Talk:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies

1198:. Fair enough, but let's not underestimate the impact a title can have. For readers with a more casual interest and superficial knowledge of the issue, the title is the first impression that sets the tone for how they perceive of the whole article, even if they read it in its entirety. The ultimate goal should be to give a reader with a neutral attitude or even negative preconceptions about Central Europe a good idea of how and why the notion of "Western betrayal" came into being, and thus make them understand certain Central European concerns that they otherwise would have a tough time understanding. We should therefore not allow an awkward or ideological title to stand in the way of a good article.-- 903:

alliance, not even a non-aggression treaty or declaration of goodwill. In this sense it's hard to argue that the Czechoslovakia was betrayed by Poland. Also, AFAIK the history of Czechoslovakia, in the Czechoslovak society there was no sense of betrayal from the Polish side since during most of the interbellum Poland has been portrayed as a cruel, blood-thirsty dictatorship, one of the allies of Czechoslovak enemy - Hungary. The sense of betrayal was much stronger with the western powers, who were seen as warrants of peace and new world order.

1288:. The article claims that "in Polish the term zdrada 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." This may sound plausible to an outside reader with no knowledge of Polish; but I have a good enough command of Polish not to let you (or whoever wrote the above sentence) off the hook so easily. ;-) You're making it appear as if "betrayal" and "breach" were actually the same word in Polish, namely 1048:

Yalta conference which finally consigned Poland, the West's loyal wartime ally, to Stalin's sphere of influence. Without the Yalta aspect, the whole concept of "Poland's betrayal" seems strangely incomplete; for it was not until Yalta that the earlier events described in the article finally fell into place to form the image of a huge betrayal. A useful spin-off effect of Yalta's inclusion is that it conveniently lends itself as a catchy, neutral, plausible, and unemotional title.

1052:

article as neutral, fact-based, and trustworthy as possible, avoiding weepy accusations from the moral high ground. If disinterested readers get the impression that this is a place where some nerdy Poles ride their own national hobbyhorses, they'll turn away very quickly, and nothing is gained at all - neither for the "Polish cause" nor for Knowledge at large. I'm looking forward to any comments.

1336:- in English, "betrayal" does imply a moral condemnation of the action it denotes, and in this version of Knowledge, we will have to adhere to the English usage, like it or not. To cut a long story short, the broad-brush moral condemnation of Western wartime policies toward Central Europe as conveyed by the present title "Western betrayal" is definitely out of place. 1126:- If anything, then the inversion "Central European attitude towards the Western allies" would be appropriate (to be more precise - "Central European attitude towards the Western allies' supposed attitudes to Central Europe"...). Admittedly, this is not as concise a catchphrase as "Western betrayal", and renders the whole issue somewhat nondescript and borish. 1251:

exhaustively as possible - but we should steer clear of moralizing. Let us allow casual readers to draw their own conclusions based on the material. People come here looking for information, and if they discover that somebody's trying to persuade them of something instead, then this will cast a very poor light both on the case in point and on Knowledge. --

1163:. Rest assured that I abhor political correctness as much as the next guy (probably more so). The question is, though, what do we consider the "painful truth"? That the West betrayed Central Europe, or that Central Europe believed it did? That is a crucial differe, after all, and one that gets blurred in the present title. 1332:, ie. "someone who defects to the enemy"); as a "denouncer", "informer", "deserter", "turncoat", "renegade" or "deceiver". There can be no denying that every single of these words carries a heavy moral and emotional message, can there? But even if I'm wrong and you're right about the innocence of the Polish word 745:, but also gives the necessary data to prove the theory right or wrong. I didn't give any interpretation so far, only plain facts. I don't blame anyone for anything in Polish history (well, maybe apart from the most obvious cases like Stalin for GULag or Hitler for Auschwitz) nor do I try to misinform anyone. 1138:

I fully acknowledge your view, and I'm far from wanting to whitewash the Allied tactics. But re-reading the factual content of the article, I find it somewhat selective after all. I'll go into this in more detail later on. For the time being, let's accept that there is another side to this story, and

1099:

and such, but I am not sure they are more appopriate. Sure, less controversial, but there is the line between painful truth and political correctness that I personally tend to avoid. Wiki being Wiki, if this causes much stirr, I suggest a vote for the most appopriate title to settle this once and for

950:

By the way, the Phony War is something else entirely and has nothing to do with Poland. That is the period of little warfare in the winter of 1939 and early 1940. And what would the western allies really have done? Shouted at the Germans? They could never have sent troops. Poland had no chance.

