Talk:Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union

Old talk

I think there should be a distinction between those who were killed. and those who were deported. BTW, on many occasions those deportations actually saved the lives of their victims, especially when they were Jewish, that otherwise could have been killed by the Nazi who invaded these areas on 1941.

--- I don't know whether there is any reliable data on how ratio dead/survivors. And deported usually were not _saved_. Those who leave Kresy for seeking job etc were. --sozpen

A map is essential

This entry is all but unintelligible to the average non-Polish reader without a map. Remember, George W. Bush couldn't find Slovenia on the globe... --Wetman 05:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, I'll try to prepare something based on my Image:Poland 1939.png map, as soon as I finish my work on the Image:Rzeczpospolita.png project. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

article's name

Would not the name Territories of the Second Polish Republic annexed by the Soviet Union be less amibiguous? The current name is more ambiguous as it may read either that these were territories of Poland (correct) or that these were the territories mostly populated by Poles (incorrect). --Irpen 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is much confusion, this should be better explained in the article unless there is a need for disabig, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, Poland is and was the name of the state. "Second", "Third", "Fourth" and "Umpteenth Republic" are just short-hand names invented and used by journalists and, at times, historians. However, they have no official status and I'd discouraged their usage in article titles. //Halibutt 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The territories was "annexed" by Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. But in reality they where annexet by Poland in 1921 and no other stare recognized them as Polish. 2A02:AA1:1014:E8F1:3C9F:9BCA:1D58:9BE7 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How about "Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union". Also complemented by "Territories annexed by Poland" for what happened following the WW1? --Irpen 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep the current title, but "Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union" seems fine as well. BTW, we might extend the scope of this article to territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union in the aftermath of WWI as well. //Halibutt 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which territories do you mean? They needed to be "of Poland" in the "beforemath" of the WW1. --Irpen 20:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Credibility of census figures

Among the population of Eastern territories were circa 38% Poles, 37 % Ukrainians, 14,5 % Belarussians, 8,4 % Jewish, 0,9 % Russians and 0,6 % Germans"

If this is based on the census of the 1930s based on "mother tongue", then it is not reliable. This census listed 6 million listed as Ukrainian, Belorussian, "Ruthenian", and "Local". Yet, it also listed 7 million as having belonged to Orthodox and Uniate religions which were exclusively composed of the East Slavic groups. The Polish regime tried intentionally to mask the presence of minorities as Joseph Rothschild's volume on East-Central Europe demonstrates. The Warsaw regime claimed there were 800,000 Germans in the census while the German government put the number of Germans at 1.5 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.36.66 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

The anonymous contributor is correct. The Polish census data of 1931 breaking out the population by language has been used to puff up the ethnic Polish population in the territories annexed by the USSR. The data listing religion is a better indicator of ethnic identity. The Roman Catholic population is more or less the true ethnic Polish population. The census of 1931 listed 5.5% of the population( 600,000) in the annexed territories as being Polish (by mother tongue) and Eastern Rite Catholic or Russian Orthodox. This is not credible and in fact misleading. The Eastern Rite Catholics or Russian Orthodox should not be considered ethnic Polish, they are “Polish citizens” but not “Poles”. The article lists the language as well as religion in the total population so that readers can judge for themselves.
The Polish government in 1947 claimed 6,028,000 war dead including the 600,000 “Polish” in the annexed territories who were Eastern Rite Catholics or Russian Orthodox . They were not repatriated and presumed dead.
As for the ethnic Germans the Polish census data lists only 800,000 yet 1.4 million signed the Volksliste during the war and fought in Hitler’s Army.--Woogie10w 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, my friends. No division was as simple as you put it. Neither the language criterion, nor the criterion of religion can be used to translate the 1930s nationalities into modern concepts. Apart from the fact that there was a sizeable number of people feeling Polish yet being Uniate or Jewish (my ancestors among them), there were also Polish-speaking Ukrainians (Sheptytskyi, for instance) and Lithuanians. Finally, it was not until the advent of Hitler that the Jewish religion became synonymous to being Jewish. Besides, take note that a huge number of people (notably from Silesia and Pomerania, but also from the Tatras and other parts of Poland) were actually forced to sign the Volksliste. In other words, nothing is as simple as it seems now. //Halibutt 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, religion not the ability to speak Polish determined a persons ethnic identity in prewar Poland. The internal ID document that adults carried listed their religion. The Z for Jews was the way the anti-semites who ran Poland blaclkisted Jews. --Woogie10w 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told by my father who was a Pennsylvania coal miner that folks from the eastern region of eastern Poland spoke a dialect of Polish that was differant than "regular" Polish. He said the immigrants from this region mixed standard Polish with their local dialect and that Lithuanians tended to mix Polish and their langauge. The "Rusyns" as he called them spoke a language similar to Slovak. The eastern Polish spoke their own local dialect except educated people ie. literate, who could also speak standard Polish. Everybody got along well and the ethnic conflict was with the Welsh. This was Nanticoke Pa. circa 1922. In 1942 things became more intense when my dads family split into two camps; my pop was on the Polish side and his sister in the pro German camp.--Woogie10w 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WoogieWoogie, as for Volksliste: number of people signed it because they were forced or listed without their consent (i.e. a lot of Poles in Danzig). Amongst my family I had one uncle which signed Volksliste despite being Polish, while other fought in AK - the family decided that to ensure family survival someone has to sign. As for religion being sole determinant of nationality, that's wrong. I had a lot of people in my family which were orthodox.

Finally, I will leave your "anti-semites who ran Poland blaclkisted Jews" without comment, since such comment is quite typical for polonophobes and from experiences discussion with them are pointless Szopen 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to make excuses for the Polish traitors who supported Hitler. Those people made the mistake of supporting the losing side and paid the price for their stupidity--Woogie10w 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WoogieWoogie, so Jews which served in Jewish Police or Judenrat are Jewish traitors who supported Hitler and mae a mistake of supporting the losing side? As I said, eople HAD NO CHOICE. E.g in Gdansk all Poles, whatever they felt or wanted, were just enlisted in VOlkslist. Szopen 08:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

True, when the Nazis knocked on the door in 1940 asking German speakers to sign the Volksliste they were making "an offer you can't refuse", but some people did refuse and paid the price for their loyalty to Poland--Woogie10w 10:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the USA in 1939 people did not have identity documents that listed their religion like Polish citizens.--Woogie10w 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the USA in 2007 people do not have identity documents at all either. //Halibutt 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Americans must have a Social Security Number, and most people have a drivers license or a State ID card. The police can take you to jail if you can't produce valid proof of identity. See Identity documents in the United States--Woogie10w 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When my great grandparents came here from Prussia in October 1886 they were held for a health check and let go to enter the US. My pop said his grandfather had to serve a term in the German Army and hated the Prussians because of the long military service required. There were no ID documents or draft in the US in 1886, my grandfather who was 11 years old then spoke German and Polish at home, he became a US citizen in 1905 at the local court house. My moms people were all here in 1776 and considered themselves Americans, they packed up a covered wagon and moved west to Ohio in 1808, the land was free to take, no questions asked.--Woogie10w 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Bialystok part of West Ukraine

Is Bialystok part of West Ukraine ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porar (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

No. Bandurist (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Belorussians

While virtually all Uniates and Orthodox Christians were Ukrainian or Belorussian, a sizable minority of Belorussians were also Catholics, further lowering the percentage of Poles in these areas. In the early 1990s, figures for the Catholic population in Belarus ranged from 8 percent to 20 percent. [1]'

The population by religious affiliation does not tell the complete story. Up to 20% of Belorussians are Catholics, further lowering the number of Poles in the areas liberated by Soviet Ukraine and Belorussia. Poles must have been <30% of the population. Catu 08 June 2007, 00:17 (UTC)

This page is for the period up until 1945. Current demographic data is not relevant. Most Poles left this region after the war, about 600,000 remained behind.--Woogie10w 23:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. It is a fact that a sizable minority of Belorussians are and have in the past been Catholics. Since appropriate data is not available for the relevant period, it is reasonable to show estimates from more recent years about the percent of Catholic Belorussians. This provides a more accurate analysis of the population in these areas. Catu 08 June 2007, 00:34 (UTC)

I agree with Woogie that modern demographics is not that relevant. While it would be interesting to add religion stats for 1945 (or 1939), modern religion stats for that region as not relevant.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because it conforms to the fact that a sizable minority of Belorussians are Catholics which was not represented in the tainted Polish demographics. Since the Polish demographics fail to represent the data and because Soviet demographics did not focus on religion, the only option remaining is an estimate of the percent of Catholics on Belorussia from the early 1990s. Catu 08 June 2007, 00:50 (UTC)

