How is history supposed to understand why this was called defencive? Can we have a page explaining the mindsent that lead to the worst conflict in global history? The Defencive War
AFAIK in 1939 Poland has 39 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, 2 motorised brigades, 3 mountain brigades and some National Defence and KOP units. ORP Gryf, largest Polish war ship, should be on the navy list.-- Mrc 19:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have you seen the Polish army order of battle in 1939? I'll let Halibutt answer the division number question, as he created that article. Good point about Gryf, he is often forgotten. But are you sure he was the biggest? Gryf links (for article 'to do': [1], [2], [3] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, as a matter of fact we had 41 infantry divisions (you forgot about 50th, 55th and 60th) and one cavalry division (well.. improvised and combined so it can be ommitted in the battlebox). As to the cavalry Bdes - that's right. The same goes for motorised. The problem I have with mountain troops is that if we count 39 Infantry Divisions, then we must mention the two mountain divisions separately (2 divisions -21st and 22nd - and 3 additional Bdes).
Of course ORP Gryf was the biggest birdie we had until 1943 when ORP Dragon and later ORP Conrad arrived (well, except for ORP Bałtyk which was a pre-WWI battleship, but was completely obsolete and used as a hulk). -- Halibu tt 08:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote an article about ORP Gryf. -- Mrc 13:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anon changes:
I hesitate to change it since it is minor and I have no sources for one way or another. Halibutt? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
http://worldatwar.net/wars/ww2/poland39/ 48 casualties of which 16k were killed...
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/EuropeatWar/blitzkrieg_poland.htm
Which brings again a question: why there is no number for missing in Polish losses? And why the losses were so much higher, if in several battles i've read the differences in losses were not that stunning?! Szopen 09:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone changed the sentence, "Germans and Poles usually refer to it as 'the September Campaign,'" to: "From the German perspective the war is called the [!] 'the September Campaign.'" Why this change? In Polish, it is commonly called "Kampania wrześniowa" ("the September Campaign"). logologist 14:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have, over decades, spoken with many Polish veterans of September 1939, and the only term I recall them using is "kampania wrześniowa," with no derogatory or tendentious connotation. For the Poles — at least, for those Poles — September 1939 was just one campaign in their war. logologist 19:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've spoken, and do speak, with Polish veterans who fought in September 1939, who fought at Cassino, who fought in both those venues and elsewhere, and they all speak of "the September Campaign" or — by way of shorthand — indeed of "September." But my veterans have never spoken of a "Defensive War"; I've seen it in a book title but never heard it, and to my ear it sounds like "political correctness." But I guess that's what comes of spending nearly all one's life away from the living springs of a nation's p.c. logologist 01:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We are not talking about what it is called in Polish tho, this is English WIkipedia. very few ppl in english have ever heard the term, indeed everyone I have talked to have never heard the term, it is usually called the invasion of Poland, simply as that in English. "Polish Defensive War" makes it sound as if Poland was perfectly innocent, instead of revealing the fact that the Polish army had made raids accross the border since the end of WWI and the establishment of the Polish state (which were often stopped by the Freikorps), indeed the Germans made up a false occurence of this relatively common happening to declare war in 1939. I think a vote should be taken like on the Danzig/Gdansk topic where we agree on one term for all pages, as I see Halibutt likes to go to every page on WWII and change invasion of poland or polish september campaign to "polish defensive war". I am not saying to totally ignore the name used by Halibutt, but instead just have it as a sidenote after the title, like Gdansk/Danzig. why all this POV pushing Halibutt? Jadger 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
they became less frequent once the NAZIs took over, as the Poles knew that the NAZIs meant business. I will try and find sources for u. but from the sources I do remember, the Attack on Sender Gleiwitz was made to imitate Polish attacks accross the border that happened shortly after WWI, for instance the 1st to 3rd Silesian Uprisings, which were aided by Polish army units. Jadger 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No u misunderstand, Poles were not who started WWII, they had previously made border clashes with Freikorps, which in any authorative book on the freikorps tells of such happening. however they did assist in the uprisings in Silesia, for instance in 3rd Silesian Uprising topic
"The insurrection began on the date planned early in May, because the population had already been terrified by many acts of violence from the Greater Polish Army as well as German paramilitary groups."
now at this time it was a part of Germany, this proves my point, as why would they be scared of the Polish army if it had never made cross-border raids? the answer of course is that indeed they did make cross-border raids and patrols. The first and third (I said first to third, meaning second as well) were antagonized by both sides wishing to crush the other, they were not simply polish attacks or German attacks upon the other. do u really think that the Nazi propogandists would make up an fake polish attack out of the blue so to say? of course not, every lie has to be based in some way on some slight truth, in order to be believable. Jadger 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sources with quotes, pretty please. From books printed after the 1980 or primary documents. Szopen 10:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
already told u, check the Silesian Uprising pages, there are references on there, as for other primary sources, read Goebbels' speech upon the declaration of war on Poland. sure it has lots fo propoganda in it, but this propoganda cant be made out of thin air, it must be based on atleast a little bit of facts which are outlined. Jadger 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have completed a bachelor in History at University (I am not going to divulge more personal info), and I don't know why my education level matters. Goebbels would not of made up this idea of Polish raids if there was not atleast a history or a threat of it, read any authorative history of Weimar Germany, the Freikorps not only crushed the left but they also repelled raids by the Polish army. just will u atleast look at the Silesian uprisings page on the wiki, it clearly states that the Polish army was interfering and aiding the rebels and antagonizing. Jadger 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)in
Great job everyone
( Deng 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
Anyone opposed to changing this article's title from " Polish September Campaign" to " Invasion of Poland 1939"? logologist| Talk 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
We should simply use the most common names of the wars. However, if we are to use strong terms where applicable (no doubt invasion is applicable here) I would ask same users to support renaming articles about Polish invasions to the East to "invasion" as well. We now have a Polish-Muscovite War and Soviet-Polish War. Please invasion their titles too. Same standards everywhere. -- Irpen 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt's and some other responses were fierce but off-topic. Now back to the topic. Are we going to rename Polish-Muscovite War into a "Polish invasion of Russia"? There is plenty of sources that call it such. It is also called "Polish internevtion". Maybe Halibutt would prefer that one? The bottomline is that invasion is a strong word and, as per common sense, there is no need to use strong terms in article titles. I went length into that here. Please take a look at this one month old discussion. If we abandon the rule to avoid strong words in titles, we should call the Polish invasions fopr what they were as well. And I am talking the article titles. Davies uses Polish invasion of Tesin (I can give a page #). Multiple source use Polish intervention or Polish invasion of Russia for PL-Muscovy war. Let's just think whether strong words is a thing to use or to avoid in Wikipedia article titles. There are academic souces that use strong word (examples above) and we can then rename a bunch of articles. If we prefer strong words NOT used in the titles, we should clean up the massacres and martyrdoms from a bunch of PL related article. For now, I see double standards: Polish users like to use such terms for articles where Poland was a victim but not when it was the perpetrator. Details here. -- Irpen 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Invasion of Poland, 1939 or the likes is good, as that is what it was, and that is what it is most commonly called in English. I also like it as unlike other names it does not say only the one attacker, as sometimes it is called German attack on Poland, which ignores the fact that the Russians and Slovaks also attacked and took land.
-- Jadger 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, the topic here is the optimization of the names. I pointed to a global problem we have in many Poland related articles. Your post, OTOH, strarted with allegations about some users having been related by blood (siblings!).
I can't think of any other user than yourself who contributed more to the current bizarre mess with titles ("massacres" being used in articles where Poles were victims and invasions not being used when Poles where the perpetrators). The situation was described in detail earlier and prompted no action since, sadly, the Polish Wikicommunity either shares or is willing to tolerate there double standards used for titling the articles. -- Irpen 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
then I support the current name, as it is the same as Ahasuerus' title except it has the time period in the title.-- Jadger 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Polenfeldzug 1939
Polish campaign 1939
Der Polenfeldzug gilt als Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges in Europa.
The Polish campaign is regarded as start of the Second World War in Europe.
Unter dem Decknamen Fall Weiß griff die deutsche Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 ohne vorherige
Under the codename Case White the German Wehrmacht attacked on 1th septembre 1939 without prior
Kriegserklärung Polen an. In der populären deutschen Literatur ist deshalb auch oft vom „Überfall auf
declaration of war Poland. In the popular German literature therefore either often "Descent on
Polen” die Rede, obwohl dieser Begriff umstritten ist.
Poland" is used, although this term is controversial.
In der Geschichtswissenschaft wird die Bezeichnung Polenfeldzug von einigen Wissenschaftlern kritisch
In science of history the term Polish campaign is viewed critical by several scientists,
betrachtet, da er nach ihrer Argumentation den Charakter des Angriffs nicht genau wiedergibt und den
because it does not reflect exactly the character of the attack and the
polnischen Widerstand verharmlost. In vielen aktuellen Publikationen wird daher der Begriff
Polish resistance gets played down. Because of this in many current publications the term
Septemberfeldzug verwendet.
September campaign is used. Wandalstouring 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There are some interesting articles on pl wiki about campaings withing this campaign that should eventually be translated:
I would like to divide the battles in Template:Campaignbox Polish September Campaign between those campaigns (theaters?). I would think that Battle of Bzura should also be classified as a 'larger-then-your-average-battle' campaign, and we would probably need something for Romanian Bridgehead (last stages of the war), and possibly battle of Warsaw (1939) may be separate. Any comments on that?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Other related articles to translate from pl wiki:
As the topic title has already been discussed on this talk page, I would like to finally close the matter once and for all. Halibutt keeps trolling and watching my contributions, after everytime I change "Polish Defensive War" to the standard "Polish September Campaign" he will revert my work. I feel it has already been discussed extensively on here, and as "Polish September Campaign" is more acceptable and less POV then "defensive war" and so we should conclusively say on here that one term is to be used. The article title has already been settled on here, so why do you insist on changing it's name on every article except this one to your POV version which it has already been stated is rarely if ever used, my dear Hali?
-- Jadger 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
well, when I edit more than 10 articles on Polish military units and/or significant people from "polish Defensive war" to "Polish September Campaign" on one day, and the next day all of them have been reverted to the previous POV version by another person, what else am I to think? Not to mention that multiple times he has also reverted my grammar and spelling corrections to an incorrect version the next day after I make them simply because it is me doing the editing. But please, do not take this off topic, the point is, why push a POV Molobo, when a title has already been agreed upon? and so what if the September Campaign extended a few days into October? the Hundred Years War didn't last 100 straight years. Not to mention that both are not used, Polish Defensive War has never been used in English Language scholarly work, if it has, point it out, the only time "defensive war" is used is in Polish sources. This has already been discussed above, and even your fellow Poles admit "September Campaign" is more common in Poland than "defensive war" (as stated in previous discussions here).
-- Jadger 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, guys, is that that important? As long as PDW is used by some English sources, why not use it from time to time? It is not POVed or anything. Although personally I would prefer to avoid redirects and so I'd recommend to Halibutt that if he thinks PDW is better, why not go for RM? PS. Both of you, please don't even think of engaging in revert wars on that. If I see them, I will come down hard on both of you - consider this a friendly admin warning.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not revert warred, although Halibutt has tried to antagonize me into doing so, see the history for: [[Polish 8th Infantry Division] Henryk Sucharski Podhale rifles etc. etc. the list goes on and on, if you you look at his contributions lately, you will see most of it has been changing it to "polish defensive war".
-- Jadger 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
you retalliate? I dont think so, I was only pointing out some of your major character faults, just like you did, as you were the one that made it personal, starting with: Don't get me wrong, Jadger, but I have yet to see you actually write any article on the matter, while most of your edits are either related to removal of some facts you're uncomfortable with (German WWII war crimes) or names switching (as is the case here). Why not focus on something more constructive? that is put in a nice way, like if I were to say, "no offence Halibutt, but your an asshole". Of course I have not said that, but putting the no offence at the start like you placed dont get me wrong makes it alright to say w/e you want.
both names are not thus equally prominent for users of wiki, as the one only shows up in the coding, when a reader reads the article they do not 98% of the time read the coding to find any hidden words. especially since the two names are not equal, "polish Defensive War" is not used by anyone outside of Poland as has been shown on here, so why do you insist a Polish name should take precedence over the terms commonly accepted everywhere else.
However, by common sense people whop write articles should have a freedom of choice of proper words at least no lesser than those who merely campaign for changing a word or two here and there. of course, but within reason, that does not mean that they can push their own POV simply because they have written an article, as the articles are collaborations, you cannot claim to have written this article and use whatever name you want on it and all links to it. this again goes to my argument above, if I were to have written this article, I could not make every link say [[polish september campaign|tooty fruity]] or in every instance of the use of John Lennon's name on the wiki call him [[John Lennon|Johnny Boy]]. Of course John Lennon never went by the name "Johnny Boy", and neither has the invasion of Poland ever been called "defensive war" by anyone sensible or atleast a little knowledgeable.
-- Jadger 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Both are not 100% acceptable, if both were 100% acceptable you would not have a problem with my calling it the september campaign, and would not revert my work. If both were 100% acceptable, we would not be going through this dispute.
we are not using Septemberfeldzug, stop misrepresenting my position in order to make your position seem correct. I have not only changed your reverts to september campaign but also to German invasion of Poland in 1939 but you still reverted that, I have tried to find a middle ground, you have just blatanly pushed me around.
LMAO, "statement of fact", if I were to be as non-sensical as you, I would claim that all my edits are simple statements of fact and not provide any credible sources. for instance, I am simply stating a fact when I say that all pigs can fly. not to mention that it is not a statement of fact, as it was not a war, but a campaign, if it were a war, where is the peace treaty that ended it? there was a treaty to end WWII, but not to end the Polish Defensive war, so technically Germany and Poland are still at war then rite?
my remark was not misleading, the only person other than yourself any english wiki user has ever encountered that uses "defensive war" is Molobo. while to you he was a marytr, to everyone else he was not sensible and possessed very little knowledge, as even you noticed on occasion.
-- Jadger 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think i speak for all humanity when I say WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU MAKE NO SENSE!!! Polish October Campaign? you make no sense, as stated earlier, names dont have to encapsulate everything (e.g. Hundred years War) but you do not call something it is not, we do not write articles about squirrels and refer to them as human transportation, so why do you call a campaign a war? The Polish September Campaign did not use all the forces of any nation except Poland, which explains why it is only ever called a war in Poland, while everywhere else it is seen simply as a minor campaign in comparison to the ones to come later.
WWII in Europe ended with Germany's unconditional surrender, they signed a treaty declaring their unconditional surrender.
"If we were the only two guys to prefer that name over the other - what's wrong with that?" well when wiki is supposed to be based on consensus and two people (now one) insist on pushing their own name for an article against all others' efforts, well then it throws the very foundations of the wiki out the window.
if you are so sure that you're correct and think "polish defensive war" should be used, lets hold a WP:RM to make it fair and make sure you cannot combine votes from multiple options (see talk:jogaila), we will first hold a vote to see if the name should be moved from Polish September Campaign to Polish Defensive War. After that, we can hold a vote on whether to move it from Polish September Campaign/Defensive War (whichever wins) to Invasion of Poland or similar as discussed previously.
