Talk:Western betrayal/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Jewish anti-Polish opinion considered an argument just like that

What does the following sentence mean: "...with Polish Jews often asserting Poland itself was responsible for its own betrayal". Namely WHO? And why is his/her opinion relevant and considered an argument in any way? Only because it's Jewish opinion? This is not a fact that could be used as a part of an encyclopedia article. What if one said, for example: "Jews are responsible for their own Holocaust"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.68.148 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

And now, the first sentence of the article makes no sense what so ever: "Western betrayal is a term asserting that the post-war fate of Central and Eastern Europe rested in the foreign policy decisions of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1938 and 1968. "

No. The term WB does not assert anything of the kind. Somebody pulled this out of their butt. This is a weak attempt at making the concept sound ridiculous by exaggerating it to the point of absurdity. It's setting up a simple strawman and is not supported by sources at all.

Additionally this is obviously not an adequate definition of the term because it misses the whole "betrayal" part of it. Even if the term asserted this thing (which it doesn't) that would not be enough to define the concept properly - it could be that the fate depended on the foreign policy decisions of Western powers but they didn't betray nobody.

VolunteerMarek 22:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Let's work out a better phrasing here then, on the talk page. Any suggestions? Malick78 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Well, I'm guessing that the key thing that you want captured is the fact that the view of Western Betrayal is just that, "a view", rather than "a fact". Which is fine - that's how it should be described. But to describe it as just a view, we still need to first properly explain what this view is exactly. And that means stating what it is, rather than inventing a new strawman-definition. So the first question is, what exactly is the view of Western Betrayal? Without any editorializing or spin.VolunteerMarek 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, underlining that it is just a view is definitely of the paramount importance. The view is that: various Western countries, at various times in the 20th century, either failed to meet treaty obligations to defend Eastern Europe, or alternatively failed to meet (more nebulous) moral obligations to defend countries in said region. This perception, is of course, fiercely debated by both sides.

What would you change/add? Particular dates? I tried to capture the concepts involved of course, not necessarily the final wording to be used.Malick78 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not bad. I'm not sure about the "nebulous" and the "fiercely debated" parts (it's "fiercely debated" on this talk page, but in sources?) How about something like "The concept of Western Betrayal refers to the view that various Western countries failed to meet legal, diplomatic or moral obligations with respect to several Eastern and Central European countries, such as Poland or the Czech Republic, before, during and shortly after World War II. The view typically focuses on historical events such as the Munich conference, the Warsaw Uprising and the Teheran and Yalta conferences."

I'd drop any editorializing about "fierce debate" or "acceptance" and let the article text speak for itself. Stating that it's just a view is enough.

It might also be a good idea to be specific about what is meant "various Western countries". Why not enumerate them, since it's basically France, Britain and the US. It's not like we're talking about Lichtenstein or Portugal or Andorra here? Why not be specific?VolunteerMarek 16:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Being specific is fine with me - we can name the Western countries. I do however like the idea of a little caveat somewhere, about the concept not being accepted by all sides. Maybe not quite as strong as the smack-down in the Astrology intro's last para, but something is needed: most intros inherently back the concepts described, and ours would do so if a caveat were not included.

Regarding 'debate', I think that when critics say Churchill should have done more at Yalta and others say, "sure, but Britain was on her knees at the time after 6 years of war" - that exchange shows the existence of a debate. I'd say it was definitely "fierce" - in people's minds if not in "sources" - oh how many times I've been told off in Poland for my country's failings after the war! ;;;) Wounds are still fresh for some. Malick78 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Whereas the VM's change is an improvement, it is still unsatisfactory. The lede de facto blames the US in Munich, and blames France in Yalta. In addition, no such state entity as Czech republic existed by the moment Munich agreement was signed. Poor school students who will read all of that! I suggest to change it to something more concrete, for example:

"The concept of Western Betrayal refers to the view that United Kingdom and France failed to meet their legal, diplomatic or moral obligations with respect to Czechoslovakia during the Munich Agreement as subsequent Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany, as well as to Poland on the eve of the World War II. The same concept also refers to the concessions made by the United States and the United kingdom to the USSR during the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, to their stance during the Warsaw Uprising, and some other events."

