Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:15, 8 October 2005

Template:WikiProjectBattles

Outcome

How is this a Polish victory if the result (as per the article itslef as well as the Polish-Soviet War) was simply slowering Bolshevik's advances? By this token the 1941 Battle of Kiev, which resulted in Soviet retreat, huge loss in dead and captive, but slowered the Barbarossa was also a Soviet victory (exaggeration, I admit)! We have a string of non-Polish underrepresentations for the entire war coverage in WP! Up to a couple of days ago, the outcome of "Kiev offense" was "inconclusive". Lets not really try to please our own centiments if we get involved in encyclopedia writing! --Irpen 06:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is example of what Misplaced Pages should not be. The article is very Russophobic, and yet there is not an appropriate tag. And does anybody know who is this "Kuzma Kruchkov, a national hero of both tsarist and Bolshevik Russia"??? --Ghirlandajo 12:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone here actually arguing that the battle was not a Polish victory? Halibutt 00:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

You mean other editors or outside sources? From what I read, I see it as much of a Polish victory as a 1941 Battle of Kiev being a Soviet victory. OK, less, but the analogy applies. Soviets of course lost much people in 1941 but they had to retreat. They "won" the delay in the enemy advance. So did the Poles here. This is not winning the battle since they retreated. We consider French won Borodino for exactly same reasons (Russians retreated). French lost all their goals in that battle. Goals are less relevant. Same applies to Kiev offensive. BTW, we can hypothesize endlessly about "achieving goals" and say that staying in UA was not the Polish goal endlessly. Goals do change in course and we agreed at talk:PSW that this is secondary in such decisions. --Irpen 00:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Note that this article is not on the Kiev Offensives but on one, very specific episode of it. It was neither the first not the last of the battles of the war and it was not conclusive for the final outcome of the war. Nevertheless, it was won by the Poles who withstood the Red assault and forced them to retreat beyond their original positions. BTW, the same day the Russian 4th cavalry division also attacked the Polish positions at Novokhvastiv and Berezno, yet it was repelled - with heavy casualties due to poor tactics (frontal assault of fortified positions) and Polish MG fire. So, the result of the attack of the 4th Division was a defeat: it had to retreat to the initial positions with heavy casualties.

Also, it should be noted that the overall outcome of the Budionnyi's assault of May 27 was similar. The whole 11th cavalry division attacked the village of Dziunków (as such recorded by Polish orders; might it be modern Dziunkiv?), defended by merely a single battalion of the 43rd Kresy Rifles Regiment. It was heavily dug-in and the Reds were repelled, with heavy casualties, on May 29th (which became the date of that battalion's feast after the war). Only the 6th division managed to break the defence (consisting of merely 4 companies of the 50th Kresy Rifles Regiment). It defeated the Poles in skirmishes for Zhivotiv (sp?) and Medvedivka and managed to drive 17 kilometres into the Polish lines. However, this was about the only success of the whole army back then. The following day the Poles counter-attacked and retaken Vasilkovtsi, but the Polish infantry was then pushed back and the 6th Division managed to push them a little further inlands, but the front was still preserved as the other divisions had no sucess. The 11th still tried to attack frontally the fortified positions at Dziunków - without any success, while the 4th division was withdrawn to the rear. The following day 3 battalions of the Polish 13th Innfantry Division counter-attacked the Red 6th Cavalry Division from both sides. After almost 24 hours of constant fight, Budionnyi ordered his division to retreat from Vasilkovtsi and Spiczyniec (again, Polish version of the name) and the Poles retaken almost all territories behind their initial lines of May 26. At the same time the 11th Cavalry Division regrouped and attacked the Poles from the flank, driving some 15 kilometres inlands, but overnight it was again repelled to its initial positions, as it was caught with its pants down (resting in the village of Starościńce (Polish version again). Then the second battle of Wołodarka started (the one described in this article), with the result described there. So, all in all, the assault of Yakir's group was a complete failure, regardless of whether we look on the battle itself or on the wider picture. It was the Golikov's group that finally managed to break the Polish defences, but it was on a completely different front (Okuniev-Korosten axis) and aimed at different units (left flank of the 3rd army, that is mostly the 7th cavalry brigade). Halibutt 01:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

By this logic, Kiev was definetely a Polish defeat. But here, I would agree to "inconclusive" since mostly it ended with everyone retreating to their original position. As I explained here and at my talk in response to your remark there, we have to agree on the criteria. From what I see, the outcome was preventing reds to advance. This is what "inconclusive" outcome exactly means. Everyone stayed where they were. I explained at my talk that we do not judge by "goals" or "importance" in overall outcome. These are the war outcomes. Battle outcomes are decided based upon the battles themselves. --Irpen 01:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know more about the battle then I read in this article, but from the description it looks like Red Army failed in their attempt of breaking Polish positions, so how can this be considered "inconclusive". I also don't share your opinion, that goals are not important in evaluation the result of individual battles, but are important in wars only. On the contrary: in the battle it's relatively easy to undestand the objective of each side ("destroy enemy units" or "break enemy lines", "conquer a city" or "defend positions" etc.), while in larger war operations the goals are not that apparent at all, not to mention that the objectives in war usually change with time, as the situation changes. This said I don't see how the result of this battle can be anything but a "Polish victory". Unless there are factual errors in the article text and the description of the events. I also fail to see how this can be considered "Russophobic" or "Russophilic" ? I start to believe that some people consider every conflict in which Soviets were defetead to be result of "Russophobia". Be realistic. No army wins all the wars and battles. --Wojsyl 04:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid charging "some people". Mainly, it was only me arguing here and, note, I did not use any Russo... words. Now to the issue. Check what I said above about Borodino and take a look at its article. Napoleon is considered a winner while he achieved no goals and the battle is considered a start of his disaster. There is a term that you know, no doubt, a "Pyrrhic victory". No goals achieved, army almost lost, still a victory. The rule of thumb is to see who retreated. May not be a universal rule, but usually works (there are possible exeptions, like the retreat to lead the enemy into a trap or smth similar). The Polish army did not retreat in the battle, hence it didn't loose. Not loose is either a draw or a victory. If you think it is victory, what would you view a draw then? Who lost more people doesn't strictly work as we saw in examples above. I have no sentiments towards Red Army winning all or most wars. It's just that this set of articles looks like a glorifying eulogy to Pilsudski and the Second Republic. I don't blame anyone for that. You would not believe your eyes if you read an article about Ukrainian Insurgent Army in ua-wiki, because people who wrote it learned from a biased scholarship. Thanks to god and, partly, other Wikipedians very much including the Polish participants, UPA article is balanced in en-wiki. This is a very working analogy. Pilsudski's army could not possibly win all battles (and some as wiki says "decisively") and still not get its desired Międzymorze whose borders, as per Pilsudski, will be determined later (Independent Poland first, and then we'll see which one). I see inconclusive to be exactly the result of this battle (and note, I never tried to claim an outcome should be "Soviet victory") --Irpen 05:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wojsyl, while not getting your arse kicked in such a difficult situation might be viewed as a huge success, this is hardly a military victory. Neither was it a pyrrhic victory since the losses on both sides were much lower than expected. Neither the Poles pocketed the Russkies nor were pocketed themselves a month later, which was the basic aim of the operation for both sides. When no side achieved its goals nor sustained significant losses, I can't see how this operation is called anything but a draw. Halibutt 08:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK guys, I imagine that you would claim it "Soviet victory", if Red Army would break through Polish lines or "Polish victory" if Poles launched a successful counteroffensive. However, under Wołodarka Soviets failed (did not break through) and Poles succeeded (did defend their positions). Who won then ? It was not Polish objective in this particular battle to defeat Red Army. I would agree with your reasoning for Kiev Offensive, though, where none of the sides achieved its goal. Or maybe a more apparent example would help. If army "S" besieges a city defended by army "P", but fails to counquer it and is forced to leave the siege, who wins the battle ? Is it a draw ? --Wojsyl 10:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

After rethinking it, I believe I'm fine with "inconclusive". Thanks for the patience. --Wojsyl 10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

And I'm not (my comments above were mostly related to the Kiev Operation in general; this particular battle was a 100% victory of the Polish side. Halibutt 11:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're trying to be difficult here ;-) I've tried thinking of some analogous but better known situation. There should be many. How about Arnhem ? Was it a draw ? --Wojsyl 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, at Arnhem the Allied aim was to seize the bridge and break through it to the other side of the Rhein. Neither of the aims was accomplished (and couldn't be - that's why this operation was an idiotism from the very beginning - the aims were too strict and too distant). As to the whole campaign in the Ukraine - a better analogy would be the battle of Verdun, where neither side achieved anything. Or even better, it was some sort of the Battle of Łódź (1914), but the other way around. In that battle both sides achieved their goals, so both sides won/lost (depends on your oppinion). In the 1920 operations in Ukraine neither side achieved its goals, so we might call it either a Russian or Polish victory, depending on our own POV. That's why I believe the word unconcluded fits here the best.

