Talk:German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk

German-Soviet joint parade

Article German-Soviet joint parade seems to be about exactly same event. Also isn't location of parade usually referred as "Brest"?--Staberinde (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the articles have been merged though some of the useful sources used in the other one should be brought into here, as well as the image of the commanders.radek (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

accuracy is disputed - dubious information is contained in article

Alexander Dyukov in «The Soviet Story»: Механизм лжи/"The Soviet Story": Forgery Tissue writes:

"Let us consider in greater detail the episode about the “joint parade of Soviet and German troops in Brest”. There was no such parade in actual fact: what really took place was the ceremonial withdrawal of German troops from the city, monitored by Soviet representatives.86"

The Russian version of this article states:

"В появившихся в начале ХХI века работе Михаила Мельтюхова, и вышедшая авторстве сотрудника Института всеобщей истории РАН к.и.н.Вишлёва О. В указывается, что "парады" в других городах- не более чем миф."

Using the same source (Vishlev O.V. Nakanune 22 iunia 1941 goda (the day before June 22, 1941)... p. 109.), the "fact" as stated in the article about "parades" in Pinsk and Grodno also being held is disputed as a total myth.

It has been made out that this was some sort of "victory parade" between the two parties, whereas in actual fact it was a ceremonial withdrawal of German troops from Brest.

I can provide more sources for this info (mostly in Russian) if required, but the article clearly needs to be updated to reflect some of the realities as well. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt excellent qualities of Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov, the author of a scholarly and well known book The Genocide Myth, but I think we should rather follow historians from the West. I am sure Dyukov, who says that it was possible no one died during the Soviet deportations is an unbiased historian, nevertheless, we have numerous sources, newsreels and photos confirming that the parade actually took place, and to Dyukovs' probable disappointment, it was not alleged. Tymek (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not Dyukov, but rather Oleg Vishlyov, a historian at the Russian Academy of Science. Вишлёв О.В. -- Накануне 22 июня 1941 года. Документальные очерки. - М.: Наука, 2001.230 с. ISBN 5-02-008725-4 (pages 109-110). I can quote exact passages if need be, in order to demonstrate that what is present in the article is not necessarily the case. As to using "western" historians, let's not. Let's present ALL POV (and attribute it accordingly), rather than promoting a single POV, which this article currently does. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could stub the Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov and Oleg Vishlyov? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dykov is considered UNreliable and UNacceptable on both Russian and Ukrainian wikis.Galassi (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the parade took place is well documented by primary documents (including photographs and newsreels) and as such is often discussed in reliable secondary sources. Dyukov is not a reliable source here at all.radek (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They dispute that it was a joint parade (calling it a ceremonial withdrawal), not whether it took place or not. This appears to be a significant minority view, so it should be in the article - with attribution (to Vishlyov, for instance) as a separate paragraph at the end of the article. On the other hand, information about the other parades does indeed seem dubious - whatever sources do mention it, they do it briefly and offer no detail. No documentary or photographic evidence of them seems to exist as well (at least, nothing conclusing was found here ). --Illythr (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well ya, given the Nazis' deserved horrible reputation is pretty understandable that the Soviets tried to minimalise and trivialise the whole thing afterwards. After all it would be weird if they admitted it: "we held military parades with our buddies, the Nazis" would sound a bit ugly, wouldn't it. Loosmark (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the idea. Germans were interested in the widest publicity possible, however. The parade in Brest is very well documented, but the other ones aren't, for some reason. --Illythr (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The one in Brest had Guderian, who was like the rock star of the 1939 Wermacht, and of course Krivoshein, on the other side wasn't nothing to sneeze at either (career officer since tsarist times, Order of Lenin, etc.). The parades in Pinsk and Grodno most likely just didn't have the same star appeal, hence, less publicity.radek (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the parade in Grodno was allegedly overseen by Comcor Chuikov, who wasn't just some guy at the time either. By the way, the information that Chuikov was present at the Brest parade as well is rather suspicious - he is absent from the footage and neither Guderian nor Krivoshein mention him in their memoirs (Krivoshein does make a passing mention, implying that Chuikov was elsewhere at the time). --Illythr (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with this as well - I hesitated but then went ahead and put Chuikov in because he is specifically mentioned by the source, but neither Krivoshein, nor Georg Schmidt (the German photo journalist present) mention Chuikov. It's possible the confusion stems from the fact that 1) Krivoshein, I believe, was subordinate directly to Chuikov and apparantly 2) Chuikov might have been at the Grodno parade. Radeksz (weird keyboard with no tildas)

General Krivoshein, in a 1989 interview with Polish journalist, said that it was Guderian who insisted on the parade, and the Soviets, tired after the long march, initially refused. According to Krivoshein, he relented and sent a military orchestra and one battalion (he does not specify which battalion). As for Nazi-Soviet parades in other Polish cities, I heard about one in Lublin, on September 28. I have to look for sources to confirm it. Tymek (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources which call it a ceremonial withdrawal, they can be cited, but it does appear that majority of sources agree it was a joint parade. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So far, Vyshlev is the only reliable source (I know of) that calls it such; all others, including Krivoshein himself, call it a parade. Information on other parades is scarce, however.

PS to Piotrus: Krivoshein commanded the 29th Tank Brigade at the time. BTW, this source calls the event a ceremony, too. --Illythr (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also possible there is no contradiction; a parade IS a ceremony, and the German troops DID withdraw soon afterwards, so the parade WAS a prelude to their withdrawal, and might have been part of it (parading troops might have been on their way to the train station or on their way out of the city). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A parade being a ceremony does not prove some specifice event was joint ceremony. Krivoshein never said it really happened. 95.32.15.232 (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Title

