Talk:Western betrayal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Rm paragraph from lead

I removed the paragraph: The very term betrayal, used in this context, could be misleading since in various languages its meaning is slightly different. For instance in Polish the term zdrada ("betrayal") can be used for all situations where a pact was broken while in English, although the meaning is practically the same, it has different connotations. Since it is almost like a paragraph long waesel word rather unconvincing. We don't need it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't need it. It's unconvincing because it's just wrong and simply trying to camouflage an obviously biased POV, or to justify it by implying that the neutrality was somehow "lost in translation". --Thorsten1 15:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this really a proper title for an article?

This title seems inherently POV. Shouldn't we have something like "Western policy towards Central and Eastern Europe after World War II," or some such? john k 03:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the intro states, this article is about "certain views". I think there's already some discussion on the topic in the archives, linked above. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 04:01 Z

By having the title of the article here, we are pretty clearly saying that Poland was betrayed. This title is clearly pov. john k

I don't think the article on Holocaust denial denies the holocaust, nor does the article about the theory of peaceful coexistence assert that communist and capitalist states can coexist peacefully. This article is about a historical view, which is clearly explained in the introduction, and I think it is at the appropriate name. Like I said, this was discussed in the archive at length, by people who know much more about the subject than I. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 04:39 Z

Well said, Michael. Kudos! Halibutt 07:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions state that Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Thus shorter, more descriptive name is preffered to the longer, more political correct (phuiii) term. Sure, betrayal is a strong word. But it is, unfortunately, correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I second on that. Also the main purpose of the article is to explain the meaning of this particular phrase and not an other one. Lysy 11:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't second any of that... ;-) To start with Michael Zajac's statement: No, Holocaust denial does not deny the holocaust - it simply says that some people do deny it. Likewise, Western betrayal simply says that the West did betray someone. Which would still be perfectly acceptable, if it weren't for the fact that the whole article is not just describing a "historical view", but obviously designed to prove that this "historical view" is correct - of which Piotrus's above remark is a good example.

I will certainly not re-enter a debate on this. Not because I don't have plenty of arguments, but because I don't feel they would be considered. Let me just add that even Norman Davies, who is hardly suspicious of defending what he labels the (Western) "Allies' scheme of history", and who is often dismissed as an overly zealous champion of the Polish cause, flatly denies that there was any such thing as a "Western betrayal": "I never use the word 'betrayal', which implies a deliberate act of betrayal." It would certainly be wrong to swallow the "Western" version that "the West" always acted nobly towards Poland. But to go to the opposite extreme and construct a long history of betrayal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And it's not helping the Polish cause, either. But that's quite another story already. --Thorsten1 15:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what is the term used by Davies? Halibutt 16:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cheap rhetorical shot, Halibutt. Let's assume I say "I never use the term 'Polish self-victimization" - would you go and ask me which term I prefer? Rather not, as I wouldn't use any term at all to describe a phenomenon which I don't believe exists. Your question is based on the underlying assumption that "the West" did have a coherent attitude and policy towards Poland from 1918 (if not earlier) through 1945 (if not later), and you're struggling to find a name for this alleged attitude. (To be more precise, you are actually not struggling because you are all too happy with "Western betrayal".)

The whole trouble, however, is that "the West" did not have any such coherent policy towards Poland. There certainly was a great deal of ignorance and indifference regarding Central Europe and Poland in particular, and we are certainly entitled to criticise that. But that's a far cry from anything one would call betrayal, or zdrada respectively. --Thorsten1 17:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've made some good points Thorsten, which ought to be in the article. Are you arguing that the article is factually incorrect, or that it is imbalanced, or simply that you feel the title is prejudicial? —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 17:25 Z

Michael, let me put it this way: If the article itself was more accurate and balanced, even a title as provocative as this one would acceptable. Conversely, if the title wasn't that provocative, some of the valid points in the article would be more convincing: It is a huge stumbling block, it sets an aggressive tone that rubs off on the rest of the contents. It will certainly make uninformed "Westerners" very cautious and defensive, causing them to question the very things the article is here to present more than they otherwise would.

As for the article itself - it is digressive and full of details that contribute next to nothing to the concept of "Western betrayal": How is Mikołajczyk's return supposed to relate to the British policy towards Poland? It makes allusions and provokes readers to speculate: Was Sikorski the victim of an Anglo-Soviet plot? On the same note, Rolf Hochhuth is neither a historian nor a revisionist. In itself, an error of this kind is forgivable; in the given context it is sadly indicative of the overall standard of the article. The article is inaccurate to the point of incorrectness when it sweepingly speaks of Ango-Polish and Franco-Polish "alliances", that were "strengthened with the rise of Nazism". In fact, these so-called "alliances" came after a long history of alienation between Poland and both Britain and France, which had reached its peak when Poland and Germany were acting in concert against Czechoslovakia in 1938 - for the average Brit, Poland was just another of these dictatorships on the continent at that point. They were makeshift devices, panic last-ditch efforts to deter German aggression. They were never built to last, but designed to make themselves unnecessary, mere bluffs to impress Hitler. (That, of course, was not the way the Polish government presented them to the Polish population.) Finally, the article repeatedly assumes that "the West" could have done more to assist Poland against Hitler and then Stalin. Certainly, Churchill could have tried to invade Germany earlier, he could have continued to recognise the Polish government in exile, he could have insisted that Poland keep territories east of the Curzon line, etc. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this would have significantly changed the outcome of WWII as far as Poland is concerned - which, unfortunately, is what the article does. Much of the notion of "Western betrayal" has to do with "Western" strength being grossly overestimated in the first place.

To answer your question: I do think that the concept of "Western betrayal" should be explained in an article. This article, however, seems beyond repair - it is incoherent, gossipy, loquacious, accusatory, self-congratulatory, self-pitious, thus compromising the very case it's trying to make. --Thorsten1 18:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is 'under construction', large sections are not ready. And I agree there was no 'single policy' towards Poland. During the Polish Soviet War, for example, Lloyd supported Soviets while Churchill advocated the Polish cause. Before 41 America cannot be really considered part of this policy as it didn't care about the entire Europe one way or another (as far as policies are concerned). Many other examples can be given - yet I don't think the article states that it describes some kind of constant, unified policy of the West? Perhaps it should be made more clear. Neither the article sais that Poland was a saint. Again, Poland mistakes - from failure of Miedzymorze federation to Czechoslovakia partitions - should be mentioned. But those are minor points (although definetly useful for background and painting the 'big picture'). The main point of the article is to show - based on facts (events, dates...) - that while it was never a goal of the West to see Poland victimised - one way or another - the facts are that more often then not, it was politicaly expedient to use Poland when it is needed (during the PSW, during the IIWW) and then forget about it. A key event here is the end of IIWW. Sure, it is partially a catch phrase, but 'Poland lost the war'. It fought beside the Allies, had an army comparable (at the very least) with Free French forces, but it was left out of any serious negotiations (Teheran, Yalta, etc.) and eventually the Western Allies decided that it would be to costly to fight Stalin for Poland's freedom. You are saying that the Allies didn't want the IIWW. Nobody did (even Hitler, not in '39). Still, Poland kept all of its agreements, it paid with life of its citizens for the freedom of the Western World. Yet in the end, when the West was free, Poland was not. This article tries to explain why it happened. I am not trying to make a moral judgement here - I am not saying it was right or wrong - realpolitik has its own values, and there is always the deadly serious question how many lives need to be sacrificed to save others? - I am just stating the facts. Am I mistaken anywhere? Are there any factual or logical mistakes in the article? Do point them out. I am always willing to improve. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piotrku, the fact that the article is under construction is no excuse for the sorry state it is in. Everything here is under construction by definition. The point I was trying to make is that it is strikingly farther removed from perfection than most others. And that is certainly not because too few people have invested too little time; it even spent quite a while in somebody's dry-dock before being moved back into the article namespace. (If I recall correctly, the previous, much criticised version was entitled Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies or something.)

Unfortunately I lack the time to embark on an in-depth discussion of every single point you made. I'm even less inclined to meddle with the article itself - especially as virtually everything I have to say has already been put forward in some form, by others or myself, to no obvious avail. Re-read the archived parts of this discussion from October 2004, and you'll discover how the same sets of arguments have been tossed back and forth ever since. We seem to have left behind us the simplistic pro-Polish vs. pro-Western trench warfare, and that is certainly a step in the right direction. But the general disagreement is about whether the concept of "Western betrayal" ought to be presented as an interpretation, a construal of historical developments, which - at least in its more radical version - was largely a misconstrual; or whether it is to be presented as a strictly factual description of Allied policies which correctly carry the name "betrayal". In the first case, we would have to describe the interpretation and explain the circumstances under which is was conceived and developed its appeal; in the latter we'd have to build a case to prove that the interpretation is correct. The line between the two approaches may be fine and sometimes difficult to observe. But as long as we do not have a consensus about which of these two roads we should follow, arguments are bound to continue.

Relating briefly to a few points made by Piotrus, you are complaining the "fact" that "'Poland lost the war'", and that her interests were ignored after the war, although "Poland kept all of its agreements, it paid with life of its citizens for the freedom of the Western World". Fair enough - nothing of this is wrong. Rather, it is the evident accusatory impulse in the subtext that is causing problems.

The whole argument is based on the totally counterfactual assumption that "the West" could have done more for Poland in the face of Stalin's opposition, but that it light-heartedly chose to forget about its obligations to Poland as soon as it no longer needed her. In fact, the Western powers could have continued to recognise the London-based government-in-exile, instead of transferring diplomatic recognition to Warsaw. But that would have been a merely symbolic decision, which might have shortened the brief interim between WWII and the Cold War somewhat, but that's about it. The only substantial thing Churchill & Co. could have done in recognition of their Polish ally was to launch military action against the Soviet forces, ie. to continue the war, now fighting Stalin instead of Hitler. I seriously doubt, though, that this would have contributed much to saving Polish lives. Let us not forget that Poland would have remained at the very centre of military operations, the atomic bomb was the Allies' brand new toy and the leaders were not yet as reluctant to use it as they were later, since they were not yet very much aware of its sheer destructive force. Admittedly, this is a highly hypothetical scenario, but I am only trying to think the argument put forward through to the end.

On another note, a disciple of the "Allied Scheme of History" could also put forward quite a few arguments to counter the claim of betrayal: Wasn't it Poland that had allowed Hitler to present himself as a wolf in sheep's clothing for a decisive number of years by signing a treaty of non-aggression in 1934? Didn't this treaty make possible or even condition appeasement? Didn't Germany and Poland jointly undermine the League of Nation's authority after 1934? The one point were a "betrayal" of the West can hardly be refuted was at Munich, when Czechoslovakian sovereignty was sacrificed to ensure peace. Alas, Poland was actively involved in this sad chapter, even benefiting by taking over the Cieszyn region from their unfortunate neighbours - it wouldn't be totally out of place for Czechs to speak of a "Northern betrayal" here. Then, when all of a sudden Poland was under threat herself, she remembered her good old Western friends and was completely flabbergasted about how they were so reluctant to Die For Danzig.

Later still, Poland naturally "kept all of its agreements, it paid with life of its citizens for the freedom of the Western World". Fair enough, but then, what choice did they have? The Poles simply had no other way to fight for their own future than to fight side by side with the West. The Polish part in the Battle for Britain was often conveniently overlooked. But let's not forget that while defending Britain, they were also desperately defending their own swindling hopes of ever driving the German war machine from their home. The crucial question is - would they have fought for another country with the same kind of determination had they not felt they were also fighting for their own country? As long as we don't know the answer to that one, the mantra "We fought for you, you didn't fight for us" doesn't seem entirely fair, does it?

Finally, the article itself shows how both German and later Soviet conquerers succeeded in implanting the notion of "Western betrayal" into Polish hearts (see the propaganda poster "Anglio! Twoje dzieło!"). As Piotrus writes, "Yet in the end, when the West was free, Poland was not". Certainly this produced an enormous amount of bitterness and a desire to point fingers, which is perfectly understandable. It just so happens that bitterness and a desire to point fingers are poor counsellors when it comes to understanding history, and writing Wikipedia articles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm only writing this as the devil's advocate - to show that there is another side to this story. A good article would not only present both on an equal footing; and it would also be one from which uninitiated "Western" readers would learn at least as much, if not more, about the societies that have produced and harboured the notion of "Western betrayal" as they would on the supposed acts of betrayal committed by their own governments.