-- Jadger 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am guessing that since you have not responded to discussion in 3 days (and made ~250 edits since then) that you have either admitted defeat or are unwilling to continue a discussion on the topic as I have backed you into a corner by offering the WP:RM. consider this a warning, tomorrow I will start moving all them back to Polish September Campaign unless you continue the discussion here.
-- Jadger 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. well, i changed the terming to [[polish september campaign|invasion of Poland]] and you still reverted, if you would actually care to read your edits rather than just use popups then you might see your numerous errors. I was also talking about the WP:RM that you proposed, and I agreed above, but now what is this? you are reneging yet again? hmmm... so you're just going to continue to try to draw me into a revert war? If [[polish defensive war]] will gain no support in a WP:RM, why do you continue to use it in articles?
now, for me and everyone else, be honest and please tell us why you are carrying on your silly crusade to change all the links to an article from its actual name to a name that only you use. I will not stop correcting your POV pushing until you can atleast come to a certain agreement and stop trying to procrastinate and hope this goes away. and don't you dare ignore discussion again and simply push your POV while ignoring the problems with your edits, while others raise alarms to your "work" on the discussion pages.
as for "writing own articles" I have barely enough time write now to stop your POV pushing, how am I supposed to write articles when there are more pressing matters in "daily upkeep" as I shall put it nicely" of the articles I have currently contributed to. another note, I dont have an axe to grind like you, so I dont feel the need to make up articles and fill them with links to the IPN spouting words of hate and blatantly false acussations against Germany and its people.
-- Jadger 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this poll is to establish the two most reasonable names for the conflict in question and to check which names should be brought to proper WP:RM. Feel free to add second and third choices as well as pros and cons to the relevant sections. As the matter seems to be touchy, please stay civil and avoid arguments like it's wrong because it's supported only by Nazi propaganda. Thanks in advance. // Halibu tt 08:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1.That's how it is officially referred to as in Poland therefore that's how it should be Barciur ( talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Did I forget some name? Feel free to add it to the list. // Halibu tt 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, serious people in Germany do not say "Polenfeldzug" (because that notion had been already used before 1945). Instead of "Polenfeldzug" most historians, school books, etc. say "Überfall auf Polen" (=assault/raid on Poland) in Germany. I have to admit that my English translation could be optimized as - at least - "Raid on Poland" sounds somehow shitty (ps: the already proposed notion "Invasion of Poland" comes quite close to "Überfall" but is not the same). However, this notion does not exclude the Soviet role, does neither say war nor campaign, does not limit the actions to September, etc. ( 213.70.74.165 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
in reference to Polish September Campaign cons: the point Halibutt makes does not really matter as there was not any major fighting in October, and the name is simply a slightly different version of Polish Campaign of 1939. see similar instance War of 1812 which lasted well into 1815. -- Jadger 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
not only the German perspective sees it as a campaign, but everyone excluding Poles does as well. If it was a separate war from WWII as Halibutt claims, then how can its start be the start of WWII (as it is)? And also, when did this war end? as the article so proudly proclaims that Poland never surrendered, and there was no fighting in this "war" after Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany did not surrender to Poland either. -- Jadger 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
please only vote for one article title, this is a poll, we don't want you to start combining multiple votes like you did on talk:Jogaila-- Jadger 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the German Wikipedia and the article is called "Polenfeldzug" (=Polish campaign) there, but the article`s title is as well heavily disputed on the German discussion site as it refers to a notion which has been used before 1945. However I would propose "Attack[Assault] on Poland" [as for the titles at choice, I would prefer "Invasion of Poland"]. ( 213.70.74.164 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
the sino-Japanese war started long before WWII, the Great Patriotic War is a communist propoganda term for the fighting between Germany and the USSR, the Slovak-Hungarian war was isolated fighting that was not a part of WWII, but took place at the same time and did not involve any of the countries/alliances that were at war at the time in a major capacity. the continuation war was a separate one, as it states on the article "The Continuation War is so named in Finland to make clear its relationship to the Winter War" it is named so in Finland, it is meant to determine it from other fighting finland partook in during WWII.
Battle of Kock: 250 KIA, that is not classified as major fighting, more German civilians died from the strategic bombing practically every nite later in the war.
-- Jadger 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to answer my question. Anyone else able to help him answer either question? Sorry, Halibutt no cigar this time. Dr. Dan 00:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
perhaps, but only Hali knows his true intentions, the rest of us can try to determine by his actions, and that seems to be what he did in previous discussion.
-- Jadger
LOL Halibutt, now who's having "illusions of grandeur"? "the pacific war" was a media name for the Pacific theatre of operations, never actually used, like your describing of "Second Polish Republic". just like "the war in iraq" is not a separate war from the war on terror, but a part of it, hence why it is war in Iraq, not "a war in Iraq". it is hard to describe, it is mainly semantics, but here is another example: the war of 1812, one can say "the war in Canada" and "the war in America" and still be talking of the same war. MY POINT about your use of conflict is that you will use the word conflict, then when proven wrong you will say you did not mean conflict in that way.
BTW: I love your game of "which one doesn't belong", it really is quite childish. As I said earlier, the Sino-Japanese war was related to WWII, but was not the same war as it started much earlier than WWII. will you please notice at the bottom of the article Winter War that it is listed as a "contemporary war", not a part of WWII.
-- Jadger 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually Halibutt, if you will notice Battle of Normandy is properly called Normandy Campaign (its in the campaign box to the right side) and the Battle of France was a campaign as well, it is also called the battle for France, which puts it in a totally different context. As you said about the "second Polish Republic" it is mostly a media term.
And BTW, battle is a very vague term, used for multiple types of engagements, that i think we can agree on, what we were referring to is WAR, which is a different matter, so stop changing the subject. I think you had better brush up on your english skills or stop playing dumb before continuing to use wikipedia
-- Jadger 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, but the difference is that no one is calling the Normandy Campaign the German defence of Western Europe from the Allied Scourge. There are no problems with the name "Normandy campaign" as there is with "Polish Defensive War". Wikipedia is built on consensus, so what "some people" call it doesn't matter, it is the majority, people in POland may call it the defensive war, but that has already gotten all that is warranted in the opening line of the article, we do not have to change the English language to suit some Poles.
-- Jadger 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the Polish Wikipedia calls the article "Kampania Wrzesniowa". I do not speak Polish, but I guess that "Kampania" means "Campaign" (Czech: Invaze [Invasion], German: Feldzug [Campaign], Spain: Inavsiòn, French: Offensive, Netherlands: campagne). Hence, nobody calls it a war not even the Polish Wiki. ( 213.70.74.165 08:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
Yes, but the heading is called only "Campaign" and we are talking about the heading for the English side. ( 213.70.74.165 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
And how do you imagine multiple article titles? WP:TITLE does not suggest we moved the article on 1944 landing in Normandy to Battle of Normandy, Invasion of Europe, Landing in France, D-Day, Battle for France, Liberation of Normandy, Normandy Campaign or Campaign in Normandy. // Halibu tt 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should actually have no problem with the article`s name any longer as almost everyone voted for "Invasion of Poland". Hence, why don`t we call the article accordingly and Halibut may state in the introduction that the event is also called "Polish (September) Campaign" in many countries respectively "Poland`s Defensive war" in Poland. Furthermore, we could link all other notions to the side. ( 213.70.74.164 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
that is fine, but what I am wondering is if Hali is going to continue to call it [[invasion of Poland|Polish Defensive War]] on linking pages, that is what started this whole thing.
-- Jadger 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
it is not the same as [[Germany|German]] actors as that is not POVed, and does not have so many things wrong with it as Polish Defensive War does. If you will notice above, it is the one with the most cons, and that is without going into detail, and put mildly. it would be fine if you would put " Invasion of Poland (known in Poland euphemisticaly as Polish Defensive War)" on articles, like the danzig/gdansk idea. If it is up to the author, then your revert war will continue, BUT since wikipedia is based upon consensus, the consensus was to not use Polish Defensive War, because a more suitable title exists. By voting for invasion of Poland to be used, you inherently voted for the disuse of Polish Defensive War.
-- Jadger 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the German Wikipedia and the article is called "Polenfeldzug" (=Polish campaign) there, but the article`s title is as well heavily disputed on the German discussion site as it refers to a notion which has been used
what about calling it Polish Defensive War|Polish September Campaign on the linking pages? ( 80.226.167.223 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
actually, you are dead wrong Halibutt, AGAIN! it is not up to the author to decide the title, Wikipedia is built upon consensus, and the consensus above clearly states that "polish defensive war" should not be used when we have much better options available to us. if it up to the author, then I can start the article Pro Man-Boy Sexual Intercourse Association and put your name down as the founder [[User: Halibutt|Pres. John Doe]], I created the article, so I can do that if I want (according to you). after all, according to you, that is "common sense".
not all rules are written down Halibutt, as I outlined in previous discussion (and it is also outlined on the article about trolls), you have found a way to sneakily avoid the rules.
Hali said: "...just like in the case of all other articles in Wikipedia? " Why don't you take that reasoning to the Jogaila article, if that were true, this discussion would not be happening
-- Jadger 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I was not meaning to offend, I was simply pointing out how, if the rules Halibutt has made up were actually to be applied universally across wikipedia, then there would be chaos and obvious miscontruations to this "rule". Now Halibutt, perhaps you can provide a link to this "rule" on wikipedia that the author can make up whatever name he/she wants for an article.
-- Jadger 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
if it's about style and nothing else (as u claim), than you should not mind if I edit the articles to be more smooth flowing and have the proper title as agreed by our consensus. Is that correct? or since you have more time on your hands, perhaps you could help out, or atleast not revert POV corrections.
P.S. leave your conjecture on talk:Jogaila on that page, there were more votes for Jogaila than any others, but you decided to combine votes for two different names to try and push your version.
-- Jadger 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
the Jogaila example is related as a warning to people to watch for the trick you and others tried to pull in the Request Move there. you combined votes for two different names and claimed it was a majority (kind of like the events the name Bolshevik came from), while the majority was in fact with Jogaila, although I will admit a slim majority. Perhaps you can show us how they forged a vote otherwise? sockpuppets? anon votes? what then tipped the scales against you that you must cry foul Hali? nobody is planning to do that here because I have already prewarned in order to stop you from trying to pull the same trick off twice.
eradicate the name I dont like for "no apparent reason"? it is a pretty obvious reason, the name I remove is inherrently POVed.
-- Jadger 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 00:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Polish September Campaign → Invasion of Poland (1939) – as per the lengthy discussion and voting above, as well as in the archives. // Halibu tt 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
was called by Balcer as Questionable/ambiguous votes. -- Irpen
In other words, four other articles have to go through a full RM process, gain concensus support, and be moved, before you can vote support here? Do you have any idea how long that would take? Please, be logical and just vote oppose, or modify your terms. Balcer 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, Polish invasion of Russia is not an article but a dab navigation page. Such pages take no position of the possible POV of the title and are designed to direct readers who might have been looking for one of the events listed to an article where they are described.
Halibutt, we may argue about PUW but the 17th century Polish attempts to install the puppet rulers of Russia by force, 1920 Pilsudski's attempt to install a puppet gov in Kiev by force, as well as the 11th century pludering of Kiev by Boleslaus in order to install his son-in-law there (by force) are clearly Polish invasions. Since in all these affairs it is absolutely clear "who invaded whom" as you put it, I will submit those article for RM later today when I have time and I would expect you to rally your votes in support. Once we see the new rule of "invasioning the article titles" taking hold, I will change my vote here to an unconditional support. Like those cases above, this is also an invasion. The only issue is whether we are using strong words in titles, as far as Poland is concerned, only when Poland happened to be a victim. -- Irpen 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Faustian, with respect to 1920 there is no controversy whatsoever that it was an invasion. We can hypothetically argue whether that was a "liberating" invasion or the "occupying" invasion but it fits perfectly the definition provided in the invasion article. As for you argument about the collaboration of Petlura with the invader and Petlura's claim to legitimacy, it was well discussed and whoever of the 1939 editors is interested can go to the other article's talk. The percentage of Ukrainians was significant on both sides, Petlura's faction in the Central Rada was small and in no way gave him a more significant legitimacy claim than to the Kharkiv exiled govermnet based on the pro-Bolshevik factions. Anyway, the dispute on who was good and who was bad belongs elsewhere. That action was clearly an invasion. And no less the invasion was the 17th century affair aimed at elimination of Russian statehood in toto as well as installing the Papism on whatever is left from it. -- Irpen 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See, Piotrus, I can agree to disagree. If we are talking this over a beer and you say this and I say that, we just order another set, move on and "agree to disagree". Here we have to agree whose version is reflected in Wikipedia. I am fine with the article being disagreeble to me if I see it as a reasonable compromise. I do not see the current state of affairs when the articles about events when Poland or Poles were victims are titled by loaded terms, such as Koniuchy massacre, Massacre of Lwów professors, Massacre of Poles in Volhynia, Katyn massacre and even the List of Polish Martyrdom sites. Now we are discussing loading the title of the major article here and, at the same time, same users who find such loading proper, vigorously oppose using the appropriate terminology for the article describing the events where Poland or Poles were attacking their neighbors themselves.
I say, avoid the massacres and invasions in titles in general. Use them in the articles where they can be referenced. However, if this community finds the POV words in titles acceptable, how come even the 17th century armed attempt to eliminate the Russian statehood still does not qualify to be called "an invasion" while we have all these massacres and martyrdoms in the titles around us. -- Irpen 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[The proposed title is] not NPOV and not how the combatants themselves described the action. Use redirects from "Invasion of Poland" bearing in mind it was invaded again in 1944. It was also a Russian invasion in 1939 not just a German one. Michael Dorosh 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm mildy against the word invasion. Not for any political reasons, but AFAIK invasion is usually the start of a military campaign. For example, I would assume that the phrase "German invasion of the Soviet Union" is a reference to Barbarossa, not the Soviet-Axis War as a whole. Beowulph 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why was the article moved if the results of the vote where: 11 supports:
6 opposes (including "conditional supports" with confition not met)
Conditional support were clearly marked as "should be counted as oppose" unless contition met which it was not.
