Talk:Invasion of Poland/Archive 1

message: Do we know that Polish cavalry never charged tanks? Heinz Guderian clearly states they did, in his memoirs..
:It is a myth.  It's based on Polish lancers attacking German infantry, then were counter attacked by armor and cut down as they tried to retreat.
:Yup, it is a myth. Guderian is referencing to the chaos resulting after Polish unit of Pomorska brigade faced German infantry. They charged, wiped out infantry and found itself udner fire of armoured cars. This resulted in panic in German army (And Guderian is refrencing to this - he does not wrote it happened, he wrote IIRC that his soldiers were affraid of it) and total loss of morale in Polish units (losses were maybe as much as 20% in just few minutes).Szopen 17:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's a quite funny history of misunderstanding and using false sources for refreshing ones' memory: Guderian was writing his memoirs quite a long time after 1939 and apparently used an article by two Italian war correspondents who were brought there the following day. After seing corpses of Polish soldiers and their horses and a German armoured transporters column, they wrote about those romantic Poles. Guderian used this as a sorce, then Andrzej Wajda created his 'Lotna' and thus the myth was created... Long afterwards the communist propaganda was more than happy to use this symbol as a clear proof that the 'Noblety did not prepare Poland for war and paid with soldiers' blood while escaping to Romania'... , . Halibutt 04:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A search on Google for "last cavalry charge" returns an interesting page here  as the first hit, with information about a cavalry charge in the Ukraine in 1943 involving Cossacks. Patrick Wright's frustrating, fascinating, irritating 2003 book "Tank"  repeats the 'outdated Polish lancers vs tanks' myth verbatim, and the author even claims to have seen a photograph of a lancer charging a tank (a photograph he furthermore claims to be 'famous'). It seemed very dubious as I read it on a train, and I suspect he was making it up. As I understand it, horses were commonly used to transport soldiers to and from battles, but not for actual cavalry charges, even up to the 1980s in places such as Afghanistan; every so often on one of the 'alt.history.military' newsgroups somebody wonders aloud as to when the last cavalry charge took place.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths 

message: Another article that can be FA soon, with a little effort, I believe. Major battles need to be merged with the Campaign Details. We need to expand on stuff like general tactics and strategy used by Poland and Germany, make sure all important things are in place, and that's all. Could use more references as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: I brought back some material deleted by User:119, who claimed 'severe POV', without citing any sources of references of his own. Changes: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  119 changes 

message: : I changed "the most powerful resistance movement in occupied Europe" or something along those lines to "a resistance movement." We're not supposed to be making judgments here, just providing information, and anyway the resistance movement in occupied Yugoslavia was arguably more effective (largely because of mountainous terrain).
:: I changed it to 'powerful'. You are right it is hard to argue which was *the* most powerful. I'd say Poles were better organised, but Yugoslavian partisans did manage to fend liberate more territories by themeslves (although difficult terrain and smaller strategic importance did play an important role in this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modification

message: The article is fairly long and all of this is now mentioned in main, so I moved this section here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important battles 

message: This excellent article is 59k that is almost twice the recomended size. See Wikipedia:Article_size. I am not seriously demanding that the article is shortened but I request that people who think that this article can exceed the size limit allow this for other articles too, for e.g. Germany. -- Why do you mention Germany in particular???Please express your support at talk:Germany. Andries 18:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deal :) I always said 32kb guideline does more harm then good - it should be a minimal size for FA requirement :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think quite a bit of this article can be relocated.  The order of battle and list of equipment used by both sides just adds clutter to the article which is suppossed to be about the campaign itself.  I think a few daughter pages would really help focus this article. Oberiko 21:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have already started Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign. --mav 03:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is almost twice the recommended size

message: Why does the "Opposing forces" section say nothing about the Soviet forces? – Kpalion (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the Soviet order of battle for invasion of Poland in 1939, but I admit the Soviet part is somewhat short. We could use few paras on their preparations, and actual battles (with Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing forces -- Soviets? 