A final remark on the title. Unlike John (see below), I'm not fundamentally opposed to it just because it reflects a specific POV. True, we may not have Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy etc., but we do have the Jewish Doctors' plot, Recovered Territories, Final Solution, Drang nach Osten, etc. Thus, using a controversial concept as a title does not automatically imply approval of the concept - but this then has to be made clear in the article itself. Which simply isn't happening here. --Thorsten1 21:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thorsten, could you be more specific? No article is beyond repair, everything can be fixed. Also, why don't you add all of the abovementioned arguments to it? Halibutt 19:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

When I say "beyond repair" I mean that fixing this article would require a re-write almost from the ground up. As it is approaching 20 standard book pages that's an enormous task. Plus, as can be seen from the archived parts of the discussion, any editing along the lines of what I mentioned above is likely to meet with massive opposition - which makes the task all but superhuman... ;-) --Thorsten1 22:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is "western betrayal" the term that most English-speakers would recognize? john k 16:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a short, simple term. Can you think of any other descroptive two word title that would be more NPOV? I'd be happy to support such a change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a short simple term of which the referent would be completely unclear to most English-speakers. I study European history, and I would have no idea what an article on "western betrayal" would be about without seeing it. This title is not only POV, it's completely opaque as far as explaining what the article is about. john k 00:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The passage you quote in defending this title, Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, is, in fact, the best indictment I can see of the title. This is not a title that the majority fo English speakers would easily recognize, and it's incredibly ambiguous. john k 00:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Think positively: what would be the best two or three-word title that would be esy to unpuzzle for a native English speaker? Halibutt 01:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any two or three word phrase that would be a) NPOV and b) easy to unpuzzle. The current title is neither. I'd prefer something like Western policy towards Poland after World War II, or something (with the Czech, &c. material, going elsewhere). john k 02:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John, how about Western policies towards Central and Eastern Europe and Central and Eastern European attitudes towards them? or perhaps Western policies towards Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Finland, Ukraine and other Central and Eastern European states in 20th century? Halibutt 06:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

And here we go again. Is it better to have a 'western betrayal' catch phrase, that is short, but semi-descriptive and not used much except on wiki? Or should be go with a really long, ling title? I would really be happy if sb can invent a sort, descripive NPOV title. Really. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh, what about these policies towards Yugoslavia, Finland, Ukraine and other countries? I see no actual content there that needs a title. It might as well be split up into one article under History of Poland and one under History of Czechoslovakia as it is now. Heck, if it's just a phenomenon in those two countries, and *not* in others, then make it obvious and say so. --Joy [shallot] 11:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone ought to write that. This is no reason to disintegrate the relation. Johan Magnus 13:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The failure of the Western powers to recognize Ukrainian nationhood at the Paris Peace Conference (1919), the British hand-over of the Cossacks to the Soviets, and the perception of betrayal at the Yalta conference are all relevant to Ukraine. I don't really know enough to write about this. —Michael Z. 2005-04-13 13:40 Z

Piotrus - I too, would be happy for a short, descriptive, NPOV title. The current title only qualifies as "short." Given the unfamiliarity of this subject to most English-speakers, there is no short title we can come up with which is also descriptive and NPOV. As to Yugoslavia, I find it hard to even see how the west betrayed Yugoslavia. Are we discussing the betrayal of the Cetniks? Because I'm not terribly impressed. The Cetniks could never have established a regime over all of Yugoslavia because of their close association with Serbian nationalism - Tito was the only viable option to preserve Yugoslavia. As to Ukraine, I don't see how that could be seen as a betrayal - the western powers never made any promises to the Ukrainians, and the 14 Points specifically said that the Russian Empire would have to work out its own mess. After 1945, the idea that the west betrayed the Ukrainian by leaving it under Stalin, who had just, after all, won the war and could hardly be expected to give up territory he had held before 1939, seems particularly silly. The Baltic States, I think, also hold no particular claim to having been betrayed by the west. Finland seems an even weaker case - not only did Finland come out of the Second World War quite fine, but a) western efforts to help it during the Winter War did not come to pass only because the Finns themselves gave in to the Soviets; and b) the Finns fought on the German side against the Soviet Union from 1941, and the western powers owed them nothing. Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which fought on the Axis side, as well, can hardly have any claims to protection from the west. So really it is just Poland and Czechoslovakia. john k 14:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John, I hope you and other contributors can ponder how to avoid making Wikipedia into a Usenet-like discussion club. The ideas or feelings of a Western betrayal exist. For sure more pronunced in certain circles than in other. If you, or someone else who consider yourself more "Western" than the Poles or the Finns think that these perceptions are wrong... that is maybe not particularly relevant.

--Johan Magnus 14:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

huh? The fact that people "feel" some way is not a reason to title a wikipedia article that. Neonazis "feel" that the Jews are in a worldwide conspiracy. Should we have an article called worldwide Jewish conspiracy? "The article is not saying that there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, just that some people feel that there is." My comments above were simply to highlight that the situation of Poland and Czechoslovakia, who were western allies who then got treated rather shabbily, both initially and after the war, are quite different from the case of, say, Finland, where I can barely conceive how anybody could see them as betrayed, and the current article doesn't give any evidence that they were. The material on Yugoslavia mostly exists to say that most Yugoslavs didn't even like the royal government and the Chetniks, which makes the claim of betrayal ridiculous. As to me "considering myself as more 'Western' than the Poles or the Finns," this is clearly absurd. It was not me who called this article "Western Betrayal" - I am arguing that we should not call it that.

At any rate, it seems to me there are two issues here: 1) Which countries does this phenomenon apply to? and 2) How are we to call the article about this phenomenon, if we should have them? Most of my comments above were in response to question 1, and my answer, I think, is "well, really just Poland and Czechoslovakia - any further application is highly dubious, given the historical facts, and given the lack of evidence presented so far." My answer to 2, well, I'm not completely sure. Joy, though, is probably essentially right - we should merge this material into the histories of Poland and Czechoslovakia. There is no need for a separate article, and a separate article is highly likely to become POV. If we must have an article, it should clearly not be at Western betrayal, for both NPOV and clarity reasons. john k 15:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) I am not familiar enough to claim that countries other then Poland and Czechoslovakia were really betrayed. If there is no evidence to prove this, I won't mind of those sectiosn are moved to talk for further discussion. I definetly don't think that this should be moved directly to History of Poland - this is a subarticle (or a mainarticle, depending on the point of view). Besides, if you were to split it between History of Poland (1918-1939), History of Poland (1939-1945) and History of Poland (1945-1989) this would lose much of its logical structure. I have been giving more thought about a proper name. Yes, it is short, but not very NPOV. I will support a good descriptive title - please contribute suggestions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, other than wikipedia mirrors, the first results in a google search on "western betrayal" are about East Timor and Macedonia in the 1990s. There are also early references to the Kurds (after WWI), to the Arabs (after WWI), and so forth. john k 15:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are a *few* sites, but a minority (and all are linked in this article). Btw, you may want to check Google Schoolar results as well in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the name, we don't have worldwide Jewish conspiracy, but we do have articles on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. Perhaps this title would ideally be in quotation marks, but it's certainly better than the proposals I see above.

Note that we also have an article on the Holodomor, which had much debate. The article was eventually accepted by several Wikipedians who don't accept that the 1932 Ukrainian Famine was a deliberate genocide, as implied by the name. That article is about more about the historiography of the term, and the actual famine is dealt with in more detail in Collectivization of the USSR.

"As to Ukraine, I don't see how that could be seen as a betrayal - the western powers never made any promises to the Ukrainians, and the 14 Points specifically said that the Russian Empire would have to work out its own mess. After 1945, the idea that the west betrayed the Ukrainian by leaving it under Stalin, who had just, after all, won the war and could hardly be expected to give up territory he had held before 1939, seems particularly silly."

Regarding the Paris Conference and the Fourteen Points, the western powers stated a commitment to respect self-determination for many nations, but basically ignored the delegation from the government of Western Ukraine. Wilson promised territorial integrity to Poland, and ended up throwing in Western Ukraine with its Ukrainian peasant majority population as a colony.

As a sidenote - I wonder if the terms of Treaty of Riga wouldn't also fall under Western Betrayal for Ukraine - after all, it was betrayed by Poland, which is to the west of Ukraine :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the end of WWII, the British turned over tens of thousands of their Cossack allies along with their families to please Stalin, including many Ukrainians.

Another sidenote - there are articles on this on Wiki. I remember reading one or two about that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "silliness", Stalin held onto Western Ukraine, which had never experienced Russian or communist rule until 1939. Whether rightly or wrongly, the belief in a betrayal by Churchill and Roosevelt is very strongly held among many diaspora Ukrainians. As you don't see how this could be, it appears that an article on this subject could be useful. —Michael Z. 2005-04-13 17:27 Z

No, I understand that there's a lot of bitterness all over the place (although Cossacks are not really Ukrainians, in my understanding), because Stalin was awful, and the west didn't do much to prevent him taking control of eastern Europe (as though they could do all that much). I'm sure that one could make arguments for how all kinds of people were betrayed. At any rate, I wasn't thinking of Eastern Galicia/western Ukraine in my initial post, and I suppose there's a case to be made. Just as there's cases to be made for the Arab "betrayal" by the Allies at Paris, or the Kurd "betrayal" by the Allies at Lausanne, or whatever grievance any national group may have. That doesn't mean we should have a blatantly POV title western betrayal. As to the fact that we have articles on anti-semitism and anti-zionism - sure. But we don't have an article on the concept of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy called worldwide Jewish conspiracy which details the views of anti-semites about a world-wide Jewish conspiracy. even if such an article explained that most people do not believe there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, it would be POV simply to have an article there. And this case is exactly analogous to that, except that the view of "western betrayal" held by Poles is not in itself objectionable in the way that anti-semitic views about Jews are. But it's the same principle - it is POV to have an article titled after an idea which is in dispute. The same thing can and should be said about Holodomor, which you yourself resurrected, to much disagreement, only a couple of months ago. john k 18:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I agree the title needs to be changed (another good point for the name change - this motion is recurring to often and taking too much of our valuable time :>), I would like to raise another issue here: you say that the idea is disputed. Please, tell me, which parts of the article are disputable - i.e. present false/unproven facts or are POVed? We should fix this ASAP. It would do no good to change the title and leave the article in a mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not about bitterness. The purpose of the article is to explain the meaning of the term "Western betrayal", regardless of your emotional attitude and your personal personal belief whether this really happened or not. According to your agrumentation we should be removing most of the historical articles because someone might claim that their titles are POV and that such things never happened. Let's start with Great famine and Final solution. Lysy 19:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final solution is a term generally used by English-language historians. So is great famine. "western betrayal" is not. Furthermore, to have it focus on Poland (and to a lesser extent Czechoslovakia) is problematic. As I noted before, the Kurds and Arabs also refer prominently to "western betrayal." The term is so vague as to mean practically anything. Furthermore - of course many things are POV. But few things are more POV than this. And, again, why is this any more acceptable than an article on the world Jewish conspiracy that explains the meaning of the term, regardless of one's emotional attitude and one's personal belief as to whether there really is one or not? john k 02:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and create the article on world Jewish conspiracy if you can write one, based on historic facts. Lysy 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Western betrayal seems a term mostly invented on Wiki, and in most articles it is linked here by [[Western betrayal|blah blah relevant sentence]], further proving that the name is far from widely used. I think that in due time, western betrayal will became a disambig anyway, so no point in arguing over this. Let's agree on a better title. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree that we are looking for a new title then? DJ Clayworth 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So then what shall we do?

Regarding the title. I can't remember where I first found the link to this article, but when I saw it I thought "does that mean?...". And after I clicked and read the intro paragraph, I thought "oh yes, it does... Interesting." Remember that links to this article will mostly be seen in a relevant context. The title is concise, and does allude to the subject. For me, Western betrayal gets the general sense across much better than a rambling dissertation like "Western policy towards Poland after World War II", which is too specific to be accurate.

I suggest a vote, to put this matter behind us - this matter is coming back every few weeks, so we need to have *something* to stop this. I propose 1) changing Western betrayal into a disambig (since Google seems to have lots of info about more rescent western betrayalas - timor, iraq, whatever), then moving this article to Western betrayal (Central and Eastern Europe), and finally creating a subpage Western betrayal (Central and Eastern Europe)/Name Vote where we would list any propositions for a week or so and then vote. We may also ask a wider Wiki community to join us - I suggest we duplicate the procedure used on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After I wrote the below section, I think I have a better name. What do you think about Western policies toward Central and Eastern Europe from 1914? Western, because it is broader then Allies (1939-1945) or Western Europe (which obviously excludes the USA or Canada, etc.). Policies, because as I explain below I don't think views or attitudes are relevant here - we are talking about foreign policies most of the time. Central and Eastern Europe is another good term, which doesn't force us to decide right now which countries were or weren't affected by those policies. Finally, the date - I think that those policies could exist only after the countries in this region gained independence, which mostly begun happening from 1917 (not 1918!) German Mitteleuropa concept onward, and as for the end date - I am not sure really when we could end the article. After death of Stalin? After the breakup of the SU? Not mentioning the end date again gives us room to see how the article shapes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the content. It's an unfinished article, which needs lots of filling out. It does need some incremental work towards making it an article essentially about a point of view, and weeding out any advocacy for the point of view. To some degree, I think this article will find itself as it gets closer to a finished state (yes, that opinion requires a good faith belief in the people who will be doing the editing).