This suppose to be "in Brest", not "in Brześć", is not it? Biophys (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point it was still Brześć in Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To be exact, it was Brześć nad Bugiem, this was the interbellum Polish name of the city (earlier, it was called by the Poles Brześć Litewski). Perhaps we should redirect the article to Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć nad Bugiem, as there is Brześć Kujawski as well. Tymek (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was Brest in English language literature...Biophys (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We can rename it into Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brest, or perhaps Brest-Litovsk, as there is city of Brest in Brittany as well. Let us see what other users think of it. Tymek (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to rename the article Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk as it is used more extensively in the English literature, and would be consistent with articles such as Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, removing any ambiguity that this is the same location where that treaty was signed. No doubt (need to find sources) the Nazis and Soviets intended symbolic meaning in performing their victory parade in that town where the treaty was signed. Also title would be more easily remembered by the average high-schooled native English speaker, particularly if the article achieves DYK status. --Martintg (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, name of location in title really needs to be renamed either to "Brest" or "Brest-Litovsk", depending which one is used more widely on English sources. Currently it really confuses readers who aren't very familiar with various changes of town names in Eastern-Europe history. I for one, when I first saw article title, thought that its about some other Nazi-Soviet parade, not the Brest one which I knew about. Also both Invasion of Poland (1939) and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact articles refer location of parade as "Brest" or "Brest-Litovsk". Although article should obviously mention in beginning that at that time town was named "Brześć".--Staberinde (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic of POV pushing the Russian name to what was then a Polish city. The argument to "not confuse readers" is absurd, an encyclopedia should strive to achive maximum possible accuracy rather then losing time on what will or will not confuse readers. Loosmark (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure such dedicated Russian nationalist POV pushers as Martintg and Staberinde appreciate your assessment of their intent, the logic is simple - the same reason they don't write "Warszawa" - Brest-(Litovsk) is a better known and more easily recognizable name in English. --Illythr (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference, Warszawa has an English name, Warsaw, while Brest is simply the russian version of the name used in some english sources. Loosmark (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And how do you think such exonyms are born? Is pl:Hongkong a Polish or Chinese name of the place? The truth is, until the process became more or less standardised in the late XX century, the creation of such names was pretty random - usually a warped version of the local name given either by visiting merchants or taken from some other language (usually, some document marking the place's importance in history, like the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). --Illythr (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets look the thing from another perspective, tons of articles about Polish cities used German names, like for example Bytów - Bütow, Zgorzelec - Görlitz etc etc. (it's clear that those names aren't english because the english language doesn't have "ü", "ö"). When i once protested against that it was explained to me that for the period when the city was under Germany (or Prussia) the German names has to be used. So by the same rule i think it is only appropriate to use the Polish name, Brześć, here because the city was still part of Poland. Just to make sure there is no confusion we can create a redirect from "Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brest" and put a note in the lead explaining that older sources use Brest. Loosmark (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, this Polish-German city name thing is/was a major holywar battleground with numerous special dispute settlement measures. Anyhow, I wouldn't object to using local contemporary names for "insignificant" towns (that is, those with minimal mention in English, like Vyborg / Viipuri). However, as Vecrumba notes below, this is not the case with Brest-Litovsk, because of the Treaty that made it famous. --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Originally I put this under "Brest" but then though 'well, at the time it was Brzesc' so I moved it. But I got no strong feelings either way. "Brest-Litovsk" would probably be the most user-friendly name.radek (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can request to move the article so that arguments can be weighed better? --Illythr (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, "Brest-Litovsk" is going to be the only name immediately recognizable to the English reader, also establishing its significance relative to the WWI treaty of that name. Given that was the treaty still perceived in Russian nationalist circles where Russia was forced to give up parts of her western empire rightfully hers, that historical tidbit is worth mentioning as well (and certainly was not lost on the Soviets). Remember, we're here to tell a story. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, per the BGN database, "Brest" is common English language usage, with "Brest Litovsk" as a variant. Nevertheless, as the treaty was signed at "Brest-Litovsk" I think that's the best choice here for the reasons I've mentioned. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK then, are we moving it to Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brest Litovsk? I can do it, if there is consensus. Tymek (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just don't forget the dash. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're agreed. Dashed would conform to the treaty article and associated usage. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On Dyukov contentions

After editing the passage to properly position Dyukov's role in offering such commentary, given there's no (reliable) doubt the parade occurred, it wound up sounding like nothing more than an opportunity to ridicule Dyukov. There was no need for that, and so I removed it. The article on the moon does not make note of protests that it is, in point of fact, made of cheese. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for Dyukov when Vyshlev's there (a RAS guy). BTW, as I said somewheres, these guys don't deny that a ceremonial handover had occurred, rather, they deny that it 1) was a parade, citing Soviet military statutes of the time. 2) was a joint parade, claiming that German forces left and Soviet troops moved in separately. Both claims are rather weak, seeing as how Krivoshein himself calls this thing a parade, but they're there, and they're not as ridiculous as this made them seem. --Illythr (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Krivoshein never called what really happened "joint parade". What he wrote exactly is about one squad being prepared for such an event "just in case" but never participating. Later Krivoshein just mentions himself watching marching germans alongside Guderian. 95.32.15.232 (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

dubious tag

Rather than having that "dubious" tag in there, how about we note in the text that it is "some sources claim that similar parades took place in Grodno and Pinsk" and comment that primary documents do not exist (especially if the latter can be sourced).radek (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We should say what sources, some is weaseling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Right now it's just "some opposition newspaper". I can bring some real sources over from ruwiki who do mention parades in other cities, but then, other, more modern sources, such as Meltiukhov, dismiss these other parades as "myth". A reformulation along "some academic sources mention... others dismiss" should do nicely, I think. NB: For anyone who's reading this, but wasn't paying attention - this concerns joint military parades in Polish cities other than Brest. --Illythr (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So if we say "according to Novaya Gazeta" can the tag be removed?radek (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I hoped someone would bring in serious historians. But ok, let me do it myself, I'll copy the less biased (old) version from the Russian page, sources and all. --Illythr (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I added another source. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There. Now the claim rests not on some random journalists, but serious Russian historians, all with proper attribution as well as balancing opinions. --Illythr (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The parades were held in Grodno and few other smaller towns. I'm actually hoping to gather some more material since I want to create a separate article for Grodno parade. You may find this video[1] also interesting. Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I like this one the best. Nazis with Soviets at their best:)[2]--Jacurek (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

These are the Wochenschau reports from Brest. They shed no light on parades in other cities, unfortunately. BTW, the movie reminded me of something - the demarcation line the Germans retreated to was set not in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but in a separate agreement settled on 20 September 1939 (to which Guderian refers as the document authorising the joint parade in Brest). --Illythr (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true, I believe the line which they finally agreed on is sometimes referred to as "the second Molotov-Ribbentrop pact" in sources.radek (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're probably thinking about the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation (specifically, the secret protocol thereof; this is where this map actually comes from) which was signed on 28 September and was the top level official settlement. The agreement of 20.09 was an ad hoc preliminary protocol signed in situ and non-secret (the Wochenschau refers to it right there). --Illythr (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no "joint parade"

Only German forces marched, and the Soviet officer presented only as an observer. Read Krivisheev himself. The parade was not a "victory parade" but was dedicated to leaving the city by the German troops and handing it over to Soviets. Also the German flag was removed and Soviet one rised.--Dojarca (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a German-Soviet parade with troops from both sides participating. Krivoshein (not to confuse with Krivosheev) writes about it thusly: В 16 часов части вашего корпуса в походной колонне, со штандартами впереди, покидают город, мои части, также в походной колонне, вступают в город, останавливаются на улицах, где проходят немецкие полки, и своими знамёнами салютуют проходящим частям. Оркестры исполняют военные марши. --Illythr (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

First, this is just a proposition and NOT a description of what really happened thereafter; and second, it describes two separate marches. 95.32.25.39 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To be exact his surname was Krivosheiy, though in different sources it appears differently. About the Soviet units. They were entering the city, but they did not went in front of the tribune. Anyway are there objections against adding that

• The parade was in fact ceremonial Nazi withdrawal (are there any sources that contradict this?)
• The Nazi propaganda tried to present is as a joint parade which was not the aim of the Soviets.