No. There have been so many changes (migration) between 1939/1945 and 1990s that your data is mostly meaningless. Feel free to add that date to demographics of Belarus, and feel free to link that article in see also. Anything else is undue weight or pure speculation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Official Catholic data for 2007 lists 9.9% Cathoilcs in modern Beylorussia, including the region in the USSR from 1919-39 [2]--

Woogie10w 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a seperate section on the postwar era in these regions. The communist era and the period after 1991. This is an interesting topic. The status of the ethnic Poles and the Roman Catholic Church in these regions today is not well covered in the English language sources. The user Catu should consider putting the information in a seperate section rather than placing random comments in the article. The modern status of the Poles in this region is a topic I would like to know more about. In Brooklyn where I live there young people from this region who speak broken Polish, Polish mixed with the local dialect.--Woogie10w 02:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a separate articles for that, particulary Polish minority in the Soviet Union. Although there is no harm in 'post-war' section, I think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

The article was moved from Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union to Soviet annexations of Polish territories under a claim "More accurate meaning. These is a difference in meaning becdause of the word order in English". Is it really better? I don't see a difference, and hence I'd prefer the article to stay under the older name. PS. Neither name seems to be POVed or such, so this is simply a style issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference in meaning.

Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union: implies in English that the territories annexed by the Soviet Union were Polish. The word order lays emphasis on the Polishness of these territories. The territories were administrated by Poland in the interbellum, but were not ethnically Polish. This word order has a specific POV. Soviet annexations of Polish territories: emphasizes the Soviet annexation of the said territories, which is what the article is specifically about. If you do not see a difference, then you would not oppose the change.Bandurist (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see any difference, even "areas" and "territories" are the same. Neither implies ethnic ownership, I'd think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest Soviet annexation(s) of Poland's territories or Territories of Poland annexed by the USSR --Miacek (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union seems indeed better, clarifying that those were territories of a Polish state (adjective Polish by itself may be more confusing and suggest "Polish people only"), indeed. If there are no objections, I'll move the article to that title.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to observe that while it doesn't appear to be a problem elsewhere (Ukrainian, Latvian, whatever), the use of "Polish" immediately gets people up in arms over areas of Polish ethnic settlement versus, say, Belarusian ethnic settlement. The title here does NOT say "ethnic Polish" territories, so there should be no issue here regardless of word order. "Polish = of Poland" in all cases. It's getting to be quite ridiculous that for Poland only, every case of the use "Polish" relative to Poland and its territory needs to be disclaimed as not meaning the "ethnic settlement" version. There was no reason to rename the article, and further renaming only makes the "problem" seem bigger and more "real." —PētersV (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As Piotrus said, Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union would be a safe choice. I'd support it. Then the controversies would just fall out.--Miacek (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem which is occuring in various places in articles here in Wikipedia and in English usage in general. Previously when we wrote about Ukrainian themes we understood that they stood specifically for Ukrainian ethnic items. Today we have a multi-cultural, i.e. multi-ethnic country called Ukraine, and this brings up problems when describing non-Ukrainian ethnic citizens of Ukraine. He we have a parallel situation re Polish. Polish ethnicity or Polish state? When one is used over the other it can introduce an unneeded POV. Here we have an article which deals with ethnic settlements and as a result we need to tread carefully in the usage. Bandurist (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your correction "The territories to the south were reunified with Ukraine being transfered to the Ukrainian SSR" - it should be reinstated. Chelentano (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "annexation" terminology and lack of neutrality

• The term "annexation" may be valid only for the events of 1939 (the first section of the article) so we would have to remove the second and the third sections. Why? Because the new Soviet-Polish border of 1945 was formally confirmed by the 1945 treaty between USSR and legitimate Polish government (that government was recognized by Allies at Potsdam Conference). The term "annexation" normally applies to a unilateral action by one country against the other, though in this case it was a mutual legal agreement. So I strongly suggest renaming the article to "Territories of Poland incorporated into the Soviet Union". The use of word "annexation" in this case appears to be politically motivated, biased, having lack of neutrality. If we use the same "annexation" rhetoric and the same standards, we would have to create an article "annexation of German territories by Poland" and we would have to correct all articles in Wikipedia which refer to them as "Recovered Territories". Do we really want this kind of politicization? Chelentano (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, .... What are you talking about here? Your "legitimate" Polish government was installed by Stalin. ...and Poland did not "annex" any German territories, borders were shifted, again, because of Stalin. Please stop that O.K. ?--Jacurek (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "legitiate Polish government" and "a mutual legal agreement" discussion was pretty humorous re the PKWN, which essentially took its orders from Moscow. The term "annexed" is frequently used in historical sources.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "mutual legal agreement" between Stalin and Stalin.--Jacurek (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"installed by Stalin"? You making this up: Wikipedia does not use this kind vulgar rhetoric anywhere. It does not matter anymore who "installed" it. That Polish government was the only legal legitimate government at that time, and that government was formally recognized by Allies at the Potsdam conference. It's odd that German borders was just "shifted" but Polish territories was "annexed" (and of course Poland did not return them back to Germany) - it appears you use double standards. The article title is obviously biased and pro-polish. Also the Soviet government is called "regime" in the article?Chelentano (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So according to you, the Polish communist government was NOT installed by Stalin and the borders were not shifted west on Stalin's insistence but Poland simply annexed the German territories.... You know what? I'm too tired to discuss this nonsense with you.... You should remove the "unbalanced tag" form the article.--Jacurek (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree with Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"According to me"? Again, you are missing my point. This should not be "according to me", or "according to you", or according to other private Polish citizen. This should be according to a legal treaty signed by two governments and blessed by USA, UK and France. Also Polish government never denounced the treaty even after Stalin was long time dead - you can't blame Stalin anymore. We should base the article on facts and we should not put our personal interpretation into the title of the article, though sometimes there is a way to convey your point of view in the article by saying something like "The historian X interprets it this way...". But think again, why Polish and German governments never disputed these borders? We know why, so this is not a soccer game but much more serious matter: let's respect their position and let's avoid confrontational rhetoric. There are other Wikipedia articles about Polish borders (apparently you guys are obsessed with borders) and if we want to keep this one, first of all the title should be revised to "Territories of Poland incorporated into the Soviet Union" which is more neutral. Please don't remove the unbalanced tag since this discussion suppose to go for a few weeks. Chelentano (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

of course the Polish government never denounced it because it wasn't a democraticaly elected government representing the Polish people, it was merely a puppet government under the control of the Soviets. are you really that stupid to think that Poland would wilingly give away cities like Lwow and Wilno? Loosmark (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chelentano, your arguments are very bizarre....or out of the ordinary to be polite. I really don’t know what else I could say.... See Loosmark's comment above and please remove unbalanced tag. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say more just one-sided. There's a lot of tagging out there that is not based on the substantive reason for the tag, but instead based on frustration with the underlying facts. On the other hand, if you want bizarre, there is talk by a few on the Eastern Bloc talk page of eliminating all talk of the Annexations of Poland in the article Eastern Bloc favor of discussion of the popularity of actor Dean Reed and punk rock music.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want bizarre: instead of saying something substantial and related to the subject matter, you are talking about some Dean Reed and punk rock music.Chelentano (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, didn't your mom teach you, that it's rude to call others "stupid"? Now about your arguments: first your excuse was Stalin, now "it wasn't a democratically elected government". What would be your next excuse if I would remind you that Poland has democratically elected government in the last 15-20 years? They still don't call it "annexation" and they don't denounce the treaty. Now, when you talk about "Lwow and Wilno" I can see that you obviously trying to push a revanchist agenda here. I don't think Wikipedia is a right place for that. Wikipedia suppose to deliver a neutral point of view. And who needs this kind freelancing, when even Polish and German governments are wise about it. Forget it: you can't change history. Russia lost Alaska, Ukraine, etc. so what? Others lost empires too - it's all history. Poland lost Lwow? Big deal. Why would you care about Lwow anyway? Lwow was established in the early 1200s by the Ruthenians (proto-Ukrainians) then in XIV century it was "annexed" by Poland, which kept it for a good while, but never for a majority of time. Now if you, guys, really care about neutrality of this article let’s at least revise the title. Chelentano (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me re this idea that the use of the term "annexation" is improper with regard to eastern Poland being annexed into Soviet SSRs in 1945:

---

"At the end of World War II the Soviet Army occupied these eastern territories, and the Soviet Union annexed the northern part of East Prussia including Konigsberg, which became Kalningrad. It also annexed the eastern portion of Poland"
--Peter E. Quint, "The imperfect union: constitutional structures of German unification", Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691086567