I know that is less than ideal, but this article still much more interesting and informative than the thousands of inadequate stubs.

Resolution? Can we add a note at the top which will let the reader know the state of this article? Something like the NPOV or disputed messages, but not as strong? —Michael Z. 2005-04-14 06:17 Z

How about working a bit more on the contents of the article instead, to see what really seems to be POV there and pinpoint or improve these pieces. Then we'll see to what extent the title is POV or based on facts. Lysy 06:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the content itself is POV, per se, except through selection bias. I really do think that the principal problem here is the title - it is so vague as to allow almost anything into the article, so long as it is somebody who feels they were betrayed by the west. (Would there be any way to argue against adding sections on the Arabs and Kurds, for instance?) Given that, there is a pov problem that the article only really discusses Poland and Czechoslovakia. The idea that the article is "incomplete" is particularly problematic. What is the case is that this article was written originally about Poland, and that this was recognized to be POV, so sections were added on the Czechs, and blank sections were added about Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc. (the Yugoslavia one having recently been filled in). At any rate, it seems to me that we need to have some idea what this article is supposed to be about. Is it about betrayal after World War II? That's what the Polish stuff is largely about. But the Czech stuff is largely about betrayal before World War II. And any Ukrainian stuff that would be added would be even more about stuff that happened at Versailles. One could presumably discuss more recent "western betrayals" as well - the failure to intervene in Hungary in 1956, for instance, or western behavior in the Yugoslav Civil War in the 1990s. Not to mention the stuff with the Kurds and Arabs after WWI (and probably some other people, as well). Does the German disappointment at the "harshness" of the Treaty of Versailles amount to a "western betrayal?" Should we add material about how White Russians felt betrayed by the lack-lustre support received from the western powers in 1919? And what about colonial peoples? Were the East Timorese betrayed by the west in 1975? How about the "West Papuans" in the Indonesian half of New Guinea? What about the American failure to help the Republic of Vietnam in 1975? In its current title, this article could be expanded to have sections about every grudge that any country has ever felt towards Britain/France/the U.S. in at least the twentieth century.

It also seems to be the case that there is no good title which we can come up with which is not horribly awkward. That said, well, maybe this shouldn't be a separate article. The article on Polish history from 1939-1945 could probably support most of the material here. Material on other peoples who feel betrayed could go in individual articles on those countries' histories. But I'm open to other options. john k 14:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

uh, I haven't read all of the above because life is much too short. However, as a non-expert, wouldn't a sensible approach to many of the perceived problems be to simply add quote marks to the title, thus removing the POV problem?

View, facts or... something else?

Compare the recent lead change. It is significant. And I am not sure even my previous changed version (which I do think was better) is entirely correct. There are several important issues here: is this an article about POVed (disputabe at best, considered wrong by majority at worst) views (like Anti-Zionism or Holocaust Denial) or is this an article about fairly unknown but unPOVed views or is this an article about factual, if somewhat not easy, facts (like the Holocaust)? The very definition of Wikipedia:NPOV suggest that we shoud strive to make this an article about facts. Therefore, we should differentiate between an article about some 'views' and an article about effects of certain countrie foreign policies on others. I believe that the facts are our main concern here, and the view about them (the moral judgement about those facts), entitled by few 'western betrayal', is only a small part of this. Even when you look at the current article, what you see is a factual history analysis (country A signed pact in year X, politician Y said Z in year P), with little or no mention of psychological or other believes that would make the 'western betrayal'. I believe the 'western betrayal' is good for a single section of this article, and the main should simply analyse the history - why, when, what, not what people think about it (which is what 'western betrayal' really is, IMHO). If we concentrate on this, we should be able to put all of the POVed differences behind us. Finally, is this view shared only by people of Poland/former Cz. or is more worldwide? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is an option of splitting this article in two: one article with explanation of the phenomenon of sense of western betrayal and the other with details on what actually happened. However, if we do that, the other article will be pointless, since it could be as well divided between History of... series, and then deleted (as unimportant or non-notable, for instance).

As someone noted, this article is far from being ready. I must admit I lost my nerves after the initial quarrels with Naryathegreat, Adam Carr and others and decided not to talk to Adam any more and not to add anything to this article. After all Adam said that it should be deleted no-matter-what, so I thought that losing my time on working on it makes no sense. All in all, only the Polish part is more or less ready while the other parts are merely some uber-stubs.Halibutt 18:15, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, an option may be to move the Polish part to a new section at History of Poland#"Western betrayal", etc (with the quotes?). The individual histories could link to this article, which would be a very brief explanation of the concept of "western betrayal", with a few examples and links to the individual history articles. Similarly to the way Holodomor is treated.

No one seems to have a problem with the information here, just with the title and/or with the selectiveness of information. It may even be a more effective article if it stuck to the essence of the issue. —Michael Z. 2005-04-15 19:48 Z

Could you explain more specifically what exactly seems POV in the title ? I think it's very good, actually. Is it the title or the presented fact that you're disputing ? Lysy 20:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent title. But from the discussion here it looks like editors are being discouraged by the controversy, so I'm trying to suggest an acceptable compromise that will let the good work continue. —Michael Z. 2005-04-15 20:32 Z

From RfC

The title is fine as it is, IMO. ObsidianOrder 06:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this title is best for the article. Don't you guys have more productive things to do ? 217.116.100.252 08:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This title makes no sense. It is inherently POV and against Wikipedia policies and, more importantly, completely ambiguous. The title should have enough info to explain what the article is supposed to be about, and this term is nowhere near common usage. A short but descriptive and neutral title should be created. DreamGuy 17:57, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Summary

I've read the discussion so far and have to admit I'm quite puzzled. Someone claims that the title is POV but the content is OK. Than someone else thinks that the title is too generic (then it's not POV ?). And so on. Could we summarise the charges first before we decide if anything really needs to be done (and then what) ? Let's identify if any facts presented are not true and remove or correct them. Otherwise, how an article based on facts can be POV ? What is the alternative point of view then ? Lysy 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replying to several posts, inlcuding but not limited to the excellent Thorsten1 reply, I would like to strongly invite all interested parties to either list the POVed fragments here or fix them directly in-text. You have read the article. You have an opinion. Unless you are satisfied with the article as it is, be bold - edit! :) We seem to have a rather constructive discussion - no flames, no personal attacks, no reverts, etc. I think this is the excellent chance for a community effort and fixing this article once and for all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, thanks for the compliment, but at the moment I really do not have the time to carry out changes to the extent I consider necessary, even less discuss them. But if anyone finds themselves agreeing with my criticisms, even if only to a limited degree, I would indeed be glad if they could edit the article keeping them in mind. I hope to come back to this article before too long myself. --Thorsten1 18:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

I have been asked by Lysy to look over section about Czechoslovakia.

The history, as I can judge is more less correct but I somehow miss relation to the article name.

Here's my version fitting the title: Czechoslovakian politicians lived under illusion they can get lot of music for little money (the opposite would be something as Israel today). When faced with reality (i.e. that no one cared about this country) they put blame on anyone else rather than on themselves.

Pavel Vozenilek 01:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Repatriation

Repatriation is not covered in the article or in the Yalta article. This was an agreement to repatriate 1.5 million persons. It needs to be covered and perhaps have its own article. Nobs01 20:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean the depatriation of Poles from the East? Halibutt 23:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

See Human_migration#Post-World_War_II_Migrations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Croatian reservists

I think Croatians had a similar grudge when, by the end of the war, IS of Croatia mobilized the reservists. A lot of them were left between the Red Army and the British one. The British, instead of taking them prisoners, left them to the Soviets that massacred them. Or something like that. Does somebody know what I am talking about?

Bleiburg massacre Pavel Vozenilek 18:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

if you mean the Bleiburg Massacres then you're almost right (accoring to documented information that is). Croats did not suffer at the hands of Soviets here, in fact I am quite sure that there had never been a Soviet presence in the former Yugoslavia during and after World War II. Bleiburg is in Austria, on the border with the former Yugoslavia (now Slovenia); when the new Yugoslavia was formed towards the end of the Second World War, thousands of Croats were trying to escape from the reformed country. These were mainly Ustaše soldiers and sponsors with their families. As the story goes, Bleiburg was where their journay ended. British soldiers awaiting their arrival had promised to guide them to safety. They lured them onto a few trains, all of which (unsuspectingly for the Croats) led them BACK to Yugoslavia where over the border, Partizans were waiting to capture them and eventually kill them. The murders took place over two weeks and thousands were killed were no trials. I have known the number of casualties to be as low as 30,000 but at the extreme estimates number it at around a quarter of a million). No former Yugoslav has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, and as you'd imagine, nor has any British official (though they may well claim they had no idea that the trains were heading back to Maribor even though that is the very next stop on that line in that direction!!) The details I give you here are accoring to written sources dipity.li/hr/bleiburg_massacres.htm, not my personal opinion, if you ask me, the British don't do things like that. Tony Blair is a fine man with good intentions, and do you know why? Because he hasn't got a moustache! If he could grow one, it would be a different thing altogether. Celtmist 25 Mar 2006

This issue was previously listed under the heading "Croatia". This implied that Croatia was "betrayed by the West". Such a claim is tendentious in itself because of two basic reasons:

• the entity in question was a puppet-state of the Axis - another set of people who claimed to be legitimate representatives of "Croatia" were among the Yugoslav Partisans, per ZAVNOH etc.
• the Independent State of Croatia was not an ally of the West, so the situation is completely orthogonal to the concept of Western betrayal in the case of the Poles and such, which is the original topic of this article.

That is why I removed the section "Croatia" and reintegrated the text under Yugoslavia. That isn't particularly good either, because Yugoslavia as such was not subject to any betrayal, but at least it isn't a complete misrepresentation. Suggestions are welcome. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

do you Polish propagandists care about the facts at all?

February 7h., 2005: I've just removed a short paragraph about Norman Davies' "Uprising '44", but looking at this edit page it looks as though I'm going to get 'reverted' in short order. Whoever took Norman Davies' name in vain doesn't actually seem to have read his book. Frankly, this whole topic is highly tendentious; it doesn't help that the main posters have not referenced their statements, which in a number of cases are just plain wrong - for example, the USAAF did drop supplies to the Warsaw Uprising, although they were not particularly effective. The Tehran conference is well dealt with in Olsen & Cloud's book "For your Freedon and Ours", and it is fairly obvious to any balanced observer that Churchill was sidelined by Roosevelt there and at Yalta. (This is not to defend all of Churchill's actions, some of which were plainly wrong: but the subject is a great deal more complicated than this topic allows.) Thorsten1 seems the most balanced contributor, but he also seems to get shouted down. Frankly, this page needs someone sensible to manage it because at the moment it is hysterical rubbish. Major Bonkers

Besides being extremely POV, for example, stating without qualification that Poland was over-run in 1939 because of Western betrayal (the Germans and Soviets supposedly had nothing to do with this!) as opposed to stating that "some argue that...", some of the facts are just plain wrong. For example, it is stated that the USSR and Poland signed the Atlantic Charter. Look at http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fdr-churchill/images/atlantic-charter.gif Do you see any signatures there other than Britain and the USA? I correct this falsehood, plus add some historical facts, and one of you Poles reverses my changes. I suppose the facts have no place in Wikipedia when someone disagrees with them for political purposes! I am going to put my changes back, but I have no doubts that the Polish propaganda squad will try and cut them out again and again without any comment here. You cannot suppress the facts forever, and your intellectually dishonest attempts to do so will eventually end up undermining your whole purpose, which is get English speakers to reconsider the war-time policies of their governments. You are turning Wikipedia into a joke in the mean time. I should add here that I am very much a fan of the Poles. As far as I am concerned, Polish was indeed betrayed, although really only with respect to Western appeasement of Stalin, not Hitler (for an example of what might have happened in the event of a more aggressive Western advance, look at what happened after the Allied advance into Belgium to support that country in 1940). But I am an even bigger fan of the truth, and the truth is that there are SOME facts which do not support the betrayal argument. I called them "anti-Polish" facts just for the sake of quick information, not because all my edits were all "anti-Polish" or because I am anti-Polish.

While I believe in your good intentions, I'm sincerely convinced that you were quite mislead with some of your changes. Even in the example that you've given above, the Atlantic Charter was singed by Britain and US but on August 14th and not on September 24th as you claim. In fact it was also signed on September 24th but by Poland and Soviet Union at that time and the article was right about it before your edits. As your edits are quite massive, I propose to revert them and then discuss and introduce them gradually, one-by-one. I don't want to seem difficult here and I know that reverting is not a friendly gesture, I just believe that it will be most fruitful way to go and will spare us all unnecessary emotions and time, eventually. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I, and I am sure everyone else, would have welcomed your edits regarding the Atlantic Charter. I did not write the September 24 date as it was written previously and I did not double-check that, but you are correct that Britain and the US signed on August 17. I would nonetheless not agree with you that the previous version was "right" because it sounded like the USSR and Poland signed a bilateral agreement called the Atlantic Charter and that other powers weren't involved in its development.