As to the battle of Wołodarka - I can't think of any better analogy as of now. Perhaps the Battle of Raszyn of 1809, in which the Poles withstood the Austrian assault, repelled the attackers inflicting heavy casualties on them and then retreated back in order, to a better position, without much opposition from the touched enemy. The major difference between Raszyn and Wołodarka was that in the latter case the eventual withdrawal was not related with the enemy advance (it was stopped and repelled), but with the general situation on other fronts. BTW, the failure of Budionnyi's assault was one of the reasons Rydz-Śmigły opposed Piłsudski's orders of withdrawal from Kiev. After Budionnyi's apparent inaptitude and incompetence, Rydz was so self-confident that he even proposed that his armies be dug in around Kiev and hold out surrounded until relieved. Fortunately for the Poles, Piłsudski finally forced him to retreat and it took a miracle (or rather another sign of Budionnyi's insubordination and incompetence) for the Poles to withdraw. But this is a completely different story... Halibutt 21:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kuzma Kruchkov - the "hero of Soviet Russia"

As to Kuzma Kruchkov - the guy was indeed mentioned in Red press of the time as one of the heroes. And indeed he perished in the battle. As to the result of the battle - it was indeed a Polish victory, as the Soviets did not achieve their goals despite their numerical supperiority. If you need any info on the battle - just let me know on my talk page, most of the books describing the battle I have at home. Halibutt 17:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As to Kuzma Kruchkov, this is getting even funnier. He was indeed the hero of tsarist Russia but he was killed by the Reds as he was fighting against them (check closer to an end of the second ref if too long to read). So much for the "...national hero of both tsarist and Soviet Russia." If other sources used for the article are as reliable, I could see how it got to where it is. I can't blame the author, though. It was probably written diligently, it was just based on questionable sources. --Irpen 22:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure now. The story of Kruchkov being there is based entirely on the memoirs of Jan Fudakowski (parts of which are available online here. In short, his version is based on a story heard from one of his colleagues, captain Leon Racięcki, the commander of the 3rd squadron of the Krechowiecki Uhlan Regiment. According to his words, during the Polish charge he encountered a gallantly-dressed Cossack cavalryman, who killed many of the Poles during the fight with cold steel. He attacked the guy and a duel started, observed by both sides. After a short fight the Cossack was killed and the Red cavalrymen around started a retreat shouting Kuz'ma Kruchkov ubit!. In the commentary, Fudakowski mentions that it was the Kuzma Kruchkov, an Cossack NCO during the Great War who gained much fame in the Russian army and many of the highest tsarist Russian military awards and was a legendary person to the Cossacks, who immortalized him in many songs sung by the Don river. Is it possible that there might've been some confusion there or that the Polish officer simply misunderstood the Cossack cries? Halibutt 00:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Two sides agree on POV

I think this article is not Russophobic, but rather quite Russophilic. It should be tagged as such. Babajobu 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Done! See, we agree on some things (that it should be tagged). Now, please respond to the question above but read talk:Polish-Soviet War. --Irpen 18:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I just made some changes, mostly changing instances of "Bolshevik" or "Red" to "Soviet". I'm now content to have the tag removed. It's regarded as a victory for the Poles the same way the Vietnam War was a victory for the Vietnamese, even though thirty times as many Vietnamese died as Americans, and the same way the Afghani-Soviet War was a victory for the Afghans even though so many more of them died. The stronger, better armed party did not achieve its objectives. Anyway, go ahead and try to moderate the parts of the article you think are POV. Babajobu 19:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Battle_of_Wo%C5%82odarka&action=edit&section=3

I am sorry, Babajobu, that you don't see other problems exept Bolshevik/Soviet/Red nomenclatures. But the tag will stay for now. It is explained and issues are not addressed. I would like to give an author time to respond here and at Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920) and the Kiev Offensive article would be higher on my priority list than this one. In the meanwhile I would welcome editors, but especially moderate Polish editors, to take a look too. --Irpen 21:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've read the article (from the Polish perspective) and I fail to see what's disputed there. Could those who think the article is biased, specify where the problems are ? I hope I'm still not completely blinded with my Russophobia ;-) --Wojsyl 21:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the outcome is already shown above. Compare with a similar discussion at the Kiev Offensive. If that one is considered "unconcluded" and this one's a "Polish victory" plus a couple of "Decisive victories" at other battles, I wonder why several people agreed regarding the much less drammatic outcome for the war as a whole. I tried to change the outcome in Kiev battle which seems to me more obvious but it was reverted at once. I don't want to participate in revert wars. If we get editors discussing, let's proceed. But let's start with the Kiev battle first, since it is a more important one. --Irpen 21:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at this one first, as it seemed shorter ;-) --Wojsyl 04:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Confusion

Now, what do the "disputed" and "pov" tags are there for ? --Wojsyl 10:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that some non-Russian, non-Polish people seem to think that it's funny when Russians and Poles start arguing about stuff like this. Such people tend to think that Russians and Poles are are pretty much the same in the rest of the world's eyes, so that it's funny to hear them argue about who is better. I don't really agree with people who think this way. Babajobu 14:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

And me thinks you are an imperialistic troll. Neither Russians nor Poles but Lithuanians are the best.

Russians, Poles, and Lithuanians are all for the birds. The world is basically divided into two groups of people: Ukranians, and people who wish they were Ukranian. Babajobu 17:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Geee... and how about trying to stay on topic and reply to the original question? Halibutt 17:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, you're right, I apologize. The answer is an emphatic "No", the List of sex positions should NOT include pop culture references. Babajobu 17:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Since we don't know why these tags are there, I'm going to remove them. --Wojsyl 19:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Tags are there because two editors above argued that this article is Russophobic. They made specific objections. See above. Babajobu 19:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't see it. That's why I asked. I see the POV tag was placed after a troll named Babajobu claimed the article is Russophilic. The accuracy tag was placed later without any apparent reason or discussion. Usually this tag would be placed if there are more then 5 specific statements disputed. --Wojsyl 20:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Breaking another circle

OK, same as earleir in Kiev, everyone heard each other, or at least everyone who wanted to listen. Those who didn't want to listen, will always be unconvinced. Some of those who did listen, are also unconvinced. Like Halibutt and myself, for example, are unconvinced by each other. It's time to figure what all or an absolute most of the editors could possibly agree on, here.

We should address issues one by one and agree on them singly. First, regarding tags. Factual accuracy tag is clearly warranted. I pointed out above that Kuzma Kruchkov story in the article is not just "impresize" but a total blunder, the whole story is on its head. This puts me in doubt regarding the overall reliability of the sources used to write this article, or at least some of the sources. I can't possibly check everything, but I can't now be sure about the rest. Not only I request the Kruchkov's tale removed (it is easy), I would like to request the writers of the article to double check for other things, scrutnizing the sources that produced such total nonsence. Please take your time and do this.

The other sticking point now, is the outcome of the battle. Halibutt insists that it is a Polish victory. With all respect to this editor, he seems to be the only one who persists right now. I know that WP is not ruled by majority and lack of consensus from good faith editors means "disputed". Until the dispute is resolved, neutrality tag should be here too, since it is not a minor dispute. The whole concept of battle of Wolodarka is not universal outside Poland. I could not google anything and I tried different tricks in Latin and Cyrillic. Could be that Polish historiography chooses to emphasize the only place in the overall retreat where they looked better than elsewhere. In this case the very idea to choose just this particular battle for an article to characterize this period is a POV. Generally, I click at the articles from the war box in the series devoted to an entire period from Kiev to Warsaw, the only period of war when the Soviets were on the offensive and Poles were on the run, and all I see are Polish victories and Kiev "inconclusive". Is it just me who finds this strange?