873:

I agree. Although first of all it deserves an article of its own. Second: Hypocrisy is a little too harsh. Show me politis without hypocrisy. Besides Czechs were never the original Allies with Poland, France and England. Third: Let's keep the proportions. There was nothing Poland could do to save the

843:

The Poles and the Hungarians, after threatening military action against the helpless nation, now swept down, like vultures, to get a slice of Czechoslovak territory. Poland, at the insistence of Foreign Minister Jozef Beck, who for the next twelve months will be a leading character in this narrative,

723:

Yes I have read it. Its problem is that it has obviously been written to prove a case, to prove that the Allies betrayed Poland in 1939 and again in 1945, and that they could have saved Poland if they had wanted. Firstly, that isn't true, and secondly, that is not what encyclopaedia articles are for.

1173:

Yes, but that you'd say 'both' is exactly what I'm on about. Please rest assured that I fully understand how the notion of "Western betrayal" was conceived, and in many contexts I would even subscribe to this point of view. However, the present title is a conflation of a statement of fact and one of

732:

for what happened to Poland between 1939 and 1990. Well, that's not what encyclopaedias are for, and that's why you all keep getting in trouble. If you post this article, it will be reverted and listed for deletion and all the usual stuff. The fact is that you can't use Knowledge as a bulletin board

243:

I agree that title was inappropriate at best but this doesn't condemn whole article IMHO. The article is a stub, if somebody could point out how it could be expanded - keep it, if not - delete & merge with Polish history pages (now it really looks like excerpt from it). However the best we could

1250:

Halibutt, I've read your discussion with Adam Carr. You may not be too pleased to hear that I fully agree with his point that we should not be building a "case" for a certain moral conclusion here. We should try and enumerate the facts that spawned the notion of "Western betrayal" as accurately and

1079:

I admit that I overlooked the link to the new article. I agree that the new article is much better regarding the NPOV, but the problem with the word "betrayal" in the title persists. With the new article being much wider in scope, it is even more difficult to find an appropriate, neutral title, but

1051:

Before anyone rushes to the comfortable conclusion that I am "anti-Polish" or anything: I'm not. I can well understand the perfectly legitimate desire of Polish contributors to explain this issue and the Polish point of view to an international audience. That is precisely why I suggest to make this

1047:

Of course, it is difficult to find an "objective" name for an intrinsically subjective phenomenon. As a tentative suggestion, I would call it "The Yalta complex" or something similar. The Polish notion of having been betrayed by the West did not receive its decisive and finishing touches before the

934:

page that some Poles consider this a betrayal, but certainly an article is not needed. It is impossible not to interject with POV, especially when it is written almost exclusively by Poles, and will in all probability never be seen by anyone but its writers (or taken very seriously, who would come

562:). Moreover, it's about the phenomenon called with this word, not about betrayal per se. If you read through the article, you've probably noticed that it does not judge whether it was or not a betrayal. It only gives the data that is used by those who assume that the pacts and alliances were broken. 269:

This issue is a matter of the whole behaviour of western countries since before the WWII starded until today and not only of changing the borders in 1945. It covers much more than Poland also. The whole affair is as much (or even more) the cause of todays' Europe political shape as the WWII itself.

884:

If there was any nation betrayed in the 30s, then it was Czechoslovakia whose alliance with France (signed in 1935!) was flushed away and replaced with new and more perspective one with Hitler. And if there was nothing Poles could do for Czechs, they could still do something for themselves, right?

844:

took some 650 square miles of territory around Teschen, comprising a population of 228,000 inhabitants, of whom 133,000 were Czechs. Hungary got a larger slice in the award meted out on November 2 by Ribbentrop and Ciano: 7,500 square miles, with a population of 500,000 Magyars and 272,000 Slovaks.

