Talk:Invasion of Poland/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Added on administrative regions

I added on administrative regions.--Molobo (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section, it seemed to detailed for this article. However, appropriate articles are linked from the body (Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, General Government). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg myth

I am not sure if this is a myth. While the other statements are indeed false and should be debunked, the question on whether Germans used or not the blitzkrieg strategy in Poland seems to be part of an ongoing academic debate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Blitzkrieg" itself is a myth, so it can't be applied to anything. Most of the top historians reject the so-called Blitzkrieg methods ever existed. The Germans did not use the term and the actions of 1939-41 were just improvised offensives using a vague formula of speed and surprise. The tactical element revolved around combined arms assault and a classic pin-flank-encircle move, a basic tactical move which, through the expansion of large armies, pretended to be an operational doctrine, and worse, a strategy.

As far as Poland is concerned, German artillery and infantry got the credit. The Panzer Divisions were spread out, not massed - which is the usual description of the so-called Blitzkrieg "doctrine". Dapi89 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Myth Debunking

Hey, this is an encyclopedia; not snopes. Stick to the facts.--209.89.155.96 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Debunking the myth of the supposed myth

Completely not true with this statement about dispersed Panzerdivisions.

See my posts here and here (I'm Domen):

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9183&start=150

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=273070&highlight=France+1940

Guderian XIX Corps consisted of 2 Panzer (3. and 10.) and 2 Motorisiert (2. and 20.) divisions.

1. Panzer-Division and 4. Panzer-Division were gathered together in one (XVI) Corps during the campaign, and operated together - especially during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski and Tomaszow Mazowiecki and later also during the battle of Bzura - during both of these battles they had got the same specific main target and were both directed towards it.

2. Pz.Div. and 4. lei. Pz.Div. were also part of one and the same Corps (XXII) and strictly cooperated during the campaign.

Similar situation was with 2. lei. Pz.Div., 3. lei. Pz.Div. and 29. Motorisiert Division which were gathered in one Corps (XV) during the campaign, while 1. lei. Pz.Div. cooperated with 13. Motorisiert Division (as parts of XIV Corps) and later also with 29. Mot. Div. (as part of XV Corps this time) during the battle in Kampinoska Forest west of Warsaw and Modlin.

At the end of the campaign 13. and 29. motorized divisions were once again subordinated to the same Corps (XIV - 29. division was moved from XV to XIV Corps once again) and fought together during the battle of Kock.

So you have got at least 6 different groups dedicated to large mechanized operations beyond the tactical level (apart from the fact that even a single Panzer-Division is dedicated to operations beyond the tactical level ).

Of course this is not the whole story yet because also different Corpses were cooperating with each other.

For example XIV Corps was attacking next to XV Corps and next to XVI Corps while fighting against Polish Army "Prusy".

XXII Corps was cooperating with 5. Panzer-Division in Silesia.

5. Panzer-Division was also cooperating with XV Corps (2. and 3. Leichte, 29. Motorisiert) during the campaign, when attacking towards Radom.

During the battle of Bzura 3. Leichte was attacking Polish rears, while other fast divisions were fighting from the front.

Also 2. Leichte was supporting other fast units at the Bzura, fighting near Sochaczew and in the western part of Kampinoska Forest.

Moreover:

Have you ever heard about the "Fall 5 September"? - this was a huge and major outflanking operation (which failed - by the way - because of fierce Polish resistance, mainly near Chelm Lubelski and Wlodzimierz Wolynski) of encircling Polish forces and cutting them off from the territory of Eastern Poland by attacking along the Bug river. This operation was carried out by two huge German armoured-motorized groups - XIX Corps which was attacking from the north and XXII Corps which was attacking from the south. So you cannot say that these two huge armoured-motorized groups were not directed towards a specific Schwehrpunkt of the front, because they were.

That Schwehrpunkt of the front was - in this case - the city of Wlodawa.

But units of Guderian's XIX Corps were repulsed by Poles north from Chelm Lubelski (near Sawin) and units of XXII Corps near Wlodzimierz Wolynski (at the river Bug) and the whole operation failed.

---

This statement about infantry playing the most important role during the German operations in Poland is also completely not true. Let's just compare it with the Battle of France in 1940. It should be noticed that in Polenfeldzug Germans had got 63 divisions including 15 fast divisions (Panzer, Leichte Panzer, Motorisiert), which means that 24% of all German divisions in Poland were fast divisions. While in Westfeldzug in 1940 Germans had got 136 divisions, including only 16 fast divisions - which means that only 12% of all Germans divisions used in Westfeldzug were fast divisions.

That's why in Poland infantry fought much less of the conflict than in Westfeldzug, and tanks fought much more.

Against Western countries in 1940 Germany deployed 10 Panzerdivisionen and 6 motorized infantry divisions : 2.ID (mot), 13.ID (mot), 20.ID (mot), 29.ID (mot), SS Totenkopf (mot), SS Verfügung (mot).

While against Poland Germany deployed: 7 Panzerdivisionen (1 - 5, 10, "Kempf"), 4 Leichte [Panzer] Divisionen (1 - 4), 4 motorized divisions (2, 13, 20, 29), independent SS motorized regiments and smaller units (regiments: Germania, Leibstandarte), 2 independent tank battalions and some smaller tank units (battalions: I./P.R.23 and I./P.R.10), independent reconnaissance battalion (ALA):

But let's compare number of Panzer-Motorisiert units in these divisions listed above deployed by Germany against Poland and against Western Europe:

I. Against Poland:

34 tank battalions (3. Pz.Div. - 5; 1., 2., 4., 5. Pz.Div. - 4 each; 10., "Kempf" Pz.Div. - 2 each; 1. Lei.Div. - 3; 2. Lei.Div. - 2; 3., 4. Lei.Div. - 1 each; indep. - 2)
33 companies of armoured cars
75 battalions of motorized infantry
7 mot. bat.
6 mot. heavy field artillery battalions
32 mot. light field artillery battalions
41 mot. AT companies
13 mot. AA companies
41 mot. sapper companies
14 mot. pontoon columns

II. Against Western Europe (including also SS Grossdeutschland regiment and smaller units - like in Poland):

35 tank battalions
29 companies of armoured cars
6 Stug companies
83 battalions of motorized infantry
9 mot. bat.
8 mot. heavy field artillery battalions
34 mot. light field artillery battalions
44 mot. AT companies
49 mot. sapper companies
19 mot. pontoon columns

The difference is:

"In plus" for Western Europe:

- 1 tank bat., 8 mot. infantry battalions, 2 mot. bat., 2 mot. heavy artillery bat., 2 mot. light artillery bat., 3 mot. AT comp., 8 mot. sapper comp., 6 Stug comp.

"In minus" for Western Europe:

- 4 armoured cars comp.

= an equivalent (more or less) of around one Leichte Division from 1939 "in plus" for Western Europe.

Thus both the statement that the tactics used in Poland was not Blitzkrieg and the statement that infantry played more significant role during the Polish campaign than fast units are completely not true.

Best regards, Peter558 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points, but please see WP:RS - we need reliable sources to back up claims, and unfortunately, an analysis on an online forum is not reliable. But if you could provide proper citations for your analysis, you are more than welcome to rewrite the article yourself! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg itself is a myth. Take a look at its article. Dapi89 (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

German codes

Aftermath: Capture and transfer of German code engine begins the Ultra project which helped the Allies. This was the greatest loss the Germans had in the invasion of Poland. And they never knew it until after they were defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that has nothing to do with the invasion itself. The German codes were broken by Poles already before the war and "the keys" together with reconstructed decoding engines were passed on to British and French allies already in August 1939. --Lysy^talk 05:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish air force destroyed on the ground

At least one reliable, though non specialist, source supports the "myth". http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_poland_05.shtml

Perhaps it would be best to state how many planes were destroyed on the ground, how many in the air and how many interned. It is otherwise a sterile comment, since it is obvious that no single event will explain what happened to Polish air forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.38.36 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Population losses

The lead states that the country lost 20 percent of its population however the World War II casualties article claims 14.3% to 17.2% of its pre-war population and cites a pretty huge list of soures.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:History_of_Poland_(1945–1989)#Polish_war_losses. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Case White and Plan West ?

Should we translate the codenames of German and Polish military plans and operations to English ? Case White and Plan West or Fall Weiß and Plan Zachód ? This should be consistent across the article. --Lysy^talk 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably, per WP:UE. On the other hand, note that while the article on the Polish plan is under Plan West, the article about the German plan is under a German name (Fall Weiß (1939)). Should it be moved? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that military names are often not translated to English on wikipedia: Epervier, Bøllebank, Fall Grün, Fall Rot, Bodenplatte, Herbstnebel, Eisenhammer, Frühlingserwachen, Ichi-Go, Weserübung, Sonderaktion Krakau, Generalplan Ost und so weiter. Shouldn't we be consistent in the article and either translate all the names or none ? --Lysy^talk 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Luftwaffe and the skies

Quotation:

"The claim that Polish air force inflicted "significant damage on the Luftwaffe" isn't supported by the citation provided (which actually says that the "Luftwaffe ruled the skies" from the start of the war."

Because Luftwaffe didn't rule the skies from the start of the war, but rather approximately from the beginning of the 2nd week of the war (although not completely).

The fact is that both in the Polish Campaign and later in Fall Gelb as well as in Fall Rot, Luftwaffe suffered over 50% of its casualties (Fall Weiss - 56%, Fall Gelb - 57%, Fall Rot - 56%) during the first 7 days of these campaigns. And the truth statement would be, that Luftwaffe ruled the skies from the second week of these campaigns, also in case of the Polish Campaign. Although in case of the Polish Campaign Luftwaffe gained complete domination in the air only after the withdrawal of Polish Air Force to Romania, on 18.09.1939. This evacuation was of course caused by the Soviet Invasion of Poland. And since then - since 18.09.1939 - Polish fighters didn't achieve any victories. All victories of Polish air force were achieved in period 01.09.1939 - 17.09.1939, majority in the first week.

To support my opinion I can say that Marius Emmerling (although I don't agree with his books in many cases) in his "Luftwaffe over Poland", also writes that Germans established domination over the Polish skies since approximately 07.09.1939. Domination in this case doesn't of course mean that the Polish Air Force was completely defeated (as I wrote, the last victories of Polish fighter planes were achieved on 17.09.1939, also some Russian planes were shot down by Polish fighters then - later that day Polish fighters were ordered to retreat to Romania, which took place on 18 IX).

In case of percentage of Luftwaffe casualties suffered during the first week, I am also basing on Emmerling (in case of the Polish campaign) - as he gives the breakdowns of casualties by day in his books (also breakdown by type of planes lost). In case of the Fall Gelb and Fall Rot I am basing on a forum statement of one French user, he was basing on a compilation of many reliable sources.

Peter558 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the source as I don't have it. But the Luftwaffe was certainly not in control from the very beginning. Infact aerial combat was considerable for the first few weeks. Air superiority (ironically) was achieved by the German Army. By advancing over the early warning systems near the frontier states the Polish Air Force was unable to locate and engage the Luftwaffe, which explains why it was absent for much of the second half of September.

My sources concur with the point of air superiority being between the first and second weeks. Dapi89 (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can agree that Luftwaffe gained almost complete air superiority somewhere between the first and second weeks. But if it comes to serious damage inflicted to Luftwaffe by Polish fighter planes, here are some opinions of Polish enemies about Polish fighters (mainly), quoted in the book "Behold! The Polish-Americans" by Joseph Wytrwal - in general they are praising Polish pilots:

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=46647.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way:

Paying tribute to the Polish High Command for disorganization and the loss of communications is very accurate - it was, unfortunately, largely the credit of Polish High Command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter558 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Phases of the campaign

"BTW it is not clear for me why the sections are named Phase 1: German invasion, Phase 2: Soviet invasion"

Well, to me it is also not clear. First of all - I would divide this campaign for much more than just 2 phases.

