Talk:Invasion of Poland: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:57, 9 August 2006 editHalibutt (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,067 edits →article title (for Halibutt... AGAIN)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:38, 20 December 2024 edit undoFourthords (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,029 edits + inquiry;
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~featured~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{tmbox
	{{Mainpage date\|July 19\|2005}}
			\|image=]
	{{WPMILHIST
			\|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big>{{pb}}
	\|class=FA
			] (9 May 2021):{{pb}}
	\|importance=Top
			The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the ].{{pb}}
	\|portal=10
	\|Polish-task-force=yes
	\|WWII-task-force=yes
	}}		}}
			{{Article history
	{{oldpeerreview}}
			\|action1=PR
	{{Archive box\|]}}
			\|action1date=21:04, 14 May 2005
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Polish September Campaign/archive1
			\|action1result=reviewed
			\|action1oldid=13710666

			\|action2=FAC
	==Polish strenght and ORP Gryf==
			\|action2date=09:38, 27 May 2005
	AFAIK in 1939 Poland has 39 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, 2 motorised brigades, 3 mountain brigades and some National Defence and KOP units. ORP Gryf, largest Polish war ship, should be on the navy list.--] 19:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Polish September Campaign
			\|action2result=promoted
			\|action2oldid=14317891

			\|action3=FAR
	Have you seen the ]? I'll let Halibutt answer the division number question, as he created that article. Good point about Gryf, he is often forgotten. But are you sure he was the biggest? Gryf links (for article 'to do': , , --] ] 00:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			\|action3date=05:54, 29 September 2009
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Invasion of Poland (1939)/archive1
			\|action3result=removed
			\|action3oldid=316726014

			\|maindate=July 19, 2005
	Well, as a matter of fact we had 41 infantry divisions (you forgot about 50th, 55th and 60th) and one cavalry division (well.. improvised and combined so it can be ommitted in the battlebox). As to the cavalry Bdes - that's right. The same goes for motorised. The problem I have with mountain troops is that if we count 39 Infantry Divisions, then we must mention the two mountain divisions separately (2 divisions -21st and 22nd - and 3 additional Bdes).
			\|currentstatus=FFA

			\|otd1date=2005-09-01
	Of course ORP Gryf was the biggest birdie we had until 1943 when ORP Dragon and later ORP Conrad arrived (well, except for ORP Bałtyk which was a pre-WWI battleship, but was completely obsolete and used as a hulk).
			\|otd1oldid=22299588
	--]] 08:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
			\|otd2date=2006-09-01

			\|otd2oldid=73159979
	:You're right, 41 divisions, including 55th i 60th divisions. By the way, maybe somebody knows if that two divisions were organised after September 1, 1939 or earlier? --] 19:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			\|otd3date=2007-09-01

			\|otd3oldid=154757076
	::The 60th ''Kobryń'' infantry division was half-improvised from the troops present in the area of the ] - hence the code-name. It had almost all men, but was severely lacking heavy equipment, especially the artillery (it had only three batteries out of usual regiment). Other than that it was supplied better than most other reserve units since before September 12 it was supplied with all the arms and equipment from the military depots of Dęblin by... drivers of Warsaw buses that were evacuated and then started acting as trains - with the difference that they were harder to catch by the Luftwaffe. It is probably not known to the wider audience that those drivers used on purpose what could be called a ''chaos organisation'': instead of forming a column, they set off with supplies at the same moment, but each followed a different path. Anyway, the division was really successful, first defending the hopeless positions against the 19th Motorised Division of the Guderian's Panzer Corps and then fighting its way down to the ].
			\|otd4date=2008-09-01

			\|otd4oldid=235684083
	::On the contrary the 55th was a standard reserve division attached to the Kraków Army from the first days of the war, with three infantry regiments, 1.5 regiments of artillery and all the other stuff. It was in combat from the first hours of the war in Silesia, and then shared the fate of its army, with the difference that it evaded high losses and remained in decent shape until the First Battle of Tomaszów. If we only had more such commanders as Kalabiński...
			\|otd5date=2009-09-01
	::Hope I was of some help. ]] 21:29, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
			\|otd5oldid=311282107
	:::Thanks a lot. --] 21:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			\|otd6date=2010-09-01
	I wrote an article about ORP Gryf. --] 13:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			\|otd6oldid=382251320
	: Great :) Keep up the good job :) --] ] 17:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			\|otd7date=2011-09-01

			\|otd7oldid=447742747
	Anon changes:
			\|otd8date=2015-09-01
	* ''casualties1=65 000 killed 133 700 wounded 680 000 POWs'' to ''casualties1=65 000 killed 133 700 wounded 694 000 POWs''
			\|otd8oldid=678875359
	* ''casualties2=16 343 killed 27 280 wounded 320 MIA'' to ''casualties2=10 343 killed 30 280 wounded 320 MIA''
			}}
	I hesitate to change it since it is minor and I have no sources for one way or another. Halibutt? --] ] 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|

			{{WikiProject Germany\|importance=High}}

			{{WikiProject Poland\|importance = top}}
	http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=c\|b1=n\|b2=y\|b3=y\|b4=y\|b5=y\|German=y\|Polish=y\|Russian=y\|WWII=y}}
	:German KIA, Polish Campaign: 16,343
			{{WikiProject Russia\|importance=High\|hist=yes\|mil=yes}}
	:German MIA, Polish Campaign: 320
			}}
	:German WIA, Polish Campaign: 27,280
			{{User:MiszaBot/config

			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav\|noredlinks=y}}
	http://worldatwar.net/wars/ww2/poland39/
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	48 casualties of which 16k were killed...
			\|counter = 4

			\|minthreadsleft = 5
	http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/EuropeatWar/blitzkrieg_poland.htm
			\|algo = old(90d)
	: German Polish
			\|archive = Talk:Invasion of Poland/Archive %(counter)d
	:Killed 8082 to 10572 66300 737
			}}
	:Wounded 27,278 to 30322 133700 1859
			{{Annual readership}}
	:Missing 3404 to 5029
			{{Archives \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=90}}

	Which brings again a question: why there is no number for missing in Polish losses?
	And why the losses were so much higher, if in several battles i've read the differences in losses were not that stunning?! ] 09:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

	: I added a note on casualties brackets. One thing I spotted is the sources citing low end German casualties and high end MIA - I guess they are some early German statistics and that eventually those MIA were transformed into KIA. More questions: the figure of 880 Polish tanks in the warbox is from where? Sources in text give about 130 7TPs and 300 tankettes. The only source I see gives 107 German planes shot down, what source gives ~140? I have no idea about lack of Polish MIA. Perhaps some Polish printed sources would be useful here. --] ] 12:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

	: Loses from PWN: (according to Biuro Odszkodowań Wojennych): Polish ~620,000 total: 66,000 killed, 134,000 wounded, 420,000 POWs. ~15,000 killed in fights agaisnt Red Army or executed immedietly after surrender, ~250,000 POWss. German ~45,000 KIA and WIA, ~1,000 tanks and armored tanks (30% of all used in the campaign) and 700 planes (32% used in the campaign). Red Army (official :>): 2,500 KIA and WIA. Losses from Britannica: Germans: ~45,000. Poland: 700,000 POWs, KIA/WIA/MIA unknown (yeah, that's Britannica :>), evacuated: 80,000 Polish soldiers. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

	=="September Campaign"==
	Someone changed the sentence, "Germans and Poles usually refer to it as 'the September Campaign,'" to: "From the German perspective the war is called the 'the September Campaign.'" Why this change? In Polish, it is commonly called ''"Kampania wrześniowa"'' ("the September Campaign"). ] 14:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

	:Not really. That term is quite popular, mostly due to post-war commie propaganda which used it over and over again. After all both the German and the Soviet propaganda tried to downgrade the Polish WWII effort, hence the name of the campaign which was coined to suggest that it took less time to defeat Poland (''Septemberfeldzug'' in German).

	:However, the term ''kampania wrześniowa'' is barely used by any Polish historian, be it rightist or leftist. Also the Generals themselves who wrote diaries and memoirs refer to it by other names (most notably ''Defensive War'' and ''Polish campaign'', but ''Campaign of 1939'', ''Polish-German War of 1939'' and ''War of 1939'' are also used). It should also be noted that after WWII even German historians started to use the name ''Polenfeldzug'' - Polish Campaign.

