This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 12 January 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:00, 12 January 2005 by Piotrus (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:WikiProject Polish Army This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Name
Shouldn't this article be at Polish-bolshevik war instead? The war ended some two years prior to creation of the Soviet Union and the term, although quite frequently used (even in Polish sources), is simply misleading. I'm thinking of moving it. Any objections?Halibutt 20:28, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- IMO needs change to something else; Russo-Polish also seems appropriate. How about Google-testing the two names. (IMO Bolshevik needs capital B, if you go that route.) --Jerzy(t) 06:00, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
- Google test results (using googlefight.com):
- *Polish-soviet - 8 880 results, Polish-bolshevik - 878 results. Polish-russian omitted since it would indicate many past wars as well and would not be indicative.
- *polsko-radziecka - 1 480 results, polsko-bolszewicka - 1 350 results. polsko-sowiecka - 2 200 results
- Polish-Russian would be definetly wrong without a date. Soviet or Bolshevik are much more distinct. Soviet is more widely used, but the argument that Soviet Union was not created untill 1924 is quite convincing. As Polish-Bolshevik would definetly be hard to mistake with anything, I'd vote for it even though it is less used then Polish-Soviet. Popularity of errors doesn't make them correct, simly - redirect :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Russo is not apriopriate, since it was not war against Russia, i believe ;) Szopen 06:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying that
- Russia was not involved, or
- Russia was involved, but it was not "against" Russia, e.g. because Poland did not intiate it and just defended itself?
IMO, the term just implies a war involving two countries, like the Spanish-American War, where no one seriously believes Spain was the aggressor.--Jerzy(t) 06:51, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
- Well, i think it was not against Russia and not with Russia - it was against Bolshevik state, which generally i think avoided to be called "Russia", isn't it?! Szopen 09:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, AAMoF the war is usually called the Polish-bolshevik war, which is the proper name from the Polish side. Sometimes other names are used, but these seem a little tricky or simply wrong. Russo-Polish War of 1920 seems quite popular too, but the question is whether Russia Poland was waging the war with was the legitimate Russia (there were at least three or four different Russias at the time - Reds, Whites, other Whites, Anarchists...) and if this name was chosen, it'd suggest that Poland fought against Lenin, Makhno, Ungern von Sternberg, Denikin and all the other Russias involved.
- The most widespread name (Polish-Soviet War) is simply wrong since there was no Soviet Union at the time. It's like calling the Ceasars campaign in Gaul a Franco-Italian War. Finally, as to the official name of the parties involved in the war: Poland is sure in this context. The problem is with the Reds since the name of the country is not really certain until later in the twenties. The most common name is Bolshevik Russia. That's why I like the Polish-Bolshevik War the most. Halibutt 11:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I added a separate section explaining the names used. Hope that clears the matter a bit. ] 01:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
The term, "Polish-________ War"
It is surely seldom the case that ALL the inhabitants of one country profess to war on ALL the inhabitants of another. If such unanimity WERE obligatory, hardly any war could be given an unequivocal name. The Americans' "Vietnam War," for example, might have to be an "American-Vietcong-and-some-of-North-Vietnam War." (Note that, in this case, Americans don't even bother to call it an "AMERICAN-Vietnam War.") In any case, as the histories of any number of international imbroglios suggest, hostilities directed at a portion of a country tend to generalize to more, if not all, of its population.
I think I would go with "Polish-Russian War." Logologist 10:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, yes and no. Polish-Russian War or Russo-Polish War would have to go with a date since there were much more Polish-Russian Wars in the past. Also, it's not the problem with "all inhabitants of some country" but with "all countries of that name". Vietnam example is a good one, but I believe it is rather an exception than a rule. In Europe usually most conflicts go with both parties' names (even War of the Roses..). Anyway, I believe we can finish this article and then start a poll on which name to chose, that would be the easiest way I believe. What do you think? ]]] 11:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it would have to be "Polish-Russian War (1919-21)." Other Polish-Russian wars that can be given more specific names, could continue to be given them. And whoever wishes to continue calling this particular conflict the "Polish-Bolshevik" or "Polish-Soviet War," elsewhere than in the main heading, could be free to do so.
Idea of postponing the decision seems a good one. I think that's what Pilsudski would have done.
Logologist 23:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But at least we should make sure that the name in lead is the same as in title. I vote for moving it to P-Bolshevic W. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If there are no objectiosn to this...should we move it then? This is the last issue to be resolved before nominating this article...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, my mistake. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Logologist on this one, I think it should be called the "Polish-Russian War (1919-21)." Otherwise I think I could go with "Polish-Bolshevik Russian War". Otherwise it sounds like Poland was fighting a political party. Milicz 18:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What did the Bolshevik authorities call their country in this period? (Not "Bolshevik Russia," I don't think?) Logologist 10:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Good question. But I'd rather ask - how did English speaking countries refered to Lenin&Co. from 1917 to the creation of Soviet Union? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Both Bertrand Russel and Winston Churchill use the Bolshevik Russia version( and , for instance). However, both gentlemen could probably use some other popular names, like for instance the simple Reds. Also, the good old John Reed is a tough nut to crack, since in 1919 he published both the Red Russia and The Structure Of The Soviet State. As far as I know he was the first English-speaking author to use the Russian word Soviet in English. Halibutt 14:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The term "soviet" is simply Russian for "council" ("rada," in Polish), and its use in 20th-century Russian politics in fact predates the Bolshevik takeover. Has there been any "Polish-Soviet" war other than the 1919-20 affair (leaving aside possibly September 1939, when Polish forces were specifically ordered by their high command not to fight the invading Soviets)? Logologist 15:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, I know it's a Russia word - but both of us know (I guess) that it's not an English word, it was imported to that language from Russian and I never saw an instance of usage earlier than 1919 (eventhough there were councils in Russia as early as middle ages.
Halibutt 17:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Other issues
The following text in the article
- It was also important time for Stalin. Many can argue that the final defeat of the Soviet army was caused by Stalin's intrigue. Moreover, in the final stage of the war, he was forced to retreat in panic. Three groups of people, that he met at his way then: Ukrainian peasants, Polish communists, and Polish officers were later subject of persecutions. Ukrainian peasants in millions were starving to death during famine organised by Stalin 1930-1934. Polish communists were decimated, and Polish minority deported to Kazakhstan during Stalin's purges 1934-1938. Polish officers were murdered en masse in the Katyn massacre in 1940.
- belongs in some other article, and
- is too ill-defined to say what the article would be.
Not ready for prime time.
- I think it is now better covered with in the Aftermath of the rewritten article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
When a "see also" is in the middle of text, as with
- (See also: genocide)
it is probably always a bad link. (If you can't mention what you're linking to in a declarative sentence, you can't justify linking them.) In this case, it must be insinuating genocidal intent; find a way to say who says so and their justifications for it. Also, in this case, the article linked makes no mention of these events, and is irrelevant beyond the dictionary definition of "genocide". More connection is needed before linking.
Similarly with
- See also: Russian Civil War
Tell us why this is a better link than Innovations in Russian Revolutionary literature.
--Jerzy(t) 07:30, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
- That's one is easy. Soviet historiography considered Polish_Soviet war to be part of Western interventions in Civil war in Russia. Second, it was directly tied to Russian Civil War: when Denikin was on offensive, Pilsudski halted advances so not to help him. Szopen 09:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Next war
What was the next war? I am interested, but I have no idea how to find out easily. MisterSheik 22:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I believe there were no other wars in Europe until the Spanish Civil War. However, there must've been some other, non-European wars. Gran Chaco? ] 21:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
- About the same time Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921) took place. The one afterwards would be Irish Civil War (1922-1923). I wonder if we should note it somehow in the article? See also List of wars. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, there was little or no connection between those conflicts... ] 08:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Featured-class article
Following our success in preparing the Warsaw Uprising series, I thought it might be nice to upgrade this article to featured article standard. We're not in a hurry since the best anniversary would be August 15 (Battle of Warsaw), but a step-by-step improvement would be nice. As the first step I decided to prepare a list of battles of the War of 1920 that should be described. Feal free to add some battles I forgot to mention. The bolded battles are a must, all the rest deserve mention IMHO, but were not as crucial. ] 18:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Target Vistula Soviet offensive (Jan.-Feb. 1919)
- Battle of Bereza Kartuska (February 9, 1919 - the first battle of the conflict
- Operation Wilno - Polish offensive towards Wilno (April)
- Operation Minsk - Polish offensive towards Minsk (July-August)
- Battle of Daugavpils - joint Polish-Latvian operation (January 3, 1920)
- Kiev Offensive - I have a decent book at home, could prepare the article myself
- Battle of the Berezina (May-June)
- Battle of Warsaw (1920) - almost done (August 15)
- Battle of Raszyn, Battle of Nasielsk, Battle of Radzymin
- Battle of Zadwórze - "Polish Termophylae" (August 17)
- Battle of the Niemen River - not even started, I have a decent monography at home so I could prepare the article (September 26-28)
- Battle of Zboiska
- Battle of Minsk (October 18)
- Battle of Lwów (1920)
- No objection here, but didn't we agree to work on Polish September Campaign first? Personally I find both very interesting and relatively unknown to the mass public. I did a major update of this article recently, but don't have any more materials ready. Of course I will try to help when I find some new tidbit of info. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, some battles still need expantion, but the main article I think is good enough to be FAC now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Inquiry: "Gej Chan"
Is this a typo? Is it supposed to be "Gen. Gay"? Logologist 17:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is fixed now, it reffered to the Gayk Bzhishkyan, aka Gay Dmitrievich Gay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DoW?