I would distinguish the following phases (although I am not sure how to name them, because most of them had got more than just one main, most important event / feature):

Phase I (01.09.1939 – 03.09.1939
Phase II (04.09.1939 – 07.09.1939)
Phase III (08.09.1939 – 12.09.1939)
Phase IV (12.09.1939 – 16.09.1939)
Phase V (17.09.1939 – 23.09.1939)
Phase VI (24.09.1939 – 30.09.1939)
Phase VII (01.10.1939 – 06.10.1939)

As you can see this includes 4 phases before the Soviet Invasion of Poland and 3 phases since the Soviet Invasion of Poland until the end.

Soon I will write more about these phases here (brief descriptions of each phase and explanations why in my opinion such a division is a very good idea).

Not only I would divide the campaign for these seven phases, but also for three "operational theatres" - Northern (German Army Group "North" and Polish forces fighting against it), Western (German 10. and 8. Armies from Army Group "South" and Polish forces fighting against them) and Southern (German 14. Army from Army Group "South" and Polish forces fighting against them). And of course since 17.09.1939 also for the Soviet theatre (or maybe even two - Northern, so Belarussian Front and Polish forces facing it; and Southern, so Ukrainian Front and Polish forces facing it).

But this last division (for theatres) is not so necessary, enough to describe events in this order (from the North to the South, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter558 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Would such a division into 8 phases be supported by a reliable reference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For example Janusz Piekalkiewicz in his "Polski Wrzesien [...]" divides the campaign into 8 phases (so close to my proposition of 7 phases). The only difference is that he uses a bit different time frames for each phase (1 - 3; 4 - 6; 7 - 9; 10 - 11; 12 - 14; 15 - 16; 17 - 18; 19 IX - 6 X). But I think that my proposition of time frames is better and as I wrote I will present brief descriptions of each phase here and you will conclude why such a division is good (or not, if you will not agree with me). Maybe I will do this during this week, if not then I will do this on this Friday / Saturday.

Peter558 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I changed my mind because I already have the initial version of this brief description (so there is no point in waiting until Friday / Saturday with posting it here, eventually I can add something on Friday / correct any mistakes then). Here it is:

Phase I is the bulk of the so called battle of the border (this includes the dash of Guderian and other German forces through the Corridor which resulted in some heavy fightings against Army “Pomorze”, this also includes the bloody battle for Polish fortifications near Mlawa, the battle of Ciechanow, battles near Czestochowa, battles for Silesia, initial combats in the Coastal region, initial battles of Army “Lodz” against German forces) – I say that it is the bulk of the battle of the border because in some places this battle lasted for longer than 3 days (but the rest of the story will be told in Phase 2).

Phase II is the ending phase of the battle of the border (in places where it lasted longer than 3 days) and the battle for the so called "main defensive line”, the collapse of the Polish frontline took place during this phase in several places. For example after defeating Northern Grouping of Army "Prusy" in a 4-days long battle of Piotrkow Trybunalski and Tomaszow Mazowiecki, Germans opened their way to Warsaw on 07.09.1939 and reached it in the evening on 08.09.1939, on the next day they - 4th Panzer-Division - attempted to capture Warsaw but were repulsed suffering heavy casualties. The failed attempt of capturing Warsaw marked the beginning of the battle for Warsaw, which lasted until 28.09.1939 (on 13.09.1939 Germans also reached Warsaw from the north-eastern side). Also in Southern Poland on 07.09.1939 German forces crossed the Dunajec and Nida rivers before Poles could organize an efficient defense there, on the next day the bloody battle of Biskupice Radlowskie took place in this area. In Northern Poland the end of this phase was marked by the capitulation of Westerplatte and in North-Eastern Poland combats for the river Narew took place during this phase.

Phase III is the Polish counteroffensive at the Bzura (which seriously shaken the German 8th Army and caused temporary but serious problems to the whole German plan of war against Poland), but not only, because at the same time important events also took place near Radom (Southern Grouping of Army "Prusy" was defeated, however the battles against Southern Grouping of Army "Prusy" which led to its defeat started yet during the 2nd Phase – namely on 05.09.1939), in North-Eastern Poland (the defence of the Bug river, German forces - Guderian's XIX. Panzer-Korps - broke through the Wizna position) and in Southern Poland (Polish Army "Cracow" started its withdrawal towards the river San in order to organize a further defensive line there, after the attempt of defending Nida and Dunajec failed, German armoured-motorized forces of 14. Army started their raid towards the San river, crossing the southern part of the San before the main forces of Army "Cracow" could get there and after a two-days long battle fought against Polish Group "Jaroslaw" and 10th Motorized Brigade on 10.09.1939 and 11.09.1939). By the end of Phase III German forces in Southern Poland also managed to reach Lvov, but were repulsed while trying to capture it on 12.09.1939 (which resulted in the battle of Lvov, lasting until 22.09.39 with participation of the Soviet forces in it since 19.09.1939).

The beginning of phase four is marked by the end of the Polish offensive at the Bzura and beginning of the German counteroffensive there (Germans managed to get the situation under control there). It is also marked by the Polish withdrawal from the line of the river Bug (marschall Rydz-Smigly ordered these forces to withdraw to the Romanian Bridgehead, the defense of which was also a newly born conception after all other plans failed), followed by bloody pursuit battles in that area. During this phase German forces managed to cross the river Vistula near Annopol and Solec against the resistance of Polish Army “Lublin” (this took place between 12 and 13.09.1939) and then advanced towards Lublin (which was captured after some heavy combats on 18.09.1939 in the morning). During this phase combats against remnants of Southern Grouping of Army “Prusy” were still in progress on the western bank of the Vistula river. Also combats against Army “Cracow” along the line of the northern part of the San river were in progress. In the Coastline region combats for Gdynia and Kepa Oksywska were still in progress and entered into their most bloody phase. Combats for Warsaw (including Praga – the district of Warsaw located on the eastern side of Vistula) were in progress, Germans were approaching fortress Modlin against heavy Polish resistance and then started its siege. Also during this phase heavy combats in North-Eastern Poland were in progress, this includes combats near Zambrow and Andrzejewo (during which Polish 18th Infantry Division was destroyed), combats for Fortress Brest Litovsk, which Germans were not able to capture for many days, combats for Kobryn (situation similar as with Fortress Brest), Bialystok and many others. Also heavy combats for Lwow and to the west and north from Lwow (including the battle of Przemysl) were in progress. In this phase of the campaign combats for Gdynia and Kepa Oksywska ended (on 19.09.1939).

The beginning of phase V is marked by one of the most important events of the Polish Campaign – the Soviet Invasion of Poland. During this phase the final stage of the battle of Bzura and Kampinoska forest also took place. In Southern Poland the second biggest battle of this campaign is fought – the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski. The first phase of this battle ends on 20.09.1939 together with capitulation of Army “Cracow” and the second phase of this battle starts practically on the same day – on 20.09.1939 – with an offensive of Polish Northern Front which was launched in order to help Army “Cracow”, but of course too late – as we can see. The second phase of the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski ended on 27.09.1939, although since 23.09.1939 Soviet forces entered this battle from the east and started to participate in it. 23.09.1939 was also the beginning of German counteroffensive near Tomaszow Lubelski (which was the turning point of this battle), to which Soviet forces soon joined from the east. Also during this period the battle of Lwow came to an end (Lwow surrendered to Russian forces on 22.09.1939) as well as combats in the area to the west from Lwow, where Germans and Soviets destroyed the Polish Operational Group “South” under command of general Sosnkowski after some heavy combats. During this phase the last combats of Guderian’s XIX. Panzer-Korps in Poland took place. He managed to capture Brest and he also managed to finally capture Kobryn – but in this last case he managed to capture Kobryn only thanks to the fact that Polish forces were ordered to withdraw from it due to the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the same time Guderian failed to capture Chelm Lubelski after being defeated during the battle of Sawin – Lowcza fought against elements of Polish Northern Front. During this period of the campaign Polish forces (including Air Force) in South-Eastern Poland are ordered to withdraw to Romania and Hungary and Polish government as well as High Command retreat to Romania on 18.09.1939. Phase V was also the period when major part of Polish vs Soviet Belarussian Front battles took place. This includes the three-days long defence of Grodno (20.09.1939 – 22.09.1939), the defence of Wilno (18.09.1939 – 19.09.1939) as well as big part of important operations of the Ukrainian Front.

During the Phase VI of the campaign the final stage of the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski came to an end. Simultaneously the battle of Rawa Ruska and the battle of Janow Lubelski came to an end, which ended major combats of German forces in South-Eastern Poland. During the same phase the final assault on Warsaw took place – the assault achieved only fragmentary successes, but despite that Warsaw surrendered on 28.09.1939 because its situation was very hard. Also the final assaults on Modlin took place and Modlin surrendered – part on 29.09.1939 and the remaining part on 30.09.1939. This marked the end of practically all major battles in Poland. The only resistance nest which was still resisting was the Hel Peninsula. There was also the Operational Group “Polesie” of general Kleeberg, it was involved in combats against the Soviets, but during the night from 01 to 02.10.1939 it started the last battle of the campaign against the Germans – the battle of Kock. Phase VI also includes the most important battles of the Ukrainian Front (including Tomaszow Lubelski, Szack, Wytyczno, Jablon, Milanow, Parczew, Borowicze – Nawoz - Husiatyn, etc.). Another considerable Polish force which was still continuing its resistance after the 6th Phase ended, was the Group of colonel Zieleniewski (which is often forgotten). It fought mainly against Soviet forces.

Phase VII is the “October part” of the “September” campaign – last combats against last remnants of Polish forces and only three battles against organized, strong Polish forces - combats against the Group of Zieleniewski (which surrendered to the Soviet forces in the evening on 01.10.1939, this group numbered around 15,000 soldiers according to Soviet sources and around 10,000 according to Polish), the last combats at the Hel Peninsula (which surrendered to the Germans on 02.10.1939) and of course the last battle of the campaign - the battle of Kock against SGO "Polesie".

Peter558 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as the phases are properly referenced, feel free to rewrite the article. Please make sure not to remove any existing information. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Motivation behind the pause before the invasion

from the article- "At the same time, the British and the Poles were hinting to Berlin that they were willing to resume discussions – not at all how Hitler hoped to frame the conflict. Thus, he wavered and postponed his attack until 1 September managing to halt the entire invasion "in mid-leap"." having just read Albert Speer's 'Inside the Third Reich', Speer (A member of Hitler's inner circle) is very sure that the pause is due to Mussolini revoking his promises to give Germany military support in the event of a European war (the Italian forces dressed it up as a complaint about lack of military resources being provided by Germany). Hitler had to ensure the Italians were back on side before committing his troops to Poland, and did not like the damage to morale that a further wait could cause. Furey x (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation of German plan (Fall Weiss)

The article currently states: The German plan for what became known as the September Campaign was devised by General Franz Halder, chief of the general staff... However, I believe this to be incorrect, either wholly or in part. The operational plan for the invasion of Poland was created by Erich von Manstein and Günther Blumentritt. I can document this via several sources. I would simply change the text of the article, but I am unclear on Halder's involvement in creating the plan. He may have come up with the general strategy, while Manstein and Blumentritt planned the operational details. Can anyone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revcasy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal Declaration of War

Should the fact that Poland declared war on September 1 be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.126.87 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question about infoboxes

Let's have a look on the infobox in Russian Civil War. There are 3 columns: Communists, Entente and Central Powers. Don cossacks are in the column of Entente, however they had strong Pro-German (Central Power) orientation and pro-Entente Whites (for example, Anton Denikin) tried to keep the distance of them. In Russian Wikipedia, infobox also has 3 columns, but in a little different way: Reds, Pro-German Whites, Pro-Entente Whites. Up your eyes, we see the quote 3 combatant division would be ridiculous because it would imply that Soviets and Germans fought against each other by User:Staberinde. But nobody cares, if English infobox of Russian Civil War imply that Don cossacks fought with Germany, nobody cares, if Russian infobox of the same article imply that Pro-German Whites (Krasnov) fought with Pro-Entente Whites (Denikin). Of course, Russian Civil War is much more complicated than invasion of Poland. However, we has a precedent: two sides didn't combat each other in some conflict, but they are in different columns cause they weren't allies. --95.52.89.126 (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Warsaw1939parade.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Warsaw1939parade.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Misleading images

Shouldn't File:Second World War Europe.png and File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg show Bohemia and Moravia as part of Germany, as they had actually been annexed, not merely occupied? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again about the supposed myth of Blitzkrieg and about the supposed myth of Blitzkrieg in Poland

First of all - Blitzkrieg itself is not a myth. Russian historians found the best definition of German Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg (in its German version - because there was also a Soviet version of Blitzkrieg, the best example of which is the Vistula - Oder operation in September of 1945) is an elitaristic, bourgeois conception which relies on high combat value of well-equipped, elite units which constitute the minority of armed forces, not on massive mechanized armies as in the Soviet version (source: Christopher Duffy, "Red Storm on the Reich", page 64).

