unwise attempt on the part of Pilsudski to take advantage of Russia's weakness and effect an military adventure into the Ukraine, not a Bolshevik scheme to take over Germany. Only after the Bolsheviks came to realize that they were on the verge of capturing Warsaw did they start seriously considering Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany; and Soviet troops probably would have approached the German border had it not been for Western intervention. The Poles were only a very minor factor keeping the Bolsheviks from spreading the revolution to the rest of Europe. I rarely do this, but I’m going to add a POV tag to this article. 172 21:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting whole articles, without showing sources is vandalism, dear Sokolov.--Emax 21:49, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I will not dignify this with a response. You will not be able to challenge the factual standing of any of my changes to the introduction. 172 22:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I feel offended by the insinuation that I'd threaten anybody with a revert war. Shame you are so quick to jump to offensive conclusions before familiarising yourself with that matter. But my feelings aside, let's start with your arguments. I think that your usage of strong terms like mythological hero-worship (which I assume refers to the entire article, since you still have not provided any SPECIFIC examples) and the Poles were only a very minor factor (the latter one without any specification on what, according to *you*, was the major factor), not backed by any sources, is quite POVed. I have read the majority of the references of that article - I used them as the basis of writing the article - and none of the authors makes such assumptions. Granted , the third flaming comment you make, most unwise attempt about Pilsudski, is a bit more correct. In the retrospective, Pilsudzki did make some errors, he underestimated the Bolshevik strenght and likely let his hatered of tsarist supporters influence his strategic judgement. But vast majority of sources (feel free to contradict my statement with your examples) agree that PBWar stopped Bolsheviks from carrying out their plan of spreading communist revolution by force - the sentence that you insist on removing from the lead. The basis for this sentence is explained in the later section of the article about Lenin plans - if you can't be bothered to read it, I have no choice but to revert some of your changes, as they are unsupported by facts and sources. In addition, you say that Soviet troops probably would have approached the German border had it not been for Western intervention. I will just ask - WHAT INTERVENTION? The Western troops in the Russian Civil War were soundly defeated, and the French Expeditionary Corps sent to Poland was a very tiny force - while I admit I haven't been able to find any estimates of its size (to this date), I did found various metaphores for its small size, I'd estimate it was less then 50,000. As for diplomatic intervention, Russians disregarded it while they were strong, and during Peace of Riga Poland was the winning side, so I see no reasons Western diplomats would be decisive in saving Poland after its victory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The French did not send a Corps to Poland. It was rather an advisory group consisting of about 600 officers ([3]). However, a 70,000 strong Polish Army of General Haller, formed in France during WWI and equipped with modern French arms, equipment and uniforms (hence its name, the Blue Army) was transported as a unit to fight in Poland. Balcer 23:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many, many tnx Balcer for that link. I looked for info on that for so long and couldn't find anything. It seems to confirm what I said: French assistance was useful, but hardly 'decidng'. I will incorporate the information on the Blue Army and others after we can edit the article again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on on this page, but is there some kind of rule that you cannot even make factual corrections on this page, such as correcting the date of the founding of the Soviet Union, if you are not Polish? Thanks to the correction, the revert warriors will now have to defend restoring factual inaccuracies here on talk. 172 22:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I review each change, and I kept many of your former changes. I will now review the most current one, and be assured, I will keep all that are valuable - and some of your changes defiently are useful. But please, read more sources and familiarize yourself with the matter further before taking such a strong POV. I have no intention of offending you or starting a RV war, but unless you can present me with sources better then those listed now, and proving my views erroneus, I will have to stand beside Norman Davies and other historians I read. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pilsudski's vs. White Russians

I read somewhere that Piłsudski hated the Tsar White supporters, and halted Polish offensive to actually prevent Whites defeating Boshleviks in some campaign (most likely sometme around 1919-eaarly 1920). Can anybody confirm or disprove it, so we can mention it in the article (or forget about it)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most White Russians wanted to restore the prewar Tsarist empire and were not willing to accept Poland's independence. The Bolsheviks, to their credit, proclaimed the Partitions of Poland null and void and in the end accepted an independent Poland. This was the main reason why Poland had no incentive to join the Civil War in Russia on the side of the Whites. Without doubt if it did so, the chances for a White victory would have improved. The crucial moment seems to have been early summer of 1919, the high point of the White advance when Denikin was marching on Moscow. A Polish intervention at that point could have conceivably tipped the scales against the Bolsheviks, but that of course is one of the "what-ifs" of history.

Some historians speculate that if the Whites had won, a very nasty regime would probably have emerged, possibly making Russia the first fascist state in the world (instead of the first communist state). This would certainly not have been in Poland's national interest. Balcer 20:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Piłsudski in his remarks on the war of 1919-20 cites some communication effort between Denikin and the govt of Poland on the matter. The result was that Denikin stood on a position of allowing the Polish Army into his ranks, as obedient servants of the Empire, which was understood by the Polish side as a sign that Denikin will not accept Polish independence. It is quite enigmatic and should be cross-checked first ('though I couldn't find any info on such meeting in any of my sources). Anyway, the commonly-accepted view is that Piłsudski halted his troops in 1919 not to help Denikin, whom he viewed as bigger of two evils in the east. Halibutt 10:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

This definetly merits inculsion in the article...when we can edit it again, that is :< --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Julian Marchlewski was Lenin's ambassador to Pilsudski several times. Any data about the talks? Mikkalai 03:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not much. Until Battle of Warsaw the Soviets were only asking for Polish surrender. Perhaps sb else can expand on this?

Never heard of this. From the short biographical note I read on him it was apparent that he came to Białystok from Moscow in July and retreated eastwards together with Tukhachevski's forces only a month later. During that time there were no peace negotiations in Poland and I doubt he crossed the front line to meet with Piłsudski. Certainly Piłsudski does not mention such a meeting in his Rok 1920 (Year 1920, Warsaw, 1924). On the other hand there were some talks held in Paris and Geneva at that time, perhaps he was the Soviet envoy there? Halibutt 15:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The section on "Lenin's motives" needs the most work. It attempts to portray the Russians as the sole belligerents, even though the war really started with the ill-advised incursion into the Ukraine in early 1920. Only after the Bolsheviks came to realize that they were on the verge of capturing Warsaw did they start seriously considering Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany. 172 22:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How will you reply to the facts of the Target Vistula article then? The war begun with first Bolshevick push in December 1918. As was stated in my lead version, this more or less was simoultaneous with Polish push west - but it looks to me like you are 1) removing any mentions of Soviet agression, 2) attempting to portray Poles as the sole agressors and wrongdoers (for trying to reclaim their former borders and preventing Bolshevik from reaching Germany), 3) grossly overstating the Allied help. To give proof: you are specifically removing the phrases from lead: 1) but stopped Bolshevik forces from spreading communist revolution into the war-weary western Europe.,

