Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland/Archive 1

message: This has been discussed but since I was reverted I repeat it here. Soviets claimed that 1) "Poland ceased to exist" in view of the successful invasion of Poland by the Germans; 2) the stated goal of the Soviet action was to "protect the Ukrainian and Belarusian population in the wake of the imminent collapse of Poland". Refs brought to the article concur with those claims as well. The Soviets said nothing about the Polish government, whether it also ceased to exist, etc. This was about the Polish State or, like Stalin jokingly put it, the "Polish so-called State". Please do not editorialize on the facts. --Irpen 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with your edits on the stylistic grounds, you are factually incorrect in your above remarks. In the note delivered by Soviet government to Polish ambassador on the 17th of September (Polish, sorry I couldn't find an English translation), the Soviets stated that the 'Polish government has fallen appart and shows no signs of life' (Rząd Polski rozpadł się i nie przejawia żadnych oznak życia). Honestly I think the difference between  'government' and 'state' in this context is purely semantical,  as both existed on the 17th of September (and afterwards), and Soviet claims are pure falsehood. This note also quite nicely explains that this 'justification' was needed to back up another falsehood - that Soviet cared about 'their' minorities in Poland. On a sidenote, the first note contains an amazing number of false statements, such as 'Warszawa przestała istnieć jako stolica Polski' (Warsaw stopped being the capital of Poland - even through the siege of Warsaw lasted for another week and a half); 'within ten days Poland lost all of its cultural and industrial centers' (Warsaw, Gdynia, Wilno, Lwów - just some of the cities still in Polish hands on the 10th of September)... Soviet propaganda and diplomacy at it's best, I have to say. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pan Prokonsul, was the government of Poland in Warsaw on Sept. 17th? If it is so, than Soviet claims about Warsaw not being the capital of Poland are baseless, but to my knowledge the Polish government by that time was enroute to Romania, if not in Romania already. Also, please state some proof that the Soviets did not care about "their" minorities in Poland. Ko Soi IX 17:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the Polish government crossed to Romania AFTER receiving information that Soviets invaded, not before (see article, we have refs for that). If the Soviets did not invade, the plan was for the Polish army to defend the Romanian bridgehead area were a temporary capital would be created. Until it would, Warsaw was still legally the capital of Poland, as Polish government has not issued any act stating it wasn't. It's as simple as that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet claims

message: Irpen,
In regards to my anonymous additions dated Nov 16, to the Soviet Invasion of Europe and your removal of them on grounds of POV, I must reply.  I question your so called loyalty to NPOV.  While on the one hand you wish to remove sentences describing the Soviet rule of Eastern Europe as "communist occupation of Eastern Europe", you feel it's perfectly legitimate to allow sentences to remain which repeat the lies of an evil regime which declared it's conquest of Poland as "liberation from oligarchic capitalism."  
Additionally, you smear by association with McCarthyism, references to the Western intelligentsia's well known resistence in discussing the conquest of Poland or the genocide at Katyn by the Soviets, while simulteneously continuing the references of the Eastern European intelligentsia's silencing of the Soviet conquest and genocide.  You can't on the one hand accuse those who discuss the Western intelligentsia's silence of McCarthyism, while simulteneously pretend balanced scholarship by discussing the discredited Eastern intelligentsia's silence. That is hypocrasy at best and disinformation at worse. 
End your hypocrasy by not objecting to citing Western intelligentsia censorship or remove reference to the citation of Eastern intelligentsia censorship.  Of course, if you do the later, you will merely be repeating the evils of the past Communist occupyers of Poland by continuing their tyranical censorship of their murderious and evil deeds.  Furthermore, by such actions you will be continuing the duplicity of the Western intelligentsia in supporting the monstrosity called Communism by silencing discussion of their occupation of Eastern Europe.  I suppose if that is done, I would suggest you throw all false cover to scholarship away and suggest this talk should also be put under the McCarthyism group in keeping with the wishes of your masters.
Free the Oppressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.100.170  (talk • contribs) 
:Piotrus, what's your opinion on should I bother answering this? --Irpen 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen, I'd first caution our dear anon to adhere to WP:NPA and related policies; while we all have our POVs this is no reason to accuse you of 'keeping with the wishes of your masters' (sic!). His above comment certainly crosses the line, and I'd note that if he continues to behave impolotly this can lead to a block. Further I fail to see what anon's arguments about McCarthism and such has to do with this article - I don't recall you adding anything along those lines, thus his rant above is in many parts simply 'off the wall'. Last but not least, I'd suggest to our anon to read WP:V/WP:RS (please source your additions), and also remember that this article is primarirly about events of 1939 and thus we should not bloat the aftermath section with info about events that took place afterwards (ok, maybe events up to 41 are relevant, but afterwards they quickly loose relevance to that article). On that note, Irpen, would you care to comment on Talk:Partitions of Poland, where anoter delightfuly POVed anon is representing a rather opposite point of view? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Disinfomatsya Continues  