Based purely on what I read in this article I see it a draw or inconclusive, and Wojsyl expressed a similar opinion above, although reluctantly (correct me of you changed your mind). Halibutt reverted to Polish victory within half an hour. Why so impatient? I would like to see what scenario would be a draw if this isn't. Until then, I am changing the outcome back to inconclusive. I really waited some time before doing this, so please no accusations in being too bold. I also checked a couple of Russian L sources, including Budyonny's memories and several books about him. They may be biased but can't be discounted. There is nothing even close to defeat anywhere for this time period. I am not calling to disregard Polish sources at all on the other hand. So, my proposed solution is:

• outcome "Inconclusive" or "draw" as per above and before
• neutrality tag stays since neither Halibutt nor myself agree yet and this is an honest disagreement
• factual accuracy tag may be removed by Halibutt after he checks the article again against his sources giving them an extra degree of scrutiny in view of the nonsense revealed above.
• We analyze how is it possible that Poles were winning all the war battles between Kiev and Warsaw. Maybe more articles are needed. I am no specialist but it makes no sense to me.

I hope we will keep discussing this with the present degree of collegiality. --Irpen 00:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhere between "draw" and "Polish victory", equally inclined to accept either of them. An obvious and well known analogy would help us to comprehend this one, but I could not find a good example. Maybe Anzio landing that failed to break German lines ?

I share your concerns, Irpen, that all the battles between Kiev and Warsaw are Polish victories, while this contradicts my intuition (not having any deep knowledge about this, I would rather expect this particular war arena to be a series of Polish defeats). I expect the explanation is that these articles were created by Polish editors, that focused on events more prominently mentioned in Polish historiography, which probably concentrates on Polish victories. If I'm right then we could benefit from having more articles, maybe even some stubs to begin with. This would help building a more balanced image. The problem might be that, because of many years of Soviet rule, there might be not much unbiased historiography of these events presenting Russian view. I don't intend any offence here, and this is just my opionion, but while Polish historians can be somehow biased, the ex-Soviet (or neo-nationalistic Russian) historiography will be mega-biased in most cases. If this opinion of mine is true, then I see much more vicious revert-wars ahead, when we start writing more articles about the Kiev->Warsaw campaign. No bad faith assumed. --Wojsyl 05:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave you the source from where the Kuzma Kruchkov's story was taken, be bold to remove it. The rest of the article was written basing on the other sources quoted in the article. If you dispute them - please raise specific concerns. Unless you assume that I invented the whole article myself, but even then the ball would be on your side: you would have to point to specific inaccuracies rather than to a general disbelief in every single word I wrote just because one of the sources I used was inaccurate. Anyway, is the Kruchkov's part the only factual inaccuracy you found? If so, then remove it, along with the tag.

As to the outcome - so far nobody posted any arguments to the contrary. Of course, we can argue about the Kiev operation in general, but this specific set of battles was lost entirely by the Soviets and I would still see anyone to claim otherwise (I wonder what Budionnyi's memoirs say, though. Perhaps something like "After being repulsed three times in a row with heavy casualties, I decided to withdraw my troops, which was a huge victory of my mind"? Anyway, let's end this matter as soon as possible. Provide any specific concerns or evidence that there are historians to see this battle as a Polish defeat and why do they see it so. Names, publications, diffs and links preferred. Unless you can do it, please remove the tag and stop changing the outcome of the battle.

Also, note that this battle was not a part of the Polish retreat, but part of the - initially successful - defence of the area of Kiev. Similar battles, though not as big, happened in many other parts of the Ukrainian front back then - with similar effects, as I already pointed out (with a small list of battles that happened at the same time - all with the same effect). Changing the outcome of this specific battle just because the outcome of the entire campaign is disputed seems strange to me. It would be like claiming that Napoleon lost the Battle of Ligny solely because he was defeated in the Battle of Waterloo. Another analogy would be to argue that the Americans won the Battle of the Little Big Horn just because in the end they defeated the Indians. Strange logic, I must say. Wojsyl's analogy with Anzio seems good, as long as the Germans play the Poles and the American side is the Russians.

As to the selection of battles in the battlebox - indeed, it is far from complete. I simply chose the battles that are somehow typical for the entire conflict or famous for something, feel free to add more if you please or are willing to write articles on them. On the other hand, it would be hard to find a major battle won by the Bolsheviks in that war - they were usually able to win skirmishes or capture isolated pockets of resistance, but in bigger operations they usually failed to achieve anything but moving the front here or there. I hope you do not see the entire war as a Polish defeat as well... or do you? But this is a completely different story. As to more battles - I'm completely in favour of expanding the battlebox and adding more articles (stubs even). I'm willing to help you in preparation of such articles, just let me know.

As to your proposals: I already cross-checked this article against Wyszczelski, who was one of the very few people to write a modern monography of the entire campaign. I also provided the source for the story of Kruchkov. If you find it not credible for some reason - I do not insist on having it in the article. Making this battle inconclusive would require you to post any source for that. Note that so far you are not disputing the outcome of this battle, you are simply pointing to the fact that it is strange that the Poles won it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it really is so, then you should at least try to use some sources to back up your, so far unsupported by anything, edits to the battlebox. WP:CITE, Irpen. I hereby ask you to provide sources to back up your idea, that by defeating the Russians and holding the defensive line around Kiev the Poles did not win this battle and that by failing to break the Polish front and suffering heavy casualties the Bolsheviks did not loose it.

Also, we might add new battles or discuss the general outcome of the campaign, but how the hell does it affect this specific article? The undisputable fact is that the assault of Soviet 12th Army and Yakir's group, started on May 26, was repelled in almost all cases and the Reds withdrew after being beaten. If you really want to describe some Russian minor victory during this failed offensive, then I would suggest you the skirmish in Hermanivka (front of the Polish 7th Infantry Division broken on the route to Bila Tserkva; Polish counter-attack a day later closed the gap, but the skirmish indeed was a Russian victory) or Zhyvotiv (two companies of Polish infantry killed to the last man by Bolshevik 6th Cavalry Division). However, no matter how many such battles we'd have described, the outcome of the entire Budionnyi's offensive of May 26th would still be the same. For six days his entire Cavalry army achieved nothing but local tactical breakthroughs, which were then closed by the Poles. As I already pointed out (I hope you read my comments), the Polish line was finally broken by a completely different unit (Golikov's Group), on a completely different front (Desna river, not Dneper), against different units and so on. Finally, this breakthrough did not happen until a week after the Battle of Wołodarka ended. Halibutt 06:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I withdraw from both articles for now. Maybe other editors with more patience will be able to contribute. I will post a little more detailed reply at Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920). As I consider this non-neutral and explanations unconvinsing (same as my explanations seem unconvinsing to Halibutt) and nobody yet questioned my good faith, I feel entitled not to remove the tag. I will keep an eye and will remove it if I see the article moves towards neutrallity. I will probably be back but not in the nearest days. I am just too frustrated. Best wishes. --Irpen 07:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute

Could anyone please enlighten me as to what is actually disputed here? I removed the whole accuracy dispute, since the only problem I noticed was the testimony I posted above that contradicts other articles on Kuzma Kruchkov, provided by Irpen.

But on, to the POV dispute. Could anyone provide exact places where the article is breaching the NPOV policies? What's wrong with it? Diffs and links preferred. Otherwise I'm simply removing the tags. BTW, my offer of cooperation in articles on other battles of the war is still open, Irpen. I have plenty of sources at home and am willing to help with translation of original documents. Just pick your poison ;) Halibutt 11:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Halibutt, I think Irpen and another contributor have been very clear that they believe that this article presents a "draw" as a victory for the Poles. Babajobu 11:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Then please enlighten me as to how come this battle was a draw. Did the Poles suffer as high casualties as the Russians? Or perhaps they withdrew in the effect of the battle, just like the Russians did? Or did they lost an entire brigade due to desertion, just like the Reds?

