Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/General
- Please mark this page as watched, if you want to participate in Wikiproject History of Poland. That way you will see when something interesting is being done here
Activity[edit]
Seeing not much activity here, what do you say we start off with braggin on what we have done recently?
And what do we need help with???
Here is sth for a start I could use your help with getting the full text of 3rd May Constitution moved from this site to Wiki - see Talk:May_Constitution_of_Poland for details. I send an @ ,but they did not reply, perhaps if we get more ppl to @ them they will at least reply? --Piotrus 15:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- As described on talk pages, I have received the permission to use it and copied it to WikiSource. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Pospolite Ruszenie[edit]
Curious, I created an entry for Pospolite_ruszenie but there is almost no mention of it on Wiki. What other terms could have been used to interlink/redirect it? Or perhaps we have to add mentions of that to various articles?--Piotrus 20:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- Levée en masse I believe, but it seem to appear only in Napoleonic Wars context. Przepla 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Stanislaw_Koniecpolski[edit]
I am working on Stanislaw_Koniecpolski now, and there are many red ilinks - maybe you could fix some of them? --Piotrus 12:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice that I somehow didn't mark this page as watched. I could create some stubs from that page, but first we need to clean up your insertion. English wikipedia is using ISO-8859-1 encoding so all links must be without polish diacritics. Also you should link the pages itselves not just redirects to them. So it should be done like this Zygmunt III Waza; using the | character you could link just like in the HTML. If you have more technical questions ask at my Talk page. Przepla 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have finished translating biography. Now I could use your help for the encoding, language improvements, and various stub creaton.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
History after 1980[edit]
I just created Jacek Kuron and it seems that we are having huge gap in a history of Poland between 1980 and 1989. The People's Republic of Poland is not even mentioning the martial law! We really should do something about it. Przepla 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No martial law? That's serious. But I am afraid I will be of little help, this period of history is one I know least about :< --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I am a bit confused at the division. This is about longer periods of history, right? I think we should do a similar template to Template:History of Poland for state names:
- Piast Poland
- Jagiellon Poland
- Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
- Duchy of Warsaw
- Congress Poland aka Kingdom of Poland
- Second Polish Republic
- Polish Government in Exile
- People's Republic of Poland).
I guess our current Trzecia Rzeczpospolita has no seprate article besides Poland? Perhaps some name organisation is in order.
Perhaps even curiosities like Kingdom of Poland (Mitteleuropa) should go there?
Seems like I forgot to sign earlier. So - any comments about this idea? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
| History of Poland series |
|---|
| Piast Poland Andegawen Poland The Jagiellon Era Nobles’ Democracy Partition (1795–1914) Poland (1914–1939) Poland (1939–1945) Poland (1945–1989) Poland (1989–present) |
I think we need a clear distinction here. I propose that a Polish state article should be the main article for a given perios, with sections like history, economy, politics, etc. and Historyof Poland should be, well, about history only. At the moment there some of those articles are about everything, some are about this or that, there are no clear links from one Polish state to another...this needs fixing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Dobry pomysl, popieram.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are you indend to create separate articles about History of Poland, and History of Polish State? Przepla 19:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On smaller notes:
- I wonder if Polish Secret State would be better then Polish Gov in Exile? Perhaps PSS should be for history, and PGiE for state page?
- Moim zdaniem lepiej zostawic odzielone - mianem Panstwa podziemnego nazywa sie (jedynie) dzialania/grupy polityczne/ itd. na terenie okupowanej Polski.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Is the Andegawen Poland important enough to be listed as equal to Piast of Jagiellon eras? Perhaps it should be simply a subarticle of Piasts?
- Perhaps, from the state perespective, Piasts, Andegawens and Jagiellons should be merged into one article? Note I am not talking about history artciles, but about state ones.
- Popieram.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jeden artykul o Krolestwie Polskim. (od Mieszka do Unii z Litwa)--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Third Polish Republic or just Poland?