message: For the below quotation and info, which was removed from main article recently. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed 

message: Could somebody squeeze in the Battle of Mława somewhere? I found a place to put the Battle of Mokra since it was already mentioned in the article but I'm not sure where to put the other one. Richard Cane 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is in the battlebox, so we don't have to go to great lenght to put it in the text, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Mława 

message: "the Germans consumed eight months worth of fuel, spare parts, ammunition and other supplies in a campaign that lasted barely a month.". Use of fuel, spare parts etc. is not usually measured in months, because the amount of fueld and parts you use is hugely dependent on what you are doing: unless you are comparing the usage with regular peacetime usage, in which case getting through eight months worth is unsurprising. COuld whoever wrote this give a source, so that we can find out what it really means? DJ Clayworth 05:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is meant is: "eight months of fuel etc. production". However this production was at the time steeply increasing. In January German stocks were again at a pre-war level.--MWAK 09:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is misleading. I don't recall a source for this, and so we may want to move it here until a reference is provided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that piece extremely dubious, too, but refrained from commenting in order not to appear even more anti-Polish than I already do... --Thorsten1 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *smirk* --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as such the statement is roughly correct :o). Details can be found in Frieser's Blitzkrieg-Legende. Early October the Germans had largely depleted their artillery ammunition stocks. When Hitler learned of this after the campaign, he became so furious the general responsible for it committed suicide. Had Stalin been fully aware of the extreme German weakness, it might well have been finis Germaniae there and then.--MWAK 16:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supply consumption

message: The defence of Grodno wasn't a small clash.
Xx236 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Want to write an article on it? I started a stub. Halibutt 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small clashes 

message: The English name should probably be used in the article.
Centralny Okręg Przemysłowy? Brześć?
Who can pronounce Brześć?
Xx236 12:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Operational Group Polesie 