I simply fail how come this battle could be viewed as a draw and so far neither of fellow contributors managed to provide any example of such action that might make me think that it was anything but a major Polish victory. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me? Halibutt 12:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

All I can do is refer you to how to deal with Poles. Babajobu 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Halibutt. This was a tactical victory for Poles. The Polish Army soon was forced to retread due to defeats in other places, but this particular battle was a Polish victory. Perhaps we can use articles on other battles - for some reason Polish editors seem to be writing mostly about battles they won - but that does not invalidate this article IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that other editors do. Babajobu 14:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I think enough is said above and so far I do not accept POV removal. If the wider consernsus determines that I am blinded, you are welcome to remove it. As for "factual" tag removed by Halibutt, along with a blunder I pointed out, I take it as his assurance that he double checked eveything else in view of what was revealed. Such an assurance is sufficient for me and I am fine with not having a factual tag. I have no intention to continue this edit war. Enough is said above and at Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920). If a wider consensus is established that I am all wrong, fine. Delete the tags. Until then, I am having it restored. And one more thing. Reverting or editing other's text edits is a one thing. Deleting the POV tags placed in good faith is something else and should not be done lightly. --Irpen 15:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to tell them, Irpen, I tried to tell them. But they JUST...WOULDN'T...LISTEN. Babajobu 15:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a waste of time to argue with Halibutt and his comarades. Being deaf to all NPOV arguments, they use English Wiki as a tool to push Polish nationalism. I've given it up long ago. --Ghirlandajo 19:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Very useful. How about providing some agruments instead of flames, comrade ? --Wojsyl 20:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, I think you are exaggerating and overgeneralizing here, but I know how this can be frustrating. We did manage to get some changes to Kiev Offensive and the Polish Soviet War. We could have done that more efficiently without having to go through 2-3 circles, but something is done there (not enough in my view and may get undone too). Also, beware of the Black Book! Aren't you afraid??? Did we say enough to be there yet I wonder? --Irpen 20:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

So I'll ask again, as kindly as I only can: what does the POV tag actually refer to? If it was placed solely because of the fact that Irpen questioned the outcome of the battle, then it should be removed, since so far there are no proofs of his view while I have posted numerous explanations and am willing to provide even more if there is a need. Or perhaps there is some other issue that should be addressed before we remove it?

Irpen, state your problems with this article loudly and clearly - preferably in points so that it was apparent what are you actually disputing here. So far it seems to me that you simply mistaken this article with the one on Kiev Offensive - yet you continue to place the tags without questioning anything any more. Or am I wrong? Also, how many people, sources and explanations does it take for you to actually add a source for your NPOV dispute? Halibutt 02:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, if you care to read, what is already said, you will see the problems. I do not want to waist time "listing problems loudly" again only to hear that you "don't see anything" and requesting me to list problems already listed. The talk page above is for everyone to judge whether the problems are clearly spelled and whether they are addressed. I bet you saw a discussion between Wojsyl and myself at my talk. And if you didn't you are welcome to take a look.

Now, I do not take it personally that you fail to accept my arguments. I do take it seriously, though, that you dare to remove the POV tag when I said that the article is not neutral and listed my reasons. If you fail to see them, it may be just because you can't see. For that, there are other editors' opinions. Several editors above agreed that there is a dispute. Unless I am a lunatic, in which case there need to be a clear consensus from other editors that my charges are silly, frivolous or not spelled out, my saying that they are not answered is sufficient. They will be answered when I say that I view them answered or if others agree that I am just making a fool of myself. This haven't happened here. The tag should not have been removed unless:

1. It was not supplied with an explanation (and not just one editor claims that there is no explanation unless it is obvious)
2. The person, who placed it and stated the reasons, agreed with having it removed;
3. After an attempted compromise, there is a clear consensus (not just your own opinion) that the persistence of a complainer is bad faith;
4. Complainer keeps silent instead of responding to changes and discussion for sufficient time to assume that he is just avoiding to answer or just stopped caring.

However, I am glad that Wojsyl got here before I got to this because I would have requested protection (I think his solution to localize the POV dispute remark to the outcome is exactly what was needed ). So far, I was disputing the neutrality of drawing the outcome of Polish victory in the battle which ended up in nothing. His footnote at the output itself is sufficient and can be used for now. If you want to insist that the Polish victory is undisputed, then first answer to the problems I see with this conclusion (repeated not once) and wait for my response (I am not on WP 24/7). You are welcome to take a look at discussion at my talk, but please respond here, to make thing easier to follow. --Irpen 08:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I GET IT NOW! Finally, after reading the chat you had with Wojsyl on your talk page, I understood where the problem is. It seems that the whole POV dispute was simply a misunderstanding. At first I noticed your remark that if one is trying to attack, fails and the seige fails because of that (besieging army withdraws), this is the victory of a defender, while if the attack did not suceed and things return to where they were, this is inconclusive. And this is exactly it! Perhaps the article is not clear enough, but the Russians tried to capture the Polish positions and failed, after which only the Russian forces withdrew. Not the Poles! So, in other words, your analogy with the siege of Moscow is valid, the Germans tried to capture it, but they failed and were repulsed, which was a complete Russian victory. Same here. Does it end the dispute? Halibutt 13:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

What is being disputed here is the outcome of the battle. In the previous sections it's thouroughly discussed and the editors explained why they believe the outcome was "Polish victory" or "inconclusive". It seems that the major problem is the definition of "victory" in the battle like this. Now, when we have such disagreement, we should refrain ourselves from further original research on this and seek external sources to support the claims. Therefore I'd like to summarise the sources that we have in two separate sections and see what we can find. I understand that finding external confirmation of the "inconclusive" result may be a harder task, but as I said, we cannot rely on our personal judgement here, but use sources to prove the point. Please Halibutt, Irpen ad anyone else help with filling out the subsections below. --Wojsyl 08:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How long should we wait? Halibutt 08:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The longer, the better, I think. --Wojsyl 11:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

What I'm starting to be afraid of is Irpen's lack of time. For the last week Irpen seemed to have enough time to add the disputed tag, but not to add the sources for his dispute. That's why I asked how long should we wait. After all I doubt the article would benefit from having such a tag when there is no dispute and the tag is there for, let's say, half a year. On the page quoted by Irpen (see recent edit history), he himself quoted a page, where the tag was erased after being unsourced for 6 days. Now 8 days have passed here and I wonder when should we consider the whole thing settled. Halibutt 15:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sources that support the "inconclusive" version

• Irpen's nose.

Sources that support the "Polish victory" version

• Lech Wyszczelski, Kijów 1920 (Kyiv 1920), Warsaw, Bellona, 1999, ISBN 8311089639: "Six days' attempts by Budionny's 1st Cavalry Army to break the Polish front were a complete failure. Only minor breakthroughs were achieved, and all of them were liquidated by Polish counterattacks." (Page 187.) "An attack by the 4th Cavalry Division was likewise a failure. That unit attacked positions at Nowochwastów, Wołodarka and Berezno defended by the Polish 44th Kresy Rifle Regiment, 16th Uhlan Regiment, elements of the 1st Uhlan Regiment, and the 7th Mounted Artillery Group. Russian cavalry repeateadly attempted to attack the Polish lines. The attacks were mostly carried out using cavalry tactics, attacking fortified positions. Poor tactics adopted by the division's commander resulted in heavy losses, without achieving any success." (Page 184.)
• Jan Fudakowski, Ułańskie wspomnienia z roku 1920 (An Uhlan's Recollections of the Year 1920), Lublin, Scientific Society of the Catholic University of Lublin, ISBN 8373062319: "In the afternoon, we passed to one another accounts of the battle, which had ended in our victory."

• The fact that the Russians opened an attack, yet failed to achieve anything (Yegorov's order to the Yakir Group, June 3, 1920, in Direktivy kommandirovanya Krassnoy Armii, cited in Wyszczelski, op. cit.).
• The fact that the Russians sought to break through the Polish lines and destroy the Polish army centered around Kyiv, but failed (Yegorov's order to Budionnyi, May 24, and Yegorov's orders to the 12th Army, May 28, May 31 and June 3).
• The fact that the Russians suffered heavier casualties than the defending Poles (though, as is often the case, the exact numbers for the Russian side are unknown; at any rate, the attacking cavalry lost an entire brigade — a serious loss).
• The fact that the Russian offensive of May 26, of which the battle was a part, failed and was successfully repulsed by the Poles: see any monograph of the operation (Wyszczelski is a good example).
• The fact that the Polish aim in the operation was to defend their lines against Bolshevik attack: which was accomplished (e.g., Piłsudski's orders to Rydz Śmigły, published in Kutrzeba; also, Piłsudski's order to all Polish forces in Ukraine, May 25, in which he clearly stated that the goal of the Polish forces was to "defend the front line at all costs").
• The fact that even the Bolsheviks saw the outcome of their offensive as a failure (minutes of Yegorov's telephone conversation with Kamieniev, July 2, published in Direktivy... and in Wyszczelski's monograph).

"Polish Pyrrhic victory"?

Why not call the outcome of the battle of Wołodarka a "Polish Pyrrhic victory"? It may have been a victory for the Poles — but if they did win this battle (at great cost), they arguably lost the campaign, in the sense that Piłsudski's grander goals were not accomplished. logologist 11:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "at great cost" wording accuracy. --Wojsyl 12:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

And why not a complete victory? I'm not sure about the Russian losses (can anyone be?), but the Polish losses were no greater than in other such battles. What exactly would make this battle a pyrrhic victory? It was won at a great cost, but surely not greater than others and certainly not greater than for the Russians. As time showed, the losses were neither severe nor irreplaceable. No wonder, after all this battle was far from being among the greatest of that war. Sure, it was notable and all (and quite well-publicised after the war), but it was nowhere near the battle of Warsaw or the battle of the Niemen. How come a minor battle could be a pyrrhic victory (especially that the winning side won the war as well)..? Halibutt 17:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Kiev Offensive (1920), of which the Battle of Wołodarka was part, ended in Polish defeat, in the sense that the Polish-Petlurist side was forced to withdraw. Granted, the latter result was itself a Pyrrhic victory for Soviet Russia, whose subsequent offensive into Poland foundered at the Battle of Warsaw. logologist 20:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well... yes, but we're not talking about the whole war here, but of a single battle. The Germans won the battle of Brest-Litovsk, yet they lost the entire war. Does it mean that the striking success of defeating several dozen Soviet divisions with relatively low losses was a pyrrhic victory just because the Germans lost the war some 4 years later?

As far as I can tell, the very meaning of the term you suggested is equal to a tactical victory at such a cost, that the strategic victory is no longer possible (due to losses, for instance). The case of Wołodarka was quite different. BTW, perhaps we could translate the name of that village to Ukrainian? How is it called now? Halibutt 00:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, a Ukrainian village (and the battle) should be given its Ukrainian name. Maybe our Ukrainian friends could help? logologist 03:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation of what the sources really say

Regarding the whole names issue, please see my entry of couple of days earlier at Template talk:Campaignbox Polish-Bolshevik War. Today's Ukrainian name is less important than what's used in History books. Modern English usage is Kharkiv, for example. But the battles article are called Battle of Kharkov as used in history books. I would like to know, what Davies uses. I doubt he uses "Wasylkowce". He probably uses Russian "Vasilkov", or, less likely, Ukrainian Vasylkiv. This village in Ukrainian is Volodarka, but we should check for war history books first of all. --Irpen 04:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "Sources that support the "Polish victory" version" by Halibutt, I read and see that he quotes no sources that call this battle a Polish victory. He gives facts, but the conclusion that "Polish victory" follows from this is his own, not of the author's of the sources. Making analysis ourselves at Misplaced Pages, rather than referring to the analysis by established specialists, is a tricky business and has many caveats. We can make only self-evident conclusions. Self-evident is, for example, that whoever retreats is defeated in most cases (even that doesn't work in all cases but is a good rule of thumb). If the battle changed nothing, it is inconclusive. In Battle of Moscow, not only Germans failed to capture Moscow. That battle threw them back significantly and was decisive enough because they ended up never capturing Moscow. Battle of Wolodarka (or Volodarka, I just don't know yet) did not result in a significant advance of any party. Thus, it is inconclusive. --Irpen 06:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

If a battle was purely defensive for one side, then changing nothing is a victory. All right, since Irpen seems to be against the version supported by facts and sources, then how about calling this battle not a Polish victory but rather a Complete Bolshevik defeat? Would it sound better? BTW, I added some exact quotes from the monography, as well as from Fudakowski's memoirs. Now your turn to provide sources - or remove the tag. Halibutt 08:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, your humor is misplaced. Please give me a scenario of a draw that's different from what happend. Please reread my comparison above with the Battle of Moscow and see the differences. --Irpen 06:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's not certain that "draw" scenario always exist. Sometimes win-win or similar draw situations are not possible. --Wojsyl 08:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A similar draw scenario: Poles try to push further from Kiev (not historical) while Russians counter-attack, trying to recapture lost areas and outflank the Poles (historical). They meet at Wołodarka, after a series of clashes both sides withdraw, none of them achieving their strategical goals. Or another scenario: the Poles are to defend the areas around Kiev at all cost (historical) while the Russians try to outflank them and destroy their forces (historical as well). After a series of skirmishes at Wołodarka, both sides withdraw, neither of them achieving their goals. Do you see the difference? Halibutt 10:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if not a complete Bolshevik defeat, then how about Polish tactical victory? Halibutt 10:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Do you see the difference?" --Honestly I don't. It is like an analogy to a soccer game. One team tries to win the game at all costs. It attacks but is unsuccesfull. Everyone stays where they were = the score didn't change. "Nothing changed" is not a victory of defense by itself. It depends on the broader context. --Irpen 04:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

And here the broader context is the orders for the Polish armies in the Ukraine, which were to defend at all cost until relieved. And they did defend at all cost. And they won the battle. If you don't see that, then perhaps you should provide some source to back up your theory. Halibutt 06:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

A small table to make you see a difference between the real battle and the hypotetical scenarios I created above. Green stands for a success (goal achieved), red stands for a failure (goals not achieved). Is it easier now? Halibutt 07:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, it's been almost two weeks since you've been asked for sources and more than a week since Wojsyl asked again. So far your ideas are unsupported and I wonder if there is any chance you'll ever respond. Has the dispute ended? Or is there anything else in the outcome of the battle you actually dispute? Halibutt 08:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, I do not understand why you are so itching to remove the dispute note. The dispute hasn't ended. That I had not replied of the very day of your message does not mean I have nothing to say. In fact, I am replying in just two days and you could just waited more calmly. A couple of days isn't really much. You could use this time to correct or respond to the problems I raised at Template talk:Campaignbox Polish-Bolshevik War or at Talk:Massacre of Praga that remain unanswered for quite some time. I am giving you a reasonable time to respond there without bothering you or harassing you daily since I understand that you also have things to do.

Now, I reread the long discussion here above and I don't see how "Polish victory" follows here either from the logic of events or from the sources you cited.

Let's go by the logic first. What you call a "Battle of Wolodarka" (I did not find sources that call the series of these events by this single name, but I trust it may be called so in PL) is an attempted attack of the Red Army in the course of driving the Polish army out of the territory it occupied (or you may call "liberated", I don't care for now). The Polish army withstood the attack in which the Red Army initially advanced. The Reds captured several towns/villages but they were driven back. So the battle did not change the overall situation of the parties. For this to be a Polish victory, the result should have been either a counterattack which ended up with the Reds being thrown off far enough from their pre-battle positions, or at least deterioration of the Red forces to a degree that would make them incapable to capture these territory in the future. A 1941 Battle of Moscow was exactly this. Germans were locally defeated to a degree that their capturing of Moscow was out of the picture for the rest of the war. This did not happened here. The Red Army did capture the towns involved in the battle within days or weeks. Unsuccessful attack is not a defeat in itself. By this logic the Polish Siege of Smolensk (1609-1911) which lasted for good 20 months of unsuccessful attempts to capture the city before the fall of the fortress to King Sigismund consisted of an uninterrupted set of Russian victories for 20 months. Such a representation would be nonsensial of course but this here makes as much sense.

Now to the sources you sited. All of them, except "Jan Fudakowski" do not say "Polish victory". They say "Russian failure" of attack. As explained above, one does not mean necessarily means the other. As for Fudakowski's recollections, this is not so much an objective historic account as recollection rarely are. His recollections were, for example your source for the Kuzma Kruchkov story blunder, which is just plain false. Therefore, I haven't see so far, why Polish victory is a more correct outcome than "inconclusive" that I proposed but you removed time after time.

If you are interested, take a look at: Template:Book reference 3 (in Russian) available online. The passage between Table 7 (Таблица 7) and Table 10 (Таблица 10) gives an account of the events in question.

Finally, I humbly request that you conduct further discussions a little but more respectfully. Sincerely, --Irpen 07:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise "Failure" as an outcome instead of "victory" or "defeat"

Halibutt, Irpen and others, how about: Outcome: Bolsheviks failed to break Polish defence instead ? Would anyone dispute this. --Wojsyl 08:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree, except I would say "Red Army" instead of "Bolsheviks". --Irpen 06:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Bolshevik defeat" seems much more reasonable - and much shorter. As to respect - as I said, I meant nothing wrong. It's simply that so far I have yet to see the source basis for this dispute. And having the dispute tag stay there just because you see something fishy there, yet fail to provide any specific arguments or sources is something I would rather avoid. Sorry Irpen, but so far your theory is simply unsupported and does not hold water.

As to your remarks above, you're confusing the strategical and tactical scales here. This battle was not fought by entire armies, it was a much smaller scale. Also, it was not fought for a large number of places, it was fought for the positions in and around the village of Wołodarka, which were successfully defended by the Poles. Their orders were to defend it, they did what they were ordered to and defeated the enemy preventing him from achieving his goals. If that's not a victory, then what is it? Remember, we're not talking of the entire operation here, only single battle.

As to the sources for calling this battle unconcluded are still missing since the book you provided does not even mention it. The whole Russian offensive of May 26 is described as a Russian defeat, apart from the temporary success at Novokhvastiv (the fights were long (...) and on May 30 the enemy's fresh forces arrived. Because of the fact that the forces of the 1st cavalry army were overstretched along a wide front, the fights of the cavalry divisions were not coordinated, the enemy managed to push the Soviet forces from Novokhvastiv and Lipovets. The attempts by the 1st Cavalry Army to break the Polish defence ended up with no success. The separated forces of the 1st Cavalry Army tried to defeat pockets of enemy resistance in the area of Pogrebiv and Lipovets. However, they suffered heavy casualties and did not achieve success.. However, I admit that the battle of Wołodarka is not even mentioned, so perhaps the author might've described it as the sole unconcluded battle of the operation. However, he did not. Halibutt 18:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

As for the sources I provided - indeed only one calls it a Polish victory, while the other calls it a Russian defeat. Both would be acceptable to me, especially that in this very context they mean practically the same. Halibutt 18:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, your sources call it Russian failure. You, purposefully or not, spin this into "defeat". I already agreed on Wojsyl's proposition "Red Army failed to break Polish defence" where the word "fail" is used as your sources suggest. If you can't tell the difference between "failure" and "defeat" and you don't have a dictionary (I use a dictionary myself and often), you can start with checking the Wictionary for definitions. I hope your using the unsoursed "defeat" interchangeably with sourced "failure" is just an honest mistake. If so, hopefully this can now be cleared up. I don't mean to discuss yours or anyone English in general, of course. With my own intermediate level of English this would be plain dumb. --Irpen 01:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

In this very context it was a complete failure. And such failures are called defeats during the war. So, my usage of both terms was conscient. Also, if we cannot use the short outcome notice in the explanation for some reason, then "Red Army failed to break Polish defence" is unacceptable, since it seriously underrates the level of Polish victory (or Russian failure, if you prefer it that way), and as such would be misleading. We could avoid it by explaining that "Red Army failed to break Polish defence, suffered heavy casualties and was defeated by the Polish Army". We could change "defeated" for "pushed back", if you want to use more weasel terms. However, such a long explanation would not fit well in the battlebox. Also, I'm still waiting for you to provide any source that would call this battle "unconcluded". Halibutt 06:36, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Exhausted

Halibutt, I never said "unconcluded". I said "inconclusive" in the beginning, but I later agreed on Wojsyl's version. Anyway, you and I already heard each other, at least as much as each of us is able to listen. If we can't agree, let's just see what others, who follow this discussion, decide on what conclusion follows from this. I will refrain from changing the outcome in the article for now but since the dispute remains unresolved, the "disputed" footnote should stay. I call on you also not to decide on your own, which version is "right" since we obviously don't agree here. If others are fine with a compromise version, let them put it into the article. There is realy nothing more to add to discussing our versions since everything is already said and not once. Rereading the discussion is enough to see everyone's point. --Irpen 19:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I'm giving up on this one. I'm sorry we were not able to work out a compromise, but hey, there's a lot more articles out there waiting ... --Wojsyl 21:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, since it's you who are disputing the outcome, please be so kind as to explain to me how is Russians failed to break Polish defence better than Russian defeat (I could agree on the latter)? Also, please provide sources that would clearly state that it was not a Polish victory. Finally, take note that all other battles in wikipedia have their outcome stated in one or two words in the battlebox, not in such a weasel-like description... I know it might be hard to accept that the Poles used to win battles, but that's how it was. Halibutt 08:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, your last phrase is nothing but a hint that I am a Polonophobe ("hard to accept the Poles used to win battles" stuff). I think I contributed enough to various topics around here to let others judge on the merit of this and I don't want to spend any more time responding to this accusation, even made in the weasel-like form.

Now, to your question, there is really nothing more to add to the discussion above. "Russians failed to break Polish defence" is a "Russian failure" and "failure" and "defeat" is not one and the same thing. I would agree that "Russian defeat" and "Polish victory" is almost interchangeable, but not every failure is a defeat. See above discussion about the Battle of Moscow. There is nothing else to add here. As we failed to find a solution, it will be left to others who read this discussion to change the outcome of the battle to the version that seems more convincing from the talk. It now says "Polish victory" which makes no sense to me. However, as long as the footnote about the dispute is there, I am fine with it staying as is for now. There is no need to wear each other down any further in this discussion anymore. At least as long as there are no new arguments. Wojsyl gave up. I am giving up too. If my objections are disregarded and the dispute note is removed, I will have to request a protection with the note restored. However, if anyone else will do it, very well, so be it. I would feel bad though to have so much of our time waisted for nothing. --Irpen 02:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No offence intended, really. It's that I got a tad tired asking for specific sources and arguments and receiving none. If you withdraw from the dispute, then we might as well remove the dispute tag - since it's not disputed anymore. However, I guess you'd rather have the tag preserved for all times, regardless of sources or lack of thereof. How about starting an official RfC process then? Halibutt 14:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Starting RFC?

Halibutt, you provided no sources for "Polish victory" except one which is already established to be dubious. Others call it "Russian failure". That this failure amounts to defeat is your own conclusion, not of your sources. I am tired of repeating this to you. You cannot remove the tag, until the dispute is resolved as judged by others. I withdrew because I already said everything. That I failed to convince you is not the reason to conclude anything. You failed to convince me as well. You may proceed with RFC if you would like. It is entirely up to you. If I see the consensus that Polish victory follows from the events, sources and discussion, I will accept it. --Irpen 23:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the two sources we have calls it a Polish victory. It also mentions a relation by some other participant of it you call dubious, but apart from that the source is quite reliable. After all that's what memoirs are. As far as I know it was you who started the dispute, so it is up to you to find some source to back up your theories and it's up to you to continue with the dispute you started. I'd be ready to help with the RfC process, but we'd have to cooperate on it. If that's the only way we can come up to terms and settle this dispute, then so be it. It's still better than having a dispute tag in the article until you finally find some source. Anyway, I asked for a third eye to come here. Halibutt 08:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, regarding "it is up to you to find", I already provided the reasons why your conclusion does not follow from your sources. You may well disagree but it is up to the others to decide, not to you and me anymore, since we already said everything above and failed to agree. Wojsyl suggested one compromise. I accepted it but you rejected, so we will have to wait for others' judgements and/or suggestions.

As for "RFC" what exactly you mean by me "cooperating"? If you mean to start user RFC against me, I will respond of course. If you mean an article RFC, I will provide specific references to this talk were my objections to the conclusions you make from the sources are listed. The only thing to which I would not be responding, are past or future accusations in anti-Polonism whether expressed here, or on my talk or even in the Black Book which was resurrected (for "common good" of course). I would welcome more eyes checking this out and trying to make sense of it. --Irpen 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, of course I meant an article RfC and not any kind of dispute process aimed at you personally. Just to set things straight, I do not acuse you of anything nor did I in the past. We disaggree on certain matters and you dispute the outcome of the battle, as well as the credibility of one of the remarks in one of the sources I provided (did you read all of it, BTW?), but there's nothing personal in it I hope.

What I meant is that so far we failed to get enough attention for this article and the only way I see to attract more is to officially invite others. That's what the RfC is for and I guess you should start it. Perhaps it would help us settle the dispute. By cooperation I meant your input of sources and will to explain your stance at the future RfC page. Halibutt 06:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding: "Just to set things straight, I do not acuse you of anything nor did I in the past.". Then what was this suppose to mean? "I know it might be hard to accept that the Poles used to win battles"

I did not read that source itself, only your quotes. However, this is the memories of the low-level officer. It might be interesting for factual info, but at this level people lack the perspective to draw global conclusions. His perception was that it was a Polish victory. All quotes from high-level commanders you gave as well as the quotes of historians call it "failed attack" which is different from defeat as I tried to explain I don't know how many times. Memories of regular participants are still interesting and valuable since they may provide a small detail that would help us understand the events better, but this one was wrong even in a single small detail you used it for (Kryuchkov).

As for the RFC, you can start it if you want. This page is already ridiculously 70 kB and this is all over the discussion of the outcome. I doubt anything can be said at RfC that wasn't said here yet. I am not offended by the dispute note sitting there waiting for more eyes getting to the article in the regular course, but if you can't wait, please go ahead and start the RfC. A simpler and more time-saving solution to bring more eyes here is to list this at WP:RM since it probably has to be moved to the Battle of Volodarka but I do not know for sure until you or someone else answer my question posted here earlier as well as at the template's talk. I would like to know how the war historians, particulary Davies, call this battle in English language books. --Irpen 18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

As to the memoir, it was not wrong in the singe detail as the guy did not say that he saw Kruchkov himself. He related that his friend told him after the battle that the Cossacks shouted "Kruchkov is dead" during their retreat, which is a completely different situation. If anyone was wrong it was me since I took that as a proof that Kruchkov was there while there is no certanity in the memoir itself.

As to the compromise solution you support - could you name one battle here in Misplaced Pages where the battlebox' outcome is longer than three words? Of course, if you don't like the "Polish victory" we could exchange that with The Red Army did not achieve its goals and was repelled with heavy casualties on her side, while the Poles achieved their goals and repelled the enemy with small losses, but would this article really benefit from such a term?

Also, there is still one thing I do not understand: if this was not a Polish tactical victory (too small scale for it to be a strategic victory), then what did this battle lack? What else should the Polish units do to make this battle into a victory? If achieving all military goals for that part of the front and forcing the enemy to abandon his plans for an offensive and make him retreat is not enough, then what else should be there?

Look at Battle of Fuengirola: both sides suffered some casualties and after the battle the British army was defeated and forced to retreat instead. Yet, we do not call it as The British failed to achieve their objectives but simply a Polish victory. Same with Battle of Vienna, which did not end up in The Turks failing to achieve their goals, and with countless other battles. It was not the case of Battle of Raszyn (1809), which was by no means a Polish victory but was an Austrian defeat. The case of Wołodarka was much more simple. Halibutt 19:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to answer my question about this and other battles' names in Davies' book. Names he used are improtant to decide on the articles' names, since Davies wrote in English. I don't want to just propose renaming them to Ukrainian names since chances are, he uses Polish and Russian names as main names for some locations. Please do that at template's talk since there are other towns/villages also involved.

As for "What else should the Polish units do to make this battle into a victory?", it is answered above and not once. Go to the top of the page, and search for the string "Moscow" and "Smolensk" within the text of this page to see the difference between a failed attack and attacker being defeated.

Let's not continue this and let's have other judge on whose position makes more sense. I agree to wait for this to happen in the regular course. If you can't wait, go ahead with an RfC. I will certainly welcome more eyes checking this. As I said, we can get more attention to this simply by listing it at WP:RM but for this, I need to know for sure what names are used by Davies. Once you provide the info, I can list them at WP:RM myself. --Irpen 21:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As to Davies, I already said that I don't have the English version of his book at hand and I can't check that.

As to your examples with Moscow or Smolensk I read them, but I want you to prepare a what-if scenario based on this specific battle, not on some major WWII operation. That would really help. Halibutt 19:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Types of victory

Typically in a battle there are two types of outcome that matter: the tactical outcome (who inflicted more harm to the other, who holds the field, etc) and the strategic outcome (who attained more of their goals). Usually, the two match up, as the tactical winner also wins a strategic victory. However, there are exceptions. For example, the Battle of Hampton Roads was tactically either a draw (neither ironclad was able to harm the other), or a Confederate victory (the CSS Virigina sank two Union frigates while suffering negligable losses). Strategically, it was a major Union victory (the blockade of Confederate shipping remained intact, and the Virginia never engaged in battle again).

In this case, it looks to me like the outcome of the battle was a tactical victory for Poland (they kept the Russian forces from moving forward) but strategically a draw or defeat (only a delay). --Carnildo 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The strategic situation is better described in the article on Kiev Operation (though the very outcome of the whole operation is also disputable...). Halibutt 20:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute halted

Since Irpen declines to reply to my comments on my talk page, I will post a reply to his comments he put on his side here. It would be easier for me to find an answer next time - if it's given.

There are two things that were not settled so far. One is my question of what should be changed in this particular battle (not the Battle of Moscow of 1941, but the Battle of Wołodarka of 1920) for you to call it a Polish victory. So far you failed to respond to that question and instead you provided me with some stories of completely unrelated battles of a different scale and different conflict. If you replied to that question I believe we could reach some conclusion.

The other problem is that you dispute the outcome of the battle yet you failed to provide any source to your claims. I understand that you raise your objections in good faith and I assume that from your point of view there indeed might be something fishy here, but so far it is unsupported by any source. Which means that your claims are completely unverifiable, while the opposite view is supported by at least one source. One if we exclude what is obvious from Wyszczelski's work, since the guy does not use the very word victory, though describes it as such.

WP:CITE is an official policy here and it equally binds me and you. I replied to the call for sources, you did not (or rather you cited a source that did not even mention the battle; the result is the same here). As long as it's a conflict between your nose and verifiable sources, the sources always win.

So, all in all, after you stated that you withdraw from this discussion, I decided to suspend the dispute and witrhdraw the tag. I also asked for a WP3O and started the RfC process to attract more people. However, so far nobody provided any sources to back up Irpen's thesis that this battle was not a Polish victory. Perhaps one day someone will drop in and provide sources. In such a case I believe the dispute tag could be reintroduced and the discussion should be restarted. However, until then the tag is obsolete - since there is no dispute. Halibutt 22:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, please change your demeanor to begin with. Now, to every comment you left the response was given, and mostly it was given by me, but sometimes by others. You keep repeating things and there is nothing new to say here and I leave it to others to judge. You cannot remove the disputed note only because you think the victory is undisputed. It was you who rejected alternative suggestions from several other users. I welcome your RfC, even though you managed to make even an RfC frivolous. You ask there whether others agree that Russian defeat is a Polish victory, while the issue is whether the failure of this particular attack is a Polish victory (or Russian a defeat). I pointed to that earlier. You may refuse to see the difference but you have to at least say at RfC honestly what your own sources call it. The "defeat" is mostly your own conclusion and not of your sources. In any case, until other users view my objections unjustified (and I see that you will refuse to allow any other outcome anyway) my objection stands as well as the note that the outcome is disputed. That you are taking action to have others look at it is a good thing. That you misrepresent what's going on isn't. Your earlier speculation that it is hard for me to accept the "Poles also used to win battles" is in line with this. --Irpen 03:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Assume my good faith just like I assume yours. I worded the RfC statement the best I could, if you see something wrong there - correct it; wining here is not the best option.
• As to the statements you failed to reply to - these were the two most important here: the plea for sources and my own plea for explanation of what this battle should've been in order to be a Polish victory. These two seem crucial and these two you seem to avoid at all cost. Why?
• The Russian defeat is the conclusion of Wyszczelski, not mine. And it is the most logical choice after reading his book, especially that there are no counter-arguments, no sources to state otherwise and no logical explanation of what is lacking to call such a Russian defeat and Polish success a victory of one side.
• If there are no people to dispute the outcome any more (you were the only one and you yourself decided to withdraw from discussion) and you failed to gain support for your option (either by sources or by other wikipedians), I fail to see why the dispute tag is still in place. Provide sources or attract more people here and we might restart the dispute if you really see it as an important issue. Otherwise, I do not think wikipedia would benefit from such a dispute tag, that would reflect your own point of view on the matter. Halibutt 06:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I really said enough to warrant the dispute note. Until others disagree it should stay. --Irpen 06:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You failed to respond to the most serious flaw of your logic and you failed to provide sources. If the only party to dispute the outcome withdraws, then there is no dispute any more. Halibutt 07:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I am tired of saying this: "Have several others agree with you here first. There were several who disagreed." Please don't force me into requesting protection. --Irpen 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Then start participating in the dispute process you started and help us all end this dispute by providing sources and stating your own vision of this battle. Why was it not a Polish victory, what was lacking here for it to be called a Polish victory? Two simple questions, it shouldn't be too hard to reply to them. You defend your point of view so fiercely that it's quite apparent that you must have some reason behind it. What is it then? Any authors to have an influence on your oppinions? Any books? Halibutt 09:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the curent version of the battlebox suggests that the fact that the Russians lost the battle is disputed at the talk page... Funny? Halibutt 02:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, I will explain this for I don't know what time, but only briefly since it was already said and not once. From the sources one can figure that this "battle" was an attempted attack by the Soviets that failed. The sources call it just that "a failed attack". You conclude that this is the same as "Polish victory". I disagree with your conclusion and this is YOUR conclusion and not of your sources. The difference between failed attack and a defeat is explained above. If other editors support that your conclusions are self-evident, I will agree to that. So far, other editors proposed different versions based on this discussion which you all rejected. We either wait until someone comes up with a compromise version to which you can agree or wait and see that the majority supports that the version upon which you instist follows clearly from the sources. As for the version at which the article is frozen, I don't care. As long as the "disputed" note is their, I am fine with any of your versions. If you stop arbitraly removing the "disputed" note, I am fine with article's protection lifted since article could use improvements to other parts. The "disputed" note would just say that the agreement isn't reach and the disagreement is a good-faith one rather frivolous. --Irpen 04:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, so far I agreed with two versions: the "Russian defeat" just in case such a term was a compromise and Carnildo's "Polish tactical victory", which seems evident. Especially that this is hopw it is called by one of the sources I provided. Also, Wyszczelski's book does not call it "Russian failure", it calls it "a complete failure", which is synonymous to "defeat" or even "disaster". At the same time he describes the Polish goals and points out that all were achieved. So, it is pretty evident that, if the Polish goals were achieved and the Russians suffered a defeat/disaster/complete failure, then the winning side was... But perhaps the Battle of Moscow for you ended up with a German failure and not with Russian victory. Strange logic, but since you're unable to support it with sources and withdraw from discussion, there is nothing to dispute with.

As to the dispute notice - are you saying that you're fine with lack of dispute as long as the dispute tag is there? So far you are the sole and only one to dispute the outcome of the battle. If you withdraw from the dispute, it IMHO automatically ends. Especially that neither my WP:CITE plea (more than a month ago!) nor my plea for explanation were so far fulfilled. Halibutt 08:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I already said above how it is different from the battle of Moscow. I can say again, if you insist. The sources you quote do not call this battle a Polish victory. This is your own conclusion, and not of the author's of the sources. Making analysis ourselves at Misplaced Pages, rather than referring to the analysis by established specialists, is a tricky business and has many caveats. We can make only self-evident conclusions. Self-evident is, for example, that whoever retreats is defeated in most cases (even that doesn't work in all cases but is a good rule of thumb). If the battle changed nothing, it is inconclusive. In Battle of Moscow, not only Germans failed to capture Moscow. That battle threw them back significantly and was decisive enough because they ended up never capturing Moscow. Battle of Wolodarka did not result in a significant advance of any party. It is in the next attack that the the Soviets advanced and drove the Poles out. Also, as I said above, by your logic the Polish Siege of Smolensk (1609-1911) which lasted for good 20 months of unsuccessful attempts to capture the city before the fall of the fortress to King Sigismund consisted of an uninterrupted set of Russian victories for 20 months. Such a representation would be nonsensial of course but this here makes as much sense. --Irpen 01:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, you still failed to respond to my questions... Moscow is quite far away from Wołodarka, no matter what. The same goes for Smolensk. Your analogy with Moscow might be good to some point: the German aim was to conquer Moscow yet they failed. The Russian aim was to keep Moscow and they succeeded. They achieved their tactical goals thus achieving victory. Saying that it was not a Russian victory but rather a German failure would be a serious overstatement. That is how it looks on a smaller, tactical scale.

On a larger scale, however, the two battles are incomparable and that's precisely why I asked you (ten times or so) to state what should the Poles do at Wołodarka in order to achieve a victory (if that was not a victory, as you say). As to the sources - it is somehow easy to claim that a source is incredible just because I (Halibutt), not the author, committed a mistake in translation. However, the whole Kuzma Kruchkov was my mistake, not mistake of the author, as I already explained above. Same with Wyszczelski. If you want me to, I could scan the pages relating to the Russian offensive in the Ukraine for you to check yourself the whole context. I assure you, I wanted to provide as exact translation as possible and it is obvious for me that if the author first describes that one side achieved nothing but heavy losses while the other side achieved all of its goals and inflicted heavy losses on the numerically supperior enemy, than it is clearly a victory of one of the sides. Indeed, it is not clearly said, but to me it's clear from the context.

As to your proposal below and your claim that it's the only version supported by sources - well, could you name them please? Still waiting for you to reply to my question and to provide sources. Halibutt 03:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Not just that. Soviets not just kept Moscow but threw the Germans far away from it in the battle (Germans retreated significantly beyond their original positions). B of Moscow was a Soviet victory because largely due to its outcome Germans never captured the city. Poles defended the line in Wolodarka only to retreat shortly after. --Irpen

I said that the source is not credible (I don't know whether it is incredible) not just because it said at one time something that was false. Everyone makes mistakes. I said the source is not reliable because it is a memoir of a low-level participant, not a commander. The soldier simply lacks perspective to make such a claim. SHould it be a general, it would have been different. --Irpen

You named them above. They say "failure". Just take a look. --Irpen 03:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

But still, you are mixing two plans. One is the strategical context of the Battle of Wołodarka, which is already explained in the article on the whole Kiev Offensive. The other is the tactical context, which should be described here. The Indians won the Battle of the Little Bighorn, eventhough in the end they were all defeated, caught and/or killed. That battle was their victory, regardless of the fact that in the end they lost.

As to the memoir by Fudakowski - well, certainly if he was a general, he'd know better that his boys indeed lost the battle. However, since he was a mere Lieutenant, he simply knew nothing... Right...

As to the book by Wyszczelski - I can't check it right now (got to go to Kielce in an hour or so), but as far as I remember, the problem might be with my translation. If memory serves me right, he used the Polish word klęska, which can be translated as either complete failure (as I did), a disaster, or defeat. So, whichever way we go, he calls it either a "Russian complete failure", a "Russian defeat" or a "Russian disaster". Also, the author for sure mentions that the Russians were repelled with heavy casualties on their side. Halibutt 03:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, as to "what should Poles do..." it is easy. Counerattack to drive Reds significantly beyond the positions at which reds started the battle and keep the area under their control for at least some time (I am not talking years or even months but not just a week or two). --Irpen 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

But why and what for? Their orders were to keep the easily-defensible line along the Dneper and not to drive into the Russian territory, directly in the middle of the numerically superior enemy. Should the Polish commanders ignore the orders, abandon their positions and face a possible defeat and/or court martial? The orders were clear and were directly from Piłsudski himself. The Poles were in no position to assault the Reds and there was no need to. The offensive was planned elsewhere - in Belarus. Halibutt 04:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Okay, I lost my temper now. Since Irpen ignores the plea for sources or my constant pleas to clarify his point of view, perhaps it could be better to organize a quick poll here. Feel free to add pros and cons to each of the options below. Halibutt 02:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note that as I repeatedly said above, the outcome as "Polish victory" or "Russian defeat" is not given in the sources cited by Halibutt. Well, one source that says so is not credible, see above. The others simply say that the Soviet attack failed. Failed attack may or may not be a defeat as discussed above. That it is a defeat in this case, is Halibutt's own conclusion he makes from the sources and NOT the conslusion the academic authors he cites make themselves. Wikipedians are only allowed to make totally self-evident conclusions on their own. It is not evident at all whether this particular failed attack is a defeat. Compare with the Battle of Moscow. Please read the discussion above before voting. --Irpen 01:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Polish tactical victory

Pros: Supported by common sense and by sources (see above)

Cons: Conclusion not made in the sources. Rather made by a Wikipedian himself from his own interpretation of what sources imply rather than say directly. Conclusion isn't obvious at all as per talk above (added by Irpen 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Cons: Conclusion made in only one of two sources we have while the other explains the battle in a descriptive manner. (added by Halibutt)

1. Halibutt 02:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (I support Halibutt since he cites sources. Sources are better then single user personal opinion).
3. Appleseed 22:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Based on the sources provided by Halibutt.

Russian defeat

Pros:

Cons: In similar articles on wikipedia usually the winner is mentioned, not the loser

Russians failed to achieve any of their objectives while the Poles achieved all of theirs

Pros:

Cons: weasel term and too long to fit into the battlebox.

Also never actually proposed (added by Irpen 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Unconcluded

Pros:

Cons: Unsupported by facts nor by sources

Wrong English. Whatever happened 80+ years ago is concluded. Probably meant inconclusive. (added by Irpen 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

inconclusive

Pros: because the Soviets had to attack again and only the following attack succeeded, also short if brevity matters so much.

unsupported by facts, but the area was indeed seized by the Reds some 2 weeks later in the effect of their push some 120 kilometres away (added by user:Halibutt)

Soviets failed to break Polish defence

Pros: this is what sources say. Nothing more. The rest are interpretations. (The defence was broken soon after).

Cons: wrong tense and serious understatement as per Wyszczelski's monography (added by user:Halibutt)

1. Irpen 01:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)