- Moim zdaniem lepiej nazwac artykuly "Second Republic" i "Third Republic"--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not entirely happy with the translation of Rzeczpospolita as Commonwealth. After all, in Polish language we have: Rzeczpospolita Polsko Litewska (Pierwsza Rzeczpospolita), Druga Rzeczpospolita and Trzecia Rzeczpospolita. Shouldn't English names refelct this? We may want to make the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a redirect to Polish-Lithuanian Republic, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Tu rowniez sie zgodze.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know. After all Pierwsza Rzeczpospolita, wasn't really First Republic, as direct translation would suggest. Przepla 19:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose the idea. The popular nick-names like "First Republic" "Second Republic" and so on were invented not so long ago by the press. However, they were never the official names of the state and are used only for simplicity. We do not have to follow the simplicity, we should follow the truth here. And the truth is that, unlike in France, the numbers are not a part of the name of the state. You won't find a constitution of the "First Republic of Poland" anywhere, nor will you find the expression anywhere else in the Polish law.
- Also, those names might be used in Poland, but are not used outside of it and I doubt there is some sense in moving the article on Poland to "Third Republic" (note that you don't say "Trzecia Rzeczpospolita Polska" in Polish, you simply say "Trzecia Rzeczpospolita").
- Finally, I like the way it is done now. The names, although not really explanative to someone who has absolutely no idea on the history of Poland, are both accurate and as close to the ariginal as possible. I'd leave them in peace. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:01, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Nie chodzi tu o to czy byla to oficjalna nazwa, czy nie. "Jagiellon Poland" tez nie jest oficjalna. Wpisz na google "Second Republic of Poland" - takie okreslenie jest uzywane na oficjalnych stronach panstwowych.
- Lepiej tez zapamietac dla "niewtajemniczonych" ze np Pilsduski dzialal w czasach II RP jak Polski od XX do XX, a Walesa w III RP. Co do Rz. Obojga Narodow - "Commonwealth" jest blednym tlumaczeniem - tutaj rowniez rozwiaze sie zagadka dla "niewtajemniczonych" dlaczego uzywa sie nazw II RP i III RP skoro nie bylo pierwszej-?!?! :)-Emax 20:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The best solution, then, would be to check what is/was the official English translation of the given state name, check if there were several, check what were the popular unofficial names, and make an article out of this :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Finally, the title of the proposed series is wrong too since it is a history of one Polish state, not of several states. The current state of Poland is a direct descendant of both the Noble Democracy, Piast Kingdom, inter-war Poland, Poland in Exile and the People's Republic. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- This is more like a figure of speech argument. There were several Potocki's (states) and the youngest Potocki (state) is a descendant of other Potocki's (states). There were several Polish states, Trzecia RPlita is the newest of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would, nonetheless, stick to translating Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów as "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" and II i III Rzeczpospolita and PRL as "II, People's and III Republics". It may be confusing, I know, so in any such case you can link to Rzeczpospolita. It's an article I wrote just for the prupose of explaining the complexity of this term. -- Kpalion 22:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A different periodization[edit]
I have a rather bold idea to radically change the periodization of Poland's history. Of course a lot of work has been put into the current scheme and a lot more work would be needed to change it. However, the present periodization has some faults. In the pre-partition period it focuses on dynasties rather than actual political, social and economic evolution. Thus we have periods which are of extremely uneven length and thus hardly comparable (e.g. the Piasts - 404 years, the Angevins - 16 years). The periodization I want to suggest is as follows:
| Early Piasts | 966 - 1183 | 172 years |
| Feudal Partition | 1138 - 1320 | 182 years |
| Reunited Kingdom | 1320 - 1505 | 185 years |
| Nobles' Democracy | 1505 - 1648 | 143 years |
| Decline and Fall | 1648 - 1795 | 147 years |
| Struggle for Freedom | 1795 - 1918 | 123 years |
| Interwar Period | 1918 - 1939 | 21 years |
| Second World War | 1939 - 1945 | 6 years |
| People's Poland | 1945 - 1989 | 44 years |
| Third Republic | since 1989 | 15 years so far |
In this scheme the periods before the 20th century are about 160 years long on average, standard deviation is only 25 years (in the present scheme the average is 190, standard deviation is 143). It also seems more logical as it represents more or less alternating periods of relative growth and decline.