But you didn't edit that bit, rather, you simply reverted the whole page because, according to you, you don't want to inflame emotions and you don't have the time to deal with my contribution. I might suggest to you that you could give my contribution the benefit of the doubt until you find the time. Which brings me to the "emotions" issue you raise. Emotions are less likely to be inflamed if you treat others the way you wish to treat yourself. You recently complained to someone else about reverting your work "without any explanation", yet you did exactly what you complained about to my work, only explaining yourself after I challenged your behaviour here on in the discussion page.

Regarding what is the "most fruitful way to go", the policy that you suggest we adopt is that a contribution to Wikipedia that is beyond a certain unspecified length should be automatically reverted, and then the contribution be "gradually" reintroduced by the reverter according to the reverter's terms and timetable. I would like to hear from others as to whether they agree with this proposed policy. My counterproposal is that wholesale reversion should only be used in cases of vandalism. If any particular edit is inaccurate or incomplete, it can simple be re-edited. That's the whole idea behind wikipedia, in my opinion. If the original author is unhappy with the re-edit, he or she can dispute the edit here on the discussion page, instead of engaging in a childish revert-each-other game. I have sources, mostly primary, for the work I added and would have mentioned those sources if there were a footnote mechanism. Apologies if my counterproposal here is too "Western" in philosophy.

Which leads me to my final point, which is that if you insist on reverting my work re the Poland section again, I will let you have the last word, since it is really a waste of time for both of us for me to keep putting my work back and for you to keep taking it off again. I would, however, ask that if you revert my work again, you add a "neutrality disputed" header to the article, which advises casual users of the existence of this talk page. Readers interested in the contributions of others could then go back through the edit history to find my contribution (note, though, that I do not endorse the accuracy or neutrality of this page even after my edits).

By the way, I intend to make further contributions, as I find this an interesting area and have done a fair bit of study in it, but to the sections relating to countries other than Poland.

I have not yet read article changes, but few notes: 1) don't confuse User:Lysy, who is talking to you here, with User:Witkacy, who is reverting you 2) there is indeed a footnote mechanism, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. By all means, please source your changes, they will be much less likely to be reverted then 3) please be more civil and refrain from attacks on Poles, not all of us are "propagandists supressing the facts" who are unable to accept any changes to this article, however by insulting all of us you are not helping 4) please sign your posts like we do, it helps knowing who one is talking to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy: I see you reverted the page again. Like I say I give up. I must say, however, that I am disappointed you that refused to even acknowledge that the neutrality of this article is disputed like I suggested to Lysy. I was wondering if you could nonetheless do me one last favour and tell me which other Wiki pages you are monitoring. I can only assume that you will continue to wipe out anything I write without providing any explanation, so if you could tell me which other pages you are applying your automatic unilateral censoring to, I can take that under advisement and perhaps avoid wasting my time by attempting to edit those pages.

Piotr: re (1) how is your position on the automatic reversions different? The three people I'm dealing with here all appear to be of the same mindset. re (2) I would footnote, but there seems to be very few footnotes in this article at present, and if we move to a more heavily footnoted style, it should be by consensus. If someone were to add "citation needed" to any of my edits, I would be happy to promptly respond. But in return I would ask that it be considered proper for me (or someone else) to do the same with respect to several of the claims of others for which I think it would improve the article's credibility to provide a source. re (3) I would note that this article is titled "Western betrayal" and as such appears to accuse all Westerners of perfidy. Change the title to something less tendentious, like "Western appeasement of Stalin and Hitler" (which also identifies who the real offenders are), and break ranks by reverting the page back to my changes, and I will be quite willing to withdraw charges of propagandizing. If it is true that you are not supressing the facts, then let my edits stand unless they have been disproven or at least debated. re (4) sorry, will do henceforth. Bdell555 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Bdell: Article does not try to persuade that allies had betrayed Poland, It tries to explain why in Poland it is common thinking that they betrayed us. Hope that helps. Szopen 10:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That is what it should do, but not what it does. Hope that helps. --Thorsten1 11:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it does not. Unless you are more specific. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Szopen: I understand that the purpose of the article as it currently stands is indeed to provide the "common thinking" "in Poland". An article written from a particular POV, however, is inconsistent with generally accepted Wikipedia objectives, regardless of whether it is the POV "in Poland" or in Timbuktu. I might add that with respect to why many Poles believe the West betrayed them, the paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oder-Neisse_line beginning with "Few thoughts from a Pole in Szczecin (Stettin)" seems as plausible an answer to that particular question as any. In any case, even it were the case that POV articles were desirable, the practice of purging Wiki pages of facts that do not support one's POV goes beyond a mere slant or bias in the interpretation of facts to a suppression of facts, and I accordingly see that as a bigger problem than the bias problem. It's true that I did not footnote in my most recent edit to this article, but I sourced my facts in the Oder-Neisse line article to an unusually high level for a Wiki article and that still didn't stop Witkacy from finding my edits and reverting them as well. In sum, apart from the appearance of a large number of conscientious historians to counter what is going on here I don't really see any way to deal with the historical inaccuracy of these Wiki articles aside from advising readers here in the Talk pages that pages in the English Wiki that touch on Polish history should be considered highly unreliable and they should accordingly consult the primary sources (for example, the official transcripts of the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam conferences) to discover the true history. Bdell555 00:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see Inter-Allied Meeting held in London on September 24, 1941, states,

The Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugoslavia, and representatives of General de Gaulle, leader of Free Frenchmen, having taken note of the declaration recently drawn up by the President of the United States and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill) on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, now make known they adherence to the common principles of policy set forth in that declaration and their intention to cooperate to the best of their ability in giving erect to them. nobs 00:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I restored some of your edits. However your last para was mostly speculation, and I am not sure if it is appopriate, so I am oving it here below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

f the Poles themselves had pressed for a territorial settlement they might have convinced the Western Allies to agree to it. However, the Poles were determined that no inch of their territory should be conceded to either Hitler or Stalin. With respect to Hitler, if the Poles had agreed to cede the Polish corridor and thereby restored Germany to its 1914 frontiers, the Poles might have been spared the horrors of Nazi and Soviet occupation, and indeed the entire Second World War might have been postponed, if not avoided entirely. Although Mein Kampf and Hitler's invasion of Prague in March 1939 suggest that Hitler would not have been satisfied with reversing the Treaty of Versailles and would have expanded yet further east by force in any case, a coup against Hitler might have been more likely to be attempted if Hitler had invaded despite being ceded the Corridor. Before Hitler launched his western offensive (Fall Gelb), Ulrich von Hassell advised Lord Halifax that the German Opposition was interested in a "permanent pacification and re-establishment of Europe as a solid basis and a security against a renewal of warlike tendencies," but that this entailed a German-Polish border "more or less identical with German frontier of 1914." Another German Opposition figure, Josef Mueller, convinced the Vatican to favour settlement of the "Eastern question" in Germany's favour, provided the Nazis were removed. One can accordingly speculate that Hitler might have been grudgingly satisfied with Danzig and the Corridor such that Hitler would not have entered the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which resulted in bolshevist Russia's occuption of Poland's eastern territories, or, if Hitler was prepared to go to war for even more Polish territory (against which German claims would have been indisputably unsupportable), the German opposition (such as it was) might have galvanized the German General Staff to stage a coup. Hitler's overthrow became exceedingly unlikely after his military successes, in particular Fall Gelb, increased his prestige in Germany to unprecedented heights. Assuming that the Anglo-Americans could not defeat both Hitler and Stalin simultaneously, a truly independent post-war Poland was arguably impossible apart from a coup in either Germany or Russia that installed a governmnent prepared to recognize Poland's right to self-determination. With respect to Stalin, Soviet victories made Stalin progressively less inclined to consider the wishes of either Poland or the Western Allies with respect to settling Poland's post-war boundaries. But the Polish Government in London remained intransigeant. In December 1941, Stalin advised Polish leader Władysław Sikorski that an agreement on Poland's borders might be possible, and that his proposed deviations from Poland's 1938 frontiers would be "chut chut", or very small. Stalin was surely being less than candid, but in any case Sikorski refused to even listen to Stalin's proposals. On another occasion, Britain offered a cruiser to the Polish navy, and Sikorski insisted that it be named the Lwow, a landlocked city east of the Curzon Line. The British refused to cede the cruiser under a name that would be clearly provocative to their Russian allies. Sikorski refused to budge on the name, however, and accordingly rejected the offered cruiser. (Can't believe any Pole would have agreed to cede the "Polish Corridor")

Piotr: I have no objections to excluding the above, especially in light of the fact that Wiki pages are, or should be, collaborative projects as opposed to reflective of any one person's vision. "...no inch..." is rather too strong a statement, anyway. At the Potsdam Conference, for example, the Polish representatives (and Stalin) accepted an Oder-Queiss (Kwisa) line as opposed to the Oder-Western Neisse. This would have thus run along the Oder-Bober-Queiss rivers through what is now Zagan and Luban. Zary (Sorau) would thus be the only place today much bigger than a village that would currently be German under that small concession. I accordingly didn't even mention it in my edits to the Oder-Neisse line. But it is a concession nonetheless. It ultimately proved unnecessary, of course, since the US Secretary of State Byrnes said he would accept the Western Neisse. The Western powers could have taken a stronger stand against Stalin, especially the US. But demanding a return to 1937 borders all around seemed very pie-in-the-sky to some Westerners when the price of antagonizing Stalin could be real Anglo-American blood on either the Western Front (because the anti-Hitler war effort splinters) or in the Pacific (because Stalin refuses to help). It turned out in hindsight Stalin was not needed as much as was thought, and trusting him to give back in return for giving instead of always just taking was a mistake. Roosevelt wanted to be Stalin's buddy and so continually gave in for too long. But it might have been easier to draw a line in the sand to stand on if the Poles had proposed a territorial solution inbetween 1937 borders and Stalin's demands. It might also be worth noting that the West thought they had extracted more from Stalin than proved the case, e.g. re Polish losses east of the Curzon Line Roosevelt suggested "voluntary" population transfers and Stalin agreed. Of course, Stalin's definition of "voluntary" was like his definition of a lot of terms: flexible. Personally, I find it disturbing that Britain, France (and my country Canada, etc) went to war in the name of the sanctity of the pre-war borders but then gave up on them so easily a few years later.Bdell555 01:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone for an article entitled 'Polish betrayal of Czechoslovakia 1938'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn

Perhaps something from Solzhenitsyn could be included in the text. Here's something from the Gulag Archipelago (Part I, chap. 6, pg. 258 fn, English trans.), spoken from within the prison gulag,

In their own countries Roosevelt and Churchill are honored as embodiments of statesmanlike wisdom. To us, in our Russian prison conversations, their consistent shortsightedness and stupidity stood out as astonishingly obvious. How could they, in their decline from 1941 to 1945, fail to secure any guarantees whatever of the independence of Eastern Europe? How could they give away broad regions of Saxony and Thuringia in exchange for the preposterous toy of a four-zone Berlin, their own future Achilles' heel? And what was the military or political sense in their surrendering to destruction at Stalin's hands hundreds of thousands of armed Soviet citizens determined not to surrender? They say it was the price they paid for Stalin's agreeing to enter the war against Japan. With the atom bomb already in their hands, they paid Stalin for not refusing to occupy Manchuria, for strengthening Mao Tse-tung in China, and for giving Kim Il Sung control of half Korea! What bankruptcy of political thought! And when subsequently, the Russians pushed out Mikolajczyk, when Benes and Masaryk came to their ends, when Berlin was blockaded, and Budapest flamed and fell silent, and Korea went up in smoke, and Britain’s Conservatives fled Suez, could one really believe that those among them with the most accurate memories did not at least recall that episode of the Cossacks? [1] nobs 16:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This makes the case for "western betrayal" much more concisely and convincely that the huge article we currently have here, in my opinion. The general tone of the current article seems like the story the Soviets want the Warsaw Pact countries to believe (look, those NATO countries betrayed you! to whom were you betrayed, well, that's not what we want you to think about, the point is that you were betrayed!)Bdell555 01:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Betrayal? Politic!

Talking about deceit in this case is somewhat dishonest. I mean let's speak about the truth, Britain and France didn't get to war in 1939 because they wanted to rescue Poland but because weren't willing to accept that Germany gained even more power by regaining the corridor.

Poland was a card in the game. This is neither new nor very surprising if you remember these are the two biggest colonial powers the world has ever seen so their politicals and thus countries never cared a big deal for other countries interest except their own. Not that I would blame them, I think making a moralic crime out of it would be hypocritical given the fact that today powers have the same tactic while dealing with conflicts in which they choose who is freedom fighter or terrorist, who is rebell or dangerous seperatist.