"the Soviets would not tolerate any Polish authority behind their lines, and even less so in the regions they had decided to annex."
--Pierre de Senarclens, "Yalta", Transaction Publishers, 1988, ISBN 0887381529

"After liberation by the Red Army in 1945, some five million Germans were ethnically cleanse from what had been East Prussia (which was given to Poland) and parts of Silesia, which much of the same happened to Poles in the eastern part of Poland (annexed by the Soviet Union)."
--Cathal J. Nolan, "The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: M-R", Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002,ISBN 0313323828

"Elsewhere in Europe, the Soviets annexed a wide strip of land from eastern Poland, adding it to Belarus and Ukraine."
--Saul Bernard Cohen, Geopolitics of the world system, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, ISBN 0847699072

"At Yalta, Stalin agreed to permit a broadening of the Lublin government by addint to it respresentatives of the London Poles. The Polish government continued to be dominated by Communists, however, and the non-Communist representatives found themselves outnumbered and outmaneuvered. Stalin also promised to permit free elections in Poland, but they were never held. While the Soviets annexed eastern Poland, the Poles were to be compensated by territory taken from Germany."
--Birdsall S. Viault, "Schaum's Outline of Modern European History", McGraw-Hill Professional, 1990, ISBN 0070674531

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove unbalanced tag from the article, thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that technically the word "annexation" may not be perfect. Yet it has been used by quite a few sources. However, I am not sure if incorporation is any better? Perhaps the best solution is to add a well referenced sentence/note/section/whatever that would discuss the issue of what terms are used by scholars and why in more detail. The title might be slightly inaccurate, but I don't think any other title would be better, hence I see no reason for the tag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to look at the definition of annexation used by wikipedia and decide whether it applies in this case, and how well it applies in this case. My personal preference however, is to use the term "reunification" of Ukrainian territories just as it is used in Ukrainian and Russian history texts, rather than this more neutral term "annexation", but I understand that that is just a personal preference. The territories were part of Rus' and the cities were established by the Ruthenian princes. Bandurist (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chelentano, that "annexation" is not a good word in this case. The term "annexation" would be valid under two conditions:

1. It must be unilateral.
2. It must be followed by some legal state act of annexation, decree, etc.

Incorporation or Reunification would be a better word for this article. "Reunification" is my preference. Teotocopulos (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reunification? Why not go fully with Soviet propaganda and use liberation, too? :) This is why our policy is NPOV. What for Soviets was liberation, and for Ukrainians and Belarussians reunification, for Poland was occupation... and thus our solution is to use the neutral terms like annexation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding annexation...

1. It must be unilateral.
2. It must be followed by some legal state act of annexation, decree, etc.

Neither of these assertions are true. A puppet state may accede to or even request "annexation", so while unilateral is common it is not a gating factor. Neither does annexation require any legal (at least truly legal, recognized according to international law) decree. Nor does an (ersatz) agreement make annexation legal, for example, the Ottomans handing Moldavian territory--over which they had no sovereignty--over to Russia, which had already occupied and annexed it. Annexation only means that someone new has assumed de facto control of a territory and functionally added it to other territories already controlled. Whether unilateral or not, legal or not, etc. are all separate issues, hence "annex" is the most neutral term. PetersV       TALK 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not very accurate. here is the definition given by Wikipedia.

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the legal incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous). Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like political union or reunification are sometimes preferred.

Annexation differs from cession and amalgamation, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, or amalgamation where both sides are asked if they agree with the merge, annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and made legitimate by the recognition of the international community.[1]

During World War II the use of annexation deprived whole populations of the safeguards provided by international laws governing military occupations. Changes were introduced to international law through the Fourth Geneva Convention that makes it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation.[2] Bandurist (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bandurist to me it seems that Wikipedia's defintion fits perfectly for this article. Loosmark (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chelentano, i don't understand what do you mean when you wrote that by mentionining Lwow and Wilno i'm trying to "push revanchist agenda." What the hell are you talking about? I simply pointed out that no legitimate Polish government would have ever dreamed of giving away its second biggest city same as any US government would not give away Los Angeles. Do you agree with that yes or no? The simple truth is that those teritorial changes were orkestrated by Staling who wanted to grab Polish territory and if any politician of that period in Poland would have opposed Stalin's plans he'd be either deported to Siberia or worse thrown in prison, trialed in front of a kangaroo court and shot in the head. I don't understand why are talking about Lwow's history either, it has nothing to do with this article. But it is interesting that you felt the need to mention it. Loosmark (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mosedschurte, the fact is that Polish government never denounced the treaty, and never recognized it as "annexation" so your quotes are just freelancing inspired by the cold war. However like I’ve said earlier, the use of quotes you offered is welcome in the article, but the title must be neutral. Also I could find you a plenty of sources which use terms "reunification" and "incorporation":
  

-- Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements ISBN-10: 0415939208 "The reunification of the Ukrainian lands after WWII brought together left-bank Ukraine and western Ukraine"

-- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition , 2008 ISBN-10: 0787650153 "The 1939 Nazi-Soviet partition of Poland reunified the Ukraine. In 1940, it also acquired Northern Bukovina and part of Bessarabia from Romania."

-- Ukraine - History & Background
"The reunification of Ukraine in 1939 resulted in the establishment of new schools, promotion of literacy for adults, and instruction in the native tongue."
education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1594/Ukraine-HISTORY-BACKGROUND.html

-- Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union (Paperback) ISBN-10: 0817995420
the unification of Ukraine in 1939–1945, and the Soviet period failing to find a resolution

-- Stephen Borsody: The Hungarians: A Divided Nation
"The reunification of the Transcarpathian Ukraine with the Soviet Ukraine signified the triumph of historical justice." ISBN-10: 0936586125

-- The Oxford Companion to World War II by I. C. B. Dear and M. R. D. Foot ISBN-10: 019280670X
"After western Ukraine's incorporation into the USSR, and a brief period of..."
--01:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Chelentano (talk)

• Bandurist, "reunification" is a good word, it was officially used by governments. And you are right, the Wikipedia clearly says that “annexation is a unilateral act”, which is not the case. --Chelentano (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Piotr, what’s wrong with “liberation”? Who killed 6 millions of Polish citizens, Stalin or Hitler? Do you know how many Soviet soldiers were killed in Poland? What language would Polish people speak now, if Soviets would not “liberate”? --Chelentano (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• The right answer is "Stalin and Hitler". From [3]: In the 1939-1941 period alone, Soviet-inflicted suffering on all citizens in Poland exceeded that of Nazi-inflicted suffering on all citizens. (...) The Soviet-imposed myth about "communist heroes of resistance" enabled them for decades to avoid the painful questions faced long ago by other Western countries. From [4]: In many ways, the work of Soviet NKVD in Eastern Poland proved far more destructive than that of Gestapo. In 1939-1941, Stalin's policies were little different from Hitler's: he aimed at the destruction of Polish nation and culture, and stopped short only of declaring all Slavs as subhumans, but if he got his way, there would be no Poles, only Russians of Polish origin. In other words, if Stalin got his way, Poles would be speaking Russian. Stalin's policies changed after the German invasion, when he decided that he needs Poles as "allies" (read cannon fodder, but that applied to any Soviet troops, really). After the war, Poland got "liberated", which meant occupied for nearly a quarter of a century, in the same fashion that East Germany got liberated :> So no, the word "liberation" does not compute here :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• PetersV, if the “annex” would be neutral, Polish and Russian government would not be shy to use it, even now. --Chelentano (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Loosmark, your Los Angeles example is not appropriate here, but you seem to care so much for the old borders. The Stalin’s scare is greatly exaggerated. Joseph Tito did not care for Stalin even though Soviet troops liberated Belgrad. He asked Soviet troops to leave and they left. He did not join a so called “Eastern Block” yet Tito did not go to Siberia. Romania got rid of Soviet troops too. Japan, even though it was completely devastated, never agreed to the annexation of 3 small Kuril Islands and still never signed a peace treaty with Soviet Union / Russia (that is real annexation). Polish government was not afraid of Stalin, you guys don’t respect your own government. Polish government has realized that they actually got a good deal getting better developed German lands instead of a less attractive eastern areas. Also smaller and weaker Germany was in the best Polish interests. Both Polish and Russians understood that Germany is the one who must pay, so that arrangement made sense for both. It is not an annexation guys it’s an arrangement which made sense even for USA and UK. As for Lwow, you were first to mention Lwow, not me. I was just surprised, why would Polish government care for Lwow (“give away” like you’ve said), in order to “give away” something, first you gotta have it but we know the present reality. Also Lwow was established by proto-Ukrainans, and Ukrainans were always a majority in Lwow. Anyway, the original Polish government which signed the border treaty would not call that annexation. The “annexation of Poland” terminology was developed during the Cold War. Today it will only create tensions and confuse people, so, guys, let's discuss Reunification or Incorporation? --Chelentano (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither one because these territories were annexed by the Soviet Union and Stalin "kindly" offered some parts of Germany instead. "Give them some of the German lands".. sounds familiar ?--Jacurek (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. The phrase does not come up in Google. Are you making it up or you have a link? --Chelentano (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition , 2008 ISBN-10: 0787650153 "The 1939 Nazi-Soviet partition of Poland reunified the Ukraine."

