Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 28 April 2006

An entry from Battle of the Dnieper appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 25 April, 2006.

Military history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Okay, the V1 of this page is finally there. It can and should be improved: To do:

• Proofread!!! (you can help!!!)
• The article's connexions with other parts of WW2 series is unclear. 1943 battle of ukraine does not even exist and battle of Kiev is a little more than a stub based on a video game (!!!). Ultimately, I shall expand both, but it will take some time.
• The attack map is under construction, but it will take me some time to finish it. Found an OK one on the web...

So I put the article in Misplaced Pages anyway, especially since it's a little more than a stub anyway, even as of now ... ^_^ Grafikm_fr 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Motives

Quoted: Mid-August, Hitler understood that the Soviet offensive could not be contained - at least, not until some internal disagreement would break up among the Allies. Considering all this, he decided to buy time by constructing a series of fortifications to slow down the Red Army and demanded the Wermacht to defend its positions on the Dnieper at all costs

This gives Hitler a reasonable amount of credit as a strategist. Given only the bare facts (I've not studied this), it seems reasonable to suggest that Hitler was merely trying to hold onto conquered territory at all costs (he had refused to allow retreats on several other occasions). Does the scholarship suggest otherwise? Won't change till someone knowledgeable rings in.Skanar

Bad math?

Infobox says 1.2 million soviet casualties and a high estimate of 1.5 million axis casualties. yet the article says there were more than 3 million casualties on both sides? Borisblue 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Because somebody else edited it. I don't sleep enough at the moment <_< -- Grafikm_fr 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

coriolis force myth

It is claimed that the right bank of the Dnieper is higher due to the coriolis force. This is untrue. (e.g. compare to a river near you). Sure, the right bank of the Dnieper is generally higher because it tends to curve to the right. However, this curving is caused by local geology and most certainly not by the Coriolis force. This reminds me of the common coriolis force myth that water draining from a sink spirals differently in the northern and southernm hemisphere. Come on. Try it with different tap positions, instead. Deuar 13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Don has a right bank steeper than the left and it curves the other way (look at a map). The Volga has (as in Volgograd ). The Dnieper has. The Danube has (as in Budapest). Siberian rivers like Ob' and Ienissei too. It's all local features? It's just because the river next to you is small. This being said, the thing of sink spirals is fake, I agree. -- Grafikm_fr 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, finally found the name of the law, it's called Baer-Babinet' Law (some more info here) -- Grafikm_fr 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at a map, and the Don actually has a very similar shape to the Dnieper (curves the same way), remarkably so, actually. Were you thinking about a particular small part of it that curves the other way? The particular river I was thinking about is the Vistula. I think this is a good example because 1) it is also on the eastern European plain 2) it is also a large river (~1000 km long and wide), and 3) it has an upper part which curves to the left (with higher banks on the left), and a lower part which largely curves to the right (with higher banks on the right). The obvious explanation for the height of banks is that the river's flow tends to erode the inside of curves. This is an almost completely universal feature of riverbanks both on large and small scales. It is also responsible for meanders. I would think that this effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than the coriolis force. On small scales, rivers erode the outside of curves because the water flows faster on the ouside of a curve (check out a meandering river near you), but on large scales, say a hunderd km, the valley tends to go where the underlying soil or rock is softest.

OOps! just fixing a silly error - steep banks are on the outside of a curve. Doesn't change the argument that the coriolis force is too weak compared to other effects, though.Deuar 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at that reference at www.sentex.net, but it's not very trustworthy to say the least. For one it seems to claim that the Great Lakes and other lakes on the Canadian shield were formed by sea currents. What a load of rubbish! The surface of that whole region is known to have been scoured by glacial movements during the last (and earlier) ice ages, which is what caused the depressions that became lakes. For another, it is a creationist website, so you can expect a whole pile of crazy crank theories when it comes to geology, because their underlying agenda is to actually discredit geology so they can claim that the world was recently created in 6 days by a biblical God. Excuse me while I nauseate ;-p