With regard to the second part: "Historically, such views were intertwined with some of the most significant geopolitical events of the 20th century, including the rise and empowerment of the Third Reich (Nazi Germany), the rise of the Soviet Union (USSR) as a dominant superpower with control of large parts of Europe, and various treaties, alliances, and positions taken during and after World War II, and so on into the Cold War. The concept is by no means universally accepted."

the only text I understood was the last sentence. Can anyone explain me (in simple English) what idea is the underscored text supposed to convey? How can "views" be "intertwined" with "events"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

These are good points - sometimes it's difficult to be general. I'm fine with replacing the first sentence by your proposed sentence. And I only kept the stuff about "Historically,..." out of a desire not to mess with the status quo too much - I agree that's badly written and more or less useless.VolunteerMarek 01:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think I missed something, and some corrections are needed, fell free to add them, and put the text to the article. With regards to the second part, I have a feeling that it is a result of some past conflict between two groups of editors who wanted to convey two opposite viewpoints. Can we make this text clearer? If the idea is that the western powers, by virtue of their betrayal, are responsible for the rise of the Third Reich, we can write about that clearly. With regard to the USSR, does the article say that different position of the US/UK regarding Poland in 1945 could prevent rise of the USSR as superpower? I am not sure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of view pushing & Wholesale Deletions by "Volunteer Marek"

Despite a commendable and desirable promise to leave this article, "Volunteer Marek" has resumed sole responsibility for its content by wholesale deletions of this article's sections that do not support his ultra-nationalist victimisation view of the Polish People. I took a look back over many years of this article's talk page and the complaints are all basically the same: an apologist narrative for Poland's fate in WW2 and afterwards is the main objective of this editor and his organisation of friends. I have a full time job and do not have the time to fight with such a committed extremist - it is this kind of editing that keeps Wikipedia from being used as a source for academic environment. I suggest all major deletions be discussed before they are unilaterally enacted and I suggest "Volunteer Marek's" deltions be restored (I would myself but do not know how.) ... How many years should this article be held hostage by one editor? Pultusk (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. From beginning to end. Pultusk is a single purpose account, most likely the person behind a series of IP addresses that disrupted this page and others and engaged in personal harassment.

What I removed was a whole bunch of misrepresentation of sources and irrelevant pov pushing.

You can take your accusations of ulta-nationalism and shove them. The article was full of crap. Now it has less crap in it. There's actually a good bit of info that was in here but that was deleted which should be restored. But nm that for now.VolunteerMarek 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pultusk has edited this a lot, but there are other pages on his/her contributions list - so, let's not just rubbish the editor's views with the phrase "single purpose account". Unless you have proof of the IP thing, I suggest you don't make wild accusations. I have no views as yet on the deletions themselves... Malick78 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My "wild accusations" = the fact that Pultusk and the anon IP appear both on your talk page and here at exactly the same time. And that the anon IP geolocates to Georgia, while Pultusk's user page says "I am Raf and from Pultusk, Poland. I teach physics at Emory University and Georgia Tech in Atlanta and my hobbies are rocketry or aerospace of all kinds". And yes, there's a smuttering of minor edits to a couple other pages, to justify his presence on Wikipedia perhaps, but he's pretty much focused on this page right here. It rather seems like he's happy to edit from several accounts at once, saving the more disruptive antagonistic stuff for the IP edits and not realizing that IP addresses can be looked up. Not that the rest of that claim on userpage holds any water either.VolunteerMarek 22:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, they both seem to be in Georgia. In that case, let's ask Pultusk nicely to always login when he edits. Sometimes, when checking WP at work, for example, people forget to. AGF please ("a smuttering of minor edits to a couple other pages, to justify his presence on Wikipedia perhaps" is not AGF. He seems to have spent several hours on other articles. And anyway, many people start on WP with a favourite article.). Malick78 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OLDTHINKERS UNBELLYFEEL INGSOC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Last paragraph

I think there are a number of problems with the last paragraph. The first and obvious one is that raw url links to pages in books need to be converted into full citations: "author, title, publisher ISBN, page numbers". Now for the content:

• At one point Colin Powell has stated that he doesn't think "betrayal is the appropriate word" regarding the Allies' role in the Warsaw Uprising. This needs a context otherwise it is a personal POV. It needs to be something like this: In 2004 Colin Powell attended the 60th commemoration of the Warsaw uprising as the American Secretary of State and stated that "betrayal is [not] the appropriate word" regarding the Allies' role in the Warsaw Uprising.