Since when 11 vs 6 is considered consensus as the message states that "The result of the debate was move". Please move the article back and continue the discussion, if necessary. -- Irpen 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw this move request after six days (the regular move request length is five days) and noticed that things were close and that discussion was still continuing. So I relisted the move request to gain a better consensus. I then came back six days later again (once again, instead of the five days later) and re-evaluated the situation. Only one !vote had been made since the relisting. There had been discussion in the discussion section, but it essentially was the support and oppose !voters on two different ends. Considering the conditional support !votes as oppose votes it was 11-7 (not 11-6) in favor of the move, which makes 61.1%. For a move request, sixty percent is usually considered enough for a move to go through (see Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators#Determining consensus). As also mentioned above, two of the oppose were weak opposes, reinforcing the conclusion to move. Even some of the conditional supports reinforce the conclusion to move; Irpen, for instance, said in regards to the proposed new name, It makes sense and reflects what happened before saying other pages should be moved as well. There was also some debate over whether those other articles (not just the ones mentioned by Irpen) were comprable. However, please don't think I disregarded the conditional support !votes or counted them as supports; I'm just saying I took a look at what they said. So, based on the pre-RM discussion, the 61.1% in favor of moving, the weakness of two oppose !votes, and the comments in the conditional supports, I drew the conclusion that the page should be moved. -- tariqabjotu 10:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my previous vote in favor of name change. After reviewing all the discussion and also looking at many other articles about WWII, some called "Battles", some called "campaigns", And taking into account the large number of links that already exist to the article under its present title, including being recognized as a "Feature article". I Recommend that we quite wasting time on pointless arguments.
Syrenab 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
there are also a lot of links to it under a false name that is only supported by one wikipedia user, *cough* Halibutt *cough*, does that mean we should change it to "polish defensive war". Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and the consensus says to name it "invasion of poland" not polish defensive war or polish september campaign et al. and just because an article was featured doesn't mean it can't still be improved.
-- Jadger 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I know it is more than 22 because I have personally changed more than 22 to the article title from that "polish defensive war" then of course, you reverted my work. the current title was supported in previous to our poll and discussion, so that does not matter, If I had voted three times like you Halibutt, I would of supported it second because it is better than the rest except invasion of Poland.
-- Jadger 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Are the guns and stuff only German or not? I asked this before and received no answer. Kurt.
We have articles on the Battle of Sicily and the Battle of Normandy and the Italian Campaign rather than "invasion of...", so I don't understand how "Invasion of Poland" even becomes an acceptable alternative....? I think perhaps more members of the Military Task Force need to weigh in here. Michael Dorosh Talk 20:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Polenfeldzug 1939
Polish campaign 1939
Der Polenfeldzug gilt als Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges in Europa.
The Polish campaign is regarded as start of the Second World War in Europe.
Unter dem Decknamen Fall Weiß griff die deutsche Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 ohne vorherige
Under the codename Case White the German Wehrmacht attacked on 1th septembre 1939 without prior
Kriegserklärung Polen an. In der populären deutschen Literatur ist deshalb auch oft vom „Überfall auf
declaration of war Poland. In the popular German literature therefore either often "Descent on
Polen” die Rede, obwohl dieser Begriff umstritten ist.
Poland" is used, although this term is controversial.
In der Geschichtswissenschaft wird die Bezeichnung Polenfeldzug von einigen Wissenschaftlern kritisch
In science of history the term Polish campaign is viewed critical by several scientists,
betrachtet, da er nach ihrer Argumentation den Charakter des Angriffs nicht genau wiedergibt und den
because according to their argumentation the character of the attack not exactly reflected and the
polnischen Widerstand verharmlost. In vielen aktuellen Publikationen wird daher der Begriff
Polish resistance gets played down. Because of this in many current publications the term
Septemberfeldzug verwendet.
September campaign is used. Wandalstouring 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Usually "Überfall auf Polen" is translated with Attack on Poland. While attack means opening hostilities, the German "Überfall" means opening hostilities in an surprise attack and also means robbery. Wandalstouring 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How about just plain-old "Battle of Poland (1939)" I think that would circumvent the POV problems. A google search of "battle of poland" turns up about 800 google hits. I don't really know if that's enough to reflect the title as a common moniker. On wikipedia, there seems to be a bit of a president for referring to campaigns as "battle of foo" (eg. Battle of Normandy, Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Second Battle of the Atlantic, etc.). Mike McGregor (Can) 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt thinks it is a war though, and most others think it's a campaign, not battle. and all those examples you gave (precedent) are names media has given those campaigns, much like War on Drugs, there is no declaration of war by the USA on Crack Cocaine, it is a way to dramatize speech for maximum effect. a consensus has already been agreed upon I believe, only one or two people raising doubts now.
-- Jadger 06:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Poland does not necessarily refer to this event. Wandalstouring 11:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So where is the problem to have it under Polish September Campaign? Polish as well as German wiki authors could agree to this name. Sorry, I could not read the Russian version. I strongly argue to stop this POV pushing in English wiki. As long as no majority of Poles or Germans objects the same name in their native wikis there is reason to make such a fuzz here. Wandalstouring 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt claims that 'Polish Defensive War is less POVed and is more commonly used in Poland, despite it being shown in previous talk on this page that that is false, and the only people to ever support the term were him and Trollobo, totally defying the wikipedia policy of consensus.
-- Jadger 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Lysy said:":No, I see Halibutt supported the rename to "Invasion of Poland (1939)" above. What's your point ?
I wasn't just meaning on this specific poll, but over the whole of the the discussion page, no one besides him and Molobo EVER supported it, other Poles even said that September Campaign is more commonly accepted in Poland. -- Jadger 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibu tt 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanking for removing your rather uncivil personal attack upon me Halibutt, especially since Morondger does not even rhyme with jadger.
-- Jadger 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of these recent Slovak/Slovakian edits, anyone ? -- Lysy talk 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Prelude to the campaign", there is section that reads:
Both Danzig and the Polish Corridor constituted territories Germany was forced to give back to Polish state after World War I and Hitler roused German nationalism by creating a propaganda campaign about "poor persecuted" Germans in Poland and the need to "liberate" them(Germans at the time constituted 2,3 % of Polish population).
The final part of the statement is not sourced and it is in contradiction to the number used in the Second Polish Republic article. In the Second Polish Republic article, the 1939 German population of Poland is estimated at 5%.
There are probably modest NPOV issues involved, as well. The wording of the long sentence aggressively diminishes the seriousness of the concern of a German diaspora, both real and imagined. It also seems to confuse the point. If some considered it a just war to reclaim certain parts of lost territory that are somehow intrinsically German, then Polish resistance would be considered aggression against this reunification. In that case Germany would need to be prepared to defeat Polish resistance in a broader war in order to secure German lands, and talk of percentages in the abstract becomes unfruitful. There is a logic to it independent of our possible criticism.
-- Donald Hughes 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
what was this true motivation then Lysy? perhaps you could shed some light on the subject. Also those population percentages are for all of Poland, perhaps someone could find population percentages for the areas mentioned above, as stating the population percentages for all of Poland skews it to a somewhat pro-Polish perspective, i.e. they were such a small group of people, when in fact they were concentrated in the areas above, not around Vilnius or Warschau or Krakow.
-- Jadger 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, LON numbers give the German poulation of the Free City as being a "great majority" but i have yet to find a secondary source to verify that. I also agree that there is a touch of NPOV in the statement about the german population of Poland. Germany takes great pains to distinguish the polish corridor from Poland proper as far as military rationale went, the subsequent invasion being an artefact of the war over Danzig. I fear that there is the faintest shade of "argumentum ad Hitlerum" here. Just because they're nazis doesn't make everything they say wrong, just most of it. The worst part about the war is that this invasion of poland arises from rational concerns in the Senat and Volkstag, referenda, and illegal actions of the polish government - Danzig is defended, after all, dispite the LON constitution. It may be true that Germany was just making apower grab, and needed an excuse to take poland, but that excuse can still be right, and the war can still be legal. Attempts to reduce the legitimacy of these arguments (through non-historical means, of course) serves to detract from the greater anti-nazi case. I'm not trying to paint any malicious intention onto what was said, but it's a cause for more care. (sorry about the lack of signature, but i'm computer illiterate, and i have yet to figure out how to make an account)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.1.9 ( talk • contribs)
[ [6]] should be deleted I feel, as reading the first few paragraphs, if one was to believe what was written, it would surprise them that Aachen wasn't taken by Poland 1 week later. Of course I am overemphasizing this just like the author was, but is this truly a good reference? If you read his contact page [ [7]] it is pretty clear he has been objected to many times, also here [ [8]] he shows that he obviously does not know much about the subject, And the Nazi extermination machine did not achieve yet its full momentum the final solution and organized German extermination camps was not set up until 1941, Uncertain yet of the outcome of the conflict, German officers still were more reluctant to commit outrageous war crimes, than they did later during the Second World War. LMAO, this was the end of invasion of Poland, after their surrender, how much more certain can you be?
i see this source as highly dubious, what do others think?
-- Jadger 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
And I'm the one taking his words out of context? fondle anybody's nationalistic schizophrenia or treat inferiority complexes That is pretty clear to a native English speaking user that what he means is he has upset a considerable number of people with his website, and they have commented on it, and he has stuck his thumb up at them. What he means is that he is debasing his opponents and calling them names, rather than admitting he may not be 100% correct. As for citing his references, he does so on only for one of the pages, nowhere else. Not to mention his severe lack of credible English, using a word I had never heard before "Hitlerite" is there a town called Hitler? that's what it sounds like. Not to mention severe errors, like here: At night and dawn 3 September the Germans made two sorties; this time instead of SA and SS they were made by a battalion of naval cadets. [ [9]] The Germans could not believe that such a tiny outpost without serious fortifications could resist so long. They saluted Polish soldiers marching into captivity, and protected them of Danzig townfolks, who wanted to lynch them first time I've ever heard that.
Another serious mistakes on the Westerplatte page alone: "The defenders of Westerplatte saw a completely different picture: they repelled all the German attacks, they did not experience shortages in weapon and ammunition, two greatest powers - England and France - declared war on Germany, and due to lack of radio-communication they were not aware of the real military situation in Poland's hinterland." Now, if they were out of radio contact, how could they find out that UK and France had declared war? and how would that make them think they would be rescued? the Allies where thousands of miles away.
I'm surprised you support this link Hali, as it states contrary to your ideas, that Poland was already defeated after only a couple of weeks: "Therefore by the mid-September the German command achieved its main strategic and operation objectives. The Polish army was not yet completely destroyed, but it was already surrounded and deprived of strengths and possibilities for operational counter-action. The enemy possessed complete command in the air, and complete control over the land operations." sounds like simple wrapping up operations after mid-september to me and every other native English speaker.[ [10]]
this of course is just a start, I don't think it is necessary to go through the whole webpage and note it's deficiencies, or else we'd have to cite the whole website on this talk page, which would be a waste of space.
Halibutt, consensus is against you, 66.6% and this has been open for two weeks. Don't REVERT
-- Jadger 13:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
LMAO, please use an english search when trying to say it is common in English [ [11]]. not to mention the third best site with "Hitlerite" is Urbandictionary.com, a site that is a wiki like here. It also has the "words" hitleriffic, Hitlermart, Hitlery Clinton, etc. etc. the reason I have never heard it is because it has never been used by anyone credible. Perhaps you want to add hitleriffic, Hitlermart, Hitlery Clinton articles to wikipedia also hali.
please, I atleast tried to be reasonable and presented a reason for it not to be included, you simply personally attacked me and claimed I have an agenda.
-- Jadger 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I certainly will explain myself. Piotrus, if you look at the version closely, you will notice that it is not the one you and Hohns worked on, it is the other one. Someone snuck a revert in there on...00:13, 26 August 2006 Ramand. See for yourself.-- 72.94.90.144 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, since this is somewhat related, anyone who is knowledgeable and has access to good sources on the subject should jump to the Bromberg Bloody Sunday page. I also raised the objection that it is not referred to as the Bromberg " " , because I was almost certain that is how it is referred to.-- 72.94.90.144 17:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As per this, the edit is totally false. First, the stated purpose of soviet operation was not to "liberate" but to "protect". We can say of course that both a hypocritical but we need to be precise. Second, pics of Ukrainians rejoicing to the Soviets are available, moreover this is true. If you want, read this. If you want pics with Ukrainians greeting the Soviets with bread and salt I can add them to the article instead of the drawn posters. -- Irpen 11:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering that we have Image:German Soviet.jpg, I wonder if we are not overloading the article with pictures - and as Irpen pointed out, it's only part of the story (and yes, I think we could use at least one picture of Polish citizens welcoming Russians in 1939, though I don't think we have room of it here). As I wrote before, it would be nice to have a separate article about the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) - all the pics could go there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
recently, I tried being bold as wikipedia suggests, and edited the battle articles related to this campaign. I changed the clearly POV name Polish Defensive War and Polish September Campaign to the current article title, or [[Invasion of Poland(1939)|invasion of Poland]]. but I was immediately reverted, with my edits being called "vandalism". On a couple of articles, I translated the cited sources that were in Polish, and found out that in one case, it did not talk about the battle in question, let alone the atrocity it is claimed to verify in the article.
So, I came here to ask these questions:
here is one of the reversions of my edit compared to my edit:[ [14]] how does capitalizing the word "General"(rank) constitute vandalism? Or for that matter, how does this [ [15]] constitute vandalism?
for my edits, I have been told that by placing this article title into the articles related to it, I "INSERTING biased POV, false claims, admiration for the FRITZ and his passed away since XIX century state"
now, can someone civil explain why this article's title isn't acceptable on its constituent pages?
-- Jadger 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I read a translation of the references and nowhere in them was what you claimed. after further review of one, it seems I was wrong, and am sorry, but that does not give you the right to personally attack me. But you changed the actual reference on the other one to a different page.
If "This has nothing to do with this article's current title" then why did you revert all of my edits when all I did in that edit was change the link to this article's title? it seems you are reverting because I am the one doing it, you even reinstated grammatical errors and mispelled words that I had corrected.
-- Jadger 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
well, I'm sorry if I changed lorries to trucks and you took offence to it Halibutt. And in only one case I removed a valid reference, the other one, the page linked to did not say anything at all. and it is not vandalism, as vandalism requires Mens Rea and I had skimmed over a translation of the article and did not see the single sentence fragment that actually refers to the same thing as the article that cites it. Is a single sentence fragment enough to base a whole wikipedia article on? You have already been warned about calling my edits vandalism when they clearly are not. We are going to get nowhere if you are going to keep slandering me and stopping Wikipedia from progressing.
You still ignore my point:what is it about Invasion of Poland (1939) article title (which just for reference, you voted for) that you find so offensive and wrong that you must remove it and replace it with a term only used by the former communist regime in Poland? so please, stop slandering me and answer the question.
-- Jadger 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You are severely mistaken Halibutt, I do not need to argue with you over whether or not my edits were "vandalism" as an admin already warned you that it was not vandalism and characterizing it as such is extremely bad faith editing.
and please, I seem to miss where you explained that Invasion of Poland (1939) is a unsuitable name for this article, perhaps you could reiterate it here or provide a link to it. After all, it is very confusing that you vote for this article to be renamed to Invasion of Poland (1939) then go about removing the title you voted for from linking wikipedia articles.