Also note that this series deals mostly political and military history of Poland (kings, governments, wars, territorial changes and so forth). So the next step could be series about:
- Demographic and socio-economic history of Poland
- History of Polish culture
These series might have periodization schemes of their own.
Of course, this is all subject to debate. And naturally, I'm not saying I want to do it all by myself. It's just some very general ideas for the future development of this project. -- Kpalion 20:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, it is an interesting division. Compared to the current History of Poland division it changes the order for Piasts and Jagiellons. I think we should use Kingdom of Poland (Piasts) and Kingdom of Poland (Jagiello) for state names/articles, and their history sections could link to subarticles with titles you described - IF they are ATM longer then 32kb (recommended max length for an article). ATM they are below 32k each - and remember some material from them may and should be moved to articles about economy/politics/geograpy/etc. Until then, I think we can leave history section as is is (with the exceptions of removing Angevins from history mediabox, of course). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think we really need separate articles about the Piast Poland and the Jagiellon Poland. It should suffice to have articles on Polish political history according to one scheme (like the one I presented above) and separate articles on each dynasty. But the latter should be written from an international perspective; it's obvious for the Angevins and the Jagiellonians, but even the Piasts also ruled in other monarchies than the Kingdom of Poland (Masovia, Silesian duchies, etc.). I support the "Polish state" series but I would only incude there those political entities that were somehow special and/or can't be considered as identical with what we percieve as "Poland" (e.g. the PLC, Polish puppet states of the partition era or the gov't-in-exile).
- Piotrus, I don't understand your argument, to me it seems that you are confusing state with estate. To make my point clear, I'll write it in Polish (translation available on request). Obecne państwo o nazwie "Rzeczpospolita Polska" istnieje nieprzerwanie od 1918 roku. Po drodze zmieniło nazwę, sporo się w jego historii wydarzyło, ale z punktu widzenia prawnego i prawa międzynarodowego jest to jedno i to samo państwo. Periodyzację i podział na "I Republikę", "II Republikę" itd wprowadzono dla łatwiejszego uporządkowania tego w głowach czytelników, ale nie jest to podział w żaden sposób oficjalny.
- Najlepszy dowód na to że jest to jedna i ta sama Polska: obecne Państwo Polskie spłaca długi PRLu (gdyby były to dwa różne państwa - nie musiałoby, patrz choćby długi Carskiej Rosji po rewolucji czy długi Republiki Weimarskiej po dojściu do władzy Hitlera). Poza tym - wszystkie te "trzy Rzeczypospolite" po 1918 używały tego samego ustawodawstwa, przynajmniej przez sporą część czasu. Do dziś mamy wiele ustaw i praw które nie zmieniły się od przedwojnia i obowiązują bez przerwy. Więcej na ten temat napisałem kiedyś w dyskusji pl:Dyskusja:Druga Rzeczpospolita (1918-1939) na polskiej wiki, polecam.
- Back to English: we need to set some periodisation, but I would oppose the usage of numbers such as "1st Republic", "2nd Republic" and so on. These would be both unofficial, inaccurate and misleading. Alternatively we could use "2nd Polish Republic" and "3rd Polish Republic", but these names do not even exist in Polish (9 google links, including 3 Polish wiki redirects, one Polish wiki mirror and 2 totally accidential uses of "Druga Rzeczpospolita" and "Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa" one after the other). Even the English usage seems to be based entirely on harsh translation of Polish sources (compare [1] with [2]). The usage of "First Republic" and "Second Republic" seems acceptable on Polish wiki since those names are fairly popular and almost everyone knows what they mean. However, in English they are much less popular and I see no need to introduce them just for the sake of it.