Secondly - Blitzkrieg in Poland happened and in some ways in Poland it happened more than anywhere else. The stupid myth that in Poland Panzer divisions operated separately and large concentrations of armour were not present can be found for example in "The Blitzkrieg Legend" written by Frieser, but this myth is completely false. On page 18 of "The Blitzkrieg Legend" we can find:

"[...] during the Polish campaign German armor was not yet employed independently on operational level either at the corps or army echelons. Instead the Panzer formations on the tactical level usually fought in a divisional framework." - both the claim that in Poland Germans didn't have armoured corps and the claim that Panzer division is a formation designed to work on tactical level (even single Panzer division is a formation clearly designed to complete operational tasks) are false. In fact Germans had got plenty of armoured-motorized Corps in Poland in 1939 - XIX., XVI., XV., XIV., XXII., some of them even cooperated with each other, for example XVI., XV. and XIV. or XIX. and XXII.

In Poland one of the biggest concentrations of armour per each kilometre of the frontline in WW2 took place (for example during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski - Tomaszow Mazowiecki, during the battle of Radom, during the initial German advance and battles near Czestochowa).

I explained it clearly in my (Domen121 / Domen123) posts on these forums:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=137912&p=1384598#p1384598

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25632&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9183&p=218717&hilit=the+german+campaign+in+poland#p218717

Peter558 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a copy of my response to this here as you seem to be doing the rounds of the various articles:

Peter, the dominant position in academic literature is it didn't exist. Infact the most ardent historians are Germans. To suggest Blitzkrieg existed it to proffer the now discredited theory that the Germans intended to achieve their total aims by a series of short campaigns. This was not the case. The websites you offer don't come close to being first class academic sources, and they are typical of the rubbish that exist on the internet. And I have the book by Frieser - he does not argue that Blitzkrieg was actioned in Poland - infact his whole thesis is that Blitzkrieg was a myth! He calls it a world-wide delusion. Dapi89 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much more to say on the subject. The Polish campaign did not see large concentrations of Panzerkorps bunched into armoured spearheads as was the case in 1940 - 1941. I must also add that Duffy's assertion that Soviet deep battle was influenced by or the same as the so-called Blitzkrieg method is totally false. Dapi89 (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the dominant position in academic literature is it didn't exist.

What academic literature? Please provde some titles. And by the way - you are probably talking about Anglo-American academic literature only.

And I don't think that the Anglo-American academic literature stands on the highest level of all world's academic literatures... Especially if it comes to the Polish Campaign, hardly anything good and standing on a high factual level was produced on this subject by Anglo-American historians so far (with a very few exceptions from the rule).

The Polish campaign did see large concentrations of armour, but when comparing with the 1940 campaign you should remember about the compression of the theatre of war operations in 1940 (compare the length of the German-Franco frontline in Fall Gelb to this in Fall Weiss, and also take into consideration that in Fall Gelb both sides had got much bigger armies).

To suggest Blitzkrieg existed it to proffer the now discredited theory that the Germans intended to achieve their total aims by a series of short campaigns.

Blitzkrieg is not a matter of the speed of execution only, but rather a matter of "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" and other things.

The phenomenon of a Panzer-Division itself is a part of Blitzkrieg (a Panzer-Division is nothing else than realization of the "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" conception in practice - it consists of armoured vehicles, infantry and artillery - three completely different "Waffen" - in the best possible proportion).

The Soviet deep-battle was completely different than the German Blitzkrieg. The Soviet conception was in fact better (at least they had got huge reserves, while according to the German conception all forces should be sent on the first line at once), but resulted in similar results (see for example the Vistula - Oder operation in January of 1945 or the Manchurian Campaign also in 1945).

Peter558 (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I have given an entire library list's worth on the Blitzkrieg bibliography. As someone who cites everything he does on wikipedia, I'm rather offended.

Moreover, your deductions about this so-called "Anglo-American" angle could not be further from the truth. Read the translated version of Frieser's Blitzkrieg Legend; the surviving German General Staff (Guderian, Manstein and the like) have denied that the Germans ever went to war on a Blitzkrieg-like strategy.

Peter, the Panzer Division has nothing to do with 'Blitzkrieg'. The first combined arms were used by the British in 1917, and by the Germans soon after. The integration of infantry and tanks within the same unit is not new. Besides, this has nothing to with strategy. You’re digressing into tactics. We are taking about strategy not tactics or operations. 'Blitzkrieg' suggest 'Blitzkrieg strategy' - it did not exist.

I'm glad you agree Soviet deep battle was not the same. At least that is something. Dapi89 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point of view (and I partially agree):

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=539043

"USSR have the deep battle and the Germans used blitzkrieg. What about the Western Allies? I searched online but I couldn't get straight answers."

"The Germans did not exclusively use Blitzkrieg. In reality, the operational doctrines of every nation were remarkably similar (Deep Battle is nothing more than "We have reserves" taken to a logical conclusion)."

Peter558 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

FAR work

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Invasion of Poland (1939)/archive1

• Does anyone have any particular attachment to the quotes in the Phase 2: Soviet invasion 17.09.1939 section? I would like to delete them. They are long and I don't see their particular value in helping summarize the Soviet portion of the invasion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotations have been largely moved to the corresponding wikiquote page. Good suggestion Piotrus.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Would anyone oppose the deletion of the Myths section? I am waiting for confirmation on the FAR as to whether or not it is an appropriate section for an FA level article. I would like some input before deleting it and attempting to incorporate the content elsewhere in the article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes can be moved to Wikiquote. But the myths section is relevant, as the discussed myths appear relatively often in various works (and on Wikipedia). Perhaps the myth section could be split into a dedicated article - but personally I'd vote to keep it in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I went looking for articles that utilize a myths section in order to gain some guidance on the section but didn't come up with anything. Could you suggest one or two articles, GA or higher, that employ a similar approach for the purposed of formatting. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with other subjects that are both featured and have common myths about them. As far as I am concerned, since this article was Featured with the myth section, we should adopt it as the style guideline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That position isn’t entirely fair given the FA guidelines for Mil. Hist. have change and become far more stringent than in 2005. Further when the article was approved the myths were summarized as a two single paragraphs in the aftermath section, not an entire section in onto itself.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A valid point. The question thus is: is a myth section (reliably referenced, I think) a valid additon to the article? I think yes, and so far it seems that a majority of editors here agree. But feel free to raise this issue on other foras (MilHist, RfC?), directing editors here - more input never hurts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally oppose the deletion of the Myths section, it is very relevant.Loosmark (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant the "Myths section" is, but it is revealing of a perspective that should be entertained. With that in mind, maybe we should keep it. The argument against it needs more input. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lead too short (WP:LEAD), Possible merge of lead and Description section?

merged sections and summarized text. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three and a half paragraphs of the Prelude to the campaign are absent of citation (1c).
• Opposing forces section does not have summaries for the Soviet Union or the Slovak contingent.
• German section contains 1/3rd the content of the Polish side, even though the were the larger and initiating combatant.
• In the Details of the campaign, the German aggression plan section does not contain a single citations (1c) and the German bullet point list should be converted to plain paragraph text (WP:MOS) --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

The text as it is currently presented focuses, almost strictly, on defending the Polish side. I believe most of the information is relevant but the method of presentation is lacking. In my view, the information would be best incorporated directly into the main body of the text with the individual myth paragraphs possibly serving as notes to provide context.

• Myth: “The Polish Army fought German tanks with horse-mounted cavalry wielding lances and swords”- incorporate into text

Convert the text into a note and have it support the sentence ending with footnote #35. The intent of this paragraph is to show that the polish military was not primitive, incorporating into a note in the Opposing forces section seems like an appropriate place.

• Myth: “Polish air force was destroyed on the ground in the first days of the war” – incorporate into text

This myth would be best addressed by providing expanded text in the Phase 1: German invasion and Polish defence plan sections. The fact that the air force moved from bases to combat airfields in advance of the invasion should be mentioned in the Polish defence plan section. The length of time the air force survived and was able to operate is best included in the Phase 1: German invasion section.

• Myth: “Poland offered little resistance and surrendered quickly.” – delete, except with regards to mention of Armia Krajowa.

It’s already mentioned that the Polish government never surrender, setting up an government in exile instead. The level of Polish casualties already speaks to the armed forces level of resistance. The speed of capitulation and the reasons why are already addressed by the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sections. the rise of the Polish resistance movement should most definitely be mentioned in the aftermath section since the resistance movement was a direct response to the German-Soviet occupation.

• Myth: “Blitzkrieg was first used in Poland” - delete

The topic is far more thoroughly and evenly discussed in the Blitzkrieg article. If the intent is to discuss the military strategy employed by the Germans than that should be addressed in either the German plan section or the Phase 1 section.

Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, I'm not sure what problem are you trying to solve here. I would rather leave it as it is unless there are any good reasons to change it. This said, you've labelled the section with a POV template. Can you elaborate on where do you see pov-related bias there ? If this is not a POV issue, can you please remove the irrelevant template. --Lysy^talk 15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just of the opinion that a Myth / Nazi Propaganda section is innapropriate for an FA level article. The example myths are a reactive mechanism attempting to respond to questions that should already be addressed in the article. With regards to the POV, the myths are written, almost strictly, in response to falsehoods projected onto the Polish side. In the future please do not remove the template until discussion is complete.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that merits a POV template. Your argument above is that the section is not-encyclopedic, this is different from POVed (which would indicate bias). Are there any myths about German side that need to be discussed? The only one I am aware is the still-ongoing discussion whether they used or didn't use what is known as blitzkrieg tactics, and since there is no consensus on that, I don't think it should be added there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the the Blitzkrieg statement may depend on the pov, as there are historians that both support and reject that the Blitzkrieg tactics were fully employed in Poland and therefore it probably should be removed. Other than that I do not see any POV issues, unless anyone would claim that the Nazi propaganda POV is underrepresented. If there are no other specific POV concerns, I suggest not to reinsert the tag. --Lysy^talk 17:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No reason to reinsert tag, the issue is being discussed and that is what the intent of the tag is.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the section as it is. It's not clear why is Labattblueboy trying to delete it. Loosmark (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am looking to properly incorporate material and I would most certainly dissagree with the opinion that the section is problem free. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not need to "incorporate material" because the material is presented in an effective way as it is. Loosmark (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this section needs to be removed; there's no need to provide a point by point rebuttal of 'Nazi propaganda' (the fact that the source is Nazi propaganda should be enough to refute it) and it is problematic from a NPOV point of view as it basically amounts to a defence of Poland's reputation. There, rightly, isn't a similar section refuting false 'Polish propaganda'. The material it covers could be integrated fairly easily into the body of the article, as is standard for FAs. Moreover, it appears to contain some mistakes. The claim that the Polish air force inflicted "significant damage on the Luftwaffe" isn't supported by the citation provided (which actually says that the "Luftwaffe ruled the skies" from the start of the war. The comparison of Polish and German air losses here is also somewhat misleading given that about the Polish air force only accounted for about half the German losses. The sentence on the Soviet occupation at the end of the 'Blitzkrieg was first used in Poland' point also appears out of place. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most modern publications on the Invasion of Poland do exactly that, they refute the false myths spread by the Nazi propaganda. In the article we don't have "a point by point rebuttal of the Nazi propaganda" as you claim because the Nazi propaganda was so much more widespread that we'd need at least 3 articles just to do that. We only address the most widespread myths which persist to this day, and the article does that in the most interesting and useful way for the casual reader. Btw there isn't a section refuting Polish propaganda because the Polish propaganda even if it existed was completely minimal in comparison with the Nazi one. Comparing the two is a bit sickening. Loosmark (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to keep the myth rebuttal is that there are still relatively modern and relatively reliable sources which will get some of the above myths wrong - i.e. books stating that the Polish airforce was destroyed on the first day, or mentioning Polish cavalry charging tanks. One of the main reasons the section was created was to stop editors from occasionally (re)adding such claims to that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Churchill - several of the "myths" can be found in Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" (1948 edition) - such as cavalry lances & swords attacking tanks; many of the Polish planes being destroyed on the ground;characterization of the German campaign as Blitzkreig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.9 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D, who wrote: "The material it covers could be integrated fairly easily into the body of the article, as is standard for FAs." The "myths" section itself is not seamlessly integrated into the article, and both appears - and reads - like an unnecessary and inappropriate addendum full of material that would better be served-up to the reader by its inclusion in the relevant main sections of the article. If you want an outsider's perspective, someone with nothing at stake in the editing of this article, who's reading it for the first time today, there you go - the "myths" section stands-out for the wrong reason...I'd suggest you delete it and integrate the material into the main body of the article. Cheers! Joep01 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to Blitzkrieg. And what in fact is "Blitzkrieg" - tactics, strategy, operational doctrine or just fiction?

I agree that this entire "Blitzkrieg was first used in Poland" myth should be deleted.

By the way - during previous discussion (see points 2. and 9.) there were claims that "Blitzkrieg" did not exist at all (both in Poland and in all other campaigns).

If so - if Blitzkrieg did not exist at all - there is absolutely no need to repeat in this article, that it also didn't exist in Poland.

But my question is:

If not Blitzkrieg, then how can we call the actual German strategy of 1939 - 1941 campaigns? Maybe this entire argument has no purpose - it seems we are arguing only about pure terminology. Whether someone called the actual German strategy "Blitzkrieg" or "Coca Cola" or "Heyah Hoah" - doesn't really matter. :)

I mean - how can someone argue, that "Blitzkrieg does not exist", if "Blitzkrieg" is clearly nothing more and nothing less but the word invented in order to describe the actual and real German strategy implemented during their campaigns of 1939 - 1941, no matter what was the real nature of that strategy?

Peter558 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

awkward style

If this article is to exemplify the "best of Wikipedia," the first item on the agenda, in my opinion, is to correct the numerous infelicities of style and grammar which plague the writing. Some sections sound as if they were "Google-translated" and significantly slow down one's absorption and understanding of the article's substance. I have tried to start this process of revision with a few minor corrections, but it is a time-consuming activity which I can't see to its conclusion. There is much good information here, but it needs a better presentation.Drichter53 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drichter53 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and correct any problems that you see. --Lysy^talk 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a little rough around the edges but I think that the article still deserves to be a FA.--Coldplay Expert 23:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"One must remember that due to the Soviet attack on 17 September, the Polish Air Force evacuated to Romania on 18 September, since the Soviet troops were about to overrun Polish airstrips in the eastern Poland." Yes I do recall reading that, hehe.

"In late 1939, Polish analysts[who?] prepared a report, examining the faults of the Polish defensive strategy against German Blitzkrieg tactics, and proposing a solution. This report was presented to the Allies, of whom the French refused to read it.[citation needed] The French Army ended up fighting in 1940, not even on the "Polish schedule," but on the World War One schedule (even slower)." Sounds like some of this stuff is written by an someone who's second language is English. I'm going to guess that person's primary language is Polish. This doesn't belong under "Phase 1: German invasion" If it belongs anywhere it should be under "Aftermath"72.201.19.165 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa on the second one, wasn't thorough enough cleaning it up. Took both bits out; please point out any other weird stuff you find here. --illythr (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's been a while... VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

About Stalin's self-convincing

re this restore, it's per the source and does not misrepresent it. (See my talk.) The issue is that the quote itself does not directly indicate doubts although the author devotes considerable content to the question. The two don't necessarily need to be together in the article, so some copy editing might be worthwhile. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a highly problematic edit. It basically tells: Stalin thought this ... What exactly Stalin thought is a highly controversial matter; there are many opposite published opinions about this (one can source anything). Better just to describe factual events and something that Stalin actually said, as it was in previous version. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that paragraph feels out of place because, even though it mentions the invasion of Poland, it was originally written in the context of German-Soviet diplomatic brawl and invasion of USSR. The author later expounds on the issue by discussing Stalin's denial of intelligence reports on German's preparations for Barbarossa; his refusal to order a full mobilization despite the pleas of his senior officers; and his delivery of resources to Germany in strict adherence to the M-R pact, despite increasing German disinclination to fulfill its part. Of course, adding these extras to that paragraph in the article would help get rid of any confusion, but doing so would mean going beyond the scope of the article, which is strictly about the invasion of Poland and not the USSR. On a side note, I equated "Stalin" to the "Soviet Government"; appropriate, in my opinion.EyeTruth (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many books,chapters and controversies about this including that one, and you may wish to look at quotation from Soviet archives in older version... My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the hot topics you mentioned but this one has absolutely nothing to do with those. I'm yet to see any historian that claims Stalin was being outwardly cold to Germany between 1939 and 1941. Irrespective of whatever Stalin was secretly planning, assuming he was planning anything to begin with, he put great effort into not wrecking Soviet-German relationship between 1939 and 1941. This much has nothing to do with the hot debates out there. It's like saying that there is a controversy over whether 100+ Germans division crashed into the USSR in summer 1941. That much is not a controversy, although the motive or cause for the invasion may be considered debatable by some. The same goes here. Stalin's passivity in the face of provocation is beyond debatable; his reasons for it, thoughts, motives, plans and whatnot will certainly make for a large book.EyeTruth (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Misconceptions" section misconceived

Instead of naming as "myths" certain widely-propagated falsehoods, which only serves to propagate them further and to use the word "myth" in a journalistic (not encyclopaedic) way, we should simply keep the text accurate and remove any widely-believed inaccuracies that are added. There is no need to single out a fate the Polish air force did not suffer and debunk it when the article could just tell us what actually happened to the Polish air force. 216.8.148.227 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree.. no other invasion article contains 'myths' section 93.97.55.148 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)web

Yup. This kind of 'setting the facts straight' argument that is not really suitable for an encyclopedia entry -- there's too much of the whiff of historical revisionism about it.

It would make more sense to explore each of these either:

a) as an individual article, referenced as appropriate from this main article, or b) in the text of the article itself.

Either way, it should not be in this article.

I like the myths provides good information for people who don't know better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.216.162 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

--75.101.102.22 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) TL 7-jan-2012

By that logic, anti-semitic tropes and the like should have zero mention on Wikipedia either, because hey, they're not true! therefore not notable! Just present the dry facts about the Jewish people and do your best to pretend all those messy lies never amounted to anything worth writing in an encyclopedia about. Readers can deduce everything by it's complete absence of mention.

Would that sound right to you? Treating pervasive distortions as non-notable on the grounds that they are untrue (thus not encyclopedic), strikes me as more biased and agenda-driven than mentioning and addressing them.

The section as it stands is rather ill-concieved, but deliberately hiding these notable distortions and how they compare to the actual facts strikes me as grossly inappropriate. Removing this content implies that the Wikipedia record raises no major objection to the Nazi propagandists' version of events.

This information needs to go somewhere. I'm not saying where or how but I am making clear there is no consensus for simply throwing it in the bin as long I have a say. Thanks for listening. --67.20.248.170 (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly was the casus belli?

Other articles on battles, invasions and wars make their casus belli clear. This one is vague though. Why? Here is Hitler in his own words in his own speeches explaining why he viewed the invasion as necessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Q5AbhMPcM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9xCU-udM_8 This is not original research. 184.96.199.196 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hitler did cite Stalin's invasion/annexation of the Baltics and Romania. No one seems to want to take Hitler at his word that Stalin at least in part brought it upon himself. Sometimes even the most evil of individuals gets caught in an occasional truth. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(I think you're thinking of Barbarossa and the offensive plans controversy. Stalin didn't bring the invasion of Poland "on himself", he joined in!) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously wrong. I found no mention of Stalin's annexations in the Hitler's speech, and had I been able to do that it would be absolutely weird: the events you are talking about occurred after the speech had been made. Hitler clearly cites three reasons for the invasion of Poland (at the end of his speech):

1. Danzig
2. Polish corridor
3. Polish aggressive policy.

Of course, we can draw no conclusion from this speech, simply because it is a primary source, moreover, the dispute over Danzig is known to be not the reason of German attack of Poland, but rather the permanent source of irritation, or an indicator of the general tensions between those two powers(John Hiden, Thomas Lane, eds. The Baltic and the Outbreak of the Second World War, Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN 0521531209, 9780521531207 p. 74). Therefore, whereas we can speak about Danzig and Polish Corridor as a declared formal casus belli, the real reason was much more complex.

Btw, I would treat the video with cautious: there is an unclear correlation between the video and text there. Thus, when Hitler speaks about Italy, we see Molotov (despite the USSR had not been mentioned at all), and when he speak about neutral states we see Churchill (who, by the way, was not a British prime minister by that moment).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul's right in that the above were the stated cas... casi? beli. And he's the real reason was NOT Danzig - Hitler also stated in private that he was going to invade Poland even if he got Danzig. The "Polish aggressive policy" was obviously not a real reason either. And the Polish corridor is more or less same as Danzig for all intents and purposes here.

The real reason was simply German expansionism, lebensraum and the desire to actually implement the Nazi ideology. Or, to simplify things a bit, he invaded because he thought he'd win.VolunteerMarek 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, he invaded because he planned to do that in any event, and he invaded in September 1939, because the situation was favourable. And, I think, single (casus) is more correct, because ##1-3 were just three manifestations of the same issue: perceived Polish hostility towards Germany and the Germans. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Alas, Lothar is correct, I was thinking of the invasion of Russia, not enough coffee this morning. (!) The "cause" was, in part, Hitler's correct assessment that Britain and France would not put troops on the ground to honor their treatment commitment and defend Poland. And so far, whatever Hitler had demanded, Hitler had received, only reinforcing his expansionist ambitions. Placating the schoolyard bully only guarantees more of the same. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Still not enough coffee :). The cause of Hitler's invasion of the USSR was not only Stalin's territorial acquisitions in Eastern and Northern Europe. The real reason was that Hitler realized that the USSR, despite Soviet-German rapprochement in 1939-40, remained to be a strategic opponent of Germany, and it continued to represent a major threat; in addition, Hitler decided to obtain by force the Soviet resources he had to pay for in 1939-41.