-- Jadger 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the currently available PWN article on 'Kampania Wrześniowa' had its address changed ( [16]) and was also significantly truncated (without explanation). Archive org however still has the old, larger article: [17] (ISO-8859-2 coding should be selected for proper Polish diactrics).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
PL wiki says that this war ended in 5th October. Please verify your informations. Pan Wikipedia 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The last battle of the war was at Battle of Kock (1939). In that battle the last engagements were late evening of October 5. The battle group of Gen. Franciszek Kleeberg surrendered at 10:00 of October 6. As far as I am concerned the Invasion of Poland (1939) ended on October 6, 1939.
Syrenab 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A poster on usenet newsgroup uk.legal is requesting information about some old maps he found in a rubbish dump in 1948 which appear to show the Polish Army order of battle from 28/08/1939 to 20/09/1939. I thought I'd post details here as you are obviously experts and could perhaps help to verify if these are authentic and/or suggest a military expert who could examine them. What do you think of them ? Thanks, John 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:The Secret Life of Adolf Hitler 091 0001.jpg shows Joseph Goebbels addressing the German radio in afternoon Sep 1, 1939 confirming the news that German forces had attacked poland in the morning, the image is considered as the formal declaration of hostilities by germany, hope the image can be used in the article mainspace LegalEagle 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Being a Luftwaffe enthusiast I couldn't help notice some big mistakes on the strength of the airforce- for example it had 290 medium bomber aircraft on the opening of hostilities! and 240 Naval aircraft,! The Germans did not have a significant naval air arm during the entire war (with exception of the FW 200 Condor- which was produced in small numbers in fact 250 by the END of the war.)The Luftwaffe carried out naval anti shipping missions but few specially developed aircraft for this, standard types were often pressed into the role. I have corrected these omissions using credible sources.
Dapi89 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As the Soviet invasion of Poland 1939 has its own article, it is misleading to include the Soviet Union in the infobox here. In the German Wikipedia, we have solved this by mentioning the SU in parantheses in the upper part of the infobox, including a wikilink to the Soviet invasion article, and by ignoring the Soviet Union for the rest of the infobox. Is it ok to do it the same way here? -- KnightMove 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The colour coded map shows Italy being a member of the Axis Powers. Italy did not join the Axis until 10th June 1940, in which it declared war on Britain and France. So this map at Sept. '39 is incorrect.
Shouldnt this be replaced with a more suitable map? Or perhaps just some editing on 'paint or something'?
Dapi89 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The map's still looks wrong. Belarus and the Ukraine were part of the USSR, but it looks like they are seperate nations, or at the very least occupied. Needs correcting. Dapi89 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This now sorted. Thanks. Dapi89 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was just kinda helping out with History of the Luftwaffe during World War II & somehow or other I landed on Invasion of Poland (1939)... the latter has been an FA since 2005 apparently, but ... the refs look strange... there are references in an "Inline" section that are never even listed in the "General" section.. and I've never seen separate "Inline" & "General" sections before... one should be Notes and the other References... and every single source referred to in the Notes should be given a full entry in the References... ? Having full entries in two separate sections is kinda confusing... Ling.Nut 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I found one statement from the section of this article quite odd:
The "regardless of religious beliefs" phrase reads like POV-pushing to me. The phrase is unnecessary for an accurate summary of the German occupation of Poland. Its presence suggests that the author is trying to advance an agenda that is not related to the article - namely that Poles should be acknowledged as Holocaust victims to the same extent as Jews. The citation is to a website called holocaustforgotten.com, which is one individual's efforts to right what she sees as a historical injustice. The site is not a reliable source and one wonders whether the wikipedia logo on the main page [19], indicates that the author, a professional publicist [20], has been planting links to her site in wikipedia articles. GabrielF 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Szopen 07:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is simply that the agendas were different. Anyone with a Jewish grandparent was murdered in order to destroy the Jewish race. Poles were murdered in order to create Lebensraum. The end result was that six million Poles died - 20% of the total prewar Polish population of 30 million. Over 2.7 million of these victims were Jews, 90% of the prewar Jewish population of approximately 3 million. Thus was destroyed the biggest Jewish community in Europe and a whole culture lost. I don't however think it made much difference to the victim what the precise agenda of the Nazi brute was when (s)he was murdered, and Jews and Poles stand together both as victims and heroic resistors of the most murderous beast that humanity has ever seen.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neve Dan ( talk • contribs).
More needs to be said about Slovakia's participation. Although the Slovaks met only limited resistance they attacked with relatively large numbers for such a small nation and military power, 50,000. Perhaps someone who has more knowledge about the subject could make an actual article about some battle in which Slovaks fought agains't the Poles? Regards, -- Kurt Leyman 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Slovaks just wanted to take back the teritory which had been taken by Polish army before when Germany, Hungary and Poland tried to destroy chechoslovakia in 1938-39. Slovaks just wanted liberate their own people from polish suppresion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.215.89.47 ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Polish authors, you should not consider these territories (W.Belarus and W.Ukraine) as self-evident possession of Poland. Historically and initially these territories were the parts of the old Russian state Kievan Rus and the provinces of the Russian empire (Grodno, Volhynia etc). In these territories the Orthodox East-Slavic or Non-Polish population always prevailed. These territories (situated east to Curzon line) were annexed by independent Poland in 1919-1921, though Antanta and Britain (the closest allies of Poland) specified the Curzon line as the most suitable border of Poland.
Do not overlook, that by September, 17, German armies were already in 150 kilometers from the old border of the USSR and the Polish government ran to the Romanian border. What real chances to win Germany had the crushed Polish army receding to the Romanian border? (The additional facts. Romania was the ally of Germany. In prewar times Poland rejected all offers of the USSR on military cooperation, but annexed the part of the Czech territory in cooperation with Nazi-Germany.) Moving of the Soviet border westward to Curzon line played the important role in 1941 (initial positions of the German armies were moved away from Soviet centers) and finally in the victory of an antihitlerite coalition. Certainly last statement is debatable, however at present all facts and opinions inconvenient for the Polish POV are instantly exterminated Ben-Velvel 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
08:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is an article in Polish with pictures.-- Svetovid 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Since there's a daughter article for the Soviet invasion of Poland, shouldn't there be one for the German invasion? This article would then be the parent of both while the two children could contain the additional details on the fairly segregated fronts. Oberiko 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) The article "Invasion of Poland (1939)" adequately covers both the German and the Soviet invasions. There is no need for additional articles. There are already separate articles for the "Order of Battle", both German and Soviet as well as Polish.
Syrenab 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't the Western Allies declare war on the Soviet Union after they invaded poland? Didn't their "obligations" include decaring war on any country who invaded poland? 74.71.238.25 ( talk) 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
According to my father and polish history lessons he had in poland (he was born 59') - None o this informaion i have found in this article though, according to my father, poland had a pact with britain and france due to the growing threat of german invasion into poland, i want to know why in this article there is not a reference to Britains and frances cowardness when poland fought 4 weeks against germany and than the invasion by russia from the back of poland than Britains and Frances involvement. please email me, giga.3yte@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.156.65 ( talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should read article more carefully. Szopen ( talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how Piotrus ( talk · contribs) can think that the Polish attempt to start a war against Germany in 1933 is irrelevant to this article. [21] If the Germans knew about it it may explain their attitude. Also, the fact that the Polish foreign minister was crazy enough to want war in 1939, and actually thought they would win within 3 weeks should also be of note. A foreign minister has some influence on international politics, even a delusional, no?-- Stor stark7 Talk 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Related stuff should be moved to the sub-category of September Campaign. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 09:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
<Soviet atrocities commenced again after Poland was "liberated" by the Red Army in 1944, with events like the persecution of the Home Army soldiers and execution of its leaders (Trial of the Sixteen). >
Is this a legitimate encyclopaedia, or an anti-Soviet propaganda tool?-- SergeiXXX ( talk) 02:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Hmmm...
Szopen ( talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well how about this comment on the Germans' proposed modus vivendi with Poland: "but the concessions the Poles were expected to make meant that their homeland would become largely dependent on Germany, functioning as little more than a client state and Polish independence would eventually be threatened altogether."
Do we understand that Poland became not even "little more than a client state" of the Soviet Union after Germany's defeat? The German proposal to Poland surely was not everything that the Poles wanted but what options did they have? Belgium was created as "little more than a client state" of Britain. It is arguable that most of Europe after WWII was "little more than a client state" to one of the two extant great powers. All relatively weak countries with powerful neighbors have to make this choice. Nowadays, given the Polish endorsement of the invasion of Iraq, it appears that the USA has become Iraq'a patron. The idea that it was somehow shocking that Hitler should expect Poland's acceptance of a subordinate role is a bit warped and fails to take into account that Poland had no better option. Realistically Poland had to choose between alignment with either the USSR or Germany. Britain's 1939 "guarantee" presented a third alternative that was strictly a chimaera; the negative view of Hitler's offer indicates a failure to understand that. Hadding ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to start the topic of military equipment losses which is lacking of good information in this article.
For instance there are discrepancies in German equipment casaulties. There were many tanks knocked out in combat but repaired later. Due to German sources repeated in Achtung Panzer webpage inreplacable losses are: 89 PzKpfw I, 83 PzKpfw II, 26 PzKpfw III, 19 PzKpfw IV, 5 command tanks, 7 PzKpfw 35(t) and 7 PzKpfw 38(t) which makes 236 tanks.
But during combat only 4th Panzer Division (most unlucky German Pz Div) had similiar losses: first battle of Mokra about 50 tanks knocked out, second: unsuccesfull storm of Warsaw, heavy casaulties about 100 tanks plus heavy Polish artilerry fire from Warsaw burning some other tanks. Finally assault at Bzura with new losses. If I remember well at the end of the campaing the division had 25% of initial tank park.
The other issue is aircraft losses on which I am no great expert but if I remember well the number of lost German aircraft is about 450 (including about 90-130 lost to Polish fighters) the rest: AA and accidents.
Also about 130 guns, 300 armoured cars and 10.000 mechanical vehicles but I have to check sources. The interesting fact is that ammo stockes were running out.
Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr Lasowy: publication about Polish submarines is not good reference for German aircraft losses.
The most accurate is report by Luftwaffe Logistics included in Bekker, Cajus (1964): Angriffshöhe 4000 then repeated in Hooton and Polish publications: According to a Luftwaffe General Quartermaster report as of September 28 1939 german forces lost 285 aircraft to all causes, while 279 aircraft were damaged at 10% or above and were written of or required major repairs. Aircrew losses were 189 dead, 126 wounded and 224 missing.
Newest research by Marius Emmerling indicates that it also includes losses in Western Front. Here I include my research from Talk:History_of_the_Luftwaffe_during_World_War_II "Luftwaffe losses are questioned by Marius Emmerling in his Luftwaffe over Poland book as an effect of 15 years in Bundesmilitar Archives. So the report of 285 destroyed and 279 damaged include planes lost in combat action during campaing. But many of them were later found somewhere in Poland. First Emmerling corrects the number of 35 lost recce planes to 53 so it gives 303 100% lost aircraft. But Emmerling says that this report includes ALL THE LOSSES of Luftwaffe including western front. He corrects the number to 247 planes lost on Polish front including 91 lost due to accidents. 56 were lost on Western Front and 40 accidents in Germany."
Please read History_of_the_Luftwaffe_during_World_War_II#Poland which part was created after long discussions with German Wikipedians. Lots of sources given.
So tu sum up, Luftwaffe lost not more than 33% of invading force including destroyed and damaged (also the planes that returned to service)
Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 07:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remove this section when corrected. Something happened to bombed 40mm Bofors image and is now replaced by Bzura river contemporary picture. Please correct it. Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an edit warring about Soviet-German alliance resulting from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This view can be easily sourced to books by Viktor Suvorov - Icebreaker and others, although I have to look at exact pages. Biophys ( talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, disambigs are not a place to go into (controversial or not) details. I have written the article about the Soviet invasion, in proper contexts MRP can be reffered to as an alliance, but disambigs should be simple. I suggest removing controversial info from it, and instead expanding the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think 1.8 billion deported is a myth with many other sources citing data as large as 150.000-300.000 deported.Note,there is no citation of from where the above-mentioned 1.8 million figure is taken.
Frank Russian ( talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC),
While the number of deported people can be put under discussion (I've read about 500.000 deported) I do not understand your title. There is no doubt that it was invasion not "so called invasion". It was violation of Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact, Polish ambassadors in Moscow were arrested and the whole action was agreed with Germans. How would you call it then? Help for workers and peasants of Belarussia and Ukraine? Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"Altogether, the civilian losses of Polish population amounted to 150,000, while German civilian losses amounted to roughly 5,000.[citation needed]"
When Poles had time to kill 5,000 German civilians ? Any proofs for that ?!
-- Krzyzowiec ( talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
From a document published by Polish Institute of National Remembrance ( [23]), Tomasz Chinciński, Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 r. w świetle dokumentów policyjnych i wojskowych II Rzeczypospolitej oraz służb specjalnych III Rzeszy. Część 1 (marzec–sierpień 1939 r.). Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość. nr 2 (8)/2005. In this recent work, Chinciński gives (p. 162) a number of 3265 citizens of German nationality (cywile narodowości niemieckiej) who died in Poland in September 1939; about 2000 of those deaths occurred due to those civilians participating in diversionary ( fifth column) activities. I do wonder - was it common for German minority members in interwar Poland to have a dual citizenship? In other words, how does Chinciński define the "citizen of a German nationality" - are they "German citizens" only, or "Polish-German citizens", or what? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently redirects here. But there were other famous invasions: Mongol invasion of Poland, The Deluge... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Polish infantry.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT FAMOUS CAVARLY CHARGE TROUGH WOLKA WGLOWA IS A MYTH IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BUT ON THAT DAY THERE WAS A DAY LONG BATTLE RAGING THERE WHERE 3720 POLISH SOLDIERS WERE KILLED MORE THEN 3 TIMES THEN AT MONTE CASSINO THE PROOF OF IT IS 2500 AT KELPIN CEMETERY 500 AT WAWRZYSZEW AND 720 AT LASKI ALL THIS COULD BE CHECKED AND RECORDED BECAUSE NO BODY SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT IT I KNOW BECAUUSE I HAD TO BURY THEM AT 12 YEARS OLD EUGENIUSZ WOJCIECHOWSKI FROM WOLKA WEGLOWA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.194.106 ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I added reference on civilian losses.-- Molobo ( talk) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Two sub-articles needed- German atrocities during Invasion of Poland and Nazi propaganda during Invasion of Poland. Both are studied subjects and deserve seperate treatment as knowledge of them is essential regarding the full view of the German agression.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
OF POLISH SOLDIERS KILLED IN AND AROUND WOLKA WEGLOWA ON 19 TH OF SEPTEMBER 1939 ES 3720 THERE WAS NO ANY CAVARLY CHARGE THERE AND I CAN PROOVE IT 20 1 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.195.147 ( talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
How is history supposed to understand why this was called defencive? Can we have a page explaining the mindsent that lead to the worst conflict in global history? The Defencive War
AFAIK in 1939 Poland has 39 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, 2 motorised brigades, 3 mountain brigades and some National Defence and KOP units. ORP Gryf, largest Polish war ship, should be on the navy list.-- Mrc 19:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have you seen the Polish army order of battle in 1939? I'll let Halibutt answer the division number question, as he created that article. Good point about Gryf, he is often forgotten. But are you sure he was the biggest? Gryf links (for article 'to do': [1], [2], [3] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, as a matter of fact we had 41 infantry divisions (you forgot about 50th, 55th and 60th) and one cavalry division (well.. improvised and combined so it can be ommitted in the battlebox). As to the cavalry Bdes - that's right. The same goes for motorised. The problem I have with mountain troops is that if we count 39 Infantry Divisions, then we must mention the two mountain divisions separately (2 divisions -21st and 22nd - and 3 additional Bdes).
