Talk:Polish–Soviet War

message: The "limited Polish victory" thing was ridiculous enough, but "inconclusive"? It's historical fact that Poland won, the editor who changed it has a very clear Russian bias too (check his own page). Not that everyone isn't biased (myself included) but come on. Stuff like this is what makes Wikipedia a joke.Red Hair Bow (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical facts here (as presented in article text) are: both sides failed to achieve their goals, both sides failed to hold what they gained during their respective offensives, the Peace of Riga was considered a setback by all sides. Poland did get a monetary compensation out of it (as well as a recognized border eastwards of the Curzon line), so "Limited Polish victory" is accurate. The prevailing consensus established among the editors over the years here supports either "Peace of Riga" or "Minor Polish victory" as a result. I don't recall who changed "minor" to "limited" but that looks better than either to me.  --illythr (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a read of the article and it seems like it was far from a complete Polish victory. So in line with what the article actually says and with past consensus, I agree that "Limited Polish victory" seems best (and not at all ridiculous), and I have changed it back to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder you came to the conclusion, the whole article is vastly pro-polish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.121.205 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Except it is not clear that Poland won which is what the Aftermath section is for. There are valid arguments discussed in this thread that speak for Polish failiure RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome of the War 

message: Polish&Ukranian alliance invades most of the Ukranian territory initially and at the end in spite of Soviet defeat at the Warsaw, Soviets reoccupy their losts. So, where is the Polish Victory? (79.123.128.136)
:ask Lenin- he was pretty clear on the subject.  See other threads on this page.
:Gravuritas (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell us what Lenin supposedly said. All I could find was him recognizing Polish independence prior to the war. 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:E4F5:D71B:C7C2:D632 (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Victory? 

message: Who exactly says that Soviet Russia won? Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Davies, Norman, "White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-20" RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical assessment 

message: Referring to this June 9th edit and subsequent misunderstanding that bears the hallmarks of POV pushing made by @Orczar,
the lands that Poland lost to the USSR have a name - Kresy is not a political concept and does not require "recognition" as you tried to present it. It is a historical proper term for the lands east to the Bug river with significant Polish minority that is commonly used in this article (including the infobox), on Wikipedia in general and in historical sources. This is not "propaganda" or "lands that Poles claimed belonged to Poland" but area that de jure and de facto belonged to Poland within its internationally recognized borders. Removing this term will not only lower the informative value but also lower the linguistic value of the article. But most of all, trying to present it as wrong is itself wrong. The sources given in the article and many others point to the significant numerical superiority of the soviet forces. If Poland had a total of one million soldiers and 348,000 on the front, Soviet Russia in 1920 had several such fronts and on each had much more troops than the opposing side. A Soviet numerical superiority of at least three times is very likely. Polish–Soviet War in 1920 explicitly points to a total Red Army strength of 5 million in 1920. You cannot equate two different numbers where one describes all forces including the reserve and the other only the forces used in combat. Utryss (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kresy" did belong to Poland, by virtue of the Peace of Riga agreements and the international recognition that followed. It is a Polish nationalistic/imperial concept. Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians all contested the Polishness of these lands, and so did Western politicians, who came up with the Curzon Line concept. The troop strengths will never be exactly known, different sources give different numbers. In an older version of this article, before my edits, who'll find sourced numbers roughly compatible with mine. Orczar (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, this is not a "concept" but a historical name, and in this context it was used along with a link to a Wikipedia article. Not a nationalistic ideology, but a reality that took place. Don't rewrite history. The Soviets did not collect accurate data in this war or in any other, because for them the loss of two soldiers or a million was just a number, they did not care about human lives. However, we do not need precise data to know that they significantly outnumbered Poles. You are ignoring what the problem is. You can't compare the number of troops on the frontline of one side and the total forces that the other side had, including reserves. Stop POV pushing. Utryss (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Kresy and strength comparison

message: The Soviet casualties were at least double what the Polish casualties were 79.191.153.71 (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet casualties wrong 

message: Why?!! The total figure is wrong for the Soviets if Polish wounded are counted in the total figure 79.191.153.71 (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet wounded not listed 

message: I propose merging Polish–Soviet War in 1919 and Polish–Soviet War in 1920 into Polish–Soviet War. Both those pages are already covered on this page with proper context and references. Polish–Soviet War in 1919 is minimally referenced. Polish–Soviet War in 1920 is under-referenced, poorly written and substantially overlaps with Kiev offensive (1920) and Battle of Warsaw (1920) which were the two major events of the war in 1920. 
When I say merge I effectively mean delete and redirect as I don't see there's anything on either of those pages not already covered here or on the Kiev offensive (1920) or Battle of Warsaw (1920) pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were split long ago and effectively abandoned. Old days. I don't mind redirecting them, there is probably next to no usable content there that is not covered in the main article by now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust 's judgement. I support merging/redirecting. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal, October 2023 

message: Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Result"