Poland's politican, either they were idiots or very idealistic which I don't believe, knew this and were going to use it for their own goals, namely to stop Germany from growing even stronger and to get even some more territory of it in this effect. What they and practically every other politican, didn't know was that Hitler, against his own ideology, made a pact with Stalin to stop a two-front war which he had always feared.

England and France weren't prepared for such a fast victory of Hitler against Poland since they believed of a simple continuation of WW1 with its long-lived static warfare and such believed to have more time for their preperations in the west... so you can't blame them for starting an ill prepared offensive which maybe would have ended in a desaster.

They didn't declare war on the UDSSR when it invaded east-poland, but again this is understandable and legal, since they only promised Poland to defend it against Germany and whatever Stalin did with Poland wasn't important for them, at least they believed so back then. It was until the end of WW2 when they already had promised to give over the eastern half of europe which they weren't interested in when they realised that maybe Stalin could become a stronger threat for them as Hilter had been.

Nobody can blame them for the fate of the other east-european states since they hadn't given any promises of freedom or sovereignity to their government and they lay far outside their line of interest.

So why speaking of betrayal? Cause words like freedom, sovereignity and peace in the declaration during the war? This has been just a scrap of propaganda which is part of every modern war and you can't really hold them responsibility for this.

In a sense you're right, when emphasising the fact that the Western allies were in war against Germany first and foremost by the reason of their ambitious interests, to preserve their dominance on world matters.

But yet it is true to speak of 'betrayal, for how else could one call the infamous de facto abandoning all the main principles of the Atlantic charter. This charter was composed so as to portray its participants as fighting for democracy, human right, liberty etc and against tyranny (embodied by Nazi regime). What the Western governments did, however, was betraying their principles, rendering the Charter a mean propagandistic trick. Constanz 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia cleanup

I removed all historizing text (most of it was, frankly, useless garbage and off-topic) and replaced it with description of the term and how it evolved during history. Grammar/punctuation check welcomed. Pavel Vozenilek 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There was quite a lot of useful info there. Did you move it somewhere or simply deleted it? Halibutt 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is ever lost on Wiki: [2].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that, but was the content actually moved somewhere? Halibutt 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to move much of the content to Munich Agreement, but no experienced editors ever commented on the proposal, so that didn't happen. I will, however, move the relevant section to Talk:Munich Agreement, so that a proper merge might be done someday. Melchoir 08:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment from User:149.99.221.79 from article to here

RE: At the war's end many of these feelings of resentment were capitalized on by the occupying Soviets, who used them to reinforce anti-Western sentiments within Poland [Do you mean that before "the Soviets" (why not "the Russians"?) entered Poland there were some "anti-Western sentiments" there? Please give pertinent facts and sources. Also, prove that the Russians "reinforced" those alleged "anti-Western sentiments" in Poland.]RE: Propaganda was produced by Communists to show Russia as the Great Liberator, and the West as the Great Traitor [What source did you take it from that "Communists" produced propaganda depicting "the West" as "the Great Traitor"? Who allegedly said in Poland that "the West" is "the Great Traitor"?] RE: Capitalism was shown as being inherently bad, because capitalists only cared for "their own skin," while communism was portrayed as the great "uniter and protector." [Who allegedly said or wrote in Poland that capitalists only care for "their own skin," and communism is the great "uniter and protector"? You put those expressions in quotation marks, so I assume you quote an author or authors. Who would they be? By the way, what does the expression "West" actually signify? Isn't it a mere Cold War propaganda term, basically fallacious and meaningless, and racist to boot?]

149.99.221.79 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)COMMENT149.99.221.79 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did the French not attack the Germans in 1939?

The article does not answer this question. Why didn't the French attack in support of the Poles? Did they over-estimate the German defenses? Were they cowards? Were they simply too stupid to see that their best chance to win was to attack while the Germans were busy in the east? Drogo Underburrow 11:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

They did, see Saar Offensive. And they allegedly already had mobilised in August. --Matthead 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I love it when Wikipedia editors, sitting safe on their couches, call the generals on the spot 'stupid' or 'cowards' as though they would have done so much better. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Armchair generals should be admitted to the Summer Olympics. :) And to answer Drogo's question - the matter is extremely complex and there are several answers, all of them being merely guesses. Take note that the British archives are still (guess what) closed, at least partially, and there's little certain here anyway.

1. Because of political reasons (check for the Abbeville meeting); they might've believed that Poland is a great chance to win the time necessary to reorganize the military
2. Because they knew their weakness. It's highly unlikely the French really knew how weak they were, but the fact remains that in 1939 (and in 1940 as well), the French lacked the doctrines, strategies and even equipment necessary to storm the Reich. Their logistic services (contrary to what armchair generals say, logistics is the queen of the battlefield; Blitzkrieg is successful not when the enemy soldiers are surprised to see tanks in front of them, but when they are surprised not to see field kitchen behind) were ready for a WWI-like war and the army advancing anywhere would simply starve.
3. Because of simple cowardice dressed in political expectations. You know, the good ol' "let's wait and see what happens" tactics
4. Because they believed in the combined industrial strength of the Allies. If they were to wage a WWI-like war, they would've starved Germany to death much like they did in WWI.
5. Because there was noone in the French HQ to be able to take the responsibility. Take a look at what happened in the spring of 1940...
6. Because the French, as a society, never recovered from WWI and, despite the technical strength, the average mobilized Pierrot would rather shoot his officer than leave the trenches. The French HQ must've known that.
7. For fear of aerial warfare. They knew what happened in Poland and feared that the Germans might execute the same scale of terror bombings in France, despite French air force. This might seem bizarre from our perspective, but in 1939 the memory of Guernica was still fresh - and the pictures from Poland resembled Guernica multiplied by 1000.
8. Because they could win little in such a war and could've waited for the war to be won by someone else (Russians, Americans, anyone). Germany did not have colonies, it did not have much to offer - and occupation of Germany would be pretty costly, not to mention the war itself
9. ... need more? //Halibutt 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Poland

Why is this article so Pole-centric? It's probably got more on Poland than the other countries combined! What about everyone else in central/eastern europe, they're grossly under-represented in this article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it have not enough information about other countries, feel free to add more! Szopen 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a standard WP:BB response. I was simply asking why Poland is so over-represented. Perhaps this article should be featured on some non-Polish country portals/projects, to attract attention, or something. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 10:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Poland is the biggest affected country, which translates at the largest number of interested wikipedians. Feel free to advertise it or fixit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is that Poland is over-represented or other countries are under-represented. --Lysy^talk 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much Wiki has to grow, I'd say that it's obviously the case of underrepresentation of those other countries.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've nominated it at Portal:Politics, but I don't expect much. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a quote from George W Bush. I don't really think that what GWB has to say about preserving the freedoms of small nations is likely to be taken seriously. DJ Clayworth 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing

What is this article all about? It seems to be an awful lot of humphing and grumping about nothing in particular. Much of the material on Poland, for example, should take its proper place within the history of that country and not isolated in this rather artifical fashion. I realise that there is a lot of residual bitterness-perhaps more in the past-over the treatment of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Poland in 1945, but what purpose is served by discussing this at such inordinate length? Despite what George Bush says, small countries will always be the victims-and playthings- of international power politics (remember Lebanon?). What alternative was there to Yalta, which was never more than a recognition of political and strategic realities? War with the Soviet Union over the corpse of Europe in 1945? Not even Bush would have been that mad; though, on second thoughts... White Guard 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The concept of a 'western betrayal' 'is' an important concept in Central and Eastern Europe, in many instances it is solely responsible for the rise of a communist party to power. And why shouldn't we discuss it? We're striving to have as much information about a topic as possible at this encyclopedia, we don't cut articles because we don't like them. Get your nose out of Texas and realize that there is a world of people not living in huge powers, there's millions upon millions of people there. Britain and the States gladly betrayed the hundreds of millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe, but when around population of a small European village died on the 11.9. it's suddenly a global war on terror. This is unfair, and the people in the neglected areas of the world are well aware of this. Why do you think there is so much anti-American sentiment in the world? It's not because the US has several more channels on DirecTV, it's because it has traded the lives of billions for large fries and a medium soda, and continues to do this today without the slightest remorse. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never been to Texas; so neither my nose nor any other part of my anatomy is there. You are clearly far too emotionally involved in this issue to look at the question objectively. Your statement is nothing more than an immature rant. Please, please, breath slowly and calm down. Where, for goodness sake, did the 'western betrayal' lead to the rise of Communism? With the exception of Yugoslavia-and Albania-Communism was imposed on Eastern Europe by the Russians. But this is getting away from my essential point-what was the alternative to Yalta? Now, before you attempt an answer count slowly up to a hundred-it may help you to think rationally.

White Guard 19:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant, my appologies. The idea of the Western betrayal contributed significantly to the election of the communist parties in some countries, which usually made a total communist takeover easier. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Significantly...I wonder. Would you have any references for that? It would be an interesting addition to our knowledge of that period.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry; we all feel passionate about something. White Guard 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about few things here, I will try to adress them one by one. The 'concept' of WB did not help the communists (much). The WB itself did, obviously, as West's allies have been abandoned, which allowed communists to estabilish their power in those countries. This of course ties with 'what was the alternative to Yalta', a long and controversial topic, to which a simple reply is: the West could have either fight for its allies (or try at least to bluff that it would do so), or betray them. It betrayed them, and this is what this article describes. It is an important part of history, much more popular for the victims then for the perpatrats (or actually their descendants), for the obvious reasons, and this is a valid encyclopedic topic. Last but not least, the 3k victims of 9/11 are a population of a small town, not village, and while I can somewhat agree with Hegon's point about overreaction, I would like to repeat after White Guard that we should be less emotional and more civil, and no tragedy should be minimized.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that sober and thoughtful response. I have really no wish to upset people-I imagine mostly of Czech or Polish origin-who clearly feel deeply about this issue; it just seemed to me that the article goes on at extraordinary length about a topic becoming less and less relevant with the passage of time. Moreover, much of the material-especially on Poland-seems out of place. We all understand that power politics is a dirty game, but it has to be based on some form of rational calculation. Just imagine what would have happened in Europe in 1945-or 1946-if Britain and American had tried to take on the victorious Soviet army. If failing to do so was a 'betrayal' it was dictated by the facts of history and geography, and not by any ill-intent. Winston Churchill was deeply anxious about the advance of Communism, but he knew there were realities that could not be gainsaid. His informal percentage deal with Stalin over the Balkans at least saved Greece from the fate of its northern neighbours. Poland, unfortunately, was beyond saving; but at least she re-emerged as a nation, reversing the conclusion of the earlier deal between Stalin and Hitler. In the long run that was really all that mattered. White Guard 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two issues here. Number one is relevance: first, wiki is not paper, second, how do we judge the relevance or this? Personally I think it is much more important then, let's say, biography of a popular actor or singer, and besides, it's editors interested in various issues who judge what is worth writing about. Second, what could the Western Allies have done. I will play's the devil advocate and tell you what :) First, they could have tried to scare Stalin. In 1945 he didn't have nukes, and he was afraid of them. But the Western Allies were not willing even to bluff. Second, the Eastern Allies died for the Western Allies. The Western Allies should have kept their end of the bargain and repay blood debt with blood debt. Sure, millions might have died, but if you think we could have had not only the free world 50 years back, but a democratic and wealthy Russia developing like modern Germany I can't but think any sacrifice would not only be fair, but worth every cost. A rather fascinating counterfactual history - shame almost nobody has addressed this in fiction (AFAIK). Third: if you can read Polish.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't.

Let me try to clarify some of the issues. Britain and France went to war over the integrity of Poland; the United States did not. By 1945 neither Britain nor France was in a position, economically or politically, to go to war with the Soviet Union. Consider France on its own: much of the wartime resistance was dominated by the Communist Party, so any aggressive move against Stalin would most likely have pushed the country into civil war. This leaves America-but to you really believe that US public opinion would have tolerated a new war with a recent ally over an issue which they hadn't fought for in the first place? It's now impossible to prove this either way, but it seems doubtful. Atomic bluff?-it's possible; but the nuclear arsenal was very limited in 1945, and if Stalin had called it, what then? He certainly showed very little reluctance to sacrifice millions of innocent lives in pursuit of his aims. And where was such a war to begain and where to end-with a drive on Moscow, tantamount to military suicide? My real worry about your contention is that you assume one set of outcomes. But what if it had gone the other way; what, in other words, if Stalin had pushed his way to the Atlantic coast? For you the whole issue remains very much alive, and I should really withdraw; but please read over the article-there is too much latent passion and too many unsourced-and subjective-statements, not, I think, in the best scholarly tradition. White Guard 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point about American's reason for the war. Indeed, I can see the merit of logic that while the British might have betrayed their eastern allies, the US had little obligation to them. Still, this is our personal speculation. The article certainly needs more inline citation and likely some NPOVing, if you can, please help with that. PS. The Polish link above is to a very interesting song by Jacek Kaczmarski about Yalta; I did a rough translation here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My sincere thanks for your translation of the Kaczmarski song, which I imagine captures much Polish sentiment over this issue.