Countless factors that we hardly have time to list here explain why the Bolsheviks failed to see the of their revolution to other countries of Europe. We have the suppression of left-wing socialist regimes in Bavaria and Hungary in the winter of 1918-1919. We have the failure of a poorly organized and confused attempt by the communists to seize power in Berlin in January 1919. Later, the Soviets hurt their own cause in March 1921, when the German communists, under Soviet encouragement and in the face of serious misgivings on the part of a number of their own leaders, launched another insurrection, attempting to mount a general strike, as the social democrats had done successfully the year before. The result was a major political reverse for the communists, who likely lost half their members as a result of it. Meanwhile, the Kronstadt uprising was a severe blow to the internal and external prestige of the regime. Studies of each of these episodes will provide a plethora of additional citations that they too were instrumental in halting the export of the Bolshevik revolution. Moreover, in power, the goals and efforts of the communist regime were directed as they turned to the exercise of their new responsibility as Russia's rulers; the Soviets grew more preoccupied by the need for trade, credits, and recognition by the time of the Polish-Soviet War than exporting revolution. ... To advance the POV that Pilsudski was the modern Charles Martel single-handedly saving the Western world from Bolshevism is inappropriate. He has been hailed by vehement anticommunist and Polish nationalist historians in these terms; and their POV can go somewhere else in the article, along with other assessments. That sentence doesn't belong in the intro. 172 08:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Countless factors that we hardly have time to list here - that sounds to me like you have no references of your own to list to support your view. But thank you for pointing out communust revolutions n Bavaria, Hungary and Germany in 1919 to 1921. Coupled with references and quotes (Lenin, Tuchachevsky) in the main text of the article about spreading the revoltuin to Europe etc. I am afraid you are just convinving me I - and historians fro references I quote - was completly right. Although I agree that after 1921 Bolsheviks lost their will to spread the communism by force - because they were so soundly defeated in their first attempt. Btw, the comparison to Martel is done by a French writer (who fought in the PBWar). I wonder if that makes him a 'mythological nationalistic hero-worshipper' as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's quite romanticized and colorful. It makes little sense to have it embedded in the text where it is. Would it be alright to insert some random quotation by Lenin in a random spot in the article? 172 17:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The quote I refer to is not random. But setting aside that, perhaps the best solution would be to move it to Wikiquote? Can we agree on that? One step at a time, I say, and we will reach an agreement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Wikiquote is the place for quotations. 172 01:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that sounds to me like you have no references of your own to list to support your view We can play games here and finding journal articles arguing any thesis that we want to find and add them up to see who finds the most. I'm a historian (though not specialized in this area by any means), so I can play this game if you want. Kennan's Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalinis a good survey on the diplomacy of the USSR, writing from a traditional perspective on Soviet conduct with which you'll probably be able to relate. It mentions all of the matters that I'd brought up above. You are clearly well-read, and you should be able to grasp that there are many perspectives explaining the failure of Bolshevism to spread outside Russia. Of course the Polish-Soviet War was a factor, but one could play up lots of others. The sentence that you are trying to include in the article may be a vailid thesis, but it is just that, a POV that must be balanced by considering other POVs and factors if it is to be included in the intro of an NPOV article. 172 15:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am happy that you started to provide your references. I am not - nor was the lead - ever saying that the PSW was the only factor affecting Bolshevik polcies and their spread. But it was an important one and since it contribute to the failure of an important Bolshevik policy, I think it deserves the mention in the lead. I don't see why it is a POV, as you yourself just said may be a vailid thesis. It is backed up by references in the article reference section. What else do we need to make it NPOV? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The claim "... stopped Bolshevik forces from spreading communist revolution into the war-weary western Europe" is not only POV but also reductionist guesswork. To assert that it 'stopped the revolution' implies that there would have been a communist takeover of Germany had it not been for the Soviet retreat from Warsaw. This is counter-factual history and inherently speculative. One could say that the suppression of left-wing socialist regimes in Bavaria and Hungary in the winter of 1918-1919 stopped the Bolshevik revolution from moving west. One could say that the suppression of left-wing socialist regimes in Bavaria and Hungary in the winter of 1918-1919 stopped the Bolshevik revolution from moving west. One could say that Soviet miscalculations in March 1921 in their advice to the German Communists stopped the Bolshevik revolution from moving west. One could say that the Soviets' interests in securing foreign trade, credits, and recognition, given their responsibilities as Russia's rulers, complicated the aims of those in the party promoting a radical orientation in foreign affairs, and stopped the Bolshevik revolution from moving west. There's an endless array of possibilities to speculate about when you consider what would have happened had something occurred that did not take place in historical reality. A better way of expressing the point that you are trying to make would be, "... was a major setback on the part of some Soviet officials to promote a communist revolution in Germany or to gain a military strategic edge against it." This is a neutral and empirically-verifiable claim. I will accept it in the intro as a compromise. 172 01:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is nice to see we are finally reaching a compromise on this sentence (that leaves - oh - five more? :>). Sounds good to me, but I'd like to see German revolution and Spartacist League linked from those sentences - '...to promote a communist revolution in Germany aiding the Spartacist League or others communist sympathisers...'. And could we have a name next to 'some Soviet officials, like...', perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to name names here. The position taken by one cadre depends heavily on the context and can be contradictory over time, as I pointed out with Lenin. There's no need to link to the Spartacist League either, just one of many links to leftwing groups in Germany that could be added. If anything, the KPD would be a more appropriate link. 172 06:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should not be too long and detailed, so names are not necessary. Spartacists are linked later in the main article--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC), and I will add a mention of KDP (Communist Party of Germany) next to them. I think we have an agreement on that sentence then, let's move to my (and Halibutt's) other concerns, shall we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Soviet actions were very contradictory, and their motives were not as simplistic as this article makes them out to be. Warren Lerner, "Poland in 1920: A Case Study in Foreign-Policy Decision Making under Lenin," South Atlantic Quarterly, 72 (Summer 1973), e.g., argues that Lenin at first favored making the war against Poland into a revolutionary crusade, but abandoned this effort in the face of criticism by Polish Communist Julian Marchlewski, who considered the revolutionary line unrealistic. He argues that only until the turn of the tide of the battle in favor of Russia did he become confident that the Red Army and Polish communists and socialists could establish a Soviet Poland... Some in the leadership that sought to effect a radical reorientation of Soviet policy hoped that the events in Poland would bolster revolutionary forces in Germany. At the same time, in a seemingly contradictory set of actions, many overtures to Germany were made throughout 1920 aimed at securing German aid against the Poles in exchange for the return to Germany of territories lost to Poland in 1919, and at the establishment of a German-Russian alliance against the Western powers. In this context, one could see Poland as a sort of bargaining chip, a chance to bolster Soviet power by giving it some sort of leverage over Germany and other powers to the West. It might be bolstering communist forces outside Russia, or securing other interests. Keep in mind that the goals and efforts of the communist regime were reconstituting themselves as they turned to the exercise of their new responsibility as Russia's rulers, leaving them more concerned with the need for trade, credits, allies, and recognition at times than with with the desire to export revolution. See Robert Himmer "Soviet Policy Toward Germany during the Russo-Polish War," 1920 Slavic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. (Dec., 1976), p. 667. For more on Soviet motives see Thomas Fiddick The "Miracle of the Vistula": Soviet Policy versus Red Army Strategy The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 45, No. 4. (Dec., 1973), pp. 626-643. 172 16:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you. If you read the rest of the article - especially the Lenin part - you will see that most of this is mentioned - that Bolsheviks didn't intend to conquer Europe, that their plans changed, that Polish deafeat in early 1920 were a major factor affecting their policies. I will be happy to see that section expanded with your knowledge and references. I am not arguing that issue, only the few I mentioned (about sentences you removed or added, I reverted, and this whole mess started). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We haven't even gotten around really to examining the rest of the article; for now my comments have dealt with the need not to give an over-simplistic explanation of Soviet conduct in the intro. 172 06:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) In 1919... Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began their first push west, codenamed Target Vistula,. On the sidenote, I appreciate your information the Second Congress of the Third International, 3) adding the pharse high-powered Allied intervention and Shortly after its arrival, the Poles, in a dramatic reversal of military fortunes when in fact it was only French assistance plus some volunteers from various countries (mostly US), which were much smaller then Polish force. And French commanders actually opposed Pilsudski plan that led to the Miracle of Vistula and Polish victory. Finally, I don't see why Pilsudski's coup of 1926 should be mentioned in lead of war that ended in 1921 (why don't we include info on Soviet purges and other events up to 1926 too?), but this is a fairly small point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: why don't we include info on Soviet purges and other events up to 1926 Good question. Why don't we? We should. An article related to the Russian Civil War is a good example. Created in December 1917, Cheka was very much an ad hoc organization, an outgrowth of the war whose powers gradually in response to various emergencies and threats to Soviet rule. More importantly, though, it was the first Soviet secret police force. The development of a powerful political police apparatus to preserve Communist domination was one of the key legacies of the Russian Civil War, along with other practices to ensure greater discipline among party members, tighten the party's organization, and create specialized administrative organs. Just as the Russian Civil War led to the creation of the secrete police apparatus, that the Polish-Soviet War bolstered the power and prestige of the armed forces in Poland is relevant to this article too. 172 08:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I don't dispute that. I thank you again for that contribution, although I think it belong in the aftermath. But that point is actually one I can drop, it is a minor thing. I wish you would reply to my others, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And two more. By replacing my description of the Miedzymorze federation with 'Lithuania and Polish domination of western Ukraine, centered at Kiev' you are making it look like Poland was intend on occupying Ukraine, where in fact Piłsudski wanted to create a multinational confederation, where Ukraine would be independent. Fact: In April 1920 Poland signed a military alliance with the Ukrainian People's Republic of Symon Petliura (as described later in the article). Please explain to me how did Poland provoke Russia by helping the Ukrainian independence cause, exactly? Are you saying that Russians attacked Poland in self-defence when Polish forces invaded and occupied Russian Ukraine? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please refain from buzzwords "independence", etc. Stick to the actions and facts. Ukrainian SSR was initially independent (of Polish pans and magnats) as well. Mikkalai 07:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bolsheviks point of view was "class struggle". Independence from "exploitation" was declared more important. Just like Pilsudski & co was whipping Belarussian "bydlo" and "psia krew", the same way bolsheviks wanted to kick ass of zslachta.