Of course ORP Gryf was the biggest birdie we had until 1943 when ORP Dragon and later ORP Conrad arrived (well, except for ORP Bałtyk which was a pre-WWI battleship, but was completely obsolete and used as a hulk). -- Halibu tt 08:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote an article about ORP Gryf. -- Mrc 13:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anon changes:
I hesitate to change it since it is minor and I have no sources for one way or another. Halibutt? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
http://worldatwar.net/wars/ww2/poland39/ 48 casualties of which 16k were killed...
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/EuropeatWar/blitzkrieg_poland.htm
Which brings again a question: why there is no number for missing in Polish losses? And why the losses were so much higher, if in several battles i've read the differences in losses were not that stunning?! Szopen 09:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone changed the sentence, "Germans and Poles usually refer to it as 'the September Campaign,'" to: "From the German perspective the war is called the [!] 'the September Campaign.'" Why this change? In Polish, it is commonly called "Kampania wrześniowa" ("the September Campaign"). logologist 14:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have, over decades, spoken with many Polish veterans of September 1939, and the only term I recall them using is "kampania wrześniowa," with no derogatory or tendentious connotation. For the Poles — at least, for those Poles — September 1939 was just one campaign in their war. logologist 19:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've spoken, and do speak, with Polish veterans who fought in September 1939, who fought at Cassino, who fought in both those venues and elsewhere, and they all speak of "the September Campaign" or — by way of shorthand — indeed of "September." But my veterans have never spoken of a "Defensive War"; I've seen it in a book title but never heard it, and to my ear it sounds like "political correctness." But I guess that's what comes of spending nearly all one's life away from the living springs of a nation's p.c. logologist 01:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We are not talking about what it is called in Polish tho, this is English WIkipedia. very few ppl in english have ever heard the term, indeed everyone I have talked to have never heard the term, it is usually called the invasion of Poland, simply as that in English. "Polish Defensive War" makes it sound as if Poland was perfectly innocent, instead of revealing the fact that the Polish army had made raids accross the border since the end of WWI and the establishment of the Polish state (which were often stopped by the Freikorps), indeed the Germans made up a false occurence of this relatively common happening to declare war in 1939. I think a vote should be taken like on the Danzig/Gdansk topic where we agree on one term for all pages, as I see Halibutt likes to go to every page on WWII and change invasion of poland or polish september campaign to "polish defensive war". I am not saying to totally ignore the name used by Halibutt, but instead just have it as a sidenote after the title, like Gdansk/Danzig. why all this POV pushing Halibutt? Jadger 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
they became less frequent once the NAZIs took over, as the Poles knew that the NAZIs meant business. I will try and find sources for u. but from the sources I do remember, the Attack on Sender Gleiwitz was made to imitate Polish attacks accross the border that happened shortly after WWI, for instance the 1st to 3rd Silesian Uprisings, which were aided by Polish army units. Jadger 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No u misunderstand, Poles were not who started WWII, they had previously made border clashes with Freikorps, which in any authorative book on the freikorps tells of such happening. however they did assist in the uprisings in Silesia, for instance in 3rd Silesian Uprising topic
"The insurrection began on the date planned early in May, because the population had already been terrified by many acts of violence from the Greater Polish Army as well as German paramilitary groups."
now at this time it was a part of Germany, this proves my point, as why would they be scared of the Polish army if it had never made cross-border raids? the answer of course is that indeed they did make cross-border raids and patrols. The first and third (I said first to third, meaning second as well) were antagonized by both sides wishing to crush the other, they were not simply polish attacks or German attacks upon the other. do u really think that the Nazi propogandists would make up an fake polish attack out of the blue so to say? of course not, every lie has to be based in some way on some slight truth, in order to be believable. Jadger 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sources with quotes, pretty please. From books printed after the 1980 or primary documents. Szopen 10:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
already told u, check the Silesian Uprising pages, there are references on there, as for other primary sources, read Goebbels' speech upon the declaration of war on Poland. sure it has lots fo propoganda in it, but this propoganda cant be made out of thin air, it must be based on atleast a little bit of facts which are outlined. Jadger 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have completed a bachelor in History at University (I am not going to divulge more personal info), and I don't know why my education level matters. Goebbels would not of made up this idea of Polish raids if there was not atleast a history or a threat of it, read any authorative history of Weimar Germany, the Freikorps not only crushed the left but they also repelled raids by the Polish army. just will u atleast look at the Silesian uprisings page on the wiki, it clearly states that the Polish army was interfering and aiding the rebels and antagonizing. Jadger 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)in
Great job everyone
( Deng 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
Anyone opposed to changing this article's title from " Polish September Campaign" to " Invasion of Poland 1939"? logologist| Talk 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
We should simply use the most common names of the wars. However, if we are to use strong terms where applicable (no doubt invasion is applicable here) I would ask same users to support renaming articles about Polish invasions to the East to "invasion" as well. We now have a Polish-Muscovite War and Soviet-Polish War. Please invasion their titles too. Same standards everywhere. -- Irpen 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt's and some other responses were fierce but off-topic. Now back to the topic. Are we going to rename Polish-Muscovite War into a "Polish invasion of Russia"? There is plenty of sources that call it such. It is also called "Polish internevtion". Maybe Halibutt would prefer that one? The bottomline is that invasion is a strong word and, as per common sense, there is no need to use strong terms in article titles. I went length into that here. Please take a look at this one month old discussion. If we abandon the rule to avoid strong words in titles, we should call the Polish invasions fopr what they were as well. And I am talking the article titles. Davies uses Polish invasion of Tesin (I can give a page #). Multiple source use Polish intervention or Polish invasion of Russia for PL-Muscovy war. Let's just think whether strong words is a thing to use or to avoid in Wikipedia article titles. There are academic souces that use strong word (examples above) and we can then rename a bunch of articles. If we prefer strong words NOT used in the titles, we should clean up the massacres and martyrdoms from a bunch of PL related article. For now, I see double standards: Polish users like to use such terms for articles where Poland was a victim but not when it was the perpetrator. Details here. -- Irpen 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Invasion of Poland, 1939 or the likes is good, as that is what it was, and that is what it is most commonly called in English. I also like it as unlike other names it does not say only the one attacker, as sometimes it is called German attack on Poland, which ignores the fact that the Russians and Slovaks also attacked and took land.
-- Jadger 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, the topic here is the optimization of the names. I pointed to a global problem we have in many Poland related articles. Your post, OTOH, strarted with allegations about some users having been related by blood (siblings!).
I can't think of any other user than yourself who contributed more to the current bizarre mess with titles ("massacres" being used in articles where Poles were victims and invasions not being used when Poles where the perpetrators). The situation was described in detail earlier and prompted no action since, sadly, the Polish Wikicommunity either shares or is willing to tolerate there double standards used for titling the articles. -- Irpen 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
then I support the current name, as it is the same as Ahasuerus' title except it has the time period in the title.-- Jadger 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Polenfeldzug 1939
Polish campaign 1939
Der Polenfeldzug gilt als Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges in Europa.
The Polish campaign is regarded as start of the Second World War in Europe.
Unter dem Decknamen Fall Weiß griff die deutsche Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 ohne vorherige
Under the codename Case White the German Wehrmacht attacked on 1th septembre 1939 without prior
Kriegserklärung Polen an. In der populären deutschen Literatur ist deshalb auch oft vom „Überfall auf
declaration of war Poland. In the popular German literature therefore either often "Descent on
Polen” die Rede, obwohl dieser Begriff umstritten ist.
Poland" is used, although this term is controversial.
In der Geschichtswissenschaft wird die Bezeichnung Polenfeldzug von einigen Wissenschaftlern kritisch
In science of history the term Polish campaign is viewed critical by several scientists,
betrachtet, da er nach ihrer Argumentation den Charakter des Angriffs nicht genau wiedergibt und den
because it does not reflect exactly the character of the attack and the
polnischen Widerstand verharmlost. In vielen aktuellen Publikationen wird daher der Begriff
Polish resistance gets played down. Because of this in many current publications the term
Septemberfeldzug verwendet.
September campaign is used. Wandalstouring 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There are some interesting articles on pl wiki about campaings withing this campaign that should eventually be translated:
I would like to divide the battles in Template:Campaignbox Polish September Campaign between those campaigns (theaters?). I would think that Battle of Bzura should also be classified as a 'larger-then-your-average-battle' campaign, and we would probably need something for Romanian Bridgehead (last stages of the war), and possibly battle of Warsaw (1939) may be separate. Any comments on that?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Other related articles to translate from pl wiki:
As the topic title has already been discussed on this talk page, I would like to finally close the matter once and for all. Halibutt keeps trolling and watching my contributions, after everytime I change "Polish Defensive War" to the standard "Polish September Campaign" he will revert my work. I feel it has already been discussed extensively on here, and as "Polish September Campaign" is more acceptable and less POV then "defensive war" and so we should conclusively say on here that one term is to be used. The article title has already been settled on here, so why do you insist on changing it's name on every article except this one to your POV version which it has already been stated is rarely if ever used, my dear Hali?
-- Jadger 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
well, when I edit more than 10 articles on Polish military units and/or significant people from "polish Defensive war" to "Polish September Campaign" on one day, and the next day all of them have been reverted to the previous POV version by another person, what else am I to think? Not to mention that multiple times he has also reverted my grammar and spelling corrections to an incorrect version the next day after I make them simply because it is me doing the editing. But please, do not take this off topic, the point is, why push a POV Molobo, when a title has already been agreed upon? and so what if the September Campaign extended a few days into October? the Hundred Years War didn't last 100 straight years. Not to mention that both are not used, Polish Defensive War has never been used in English Language scholarly work, if it has, point it out, the only time "defensive war" is used is in Polish sources. This has already been discussed above, and even your fellow Poles admit "September Campaign" is more common in Poland than "defensive war" (as stated in previous discussions here).
-- Jadger 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, guys, is that that important? As long as PDW is used by some English sources, why not use it from time to time? It is not POVed or anything. Although personally I would prefer to avoid redirects and so I'd recommend to Halibutt that if he thinks PDW is better, why not go for RM? PS. Both of you, please don't even think of engaging in revert wars on that. If I see them, I will come down hard on both of you - consider this a friendly admin warning.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not revert warred, although Halibutt has tried to antagonize me into doing so, see the history for: [[Polish 8th Infantry Division] Henryk Sucharski Podhale rifles etc. etc. the list goes on and on, if you you look at his contributions lately, you will see most of it has been changing it to "polish defensive war".
-- Jadger 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
you retalliate? I dont think so, I was only pointing out some of your major character faults, just like you did, as you were the one that made it personal, starting with: Don't get me wrong, Jadger, but I have yet to see you actually write any article on the matter, while most of your edits are either related to removal of some facts you're uncomfortable with (German WWII war crimes) or names switching (as is the case here). Why not focus on something more constructive? that is put in a nice way, like if I were to say, "no offence Halibutt, but your an asshole". Of course I have not said that, but putting the no offence at the start like you placed dont get me wrong makes it alright to say w/e you want.
both names are not thus equally prominent for users of wiki, as the one only shows up in the coding, when a reader reads the article they do not 98% of the time read the coding to find any hidden words. especially since the two names are not equal, "polish Defensive War" is not used by anyone outside of Poland as has been shown on here, so why do you insist a Polish name should take precedence over the terms commonly accepted everywhere else.
However, by common sense people whop write articles should have a freedom of choice of proper words at least no lesser than those who merely campaign for changing a word or two here and there. of course, but within reason, that does not mean that they can push their own POV simply because they have written an article, as the articles are collaborations, you cannot claim to have written this article and use whatever name you want on it and all links to it. this again goes to my argument above, if I were to have written this article, I could not make every link say [[polish september campaign|tooty fruity]] or in every instance of the use of John Lennon's name on the wiki call him [[John Lennon|Johnny Boy]]. Of course John Lennon never went by the name "Johnny Boy", and neither has the invasion of Poland ever been called "defensive war" by anyone sensible or atleast a little knowledgeable.
-- Jadger 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Both are not 100% acceptable, if both were 100% acceptable you would not have a problem with my calling it the september campaign, and would not revert my work. If both were 100% acceptable, we would not be going through this dispute.
we are not using Septemberfeldzug, stop misrepresenting my position in order to make your position seem correct. I have not only changed your reverts to september campaign but also to German invasion of Poland in 1939 but you still reverted that, I have tried to find a middle ground, you have just blatanly pushed me around.
LMAO, "statement of fact", if I were to be as non-sensical as you, I would claim that all my edits are simple statements of fact and not provide any credible sources. for instance, I am simply stating a fact when I say that all pigs can fly. not to mention that it is not a statement of fact, as it was not a war, but a campaign, if it were a war, where is the peace treaty that ended it? there was a treaty to end WWII, but not to end the Polish Defensive war, so technically Germany and Poland are still at war then rite?
my remark was not misleading, the only person other than yourself any english wiki user has ever encountered that uses "defensive war" is Molobo. while to you he was a marytr, to everyone else he was not sensible and possessed very little knowledge, as even you noticed on occasion.
-- Jadger 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think i speak for all humanity when I say WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU MAKE NO SENSE!!! Polish October Campaign? you make no sense, as stated earlier, names dont have to encapsulate everything (e.g. Hundred years War) but you do not call something it is not, we do not write articles about squirrels and refer to them as human transportation, so why do you call a campaign a war? The Polish September Campaign did not use all the forces of any nation except Poland, which explains why it is only ever called a war in Poland, while everywhere else it is seen simply as a minor campaign in comparison to the ones to come later.
WWII in Europe ended with Germany's unconditional surrender, they signed a treaty declaring their unconditional surrender.
"If we were the only two guys to prefer that name over the other - what's wrong with that?" well when wiki is supposed to be based on consensus and two people (now one) insist on pushing their own name for an article against all others' efforts, well then it throws the very foundations of the wiki out the window.
if you are so sure that you're correct and think "polish defensive war" should be used, lets hold a WP:RM to make it fair and make sure you cannot combine votes from multiple options (see talk:jogaila), we will first hold a vote to see if the name should be moved from Polish September Campaign to Polish Defensive War. After that, we can hold a vote on whether to move it from Polish September Campaign/Defensive War (whichever wins) to Invasion of Poland or similar as discussed previously.