--Dojarca (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The correct name is Krivoshein, "-iy" is a common misspelling. As for your proposal - depends on how you put it:

• The parade was part of the ceremonial handover of Brest to Soviet control, as per the agreement signed on the 20th September. The fact of the parade is undeniable, what can be disputed is the extent to which it was joint. As most sources call it one, however, so do we.
• The Nazi propaganda tried to present is as a joint victory parade, yes. What was the Soviets' aim here is open to speculation. --Illythr (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then "most sources" give nothing to prove it. 95.32.15.232 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nazi-Soviet

Since "Nazi" denotes ideology, whereas "Soviet" denotes the country (as opposed to "Communist") the article should probably be renamed to German-Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk --Illythr (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections? o_O --Illythr (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think that'd be right. By that logic, it should be "German-Russian military parade". You cannot really separate Communism from the "Soviet" identity. The problem as I perceive it is that "Nazi" has more negative overtones than "Soviet" and is considered offensive, but these terms are nonetheless historically correct. Constantine ✍ 07:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The logic is to denote state entities involved - not ethnicities, ideologies or a mishmash of this and that, because the people present were not all Russian, Communist or, respectively, Nazi. They all were Soviets and Germans, however. --Illythr (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact membership in Nazi party was disallowed in Wehrmacht at the time.--Dojarca (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Let us not forget that troops involved in the parade were these of Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, not Weimar Germany, or Western Germany. Tymek (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A link to Nazi Germany in the first sentence of the article prevents even the most forgеtful of us from missing that. --Illythr (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

celebrated their partition of Poland

What does it mean? How the "celebration of the partition of Poland" was expressed?--Dojarca (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Use in modern Polish politics

Should not be described the use of the event in the modern Polish politics?--Dojarca (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice try with the loaded question but there is no "use" of the event in modern Polish politics. Loosmark (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. What use? I haven't seen any (the event is quite unknown), but feel free to prove me wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well compare this parade in prominence with others, for example this US-Japan joint parade in 1945 [3] (have we an article about it in Wikipedia?) Or this joint parade, also with Japans: [4]. Oh there was even a U.S.-German joint parade [5]. Have we an article German-American joint military parade in Metz? Look! They even saluted each other! This detail should definitely be mentioned! This was certainly a victory parade.--Dojarca (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Those were not victory parades but rather surrender. Check for example this for Wake Island: [6] and the pic is even on wikipedia: [[7]] Loosmark (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I know. But this is insignificant detail. The fact is that the parade took place, it was joint and they saluted each other!.--Dojarca (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A surrending army does not parade, it marches into captivity at most. Usually the officers do salute each before the formal signing of the documents because such are the military traditions. In the case of the Japanese Imperial Army those formalities were even more important than usual but that's another topic... Loosmark (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So, this

was not a parade in your definition? Please tell me your definition of a parade then.--Dojarca (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly this picture represents. (It might be a US victory parade). There was certainly no parade by the Japanese Army at Wake. A parade is used for celebrative purposes and I don't know of any defeated army which performed a victory parade. Loosmark (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, not victory parade but isn't it a joint US-Japanese parade? And this is joint Nazi-US parade, apparently [8] in occupied France ;-) Poor France! First attacked by Germans from the east and then by Americans from the west! --Dojarca (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now, a "joint Nazi-US parade". I guess next you'll show us the secret Roosvelt-Hitler pact for spliting France ;) . Loosmark (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from irony, all of the above, including the Brest-Litovsk case were nothing more than handover ceremonies when cities previously under German/Japanese control were handed over to US/Soviet forces. These usually included the flag changing ceremony as well as some sort of what can be interpreted as a "parade". Of course all these events included exchanging military salutes and other greetings, including even those conducted because of surrender.--Dojarca (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is fundamental difference between an army accepting unconditional surrender (like Wake) and two victorious armies making ceremonial handovers with parades. I don't get how you don't understand that. Loosmark (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In both cases there is ceremonial handover with parades which does not prove anything. Such ceremonial handover can be conducted between allied, neutral as well as hostile armies. I don't get why this case deserves more attention than others except for modern political reasons.--Dojarca (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that the "ceremonial handover" conducted between two allies is same in nature as the surrender of a defeated army is an Alice in wonderland type of argument. But anyway if you really want to argue the case try to find sources for a Japanese-American joint parade at Wake. As somebody who has studied the Pacific War in some detail my opinion is you won't find any. Loosmark (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What actually has weight is that the handover took place. Where did stay Krivoshein at the time, did he salute Guderian or not, and how many Russian soldiers was present is only significant for propaganda purposes.--Dojarca (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what position exactly are you arguing on this talk page. If you think that the article is propaganda and shouldn't exist on wikipedia your option is to nominate it for deletion. If you think that the alleged American-Nazi/Japanese parades should have articles too then find sources and write them. Loosmark (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well usually thare are articles about events such as surrender, handover etc. Which ceremonies acconpanyed the event usually described in the article. Possibly we can add something interesting about the handover itself, for example Krivoshein claims that he prevented Germans from passing already prepared trains with loot from Poland to Germany.--Dojarca (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"U.S-German joint parade" is in fact a picture of the Germans surrendering to the Americans, hardly allied victory parade as in the case of German-Soviet parade.--Jacurek (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

From what do you think the German-Soviet parade was "allied victory parade"? Because they "saluted each other", as written in this article, or there was another reason?--Dojarca (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Were they enemies "raping" together Poland in 1939?--Jacurek (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No they werent. So? --Dojarca (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Then they were allies. They planned the "rape" of Poland together. They executed it together....and they celebrated the achieved victory together. Simple as that. :)--Jacurek (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Poland somehow was the Nazi ally and participated in partitioning the Czehoslovakia, long before the Soviet Union got a deal with Germany. Poland long before the Soviet Union has made peace treaty with Germany. Poland, unlike Soviet Union, hadn't participated in Spanish war, Finland war, war with Nazi Japan. What exactly Jacurek gives you the ground to speak of Soviet Union as Germany ally? Reunification of Western Belarus occupied by Poland in 1921 with the rest of Belarus? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really comprehend what is the problem or why people are arguing about some other historical events that may or may not deserve their own articles. If Dojarca has some good information about usage of this parade in modern Polish politics, then it definitely would be interesting to hear, and if it is notable then it most likely should be added to article too.--Staberinde (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you. Frankly I have never heard any Polish politician mentioning this parade in any way but if Dojarca has "good information" backed by reliable sources that the parade is used in Polish politics them he is welcome to present them. Loosmark (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On the saluting and shaking hands