In any case, it claims that river valleys were eroded by ocean currents caused by the uplift of land, and that these currents were deflected by the coriolis force causing e.g. south flowing rivers to curve west. Well ok the Dnieper and Don do, but what about all the rest? look at an atlas! The Volga doesn't do it, the Danube doesn't do it, the Dniester doesn't do it, ... Also, how fast would this land have to rise up to make currents that can sculpt a river valley? All out of the sea in a day, or a week. Sounds like a 6 day creation story again. That just doesn't happen. While it would be cool if riverbanks were sculpted by the coriolis force, it's just not plausible (the coriolis force is too weak compared to normal erosion), and it's not seen in practice.

I agree that the rivers you mentioned appear to show an interesting trend, but I just don't think its the coriolis force. How long is the part of the Ob and Ienissei that has a steeper right bank? Also - sure, the Danube in Budapest has a steep right bank - but that's because there is a mountain range there on the right bank! This is a completely different situation to the Dnieper. Deuar 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to find a reasonable explaination for the bluffs, or perhaps just leave out an explaination for their existance. I will try to research this a bit, but I am also skeptical that Coriolis could account for it, it's just too minor a force compared to the normal erosion and deposition caused by river meander. MarcusGraly 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What causes river bluffs is diffrences in the erodability of deposits, Much of Ukraine is Loess, which is a wind blown very soft fertile soil, (which is why Ukraine historically was the Bread Basket of Russia). I imagine the Dnieper bluffs are some harder formation possibly Sandstone, or limestone, I'm not sure, but as the river cut through the sorfter loess, leaving the harder bluffs exposed. This is how river bluffs are formed. see for example. For now, I am removing the coriolis link. If someone wants to reaserch fmore completely the geological history of the Dneiper Bluffs, that could be added to the article. MarcusGraly 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More more thing, I know this is Military History and not Geology, but simply erosion and deposition is not going to cause bluffs by itself, it will cause meander bends and oxbow lakes ad the like, but you need more, (like the stronger rocks I mentioned,) to create bluffs. I'm not sure if there are true bluffs on the Dneiper or just a steeper bank. If it's just a steeper bank, then that could be the rsult of the curvature of the river. MarcusGraly 19:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found a different link: here (part named "Baer's law (1860)")

Geology has change a lot since 1860. I'm not saying Baer is wrong, I would just like a more modern source confirming this before we put it back in the article. My brother's a Geologist, I'll ask him about it. MarcusGraly 20:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

see this artice for one:] MarcusGraly 20:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberate vs. Take

"Liberate" is loaded for sure, but so is "take." Let's find a neutral word that is accurate (I don't know enough about this to do it myself...). Perhaps "advanced to" or "moved" to the other side of the river. How about "Kiev Campaign"? Or "Battle for Kiev"? NPOV, please. PatrickFisher 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Took up position" on the far side of the river? PatrickFisher 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with "liberate"? A country liberates its own territory. We are not talking about Poland or Romania here, for instance, where this word could be discussed because of its political implications. Kiev was part of Soviet Union in 1941. -- Grafikm_fr 15:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, ironically I think 'liberate' may be the least POV term to use. We would not hesitate to write that French forces helped to 'liberate' Paris in Aug 1944. If the Germans were the agressor (and hopefully we can all agree on that) then 'liberate' seems to be a reasonable term. If the real issue here is the nature of the Soviet regime, let's be honest about that. It's a POV. DMorpheus 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Liberation" is definitely a term from the Soviet propaganda.

The Soviet occupation was as bad for the Ukrainian people as the Nazi one. The "liberation" resulted in one more famine in 1946.

Please follow the NPOV policy and use neutral terms.