--Unreal. Of course the Nazi-Soviet partition of Poland, which included an annexation of Eastern Poland by Soviet Union, "reunified" the Ukraine. The terms are not mutually exclusive. The effect of the Soviet annexation of eastern Poland was to reunify the Ukraine.

No one have said they are mutually exclusive. However "reunification" title works for the whole article, while "annex" works only for the first 1939 part, I have said that earlier.--Chelentano (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

--You can't seriously be considering the term "annex" to be improper in this context. I'm guessing it's in 100+ sources at least. I just quickly grabbed the first 4-5 or so because the use of the term is so common. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You r right, the 1939 was annex, so yes some of the quotes don't apply, but there are plenty could be found. The 1945 is not an annex though. --Chelentano (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

--Every historical source I quoted above using (without even making an issue about it) "annexation" is with regard to the 1945 end-of-the-war annexation, as are all of the others. Despite it repeatedly -- and correctly -- being referred to as an annexation in massive numbers of historical sources, I've never seen any credible source taking issue with such a characterization. And, of course, one effect of the annexation would be the reunifications in the Ukraine and Byelorussia. This has zero bearing on the annexation itself.

--This appears to be a complete non-issue among historical sources, which regularly use the term, and, rather, an issue with a Wikipedia editor or editors with all of the historical sources.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we could find many historical sources/interpretations on both sides of Cold War history. However, most historians could not argue with this:

1. The key towns Hrodna, Brest, and Lwow were established by Russian-Ukrainian ancestors
2. Ethnic Polish population was a minority on the 1945 “annexed” territories
3. The "communist" Polish government was officially recognized by all Allies in Potsdam 1945
4. Formal border treaty was signed in 1945 and by two sides
5. The treaty was formally ratified in 1946
6. The treaty was never denounced nor renounced by either government
7. No any other document was ever issued by either side which would appraise this issue as “annex”
   

Why then should we allow the one-sided unbalanced approach in this article? --Chelentano (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chelentano your examples are just plain stupid, for example Japan never agreed to the annexation of the Kurils simply because it was occupied by the Americans and there was never a soviet soldier on the Japanese home islands.

Also when you write stuff like "Polish government has realized that they actually got a good deal getting better developed German lands instead of a less attractive eastern areas" i'm starting to wonder do you even know what are you talking about? Cities like Szczecin or Wroclaw were almost completely devastated by the war, only a retard would trade that for Lwow or Wilno even more so because the teritory Poland got from Germany is considerably smaller than that, it lost to the soviets. It's a no brainer really.

I also have no wish to discuss your rants about Lwow, just briefly it was "established by proto-Ukrainans", so what? Lwow was Polish for centuries and basicaly the city as it looks today was built by Poland (i mean all the historical buildings etc.) Claiming that the Soviet Union had the right to annex Lwow after WW2 is just as stupid as saying that Spain would had the right to annex Los Angeles after WW2, because after all Los Angeles was established by the Spaniards. Loosmark (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You are %100 right Loosmark.--Jacurek (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, annexed is a rather neutral term - and the article does state that "Initially annexed by Poland in a series of wars between 1918 and 1921" referring to those lands, that were historically contested by Poland and Muscovy/Russia since the collapse of the Kievan Rus. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In all that wrangling between Poland and Russia, some tend to forget the point made by some historians: those territories were neither Polish or Russian, they belonged to Ruthenians (Ukrainians and Belorussians)... for them, both the Polish and Russian (Soviet) rule were occupations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as equate internationalist revolutionaries and nationalist Poles - clearly, the Poles were occupants, while with the revolutionaries it is not at all that simple - for the opression they unleashed was not nationalist. Also, Ruthenians is just a latinization of the word Russkiy, Rus'kiy and so on, which all three contemporary Eastern Slavic nations (not just Ukrainians and Belarusians) used to self-identify up to XVIII-XIX century. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

True, equating them is not right: after all, only one of those two regimes had policies that resulted in Holodomor and such... the point is, whether one regime favored ethnic Poles, and the other tried to create a new breed of homo sovieticus, neither of them represented the interests of many people on the territories they ruled over. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which regime was more "humane" is besides the point in the argument which nationality deserves what land. I personally think that national self-determination is a chimera, and that might is right, but that is also besides the point... With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Loosmark, wow! Stalin annexed Kuril Islands “simply because it was occupied by the Americans and there was never a soviet soldier”! Apparently, according to your “history” Americans fought for Stalin! Wrong. Soviet Army conducted the following operations in Japan: South Sakhalin Army Group Offensive Operation, Kurile Landing Operation, and North Korean operation – and all these lands were official parts of Empire of Japan. Soviet Army also conducted an offensive operation in Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Within just 11 days Soviets destroyed 1-million strong Japanese Kwantung Army, taking 600,000 POWs. And I’ve never said that “Soviet Union had the right to annex Lwow”, be careful! All I’ve said that considering all legal the facts (primary) and historical facts (secondary) that reunification does not qualify as annexation. And no one here was able to deny any of these facts. Also you say words “stupid” and “retard” a lot, which does not make your arguments more intelligent. I wonder where you learned that… --Chelentano (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ko Soi IX, annexed is not a neutral term. Apparently it’s a Taby word for Polish government. It’s also just a wrong term in this case. For instance, if a couple is legally married and even if they don’t love each other, or if it was an arranged marriage, they r still married. I still don’t think that communist Polish government was much scared of Stalin signing that treaty, but they considered the following facts: USSR liberated Poland from slavery and extermination, Stalin helped Polish communists to power, the communist Polish government had pretty sizable Polish Army behind (unlike Czechs, Romanians, Hungarians etc.), Stalin punished, humiliated and weakened Germany by taking land, the Polish population was a minority on the “annexed” east (for that reason Stalin had no problem returning heavily Polish Bialostok). With respect,--Chelentano (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Piotr, that your “book” does not fly as any kind of evidence. The statistics is simple and terrible: Hitler killed 6 millions of Polish citizens! What else do you need? What other cold war propaganda would overweight the 6 million mostly civilian Polish people? And you still did not answer me how many Soviet soldiers died in Poland? Aren’t you ashamed to bring me that piece of…? I am not a fan of Stalin at all, in fact I hate him for personal reasons. I know he killed many innocent people: Polish, Russian, Ukrainians… and there is not excuse or justification. I guess that war was just too complex and too awful. That war was too tough even for Stalin, Truman, and Churchill (who allowed the annexation of German lands). Did you forget that our democratic America nuked the civilian population of Japan? Why would democratic American president burn Japanese children alive? Speaking of “occupation”, did you forget that American troops are still in Germany, Japan and all over the world? It’s all just amoral geopolitics. Kissinger (not Stalin or Hitler) enlightened us that politics are always coercive, and amoral. Politics is focuses on considerations of power, regardless ideology, morals, or principles. --Chelentano (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Out of the 6 million figure you quote, Hitler killed about 5,500,000 Polish citizens. Stalin, about 500,000. Hitler had ~6 years to do so, and for 4 of them access to the entire country's population. Stalin had access only to less then a half before Hitler took this away from him and he decided to revise his policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Konieczny, Ruthenians are eastern Slavic inhabitants of Kievan Rus. Grand Prince of Kiev, Juri Dolgoruky established Moscow and eventually transitioned political power to the northern Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. Dolgoruky was a son of Vladimir Monomah - the last ruler of Kievan Rus. The Kievan Rus eventually transformed into Russia. The Rurik dynasty was ruling both Kiev and then Moscow: Jaroslav the Wise (Kiev), Vladimir Monomah (Kiev), Juri Dolgoruky (Kiev / Moscow), Ivan Kalita (Moscow), Dmitry Donskoi (Moscow), Ivan the Terrible (Moscow), etc. The English wikipedia article on Ruthenians is not quite accurate. Polish and Russian versions are in fact more accurate: Rusini (Słowianie wschodni). Ruthenians are ancestors of modern Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians, of all Eastern Orthodox Slavs.--Chelentano (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What operations did the Soviets do against the Japanese on the Chinese theritory is pretty irrelevant here. They were never in Japan proper, they never helped anybody to power in Japan, therefore there was no direct, "physical" pressure on the Japanese government. btw your long rants are getting boring and I'd like to remind you that this is not a forum to discuss everything from the American nukes to the history of Russia / Ukraine. Please stick to the topic. Loosmark (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, South Sakhalin and Kurils was a part of "Japan proper". And you did make a ridiculous statement that "it was occupied by the Americans and there was never a soviet soldier".Teotocopulos (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the point was that the Soviets did not have any control on Japan. There were no Soviet armies in Kyushu, Honshu or Hokkaido. In Poland the situation was completely different because the Soviet Armies were everywhere. An analogous situation in Poland would have been that the Soviet armies would have only been in a border region of Poland, for example in Wolyn with no prospects of entering the rest of the country at will. In that case you can be sure that Poland would have had a democratic government which would have not accepted the annexation of the Polish teritory. Loosmark (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Soviets did not have any control on Japan"? Wrong again. South Sakhalin, All Kuril Islands were parts of the Empire of Japan: the so called "Japanese northern territories - Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan islands and the Habomai group of islets". And obviously Soviets needed to control that part of Japan, which they planned to acquire. Teotocopulos (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Teotocopulos I hope that you are able to grasp the difference between occupying a chain of semi-unhabbited islands and having de-facto control over a whole country. If not I'm afraid I've better things to do than than explaining you that. Loosmark (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Janurek - Claiming that Lviv was Polish is not extremely accurate. You neglected to remember the period in which Poland as a state did not exist and the city was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The Partitions of Poland. Lviv was known as Lemberg from 1772-1918.