Are the remarks on that the German and Soviet officers saluted each other really important and worth noting? As we know any military procedure, even between hostile armies such as surrender and armistice talks accompanied with such salutes. It is an old military custom. This article empathises the salutes as something unusual and important as if the salutes were showing special sympathyes between the German and Soviet officers.--Dojarca (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to removal of this trivial fact. Other thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Dojarca (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Partition of Poland, Poland Occupation??? In Belarus it is called reunification of Belarus

Why this article contains only Polish and Soviet POV? Brest Litovsk was a Belarusian city occupied by Poland during Soviet-Polish war 1919-1921. September 17th is a day of reunification of Western Belarus up to this day (which was called by Polish occupants Kresy). It's worth to note that Kresy is a Polish POV fork to Western Belarus article. Why the photo of Belarusians greeting Soviet troops is not added? Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"deutsch-russische Siegesparade"

put that in Babelfish [9] or Google translate [10]. But "German units passing before a tribune" is a pretty humorous miscaption.radek (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is. But the description is incorrect in two things:

• First there was no "Russian military" so it could not participate in the parade
• Second, the parade was not dedicated the victory over Poland.

Our article is named "German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk ", so the image's caption would be in controvercy with the article's caption. This sghould be either avoided or explained.

Anyway please do not return the phrase that the parade was a result of the pact. The pact did not say anything about the parade. The parade was a result of agreement on the procedure ogf German withdrowal (already linked in the article).

--Dojarca (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On 1) You're being unnecessarily pedantic. Anyway, the caption we have states "German-Soviet" so don't exactly understand your objection here.

On 2) We go with what the source says - your contention here is complete OR as the Bundisarchive says something different.

On the third point, you might be right actually - perhaps this should be moved to "German–Soviet victory parade in Brest-Litovsk".

On the fourth point - obviously the parade was a result of the pact, though I'm not sure what you are referring to. I mean, no pact, no Soviet invasion of Poland and hence no parade. So there's just might, perhaps, sort of, on a chance, like, be a slight connection there between the pact and the parade, don't you think? Last sentence, pure OR.

Stick to sources.radek (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Either follow the source exactly or do not at all. The source is obviously inaccurate. Why do you correct it in one respect and do not in the other respect?

On the third point, you might be right actually - perhaps this should be moved to "German–Soviet victory parade in Brest-Litovsk". - this contradicts other sources.

I mean, no pact, no Soviet invasion of Poland and hence no parade. But there could be invasion without parade. The pact does not prescribe the parade and even the invasion. Anyway, the German withdrawal is a more important event than the parade which was a part of withdrawal ceremony. The withdrowal was a direct consequence of the pact. Is there any source that says that the parade (not invasion or withdrowal) was the consequence of the pact? It looks like an original synthesis.

--Dojarca (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is not "obviously inaccurate", at least not in the "victory" part. And sure there could be invasion without parade - what's your point? You said that the parade was not the result of the pact. But it was. You're confusing your necessary and sufficient conditions here, I think (AGFing). And no, the "German withdrawal" is not the "more important event" - according to who? Pure OR. And even if so, that doesn't change the "victory" part and certainly no reason for a WEASEL "German units marching past (some completely random unconnected who knows fell out of the sky perhaps completely imaginary and probably staffed by Fijians) tribune" Go with the sources and the caption that is given in sources. Don't weasel it.radek (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what you're talking about. You're taking out the phrase "The parade, which took place on Union of Lublin street (Polish: ulica Unii Lubelskiej), the main road of the city of Brześć," and replacing it with "withdrawal" - so... you're NOT taking out a sentence which says "the parade was a direct consequence of etc." but something completely different. What do you have against Unia Lubelska Street? What are you complaining about? Is there an actual reason for your reverts?radek (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is not "obviously inaccurate", at least not in the "victory" part. - Please stop selectively correcting the sources as yoiu wish. The source is inaccurate in calling the Soviets as Russians and calling the handover parade 'victory parade'. But it was. - completely your OR.

--Dojarca (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the only source which calls this a "victory" parade (and there's no freakin' source in the world which calls this "German units just strolling by some random tribune"). [11]. The direct translation of the caption is "victory".radek (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk → Handover of Brest-Litovsk from Germany to the USSR (1939) — I suggest to move the page to the new title because this event was more important (as the parade was only a part of the handover ceremony), besides the parade's prominence in modern Polish political discourse, and because the new title has greather scope. For example, it would allow to add a story by Krivoshein that he prevented passing of German trains with looted Polish property by ordering the tanks to stay on the rail tracks and pretend they were repairing the engine. This one as well as other events accompanying the handover besides the parade itself could be added to the aricle after move.