- If I had to chose, I would use either the current system, or the official names with dates. That is "Republic of Poland (1918-1939)", "Commonwealth of Both Nations (1569-1795)" and so on. This system would be both consistent and informative. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:02, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Following my logic explained earlier, I would follow this scheme (I find it the most natural, provided that we have to change the current version):
| Proposed name | years | notes |
|---|---|---|
| Kingdom of Poland (966-1183) | 966 - 1183 | |
| Feudal Partitions of Poland or Feudal Partitions of Poland (1138-1320) |
1138 - 1320 | |
| Kingdom of Poland (1320-1569) | 1320 - 1569 | |
| Commonwealth of Both Nations or Republic of Both Nations or "... of Both Nations (1569-1795)" |
1569 - 1795 | this period could be split as suggested by Kpalion |
| Partitions of Poland (1795-1918) | 1795 - 1918 | |
| Republic of Poland (1918-1939) | 1918 - 1939 | |
| World War II in Poland | 1939 - 1945 | or some other title, no difference for me |
| People's Republic of Poland (1945-1989) | 1945 - 1989 | |
| Republic of Poland or simply Poland |
since 1989 | I believe in Ockham's razor, no need to create a separate article on what is already covered by the main article. |
What do you think? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:23, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- That's all fine, I just have some minor remarks:
- "Kingdom of Poland (966-1138)" is not accurate since Poland became a kingdom only in 1025. How about "Poland (966-1138)"?
- Similar for "People's Republic of Poland (1945-1989)", Poland officially became a "People's Republic" only in 1952, but well, let it be.
- We seem to disagree on one of the milestones: 1505 (Nihil novi) or 1569 (Lublin Union)? But if we're going to keep a separate article on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where the significance of Lublin Union should be explained in more detail, then we can set the milestone at 1505. How about that? -- Kpalion 09:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, fine with me, Poland is just as good
- I know that the name wasn't changed until the fifties, but it was sort of a compromise on my side. Technically speaking the state was a "people's republic of Poland" and then in 1952 became the "People's Republic of Poland". This needs to be explained in the very first lines of that article, but I believe that the title might be acceptable.
- I was thinking along the lines of statehood. If we follow the scheme of articles based on "states" rather than period in history of one state, then the date has to be 1569. Also, I was thinking that the plan is to move the article on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Republic of Both Nations or some similar title (and expand it). I'm not yet convinced this would be a good move since, although this would be a better translation of the "Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów" term, it is not that well-established in English. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
We can use both schemes: let's call them "Polish [political] history series" and "Polish statehood series". In the latter, however, we should only include those articles that wouldn't double what's already written in the history series. So it could look more or less like this:
(to be used in the TOC box) | |
| Poland (996-1138) | Early Piasts |
| Feudal partition of Poland (1138-1320) | Feudal partition |
| Kingdom of Poland (1320 - 1505) | Reunited Kingdom |
| Nobles' Democracy in Poland (1505-1648) | Nobles' Democracy |
| Pre-partition Poland (1648-1795) | Decline and Fall |
| Partitioned Poland (1795-1918) | Partitioned Poland |
| Republic of Poland (1918-1939) | Interwar Period |
| Second World War in Poland (1939-1945) | Second World War |
| People's Republic of Poland (1945-1989) | People's Poland |
| Republic of Poland (post-1989) [that's already 15 year of history, I don't know if it's all covered in the main article] |
Modern Poland |
| Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (let's stick to this name; it's much more informative) |
| Duchy of Warsaw |
| Kingdom of Poland (Congress) |
| Free City of Kraków |
| Kingdom of Poland (Mitteleuropa) |
| Polish government-in-exile |