838:

Of course, what happened to Poland under Hilter and then Stalin is terrible and the Western Allies bear some degree of blame. However, I have read that Polish leaders were greedy, opportunistic, and stunningly short-sighted. They went along with Hitler in the partitioning of Czechoslovak in 1938,

760:

Also, if you feel some facts are disputable - say it! If I - non intentionally, I swear - put any interpretation instead of pure facts - say it. I'm a journalist myself and I know that mere choice of facts to be quoted sometimes is an interpretation, but if this is the case, then it simpl6y needs

902:

uses the most strict definition as a basis when dealing with Poland in WWII and before it: betrayal equals breaking of the treaties. In this sense Poland did not break any treaties with Czechoslovakia, since after the Cieszyn Silesia conflict in 1920 neither side wanted to sign any. There was no

750:

I understand that you might not agree with the very concept described in the article, but please be so kind as to tell me what's wrong with it instead of telling me that no matter what's inside, it will be deleted. If the article gives impression that wikipedia supports either side - where's the

189:

Your change doesn't make a lot of sense. There were 3 betrayals: borders, free elections and goverment. Stalin wanted Poland to have some borders, to make elections he wins and to have government he nominates. In all 3 areas he got approval from the West, accroding to Bliss Lane breach of US

959:

Shouldn't this article make some mention of the fact that Poland was under a crpto-fascist dictatorship long before the Nazis arrived, let alone the Stalinists? That last line about Stalin promising to allow free elections seems pregnant - Poland hadn't had a free election since 1926.

863:

Poland" for honest NPOV. I certainly don't want to place blame on individual Poles. However, for full NPOV, we must try to imagine the perspectives of people struggling through this horrible time. People did not stand together against Hitler and, so, the world had to suffer so much.

1222:

Many titles have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that this title is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that 'Western betrayal' is the worst title except all those other titles that have been suggest here from time to

1246:

Don't ask me, I had a similar discussion with Adam Carr some time ago and the only result was that he decided that the article should be deleted before it is posted and should be reverted as soon as I posted, no matter what's inside... ] 11:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

270:

It is also a serious cause of negative sentiments towards western countries, it won't go away if we keep silent about it. So this should not be "delete/keep" discussion but "how do we make it so that it is not inflamatory, but describes the situation truthfully".

338:

Reform the title, keep the article! It ought to become an aritcle of major importance. It will be improved if the Poles learn NPOV, otherwise it will be only another pit for them in which to continue World War II - one more or less, what difference would that

803:

The problem is not really with your facts. The problem is that you use your facts like a lawyer trying to prove a case rather than like a historian. Historians put facts in context, and they put all the facts, not just those that suit a particular line of

402:

Central Europe never belonged to the West, so how could the West give it away? The United States and Britain just acknowleged the reality that the Soviets were going to occupy Eastern Europe. And most people feel it was the Germans who started WWII.

761:

some counter-arguments, not deletion. Please, try to be a little more constructive since your comments so far seem a little.. I don't know, different from what I got used to. Also, how about moving our discussion to the respective talk page here:

690:

If someones' behaviour perfectly fits the dictionary definition then it's not an opinion but a fact. However, I gave up the term used in Poland mostly because of possible edit wars. Check the new version of the header and tell me if you like

1129:

Well, this article is not only about attidude - it is not a psychological explanation. It contains among other things historical facts that diplomatic agreements were broken, some allies lied to and obligations unfullfilled <snip:

654:. But at least that will be an acceptable title. You have to be careful, however, not to write just from a Polish perspective, or you will be reverted at once. It's OK to write "most Poles felt the western Allies betrayed them." It's 257:

Moreover in advent of German Expellees activism at Knowledge and Polish response to it, we really need some Potsdam aftermath overview article - for all nations that Potsdam affected. Would parties engaged in Polish-German edit wars

1067:

article. It it an expanded version of this article, with Yalta part, many others sections, expanded sources and hopefully an even better NPOV. If not for the recent vandal and protection, this article would be a redirect already.

1219:

I think everybody here agrees that the usage of term 'betrayal' is not pefect. But as nobody seems to be able to present a sound alternative, I think that for the moment, we are stuck with it. To paraphrase Winston Churchill:

810:

No doubt. This might be because I am a historian and I know the difference between history and polemic. Also I have had months of arguing with Polish editors here and I have got used to a brisk style of debate with

612: 1035:

I'd say in its present form the article is about as neutral as possible from what is after all a distinctly Polish point of view. The introductory sentence makes clear that the article deals with a specific

992:

project and moved it to the main Knowledge namespace. It is not yet finished, but the main part of it is ready enough to be commented. I'd suggest redirecting this article there. However, before editing the

346:

Reform the article, keep the title! We should name things what they are, a betrayal will always be a betrayal, no matter how much you try to "NPOV" it. But I agree that the article needs much care.