	:So, all in all, the term "kampania wrześniowa" might be popular, but is far from accurate and barely used by historians and other serious publications. ]] 17:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

	I have, over decades, spoken with many Polish veterans of September 1939, and the only term I recall them using is ''"kampania wrześniowa,"'' with no derogatory or tendentious connotation. For the Poles — at least, for those Poles — September 1939 was just one campaign in their war. ] 19:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

	::I'm probably much younger than you are, but I had the opportunity to speak to lots of WWII vets (most notably those who fought in the ]), and most of them used the terms ''Wrzesień'' (September), ''Klęska'' (Defeat, as in "after the defeat I found myself in Russia") or ''wojna obronna'' (Defensive war). But this might be due to the fact that most of them fought on the other front of the war in 1939, that is both against Germany and Russia. Take note that the very term "campaign" would suggest that there was only one front, while in reality there were two. ]] 21:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

	I've spoken, and do speak, with Polish veterans who fought in September 1939, who fought at Cassino, who fought in both those venues and elsewhere, and they all speak of "the September Campaign" or — by way of shorthand — indeed of "September." But ''my'' veterans have never spoken of a "Defensive War"; I've seen it in a book title but never heard it, and to my ear it sounds like "political correctness." But I guess that's what comes of spending nearly all one's life away from the living springs of a nation's p.c. ] 01:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

	::I wouldn't treat ''Wrzesień'' as a shorter form of ''Kampania wrześniowa''. IMO the earlier is used on purpose and not as a shorthand. As such it fits perfectly well into the Polish 20th century months which serve as proper names for various historical periods (i.e. ''Październik'' - 1956; ''Grudzień'' - 1970; and so on).

	::As I said, apart from my grandma and grandpa, who were using either the term ''wojna wrześniowa'' ("September war") or simply the ''wojna z niemcami'' ("war with the Germans"), I've spoken only to a fistful of vets who attended yearly feasts in my school (named after the Heroes of Monte Cassino). Perhaps those you've spoken with used different terms. Which doesn't change the fact that the term ''Kampania wrześniowa'' is far from being the most popular among historians at least since the times of Moczulski's "Wojna Polska", one of the first monographies of the Polish-German_Soviet conflict of 1939. I don't know if it's a matter of p.c. or anything else, but most books I have on the topic use lots of names for that conflict and ''kampania wrześniowa'' seems to be one of the least popular. ]] 03:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

	We are not talking about what it is called in Polish tho, this is English WIkipedia. very few ppl in english have ever heard the term, indeed everyone I have talked to have never heard the term, it is usually called the invasion of Poland, simply as that in English. "Polish Defensive War" makes it sound as if Poland was perfectly innocent, instead of revealing the fact that the Polish army had made raids accross the border since the end of WWI and the establishment of the Polish state (which were often stopped by the Freikorps), indeed the Germans made up a false occurence of this relatively common happening to declare war in 1939. I think a vote should be taken like on the Danzig/Gdansk topic where we agree on one term for all pages, as I see Halibutt likes to go to every page on WWII and change invasion of poland or polish september campaign to "polish defensive war". I am not saying to totally ignore the name used by Halibutt, but instead just have it as a sidenote after the title, like Gdansk/Danzig. why all this POV pushing Halibutt?] 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
	:While I prefer the PSC to PDW myself, I am amazed to hear about the 'frequent Polish raids' across the border. Fantastic revelation - could you provide sources for this?--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 01:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

	they became less frequent once the NAZIs took over, as the Poles knew that the NAZIs meant business. I will try and find sources for u. but from the sources I do remember, the Attack on Sender Gleiwitz was made to imitate Polish attacks accross the border that happened shortly after WWI, for instance the 1st to 3rd Silesian Uprisings, which were aided by Polish army units.] 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Jadger, what? 1st and 3rd uprising were "POLISH ATTACKS" across the border? AIDED by Polish army?!? Besides, it is really hard to argue that Poland was somehow guilty of 1939 Nazi attack ] 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	No u misunderstand, Poles were not who started WWII, they had previously made border clashes with Freikorps, which in any authorative book on the freikorps tells of such happening. however they did assist in the uprisings in Silesia, for instance in 3rd Silesian Uprising topic

	"The insurrection began on the date planned early in May, because the population had already been terrified by many acts of violence from the Greater Polish Army as well as German paramilitary groups."

	now at this time it was a part of Germany, this proves my point, as why would they be scared of the Polish army if it had never made cross-border raids? the answer of course is that indeed they did make cross-border raids and patrols. The first and third (I said first to third, meaning second as well) were antagonized by both sides wishing to crush the other, they were not simply polish attacks or German attacks upon the other. do u really think that the Nazi propogandists would make up an fake polish attack out of the blue so to say? of course not, every lie has to be based in some way on some slight truth, in order to be believable.] 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	Sources with quotes, pretty please. From books printed after the 1980 or primary documents. ] 10:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	already told u, check the Silesian Uprising pages, there are references on there, as for other primary sources, read Goebbels' speech upon the declaration of war on Poland. sure it has lots fo propoganda in it, but this propoganda cant be made out of thin air, it must be based on atleast a little bit of facts which are outlined.] 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	:I have been on Misplaced Pages for a while and rarely do I see a statement which simply leaves me speechless. Before I respond, Jadger, could you please let me know what level of education you have completed (high school, college, university)? It might help me craft my response. ] 05:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	I have completed a bachelor in History at University (I am not going to divulge more personal info), and I don't know why my education level matters. Goebbels would not of made up this idea of Polish raids if there was not atleast a history or a threat of it, read any authorative history of Weimar Germany, the Freikorps not only crushed the left but they also repelled raids by the Polish army. just will u atleast look at the Silesian uprisings page on the wiki, it clearly states that the Polish army was interfering and aiding the rebels and antagonizing.] 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)in

	:If you are indeed educated in history, then you must understand the importance of using objective, scholarly sources in your research. Hence you must understand that a propaganda speech, by definition filled with exaggerations and some lies, aimed at influencing public opinion for an immediate political end, is not a good source of objective knowledge. This is especially true for World War II which has been extensively studied, and about which thousands of high quality historical works exist. In short, if you want to demonstrate anything here, do not quote Goebbels, but go to your local university library and find some reliable sources written by impartial historians. ] 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

	==This is the best ww2 article I have seen nice job==

	Great job everyone

	(] 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

	==]==
	Anyone opposed to changing this article's title from "]" to "]"? ]\|] 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Only after ] is renamed to ] and ] - to ]. This has been suggested before. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:: If we were to follow your suggestion, those two articles wouldn't be the only ones to be moved. ] (]) 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	: I favor Polish Defensive War, and the current title is my second choice. ] (]) 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	We should simply use the most common names of the wars. However, if we are to use strong terms where applicable (no doubt invasion is applicable here) I would ask same users to support renaming articles about Polish invasions to the East to "invasion" as well. We now have a ] and ]. Please invasion their titles too. Same standards everywhere. --] 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I knew we could count on our siblings in this case as well :) As to what Irpen wrote above, please take note that it's a complete absurd. In fact both Poland and Russia invaded Ukraine and Belarus in 1919-1920, with the only difference being that Poland entered Ukraine to drive the Soviets out (as no Ukrainian government invited them), while the Russians later invaded Poland. If the Polish-Soviet War was an invasion of Russia, then how come Polish forces did not enter a single inch of Russian territory? But this is of course OT here
	::As Appleseed, I'd go for defensive war. However, invasion of Poland seems the second best choice for me. It has the merit of being completely neutral in this case (contrary to the case of 1920, where the use of the term "invasion" is problematic, to say the least) and definitely less POVed than the current title. ''<font color="#990011">//</font>'']] 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::If this was indeed an invasion of Poland, then how come Soviet forces did not enter a single inch of Polish territory? They seem to have occupied (or rather liberated) the Ukraine and Belarus from centuries of Polish oppression. Hence, my preferred title (as concerns Soviet Union) is the ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::<Sarcasm mode>Yes, Ghirla, you raise a valid point. There can be little doubt that Russian forces even during their furthest drive east (] did not enter Polish territory: Poland was after all but a (rebellious) province of the larger entity, the (former) Russian Empire, one which unfortunately succeeded in refusing the generous invitation to join the Soviet paradise on equal terms as a republic. And Warsaw is a well known Russian city, only by an accident occupied by Poles for, oh, few hundreds years since its founding. This would fit nicely with a theme common in infailable Russian historiography which sees that war as part of the ].</Sarcasm mode>. Seriously, Ghirla, you are feeling OK today?--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Pick up a book in English on WWII, find the chapter on this period and history, and odds are its going to be titled ''"The Invasion of Poland"''. That is why it should be named so here. ] 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I'd suggest we forget about what is this article called on wiki and ask ourselves what is it called in academic sources. There are compelling arguments (see ]) for the name change, although for the moment I'll abstain.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	::Print.google.com returns 36 pages with \"september campaign" 1939\ and 2780 pages with \"invasion of poland" 1939\. ] 17:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	Halibutt's and some other responses were fierce but off-topic. Now back to the topic. Are we going to rename ] into a "Polish invasion of Russia"? There is plenty of sources that call it such. It is also called "Polish internevtion". Maybe Halibutt would prefer that one? The bottomline is that ''invasion'' is a strong word and, as per common sense, there is no need to use strong terms in article titles. I went length into that ]. Please take a look at this one month old discussion. If we abandon the rule to avoid strong words in titles, we should call the Polish invasions fopr what they were as well. And I am talking the article titles. Davies uses ] (I can give a page #). Multiple source use ] or ] for PL-Muscovy war. Let's just think whether strong words is a thing to use or to avoid in Misplaced Pages article '''titles'''. There are academic souces that use strong word (examples above) and we can then rename a bunch of articles. If we prefer strong words NOT used in the titles, we should clean up the massacres and martyrdoms from a bunch of PL related article. For now, I see double standards: Polish users like to use such terms for articles where Poland was a victim but not when it was the perpetrator. Details ]. --] 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	:The biggest problem here is that there were more than two participants in the conflict, so unless you want to call it the ], you have to look for another naming convention. Similarly, you can't call the 2003 conflict in Iraq the ] because there were other belligerents involved, hence ]. Unfortunately, "invasion" can be controversial for other reasons -- see above -- but it does have the added benefit of being the standard term used by academics. ] 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	I think ''Invasion of Poland, 1939'' or the likes is good, as that is what it was, and that is what it is most commonly called in English. I also like it as unlike other names it does not say only the one attacker, as sometimes it is called ''German attack on Poland'', which ignores the fact that the Russians and Slovaks also attacked and took land.