However, your problem is deeper: you should see a difference between the cause of some war and its casus belli. These two terms have little in common, because casus belli is not a cause of the war, but the event that triggered the hostilities, or the formal pretext. In that sense, it would be quite correct to say that casus belli of the invasion of Poland was the Polish position regarding Danzig/Polish corridor. However, by saying that I by no means imply that that was a real reason.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, my more general point was that in some circumstances it doesn't really make sense to ask "what was the real casus beli". Of course there were "official" ones, the 1 through 3 above. But basically, Hitler invaded Poland because he could.VolunteerMarek 02:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also can't say that Poland was incorrect in its (fear?) assessment that give Hitler an inch and he'll take a mile with regard to any German troops setting foot on Polish soil. (It is, however, a taking it a bit too far to blame Poland for "starting" the war by not caving.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I would say, "give Hitler an inch of your neighbour's land and he'll take a mile of your own". The problem is that Poland realized that too late. Had Poland raised her voice during division of Czechoslovakia (instead of participating in it), that would prevent many future problems (including the Hitler's attack of Poland). Unfortunately, most leaders of European states (excluding Litvinov) demonstrated absolutely stupid behaviour, thereby giving Hitler a chance, which he had masterfully used.

By the way, have you ever think that, had the Litvinov's idea ("collective security") been supported by major European states, that would harness Soviet own expansionism too? In mid 1930, the USSR felt itself vulnerable, and Stalin's major concern was not expansionism, but security. Creation of the collective security system would give more point to the Litvinov's team, that would help to avoid purges in Narkomindel, and the obligations the USSR would voluntarily take (within the frame of the "collective security" treaty) would make impossible all Stalin's pseudolegal tricks in the Baltics or Bessarabia (I even don't mention Finland)...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, collective security is a bit of a muddle. The USSR wishing security is at odds with its own expansionist statements. So where the Baltic states were concerned, for example, they were a barrier to be destroyed in the expansion of Soviet Communism to western Europe; from the perspective of Britain and France, they were, as alleged by the USSR, looked upon as a cordon sanitaire (barrier) to such expansion. But ultimately there was no commitment on the part of any power to preserve the Baltic states. As Cielens stated, "If rivalry in armaments cannot bring security to the small nations, it will likewise fail to bring it to the larger ones, too, in the war of the future." Ultimately, there was no commitment to peace by any of the post-WWI powers, who were all too eager to sacrifice or gobble up others as the case may be. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your views are ahistorical, because you refuse to accept quite simple thing: we cannot speak about the USSR as some monolith, which didn't change with time. The USSR during mid-30s, early 40s, or post WWII USSR were quite different: in 20s-mid-30s the USSR primary concern was security (remember, it was a totally destroyed country, which, btw, suffered a serious defeat from Poland at the last stage of the Civil war), not territorial acquisitions (remember Lenin's treaties with the Baltic states, which were more progressive then the those time's international laws; remember that the new definition of aggression, much more strict and comprehensive than the existing one had been proposed also by the early USSR; that was a direct indication that the latter was concerned primarily with its own security), and the very idea on permanent revolution had been abandoned by Stalin (remember his conflict with Trotsky). Many authors believe that the turn to expansionism had been made when the concept of collective security had failed.

In addition, many authors correctly noted that there was a direct linkage between the unleashing of the repression campaign by Stalin in 30s and the failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiation (noone wanted to rely on the alliance with a bloody dictatorship), however, the reverse linkage is sometimes overlooked. I mean the obvious fact that Stalin had every reason to believe that most European powers were deeply hostile to the USSR, so the military buildup and of purge of the country from potential "fifth column" seemed absolutely necessary to him. And, frankly speaking, Poland was among the most persistent and serious opponents of the USSR: thus Józef Piłsudski directly supported various separatist groups in the USSR, with the ultimate goal to dissolve the USSR. Of course, Stalin had paranoia, however, "even if you have paranoia, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not watching you"... --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And, ultimately, the manner of conclusion of WWI ultimately set the stage for WWII. But that's a larger conversation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct, however, that has a relation mostly to Germany, not the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, as most Soviet occupations in Europe during WW2 were about recovering territory lost at the break-up of the Russian Empire during WW1. --Nug (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What relation does it have to the outbreak of the military conflict between Germany, Italy and Allies?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article is about the Invasion of Poland, I thought that would be self-evident. --Nug (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• In regard to casus belli, it was simply the conquest of lebensraum, reasons of Danzig/Polish corridor and "aggressive Polish policy" was just Nazi propaganda to blame Poland in order to obfuscate the real motive. On the other hand if we take Paul's definition that casus belli is the event that triggered the hostilities, the Gleiwitz incident would be it. --Nug (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Casus belli and real motive are, as a rule, not the same. Obviously, assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand could not be a real motive of the WWI. However, this section is not devoted to real motives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, for the Soviet casus belli was the German invasion, but the real motive was to recover territory lost in the Polish–Soviet War. --Nug (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the meaning of the term "casus belli" correctly, it is a formal reason for declaration of a war. Since no war had been formally declared by the USSR, it is senseless to speak about any "casus belli".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is also an informal reason. --Nug (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It is "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict", i.e. it is an intrinsically formal term. Informal casus belli is an oxymoron.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no mention of "formal" in that dictionary definition. If casus belli only applies to formally declared wars, why do authors such as Geoffrey Roberts speak of Soviet casus belli[1] in relation to the Winter War, which as we know was undeclared?[2] --Nug (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, "an event that (allegedly) justifies a war or a conflict" is a formal reason one of the parties cites as a cause of the outbreak of hostilities (which could be either declared war or just a conflict). In other words, that is something that is openly (and formally) declared. Roberts correctly cites that in the case of the Winter War Molotov cited some border clashes. In any event, I do not see how can casus belli be informal in this situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well now we have come full circle, so you no longer stand by your previous statement: "Since no war had been formally declared by the USSR, it is senseless to speak about any "casus belli""? Can we now agree that the USSR gave a formal justification to invade Poland? --Nug (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we can speak about casus belli not only for declared wars, but for undeclared military conflicts too. However, in that case the USSR didn't see this invasion as a military conflict at all. Officially, it was an expedition. The formal justification was as follows: since Poland as a state ceased to exist, the USSR had to take adequate measures to protect Ukrainian and Belorussian population of former Easter Poland. To do that, the USSR deployed the troops to the territories it believed to be territories of former Poland. In other words, the USSR had no formal opponents during this expedition, hence no casus belli.

Obviously, by writing that I by no means support this position. However, this discussion is a rare case when the official Soviet view is decisive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this section about the casus belli really shows that the current article is allied war propaganda. The dispute about Danzig, the wish for a road connection to east prussia as well as the harrassment of the German and ukrainian minorities in Poland were the casus belli. There is no evidence whatsoever that "Lebensraum" was a motive for war. Nowhere does the article mention that Poland refused to negotiate about these topics. Instead Poland prepared for war after it had acquired the guarantees from France and Britain. Poland wanted war. Pilava (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Erika Steinbach was punished by her own party whe she accused Poland. The reader should be aware that the above opinions aren't academic.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union as combatant3

The USSR and the German Reich did not engage in combat during the invasion of Poland, granted, but to have them listed as allies in the infobox is imho totally misleading. The two were not allies or even co-belligerents - they were simply in military conflict with Poland at the same time. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not conclude any formal alliance between the two powers or provide for any serious military collaboration between Germans and Soviets against Poland, it merely assured each power that the other would not oppose an acquisition of a defined share of Polish territory. (Though from a Polish perspective I can see how the two seem like the "evil alliance" against Poland.) I propose the Soviet union be placed as combatant3 in the infobox. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They did directly cooperate in combat during the invasion of Poland for several times. And of course much more often they did it indirectly.
Such an example is the second battle of Tomaszow Lubelski (which Soviet sources confirm). There were also several more battles during which they directly cooperated on the battlefield against Polish forces. Moreover - they organized a joint military parade in Brest Litovsk.
Secondly - the Molotov-Ribbentrop was not the only agreement between the III Reich and the USSR signed before or during the campaign
Thirdly - German ambassador in Moscow - Schulenburg - influenced the starting point of the Soviet Invasion (Soviets were delayed and Germans were trying to convince them that they should attack as quickly as possible, because "Germany will not push the Polish army up to the Polish-Soviet border"). Another sign of cooperation is the fact that Soviet radio station in Minsk was helping the Luftwaffe in localizing their ground targets in Poland (they were simply broadcasting a constant signal, which was for the German Luftwaffe an equivalent of the Pole Star for travelers). Peter558 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously it "indirectly" assists you when the country you're fighting is also in conflict with the Red Army, but that is irrelevant to the question - the question is if the two were allies. They were not. The incidents of "direct cooperation" you mentioned are unsourced, and even if they were - so what? They're still minor incidents. The two countries were not allies in this conflict and it is very misleading to have them listed as such. In actual fact, one of the main reasons Stalin wanted half of Poland was so that he'd be safer from Germany (his ally?).
Secondly - more agreements? Is a military alliance agreement between the USSR and Germany among them?
Thirdly - I'm sorry, but this point is obviously irrelevant.
You're talking about minor incidents. It is a bad idea to write-up such a misleading infobox entry on the basis of trivia, plus it sounds a little like (Polish) nationalist POV, to be honest. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Another sign of cooperation is the fact that Soviet radio station in Minsk was helping the Luftwaffe " This request was passed by the Germans after the war started, the actual reason for that request was not disclosed, and the request was not satisfied completely by Soviet authorities (the only thing they agreed with was to add the word Minsk as frequent as possible into normal radio broadcast).
Formally speaking, the USSR was not a Germany's ally during WWII, and the article makes every effort to dissemble this fact. The USSR declared no war on Poland, and Poland declared no war on the USSR. For western allies, the USSR remained a neutral power before June 22, 1941. I probably support placement of the USSR into the combatant3 category, and, in any event, the info box must reflect the fact that no war was declared officially by (and on) the USSR.
BTW it is not clear for me why the sections are named Phase 1: German invasion, Phase 2: Soviet invasion. Obviously, the Phase 2 section tells mostly about Polish-German battles, and contains a picture of burning Warsaw (the event absolutely irrelevant to Soviet invasion). That should be fixed.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PS von Schulenburg's requests and Ribbentrop telegrams clearly suggest that during the first part of September Nazi didn't know if the USSR was intended to invade Poland. That is unusual for even unformal allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"PS von Schulenburg's requests and Ribbentrop telegrams clearly suggest that during the first part of September Nazi didn't know if the USSR was intended to invade Poland."
Well, here I agree, this is completely true (at least they didn't know the exact date of the beginning of Soviet invasion, and that's why they were worried and requested the Soviets so many times to start their intervention), but... :
"Formally speaking, the USSR was not a Germany's ally during WWII"
"For western allies, the USSR remained a neutral power before June 22, 1941."
Formally speaking they cooperated on the field of military operations, they cooperated on the field of military technology and tactics and they also cooperated on the field of ecomony (Soviet supplies for Germany). So they were allies, since 1939 until June of 1941. By the way - I recommend reading Patrick R. Osborn's "Operation Pike: Britain Versus the Soviet Union, 1939 - 1941".
The USSR declared no war on Poland, and Poland declared no war on the USSR.
And this was a mistake of Poland. But the reason of such behaviour was false Soviet propaganda - at the beginning of the Soviet Invasion of Poland Poles didn't know what to think about it, because both the Soviet forces and the Soviet propaganda leaflets and radio broadcasts were declaring that they came with relief to Poland in order to help the Poles in defeating Germany. But anyway - this really doesn't matter, because according to the international law you don't need to declare war on a country to be in martial law with it. It is enough if you invade a country without declaring war (which is of course illegal). Moreover - Germany also invaded Poland without declaring war and if I recall correctly, Poland never formally declared war on Germany but just informed the war that Germans illegally invaded it (Poland did the same after the Soviet Invasion, informing the world that Polish army is putting up resistance to the entering Red Army forces).Peter558 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't really distinguish the closeness of alliances in our infoboxes. Poland fought against Germany and Soviets, and this is what the infobox states. Axis powers were composed of Italy and Japan, which didn't cooperate much - but they are still often listed together... and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:"We don't really distinguish the closeness of alliances in our infoboxes."