• While complaints of "betrayal" are common in politics generally, the idea of a western betrayal can also be seen as a political scapegoat in both Central and Eastern Europe A scapegoat for whom?

• and a partisan electioneering phrase among the former Western Allies. I have no idea what this means.

• Historian Athan Theoharis maintains betrayal myths were used in part by those opposing US membership in the United Nations. Who opposed US membership of the United Nations? What was the time frame? How could the concept of western betrayal have been used thus? I ask this because the US was a founding member of the UN and the Allies of World War Two referred to themselves as the United Nations prior to the formal formation of the organisation.

• The word "Yalta" came to stand for the appeasement of world communism and abandonment of freedom. Who alleges this it needs in-text attribution because it is a minority POV in the English speaking world.

--PBS (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with most of that. Re Powell, didn't he express a mainstream western viewpoint? --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

POV tag (?) varranty

The archiving bot is cute thing, however...

From history of the talk page here I see, that previously this talk page had been used heavily, to discuss the content matter and that the original tagger made merely simple statement here on 25th March: I have added a POV tag to the top of the article; I'm very surprised it did not already have one. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC). It might had been apparent back then, what troubled Milkunderwood enough to tag the article, unfortunately, the reason for the tag is - due to the disrupted consistency of the discussion and due to its sequential archivation - not apparent now at all!

Basically : I would like to know if there is still a reason for the POV tag and what those reasons might be (?).
Exactly what the reasons were, and which of them might had been solved from back then already (?).
(Would be nice to summarize them in some concise form for every new participant in the future too (unless we want indefectible POV on the article))

In addition, - the above described situation describes very well, why the addition of POV tag should be (IMHO) stringently accompanied by its warranty at the talk page in all cases (- even if the tag presenter, might have good reasons to things otherwise - for the present time back then).--Reo ⁺ 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Western Betrayal of Czechoslovakia as justification of Soviet-German Pact

It should be mentioned that in pre-1991 USSR the betrayal of Czhechoslovakia by Allies was always used, not without merit, as a justification of USSR signing the pact with Germany. Soviet students were taught in History lessons how USSR had no choice but to side with Hitler, since it was impossible to trust Western powers as the betrayal of Czhechoslovakia had shown. I must admit that this was and is a perfect justification and it still holds true. Especially if one takes into account that German atrocities only became wide-known well into WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozmysl (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is not only the Soviet view. Many Western mainstream authors (e.g. Overy) share this idea:

"Fresh evidence has altered the picture substantially. The memoirs of a senior Soviet staff officer, released finally in 1989, seem to make it clear that Stalin was prepared to offer more than a gesture. On September 20 Beneš was given a firmer indication of Soviet military support. Two days later both the Kiev and the Belorussian military districts facing the long Polish border were put on alert, and troops were redeployed westward. On September 28, the day that Hitler finally backed down and agreed to Mussolini’s suggestion of a conference at Munich, all the military districts west of the Urals were ordered to stop releasing men for leave. The following day reservists were called to the colours throughout the western Soviet Union, 330,000 in all. The Czech Government was offered 700 fighter aircraft if room could be found on Czech airfields. The most significant revelation was that Romania, the Red Army’s only possible route into Central Europe (given the strong hostility of the Polish Government to any transfer of Soviet forces through its territory, half of which had belonged to the former Tsarist empire), had agreed under pressure to allow 100,000 Soviet soldiers to cross to Czechoslovakia, as long as it was done quickly." (Overy. Russia's war)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

alternative history novel

Seriously? We're using an alternative history *novel* as a source? (Hohum ^@) 23:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary - Syria

Many newspapers use the term when applying to this year's refusal to intervene in the Syrian conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.6.41 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUM - your post has no worth to this article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this article is already an embarrassment. Don't see why this suggestion would make it any worse. john k (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is purely POV, 'Western betrayal' being not a specific historical event but a POV concept embodied in East European nationalism, so the article has no right to exist. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nowak's book

http://www.wydawnictwoliterackie.pl/ksiazka/3480/Pierwsza-zdrada-Zachodu---Andrzej-Nowak Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) The Curzon line would have allowed the Soviets to kill thousands of Poles.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

France and Britain ... did not declare war on the Soviet Union

They weren't oblidged to do it, let's not mix apples of betrayal (Germany) and oranges of realism (SU).Xx236 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Subsection on Operation Unthinkable

I have added this subsection. The planning of Operation Unthinkable is a source support for two issues presented in the article: that Yalta agreement was not honored by Soviet Union, up to considering military enforcement, and that the enforcement might not be realistically possible. I do not insist on keeping this section, but please discuss with me before removing. There is already a reference in the article to Operation Unthinkable, but it drums up the sensation ("enlist Nazi troops") which I think seriously distorts the issue. Szafranpl (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Section needed on modern Ukraine and the western betrayal against them with regards to the Budapest Memorandum!