	--] 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Well, once you eliminate all permutations of ], you are left with some form of the current title, ], vs. some form of ]. The former is more NPOV while the latter is more much common in history books. Given the region's history, NPOV may be the more important consideration in this case, although I wish it was more specific, e.g. ]. ] 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	::Indeed, the most natural and neutral way would be ], but this title would be a nightmare. As to what Irpen wrote above: if my comments on P-BW were OT, then how come your comments on the same conflict are not off topic here? Did you check the name of this article? ''<font color="#990011">//</font>'']] 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	Halibutt, the topic here is the optimization of the names. I pointed to a global problem we have in many Poland related articles. Your post, OTOH, strarted with allegations about some users having been related by blood (siblings!).

	I can't think of any other user than yourself who contributed more to the current bizarre mess with titles ("massacres" being used in articles where Poles were victims and invasions not being used when Poles where the perpetrators). The situation was described in detail ] and prompted no action since, sadly, the Polish Wikicommunity either shares or is willing to tolerate there double standards used for titling the articles. --] 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't understand what all the talk is about here. "The Invasion of Poland" is what the books call it. End of discussion. That is its English name. ] 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	::As much as I tentatively agree with you, would you also apply this reasoning to moving the ] to ]? It is also more popular ( vs ).--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Last time I checked this was not the talk page for the French invasion. I'm tired of reading about other fronts and campaigns here. Its a diversionary tactic. Can we stick with the issue at hand, and not try to solve the world's problems? The "Invasion of Poland" should be the name of this page, as its clear that that name is the most common one. 'Polish September Campaign'? I never heard of that until I read Misplaced Pages. Where did that come from? ] 21:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	::::''The Polish campaign'' or ''The Polish campaign of 1939'' is quite common (817 print.google.com hits for \"polish campaign" germany\), although not as common as \"invasion of poland" 1939\ (2780 hits). Perhaps ''The Polish campaign of 1939'' (to dab it from other "Polish campaigns") could be a reasonable compromise? ] 21:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Totally support the Ahasuerus' title. --] 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	::::::personally, I think we have lost site of the purpose, as I mentioned before, when I first tried to find this article (years ago now) I typed in something along the lines of ''German invasion of Poland'' and it did not find it, I had to find the WWII article, then find the links from there. this has probably been solved now, but we are not talking about being Politically Correct in as much as what do users call it? a majority of english speakers know it as such, so it should be named as such on the wiki. --] 02:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::There should certainly be a bunch of redirects for different versions of ]. Whether the main article should be called XYZ or ZYX is a different and, in the grand scheme of things, somewhat academic question as long as it's not blatantly misleading or POV like renaming the ] article to the ] would be. ] 02:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

	then I support the current name, as it is the same as Ahasuerus' title except it has the time period in the title.--] 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

	:''Why'' is this article named "Polish September Campaign"? Where did this name originate from? -- ] 18:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Please read the discussion above - there are three name threads altogether and the first one answers your question.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::I've read it. I don't see any explanation on the origins of the name. Who named this article, and on what basis did they do it? Just who, besides Misplaced Pages, calls it this? ] 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Campaigns of this campaign ==
	There are some interesting articles on pl wiki about campaings withing this campaign that should eventually be translated:
	* ]
	* ] (a FA on pl wiki)
	* ] (I am not happy with the title, any ideas for sth shorter?)
	I would like to divide the battles in ] between those campaigns (theaters?). I would think that ] should also be classified as a 'larger-then-your-average-battle' campaign, and we would probably need something for ] (last stages of the war), and possibly ] may be separate. Any comments on that?--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

	Other related articles to translate from pl wiki:
	* ] ( - submarine operations)
	* ] ()

	::Well, apart from the ], which is generally accepted as a separate part of the war, there are no separate ''campaigns'' to follow. Of course, we could split the list of battles onto separate lists for all the army-sized fronts, but this would not be a good idea IMO. ''<font color="#990011">//</font>'']] 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

	==article title (for Halibutt... AGAIN)==

	As the topic title has already been discussed on this talk page, I would like to finally close the matter once and for all. Halibutt keeps trolling and watching my contributions, after everytime I change "Polish Defensive War" to the standard "Polish September Campaign" he will revert my work. I feel it has already been discussed extensively on here, and as "Polish September Campaign" is more acceptable and less POV then "defensive war" and so we should conclusively say on here that one term is to be used. The article title has already been settled on here, so why do you insist on changing it's name on every article except this one to your POV version which it has already been stated is rarely if ever used, my dear Hali?

	--] 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
	:While I agree that the proper term is "Polish Septmeber Campaign" (avoid redirects, rename this article first) I would like to strongly caution you to remember ] and avoid ]. Refferning to actions of an experienced editor like Halibutt as 'trolling' is a serious accusation and unless you can prove that Halibutt is indeed 'trolling' you should apologize for this.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]]</span></sub> 00:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Illusions of grandeur anyone? I don't monitor Jadger's contribution list, I merely watch my own watchlist.
	::As to other issues, I see absolutely no need to change <nowiki>]</nowiki> into <nowiki>]</nowiki>, as both names are perfectly legitimate. And that's been discussed here ad nauseam as well. The latter reflects German&Soviet POV, the latter reflects Polish POV, but both are used. In that case that's what the redirects are for. And especially so in the case of the part of the "September" campaign that took place in October. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 09:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


	well, when I edit more than 10 articles on Polish military units and/or significant people from "polish Defensive war" to "Polish September Campaign" on one day, and the next day all of them have been reverted to the previous POV version by another person, what else am I to think? Not to mention that multiple times he has also reverted my grammar and spelling corrections to an incorrect version the next day after I make them simply because it is me doing the editing. But please, do not take this off topic, the point is, why push a POV Molobo, when a title has already been agreed upon? and so what if the September Campaign extended a few days into October? the Hundred Years War didn't last 100 straight years. Not to mention that both are not used, ''Polish Defensive War'' has never been used in English Language scholarly work, if it has, point it out, the only time "defensive war" is used is in Polish sources. This has already been discussed above, and even your fellow Poles admit "September Campaign" is more common in Poland than "defensive war" (as stated in previous discussions here).

	--] 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Haha. You must really be overworked because you just referred to Halibutt as Molobo... --] 05:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::LOL. But what is there that makes you wonder? To paraphrase your own statement, when you are on an editing spree, trying to remove the name you dislike from several articles written by yours truly, it seems really likely people will revert you and ask for clarification at the talk page. That's exactly what I did. Yet, I don't call you a troll nor do I suggest that you're watching my list of contributions...
	::: A title has indeed been agreed upon, eventhough a proper WP:RM is nearing as, judging by the lengthy discussions above, the current title is used mostly by wikipedia, while many (most?) wikipedians would like a more neutral name. However, whatever the title of the article is, we are by no means restricted to it. There is no rule urging us to use only the name of the relevant article.
	::: As to the name itself - fellow wikipedians tend to differ. Some point out that the ''Defensive War'' is more prominent in Poland, others point out to the fact that English speakers use ''Invasion of Poland'' almost exclusively. Let's wait for the move voting and see what happens. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I noted there was an error on those pages and tried to correct it, it frustrates me when people revert my correction.
	:as in the discussion above, even "September Campaign" is more common than "defensive war" '''in Poland'''.''"However, whatever the title of the article is, we are by no means restricted to it. There is no rule urging us to use only the name of the relevant article."'' by your logic, I can change every article link on wiki to say "tooty fruity" such as: ], and that would be totally normal and acceptable. the first paragraph thus would say:

	:''The '''Polish September Campaign''' or the "Polish-German War of 1939" (also known in Poland as the "1939 Defensive War" (''Wojna obronna 1939 roku''), in Germany as the "Poland Campaign" (''Polenfeldzug''), and codenamed ] ("Case White") by the German General Staff), was the ] invasion of ] by ], the ] and a small German-allied ] contingent. The invasion of Poland marked the start of ] as Poland's western allies, the ] and ], ] on Germany on ]. The campaign began on ] ], one week after the signing of the secret ], and ended on ] ], with Germany and the Soviet Union occupying the entirety of Poland.''

	:personally, I prefer to leave tooty fruity out of the wiki articles. Like in the Treaty of Augsburg, "he who rules, chooses". thus, on the Polish wikipedia you can call it whatever you want, even the Polish version of tooty fruity, but on the English wikipedia use the english version, I would not be against changing it to "invasion of Poland" as I already said in previous discussion, but in no circumstance should it be "defensive war" which absolutely reaks of the worst POV.