Granted, but the question here is not the "closeness" of this alliance, the question is the existence of the alliance itself.

Re:"Poland fought against Germany and Soviets, and this is what the infobox states."

Yes, as I said, that is the situation from the Polish perspective. The infobox with combatant3 would just as equally state that fact - without presenting the two rival powers that attacked Poland as "allies".

Re:"Axis powers were composed of Italy and Japan, which didn't cooperate much - but they are still often listed together... and so on."

Obviously they are listed together because they were, in fact, within a formal military alliance. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is that. How would you like to change the infobox? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear for me what did you mean by providing a link to another WP article. Could you please be more specific?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? What do you mean? If you're suggesting the pact constituted a military alliance...?

As for how I would change the infobox, nothing "fancy", I'd just add combatant3 (along with all the other "3" entries, of course :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Some sources do portray the pact as an alliance. In any case, DIREKTOR: WP:BRD - do the edit and I'll see what you mean; if there is a way to make the infobox more clear I am all for it (and if you mean what I think you mean I agree with that edit already). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it can be seen as an alliance sensu lato, however in no way it was an alliance sensu stricto. The article has to reflect that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are valid arguments both ways, but a third combatant is a lot more in touch with reality.

In addition to adding the Soviet Union as a third combatant, I'd also switch the attacker (Germany, Slovakia) to combatant1 and I'd remove the Czechoslovak Legion (700 men), which was not a seperate combatant authority. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The new infobox looks good to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the the new infobox is completely ridiculous, what "third combatant"!? I'm reverting this nonsense. Loosmark (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've expressed your impression of my edit, how about gracing us with an explanation: on what basis are you reverting the edit? Perhaps instead of writing aggressive posts you may present your source regarding the military alliance you just "created" in the article... (I'm assuming from your outrage that I'm directly contradicted by some publication or something?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it was you who made the change, the burden of proof is on you not me, so far you have provided absolutely nothing but some vague talk that "they were not allies" even if all events of September 1939 point otherwise. Loosmark (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. It was not some non-explained edit, therefore, you cannot revert it simply because you don't like it. The above discussion serves as a detailed proof for the changes made by DIREKTOR. If you have something to argue, please, do that. However, please, read the above discussion before that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how you try to turn the tables, I haven't claimed that it was a non-explained edit but rather that the explanation was completely ridiculous. It's clear that there weren't 3 sides fighting but rather two. If you want to make a point that the Nazis and the commies didn't fight together then use the same method as many other language wikipedia do, put a line between the German and the Soviet forces. Loosmark (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that explanation is ridiculous cannot be considered an argument. Please provide any reasonable arguments, otherwise I'll revert your change soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained to you 3 times that there were no 3 sides fighting. Again if the problem is you want to make it clear that the Soviet and the Germans didn't find side by side there is a simple way to do that without creating oddities like the 3 way infobox. Loosmark (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There were not three sides, but the Soviet-Nazi alliance wasn't that tight and was enacted only in the middle of the campaign. You have a good point that we should not confuse the reader that Soviet and Nazis were on the opposing sides; on the other hand they were quite distinct - it makes much more sense to include Slovakia with German than both of them with the SU. I am not sure how to deal with it, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Herr DIREKTOR has not provided any sources to back up such claims like "The two were not allies or even co-belligerents" vs. well documented and verified Nazi Soviet alliance in 1939, the suggestion to add Soviet Union as combatant3 doesn't make much sense.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Herr DIREKTOR"? I'm from ex-Yugoslavia, try "Comrade DIREKTOR", its just as stupid but at least I'm used to it. :) I was afraid of this, the whole thing turned "personal". As soon as I read User:Loosmark's "elaborate explanation" I got the impression he was not at all neutral here. There are, of course, people who find the fact that there was no military alliance between the Soviets and the Germans offensive - this is why that silly infobox persists in the first place.

"Burden of proof". For the millionth time, the burden of proof is on the party trying to prove something existed (positive proof), not on the one that states it did not exist. You generally cannot ask someone to present evidence that something does not exist, that's "proving a negative" - and as a rule it is impossible. What am I supposed to do? Google "no Nazi-Soviet Alliance existed"?? First you must prove that something existed before one has to disprove it at all.

Concerning the unbelievably silly Google link, if an author chooses to use the words "Nazi-Soviet Alliance" to describe the relationship between the USSR and Germany, that's his prerogative. However, that does not mean an actual "Nazi-Soviet" military alliance existed. The fact of the matter is - it did not, and if you want to prove something so unbelievable and new, it'll take more than the usage of a phrase. I honestly can't believe anyone would think that stuff counts for anything in a serious discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't say that there was a millitary alliance but rather they that fought on the same side, the anti-Polish side. Loosmark (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're playing with words. The "anti-Polish side", what's that? The Germans were on the "German side", the Slovaks were on the "German side", the Poles were on the "Polish side", and the Soviets were on the "Soviet side". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could place USSR into combatant3 and make a footnote in the infobox where it would be written that a non-aggression treaty with its secret protocols existed. Alæxis_¿question? 13:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union - see the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact for details. In case you are not aware the Germans repeatedly asked the Soviet to start their attack, they also asked the Soviet radio stations to transmit certain tunes to guide their bombers, after the invasion they held joined parade - for example the German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk. So your invention that there were "3 sides" is an Alice in wonderland style theory. I'd also politely ask you to stop throwing insults at me. Loosmark (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to repeat the same things over and over again? The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact simply did not create a military alliance between the USSR and Germany. (Your definition of "insult" is pretty wide, it would seem. Feel free to report me if you're under the impression that I'm in violation of WP:NPA. These comments make your personal involvement and lack of neutrality in this question apparent.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What does mean "alliance"? First of all, it means political alliance of both sides. Germans and Soviets were political allies in case of Poland. Doesn't matter if military alliance has been created by Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact or not - this bilateral agreement stated political alliance to partition of third side foreign country. In this view, there is no significance, if they cooperated in military operations - despite they did so. There is no need of special agreement about military cooperation to be an ally, if they had political agreement about collaboration in partitioning of another country by sides of agreement. Agreement which stated even period of time when this partitioning will be accomplished (secret protocols to Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) and borders of future join dividing of third side country. --Matrek (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is now known, despite the Soviet propaganda denying it, that the MR pact had a secret protocol dividing CE Europe between the Soviet Union and the Nazis. The Soviet attack on Poland in September 1939 was not merely an opportunistic coincidence but was planned with the Nazis. The Soviets did not fight against the Nazis at that time but they both fought Poland in a coordinated way. Coordinated to that extent that German forces actually had to withdraw from certain Polish territories they occupied contrary to the Soviet-Nazi agreements, and to hand them over to the Soviets. By the way, why was the Czechoslovak Legion fighting on the Polish side removed from the combatants ? --Lysy^talk 13:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very well versed in the history of the Interbellum and World War II (for a layman :), I was and am fully aware of all you are saying. You're mentioning the secret protocol and minor events. The secret protocol is not a military alliance treaty, and that's simply a fact. It is ludicrous to list the two rival powers as "allies" here simply because they agreed not to dispute each-other's acquisition of a defined share of Polish territory. With all due respect, imho it seems like Polish POV. As I said, one of the main reasons Stalin wanted half of Poland was to create a buffer zone in his defense plan against Germany (he thought it'd all go down in 1942 instead of 1941, but that's another story). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not that the "agreed not to dispute each-other's acquisition", as their "shares" were defined before they even invaded Poland. If not for the secret protocol, which, was a de-facto alliance even if it it was not named one, neither of them would attack Poland. Now, the stated purpose of "creating a buffer zone" is nothing more than a Soviet propaganda excuse. Another one was "to protect the people" from the horrors of German occupation. With all due respect, imho it seems like Soviet POV :) --Lysy^talk 14:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're assuming I don't even know when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact took place? :) Obviously the noun "acquisition" in "they agreed not to dispute each-other's acquisition of a defined share of Polish territory" was meant to be understood in its primary sense as an "act or process of acquiring" not "thing acquired or gained". You guys will have to make -up your mind as to whether or not I'm a Nazi or a Communist :).

Re:"Now, the stated purpose of 'creating a buffer zone' is nothing more than a Soviet propaganda excuse. Another one was 'to protect the people' from the horrors of German occupation."

You're apparently confused. "Protection of the people" was the Soviet propaganda excuse, the creation of a buffer zone was in actual fact a serious motive for the Soviet leadership. How could telling Poles they are now a buffer zone be used as a propaganda excuse? "Don't worry, we're not here to harm you, we're just going to turn you into a buffer zone to protect us from the Nazi war machine."? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

of course it was just soviet propaganda, but directed not to Poles! It was directed to western countries societies and western public opinion "no, we were not Nazis allies, we just moved our borders to just create a buffer zone". --Matrek (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, "you guys" ? Who are you talking to :) ? A buffer zone ? Then how comes Stalin was caught by surprise by Operation Barbarossa ? You have to understand that in totalitarian regimes the stated ideologies do not necessarily reflect the true intentions. The RM pact was a surprise for everyone as officially both the SU and the Nazis declared themselves as enemies. In reality they were allies. As I'm sure you know the Soviets asked the Nazis to join the Axis pact as the fourth power in 1940. How does it fit to your "buffer" theory ? The real goal of Stalin get his share, and in November 1940 he even proposed to divide the world between Soviet Union, Germany, Italy and Japan. I'm very well aware of the "buffer zone" excuse, which main purpose is to picture the Soviet Union as an innocent victim of the Nazi Germany and to distant it from their strategic collaboration. It is still present in modern Russian historiography but it does not mean that such obvious propaganda should be present in wikipedia articles. --Lysy^talk 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you can't take a hint: please stop with the patronizing attitude, especially in light of your obvious bias and lack of knowledge in the subject. There are so many things so utterly wrong with your post... I'll answer your post completely so that these do not remain empty words:

• Re:"A buffer zone? Then how comes Stalin was caught by surprise by Operation Barbarossa?"
  • He expected war no sooner than 1942. After the incredible success of the Wehrmacht in Fall Gelb, he did his absolute best to placate Hitler (unsuccessfully).
• Re:"The RM pact was a surprise for everyone as officially both the SU and the Nazis declared themselves as enemies. In reality they were allies."
  • "In reality", the Soviet Union and the German Reich never entered a military alliance, and were never "allies". This is basic indisputable fact.
• "You have to understand that in totalitarian regimes the stated ideologies do not necessarily reflect the true intentions."
  • I'll do my best to understand. :) The buffer zone "ideology" (as you've just called it) was not at all published as propaganda. "Protection of the Polish people" was the Soviet propaganda excuse, the creation of a buffer zone was obviously NOT. It was not an "excuse", nor could it have possibly been used as such. I can't believe I have to say this at all...
• Re:"The Soviets asked the Nazis to join the Axis pact as the fourth power in 1940. How does it fit to your "buffer" theory?"
  • It is a well known and established fact that the Soviets were trying to buy time throughout 1940 and early 1941, and that with a great many economic and diplomatic methods. After Fall Gelb ended their ideas that the Germans and the western Allies would be destroing each-other for years, Soviet diplomacy adopted a delaying startegy. The Axis was origianally formed in part as an anti-Soviet alliance, particularly as far as Japan was concerned, the idea that the USSR would actually have joined is dubious at best. If course, as it happened Hitler was too smart for Molotov's games and invaded a lot sooner than expected.
• Re:"The real goal of Stalin get his share."
  • Ah yes, the much vaunted 'Evil Stalin' theory... how scientific. "In reality Stalin is bad so he wanted to take over the world."
• Re:"I'm very well aware of the "buffer zone" excuse, which main purpose is to picture the Soviet Union as an innocent victim of the Nazi Germany and to distant it from their strategic collaboration. It is still present in modern Russian historiography but it does not mean that such obvious propaganda should be present in wikipedia articles."
  • LoL, I have to be honest: you are biased and don't know what you're talking about. In 1939 Stalin by no means published his intention of using his half of Poland as a buffer zone. That would be the move of an idiot for obvious reasons. The very idea of using that as propaganda is utterly laughable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, if you want to discuss, try to stick to the subject and avoid making remarks regarding your opponent. Do I tell you that you are biased, can't take a hint, have patronizing attitude, lack knowledge, are not "scientific" etc. ? In fact of your statements I very well could. Nevertheless, Soviet Russia's imperialistic strategy is well documented in history and was the major motion of Soviet international relations from the beginning. Cooperation with the Nazis was a great opportunity for the Soviets and they tried to took the advantage of that as much as they could. The facts are that in 1939 the Soviets and Nazis were allies and that it's not the Soviets but the Nazis, who refused an even closer pact in 1940. You can speculate on Stalin's cunning intentions, but the facts speak for themselves. --Lysy^talk 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Soviet Russia's imperialistic strategy is well documented in history and was the major motion of Soviet international relations from the beginning." Incorrect. The "Socialism in a single, separately taken country" concept was invented by Stalin. Trotsky and (in a lesser extent) Lenin saw Russia just as a detonator of a world revolution and expected Soviet Russia to become a junior partner of Soviet Germany and France.
In addition, you absolutely ignore a Litvinov's period in Soviet foreign policy when the sterss was being made on creation of the collective security system in Europe.