-- Jadger 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am guessing that since you have not responded to discussion in 3 days (and made ~250 edits since then) that you have either admitted defeat or are unwilling to continue a discussion on the topic as I have backed you into a corner by offering the WP:RM. consider this a warning, tomorrow I will start moving all them back to Polish September Campaign unless you continue the discussion here.
-- Jadger 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. well, i changed the terming to [[polish september campaign|invasion of Poland]] and you still reverted, if you would actually care to read your edits rather than just use popups then you might see your numerous errors. I was also talking about the WP:RM that you proposed, and I agreed above, but now what is this? you are reneging yet again? hmmm... so you're just going to continue to try to draw me into a revert war? If [[polish defensive war]] will gain no support in a WP:RM, why do you continue to use it in articles?
now, for me and everyone else, be honest and please tell us why you are carrying on your silly crusade to change all the links to an article from its actual name to a name that only you use. I will not stop correcting your POV pushing until you can atleast come to a certain agreement and stop trying to procrastinate and hope this goes away. and don't you dare ignore discussion again and simply push your POV while ignoring the problems with your edits, while others raise alarms to your "work" on the discussion pages.
as for "writing own articles" I have barely enough time write now to stop your POV pushing, how am I supposed to write articles when there are more pressing matters in "daily upkeep" as I shall put it nicely" of the articles I have currently contributed to. another note, I dont have an axe to grind like you, so I dont feel the need to make up articles and fill them with links to the IPN spouting words of hate and blatantly false acussations against Germany and its people.
-- Jadger 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this poll is to establish the two most reasonable names for the conflict in question and to check which names should be brought to proper WP:RM. Feel free to add second and third choices as well as pros and cons to the relevant sections. As the matter seems to be touchy, please stay civil and avoid arguments like it's wrong because it's supported only by Nazi propaganda. Thanks in advance. // Halibu tt 08:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1.That's how it is officially referred to as in Poland therefore that's how it should be Barciur ( talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Did I forget some name? Feel free to add it to the list. // Halibu tt 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, serious people in Germany do not say "Polenfeldzug" (because that notion had been already used before 1945). Instead of "Polenfeldzug" most historians, school books, etc. say "Überfall auf Polen" (=assault/raid on Poland) in Germany. I have to admit that my English translation could be optimized as - at least - "Raid on Poland" sounds somehow shitty (ps: the already proposed notion "Invasion of Poland" comes quite close to "Überfall" but is not the same). However, this notion does not exclude the Soviet role, does neither say war nor campaign, does not limit the actions to September, etc. ( 213.70.74.165 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
in reference to Polish September Campaign cons: the point Halibutt makes does not really matter as there was not any major fighting in October, and the name is simply a slightly different version of Polish Campaign of 1939. see similar instance War of 1812 which lasted well into 1815. -- Jadger 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
not only the German perspective sees it as a campaign, but everyone excluding Poles does as well. If it was a separate war from WWII as Halibutt claims, then how can its start be the start of WWII (as it is)? And also, when did this war end? as the article so proudly proclaims that Poland never surrendered, and there was no fighting in this "war" after Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany did not surrender to Poland either. -- Jadger 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
please only vote for one article title, this is a poll, we don't want you to start combining multiple votes like you did on talk:Jogaila-- Jadger 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the German Wikipedia and the article is called "Polenfeldzug" (=Polish campaign) there, but the article`s title is as well heavily disputed on the German discussion site as it refers to a notion which has been used before 1945. However I would propose "Attack[Assault] on Poland" [as for the titles at choice, I would prefer "Invasion of Poland"]. ( 213.70.74.164 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
the sino-Japanese war started long before WWII, the Great Patriotic War is a communist propoganda term for the fighting between Germany and the USSR, the Slovak-Hungarian war was isolated fighting that was not a part of WWII, but took place at the same time and did not involve any of the countries/alliances that were at war at the time in a major capacity. the continuation war was a separate one, as it states on the article "The Continuation War is so named in Finland to make clear its relationship to the Winter War" it is named so in Finland, it is meant to determine it from other fighting finland partook in during WWII.
Battle of Kock: 250 KIA, that is not classified as major fighting, more German civilians died from the strategic bombing practically every nite later in the war.
-- Jadger 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to answer my question. Anyone else able to help him answer either question? Sorry, Halibutt no cigar this time. Dr. Dan 00:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
perhaps, but only Hali knows his true intentions, the rest of us can try to determine by his actions, and that seems to be what he did in previous discussion.
-- Jadger
LOL Halibutt, now who's having "illusions of grandeur"? "the pacific war" was a media name for the Pacific theatre of operations, never actually used, like your describing of "Second Polish Republic". just like "the war in iraq" is not a separate war from the war on terror, but a part of it, hence why it is war in Iraq, not "a war in Iraq". it is hard to describe, it is mainly semantics, but here is another example: the war of 1812, one can say "the war in Canada" and "the war in America" and still be talking of the same war. MY POINT about your use of conflict is that you will use the word conflict, then when proven wrong you will say you did not mean conflict in that way.
BTW: I love your game of "which one doesn't belong", it really is quite childish. As I said earlier, the Sino-Japanese war was related to WWII, but was not the same war as it started much earlier than WWII. will you please notice at the bottom of the article Winter War that it is listed as a "contemporary war", not a part of WWII.
-- Jadger 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually Halibutt, if you will notice Battle of Normandy is properly called Normandy Campaign (its in the campaign box to the right side) and the Battle of France was a campaign as well, it is also called the battle for France, which puts it in a totally different context. As you said about the "second Polish Republic" it is mostly a media term.
And BTW, battle is a very vague term, used for multiple types of engagements, that i think we can agree on, what we were referring to is WAR, which is a different matter, so stop changing the subject. I think you had better brush up on your english skills or stop playing dumb before continuing to use wikipedia
-- Jadger 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, but the difference is that no one is calling the Normandy Campaign the German defence of Western Europe from the Allied Scourge. There are no problems with the name "Normandy campaign" as there is with "Polish Defensive War". Wikipedia is built on consensus, so what "some people" call it doesn't matter, it is the majority, people in POland may call it the defensive war, but that has already gotten all that is warranted in the opening line of the article, we do not have to change the English language to suit some Poles.
-- Jadger 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the Polish Wikipedia calls the article "Kampania Wrzesniowa". I do not speak Polish, but I guess that "Kampania" means "Campaign" (Czech: Invaze [Invasion], German: Feldzug [Campaign], Spain: Inavsiòn, French: Offensive, Netherlands: campagne). Hence, nobody calls it a war not even the Polish Wiki. ( 213.70.74.165 08:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
Yes, but the heading is called only "Campaign" and we are talking about the heading for the English side. ( 213.70.74.165 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
And how do you imagine multiple article titles? WP:TITLE does not suggest we moved the article on 1944 landing in Normandy to Battle of Normandy, Invasion of Europe, Landing in France, D-Day, Battle for France, Liberation of Normandy, Normandy Campaign or Campaign in Normandy. // Halibu tt 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should actually have no problem with the article`s name any longer as almost everyone voted for "Invasion of Poland". Hence, why don`t we call the article accordingly and Halibut may state in the introduction that the event is also called "Polish (September) Campaign" in many countries respectively "Poland`s Defensive war" in Poland. Furthermore, we could link all other notions to the side. ( 213.70.74.164 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
that is fine, but what I am wondering is if Hali is going to continue to call it [[invasion of Poland|Polish Defensive War]] on linking pages, that is what started this whole thing.
-- Jadger 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
it is not the same as [[Germany|German]] actors as that is not POVed, and does not have so many things wrong with it as Polish Defensive War does. If you will notice above, it is the one with the most cons, and that is without going into detail, and put mildly. it would be fine if you would put " Invasion of Poland (known in Poland euphemisticaly as Polish Defensive War)" on articles, like the danzig/gdansk idea. If it is up to the author, then your revert war will continue, BUT since wikipedia is based upon consensus, the consensus was to not use Polish Defensive War, because a more suitable title exists. By voting for invasion of Poland to be used, you inherently voted for the disuse of Polish Defensive War.
-- Jadger 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the German Wikipedia and the article is called "Polenfeldzug" (=Polish campaign) there, but the article`s title is as well heavily disputed on the German discussion site as it refers to a notion which has been used
what about calling it Polish Defensive War|Polish September Campaign on the linking pages? ( 80.226.167.223 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
actually, you are dead wrong Halibutt, AGAIN! it is not up to the author to decide the title, Wikipedia is built upon consensus, and the consensus above clearly states that "polish defensive war" should not be used when we have much better options available to us. if it up to the author, then I can start the article Pro Man-Boy Sexual Intercourse Association and put your name down as the founder [[User: Halibutt|Pres. John Doe]], I created the article, so I can do that if I want (according to you). after all, according to you, that is "common sense".
not all rules are written down Halibutt, as I outlined in previous discussion (and it is also outlined on the article about trolls), you have found a way to sneakily avoid the rules.
Hali said: "...just like in the case of all other articles in Wikipedia? " Why don't you take that reasoning to the Jogaila article, if that were true, this discussion would not be happening
-- Jadger 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I was not meaning to offend, I was simply pointing out how, if the rules Halibutt has made up were actually to be applied universally across wikipedia, then there would be chaos and obvious miscontruations to this "rule". Now Halibutt, perhaps you can provide a link to this "rule" on wikipedia that the author can make up whatever name he/she wants for an article.
-- Jadger 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
if it's about style and nothing else (as u claim), than you should not mind if I edit the articles to be more smooth flowing and have the proper title as agreed by our consensus. Is that correct? or since you have more time on your hands, perhaps you could help out, or atleast not revert POV corrections.
P.S. leave your conjecture on talk:Jogaila on that page, there were more votes for Jogaila than any others, but you decided to combine votes for two different names to try and push your version.
-- Jadger 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
the Jogaila example is related as a warning to people to watch for the trick you and others tried to pull in the Request Move there. you combined votes for two different names and claimed it was a majority (kind of like the events the name Bolshevik came from), while the majority was in fact with Jogaila, although I will admit a slim majority. Perhaps you can show us how they forged a vote otherwise? sockpuppets? anon votes? what then tipped the scales against you that you must cry foul Hali? nobody is planning to do that here because I have already prewarned in order to stop you from trying to pull the same trick off twice.
eradicate the name I dont like for "no apparent reason"? it is a pretty obvious reason, the name I remove is inherrently POVed.
-- Jadger 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 00:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Polish September Campaign → Invasion of Poland (1939) – as per the lengthy discussion and voting above, as well as in the archives. // Halibu tt 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
was called by Balcer as Questionable/ambiguous votes. -- Irpen
In other words, four other articles have to go through a full RM process, gain concensus support, and be moved, before you can vote support here? Do you have any idea how long that would take? Please, be logical and just vote oppose, or modify your terms. Balcer 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, Polish invasion of Russia is not an article but a dab navigation page. Such pages take no position of the possible POV of the title and are designed to direct readers who might have been looking for one of the events listed to an article where they are described.
Halibutt, we may argue about PUW but the 17th century Polish attempts to install the puppet rulers of Russia by force, 1920 Pilsudski's attempt to install a puppet gov in Kiev by force, as well as the 11th century pludering of Kiev by Boleslaus in order to install his son-in-law there (by force) are clearly Polish invasions. Since in all these affairs it is absolutely clear "who invaded whom" as you put it, I will submit those article for RM later today when I have time and I would expect you to rally your votes in support. Once we see the new rule of "invasioning the article titles" taking hold, I will change my vote here to an unconditional support. Like those cases above, this is also an invasion. The only issue is whether we are using strong words in titles, as far as Poland is concerned, only when Poland happened to be a victim. -- Irpen 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Faustian, with respect to 1920 there is no controversy whatsoever that it was an invasion. We can hypothetically argue whether that was a "liberating" invasion or the "occupying" invasion but it fits perfectly the definition provided in the invasion article. As for you argument about the collaboration of Petlura with the invader and Petlura's claim to legitimacy, it was well discussed and whoever of the 1939 editors is interested can go to the other article's talk. The percentage of Ukrainians was significant on both sides, Petlura's faction in the Central Rada was small and in no way gave him a more significant legitimacy claim than to the Kharkiv exiled govermnet based on the pro-Bolshevik factions. Anyway, the dispute on who was good and who was bad belongs elsewhere. That action was clearly an invasion. And no less the invasion was the 17th century affair aimed at elimination of Russian statehood in toto as well as installing the Papism on whatever is left from it. -- Irpen 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See, Piotrus, I can agree to disagree. If we are talking this over a beer and you say this and I say that, we just order another set, move on and "agree to disagree". Here we have to agree whose version is reflected in Wikipedia. I am fine with the article being disagreeble to me if I see it as a reasonable compromise. I do not see the current state of affairs when the articles about events when Poland or Poles were victims are titled by loaded terms, such as Koniuchy massacre, Massacre of Lwów professors, Massacre of Poles in Volhynia, Katyn massacre and even the List of Polish Martyrdom sites. Now we are discussing loading the title of the major article here and, at the same time, same users who find such loading proper, vigorously oppose using the appropriate terminology for the article describing the events where Poland or Poles were attacking their neighbors themselves.
I say, avoid the massacres and invasions in titles in general. Use them in the articles where they can be referenced. However, if this community finds the POV words in titles acceptable, how come even the 17th century armed attempt to eliminate the Russian statehood still does not qualify to be called "an invasion" while we have all these massacres and martyrdoms in the titles around us. -- Irpen 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[The proposed title is] not NPOV and not how the combatants themselves described the action. Use redirects from "Invasion of Poland" bearing in mind it was invaded again in 1944. It was also a Russian invasion in 1939 not just a German one. Michael Dorosh 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm mildy against the word invasion. Not for any political reasons, but AFAIK invasion is usually the start of a military campaign. For example, I would assume that the phrase "German invasion of the Soviet Union" is a reference to Barbarossa, not the Soviet-Axis War as a whole. Beowulph 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why was the article moved if the results of the vote where: 11 supports:
6 opposes (including "conditional supports" with confition not met)
Conditional support were clearly marked as "should be counted as oppose" unless contition met which it was not.