	--] 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

	Look, guys, is that that important? As long as PDW is used by some English sources, why not use it from time to time? It is not POVed or anything. Although personally I would prefer to avoid redirects and so I'd recommend to Halibutt that if he thinks PDW is better, why not go for RM? PS. Both of you, please don't even think of engaging in revert wars on that. If I see them, I will come down hard on both of you - consider this a friendly admin warning.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

	I have not revert warred, although Halibutt has tried to antagonize me into doing so, see the history for: ]] etc. etc. the list goes on and on, if you you look at his contributions lately, you will see most of it has been changing it to "polish defensive war".

	--] 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Take note that I have recently removed all redirects using AWB, so there's no need to worry. And that's the reason why so many of my edits were related to the matter recently. In fact it seemed that there were more articles linking to Polish Defensive War than to Septemberfeldzug, which IMO is fairly instructive.
	::Everything is ok now, as there are no redirects, while the name is ok. If we are to follow the rules of the treaty of Augsburg, so be it. He who writes the article, chooses. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Don't get me wrong, Jadger, but I have yet to see you actually write any article on the matter, while most of your edits are either related to removal of some facts you're uncomfortable with (German WWII war crimes) or names switching (as is the case here). Why not focus on something more constructive?
	:: As to WP:RM - perhaps it's high time we started it? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

	::all you have done is changed links from saying "Polish Defensive War" to "Polish September Campaign\|Polish Defensive War", that is still forcing the same jaded POV. just because you and Molobo have had more time on your hands to edit more articles to say "Polish Defensive War" doesnt mean that the term is more commonly used, it just means you need to get out more and converse with actual people.
	::see my first point, while technically not redirecting, your edits are still doing the same thing. We are following the treaty of Augsburg as you have accepted than, and as it was stated, this is English wikipedia, not Polish, so no use of Polish "defensive" war on English wikipedia. You have no ownership rights to the article just because you have helped to write it, it is an open encyclopedia to all to edit, but not to edit to there jaded POV, so please stop Halibutt. And what is more constructive than removing half truths and whole lies, and jaded POVs halibutt? I guess since you have run out of sensible arguments on the topic you are going to attack my person now? tu quoque.
	::I notice you have ignored my request for you to show a single English authoritative source that uses "Polish Defensive War".

	--] 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::Jadger, no need to make it personal, huh? I'm certainly not going to retaliate and start speak of you rather than yoiur arguments. Don't assume that and do not try to provoke me. Please.
	:::As to the rest of what you wrote above: there is no "jaded POV" in using various terms for the same phenomenon. The Polish name for the war, while being more accurate than the German Septemberfeldzug (the war was ideed a defensive one for Poland, while it was not fought exclusively in September and, technically, it was a German september campaign), is by no means any more or less POVed. It's simply the Polish name for that conflict. How come the German name is less POV than the Polish one?
	:::As to my recent switch from <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki>: that's precisely what ]s are for anyway. At the same time there are people who believe that redirects lower the page rankings in google and prefer to avoid them, hence the double titles one sees commonly and hence the increased bot activity lately. Such a solution has also the merit of a decent compromise, as both names are now equally visible for every user of wikipedia. Just point your mouse over the link and you'll see.
	:::Finally, as to the Augsburg rule you proposed: I'm all for it. Let's leave it up to the authors to decide for themselves, just like we allow them to chose from all other synonymic terms. Why restrict that to the name preferred by Jadger? Why exactly should we ban all other names? I agree noone owns articles on wikipedia. However, by common sense people whop write articles should have a freedom of choice of proper words at least '''no lesser''' than those who merely campaign for changing a word or two here and there. ]

	you retalliate? I dont think so, I was only pointing out some of your major character faults, just like you did, as you were the one that made it personal, starting with: ''Don't get me wrong, Jadger, but I have yet to see you actually write any article on the matter, while most of your edits are either related to removal of some facts you're uncomfortable with (German WWII war crimes) or names switching (as is the case here). Why not focus on something more constructive? '' that is put in a nice way, like if I were to say, "no offence Halibutt, but your an asshole". Of course I have not said that, but putting the ''no offence'' at the start like you placed ''dont get me wrong'' makes it alright to say w/e you want.

	both names are not thus equally prominent for users of wiki, as the one only shows up in the coding, when a reader reads the article they do not 98% of the time read the coding to find any hidden words. especially since the two names are not equal, "polish Defensive War" is not used by anyone outside of Poland as has been shown on here, so why do you insist a Polish name should take precedence over the terms commonly accepted everywhere else.

	''However, by common sense people whop write articles should have a freedom of choice of proper words at least '''no lesser''' than those who merely campaign for changing a word or two here and there.''
	of course, but within reason, that does not mean that they can push their own POV simply because they have written an article, as the articles are collaborations, you cannot claim to have written this article and use whatever name you want on it and all links to it. this again goes to my argument above, if I were to have written this article, I could not make every link say <nowiki>]</nowiki> or in every instance of the use of John Lennon's name on the wiki call him <nowiki> ]</nowiki>. Of course John Lennon never went by the name "Johnny Boy", and neither has the invasion of Poland ever been called "defensive war" by anyone sensible or atleast a little knowledgeable.

	--] 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Which means you got me wrong precisely because I asked you not to... Let's stick to the topic then. The other name is not ''hidden'', it's there. As both are 100% acceptable, I see no problem with that - and I'd appreciate it if you explained why do you. Simple statement of some alleged "Polish POV" is not enough, I'm afraid.
	::As to the usage of the term - the Septemberfeldzug is not used much outside of Germany and Russia either, as has been already shown above. Yet we're using it - and it's fine with everyone, you included. BTW, there are more examples of such double naming. Just check Gdansk to see what I mean. And apparently there's no problem with that either.
	::As to the final remarks: if we followed your logic, that would mean that people who do not write a single word on the topic except for such naming wars should not be allowed to push their own POV either, should they. I'm glad we agree on that - or do we? As to the usage of the term - it is currently the most prominent in Poland, so it's not that it's not accurate, POV, bizarre or invented. It's a simple statement of fact BTW (as I already mentioned). On the other hand I could toss an equally misleading remark that the German term is used in English only by people ''not sensible or at least with little knowledge''. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	Both are not 100% acceptable, if both were 100% acceptable you would not have a problem with my calling it the september campaign, and would not revert my work. If both were 100% acceptable, we would not be going through this dispute.

	we are not using ''Septemberfeldzug'', stop misrepresenting my position in order to make your position seem correct. I have not only changed your reverts to ''september campaign'' but also to ''German invasion of Poland in 1939'' but you still reverted that, I have tried to find a middle ground, you have just blatanly pushed me around.

	LMAO, "statement of fact", if I were to be as non-sensical as you, I would claim that all my edits are simple statements of fact and not provide any credible sources. for instance, I am simply stating a fact when I say that all pigs can fly. not to mention that it is not a statement of fact, as it was not a war, but a campaign, if it were a war, where is the peace treaty that ended it? there was a treaty to end WWII, but not to end the Polish Defensive war, so technically Germany and Poland are still at war then rite?

	my remark was not misleading, the only person other than yourself any english wiki user has ever encountered that uses "defensive war" is Molobo. while to you he was a marytr, to everyone else he was not sensible and possessed very little knowledge, as even you noticed on occasion.

	--] 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Both indeed are acceptable to me. I have a problem with your campaign to remove one name and promote the other, without making any other changes to the articles in question. However, both names are indeed acceptable to me, while I prefer one over the other (for the reasons I stated above).
	:: Did I revert "German and Soviet invasion of Poland" somewhere? If that's the case then I'm sorry, I must've missed that one.
	:: It's a misunderstanding. My ''statement of fact'' referred to the fact that "Poland fought a defensive war in 1939" is a simple statement of fact, while "Poland's military activity in 1939 was limited to the month of September" is not. The latter would be true in the case of Slovak forces, but both Polish, German and Soviet forces started the fight in August (border incidents) and continued it well into October. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 06:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::As to the ''campaign'' vs ''war''. The earlier term is usually used to describe actions by specific parts of military forces during specific period, rather than the entire armed forces of certain states. Hence all the campaigns of the American Civil War, hence the 1917 campaign of WWI and so on. At the same time wars do not have to end with a peace treaty. WWII did not have such an ending treaty and its' result was the unconditional surrender of Germany rather than some re-play of Versailles. Similarly, the Polish-Lithuanian War did not end with a peace treaty either. So what? Technically, if we were to follow such logic as presented in your comments, we'd also have to write an article on ], not to mention ], ], and so on.
	:::Oh, and Molobo was not a martyr to me, not more than Nico was to you. No need to post such ''arguments'' in an otherwise friendly discussion. If we were the only two guys to prefer that name over the other - what's wrong with that? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 06:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

	I think i speak for all humanity when I say WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU MAKE NO SENSE!!! Polish October Campaign? you make no sense, as stated earlier, names dont have to encapsulate everything (e.g. Hundred years War) but you do not call something it is not, we do not write articles about squirrels and refer to them as human transportation, so why do you call a campaign a war? The Polish September Campaign did not use all the forces of any nation except Poland, which explains why it is only ever called a war in Poland, while everywhere else it is seen simply as a minor campaign in comparison to the ones to come later.