Re: "The facts are that in 1939 the Soviets and Nazis were allies" Incorrect. The quote below demonstrates that they were not the allies.

Re: "it's not the Soviets but the Nazis, who refused an even closer pact in 1940" Oversimplification. In actuality, Hitler proposed the Soviets to join the Axis, however, the terms proposed by Stalin appeared to be unacceptable for Hitler. Some authors argue that Stalin's motives were to try to find what Hitler's intentions towards the USSR were.

Re: "the facts speak for themselves". Absolutely incorrect. Serious western scholars (e.g. Haslam) think that "there are few unresolved questions concerning the origins of the Second World War that have provoked as much disputation as the issue of Soviet policy toward Nazi Germany". Your belief that you know truth simply demonstrates your unawareness of the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: I found the 3 combatant division to be rather helpful in terms of organization. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I object the proposal, for such division, while tempting, could create the misleading impression that the Soviets and the Nazis did not plan and close cooperate in the invasion. --Lysy^talk 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lysy, I'm not sure your concern is well founded. You need not read more than the lead to realize that the invasion was a very well coordinated and very cooperative Soviet-Nazi effort. The infobox exists to complement the written material and my view is that 3 combatents helps to make the material in the info box much easier to read.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, let me repeat my question again: why was the Czechoslovak Legion fighting on the Polish side removed from the combatants ? --Lysy^talk 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Close" cooperation is your own personal estimate. The Czechoslovak Legion of 700 men (among 3,000,000 combatants) was removed because it was not a seperate combatant authority. It was a (small) unit fighting within the Polish military command structure. *Sigh*... If there were 150 Tibetan volunteers, we'd have to list them as well not to offend someone I suppose... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

3 combatant division would be ridiculous because it would imply that Soviets and Germans fought against each other.--Staberinde (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. I wonder if there is a way we can tweak the infobox to indicate that two sides were not fighting one another? How about my new version using ---- ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "3 combatant division would be ridiculous because it would imply that Soviets and Germans fought against each other" Let me remind you that 3 combatant division is used in the Estonia in World War II article although no serious evidence is provided there that the Estonians and Germans fought against each other.[3]. (I dont think "ordering the (already retreating) German forces to leave" can be called "hostilities".) Interestingly, the same people who oppose the 3 combatant box here worked on the Estonian article. It looks like double standards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the invasion was a very well coordinated and very cooperative Soviet-Nazi effort." Incorrect. The following quote demonstrates that:

"The foregoing evidence can also be read as demonstrating German anxiety about whether the Soviet Union would keep to its side of the partition bargain. However, and this is the third documentary clue, on 3 September Ribbentrop telegraphed the following instruction to Schulenburg:

"We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the territory that was fixed at Moscow as a German sphere of interest under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interests.Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russians sphereo of interests and, for their part, for their part, to occupy this territory In our estimation this would not only be a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well.."

Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find. What other explanation can there be for Ribbentrop's evident need to interpret the 'sense' of the Moscow agreements of 23 August?"

(The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: ">http://www.jstor.org/stable/152247)--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that direktor, in spite of writting many posts, has failed to answer my main point and that is that nowhere did the infobox say that the Nazis and Soviets were in a military alliance but rather that they both fought against Poland. (As a minor point I'd also add that he went on that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a millitary alliance something which I didn't even claim, I only said there was an alliance). Anyway while I'd prefer the former version of the infobox, from my point of view the current solution is acceptable compromise, the line makes a clear distinction between the Nazi and the Soviet forces so... Loosmark (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to ignore my arguments, namely, (i) that if 3 combatant table is appropriate to the Estonian article it is even more appropriate here. It seems to me that the same persons who supported (or at least didn't objected to) the third combatant in one case do object in another. Reason?
(ii) The source provided by me tells clearly that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was neither military nor other type of alliance.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First to clarify, contrary to your claims I have never edited the Estonian article, I don't know the exact situation there and I'm not really interested in it. If you think circumstances are similar enough raise your point there. I also note that now you try to argue on the semantics of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Very well. The Free online dictionary [4] defines a pact as " a formal agreement, such as one between nations; a treaty.". The same dictionary defines an alliance as "One that is allied with another, especially by treaty". Loosmark (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim you personally worked on the Estonian article. Nevertheless, some people who object against a belligerent3 did.

With regards to semantics, you statement is an obvious logical fallacy. Alliances are formed by signing a treaty, however, not every treaty leads to formation of an alliance. ("I eat what I see" vs "I see what I eat"...)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you know when a pact contains secret protocols about diving Eastern Europe than it can be pretty much characterised as some sort of alliance. But anyway this is a discussion for another page. Loosmark (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The very fact of signing a secret protocol tells nothing. Secret diplomacy was not an unusual thing during those times. In addition, the connection between spheres of influence and future occupation was not so direct as you think. I recall, occupation of Baltic states served as one of pretexts for Barbarossa: Hitler considered Soviet occupation of Baltic states as a violation of the pact. According to him "Soviet sphere of influence" meant that Germany would refrain from any interference there, not that the USSR would be allowed to annex these states. (I concede, it was pure hypocrisy, however, that demonstrates that the secret protocol could be interpreted in such a way too).
And, finally, all said above is your and my (amateur historians) considerations, that cannot be used as a base for anything in the absence of reliable sources. I provided a reliable source telling that it was not an alliance. Therefore, unless some more reliable sources is presented that directly refuted this Roberts' statement, the artilce cannot tell about the USSR and Germany as the allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Interestingly, the same people who oppose the 3 combatant box here worked on the Estonian article. It looks like double standards.
I must note that such claim in a comment that was directly replying to me is a bit disturbing, considering that I have never edited Estonia in World War II nor its talk page. I would appreciate that in future then directly replying to me you would either refrain from such accusations, or address them directly to appropriate people, instead of making generalized statements about "opposing side". That being said, I am personally not sure if article like Estonia in World War II should have such infobox at all, anyway there actually were clashes between pro-independence and German forces and they actually were mentioned on article's talk page in a comment to what you replied less than 2 months ago [5]. But enough of this other article, 3 combatant infobox indicates that all 3 parties were actively fighting against each other, in current situation it would be simply misleading, also I would say that current solution(at the moment I am writing this comment) already suitably separates Germany-Slovakia and Soviet Union.--Staberinde (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I concede I didn't look through your contributions before writing that. Frankly, that was not a reply to you directly, but to those who objected against 3rd combatant, and I know that at least one of those who objected (Termer) did work on the Estonian article. I admit the quote was inappropriate, but, nevertheless, the point itself was valid.
With regards to Germano-Estonian clashes, I do remember the text you mean. However, I am not sure if a minor skirmish with already retreating troops can be called hostilities. In addition, I wrote my post based on what was the article tells, not on what is written on the talk page. The article mention no hostilities (AFAIK).
Re: "I am personally not sure if article like Estonia in World War II should have such infobox at all". You probably are right. I'll rise this question on the Estonia in WWII talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, in the talk to WW2InfoBox it was proved that USSR wasn't co-belligirent with Germany. There were used strict definitions of belligerent and co-belligerence. So, USSR should be moved to third column unless somebody show strategic cooperation between Wehrmacht and Red Army. --95.55.225.26 (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Operational and tactical cooperation is not enough? Must be strategic?

Peter558 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's purely propaganda on the users writing the article. It's simple that the USSR responded to Nazi occupation in Poland by creating a buffer zone. Just like the USSR did in Finland, which was an axis ally. The goal was never occupation, just buffer zone to soak up future or planned Nazi invasions. Whether the users have an axe to grind, or are ignorant, it does the article and history a disservice.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.23.121 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet they occupied Poland, and in accordance with their pact with Nazi Germany, or do you disagree? The first and foremost goal of an occupier during the occupation of a country is to occupy the country. Is that for some reason too hard for you or anyone else to understand? More than half of the material in this article are sourced from credible historians EyeTruth (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Uber POV

Mygawd, could this article be anymore biased than it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.183.6 (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

the Soviets agreed to aid Germany in the event of France or the UK going to war with Germany over Poland ?

Quote from the article:

However, with the surprise signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August, the denouncement of secret Nazi-Soviet talks held in Moscow, Germany neutralized the possibility of Soviet opposition to a campaign against Poland and war became imminent. In fact, the Soviets agreed to aid Germany in the event of France or the UK going to war with Germany over Poland and, in a secret protocol of the pact, the Germans and the Soviets agreed to divide Eastern Europe, including Poland, into two spheres of influence; the western ⅓ of the country was to go to Germany and the eastern ⅔ to the Soviet Union.

I've never heard the highlighted claim before. It's not on the page for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and it's unsourced here. Does anyone know anything about it ? Pod (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

section: German plan: Poland1939_GermanPlanMap (8th Army missing in legend)

Hi, in general I am working on the German Wiki, but: by accident I found out that the 8th army as part of the Army Group South ("Heeresgruppe Süd") is not listed in the legend of the map. So I redisigned the legend and uploaded an updated version of the map (now named: Poland1939_GermanPlanMap_with_8th-Army.jpg

I then replaced the map with mine but another wikipedian reversed this, because, he wrote, the subtitle of the legend reads: "mechanized units". Mechanized units according to him are only greater military units WITH tanks. I said on the contrary Okay the legend refers to mechanized units only but mechanized - so my argumentation - is not necessarily WITH tanks, as mechanized means mechanized and armoured means armourd. There are also mechanized infantry... I said that I'm still of the opinion that the 8th army in the map has been forgotten in the legend, be it mechanized or not. One could also make up a section in the legend for non-mechanized units (if the 8th army realy is not mechanized (in the sense of 'without any tanks' - what I still don't believe). In any way the legend is not complete what I tried to fix. Can somebody help? (link to the map on commons: Poland1939 GermanPlanMap with 8th-Army.jpg--Dudy001 (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Map Partition of Poland 1939

Partition of Poland 1939

Can somebody translate it (from German Wikipedia)--Mullerkingdom (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can, if you want me to (see "add a note"-section underneath the map on commons.--Dudy001 (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg myth