Please note that the voting may be hijacked by participants of the coordinated POV-pushing group (called Easter European mailing list cabal), currently under ArbCom investigation (see [12] for more details), which has a long history of well-documented vote mobbing. Note that at least two of the cabal participants (Piotrus and radek (talk)) recently participated in coordinated reverts in this aticle. --Dojarca (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - this is a clear attempt to WP:WEASEL the topic. No source has been provided that the "handover" is the more important aspect of this incident. All reliable sources focus on the parade itself as the most significant aspect. And an attempt to cast preemptive accusations on those who might be inclined to vote against the move is a pretty lame way to try and WP:GAME the vote and prejudice it through mis-characterization. Blatant attempt to bully past what reliable sources actually say.radek (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, In the interests of full disclosure I want to note that I've not only committed the unforgivable sin of editing this article (and reverting Dojarca's disruptive edits (changing text to what's not in sources, removing text under spurious and irrelevant reasons)) but I actually *created* this article.radek (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And would you please clarify why you are taking out the text which says: The parade, which took place on Union of Lublin street (Polish: ulica Unii Lubelskiej), the main road of the city of Brześć and replacing it with withdrawal and then claiming that you are taking out text which supposedly states that the parade was a "consequence of the pact" (whatever that means) rather then actual text about Union of Lublin street and so on?radek (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Frankly, this is getting ridiculous. It would help your cause a lot if you weren't so obviously tendentious on every occasion. The article is about the parade. Cabal or no cabal, the mainstream opinion is that the parade did in fact took place. There is no need to fix what is not broken. Colchicum (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't understand this proposal, almost every source calls this a parade. Another thing is that Dojarca is yet again claiming that the parade has "a prominenece in modern Polish political discourse". I have already asked to provide a source for this claim and none was provided. Loosmark (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. As I wrote elsewhere [13], what happened at Brest-Litovsk was a hand-over ceremony with German and Soviet troops marching past each other. (I suspect that this article was a victim of team-tagging per this case: WP:EEML.) While the Germans thought of this as a parade, the Soviets did not. In the present day, historical interpretations today differ. Some historians, like Alexander Nekrich, argue that this was a parade. Other notable historians, like Alexander Dyukov, state that this was a ceremony pretty clearly, but dispute the inteprretation that this is best described as a victory parade, rather than a withdrawal ceremony. As such, German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk is a POV fork of German-Soviet handover ceremony at Brest-Litovsk or 1939 Brest-Litovsk handover ceremony, since the first title is disputed, whereas the fact that a hand-over took place is not disputed. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much all reliable sources refer to this parade not some "handover". All you can do here is dredge up some controversial fringe source like Dyukov, a revisionist historian who promotes a "a new jailer's concept of Soviet history". Please, don't engage in original research. And this can't be a POV fork of an article that doesn't exist - and if some "handover" article is created then in fact very clearly THAT would be a POV fork of this one.radek (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, I'm sorry, but the only possible way to read that comment is as a personal attack. Is it because I included a link to an ArbCom case involving your team-tagging on articles like this? It's hard to find a historian who's not been challenged, polemically or otherwise, on things like that, but Dyukov is an accredited and genuine historian, and what's quite saliently notable is that the criticism has nothing to do with his writing as regards this hand-over ceremony, where his views greatly coincide with a number of other historians, Oleg Vishlev and so forth. (Please see WP:TRUTH, WP:V, and WP:OR, the last one as something that you're actually attempting to smear me with...) I see no problem in moving the article to Handover of Brest-Litovsk from Germany to the USSR (1939), where everybody's views can be represented in NPOV fashion. As no scholars deny that a handover took place. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks (and throwing in your own for good measure) is itself a personal attack. Dyukov is "controversial" to say the least and not a reliable source. I'm quite familiar with WP:TRUTH, WP:V AND WP:OR so please don't try and insult me by pretending that I'm not. You are engaging in OR as the reliable sources (of which I listed only 15) focus on the parade. "Handover" is a clear attempt to weasel what happened here. Please see WP:WEASEL.radek (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A majority POV fork is still a POV fork. You can have the same article under an undisputed title. And per WP:FORK this isn't the way to go about titles and articles. I don't mind if you call it a German-Soviet parade or whatever, but the "Handover of Brest-Litovsk" title is more objective, because nobody denies this. Correctamundo? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not more "objective" it is simply a weaseling. "Parade" is used by reliable sources, like all those listed below. Kapish?radek (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

POV fork. (Compare with WP:WEASEL.) Re-read and address? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsflash: just because you say something doesn't make it true. Especially when it doesn't make any sense. 20 sources?radek (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As Illythr already said, nobody disputes that the parade took place. What is disputed is to which extent it was "joint" and especially, was it "victory parade" or not. Note that no contemporary source calls it "victory parade". Not disputed also that the parade was a part of the handover ceremony which is why I propose the move since the handover event itself has more to add to the article. BTW, Dyukov is a reputable historian, or do you consider only those who agree with you reputable?--Dojarca (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reads Note that no contemporary source calls it "victory parade", looks at time stamp, realizes that this was written after the 26 reliable sources below were already posted on the talk page, beats head against wall for five minutes, stabs thigh with pencil repeatedly, fails to wake up, decides it's not worth it, turns on oven, sticks head in, sighs very loudly and decides to continue with this nightmare regardless. Posts this comment)radek (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Sources refer to this event as a "parade" and in fact it was a victory parade of allied at the time Nazi-Soviet forces.--Jacurek (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - the article deals with the parade, and it's the parade that's notable for being covered in reliable sources. Signed, certified cabal member Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposed Sources, even Russian ones, call it a parade. And thank you, Dojarca, for invoking Dyukov as a "reputable historian" to make your POV pushing intent clear. More moon cheese. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[14] Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia section VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Article is about parade and the fact that parade took place is supported by enough reliable sources. Proposal is just ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plenty of reliable sources which discuss this parade and not a "handover"

• "The Eastern Front Day by Day, 1941-45: A Photographic Chronology", by Steve Crawford, Potomac Books, 2006: At Brest-Litovsk, Red Army and German Army commanders hold a joint victory parade.
• "The Holocaust encyclopedia", Walter Laqueur, Judith Tydor Baumel, Yale University Press, 2001, pg. 585, [15], Very soon thereafter the two parties moved to the agreed borders and celebrated their partition of Poland by arranging a joint parade in Brest
• "Europe: A History", Norman Davies, HarperCollins, 1998, pg. 1001, [16], The Germans and Soviets held a joint victory parade in Brzesc (Brest-Litowsk) before fixing the details of their victory
• "The World & I, Volume 1", Washington Post, 1986, University of California Press, pg. 385, The Soviet-German aggression against Poland culminated in a joint parade of Soviet and German troops at Brest"
• "Jews in Poland: a documentary history", Iwo Pogonowski, Hippocrene Books, 1993, pg. 100 A joint Soviet-German victory parade took place in Brzes'd (Brest) on the Bug
• "No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945", Norman Davies, Penguin Group, 2008, pg. 179, Red Army tanks join the Wehrmacht in the victory parade at Brzesc, [17]
• "Review of the foreign press, 1939-1945", Royal Institute of International Affairs , Kraus International Publications, 1980, pg. 6, German radio reported a joint German-Russian military parade in Brest-Litovsk [18]
• "Pariahs, partners, predators: German-Soviet relations, 1922-1941", by Aleksandr Moiseevich Nekrich, Gregory L. Freeze, Columbia University Press, 1997, pg. 131, [19] One (consequence) was the symbolic alliance of the two sides, with joint parades by the victors and exchange visits by commanders in Brest and elsewhere

BTW, this one also has a mention of a similar parade in Lviv: The entire affair ended in a joint parade in L'vov

• "Utopia in power: the history of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the present‎", Mikhail Geller, Aleksandr Moiseevich Nekrich, Summit Books, 1986, pg. 341, The Soviet—German aggression against Poland culminated in a joint parade of Soviet and German troops at Brest
• "Stalin's ocean-going fleet: Soviet naval strategy and shipbuilding programmes, 1935-1953", Jürgen Rohwer, Mikhail S. Monakov, Routledge, 2001, pg. 111, [20], A few days later German and Soviet troops met at Brest-Litovsk and held a joint parade.