	WWII in Europe ended with Germany's unconditional surrender, they signed a treaty declaring their unconditional surrender.

	''"If we were the only two guys to prefer that name over the other - what's wrong with that?"'' well when wiki is supposed to be based on consensus and two people (now one) insist on pushing their own name for an article against all others' efforts, well then it throws the very foundations of the wiki out the window.

	'''if you are so sure that you're correct and think "polish defensive war" should be used, lets hold a WP:RM''' to make it fair and make sure you cannot combine votes from multiple options (see ]), we will first hold a vote to see if the name should be moved from ''Polish September Campaign'' to ''Polish Defensive War''. After that, we can hold a vote on whether to move it from ''Polish September Campaign/Defensive War'' (whichever wins) to ''Invasion of Poland'' or similar as discussed previously.

	--] 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

	I am guessing that since you have not responded to discussion in 3 days (and made ~250 edits since then) that you have either admitted defeat or are unwilling to continue a discussion on the topic as I have backed you into a corner by offering the '''WP:RM'''. consider this a warning, tomorrow I will start moving all them back to ] unless you continue the discussion here.

	--] 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	:# It is called a war in Poland.
	:# It took place in September '''and''' October
	:# Sure, there's a guy who started a campaign of changing all instances where other names were used to this bizarre September Campaign, even though there was no double redirect there. But why do you write about it instead of changing your ways?
	:# I do not plan to move this article to Polish Defensive War as I doubt such name would gain much support. I'd rather hold a poll to determine what's more popular: invasion of Poland, Polish campaign, Defensive war, any would do - and all are actually used. Feel free to start it, but until then please refrain yourself from further reverts. Or at least start writing articles instead of simply changing names to the ones you like. Please. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 06:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Oh, BTW, in some edit summaries you referred to some compromise proposal I allegedly refuse. What is it? I must have missed it. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

	# as in the previous discussion, it is not even that popular in Poland, we cannot pretend that the term used by a few Polish historians takes precedence over everyone else. We are not writing from a Polish perspective here.
	#and so what? as I have stated before, names do not have to cover everything, for instance ] took place from 1812 until well into 1815.
	#this "bizarre" september campaign? LMAO, u cant be serious, ''Polish defensive war'' has never been spoken once in English except in reference to your or Trollobo's POV pushing. As in the prior discussion, it is a lot more common than ''Polish Defensive War''. by your reasoning Halibutt, we should change the name of the ] article to <nowiki>]</nowiki>, why not? the same things that are wrong with that new name are wrong with ''polish defensive war''
	#it would not gain much support? try '''ANY''' support. Why must I start the poll? you are the one who suggested it and want to change everything to the Polish POV.

	P.S. well, i changed the terming to <nowiki> ]</nowiki> and you still reverted, if you would actually care to read your edits rather than just use popups then you might see your numerous errors. I was also talking about the WP:RM that you proposed, and I agreed above, but now what is this? you are reneging yet again? hmmm... so you're just going to continue to try to draw me into a revert war? If <nowiki>]</nowiki> will gain no support in a ''WP:RM'', why do you continue to use it in articles?

	now, for me and everyone else, be honest and please tell us why you are carrying on your silly crusade to change all the links to an article from ''its actual name'' to a name that '''only you use'''. I will ''not'' stop correcting your POV pushing until you can atleast come to a certain agreement and stop trying to procrastinate and hope this goes away. and don't you dare ignore discussion again and simply push your POV while ignoring the problems with your edits, while others raise alarms to your "work" on the discussion pages.

	as for "writing own articles" I have barely enough time write now to stop your POV pushing, how am I supposed to write articles when there are more pressing matters in "daily upkeep" as I shall put it nicely" of the articles I have currently contributed to. another note, I dont have an axe to grind like you, so I dont feel the need to make up articles and fill them with links to the IPN spouting words of hate and blatantly false acussations against Germany and its people.

	--] 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:This dispute was listed on ], however since neither party is being civil I can't offer any help. Please let me know when yuo've calmed down. ] 07:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Jadger, but you still failed to respond to my question: which rule prohibits us from using various names for the same phenomenon? Is there some wiki regulation that bans that? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::Also, I'd like to ask what's wrong with the compromise I suggested? You had a problem with redirects leading to ]. I took my time to change '''all''' of them to avoid redirects and to make future name change easier. Is there a problem with that? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	#well, why dont you go to every article where "Gdansk" is used and change it to <nowiki>]</nowiki>, let's see how warm of a reception you would get for that as well. I would like to refer you to DNFF, where one of the major ways of identifying trolls is how they circumnavigate rules in new and creative ways, like you have done.
	#that's not a compromise, that was surely not your intention "to make future name change easier", it would be easier to leave it at <nowiki>] than to keep changing it to ]</nowiki> as it would require a lot less typing to just leave it as its proper name (the former). not to mention that you claim that both names are equally acceptable, but you seem intent to change every link from <nowiki>] to ]</nowiki>

	--] 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	# In order to prove that I ''circumnavigated the rules'', you'd first have to point me and others to the rule I allegedly circumnavigated
	# Apparently you forgot that I did not change a single link from <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Not one. I changed all <nowiki>], ], ] and others to ]</nowiki>, so the names were already there in those articles. I left them untouched, simply changing the links below them to avoid redirects. And, frankly speaking, I followed your advice to follow the rule of ''cuius regio eius religio''. Whoever wrote those articles and decided to use the Polish Defensive War name - it was his right to chose it. Others, who chose September Campaign, should also be happy as not a single link was changed. Note that I did not change a single link in any articles you've started either (were there any?). What I protest is your violation of the compromise you yourself proposed and changing all the links you find to the ones you like - for no apparent reason. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

			== Can someone with Permission add "Fourth Partition of Poland" as one of the bolded 'alternate' names ==
	== Poll ==

			It comes up a lot in Polish historical discussion ] (]) 03:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
	The purpose of this poll is to establish the two most reasonable names for the conflict in question and to check which names should be brought to proper ]. Feel free to add second and third choices as well as pros and cons to the relevant sections. As the matter seems to be touchy, please stay civil and avoid arguments like ''it's wrong because it's supported only by Nazi propaganda''. Thanks in advance. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== ~~Polish~~ ~~september~~ ~~campaign~~ ===		== Danzig as participant ==
	==== supporters ====
	==== pros ====
	# A variation of Polish 1939 campaign or ''Polenfeldzug'' --] 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

			There appears to a disagreement on the article about whether to list the Free City of Danzig as a participant in the Invasion of Poland - it's probably worth discussing it here to avoid edit warring. Forces from Danzig certainly took part in the initial stages of the attack, with the ] and the ] both involved - the question is whether they can be considered as significant, and whether the can be reasonably be seen as independent or just part of German forces.] (]) 20:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	====cons====
			:I dont see why they wouldn't be included. Just read ]. After Nazi control, the ''independent'' city-state of Danzig police force was heavily militarized, and when the German army attacked Poland, the Danzig police (along with ]) attacked the Polish buildings and personell in Danzig (] and ]). They only merged with Germany after their common victory there. --] (]) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	# The name was coined for political reasons to make the Polish war effort look less significant as the conflict did end in October and not in September ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]
			:@], @] do you have sources that presents Free City as a participant? ] (]) 22:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	#there was not any major fighting in October, and the name is simply a slightly different version of Polish Campaign of 1939. see similar instance ]. --] 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			::I added a reference for that. It is well documented that the Free City of Danzig police participated in two separate engagements. The ] and ]. The source I added was a book about the Invasion of Poland (Prelude + all 4 "invasion" forces involved - German, Soviet, Slovak, and Danzig). In it, it directly mentioned the Danzig police and ] participating in the post office battle. It mentioned the Danzig police as well in the Battle of Westerplatte and the battle's casualties were counted for a combined German/Danzig casualty count in the book. Hopefully this clear up any confusion had. '''The ]''' (] 23:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::@], @]; Please provide a specific page where there is information that would confirm the statement about the participation of the Free City in the invasion of Poland. Besides, I emphasize that we are talking about a source confirming that the Free City was a party to the conflict, not that units formally part of the Free City's forces took part in the fighting with Polish forces. ] (]) 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::On page 108 of that book: “In Danzig itself, the SS Heimwher Danzig, supported by a Marinesturmkompanie and some paramilitary units, began attacks on the Polish Westerplatte base and overwhelmed the Polish Post Office, where the workers had armed themselves and resisted.” Page 142 of that book: “The garrison was attacked by a mixed force of SS Heimwehr Danzig, Danzig Police, and regular Wehrmacht troops…The combined German forces…had lost over 300 men in a week of fighting.” That supports the addition of the Free City of Danzig as a belligerent. The ] was created by the Danzig government in June 1939 and the ] was the official law enforcement of Danzig. Aka, official organizations from Danzig attacked the Poles twice (Post Office + Physical military garrison). '''The ]''' (] 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::Also noting the sentences I quoted are what specifically mention Danzig forces by name. The book goes on into details about each of the engagements, but referenced the forces are “combined” during the engagements. '''The ]''' (] 19:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::Unfortunately, this is not confirmed. We need a clear statement that the Free City of Gdańsk has declared war on Poland or attacked Poland. The participation of individual law enforcement units does not explain this at all.
			:::::Please undo the changes or find the correct sources. ] (]) 19:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::So did Germany attack Poland during the ]? Germany didn’t declare war on Poland. Can we really mark that battle as a German victory? That statement is as clear as it can be. Official Danzig forces attacked and helped captured a polish military garrison. If you do not consider that to be a clear attack, then we have a bigger issue, as it would be unclear that Germany attacked Poland at Westerplatte. '''The ]''' (] 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::The Misplaced Pages articles are based on sources. If you claim that something happened, you need to find confirmation of it in the sources. Whether you or I interpret these events one way or another does not matter.
			:::::::Moreover, the Free City was annexed by the German Reich, which meant that it lost any features of a state (it was never sovereign anyway). ] (]) 20:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::So you are saying the definition of ] is incorrect? A belligerent, per the , is someone taking hostile actions against another. Your claim states we need a declaration of war, since you don't accept the fact that a source states an attack occurred as being a belligerent. Your reasoning would also mean Germany is not a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland, as they did not declare war. That source I provided directly stated forces from Danzig were engaged in hostile actions against a polish military garrison. You seem to be the one not basing your interpretation on sources. '''The ]''' (] 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::You are dishonestly referencing my points. My point is one and simple, provide a source that says that Free City was a belligerent, that's all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
			:: Robert Forczyk's ''Case White: The Invasion of Poland 1939'' has a marine unit of the Danzig Police taking part in the assault on Westerplatte on 1 September, and both the Danzig Police and SS Heimwehr Danzig taking part in the attack on the Post Office. The issue is whether these should be counted as independent enough of the main German forces - they had been heavily reinforced by soldiers from Germany wearing Police uniforms.] (]) 18:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