It is an absolute nosense to put Blitzkrieg as myth, when the overwhelming bulk of historians consider that the campaign of Poland was conducted under the parameters of the Blitzkrieg concept (it is absulutelly irrelevant if the word didn't exist then). A few, hand picked events of the campaign and the opinion of a handful of historians is not a solid base. In my opinion that part must be rewritten. --92.20.22.80 --Bentaguayre (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)(talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you read Matthew Cooper and Mosier's "Blitzkrieg Myth" before commenting further.68.144.172.8 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

and I suggest YOU understand that the work, while controversial, is also not accepted by the overwhelming majority of historians - "Blitzkrieg" continues to be taught at my university, and any other that I know of - just because a book is published, does not make it 'gospel' 98.67.180.55 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The odd thing is that most people that suggest that others read Cooper's, Fanning's and Frieser's works, have never read any of those books completely (and if they did, then not carefully). They read the title and run along with it, screaming "blitzkrieg is a myth". No, blitzkrieg is not a myth, but contains a lot of myths. In deed there is a blitzkrieg myth/legend, and each of those historians have written books to debunk those myths of blitzkrieg. But no, blitzkrieg in its entirety is not a myth. EyeTruth (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(P.S.) Cooper got a little too excited and tried to wrap the entirety of blitzkrieg as a myth, but Fanning and Frieser were more precise with their conclusions, which is: there is a blitzkrieg myth/legend, but a pattern of manoeuvre warfare which observers nicknamed "blitzkrieg" did exist. EyeTruth (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am late to join, but I would just like to add: The term 'Blitzkrieg' was a propaganda term used by Joseph Goebbels and his entourage. Today we use the term to encapsulate the brilliant high-speed, cut deep tactics used by the Wehrmacht for the first half of the war. KevinNinja (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Tarnow

That Tarnow story is highly suspect, the person apprehended was actually a Pole that "confessed". Because he worked in Germany the connection was "established". --41.146.32.98 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the entry, it was unreferenced, and a minor incident anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the Free City of Danzig

I want to first address the fact that Danzig's annexation by Germany into the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia province isn't mentioned under the territorial changes part of the combat box chart. Why not? Danzig was a self governing, separate entity from Poland, so it's annexation isn't covered by the statement "Polish territory divided among Germany". Even under the "Location" part of the combat box Danzig is listed separately from Poland. An edit should be made here for the sake of accuracy and consistency.

Secondly, I argue that the Free City of Danzig should be list as a belligerent alongside Nazi Germany and Slovakia. The SS Heimwehr Danzig, an SS unit composed of Danzigers (don't know if that's the right term), and Danzig police officers assisted the Germans in expelling the Poles from within the Danzig Post Office and from the Westerplatte. I noticed editors did make the point that during the invasion the SS unit operated under German Army command, but it still doesn't account for the collaboration of the Danzig Police. The following photo shows the Danzig police with the German forces and the SS as the Polish postmen are lead away from their post office.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the second issue, it's simple. Do reliable sources list FCoD as a "belligerent" in the war? If yes, so do we. If no, then we don't either. And we're not talking about just one or two sources here, but most sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll set to work finding more reliable sources for the 2nd issue. And in regards to the first? Indy beetle (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that'd be fine. Just go ahead and do it and if it looks wrong I'll bring it up here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This particular source (in German) http://www.deutscheundpolen.de/ereignisse/ereignis_jsp/key=polnische_post_1939.html is a project by some sort of media corporation made in conjunction with a TV documentary, designed to illustrate the history of Polish-German relations and whatnot. It states that Danzig authorities had planned on attacking Polish installations in the city in the event of a Polish-German War, and it says that the Danzig Police were the first to launch an attack on the city's Polish post office on September 1st.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Invasion of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050927194547/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl:80/33490_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/33490_1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105194047/http://www.history.com/video.do?name=militaryhistory&bcpid=1681694250&bclid=1699210677&bctid=1606750320 to http://www.history.com/video.do?name=militaryhistory&bcpid=1681694250&bclid=1699210677&bctid=1606750320
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105194047/http://www.history.com/video.do?name=militaryhistory&bcpid=1681694250&bclid=1699210677&bctid=1606750307 to http://www.history.com/video.do?name=militaryhistory&bcpid=1681694250&bclid=1699210677&bctid=1606750307

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Soldaten by Neitzel and Welzer

Hi, I typed up the extensive quote below for a discussion on another Talk page, and it occurred to me that perhaps editors of this article would like to use it, since the discussion pertains to this topic.

The material cited is the excerpts from a conversation by two Luftwaffe men in British captivity in 1940; events described happened in Sept 1939. Their conversation were surreptitiously recorded by British intelligence:

Pohl: […] On the fourth day I was enjoying it. It was our before breakfast amusement to chase single soldiers through the fields […]

Meyer: But always against soldiers?

Pohl: People (civilians) too. We attacked the columns in the streets. […] We swerve to the left with all the machine guns firing like mad. You should have seen the horses stampede!

Meyer: Disgusting, that with the horses…

Pohl: I was sorry for the horses, but not at all for the people. But I was sorry for the horses up to the last day.

Meyer: One becomes dreadfully brutal in such undertakings.

Pohl: Yes, I’ve already said that on the first day it seemed terrible to me, but I said to myself: “Hell! Orders are orders.” On the second and third day I did not give a hoot, and on the fourth day I enjoyed it. But, as I said, the horses screamed. [….]

I was so annoyed when I was shot down; just before the second engine got hot, I suddenly had a Polish town beneath me. I dropped the bombs on it. I wanted to drop all the 32 bombs on the town. It was no longer possible, but 4 bombs dropped on the town. With 32 bombs, I would certainly have had 100 human lives on my conscience.

Meyer: Was there plenty of of traffic there?

Pohl: Chockablock. I wanted to drop a batch, because the whole place was full of people. […] It would have been great fun if it had come off. […] Sometimes I had 228 bombs, including 10kg bombs. We threw them into the midst of the people. And the soldiers. And incendiary bombs in addition.

Authors' commentary: “Pohl was taken out of the war long before the drastic escalation of violence that came with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. […] He hunts down and kills people from the air, and he does not seem to be ideologically motivated when he describes bombarding cities and gunning down people. […] He enjoys killing and needs no other motivation. […] The senseless killing resembles a hunt, a sporting activity in which the only purpose is to be better than others, in this case, by hitting more people with bullets. That’s what angers Pohl about getting shot down. It spoiled the end of the hunt.”

Source:

• Neitzel, Sönke; Welzer, Harald (2012). Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84983-949-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

-- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just as a question, is a British intelligence report taken during the war (1940) a reliable source with a neutral point of view?

@Calistemon: The source is WP:RS and non-POV -- one historian and the other social psychologist -- so yes to both questions. The conversations were surreptitiously recorded and the authors do discuss whether or not they can be trusted. They conclude that yes, as the POWs soon "lost all caution and prattled on heedlessly" (or something to this effect) about everything from medals to war crimes. The books is not just the conversations; the authors use them to illustrate their points about psychology of warfare, what motivated these soldiers, attitudes to National Socialism, differences between Wehrmacht soldiers and Waffen-SS men, etc. A very insightful book -- I recommend it.

Please let me know if I can answer any more questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I don't doubt that the book source is reliable. Also I have not read it I know it caused a stir in Germany, dispersing with the myth of the clean war of the Wehrmacht. I recommend Walther Dahl's Ehrenbuch des deutscher Soldaten which I read in the late 80s and which, completely contrary to what it aimed to achieve, opened my eyes a fair bit just by how far it goes in it's aims of denial. My query is more with the source the Neitzel's information came from. I'm just not sure intelligence reports of belligerent nations fall into the category of neutral sources. This is the question I would like to raise. The easy way to verify the recording is by whether the above mentioned German pilots were charged and convicted of war crimes which they should have. Calistemon (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the article would be okay to use Soldaten as the neutral source, not the wp:primary intelligence reports. Lucky for us, Neitzel and Welzer have done this for us, so the editors are are not performing WP:OR by using the source. I've cited the book in a few locations, and have not been challenged. See for example: (1) SS Div Hitlerjugend, Training, (2) Kurt Meyer, Under Allied surveillance or (3) SS Div Leibstandarte, Massacre of civillians.

Specific to war crimes, the book discusses this as well. The program of "human intelligence" was deemed top secret, and as such, so that not to compromise its use in the future, none of the transcripts were shared with the prosecutors of war crimes trials. No perpetrators were brought to justice based on the transcripts. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon: More on the war crimes: up to 1942, it was not part of Luftwaffe's official doctrine to attack strictly civilian targets; so the airman above was committing a war crime, even by Wehrmacht's definition (cited via Soldaten). Separately, I randomly came across this 20-min interview with Neitze:

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Sonke Neitzel on the The Agenda with Steve Paikin programme, discussing his book Soldaten

He addresses most of the question that you raised. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I'm happy to accept your source as reliable, I just wanted to caution against the use of intelligence reports compiled during the war as sources. However, as you stated above, the reports have been analysed by reputable historians and therefore can be used as a source. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in casualties between Polish campaign / French/ USSR?

In the French and USSR campaigns, those taken prisoner for the defending side are clearly listed in the casualty boxes. But not for the Polish Campaign article. Would it not be better to make sure these articles are uniform? IIRC a POW is technically a casualty, so Polish POW during the campaign should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonnus (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

War

Why did the British Empire and France only declare war on Germany? (165.120.157.246 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC))

• The Western powers new nothing about the existence of the secret Nazi Soviet Pact which was denied by the Soviet government until 1989. Stalin insisted that the Red Army troops were transiting through the territory of Poland in order to fight Hitler ... it was one of the biggest deceptions of the 20th century.[6] [7] Poeticbent talk 14:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The collusion was 100% obvious at the time. The joint German-Soviet invasion clearly resulted from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. (109.150.55.145 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC))

Strange

Why did the British Empire and France only declare war on Germany, when it was a joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland? (109.147.136.10 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

• The Western powers new nothing about the existence of the secret Nazi Soviet Pact which was denied by the Soviet government until 1989. Stalin insisted that the Red Army troops were transiting through the territory of Poland in order to fight Hitler ... it was one of the biggest deceptions of the 20th century. Poeticbent talk 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

FDR was informed by Hans von Herwarth.

Nazi Soviet Pact wasn't secret, only part of it. Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations

1. Chatham House: "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact International Affairs, May 2011, Volume 87, Number 3.
2. Watson, Derek (2000). "Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy. The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939". Europe-Asia Studies. 52 (4): 695–722. doi:10.1080/713663077.

The collusion was 100% obvious at the time. (109.150.55.145 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC))

"Furthermore, the Polish Army was preparing the Romanian Bridgehead, which would have prolonged Polish defence"

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Obviously apologetic, has no place in an encyclopedia. The situation in 1939, attacked from both sides, was extremely dire for Poland, and they lost the defensive war. That's it, there is no reason to describe the outcomes of non-existing plans. (Also sounds slightly pathetic.)-62.156.151.10 (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-existing?Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans."

Weak point, obvious propaganda. The Polish Resistence Movement is legendary, but it shouldn't be part of this section.

Apply the same logic to WW II as a whole, and it's still going on. Nuts, change it.-62.156.151.10 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The WWII logic was to use Poland to win time (France, UK), to surrender (France, Denmark), to cooperate with Germany (France, Norway).Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Polish soldiers with anti-aircraft artillery - wrong section

Either move to the beginning or remove.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

How much food was required during this time for Poland?

Simple query that I would like answered. How much food production/consumption was there during this invasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgchat (talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207150102/http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?cdbae543be.jpg to http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?cdbae543be.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630054512/http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2513833 to http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2513833
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211211729/http://www.ww2.pl/The%2C1939%2CCampaign%2C22.html to http://www.ww2.pl/The%2C1939%2CCampaign%2C22.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514184605/http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=66711 to http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=66711

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Estonia

Given that Estonia technically fought against Poland during the Orzel incident, shouldn't the Baltic country also be added to the infobox? Just a thought. 86.120.125.123 (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. (2A00:23C4:638C:D800:BD3B:4B9E:E687:BC89 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC))