Talk:Polish–Soviet War/Archive 2

message: Incorporate materials from archive and sandbox to article, especially on Weynard mission. Time to work, ppl! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely not "Weynard" but "Weygand"?  Logologist 00:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: Norman Davies, in White Eagle, Red Star, has some details about the French Military Mission.  Quoting the key passages:
... the French mission commanded considerable respect and influence through the activities of its 400 officer-instructors.  These men, distributed among the cadres of the Polish Staff, were entrusted with the task of training the officer corps in the art of military science and in the use of French army manuals.
(these manuals were important since, to quote from another passage: Only in July 1919 (my note: to clear the confusion in the Polish army) it was decided to rely exclusively on French army manuals and procedures, and to submit to the instruction of General Henrys and his military mission.)
Continuing, Davies describes a typical officer in the mission:
Typical of them was a young captain, Charles de Gaulle.  Newly released from internment as a prisoner of war at Ingolstadt in Bavaria, de Gaulle had been anxious for active service; as the son of a patriotic Catholic family, he was attracted by the prospect of an anti-Bolshevik campaign in Poland.  In May 1919, he joined the 5th Chasseurs Polonais at Sille-le-Guillaume and in the body of Haller's army travelled with them to East Galicia.    At the end of that campaign, he was transferred to Rembertów near Warsaw where, in the former school of the Tsarist Imperial Guard, he lectured on the theory of tactics.  In July and August he was attached for a short period to a Polish combat unit, and raised to the rank of major.  In 1921, he was offered a permanent commission in Poland, but preferred to develop his ideas and experiences by returning to France as a lecturer on military history at Saint-Cyr.
As these passages illustrate, the discussion of the Allied mission in the lead is still inaccurate.  The mission was not dispatched in the summer of 1920 as the lead now seems to suggest, but in fact functioned since 1919.
Furthermore, if any specific names connected with the mission should be mentioned in the lead, it should be those of General Adrian Carton De Wiart, the commander of the British mission, and General Henrys, the commander of the French mission.  These men were in Poland for many months and actually contributed something.  General Weygand arrived in Poland around 24 July 1920 and left on 25 August, 1920.  We already agreed that his advice as to military operations was ignored by Pilsudski and the Polish Staff.  And his contribution to the administrative organisation of Poland's army could not have been that large - after all what could a single individual accomplish in one month?  
Weygand's name is only mentioned prominently in connection to the Polish-Soviet war because of the myth that he was responsible for the victory in the battle of Warsaw.  Let's not perpetuate this myth. 
Since the introduction was so heavily fought over, I will not touch it for now, but I invite 172 or Piotrus to incorporate the above information as they see fit. Balcer 04:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied Mission, more details

message: The man's name wasn't "Faunt-le-Roy" but "Fauntleroy," as you will discover if you look at the enlargement, which gives the two men's names.  And I think Cooper's full name was actually "Merian C. Cooper."  Logologist 06:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Goes to show that even books and articles can be wrong :) Tnx --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauntleroy 

message: In the push towards FA I am expanding the article translating majoirty of info from the following sources: , , . Feel free to wikify, correct language and copy info into relevant subarticles, but please dont remove anything until I write here I am done - I want to have the big picture in one article first before we decide what to move (move, not copy) to subarticles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major expantion 

message: As we are waiting for a map, we can as well go through a peer review processes in the meantime. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I was fixing the references and notes and found this lost soul.  I've deleted it for now, but maybe someone knows where it should be?
* D'Abernon, 'The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World: Warsaw, 1920'.
** I believe that entire quote was moved to Wikiquote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lost footnote 

message: I removed the following addition, since it is erroneus: Some historians see the policy of Pilsudski in re-creating Poland, as it existed in the 17th century, subordinating many non-Polish areas, and point at the lack of willingness of the involved nations for any kind of projects together with Poland. From what I read (Davies comes to mind as a reference, since I just reread the relevant fragment yeasterday :) ), Pilsudski was in favour of a confederation, giving the 'non-Polish areas' either large autonomy or total independence (he spoke of the 'right for all nationalities for self-determination'). Unfortunaly, it seems he was in minority, as Polish factions were dominated by Dmowski nationalist faction (which did advocate mostly what the paragraph stipulated, but were content with 1st partition (1772) borders, not the much larger pre-1772 borders), and it appears that Lithuanian side, at least, was also dominated by their equivalent of Dmowskis, which effectively torpedoed Pilsudski's plan and led to the long standing feud betweeen respective govs instead. I need materials on Latvia and Estonia views here (Latvia, from what I tell, was fairly pro-Polish, since we gave them their capital - an interesting contrast with Lithuania...). And Ukrainians - at least Peltura ones - have agreed with Pilsudski, but were betrayed in Riga, for which Pilsudski apologised to them. It is all written in the relevant subarticles - see causes... and aftermath... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On relevant note, see .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilsudski, Miedzymorze and Dmowski 

message: Good, now that you finally realized that you had no valid arguments (no, I don't expect that you would admit it), can I remove your FARC template please ? This article has been recently promoted, therefore it does not qualify for WP:FARC at all. Your objections during the candidate period were not supported by anyone but yourself. Lysy 21:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Shouldn't "DoW" read "PoW"? DoW wikilinks to "declaration of war" which is clearly inappropriate!
: I commented it out of the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Battlebox

message: Hey guys, shouldn't it be included in article?
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,53600,2855976.html
Especially one sentence is quite revolutionary for some discussions here:
"Dzięki temu polskie dowództwo wiedziało, że Sowieci, zgłaszając propozycje pokojowe w styczniu 1920 r., jednocześnie przygotowywali armię do uderzenia na Polskę."
(my translation: "Because of that Polish HQ knew, that Soviets, making peace proposition in January 1920 were simultunously preparing army to invade Poland.")
Szopen 09:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm. This is no sensation, we already know this - see Polish-Soviet_War#ref_Sciezynzki. Sure, some details may be expanded, and the article added to references (better online Polish then 1928 print Polish :D). I think the only important fact of this 'discovery' is that the Battle of Warsaw depenended less on mircale/luck and more on Pilsudski's and Polish High Command knowledge of Russian plans. This would explain why Polish forces broke through Mozyr's group weak point, although there is the matter of many accounts that even Poles were suprised by the level of success. Perhaps this points to the fact that Polish High Command expected Soviets to react faster and better, instead of their armies desintegrating so hoplessly as they did...but this is my speculation here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the RUssian codes