What is wrong with the word "take"? The opposite POV word would be "occupation". "Take" or "retake" is neutral and reflect merely a fact.--AndriyK 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether you want it or not (and as I can see, you don't) Ukraine was part of USSR in 1941 when Germany invaded it. When a country invades another, it is occupation, when you get your territories back, it is liberation. One uses liberation for Paris in Aug '44, why not for Kiev? -- Grafikm_fr 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Ukraine was under Soviet occupation before 1941 does not mean that it was liberated in 1944. This was reoccupation if you want to be precise. But I prefer to use neutral terms.

There is a crucial difference between Kiev and Paris. Nobody would object that Paris is a French city. Soon after the Nazis were pushed away, French Government took the control over the city and, the most important, people of Paris and of whole France had soon an opportunity to elect their government.

In contrast, Ukrainian city Kiev was controlled by the Soviet (in effect Russian) government untill 1991. The first free presidential elections took place in the same year.

There is no reason to speak about liberation of Kiev 1944. This was definitely a reoccupation.--AndriyK 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

1) What you say here is 10000 times more POV than the term you suggest to suppress. And as I can see from your talk page, it is not the only article...

2) Before 1917, Ukrain was part of the Russian Empire. It was occupation too?

3) "Occupation" is even more POV than liberation. If you suggest a really NPOV term such as "took control of" or something like that, fine. If not and if you're just making pro-Ukrainian propaganda, then no. -- Grafikm_fr 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

1) We discuss here the article Battle of the Lower Dnieper, not my talk page. This is not the only article because there are too many Russian/Soviet POV-pushers at this wiki.

2) Yes, it was an occupation too.

3)I do not propose to use "occupation" in the article. Some people consider this as occupation some - as liberation. There may be different POVs. But the WP articles should stick at NEUTRAL POV. Neither "occupation" nor "liberation" is appropriate in this case.

I agree with your suggestion to use "take (or retake) control of".

Don't you object if I correct the text according to your suggestion?--AndriyK 17:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay for "retake control of" or something in that tune. You can change the page if you want. -- Grafikm_fr 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All victors use the term liberated when you retake something that has belonged to you. And this is wrong " occupation was as bad for the Ukrainian people as the Nazi one" that is wrong. First there were no extermination camps, and the land had been boomed to piceses, the nazies during their occupation took all the food from the soviets and left them with nothing. You cant regrow crops when you have nothing to seed and the land has been destroyed.(Deng 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

We have stick at neutral POV not at POV of the Soviets (victors).

The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better. There was no famine during the Nazi occupation, they did take the food but not not "all the food"/ I do not know what sources you use.--AndriyK 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "liberation" is used in the Western literature to describe the Red Army advances not just in Ukraine, but even in Poland. And no one is talking about Lviv liberation in connection of '39 events. That was no a liberation in any way. '44-'45 events is a different story. I am still waiting for AndriyK doing the first non-revert edit for weeks or so. Probably, I am out of luck. --Irpen 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all western authors stick at neutral POV as wikipedians should.--AndriyK 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your neutrallity has become legendary, AndriyK. --Irpen 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear where you stand when you say "The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better" because you are dead wrong and that remark shows that you do not know what happened during the Soviet time the population of Ukraine didnt fall but I did fall during the Nazi occupation. And the Soviets only took back what belong to them. If you say "The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better" then it is clear that you dont know what you are talking about. (Deng 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

I perfectly khow what I am talking about, in contrast to you. I know history of my country and not only from textbooks but also from the people who saw it by their own eyes.

Probably the population did not fall according the official Stalin's statistics. But in fact, there were three llarge famines during the Soviet occupation: two before the WWII and one just after the liberation in 1946. Millions of people died!

But it is not the matter of the present discussion which of two occupations was better. If you like the Soviet one - it's your choise.

We discuss here whether this article should reflect the POV of victors (the Soviets in this case) or it should respect WP:NPOV and use neutral wording.