I've now gone over the article again and added a number of citation requests. I would liked to have carried out some more fundamental edits, but I am not sure how this would be received. The section on Finland, for example, seems oddly out of place; and at the outset there is reference to Romania and the Baltic States, but very little actual treatment of these countries. Even the Ukraine is there-as a heading only-though in what way the west 'betrayed' this country I cannot envisage. There is much interesting material on Poland-which completely dominates the whole page-which, I contend again, would seem more appropriate in the history of that country or the history of international relations in the 1930s and 40s. My gut reaction is that this whole article should be pared down to a hard core, defining the concept, with appropriate cross-referencing to the history of the countries in question. It may be that in treating it this way it is missing a wider audience; and 'betrayal' is such an emotive issue that it is almost inevitably caught in subjective questions of perception and attitude. But in the end I am not perhaps the best judge of this matter. I will, however, take this opportunity to aplogise for beginning this discussion with the rather flippant heading 'Much Ado about Nothing'-taken obviously from the play by William Shakespeare. There is clearly much more than 'nothing' in this whole question. White Guard 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) I am pretty sure that any fundamental edits you'd do to this page would be much appreciated, and if there is a disagreement I am sure we can discuss it here. I do agree that this is mostly 'about Poland' article, and I will see if I can provide any references for the specific facts. You may want to ask User:Halibutt, who wrote much of the original piece, for some of those, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you wondered, I'm still alive and lurking. Sadly my work doesn't leave me much time for contributions or discussions, but I'm here should you want me to comment on something. As to citation requests, I fully support the request and I regret there was no friendly citation system back in 2004, when I was working on this article. I'll see what I can do, but this would have to wait for the next weekend as I'm pretty much focused on expanding the article on Jogaila and trying not to get fired. What's more, the basic scheme of this article is some 2,5 years old and I'm simply uncertain where did I dig some facts up. That's why I would appreciate all help in sourcing this article, as it might take me forever to dig up all requested sources myself - and especially so in English. //Halibutt 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor

Some here argue that the title Holodomor implies that the famine was deliberate. It is not true. The word (we have similar word "golodomor" in Russian) means simply a hard famine. There is also an idiom "morit' golodom" which means "to make somebody suffer of hanger, not necessary to death.--Nixer 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Could someone please explain the parameters of this topic? Why isn't the Western betrayal of East Timor in 1975 covered, for example? Or the Western betrayal of Rwanda in 1975?--Stonemad GB 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's here because (apparrently) that's what the whole episode is called in Eastern Europe. I think it's a lousy title, and needs to be more specific. Though whoever moved it to Western guilt, that's an even worse title and even less specific. It would be much better moved to Western European relations with Eastern Europe around World War II or somethin g a little more succinct. DJ Clayworth 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See also #Is this really a proper title for an article?.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving comments to there. DJ Clayworth 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Finland

I've removed the entire Finland section because it seems to be entirely irrelevant. It doesn't fit any of the things 'Western betrayal' is supposed to mean. It wasn't promised protection before WWII and it regained its independence after WWII. DJ Clayworth 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit late (!) but Roosevelt did promise Finland to Stalin. —PētersV (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RAF operations in september 1939

Okay I just looked this up some more.

1) The Spitfire casualties seem to have been two Hurricanes shot down by a flight of Spitfires. As this incident occurred over Britain and was simple air defense unrelated to offensive operations I removed this mention entirely. I believe there actually is an english language wikipedia article about this event (first British fatalities of WWII iirc), but I can't quite recall that article's name (found and linked the article above under incident).

2) Leaflet operations, starting on September 3/4 seem to have been conducted by Whitley bombers, not the Wellingtons. I don't know when these operations were ended, so I'll leave the last sentence intact. As a note, obsolete French bombers conducted leaflet dropping operations throughout the Phoney war.

3) The 7 Wellingtons lost were lost during the September 4 air raids against German shipping and ports. The included reference is valid for both these and the leaflet operations.

Note I will also try to somewhat rewrite the material on French operations during that timeframe. As far as I know the Saar offensive was canceled (the short advance was actually a probe) when it became obvious that Poland was about to fall. The number of 102 mobilized French divisions in 1939 is also misleading as that includes the 2nd Line Reserve (B) divisions which were barely combat worthy in May 1940. In short only the Regular (Active) Divisions (my current estimate, 30 divisions) would have been available for offensive operations this early in the war.

Secondly that entire section didn't have a single direct reference until I added one, which is a really bad sign.--Caranorn 13:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite it, but please avoid presenting your own beliefs as if they were facts. The Abbeville meeting happened long before Poland was doomed. And, to be frank, the Poles and the French both knew perfectly well that the Polish war effort was aimed at gaining time for the French and not at defeating Germans, so this doesn't change much here. //Halibutt 11:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

True but also misleading. Both the Poles and the French knew the point was gaining "time" - where time was measured, by both, in months, not weeks, not days. When do you think Poland was doomed, exactly, by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.216.210.69 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

taking great care to ensure that the leaflets were not dropped tied together so that they would cause no casualties on the ground. Eh, normally they are not bundeled together so they spread out and making the task of collecting them for the authoreties more difficult. Any source there is a differnet intention here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.7.144 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Saar Offensive

To explain why that example in the article is disputable.

The Saar Offensive was launched as quickly as possible (evacuation of civilians in the Front area and arrival of the freshly mobilised units on said front) movement into Germany starting by September 5/6. This advance did was indeed at first very slow and did not encounter German opposition, but by September 9 French and German troops are meeting in violent clashes. Combat continues until at least September 14 with a slow withdrawal of German Forces (who on the other hand receive constant reinforcements). After that from the little information I have the offensive is indeed halted in front of the Siegfried Line. But by September 14 Poland is already doomed and continuing the Saar Offensive into the fortified positions of the Siegfried Line (that sector by then held by 16+ divisions) would have been pointless.

The French probably promised too much when they offered an immediate offensive, but they did all they could when they could do it.--Caranorn 09:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's sum up the facts before we continue:

1. The French were to start an offensive with the majority of its forces by mid-September. However, instead they halted all offensive manoeuvres.
2. Poland was perhaps doomed by September 12 (when the Abbeville meeting took place), yet around that time it managed to finally consolidate her forces and commence an all-out counter-offensive. Sure, the war was unwinnable for Poland, but that doesn't change a single thing here.
3. Both the German (initially some 20 divisions) and French (up to 100) receive constant reinforcements (which was to be expected).

All in all, perhaps the French promised too much. However, they did not even try to do it. Hence you're wrong when you say that they did all they could. They did not even try to start the promised general offensive. Also, the fact remains that they did promise such an offensive - and didn't stand up to their promises, which is why many Poles feel betrayed. //Halibutt 11:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename this article or eliminate it

A Google search on this term picks out only 7,980 incidents. The first references that come up are to:

• • this website (x2)
  • something about Macedonia/Albania
  • something about the Spanish Civil War
  • mirror sites of this article (x5)
  • two things about East Timor, and
  • a Wikiquote article on the term

If the term is sufficiently well used in Polish or Czech, then please provide the translations - a Google search can check if the terms are prolific enough to be used. Otherwise, lets rename the article to something like Negative East European perceptions of Western foreign policy. I believe the term represents original research, and POV. Otherwise, Eastern whininess would seem like a credible article to write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the "in other languages" box and link, it seems somebody thinks the translation is "zdrada jaltanska" (the Jalta betrayal, not the Western betrayal). That terms turn out about 20 hits, most of them having exactly the same text. This article not only needs extensive revision; furthermore, the issue of "Western betrayal" being a widespread concept in some countries needs closer scrutiny.212.216.211.151 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody removed the "zdrada jaltanska" so-called translation. The "zdrada" reference thus remains vague. It is also very little used outside Polish forums, which confirm Kransky's impression that the whole issue is original research, and personal POV; the claim that it is a common concept in certain countries seems unsubstantiated.212.216.210.70 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Whiny East Europeans definitely believe in this concept, but the title seems to back their POV too much. It therefore desperately needs to be renamed. Quotation marks would be a good start, until something better is thought of. Malick78 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to post a note here that I had some potentially relevant quotes and references, but apropos to this discussion... please see here for some quotes regarding the Baltics and Eastern Europe. I personally stayed away from interpretation, that was not my purpose. But I am forced to observe that Roosevelt's and Churchill's actions--in their own words--support the concept and current title as is. "Yalta betrayal" is not an appropriate title, there was a continuum of actions throughout the war leading up to Yalta. Also, one can similarly label the later Potsdam Conference, the Sonnenfeld doctrine, the Helsinki Accords all "betrayals."

   The concept of "western betrayal" is well known and understood in the Baltics. The Latvian word, verb, past tense, is "nodeva," literally, "handed over". I can't speak to perceptions in the rest of Eastern Europe, only that Roosevelt and Churchill pretty much mentioned every "whiny" Eastern European country by name. Specifically with reference to Eastern whininess, I would suggest editor Kransky read up a bit more on the topic, there's plenty of information available.

   And let's please stop using google searches thinking they constitute a useful editorial activity when it comes to verifying concepts--you would have to be fluent in every Eastern European language to do an effective search; searching for a literal translation of the title is wholly inadequate. —PētersV (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Latvian Occupation Museum web site specifically mentions Roosevelt handing over Latvia to Stalin. That is, if you know what to look for. —PētersV (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. To some earlier comments, "Western betrayal of Eastern Europe" might be more specific. —PētersV (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to "Betrayal of Eastern and Central Europe" The feeling of betrayal is really strong there, ESPECIALLY in Poland. Many westerners are not even aware of that.--Jacurek (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that people are generally unaware of the Polish treaty, that because of it Britain was finally forced to act and declare war, that the French hesitated in declaring war (although they were obliged to follow) and lobbied Britain not to bomb Hitler so as to avoid German reprisals on French soil. I also agree that's a better title, although "Eastern Europe" is probably sufficient. The differentiation between the Baltics, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, etc. means more to those already more familiar with the history of those areas. To the average reader, "Eastern" Europe already encompasses everything that was under post-WWII Soviet domination.—PētersV (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

- "Sentiment of betrayal by Western allies" I think this is perfect.--Jacurek (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, actually I'd prefer Perceived betrayal by Western Allies. Then it's completely NPOV and makes sense logically - after all, is a "sentiment of betrayal" held by the betrayer or the betrayed? Malick78 (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I appear to have a nose for controversy even when I'm not looking for it. It's really more like "Allegations of betrayal..." not "Sentiment..." but that would sound too much like a laundry list with a weasel-word to start the title.

   Let me pose the titling question this way...

• when France lobbies Britain not to defend Poland as promised in a treaty in order to not provoke Hitler into attacking France,
• when you have ministers sacrificing and committing to sacrifice specific countries to both Hitler and Stalin (starting with the infamous "peace in our time" before the war began and going downhill from there),
• when Roosevelt and Churchill both tell Stalin which Eastern European countries he can have,
• when Roosevelt suggests that hopefully the Europeans will eventually learn to live with the Russians "in ten or twenty years",

how would you characterize that?

   I agree we want a more specific and clear title, but I don't believe the current sentimental incarnation is any improvement. (Can we discuss more next time before jumping in and renaming?)

   The events before and throughout the war speak for themselves. What else do you call it when countries don't meet their treaty commitments? When they sacrifice other countries to try and stop a war, then sacrifice more countries to stay on the good side of a despot, and then give away all of Eastern Europe using nothing more than a pencil and slip of paper? I'm forced to observe that "betrayal" isn't just a concoction by fertile Eastern European minds.