message: I think the last point (Germans employing new/daring tactics) in the myths section should be removed for a simple reason. Unlike the other three points which can be proven to be myths this point is more subjective and open to debate. The points about Poland (calvary, the air force, and resistance) can genuinely be called myths because there is clear proof that Poles did not charge tanks with lances or that most of the Polish air force was not destroyed at the start of the war but the last point is not as easy to classify because it depends far more on the opinion of the person studying the history of war and its battles. The opinion of one historian/journalist alone and one citation of his work does not make this point a fact in any way. Its certainly not enough to simply label something like this a myth. The whole idea of classifying the "daring" or "originality"  of German tactics during the September Campaign as a myth is out of line unless somebody can prove that is now the general concensus among most historians. The section itself even starts off by saying "some" authors have dismissed the idea - this suggest that  there is no one generally accepted opinion on the subject.
I beleive it should be removed as soon as possible from the list of "myths". I will personally refrain from taking it from the list until I hear other opinions.
--Nikostar 19:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already read the Blitzkrieg article and read that quotation but that does not justify for me why the point should remain for several reasons 
- The quote in the Blitzkrieg is not cited and nowhere else in the article is it elaborated upon. It may have been added at some point by anyone and may not be entirely accurate in explaining the views of most historians. Like I said there is no source for the accuracy of that brief statement and it is not elaborated upon, it also contradicts much of what is said in detail in the article about Blitzkrieg being the result of tactics developing after the First World War.
-  The main body of the Blitzkrieg article does go into more detail and does explain that many of the tactics used by the German army in the early years of the European war were relatively innovative and emulated by other armies both during and after the war. 
- The whole argument for calling it a myth here is contradictory to the Blitzkrieg article. The "myth argument" here starts off with "The myth of Blitzkrieg was been dispelled....". The Blitzkrieg article on the other hand has little to no sources defining Blitzkrieg as a myth, instead it clearly define what was unique about the tactics used in early war years and how it affected later military planning.
The first line of Blitzkrieg article - 
Blitzkrieg (German, literally lightning war) is a popular name for an operational-level military doctrine which employed mobile forces attacking with speed and surprise to prevent an enemy from implementing a coherent defense. The doctrines resulting in the blitzkrieg effect were developed in the years after World War I as a method to help prevent trench warfare and linear warfare. 
The article makes no mention of Blitzkrieg being dismissed as myth or of it being a rehash largely of centuries-old tactics, despite the one sentence you quoted. All of which contradicts labelling the innovatiness of German Blitzkrieg tactics during the Septermber Campaign a myth. The whole thing is just too subjective to me and there are too many contradictions here to justify using the word myth on this subject.
--Nikostar 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you can not seem to graspe what I am saying. And Matthew Cooper is one scholar - his opinion is in no way the final word on the issue and in no way constitutes a concensus on the issue. And I never said it was not a myth directly. I simply said the Blitzkrieg article suggest otherwise and there is nothing here in this article other than one quote from one historian to back up the argument that Blitzkrieg should be defined as a myth - that is not enough for such a subjective issue. And I am sorry if you disagree with the Blitzkrieg article but it was not written by me and like I said it contradicts what is written here about German tactics. I would say in view of that and the fact that there are no relevant new facts on this page to suggest a concensus about Blitzkrieg being largely a myth we should remove it from the list. The list is not definitive anyway, nor is it such a vital part of the article that it can not be changed. The other three points in the myth list like I said seem perfectly valid and easy to prove and are all far more objective than the point about the nature of Blitzkrieg. If you personally think Blitzkrieg is myth then that is fine by me but its not enough to say "well some people write about myths and that's how they come about. Your arguments are not very convincing to be honest and before you attack mine, just remember that I am basing my arguments not on my own opinions but on a Wikipedia article with contributions from many users, an article that does not in any way confirm the "myth of Blitzkrieg" you are suggesting. And your point about lettin the readers decide for themselves is unacceptable. For one thing anyone can right any nonsense and defend it with that argument, for another thing calling something a myth is a very strong action and does not leave the uninformed much room to judge for themselves. This article should aim to be as accurate as possible to provide the reader with as much valuable and reliable information as possible and should not have to rely on hoping that people, including those with little knowledge on a subject, will be able to tell when something called a myth might not really be one or generally accepted as one. As I have several times, it is too subjective and is not neccesary unless it is done in such a way that it is proven to be the general opinion or intepretation of most mainstream historians.
--Nikostar 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most tacticians would agree that Fall Weiss was hardly a typical Blitzkrieg- campaign. Cooper is not a lone voice. But this all depends on your definition of Blitzkrieg. If with this term is simply meant "Bewegungskrieg partly executed by mechanised forces", then yes, it was Blitzkrieg, but then all major armies had a manoeuvre warfare doctrine — and they weren't to leave their tanks and planes at home. Then there would be nothing particularly innovative about the war in Poland; it simply showed general technological advances made since 1918. If however one would desire to show something special was happening, like "True Blitzkrieg",  there are two almost insurmountable difficulties: firstly, the campaign cannot be construed as an example of German Blitzkrieg doctrine (in the proper sense) as such a doctrine simply didn't exist in the first place; secondly, there are no references to such tactics in the German operational planning.--MWAK 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: MWAK, we already discussed that above and it seems pretty obvious that the Germans themselves called it a Blitzkrieg. Perhaps the later cases of its introduction to the battlefields differed (show me two identical battles), but they planned a Blitzkrieg in Poland and that's how it's called by most. Whether some historians argue that their advance in Poland turned out to be something completely different is interesting, but not enough to call it a myth. //Halibutt 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, it is completely evident the German High Command did not think in terms of "Blitzkrieg". Using this word nevertheless is ambiguous as two varieties of Bewegungskrieg are referred to by that word. They planned a traditional Bewegungskrieg. Calling it a Blitzkrieg is misleading. What happened was that due to the low concentration of Polish forces the Bewegungskrieg almost inevitably began to approach a True Blitzkrieg. Nevertheless, despite all the ample room for manoeuvring, no serious deep strategic penetrations were launched — and neither were they planned — except for the dash by Guderian, which was allowed after a lot of discussion and a change of plans. Certainly any suggestion should be avoided the Polish Campaign was the first instance of a revolutionary new doctrine as such a doctrine did not exist. The handbook scenario for a classic Blitzkrieg — breakthrough by armour on a small sector, swift penetration by armour over the full strategic theater depth without regard for flank threats, operational collapse of the enemy through organisatorial overload — cannot be found in the German pre-war handbooks. These describe and prescribe the traditional mechanism: breakthrough by infantry in an army-wide sector, exploitation by armour, consolidation by armour, advance by infantry, concentration of artillery and infantry and again breakthrough by infantry.--MWAK 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths: New Tactics 