‎*Andrei Konchalovsky, Alexander Lipkov, "The Inner Circle: An Inside View of Soviet Life Under Stalin", Newmarket Press, 1992, [21], a joint parade of Soviet and German troops had even been held in Brest on the occasion of the end of the Polish campaign

• "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History", Leona Schecter, Brassey's, 2003, pg. xxxiii, [22], in September 1939 when German and Soviet generals reviewed the joint parade of Red Army and Panzer units at Brest-Litovsk
• "Einstein and the poet: in search of the cosmic man‎", William Hermanns, Albert Einstein, Branden Press, 1986, pg. 385, The Soviet-German aggression against Poland culminated in a joint parade of Soviet and German troops at Brest
• "Recovered land", Alicia Nitecki, Univ of Massachusetts Press, 1995, pg. xi, [23], After holding a joint parade at Brest-Litowsk
• "Stalin's drive to the West, 1938-1945: the origins of the Cold War", Richard C. Raack, Stanford University Press, 1995, pg. 76, [24], German and Soviet troops parade together at Brest-Litovsk, central Poland
• Robert Forczyk, Peter Dennis, "Warsaw 1944: Poland's Bid for Freedom", Osprey Publishing, 2009, pg. 5, [25], Soviet tank brigade commander Semyon Krivoshein hosts a joint German-Soviet victory parade with General ... Heinz Guderian in Brest-Litovsk

Ok that's 15 reliable sources from a quick 5 minute search. Can we stop being ridiculous now?radek (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Since somehow one fringe author is in some people's minds more important than 15 academic reliable sources, I'll add a few more, it's not like it's that hard:

• "Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia", Gabriel Gorodetsky, Yale University Press, 2001, pg. ix, General Guderian and his Soviet counterpart reviewing the joint parade of the Red Army and the Panzer units in Brest-Litovsk
• "A world in flames: a short history of the Second World War in Europe and Asia, 1939-1945", Martin Kitchen, Longman, 1990, pg. 74, The joint invasion of Poland was celebrated with a parade by the Wehrmacht and the Red Army in Brest Litovsk, a sordid event tactfully ignored by the Soviet...
• "The campaigns of World War II: Germany's lightning war", Adrian Gilbert, David & Charles, 2000, pg. 40, At Brest- Litovsk, on 22 September, a combined parade of German and Soviet armoured units was followed by a banquet attended by the...

As Colchicum said, this is simply ridiculous.radek (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Last European War: September 1939-December 1941", John Lukacs, Yale University Press, 2001, pg. 270, [26], In Brest-Litovsk there was a curious parade: Soviet troops marching past a line of German and Russian high officers.
• "Katyń: the untold story of Stalin's Polish massacre", M. Allen Paul, C. Scribner's Sons, 1991, pg. 35, [27], On September 18, 1939, the Wehrmacht and the Red Army staged a joint victory parade in Brest Litovsk
• "Luftwaffe Squadrons 1939-45: The Spellmount Aircraft Identification Guide", Chris Bishop, Spellmount, 2006, pg. 16, [28], The next day, the Soviets occupied Lvov and, with the Germans, mounted a joint victory parade in Brest-Litovsk
• "Rising '44: the battle for Warsaw", Norman Davies, Viking, 2004, pg. 30, A joint Nazi-Soviet victory parade was held at Brest-Litovsk
• "The deadly embrace: Hitler, Stalin, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact, 1939-1941", Anthony Read, David Fisher, Joseph, 1988, pg. 336, German troops chat happily with a Red Army tank crew as they prepare for a joint victory parade in Brest-Litovsk
• Pierre Galante, Eugène Silianoff, "Voices from the bunker‎", Putnam, 1989, pg. xii, We could see into the courtyard of the fortress of Brest-Litovsk, ... There was a common parade and an exchange of flags
• James Oneal, Gustave Adolph Werner, "American communism: a critical analysis of its origins, development and programs", Greenwood Press, 1972, pg. 306, On September 24, Hitler's troops delivered Brest Litovsk to Russia, followed by a joint parade of rejoicing Nazi and Russian armies.

All of these are hollow claims with no factual proof. 95.32.15.232 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Response

Of 26 sources you cited, 18 are American and 8 are British, which were the enemies of the USSR on the Cold War. Do you really think they represent neutral and world-wide point of view? The blowing the parade's significance and muting attention to the handover itself(of which the parade was a part) only shows their bias. As I already said, you're likely to read about Metz's surrender to the US troops rather than Nazi-US joint parade in Metz because the former is a more significant event.--Dojarca (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of these sources are post Cold War. All of these sources are reliable.radek (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the parade is a notable point of cooperation between the two countries, which is why the article's about it and not the (otherwise very mundane) handover in general. As for the sources, the Russian version features some 6 Russian sources that call it a joint parade. The problem seems mainly to be with the word "victory parade," because this notion is a spawn of German propaganda of the time (neither Guderian, nor Krivoshein refer to it as a victory parade in their memoirs, nor is it called like that in the handover protocol). I'd suggest using attribution here - say that the German side publicized the parade as a symbol of victory over Poland (Wochenschau report, etc). --Illythr (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I think handover of a city to the other power is much more significant sign of cooperation than a parade (which can happen even without any cooperation). Ragarding the other point I totally agree with you. In fact the term "joint parade" was used in the preparatory agreement (although as Krivoshein wrote he abstained his units from participation for another reason). "Victory parade" is never used in contemporary sources. Can you please make proper attribution in the article? --Dojarca (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, like I said on the case page, you give someone almost 30 reliable sources and then they will start pretending that these really don't exist.radek (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that nearly all cited sources disagree with you on what's "important" here: almost all mention the parade and only one - the handover as "the event" that occurred in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939. The sources Radek cites above are mostly post-2000 and thus count as modern, which is why I'd rather get everyone to agree to use the more neutral description (current article name) before making any changes. --Illythr (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current title accurately reflects German and Soviet participation in a single event. It doesn't need to characterize regarding "victory" parade, "transfer of control" parade, "German and Soviet troops engaging in unnatural acts as they celebrate the extermination of Poland" parade, etc. That said, I would prefer to prefix "Joint" to the title. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless I have misunderstood Dojarca's intent here, he objects to the usage of the phrase "victory parade" in the caption (relevant Bundesarchiv images *are* called "German-Russian victory parade," if for propaganda reasons). Don't you think that "Joint G-S parade" is redundant? The dash already implies that they weren't separately gathering flowers... --Illythr (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think he wants to move this to "Handover" and pretend the parade never happened. As it is the article is *not* titled "German–Soviet victory parade in Brest-Litovsk" nor is there a proposal to move it to that title.radek (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not right here. My intents I already stated: since the parade was a part of a greather deal, to include information that is relevant to that deal but not directly connected to the parade (i.e. German loot trains arrair).--Dojarca (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- So, um, you're not the same Dojarca that initiated the RM above? If all you want to do is to add some further information to the article, then if you can provide reliable sources (and no, not Dyukov) and if the information is notable and you gonna observe WP:WEIGHT then of course you can do that. So ... how about withdrawing that RM that you didn't really start?radek (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wander can you read or not? I proposed the PM because it would allow to add information on the handover which is not related directly to the parade. And again, Dyukov fully satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. If you do not like it is not a reason for remmoval.--Dojarca (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I can not only read but apparently write as well. So you did propose the rename after all. So your intent is not just to add in some information but to move this article to "Handover". Ok. No. Per all the reliable sources already listed (and not a single reliable source actually listed for "Handover"). And no, Dyukov is not reliable - just because you assert something, that doesn't make it true.radek (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's at least one, but this is really not something to dispute - that the main thing was the handover is pretty obvious (see the handover protocol, for instance). However, the parade is definitely a notable subject by itself (most references mention it instead of the handover), deserving its own article (this one). I guess a separate entry can be made for the handover, detailing the non-parade things like the withdrawal of the German force in the morning, the incident at the train station etc, but this one will stay where it is. --Illythr (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca's persistent removal of info in the face of 26 reliable sources