message: How much time and how large staff is required to arrest millions of people in two years? Any sources cited?  Inego 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected already. Indeed strange. --Irpen 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Deported, yes. Arrest, probably overstated - or likely the source that came up with that phrase did not differentiate between those two terms.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pan Prokonsul, please provide legitamate sources that prove that "millions" were "deported". Ko Soi IX 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millions arrested by NKVD 

message: Currently, the article reads like a slur written exclusively from pro-Polish point of view. It paints a black legend of the Red Army. This is a nationalist approach which has little to do with writing encyclopaedia. There is plenty on Katyn and repressions against Russophobic elements, but nothing is said about how this military operation helped change the course of WWII. If the Soviet border was not pushed as much as west as it was as a result of the "invasion", Hitler would have taken Moscow within weeks after the outbreak of the Operation Barbarossa. In this case, we would live in a very different world now, with no Wikipedia or Poland around. But perhaps the most striking thing is that no mention is made that the "invasion" brought about the unification of the Ukraine and Belarus and resulted in the creation of these two states as we know them. Did any Ukrainian or Belarusian editors review the text? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Soviet border was not pushed as much as west as it was as a result of the "invasion", Hitler would have taken Moscow within weeks after the outbreak of the Operation Barbarossa. - Interesting speculation. According to another intruiging speculation (see Talk:Viktor_Suvorov/Archive_1) by a certain Mikoyan, Stalin dismantled his defensive fortifications (which also could have stopped the invaders before Moscow!) due to 'shifting the border' into West (so that the forts had become useless then). Er... which way is it then? or may-be it would have been better if Stalin hadn't altogether divided Eastern Europe with his pupil Hitler? So that the latter wouldn't have had the impulse to start a war against Poland?Constanz - Talk 11:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you share the ideals of appeasement and engage in original research. This is simply inacceptable. Please stop speculating and stick to the facts. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you have any sources to back up your POV? Because now it is you who engages in OR and is speculating, Ghirla.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have corrected one error, I'd appreciate it if you could find time to NPOV the language, as you have done so successfully in the past. I have removed the tag as I don't see that article contains any errors or factual inaccuaracies save for possible 'POV-ed language' a minority of involved editors seem to detect (which is quite likely, of course, thus I invite you to help us remove this bias).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The dude at the left, resembling to Stalin apparently was the hardcore version of Brezhnev. --Brand спойт 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we are on the subject of pictures, can somebody verify :Image:17.09.1939.jpg? It has no source and may be soon deleted from Commons, and as far as I can tell it just show 'some tanks somewhere'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meaning it ain't a big loss if it gets deleted, agreed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Sov1939.jpg 