And to think that ukrainian cossacks were happy to kiss Pilsudski is highly suspicious.

Therefore why don't we write the events, dates, and declarations first, and then speculate about motives (by words of expert historians). Why would some want to start from things that call for heated discussions? To prove your point, the best way is to establish facts first. Mikkalai 07:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amid the collapse of both the Tsarist and Hapsburg Empires, Ukrainians in both empires proclaimed their independence and established national republics; in 1919 the two republics united into one Ukrainian national state. I hate to break it to you, but it collapsed, failing to withstand the aggression of not just the Red Army, but also the Whites and, in the west, the hostile Polish forces. Ukraine again was partitioned, with western Ukraine incorporated into the new Polish state and the rest of Ukraine established as the Ukrainian SSR in March 1919, before Pilsudski's incursion into the Ukraine. Moscow had already established a clear national interest in the Ukraine. So, yes, it was an act of belligerence, and the Russians were provoked. Which occupying army fighting for the 'just' cause of Ukrainian 'independence' is beyond the point. As Mikkalai suggested above, we are here to establish facts, not normative considerations such as "helping the Ukrainian independence cause." 172 07:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The facts. Of course. How many Ukrainians died under Soviet rule? How was the Ukrainian culture treated under the Soviet rule? While this does not prove any Polish intentions, this should quite clearly prove who surely *wasn't* fighting for the 'just' cause.

This doesn't matter. Editorial considerations are not to be based on moral judgments. 172 15:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What moral judgements? Killing millions of people is not a moral issue here, it is a simple fact proving that Bolsheviks were not acting with best intentions for the Ukrainian people. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We are not here to judge whether or not one side had better "intentions" than the others. The Bolsheviks did indeed believe that they were fighting the class struggle exploitation, however dubious that that belief was. The point is that encyclopedias don't pick out 'good guys' and 'bad guys' but rather present the history dispassionately. 172 09:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The chronology presented by 172 above is not complete and hence highly misleading. The Bolsheviks did indeed establish (second) Ukrainian Soviet government early in 1919, capturing Kiev on February 5, 1919. This government lasted only seven months and was then pushed out by White forces, as well as forces of Petliura's Ukrainian Directory. Lenin ordered its liquidation in mid August 1919 and most of its members returned to Moscow. The third Ukrainian Soviet government was formed on 21 December 1919, after the Bolsheviks returned to Ukraine in full force in early December 1919.

I said, ...the rest of Ukraine established as the Ukrainian SSR in March 1919. This is not misleading. There is just no need more me to write an article about the History of 20th century Ukraine in this talk page. 172 06:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now Pilsudski gave the order to launch the Kiev Operation on 17 April, 1920. This was less than 4 months after the proclamation of the third Ukrainian SSR. Were these 4 months enough for Moscow to have established "clear national interest" as claimed above? Seems an awfully short time to me, especially as there were still so many forces in the field opposing the Soviet government in Ukraine at the time, notably remnants of Petliura's Directory with which Pilsudki made an alliance. (source: Ukraine: a History by Orest Subtelny, University of Toronto Press, 1988)Balcer 04:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An awfully short time indeed, but they weren't going to have some Polish general upset their designs to consolidate control over the Ukraine, which they essentially felt entitled to rule, as it was a part of the former Tsarist empire. 172 06:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the other side, I do recall that the agreement with USSR was not the most favourable to Ukrainian (they did agree to cede some disputed territory, I think...) but it was definetly much better then what they got from Bolshviks (purges, forced resettlement, starvation, your friends in Cheka, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Your friends in Cheka?" What are you implying here? Mikkalai said it well earlier, "Please refain from buzzwords "independence", etc. Stick to the actions and facts." It is a fact that Poland was a belligerent given the nature of the conflict. However morally justifiable in hindsight the incursion arguably was given the outcome of Soviet rule in the Ukraine, this is a value judgment that this article cannot make. 172 15:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course Poland wasn't acting only for the sole good of Ukrainina people. It was protecting its own interests. I am not saying otherwise. But it was able to compromise and offer Ukrainian independence and part in a military alliance for some territorial concessions (fact), not as your rewritten section suggest was its intention occupation and complete disregard for Ukrainian independence (or autonomy, or culture, or whatever words you wa't or dont want to use here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same language is used in the LOC public domain text in the handbook about Poland, hardly a pro-Soviet source [4]. We’re not dealing with whether or not the motives were good or bad, just with the intention to influence Ukrainian internal politics in order to secure Polish national interests. 172 06:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

So, 172 added a POV dispute tag (without any actual dispute going on, apparently). So, could someone tell me what actually is disputed here:

• Whole article in the original version?
• Arbitrary changes by 172 (unexplained at the talk page)?
• The chapter about Lenin?

Also, since we've been working on this article for quite some time now, I demand that 172 discussed his total rewrite of the article before he starts yet another revert war. I can only speak for myself, but I'm quite happy that there are people from the outside who are willing to contribute to this article. However, some of the changes introduced by 172's edits (deletion of factual info, for instance) seems totally wrong to me and should definitely be discussed.

The matter is quite complexed and it deserves a decent article. I believe that 172 could better help this cause by participating in the discussion, rather than introducing his own vision arbitrarily and then forcing everyone to accept it through a revert war and an eventual block. That's what I would expect of an admin. Halibutt 07:21, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

There are legitimate disputes to be raised concerning the article's neutrality, and I am raising them. However, I am not the one resorting to revert wars without discussion. My work on the intro was immediately reverted by one editor, who disguised his edit as "minor" and then once again by the same editor, who again market it as "minor." Later another editor reverted me without cause or discussion, marking his revert as 'rv vandalism' in the edit summary. 172 09:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate some of 172 additions, I have to agree with Halibutt on all points. Also note, that so far 172 failed to provide a single reference to back his 'obvious' claims. As for the reverts, it is a fact that 172 reverted article 3 times and then was helped by the well-known and respected team of Gzornenplatz and some proxy. Perhaps we should ask for 'Request for comments' as is suggested here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, you are actually disputing some user's behaviour and not this article? Sorry, I'm getting more and more confused. I'll try to set some things straight then.

1. 172 rewrites the article without explanation and deletes significant part of the content
2. Piotrus combines both the former and the latter versions of the article and reinserts the content deleted by 172
3. 172 reverts it
4. Emax reverts to the last version
5. 172 reverts to his version - still without any explanation given
6. Emax again reverts to the previously accepted version
7. 172 reverts to his version
8. Emax reverts his arbitrary edits
9. 172 asks his pals Gzornenplatz and Gene s to take a look at the article (not to break the 3RR himself?) and suggests that those who oppose his version are Polish nationalists (and, as such, their version of the article is obviously wrong and should be reverted at once).
10. Gzornenplatz reverts
11. revert war starts
12. the article is blocked
13. 172 adds some more modifications to the blocked version

So, all in all, if there's anyone responsible for the revert war here, it's the one who replaced the previous version with a disputable one - without any explanation. That's why I believe we should stop the personal discussion and try to concentrate on the facts and figures. Also, I'd strongly suggest that you stopped offending other wikipedians just because you don't accept their oppinions. Calling someone a nationalist just because he reverted your unexplained and POV version of the article is a tad too much. Especially for an admin. Halibutt 11:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

previously accepted version- both versions are disputed. Just because I don't have a Polish flag on my user page doesn't mean that my dispute does not count. Any Wikipedia editor insert a POV notice into any article. your unexplained and POV version of the article? Unlike you, I have posted many specific concerns with this article on the talk page. Claiming that my position is unexplained is nonsense. 172 16:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172, I have read all of your arguments, and I have yet to see you cite ONE source. This article is now locked down because a friend told you that "Soviet troops probably would have approached the German border had it not been for Western intervention." Who told you this? What fringe revisionist view of history is this? This article, before you decided to exact your rage on it, was developing fine. Piotrus and Emax, as well as others who have contributed to a wide range of articles dealing with Poland, are both nonconfrontational and willing to compromise. I have seen no such willingness on your side. If you don't have the time to edit this article and cite sources, then don't, and leave it to those that can. This article will round out to being more neutral by Wikipedia's natural process of evolvement, your blanket statements and accusations do no good.Milicz 18:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You did it again! When replying to my comments you suggested I'm a nationalist. Please, try to be more friendly towards me. If you for some reason can't - try at least to refrain yourself from insulting me before you answer my questions. Pretty, pretty please, with a sugar on the top.

To make it clear: now both versions are disputed. However, at the moment you started the revert war there were no comments on the talk page whatsoever. Then instead of explaining your rewrite and deletion of large part of the text, you wrote about some mysterious Polish nationalist POV. As to the concerns - I saw no reason to post what has already been posted by others (mostly Piotrus). However, if you insist, I'll post the problems I have with your POV right away. So far I've been only underlining that I don't like your tone and the style of your edits.

Finally, before you accuse me of something again, I'd like to make it clear: I have nothing against you personally or your right to edit any article anywhere. Anywhere - yes, anyhow - not. And note that I don't have a Polish flag on my talk page either - that is a flag of Belarus. Compare the articles on Belarus with article on Poland to see the difference. Halibutt 19:11, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Weygand's role

The myth of Weygand's great contribution to the Polish victory in the Battle of Warsaw has been decisively disproved by historians. It would be a shame if Wikipedia were to contribute to perpetuating it. As the article is written now, it seems to be doing so. To set the record straight, I will quote here from the book White Eagle, Red Star - The Polish-Soviet War, 1919-1920 by Norman Davies, the key reference on the subject.

From the chapter The Battle of Warsaw

General Weygand's position was particularly galling. He had travelled to Warsaw in the expectation of assuming command of the Polish army. He was the chief of staff of Marshal Foch, the Supreme Commander of the victorious Entente. He could be forgiven for expecting homage and respect. Yet he met nothing but humiliation and insults. His first meeting with Pilsudski on 24 July was disastrous. He had no answer to Pilsudki's opening question, "Combien de divisions m'apportes-vous?" He had no divisions to offer. [...] On 27 July, he was installed as "adviser" to the Polish Chief of Staff. But his relations with Rozwadowski were worse than with Pilsudski. He was surrounded by officers who regarded him as an interloper and who deliberately spoke in Polish, depriving him not only of a part in their discussions but even of the news from the front. His suggestions for the organization of Poland's defence were systematically rejected. At the end of July he proposed that the Poles holds the line of the Bug; a week later he proposed a purely defensive posture along the Vistula. Neither plan was accepted. He has admitted in his memoirs that "la victoire etait polonaise, le plan polonais, l'armee polonaise'. One of his few contributions was to insist that a system of written staff orders should replace the existing haphazard system of orders passed by word of mouth. He was of special assistance to General Sikorski, to whom he expounded the advantages of the River Wkra. But on the whole he was quite out of his element, a man trained to give orders yet placed among people without the inclination to obey, a proponent of defence in the company of enthusiasts for the attack. On 18 August, when he met Pilsudski again he was told nothing of the great victory, but was "regaled instead with a Jewish tale". The snub offended his dignity as a "representant de la France" and he threatened to leave. Indeed there was nothing to do but leave. The battle was won; armistice negotiations were beginning; the crisis had passed. He urged D'Abernon and Jusserand to pack their bags and make as decent an exit as possible. He was depressed by his failure and dismayed by Poland's disregard for the Entente. On the station at Warsaw on 25 August he was consoled by the award of the medal, the Virtuti Militari; at Cracow on the 26th he was dined by the mayor and corporation; at Paris on the 28th he was cheered by crowds lining the platform of the Gare de l'Est, kissed on both cheeks by the Premier Millerand and presented with the Grand Order of the Legion of Honour. He could not understand what had happened. He was the first uncomprehending victim, as well as the chief beneficiary, of a legend already in circulation that he, Weygand, was the victor of Warsaw.

The legend of Weygand's victory is an excellent instance of the principle that what really happens in history is less important than what people believe to have happened. It has suited the prejudices of people in Western Europe, who always enjoy an Allied victory, and has flattered the prejudices of the communists, who demand that every tale should have its imperalist villain. It has been believed by almost everyone outside Poland from that day to this (book was published in 1972). It thrived for forty years even in academic circles until the lie was nailed (the reference made here is to an article by Piotr Wandycz General Weygand and the Battle of Warsaw in Journal of Central European Affairs 1960).

[a detailed explanation of how the myth was established follows, but I will stop here]

Of course the victory was not mostly Weygand's doing. The strategic concept underlying the Polish action belonged unquestionably to Pilsudski. (I'll agree to add the previous sentence to the introduction.) But the Allied mission had indeed done essential work in stiffening the administrative procedures of the Polish forces. (Nor was the reversal of fortunes necessarily a "miracle." A major factor in Polish success was the major failure of coordination of the Soviet military effort in Poland: a matter in which Stalin was personally involved and which led to lasting enmity between him and Tukhachevki, the commander of the northern group in Soviet forces in Poland.) It warrants mentioning in the introduction, especially in connection to the alarm in conservative circles in the West about the prospect of Soviet troops approaching the German frontier. Also, bothering to mention the Allied mission in the introduction is not overstating its contribution. 172 08:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, why didn't you mention also the 20 American fighter pilots or the forces of Ukrainian People's Republic (an equivalent of 1 division) in the header? Sorry, but the participation of some French officers is but a detail while the purpose of the header is to list the most important facts. By listing the French mission as one of the most important features of the war you are indeed overestimating its meaning. Halibutt 11:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind mentioning French (what other Allies??) mission in the introduction. I just object to your exact statements, quote again 'high-powered Allied intervention and Shortly after its arrival, the Poles, in a dramatic reversal of military fortunes next to it. You just wrote the victory was not mostly Weygand's doing - you seem to be contradicting yourself. The Soviets failure of coordination is mentioned in the article, in the Battle of Warsaw part, but thank you for reminding us of this - perhaps this is important enough to deserve a note in the lead? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the content that I added is entirely factual, given that there are still some accounts that emphasize the role of the French intervention, there is no reason to exclude these facts in the introduction. See M. B. Biskupski Paderewski, "Polish Politics, and the Battle of Warsaw," 1920 Slavic Review, Vol. 46, No. 3/4. (Autumn - Winter, 1987), p. 503. As a compromise, I will favor adding the following as a footnote: “The strategic concept underlying the Polish action belonged unquestionably to Pilsudski. But the Allied mission had indeed done essential work in stiffening the administrative procedures of the Polish forces.” In the body of the intro, we can also mention U.S. aid. 172 06:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The facts - facts, I say - can remain in lead. I am actually very pleased that one of the effects of our discussion here is revelation of new facts about the French mission. But what I am disputing is not if the mission mention should remain in lead - I agree that it can - but how the facts are presented. I think that the terms you used and I quoted above should be toned down. What you now propose is good, but not as a footnote, but as a replacement of most of the current lead about French mission. We can also mention the French equipped 'Blue Army'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good. Since we made a lot of progress, I started a sandbox draft of the intro based on our agreements so far. Compare to current version. 172 13:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro

avoided ceding historically Polish territory back to the Russians

Two problems here:

• Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus being "historically polish" is a claim of of dubious merit.
  • It's not making that claim. The sentence refers to the territory within Poland established by the Peace of Riga. 172 08:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then say so. The term "historically someone's" always leads to heated disputes. Mikkalai 08:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Suprise, but I actually agree with 172 here. It was not historically polish, same as it was not historically russian or lithuanian - there were several nations involved, with changing alliances and new independences. Although the fact is that most of it did belong to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until its partitons in 1795, so they were historically...something. Suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Something like "territories of Polish claim", but definitely not "Polish". If you will use the latter term, how can you make someone believe that, e.g., Pilsudski offered "confederation" to Petlyura? Mikkalai 16:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Some territories - like those near Vistula - are actually Polish, and I somehow doubt if Bolsheviks won they would drop their claim on them. It is a murky matter, perhaps this sentence should be just changed to 'secure borders' or droppen entirely from the lead and expanded somewhere in the aftermath section?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing went "back to Russians."
  • That's what the sentence is saying. 172
    • Again, I am speaking about bad choice of words. "Russians" didn't intend to "take" someting to "back to Russia". Everywhere Soviet Republics were established. Mikkalai 08:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • And Ukrainian and Bielorussian even had a separate vote in UN. And we all know how independent from Russia they really were. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • One thing is to know the eventual outcome, but initially the slogan was to make independent states. Russian Army was coming with the slogan "to liberate". The idea of the union, with all its consequences came later. Therefore I vote against the phrasing "back to Russians". Speaking about Russians, in the Soviet Union, IMO Russians had nearly worst living standard of all soviet nations. One must not confuse Moscow and the rest of the Russia. Mikkalai 16:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same problem is with:

who hoped to incorporate those areas into Bolshevik Russia

later in the text. Noting was to be "incorporated". Mikkalai 16:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Józef Pilsudski envisioned, etc.

We have Miedzymorze artice here, to discuss what Pilsudski wanted. In the P-S-W article it is enough to mention this plan of confederation, without talks about who was supposed to dominate whom.

I wonder. Your new sections on Pilsudski coup or Waynard mission are longer then your rewritten sentence on Miedzymorze. Seems like a fairly POVish thing to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was my note, not 172's. I failed to sign my pieces late at night.

Pilsudski coup is worth mentioning, because it was a consequence of authority he enjoyed after defeating Bolsheviks, hence of direct relevance. Mikkalai 16:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I just wan't the Miedzymorze issue explained so it doesn't look like some kind of Polish nationalistic empire, what current version of the text seems suggesting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1919

Internal power struggles prevented any of the governments in Belarus...

Which govts? BNR was not a serious attempt. Did Poles try establish any independent govt in Belarus?

Nope, but there were some local governments in most of the cities, that either gradually ceded their responsibilities to the central government in Minsk or in Warsaw. Halibutt 11:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Plz back this up with sources. Who sais BNR was not a serious attempt? Besides you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not writing an article, therefore I am not careful with words. The state simply didn't have chance to make it into a real one, even if the intentions were serious. Mikkalai 16:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the BNR had to struggle with local Reds, Whites, German garrisons and even Poles and their urban militias. As a result it did not have any power and did not control most of their country. They controlled mostly the bigger cities, but these were simply islands in the sea of chaos. So, all in all, they merely managed to organise some local administration, the military was entirely in German hands. When the Red Army approached Minsk, there was barely anyone ready to defend it. Some local scouts, members of P.O.W. and policemen, almost unarmed.

The Lithuanian-Belarusian Division of Gen. Bułak-Bałachowicz was a completely different thing. Halibutt 17:14, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Target Vistula

I never heard of this term. I don't see it in English usage. Therefore the article must be renamed, kind of Polish-Soviet coflicts of 1818-1919. By the way, how it will be in Russian or Polish (I mean, real usage, not translation)?

On the other hand, I know about Operation Vistula (операция "Висла", акция "Висла"), which was deportation of Ukrainians from Poland in 1947. What was its Polish name? Mikkalai

In Polish the operation is called "Operacja Cel:Wisła", and as such it is mentioned in the Polish translation of White Eagle, Red Star by Norman Davies. Halibutt 11:44, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Target Vistula for more on this. Operation...wasn't it 'Operacja Cel:Wisła'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I was wrong. I am pretty sure it was called in Poland 'Akcja Wisła'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you are wrong. And wrong again. Action Wistula is something totally different, see Talk:Target Vistula. Mikkalai 20:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right, then I am eagerly awaiting the relevant missing articles to fill the gaps in my knowledge :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problems Halibutt has with the version by 172

Since 172 suggested that I post my objections separately from Piotrus, here I go.

1. Deletion of the following statement: but stopped Bolshevik forces from spreading communist revolution into the war-weary western Europe.

Even before Pilsudski', victory it became clear that the dreams of Lenin that Europe is ripe for revolution were poorly grounded. In fact the very defeat of "young genius" Tukhachevksi was significantly based on an unrealistic assumption that Polish workers and peasants will gladly embrace Soviets, and hence he moved way too fast and quickly run short of supplies. Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Suggesting that the war didn't start until 1920 by changing The war started in 1919 with The war had its origins in 1919. And why not "the war had its origins in 1772? or perhaps 1793?

Yes. "origins" is poor choice of words.Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Suggesting that the war was started by the Polish side, without any mention of Soviet actions. Now it seems that the Poles started the war by... being attacked. Quite a curious construction.

I don't see how this follows from any of the recent versions. Soviet actions are mentioned by both editor sides. Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Polish actions are mentioned in February 1919 and Soviet only in April 1920, which makes it look like a) Poles started the war b) until April 1920 Poles were fighting 'thin air'. Anyway, please take a look at the lead in making at 172 kindly provided sandbox. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Deletion of any mention of the Operation Target Vistula

I am working hard, but I still don't see any plans remotely similar to such grandiose plans as early as 1918. Russians were merely securing what Germans were leaving, and not only in the Wistula direction. At the same time they moved, e.g., into Estonia. Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And thus we had Estonian Liberation War, IIRC. Btw, you may want to check the *sources provided for Target Vistula operation* for the 'planes remotly similiar' to the ones discussed in the article. Fact is, Poles moved west, Soviets moved west, both moved simolutanesly and at first with no intention of waging major war, circumstances changed and main forces clashed in Ukraine April 1920. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Deletion of any mention of the idea of linking up with communist forces in the German Revolution.

Unconfirmed for 1918. I looked through a couple of belligerent speeches of Lenin and Trotsky of Novemger-December 1918, there were no such links. I didn't look into all of them, but I think that the topic would be hot and repeated in every speech, as Bolshevik used to do, for a very simple reason: there was no good delivery of newspapers, nor radio at these times, and every Bolshevik speecs was started with the description of the "international situation". Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. False statement that Józef Pilsudski envisioned (...) Polish domination of western Ukraine which is a complete absurd. Especially that shortly after capturing Kiev, even before Ukrainian forces were ready to defend their teritory (there was no Polish administration there nor were there any plans to create it), he personally ordered most of Polish forces to withdraw from Ukraine.
2. Also, domination of western Ukraine, centered at Kiev seems strange. If western Ukraine was centered at Kiev then where was eastern Ukraine centered on? Caspian Sea?
3. Open hostilities between Poland and Russia originated from an attempt by the Poles to take advantage of Russia's weakness and to effect a major incursion into the Ukraine in the winter and spring of 1920 (the Kiev Operation). - again, from such comments it seems that it were the Poles who started. Also, why remove the mention of the Polish-Ukraine alliance? Perhaps not to let the reader see the links between the Polish action in the Ukraine and the earlier Bolshevik annexation of most of it.

Bolshevik "annexation" (or "liberation", whatever) of anything was initially without contact with regular Polish army. When the sides finally met in their drives to grab more land (which was not theirs in the first place. Other nations lived there), natural skirmishes happened. But such things are never called the beginning of a war. Also, Pilsudski-Petlyura allianse is no better than, say an alliance of Litbel with RSFSR in a sense that Pilsudski hardly cared about fates of Ukraine. He cared about Poland (rightfully). Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Poles were not able to exploit their new advantage fully, however; is a personal oppinion, not a fact. Facts are things that happened, not things that never came to life. The fact in this context is that Poles did not exploit their advantage, not that they couldn't.
2. Deletion of details and dates. In 1919 the Poles had the upper hand, gaining control of most of the disputed territories. When Pilsudski carried out a military thrust into Ukraine in 1920 (the Kiev Operation), he was met by a Red Army counterattack in April 1920. changed into major incursion into the Ukraine in the winter and spring of 1920 (...) A Red Army counterattack in the north, launched in early summer, carried Russian forces in a series of rapid advances to the gates of the Polish capital of Warsaw. For a time, in midsummer, the fall of the city seemed certain.. Less info, less links, more words.
3. Western fears of Russian troops arriving at the German frontiers led to a high-powered Allied intervention very 1911-like, yet completely false (unless you consider some 0,012 of Polish forces to be a high-powered intervention. Or perhaps they were armed with some super-hyper-wunderwaffe I never heard of?
4. dramatic reversal of military fortunes which is less specific and more miracle-like.
5. Deletion of any mention that the war ended with ceasefire in October 1920, half a year before the Peace of Riga.
6. As a further consequence of Pilsudski's military and political victory, the armed forces became an important national institution in the new government - which is also false. While it is not certain what government the author referred to, it definitely was not the government of Poland. I'll list all post-war governments and the number of militarymen in them: Paderewski - since January 16, 1919 - one militaryman (Gen. Jan Wroczyński as the head of the department of war - not yet a minister); Skulski - since December 13, 1919 - one militaryman (Gen. Leśniewski); Grabski - since July 24, 1920 - one militaryman (again Leśniewski); Ponikowski - since March 5, 1922 - one militaryman (Sosnkowski);... and so on. The first government in which the military had a stronger position was chosen... 5 years after the war ended. No exact relation whatsoever.

No reason to go berserk here. Just change two letters: "in the new government" into "of the new government", and the phrase becomes undisputable (IMO). I thought it was a typo. Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. In 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of political uncertainty and weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a military coup, assuming the posts of minister of defense and general inspector of the army. - right, but why mention it in an article on the Polish-Bolshevik War? Many other things happened in both Poland and the Bolshevist Russia between 1920 and 1926 - why mention only Piłsudski? Why not for instance the collectivisation in the USSR or the flooding in India?

Direct relevance. Pilsudski became national hero because of what? Because of Treaty with Petlyura? Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is all - Pilsudzki's fame, his coup, other consequences - mentioned in the aftermath (feel free to expand/correct it). As the coup had several factors that lead to it, PSW being only ONE of SEVERAL, I don't see the point of mentioning it in the lead, because if we begin listing all things influenced by PSW we may as well create a separate Wiki for it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Finally, the header got too long and is currently filled with lots of different data: both important and unimportant, as well as several personal oppinions, lies (or statements not supported by reality, to say it in a more pleasant way), and other such clauses. As a header it does not serve its main purpose: to give someone not knowledgeable an overview of the rest of the article. Halibutt 21:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

That I agree.Mikkalai 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your problems are essentially the same as Piotrus'. I already explained to him point by point why they are unfounded and recommended some references in the academic literature, as opposed to the nationalist hagiographies. So, there’s no need to respond to them separately. After all, we'd only prolong this dispute if we repeated ourselves. 172 01:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop acting like a child. You are afterall an Admin. You have not stated why "problems" are unfounded, you refuse to answer any of the questions posed to you. Please point me to an answer to any of these points. Stop abusing this page and go someplace else. Power corrupts.Milicz 04:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My dear 172, it is indeed childish. Instead of replying to my earlier questions you yourself wrote that Unlike you, I have posted many specific concerns with this article on the talk page.. So - here it is, it's a list of specific concerns with your version of history. Should I do something more to convince you to reply to my questions instead of offending me? Halibutt 10:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to reorganise the discussion a bit by joining all comments by Mikkalai and Piotrus (and my reply to the anon/Mikkalai comments), especially that now that you answered in the middle of my post and not below it it became completely unreadable and it's now hard to say who said what. However, both my removal of Mikkalai's and Piotrus' posts from within my own words and putting them below, and my addition of comments was reverted by 172. It's a pity 172 would not answer my questions but instead wants to revert when I add my comments. I'm disappointed and hope that 172 will reinsert my comments in the text. And I suggest 172 started the work right now. (yeah, you guessed that, now I'm really pissed off by his behaviour). Halibutt 21:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing new in your "reorganizing" disrupting the dialogue [5] other than the following: Thanks again for your comments! Halibutt 21:20, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) Nevertheless, I am sorry about not noticing that. I don't know where you want that comment placed, so it's best for you to go ahead and do it. 172 21:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's have a vote, shall we?

The page has been protected for 24h now and we have had about 7 Wikipedians join the discussion so far. Since the page is listed at Refer for Comments, we can expect more ppl to join the discussion. From the discussion so far (above) it looks to me like nobody clearly supports 172 and several people object to his edits, but I think it would be enlightning to have a vote. All who support 172 version of the article and disagree with mine and Halibutt objections, please rise your left hand and post in the relevant section below (172 version supporters post here). All who endorse mine and Halibutt's version and disagree with 172 version of the article, please rise your right hand and post below as well (172 version opponents post here). Those who cannot cleary decide which side is right but want to express their opinions, raise no hands just post in Undecided but want to make a statement section. Please don't raise both hands, we are not looking for any prisoners of war here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172 version opponents post here

1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. --Emax 23:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
3. --Balcer 00:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. --Milicz 03:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Undecided but want to make a statement

I am supporting neither version. Both suck.I am taking this back, after re-reading. I was under the impression of some original versions. Sorry. Too much to read. I hate when the development of an article starts with conclusions, rather than with facts. My approach would be: mercilessly delete all disputed statements of general nature. This is encyclopedia, not a textbook of politology. Facts, please. First and foremost. Unfortunately the majority of editors want to slap stickers here and there: stalin=bloody dictator, pilsudki=savior of civilization, zhukov=war hero, etc., and defend the favorite ones with teeth and claws.

I will gladly help either side with facts, but not with biases.

My position is that both Poles and Russians were two bunches of predators fighting over the lands where other nations happened to live for quite a long time: Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, no matter what "historical" claims they had to support their aggresions. Mikkalai 03:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

both Poles and Russians were two bunches of predators fighting over the lands where other nations happened to live for quite a long time Excellent point. This is very well put. 172 10:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But hardly NPOVed to be put in those exact words in the article. And I still think that Miedzymorze confederation is hardly comparable to USSR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course. (That was just a passing comment on the talk page, not something that could go in the article.) 172 12:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No one here is against changing and improving this article. Everyone has stated that they are willing to make changes and compromise. The problem lies in the fact that the article got randomly blocked by 172, and he was making his changes with no discussion, and all he did was make personal attacks on all the people that actually worked on this article (I didn't work on this article, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I find it appalling and scary that an Admin would so wantonly abuse his powers simply because he can). I don't think that "suck" is the right term for an article that so many people worked on for so long, it might a bit biased, but nothing so flawed that it cannot be fixed. Milicz 03:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• This vote is unappropriate. The article was created by a group of people who apparently have a similar POV. They are mostly the ones who are voting here, as can be clearly seen from the votes. The vote would simply confirm that the number of original editors is greater then the number of those who were drawn to this discussion just now. --Gene s 16:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A vote is a normal type of dispute resolution process. I didn't want to make a 'big' survey right away, hoping that we can reach an agreement here and in the sandbox. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have another vote about the unilateral blocking of the page 172 did and who supports that. This is not a question of versions as much as it is a question of someone 172 who is an Admin cannot follow simple rules of wikiquette. Instead of voicing his concerns about this article in a nonconfrontational manner in order to imrpove it, 172 decided to make changes with no explanation and then blocked the page, again WITH NO DISCUSSION OR EXPLANATION. Is this the manner in which an Admin should act and react? And then 172 continues to insult everyone. Milicz 18:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic of the article, not to the person. Talk pages are not chat rooms. There are special places to discuss user's behavior, in order not to create clutter here. Mikkalai 18:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also I guess you are new at wikipedia and don't know how the things work. No one engaged in the editing of a particular article can block it. Mikkalai 18:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting, how did 172 block the article then?

By User_talk:Mikkalai#Polish-Soviet_War_2 asking other admins to do so, saying that he is having a hard time cleaning the Polish nationalist POV out of this article and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fact is, 172 acted rashly and managed to insult several people (well, all Poles). I see no point in flame wars and invite all to forget about personal insults, if 172 can apologise, nice, otherwise, I can live with it. What matters is the article, not who did what, especially as all involved parties show now the will to compromise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not insult anyone. I called the POV of the article in question, charging the article of a nationalist bias. (Putting up a POV dispute heading is part of the Wikipedia peer editing process.) This is not imply anything about any individuals. 172 22:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will rephrase. The vote at this time is inappropriate because it is too early. The subject is complex. The original editors wrote it over an extended period of time and obviously had enough time to learn the subject. The others, which may or may not hold an alternative POV, were drawn here over the last two days and clearly did not have time to learn the subject. That precludes them from making an independent informed decision. Particularly considering that everybody has real lives outside of wiki. I second Mikkalai that this talk page is a not a place for any kinds of personal accusations and demands for apologies. --Gene s 06:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Poll" diversion

This article is written from an overtly from the perspective of Polish nationalism, so it is no surprise that there will be significant resistance to NPOV. At any rate, neutrality disputes are not settled by users rounding up a bunch of ideological allies to gang up on a single user. There's no reason to participate in the grandstanding above. 172 00:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am dissapointed that more then 1 day (30h now or so) after you started the incident that resulted in the page being proteced, are not still willing to try to reach a compromise. The articile is POVed with Polish nationalism, cause you (alone) say so. More then half or our arguments above are still waiting for your answer. The poll, being a well known method of arbitration is a bunch of ideological allies to gang up on a single user (don't you think that 'the sole presecuted bearer of truth' would be better?). Those who oppose you are nationalistic Poles, or if they cannot be classified based on their nationality, ideological allies of nationalistic Poles. And on admin page where I asked for comments you screamed that we are trying to silence you (somebody please tell me how on Earth somebody can be silenced on Wiki? I would love to know, really.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. Wikipedia has been experiencing server problems, and many users, including myself, have not been able to log on at all times in the day. Given these problems, 30 hours is nothing. Consider how long a fight has been going on over the clitoris article. That article has been generating edit wars almost the entire time that I have been a user. 172 06:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article should not have been protected in the first place, so making excuses by comparing to worst case scenarios just does not cut it. As must be perfectly clear by now from this discussion, all participants are reasonable people willing to compromise to achieve NPOV. Hence let's unprotect the article immediately and let the natural editing process of Wikipedia get going again. Protecting an article should occur only under exceptional circumstances and in my opinion it clearly should not have been done in this case. After all such protection strikes at the basic idea of Wikipedia, and the thought that one individual can impose it at a whim makes me feel depressed about the future of the whole Wikipedia project. It is high time, as the discussion page is getting so long it is becoming difficult to follow. Balcer 07:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am going to ignore the above. From now on, I will work out a try to work out a compromise with Piotrus, who knows the material reasonablly well enough, while ingoring the clique of hecklers. 172 07:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why whould you ignore what is the consensus of almost everyone on this page? Why would you ignore the process by which reasonable people edit Wikipedia articles? Also, do us all a favor and please stop calling me or anyone else who has legitimate concerns as to the actions of an ADMIN as a "heckler". The insults keep flying from you. The problem I have is that I don't think you know the material reasonably well enough. If you want to play the "I know better game" then post your degrees. Milicz 14:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Here in Poland we have a proverb that could be harshly translated as it's hard to prove you're not a camel. It is indeed hard to prove that we're "knowledgeable enough" for you to do us a favour and reply to our questions. But perhaps I should try? Tell me, what can I do to make you start actually replying to the questions asked instead of offending those who ask them? Perhaps I could present you a list of books on the topic I've read? Or perhaps you could prepare some sort of exam? Also, you're not the first here to use similar arguments: check How to deal with Poles article, it might prove itself useful to you. Halibutt 10:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus and I are working toward agreement on Pilsudski's objectives leading up to the early 1920 incursion, Weygand's role, Soviet objectives, the domestic political aftermath in Poland, whatever setbacks there were for communism, and placement of quotations. We are near agreement so far on all but the first two of the said points. Hardly anyone else has been following this dialogue, choosing instead to attack me... Re: How to deal with Poles My family lived in Lodz until 1939. One relative returned, my father's cousin, but he was killed shortly after the war. 172 12:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong, my friend. I was not attacking you nor was I trying to silence you. As to the former - it was not a personal attack. I was questioning your behaviour as a wikipedian and admin, which is a completely different case. I was also trying to understand why have you offended me repeatedly without even knowing me. So far I have no idea, but perhaps you'll be so kind as to reply one day.

As to the latter - it's the contrary. I'd like you to shout out your replies to my questions. Scream, 172, shout them all! Or perhaps simply put them down...

You're also wrong with your other statement. I've been following your discussion here since I'm really waiting impatiently to see you post any replies to my questions. Also, I find it quite comforting that now you seem more cooperative than before. Finally, I agree with what Piotrus said, and I think that your version would actually be quite good if it wasn't for the apparent drawbacks: several POV statements, deletion of facts that were there before and introducing some strange vision of history as facts. But to prepare a compromise solution you'd actualy have to cooperate. There can be no compromise without discussion and my questions are so far unreplied. Halibutt 14:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing was stopping you from joining the productive discussion with Mikkalai, Piotrus, and found in the middle part of the talk page, where we are pretty close to drafting a new intro that takes into account all the objections (including yours) to both old ones. As for behavior, one can only wonder why you are not criticizing your friends Space Cadet and Emax, who were trying to play a game of "there are two of us and we will outrevert you no matter what" until the page was protected. 172 14:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lead sandbox

I suggest we all try to work out a compromise here: User:172/Polish-Soviet War. Please state your reasons for any major changes in the comments section below, all changes without reasons will be reverted as vandalism. Hopefully in a day or two all will be agreed and we can unprotect the article and add the new, better lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Britannica

I got my hands on Britannica 2001 DVD. I found two articles that seem quite relevant to our discussion: 'From the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Riga' and Polish-Russo War (if you want them, @ me and I'll @ them to u). I'll post several quotes relevant to our discussion:

• Britannica 'lead': military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine. It resulted in the establishment of the Russo-Polish border that existed until 1939 and An armed struggle between the Bolsheviks and Poland resulted from Russian attempts to carry the revolution westward and from Pilsudski's federalist policy. Thank you, Britannica. Apparently they agree with me that Soviets desire to go west and spread revolution is a valid reason for the war and deserves mention in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• main body: Article states that hostilities begun in 1919 but main conflict was what we refer to as the Kiev Operation (it just mentions date (April) and place (Ukraine), no name). Barely mentions the military operations (our article is way better). It does mention that Western governemnts sent a military mission, headed by the French general Maxime Weygand, to advise the Polish army. Please note that it only sais advise, and there are no qualifiers to 'high-powered' or anything like this. On the contrary, the article clearly states that Except for an alliance with the Ukrainian leader Symon Petlyura...Poland fought in isolation. Even my current reference to French help in 172 sandbox is more positive :D. Hopefully this will finally put the 'great Western contribution' myth to the rest. Article ends with provided for the bulk of Ukraine to remain a Soviet republic, although substantial portions of Belarus and Ukraine were ceded to Poland and the Bolsheviks abandoned their plans to communize Poland, but the Poles had to abandon their federalist concepts.. Now I am just waiting to hear your arguments about POV in Birtannica. Preeeety please? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)