All of Volyn with Lutsk/Luck, Kholm/Chelm and Belarus were part of the Russian empire in the smae period.

I understand Polish aspirarations regarding territory. In some casses they are excessive. This is an area of conflict and really needs much more thought regarding the use of more neutral and less culturally loaded terminology. Bandurist (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the "annexation" terminology is controversial and lacks a neutrality.Teotocopulos (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

An important consideration, lacking in the above discussion, is that Poland ceased to exist as an entity for 123 years, and that most of the territories in question did not belong to "Poland" for that time period. In the case of the "recovered" territories (most did not belong to "Poland" for around 800 years). The newly established Polish State existed 20 years, and acquired and "annexed" these territories and other neighboring territories (largely through military adventures), as a result of the debacle of WWI and the weaknesses that resulted from that war to Poland's Imperial neighbors. Furthermore, much of the territory in question here was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, that wasn't even Polish to begin with. So maybe "re-annexation" should be examined as an alternative name. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

re-annexation sounds akward. there is nothing wrong with annexation, its a term that describes correctly what happened. Loosmark (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dr. Dan, I agree completely with all of your historical points. Good to note that in 1618 the Polish population of Commonwealth accounted only 39% and the rest were mostly Ukrainians and Byelorussians. In terms of article name “de-annexation” might be better than “re-annexation”? … though I would also consider “reunification” or “incorporation”. “Annexation” though is just legally wrong and politically biased. --Chelentano (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chelentano this is Wikipedia, “reunification” belongs to Sovietpedia. Loosmark (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Konieczny, I’ve got two questions for you. First you supported the Piotrowski‘s statement that “Soviet NKVD in Eastern Poland proved far more destructive than Gestapo”. And now you are saying the opposite: now you are saying that Stalin killed 11 times less Polish people vs. Hitler: 500,000 vs. 5,500,000. So then would you agree that the first statement is not true?
Second question. The claim that in 1939-45 Soviets killed 500,000 Polish people is still a very serious accusation. This is a more than Americans killed on the WWII battlefield. Could you please provide reputable online links in support of your number? --Chelentano (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chelentano no offense but i think you should try to read what people write more carefully. Obviously what Piotrus meant is that the Soviet NKVD proved more destructive than the Gestapo during the 1939-41 period, while the 5.000.000 vs 500.000 figure refers to the 1939-45 period. Loosmark (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, typo... did you make a typo about American occupation of Kurils? :) Chelentano (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"whatever, typo"? hehehe. btw nice try but i've never claimed that the Americans occupied the Kurils. Loosmark (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

MAP: "Dominating nationalities in Poland around 1931"

Or "Mix of Nationalities in Poland 1931." This appears to be an unusual Encyclopedic entry or reference since it includes the terminology... Data "presumably" taken from the 1931 Polish census. It shows territories that did not belong to Poland in 1931. How then can the information on it be derived from the 1931 Polish census? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Dan, that map is grossly incorrect, no way the suburban Minsk would have "dominant" Polish population.--Chelentano (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Map does not show Minsk suburbs with dominant Polish population. Scale is misleading to some.--Jacurek (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I too find the map

Dominating nationalities in Poland around 1931.

amusing, not only regarding Minsk, but the "rabbit head" protruding into Lithuania (to the west of "Wilno", reaching Kaunas, and the rabbit's ears making a beeline upwards). Henryk Zielinski's claims (embellished by Krzysztoflew) regarding the portions of territories belonging to Germany are also interesting, since the map is "presumably" based on the 1931, Polish census. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any similar map like this one so we can compare both ?--Jacurek (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar how, Jacurek? Do you mean another map showing the "dominating nationalities" in Poland "around" 1931? "Presumably" based on the 1931 Polish census? One that includes countries, beyond Poland's borders, not subject to the Polish 1931 census? Seems pretty unlikely. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is Lithuanian or Ukrainian map somewhere?--Jacurek (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have in my library a "Maket" basicvally a book that was not officially published - It was one of the signature copies for review by the government done before it was "officially" published. It was prepared for publication in 1959 and has a ethnographic map of peoples living in Ukraine based on data from "the beginning of the 20th century" by Yaroslav Poritsky husband of ethnomusicologist Sofia Hrytsa. The map was banned as it showed Ukrainian ethnic regions within current Poland, belorus, and Russia ie rather than within the borders of Ukraine. I can scan it. There are a lot of Polish settlements in Ukrainian territories but tey are small and like small islands, primarilly around more industialised cities. Nothing like the widespreading map on te site. However it is in Ukrainian. Bandurist (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems interesting. Can you determine if the copyright status of the map allows it to be uploaded to our project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, if the map is easy to understand (unless it is already in English ) we could have both here.--Jacurek (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, no maps which are biased, or false (like this one), wherever they come from, need to be on Wikipedia. Otherwise, better to have none at all. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

and who is to decide what is biased or false? you? Loosmark (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• The 1931 Polish census was falsified. Apparently the chief of that census admitted that (quote) "officials had been directed to undercount minorities, especially those in eastern provinces". See [5], "Returned census forms, especially from south-eastern provinces, were tampered with by executive power " [6]. --Chelentano (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Another example of data falsification is Kaunas. According to this map Polish population was dominant in Kaunas, yet according to 1923 City Council Census, 59% of Kaunas‘ population were Lithuanians, 27% - Jews, 3.5% - Germans, 3.2% - Russians and only 4.5% - Poles. Kaunas County Public Library. Chelentano (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Great, but it let's not forget one crucial fact: we don't know whether the map is based on the census, and to what extent were the census results (if used) modified by later historical research. The speculation that it is based on the said census is just a speculation (added to the map description be me many months ago, and based simply on the dates). I've adjust the description to state that the map is based on other sources as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if map is not based on census, then what it's based on, if according to that map Kaunas and suburbs of Minsk dominated by Poles? Falcified census or ridiculous Lvov/Minsk/Kaunas data - either way it's a terrible map and it needs to be removed from Wikipedia. What appears to be "speculation" is your statement that Stalin killed 500,000 Poles - you still did not deliver the evidence? --Chelentano (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, would you be so kind as to elucidate on what you mean with..."Map does not show Minsk suburbs with dominant Polish population. Scale is misleading to some.--Jacurek" What, in particlar are you trying to say with "Scale is misleading to some"? While you're at it, please give us your opinion on the accuracy of the map concerning Kaunas, since you weighed in on the suburbs of Minsk. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The white point representing Minks is not to scale. Every city has the same size big white point so it is easy to find cities on the map. Red areas representing Polish population are not even close to the suburbs of Minsk as Chelentano wrote earlier. As for the accuracy of the map... I am not sure but even if it is not %100 accurate in all the areas, I think it is not that far from being accurate as some people are suggesting. Kaunas area perhaps does not look right but other areas look quite accurate to me. This is just my personal opinion of course. That is why I was wondering how Lithuanian or Ukrainian sourced map would look like.--Jacurek (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also find the Kaunas area puzzling and probably inaccurate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, of course these are suburbs. This map has a similar scale to this map [7] so based on that scale, Zielinski's map claims dominant Polish population just about 10 miles from Belorussian capital. So if Kaunas and Minsk are wrong , what else could we expect from this map? Please remove the map from this article and from Wikipedia. --Teotocopulos (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the map. I will scan and put it up this weekend. There is no copyright on it. It is a Soviet publication from 1959 which was not officially published. Bandurist (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I second to that in the anticipation to take a look. Great job ;-) --Miacek (t) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Map comparison