Since when 11 vs 6 is considered consensus as the message states that "The result of the debate was move". Please move the article back and continue the discussion, if necessary. -- Irpen 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw this move request after six days (the regular move request length is five days) and noticed that things were close and that discussion was still continuing. So I relisted the move request to gain a better consensus. I then came back six days later again (once again, instead of the five days later) and re-evaluated the situation. Only one !vote had been made since the relisting. There had been discussion in the discussion section, but it essentially was the support and oppose !voters on two different ends. Considering the conditional support !votes as oppose votes it was 11-7 (not 11-6) in favor of the move, which makes 61.1%. For a move request, sixty percent is usually considered enough for a move to go through (see Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators#Determining consensus). As also mentioned above, two of the oppose were weak opposes, reinforcing the conclusion to move. Even some of the conditional supports reinforce the conclusion to move; Irpen, for instance, said in regards to the proposed new name, It makes sense and reflects what happened before saying other pages should be moved as well. There was also some debate over whether those other articles (not just the ones mentioned by Irpen) were comprable. However, please don't think I disregarded the conditional support !votes or counted them as supports; I'm just saying I took a look at what they said. So, based on the pre-RM discussion, the 61.1% in favor of moving, the weakness of two oppose !votes, and the comments in the conditional supports, I drew the conclusion that the page should be moved. -- tariqabjotu 10:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my previous vote in favor of name change. After reviewing all the discussion and also looking at many other articles about WWII, some called "Battles", some called "campaigns", And taking into account the large number of links that already exist to the article under its present title, including being recognized as a "Feature article". I Recommend that we quite wasting time on pointless arguments.
Syrenab 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
there are also a lot of links to it under a false name that is only supported by one wikipedia user, *cough* Halibutt *cough*, does that mean we should change it to "polish defensive war". Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and the consensus says to name it "invasion of poland" not polish defensive war or polish september campaign et al. and just because an article was featured doesn't mean it can't still be improved.
-- Jadger 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I know it is more than 22 because I have personally changed more than 22 to the article title from that "polish defensive war" then of course, you reverted my work. the current title was supported in previous to our poll and discussion, so that does not matter, If I had voted three times like you Halibutt, I would of supported it second because it is better than the rest except invasion of Poland.
-- Jadger 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Are the guns and stuff only German or not? I asked this before and received no answer. Kurt.
We have articles on the Battle of Sicily and the Battle of Normandy and the Italian Campaign rather than "invasion of...", so I don't understand how "Invasion of Poland" even becomes an acceptable alternative....? I think perhaps more members of the Military Task Force need to weigh in here. Michael Dorosh Talk 20:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Polenfeldzug 1939
Polish campaign 1939
Der Polenfeldzug gilt als Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges in Europa.
The Polish campaign is regarded as start of the Second World War in Europe.
Unter dem Decknamen Fall Weiß griff die deutsche Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 ohne vorherige
Under the codename Case White the German Wehrmacht attacked on 1th septembre 1939 without prior
Kriegserklärung Polen an. In der populären deutschen Literatur ist deshalb auch oft vom „Überfall auf
declaration of war Poland. In the popular German literature therefore either often "Descent on
Polen” die Rede, obwohl dieser Begriff umstritten ist.
Poland" is used, although this term is controversial.
In der Geschichtswissenschaft wird die Bezeichnung Polenfeldzug von einigen Wissenschaftlern kritisch
In science of history the term Polish campaign is viewed critical by several scientists,
betrachtet, da er nach ihrer Argumentation den Charakter des Angriffs nicht genau wiedergibt und den
because according to their argumentation the character of the attack not exactly reflected and the
polnischen Widerstand verharmlost. In vielen aktuellen Publikationen wird daher der Begriff
Polish resistance gets played down. Because of this in many current publications the term
Septemberfeldzug verwendet.
September campaign is used. Wandalstouring 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Usually "Überfall auf Polen" is translated with Attack on Poland. While attack means opening hostilities, the German "Überfall" means opening hostilities in an surprise attack and also means robbery. Wandalstouring 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How about just plain-old "Battle of Poland (1939)" I think that would circumvent the POV problems. A google search of "battle of poland" turns up about 800 google hits. I don't really know if that's enough to reflect the title as a common moniker. On wikipedia, there seems to be a bit of a president for referring to campaigns as "battle of foo" (eg. Battle of Normandy, Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Second Battle of the Atlantic, etc.). Mike McGregor (Can) 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt thinks it is a war though, and most others think it's a campaign, not battle. and all those examples you gave (precedent) are names media has given those campaigns, much like War on Drugs, there is no declaration of war by the USA on Crack Cocaine, it is a way to dramatize speech for maximum effect. a consensus has already been agreed upon I believe, only one or two people raising doubts now.
-- Jadger 06:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Poland does not necessarily refer to this event. Wandalstouring 11:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So where is the problem to have it under Polish September Campaign? Polish as well as German wiki authors could agree to this name. Sorry, I could not read the Russian version. I strongly argue to stop this POV pushing in English wiki. As long as no majority of Poles or Germans objects the same name in their native wikis there is reason to make such a fuzz here. Wandalstouring 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt claims that 'Polish Defensive War is less POVed and is more commonly used in Poland, despite it being shown in previous talk on this page that that is false, and the only people to ever support the term were him and Trollobo, totally defying the wikipedia policy of consensus.
-- Jadger 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Lysy said:":No, I see Halibutt supported the rename to "Invasion of Poland (1939)" above. What's your point ?
I wasn't just meaning on this specific poll, but over the whole of the the discussion page, no one besides him and Molobo EVER supported it, other Poles even said that September Campaign is more commonly accepted in Poland. -- Jadger 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibu tt 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanking for removing your rather uncivil personal attack upon me Halibutt, especially since Morondger does not even rhyme with jadger.
-- Jadger 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of these recent Slovak/Slovakian edits, anyone ? -- Lysy talk 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Prelude to the campaign", there is section that reads:
Both Danzig and the Polish Corridor constituted territories Germany was forced to give back to Polish state after World War I and Hitler roused German nationalism by creating a propaganda campaign about "poor persecuted" Germans in Poland and the need to "liberate" them(Germans at the time constituted 2,3 % of Polish population).
The final part of the statement is not sourced and it is in contradiction to the number used in the Second Polish Republic article. In the Second Polish Republic article, the 1939 German population of Poland is estimated at 5%.
There are probably modest NPOV issues involved, as well. The wording of the long sentence aggressively diminishes the seriousness of the concern of a German diaspora, both real and imagined. It also seems to confuse the point. If some considered it a just war to reclaim certain parts of lost territory that are somehow intrinsically German, then Polish resistance would be considered aggression against this reunification. In that case Germany would need to be prepared to defeat Polish resistance in a broader war in order to secure German lands, and talk of percentages in the abstract becomes unfruitful. There is a logic to it independent of our possible criticism.
-- Donald Hughes 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
what was this true motivation then Lysy? perhaps you could shed some light on the subject. Also those population percentages are for all of Poland, perhaps someone could find population percentages for the areas mentioned above, as stating the population percentages for all of Poland skews it to a somewhat pro-Polish perspective, i.e. they were such a small group of people, when in fact they were concentrated in the areas above, not around Vilnius or Warschau or Krakow.
-- Jadger 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, LON numbers give the German poulation of the Free City as being a "great majority" but i have yet to find a secondary source to verify that. I also agree that there is a touch of NPOV in the statement about the german population of Poland. Germany takes great pains to distinguish the polish corridor from Poland proper as far as military rationale went, the subsequent invasion being an artefact of the war over Danzig. I fear that there is the faintest shade of "argumentum ad Hitlerum" here. Just because they're nazis doesn't make everything they say wrong, just most of it. The worst part about the war is that this invasion of poland arises from rational concerns in the Senat and Volkstag, referenda, and illegal actions of the polish government - Danzig is defended, after all, dispite the LON constitution. It may be true that Germany was just making apower grab, and needed an excuse to take poland, but that excuse can still be right, and the war can still be legal. Attempts to reduce the legitimacy of these arguments (through non-historical means, of course) serves to detract from the greater anti-nazi case. I'm not trying to paint any malicious intention onto what was said, but it's a cause for more care. (sorry about the lack of signature, but i'm computer illiterate, and i have yet to figure out how to make an account)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.1.9 ( talk • contribs)
[ [6]] should be deleted I feel, as reading the first few paragraphs, if one was to believe what was written, it would surprise them that Aachen wasn't taken by Poland 1 week later. Of course I am overemphasizing this just like the author was, but is this truly a good reference? If you read his contact page [ [7]] it is pretty clear he has been objected to many times, also here [ [8]] he shows that he obviously does not know much about the subject, And the Nazi extermination machine did not achieve yet its full momentum the final solution and organized German extermination camps was not set up until 1941, Uncertain yet of the outcome of the conflict, German officers still were more reluctant to commit outrageous war crimes, than they did later during the Second World War. LMAO, this was the end of invasion of Poland, after their surrender, how much more certain can you be?
i see this source as highly dubious, what do others think?
-- Jadger 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
And I'm the one taking his words out of context? fondle anybody's nationalistic schizophrenia or treat inferiority complexes That is pretty clear to a native English speaking user that what he means is he has upset a considerable number of people with his website, and they have commented on it, and he has stuck his thumb up at them. What he means is that he is debasing his opponents and calling them names, rather than admitting he may not be 100% correct. As for citing his references, he does so on only for one of the pages, nowhere else. Not to mention his severe lack of credible English, using a word I had never heard before "Hitlerite" is there a town called Hitler? that's what it sounds like. Not to mention severe errors, like here: At night and dawn 3 September the Germans made two sorties; this time instead of SA and SS they were made by a battalion of naval cadets. [ [9]] The Germans could not believe that such a tiny outpost without serious fortifications could resist so long. They saluted Polish soldiers marching into captivity, and protected them of Danzig townfolks, who wanted to lynch them first time I've ever heard that.
Another serious mistakes on the Westerplatte page alone: "The defenders of Westerplatte saw a completely different picture: they repelled all the German attacks, they did not experience shortages in weapon and ammunition, two greatest powers - England and France - declared war on Germany, and due to lack of radio-communication they were not aware of the real military situation in Poland's hinterland." Now, if they were out of radio contact, how could they find out that UK and France had declared war? and how would that make them think they would be rescued? the Allies where thousands of miles away.
I'm surprised you support this link Hali, as it states contrary to your ideas, that Poland was already defeated after only a couple of weeks: "Therefore by the mid-September the German command achieved its main strategic and operation objectives. The Polish army was not yet completely destroyed, but it was already surrounded and deprived of strengths and possibilities for operational counter-action. The enemy possessed complete command in the air, and complete control over the land operations." sounds like simple wrapping up operations after mid-september to me and every other native English speaker.[ [10]]
this of course is just a start, I don't think it is necessary to go through the whole webpage and note it's deficiencies, or else we'd have to cite the whole website on this talk page, which would be a waste of space.
Halibutt, consensus is against you, 66.6% and this has been open for two weeks. Don't REVERT
-- Jadger 13:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
LMAO, please use an english search when trying to say it is common in English [ [11]]. not to mention the third best site with "Hitlerite" is Urbandictionary.com, a site that is a wiki like here. It also has the "words" hitleriffic, Hitlermart, Hitlery Clinton, etc. etc. the reason I have never heard it is because it has never been used by anyone credible. Perhaps you want to add hitleriffic, Hitlermart, Hitlery Clinton articles to wikipedia also hali.
please, I atleast tried to be reasonable and presented a reason for it not to be included, you simply personally attacked me and claimed I have an agenda.
-- Jadger 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I certainly will explain myself. Piotrus, if you look at the version closely, you will notice that it is not the one you and Hohns worked on, it is the other one. Someone snuck a revert in there on...00:13, 26 August 2006 Ramand. See for yourself.-- 72.94.90.144 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, since this is somewhat related, anyone who is knowledgeable and has access to good sources on the subject should jump to the Bromberg Bloody Sunday page. I also raised the objection that it is not referred to as the Bromberg " " , because I was almost certain that is how it is referred to.-- 72.94.90.144 17:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As per this, the edit is totally false. First, the stated purpose of soviet operation was not to "liberate" but to "protect". We can say of course that both a hypocritical but we need to be precise. Second, pics of Ukrainians rejoicing to the Soviets are available, moreover this is true. If you want, read this. If you want pics with Ukrainians greeting the Soviets with bread and salt I can add them to the article instead of the drawn posters. -- Irpen 11:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering that we have Image:German Soviet.jpg, I wonder if we are not overloading the article with pictures - and as Irpen pointed out, it's only part of the story (and yes, I think we could use at least one picture of Polish citizens welcoming Russians in 1939, though I don't think we have room of it here). As I wrote before, it would be nice to have a separate article about the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) - all the pics could go there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
recently, I tried being bold as wikipedia suggests, and edited the battle articles related to this campaign. I changed the clearly POV name Polish Defensive War and Polish September Campaign to the current article title, or [[Invasion of Poland(1939)|invasion of Poland]]. but I was immediately reverted, with my edits being called "vandalism". On a couple of articles, I translated the cited sources that were in Polish, and found out that in one case, it did not talk about the battle in question, let alone the atrocity it is claimed to verify in the article.
So, I came here to ask these questions:
here is one of the reversions of my edit compared to my edit:[ [14]] how does capitalizing the word "General"(rank) constitute vandalism? Or for that matter, how does this [ [15]] constitute vandalism?
for my edits, I have been told that by placing this article title into the articles related to it, I "INSERTING biased POV, false claims, admiration for the FRITZ and his passed away since XIX century state"
now, can someone civil explain why this article's title isn't acceptable on its constituent pages?
-- Jadger 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I read a translation of the references and nowhere in them was what you claimed. after further review of one, it seems I was wrong, and am sorry, but that does not give you the right to personally attack me. But you changed the actual reference on the other one to a different page.
If "This has nothing to do with this article's current title" then why did you revert all of my edits when all I did in that edit was change the link to this article's title? it seems you are reverting because I am the one doing it, you even reinstated grammatical errors and mispelled words that I had corrected.
-- Jadger 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
well, I'm sorry if I changed lorries to trucks and you took offence to it Halibutt. And in only one case I removed a valid reference, the other one, the page linked to did not say anything at all. and it is not vandalism, as vandalism requires Mens Rea and I had skimmed over a translation of the article and did not see the single sentence fragment that actually refers to the same thing as the article that cites it. Is a single sentence fragment enough to base a whole wikipedia article on? You have already been warned about calling my edits vandalism when they clearly are not. We are going to get nowhere if you are going to keep slandering me and stopping Wikipedia from progressing.
You still ignore my point:what is it about Invasion of Poland (1939) article title (which just for reference, you voted for) that you find so offensive and wrong that you must remove it and replace it with a term only used by the former communist regime in Poland? so please, stop slandering me and answer the question.
-- Jadger 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You are severely mistaken Halibutt, I do not need to argue with you over whether or not my edits were "vandalism" as an admin already warned you that it was not vandalism and characterizing it as such is extremely bad faith editing.
and please, I seem to miss where you explained that Invasion of Poland (1939) is a unsuitable name for this article, perhaps you could reiterate it here or provide a link to it. After all, it is very confusing that you vote for this article to be renamed to Invasion of Poland (1939) then go about removing the title you voted for from linking wikipedia articles.