message: The very beginning of this section clearly needs corrections:
*First about "Annexation" of AT and CS that the article claims. One may start with Annexation or Union chapter of the Anschluss article itself to see that the issue whether the term "annexation" is appropriate isn't settled. 
*As for the CS,  Hitler took it over not through "annexation" but through an international agreement, while in the latter case Czechs had little say in what powers decided for them. Annexation is by definition a unilateral action. You CANNOT annex something  through a treaty, even an unjust treaty imposed by a stronger on the weaker. This may be called a "takeover" but I am worried by the widespread inappropriate usage of the A. word in Wiki. You annex something when you take it and say "That's mine!", rather than decide what belongs to who through multi- or bi-lateral treaties, no matter how unfair ones. Český Těšín perhaps was an annexation. Someone who knows more of the details of the Munich agreement should know whether giving Tesin to Poland was a part of a deal or whether Poland just grabbed it because it got a chance. In the latter case, this was an annexation.
*The lack of the chronological order is a problem too. The first paragraph mostly talks about early-to-mid 30s. Suddenly this is interjected twice with 38-39 events. OTOH, the second paragraph talks about late-30s (which makes sense). The result is perhaps an accidental effect that when Hitler's taking over of CS is first mentioned (anachronistically in the first paragraph), the Polish taking benefit from it  by invading Tesin is omitted and only when the article returns to the Munich agreement in the second paragraph the info on the takeover of Český Těšín is given to a reader. This confusion may be addressed by removing and/or finding a better place for phrases in the very first paragraph that talk about the late-30s events. The problem with "annexation" may be addressed by simply rephrasing.
*About Germany withdrawing from the Polish-German pact, there are two contradictory phrases, one claiming that it happened on "April 28" (without the year given) and the other having it at "August 28". In the latter case it can be derived from the text that it was meant to say 1939. But two confusing dates, one without a year (unless there are two different events that are simply not explained) need to be addressed. (Additionally, the MR pact article speaks about a third date: March 1939 which is also not helping a reader to figure this all out)
*There is nothing in the prelude of the failed Soviet attempts to reach out to France, Britain and Poland on building the anti-Nazi alliance. We may talk about the reasons and understandable suspicions that Poland and allies considered important enough to turn the Soviet offers down and risk colliding with Germany on their own, but I can't believe that the very fact of the Soviet attempts before the R-M Pact doesn't belong to the article at all. The R-M Pact is covered here prominently (deservedly without a doubt) but it is important to give some context of Soviets attempts to make an alliance 
I only looked at one not-so-long section here and without even giving it too much scrutiny. I checked the May 30, 2005, edition, when the article got promoted to "featured" and everything I said applies to that day's version of this chapter as well. Also, the June 19, 2005, edition when the article was displayed at mainpage was the version with these same problems. Am I too harsh or the "Featured" tag is indeed applied to articles rather liberally? The article needs a thorough attention in order to support the prestige of the "Featured" label. --Irpen 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problems here is that voters look at the articles formally: whether they have many refs, whether the citations are formatted properly, whether there are no short passages, etc. They seldom try to analyze its content and decide whether the article is POV or not, whether it represents all points of view or is full of nationalist rant (as is the case here). --Ghirla -трёп- 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the separate article, I am sure eventualy a Foreign relations of Poland (1918-1939) should be written. Do we need it know will depend on amount of material added, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prelude section

message: Removed None of the major participants — Germany, the Soviet Union, Poland or the Western Allies — expected that this German invasion of Poland would lead to a war surpassing World War I in scale and cost. from the article. It is simply false. It also has no citation for a source. If you put it back, make sure you give the source, or I will keep removing it until you do, under the Wikipedia:Cite your sources policy.
The reason that France and Britain had appeased Hitler for so long, is precisely the fear that another war would be as bad or worse than WWI. They declared war with extreme reluctance, and knew full well what they were now in for. In Germany, the population greeted news of the war with dismay. They were very afraid of what another war meant. I'm not even sure Hitler thought the war would be short; while he wished and hoped it would and may even publically tried to convince others things would be easy, I'm not sure he thought it would be. Hitler was a fatalist. He did things cause he felt he had to, not cause he thought they would be easy. Drogo Underburrow 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'd agree with many of your points, I'd suggest that the truth lies probably halfway: some leaders suspected or expected it may be 'big', others did not. Can you provide any citations (for example for Hitler reasoning you mention)? Then we could add this modified part back.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expectations about the War