Ethnographic map of Slavs from his book series

This is accurate map. A picture from a book by Czech archaeologist Lubor Niederle "Slavic Antiquities" (Slovanské starožitnosti), series published between 1902-24. The name can be translated as "Ethnographical map of Slavs". You can see that if there is mixed ethnic composition, it indicated with stripes, but Lvov area, and the whole Galicia has a solid Ukrainian color. Also there is no dominant Polish population in Vilnus nor in suburbs of Minsk. --Teotocopulos (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

and what makes you think that the map of a "Czech arcaelogist" is THE accurate map? Loosmark (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dominating nationalities in Poland around 1931.

The Czech map is at arms length from the interested parties and has no reason to play favourites between Poland and Eastern Slavs, and yet is sufficiently specialsed to warrent being accurate. Bandurist (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right.

1. The map comes from a neutral source: not Polish, Ukrainian or "Soviet".
2. It's not "presumably" based on a falsified census.
3. I did not say it's "THE" accurate map: it's an accurate map, and it may not be absolutely perfect, but it is certainly an excellent map, and it’s free of obvious faults, like the other map. It has no issues we my common sense.
4. It perfectly matches with my understanding of this issue.
5. Also the author of this map was not a conformist. Lubor Niederle was involved in history science, and he did not jump between a communist party and "Solidarity", and he has never said about himself that he 'allowed himself to be manipulated' (H. Zielinski).
6. The map is not controversial. It does not have a long list of requests to delete it from Wikipedia, unlike the other map.--Teotocopulos (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the fact that the map comes from a supposed neutral source (which by the way is still not 100% sure) doesn't make it by default "certainly excellent", accurate etc.. even if you keep repeating that. We don't know what data and methology did this Czech guy use to make this map. Loosmark (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we do know Lubor Niederle's methodology: it's called scientific Research. We don't know Zielinski's methodology, but looking at his ridiculous Minsk/Kaunas data it's either uneducated Guess or politically motivated Falsification.--Chelentano (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

what data did Lubor Niederle use to make this map? do you know it or you don't? i'm not saying this map is worthless or anything but it is really comical that you bash the map from the Polish author as falsification and hail the map of a "Czech archaeologist" as certainly excellent. Loosmark (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is amusing. This map cannot in any way be considered worthless. It is a published map by an eminent scholar. The one included in the the wiki article is a homegrown product which has been distorted to make it look like the Polish poulation in these territories was greater that it truly was. I have no personal gripe with showing the locations and of Polish settlement in these territories, but using Wiki to distort information is not good. Bandurist (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

yes and I did say I don't consider it a worthless map. However we just don't know how accurate the map is. Unfortunately the names on the map are totally blurred but some parts of the map look highly suspiscious to me. Loosmark (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the maps and compare. I am amazed at how the mid War German territories which up till WWII were part of Germany and was ethnographic German territory is marked as being Polish. Look carefiully and compare the maps. Bandurist (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is another 1918 map for your enjoyment (English/Polish legend). (OMG ! There are Poles "everywhere"!:)) Striking similarity to the original 1931 map.--Jacurek (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Ethnomap Ukraine.tif

Map of ethnic groups and language use in Ukraine in first third of XX century

File:Bevölkerungsverteilung Ostmitteleuropa um 1918.jpg

German?? or Polish map in English and Polish of ethnic Poles 1918

Here is the Ukrainian map for your comparison. Bandurist (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reupload the map in a supported format (tif is not supported), and please upload to file to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia (if a free license can be used). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The German map is very interesting and in much more detail than the one given in Wikipedia. I am looking at Ukraine. The large islands of Polish settlement are not visible particularly around Lviv and Ternopi. Bandurist (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the German map is very interesting. It clearly shows that the Soviet Union grabbed teritories with a clear Polish majority. If you look carefuly you can also see that Lwow is coloured red. Loosmark (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a red spot north of Lviv, but do you notice that the large red islands around the cities of Lviv and Ternopil are not visible in the German/Polish map at all. Bandurist (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on how the data is presented on the map. One thing the german map clearly shows is that there were a lot of areas with a Polish majority. It also shows that the supposed "certainly excellent" map of the Czech archaeologist is highly innacurate to the point of being completely wrong. Loosmark (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this map has no author, no year and no source, so it’s harder to evaluate this map as document. The map is in Polish, so it’s unlikely that some German would create map in Polish and add Polish and English legend, but no German Legend. There is nothing German in this map - it's Polish. The legend has reference to 1919 and 1914-1920 so the map could have been made several years later. It cold be another Polish map “presumably” based on Polish census. Note that Berlin also has a red spot! Chelentano (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess this document could be very interesting as well. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact very interesting document: another reminder that the 1931 census had "problems of ambiguity, bias and fraud". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.127.74 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• More maps. these British, German, Hungarian and American maps are inline with the Czeck map. Unlike both Polish maps, these British, German, Hungarian, American and Czeck maps show no significant Polish population in Belarus and Ukraine. Moreover they show Belostock primarily Belorussian, and Pshemisl - Ukrainian, though both regions as we know Stalin gave to Poland in 1945. Basically, thanks to Stalin, Poland gained Belorussian Belostock and Ukrainian Pshemisl on the East, half of the East Prussia on the North and German Silezia/Pomerania on the West! And what "annexation" are we talking about? Chelentano (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Waht are you talking about Chelentano !??! "Belorussian" Bialystok and "Ukrainian" Przemysl?!!? Are you serious ??? You are joking right ?--Jacurek (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean I am “joking”. I did not create these maps. Take a look yourself at the British Times Atlas, for instance. Belostok town is clearly marked within Belorussian ethnic zone, right? or am I “joking”? The Hungarian map also shows Belostok area within Belorussian ethnic zone. Then look further down south on the map. The division line is not at the Bug river (as it’s now), but west of it, somewhere in-between Vistula river and Bug river, which covers Chelm and Pzhemisl (previous Ukrainian name is Peremyshl). The Czech, German, American and Hungarian maps also show that area between Vistula River and Bug River either solid Ukrainian, either mixed. By the way, Peremyshl is ethnically Ukrainian even on the Polish Zielinki’s map: he must been “joking” too. And even though Peremyshl was a disputed area, the evil-super-powerful Stalin had no problem giving Peremyshl and the large Belostok area back to Poland as part of 1945 border treaty. Yes, Polish ethnic area was in fact much smaller before 1945. Today it’s almost twice bigger but some nationalists are still not happy, trying to falsify history.Chelentano (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I already explained you bellow why these maps are incorrect. It's an old trick of the commies to throw accusations of being "nationalists", falsity history. oh and the good uncle Stalin who gave you more area than you had etc etc.. Loosmark (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of ethnic groups in Europe, The Times Atlas 1896, British

German Map of ethnic groups in Europe, 1914 by Völkerkarte von Sudosteuropa, L. Ravenstein

Hungarian Map of ethnic groups in Europe, Source: Pallas Nagy Lexikon, 1897

American Map of ethnic groups in Europe, Source: By C.S. Hammond, 1923, (from Source Records of the Great War [National Alumni, 1923] vol. 7)

Most of these maps were made before WW1 so in all probability they are based on German/Prussian and Russian data, both of these empires had all possible interests to keep to Polish numbers as low as possible to prevent any ideas of a future Polish independence. The part about Stalin is garbage unworthy of a reply. Loosmark (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What you say is laughable "garbage" (if you insist using this word). "These empires" care less about some "data": they can take or give regardless "data". Do you think Russian or Austrian Emperor read some "maps"? Chelentano (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Peremyshl was included in the the Ukrainian SSR in 1939 but was given to Poland after the war. Indeed Peremysl was the centre of Chervona Rus' and was part of Rus' from 980. It only came into Polish hands in 1389 - so for a whole 500 years it was part of Rus'. For a time it was a part of Hungary. The orthodox cathedral there was converted to a Catholic church in 1412. The first catholic cathedral was built there in 1460. It was a major centre for the Ukrainian greek-catholic. church. Indeed the composer of the Ukrainian national anthem was born near Sanok and buried in Peremysl. This only atests to the importance of the city to Ukrainian culture. I guess that Peremysl is no less important to Ukrainian culture than Lviv is to Polish. So it is somewhat unnerving your tone i your writings.