-- Kpalion 16:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I will abstain from the discussion about history of... series, because I could argue for both ways. But I will elaborate on what I mean by state and why do I think it needs to be a separate article. Compare article on Poland, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (after my latest modifications) and for some outside perespective Ottoman Empire with Second Polish Republic, Piast Poland and The Jagiellon Era. Setting aside how developed those articles are, you can surely see that the latter articles are just about history. They are not about states (continued or otherwise). The current history of... articles for the most part describe only history. What, who, when, why, how. But they pay little attention to economics, geography, politics, culture as a SEPARATE entities. Therefore I want to create the state series, which would have its own standarised sections about economics, history, etc., which could be then, in turn, linked to their own subseries (like the current history one). Please note that I dont necessarly agrue that each state article would need its own subarticle - for the time being, they could in many cases share one main article. Eventually, though, I think that there is no reason why the entry on PLC or IIRP should be less informative (or diffrently structured) then the entry on modern day IIIRP. Or France. Or Ottoman Empire. Or Axumite Kingdom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with treating different periods in the history of one country as separate entities. Halibutt has already explained why this would be wrong above. History is always continuous and even dividing it into periods is is always artificial and arbitrary, but it's a necessary evil. Piotrus's idea of writing articles about different Polish states in history the way we wrtie articles about modern states, seems to me like taking photographs instead of making a film. This way you could write a nice popular history book (like those written by Norman Davies) but not an encyclopedia. I do agree, however, that economic, social, demographic, cultural, etc. issues should be included in the history series. -- Kpalion 11:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A co sadzicie o tym by wstawic rowniez Panstwo Wielko morawskie? Skoro w historii Rosji jest watek Rusi Kijowskiej (co jest troche dziwne moim zdaniem..).--Emax 21:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Dobry pomysł, ale w projekcie dot. historii Czech. --Kpalion 23:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Jako panstwo Slowian zachodnich, ktore rozciagalo sie po Slask i Malopolske - jest rowniez czescia polskiej historii.--Emax 00:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Podobnie jak Rzesza Niemiecka, Rosja, Chanat Awarski, Celtowie, Germanie, Wikingowie, Zakon Krzyżacki, Prusowie, Jaćwież, nawet Francja i jej marionetkowy Gdańsk podczas wojen napoleońskich...
- LOL. No wlasnie. Morawia jest interesujaca ale najwyzej jako 'see also' w historii Polski - w zasadzie mozne powinna istniec jakas strona/kategoria zbierajaca tematy Slowianskie. Mozna pomyslec nad artykulem pre-Piast times czy czyms takim, do kategorii historii (bo panstwa - state - tu juz nie widze raczej). Ale wprowadzajac to do historii Polski gdzie sie zatrzymamy? Na neandertalczykach, ktorzy zyli tu kilkadziesiat tysiecy lat temu? W zasadzie, czemu nie :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Czytalem kiedys ksiazke o historii Polski, ktora wpierw przerabiala slowian zachodnich (zamieszkujacych tereny obecnej Polski), pozniej Panstwo Wielko morawskie i dopiero po nim czasy Piastow, Jagiellonow itd. Historia panstwa polskiego zaczyna sie na Piastach ale nie historia Polakow lub ich kultury :). Jezeli nie Panstwo Wielko morawskie, to artykul - jak Piotrus napisal - "pre-Piast times".--Emax 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But back to English and the topic: thanks Piotrus for clarifications. Now I get the general idea behind your proposal. Having considered what has been said above, I agree with what Kpalion said: economical, social, sociological or political parts of the respective articles should be expanded, even to the point where each of those starts its own life as an article (like, for instance, Polish demography in 16th century, or similar articles), but I see no need to write separate articles. And I strongly oppose the idea that there was no Poland before 1989 and those were just different states that occupied roughly the same area. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:31, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Of course there was POLAND, but it wasn't always called Rzeczpospolita Polska, now was it? As you said, our RP is a continuation (successor, legacy, whatever) of those earlier Poland's (Polish states) which had different NAMES. But this is really a minor thing. The most important point for me is to have clear hierarchy - consider Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Noble's democracy - what is the diffrence between them? It was unclear befeore I started working on them, and I'd like to make it clear once and for all, both for PLC and for other existing articles. I believe that those different NAMES should have their own series, the state series, from which historical series on history, economy, etc. would be linked (if they exist, if not, they would simple be incorporated into the state article). The state series would be a frontpage for the other series. I imagine it like this:
- a) mediabox with chronological Polish state names, from Kingdom of Poland (Piast) to Poland, like I created above.