Ok, first, Dojarca - I apologize - you're right you didn't remove a reference, rather a tag. My mistake (I said I was going to restore useful info in the sec, which was the Zaloga reference). More troubling is the fact that you keep on changing: The parade, which took place on Union of Lublin street (Polish: ulica Unii Lubelskiej), the main road of the city of Brześć, (which was reffed at one point - in any case, I can add a ref for that) to German withdrowal (sic) - despite the fact that I gave 26 reliable sources for the "parade" part. If you want add something about German withdrawal somewhere that's fine.

Second, there's nothing in Zaloga about spheres of influence as you'd like to pretend. Obviously Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany, not placed in its sphere of influence. So please stop with the weaseling.

Please restore the previous version.radek (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to accomodate both sides with putting the handover stuff into "Background" section and parade stuff into its own section. Unfortunately, the parade section is currently rather small and needs expansion. The sentence you mention (Lublin street) is now in the lead section. On "spheres of influence", this is the text of the protocol itself, Zaloga just notes the boundary set there. Anyway, how's the current version? --Illythr (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany, not placed in its sphere of influence. Yes. So we can say it was contrary to the protocool (or besides the protocol).--Dojarca (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Victory Arches

The article says, the "Victory Arches" were erected which the Soviet troops decorated with swastikas and red stars. This sounds very strange, as the place was clearly under German control before the event. The source is Richard C. Raack's book. The (unsourced) text in this book reads: The German troops in the east marched westward through newly erected victory arches courteously embellished by the Soviets with both swastikas and red stars. It seems that Richard C. Raack is not talking here about Brest at all (although Brest is mentioned in the previous sentence). My suggestion is to either simply delete the sentence or move it to Invasion of Poland (1939). Dimawik (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an actual photo of these Victory Arches, with red stars and swastikas, somewhere - it might have been in this article at one point. I'll try to find it.radek (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I know the photo you are talking about, but I think it was deleted due to copyvio reasons (...). I think it might have been used long time ago at Soviet invasion of Poland. Let me know if you find it again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing here the existence of the arches. A better sourcing would not hurt, as Raack does not even attempt to reference any actual source, and I place little faith in Raack's words alone; he seems to be the only historian in the West supporting Viktor Suvorov's theories. I think it is pretty clear from the quote above that he is not talking about Brest, so the sentence is misplaced in this article anyhow. Also, simple common sense suggests that Soviet troops could not have decorated arches in the German-held territory, so the arches, if any, were either (i) not located in Brest, (ii) were not decorated by the Soviets, or (iii) were not erected before the parade :-) One way or another, the sentence needs to go from this article. If you are confident that the arches existed, let's just move it into either Invasion of Poland (1939) or Soviet invasion of Poland. Dimawik (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced location

I am moving the following from article to talk. Feel free to retore - with a ref.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

" The parade took place on the Union of Lublin street (Polish: ulica Unii Lubelskiej), the main road of the city of Brest."

B-class

Confirming as B-class for WP:POLAND following MILHIST assessment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk. 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/20091122173014/http://www.srodki-dydaktyczne.men.gov.pl:80/filmy/files/the_17th_of_september.pdf to http://www.srodki-dydaktyczne.men.gov.pl/filmy/files/the_17th_of_september.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Photographic evidence for a joint parade

Where is the photographic evidence of the joint parade? All I see is German troops marching past a wooden platform with Guderian and Krivoshien watching: here. Whenever Soviet troops are in the frame, the tribune is nowhere to be seen. For example, this photo is clearly misattributed to the event because the platform is not there under the flagpole. It was not, therefore, taken during the ceremony, but before it, when the German flag was still up. We can see the same German truck and motocyclists in another photo, so that does not depict the supposedly joint parade either.

Unfortunately, the article does not reference the footage shot by German operator(s). It is equally problematic, for Soviet tanks are never seen rolling past the platform. It switches from Soviet troops to platform and back, but never cares to show Soviet tanks or infantry actually marching past the platform. This suggests the possibility of deceitful montage used by the Germans to falsify a joint parade. Refer again to Krivoshein's memoirs where he writes how badly Guderian wanted a parade and how the Russian brigade general tried to avoid it. I will post a translated fragment under another section devoted to the memoirs of Guderian and Krivoshein. Ant 222 (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Dan Diner: Gegenläufige Gemeinsamkeiten. In: Der Hitler-Stalin-Pakt 1939 in den Erinnerungskulturen der Europäer. Wallstein 2012, S. 42 f. Is arguing exactly the same way that there was no joint defilee. Goebbels needed pictures and arranged the pics of the withdrawal ceremony into a joint victory parade to impress the Allies and to reduce German fears of a war against the soviets. (In Germany the pics are iconografics for "Siegesparade" and "Hitler-Stalin-Pakt"). 5glogger (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE Marcelus (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

And a little bit of photographic OR on top: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vereinbarung_mit_sowjetischen_Offizieren_%C3%BCber_die_%C3%9Cberlassung_von_Brest-Litowsk.jpg This is the German version of the agreement for the procedere of the withdrawal from Brest for the 22nd. A parade is not mentioned but a "Vorbeimarsch" which left enough space for interpretation and the narrativ of a victory parade or low level involvement of soviets. Guderian did not call it a joined parade in his bio (might be he was ashamed about his collaboration with the soviets and he levelled it down). 5glogger (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS Marcelus (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The memoirs of Heinz Guderian

Although the article makes reference to Guderian's memoirs, it deplorably fails to quote him on the ceremony itself:

On the day for handing over to the Russians a Brigadier-General Krivochin appeared, a tank man who had some knowledge of French, and with whom I could therefore converse. What the instructions of the Foreign Ministry had left undecided I now settled in a friendly fashion directly with the Russians. All our equipment could he carried away; only supplies captured from the Poles had to be left behind, since in the short time at our disposal we had not been able to organize the transport necessary for their removal. A farewell parade and salutes to the two flags its [typo for in] the presence of General Krivochin marked the end of our stay in Brest-Litovsk.