message: It is poor style to use foreign words and phrases as ordinary words, when ordinary English words can be used instead. Foreign words and phrases should be used sparingly, and only for a good reason, to communicate a point that cannot be communicated in a simpler way. For example, certain foreign words have no good translation into English. Foreign words that do have an English equivalent, however generally should not be used. Omit foreign words unless absolutely necessary to convey intended meaning. Drogo Underburrow 15:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any examples? //Halibutt 16:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has changed in English due to greater sophistication on the part of the average reader, especially military history readers.  See the book NO HOLDING BACK by Brian Reid, who makes excellent use of German military ranks, Polish military ranks, and unit designations in the original Polish and German as well. I think the use of "foreign" words adds respectability and does convey greater meaning - especially when discussing unit designations and rank designations, as often there are no direct translations into English. Having said that, some examples would be nice.Michael Dorosh 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that interlinking on Wikipedia allows the reader to call up near-instant definitions of terms he may not be familiar with. We shouldn't introduce crippling limitations just to accommodate the lowest common denominator. I'm all for foreign words, be they German, Polish, or Russian. Albrecht 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to what's been written above, we (I mean our small Polish club here) generally tend to use English wherever possible, and especially so in warfare-related articles. Hence the names of units are almost always translated (Polish 1st Legions' Infantry Division). Even in cases where there's no exact equivalent (generał brygady), the link usually looks something like gen.bryg. or Brig.Gen.. So yes, a set of examples would be nice. //Halibutt 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you don't agree with me when I recommend it, here's a link to a brief statement saying the same thing: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly. They say use foreign language sparingly. I submit that if you are using foreign language words when English ones are availible, you are not using them sparingly. My text is taken from general writing guides on how to write well. Drogo Underburrow 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have obviously failed to grasp is that military history is another ball game and serious historians (I cite Reid, above) are tending to make use of foreign terminology in order to increase understanding. The link you provide isn't from a military history perspective but from a generalist perspective, nicht wahr? :-) For example, translate Abteilung into a single word in English. I could mean "battalion" of 800 men or "detachment" of 20. I defy you to translate Hauptfeldwebel into English and convey the proper meaning to both a British and an American reader. Even Generalmajor does not translate into English since a Generalmajor of the German Army and a Major General in the US or Commonwealth had different responsibilities. It gets worse with Gefreiter - see my comments in the article on that page.Michael Dorosh 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How about getting back to some specific examples from this article? //Halibutt 11:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I edited out an example. Now the reader doesn't have to take the link in order to understand the sentence. -- Drogo Underburrow 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that one I agree with - it would be helpful if you posted your example here - Drogo edited out the Polish form of "central industrial area". I agree that no greater meaning is implied by the Polish form.  Also, I agree with your de-linking of common words in English also - ie "public transport". They were not essential to understanding the article. Good work.Michael Dorosh 15:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Bah, at last I understand what was Drogo drinking to, as we say here in Poland. Indeed, posting the examples here would make our life much easier. //Halibutt 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding my comment above, I, also, would agree that foreign terms used gratuitously (i.e. providing no additional explanatory or stylistic advantage) ought to be reviewed, as per Wiki guidelines. Otherwise, my view follows Michael Dorosh's when it comes to foreign military terms. Albrecht 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of foreign words

message: Heer, which redirects to German Army, notes that the Former names of past German military forces are: the Wehrmacht ("Defence Force"). Our current version in the 'Opposing forces#Germany' section uses both Heer (Army) and Wehrmacht (Armed Forces). I am confused - can someone elaborate on the distinction and correct use (and preferably do it not only here but in both mentioned articles)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wehrmacht is the Armed Forces - Heer, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe.  Heer is the Army.  Off to look. Michael Dorosh 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked article is ok - it reads a bit awkward, but is correct in saying that the Heer has been a part of the Wehrmacht, Bundeswehr and Reichswehr, all terms for the Armed Forces as a whole.  May need a bit of a massage.Michael Dorosh 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Tnx for the explanation. Especially in light of our discussion above, I think it would be a good idea to make a note of this in the articles that use those terms.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heer or Wehrmacht? 