In Battlebox, we have term DoW used (red ATM). What does it stand for? Perhaps it is typo of PoW for Prisoners of War? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Usually the abbreviation DoW is used to denote the Declaration of war, so probably its' usage in the battlebox is a typo. Halibutt 19:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
- So shouldn't we remove it? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Polish nationalist POV
Some one needs to tone down the Polish nationalist POV and hero-worship. I made a start, but I don't have time to finish cleaning up the rest of the article. 172 19:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I disagree with some of your changes. To start with, there are some grammatical problems: ...frontiers between Poland, which had seen the establishment of a shaky independent recognized by the Treaty of Versailles, and Russia were rendered chaotic by....
I kept the part about undefined borders in the lead, but had to rewrite it due to grammar mistakes. Please be more careful next time. Also, when you enter information on events like the Treaty of Versailles of Russian Civil War to the text, please ilink them if they are mentioned for the first time.
- So I made a typo and forgot to insert the word "regime." This does not need to be pointed out on the talk page. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No offence meant, but the resulting error made me have to 'guess' what the phrase actually meant, so I put it here in case I understood it incorrectly and you wanted to explain it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So I made a typo and forgot to insert the word "regime." This does not need to be pointed out on the talk page. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The quote you removed was French, not Polish, I moved it to the Aftermath section now, where it is more fitting then in the beginning. The overview section is unecessary, the entire material belongs to lead.
- It is unnecessary (spelled with two n's-- see I can point out typos too). But it was a rewrite of something that was already acting as an overview. I did not have time to make major changes to the structure; so, I just tagged something that was already an overview an "overview." Regarding the quotation, I did nothing where it was inserted except insert POV. Please find a more appropriate place for it. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The Aftermath section seems quite alike a good place. What do you mean by saying that *you* insterted POV? You really have me lost now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is unnecessary (spelled with two n's-- see I can point out typos too). But it was a rewrite of something that was already acting as an overview. I did not have time to make major changes to the structure; so, I just tagged something that was already an overview an "overview." Regarding the quotation, I did nothing where it was inserted except insert POV. Please find a more appropriate place for it. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are right that 'various names' section belongs in lead as well. Good point about Pilsudzki's coup, but it belongs in the aftermath as well, it wasn't part of the war and thus doesn't belong in lead.
- If there is a going to be an introductory overview, it can be mentioned there. As I said earlier, the aritcle had one already prior to my edits. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And 'see also' in the text should be avoided at any cost. I don't see any nationalist or hero-worship in the materials you removed, if you would be more specific and quote the specific POVed examples we can work on an improved NPOV wording. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I simply don't have time to edit the rest of the article. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If you are to busy to discuss that, I will just stick to my version, as I have spend hours reading sources and writing the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I simply don't have time to edit the rest of the article. 172 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Pilsudski's vs. White Russians
I read somewhere that Piłsudski hated the Tsar White supporters, and halted Polish offensive to actually prevent Whites defeating Boshleviks in some campaign (most likely sometme around 1919-eaarly 1920). Can anybody confirm or disprove it, so we can mention it in the article (or forget about it)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)