Please explain why you consider the newtral wording like "take control of" unacceptable and why you reverted the article. --AndriyK 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that just because "western" literature says something then it is correct to be laughable. Indeed, using "liberation" to refer to Red Army advances in Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, I don't know enough about Ukraine) just shows that many western authors don't have a clue. Although sure the Soviet occupation of say Poland was much better than the Nazis'. They only killed about 1% of the population instead of 20%! Deuar 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In 1944-45 Soviet Union liberated its own land and eastern Europe. There is no question about that whatsover, and svidomi POVs have no leverage on wiki.--Kuban Cossack 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The context is not just "liberation" but "liberation from Nazism". Even some Polish editors that are difficult to suspect in Russophilic views agree to such formulation. Of course for such a neutrallity warrior as AndriyK accepting anything at all is an impossibility. --Irpen 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you propose to call the Nazi occupation "liberation from Communism"?--AndriyK 08:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Look I got this from the wiki article about Ukraine

Initially, the Germans were received as liberators by many Ukrainians, especially in western Ukraine which had only been occupied by the Soviets in 1939. However, German rule in the occupied territories eventually aided the Soviet cause. Nazi administrators of conquered Soviet territories made little attempt to exploit the population of Ukrainian territories' dissatisfaction with Soviet political and economic policies. Instead, the Nazis preserved the collective-farm system, systematically carried out genocidal policies against Jews, and deported others (mainly Ukrainians) to work in Germany. Under these circumstances, most people living on the occupied territory passively or actively opposed the Nazis. Total civilian losses during the war and German occupation in Ukraine are estimated between five and eight million, including over half a million Jews shot and killed by the Einsatzgruppen, sometimes with the help of Ukrainian collaborators. Of the estimated eleven million Soviet troops who fell in battle against the Nazis, about a quarter (2.7 million) were ethnic Ukrainians. Ukraine is distinguished as one of the first nations to fight the Axis powers in Carpatho-Ukraine, and one that saw some of the greatest bloodshed during the war.

After liberation the population didnt go down 5-8 million every 3 years instead it grew (Deng 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

Deng, you try to push the discussion away from the subject. The discussion is not about which of two occupations was more terrible. It is about the use of neutral wording instead of Soviet propaganda cliches in the article.--AndriyK 08:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Some good points are made here, and "liberate" may not be objectionable in most circumstances. However, there are passionate differences of opinion here, so we should aim for a correspondingly high level of NPOV. The word liberate is defined as, "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." When you liberate something, you are granting liberty and, hence, breaking shackles. Yes, the foreign control part is strictly accurate, but the other meanings give the term a strong connotation that there was relatively greater oppression prior to the action. This is a controversial implication that may be examined, but should not be allowed to sneak in the back door. Take, as an alternative, is far better, although I think there is a slight connotation that the actor is not the rightful owner of what is being taken (implied by the existence of its counterpart, retake). I still feel that purely militaristic terminology, as a precise jargon unrelated to politics, will be the least POV. Battle of Lower Dnieper, not the liberation or taking. The X army advanced to a strong point at A, the Y army retreated to entrenched positions at B. The focus of this article is a military action, let's keep it that way. - PatrickFisher 03:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Deuar 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree in general. But we have to look into details. I would ask native English speakers to check whether the phrase "Soviet troops advanced to the left shore of Dnieper" is correct. May be there is a more appropriate militaric term.

The same for "advancing into Kiev as well" and "Stalin was determined to pursue Soviet Army advance to occupied territories".

If there're no problem with the language, I'll support this version.--AndriyK 10:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberate is the most accurate term, since it was territory within the Soviet Union that had been occupied by a hostile foreign country. I don't really see why it's so contreversial, other than because polititians will often twist the meaning of that word. (Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, Liberation of Iraq, etc., etc. MarcusGraly 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is controversial because the territory under discussion was occupied by Bolshevik Russia two decades before the German occupation and a great fraction of its population did not consider the re-occupation by Soviets as a liberation. Therefore the word "liberation" is not neutral as it reflects the pro-Soviet POV.

Ukraine had been a part of Russia for nearly 1000 years, not two decades. MarcusGraly 17:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

First, please learn history before you start argueing. Russia did not even exist for 1000 year.

Second, it does not matter how long lasts the occupation. It remains an occupation if the population demonstrates the willigness to independence.

Ukraine was under Russian control prior to 1917 (as well as Finland, Poland, Baltic states, Belarus etc.). But then Bolshevik Russia ceded it (as well as Finland, Poland, Belarus, Baltic states etc) in 1918.

Ukraine and Belarus were occupied by Soviet Russia two years later.

Would not you claim that the Soviet-Finnish war of 1940 was not an agression of the Soviet Union? Was it "liberation" or "returning own territories"?

Why the saizure of Ukraine and Belarus in 1920 should be considered differently?

8 to 12 million Ukrainians died between 1920-1941. Was it not an occupation?

A new famine came in 1946,just in two years after the "liberation". Again a lot of people died.

What happened after 1943-44? Were Ukraininas allowed to elect their own goverment? Were they allowed to be the arbiters of their own destiny? In what sence was it liberation?

Why do you insist on this Soviet propaganda cliche? Why are not you satisfied with a more neutral formulation?--AndriyK 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When the Americans took places in Western Europe it's always described as Liberation. When the Soviets take them, even within their own country (!), it's not? Read the article on History of Ukraine. Stalin's forced collectivazation and intustriallization programs where disasterous, that is undeniable, but this was not an attempt to supress the Ukrainian people. In fact, prior to that great effort was made to promote Ukrainian culture and language.

Regarding the claim about Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: The Soviet Goverment was under a very desperete situation, Germany had basically beat them militarily and the Whites were gaining strength. According to your reasoning, the French govement is also "occupying" the areas is ceeded to Germany in 1940, so it agreed to that under treaty. Unlike Poland, Finland and the Baltic States, which sought their independence, The Ukrainian Goverment that formed during the Civil War sided with the Soviets and agreed to the Union.

Your last rationalization is that Ukraine was not liberated beacause the USSR was not a democracy. In this case, nowhere in China was liberated from Japan, nor was the Philapines liberated, since it was a colony, etc. etc. MarcusGraly 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Promoting Ukrainian culture and language is not the same as self-rule. The Soviet acquisition of the territories of present-day Ukraine occured in a somewhat hostile and rather oppressive manner after Ukrainians had attempted self-rule following the collapse of the Russian Empire. I'm not stating the the Soviet Union was inherently evil, but rather that this was a case of occupation by a foreign government which then dictated commands to the Ukrainian SSR. Such actions do not warrant the term "liberating".--tufkaa 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Using militaric terms as suggested by PatrickFisher would be most reasonable and neutral.--AndriyK 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Read what I posted a few lines up you think that "The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better" WHICH PROVES WHERE YOU STAND. I showed you that during the 3 years that 5-8 million people died and you think that is equall to what happened after the liberation. That shows that you are extremly POV pushing (Deng 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Dear SuperDeng, please do not push the discussion away from the point. We do not discuss here wich of two occupations was better. You may like the Soviet one, I may hate the both.

The subject of the discussion is the neutral wording insted of Soviet propaganda cliches.--AndriyK 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What about "reclaimed"? The Soviet forces "reclaimed" territory which they controlled prior to the German invasion. This doesn't imply that they were welcomed as the governing authority as the word "liberate" might imply. It also doesn't invalidate the prior Soviet control of the territory.--tufkaa 17:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue about who was good and who was bad for Ukraine is off-topic here. In the context of WW2 the term always implies liberation from nazi occupation. A wrath of western WW2 books use this term and it is applicable without any doubt. Besides, even in modern independent Ukraine itself the term is used. The anniversary of "Vyzvolennya" (literary translation of "liberation") is celebrated by parades and various public events. But even this is only slightly related. Liberation from Nazi occupation is factually correct and is used widely.

Even the Britannica, which is as mainstream as one can possibly be, the term is used. From Kiev article in EB: "General Nikolay Vatutin, commander of the Soviet forces that liberated Kiev in 1943". ALso, same article: "In 1943 the advancing Soviet troops forded the Dnieper and, after bitter fighting, liberated Kiev on November 6.". I am saddened that AndriyK still does nothing but POV-pushing revert wars. Please write something rather than damage the work of others. --Irpen 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As I already answered you. Not all wester authors care about neutrality. What they write is often based on Soviet sources hence the terminology used.

Britannica is a respectable source, but not necessarily a neutral source, because its author can be also biased as well as other western or eastern aouthors.

If Ukrainian Government consider it as liberation, it is just a POV of Ukrainian Government it is not a NPOV.

The point is that there is a significant number of people that do not consider the restoring of Soviet control over Ukraine as liberation.

OTOH, why do you consider neutral terms wrong?

What is wrong with "Soviet Army took control of Kiev"? It remained under control of Nazis or a third party?

What is wrong with "Stalin was determined to pursue Soviet Army advance"? You mean it did not advance?

What is you problem with the alternative versions? Please explain clearly.--AndriyK 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The question remains whether "liberation" is inherently a POV term, regardless of how it has been used in the past. I think that a very valid case of POV can be made in this instance as the people of Ukraine had already claimed independence not 25 years prior to this particular instance of "liberation". I can see how prior to the claim of independence, an invasion of and subsequent reclaiming of territory could have been termed a "liberation". But once the native population declares sovereignty, any claim of "liberation" which does not involve self-rule promotes a POV which dismisses the history of the occupied people.

Any takers for "reclaim"?--tufkaa 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at comprmise, but reclaim just isn't used in this context. When someon says "reclaimed land" they usually mean land that has been decontaminated or some such. Furthermore, I'll beleive that liberation is inherently POV when I see a heated discussion on the Liberation of Paris page. MarcusGraly 19:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to but a single meaning of the word "reclaim". If in the context of the article people assume that the Soviet Army was a team of environmental scientists, then that is the result of a poorly worded article or maybe the poor vocabulary of the reader. To reclaim: to regain possession of -- this seems a reasonable and non-POV substitute to "liberation" in this article.

The problem with the Paris analogy is that you've ignored the entire reasoning of those opposed to "liberation" on the grounds that it is POV. Once the native population declares sovereignty, any claim of "liberation" which does not involve self-rule promotes a POV which dismisses the history of the occupied people. Paris was "set free from oppression, confinement, or foreign control"; the people who populated the banks of the Dnipro were not.--tufkaa 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think reclaim is a great suggestion. Everywhere that liberate could be used, I would use reclaim instead. - PatrickFisher 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to "reclaim" or "take". Any term in the set: liberate, take, reclaim, occupy, etc. may have a POV interpretation depending on how strongly one hates/loves the Soviets (or the Nazis for that matter). As such, the absolutely neutral terms simply don't exist, and they can't exist, since we are dealing with history and politics rather than math and science. Historic subjects are inherently more emotional and colorful and we don't want the articles to be fully censored to the extent that they are unreadable to a non-professional historian. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal publication and should be written for the general public, not professional historians.

This is exactly the case where the term to use should be determined by the prevailing usage in the mainstream historiography. That other author "don't have to be neutral like us" is mere nonsense. All respected historians attempt and strive for neutrality in their writings. So is Britannica and any source that claims respectability. "Liberation from Nazi occupation" is a specific term widely used in the mainstream, and the author who writes the WP article should be allowed to use it without the fear of someone who hasn't written anything ever for Misplaced Pages but roams from article to article with his extreme views and inflames a bunch of edit wars until s/he gets blocked again for disruption. --Irpen 06:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what kind of POV interpretion the terms "take" may have? Is it charged with any sympathy to Nazis? Or with hatred to Soviets?

What about "advanced into". Is it also negatively charged to Soviets?--AndriyK 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That is beside the point. The French do not mind to use the terms Liberate for the WWII when the second front opened. USSR was part of the anti-Hitler coalition on equal terms and here it was liberating its own land. There is no question. It liberated its own land. Besides historically one might even despute wether New Russia is even Ukrainian. And its residents CERTAINLY welcomed the glorious Red Army as liberators. Instead of taking pride in that history you make it seem that you have nothing to do with it. SHAME ON YOU! --Kuban Cossack 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, your point of view is clear. The matter of the discussion is not how to represent your or my POV, but about the neutral POV.--AndriyK 12:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And Liberated is a neutral POV when applied to this scenario. --Kuban Cossack 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not everything what you like is neutral. Learn to respect other oppinions and look for a compromise.--AndriyK 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Ukrainian state opinion is the same for WWII Soviet actions. Victory day is still a public holiday and even your president attendended the Moscow Parade last year. Ukrainians too fought in the Red Army from soldiers to Marshals. There is no compromise here whatsoever. We use genocide when referring to nazi war crimes, we use liberate for territories that the Red Army freed from the Nazis. All of the territory of pre-1939 Ukraine has been liberated regardless of how you and your svidomy losers look at it. --Kuban Cossack 14:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Everybody has already understood your opinion. There is no need to repeat the same in different variations.

It would be nice if you understand that your opinion is not the only possible one.--AndriyK 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. It is FACT. FACT which is repeated in MOST western historical books. FACT which is shared by the Ukrainian government and ALL its peoples (− 3—5 oblasts), particulary of those regions. Yours is an opinion.--Kuban Cossack 15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kuban Cossack, I've seen sources (well written ones too) saying that the Red Army liberated Poland! Telex 15:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you therefore inclined to agree with the assertion svidomy losers? :)

But they are! --Kuban Cossack 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear to me that a difference exists between territories that were allowed to self-govern after the defeat of Germany, and the ones that remained under the direct governmental control of the forces which had driven out the Germans. I believe that a similar discussion surrounds the articles Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006 (not "Liberation of Iraq") and 2003 invasion of Iraq. "Liberating" has POV connotations, and its use in previously published texts does not imply correctness in any way; there are many historical texts covering a variety of periods that contain POV language. One of the reasons that Misplaced Pages is a groundbreaking reference is because of its devotion to NPOV, which has significantly altered people's interpretation of past history. Point being, we are not bound by the POV of those who came before us.

Iraq was a clear invasion since a) it is a sovereign country. b) Its borders were recognised by United Nations and other treaties. c) From the start everybody called it invasion, even the United States. Soviet Territory was Soviet at start of war. It was liberated by the Soviets. Germany on the other hand was occupied, it was even split into occupational zones. Czech republic, Poland, Yugoslavia and occupied USSR was liberated from the nazi rule. Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania were invaded. Such is the breakdown in all western WWII atlases and historical sources. --Kuban Cossack 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider my proposal of "reclaim", and if you find it unacceptable on POV grounds, could you state your objections? Thanks! --tufkaa 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research. That is the objection as it clearely dictates that we are not going to invent new terminology to replace the one that is used predominately in English literature and media. WRT to what I said above that is the convention which should adopted throught wiki.--Kuban Cossack 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tufkaa, any word chosen here bears some POV flavor. Reclaim, same as claim, implies the legitimacy is not unquestionable. "..the United States claimed the territory up to Russian Alaska (54o 40' N) and the British claimed the land down to the Columbia River." Or "The United States claimed to be "saving" the people of Iraq from a tyrant and bringing democracy to the Middle East." I don't want to get into an argument on the legitimacy of the Soviet control over Ukraine. Both sides have their arguments.