			*Comment, I am requesting this on the dispute resolution noticeboard, since there is multiple editors involved. '''The ]''' (] 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
	=== Polish defensive war ===
	==== supporters ====
	# Third choice (better than the current title) ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

			*Important: Discussion moved to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: ]. '''The ]''' (] 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
	==== pros ====
	# Used in modern Polish historiography ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

			==RFC: Free City of Danzig==
	====cons====
			{{disdis\|47.219.237.179\|spi=BUZZLIGHTYEAR99}}
	# Never used in English historiography ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

			Should the ] be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, on the German side?
	#Inherently POVed similar to invasion of Poland(1939) below. --] 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 18:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

			Please answer '''Yes''' or '''No''' in the Survey with a brief explanatory statement. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion is for.
	#was not actually a war. but a minor campaign in ] --] 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

			===Survey===
	# much like "polish september campaign", the war as it is called here, did not take place throughout all of 1939, but only a couple of weeks. --] 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Yes''' — Several sources describe the ] (created by the Free City of Danzig Senate) and the ] (official police department of the Free City of Danzig) participating, alongside the German forces at the ] as well as the ]. In ''The Polish Campaign, 1939'' (1985 book), it says, On page 108 of that book: “{{tq\|In Danzig itself, the SS Heimwher Danzig, supported by a Marinesturmkompanie and some paramilitary units, began attacks on the Polish Westerplatte base and overwhelmed the Polish Post Office, where the workers had armed themselves and resisted.}}” & on page 142 of that book: “{{tq\|The garrison}} {{tq\|was attacked by a mixed force of SS Heimwehr Danzig, Danzig Police, and regular Wehrmacht troops…The combined German forces…had lost over 300 men in a week of fighting.}}” That, along with several sources in both engagement Misplaced Pages articles, support the inclusion of the Free City of Danzig as a ] (engaged in hostile actions) alongside the Germans during the Invasion of Poland. '''The ]''' (] 19:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
			*:This names units participating in combat. Perhaps they belong in the unit box. Perhaps clarification is needed on who ordered these actions or who they were subordinated to.
			*:But it doesn’t say anything that would warrant inclusion under ''belligerents'', for example:
			: “Danzig was a belligerent.”
			: “Germany and Danzig invaded Poland.”
			: “Danzig chose to join Germany in invading Poland.
			: “The Danzig government ordered attacks.”
			*: —''] ].'' 14:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
			*'''No'''. I see what WeatherWriter is getting at, but Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September 1939, the date that the Invasion of Poland began, so Danzig was officially part of Germany (under both the Hitler and Forster legal declarations; it was a mutual agreement) for the entire invasion. That various bodies (police groups and such) within Danzig that were not technically part of the Nazi war machine took part is immaterial; that sort of "join the violent party" behavior was common throughout German-controlled regions, and they don't equate to an official/formal involvement of something called "the Free City of Danzig", because that had ceased to legally exist the same day. At most, maybe a few hours passed during which FCoD persons/bodies were involved in starting to attack non-FCoD Polish facilities before they FCoD officially became part of Germany, but that would be both original research to assert, in all probablility, and of no encyclopedia-level relevance, but just momentary trivia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 00:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Yes''' — I agree with SMcCandlish. Danzig did not exist in the form of "The Free City of Danzig" during the invasion. While Danzig was never really autonomous. I think it should be included in Germany instead of it's own unit —] (]) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
			**So you mean no? -] (]) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
			* '''No'''. The salient question is: was Danzig a sovereign actor during a significant part of the invasion? Did it have an independent government that could decide on its own whether its forces would participate or not (whether authoritarian or democratically driven, and even if it was pressured so that it felt it had no choice)? I’m not very familiar with the history of the city, but it appears that that was not the case at all, as of the annexation on the day before the invasion. —''] ].'' 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
			*:A bit more reading tells me the German Nazi Party held majority power in the Danzig Senate from 1933, and Hitler’s Gauleiter Forster remained in charge until 1945. I’m reasonably confident that Danzig was fully subordinated to Nazi Germany upon its annexation.  —''] ].'' 04:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
			* '''N0''' per Michael Z. ] (]) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
			* '''No''' per Michael Z. and the fact I mentioned earlier: we must have clear evidence that most academic sources consider the Free Cities to be the belligerent side of this war. So far we don't have a single one.] (]) 22:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
			*<s>'''No''' Though I can understand the position of those who advocate "yes", I do not think there is sufficient evidence to support the Free City of Danzig constituting a separate belligerent, either politically or militarily, further substantiated by Danzig's absorption into Germany on 1 September. I would need to see significant and convincing citation, indicating some consensus among historians, that Danzig was an independent belligerent in the conflict to support its inclusion as one. ] (]) 04:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)</s>
			*'''No''': Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September and thus not a sovereign entity thereafter. ] (]) 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September and thus not a sovereign entity thereafter. We also don't have reliable sources indicating that Danzig was a belligerent. ] (]) 13:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
			* '''Yes''' per Matteow101. ] (]) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
			*:So you mean no? ] (]) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
			*'''No''' Danzig was not sovereign then. <span style="border-radius:2px 12px;padding:5px 10px;background:#00BFFF;letter-spacing:2px;box-shadow:0 0 10px #B0E0E6">]]</span>  16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''No''', as they were not an independent actor in the timeframe discussed. Cheers, ] (]) 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''No'''. TL;DR it was just part of Germany at that point. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 11:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

			===Discussion===
	=== Invasion of Poland (1939) ===
			*Was Hitler’s annexation seen/considered on a formal scale though. That is a question I think some people should look at as well. If I understand it correctly, it was more of a ] annexation, not seen on the international scale. Also, was it a true annexation or was it just Hitler signing a law? '''The ]''' (] 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
	==== supporters ====
			*:I don’t understand the distinction in the last sentence. The text of ] sure makes it sound like the “free city” status under the League of Nations and some relationship with the state of Poland were completely gone in favour of total political and military control by the German Nazis, never to be restored. Was there some government of Danzig in exile that clung to de jure sovereignty while still ordering its forces to join Germany in the invasion?  —''] ].'' 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
			*::A little clarification for my questions since I don’t think I asked them the right way: How official vs de facto was the annexation? Like, when Hitler annexed Danzig, did the government instantly dissolve, or was the Danzig government still, in some capacity, an entity when Hitler signed the law? That is more or less my question. '''The ]''' (] 18:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
			*:::Well, I’d guess that whatever sovereign identity remained with the local government, perhaps it wasn’t notable enough to talk about it in the article about the city. As SS member ] was Nazi Germany’s Gauleiter of Danzig from 1930 to 39, head of state for nine days, and then Reichsstatthalter until 1945, and seeing as the German Nazi Party had already seized a majority in the Danzig Senate as of 1933, I don’t suppose there was much independent spirit.
			*:::I’m glad to be corrected if I’ve missed or misinterpreted anything.  —''] ].'' 04:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
			*::::It's been a long time since I touched this topic, but to my knowledge, there as nothing resembling a ] until after World War II had ended. -] (]) 10:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