What the maps attest to and demonstrate is that there are some major questions regarding the map used in the article which need to be addressed. There is no question that there was a significant Polish population in Western Ukraine. This population lived primarily in the cities, however there were numerous Polish settlements not just around Ternopil, and Lviv but all the way over to Kyiv. However, the map given in the article misrepresents these settlements and misrepresents the demographic information in a specific direction.

I beleive that the best way to represent the demographic data is to have all the various views represented i.e. major and minor so that readers are aware of the varying points of view. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Bandurist (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bandurist i agree that its good to present various points of view but I don't get your point about Przemyśl. Nobody never said that there was no Ukrainian culture there or anything like that. Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Bandurist, yes no question there were significant Polish population in the Western Ukraine and Belarus, but is was far from dominant. I agree that we should present different points of view here and different maps, but we can't put here just any homegrown stuff. Zielinski's map has several negatives points, and while each point alone is not always significant, altogether they make this map unacceptable:

1. The map created by a person whose honesty was compromised and he personally acknowledged that he "allowed himself to be manipulated".
2. This is not an original map: it was created by some computer artist "based on work by H. Zieliński".
3. The map found to be grossly inaccurate in Kaunas, near Minsk in the Western Ukraine.
4. The 1931 map is "presumably" based on 1931 Polish census which was fraudulent.
5. The map is highly controversial and there is a long list of requests to delete the map from Wikipedia.Chelentano (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Polish census of 1931 was NOT "fraudulent" (maybe you confused it with some banana Soviet census). Loosmark (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It had issues, see Polish census of 1931. But there is no proof that Zieliński had not corrected those errors in his map made almost half a century later... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was a perfect census but calling it fraudulent is too much. We have to remember that no census at the time was close to today's standards. Loosmark (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice maps, but all of them are quite obsolete (late 19th/early 20th century), smack from the period of major nationalism biases and state propaganda messing with such publications. And while maps from other countries (ex. UK/US) should be more neutral, the fact that the authors weren't directly influenced by the goverments and biases doesn't mean that they didn't rely on such sources. Unless we can find modern, reliable maps, all such historical maps are at best one side of hardly reliable POV. Perhaps an expert mapmaker could combine all of those into one map (or a series) which would show how they differ. Till then, I am afraid we have little recourse. I have proposed several times that we need tags for inaccurate/biased maps (see here), but my proposals have not generated much interest or support. Perhaps interested editors can help to create and implement such proposals? Further, I'll repeat for the last time: we don't know what sources Zieliński used, the claim about 1931 census is my own speculation, and should not be treated as anything but. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we found extreme inaccuracies in some areas of Zielinski's map, we can't take seriously others. Zielinski discredited himself by claiming a dominant Polish population near Belorussian capital Minsk and in Lithuanian capital (at that time) Kaunas, where a City Hall census reported only 4.5% of Poles. This is ridiculous that you still trying to defend this map. Imagine, some "historian" would tell you that Polish capital Warsaw's dominant population is/was Ukrainian, what would you say about that "historian"? Though I've already learned that you tend not to answer to inconvenient questions. Teotocopulos (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

His map is NOT extremely inaccurate. What "ridiculous" thing you are talking about other that Kaunas?

As far as Minsk the problem is the scale of the white dots. Cities at that scale would be invisible on this map if the huge white dots were not there. Population areas are also shown "approximately" +/- who know how many miles either way. Not exactly to scale either. How hard it is no understand? Map has some minor errors and is not perfect but so are the others.--Jacurek (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record: black-white version. See also: [[:File:Polska1912.jpg] and File:Narody2RP.png. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reprimand and back to the original map being questioned

First of all, I am tired of the crap of people denouncing sources simply based on their ethnic background: "and what makes you think that the map of a "Czech arcaelogist" is THE accurate map? Loosmark (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)" and similar has to stop.
   Second, in looking at Magocsi's map of ethnic distribution in 1900 (from his Historical Atlas of Central Europe, the best and most recent work available on the subject), it pretty much confirms the Czech map in terms of Polish majority. There's some additional Polish overlap with other ethnic groups to the west, but nothing close to the original Polish version being debated here, which clearly overstates the bounds of (significant) Polish settlement to the point of not being accurate. PetersV       TALK 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you give the full bibliographical data on Magosci's map? PS. Is there an online version? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, i was not denouncing any map based on the ethnic background. My point was simply that those guys were bashing Polish maps, demanding to know what data or census it was based on, while at the same time claiming that the map which was made by an arcaelogist is accurate, because well because it is. I'm not saying the Czech map is worthless but if they demand to know on which data is the Polish map based I want to know on which data is the Czech and the other maps based. It's as simple as that. Loosmark (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced maps are a plague; in my estimate more then 90% maps on Wikipedia are unreferenced and few people are interested in changing this. I am trying but it's a bit like crying in the wilderness... nobody cares :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To Loosmark, then you should have simply inquired on credentials or simply asked what makes "this particular map THE map...". There's far too much denunciation of sources based on the ethnic background of authors. There are always the über-nationalists, however, my experience is that a stake of personal background is a motivator to dig more deeply for a better understanding. Explanation accepted. :-) PetersV       TALK 03:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Magocsi
Historical Atlas of Central Europe, Revised and Expanded Edition
University of Washington Press, Seattle
ISBN 0-295-98146-6
"Ethnolinguistic distribution, ca. 1900", page 30
I would not feel comfortable scanning and posting without contacting the author first. Anyone interested in the history of Central Europe should get this text, specifically, the second edition, which expands on some of the issues of our day with chapters and maps devoted to topics including: Romania in the 20th century, Ukraine..., Moldova..., and "Poland, Danzig, and Lithuania in the 20th century." PetersV       TALK 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it, I think: Atlas of Central Europe As you can see, there is no dominant Polish population in Kaunas, Vilnius, Hrodna, Minsk suburbs, Belostok, Chelm, Peremyshl , Lviv, Ternopil. This is year 1900 on the modern American atlas. Chelentano (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are "so right" Chelentano, "there was no dominant Polish population" in any of the cities listed by you. Out of the 60.000 people living in Grodno before the War there were only 3 Jews and 6 Poles , 2 in Bialystok, 1 in Wilno and none (ZERO) in Lwow. Now you can go ahead and change the title of this article to "Territories previously stolen by Poland and taken back by the Soviet Union". Good night.--Jacurek (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually in a way this map is interesting. The way i understand it, it shows a mixed popullation in for example Tarnopol, Grodno and Kaunas. Maybe the Poles weren't dominant population there but neither were the Ukrainians or the Lithuanians. Loosmark (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There was also a huge Jewish population in these areas like Grodno for example were Jews and Poles were DOMINANT majority and lived there for centuries. Jews are not included in any of these maps.--Jacurek (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good map. Loosmark, the division line between West Slavs and East Slavs is on the west of the mixed areas, so I would conclude that East Slavs are the majority within those mixed areas.