- b) each state article is divided into several sections (we can brainstorm them later, but they should be the same so there is less confusion and more order). Suggested: history, economy, geography and provinces, politics and state organisation, culture and science,
- c) each section describes its topic (obviosuly) and if a separate article exists (like in our history series) it links to it. Note that state may span over several history series, so for example history section from Kingdom of Poland (Piast) may link to several history articles (like Kpalion proposed, for example to Early Piasts, Feudal partition of Poland and Kingdom of Poland).
- d) if there are more then 2 subarticles on the same topic, different time, they obviously deserve their own mediabox (like our history one).
- Of course there was POLAND, but it wasn't always called Rzeczpospolita Polska, now was it? As you said, our RP is a continuation (successor, legacy, whatever) of those earlier Poland's (Polish states) which had different NAMES. But this is really a minor thing. The most important point for me is to have clear hierarchy - consider Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Noble's democracy - what is the diffrence between them? It was unclear befeore I started working on them, and I'd like to make it clear once and for all, both for PLC and for other existing articles. I believe that those different NAMES should have their own series, the state series, from which historical series on history, economy, etc. would be linked (if they exist, if not, they would simple be incorporated into the state article). The state series would be a frontpage for the other series. I imagine it like this:
I hope I finally made my point and objective clear :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- See how I imagine a complete series of articels on Polish history at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization. I believe this is more or less what we should be aiming at. Please tell me what you guys think about that. --Kpalion 14:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I answered there. definitely agree with the way you are going :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As to the Greater Moravia, Celts and so on - perhaps a "Prehistoria ziem polskich" article could be in place. IMHO it could cover all that was before Mieszko, from the earliest human settlements, through "dymarki świętokrzyskie" (kill me, I don't know how to translate this thing), Celts, "kultura pucharów lejkowatych", Lusatian culture, Celts, Germanic tribes, Western Slavs, to the Lendians, Polans, Lekhites and so on. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:37, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Powstanie Warszawskie[edit]
I have an idea. For the 1st August, let's have Warsaw Uprising article expanded and worthy of being mentioned on the Main Page Wikipedia:Featured articles section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Halibutt is in :) See Talk:Warsaw_Uprising and User:Halibutt/Warsaw Uprising for updates. We have over 5 days left. Lot's of time. Let's make it happen guys!!! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Article is ready, but people - is anybody alive out HERE?? I'd like us to think for a next anniversaory project, maybe the Polish September Campaign for 1st Septebmer? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Seems like a great idea. However, the very name September Campaign is somehow strange. In Polish it is used although it definitely reflects German POV rather than Polish. Also, the term Kampania wrześniowa has been used by commie propaganda ever since the end of WWII so the name exist in the Polish language (even though barely any serious historian use it). But is the term popular in English? Or perhaps the article should be at some other name, like Polish Defence War of 1939 or something similar? Halibutt 20:08, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Warsaw Uprising now officially made it to FA. Shall we work together on another subject, then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- How about Wikipedia:Wikiproject Polish Army then? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that 'European Theatre' section is fair when it describes: The German Wehrmacht then invaded Poland on 1 September, and on 3 September 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany. The Polish government collapsed, with President Ignacy Moscicki fleeing into exile on the 18th. Within weeks the Soviet Red Army also invaded Poland, and hostilities ended with French and British troops giving no assistance to the Poles. Is the word 'collapse' right here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the word seems right. As a matter of fact the government of Poland lost all influence on what was happening in various parts of the country. However, the para could be rewritten. Any ideas? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:04, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
It is not surprising that the Polish government collapsed. They did not want a war with Germany, but had been talked into provoking the same by the British goverment. The British then did not keep their promises, and the Polish government was left standing alone without any idea how they should deal with the fire they had started. Hitler did not want this war either, but he was too arrogant to place the good of his people before his determination to make Germany a great power. Within hours of his troops crossing into Poland, he realised his mistake and offered to withdraw and pay Poland compensation. This offer was deliberately delayed in London, until it was too late to stop the horror which then came over Europe. What happened afterwards is still being told in the manner of wartime propaganda. Here can one say Polish history is not just a story, its a fairy tale! (I. Zway)