
The Polish-Soviet War was the war (February 1919 – March 1921) that determined the borders between the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and Second Polish Republic. This armed struggle between the Soviet Russia and Poland was a result of Polish attempts to secure territories lost in the late-18th-century partitions of Poland and the Soviet attempts to recover territory lost by Russia in World War I and expand the Communist revolution to the Eastern Europe. The frontiers between Poland and the Soviet Russia were not clearly defined in the Treaty of Versailles and were further rendered chaotic by the Russian revolutions, the Russian Civil War and German withdrawal from the east front. Poland's head of state Józef Pilsudski envisioned a Polish-led East European confederation as a bulwark against German and Russian imperialism. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began to gain the upper hand in the Russian Civil War and advance west. In 1919 the Poles gained control of most of the disputed territories. Border skirmishes then escalated into open warfare following Pilsudski's attempt to take advantage of Russia's weakness with a major incursion into Ukraine in early 1920 (the Kiev Operation). He was met by a Red Army counterattack in April 1920. This Soviet counter-offensive was very successful, throwing Polish forces back westward all the way to the Polish capital of Warsaw. Meanwhile, Western fears of Soviet troops arriving at the German frontiers increased Allied interest in the war. A French Military Mission to Poland, which had been operating in Poland since 1919, and was responsible for improvement of the organization and logistics of the Polish forces, was expanded up to about 600 advisors and was joined by General Maxime Weygand. For a time, in midsummer, the fall of Warsaw seemed certain. This generated great excitement among many communists in Moscow, who began to see Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany, bolstering the Communist Party of Germany. In mid-August the Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory at the Battle of Warsaw (1920). The Polish forces advanced eastward, and the war ended with ceasefire in October 1920. A formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, was signed on March 18, 1921, dividing the disputed territory between Poland and Soviet Russia. Both states claimed the victory in the war: Poland rightfuly claimed the successful defense of the state, while Soviet Russia claimed repelling the Polish Kiev offensive, which was sometimes considered part of a foreign intervention during the Russian Civil War. == Names and dates of the war == The war is referred to by several names. "Polish-Soviet War" may be the most common, but is potentially confusing, since "Soviet" is usually thought of as relating to the Soviet Union, which did not officially come into being until December 1922. Alternative names include "Russo-Polish War [or Polish-Russian War] of 1919-21" (to distinguish it from earlier Polish-Russian wars), or "Polish-Bolshevik War". In some histories it has come down as the "War of 1920" (''Wojna 1920 roku''), while Soviet historians often either called it the "War against White Poland" or considered it a part of the "War against Foreign Intervention" or the Russian Civil War. A second controversy revolves around the start date of the war. Some historians argue that the war started in April 1920 with the Polish thrust into Ukraine, the Operation Kiev. While it is true that the events of 1919 could be described as a border conflict and that only in early 1920 both sides realised that they are in fact engaged in an all-out war, the conflicts that took place in 1919 are an essential part of the war that begun in earnest a year later. In the end, the events of 1920 were only a logical, if almost totaly unpredictable, consequence of the prelude of 1919. == Prelude to the war == Józef_Pilsudski.">Image:Jozef_Pilsudski1.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Józef Pilsudski. In 1918, with the end of the World War I, the map of Central Europe and Eastern Europe had drastically changed. As Germany's defeat rendered her plans for the creation of the Mitteleuropa puppet states obsolete, and as Russia sank into the depths of the Russian Civil War, the newly emergent countries of that region saw a chance for real independence and were not prepared to easily relinquish this rare gift of fate. At the same time, Russia saw these territories as rebellious Russian provinces but was unable to react swiftly, as it was weakened and in the process of transforming herself into the Soviet Union through the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War that had begun in 1917. [[Image:Rzeczpospolita Rozbiory 3.png|thumb|right|200px|Partitions of Poland, 1795.]] Meanwhile, with the success of the Greater Poland Uprising in 1918, Poland had regained her independence lost in 1795 with the Partitions_of_Poland#Third_Partition. After 123 years of Poland's rule by her three imperial neighbors, the Second Polish Republic was proclaimed and the reborn country proceeded to carve out its borders from the territories of her former partitioners, Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Polish politics was under the strong influence of the statesman Józef Pilsudski and his vision of the "Federation of Miedzymorze", a Polish-led confederation comprising Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and other Central Europe and East European countries now emerging out of the crumbling empires after the First World War. The new union was to be a counterweight to any imperialist intentions of Russia or Germany. To this end, Polish forces set out to secure vast territories in the east. Poland had no intention of joining the Western intervention in the Russian Civil War or of conquering Russia itself. [[Image:PBW_March_1919.png|thumb|left|200px|Rebirth of Poland, March 1919]] The Polish-Soviet war, like the majority of the other conflicts in Eastern Europe of that time, was more of an accident than a planned design. In the chaos prevailing in the first months of 1919, it was unlikely that anyone in Bolshevik Russia or in the new Second Republic of Poland would have deliberately planned a major foreign war. Poland, its territory a major frontline of the First World War, was unstable politically and already engaged in border conflicts with Germany (Silesian Uprisings) and Czechoslovakia (border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia), while the attention and policies of revolutionary Russia were predominantly directed at dealing with counter-revolution and with the intervention by the western powers. [[Image:lenin4.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.]] This began to change in late 1919, however, when Vladimir Lenin, leader of Russia's new communist government, succumbed to a buoyant optimism, inspired by the Red Army's civil-war victories over White Russian anticommunist forces and their western allies on Russian territory. The Bolsheviks acted on a conviction that historical processes would soon lead to rule of the proletariat in all nations, and that the withering away of national states would eventually bring about a worldwide communist community. The main impetus to the coming war with Poland lay in the Bolsheviks’ avowed intent to link their Russian Revolution with an expected German Revolution. Lenin saw Poland as the bridge that the Red Army would have to cross in order to link the two revolutions and to assist other communist movements in Western Europe. As Lenin himself remarked, ''"That was the time when everyone in Germany, including the blackest reactionaries and monarchists, declared that the Bolsheviks would be their salvation."'' The Soviet offensive into Poland would be an opportunity "to probe Europe with the bayonets of the Red Army." It would be the Soviet Union's first penetration into Europe proper, the first attempt to export the Bolshevik Revolution by force. In a telegram, Lenin exclaimed: ''"We must direct all our attention to preparing and strengthening the Western Front (Soviet Army). A new slogan must be announced: Prepare for war against Poland."''. The political purpose of the Red Army's advance was not to conquer Europe directly. Its purpose was to provoke social change and revolution. In the words of General Tukhachevsky: ''"To the West! Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to world-wide conflagration. March on Vilno, Minsk, Warsaw!"''. However, the Soviets never expected any major resistance on the part of Poland. While first clashes between Polish and Soviet forces occurred in February 1919, it would be almost a year before both sides would fully realise that they were engaged in a full-out war. == The Campaign == === 1919 === ==== Chaos in Eastern Europe ==== In 1918 the German Army in the east began to retreat westwards. The areas abandoned by the Central Powers became a field of conflict among local governments created by Germany, other local governments that indepedently sprang up after the German withdrawal, and the Bolsheviks, who hoped to incorporate those areas into Bolshevik Russia. Many of those groups were fragmented, merged, divided, formed short alliances with others, and almost constantly fought. Almost all of Eastern Europe was in chaos. On November 18, 1918, Vladimir Lenin issued orders to the Red Army to begin Russian westward offensive of 1918-1919 that would follow the withdrawing German troops of Oberkommando Ostfront (Ober-Ost). The basic aim of the operation was to drive through eastern and central Europe, institute Soviet governments in the newly independent countries of that region and support communist revolutions in Germany and Austria-Hungary. At the start of 1919, fighting broke out almost by accident and without any orders from the respective governments, when self-organized Polish military units in Wilno (''Samooborona'', Wilno Self-defence) clashed with Bolshevik forces, each trying to secure the territories for its own incipient government. Eventually the more organised Soviet forces quelled most of the resistance and drove the remaining Polish forces west. In the spring of 1919 Soviet conscription produced a Red Army of 2,300,000. However, few of these were sent west that year, as the majority of Red Army forces were engaging the White Russians. In September 1919, the Polish army had 540,000 men under arms, 230,000 of these on the Soviet Front (military). Small Polish forces had been securing the eastern border. By 14 February Polish forces had secured positions along the line of Kobryn, Pruzhany, rivers Zalewianka and Neman. Around 14 February, the first organised Polish units made contact with the advance units of the Red Army, and a border frontline slowly began to form from Lithuania, through Belarus to Ukraine. ==== Avalanche starts: First Polish-Soviet conflicts ==== The first serious armed conflict of the war took place February 14 when fighting erupted near the towns of Maniewicze and Battle of Bereza Kartuska (1919) in Belarus. By late February the Bolshevik offensive had come to a halt. Both Polish and Soviet forces had also been Polish-Ukrainian War, and unrest was growing in the territories of Baltic countries (Estonian Liberation War). Further escalation of the conflict seemed inevitable. At the same time, Russian civil war raged on. In early summer 1920, White Russians gained an upper hand, and White forces under the command of Anton Ivanovich Denikin were marching on Moscow. Piłsudzki's is said to have considered Bolsheviks the less dangerous of the Russian civil war contenders, as the White Russians were not willing to accept Poland's independence, while the Bolsheviks did proclaim the Partitions of Poland null and void. In the coming months, Denikin would pay dearly for his refusal to compromise on this issue. In early March 1919, Polish units opened an offensive crossing the Niemen river, taking Pinsk and reaching the outskirts of Lida. Both the Russian and Polish advances began around the same time in April, resulting in increasing numbers of troops being brought into the area. In April the Bolsheviks captured Grodno and Wilno, but in the same month were pushed out by a Polish counteroffensive. The newly formed Polish Army had proved to be a far more difficult opponent than the Russians had assumed. Unable to accomplish their objectives and facing strengthening offensives of White Russians, the Red Army withdrew from their positions and reorganized. Soon the Polish-Bolshevik War would begin in earnest. Polish forces recaptured the major city of Wilno on April 19 and steadily continued advancing east. By 2 October Polish forces reached the Dzwina river and secured the region from Dzisna to Dyneburg. [[Image:PBW_December_1919.png|thumb|left|200px|Central and Eastern Europe in December 1919]] Until early 1920, the Polish offensive was quite successful. Sporadic battles erupted between Polish forces and the Red Army, but the latter was preoccupied with the civil war and White movement conterrevolutionary forces and were slowly but steadily retreating on the entire western frontline, from Latvia in the north to Ukraine in the south. ====Diplomatic Front, Part 1: The alliances==== In 1919, several attempts at peace negotiations had been made by various Polish-Russian factions, but to no avail. In the meantime, Polish-Lithuanian relations worsened as Polish politicians found it hard to accept Lithuanians demand for a complete independence and their territorial demands, especially on ceding the city of Wilno, Lithuanian historical capital which had nonetheless a Polish ethnic majority. Polish negotiators made progress in negotiations with the Latvian Provisional Government, and in early 1920 Polish and Latvian forces were conducting some joint operations against the Bolsheviks. The main Polish success lay in signing a military alliance with the Ukrainian People's Republic of Symon Petliura. Petliura had, after his government's defeat by the Bolsheviks, found political asylum in Poland and now headed a new Ukrainian Army. The Polish-Ukrainian War ended around July 1919 and from September both Polish and Ukrainians fought together. === 1920 === ====Opposing forces==== Soviet forces had recently been very successful against the White armies, defeating Denikin, and signed peace treaties with Latvia and Estonia. The Polish front became the most important war theatere and the majority of Soviet resources and forces were diverted to it. In January 1920, the Red Army began concentrating a 700,000-strong force near the Berezina River and on Belarus. In the course of 1920, almost 800,000 Red Army personnel were sent to fight in the Polish war, of whom 402,000 went to the Western front and 355,000 to the armies of the South-West front in Galicia (Central Europe). The Soviets had at their disposal many military depots left by German armies withdrawing from eastern Europe in 1918-19, and modern French armaments captured in great numbers from the White Russians and the Allied expeditionary forces in the Russian Civil War. With the new forces, Soviet High Command planned a new offensive in late April/May. [[Image:Tukhachevsky-mikhail.jpg|thumb|frame|Soviet General Mikhail Tukhachevsky.]] Bolshevik commanders in the Red Army's coming offensive would include Mikhail Tukhachevsky (new commander of the Western Front), Leon Trotsky, the future Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin, and the future founder of the Cheka secret police, the Polish-born Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky. The Polish Army was made up of soldiers who had formerly served in the various partitioning empires, supported by inexperienced volunteers and recruits. Logistics were very bad, relying on whatever equipment was left over from World War I and could be captured. The Polish Army employed guns made in five countries, and rifles manufactured in six, each using different ammunition. The Polish forces grew from approximately 100,000 in 1918 to over 500,000 in early 1920. In 20 August 1920, the Polish army had reached the strength of more than 737,000, so there was rough numerical parity between the two armies. Polish intelligence was aware that the Soviets have been prepared for a new offensive and Polish High Command decided to launch their own offensive before their opponents. The plan for Operation Kiev was to beat the Red Army on Poland's southern flank and establish a friendly government in Ukraine. ==== The tide turns: Operation Kiev ==== Until April the Polish forces had been slowly but steadily advancing eastward. New Latvian government requested Polish help in capturing Dyneburg, which was captured after heavy fighting in January and handed to the Latvians, who viewed the Poles as liberators. By March Polish forces had driven a wedge between Soviet forces North (Bielorussia) and south (Ukraine). On April 24 Poland began its main offensive, Operation Kiev, aimed at creating an independent Ukraine that would become part of Piłsudski's Międzymorze Federation and an ally in the fight against the Soviet Russia. Poland was assisted by the allied forces of the Ukrainian People's Republic of Symon Petliura. [[Image:Breguet 14 Kijów.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Polish Air Forces Breguet 14 operating from Kyiv airfield]] The Polish 3rd Army easily won border clashes with the Red Army in Ukraine. The combined Polish-Ukrainian forces captured Kiev on May 7, encountering only token resistance. Polish military thrust soon met with Red Army counterattack Polish forces in that area, preparing for offensive towards Żłobin, manged to push back the Soviet forces back, but were unable to start their own planned offensive. In the north Polish forces had fared much worse. The Polish 1st Army was defeated and forced to retreat, pursued by the 15th army which recaptured territories between Dzwina and Berezyna. Polish forces attempted to take advantage of the exposed flanks of the attackers but the enveloping forces failed to stop the Soviet advance. At the end of May the front had stabilised near the small river Auta, and Soviet forces begun preparing for the next push. [[Image:PBW_June_1920.png|thumb|right|200px|Polish Kiev Offensive at its height. June 1919]] On 24 May 1920, the Polish-Ukrainian forces in the south were engaged for the first time by Semjon Budyonny's famous 1st Cavalry Army (''Konarmia''). Repeated attacks by Budionny's Cossack cavalry, however, broke the Polish-Ukrainian front on June 5th and sent mobile cavalry units to disrupt the Polish rearguard, targeting communication and logistics. By June 10th the Polish armies were in retreat along the entire front. It was a bitter day for the Poles and Ukrainians when, on June 13, they abandoned Kiev to the Bolsheviks. [[Image:Charge at Wolodarka.jpg|thumb|300px|left|A Polish cavalry charge at the Battle of Wolodarka, May 29,1920, slows the Russian offensive. (Painting by Mikolaj Wisznicki, 1935.)]] ==== String of Bolshevik victories ==== The commander of the Polish 3rd Army in Ukraine, General Edward Rydz-Smigly, decided to break through toward the northwest. Polish forces in Ukraine managed to withdraw in orderly fashion and relatively unscathed, but were unable to support Poland's northern front and reinforce the defenses at the Auta River for the decisive battle that was soon to take place there. Due to insufficient forces, Poland's 200-mile-long front was manned by a thin line of 120,000 troops backed by some 460 artillery pieces with no strategic reserves. This approach to holding ground harked back to Great War practice of "establishing a fortified line of defense." It had shown some merit on a Western Front saturated with troops, machine guns and artillery. Poland's eastern front, however, was weakly manned, supported with inadequate artillery, and had almost no fortifications. Kosciuszko_Squadron">Image:Dywizjon Kosciuszki.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Polish fighters of the Kosciuszko Squadron Against the Polish line the Red Army gathered their Northwest Front led by the young General Mikhail Tukhachevski. Their numbers exceeded 108,000 infantry and 11,000 cavalry, supported by 722 artillery pieces and 2,913 machine guns. The Russians at some crucial places outnumbered the Poles four-to-one. Tukhachevski launched his offensive July 4th along the axis Smolensk-Brest-Litovsk, crossing the Auta and Berezyna. The northern 3rd Cavalry Corps of Gej-Chan was to envelope Polish forces from the north, moving near the Lithuanian and Prussian border (both of these belonging to nations hostile to Poland). 4th, 15th and 3rd Armies were to push decisively west, supported from south by the 16th Army and Grupa Mozyrska. For three days the outcome of the battle hung in the balance, but the Russians' numerical superiority finally became apparent. Due to the stubborn defense by Polish units, Tukhachevski's plan to break through the front and pushing the defenders southwest into the Pinsk Marshes failed, but from July 7 the Polish forces were in full retreat along the entire front. Polish resistance was offered again on a line of "German trenches," a heavily fortified line of World War I field fortifications that presented a unique opportunity to stem the Russian offensive. Once again, however, the Polish troops were insufficient in number. Soviet forces selected a weakly defended part of the front and broke through. Gej-Chan forces, supported by Lithuanian forces, captured Wilno on 14 July, forcing Poles to retreat again. In the south, in Galicia (Central Europe), General Semyon Budionny's cavalry advanced far into the Polish rear, capturing Brodno and approaching Lwów and Zamosc. In early July it became clear to the Poles that the Russians' objectives were not limited to pushing their borders westwards. Poland's very independence was at stake. The Russian forces relentlessly moved forward at the remarkable rate of 20 miles a day. Grodno in Belarus fell 19 July, Brest-Litovsk fell on 1 August, Polish attempt to defend the Bug river line with 4th Army and Grupa Poleska units stopped the advance of the Red Army for only one week. After crossing the Narew River on 2 August the units of the Russian Northwest Front were only 60 miles from Warsaw. The fortress of Brzesc which was to be the headquaters of the planned Polish counteroffensive fell to the 16th Army in the first attack. The Russian Southwest Front had pushed Polish forces out of Ukraine and was closing on Zamość and Lwów, the largest city in southeastern Poland and an important industrial center, defended by the Polish 6th Army. The way to the Polish capital lay open. Polish Galicia's Lwów (Ukrainian Lviv) was soon Battle of Lwów (1920), and five Russian armies were approaching Warsaw. [[Image:PBW_August_1920.png|thumb|left|200px|Bolshevik offensive successes. Early August 1920]] Polish forces in Galicia near Lwów launched a successful counteroffensive to slow the Soviets down. This had put a stop to the retreat of Polish forces on the southern front, but the worsening situation near Polish capital of Warsaw prevented Poles from continuing that southern counteroffensive and pushing east. After Soviets captured Brześć, the Polish offensive in the south was put on hold and all available forces moved north to take part in the coming battle for Warsaw. ==== Diplomatic Front, Part 2: The political games ==== With the tide turning against Poland, Piłsudski's political power had been weakened and his opponents, including Roman Dmowski had risen to power. However Piłsudski did manage to regain his influence, especially over miliary, almost at the last possible moment - as the Soviet forces were approaching Warsaw and Polish political scene begun to unravel in panic. Meantime, by the order of the Soviet Communist Party a Polish puppet government, the Tymczasowy Komitet Rewolucyjny Polski, TKRP (English: ''Provisional Polish Revolutionary Committee''), had been formed on 28 July in Białystok to organise administration on the Polish territories captured by the Red Army. The TKRP had very little support from the Polish population and recruited its supporters mostly from the ranks of Bielorussians and Jews. In addition, political intrigues between Soviet commanders grew in the face of their more and more certain victory. Eventually the lack of cooperation between the top commanders would cost them dearly in the upcoming decisive battle of Warsaw (1920). Western public opinion, swayed by the press and by left-wing politicians, was strongly anti-Polish. Many foreign observers expected Poland to be quickly defeated and become the next Soviet republic. Britain's Prime Minister, David Lloyd George pressed Poland to make peace on Soviet terms and refused any assistance to Poland which would alienate Whites in the Russian Civil War. On August 6, 1920, the British Labour Party (UK) published a pamphlet stating that British workers would never take part in the war as Poland's allies, and labour unions blocked supplies to the British expeditionary force assisting Russian Whites in Arkhangelsk. French Socialists, in their newspaper ''L'Humanité'', declared: "Not a man, not a sou, not a shell for reactionary and capitalist Poland. Long live the Russian Revolution! Long live the Workmen's International!" Poland suffered setbacks due to sabotage and delays in deliveries of war supplies, when workers in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany refused to transit such materials to Poland. Lithuania stance was mostly anti-Polish and the country eventually joined the Soviet side in the war against Poland in July 1919. Lithuania decision was dictated by a desire to incorporate the city of Wilno (in Lithuanian, Vilnius) and the nearby areas into Lithuania and to a smaller extent by Soviet diplomatic pressure backed by the threat of the Red Army stationed on Lithuania's borders. [[Image:Cooper Fauntleroy.jpg|thumb|left|American volunteer pilots, Merian C. Cooper and Cedric Fauntleroy, fought in the Kościuszko Squadron of the Polish Air Force.]] Polish allies were few. France, continuing her policy of countering Bolshevism, now that the Whites in Russia proper had been almost completely defeated, sent in 1919 a 400-strong French Military Mission to Poland. This group comprised mostly French officers, although it also included British Military Mission to Poland led by Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Carton De Wiart. The French effort was vital to improving the organization and logistics of the Polish Army, which until 1919 had used diverse manuals, organizational structures and equipment, mostly drawn from the armies of Poland's former partitioners. The French offcers included a future President of France, Charles de Gaulle, who during that war won Poland's highest military decoration, the Virtuti Militari. In addition to the Allied advisors, France also facilitated in 1919 the transit to Poland from France of the "Blue Army": a force of troops, mostly of Polish origin plus some international volunteers, formerly under French command in World War I. The army was commanded by the Polish general, Józef Haller. [[Image:Haller_and_blue_army.jpg|thumb|right|300px|General Józef Haller (touching the flag) and his Blue Army.]] In mid-1920 the Allied Mission was expanded by some new advisers (the Interallied Mission to Poland). They included the French diplomat, Jean Jules Jusserand; Maxime Weygand, chief of staff to Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Supreme Commander of the victorious Entente; and the British diplomat, Lord Edgar Vincent D'Abernon. The newest members of the mission achieved little; indeed, the crucial Battle of Warsaw was fought and won by the Poles before the mission could return and make its report. Subsequently, for many years, the myth persisted that it was the timely arrival of Allied forces that had saved Poland, a myth in which Weygand occupied the central role. ==== The tide turns: Miracle at the Vistula ==== On August 10, 1920, Russian Cossack units under the command of Gay Dimitrievich Gay crossed the Vistula River, planning to take Warsaw from the west while the main attack came from the east. On August 13, an initial Russian attack was repulsed. The Polish 1st Army resisted a direct Battle of Warsaw (1920) as well stopping the battle of Radzymin. The Soviet commander-in-chief, Tukhachevski, feeling certain that all was going according to his plan, was actually falling into a trap set by Piłsudski. The Russian advance across the Vistula River in the north was advancing into an operational vacuum, as there were no sizable Polish forces in the area. On the other hand, south of Warsaw, where the fate of the war was about to be decided, Tukhachevski had left only token forces to guard the vital link between the Russian northwest and southwest fronts. Another factor that influenced the outcome of the war was the effective neutralization of Budionny's 1st Cavalry Army, much feared by Piłsudski and other Polish commanders, in the battle of Lwów. The Soviet High Command, at Tukhachevski's insistence, had ordered the 1st Cavalry Army to march north toward Warsaw and Lublin, but Budionny disobeyed the order due to a grudge between Tukhachevski and Aleksandr Yegorov, commander of the southwest front. Additionally, the political games of Joseph Stalin, chief political commissar of the Southwest Front, decisively influenced the disobedience of Yegorov and Budionny. Stalin, seeking a personal triumph, was focused on capturing Lwów—far to the southeast of Warsaw—besieged by Bolshevik forces but still resisting their assaults. Wladyslaw_Sikorski.">Image:Wladyslaw_Sikorski.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Polish General Wladyslaw Sikorski. The Polish 5th Army under General Wladyslaw Sikorski counterattacked August 14 from the area of the Modlin fortress, crossing the Wkra River. It faced the combined forces of the numerically and materially superior Soviet 3rd and 15th Armies. In one day the Soviet advance toward Warsaw and Modlin had been halted and soon turned into retreat. Sikorski's 5th Army pushed the exhausted Soviet formations away from Warsaw in a lightning operation. Polish forces advanced at a speed of thirty kilometers a day, soon destroying any Soviet hopes for completing their enveloping maneuver in the north. By August 16 the Polish counteroffensive had been fully joined by Marshal Piłsudski's "Reserve Army." Precisely executing his plan, the Polish force, advancing from the south, found a huge gap between the Russian fronts and exploited the weakness of the Soviet "Mozyr Group" that was supposed to protect the weak link between the Soviet fronts. The Poles continued their northward offensive with two armies following and destroying the surprised enemy. They reached the rear of Tukhachevski's forces, the majority of which were encircled by August 18. Only that same day did Tukhachevski, at his Minsk headquarters 300 miles east of Warsaw, become fully aware of the proportions of the Soviet defeat and ordered the remnants of his forces to retreat and regroup. He hoped to straighten his front line, halt the Polish attack, and regain the initiative, but the orders either arrived too late or failed to arrive at all. Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920).">Image:Polish-soviet_war_1920_Aftermath_of_Battle_of_Warsaw.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Polish soldiers displaying captured Soviet battle flags after the Battle of Warsaw (1920). The Soviet armies in the center of the front fell into chaos. Tukhachevski ordered a general retreat toward the Bug River, but by then he had lost contact with most of his forces near Warsaw, and all the Bolshevik plans had been thrown into disarray by communication failures. [[Image:Bitwa pod Zadwórzem.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Polish Battle of Thermopylae: Russian cavalry are stopped at the Battle of Zadwórze. (Painting by Stanislaw Kaczor-Batowski, 1929. Polish Army Museum, Warsaw.)]] The Bolshevik armies retreated in a disorganised fashion, entire divisions panicking and disintegrating. The Red Army's defeat was so great and so unexpected that, at the instigation of Piłsudski's detractors, the Battle of Warsaw is often referred to in Poland as the "Miracle at the Vistula." On August 17 the advance of Budionny's Cavalry Army toward Lwów was halted at the Battle of Zadwórze, where a small Polish force sacrificed itself to prevent Soviet cavalry from seizing Lwów and stopping vital Polish reinforcements from moving toward Warsaw. On 29 August Budionny's cavalry moving through weakly defended areas reached the city of Zamosc and attempted to take the city in the battle of Zamosc, but was soon facing increasing number of Polish units which could be spared from the succesfull Warsaw counteroffensive. On August 31 Budionny's cavalry finally broke off their siege of Lwów and attempted to come to the aid of Russian forces retreating from Warsaw, but were intercepted, encircled and defeated by Polish cavalry at the Battle of Komarów near Zamość, the greatest cavalry battle since 1813 (and one of the last cavalry battles in history). Budionny's Army managed to avoid encicrlement but its morale had plummeted. What was left of Buidonny's 1st Cavalry Army retreated towards Wlodzimierz Wolynski on 6 September and was soon again defeated at the Battle of Hrubieszow. [[Image:Bitwa pod Komarowem w 1920 roku.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Battle of Komarów, one of the greatest cavalry clashes in world history. (Painting by Wojciech Kossak.)]] Tukhachevski managed to reorganize the eastward-retreating forces and in September established a new defensive line running from the Polish-Lithuanian border to the north to the area of Polesie, with the central point in the city of Grodno in Belarus. In order to break it, the Polish Army had to fight the Battle of the Niemen River. Polish forces crossed the Niemen River and outflanked the Bolshevik forces, which were forced to retreat again. Polish forces continued to advance East on all fronts, repeating their successes from the previous year. [[Image:Bitwa niemenska.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Battle of the Niemen River, the second greatest battle of the war. (Painting by Wojciech Kossak.)]] After the mid-October Battle of the Szczara River, the Polish Army had reached the Tarnopol-Dubno-Minsk-Drisa line. The Bolsheviks sued for peace and the Poles, exhausted and constantly pressured by the Western governments, with the Polish army now controlling the majority of the disputed territories, agreed to once again negotiate. A ceasefire was signed October 12 and went into effect October 18. == Aftermath == According to the British historian A. J. P. Taylor, the Polish-Bolshevik War "''largely determined the course of European history for the next twenty years or more. […] Unavowedly and almost unconsciously, Soviet leaders abandoned the cause of international revolution.''" The Bolsheviks' defeat in the war prevented Poland from becoming another Soviet republic and possibly spared Germany, Czechoslovakia and other nearby states from a similar fate. Much of what Poland had won during the 1920 war was lost in the peace negotiations that were by many characterized as short-sighted and petty-minded. Due to the disastrous military defeat, Bolsheviks offered the Polish peace delegation substantial territorial concessions in the contested borderland areas. However, to many observers it looked like the Polish side was conducting the Riga talks as if Poland had not won, but lost the war. The exhausted Poles, pressured by the League of Nations, decided to sign the Peace of Riga on March 18, 1921, splitting the disputed territories in Belarus and Ukraine between Poland and Russia. The treaty actually violated Poland's military alliance with Ukraine, which had explicitly prohibited a separate peace. It worsened relations between Poland and her Ukrainian minority, who felt Ukraine had been betrayed by her Polish ally, a feeling that would be exploited by Soviet propaganda and result in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia in the 1930s and 1940s. The Polish military successes in autumn 1920 allowed Poland to reclaim the city of Wilno, where a puppet goverment Governance Committee of Central Lithuania (''Komisja Rządząca Litwy Środkowej'') was formed. A plebiscite was carried out and the Wilno Sejm has voted on 20 February 1922 for incorporation into Poland. This has worsened Polish-Lithuanian foreign relations for many decades to come. Repercussions of this still continue (though to a diminishing extent) to affect the foreign relations among these countries. The outcome of the Polish-Bolshevik War, while welcomed by some Polish politicians such as Roman Dmowski, who favored a relatively small, ethnically homogeneous state, was a death blow to Piłsudski's dream of reviving the powerful and multicultural Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the form of a "Miedzymorze Federation." [[Image:Powazki 1920.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Graves of Polish soldiers fallen in the Battle of Warsaw, Powazki Cemetery, Warsaw.]] During the course of the war, waged by two countries experiencing great economic and social difficulties, and often unable to care even for their own populations, the treatment of the prisoners of war was far from adequate, with tens of thousands of POWs from both sides dying from inadequate health care during the rampaging post-WWI Spanish flu. Military strategy in the Polish-Bolshevik War influenced Charles De Gaulle, an instructor with the Polish Army who fought in several of the battles. He and Wladyslaw Sikorski were the only military officers who, based on their experiences of this war, correctly predicted how the next one would be fought. Although they both failed in the interbellum to convince their militaries to heed those lessons, early in World War II they rose to command of their respective armed forces in exile. This war also influenced the Polish military doctrine, which for the next 20 years would stress the mobility of the elite cavalry units. Among the technical advances ultimately associated with the Polish-Bolshevik War was one that would, two decades later, affect the course of World War II. Poland's Marshal Piłsudski and his staff enjoyed a vast advantage from their military intelligence cryptanalysising ("breaking") Red Army radio messages. These were encrypted in primitive ciphers and codes, and often involved incredible breaches of security by Bolshevik cipher clerks. The Polish cryptologists and commanders were thus regularly able to look over the shoulders of the Bolshevik commanders, including Mikhail Tukhachevski himself, and their superior, Leon Trotsky. Poland's cryptological achievements in the Polish-Bolshevik War were a prelude to the spectacular achievements of her General Staff's Cipher Bureau (Biuro Szyfrow), from December 1932, in decrypting German Enigma machine ciphers. Their subsequent decryption in World War II by the Western Allies at Bletchley Park — given a flying head-start by Poland's having revealed her techniques and technology to Britain and France at Warsaw a month before the outbreak of war — substantially affected the outcome of the war. In August 1939 the Soviet Union allied itself with Nazi Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and on 17 September 1939, invaded eastern Poland, ensuring Poland's defeat in the Polish Defence War of 1939 and sealing the fate of the Second Polish Republic. The Soviet occupation of eastern Poland have brought Stalinist repressions to the Polish population. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the Soviet Union succeeded in acquiring direct or indirect control of more territory than Imperial Russia had and partly fulfilled Lenin's original dream of bringing communist revolution to Germany. Until 1989, while communists held power in a People's Republic of Poland, the Polish-Bolshevik War was either omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet block countries' history books, or was presented so as to fit the communist ideology. == List of battles == For chronological list of important battles of the Polish-Soviet War, see List of battles of the Polish-Soviet War. == See also == * Camps for Russian prisoners and interned in Poland (1919-1924) * Estonian Liberation War * Polish-Ukrainian War * Western Betrayal == External links == * [http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Soviet-Polish-War/spw.html Electronic Museum of the Polish-Soviet War] * Maps of the Polish-Bolshevik War: [http://www.geocities.com/hallersarmy/maps.html Campaign Maps by Robert Tarwacki], [http://www.iyp.org/pilsudski/maps.html] * [http://home.golden.net/~medals/1918-1921war.html The Polish-Russian War and the Fight for Polish Independence] * [http://www.geocities.com/hallersarmy/index.html Józef Haller and the Blue Army] * [http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/pat/poland/fussrpoland1919.htm Onwar.com] * [http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/russo.html Russo-Polish War bibliography in English] == Notes == # Lincoln, ''Red Victory: a History of the Russian Civil War''. # Mikhail Tukhachevski, order of the day, 2 July 1920. # ''Jeńcy i internowani rosyjscy...'' and ''Zwycięzcy za drutami...'' # Ścieżyński, ''Radjotelegrafja...'' # Kozaczuk, ''Enigma''. == References == * Norman Davies, ''White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20'', Pimlico, 2003, ISBN 0712606947. (First edition: St. Martin's Press, inc., New York, 1972) * Jeremy Keenan, ''The Pole: the Heroic Life of Jozef Pilsudski'', Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 2004, ISBN 0715632108. * Richard M. Watt, ''Bitter Glory: Poland and Its Fate, 1918-1939'', Hippocrene Books, 1998, ISBN 0781806739. * Edgar Vincent D'Abernon, ''The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World: Warsaw, 1920'', Hyperion Press, 1977, ISBN 0883554291. * W. Bruce Lincoln, ''Red Victory: a History of the Russian Civil War'', Da Capo Press, 1999, ISBN 0306809095. * Mieczyslaw Sciezynski, [Colonel of the (Polish) General Staff], ''Radjotelegrafja jako źrodło wiadomości o nieprzyjacielu'' (Radiotelegraphy as a Source of Intelligence on the Enemy), Przemyśl, [Printing and Binding Establishment of (Military) Corps District No. X HQ], 1928, 49 pp. * David Kahn, ''The Code-Breakers'', New York, Macmillan, 1967. * Zbigniew Karpus, ''Jeńcy i internowani rosyjscy i ukraińscy na terenie Polski w latach 1918-1924'', Toruń 1997, ISBN 8371740204. [http://www.ksiegarnia.uni.torun.pl/karpus.html Polish table of contents online]. English translation: ''Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war and internees kept in Poland in 1918-1924'', Wydawn. Adam Marszałek, 2001, ISBN 8371749562. * Karpus, Zbigniew, Alexandrowicz Stanisław, ''Zwycięzcy za drutami. Jeńcy polscy w niewoli (1919-1922). Dokumenty i materiały'' (Victors behind the fences. Polish POWs (1919-1922). Documents and materials). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, Toruń, 1995, ISBN 8323106274. * Wladyslaw Kozaczuk, ''Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two'', edited and translated by Christopher Kasparek, Frederick, Maryland, University Publications of America, 1984, ISBN 0890935475. * Piotr Wandycz, ''General Weygand and the Battle of Warsaw'', Journal of Central European Affairs, 1960 * ''Polish Politics, and the Battle of Warsaw'', 1920 Slavic Review, Vol. 46, No. 3/4. (Autumn - Winter, 1987), p. 503 * Robert Himmer, ''Soviet Policy Toward Germany during the Russo-Polish War,'' 1920 Slavic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. (Dec., 1976), p. 667 * 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 * M. B. Biskupski, ''Paderewski, Polish Politics, and the Battle of Warsaw, 1920,'' Slavic Review, Vol. 46, No. 3/4, Autumn - Winter, 1987 pp. 503-512 Polish wars Polish-Soviet War Soviet wars
== Talk Archives == Talk:Polish-Soviet War Archive 1 moved on January 22 2005 == Not POV anymore? == As it seems to me that we have reached a compromise on User:172/Polish-Soviet_War and the article is unprotected again, would anybody object to removing the POV tag? 172, since you put it there in the first place, can you remove it? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I would. Some of my questions were not replied so far and instead were moved to the archives. Also, I still dispute the new header, especially the mention of 1926 which, in my opinion, serves some strange agenda, but definitely not the neutrality of this article. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 12:23, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) :: I moved all old talk to archive since it was very large and *most* of it was not relevant anymore. By all means, plese bring back the unresolved issues. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::: I'm afraid there's no need to. 172 didn't care to answer the questions back then and I doubt he will answer them at all, this would be just a waste of space here. Anyway, here's my proposal of the header: : First three paragraphs unchanged : fourth paragraph: the sentence ''A formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, was signed on March 18, 1921, dividing the disputed territory between Poland and Soviet Russia.'' sticked to the third paragraph, the rest of the paragraph moved to the aftermath section, with the following change: the sentence ''Pilsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen and in 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a coup d'etat.'' turned into ''Piłsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen, and the national democrats lost the post-war elections. Also, the new president Gabriel Narutowicz elected in 1922 was a leftist politician.''. While I agree it has equally small relevance to the article, the new sentences at least fit into the time-frame of the article, while the 172's version was out of the blue. : The fifth paragraph (''The war is referred to by several names...'') moved back into a separate names of the war (or similar name) section, between the header and the Prelude section. :::These are the major problems I have with the new uber-header, I have several other, mostly minor objections as well, but these can be fixed later. --User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 02:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) ::::If there are no objections from 172 or anybody else in the coming 48h, I agree we can make the change. Although was GN leftist or socialist? Remember that right/left distinction is European, and not really recognized in those terms in US, for example (I think). Anyway, I am back to work on the non-lead sections. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 14:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::Well, it is more then 72h with nobody discussing this issue either here or by doing any changes to the article, so I am going to remove this tag. Anyway, I think it is bizzare...'this article may be POV' - why not 'this article may not be POV'? :) Either it is and we have a dispute here or it is not and we don't, end of story. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) == To do == Incorporate materials from archive and sandbox to article, especially on Weynard mission. Time to work, ppl! :) --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Surely not "Weynard" but "Weygand"? User:Logologist 00:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) :: Surely :) --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Allied Mission, more details== Norman Davies, in ''White Eagle, Red Star'', has some details about the French Military Mission. Quoting the key passages: ''... the French mission commanded considerable respect and influence through the activities of its 400 officer-instructors. These men, distributed among the cadres of the Polish Staff, were entrusted with the task of training the officer corps in the art of military science and in the use of French army manuals.'' (these manuals were important since, to quote from another passage: ''Only in July 1919 (my note: to clear the confusion in the Polish army) it was decided to rely exclusively on French army manuals and procedures, and to submit to the instruction of General Henrys and his military mission.) Continuing, Davies describes a typical officer in the mission: ''Typical of them was a young captain, Charles de Gaulle. Newly released from internment as a prisoner of war at Ingolstadt in Bavaria, de Gaulle had been anxious for active service; as the son of a patriotic Catholic family, he was attracted by the prospect of an anti-Bolshevik campaign in Poland. In May 1919, he joined the 5th Chasseurs Polonais at Sille-le-Guillaume and in the body of Haller's army travelled with them to East Galicia. At the end of that campaign, he was transferred to Rembertów near Warsaw where, in the former school of the Tsarist Imperial Guard, he lectured on the theory of tactics. In July and August he was attached for a short period to a Polish combat unit, and raised to the rank of major. In 1921, he was offered a permanent commission in Poland, but preferred to develop his ideas and experiences by returning to France as a lecturer on military history at Saint-Cyr.'' As these passages illustrate, the discussion of the Allied mission in the lead is still inaccurate. The mission was not dispatched in the summer of 1920 as the lead now seems to suggest, but in fact functioned since 1919. Furthermore, if any specific names connected with the mission should be mentioned in the lead, it should be those of General Adrian Carton De Wiart, the commander of the British mission, and General Henrys, the commander of the French mission. These men were in Poland for many months and actually contributed something. General Weygand arrived in Poland around 24 July 1920 and left on 25 August, 1920. We already agreed that his advice as to military operations was ignored by Pilsudski and the Polish Staff. And his contribution to the administrative organisation of Poland's army could not have been that large - after all what could a single individual accomplish in one month? Weygand's name is only mentioned prominently in connection to the Polish-Soviet war because of the myth that he was responsible for the victory in the battle of Warsaw. Let's not perpetuate this myth. Since the introduction was so heavily fought over, I will not touch it for now, but I invite 172 or Piotrus to incorporate the above information as they see fit. User:Balcer 04:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Strength == Please correct the ridiculous number of 5,000,000 of Tukhachevsky forces in the battlebox. Such crowd would have trampled the whole Europe. User:Mikkalai 21:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) : Hmmm, it looks a bit high, also it seems to be an estimated highest size for the *entire* Red Army in years 1919-1921. I cannot find the source to back this up ATM, could you provide a better estimate, preferrably source? I think it should be in Davies book, but I don't have access to a copy right now. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Here is some data by Davies, who of course frequently admits that accurate figures for this chaotic period are always difficult to obtain. Furthermore, the numbers were vastly different at various times. ::*In the Spring of 1919 conscription produced a Red Army of 2,300,000, with an additional 550,000 men conscripted in February 1920. However, in 1919 very few of these were sent west, so these numbers are not very relevant. ;;*In September 1919 Polish army had 540,000 men under arms, 230,000 of these on the Soviet front. ::*Balance of forces in April 1920, at the start of the operations in Ukraine. At this point the Red Army South-West Front had, on 20 March, 83,000 men, but of these only 29,000 fighting men. Soviet authors writing in 1930 give Poles a superiority of 52,000 to 12,000 in this sector. Again however, the situation was extremely chaotic and these numbers are largely meaningless. ::*Key period around August, 1920. At this point, due to the consolidation of the Soviet regime, the Red Army increased to about 5 million men. This number was far greater than the number of weapons available, and only one in nine soldiers could be classified fighting men. In the course of 1920, almost 800,000 men were sent to the Polish war, of whom 402,000 went to the Western front and 355,000 to the armies of the South-West front in Galicia. The Soviet manpower pool in the West was estimated at 790,000. ::* In 20 August, 1920, Polish army had reached the strength of 737,767, so there was rough numerical parity between the Polish army and the Soviet forces acting against it. == Fauntleroy == The man's name wasn't "Faunt-le-Roy" but "Fauntleroy," as you will discover if you look at the enlargement, which gives the two men's names. And I think Cooper's full name was actually "Merian C. Cooper." User:Logologist 06:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Goes to show that even books and articles can be wrong :) Tnx --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 12:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Major expantion == In the push towards FA I am expanding the article translating majoirty of info from the following sources: [http://www.bankkadr.com.pl/jflis/r20/historia.htm], [http://www.bankkadr.com.pl/jflis/r20/historia.htm], [http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/81337_1.html]. Feel free to wikify, correct language and copy info into relevant subarticles, but please dont remove anything until I write here I am done - I want to have the big picture in one article first before we decide what to move (move, not copy) to subarticles. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 13:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Main picture == Since Battle of Warsaw (1920) is FA already, I think we need to find another pic for PSW warbox (since they are usually chosen for the main page). I think map of the entire war would be the best - any chance sb could find one we can use of make one (wink, Halibutt, map specialist, wink :>) ? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 13:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) : If anybody can do this, here is the map I'd like to adapt for this article: [http://www.radzymin.info/pliki/mapa_1.jpg]. I can help with translation, but I need help with graphic editor. Anybody? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 17:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Sure, I will start on it. --User:IMeowbot~User talk:IMeowbot 17:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: Tnx a lot! Here is the link to Halibutt map of Poland in 1939, should be helpfull: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Poland_1939.png]. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::I started to work on the map for the war of 1919-1920 (which could also be used for the war of 1939 and other events of the inter-bellum. So far I have prepared the borders and the frontlines, the map should be ready soon. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 05:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) ::::The map looks great. I have no comments except those that praise your work :) Looking forward to warmaps, I'll renominate this for FA after they are added. :) --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::More maps to follow, including: * Polish/Czechoslovak/Lithuanian/German/Ukrainian claims * The plebiscites * Major battles of the Polish-Bolshevik War * Perhaps also some WWII maps based on this one ** Polish Defence War, ** Warsaw Uprising and the Operation Tempest ** Poland partitioned between the Soviets and the Germans ** Armia Krajowa inspectorates ** suggestions and ideas are highly appreciated :) --User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 16:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) : You are my hero :D --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Peer review == As we are waiting for a map, we can as well go through a peer review processes in the meantime. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Article reads a bit Polo-centric == This article is not entirely POV, really, but it just seems to read like it is... can't really explain it, but such formulations as: "Pilsudski's combination of far-reaching predictions, and understanding, with his soul and body of a fighter; also, his integrity." seem to me to be a bit on the overly praising side, nearing POV. Nevertheless, this is a good article. : Well, this may be a bit over the top. Feel free to make it more NPOVed if you have an idea how to. Tnx for the comments, I am glad you enjoyed the article. You may consider reigstering and signing your comments, dear Anon. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) I believe that the lead should mention that the Polish-Soviet war ended in what might be called a partitionment of Belarus and Ukraine. Belarusians and Ukrainians were hoping to have their own independent states, and it seems insulting to refer to those countries simply as "disputed territories". – User:Kpalion User talk:Kpalion 23:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Agreed with the Ukraine. However, Belarus was neither a subject of the international law nor was it existent at the moment the Riga peace treaty was signed. Certainly we could mention that some of the Belarusians wanted to have their own state, but we should not go to far in that. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 00:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) I think this article is a piece of Polish propaganda written by Poles. Even without reading the text you can see that on the amount of the Polish self-glorifying images. The Soviets didn't want this war, the first action they did in 1918, was seeking peace on the western border for any price. After that, they were struggling for survival in the Russian civil war. The last thing they wished was a new war. On the other side, we have an aggressive Greater Poland fan Pilsudski, who wanted to restore Poland "from sea to sea", as it has existed in the 17th century. He wanted no "federation", he wanted Greater Poland. And he aimed at subordinating areas, where Poles were only a small minority or were even completely absent. And no one can make me believe that Poles were welcomed in Ukraine or Belarus. Belarusians didn't even do anything for independence, they feeled almost Russian and wanted to stay in Russia. The Ukrainians' attitude towards Poles can be seen in Volynia in 1943-44. Moreover, you hardly can expect objectivity from an article declared one of a "priority task" by a so-called "WikiProject Polish Army". Therefore I will mark this biased article as NPOV. Please let is so, until the article is reedited in an unbiased and objective way, mentioning all points of view. User:Voevoda 02:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) : To maintain an NPOV tag, you really need to be much more specific about problems in the article — above you seem to be making an argument about something, but the only thing you mention about the article is the images. I've had a quick look, and I see both Polish and Soviet posters labelled as "propaganda" — seems neutral enough to me. User:Matt Crypto 00:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: This article has passed through some thorough peer review, and has been scrutinised by a lot of people. Because of this, the tag shouldn't remain unless you provide some convincing, specific evidence of bias — maybe you're right, but you haven't yet shown how. User:Matt Crypto 00:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::: The article was written by persons why relied mostly on Polish POV and sources. I have an impression that people with Russian POV (and with knowledge in the subject) did not really work upon the article. "Common knowledge"-type Russian POV is stronlgy biased by the Soviet POV. An independent non-pro-communist Russian research barely started. ::: So I'd say there is no reason to panic. If there is an additional information, Voevoda is welcome to add. User:Mikkalai 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::: Of course. However I think that we should discuss them here, especially in case of new sections. The article is long and new material should be preferably added to subarticles, with just a short sentence or two here - this is what should happen to the POW section, which should be moved to Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) == lost footnote == I was fixing the references and notes and found this lost soul. I've deleted it for now, but maybe someone knows where it should be? * D'Abernon, 'The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World: Warsaw, 1920'. ** I believe that entire quote was moved to Wikiquote. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Polish POW camps == I'd be interested to learn more about these Polish POW camps and the fate of the Russian POWs there. Any references ? User:Wojsyl 06:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) : My question as well. I will look into it. What is written is mostly correct, although I we should note that the newly recreated Polish state had tiny budget, insufficient for construction of good POW camps. And the mentioned ephidemics is And it attempted to provide some medicine to counter the ephidemics. On the contrary, I read that Soviets had executed many thousands of Polish POWs. I need to back this with references. This section should be moved to Aftermath... article, with few sentenced remaining here - it is important, but the article is too long. And external links need to be footnoted ASAP. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: Note that Battle of Warsaw (1920) has a phote entitled 'Soviet mass execution graves of Polish POWs' or sth similar, which took place somewhen before the Battle. And IIRC the full text (I am not sure if it is in main or sub now) had at least one refference to another execution, after the Battle of Warsaw, by Gaj's retreating Cossack cavalry (who decided that POWs would slow them down and decided to execute them instead of releasing them). --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::On [http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193276 this forum] I started a discussion about Polish camps for Russian POWs. Since there is not much info available online, I obtained the book by Zbigniew Karpus from the Warsaw University Library and I'm currently reading through it. I'll post some info on the topic as soon as I finish. From what I can tell, the Russian allegations that hundreds of thousands of Russian POWs were slaughtered are unsubstantiated and false, especially that there is no proof so far that there were as many Russian POWs in Polish captivity. The Polish sources quoted by Karpus (easily available from the Central Military Archives and the Archive of Modern Documents in Warsaw) give the number of POWs taken during the entire war while the Russian articles posted by one of my friends provide the number some 2 times higher - without any sources however. :::Anyway, I'll let you know as soon as I finish the book. It's available also in Russian and English, in case anyone wanted to use it as a source. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 13:29, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) There can also be a confusion of the origin of these camps. Huge number of Russian POWs were left in the territory of Poland since WWI. AFAIK when the Polish-Soviet skirmishes started, these POWs were not released to Russia (definitely not, as of January 2, 1919, when Soviet Red Cross mission was murdered in Poland). User:Mikkalai 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Sure, in WWI about 3.9 million soldiers of the Russian Empire were taken prisoners by the Central Powers, and quite a lot of them must have found themselves on Polish territory after the war ended and the Central Powers disintegrated in November, 1918. However, this matter is clearly outside the scope of this article. Still, it is a very interesting topic and should be discussed in some article, presumably one dealing in general with large movements of people in Central/Eastern Europe at the end of WWI. :Can you provide more details about the murder of the Soviet Red Cross commision? I have never heard of this, but of course I am far from being an expert. User:Balcer 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: It is mentioned in Davis book. They were supposed to be exiled, but were instead shoot during the transport by their 'guards'. It is unknown if this was ordered or simply invented by the guards, and if they were punished (at least Davies doesn't describe this in much detail). --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Pilsudski, Miedzymorze and Dmowski == I removed the following addition, since it is erroneus: ''Some historians see the policy of Pilsudski in re-creating Poland, as it existed in the 17th century, subordinating many non-Polish areas, and point at the lack of willingness of the involved nations for any kind of projects together with Poland.'' From what I read (Davies comes to mind as a reference, since I just reread the relevant fragment yeasterday :) ), Pilsudski was in favour of a confederation, giving the 'non-Polish areas' either large autonomy or total independence (he spoke of the 'right for all nationalities for self-determination'). Unfortunaly, it seems he was in minority, as Polish factions were dominated by Dmowski nationalist faction (which did advocate mostly what the paragraph stipulated, but were content with 1st partition (1772) borders, not the much larger pre-1772 borders), and it appears that Lithuanian side, at least, was also dominated by their equivalent of Dmowskis, which effectively torpedoed Pilsudski's plan and led to the long standing feud betweeen respective govs instead. I need materials on Latvia and Estonia views here (Latvia, from what I tell, was fairly pro-Polish, since we gave them their capital - an interesting contrast with Lithuania...). And Ukrainians - at least Peltura ones - have agreed with Pilsudski, but were betrayed in Riga, for which Pilsudski apologised to them. It is all written in the relevant subarticles - see causes... and aftermath... --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Strong POV article== I wonder, how this POV article became featured.I removed one of POVs: that by Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Soviet Union allied itself with Hitler. Using similar arguments, I can say, that Poland allied itself with Hitler in 1938 sharing Czech Silesia between themselves, but "surprisingly Hitler invaded Poland and got Silesia back" on 1 September 1939. In fact, MR Pact was non-aggression pact [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861088.html], yes, it may be considered as against Poland, but the aim of it for the USSR was to protect itself from anticommunist and antibolshevist Nazi Germany. Piotrus said, that he doesn't use Polish sources. But in fact he did. I see, that he used Western sources only to get facts, but along with this he introduced his own opinion, which fits pretty well to the former campaign in East European countries: whitewashing Hitler and blackwashing Soviet Union, which defeated him. You speak about Soviet propaganda, but forget about propaganda in Western countries and in recent EU members. User:213.115.184.126 15:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :No, while the official part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact, the secret part was an alliance to partition Poland and the Baltics. Read the text. As to your example, you're trying to oversimplify things. I don't know of any secret document signed between Poland and Germany regarding Czechoslovakia. Do you? User:Wojsyl 15:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I think describing it as an alliance is problematic. While the west certainly viewed it as an alliance, Stalin never saw himself as the ally of Hitler. The term "alliance" suggests a commitment to aid one another militarily. Aside from the very limited case of aiding one another in Poland, which Stalin very specifically justified in a way which was not "I am coming to the aid of my ally Hitler," there was no obligation on either side to provide military aid. Indeed, Hitler provided no aid to Stalin's war against Finland, and Stalin did not provide any direct aid to Hitler in his campaigns in the west, although he certainly gave him a lot of economic resources. At any rate, the question of whether or not Germany and the Soviet Union made an "alliance" is so caught up with the question of what, exactly, an alliance is, that I would prefer not to use the term. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 21:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I can think of one clear example of direct military aid to Hitler from USSR which involves the operations of the German auxiliary cruiser German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet (see [http://www.argo.net.au/andre/raiderKOMETENFIN.htm]). This warship was allowed to transfer through the Soviet controlled Arctic shipping routes, guided by Soviet pilots and preceeded by Soviet icebreakers, in order to break out into the Pacific and attack Allied shipping there. Another case of close cooperation is the transfer of the incomplete German heavy cruiser Lutzow (see [http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/heavycruiser/lutzow/operations.html]) to be finished for the Soviet Navy, with the help of German technicians. At the time, in 1940, the planned tonnage of this ship classed among the top ten most powerful units of the Kriegsmarine. User:Balcer 22:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::And there is the case of technology-for-resources exchange that has been going on since mid-1930s I believe. Weren't some German tank or plane prototypes tested in USSR to avoid post-Versailles restrictions on their construction in Germany - in exchange for providing Soviets with some designes and such? Similarly, there was the naval technology for resource transfer in the late 1930s, IIRC. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 23:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Alliance: ''An alliance can be: an agreement between two parties, particularly: a military alliance formed between states.'' :Military alliance: ''A Military alliance is an agreement between two, or more, countries; related to wartime planning, commitments, and/or contingencies; such agreements can be both defensive and offensive. Military alliances often involve non-military agreements, in addition to their primary purpose.'' :What is not clear here ? The Soviet-German alliance perfectly matches the definition. User:Wojsyl 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) There is nothing to discuss until you can provide a source beyond other wikipedia articles. That said, the Soviets, and their supporters among historians, fervently denied that the pact constituted an alliance. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :What can I say ? If you believe that Wikipedia's article defining alliance is not correct, then you should go there and try to improve it. I think it's a correct definition but I'm curious to see your arguments against it. User:Wojsyl 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::It is poor form to cite a wikipedia article as a justification for how another wikipedia article should be. Wikipedia is not a valid source for anything. Certainly not for a dictionary type definition. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Well, the Soviets and such bothersome items as truth and facts often didn't get along to well :> Seriously, now. If we are unwilling to use wiki definitons (which I can understand - Wojsyl, consider a discussion where two parties change the defintion then say they are right based on that... :>), there is always the Google Define, which does yeld very similar results to our own current Wiki defs (from WordNet lexical database at Princeton: ''an organization of people (or countries) involved in a pact or treaty; a formal agreement establishing an association or alliance between nations or other groups to achieve a particular aim''). Does sound like a MRPact to me. I would argue that based on those definitions any Non-Agression Pact *is* a form alliance. Still, I would be willing to fix the sentence, since it is a bit misleading. Suggestion 1: add 'temporarily' to allied. Suggestion 2: replace 'allied' with some better word (treaty? agreeement?). I'd prefer option 1 but I am open for other suggestions, after all, I am not a native English speaker. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::As to the definitions, I'm happy to discuss the merit, but don't take ''"it's not good because it's wiki"'' as a serious argument. As for the treaty, while the public part of it was indeed a non-aggresion pact, the secret protocol was nothing less but a classical example of offensive military alliance, where both parties even in advance shared the territories they planned to invade. Is also left Soviets no other choice but to join the invasion once Germany started the war. Otherwise their obligations in the alliance would not be fulfilled. User:Wojsyl 05:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::It's not "it's not good because it's wiki," it's "this is a worthless citation because it's wiki." I often use wikipedia as a source for factual information. But I'm pretty dubious for its use as a definition of something as generic as an alliance. Why not just use the dictionary? If you used wikipedia to show that, say, John Paul II was pope in 1985, then, okay, whatever - wikipedia's usually pretty good for that stuff. But as a definition of something? Such things are highly capable of abuse, and, as Piotrus showed, it's perfectly easy to find a definition somewhere else. At any rate, while I would agree that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had many characteristics of an alliance, both sides were very specific in ''not'' describing it as an alliance. It seems wrong to just call it an alliance, when this is not what either side felt it to be. I'd prefer to say that the Soviets signed an agreement to partition Poland with Nazi Germany, or some such. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::: John, I am afraid I have to disagree on both points. While I don't think using wiki definitions in wiki discussions is 100% safe (as I said above), I don't think it is completly worthless. And excuse me if I won't put much trust in what Nazi and Soviet called their relations. It is obvious that for the interested parties the term alliance was difficult - if not outright dangerous. Both side new it was a temporary alliance, and that their people would have trouble understanding the necessity of fighting a former ally - so they painted it as a treaty, not an alliance. And anyway, the alliance protocols were secret, so the official, public treaty, was in fact not an alliance, and thus both sides could claim it was not an alliance, as long as the secret protocol was secret. Using your logic, we would have to dispute things like Holocaust (since Nazi denied them), Katyn Massacre (since Soviet denied it), and hundred of others. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Yes, it is apparent both from the careful wording and the political situation in Europe at that time that both sides attempted the pact not to appear as an alliance. This is one of the reasons why the additional protocol was kept secret and why the alliance was disguised as a non-aggression pact. Mere signing it caused enough outrage in Europe even without the knowledge of its true intentions. It is well known that later in the course of war Stalin attempted to pretend that it was his pure defensive measure to sign it and that from the very beginning he expected war with Nazi Germany but only wanted to gain some time to arm and prepare his defences. It's also known how surprised he was with the German invasion of Soviet Union later. ::::While I do not have any strong opinion here, I'd be happier to learn why shouldn't we call it an alliance ? Is it because the signing parties pretended it not to be an alliance or just because we should be politically correct towards Soviet supporters ? Do they have any arguments other then they don't like it ? User:Wojsyl 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::A bit OT, but how accepted is the theory that Soviets prepared for attack on Germany and their early losses were compunded by the fact that they were suprised in the middle of preparing for an offensive? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::Not very accepted at all, I think. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 14:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Why not just go with the Merriam-Webster dictionary which gives one meaning of alliance as [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=alliance]: ::::* alliance - an association to further the common interests of the members; specifically : a confederation of nations by treaty :::: Clearly this is very broad and the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact would fit under this definition. ::::As for the way that USSR and Germany described the treaty at the time, we don't have to accept what these regimes chose to call their arrangement. Especially when the name is such a blatant euphemism, as this ''nonagression'' pact resulted in millions of people being conquered or taken over by the two signatories. In general, goverments often give pleasant sounding names to very unpleasant actions, and it would be ridiculous for us to always take them at face value. To give an obvious, more recent example, we should not accept unquestioningly the US government calling their invasion of Iraq ''liberation''. User:Balcer 06:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::What do you think about Munich Agreement September 30 1938? I'll site non-Wikipedian, non-Russian source [http://www.worldwar-2.net/prelude-to-war/prelude-to-war-index.htm]:''Shortly after 0100 hours the Munich Agreement, allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia, is signed, by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, French Premier Йdouard Daladier, Italian leader Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain says "This is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."'' Very strong alliance, isn't it? What is the difference between secret "alliance" (MR Pact) and open "alliance" (Munich Agreement) and which is better? I think, that MR Pact was a sort of answer to Western States on Munich Agreement: "if you, the West, deal with Hitler in such way, why we Soviets couldn't do the same?" But Wikipedia's "serious historians" prefer to call Stalin's treaty ''alliance'' and just keep silence concerning Munich Agreement. Just read through the timeline in the source mentioned [http://www.worldwar-2.net/prelude-to-war/prelude-to-war-index.htm] to understand what NPOV is like. BTW pay attention to "18/04/1939 The USSR proposes a ten-year alliance with Britain and France" there, which was not accepted by the West. And also look at "18/03/1939 The Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, suggests to British Ambassador Sir William Seeds that delegates from the UK, Soviet Union, France, Poland, and Romania should meet to discuss collective action in the event of war with Germany. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tells the Cabinet that continuing negotiations with Adolf Hitler is impossible." there. User:213.115.184.126 09:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::For starters, Western Powers didn't claim Czechoslovakian territories, they simply allowed Germany to take it. As for Poland, it didn't undermine Czech government before and during the Treaty, they just grabbed what was near when it was apparent that it was either 'take it yourself or let Germany take it all' situation. IIRC, Hungary also took a significant part of Czech in 1938. You rise an interesting point with the British refusal for NAP with Soviets (although one should remember that Soviets were rather famous for breaking treaties when they felt they were no longer in their interest). There is quite an interesting theory that both German and Western diplomacy wanted a conflict between Nazi's and Soviets, and the entire war with the West happend more or less by accident. But this is OT and largly irrelevant to our 'alliance or not' discussion. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::Interesting view: ones "just take territories", others "ally to take territories". For starters, please, point an exact place in MR Pact, where is said: "USSR and NG form an alliance". For myself "a step for peace" in Churchills words about Munich Agreement sounds much alike MR Pact words: "non-aggression". The questioned paragraph also pretends to "communist propaganda" POV on all Soviet sources, i.e. indirectly and "naturally" raising one sources (Western and Polish) and denying others (Soviet and even Russian - as pro-Soviet), although one of countries in question is USSR/Russia and its POV should be present. Very nice FA. User:213.115.184.126 13:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I doubt that personal attacks on your opponents and calling them ''Wikipedia's "serious historians"'' is a good strategy as it could quickly lead us to a flame or edit war that we do not really need at all. If you don't treat wikpedia seriously then what are you doing here ? While switching context to Munich Agreement certainly would be a good tactics from the point of view of rhetorics, why don't we finish our discussion on MR Pact first. Could anyone explain why he thinks it was not an act of alliance between the Nazis and the Soviets ? Any arguments other than pointing around ? User:Wojsyl 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Is the wording crucial? Why not just describe the events? There have been ''alliances'' that have proven evanescent, there have been ''agreements'' that have been durable. Only interests persist, and even those evolve. User:Logologist 09:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::My thoughts exactly. I don't see any reason to change it. Why is the wording so important ? User:Wojsyl 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::Neither have I seen any arguments or defintions that would warrant change of the term alliance. We are refering specifically to the secret protocols, not to the official NAP anyway. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::So, you reject even non-Wikipedian and non-Russian sources (where there are no words "alliance"). I say once again, even your apriori rejection of all Soviet sources as "propaganda" is a strong POV, not speaking about your strange criteria for "reliable/non-reliable sources" .I'll not just "point around" giving you clear links to my sources, if you continue discussion representing your own Polish view (two of you are Polish) without pointing non-Wikipedian sources for "alliances", and if you go to the edit war, I think, editwared should be FARC nominated first and I'll do that. User:213.115.184.126 12:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) === Alliance or not ? === It's a bitter satisfaction but why I'm not surprised that our anon here attempts to force an edit war instead of trying to explain why he believes that the pact did not create an alliance. Can you discuss it first before you force your POV please ? So, one more attempt: Why do you think the secret protocol of M-R Pact did not constitute an alliance between Nazis and Soviets ? What was it missing ? User:Wojsyl 13:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I point you a source in Russian including the whole treaty with secret protocol [http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/193_dok/1939ru_ge.html](from the book published in Moscow in 2000, the source is pointed there). Please, point me a word which translates as ''alliance''. The key words used are "division of spheres of influence", "neutrality", "non-aggression" etc. As an option, please, point me an English translation with a word alliance or a serious history research in English where this word is used. User:213.115.184.126 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I know the text, it's full of euphemisms and the fact that it does not contain the word "alliance" does not mean that it was not an alliance. We all know too well the exact intentions and immediate consequences of signing this pact, don't we ? User:Wojsyl 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Once again, point a serious research on this pact in English with this word, less rhetoric, please. We all know, but differently interpret. User:213.115.184.126 15:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Ah, *this* serious research ? How about '''Stalin's Role in the Coming of World War II''' by R.C. Raack in World Affairs (vol. 158, no.4). I'm sure you'll claim it's not serious enough now ? But seriously, since it fits very well the definition of alliance, why would you want to conduct a research on this ? Why does it seem that important for you anyway ? User:Wojsyl 16:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::See below. I hoped you'll provide a weblink, not non-verifiable source. I'll give a hint :-): search in Britannica or Encarta or smth similar. User:213.115.184.126 17:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::No, you asked for an example of "serious research on this pact in English with this word" and you got it. I'm not surprised that you do not like it. You never mentioned that it has to be from Encarta, though. User:Wojsyl 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Here is another one: ::::* '''The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler''' by Roberts, Geoffrey R., Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989 ([http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253351170/qid=1114100086/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-4301368-0797604?v=glance&s=books] Amazon link, [http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzj.html] review link) :::::Wojsyl - if it's you who wrote that part - please do not confuse the established figure of speech "Unholy Alliance" with the usage of the word "alliance" in other contexts, such as politics and diplomacy. "Unholy Alliance" typically refers to two unlikely partners joining forces to damage or threaten the interests of a third party. In many ways, an "Unholy Alliance" even is the opposite of a regular alliance. -User:Thorsten1 17:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::No, it was not me. But this book indeed seems to refer to alliance, see the review at [http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol3/No4/RevRob.html]. User:Wojsyl 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I (User:Balcer) wrote this. Of course USSR and Germany were unlikely partners, given their pre-1939 propaganda, so that the term "Unholy Alliance" is apt. Still, "Unholy Alliance" is an opposite of "Alliance"??? Excuse me but I am not following your dialectics here. I always thought the opposite of alliance was war, or at least a total lack of cooperation. User:Balcer 17:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::Please refer to my earlier explanation on the different connotations of "alliance" and "pact" somewhere on this page - sorry, but I'm losing my way in this ever-growing mess. Maybe it'll become clearer then. If not, here I go again: In politics, an "alliance" typically refers to two or more partners with similar perspectives joining forces to continuously cooperate on a broader range of issues which do not have to be precisely defined, such as NATO or the Warsaw Pact. :::::::In this case, though, we're looking at two parties which appeared to be on the brink of war engaging in a very short-lived agreement, as their otherwise polar interests happened to converge on a particular issue at a particular moment. That is ''not'' what an English speaker would normally refer to as an "alliance" - although it may well be called an "unholy alliance". Take "unholy alliance", subtract "unholy", and the meaning can be quite different. To use your above example: "The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler" sounds OK; "The Unholy Pact: Stalin's Alliance with Hitler" sounds awkward. The English languages has other words for such situations where two parties work together, but fall short of actually forging an "alliance": treaty or pact; if you want to add a moral connotation, you can use "collusion". The long established, neutral term is Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact, and I see no reason why we should replace "alliance" with "pact". Period. For the time being, I will no longer post in this thread, as it is eating up too much of my time. --User:Thorsten1 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::: Agreed. While I still think that 'alliance' is correct and NPOV, I would also agree to the use of 'agreement', 'treaty', or even 'pact' (which does seem to be a most common use!), since for this article the MRP is a minor issue anyway, and we are wasting time discussing this. The important thing is stating the fact that the Second Polish Republic was destroyed 20 years after the war, not the details of how and why - it is not important for *this* article. I also ask our anon - who does show some promise, not engaging in rv the main article, and do provides some interesting info (below) - to present the sentence here in the NPOVed form. Hopefully we can work out an agreement soon. I also invite you to register and show other POVed examples you see in this article, so we may try to fix them. Finally, our anon may be interested in reading through past archives of this talk page (above) to see how this article was previously NPOVed by a Russian wikipedist (User:172), who, unfortunately, seems to have left our community :( --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Just searched with google for words "Stalin" and "Hitler". BTW "Unholy" is already POV issue (see NPOV def.)? Can anyone present a serious source which uses the word "alliance" to refer to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Given that my proposed language provides the same basic information (that the Nazis and Soviets agreed to partition Poland between them), but without controversy, I don't see what the issue is. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 14:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :See above. :I'm sorry, but I have been following this meandering thread with increasing confusion. What is this fuss all about? As far as I understand, the person behind the IP address is taking offence with the statement that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an "alliance" because it defames Stalin. First off, there's little left to defame about Stalin. And while I agree that the paragraph in dispute has a slight Cold War feel to it, and that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact does not precisely match most common definitions of the term "alliance", there can be no doubt as to the nature and substance of the pact, which spoke of an "friendly agreement" regarding Poland's future. (''"Во всяком случае, оба Правительства будут решать этот вопрос в порядке дружественного обоюдного согласия"''[http://www.histdoc.net/history/ru/dopolni.html].) Whether you call this "friendly agreement" an alliance, a pact, a treaty or whatever doesn't make much of a difference, does it? Why not stick to the conventional nomenclature, call it a pact and be done with it? --User:Thorsten1 15:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::All right, I don't think it's worth the time we're spending on it. I would however prefer WP articles to be written to reflect the facts and not to be politically correct only to satisfy Soviet POV. This discussion does not belong here anyway. User:Wojsyl 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I really don't want to prolong this any more than necessary, but this is not a case of "facts" vs. "political correctness". Irrespective of Wikipedia's current definition of the term "alliance", in international politics the word is usually used to denote a lasting agreement between partner states with similar perspectives on various issues, often reinforced with institutionalised organisational ties - NATO and the Warsaw Pact being good examples. In this case, we are talking about a pact between two antagonistic partners who in many respects were polar opposites, but happened to find themselves agreeing on one particular issue at a particular moment in time. So they sat down and drew up an agreement that they would not interfere with each others' aggressive plans against third parties for the time being. That is ''not'' what you'd typically call an ''alliance'' in English. Which does not make it any more morally defensible. --User:Thorsten1 16:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Since you say so... But I assume *your* English is a bit different than *mine*. In mine alliance does not to be a huge multinational pact as NATO or Warsaw Pact neither it has to last longer than two years or so or be reinforced by institutional ties. But your mileage may vary ... User:Wojsyl 16:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::It may vary indeed. If you're interested, please refer to the linguistic drivel I just added somewhere above. With all due respect, it strikes me as pretty significant that stubborn insistence on particular words tends to come from people whose first language is not English. Remember we had quite a similar discussion on whether or not Poland was "betrayed". --User:Thorsten1 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::This article doesn't represent neither Soviet nor Russian POV at all. Even the references are English, but three Polish. As I said, it is Polish-American POV in its excellency, although the war is Polish-Soviet. User:213.115.184.126 16:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I don't see any ''American'' POV at all here. I think you are very much overestimating the importance of the topic to the American public. As for the missing Russian perspective, you are free to add this and provide references. But please do not change undisputed facts because they do not match the Russian perspective. --User:Thorsten1 16:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::It is rather Polish with excerpts from American sources for more or less NPOV issues.I am here not to rewrite the article, It requires serious work and I have no time for this. It was FAC, I looked through it and found at least two strong POV issues, I objected. It was not handled, instead, it was ignored. I could FARC-nominate it immediately, but was involved to useless in its great part discussion. Perhaps I'll do it and state my reasons there.User:213.115.184.126 17:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Totally agree, but the sentence about "communist propaganda" should be removed too. User:213.115.184.126 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I assume you are referring to the sentence: ''"Until 1989 [...] the Polish-Bolshevik War was either omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books, or was presented so as to fit with the 'truths' of communist propaganda."'' I can't see how this statement of fact could offend anyone except those who think "communist propaganda" is an oxymoron. --User:Thorsten1 15:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I should accept the following factual its variant:''Until 1989 [...] the Polish-Soviet War was either omitted or presented as a victory for Soviet Russia in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books.'' User:213.115.184.126 15:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::The issue is ''not'' whether or not the war was presented as a victory or not. It is whether the war was presented as a traditional clash between two nations, or a new kind of war between two ideologies or classes, i.e. the reactionary, bourgeois, nationalist Polish upper-class vs. the progressive, internationalist working class, which just happened to be led by Russian nationals. Thus, ''"[...] was either omitted or presented a
Polish-Soviet War
The Polish-Soviet War was the war (February 1919 – March 1921) that determined the borders between the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and Second Polish Republic. This armed struggle between the Soviet Russia and Poland was a result of Polish attempts to secure territories lost in the late-18th-century partitions of Poland and the Soviet attempts to recover territory lost by Russia in World War I and expand the Communist revolution to the Eastern Europe. The frontiers between Poland and the Soviet Russia were not clearly defined in the Treaty of Versailles and were further rendered chaotic by the Russian revolutions, the Russian Civil War and German withdrawal from the east front. Poland's head of state Józef Pilsudski envisioned a Polish-led East European confederation as a bulwark against German and Russian imperialism. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began to gain the upper hand in the Russian Civil War and advance west. In 1919 the Poles gained control of most of the disputed territories. Border skirmishes then escalated into open warfare following Pilsudski's attempt to take advantage of Russia's weakness with a major incursion into Ukraine in early 1920 (the Kiev Operation). He was met by a Red Army counterattack in April 1920. This Soviet counter-offensive was very successful, throwing Polish forces back westward all the way to the Polish capital of Warsaw. Meanwhile, Western fears of Soviet troops arriving at the German frontiers increased Allied interest in the war. A French Military Mission to Poland, which had been operating in Poland since 1919, and was responsible for improvement of the organization and logistics of the Polish forces, was expanded up to about 600 advisors and was joined by General Maxime Weygand. For a time, in midsummer, the fall of Warsaw seemed certain. This generated great excitement among many communists in Moscow, who began to see Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany, bolstering the Communist Party of Germany. In mid-August the Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory at the Battle of Warsaw (1920). The Polish forces advanced eastward, and the war ended with ceasefire in October 1920. A formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, was signed on March 18, 1921, dividing the disputed territory between Poland and Soviet Russia. Both states claimed the victory in the war: Poland rightfuly claimed the successful defense of the state, while Soviet Russia claimed repelling the Polish Kiev offensive, which was sometimes considered part of a foreign intervention during the Russian Civil War. == Names and dates of the war == The war is referred to by several names. "Polish-Soviet War" may be the most common, but is potentially confusing, since "Soviet" is usually thought of as relating to the Soviet Union, which did not officially come into being until December 1922. Alternative names include "Russo-Polish War [or Polish-Russian War] of 1919-21" (to distinguish it from earlier Polish-Russian wars), or "Polish-Bolshevik War". In some histories it has come down as the "War of 1920" (''Wojna 1920 roku''), while Soviet historians often either called it the "War against White Poland" or considered it a part of the "War against Foreign Intervention" or the Russian Civil War. A second controversy revolves around the start date of the war. Some historians argue that the war started in April 1920 with the Polish thrust into Ukraine, the Operation Kiev. While it is true that the events of 1919 could be described as a border conflict and that only in early 1920 both sides realised that they are in fact engaged in an all-out war, the conflicts that took place in 1919 are an essential part of the war that begun in earnest a year later. In the end, the events of 1920 were only a logical, if almost totaly unpredictable, consequence of the prelude of 1919. == Prelude to the war == Józef_Pilsudski.">Image:Jozef_Pilsudski1.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Józef Pilsudski. In 1918, with the end of the World War I, the map of Central Europe and Eastern Europe had drastically changed. As Germany's defeat rendered her plans for the creation of the Mitteleuropa puppet states obsolete, and as Russia sank into the depths of the Russian Civil War, the newly emergent countries of that region saw a chance for real independence and were not prepared to easily relinquish this rare gift of fate. At the same time, Russia saw these territories as rebellious Russian provinces but was unable to react swiftly, as it was weakened and in the process of transforming herself into the Soviet Union through the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War that had begun in 1917. [[Image:Rzeczpospolita Rozbiory 3.png|thumb|right|200px|Partitions of Poland, 1795.]] Meanwhile, with the success of the Greater Poland Uprising in 1918, Poland had regained her independence lost in 1795 with the Partitions_of_Poland#Third_Partition. After 123 years of Poland's rule by her three imperial neighbors, the Second Polish Republic was proclaimed and the reborn country proceeded to carve out its borders from the territories of her former partitioners, Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Polish politics was under the strong influence of the statesman Józef Pilsudski and his vision of the "Federation of Miedzymorze", a Polish-led confederation comprising Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and other Central Europe and East European countries now emerging out of the crumbling empires after the First World War. The new union was to be a counterweight to any imperialist intentions of Russia or Germany. To this end, Polish forces set out to secure vast territories in the east. Poland had no intention of joining the Western intervention in the Russian Civil War or of conquering Russia itself. [[Image:PBW_March_1919.png|thumb|left|200px|Rebirth of Poland, March 1919]] The Polish-Soviet war, like the majority of the other conflicts in Eastern Europe of that time, was more of an accident than a planned design. In the chaos prevailing in the first months of 1919, it was unlikely that anyone in Bolshevik Russia or in the new Second Republic of Poland would have deliberately planned a major foreign war. Poland, its territory a major frontline of the First World War, was unstable politically and already engaged in border conflicts with Germany (Silesian Uprisings) and Czechoslovakia (border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia), while the attention and policies of revolutionary Russia were predominantly directed at dealing with counter-revolution and with the intervention by the western powers. [[Image:lenin4.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.]] This began to change in late 1919, however, when Vladimir Lenin, leader of Russia's new communist government, succumbed to a buoyant optimism, inspired by the Red Army's civil-war victories over White Russian anticommunist forces and their western allies on Russian territory. The Bolsheviks acted on a conviction that historical processes would soon lead to rule of the proletariat in all nations, and that the withering away of national states would eventually bring about a worldwide communist community. The main impetus to the coming war with Poland lay in the Bolsheviks’ avowed intent to link their Russian Revolution with an expected German Revolution. Lenin saw Poland as the bridge that the Red Army would have to cross in order to link the two revolutions and to assist other communist movements in Western Europe. As Lenin himself remarked, ''"That was the time when everyone in Germany, including the blackest reactionaries and monarchists, declared that the Bolsheviks would be their salvation."'' The Soviet offensive into Poland would be an opportunity "to probe Europe with the bayonets of the Red Army." It would be the Soviet Union's first penetration into Europe proper, the first attempt to export the Bolshevik Revolution by force. In a telegram, Lenin exclaimed: ''"We must direct all our attention to preparing and strengthening the Western Front (Soviet Army). A new slogan must be announced: Prepare for war against Poland."''. The political purpose of the Red Army's advance was not to conquer Europe directly. Its purpose was to provoke social change and revolution. In the words of General Tukhachevsky: ''"To the West! Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to world-wide conflagration. March on Vilno, Minsk, Warsaw!"''. However, the Soviets never expected any major resistance on the part of Poland. While first clashes between Polish and Soviet forces occurred in February 1919, it would be almost a year before both sides would fully realise that they were engaged in a full-out war. == The Campaign == === 1919 === ==== Chaos in Eastern Europe ==== In 1918 the German Army in the east began to retreat westwards. The areas abandoned by the Central Powers became a field of conflict among local governments created by Germany, other local governments that indepedently sprang up after the German withdrawal, and the Bolsheviks, who hoped to incorporate those areas into Bolshevik Russia. Many of those groups were fragmented, merged, divided, formed short alliances with others, and almost constantly fought. Almost all of Eastern Europe was in chaos. On November 18, 1918, Vladimir Lenin issued orders to the Red Army to begin Russian westward offensive of 1918-1919 that would follow the withdrawing German troops of Oberkommando Ostfront (Ober-Ost). The basic aim of the operation was to drive through eastern and central Europe, institute Soviet governments in the newly independent countries of that region and support communist revolutions in Germany and Austria-Hungary. At the start of 1919, fighting broke out almost by accident and without any orders from the respective governments, when self-organized Polish military units in Wilno (''Samooborona'', Wilno Self-defence) clashed with Bolshevik forces, each trying to secure the territories for its own incipient government. Eventually the more organised Soviet forces quelled most of the resistance and drove the remaining Polish forces west. In the spring of 1919 Soviet conscription produced a Red Army of 2,300,000. However, few of these were sent west that year, as the majority of Red Army forces were engaging the White Russians. In September 1919, the Polish army had 540,000 men under arms, 230,000 of these on the Soviet Front (military). Small Polish forces had been securing the eastern border. By 14 February Polish forces had secured positions along the line of Kobryn, Pruzhany, rivers Zalewianka and Neman. Around 14 February, the first organised Polish units made contact with the advance units of the Red Army, and a border frontline slowly began to form from Lithuania, through Belarus to Ukraine. ==== Avalanche starts: First Polish-Soviet conflicts ==== The first serious armed conflict of the war took place February 14 when fighting erupted near the towns of Maniewicze and Battle of Bereza Kartuska (1919) in Belarus. By late February the Bolshevik offensive had come to a halt. Both Polish and Soviet forces had also been Polish-Ukrainian War, and unrest was growing in the territories of Baltic countries (Estonian Liberation War). Further escalation of the conflict seemed inevitable. At the same time, Russian civil war raged on. In early summer 1920, White Russians gained an upper hand, and White forces under the command of Anton Ivanovich Denikin were marching on Moscow. Piłsudzki's is said to have considered Bolsheviks the less dangerous of the Russian civil war contenders, as the White Russians were not willing to accept Poland's independence, while the Bolsheviks did proclaim the Partitions of Poland null and void. In the coming months, Denikin would pay dearly for his refusal to compromise on this issue. In early March 1919, Polish units opened an offensive crossing the Niemen river, taking Pinsk and reaching the outskirts of Lida. Both the Russian and Polish advances began around the same time in April, resulting in increasing numbers of troops being brought into the area. In April the Bolsheviks captured Grodno and Wilno, but in the same month were pushed out by a Polish counteroffensive. The newly formed Polish Army had proved to be a far more difficult opponent than the Russians had assumed. Unable to accomplish their objectives and facing strengthening offensives of White Russians, the Red Army withdrew from their positions and reorganized. Soon the Polish-Bolshevik War would begin in earnest. Polish forces recaptured the major city of Wilno on April 19 and steadily continued advancing east. By 2 October Polish forces reached the Dzwina river and secured the region from Dzisna to Dyneburg. [[Image:PBW_December_1919.png|thumb|left|200px|Central and Eastern Europe in December 1919]] Until early 1920, the Polish offensive was quite successful. Sporadic battles erupted between Polish forces and the Red Army, but the latter was preoccupied with the civil war and White movement conterrevolutionary forces and were slowly but steadily retreating on the entire western frontline, from Latvia in the north to Ukraine in the south. ====Diplomatic Front, Part 1: The alliances==== In 1919, several attempts at peace negotiations had been made by various Polish-Russian factions, but to no avail. In the meantime, Polish-Lithuanian relations worsened as Polish politicians found it hard to accept Lithuanians demand for a complete independence and their territorial demands, especially on ceding the city of Wilno, Lithuanian historical capital which had nonetheless a Polish ethnic majority. Polish negotiators made progress in negotiations with the Latvian Provisional Government, and in early 1920 Polish and Latvian forces were conducting some joint operations against the Bolsheviks. The main Polish success lay in signing a military alliance with the Ukrainian People's Republic of Symon Petliura. Petliura had, after his government's defeat by the Bolsheviks, found political asylum in Poland and now headed a new Ukrainian Army. The Polish-Ukrainian War ended around July 1919 and from September both Polish and Ukrainians fought together. === 1920 === ====Opposing forces==== Soviet forces had recently been very successful against the White armies, defeating Denikin, and signed peace treaties with Latvia and Estonia. The Polish front became the most important war theatere and the majority of Soviet resources and forces were diverted to it. In January 1920, the Red Army began concentrating a 700,000-strong force near the Berezina River and on Belarus. In the course of 1920, almost 800,000 Red Army personnel were sent to fight in the Polish war, of whom 402,000 went to the Western front and 355,000 to the armies of the South-West front in Galicia (Central Europe). The Soviets had at their disposal many military depots left by German armies withdrawing from eastern Europe in 1918-19, and modern French armaments captured in great numbers from the White Russians and the Allied expeditionary forces in the Russian Civil War. With the new forces, Soviet High Command planned a new offensive in late April/May. [[Image:Tukhachevsky-mikhail.jpg|thumb|frame|Soviet General Mikhail Tukhachevsky.]] Bolshevik commanders in the Red Army's coming offensive would include Mikhail Tukhachevsky (new commander of the Western Front), Leon Trotsky, the future Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin, and the future founder of the Cheka secret police, the Polish-born Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky. The Polish Army was made up of soldiers who had formerly served in the various partitioning empires, supported by inexperienced volunteers and recruits. Logistics were very bad, relying on whatever equipment was left over from World War I and could be captured. The Polish Army employed guns made in five countries, and rifles manufactured in six, each using different ammunition. The Polish forces grew from approximately 100,000 in 1918 to over 500,000 in early 1920. In 20 August 1920, the Polish army had reached the strength of more than 737,000, so there was rough numerical parity between the two armies. Polish intelligence was aware that the Soviets have been prepared for a new offensive and Polish High Command decided to launch their own offensive before their opponents. The plan for Operation Kiev was to beat the Red Army on Poland's southern flank and establish a friendly government in Ukraine. ==== The tide turns: Operation Kiev ==== Until April the Polish forces had been slowly but steadily advancing eastward. New Latvian government requested Polish help in capturing Dyneburg, which was captured after heavy fighting in January and handed to the Latvians, who viewed the Poles as liberators. By March Polish forces had driven a wedge between Soviet forces North (Bielorussia) and south (Ukraine). On April 24 Poland began its main offensive, Operation Kiev, aimed at creating an independent Ukraine that would become part of Piłsudski's Międzymorze Federation and an ally in the fight against the Soviet Russia. Poland was assisted by the allied forces of the Ukrainian People's Republic of Symon Petliura. [[Image:Breguet 14 Kijów.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Polish Air Forces Breguet 14 operating from Kyiv airfield]] The Polish 3rd Army easily won border clashes with the Red Army in Ukraine. The combined Polish-Ukrainian forces captured Kiev on May 7, encountering only token resistance. Polish military thrust soon met with Red Army counterattack Polish forces in that area, preparing for offensive towards Żłobin, manged to push back the Soviet forces back, but were unable to start their own planned offensive. In the north Polish forces had fared much worse. The Polish 1st Army was defeated and forced to retreat, pursued by the 15th army which recaptured territories between Dzwina and Berezyna. Polish forces attempted to take advantage of the exposed flanks of the attackers but the enveloping forces failed to stop the Soviet advance. At the end of May the front had stabilised near the small river Auta, and Soviet forces begun preparing for the next push. [[Image:PBW_June_1920.png|thumb|right|200px|Polish Kiev Offensive at its height. June 1919]] On 24 May 1920, the Polish-Ukrainian forces in the south were engaged for the first time by Semjon Budyonny's famous 1st Cavalry Army (''Konarmia''). Repeated attacks by Budionny's Cossack cavalry, however, broke the Polish-Ukrainian front on June 5th and sent mobile cavalry units to disrupt the Polish rearguard, targeting communication and logistics. By June 10th the Polish armies were in retreat along the entire front. It was a bitter day for the Poles and Ukrainians when, on June 13, they abandoned Kiev to the Bolsheviks. [[Image:Charge at Wolodarka.jpg|thumb|300px|left|A Polish cavalry charge at the Battle of Wolodarka, May 29,1920, slows the Russian offensive. (Painting by Mikolaj Wisznicki, 1935.)]] ==== String of Bolshevik victories ==== The commander of the Polish 3rd Army in Ukraine, General Edward Rydz-Smigly, decided to break through toward the northwest. Polish forces in Ukraine managed to withdraw in orderly fashion and relatively unscathed, but were unable to support Poland's northern front and reinforce the defenses at the Auta River for the decisive battle that was soon to take place there. Due to insufficient forces, Poland's 200-mile-long front was manned by a thin line of 120,000 troops backed by some 460 artillery pieces with no strategic reserves. This approach to holding ground harked back to Great War practice of "establishing a fortified line of defense." It had shown some merit on a Western Front saturated with troops, machine guns and artillery. Poland's eastern front, however, was weakly manned, supported with inadequate artillery, and had almost no fortifications. Kosciuszko_Squadron">Image:Dywizjon Kosciuszki.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Polish fighters of the Kosciuszko Squadron Against the Polish line the Red Army gathered their Northwest Front led by the young General Mikhail Tukhachevski. Their numbers exceeded 108,000 infantry and 11,000 cavalry, supported by 722 artillery pieces and 2,913 machine guns. The Russians at some crucial places outnumbered the Poles four-to-one. Tukhachevski launched his offensive July 4th along the axis Smolensk-Brest-Litovsk, crossing the Auta and Berezyna. The northern 3rd Cavalry Corps of Gej-Chan was to envelope Polish forces from the north, moving near the Lithuanian and Prussian border (both of these belonging to nations hostile to Poland). 4th, 15th and 3rd Armies were to push decisively west, supported from south by the 16th Army and Grupa Mozyrska. For three days the outcome of the battle hung in the balance, but the Russians' numerical superiority finally became apparent. Due to the stubborn defense by Polish units, Tukhachevski's plan to break through the front and pushing the defenders southwest into the Pinsk Marshes failed, but from July 7 the Polish forces were in full retreat along the entire front. Polish resistance was offered again on a line of "German trenches," a heavily fortified line of World War I field fortifications that presented a unique opportunity to stem the Russian offensive. Once again, however, the Polish troops were insufficient in number. Soviet forces selected a weakly defended part of the front and broke through. Gej-Chan forces, supported by Lithuanian forces, captured Wilno on 14 July, forcing Poles to retreat again. In the south, in Galicia (Central Europe), General Semyon Budionny's cavalry advanced far into the Polish rear, capturing Brodno and approaching Lwów and Zamosc. In early July it became clear to the Poles that the Russians' objectives were not limited to pushing their borders westwards. Poland's very independence was at stake. The Russian forces relentlessly moved forward at the remarkable rate of 20 miles a day. Grodno in Belarus fell 19 July, Brest-Litovsk fell on 1 August, Polish attempt to defend the Bug river line with 4th Army and Grupa Poleska units stopped the advance of the Red Army for only one week. After crossing the Narew River on 2 August the units of the Russian Northwest Front were only 60 miles from Warsaw. The fortress of Brzesc which was to be the headquaters of the planned Polish counteroffensive fell to the 16th Army in the first attack. The Russian Southwest Front had pushed Polish forces out of Ukraine and was closing on Zamość and Lwów, the largest city in southeastern Poland and an important industrial center, defended by the Polish 6th Army. The way to the Polish capital lay open. Polish Galicia's Lwów (Ukrainian Lviv) was soon Battle of Lwów (1920), and five Russian armies were approaching Warsaw. [[Image:PBW_August_1920.png|thumb|left|200px|Bolshevik offensive successes. Early August 1920]] Polish forces in Galicia near Lwów launched a successful counteroffensive to slow the Soviets down. This had put a stop to the retreat of Polish forces on the southern front, but the worsening situation near Polish capital of Warsaw prevented Poles from continuing that southern counteroffensive and pushing east. After Soviets captured Brześć, the Polish offensive in the south was put on hold and all available forces moved north to take part in the coming battle for Warsaw. ==== Diplomatic Front, Part 2: The political games ==== With the tide turning against Poland, Piłsudski's political power had been weakened and his opponents, including Roman Dmowski had risen to power. However Piłsudski did manage to regain his influence, especially over miliary, almost at the last possible moment - as the Soviet forces were approaching Warsaw and Polish political scene begun to unravel in panic. Meantime, by the order of the Soviet Communist Party a Polish puppet government, the Tymczasowy Komitet Rewolucyjny Polski, TKRP (English: ''Provisional Polish Revolutionary Committee''), had been formed on 28 July in Białystok to organise administration on the Polish territories captured by the Red Army. The TKRP had very little support from the Polish population and recruited its supporters mostly from the ranks of Bielorussians and Jews. In addition, political intrigues between Soviet commanders grew in the face of their more and more certain victory. Eventually the lack of cooperation between the top commanders would cost them dearly in the upcoming decisive battle of Warsaw (1920). Western public opinion, swayed by the press and by left-wing politicians, was strongly anti-Polish. Many foreign observers expected Poland to be quickly defeated and become the next Soviet republic. Britain's Prime Minister, David Lloyd George pressed Poland to make peace on Soviet terms and refused any assistance to Poland which would alienate Whites in the Russian Civil War. On August 6, 1920, the British Labour Party (UK) published a pamphlet stating that British workers would never take part in the war as Poland's allies, and labour unions blocked supplies to the British expeditionary force assisting Russian Whites in Arkhangelsk. French Socialists, in their newspaper ''L'Humanité'', declared: "Not a man, not a sou, not a shell for reactionary and capitalist Poland. Long live the Russian Revolution! Long live the Workmen's International!" Poland suffered setbacks due to sabotage and delays in deliveries of war supplies, when workers in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany refused to transit such materials to Poland. Lithuania stance was mostly anti-Polish and the country eventually joined the Soviet side in the war against Poland in July 1919. Lithuania decision was dictated by a desire to incorporate the city of Wilno (in Lithuanian, Vilnius) and the nearby areas into Lithuania and to a smaller extent by Soviet diplomatic pressure backed by the threat of the Red Army stationed on Lithuania's borders. [[Image:Cooper Fauntleroy.jpg|thumb|left|American volunteer pilots, Merian C. Cooper and Cedric Fauntleroy, fought in the Kościuszko Squadron of the Polish Air Force.]] Polish allies were few. France, continuing her policy of countering Bolshevism, now that the Whites in Russia proper had been almost completely defeated, sent in 1919 a 400-strong French Military Mission to Poland. This group comprised mostly French officers, although it also included British Military Mission to Poland led by Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Carton De Wiart. The French effort was vital to improving the organization and logistics of the Polish Army, which until 1919 had used diverse manuals, organizational structures and equipment, mostly drawn from the armies of Poland's former partitioners. The French offcers included a future President of France, Charles de Gaulle, who during that war won Poland's highest military decoration, the Virtuti Militari. In addition to the Allied advisors, France also facilitated in 1919 the transit to Poland from France of the "Blue Army": a force of troops, mostly of Polish origin plus some international volunteers, formerly under French command in World War I. The army was commanded by the Polish general, Józef Haller. [[Image:Haller_and_blue_army.jpg|thumb|right|300px|General Józef Haller (touching the flag) and his Blue Army.]] In mid-1920 the Allied Mission was expanded by some new advisers (the Interallied Mission to Poland). They included the French diplomat, Jean Jules Jusserand; Maxime Weygand, chief of staff to Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Supreme Commander of the victorious Entente; and the British diplomat, Lord Edgar Vincent D'Abernon. The newest members of the mission achieved little; indeed, the crucial Battle of Warsaw was fought and won by the Poles before the mission could return and make its report. Subsequently, for many years, the myth persisted that it was the timely arrival of Allied forces that had saved Poland, a myth in which Weygand occupied the central role. ==== The tide turns: Miracle at the Vistula ==== On August 10, 1920, Russian Cossack units under the command of Gay Dimitrievich Gay crossed the Vistula River, planning to take Warsaw from the west while the main attack came from the east. On August 13, an initial Russian attack was repulsed. The Polish 1st Army resisted a direct Battle of Warsaw (1920) as well stopping the battle of Radzymin. The Soviet commander-in-chief, Tukhachevski, feeling certain that all was going according to his plan, was actually falling into a trap set by Piłsudski. The Russian advance across the Vistula River in the north was advancing into an operational vacuum, as there were no sizable Polish forces in the area. On the other hand, south of Warsaw, where the fate of the war was about to be decided, Tukhachevski had left only token forces to guard the vital link between the Russian northwest and southwest fronts. Another factor that influenced the outcome of the war was the effective neutralization of Budionny's 1st Cavalry Army, much feared by Piłsudski and other Polish commanders, in the battle of Lwów. The Soviet High Command, at Tukhachevski's insistence, had ordered the 1st Cavalry Army to march north toward Warsaw and Lublin, but Budionny disobeyed the order due to a grudge between Tukhachevski and Aleksandr Yegorov, commander of the southwest front. Additionally, the political games of Joseph Stalin, chief political commissar of the Southwest Front, decisively influenced the disobedience of Yegorov and Budionny. Stalin, seeking a personal triumph, was focused on capturing Lwów—far to the southeast of Warsaw—besieged by Bolshevik forces but still resisting their assaults. Wladyslaw_Sikorski.">Image:Wladyslaw_Sikorski.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Polish General Wladyslaw Sikorski. The Polish 5th Army under General Wladyslaw Sikorski counterattacked August 14 from the area of the Modlin fortress, crossing the Wkra River. It faced the combined forces of the numerically and materially superior Soviet 3rd and 15th Armies. In one day the Soviet advance toward Warsaw and Modlin had been halted and soon turned into retreat. Sikorski's 5th Army pushed the exhausted Soviet formations away from Warsaw in a lightning operation. Polish forces advanced at a speed of thirty kilometers a day, soon destroying any Soviet hopes for completing their enveloping maneuver in the north. By August 16 the Polish counteroffensive had been fully joined by Marshal Piłsudski's "Reserve Army." Precisely executing his plan, the Polish force, advancing from the south, found a huge gap between the Russian fronts and exploited the weakness of the Soviet "Mozyr Group" that was supposed to protect the weak link between the Soviet fronts. The Poles continued their northward offensive with two armies following and destroying the surprised enemy. They reached the rear of Tukhachevski's forces, the majority of which were encircled by August 18. Only that same day did Tukhachevski, at his Minsk headquarters 300 miles east of Warsaw, become fully aware of the proportions of the Soviet defeat and ordered the remnants of his forces to retreat and regroup. He hoped to straighten his front line, halt the Polish attack, and regain the initiative, but the orders either arrived too late or failed to arrive at all. Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920).">Image:Polish-soviet_war_1920_Aftermath_of_Battle_of_Warsaw.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Polish soldiers displaying captured Soviet battle flags after the Battle of Warsaw (1920). The Soviet armies in the center of the front fell into chaos. Tukhachevski ordered a general retreat toward the Bug River, but by then he had lost contact with most of his forces near Warsaw, and all the Bolshevik plans had been thrown into disarray by communication failures. [[Image:Bitwa pod Zadwórzem.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Polish Battle of Thermopylae: Russian cavalry are stopped at the Battle of Zadwórze. (Painting by Stanislaw Kaczor-Batowski, 1929. Polish Army Museum, Warsaw.)]] The Bolshevik armies retreated in a disorganised fashion, entire divisions panicking and disintegrating. The Red Army's defeat was so great and so unexpected that, at the instigation of Piłsudski's detractors, the Battle of Warsaw is often referred to in Poland as the "Miracle at the Vistula." On August 17 the advance of Budionny's Cavalry Army toward Lwów was halted at the Battle of Zadwórze, where a small Polish force sacrificed itself to prevent Soviet cavalry from seizing Lwów and stopping vital Polish reinforcements from moving toward Warsaw. On 29 August Budionny's cavalry moving through weakly defended areas reached the city of Zamosc and attempted to take the city in the battle of Zamosc, but was soon facing increasing number of Polish units which could be spared from the succesfull Warsaw counteroffensive. On August 31 Budionny's cavalry finally broke off their siege of Lwów and attempted to come to the aid of Russian forces retreating from Warsaw, but were intercepted, encircled and defeated by Polish cavalry at the Battle of Komarów near Zamość, the greatest cavalry battle since 1813 (and one of the last cavalry battles in history). Budionny's Army managed to avoid encicrlement but its morale had plummeted. What was left of Buidonny's 1st Cavalry Army retreated towards Wlodzimierz Wolynski on 6 September and was soon again defeated at the Battle of Hrubieszow. [[Image:Bitwa pod Komarowem w 1920 roku.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Battle of Komarów, one of the greatest cavalry clashes in world history. (Painting by Wojciech Kossak.)]] Tukhachevski managed to reorganize the eastward-retreating forces and in September established a new defensive line running from the Polish-Lithuanian border to the north to the area of Polesie, with the central point in the city of Grodno in Belarus. In order to break it, the Polish Army had to fight the Battle of the Niemen River. Polish forces crossed the Niemen River and outflanked the Bolshevik forces, which were forced to retreat again. Polish forces continued to advance East on all fronts, repeating their successes from the previous year. [[Image:Bitwa niemenska.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Battle of the Niemen River, the second greatest battle of the war. (Painting by Wojciech Kossak.)]] After the mid-October Battle of the Szczara River, the Polish Army had reached the Tarnopol-Dubno-Minsk-Drisa line. The Bolsheviks sued for peace and the Poles, exhausted and constantly pressured by the Western governments, with the Polish army now controlling the majority of the disputed territories, agreed to once again negotiate. A ceasefire was signed October 12 and went into effect October 18. == Aftermath == According to the British historian A. J. P. Taylor, the Polish-Bolshevik War "''largely determined the course of European history for the next twenty years or more. […] Unavowedly and almost unconsciously, Soviet leaders abandoned the cause of international revolution.''" The Bolsheviks' defeat in the war prevented Poland from becoming another Soviet republic and possibly spared Germany, Czechoslovakia and other nearby states from a similar fate. Much of what Poland had won during the 1920 war was lost in the peace negotiations that were by many characterized as short-sighted and petty-minded. Due to the disastrous military defeat, Bolsheviks offered the Polish peace delegation substantial territorial concessions in the contested borderland areas. However, to many observers it looked like the Polish side was conducting the Riga talks as if Poland had not won, but lost the war. The exhausted Poles, pressured by the League of Nations, decided to sign the Peace of Riga on March 18, 1921, splitting the disputed territories in Belarus and Ukraine between Poland and Russia. The treaty actually violated Poland's military alliance with Ukraine, which had explicitly prohibited a separate peace. It worsened relations between Poland and her Ukrainian minority, who felt Ukraine had been betrayed by her Polish ally, a feeling that would be exploited by Soviet propaganda and result in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia in the 1930s and 1940s. The Polish military successes in autumn 1920 allowed Poland to reclaim the city of Wilno, where a puppet goverment Governance Committee of Central Lithuania (''Komisja Rządząca Litwy Środkowej'') was formed. A plebiscite was carried out and the Wilno Sejm has voted on 20 February 1922 for incorporation into Poland. This has worsened Polish-Lithuanian foreign relations for many decades to come. Repercussions of this still continue (though to a diminishing extent) to affect the foreign relations among these countries. The outcome of the Polish-Bolshevik War, while welcomed by some Polish politicians such as Roman Dmowski, who favored a relatively small, ethnically homogeneous state, was a death blow to Piłsudski's dream of reviving the powerful and multicultural Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the form of a "Miedzymorze Federation." [[Image:Powazki 1920.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Graves of Polish soldiers fallen in the Battle of Warsaw, Powazki Cemetery, Warsaw.]] During the course of the war, waged by two countries experiencing great economic and social difficulties, and often unable to care even for their own populations, the treatment of the prisoners of war was far from adequate, with tens of thousands of POWs from both sides dying from inadequate health care during the rampaging post-WWI Spanish flu. Military strategy in the Polish-Bolshevik War influenced Charles De Gaulle, an instructor with the Polish Army who fought in several of the battles. He and Wladyslaw Sikorski were the only military officers who, based on their experiences of this war, correctly predicted how the next one would be fought. Although they both failed in the interbellum to convince their militaries to heed those lessons, early in World War II they rose to command of their respective armed forces in exile. This war also influenced the Polish military doctrine, which for the next 20 years would stress the mobility of the elite cavalry units. Among the technical advances ultimately associated with the Polish-Bolshevik War was one that would, two decades later, affect the course of World War II. Poland's Marshal Piłsudski and his staff enjoyed a vast advantage from their military intelligence cryptanalysising ("breaking") Red Army radio messages. These were encrypted in primitive ciphers and codes, and often involved incredible breaches of security by Bolshevik cipher clerks. The Polish cryptologists and commanders were thus regularly able to look over the shoulders of the Bolshevik commanders, including Mikhail Tukhachevski himself, and their superior, Leon Trotsky. Poland's cryptological achievements in the Polish-Bolshevik War were a prelude to the spectacular achievements of her General Staff's Cipher Bureau (Biuro Szyfrow), from December 1932, in decrypting German Enigma machine ciphers. Their subsequent decryption in World War II by the Western Allies at Bletchley Park — given a flying head-start by Poland's having revealed her techniques and technology to Britain and France at Warsaw a month before the outbreak of war — substantially affected the outcome of the war. In August 1939 the Soviet Union allied itself with Nazi Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and on 17 September 1939, invaded eastern Poland, ensuring Poland's defeat in the Polish Defence War of 1939 and sealing the fate of the Second Polish Republic. The Soviet occupation of eastern Poland have brought Stalinist repressions to the Polish population. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the Soviet Union succeeded in acquiring direct or indirect control of more territory than Imperial Russia had and partly fulfilled Lenin's original dream of bringing communist revolution to Germany. Until 1989, while communists held power in a People's Republic of Poland, the Polish-Bolshevik War was either omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet block countries' history books, or was presented so as to fit the communist ideology. == List of battles == For chronological list of important battles of the Polish-Soviet War, see List of battles of the Polish-Soviet War. == See also == * Camps for Russian prisoners and interned in Poland (1919-1924) * Estonian Liberation War * Polish-Ukrainian War * Western Betrayal == External links == * [http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Soviet-Polish-War/spw.html Electronic Museum of the Polish-Soviet War] * Maps of the Polish-Bolshevik War: [http://www.geocities.com/hallersarmy/maps.html Campaign Maps by Robert Tarwacki], [http://www.iyp.org/pilsudski/maps.html] * [http://home.golden.net/~medals/1918-1921war.html The Polish-Russian War and the Fight for Polish Independence] * [http://www.geocities.com/hallersarmy/index.html Józef Haller and the Blue Army] * [http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/pat/poland/fussrpoland1919.htm Onwar.com] * [http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/russo.html Russo-Polish War bibliography in English] == Notes == # Lincoln, ''Red Victory: a History of the Russian Civil War''. # Mikhail Tukhachevski, order of the day, 2 July 1920. # ''Jeńcy i internowani rosyjscy...'' and ''Zwycięzcy za drutami...'' # Ścieżyński, ''Radjotelegrafja...'' # Kozaczuk, ''Enigma''. == References == * Norman Davies, ''White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20'', Pimlico, 2003, ISBN 0712606947. (First edition: St. Martin's Press, inc., New York, 1972) * Jeremy Keenan, ''The Pole: the Heroic Life of Jozef Pilsudski'', Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 2004, ISBN 0715632108. * Richard M. Watt, ''Bitter Glory: Poland and Its Fate, 1918-1939'', Hippocrene Books, 1998, ISBN 0781806739. * Edgar Vincent D'Abernon, ''The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World: Warsaw, 1920'', Hyperion Press, 1977, ISBN 0883554291. * W. Bruce Lincoln, ''Red Victory: a History of the Russian Civil War'', Da Capo Press, 1999, ISBN 0306809095. * Mieczyslaw Sciezynski, [Colonel of the (Polish) General Staff], ''Radjotelegrafja jako źrodło wiadomości o nieprzyjacielu'' (Radiotelegraphy as a Source of Intelligence on the Enemy), Przemyśl, [Printing and Binding Establishment of (Military) Corps District No. X HQ], 1928, 49 pp. * David Kahn, ''The Code-Breakers'', New York, Macmillan, 1967. * Zbigniew Karpus, ''Jeńcy i internowani rosyjscy i ukraińscy na terenie Polski w latach 1918-1924'', Toruń 1997, ISBN 8371740204. [http://www.ksiegarnia.uni.torun.pl/karpus.html Polish table of contents online]. English translation: ''Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war and internees kept in Poland in 1918-1924'', Wydawn. Adam Marszałek, 2001, ISBN 8371749562. * Karpus, Zbigniew, Alexandrowicz Stanisław, ''Zwycięzcy za drutami. Jeńcy polscy w niewoli (1919-1922). Dokumenty i materiały'' (Victors behind the fences. Polish POWs (1919-1922). Documents and materials). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, Toruń, 1995, ISBN 8323106274. * Wladyslaw Kozaczuk, ''Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two'', edited and translated by Christopher Kasparek, Frederick, Maryland, University Publications of America, 1984, ISBN 0890935475. * Piotr Wandycz, ''General Weygand and the Battle of Warsaw'', Journal of Central European Affairs, 1960 * ''Polish Politics, and the Battle of Warsaw'', 1920 Slavic Review, Vol. 46, No. 3/4. (Autumn - Winter, 1987), p. 503 * Robert Himmer, ''Soviet Policy Toward Germany during the Russo-Polish War,'' 1920 Slavic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. (Dec., 1976), p. 667 * 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 * M. B. Biskupski, ''Paderewski, Polish Politics, and the Battle of Warsaw, 1920,'' Slavic Review, Vol. 46, No. 3/4, Autumn - Winter, 1987 pp. 503-512 Polish wars Polish-Soviet War Soviet wars
Polish-Soviet War
== Talk Archives == Talk:Polish-Soviet War Archive 1 moved on January 22 2005 == Not POV anymore? == As it seems to me that we have reached a compromise on User:172/Polish-Soviet_War and the article is unprotected again, would anybody object to removing the POV tag? 172, since you put it there in the first place, can you remove it? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I would. Some of my questions were not replied so far and instead were moved to the archives. Also, I still dispute the new header, especially the mention of 1926 which, in my opinion, serves some strange agenda, but definitely not the neutrality of this article. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 12:23, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) :: I moved all old talk to archive since it was very large and *most* of it was not relevant anymore. By all means, plese bring back the unresolved issues. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::: I'm afraid there's no need to. 172 didn't care to answer the questions back then and I doubt he will answer them at all, this would be just a waste of space here. Anyway, here's my proposal of the header: : First three paragraphs unchanged : fourth paragraph: the sentence ''A formal peace treaty, the Peace of Riga, was signed on March 18, 1921, dividing the disputed territory between Poland and Soviet Russia.'' sticked to the third paragraph, the rest of the paragraph moved to the aftermath section, with the following change: the sentence ''Pilsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen and in 1926, after Poland had experienced several years of weak leadership, Pilsudski took over the state in a coup d'etat.'' turned into ''Piłsudski's reputation as the creator of the miracle at Vistula has vastly risen, and the national democrats lost the post-war elections. Also, the new president Gabriel Narutowicz elected in 1922 was a leftist politician.''. While I agree it has equally small relevance to the article, the new sentences at least fit into the time-frame of the article, while the 172's version was out of the blue. : The fifth paragraph (''The war is referred to by several names...'') moved back into a separate names of the war (or similar name) section, between the header and the Prelude section. :::These are the major problems I have with the new uber-header, I have several other, mostly minor objections as well, but these can be fixed later. --User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 02:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) ::::If there are no objections from 172 or anybody else in the coming 48h, I agree we can make the change. Although was GN leftist or socialist? Remember that right/left distinction is European, and not really recognized in those terms in US, for example (I think). Anyway, I am back to work on the non-lead sections. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 14:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::Well, it is more then 72h with nobody discussing this issue either here or by doing any changes to the article, so I am going to remove this tag. Anyway, I think it is bizzare...'this article may be POV' - why not 'this article may not be POV'? :) Either it is and we have a dispute here or it is not and we don't, end of story. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) == To do == Incorporate materials from archive and sandbox to article, especially on Weynard mission. Time to work, ppl! :) --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Surely not "Weynard" but "Weygand"? User:Logologist 00:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) :: Surely :) --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Allied Mission, more details== Norman Davies, in ''White Eagle, Red Star'', has some details about the French Military Mission. Quoting the key passages: ''... the French mission commanded considerable respect and influence through the activities of its 400 officer-instructors. These men, distributed among the cadres of the Polish Staff, were entrusted with the task of training the officer corps in the art of military science and in the use of French army manuals.'' (these manuals were important since, to quote from another passage: ''Only in July 1919 (my note: to clear the confusion in the Polish army) it was decided to rely exclusively on French army manuals and procedures, and to submit to the instruction of General Henrys and his military mission.) Continuing, Davies describes a typical officer in the mission: ''Typical of them was a young captain, Charles de Gaulle. Newly released from internment as a prisoner of war at Ingolstadt in Bavaria, de Gaulle had been anxious for active service; as the son of a patriotic Catholic family, he was attracted by the prospect of an anti-Bolshevik campaign in Poland. In May 1919, he joined the 5th Chasseurs Polonais at Sille-le-Guillaume and in the body of Haller's army travelled with them to East Galicia. At the end of that campaign, he was transferred to Rembertów near Warsaw where, in the former school of the Tsarist Imperial Guard, he lectured on the theory of tactics. In July and August he was attached for a short period to a Polish combat unit, and raised to the rank of major. In 1921, he was offered a permanent commission in Poland, but preferred to develop his ideas and experiences by returning to France as a lecturer on military history at Saint-Cyr.'' As these passages illustrate, the discussion of the Allied mission in the lead is still inaccurate. The mission was not dispatched in the summer of 1920 as the lead now seems to suggest, but in fact functioned since 1919. Furthermore, if any specific names connected with the mission should be mentioned in the lead, it should be those of General Adrian Carton De Wiart, the commander of the British mission, and General Henrys, the commander of the French mission. These men were in Poland for many months and actually contributed something. General Weygand arrived in Poland around 24 July 1920 and left on 25 August, 1920. We already agreed that his advice as to military operations was ignored by Pilsudski and the Polish Staff. And his contribution to the administrative organisation of Poland's army could not have been that large - after all what could a single individual accomplish in one month? Weygand's name is only mentioned prominently in connection to the Polish-Soviet war because of the myth that he was responsible for the victory in the battle of Warsaw. Let's not perpetuate this myth. Since the introduction was so heavily fought over, I will not touch it for now, but I invite 172 or Piotrus to incorporate the above information as they see fit. User:Balcer 04:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Strength == Please correct the ridiculous number of 5,000,000 of Tukhachevsky forces in the battlebox. Such crowd would have trampled the whole Europe. User:Mikkalai 21:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) : Hmmm, it looks a bit high, also it seems to be an estimated highest size for the *entire* Red Army in years 1919-1921. I cannot find the source to back this up ATM, could you provide a better estimate, preferrably source? I think it should be in Davies book, but I don't have access to a copy right now. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Here is some data by Davies, who of course frequently admits that accurate figures for this chaotic period are always difficult to obtain. Furthermore, the numbers were vastly different at various times. ::*In the Spring of 1919 conscription produced a Red Army of 2,300,000, with an additional 550,000 men conscripted in February 1920. However, in 1919 very few of these were sent west, so these numbers are not very relevant. ;;*In September 1919 Polish army had 540,000 men under arms, 230,000 of these on the Soviet front. ::*Balance of forces in April 1920, at the start of the operations in Ukraine. At this point the Red Army South-West Front had, on 20 March, 83,000 men, but of these only 29,000 fighting men. Soviet authors writing in 1930 give Poles a superiority of 52,000 to 12,000 in this sector. Again however, the situation was extremely chaotic and these numbers are largely meaningless. ::*Key period around August, 1920. At this point, due to the consolidation of the Soviet regime, the Red Army increased to about 5 million men. This number was far greater than the number of weapons available, and only one in nine soldiers could be classified fighting men. In the course of 1920, almost 800,000 men were sent to the Polish war, of whom 402,000 went to the Western front and 355,000 to the armies of the South-West front in Galicia. The Soviet manpower pool in the West was estimated at 790,000. ::* In 20 August, 1920, Polish army had reached the strength of 737,767, so there was rough numerical parity between the Polish army and the Soviet forces acting against it. == Fauntleroy == The man's name wasn't "Faunt-le-Roy" but "Fauntleroy," as you will discover if you look at the enlargement, which gives the two men's names. And I think Cooper's full name was actually "Merian C. Cooper." User:Logologist 06:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Goes to show that even books and articles can be wrong :) Tnx --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 12:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Major expantion == In the push towards FA I am expanding the article translating majoirty of info from the following sources: [http://www.bankkadr.com.pl/jflis/r20/historia.htm], [http://www.bankkadr.com.pl/jflis/r20/historia.htm], [http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/81337_1.html]. Feel free to wikify, correct language and copy info into relevant subarticles, but please dont remove anything until I write here I am done - I want to have the big picture in one article first before we decide what to move (move, not copy) to subarticles. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 13:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Main picture == Since Battle of Warsaw (1920) is FA already, I think we need to find another pic for PSW warbox (since they are usually chosen for the main page). I think map of the entire war would be the best - any chance sb could find one we can use of make one (wink, Halibutt, map specialist, wink :>) ? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 13:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) : If anybody can do this, here is the map I'd like to adapt for this article: [http://www.radzymin.info/pliki/mapa_1.jpg]. I can help with translation, but I need help with graphic editor. Anybody? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 17:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Sure, I will start on it. --User:IMeowbot~User talk:IMeowbot 17:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: Tnx a lot! Here is the link to Halibutt map of Poland in 1939, should be helpfull: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Poland_1939.png]. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::I started to work on the map for the war of 1919-1920 (which could also be used for the war of 1939 and other events of the inter-bellum. So far I have prepared the borders and the frontlines, the map should be ready soon. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 05:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) ::::The map looks great. I have no comments except those that praise your work :) Looking forward to warmaps, I'll renominate this for FA after they are added. :) --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::More maps to follow, including: * Polish/Czechoslovak/Lithuanian/German/Ukrainian claims * The plebiscites * Major battles of the Polish-Bolshevik War * Perhaps also some WWII maps based on this one ** Polish Defence War, ** Warsaw Uprising and the Operation Tempest ** Poland partitioned between the Soviets and the Germans ** Armia Krajowa inspectorates ** suggestions and ideas are highly appreciated :) --User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 16:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) : You are my hero :D --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Peer review == As we are waiting for a map, we can as well go through a peer review processes in the meantime. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Article reads a bit Polo-centric == This article is not entirely POV, really, but it just seems to read like it is... can't really explain it, but such formulations as: "Pilsudski's combination of far-reaching predictions, and understanding, with his soul and body of a fighter; also, his integrity." seem to me to be a bit on the overly praising side, nearing POV. Nevertheless, this is a good article. : Well, this may be a bit over the top. Feel free to make it more NPOVed if you have an idea how to. Tnx for the comments, I am glad you enjoyed the article. You may consider reigstering and signing your comments, dear Anon. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) I believe that the lead should mention that the Polish-Soviet war ended in what might be called a partitionment of Belarus and Ukraine. Belarusians and Ukrainians were hoping to have their own independent states, and it seems insulting to refer to those countries simply as "disputed territories". – User:Kpalion User talk:Kpalion 23:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Agreed with the Ukraine. However, Belarus was neither a subject of the international law nor was it existent at the moment the Riga peace treaty was signed. Certainly we could mention that some of the Belarusians wanted to have their own state, but we should not go to far in that. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 00:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) I think this article is a piece of Polish propaganda written by Poles. Even without reading the text you can see that on the amount of the Polish self-glorifying images. The Soviets didn't want this war, the first action they did in 1918, was seeking peace on the western border for any price. After that, they were struggling for survival in the Russian civil war. The last thing they wished was a new war. On the other side, we have an aggressive Greater Poland fan Pilsudski, who wanted to restore Poland "from sea to sea", as it has existed in the 17th century. He wanted no "federation", he wanted Greater Poland. And he aimed at subordinating areas, where Poles were only a small minority or were even completely absent. And no one can make me believe that Poles were welcomed in Ukraine or Belarus. Belarusians didn't even do anything for independence, they feeled almost Russian and wanted to stay in Russia. The Ukrainians' attitude towards Poles can be seen in Volynia in 1943-44. Moreover, you hardly can expect objectivity from an article declared one of a "priority task" by a so-called "WikiProject Polish Army". Therefore I will mark this biased article as NPOV. Please let is so, until the article is reedited in an unbiased and objective way, mentioning all points of view. User:Voevoda 02:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) : To maintain an NPOV tag, you really need to be much more specific about problems in the article — above you seem to be making an argument about something, but the only thing you mention about the article is the images. I've had a quick look, and I see both Polish and Soviet posters labelled as "propaganda" — seems neutral enough to me. User:Matt Crypto 00:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: This article has passed through some thorough peer review, and has been scrutinised by a lot of people. Because of this, the tag shouldn't remain unless you provide some convincing, specific evidence of bias — maybe you're right, but you haven't yet shown how. User:Matt Crypto 00:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::: The article was written by persons why relied mostly on Polish POV and sources. I have an impression that people with Russian POV (and with knowledge in the subject) did not really work upon the article. "Common knowledge"-type Russian POV is stronlgy biased by the Soviet POV. An independent non-pro-communist Russian research barely started. ::: So I'd say there is no reason to panic. If there is an additional information, Voevoda is welcome to add. User:Mikkalai 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::: Of course. However I think that we should discuss them here, especially in case of new sections. The article is long and new material should be preferably added to subarticles, with just a short sentence or two here - this is what should happen to the POW section, which should be moved to Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) == lost footnote == I was fixing the references and notes and found this lost soul. I've deleted it for now, but maybe someone knows where it should be? * D'Abernon, 'The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World: Warsaw, 1920'. ** I believe that entire quote was moved to Wikiquote. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Polish POW camps == I'd be interested to learn more about these Polish POW camps and the fate of the Russian POWs there. Any references ? User:Wojsyl 06:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) : My question as well. I will look into it. What is written is mostly correct, although I we should note that the newly recreated Polish state had tiny budget, insufficient for construction of good POW camps. And the mentioned ephidemics is And it attempted to provide some medicine to counter the ephidemics. On the contrary, I read that Soviets had executed many thousands of Polish POWs. I need to back this with references. This section should be moved to Aftermath... article, with few sentenced remaining here - it is important, but the article is too long. And external links need to be footnoted ASAP. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: Note that Battle of Warsaw (1920) has a phote entitled 'Soviet mass execution graves of Polish POWs' or sth similar, which took place somewhen before the Battle. And IIRC the full text (I am not sure if it is in main or sub now) had at least one refference to another execution, after the Battle of Warsaw, by Gaj's retreating Cossack cavalry (who decided that POWs would slow them down and decided to execute them instead of releasing them). --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::On [http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193276 this forum] I started a discussion about Polish camps for Russian POWs. Since there is not much info available online, I obtained the book by Zbigniew Karpus from the Warsaw University Library and I'm currently reading through it. I'll post some info on the topic as soon as I finish. From what I can tell, the Russian allegations that hundreds of thousands of Russian POWs were slaughtered are unsubstantiated and false, especially that there is no proof so far that there were as many Russian POWs in Polish captivity. The Polish sources quoted by Karpus (easily available from the Central Military Archives and the Archive of Modern Documents in Warsaw) give the number of POWs taken during the entire war while the Russian articles posted by one of my friends provide the number some 2 times higher - without any sources however. :::Anyway, I'll let you know as soon as I finish the book. It's available also in Russian and English, in case anyone wanted to use it as a source. User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 13:29, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) There can also be a confusion of the origin of these camps. Huge number of Russian POWs were left in the territory of Poland since WWI. AFAIK when the Polish-Soviet skirmishes started, these POWs were not released to Russia (definitely not, as of January 2, 1919, when Soviet Red Cross mission was murdered in Poland). User:Mikkalai 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Sure, in WWI about 3.9 million soldiers of the Russian Empire were taken prisoners by the Central Powers, and quite a lot of them must have found themselves on Polish territory after the war ended and the Central Powers disintegrated in November, 1918. However, this matter is clearly outside the scope of this article. Still, it is a very interesting topic and should be discussed in some article, presumably one dealing in general with large movements of people in Central/Eastern Europe at the end of WWI. :Can you provide more details about the murder of the Soviet Red Cross commision? I have never heard of this, but of course I am far from being an expert. User:Balcer 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: It is mentioned in Davis book. They were supposed to be exiled, but were instead shoot during the transport by their 'guards'. It is unknown if this was ordered or simply invented by the guards, and if they were punished (at least Davies doesn't describe this in much detail). --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Pilsudski, Miedzymorze and Dmowski == I removed the following addition, since it is erroneus: ''Some historians see the policy of Pilsudski in re-creating Poland, as it existed in the 17th century, subordinating many non-Polish areas, and point at the lack of willingness of the involved nations for any kind of projects together with Poland.'' From what I read (Davies comes to mind as a reference, since I just reread the relevant fragment yeasterday :) ), Pilsudski was in favour of a confederation, giving the 'non-Polish areas' either large autonomy or total independence (he spoke of the 'right for all nationalities for self-determination'). Unfortunaly, it seems he was in minority, as Polish factions were dominated by Dmowski nationalist faction (which did advocate mostly what the paragraph stipulated, but were content with 1st partition (1772) borders, not the much larger pre-1772 borders), and it appears that Lithuanian side, at least, was also dominated by their equivalent of Dmowskis, which effectively torpedoed Pilsudski's plan and led to the long standing feud betweeen respective govs instead. I need materials on Latvia and Estonia views here (Latvia, from what I tell, was fairly pro-Polish, since we gave them their capital - an interesting contrast with Lithuania...). And Ukrainians - at least Peltura ones - have agreed with Pilsudski, but were betrayed in Riga, for which Pilsudski apologised to them. It is all written in the relevant subarticles - see causes... and aftermath... --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Strong POV article== I wonder, how this POV article became featured.I removed one of POVs: that by Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Soviet Union allied itself with Hitler. Using similar arguments, I can say, that Poland allied itself with Hitler in 1938 sharing Czech Silesia between themselves, but "surprisingly Hitler invaded Poland and got Silesia back" on 1 September 1939. In fact, MR Pact was non-aggression pact [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861088.html], yes, it may be considered as against Poland, but the aim of it for the USSR was to protect itself from anticommunist and antibolshevist Nazi Germany. Piotrus said, that he doesn't use Polish sources. But in fact he did. I see, that he used Western sources only to get facts, but along with this he introduced his own opinion, which fits pretty well to the former campaign in East European countries: whitewashing Hitler and blackwashing Soviet Union, which defeated him. You speak about Soviet propaganda, but forget about propaganda in Western countries and in recent EU members. User:213.115.184.126 15:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :No, while the official part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact, the secret part was an alliance to partition Poland and the Baltics. Read the text. As to your example, you're trying to oversimplify things. I don't know of any secret document signed between Poland and Germany regarding Czechoslovakia. Do you? User:Wojsyl 15:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I think describing it as an alliance is problematic. While the west certainly viewed it as an alliance, Stalin never saw himself as the ally of Hitler. The term "alliance" suggests a commitment to aid one another militarily. Aside from the very limited case of aiding one another in Poland, which Stalin very specifically justified in a way which was not "I am coming to the aid of my ally Hitler," there was no obligation on either side to provide military aid. Indeed, Hitler provided no aid to Stalin's war against Finland, and Stalin did not provide any direct aid to Hitler in his campaigns in the west, although he certainly gave him a lot of economic resources. At any rate, the question of whether or not Germany and the Soviet Union made an "alliance" is so caught up with the question of what, exactly, an alliance is, that I would prefer not to use the term. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 21:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I can think of one clear example of direct military aid to Hitler from USSR which involves the operations of the German auxiliary cruiser German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet (see [http://www.argo.net.au/andre/raiderKOMETENFIN.htm]). This warship was allowed to transfer through the Soviet controlled Arctic shipping routes, guided by Soviet pilots and preceeded by Soviet icebreakers, in order to break out into the Pacific and attack Allied shipping there. Another case of close cooperation is the transfer of the incomplete German heavy cruiser Lutzow (see [http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/heavycruiser/lutzow/operations.html]) to be finished for the Soviet Navy, with the help of German technicians. At the time, in 1940, the planned tonnage of this ship classed among the top ten most powerful units of the Kriegsmarine. User:Balcer 22:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::And there is the case of technology-for-resources exchange that has been going on since mid-1930s I believe. Weren't some German tank or plane prototypes tested in USSR to avoid post-Versailles restrictions on their construction in Germany - in exchange for providing Soviets with some designes and such? Similarly, there was the naval technology for resource transfer in the late 1930s, IIRC. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 23:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Alliance: ''An alliance can be: an agreement between two parties, particularly: a military alliance formed between states.'' :Military alliance: ''A Military alliance is an agreement between two, or more, countries; related to wartime planning, commitments, and/or contingencies; such agreements can be both defensive and offensive. Military alliances often involve non-military agreements, in addition to their primary purpose.'' :What is not clear here ? The Soviet-German alliance perfectly matches the definition. User:Wojsyl 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) There is nothing to discuss until you can provide a source beyond other wikipedia articles. That said, the Soviets, and their supporters among historians, fervently denied that the pact constituted an alliance. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :What can I say ? If you believe that Wikipedia's article defining alliance is not correct, then you should go there and try to improve it. I think it's a correct definition but I'm curious to see your arguments against it. User:Wojsyl 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::It is poor form to cite a wikipedia article as a justification for how another wikipedia article should be. Wikipedia is not a valid source for anything. Certainly not for a dictionary type definition. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Well, the Soviets and such bothersome items as truth and facts often didn't get along to well :> Seriously, now. If we are unwilling to use wiki definitons (which I can understand - Wojsyl, consider a discussion where two parties change the defintion then say they are right based on that... :>), there is always the Google Define, which does yeld very similar results to our own current Wiki defs (from WordNet lexical database at Princeton: ''an organization of people (or countries) involved in a pact or treaty; a formal agreement establishing an association or alliance between nations or other groups to achieve a particular aim''). Does sound like a MRPact to me. I would argue that based on those definitions any Non-Agression Pact *is* a form alliance. Still, I would be willing to fix the sentence, since it is a bit misleading. Suggestion 1: add 'temporarily' to allied. Suggestion 2: replace 'allied' with some better word (treaty? agreeement?). I'd prefer option 1 but I am open for other suggestions, after all, I am not a native English speaker. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::As to the definitions, I'm happy to discuss the merit, but don't take ''"it's not good because it's wiki"'' as a serious argument. As for the treaty, while the public part of it was indeed a non-aggresion pact, the secret protocol was nothing less but a classical example of offensive military alliance, where both parties even in advance shared the territories they planned to invade. Is also left Soviets no other choice but to join the invasion once Germany started the war. Otherwise their obligations in the alliance would not be fulfilled. User:Wojsyl 05:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::It's not "it's not good because it's wiki," it's "this is a worthless citation because it's wiki." I often use wikipedia as a source for factual information. But I'm pretty dubious for its use as a definition of something as generic as an alliance. Why not just use the dictionary? If you used wikipedia to show that, say, John Paul II was pope in 1985, then, okay, whatever - wikipedia's usually pretty good for that stuff. But as a definition of something? Such things are highly capable of abuse, and, as Piotrus showed, it's perfectly easy to find a definition somewhere else. At any rate, while I would agree that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had many characteristics of an alliance, both sides were very specific in ''not'' describing it as an alliance. It seems wrong to just call it an alliance, when this is not what either side felt it to be. I'd prefer to say that the Soviets signed an agreement to partition Poland with Nazi Germany, or some such. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::: John, I am afraid I have to disagree on both points. While I don't think using wiki definitions in wiki discussions is 100% safe (as I said above), I don't think it is completly worthless. And excuse me if I won't put much trust in what Nazi and Soviet called their relations. It is obvious that for the interested parties the term alliance was difficult - if not outright dangerous. Both side new it was a temporary alliance, and that their people would have trouble understanding the necessity of fighting a former ally - so they painted it as a treaty, not an alliance. And anyway, the alliance protocols were secret, so the official, public treaty, was in fact not an alliance, and thus both sides could claim it was not an alliance, as long as the secret protocol was secret. Using your logic, we would have to dispute things like Holocaust (since Nazi denied them), Katyn Massacre (since Soviet denied it), and hundred of others. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Yes, it is apparent both from the careful wording and the political situation in Europe at that time that both sides attempted the pact not to appear as an alliance. This is one of the reasons why the additional protocol was kept secret and why the alliance was disguised as a non-aggression pact. Mere signing it caused enough outrage in Europe even without the knowledge of its true intentions. It is well known that later in the course of war Stalin attempted to pretend that it was his pure defensive measure to sign it and that from the very beginning he expected war with Nazi Germany but only wanted to gain some time to arm and prepare his defences. It's also known how surprised he was with the German invasion of Soviet Union later. ::::While I do not have any strong opinion here, I'd be happier to learn why shouldn't we call it an alliance ? Is it because the signing parties pretended it not to be an alliance or just because we should be politically correct towards Soviet supporters ? Do they have any arguments other then they don't like it ? User:Wojsyl 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::A bit OT, but how accepted is the theory that Soviets prepared for attack on Germany and their early losses were compunded by the fact that they were suprised in the middle of preparing for an offensive? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::Not very accepted at all, I think. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 14:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Why not just go with the Merriam-Webster dictionary which gives one meaning of alliance as [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=alliance]: ::::* alliance - an association to further the common interests of the members; specifically : a confederation of nations by treaty :::: Clearly this is very broad and the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact would fit under this definition. ::::As for the way that USSR and Germany described the treaty at the time, we don't have to accept what these regimes chose to call their arrangement. Especially when the name is such a blatant euphemism, as this ''nonagression'' pact resulted in millions of people being conquered or taken over by the two signatories. In general, goverments often give pleasant sounding names to very unpleasant actions, and it would be ridiculous for us to always take them at face value. To give an obvious, more recent example, we should not accept unquestioningly the US government calling their invasion of Iraq ''liberation''. User:Balcer 06:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::What do you think about Munich Agreement September 30 1938? I'll site non-Wikipedian, non-Russian source [http://www.worldwar-2.net/prelude-to-war/prelude-to-war-index.htm]:''Shortly after 0100 hours the Munich Agreement, allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia, is signed, by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, French Premier Йdouard Daladier, Italian leader Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain says "This is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."'' Very strong alliance, isn't it? What is the difference between secret "alliance" (MR Pact) and open "alliance" (Munich Agreement) and which is better? I think, that MR Pact was a sort of answer to Western States on Munich Agreement: "if you, the West, deal with Hitler in such way, why we Soviets couldn't do the same?" But Wikipedia's "serious historians" prefer to call Stalin's treaty ''alliance'' and just keep silence concerning Munich Agreement. Just read through the timeline in the source mentioned [http://www.worldwar-2.net/prelude-to-war/prelude-to-war-index.htm] to understand what NPOV is like. BTW pay attention to "18/04/1939 The USSR proposes a ten-year alliance with Britain and France" there, which was not accepted by the West. And also look at "18/03/1939 The Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, suggests to British Ambassador Sir William Seeds that delegates from the UK, Soviet Union, France, Poland, and Romania should meet to discuss collective action in the event of war with Germany. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tells the Cabinet that continuing negotiations with Adolf Hitler is impossible." there. User:213.115.184.126 09:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::For starters, Western Powers didn't claim Czechoslovakian territories, they simply allowed Germany to take it. As for Poland, it didn't undermine Czech government before and during the Treaty, they just grabbed what was near when it was apparent that it was either 'take it yourself or let Germany take it all' situation. IIRC, Hungary also took a significant part of Czech in 1938. You rise an interesting point with the British refusal for NAP with Soviets (although one should remember that Soviets were rather famous for breaking treaties when they felt they were no longer in their interest). There is quite an interesting theory that both German and Western diplomacy wanted a conflict between Nazi's and Soviets, and the entire war with the West happend more or less by accident. But this is OT and largly irrelevant to our 'alliance or not' discussion. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::Interesting view: ones "just take territories", others "ally to take territories". For starters, please, point an exact place in MR Pact, where is said: "USSR and NG form an alliance". For myself "a step for peace" in Churchills words about Munich Agreement sounds much alike MR Pact words: "non-aggression". The questioned paragraph also pretends to "communist propaganda" POV on all Soviet sources, i.e. indirectly and "naturally" raising one sources (Western and Polish) and denying others (Soviet and even Russian - as pro-Soviet), although one of countries in question is USSR/Russia and its POV should be present. Very nice FA. User:213.115.184.126 13:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I doubt that personal attacks on your opponents and calling them ''Wikipedia's "serious historians"'' is a good strategy as it could quickly lead us to a flame or edit war that we do not really need at all. If you don't treat wikpedia seriously then what are you doing here ? While switching context to Munich Agreement certainly would be a good tactics from the point of view of rhetorics, why don't we finish our discussion on MR Pact first. Could anyone explain why he thinks it was not an act of alliance between the Nazis and the Soviets ? Any arguments other than pointing around ? User:Wojsyl 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Is the wording crucial? Why not just describe the events? There have been ''alliances'' that have proven evanescent, there have been ''agreements'' that have been durable. Only interests persist, and even those evolve. User:Logologist 09:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::My thoughts exactly. I don't see any reason to change it. Why is the wording so important ? User:Wojsyl 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::Neither have I seen any arguments or defintions that would warrant change of the term alliance. We are refering specifically to the secret protocols, not to the official NAP anyway. --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::So, you reject even non-Wikipedian and non-Russian sources (where there are no words "alliance"). I say once again, even your apriori rejection of all Soviet sources as "propaganda" is a strong POV, not speaking about your strange criteria for "reliable/non-reliable sources" .I'll not just "point around" giving you clear links to my sources, if you continue discussion representing your own Polish view (two of you are Polish) without pointing non-Wikipedian sources for "alliances", and if you go to the edit war, I think, editwared should be FARC nominated first and I'll do that. User:213.115.184.126 12:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) === Alliance or not ? === It's a bitter satisfaction but why I'm not surprised that our anon here attempts to force an edit war instead of trying to explain why he believes that the pact did not create an alliance. Can you discuss it first before you force your POV please ? So, one more attempt: Why do you think the secret protocol of M-R Pact did not constitute an alliance between Nazis and Soviets ? What was it missing ? User:Wojsyl 13:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I point you a source in Russian including the whole treaty with secret protocol [http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/193_dok/1939ru_ge.html](from the book published in Moscow in 2000, the source is pointed there). Please, point me a word which translates as ''alliance''. The key words used are "division of spheres of influence", "neutrality", "non-aggression" etc. As an option, please, point me an English translation with a word alliance or a serious history research in English where this word is used. User:213.115.184.126 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I know the text, it's full of euphemisms and the fact that it does not contain the word "alliance" does not mean that it was not an alliance. We all know too well the exact intentions and immediate consequences of signing this pact, don't we ? User:Wojsyl 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Once again, point a serious research on this pact in English with this word, less rhetoric, please. We all know, but differently interpret. User:213.115.184.126 15:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Ah, *this* serious research ? How about '''Stalin's Role in the Coming of World War II''' by R.C. Raack in World Affairs (vol. 158, no.4). I'm sure you'll claim it's not serious enough now ? But seriously, since it fits very well the definition of alliance, why would you want to conduct a research on this ? Why does it seem that important for you anyway ? User:Wojsyl 16:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::See below. I hoped you'll provide a weblink, not non-verifiable source. I'll give a hint :-): search in Britannica or Encarta or smth similar. User:213.115.184.126 17:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::No, you asked for an example of "serious research on this pact in English with this word" and you got it. I'm not surprised that you do not like it. You never mentioned that it has to be from Encarta, though. User:Wojsyl 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Here is another one: ::::* '''The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler''' by Roberts, Geoffrey R., Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989 ([http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253351170/qid=1114100086/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-4301368-0797604?v=glance&s=books] Amazon link, [http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzj.html] review link) :::::Wojsyl - if it's you who wrote that part - please do not confuse the established figure of speech "Unholy Alliance" with the usage of the word "alliance" in other contexts, such as politics and diplomacy. "Unholy Alliance" typically refers to two unlikely partners joining forces to damage or threaten the interests of a third party. In many ways, an "Unholy Alliance" even is the opposite of a regular alliance. -User:Thorsten1 17:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::No, it was not me. But this book indeed seems to refer to alliance, see the review at [http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol3/No4/RevRob.html]. User:Wojsyl 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I (User:Balcer) wrote this. Of course USSR and Germany were unlikely partners, given their pre-1939 propaganda, so that the term "Unholy Alliance" is apt. Still, "Unholy Alliance" is an opposite of "Alliance"??? Excuse me but I am not following your dialectics here. I always thought the opposite of alliance was war, or at least a total lack of cooperation. User:Balcer 17:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::Please refer to my earlier explanation on the different connotations of "alliance" and "pact" somewhere on this page - sorry, but I'm losing my way in this ever-growing mess. Maybe it'll become clearer then. If not, here I go again: In politics, an "alliance" typically refers to two or more partners with similar perspectives joining forces to continuously cooperate on a broader range of issues which do not have to be precisely defined, such as NATO or the Warsaw Pact. :::::::In this case, though, we're looking at two parties which appeared to be on the brink of war engaging in a very short-lived agreement, as their otherwise polar interests happened to converge on a particular issue at a particular moment. That is ''not'' what an English speaker would normally refer to as an "alliance" - although it may well be called an "unholy alliance". Take "unholy alliance", subtract "unholy", and the meaning can be quite different. To use your above example: "The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler" sounds OK; "The Unholy Pact: Stalin's Alliance with Hitler" sounds awkward. The English languages has other words for such situations where two parties work together, but fall short of actually forging an "alliance": treaty or pact; if you want to add a moral connotation, you can use "collusion". The long established, neutral term is Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact, and I see no reason why we should replace "alliance" with "pact". Period. For the time being, I will no longer post in this thread, as it is eating up too much of my time. --User:Thorsten1 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::: Agreed. While I still think that 'alliance' is correct and NPOV, I would also agree to the use of 'agreement', 'treaty', or even 'pact' (which does seem to be a most common use!), since for this article the MRP is a minor issue anyway, and we are wasting time discussing this. The important thing is stating the fact that the Second Polish Republic was destroyed 20 years after the war, not the details of how and why - it is not important for *this* article. I also ask our anon - who does show some promise, not engaging in rv the main article, and do provides some interesting info (below) - to present the sentence here in the NPOVed form. Hopefully we can work out an agreement soon. I also invite you to register and show other POVed examples you see in this article, so we may try to fix them. Finally, our anon may be interested in reading through past archives of this talk page (above) to see how this article was previously NPOVed by a Russian wikipedist (User:172), who, unfortunately, seems to have left our community :( --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 18:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Just searched with google for words "Stalin" and "Hitler". BTW "Unholy" is already POV issue (see NPOV def.)? Can anyone present a serious source which uses the word "alliance" to refer to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Given that my proposed language provides the same basic information (that the Nazis and Soviets agreed to partition Poland between them), but without controversy, I don't see what the issue is. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 14:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :See above. :I'm sorry, but I have been following this meandering thread with increasing confusion. What is this fuss all about? As far as I understand, the person behind the IP address is taking offence with the statement that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an "alliance" because it defames Stalin. First off, there's little left to defame about Stalin. And while I agree that the paragraph in dispute has a slight Cold War feel to it, and that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact does not precisely match most common definitions of the term "alliance", there can be no doubt as to the nature and substance of the pact, which spoke of an "friendly agreement" regarding Poland's future. (''"Во всяком случае, оба Правительства будут решать этот вопрос в порядке дружественного обоюдного согласия"''[http://www.histdoc.net/history/ru/dopolni.html].) Whether you call this "friendly agreement" an alliance, a pact, a treaty or whatever doesn't make much of a difference, does it? Why not stick to the conventional nomenclature, call it a pact and be done with it? --User:Thorsten1 15:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::All right, I don't think it's worth the time we're spending on it. I would however prefer WP articles to be written to reflect the facts and not to be politically correct only to satisfy Soviet POV. This discussion does not belong here anyway. User:Wojsyl 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I really don't want to prolong this any more than necessary, but this is not a case of "facts" vs. "political correctness". Irrespective of Wikipedia's current definition of the term "alliance", in international politics the word is usually used to denote a lasting agreement between partner states with similar perspectives on various issues, often reinforced with institutionalised organisational ties - NATO and the Warsaw Pact being good examples. In this case, we are talking about a pact between two antagonistic partners who in many respects were polar opposites, but happened to find themselves agreeing on one particular issue at a particular moment in time. So they sat down and drew up an agreement that they would not interfere with each others' aggressive plans against third parties for the time being. That is ''not'' what you'd typically call an ''alliance'' in English. Which does not make it any more morally defensible. --User:Thorsten1 16:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Since you say so... But I assume *your* English is a bit different than *mine*. In mine alliance does not to be a huge multinational pact as NATO or Warsaw Pact neither it has to last longer than two years or so or be reinforced by institutional ties. But your mileage may vary ... User:Wojsyl 16:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::It may vary indeed. If you're interested, please refer to the linguistic drivel I just added somewhere above. With all due respect, it strikes me as pretty significant that stubborn insistence on particular words tends to come from people whose first language is not English. Remember we had quite a similar discussion on whether or not Poland was "betrayed". --User:Thorsten1 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::This article doesn't represent neither Soviet nor Russian POV at all. Even the references are English, but three Polish. As I said, it is Polish-American POV in its excellency, although the war is Polish-Soviet. User:213.115.184.126 16:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I don't see any ''American'' POV at all here. I think you are very much overestimating the importance of the topic to the American public. As for the missing Russian perspective, you are free to add this and provide references. But please do not change undisputed facts because they do not match the Russian perspective. --User:Thorsten1 16:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::It is rather Polish with excerpts from American sources for more or less NPOV issues.I am here not to rewrite the article, It requires serious work and I have no time for this. It was FAC, I looked through it and found at least two strong POV issues, I objected. It was not handled, instead, it was ignored. I could FARC-nominate it immediately, but was involved to useless in its great part discussion. Perhaps I'll do it and state my reasons there.User:213.115.184.126 17:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Totally agree, but the sentence about "communist propaganda" should be removed too. User:213.115.184.126 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I assume you are referring to the sentence: ''"Until 1989 [...] the Polish-Bolshevik War was either omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books, or was presented so as to fit with the 'truths' of communist propaganda."'' I can't see how this statement of fact could offend anyone except those who think "communist propaganda" is an oxymoron. --User:Thorsten1 15:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I should accept the following factual its variant:''Until 1989 [...] the Polish-Soviet War was either omitted or presented as a victory for Soviet Russia in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books.'' User:213.115.184.126 15:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::The issue is ''not'' whether or not the war was presented as a victory or not. It is whether the war was presented as a traditional clash between two nations, or a new kind of war between two ideologies or classes, i.e. the reactionary, bourgeois, nationalist Polish upper-class vs. the progressive, internationalist working class, which just happened to be led by Russian nationals. Thus, ''"[...] was either omitted or presented a