The issue here is that each and every word has a POV flavor. The only solution is to use what the respected scholars use. They do use "liberate" in the context of kicking Nazis out. We do not have to use this term in each sentence of the article, but we should be allowed to use it and we should not tolerate "editors" who write nothing but roam from article to article with word changing ideas and POV tag insertions. --Irpen 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Respected scholars do not write encyclopedias - and they do not have to follow the NPOV rules. We do. If we are to chose between liberated on one side and occupied on the other, I'd say we go for some other compromise choice. //Halibutt 20:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have: Columbia Encyclopedia says that the Soviet troops liberated:

• Warsaw: When Warsaw was liberated (Jan., 1945) by Soviet troops, only about 200 Jews remained.
• Brest: (in Belarus) ...occupied by Germany from 1941–44, and finally liberated by the Soviet army.
• Prague: Prague was liberated in May, 1945, by Soviet troops after an anti-German rebellion (May 5).

Telex 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And according to Britannica: "General Nikolay Vatutin, commander of the Soviet forces that liberated Kiev in 1943". (Kiev article) and "In 1943 the advancing Soviet troops forded the Dnieper and, after bitter fighting, liberated Kiev on November 6." (same article). --Irpen 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY. That proves that in cases such as those above and in general the Soviet Union liberated occupied territories, is the standard convention used by Western media and thus in English language and thus suitable for wikipedia, in any case No original research clearely states that inventing a new convention is not allowed. Therefore there is really nothing more to discuss as any compromise solutions are original research. Thus this debate is over. Unless someone files a mediation, in that case my stance is clearely explained, and in the case of this article in particular I shall not change it. --Kuban Cossack 21:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, you are dead wrong here that the respected scholars don't write encyclopedias and that don't have to write neutrally. A politician doesn't have to be neutral, the scholar does if he has any respectability claim. Britannica and Columbia certainly have a NPOV policy. Here is the statement from the EB's web-site: "Britannica provides neutral, unbiased perspectives on issues and conflicts." Even those article in EB which I "signed" are all written by respected researchers in the field from the top universities. So, pls no BS that a researcher who writes in his professional field doesn't have to be neutral. He not always is but he always tries to, at list he should. If you are saying that you, as an author, are more neutral than Britannica this would be a Misplaced Pages joke of the day. --Irpen 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Liberation" has been recognized by others on Misplaced Pages to be POV, and is considered still by others to be patently offensive. Why then encourage the use of such a word? To use a term such as "reclaim" is by no means original research; if anything, consider it a broadening of our collective vocbulary (i.e., it's been used plenty to describe geopolitical and military developments). And frankly, because a term such as "reclaim" implies the legitimacy is not unquestionable, that is precisely why it is more agreeable to a broader public (although I also question the use of the word "legitimacy" in such a context; perhaps "right of rule"). I do not read anything perjorative or lauditory behind a statement such as:

During this four-month campaign, Soviet troops reclaimed the left shore of the Dnieper, crossed it in force, created several bridgeheads on the right shore, and reclaimed Kiev as well.

In fact, the alternate meanings of the word (bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life...make useful again; transform from a useless or uncultivated state) actually could lend someone to interpret the aforementioned statement with a positive connotation. However, this way, we stay clear of "liberation" which is frankly too politically volatile.

Volatile for whom? For you? If the official term that the Ukrainian governemnt endorses which mounts quite a landslide against your suggestion. Reclaimed is most of all vague. I would use that term in a battle article when a city changes hands several times (like in the battles of Kharkov), but not when its liberated for good. Sorry, but I cannot see why you would not acccept liberate. --Kuban Cossack 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that there are many common terms and opinions that are used predominantly by people, historians, and the media. Not all of these bear the merit of repeating them.--tufkaa 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes which why we must use respectible sources, which when filtered from svidomy bullshit will cut that not all of these by a good majority. --Kuban Cossack 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)