—Guderian, Heinz (2001). Panzer Leader. New York: Da Capo Press.

Guderian does not give any evidence for the participation of Soviet troops in a joint parade. The Russian translation of the last sentence has a flag-exchange ceremony instead of salutes to the two flags—can someone please check it against the original Deutsch and let us know which translation is correct (if either)? Ant 222 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"As forerunner of the Russians there appeared a young officer in an armored reconnaissance car, who informed us that a Russian Tank Brigade was on its way. Then we received information concerning the demarcation line which the Foreign Ministry had agreed; this surrendered Brest to the Russians, since the Bug was to be the boundary. We did not regard this as a very advantageous decision; and finally we were informed that we only had until 22nd of September in which to evacuate the territory east of the line of demarcation. This was so little time that we could not even move all our wounded or recover our damaged tanks. It seems unlikely that any soldier was present when the agreement about the demarcation line and the cease fire was drawn up." - Directly preceding to your quote. Added to illustrate the atmosphere between the forces. AzzAzeL-US (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Сombat journal of the XIXth motorised corps

The most reliable and precise source is the combat journal of the XIXth motorised corps for the 22nd of September, published in Izdebski J. Wojskowy Przegland Historyczny. 1991. NN 3/4. Here is my own very poor translation of the relevant parts:

8:30: The Russian battalion that should have arrived at 8:00 to occupy the city still has not appeared.

11:00: The Russians are still missing.

11:15: Arrival of the commander of a Russian tank brigade that is on the move towards Brest- brigadier general Krivoshein. He was met by the corps commander and chief of staff. Krivoshein makes an impression of a well-bred man, calm and confident. The procedure of the handover of the city was discussed for the second time. During the discussion of the public ceremony, the Russian general expressed a desire that his tanks should not participate in the ceremonial march because that would prevent the crews from watching the march of the German troops. This desire necessiated rearrangements in the whole ceremony. It has been decided that the Russian tanks will not march, but the Russian orchestra and tank crews will take place near the orchestra of the XXth motorised division, against the generals receiving the salute. At the conclusion of the negotiations, the corps commander invited the Russian commander to a modest lunch, during which they proposed toasts to the success of both armies.

The ceremonial march scheduled for 14:00 started half an hour late because of the Russians, who did not relieve on time the battalion of the 20th motorised division in Wlodawa. Moreover, because of poor organisation on their side, the roads to Brest were clogged with stationary companies of Russian tanks.

14:30: Start of the ceremonial march of two artillery batteries, a reinforced regiment of the 20th motorised division, and the recoinissance batallion of the 20th motorised division as closer. The corps commander was receiving the salute and the Russian commander was standing at his left. During the march, the German and Russian orchestras played in turns. The very good, elevating impression of the march was spoiled by traffic jams due to serious damage in the street leading to Vidamlja. The Russian tank crews and eight-piece orchestra made a rather poor impression with their sloppy and mismatching outfits. Upon the end of the march, when the last German truck had rolled past the tribune, the corps commander in a brief speech handled the "Russian fortress" Brest to the Russian commander. Then the order to pull down the German flag was given. To the sound of the national anthem, at 16:45, the German flag in Brest was pulled down. The Russian commander made a speech, after which, to the sound of the International, one of the political commissaries raised the Red flag on the flagpole. This completed the handover ceremony. To deal with the remaining business, the former Brest governor stayed in Brest with a translator. The whole event was shot by a propaganda squad. The corps commander and the chief of staff left immediately and headed for the new location of the corps headquarters in Zambrow.

Whether willingly or unwillingly, whether of his own initiative or in compliance with an order from the higher command personnel, Krivoshein ruined most of the handover ceremony and saved the Red army from the shame of marching with the Nazi troops. The ceremony, therefore, cannot be technically called a joint parade.Ant 222 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OR. If WP:RS call it a "joint parade", then that's what we call it. And that's what they call it, because a "ceremonial march" of men from two armies is a joint parade. What we do not call it is a "victory parade", because although some RS call it that the best and most detailed ones do not, because it was not done as a symbol or celebration of victory. Where is the promised quotation from Krivoshein's memoirs? Srnec (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

But other WP:RS call it a "myth", so then we should call it a "joint parade myth" by the same logic, right? :) 95.32.35.146 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ant 222 There was no "("ceremonial march" of men from two armies)" the renegotiated procedure was that Russians watched the parade/march or whatever from the curb, both commanders observed from the podium across from them. The Soviet orchestra played music at least during the raising of the Soviet flag. AzzAzeL-US (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

On opinions represented as hard facts and correct image captions

Currently the "German-Soviet parade" is presented in the article as something that definitely happened. But it's nothing more than opinion of some historians known for their anti-soviet agenda. Other historians dismiss it as a myth, so at least there must be a word "allegedly" or something similar. Some users here state that parade is well-sourced. It is not. Opinions are just opinions without hard evidence (and afaik there is not a single shot of german and soviet troops marching together, not even just the soviet troops marching before the platform with german officers, so even the question if a simple march could be called a parade is irrelevant). Offers made by german and soviet sides prior the handover ceremony are just that - offers. Does not mean all really happened according to them. Does not even mean these were real intentions!

As for the image captions, the older ones were clearly not neutral and didn't match what was visible on the picture. Since 3 of 4 new edits were accepted by opponent, right now i will address only the last one - "German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material". But nothing tells us it was some specific "parade material". Afaik only Krivoshein mentioned it, according to his memoirs, there was a small talk in and beside so-called "leninist tent" holding the assortment of generic soviet propaganda posters, some even anti-nazi ones from a few years back (those immediately becoming popular among german officers as photoshoot background)) Anyway, hardly a "german-soviet parade material" 95.32.35.146 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources aren't "neutral", they overwhelmingly call it a joint parade. It is fair to mention the alternative view (as now), but not to elevate it above that. Note that the opinion of Vishlyov as presented in the article is that there were two parades rather than one. Hardly enough to warrant an "allegedly". Nor is it necessary to find a shot of soldiers of both nations marching simultaneously, since (a) that isn't necessary for a joint parade and (b) not everything that happened is photographed. Srnec (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The “joint parade” interpretation would be more credible, if there were any there were any shots of Soviet troops marching or vehicles rolling by. AzzAzeL-US (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

People standing is the main reason of a parade, so this IS a joint parade. By the way, notice the smile in Guderian pics and footage. Very interesting. Also, the soviets show some diabolic appearance. JKim (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Only one guess was needed for the geolocation. Nicodene (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)