message: I thought it was extremely kind of Molobo to eliminate all of my edits without a single explanation.  Thanks.--Hohns3 05:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained Revert

message: *The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). 
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
*Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
* article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.   
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. 
*You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. 
*Thanks, Andy t 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: I think the section is very clear and detailed enough as is. The article is an appropriate length, but the prelude section was becoming a bit cantankerous and yes, repetitive. All of us working on that section were repetitively trying to cut it down. It included unneccesary remarks about British policy that take the focus away from Poland and Germany, but in the present article I think it can be agreed that Britain's role is clearly explained. Also, as too many details would take away the focus, not enough of them would mean one point of view. The focus is not British policy. The additional objective of eliminating redundancy within the article was important, and many of the things I cut out were repeated or simply rephrased when I cut them out. In any case, I was happy with the result and hardly noticed the edits that were omitted. Their material carried over. Feel the same? Cheers. 
--Hohns3 12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not paper, and lenght is of more importance for us. If you feel the article is getting to long, create subarticles and move excess information there, do not delete it. Deletion of referenced information is not a good way to increase our knowledge. I will not oppose removal of that info once a subarticle contains it, but before that I see no groudns for deletion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an adequate reply for justifying yet another revert of yours. The redundancy is obvious, the POV and out of context statement about the population of Poland is just as obvious. It was not of Germany's original intention to demand the corridor, and quoting figures about the German population in all of Poland - i.e. regions that the Poles undisputably owned (or the Russian Empire, until as of late "owned") serves its purpose. That would be like saying, although the Sudetenland was overwhelmingly German, "the Germans only made up xx% of Czechoslovakia."  Nevertheless, if you actually read the two versions, which I doubt, you would find that the same information exists in each. The second flows much better. I am not at all pleased with the amount of thought you actually devoted to the issue after I made the effort to spell specific examples out. Each topic has its subarticle with more information: Free State of Danzig, Polish Corridor, etc. some of the same phrases are even repeated and that is sloppy. Please also stop deleting my referencing link. They demanded a superstructure connecting E.P. and Germany. period. --Hohns3 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The redundancy is not obvious to me. As you are the party who wants to delete that information, I challenge you to show me that every fact is either mentioned in the article or in an easily accessible subarticle, same with the references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: au contraire, Piotr! I stated that I did not delete any information, only condensed it. It lies in your hands to point out what is explicitly different in the article, besides its size, because I already said "nothing is different" in my last post (see above). If you had read both versions as I proposed in that last post, you would see this. You also would see a GLARING MISPERFECTION in the version you keep changing to - you couldn't have missed it even if you were blind. the same sentence appears twice in the same exact phrasing, with the exact same links. Again, I repeat: the same idea, what Hitler offered and what Poland agreed to accept (and wouldn't and why) are in both articles, and both articles show how this changed over time. the article you keep reverting to does not have chronological order either, which is one of the reasons I reordered it and changed the sentences linking the same ideas. Lo and behold, this made it shorter. Additionally, YOU HAVE DELETED MY ALTERATION THAT PERTAINED TO THE *FACT REQUEST* FOR THE FOURTH OF FIFTH TIME. Please read the article and tell me what is different. If not, I see no reason for me not to revert.--Hohns3 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I aplogize for removing the reference in all the confusion. But when I look at this edit I see that you are removing for paragaphs, while not adding much but that other reference. Are you saying that you have incorporated the info from those three paras into text before and now they are redundant? If so, can you show me those past edits of yours?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all there, trust me.--Hohns3 07:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... I trust you, but I still fail to see where did you condense the four paras you repeatedly delete. Is "40x20px" (the only positive change) some sort of a code that, when decrypted, magically becomes four paragraphs of text? //Halibutt 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me a second to figure out what you were talking about, but now I get it. I just went through the article as it was and as it is now. All details are present, and now it is repeating thanks to your revert. I'd say you're being childish about this but...well, I'm not sure what to say or why you insist on a repetitive and erroreous version.--Hohns3 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For Piotrus