Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland

message: The first paragraph talks more about the Soviet-Japanese conflict, than the subject of the article. Why? --illythr (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note: Stale, and no longer applicable. Copy-edited for clarity and meaning, Poeticbent talk 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Which kind of "modern science" is that? Communists were spot on about "bourgeoisie" (= citizens, in English), as normal citizens can never transform the class/caste-based feudal society into flat/equal-rights democratic society. The regular citizens are capital (resource) of the ruling elite, today its the elites controlling the banking system. Most of what today is called "democracy" was laid out by communists/labourists/left. 87.79.191.114 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTAFORUM (Hohum @) 23:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convoluted lead paragraph 

message: Edward Rydz-Śmigły left Poland on 18 September and lost any inluence.Xx234 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially, he still counts. I agree we should list someone else in addition, but I am not sure who commanded the forces after 18th; if anyone - the entire command structure was falling apart. Ping User:Halibutt, User:Volunteer Marek? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders and leaders - Edward Rydz-Śmigły 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Soviet invasion of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://old.bialorus.pl/index.php?secId=49&docId=57&&Rozdzial=historia
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The usual refrain that M-vR secret protocols defined the terms for a "joint invasion" of Poland is false.
Nowdays the document "is in the public domain", you can read it and I'm afraid you'll find not even a single word about any invasion by either part.
One could eventually say that historian xyz says that soviets and nazis agreed to invade Poland when preparing the treaty.
Still, saying that the pact envisaged such invasion is reading between the line, which is not what wikipedia should do.
Also "joint invasion" maybe deserves a closer look: what exactly is a "joint invasion"?, in particular: does the mere simultaneous presence of two armies on the territory of another state imply ipso facto a joint invasion of that state?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.88.210.77 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, WP:PRIMARY says the opposite. It says, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." So if the historians say that "territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state" and "whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State" mean they agreed an invasion, then that's what Wikipedia says. The same goes for the the phrase "joint invasion of Poland", which is almost ubiquitous in history books.  Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, surely there may be a number of historians who, quoting your own words, «say that "territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state" and "whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State" mean they agreed an invasion», but I'm not sure whether these historians are actually the majority, here; I'd be happy to be wrong on this, but I'm afraid that, if we take enough time to check it out, we'd find out that what really is ubiquitous in (western) history books is the plain and simple assertion "the agreement for a joint invasion is IN the pact" (or that it is a PART of the pact, or that it can be found in the secret protocols of the pact, and other variations on the same theme). As I said before, that specific assertion is false; and in saying this I'm neither saying anything about any possible interpretation of the pact's wording (let alone how majoritarian/minoritarian they may be), nor I'm trying to interpret the pact on my own (btw, an interpetation is… an interpretation; I'm not sure whether, by its own nature, an interpretation can be called either "true" or "false"). PS: would you ever say that Turkey and Israel (and maybe IS and US) are jointly invading/attacking Syria?, would/should wp ever use such words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.186.107 (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

text: "annex" is the proper word - your view that this somehow casts a dark light on a fait accompli is ludicrous. 50.111.31.194 (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint invasion of Poland envisaged in the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact? 

message: That implies Fall Weiss was a   joint invasion  which is obviously not true. Fall Weiss was an exclusively German plan, and the USSR was not informed about its details (even about the start date). In 8 September, Ribbentrop send a telegram to Stalin where he was asking what the Soviet plan to do with "their" part of Poland. That means no previous agreement existed on that account. Ribbentrop was event threatening that if the USSR would not take Eastern Poland under its control, Germany would have to do that by itself. All of that was a demonstration that no joint invasion occurred.Jack90s15 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Soviet Union invision was on the 17th of September  