The title says it all, young independent Ukraine gave up 2500(!) inherited ex-CCCP live nuclear warheads, for security guarantee but they got a literal toilet paper undersigned by USA, UK, France and later China. None of them have fired even a blank warning shot while Vlad Putin is eating .ur alive... 80.99.11.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the long quotation fromErnest Mandel due?

Ping User:Albrecht re [1]. I am concerned that the opinion of this person is not due. Could you comment on why we need such a long quote here? I would be willing to compromise by shortening his opinion to a single sentence, that seems more reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Significant source, needed for neutrality for this conspiracy theory.Birbor (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please tells us who calls it a conspiracy theory? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I take your point that the large block quote probably takes up undue space relative to a fairly small subsection — but this points, I think, to a wider and more structural problem with the article: the "Poland" section goes into extraordinary detail to effectively make a case for a "Western betrayal" interpretation of WWII, and does so without clearly distinguishing empirical facts from their (partisan) interpretation (pace the user above, I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy theory"; merely a metanarrative that should be open to various levels of contestation and rebuttal). The problem is that this large and sweeping section contains virtually zero contrary viewpoints or criticism; so, relative to this great mass of "pro-Western betrayal" content, I don't think Mandel's counterargument is out of place or excessive. That said, I'm open to any number of suggestions on how best to structure the article to accommodate diverging points of view. Albrecht (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Albrecht: This article needs much improvement, both in terms of new sources needed, and properly referencing/attributing existing viewpoints, no argument here. My problem with Mandel is primarily that his argument is irrelevant here, as it is a critique of a policy of the government-in-exile and its attitude to Soviets. What does it have to do with the behavior of Western Allies? The answer is, not much. Now, yes, the Polish-Soviet spat did make it obviously difficult for the Western Allies, but so did many other issues - we might as well blame the Poles for not giving in to the Hitler's demand for '39, like the Czechs did. And anyway, if we want to talk about the Polish-Soviet relation here, I think we need a source that clearly connects this issue to the Western betrayal concept, and MAndel doesn't do so, so I stand by my view that his quote is both UNDUE and OR/SYNTH here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: We had this exchange briefly in edit summaries, and to be honest I remain puzzled by the reasoning: the "Western betrayal" perspective itself consists of a wide-ranging critique of the policy of Western governments and their attitude to the Soviets; if this narrative is to be challenged at all, it seems only natural and inevitable that the attitudes and actions of the Polish government-in-exile should come under scrutiny, no? I can accept the argument that perhaps not every detail in the quote — the Curzon line, the tug-of-war over cabinet posts — is strictly speaking necessary, but his underlying point about the possibility of a Polish–Soviet accommodation prior to Tehran and Yalta helps restore agency to the Polish side and undermines the (IMO simplistic) account of Poland as a helpless victim.

The suggestion that this is WP:SYNTH, however, is untenable — all the more so since the "Poland" section is rife with SYNTH, pulling together individual facts from various historical works and arranging them so as to construct a narrative about WWII (effectively, mobilizing them to make the case for Western betrayal). Mandel's book, far from a random narrative history, is a commentary on WWII historiography and popular memory (The Meaning of the Second World War), making it far less a candidate for SYNTH than many of the other works cited in the article. Albrecht (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Albrecht: I don't dispute this article has many other problems, including with SYNTH, but I don't see how the cited section is not SYNTH. It talks about some semi-relevant issues, but does not mention the concept of Western betrayal or any plausible synonym. I am sorry, but I don't see how it is relevant here. It would be to foreign relations of Polish government-in-exile article, yes, but not here. At best, I suggest we start such an article and move this quote there, to the section about Polish-Soviet relations. (There is also an existing article on Polish-Russian relations that could potentially absorb it too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)