741:

Geez, Adam... You try hard, but apparently not hard enough because I still don't feel offended. I did not write this article to prove anything. I only prepared an article that not only states that

751:

sentence that should be changed and/or modified. One can't deny that such a phenomenon exists and as such should be described by the encyclopedia. We can either make a short article saying that

1040:

felt by Polish society, and not actual facts themselves. The one thing that remains irritating, though, is the title "Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies". This implies that there actually

912:

OTOH, if we forget the world "betrayal" and use some other synonym for "a bad thing", then I must agree. Generally, Polish contemporary historians agree that the Cieszyn Silesia ultimatum of

1044:

such a betrayal, although this is a statement of moral judgment, not a statement of fact. This is a bit like titling an article about paranoia with "being chased by dark forces", isn't it?

132:

Article seems like it could be included in a paragraph of Polish history, talking about the border changes. At the least this article needs to be renamed to a more neutral point of view.

168:

There is already an article on the book. In fact all the info in this article is already there. Redirect or delete. (I'd have been much more sympathetic if it wasn't for the title).

674:

The issue is not the difference in meaning between English and Polish, the issue is the correct way to write an encyclopaedia article. "The western Allies betrayed the Poles" is an

559: 558:, and so on). Of course the very word 'betrayal' is rather unNPOV, but that's the way it's being called (at least in Poland) and it seems much better than the alternatives (like 395:

Keep it under the same title. 1) Most people in Poland share this view. 2) It was true after all — Central Europe was given away to Soviets (who started the damn WW2) in Yalta.

440: 1265:

I used the name this phenomenon is known in at least two countries, too bad there was no decent book on it in English - we'd have a title ready. ] 11:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

506:

No article with a heading like "Western betrayal" can possibly be NPOV. You are just asking for trouble by proceeding this way. Why don't you add material to the relevant

64:

Keep. It was a subject of book written by former US embassador to Poland, Bliss Lane. The feelings that prevailed among Poles after WW2 make it event worth notifying.

426:

Keep! Poland together with Britain and France were the "original" Allies. Today nobody remembers it. Allies won the war, but Poland lost. People need to know why.

1139:

someone with a "pro-Allied" stance and a sound knowledge of diplomatic history would not find it too hard to refute most if not all of the facts in question.

277:

Keep. It defintely needs expansion and un-POVing (I can do it), but it's worthly. Especially that the topic of "western betrayal" is an important factor in

611:

But what title would you propose for that article? It's not a history of Polish-Allied relations but just a small part of it. Perhaps it's some sort of a

973:

Agreed with Halibutt. Dear anon definietly you need to read up and have some proof ready if you are going to announce such controversial theories. --

377: 34: 666:

You really didn't have to mention that since I'm perfectly counscious of the difference in meaning of the term betrayal in English and in Polish.

191: 823: 762: 849: 635: 575:

It can be the most brilliant article in the world, but if you run it with that title you will be immediately attacked. The word "betrayal"

175: 147: 899: 1005:

I agree with redirect idea. The new version is much better, both in having better information and sources and in being more NPOVed. --

567:

Anyway, it's still in the working stage and I would appreciate your contribution rather than critisizing before the thing is finished.

381: 651: 647: 474:

It's very nice of you, but I don't really understand how does it add to the article? Was it considered a betrayal by anyone or what?

623: 815:

I am going to bed now. Tomorrow I might have a go at writing an alternative draft of this article. I doubt you will like it much.

968:, then read the relevant part of the History of Poland series. Then we can start to discuss your idea. ] 12:59, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) 613:

History of Allied relations with Central European countries and the attitude of their societies towards different Allied policies

317: 1349:. But the mere fact that Western authors support the "betrayal" theory does not make the term any more legitimate as a title. -- 195: 703:. If you state "the Allies betrayed the Poles" as a fact you will start an edit war which you will eventually lose. You should 496: 84:

I made google for Bliss Lane betrayed. Do it yourself. The entry exists. However, it retrieves mostly some religious pages.

592: 724:

The problem that you, Szopen, Cautious and all the Polish editors have at Knowledge is that you want to use Wikpedia to

596: 1292:. There may be a certain difference in connotation, but if so, then it is much too subtle to make any difference here. 1121: 1096: 588: 249: 182:. The book, & its title in particular, can't give an NPOV report on the political/territorial situation. Regards, 547: 1345:

As for there being no books about the subject in English - there are plenty, most prominently Arthur Bliss Lane's

543: 531: 290: 1212:

So am I. But I'm all for keeping the title discussion going until a more acceptable solution has been found. --

1174:

moral judgment, and there seems to be a minimum consensus that this is counterproductive and out of place here.

223:

A tentative Keep if it can be made NPOV. Maybe someone can present some of the other viewpoints on this issue?

885:

The Czech witnesses do well remember that Polish intruders behaved worse than the Germans a few months later.

600: 332: 183: 151: 140: 998: 369: 309:

and anything related to countries under Soviet occupation. I'll start to work on the article right away.

231: 179: 1324:- all of which are possible translations. Similarly, Stanislawski's authoritative dictionary defines a 1280:. Even so, I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the argument about the allegedly different connotations of 1018:

Would there be any objections if I were to create a redirect to Western Betrayal from this article? --

787:

you are trying to prove something: that the Allies betrayed Poland - why else call your article that?

464: 448: 58: 952: 944: 940: 678:

and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. "Most Poles felt the western Allies betrayed them" is a

555: 527: 328: 245: 1205:

Agreed. So we need a short yet meaningfull NPOV title. Ummmm. I am out of suggestions ATM... --

1272:

Well, not quite. First off, I think we all agree that the name the phenomenon is known by, is

931: 519: 507: 468: 302: 169: 126: 42: 22: 404: 224: 1064: 994: 989: 982: 875: 560:

The concept of the Allies breaking the pacts with Central European countries during the WWII

551: 539: 427: 420: 217: 110: 78: 49: 21:

What are we doing here again? Is it so important that your view appears in the title page?

444: 439:

The second deletion debate for this article (from July 6 to July 18 2004) may be found at

373: 1350: 1252: 1213: 1199: 1081: 1056: 816: 734: 708: 683: 659: 627: 604: 511: 460: 365: 278: 119: 658:

OK to write "the western Allies betrayed the Poles." I'm sure you see the difference.

936: 917: 827: 808:

your comments so far seem a little.. I don't know, different from what I got used to.

766: 716: 707:

what happened and hope that readers will form the same opinion about it that you do.

692: 667: 639: 616: 568: 500: 475: 354: 340: 310: 199: 103: 65: 1226: 1206: 1167: 1132: 1101: 1069: 1019: 1006: 974: 927: 523: 385: 347: 327:

Recycle encyclopedic info under new title or integrate into an existing article. --

321: 306: 261: 210: 158: 133: 94: 775:

You try hard, but apparently not hard enough because I still don't feel offended.

699:

I'm sorry, but the word "betrayed" is a moral judgement, and therefore always an

1100:

all. ATM I care less about the title then about the article content though... --

886: 867: 783:

But if you go on repeating nonsense like that, no-one will be able to help you.

535: 411: 286: 271: 238: 848:

The above quote comes from _The Surrender at Munich: September 29-30, 1938_ in

353:

A betrayal does not have to be betrayal in the POV of the (alleged) traitor.--

298: 281:

hstorical consciousness and politcal thought. It is connected not only to the

1304:); rather, it has a very distinct moral connotation indeed, very similar to 361: 244:

do with it is to make it article for Potsdam aftermath in Poland - neither

396: 85: 71: 898:

I agree too. However, the very word "betrayal" should be defined first.

965: 839:

just one year before Hitler/Stalin (in grim irony) partitioned Poland:

483: 216:

Delete - we have an article on Poland's history between 1939 and 1945.

316:

Keep under new title. Good topic, good article. List original name on

997:

article please be so kind as to read my comments at the top of the

579:

go in an article heading. If it is an article about what the Poles

518:

Adam, I'd have to split it onto seven or more different articles (

282: 178:

contains specific info about territories that is not mentioned in

1196:

I care less about the title then about the article content though

1031:

A suggestion about the title and some additional contents - Yalta

1026:

A suggestion about the title and some additional contents - Yalta

793:. I already told you. It's not an encyclopaedia article, it's an 913: 320:

as soon as the deletion or otherwise of the article is decided.

294: 495:

I'm working on a new, much wider, version of the article here:

109:

The above user has made 4 edits and is probably a sock puppet.

77:

The above user has made 5 edits and is probably a sock puppet.

951:

It is high time you got over the blemish in Polish history.--

190:

constitution. Your text covers only 1 area. Shall we create:

139:

Keep: important topic. Can be NPOV'd, starting w/ the title.

615:, but such title, although descriptive, is simply too long. 237:

Delete and incorporate any useful data into other articles.

755:

or a longer one - just as I did. Are longer articles worse?

192:

Western position on forming new government of Poland (1945)

935:

here looking for this?) Therefore I have reposted it at

230:

Delete- Article has POV in title and not much substance.

763:

User talk:Halibutt/Allied policy towards Central Europe

1080:

still think it will be worth the effort. Any ideas? --

926:

This page is pure POV. You might mention once in the

1161:...between painful truth and political correctness... 1124:

and such, but I am not sure they are more appopriate.

777:

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to help you.

380:(Polish POV) as it is and create an article entitled 791:

please be so kind as to tell me what's wrong with it

441:

Talk:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies/delete

916:was a good move but in the worst possible moment. 859:Poland" should include some mention of "betrayal 743:some believe that__blahblahblah <fullstop: --> 603:for an example of how to handle such questions. 382:Western Allies' Generous Aid to the Polish Cause 801:if you feel some facts are disputable - say it! 781:I did not write this article to prove anything. 652:Allied policy towards Central Europe, 1914-1918 648:Allied policy towards Central Europe, 1939-1945 964:First please take a look at the definition of 33: 624:Allied policy towards Eastern Europe, 1939-45 8: 1330:ten, kto przechodzi na strone nieprzyjaciela 499:. I'd appreciate your help in finishing it. 1120:There were some suggestions along the line 1095:There were some suggestions along the line 728:a case about Polish history, and to assign 650:would be better, because there was also an 196:Western position on faked elections (1947) 289:articles, but also to Nazi collaboration, 733:to argue a case about European history. 682:, and does belong in an encyclopaedia. 378:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies 35:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies 834:Hypocrisy of Polish government in 1938 587:about the events in question, call it 150:in an attempt at NPOV-ification. HTH, 1227:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1207:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1168:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1133:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1102:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1070:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1020:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1007:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 975:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 593:Polish historiography of World War II 7: 850:The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich 715:You didn't read my article, did you. 636:Allied policy towards Central Europe 176:Revision of borders of Poland (1945) 148:Revision of borders of Poland (1945) 93:A start would be to NPOV the name - 360:OK. There are separate articles on 597:History of Polish-Soviet relations 14: 1122:Allies attitude to Central Europe 1097:Allies attitude to Central Europe 376:(German POV)... So why not leave 125:Delete, agree with Secretlondon. 797:that the Allies betrayed Poland. 589:Polish attitudes to World War II 599:or something like that. See my 1296:is not a neutral term such as 497:User:Halibutt/Western betrayal 1: 1001:. ] 12:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) 638:once the article is finished. 459:How about a reference to the 680:statement of historical fact 634:Nice one, I'll use the name 102:Keep, it seems interesting. 753:It exists<full stop: --> 410:Keep it! I agree with Taw. 250:History of Poland (1939-45) 157:Nicely done. Good title - 1370: 1063:Please take a look at the 855:So, any talk of "betrayal 548:Polish government in exile 252:has no real mention of it. 209:Keep - change the title - 1216:15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1209:09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1202:19:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1170:09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1135:09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1022:09:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 955:18:54, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC) 947:23:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC) 920:18:07, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC) 878:17:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 544:Polish September Campaign 532:History of Czechoslovakia 451:20:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) 399:12:59, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) 357:00:26, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) 350:22:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) 291:History of Czechoslovakia 234:05:56, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC) 186:22:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 172:21:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 154:22:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 143:21:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 106:20:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 81:20:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 74:20:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 25:22:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1353:15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1255:15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1229:16:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1104:18:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1084:17:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1059:18:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) 830:18:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 819:16:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 737:13:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 711:09:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 686:08:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 662:08:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 630:06:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 607:06:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 514:00:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 503:08:15, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) 478:07:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) 423:14:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) 414:11:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) 407:15:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) 388:22:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) 343:20:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 335:20:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 324:15:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 313:14:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 274:12:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 264:08:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 227:05:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 220:23:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 213:22:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 202:18:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 161:22:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 136:20:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 129:20:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 122:20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 113:20:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 97:20:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 88:20:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 70:Keep it, but make NPOV. 61:15:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) 52:19:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 45:19:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1072:19:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1009:13:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) 977:16:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) 889:12:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) 769:14:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 719:10:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 695:09:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 670:08:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 642:07:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 619:06:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 601:Greco-Turkish relations 571:05:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) 430:13:22, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) 939:as suggested to me by 874:Czechs, after Munich. 318:redirects for deletion 1347:I saw Poland betrayed 370:Recovered Territories 180:I saw Poland betrayed 465:Polish-bolshevik war 988:We've finished the 1166:I'd say 'both'. -- 900:My project version 556:Potsdam Conference 528:History of Finland 486:was quite annoyed. 467:(yap, I'm playing 246:Potsdam conference 184:Wile E. Heresiarch 152:Wile E. Heresiarch 146:I have renamed to 141:Wile E. Heresiarch 57:Agree, delete. -- 41:Can never be NPOV 932:History of Poland 520:history of Poland 508:History of Poland 469:advocatus diaboli 372:(Polish POV) and 364:(Jewish POV) and 303:history of Poland 1361: 1328:as a "traitor" ( 1065:Western betrayal 995:Western betrayal 990:Western betrayal 983:Western betrayal 552:Yalta Conference 540:Oder-Neisse Line 491:Work in progress 279:Central European 1369: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1028: 1016: 986: 930:page or in the 836: 493: 457: 437: 419:Keep, factual. 374:Eastern Germany 59:Daniel C. Boyer 48:Agree, delete. 