message: - a diplomatic note by a Soviet official in Pravda may or may not be reliable (I would think not, and definitely a PRIMARY source as opposed to secondary analysis)... However www.electronicmuseum.ca is most certainly not a RS. This is a blog that currently advertises legal services. I left the text of the note in place - and just placed a cn tag. If this note os significant (and DUE) - surely it is repeated in a reliable secondary academic sources? Tomes have been written on the subject of this article - a reasonable source should be available.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry,  did not look onto the electronicmuseum.ca link itself. If the link became rotten in the recent years,  should make repairs for the source instead of ejection. As for definitely PRIMARY – true, but “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources”. Perhaps the current edition relies too heavily on the Molotov’s note, but the note itself is a notable event may not be ignored in this context. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's clearly not a reliable site - it hosts dubious materials, is a blog, and advertises legal services on its main page ("Criminal Lawyer Toronto Can Save You from False Convictions and Charges ...."). I did not remove the note or make any "ejection" - I placed cn tag next to the text of the note, keeping all the text in the article intact. I will note that having looked for sources now, the quotation of the note is quite surely WP:UNDUE - it seems it is quoted only in two fairly low quality books - popular audience books - here (Pen & Sword) and here (which seems to be possibly a self-published ebook). It is also partially (about half the note in each - different bits) quoted in this 1958 journal article, and this journal article in the context of international law. The Soviet invasion of Poland is a rather well researched topic - you'd expect better sourcing to be available here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

text: No worries. My aim here was cleaning up electronicmuseum.ca (prompted after I saw they were also hosting copies of very unreliable and extreme material and I did a bit more digging around the site) - the copy of the 1939 note may be OK there (match the original) - but the site itself doesn't come close to passing WP:V. If you want to place one of the books (all be it - low quality, and probably published after it appeared in this form on Wikipedia - WP:CITOGEN concerns) I linked to above as a citation - that would be an improvement as long as the quote itself is in. Another option is shortening the quote to the 1958 journal (page 70) which contains the beginning of the note + Molotov's radio address. Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also - a factoid perhaps worth incorporating - is that the Soviet legal rationale for their invasion (that Poland ceased to effectively exist following the German invasion) is somewhat novel and discussed in sources on international law - may be worth incorporating - this is a legal claim still discussed today. (though obviously - it was all rather a pretext given the pre-arranged deal with Nazi Germany). Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.electronicmuseum.ca 

message: Here is his article: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html#The%20Question%20of%20the%20State%20in%20International%20Law
In short, I believe, the USSR didn't invade Poland because there was no Poland to invade. Its government fled the country, constituting Polish ground as "free land" under international law. Echaskaris (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grover Furr disaggrees the Soviets invaded Poland 

message: Russia's foreign ministry put out a statement on 17 September 2019, the anniversary of the invasion, claiming that the Soviet Union never invaded Poland. I think this should be considered for addition to the end of the Communist and later censorship section, given that it was a statement given out by the Russian foreign ministry. Dmac2619 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating later censorship section 

message: I think the page, along with Slovak invasion of Poland, should be merged with Invasion of Poland, since the three countries invaded the aforementioned country within a short period of each other, and Germany and the Soviet Union divided up Poland as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.VivaBlondie2000 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of the page with "Invasion of Poland." 

message: The arguments given by the Soviets on the referring to the lack of existence of the Polish state were considered valid at the time, the Polish had used the same justification the year prior to annex and occupy Czechoslovak territory as well as skirmish with Czechoslovak forces. The Poles have rewritten the narrative of their own aggressive expansion before WW2 making themselves seem victims of aggression despite fighting many wars of aggression and territorial expansion. The Polish capital had fallen, the government fled the country disbanding the Polish state, nullifying international commitments to Poland  and leaving free real estate. The Poles never even surrendered because there was no government to surrender. 
Merge-Merge with Invasion of Poland with Soviet occupation of Poland rather than invasion
Rename and reformat-Rename to Soviet occupation of Poland and change or remove titles
Remove-Misleading article with clear anti communist bias with very little substance in the "communist and later censorship"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonApril2020 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You had one wiki edits assigned to capitalist consumerist game called Overwatch, quite a reach considering your plethora of edits pretty much mirroring the same propaganda mouthpiece as the Soviets would against that game 2001:448A:3070:53EB:E9D6:CEFD:DAED:5432 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge, rename and reformat or remove the page