   Western betrayal of Central and Eastern Europe doesn't sound that "POV" all of the sudden (on second thought, really do need central for Czechs et al. and the start of the whole mess). But if editors insist on not using the "B" word, we can always go for the less than concise How the West handed over and abandoned Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics to Hitler and Stalin. —PētersV (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Betrayal is actually closer to the truth - if I might add my twopence worth! The British and US did not hand over Central and Eastern Europe to Moscow... they were powerless to prevent it. One way or another it would have happened. What the Poles objected to at the time were the words coming from London and Washington that Moscow could have it. This is what hurt. Soviet occupation was on the cards from 1944 onwards. What the Poles were saying at the time to the British and American was: Ok you can't stop it, but at least don't agree to it! As it is, Potsdam sealed the deal - "betrayal" is as close to the word as you are likely to find. They did not have to agree - they chose to so do. Realpolitik is just an excuse.
Best regards, --Polskifone (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentiment of betrayal by Western allies

A new name has been boldly suggested: Sentiment of betrayal by Western allies. I believe it is too long (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)); feel free to comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are looking to be concise, the current (original) Western betrayal title is sufficient. The subject encompasses a number of items all involving either handing over or not defending to the fullest (per commitments) the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics against Hitler's aggression, Stalin's aggression, or both. That these acts were premeditated (as in conscious decisions being made) would confirm the title as appropriate and not merely a POV interpretation of events which could be seen otherwise (e.g., Roosevelt told Stalin that he could have Romania, Bulgaria, Bukovina, Eastern Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland--there's no wiggle room here). —PētersV (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a POV title. If the West's actions (or lack of action) were justified, then 'betrayal' is too harsh a word. Therefore it all hangs on your perception of the events, a situation that depends on your viewpoint. The current title is hence far from neutral. Malick78 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything can be justified by realpolitik. Heck, even Nazi's plan to exterminate Jews and Slavs was rational and logical. Which doesn't mean we don't use certain epithets to describe it, now, do we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Malick78's point: The Baltics were not Eden's possessions for him to give to Stalin so as to not aggravate Stalin. Romania, Bulgaria, Bukovina, Eastern Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland were not Roosevelt's to give to Stalin. Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics were nothing more than disposable chattel to Churchill and Roosevelt. Roosevelt laughed with Stalin at the absurdity of the U.S. going to war to protect the Baltics. It's not just what was done, it's the total disdain with which it was done. —PētersV (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Churchill and Roosevelt both worried about negative public reaction if word ever got out of the deals they were cutting with Stalin. It's not for nothing that after the war the only official U.S. policy statement regarding the Baltics was Welles's declaration of non-recognition. Leaders don't have to worry about public reaction when they act with integrity. —PētersV (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Read the paragraph here for Roosevelt's and Churchill's own words (and Halifax's report on Eden). —PētersV (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Peters, have you seen this? Thought you may enjoy it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent! I particularly liked the allusions and terms used (Albion,...). I can tell Kaczmarski worked at capturing the sense of the original. Fixed a typo for you. :-) —PētersV (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I won't try and defend Roosevelt, who was always too chummy with Stalin, if you look at Britain's post-war position - bankrupt, cities in ruins... - she wasn't in a position to keep on fighting. Eastern expectations regarding her position have never been realistic regarding that fact. Hence one's point of view is important here. Secondly, surely 'Western' betrayal is too broad as it is? It was only the "Western Allies" involved, so that phrasing in itself has to change. Malick78 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The term Western Betrayal is used in this and similar context quite often ([3]). What other term would be more correct and used more often? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Similar context"? The collection of quotations simply goes to show that virtually everyone outside the West - Arabs, Chinese, assorted Africans and even Russians felt betrayed at one time or another. Some of the quotations are in quotation marks (as in Western "betrayal"), evidently to emphasize the authors do not believe the feeling is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.171.69 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of the main protagonists (France, Britain, U.S.) and words like "tripartite", variations on "allied", all getting more complicated. If we stick to WWII (leave out later Vietnam reference) then something like "Betrayal of Eastern Europe" or "Betrayal of Eastern Europe and China" might work. I also think a fair amount of what's under Poland now could be separated out as a general thread... peace in our time, Eden offering up the Baltics, Roosevelt/Churchill, Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam... you get the idea. Unfortunately right now I'm going to have zero time to contribute over the next couple of weeks or so. I do have approval to reproduce a relevant source on our web site (primarily oriented to the Baltics), but at this point I'd have to say look for it in March. —PētersV (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I still prefer the current title as is. I'm sure the Kurds can also identify. —PētersV (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vsichni ano.jpg

Image:Vsichni ano.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening

The concept is disputed by those historians who argue that Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill and President of the United States Franklin Roosevelt had no option but to accept the demands of their ally Soviet premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran and later in Yalta.

This doesn't really apply to Munich because it was Chamberlain then, not Churchill and the man was a moron + the other party was France and not the US. How about something like "The concept as put forward by Polish historians is disputed by those who argue...". Overall the second and third paragraphs are very Polocentric, I'd add info about Czechoslovakia too but I don't know enough about the topic and don't have that penchant for adding unsourced statements that Polish editors seem to. (kidding :) ). Could someone versed in the topic have a peek at the last two paragraphs of the intro and see if any Czechoslovak info could be added? Czechia and Slovakia are the only other countries where this term is common. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What was made public at Yalta had already been decided in a process going back to even before Teheran. There's nothing Polo-centric about the concept of Western betrayal. The list of countries Churchill and Roosevelt gave to Stalin in multiple conversations on multiple occassions is quite extensive. —PētersV (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Amorphous lump

I think that this article confuses several points that do no bring clarity. The major problem is placing of individual nations states into an amorphous lump of "Western countries which violated allied pacts and agreements during the period from the Treaty of Versailles."

The wording sounds as if there was a pre-war alliance like the post war NATO. Britain (and France) and may have entered the war because of commitments to Poland, but the US did not. The US did not "signing pacts and forming military alliances prior [to] World War II" and the forms of Government that would exist in Eastern Europe was not high on their list of priorities.

Given the weakens of those who had declared war on Germany on Germany in 1939, and the non commitment by the US to save Poland and Czechoslovakia for democracy, lumping the states into "Western countries" is misleading. I think the introduction to the article needs to be rewritten stating what the specific commitments were (if any) by the different western states and what if anything they did not do which could be called a betrayal. This would allow the relative weakness of Britain and therefore their commitments to Poland to be shown against the interests of the emerging superpowers. Because statements like "The concept is disputed by those historians who argue that Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill and President of the United States Franklin Roosevelt had no option but to accept the demands of their ally Soviet premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran and later in Yalta." implies that British and American positions were identical which they were not. Churchill tried to influence Roosevelt, but he was not usually successful in persuading Roosevelt to go against his own national interests. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Sikorski Kukiel WSC Raczyns 1940s.jpg

The image File:Sikorski Kukiel WSC Raczyns 1940s.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Polish contribution

1.The numbers of Polish participants by the end of the war must be accompanied with the total numbers of Western allies and Soviets respectively - to illustrate the true scale of Polish contribution. 2.There is absolutely no way the Chinese had an army smaller than 600 000 men, thus regardless of whatever "the source" says, the Polish army wasn't the fourth largest allied force. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

On the substance of the matter, which Chinese army are you referring to? At its peak I think Mao's army had no more than 200,000 (and that may be exaggerated by later propaganda) soldiers and about 80,000 at the time of the Long March. Less after the Long March. KMT was roughly similar, perhaps a bit more (though those numbers have also been exaggerated by later, opposite, propaganda). Even considering both these armies as "allies" you still get less than the Poles. The only way to up it would be to throw in the various warlords that controlled and operated in some areas but that's really pushing it. Anyway, this is why we use sources. If you have a reliable source which lists the Chinese Army (whichever one) as higher than please cite it.radek (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nationalist army, of course. The Second Sino-Japanese war article puts their strength at 5 600 000 (I suspect it is the number of total participants though). I will definately provide sources on peak strength as soon as I can. Also, I suspect that the French also had a larger army than the Poles... With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty definitive "No" on the Free French (obviously Vichy France doesn't count), even ignoring the fact that more than 50% of the Free French were not French but anti-Nazi Africans. At their peak (Battle of Normany) the Free French had 400,000. The Poles had about 600,000 serving along the Western Allies and the Soviets plus another 400,000 in the Home Army alone (ignoring other partisan organizations). The 5600000 number is clearly wrong. Basically, before you remove referenced material, you need to 1) argue convincingly on RS board (bureaucracy or not, it's how Wiki works) that the given source is non-RS and 2) provide an RS for your own claim. If there is a source for your own claim then both statement should be included (as in "source this says this and source that says that"). I know that this can be a pain but the purpose of including citations is precisely to prevent this kind of back and forth.radek (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing that 5600000 number in the Second Sino-Japanese article. It does say "The number of active divisions, at the start of the war in 1937, was about 170 NRA divisions. The average NRA division had 4,000–5,000 troops" - taking the upper, 5000, number this would give 850,000 troops, still less than approx. million Poles. And the article discusses the fact that subsequently the National Revolutionary Army's strength went down, while the Communists increased.radek (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Communists were NOT the main participant of the Sino-Japanese War. It was the Nationalists. The chief of staff of the Nationalist Army stated in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal that the number of millitary personnels killed was 1,319,000 (reference: 中国現代史料叢書;対日抗戦, 何応欽上将著、呉相湘編、1948, 台北市文星書店). There's no way the Nationalist Army numbered only 600,000. --TokyoJapan (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular terms?

Regarding this edit, the inserted source doesn't support the statement that "Western betrayal or Yalta betrayal are popular terms in many Eastern and some Central European countries". All the article says is that "Yalta is a symbol of the Allies' betrayal of Poland", which is not under dispute. What requires a source is the statement that "Western betrayal" and "Yalta betrayal" are popular as terms in many Eastern and some Central European countries". Also, the cited article is strictly about Poland. (To be sure, the position of the footnote indicates that it's not supposed to prove the terms' popularity in any specific country, just that they are "popular", but that doesn't make sense without any reference to specific countries in the text.) --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Betrayal" is also the word used in Latvian. That said, Poland will always be the WWII poster child for Western betrayal as: (a) Britain declared war on Germany but sent no help and (b) France declared war on Germany only after being shamed into it by Britain because France feared an attack by Germany, being its neighbor and all, confirming to both Hitler and Stalin that Eastern Europe was for the taking by whoever got there first, starting with Poland. Not to mention being left behind the Iron Curtain for half a century, having the Soviets shift its borders massively, etc., etc. I'll look at widening when I have a chance. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

None of this is relevant for my point, which is strictly about the missing source for the supposedly "popular" term "Western betrayal". --Thorsten1 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the gist of my response, which was that as I have the chance, I'll review the article and add sources for "Western betrayal" for countries other than Poland. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"I think you missed the gist of my response" - I think you missed the gist of my comment, which was strictly technical. I really didn't mean to trigger yet another lament about the corrupt West's treatment of the noble East. Let me just say that your complaints, of course, have another side to them. --09:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Symbol"-->Popular. This is just rewriting to avoid copyvio.radek (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

First, the article said "popular" before the source was inserted, so the wording can't possibly have been intended to "avoid copyvio". Second, if the source says "symbol", citing this, verbatim or not, does not constitute a violation of copyright. Third, "popular" and "symbol(ic)" don't mean the same thing. When someone says "X is a popular term", they're strictly making a statement about language use. This statement isn't backed up by the source. --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Western betrayal of communist allies

I want to insert an article section dealing with betrayal by the Western Allies of their communist partner in the tripartite wartime alliance, also betrayal by the West of communist-led partisan resistance fighters. Not sure where this article section should be inserted without making the article page too disjointed or causing fractious debate. Given the scope and magnitude of the Western betrayal of communist allies, my feeling is the new section should probably go at the top of the article page. Communicat (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)communicat

Newbie. Don't know how to wrap text around content box and foto at top page. Unable to get refs moved from text to refs list while using proper coding in new sections added re Western betrayal of Soviet Union and communist partisan groups in Europe and Far East. Communicat (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article too long with new sections added, which is probably cause of above techno problems. So, am splitting article, moving entire former section headed "Diplomacy in Central Europe between the wars" to separate, existing wiki article headed "Central and East European countries". The "betrayal" article, as it was before extensive editing and revision now in progress, commenced from a shaky and unsourced premise (Western betrayal of Iron Curtain countries) and then proceeded as though it was a settled and unquestioned premise. That's pseudo history. The historical fact is that the Soviet Union had never invaded any part of central or eastern Europe except in answer to the Nazis and as a liberator. The Red Army alone had ejected the German invaders from central and eastern Europe, thus achieving a presence in central and eastern Europe behind the Red Army's own military lines. All the territory behind Soviet lines at the end of World War II had been captured under internationally accepted rules of military engagement, and all those countries under post-WW2 Soviet occupation had sent troops to fight on the side of Hitler — with the exception only of Poland. However, Polish troops supported post-war Churchillian ambitions to start a new war against the Soviet Union. see Operation Unthinkable), and Poland had throughout history been the corridor by which enemies swept into Russia — twice in less than three decades the Germans had passed through this corridor. In fact, since the beginning of the 19th century Russia had been invaded no less than five times: by Napoleon in 1812, by the British and French in 1854, by the Germans in 1914 to 1917, by the British and French again in 1918 to 1920, and by the Germans in 1941. With the Germans having been driven out of Poland by the Red Army it did not require any military genius to recognise that Stalin was not going to act hastily or against Russia's best interests with regard to its post-war control of Poland, which had been captured under internationally accepted rules of military engagement. There was no "betrayal" by the West with regard to Poland or any of the other Iron Curtain countries. The real betrayal was that of the Soviet Union by its Western Allies, as the revised article substantiates. Communicat (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

POV anti-Western bias

This article is interesting but mostly one sided. It is largely about describing the putative "Western betrayal" from the revisionist POV. Specifically, it almost entirely fails to mention any replies, defenses, or justifications from the pro-Western point of view, which it must in order to be NPOV. There are numerous pro-Western historians, and some have undoubtedly addressed these issues in detail from the Western point of view. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to add them myself; if you are, please add their version of these events as necessary. Kwertii (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Above comment seems to be concerned essentially with historiography, which among other things, has to do with the differences between conservative and revisionist interpretations of history, and that is not the subject of this article. Nor is the term "Western betrayal" to be found anywhere in the lexicography of any pro-Western historians that I've ever come across (Churchill's voluminous History of WW2, for example, among many others). If the term had somehow managed to enter the pro-Western lexicography, historians using the term would of course no longer qualify as "pro-Western". But I agree, if any interested party is in fact knowledgeable about the alleged "numerous" pro-Western historians who have indeed addressed the issues contained in the article, then their version of events would be most welcome. Communicat (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of wartime betrayal by the West of its communist allies is noticeably absent from most if not all Western WW2 histories, regardless of whether they're pro-Western or anti-Western or whatever. Perhaps this is because key Western official documents relating to the issue remain classified secret and embargoed under lock and key. Apart from the Russian sources and Churchill's own secret correspondence to Stalin (released by the Russians) the so-called revisionist sources cited in the article rely on some of the few Western official documents that did somehow manage to escape the Western censors and the incinerators. But again, this is drifting into the arena of WW2 histogriography, which is not the subject of this article, and it has its own separate Wiki article page, currently in a parlous state if anyone cares to fix it. Communicat (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No response to the above from the one editor/watcher who declared an NPOV dispute. Presumably this means consensus prevails and dispute is now resolved. In any event, I suggest the dispute declarant has misapplied the meaning of NPOV as stated in Wiki's own policy guide on neutrality. Namely, NPOV "is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view." You will note that the article is based on a reasonably good editorial mix of both communist and non-communist sources, which clearly reflects editorial neutrality. If anything, there are far more non-communist sources cited in the article than there are communist sources. So, the article can hardly be accused of "anti-Western" editorial bias. Specifically, there are only four communist sources cited, one Nazi source, and numerous non-communist Western sources including: British Prime Minister and Defence Minister Winston Churchill; British army assistant chief of general staff Major General John Kennedy; British Vice-Chief of General Staff, General Sir David Fraser; head of the British Army, Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke; and the official American history of the WW2 cross channel attack published by the Office of the Chief of Military History, US Department of the Army. By no stretch of the imagination can any of these quoted sources be accurately described as "anti-Western". So, to avoid being accused of McCarthyism, please don't pervert the rule of NPOV as defined in Wiki’s own policy guidelines, i.e. NPOV "is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view." Communicat (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No response to above. Consensus is presumed and dispute is apparently resolved. So, Deleted NPOV notice. Communicat (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I just came to this article today. I heartily concur with the charge that the article violates NPOV.

Mixing different sources doesn't show neutrality. Neutrality means that, on contentious subjects, Wikipedia reports facts, including facts about opinions, and also including the significant facts on which each side relies to bolster its opinions -- but Wikipedia does not adopt any of those opinions. This article, in its current state, violates this principle by asserting as fact the criticisms made by Russian and other sources. For example, the article asserts, without citation, that the actions of the Allied force under Eisehnhower "were characterised by plodding restraint in the face of ideal attack conditions and comparatively inferior enemy numbers." A more proper presentation would be along the lines of "Professor X or Prime Minister Y has criticized the conduct of the AEF for what he saw as plodding restraint in the face of ideal attack conditions and comparatively inferior enemy numbers." If that's a fair paraphrase of the opinion expressed, we could report it, with a citation; an appropriate verbatim quotation from some significant spokesperson would preclude any argument about the fairness of the paraphrase.

Most of the factual information that's now in the article could stay, assuming arguendo that the facts are ones cited and relied on by prominent spokespersons, as opposed to being merely facts that some pseudonymous Wikipedia editor thinks help prove his or her point. As an example of material that should be removed, the criticism of the West for its actions vis-a-vis Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 can hardly be referable to the subject of this article, if, as the first sentence states, the concept of "Western betrayal" refers to actions in the course of "the tripartite alliance against Hitler." In addition to the facts now in the article, however, there should also be presentation of other facts, such as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the Soviet invasion of Poland, which are facts mentioned by people who reject the charge of "Western betrayal".

In addition, the main reason for having an article like this would be to present a point of view of historical significance. The article would benefit from information showing the significance and use of these arguments. As it is, the article isn't about the concept of "Western betrayal" -- it's a long essay in favor of that concept. What should be added is, for example, information from reliable sources in support of the thesis (advanced elsewhere on this talk page) that the concept of "Western betrayal" was helpful to Communists in Eastern Europe in the postwar period. JamesMLane t c 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Some generous soul who apparently doesn't like the content of this article has arbitrarily deleted from the article page the various photos I recently uploaded: i.e. Italian partisans; Greek partisans; Gen Wedemeyer. Why was deletion done (without notation on talk page)? Looks like someone is keen to sabotage the presentation of this page. Communicat (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with JamesMLane's statements- this article has deep and significant POV issues. It is going to take alot of work to bring this up to standard. And Communicat, you should try to assume good faith when dealing with other Wikipedians- the photos appear to have been deleted because they were improperly licensed. Probably best not to assume that whoever is doing these things is trying to sabotage the article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. The sites from which the photos were uploaded did not give any indication as to copyright reserved or otherwise. I;m new to this, and am baffled by some of the wiki copyright policy rules, relevant tags etc. But I'll study them and try to comply before proceeding with any more photo uploads.

As for JamesMLane criticism above, specifically his observation that the 'concept of "Western betrayal" was helpful to Communists in Eastern Europe in the postwar period', that observation could usefully be integrated into the article, provided of course that it is properly sourced. Besides, the commenent clearly has to do with the post-war / Cold War era, which is not the subject of this article, and should be reserved more appropriately for the separate but related Cold War article page. Communicat (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Communicat's response highlights the different views of the subject of this article.

• I was assuming that the article is about a thesis that was advanced in the postwar period and used for political purposes by Communists in Eastern Europe. It's proper for us to have an article about a historical idea (like Frontier Thesis) and also proper for us to have an article about a propaganda theme (like And you are lynching Negroes). In each case, however, the focus of the article is to present information about the thesis or theme, as opposed to arguing for or against the idea. On that view, information about the use to which this idea has been put is not only relevant to this article, but central to it.
• Communicat evidently sees the subject of the article as the conduct of the Western allies before and during the war. If that's the subject, then the title is clearly POV and must be changed.

In either case, the article may report contentious positions but must not assert any of them as fact, which is what it now does. JamesMLane t c 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick-fix might be "Western betrayal", (in quotes) as title and throughout article.(?) Communicat (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a title can be in quotation marks. What about moving the article to Charge of Western betrayal as well as using quotation marks in the text? There would still be plenty of other fixes needed, of course. JamesMLane t c 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation of NPOV above was very helpful in providing a nuanced definition. I propose appropriately moving / splitting all the stuff about post-war treatment of partisans to the Cold War page. Heading could be "First blows in the political cold war", with sub-heads for Greece, Italy, Far East but without using the dreaded Betrayal word. Problem is, Cold War article length. Is there a length restriction on Cold War article, which is already quite long? Splitting the partisans content to Cold War page would usefully allow the remaining "Wetern betrayal" content to be more fixable as is, or moveable to Charge of Western betrayal Communicat (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial command decisions

Maybe above heading could be suitable re-title for article? (After the post-war content is split appropriately to Cold War article). Concur that it's still going to involve fair amount of work for NPOV, but should be worthwhile if it's to match the standard of the main WW2 page to which it's linked. Communicat (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC) split post-war text and pic content to Cold War article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Churchill completely misrepresented

I think the bias in this article is palpable. It revives World War II Soviet propaganda which sought to portray the Soviet Union as the chief contributor to Allied victory by minimizing the contributions of the western Allies.

The article claims "The betrayal issue is notably absent from officially approved Western historical accounts of the war, including Winston Churchill's voluminous history." This is complete nonsense. Churchill's history addresses the Soviet accusation of "betrayal" in considerable depth, including letters exchanged between himself and Stalin, and dismisses it most convincingly. The following points can be made (largely drawing from Churchill's history):

- The resources of the British Empire was fully committed to fighting Germany and the Axis from September 1939, and even while there was no western front fought her at sea in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, garrisoning Britain itself against possible German invasion, in the air (the Battle of Britain), and on land in the various theatres of the Mediterranean (Egypt and the Western Desert, Greece and Crete, Syria, Iraq, the garrisoning of Iran, and later through the invasions of Sicily and Italy, Sardinia, Corsica and southern France.

- Throughout the war Britain spent over 60% of its GDP on defense, which I believe was a higher proportion than Germany for most of the war.

- Britain and the United States sent extensive material support to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease scheme via Iran, Murmansk, Archangel and Pacific ports, especially tanks, trucks, metals and canned food. The Wikipedia article on Lend-Lease provides more details. Some of the convoys delivering this aid suffered heavy losses.

- Soviet criticisms seem to have consistently overlooked the challenges of a major amphibious invasion. It is one thing to form a large army and put it into the field. When that field is on the other side of a large body of water like the English Channel, the challenges of transporting, supplying and maintaining it, while at the same time providing enough firepower to protect both the force and its logistical train, are considerable. Churchill appreciated this from the outset and was personally active in ensuring, for example, that new types of landing ships were developed to create the capability of landing tanks directly not the beaches to support the infantry.

- It was not until 1944 that the western allies simply did not have the combination of ground, naval and air forces to (a) form an invasion force capable of beating the German army in western Europe, (b) transport it across the channel, land it on the beaches and keep it maintained and supplied and (c) ensure air superiority, with a reasonable chance of success, until 1944. An attempted invasion prior to that time would almost certainly have failed, as the outcome of the raid on Dieppe indicates.

- Britain around late 1940 had some 40 partially-equipped army divisions, after a considerable re-equipment effort following Dunkirk. Of these, around 24 were held in Britain to counter the threatened German invasion while the rest were deployed elsewhere, mainly the Middle East. This force proved adequate to defend Britain but would have had no chance of re-invading France and matching the German Wehrmacht.

- Nevertheless, British ground forces were constantly engaged with the Axis on the Mediterranean front, culminating in the successful invasion of Italy and the ejection of Italy from the war. At the outset of the campaign General Archibald Wavell with just 30,000 troops faced an invading Italian force of over a quarter of a million. (He attacked and drove the Italians back 1000 miles.) By the conclusion of the campaign two full Allied armies (one US, one British) were in Italy to accept the German surrender.

- At one point in the Mediterranean campaign (around the fall of Greece and Crete and the German-supported uprising in Iraq) Britain faced a desperate battle to prevent the complete loss of the Middle East. This, if it had occurred, would have been a strategic disaster for the Allied cause, leading to Axis control of the Suez canal, loss of the Middle East oilfields and the massive refinery in Abadan in Iran to Germany, in turn effectively forcing Allied naval forces form the Indian Ocean for lack of oil, and positioning Germany to later attack the USSR via the Caucasus. It would also have created the possibility of the powerful Japanese navy linking up with Germany and Italy in the Indian Ocean.

- The successful invasion of Normandy, when it came, was no guaranteed success. It succeeded in part because of the deception plan which led the Germans to believe that the main Allied invasion effort would be at the Pas de Calais. Without this deception, the German army might have deployed more divisions more quickly against the invasion force and defeated it. 124.191.148.113 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Why not incorporate it into the article with source references? Please note the article has since been renamed 'Controversial command decisions', some content has been split to other articles, and other changes made to help resolve POV anti-Western bias dispute concerning former title "Western Betrayal".) Communicat (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

New title: Controversial command decisions

Article now renamed 'Controversial command decisions', some content has been split to other articles, and other changes made to help resolve POV anti-Western bias dispute concerning former title "Western Betrayal". Communicat (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Added new lead, re Singapore. Presume extensively re-worked edit as per preceding suggestions by JamesMLane now settles NPOV dispute (?)Communicat (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, am unable to get refs to show in refs section. They don't budge from main body text. Maybe this has something to do with the article having been declared disputed? Will wait a few days and then remove dispute notice, in the unlikely event that nobody minds or notices. Communicat (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish viewpoint

The article seems to have completely dropped the viewpoint of Poles that they were "betrayed" by the West on two counts -- first, the failure of the West to launch a serious offensive on the land against Germany in 1939, and second, by the decision to leave Poland in the Soviet occupation zone as the war was coming to a close. Notwithstanding that Poland's viewpoint on this differs greatly from that of the western powers, it still seems worthy of mention and probably constitutes the first "controversial command decision" of the Second World War. Apart from that, it also seems to me that the Soviet Union's decision to align with Germany from 1939 to 1941 is also a "controversial command decision", and one which very much blew up in the USSR's face. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also "controversial command decisions, the earliest of which concerned the surrender of Singapore" - eh? What about the decision to sink the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir? W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish viewpoint (Betrayal at Yalta) was split / moved to Central and East Europe stub article page. (Polish viewpoint is missing many source references / authentications etc, which make it inconsistent with new and fully annotated Controversial Command Decisions.) Communicat (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)