Jacurek, while Jewish population was significant, it probably was not a second largest ethnic group there and that's why it's not depicted, except may be in cities, which are to small for an ethnic map. In any case, this map as well as Czech, German, Hungarian, American and British map, they all show that the 1945 Eastern Polish border is fair from ethnic point of view. The "Annex" terminology of this article is wrong from both ethnic and legal point of view. Teotocopulos (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"the division line netween West Slavs and East Slavs is on the west of the mixed areas, so I would conclude that East Slavs are the majority within those mixed areas.". Oh really? Thanks for this deux ex-machina conclusion. In reality there was no real division line between the West and the East Slavs because the border changed so many times in history. Now considering the fact that those areas had a mixed population, Stalin grabbing what was legaly Polish territory pre-WW2 has no justification whatsoever and is in fact a textbook example of annexation. Loosmark (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what's your "reality", I am just commenting the map and it does have the division. Also I don't know what "textbook" are you using, but annexation is a unilateral act, while this is a case of bilateral treaty.Teotocopulos (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral treaty? Don't make me laugh. The good old Soviet trick, control a country with military power, install a communist poppet government which will agree with everything you want and then trumpet around "bilateral treaty". Here is a shocker for you: this is 2009 not 1950 and Stalinist propaganda doesn't work anymore. Loosmark (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Teotocopulos! Why don't you talk to some other extreme editors from a country West of Poland now ? Some of them claim that Poznan, Torun, Gdansk and other areas were never Polish either. If you could come to some kind of the agreement you could rename more Polish related articles or wipe out anything Polish from Wikipiedia altogether. P.S. Jewish population was not significant ?!?! %50 of the Grodno's population was Jewish[8] and the rest were Poles.I guess this does not matter, right? I don't want to even talk about other ridiculous claims made by Chelentano like Lvov, Bialystok, Wilno etc. etc. because in my opinion it is a waste of time.--Jacurek (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am just commenting on the map, using the word "probably". And I did not say "Jewish population was not significant" - why are you making stuff up??? And when you are saying that "%50 of the Grodno's population was Jewish and the rest were Poles" are you making this up again, or you can show us a 50/50% statistics of Jewish/Polish population of Grodno? Teotocopulos (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:[9] - "The areas around Grodno were ethnically Polish" - page 452. But it does not matter anyway, this nonsense conversation will continue of course. You will find something in this book to clam that these territories were rightfully taken back from the evil Poles by the brave Red Army who protected the Belarusian's and Ukrainians, right? Why don't we start quoting Stalin if we have to? Eeeeh...what the heck, lets quote Hitler as well since according to your previous comment (legal point of view etc.) nothing was Polish anyway. Can we keep Warsaw at least please? P.S. There is also another map on page 451 for your "enjoyment". (Please don't be offended by my sarcastic comments but how can I be serious here?)--Jacurek (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the page: I get error. In any case, the phrase "The areas around Grodno were ethnically Polish" does not constitute a statistics proving your claim of 50/50% Polish/Jewish population in Hrodno. Again, you could argue as much as you want but all six maps (except for the ridiculous one with Polish Kaunas and Polish Minsk burbs) show that the Soviet area held by Poland just for 18 years was populated predominantly by East Slavs. All these maps show a much smaller ethnic Poland vs. the current Poland. Teotocopulos (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland held those areas for just 18 years? Be serious those areas were Polish for much of history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irp1635.png Loosmark (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Teotocopulos, the books title is -"Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe" Grodno (page 452) was 50/50 - Polish/Jewish and these territories were Polish or Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth's (with breaks during the Russian partition) for hundreds of years not 18....sorry that I dissapointed you.--Jacurek (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The map seems interesting and is probably more accurate then any of those we have. Per Jacurek, I am quite surprised about lack of Jews; the map does show mixed areas, and there were cities with dominant Jewish populations, so they should be shown on the map. Białystok, Grodno, Brest, Vilnius and Minsk, just to name some major cities, had a Jewish population that approached or was over 50%. Vilnius, for example, is erroneously shown as split between Poland and Lithuanians. This was the case in the countryside, but the city's population was roughly half Polish and half Jewish, with Lithuanians constituting around 3% at best. Brest seems excluded from the "mixed" population, which is incorrect - even today Brest is one of the major concentrations of the Polish minority in Belarus. And if any population was dominaint in Brest, in was not Belorusians - it was Jews, which constituted over 60% of the poulation: [10]. The map also shows as German some areas which were mixed. Bydgoszcz is shown as German; this article notes that before WWII out of ~120,000 inhabitants, only 10,000 were German (according to German authors), I find it rather unlikely that the population shift would occur so rapidly over 40 years. The area of the Polish Corridor should be shown as mixed territory, same goes for parts of Silesia (Wrocław had a German majority, but Poles were numerous in the countryside - a reverse of the pattern seen East). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"cities with dominant Jewish populations" This is not a city map - it's the whole continent. A city on the map like this would look as a dot. These map depicts wider areas. I think I have seen somewhere that the overall urban-country average Western Ukrainian/W. Belorussian Jewish population was about 14% which probably would not make them as a second biggest ethnic group. Teotocopulos (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• However cities represent a significant proportion of the local population, which is urban. The problem is that most of those regions had significantly mixed population; rarely a group could claim to constitute more then 50% of a region. How to represent this on any large scale map, without a detailed legend and explanation, I don't know. I am very wary of any demographical map - Polish or otherwise - which don't come accompanied by a detailed explanation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1."The map seems interesting and is probably more accurate then any of those we have"...

2."Vilnius, for example, is erroneously shown as split between Poland and Lithuanians. This was the case in the countryside, but the city's population was roughly half Polish and half Jewish, with Lithuanians constituting around 3% at best."

After reading those "opinions," I think someone needs to re-read the Wikipedia article on the Big Lie, and then the proclamation of the Lithuanian dictator of Poland, published in "Wilno" in 1919. A re-reading of Polonization might also be helpful. The map is "interesting" on the one hand, and "erroneous" on the other hand, and this is truly getting more and more bizarre as time goes on.Dr. Dan (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah there was Polonization and the was a heavy Rusification which was a policy of the Russian Empire from the time of the partitions up to the time Poland regained independence after WW2.Loosmark (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Really. I am getting used to these big lies...Chelentano (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Loosmark, Installing a puppet government is not an "old Soviet trick". It's the old trick, period. Germany, Japan, even United States installed so many of them and still does, just a partial list: Chile, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq... It's a Kissinger doctrine and the rule of the game: you still have not learned. And you probably think that CIA was not involved with "Solidarity" and that Poland today is truly independent? At least Poles did not have to serve in Afghanistan with Soviets, as they have to now. As for "control a country with military power" remember that Yugoslavia and Romania got rid Soviet military without any problems, but Poland kept. Why? Just think for a moment outside of your usual nationalistic box, if you've got any common sense. Poland annexed a big piece of Germany and Poland would not be able to hold that piece, if Soviet and American troops would leave central Europe. Or would it? Loosmark, did they really want to face Germany for the 3rd time and get another "loose mark"? Even when now things settled down a in Europe, and "Eastern Block" collapsed, American troops are still there. Ever wondered why? So much for "occupation" rhetoric... Chelentano (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What have Vietnam, Afghanistan and Solidary to do with the events of 1945 and 1946? Loosmark (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Chelentano... I'm sorry that I have to tell you that, but you are posting such a nonsense that it is not even worth replying to. I think I'm done with this conversation. P.S. There is no need to change the title of this article.--Jacurek (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There’s an unsettling overlap in Chelentano and Teotocopulos participation here (first edit 19 April 2009), but also in Commons,[11] which in my opinion could warrant a check user just to be sure that everything’s OK in terms of basic formalities. --Poeticbent talk 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree... looks like ALL Teotocopulos edits until he started editing this article were wrong spelling corrections, reverted immediately by other editors, (please check his edit history) to pretend prior account activity. Can somebody request check user please. Thanks P.S. Map should be uploaded back or alternative found.--Jacurek (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2009(UTC)

Check what? Spelling correction was reverted in favor of British spelling, check again if care so much about my spelling. Apparently we suppose to use British spelling for non-American articles, so what? I had no prior knowledge of that: to me British spelling looks odd. You, obviously, have nothing more substantial to say about the actual subject matter. Diagnosis: "napoleon complex", it's also called "small man syndrome". Did I spell it right? Teotocopulos (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

...and this is also a personal attack body..--Jacurek (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What that suppose to mean? Teotocopulos (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The map discussion is closed: it's gone.Chelentano (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken refs

Somebody might want to fix that:

• Elżbieta Trela-Mazur (1997). Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Trela-Mazur" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

• Wettig 2008. Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "wettig47" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

--K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union. 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/20070430203034/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns073.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns073.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628125314/http://wiadomosci.polska.pl/kalendarz/kalendarium/article.htm?id=132394 to http://wiadomosci.polska.pl/kalendarz/kalendarium/article.htm?id=132394
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420212451/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/53025_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/53025_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505093030/http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/katyn_memorial_wall/kmw_resolution.html to http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/katyn_memorial_wall/kmw_resolution.html

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) 14:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Belorussian SSR in 1940 after annexation of eastern Poland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Western Ukrainian SSR 1940 after annexation of eastern Poland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Territories of Poland?

The territories was occupied from Ukraine and Belarus by Poland in 1921, after a war that Poland started in 1919. No other country recognised these territories as polish and that's why the defense pact with France and the UK wasn't applicable to when the USSR entered the territories and gave them back to Ukraine and Belarus. Is it really correct to call these areas parts of Poland? It implies that western Ukraine rightly belongs to Poland. 2A02:AA1:100D:A89F:8C0D:D59C:137C:9BA1 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. Suggestions on how to reword? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)