-- Jadger 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the currently available PWN article on 'Kampania Wrześniowa' had its address changed ( [16]) and was also significantly truncated (without explanation). Archive org however still has the old, larger article: [17] (ISO-8859-2 coding should be selected for proper Polish diactrics).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
PL wiki says that this war ended in 5th October. Please verify your informations. Pan Wikipedia 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The last battle of the war was at Battle of Kock (1939). In that battle the last engagements were late evening of October 5. The battle group of Gen. Franciszek Kleeberg surrendered at 10:00 of October 6. As far as I am concerned the Invasion of Poland (1939) ended on October 6, 1939.
Syrenab 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A poster on usenet newsgroup uk.legal is requesting information about some old maps he found in a rubbish dump in 1948 which appear to show the Polish Army order of battle from 28/08/1939 to 20/09/1939. I thought I'd post details here as you are obviously experts and could perhaps help to verify if these are authentic and/or suggest a military expert who could examine them. What do you think of them ? Thanks, John 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:The Secret Life of Adolf Hitler 091 0001.jpg shows Joseph Goebbels addressing the German radio in afternoon Sep 1, 1939 confirming the news that German forces had attacked poland in the morning, the image is considered as the formal declaration of hostilities by germany, hope the image can be used in the article mainspace LegalEagle 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Being a Luftwaffe enthusiast I couldn't help notice some big mistakes on the strength of the airforce- for example it had 290 medium bomber aircraft on the opening of hostilities! and 240 Naval aircraft,! The Germans did not have a significant naval air arm during the entire war (with exception of the FW 200 Condor- which was produced in small numbers in fact 250 by the END of the war.)The Luftwaffe carried out naval anti shipping missions but few specially developed aircraft for this, standard types were often pressed into the role. I have corrected these omissions using credible sources.
Dapi89 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As the Soviet invasion of Poland 1939 has its own article, it is misleading to include the Soviet Union in the infobox here. In the German Wikipedia, we have solved this by mentioning the SU in parantheses in the upper part of the infobox, including a wikilink to the Soviet invasion article, and by ignoring the Soviet Union for the rest of the infobox. Is it ok to do it the same way here? -- KnightMove 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The colour coded map shows Italy being a member of the Axis Powers. Italy did not join the Axis until 10th June 1940, in which it declared war on Britain and France. So this map at Sept. '39 is incorrect.
Shouldnt this be replaced with a more suitable map? Or perhaps just some editing on 'paint or something'?
Dapi89 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The map's still looks wrong. Belarus and the Ukraine were part of the USSR, but it looks like they are seperate nations, or at the very least occupied. Needs correcting. Dapi89 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This now sorted. Thanks. Dapi89 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was just kinda helping out with History of the Luftwaffe during World War II & somehow or other I landed on Invasion of Poland (1939)... the latter has been an FA since 2005 apparently, but ... the refs look strange... there are references in an "Inline" section that are never even listed in the "General" section.. and I've never seen separate "Inline" & "General" sections before... one should be Notes and the other References... and every single source referred to in the Notes should be given a full entry in the References... ? Having full entries in two separate sections is kinda confusing... Ling.Nut 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I found one statement from the section of this article quite odd:
The "regardless of religious beliefs" phrase reads like POV-pushing to me. The phrase is unnecessary for an accurate summary of the German occupation of Poland. Its presence suggests that the author is trying to advance an agenda that is not related to the article - namely that Poles should be acknowledged as Holocaust victims to the same extent as Jews. The citation is to a website called holocaustforgotten.com, which is one individual's efforts to right what she sees as a historical injustice. The site is not a reliable source and one wonders whether the wikipedia logo on the main page [19], indicates that the author, a professional publicist [20], has been planting links to her site in wikipedia articles. GabrielF 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Szopen 07:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is simply that the agendas were different. Anyone with a Jewish grandparent was murdered in order to destroy the Jewish race. Poles were murdered in order to create Lebensraum. The end result was that six million Poles died - 20% of the total prewar Polish population of 30 million. Over 2.7 million of these victims were Jews, 90% of the prewar Jewish population of approximately 3 million. Thus was destroyed the biggest Jewish community in Europe and a whole culture lost. I don't however think it made much difference to the victim what the precise agenda of the Nazi brute was when (s)he was murdered, and Jews and Poles stand together both as victims and heroic resistors of the most murderous beast that humanity has ever seen.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neve Dan ( talk • contribs).
More needs to be said about Slovakia's participation. Although the Slovaks met only limited resistance they attacked with relatively large numbers for such a small nation and military power, 50,000. Perhaps someone who has more knowledge about the subject could make an actual article about some battle in which Slovaks fought agains't the Poles? Regards, -- Kurt Leyman 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Slovaks just wanted to take back the teritory which had been taken by Polish army before when Germany, Hungary and Poland tried to destroy chechoslovakia in 1938-39. Slovaks just wanted liberate their own people from polish suppresion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.215.89.47 ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Polish authors, you should not consider these territories (W.Belarus and W.Ukraine) as self-evident possession of Poland. Historically and initially these territories were the parts of the old Russian state Kievan Rus and the provinces of the Russian empire (Grodno, Volhynia etc). In these territories the Orthodox East-Slavic or Non-Polish population always prevailed. These territories (situated east to Curzon line) were annexed by independent Poland in 1919-1921, though Antanta and Britain (the closest allies of Poland) specified the Curzon line as the most suitable border of Poland.
Do not overlook, that by September, 17, German armies were already in 150 kilometers from the old border of the USSR and the Polish government ran to the Romanian border. What real chances to win Germany had the crushed Polish army receding to the Romanian border? (The additional facts. Romania was the ally of Germany. In prewar times Poland rejected all offers of the USSR on military cooperation, but annexed the part of the Czech territory in cooperation with Nazi-Germany.) Moving of the Soviet border westward to Curzon line played the important role in 1941 (initial positions of the German armies were moved away from Soviet centers) and finally in the victory of an antihitlerite coalition. Certainly last statement is debatable, however at present all facts and opinions inconvenient for the Polish POV are instantly exterminated Ben-Velvel 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
08:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is an article in Polish with pictures.-- Svetovid 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Since there's a daughter article for the Soviet invasion of Poland, shouldn't there be one for the German invasion? This article would then be the parent of both while the two children could contain the additional details on the fairly segregated fronts. Oberiko 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) The article "Invasion of Poland (1939)" adequately covers both the German and the Soviet invasions. There is no need for additional articles. There are already separate articles for the "Order of Battle", both German and Soviet as well as Polish.
Syrenab 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't the Western Allies declare war on the Soviet Union after they invaded poland? Didn't their "obligations" include decaring war on any country who invaded poland? 74.71.238.25 ( talk) 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
According to my father and polish history lessons he had in poland (he was born 59') - None o this informaion i have found in this article though, according to my father, poland had a pact with britain and france due to the growing threat of german invasion into poland, i want to know why in this article there is not a reference to Britains and frances cowardness when poland fought 4 weeks against germany and than the invasion by russia from the back of poland than Britains and Frances involvement. please email me, giga.3yte@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.156.65 ( talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should read article more carefully. Szopen ( talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how Piotrus ( talk · contribs) can think that the Polish attempt to start a war against Germany in 1933 is irrelevant to this article. [21] If the Germans knew about it it may explain their attitude. Also, the fact that the Polish foreign minister was crazy enough to want war in 1939, and actually thought they would win within 3 weeks should also be of note. A foreign minister has some influence on international politics, even a delusional, no?-- Stor stark7 Talk 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Related stuff should be moved to the sub-category of September Campaign. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 09:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
<Soviet atrocities commenced again after Poland was "liberated" by the Red Army in 1944, with events like the persecution of the Home Army soldiers and execution of its leaders (Trial of the Sixteen). >
Is this a legitimate encyclopaedia, or an anti-Soviet propaganda tool?-- SergeiXXX ( talk) 02:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Hmmm...
Szopen ( talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well how about this comment on the Germans' proposed modus vivendi with Poland: "but the concessions the Poles were expected to make meant that their homeland would become largely dependent on Germany, functioning as little more than a client state and Polish independence would eventually be threatened altogether."
Do we understand that Poland became not even "little more than a client state" of the Soviet Union after Germany's defeat? The German proposal to Poland surely was not everything that the Poles wanted but what options did they have? Belgium was created as "little more than a client state" of Britain. It is arguable that most of Europe after WWII was "little more than a client state" to one of the two extant great powers. All relatively weak countries with powerful neighbors have to make this choice. Nowadays, given the Polish endorsement of the invasion of Iraq, it appears that the USA has become Iraq'a patron. The idea that it was somehow shocking that Hitler should expect Poland's acceptance of a subordinate role is a bit warped and fails to take into account that Poland had no better option. Realistically Poland had to choose between alignment with either the USSR or Germany. Britain's 1939 "guarantee" presented a third alternative that was strictly a chimaera; the negative view of Hitler's offer indicates a failure to understand that. Hadding ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to start the topic of military equipment losses which is lacking of good information in this article.
For instance there are discrepancies in German equipment casaulties. There were many tanks knocked out in combat but repaired later. Due to German sources repeated in Achtung Panzer webpage inreplacable losses are: 89 PzKpfw I, 83 PzKpfw II, 26 PzKpfw III, 19 PzKpfw IV, 5 command tanks, 7 PzKpfw 35(t) and 7 PzKpfw 38(t) which makes 236 tanks.
But during combat only 4th Panzer Division (most unlucky German Pz Div) had similiar losses: first battle of Mokra about 50 tanks knocked out, second: unsuccesfull storm of Warsaw, heavy casaulties about 100 tanks plus heavy Polish artilerry fire from Warsaw burning some other tanks. Finally assault at Bzura with new losses. If I remember well at the end of the campaing the division had 25% of initial tank park.
The other issue is aircraft losses on which I am no great expert but if I remember well the number of lost German aircraft is about 450 (including about 90-130 lost to Polish fighters) the rest: AA and accidents.
Also about 130 guns, 300 armoured cars and 10.000 mechanical vehicles but I have to check sources. The interesting fact is that ammo stockes were running out.
Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr Lasowy: publication about Polish submarines is not good reference for German aircraft losses.
The most accurate is report by Luftwaffe Logistics included in Bekker, Cajus (1964): Angriffshöhe 4000 then repeated in Hooton and Polish publications: According to a Luftwaffe General Quartermaster report as of September 28 1939 german forces lost 285 aircraft to all causes, while 279 aircraft were damaged at 10% or above and were written of or required major repairs. Aircrew losses were 189 dead, 126 wounded and 224 missing.
Newest research by Marius Emmerling indicates that it also includes losses in Western Front. Here I include my research from Talk:History_of_the_Luftwaffe_during_World_War_II "Luftwaffe losses are questioned by Marius Emmerling in his Luftwaffe over Poland book as an effect of 15 years in Bundesmilitar Archives. So the report of 285 destroyed and 279 damaged include planes lost in combat action during campaing. But many of them were later found somewhere in Poland. First Emmerling corrects the number of 35 lost recce planes to 53 so it gives 303 100% lost aircraft. But Emmerling says that this report includes ALL THE LOSSES of Luftwaffe including western front. He corrects the number to 247 planes lost on Polish front including 91 lost due to accidents. 56 were lost on Western Front and 40 accidents in Germany."
Please read History_of_the_Luftwaffe_during_World_War_II#Poland which part was created after long discussions with German Wikipedians. Lots of sources given.
So tu sum up, Luftwaffe lost not more than 33% of invading force including destroyed and damaged (also the planes that returned to service)
Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 07:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remove this section when corrected. Something happened to bombed 40mm Bofors image and is now replaced by Bzura river contemporary picture. Please correct it. Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an edit warring about Soviet-German alliance resulting from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This view can be easily sourced to books by Viktor Suvorov - Icebreaker and others, although I have to look at exact pages. Biophys ( talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, disambigs are not a place to go into (controversial or not) details. I have written the article about the Soviet invasion, in proper contexts MRP can be reffered to as an alliance, but disambigs should be simple. I suggest removing controversial info from it, and instead expanding the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think 1.8 billion deported is a myth with many other sources citing data as large as 150.000-300.000 deported.Note,there is no citation of from where the above-mentioned 1.8 million figure is taken.
Frank Russian ( talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC),
While the number of deported people can be put under discussion (I've read about 500.000 deported) I do not understand your title. There is no doubt that it was invasion not "so called invasion". It was violation of Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact, Polish ambassadors in Moscow were arrested and the whole action was agreed with Germans. How would you call it then? Help for workers and peasants of Belarussia and Ukraine? Łukasz Rzepiński ( talk) 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"Altogether, the civilian losses of Polish population amounted to 150,000, while German civilian losses amounted to roughly 5,000.[citation needed]"
When Poles had time to kill 5,000 German civilians ? Any proofs for that ?!
-- Krzyzowiec ( talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
From a document published by Polish Institute of National Remembrance ( [23]), Tomasz Chinciński, Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 r. w świetle dokumentów policyjnych i wojskowych II Rzeczypospolitej oraz służb specjalnych III Rzeszy. Część 1 (marzec–sierpień 1939 r.). Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość. nr 2 (8)/2005. In this recent work, Chinciński gives (p. 162) a number of 3265 citizens of German nationality (cywile narodowości niemieckiej) who died in Poland in September 1939; about 2000 of those deaths occurred due to those civilians participating in diversionary ( fifth column) activities. I do wonder - was it common for German minority members in interwar Poland to have a dual citizenship? In other words, how does Chinciński define the "citizen of a German nationality" - are they "German citizens" only, or "Polish-German citizens", or what? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently redirects here. But there were other famous invasions: Mongol invasion of Poland, The Deluge... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Polish infantry.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT FAMOUS CAVARLY CHARGE TROUGH WOLKA WGLOWA IS A MYTH IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BUT ON THAT DAY THERE WAS A DAY LONG BATTLE RAGING THERE WHERE 3720 POLISH SOLDIERS WERE KILLED MORE THEN 3 TIMES THEN AT MONTE CASSINO THE PROOF OF IT IS 2500 AT KELPIN CEMETERY 500 AT WAWRZYSZEW AND 720 AT LASKI ALL THIS COULD BE CHECKED AND RECORDED BECAUSE NO BODY SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT IT I KNOW BECAUUSE I HAD TO BURY THEM AT 12 YEARS OLD EUGENIUSZ WOJCIECHOWSKI FROM WOLKA WEGLOWA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.194.106 ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I added reference on civilian losses.-- Molobo ( talk) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Two sub-articles needed- German atrocities during Invasion of Poland and Nazi propaganda during Invasion of Poland. Both are studied subjects and deserve seperate treatment as knowledge of them is essential regarding the full view of the German agression.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
OF POLISH SOLDIERS KILLED IN AND AROUND WOLKA WEGLOWA ON 19 TH OF SEPTEMBER 1939 ES 3720 THERE WAS NO ANY CAVARLY CHARGE THERE AND I CAN PROOVE IT 20 1 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.195.147 ( talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)