38: 31: 19: 12: 11: 5: 1367: 1365: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1318:unfaithfulness 1267: 1266: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1074: 1073: 1027: 1024: 1015: 1012: 1011: 1010: 985: 980: 979: 978: 970: 969: 957: 924: 923: 922: 921: 907: 906: 905: 904: 893: 892: 891: 890: 871: 846: 845: 835: 832: 813: 812: 805: 798: 788: 778: 771: 770: 757: 756: 747: 746: 721: 720: 697: 696: 672: 671: 644: 643: 621: 620: 573: 572: 564: 563: 492: 489: 488: 487: 461:Treaty of Riga 456: 455:Treaty of Riga 453: 436: 433: 432: 431: 424: 417: 416: 415: 408: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 366:Final Solution 344: 336: 325: 314: 275: 266: 265: 259: 254: 253: 241: 235: 228: 221: 214: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 166: 165: 164: 163: 162: 137: 130: 123: 116: 115: 114: 100: 99: 98: 91: 90: 89: 68: 62: 54: 53: 46: 37: 32: 30: 27: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1366: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1228: 1224: 1218: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1208: 1204: 1203: 1201: 1197: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1172: 1171: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1162: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1137: 1136: 1134: 1128: 1127: 1125: 1123: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1103: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1058: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1043: 1039: 1033: 1032: 1025: 1023: 1021: 1013: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1000: 996: 991: 984: 981: 976: 972: 971: 967: 963: 962: 961: 956: 954: 953:naryathegreat 948: 946: 945:naryathegreat 942: 938: 933: 929: 919: 915: 911: 910: 909: 908: 901: 897: 896: 895: 894: 888: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 877: 870: 869: 865: 862: 858: 853: 851: 842: 841: 840: 833: 831: 829: 825: 820: 818: 809: 806: 802: 799: 796: 792: 789: 786: 782: 779: 776: 773: 772: 768: 764: 759: 758: 754: 749: 748: 744: 740: 739: 738: 736: 731: 727: 718: 714: 713: 712: 710: 706: 702: 694: 689: 688: 687: 685: 681: 677: 669: 665: 664: 663: 661: 657: 653: 649: 641: 637: 633: 632: 631: 629: 625: 618: 614: 610: 609: 608: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 570: 566: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 515: 513: 509: 504: 502: 498: 490: 485: 481: 480: 479: 477: 472: 470: 466: 462: 454: 452: 450: 446: 442: 434: 429: 425: 422: 418: 413: 409: 406: 401: 400: 398: 394: 387: 384:for balance? 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 358: 356: 352: 351: 349: 345: 342: 337: 334: 330: 329:Humus sapiens 326: 323: 319: 315: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 273: 268: 267: 263: 260: 256: 255: 251: 247: 242: 240: 236: 233: 232:GrazingshipIV 229: 226: 222: 219: 215: 212: 208: 201: 197: 193: 188: 187: 185: 181: 177: 174: 173: 171: 167: 160: 156: 155: 153: 149: 145: 144: 142: 138: 135: 131: 128: 124: 121: 117: 112: 108: 107: 105: 101: 96: 92: 87: 83: 82: 80: 76: 75: 73: 69: 67: 63: 60: 56: 55: 51: 47: 44: 40: 39: 36: 28: 26: 24: 16: 1346: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1260: 1221: 1195: 1160: 1119: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1041: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1017: 987: 958: 949: 928:World War II 925: 872: 866: 860: 856: 854: 847: 837: 821: 814: 807: 800: 794: 790: 784: 780: 774: 752: 742: 729: 725: 722: 704: 700: 698: 679: 675: 673: 655: 645: 622: 584: 580: 576: 574: 524:World War II 505: 494: 473: 458: 438: 368:(Nazi POV); 307:Soviet Union 170:DJ Clayworth 127:Jwrosenzweig 43:Secretlondon 23:DJ Clayworth 20: 876:Space Cadet 536:Curzon Line 463:ending the 428:Space Cadet 421:Kim Bruning 287:Curzon Line 111:Maximus Rex 79:Maximus Rex 50:Maximus Rex 1302:naruszenie 1038:resentment 822:I replied 510:articles? 299:psychology 1351:Thorsten1 1310:treachery 1253:Thorsten1 1214:Thorsten1 1200:Thorsten1 1082:Thorsten1 1057:Thorsten1 999:talk page 804:argument. 785:Of course 482:Yap, the 445:Graham ☺ 362:Holocaust 120:Everyking 1306:betrayal 1286:betrayal 1278:betrayal 1014:Redirect 941:Halibutt 918:Halibutt 828:Halibutt 795:argument 767:Halibutt 717:Halibutt 705:describe 693:Halibutt 668:Halibutt 646:I think 640:Halibutt 617:Halibutt 569:Halibutt 501:Halibutt 476:Halibutt 355:Ruhrjung 341:Ruhrjung 311:Halibutt 200:Cautious 118:Delete. 104:Democryt 66:Cautious 29:From VfD 17:Untitled 1326:zdrajca 1322:perfidy 1314:treason 966:fascism 701:opinion 676:opinion 581:thought 484:Ukraine 435:VfD (2) 386:Kpalion 348:Kpalion 339:make?-- 322:Andrewa 262:Forseti 211:Texture 159:Texture 134:Cfrobel 95:Texture 1334:zdrada 1298:breach 1294:Zdrada 1290:zdrada 1282:zdrada 1276:, not 1274:zdrada 887:Qertis 868:EmRick 577:cannot 412:Gdarin 272:Matusz 258:agree? 239:Szopen 811:them. 730:blame 726:argue 585:think 283:Yalta 1284:and 1223:time 914:1938 824:HERE 817:Adam 735:Adam 709:Adam 684:Adam 660:Adam 628:Adam 605:Adam 512:Adam 449:Talk 333:Talk 295:NATO 285:and 248:nor 218:john 194:and 1130:--> 1042:was 937:VfD 691:it. 656:not 595:or 591:or 583:or 443:-- 397:Taw 86:Eon 72:Eon 1320:, 1316:, 1312:, 1308:, 1225:-- 1131:-- 1068:-- 1055:-- 943:-- 861:by 857:of 852:. 626:. 554:, 550:, 546:, 542:, 538:, 534:, 530:, 526:, 522:, 471:) 447:| 405:MK 305:, 301:, 297:, 293:, 225:MK 198:? 1300:( 826:. 765:? 331:|

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index