message: Costanz, emboldened by an award from another tendentious editor, you disrupt the Russian noticeboard by mulptiple exercises in WP:POINT. I'm afraid a block is due to cool you off. Furthermore, such comments qualify as deliberate trolling. If you presume to ignore the basic fact that it was Stalin who determined the current borders of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, you'd better stop editing this article. I take no side in the dispute on the merits of these borders, but I don't condone expurgating from the article valid information as to who was instrumental in establishing them. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that you yourself have been warned numerous times (incl me) for your assaulting tone, and have been condemned if necessary. This time, I shall 'not answer to provocations', as they said. I'd just remind you "Why do you squint at the splinter in your brother's eye, and fail to see the log in your own eye?" - (Matthew 7:3)Constanz - Talk 11:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is too bad that you have nothing to answer. All the blocks against me have been reprimanded by the community and, in the recentmost case, led to the blocking admin being defrocked. I find your ad hominem arguments incivil. My policy towards tendentious editing is strict and I always support bans of tendentious editors, such as Molobo and some other your predecessors. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far your recent accusations of 'tendentious edit' and 'trolling' (this time not yet 'Russophobia'!) regarding me or others have remained just your thoughts, expressed in an incivil way (don't worry, I don't feel insulted. I know you already. The others know your level as well). Your personal grudge or smth against me reveals sometimes itself in clear 'WP:POINT exercises' as well. Constanz - Talk 11:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you read the book "Beria" by Antonov-Ovseenko? It was published on Russian. One interesting point I found there is that Soviet occupiers in East Europe were actually worse than Nazi occupiers. Nazi conducted genocide of Jews (so they were worse for Jews). But the Soviet occupiers eliminated the entire "ruling classes", i.e. rich and influential people and "intelligentsia"  in every country occupied by Soviet military forces. Of course, the same strategy was applied before by the bolshevik's regime aginst Russian, Georgian, and other "ruling classes". That was a well designed strategy: if one kills the soul, the eyes, and the brain of a nation, then he can do anything with the body. For example, it is very important for all dictatoships to eliminate independent journalists (such as Politkovskaya):  they are the "eyes" of the nation.  When the nation is blined, it is possible to convince people in anything through the state-controlled media. This discussion is a good example what propaganda can do with people. That was just a comment and my opinion. Biophys 06:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is OK to express your opinions in talk pages (and not in articles), please keep in mind that categories "better" or "worse" are inapplicable to incomparable things. Also I strongly suggest you to clean up your ignorance as to whom Nazis were killing and what else they were doing in Eastern Europe. BTW, what relation to the article content does your last remark about propaganda bear? Whatever your remarks may be, please write some suggestions to the topic of the article or do not write at all. This is not a political discussion board. We are writing encyclopedia here. Various off-topic remarks is waste of our time. `'mikkanarxi 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Dear mikkanarxi. Yes, I agree, we are making encyclopedia here. That is why I have provided a reference, which is relevant to the subject of discussion: "Beria" by Antonov-Ovseenko (he is son of that Antonov-Ovseenko). Did you read it?  Do you need more references and data? They can be easily provided.  For example, the number of victims of Communism in Baltic States far exceeds that of Nazism . I also strongly agree with you that political discussions do not belong here.  That is why I made my previous remark. I thought this discussion is actually politically motivated. Biophys 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among Germans, the number of "victims of Communism" (as you call it) exceeds that of Nazism even more drastically. Which does not prove anything. Hitler's allies are simply not representative for such comparisons. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, as to the Russians, the number of Communism victims was also considerably higher than the number of victims of Nazism. But this probably doesn't count much, because Stalin was bad but nevertheless 'own guy'...Wlasow 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop this historical revisionism, WP is not a place to push such kind of extremist agendas (and with a nickname like that, it is not hard to see where your loyalties lie...) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As usual, when one has no arguments left, then namecalling will do. Indeed, if parts of 'established history' are lies, then these lies must definitely be revised. Wlasow 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, obviously all reliable sources of the whole universe lie and must be corrected to state that Andrei Vlasov was actually a liberator and was fighting for Russian freedom. Last time I saw such a thesis was on some Nazi blogs, and it has nothing to do on Wikipedia. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grafikm, there is no need to discuss user's name unless it is outright offensive. As this is not the case, let's look at edits and ignore whatever one thinks about the name.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curiously, as I look up Grafikfr's edit history, I see that he is infamous for his own disrespect for verifiable sources, like Britannica...Wlasow 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ghirla, are you warning yourself? I completly agree with your description of behaviour - but it applies to you. I see nothing to condemn in Constanz editing here, while you on the other hand seem to forget about WP:CIV and WP:NPA again, accusing other editors of trolling and nationalism. As Constanz remainded you, you have been blocked in the past for such behaviour. Please moderate yourself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotr, you know that I am immune to your habitual incivility and personal attacks. They continue so long that this has become boring years ago. Returning from ad hominems to the subject matter of this article, I reviewed its sources and concluded that they may not be considered reliable per WP:RS. Most are journalistic articles in an obscure language and not peer reviewed. This is not an encyclopaedic standard. I urge their removal from mainspace to talk for further discussion and examination. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting asside your ironic accusations, please tell us which exactly sources have you reviewed and deeded unreliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POINT]]