			*Another point that isn't directly related with the RfC, but if the RfC decides against listed it as a belligerent, given I think we have (so far) a consensus with sources that Danzig forces ''were'' involved in active combat, would those of you opposed to the idea support it in the infobox under "Units Involved"/"Invading armies"? I obviously still support it being listed as a direct belligerent, however, so far, I haven't seen anyone deny that Danzig units (Police/SS) were not active-combat units during the Invasion. If one or two of the editors who answered "No" in the survey could respond to this question, that would be much appreciated. '''The ]''' (] 04:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
	# First choice ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			*:I see no problem with it in principle. Inclusion would depend on whether they were notable or significant enough, or at a high enough level of command to rate inclusion in the infobox—I don’t know enough about the specifics to have a confident opinion on this part of the question.  —''] ].'' 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

	==== pros ====
	# Seems to be the most natural name used by large part of English speakers ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

			*::{{u\|Mzajac}}, replies/questions are suppose to be in this section, rather than a direct reply in the survey section (per the RfC directions). I’m going to go ahead and reply to it here, but I am formatting my comment so you could do a copy/paste of that reply comment in the survey section down here above this. The definition of ] means any hostile action, so those quotes directly stating that two units from Danzig participated, militarily, in two battles means they participated in a hostile action, and therefore are belligerents. That is my reasoning for yes. '''The ]''' (] 16:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
	====cons====
	# Some believe the word ] is inherently POVed ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

			*I think this conversation has run its course. There's enough support against Danzig being listed as a belligerent that it can be removed from the infobox. ] (]) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	=== Polish 1939 campaign (or Polish campaign of 1939) ===
			*:Absolute hogwash. This is the dumbest conversation I've seen on a military conflict in a long while. Guess we should remove Donetsk and Luhansk PR from the Russo-Ukrainian War page because they agreed to become part of Russia. Apparently the definition of "Autonomous" is foreign to you all. Just in case you didn't, autonomous =/= independent. Crimea was an autonomous government within Ukraine, for example. It was not independent of Ukraine. ] (]) 00:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	==== supporters ====
	# Second choice ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

			== Germany and the Soviets should be two separate belligerents. ==
	==== pros ====
	# Used in German historiography (Polenfeldzug - Polish campaign) ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]
	# avoids limiting the Polish defence to September ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

			Last time I checked, Molotov-Ribbentrop was a no aggression pact, not technically an alliance. I think it would work better with 2+ belligerents like ]'s current state or the ] a while ago. ] (]) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	====cons====

			:Not sure I agree. These were three-way conflicts in which each side fought the others, at least sometimes, same as in the ]. On the other hand, in case of the invasion of Poland Germany and the Soviet Union clearly did not fight each other. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	=== Polish-German war of 1939 ===
			:"not technically an alliance" - disputable. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	==== supporters ====
			:Molotov-Ribbentrop was a non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but it was an alliance pact against countries of the Eastern Europe including Baltics and Poland since the pact contained its secret portion with "Zones of Influence". ] (]) 15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
	==== pros ====
	# quite neutral ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]
	# stresses that the conflict was in fact a war rather than a campaign. Multiple fronts, many countries involved, and so on. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

			== This article is about the German invasion of Poland. Why was the word German removed? ==
	====cons====
	# Does not mention the Soviets ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

			The word German was recently removed from the title of this article. Are you trying to rewrite history? Nazi invasion ended on 1st September on Western Poland and Soviet invasion started separately on 17th September in Eastern Poland. This is getting too low even for Misplaced Pages’s standards. What is the point then of having a separate partial for Soviet Invasion. It seems like you’re trying to exculpate the Nazis for their brutal and inhumane invasion of Poland which was initiated by them. ] (]) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	#was not actually a war. but a minor campaign in ] --] 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

			:The Nazi invasion began and ended on the same day? That's news!
	# much like "polish september campaign", the war as it is called here, did not take place throughout all of 1939, but only a couple of weeks. --] 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			:This article is about the invasion of Poland. The USSR was part of the invasion. The Soviets and Nazis divided Poland per their Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and proceeded to invade. What part of that doesn't make sense? ] (]) 04:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	==~~= Comments =~~==		==capitalization==
			I'm not a subject-matter expert, and I've not gone through the cited sources. The first four words of the article, {{talk quote inline\|The Invasion of Poland\|q=yes}}, should "Invasion" be capitalized as a proper noun? — '''] \| ] \|''' 21:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Did I forget some name? Feel free to add it to the list. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:38, 20 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations (9 May 2021): The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Invasion of Poland is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 14, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
May 27, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 29, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 1, 2005, September 1, 2006, September 1, 2007, September 1, 2008, September 1, 2009, September 1, 2010, September 1, 2011, and September 1, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Top‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German / Polish / Russian & Soviet / World War II

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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force

Russia: History / Military High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Can someone with Permission add "Fourth Partition of Poland" as one of the bolded 'alternate' names

It comes up a lot in Polish historical discussion 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:787C:7E6B:3058:B54D (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Danzig as participant

There appears to a disagreement on the article about whether to list the Free City of Danzig as a participant in the Invasion of Poland - it's probably worth discussing it here to avoid edit warring. Forces from Danzig certainly took part in the initial stages of the attack, with the Free City of Danzig Police and the SS Heimwehr Danzig both involved - the question is whether they can be considered as significant, and whether the can be reasonably be seen as independent or just part of German forces.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont see why they wouldn't be included. Just read Free City of Danzig Police#Nazism, political repression, and conflict with Poland. After Nazi control, the independent city-state of Danzig police force was heavily militarized, and when the German army attacked Poland, the Danzig police (along with Danzig SS) attacked the Polish buildings and personell in Danzig ("post office" in the city and naval installations at Westerplatte). They only merged with Germany after their common victory there. --Havsjö (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish, @Havsjö do you have sources that presents Free City as a participant? Marcelus (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a reference for that. It is well documented that the Free City of Danzig police participated in two separate engagements. The Defense of the Polish Post Office in Danzig and Battle of Westerplatte. The source I added was a book about the Invasion of Poland (Prelude + all 4 "invasion" forces involved - German, Soviet, Slovak, and Danzig). In it, it directly mentioned the Danzig police and SS Heimwehr Danzig participating in the post office battle. It mentioned the Danzig police as well in the Battle of Westerplatte and the battle's casualties were counted for a combined German/Danzig casualty count in the book. Hopefully this clear up any confusion had. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, @Nigel Ish; Please provide a specific page where there is information that would confirm the statement about the participation of the Free City in the invasion of Poland. Besides, I emphasize that we are talking about a source confirming that the Free City was a party to the conflict, not that units formally part of the Free City's forces took part in the fighting with Polish forces. Marcelus (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

On page 108 of that book: “In Danzig itself, the SS Heimwher Danzig, supported by a Marinesturmkompanie and some paramilitary units, began attacks on the Polish Westerplatte base and overwhelmed the Polish Post Office, where the workers had armed themselves and resisted.” Page 142 of that book: “The garrison was attacked by a mixed force of SS Heimwehr Danzig, Danzig Police, and regular Wehrmacht troops…The combined German forces…had lost over 300 men in a week of fighting.” That supports the addition of the Free City of Danzig as a belligerent. The SS Heimwehr Danzig was created by the Danzig government in June 1939 and the Free City of Danzig Police was the official law enforcement of Danzig. Aka, official organizations from Danzig attacked the Poles twice (Post Office + Physical military garrison). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Also noting the sentences I quoted are what specifically mention Danzig forces by name. The book goes on into details about each of the engagements, but referenced the forces are “combined” during the engagements. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not confirmed. We need a clear statement that the Free City of Gdańsk has declared war on Poland or attacked Poland. The participation of individual law enforcement units does not explain this at all.

Please undo the changes or find the correct sources. Marcelus (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So did Germany attack Poland during the Battle of Westerplatte? Germany didn’t declare war on Poland. Can we really mark that battle as a German victory? That statement is as clear as it can be. Official Danzig forces attacked and helped captured a polish military garrison. If you do not consider that to be a clear attack, then we have a bigger issue, as it would be unclear that Germany attacked Poland at Westerplatte. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages articles are based on sources. If you claim that something happened, you need to find confirmation of it in the sources. Whether you or I interpret these events one way or another does not matter.

Moreover, the Free City was annexed by the German Reich, which meant that it lost any features of a state (it was never sovereign anyway). Marcelus (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying the definition of belligerent is incorrect? A belligerent, per the Merriam Webster dictionary, is someone taking hostile actions against another. Your claim states we need a declaration of war, since you don't accept the fact that a source states an attack occurred as being a belligerent. Your reasoning would also mean Germany is not a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland, as they did not declare war. That source I provided directly stated forces from Danzig were engaged in hostile actions against a polish military garrison. You seem to be the one not basing your interpretation on sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You are dishonestly referencing my points. My point is one and simple, provide a source that says that Free City was a belligerent, that's all. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert Forczyk's Case White: The Invasion of Poland 1939 has a marine unit of the Danzig Police taking part in the assault on Westerplatte on 1 September, and both the Danzig Police and SS Heimwehr Danzig taking part in the attack on the Post Office. The issue is whether these should be counted as independent enough of the main German forces - they had been heavily reinforced by soldiers from Germany wearing Police uniforms.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment, I am requesting this on the dispute resolution noticeboard, since there is multiple editors involved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Important: Discussion moved to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Invasion of Poland. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Free City of Danzig

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

47.219.237.179 (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Should the Free City of Danzig be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, on the German side? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No in the Survey with a brief explanatory statement. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion is for.

Survey

Yes — Several sources describe the SS Heimwehr Danzig (created by the Free City of Danzig Senate) and the Free City of Danzig Police (official police department of the Free City of Danzig) participating, alongside the German forces at the Battle of Westerplatte as well as the Defence of the Polish Post Office in Danzig. In The Polish Campaign, 1939 (1985 book), it says, On page 108 of that book: “In Danzig itself, the SS Heimwher Danzig, supported by a Marinesturmkompanie and some paramilitary units, began attacks on the Polish Westerplatte base and overwhelmed the Polish Post Office, where the workers had armed themselves and resisted.” & on page 142 of that book: “The garrison was attacked by a mixed force of SS Heimwehr Danzig, Danzig Police, and regular Wehrmacht troops…The combined German forces…had lost over 300 men in a week of fighting.” That, along with several sources in both engagement Misplaced Pages articles, support the inclusion of the Free City of Danzig as a belligerent (engaged in hostile actions) alongside the Germans during the Invasion of Poland. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This names units participating in combat. Perhaps they belong in the unit box. Perhaps clarification is needed on who ordered these actions or who they were subordinated to.
But it doesn’t say anything that would warrant inclusion under belligerents, for example:
- “Danzig was a belligerent.”
- “Germany and Danzig invaded Poland.”
- “Danzig chose to join Germany in invading Poland.
- “The Danzig government ordered attacks.”
—Michael Z. 14:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
No. I see what WeatherWriter is getting at, but Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September 1939, the date that the Invasion of Poland began, so Danzig was officially part of Germany (under both the Hitler and Forster legal declarations; it was a mutual agreement) for the entire invasion. That various bodies (police groups and such) within Danzig that were not technically part of the Nazi war machine took part is immaterial; that sort of "join the violent party" behavior was common throughout German-controlled regions, and they don't equate to an official/formal involvement of something called "the Free City of Danzig", because that had ceased to legally exist the same day. At most, maybe a few hours passed during which FCoD persons/bodies were involved in starting to attack non-FCoD Polish facilities before they FCoD officially became part of Germany, but that would be both original research to assert, in all probablility, and of no encyclopedia-level relevance, but just momentary trivia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes — I agree with SMcCandlish. Danzig did not exist in the form of "The Free City of Danzig" during the invasion. While Danzig was never really autonomous. I think it should be included in Germany instead of it's own unit —Matteow101 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you mean no? -Indy beetle (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
No. The salient question is: was Danzig a sovereign actor during a significant part of the invasion? Did it have an independent government that could decide on its own whether its forces would participate or not (whether authoritarian or democratically driven, and even if it was pressured so that it felt it had no choice)? I’m not very familiar with the history of the city, but it appears that that was not the case at all, as of the annexation on the day before the invasion. —Michael Z. 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
A bit more reading tells me the German Nazi Party held majority power in the Danzig Senate from 1933, and Hitler’s Gauleiter Forster remained in charge until 1945. I’m reasonably confident that Danzig was fully subordinated to Nazi Germany upon its annexation. —Michael Z. 04:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
N0 per Michael Z. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
No per Michael Z. and the fact I mentioned earlier: we must have clear evidence that most academic sources consider the Free Cities to be the belligerent side of this war. So far we don't have a single one.Marcelus (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
No Though I can understand the position of those who advocate "yes", I do not think there is sufficient evidence to support the Free City of Danzig constituting a separate belligerent, either politically or militarily, further substantiated by Danzig's absorption into Germany on 1 September. I would need to see significant and convincing citation, indicating some consensus among historians, that Danzig was an independent belligerent in the conflict to support its inclusion as one. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
No: Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September and thus not a sovereign entity thereafter. Parham wiki (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
No - Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September and thus not a sovereign entity thereafter. We also don't have reliable sources indicating that Danzig was a belligerent. Betelgeuse X (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes per Matteow101. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
So you mean no? Parham wiki (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
No Danzig was not sovereign then. killer bee  16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
No, as they were not an independent actor in the timeframe discussed. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
No. TL;DR it was just part of Germany at that point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Was Hitler’s annexation seen/considered on a formal scale though. That is a question I think some people should look at as well. If I understand it correctly, it was more of a de facto annexation, not seen on the international scale. Also, was it a true annexation or was it just Hitler signing a law? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand the distinction in the last sentence. The text of Gdańsk#Inter-war years and World War II sure makes it sound like the “free city” status under the League of Nations and some relationship with the state of Poland were completely gone in favour of total political and military control by the German Nazis, never to be restored. Was there some government of Danzig in exile that clung to de jure sovereignty while still ordering its forces to join Germany in the invasion? —Michael Z. 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
A little clarification for my questions since I don’t think I asked them the right way: How official vs de facto was the annexation? Like, when Hitler annexed Danzig, did the government instantly dissolve, or was the Danzig government still, in some capacity, an entity when Hitler signed the law? That is more or less my question. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I’d guess that whatever sovereign identity remained with the local government, perhaps it wasn’t notable enough to talk about it in the article about the city. As SS member Albert Forster was Nazi Germany’s Gauleiter of Danzig from 1930 to 39, head of state for nine days, and then Reichsstatthalter until 1945, and seeing as the German Nazi Party had already seized a majority in the Danzig Senate as of 1933, I don’t suppose there was much independent spirit.

I’m glad to be corrected if I’ve missed or misinterpreted anything. —Michael Z. 04:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I touched this topic, but to my knowledge, there as nothing resembling a Danzig government in exile until after World War II had ended. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Another point that isn't directly related with the RfC, but if the RfC decides against listed it as a belligerent, given I think we have (so far) a consensus with sources that Danzig forces were involved in active combat, would those of you opposed to the idea support it in the infobox under "Units Involved"/"Invading armies"? I obviously still support it being listed as a direct belligerent, however, so far, I haven't seen anyone deny that Danzig units (Police/SS) were not active-combat units during the Invasion. If one or two of the editors who answered "No" in the survey could respond to this question, that would be much appreciated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem with it in principle. Inclusion would depend on whether they were notable or significant enough, or at a high enough level of command to rate inclusion in the infobox—I don’t know enough about the specifics to have a confident opinion on this part of the question. —Michael Z. 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, replies/questions are suppose to be in this section, rather than a direct reply in the survey section (per the RfC directions). I’m going to go ahead and reply to it here, but I am formatting my comment so you could do a copy/paste of that reply comment in the survey section down here above this. The definition of belligerent means any hostile action, so those quotes directly stating that two units from Danzig participated, militarily, in two battles means they participated in a hostile action, and therefore are belligerents. That is my reasoning for yes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this conversation has run its course. There's enough support against Danzig being listed as a belligerent that it can be removed from the infobox. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Absolute hogwash. This is the dumbest conversation I've seen on a military conflict in a long while. Guess we should remove Donetsk and Luhansk PR from the Russo-Ukrainian War page because they agreed to become part of Russia. Apparently the definition of "Autonomous" is foreign to you all. Just in case you didn't, autonomous =/= independent. Crimea was an autonomous government within Ukraine, for example. It was not independent of Ukraine. GustavaKomurov (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Germany and the Soviets should be two separate belligerents.

Last time I checked, Molotov-Ribbentrop was a no aggression pact, not technically an alliance. I think it would work better with 2+ belligerents like Wars of the Three Kingdoms's current state or the Syrian Civil War a while ago. 31.205.0.5 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. These were three-way conflicts in which each side fought the others, at least sometimes, same as in the Bosnian War. On the other hand, in case of the invasion of Poland Germany and the Soviet Union clearly did not fight each other. Alaexis_¿question? 20:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"not technically an alliance" - disputable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop was a non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but it was an alliance pact against countries of the Eastern Europe including Baltics and Poland since the pact contained its secret portion with "Zones of Influence". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the German invasion of Poland. Why was the word German removed?

The word German was recently removed from the title of this article. Are you trying to rewrite history? Nazi invasion ended on 1st September on Western Poland and Soviet invasion started separately on 17th September in Eastern Poland. This is getting too low even for Misplaced Pages’s standards. What is the point then of having a separate partial for Soviet Invasion. It seems like you’re trying to exculpate the Nazis for their brutal and inhumane invasion of Poland which was initiated by them. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Nazi invasion began and ended on the same day? That's news!

This article is about the invasion of Poland. The USSR was part of the invasion. The Soviets and Nazis divided Poland per their Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and proceeded to invade. What part of that doesn't make sense? Betelgeuse X (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

capitalization

I'm not a subject-matter expert, and I've not gone through the cited sources. The first four words of the article, The Invasion of Poland, should "Invasion" be capitalized as a proper noun? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: