This is an archive of past discussions about Western betrayal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Early remarks
I like it. Can't wait till it's ready. I've got one question:
Needless to say, Polish government was notifed of this decision and the Polish-British talks in London were continued.
It was or was not notified? Kpalion 23:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't forget to correct it then. Anyway, I suppose it would be also good to mention the public opinion in France and Britain before and at the beginning of the war. Especially the famous article by a French socialist Marcel Déat Mourir pour Dantzig ? (note the t in the French spelling) published on the first page of L'Oeuvre on May 4, 1939.
--Kpalion 12:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aye, a great and much-needed article. I will try to help you as much as I can - just let me know what you need! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Polish government in exile, with special regard to the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew their recognition on 6 July 1945. The Polish armed forces in exile were disbanded in 1945 and most of their members, unable to return to Communist Poland, settled in other countries. The London Poles had to leave the embassy on Portland Place and were left only with the president's private residence at 43 Eaton Place. The government in exile then became largely symbolic, serving mainly to symbolise the continued resistance to foreign occupation of Poland, and retaining control of some important archives from pre-war Poland
I like it too!
The English language is better justified by a native speaker, I will not mess with your text.
I miss a few aspects (none of which I hold to be very important):
The Russo-British talks (those obsoleted by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).
How does this add to the main betrayal topic?Halibutt
The actual posibility that France and Britain had promised more than they could live up to (alternatively, that a more fullblown attack in the West could have led to an even worse outcome of the World War).
I'll add acounter-arguments tab at the end of the article in which all such concepts will be explainedHalibutt
at least a hint at the Polish foreign policy, by many representatives for Westeuropean Public Opinion and governments, was considered too much of aggressive nationalist in all directions (Chechoslovakia, Russia, Germany), too much unaccommodating, and a tendency in many camps to see Hitler's demands not as attempts to provoke a war but to correct errors from the Versaille Peace.
How does this add to the article? It's not about all of polish foreign policy in the interbellum.Halibutt
a reference to the Randstaat-policy and to anti-Bolshevist tendencies (shared with many French and British)
a one-sentence (or a half-sentence) reference to similar feelings of betrayal in Finland (a country in much in a similar position as Poland prior to the war, minus the treaties).
I think you've better knowledge than I have. It's a long time since I read about these matters.
--Ruhrjung 10:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I added my responses above.Halibutt 07:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You try hard, but apparently not hard enough because I still don't feel offended. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to help you.
I did not write this article to prove anything. But if you go on repeating nonsense like that, no-one will be able to help you. Of course you are trying to prove something: that the Allies betrayed Poland - why else call your article that?
please be so kind as to tell me what's wrong with it. I already told you. It's not an encyclopaedia article, it's an argument that the Allies betrayed Poland.
if you feel some facts are disputable - say it! 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 argument.
your comments so far seem a little.. I don't know, different from what I got used to. 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 them.
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. Adam 16:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Adam, it's very nice of you that you want to help me. The problem is that you focus on overall impression this article gives you while I'd like you to focus on the details. So far you quoted none.
As to the all the facts versus selection of facts issue - you might be right, I'm not yet a historian (still studying) so perhaps you're right. But please be so kind as to list the facts that should be added in order to give a balanced overview of the topic and at the same time not to repeat the World War II article. It's always better to improve what you think is wrong than to simply state that it's wrong. What's the missing context, what are the missing circumstances or deeds?
Finally, I know the difference too. That's exactly why I decided to put as many relevant facts as it is possible in order to make an encyclopedia entry rather than just a press-like article. Therefore please be so kind as to focus on the missing details. Add facts and we can prepare a common, compromise version. I'm sure that one can be prepared, even if you treat all Polish contributors as if we were one person and prefer collective responsibility over discussion.Halibutt 18:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ukraine
I followed the link from the discussion of the History of Ukraine page, so you'll get the Ukrainian side... As for the Ukrainians, the case was more that none of the Allies took up their cause in the first place, so it wasn't much of a betrayal. Ethnic Ukrainian territory was split between the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire prior to WWI; attempts at independence in both regions lasted no more than a couple of years, as the Bolsheviks, the Russian White army, and the Poles were all against Ukrainian independence. Polish nationalism saw Lwów (Ukr: L'viv) and all of Galicia as a part of Poland, and refused to recognise Ukrainian nationalist aspirations. Neither did the Russians (both Reds and Whites). And it seems that none of the Allies actually gave much thought to the Ukrainians at all--the Ukrainians had no reason to feel betrayed by Allied policy, because they offered no hope in the first place. So Ukraine's case is very different from that of Poland or Czechoslovakia or all the other Central European states that the Allies recognised. This is important to see in order to understand why the Germans were initially welcomed as liberators in both Polish- and Soviet-ruled Ukraine, and why the Ukrainians were so radicalised as to commit bloody ethnic cleansing of Poles in Galicia during WWII. It's not a pretty history, and it does complicate the narrative of Poland as simply a victim in WWII. --Iceager 09:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I realize that it is not an easy issue, but I would hesitate to say the Allies had any obligation towards Poland. Any help they provided was merely goodwill, and nothing less. If the Allies had just let Hitler have Poland, would World War II have happened? It is difficult to say, but I think there would have been no war in the west. Hitler primarily disliked the slavs and wanted lebensraum in the east. I think he would have then attacked the Soviet Union (after first solidifying his hold on eastern europe). As for after the war, the Allies had no control over what the Soviets did in lands they occupied. At Yalta Stalin had promised to let the peoples of Eastern Europe choose their government for themselves. Your article should include both points of view if it is going to cover such a controversial topic. Also, do not use the word betrayal in your title, that does little to dispell any worries. While central europe might not work, can't we at least compromise on a neutral title? How about Polish feelings on World War II or Polish mindset on World War II or something of the like. I would be much more sympathetic then. And a description in the article about the betrayal would be good, with evidence backing up both sides. Isn't it important to maintain NPOV even on a pretty much POV topic? Also, what on earth does IMHO mean? I have figured out OTOH and IMO...nm, I just got it :) Please reconsider the title--naryathegreat 01:24, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
You say that you would hesitate to say the Allies had any obligation towards Poland. Any help they provided was merely goodwill, and nothing less. I have read both the 1921, 1925 and 1939 franco-polish alliance treaties and can't answer your objection. It all depends on what you think of international alliances and diplomacy at all. If we assume that the obligations agreed upon in international treaties are valid, then yes, France had obligations towards Poland. The same goes for the August 1939 Polish-British Common Defense Pact and protocols to the unilateral assistance treaty of March 1939. However, if we assume that international treaties are just a game for big boys and are never worth more than the paper they were written on -- then no, the West had no obligations towards Poland. If that is the case, then too bad Poland played the same game but with different rules.
If the Allies had just let Hitler have Poland, would World War II have happened? I don't know either. But had the Allies told Poland in 1939 that she was all alone, the history would look totally different. The Polish HQ would not dislocate its' forces on the borders and would defend the - much easier and shorter - Vistula line instead. There would be no need to fight for time for the French to mobilize. There would be no need to fight to the last man and defend the ground at all cost. Finally, there would be much less civilian losses since the Germans would seize more territory almost at once. And that was a direct, measurable price paid by Poland in order to gain time. A very high price, since it was not in pounds or francs or zlotys.
I thought of plenty of "what-if" scenarios such as yours. There is also a very interesting scenario based on a situation where it's France that is attacked as the first. And I bet that the stupid Polish government would DOW Germany and start an offensive - with little or no chances for success. But it's a mere science fiction.
As for after the war, the Allies had no control over what the Soviets did in lands they occupied. You are right here. However, the Allies had control over millions of tonns of supplies, tanks, amunition, oil, steel and guns sent to Russia every month. In 1943 the war was far from being concluded, there was a legitimate Polish government and there were still Polish armed forces fighting on most of theatres of war. The Allies could've supported the government of Poland or at least let it become a part in the negotiations with Stalin. Instead, they decided the fate of Poland over Poland's head. And the saddest thing of all is that they gained nothing instead. Would the Soviets sign a peace treaty with Germany if the Allies insisted on democratic elections in Poland after the war? No. Would Stalin go to war with the Allies if they didn't back down in Teheran? No. Would Stalin back down if the Allies threatened him with cutting the flow of war materiel? Most probably yes.
Similar situation happened in Yalta. Even in Potsdam it was not too late. The Allies insisted on return of the legitimate government of Czechoslovakia - and Czechoslovakia remained independent. Of course, the Soviets took the power there anyway, but it was much, much later. But there already were international organizations, there was the good'ol League of Nations and the United Nations that could've supervised the elections and return of democracy in Poland. There were Inter-Allied commissions and courts, all the infrastructure necessary to organize and supervise democratic elections. And the Polish government-in-exile asked for their help. However, the USA and the UK instead decided that Poland is totally in the Soviet sphere of influence and they have no interest in what happens in Central Europe. Another what-if scenario: what if the international community actually did something in 1945 to prevent the Soviet occupation of Poland? I don't know, but definitely there would be no Churchills Iron Curtain speech. But let's get back to reality.
Of course, the "other view" should be mentioned in the article. No article is ready until different views are expressed. That's what the Dispute tab is for. However, I hardly see any sensible arguments on the other side. Most of my discutants did not cross the "Allies could do nothing - dot" line. Hopefully someone will add more arguments in the future. I'll start proper sections with counterarguments as soon as the article will be ready for posting. However, I'd rather refrained myself from posting counter-arguments since I might be biased and some of my counter-arguments might be simply and plainly stupid.
As to the name of the article - I'd still vote for the name "Western betrayal". The phenomenon is called "Zdrada Zachodu" or "Zdrada aliantów" in Polish ("Western betrayal" or "Betrayal by the Allies") and in Czech it's "Munich betrayal" (Mnichovska zrada). The word betrayal is used, even in serious publications by really good historians. Some of them are widely translated onto other languages and some of them are not even nationals of the countries in question (read Rising '44 by Norman Davies...).
I agree that the very word betrayal might be seen as offensive or too much POV-flavoured. However, that's how the thing is called. Besides, I haven't seen a better name for it yet. "Allied policy towards Central Europe" is bad for the reasons I already wrote about. "Polish feelings on World War II" is also wrong since it's not about Polish feelings (much more countries and nations involved) and it's not about feelings on WWII since it's more about "Central European feelings on Allied policies towards the pacts signed with Central European states". And such a title would simply be too long. And, as you might presume, "Polish feelings on World War II" involve many, many more topics and are even more complex than the phenomenon of "Western betrayal". It's a very interesting topic as well, but I doubt it could be turned into an encyclopedia article. Especially that countless psychologists, sociologists, historians and politicians try to figure out for instance how the hell Poles tend to commemorate battles lost and forget about battles won. But that's a completely different story.
Anyway, we could name the article on Final solution "The German policies of extermination of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Jehova's Witnesses during the WWII" and that title would be actually much better. Firstly the term "Final solution" is an euphemism.
No it is not, it is a shortened name. It is a common expression used in Germany to this day for the "Agreed solution" for XYZ. In German it does not have the connotations which it has acquired with the literal translation into English. Philip Baird Shearer
Secondly, it's a POV name since it was used only by one part of the conflict (namely Germany). However, it's bad since it's simply too long. Just look on the VfD debate you started - several people argue about Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies title being too long. Humus sapiens even asked how did a page with such a long title survived for so long...
Finally, I see that you were not involved much in English language discussion lists and fora since the IMHO abbreviation is quite popular there. IMHO is very similar to IMO and stands for In My Honest Opinion.
I still think that "betrayal" automatically causes the reader to subconciously distrust the page. I also agree that perhaps the Allies could have done more, and should have if they agreed to do it, but I think that if France had what was considered the greatest army in the world at that time and was defeated in 4 weeks, nothing Poland did could have saved it. I'm sure you know that the Polish are known for having used horses in battle against the Germans. It seems unlikely they could provide prolonged resistance to the Nazis. And yes, final solution is a euphemism, but it is so widely known as such that any other title seems ludicrous. I doubt Poland's betrayal would be widely read under that title, I think it could attract more visitors under a title people would be more likely to click on, because links are the only way to direct flow to this site, it is extrememly unlikely to be typed in (and if a page receives no traffic, the effort seems wasted, I have heard said that we are not trying to be number 1 on the internet, at least to that effect, well then, why are we even doing this then if not to be seen by others and used in their work? Surely that is why Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia?) By the way, I am a he, named James, see my User Page for more info--naryathegreat 01:27, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, I'm Krzysiek (read Kzhee-shyekh) or just Chris for all the users of barbarian languages (other than Polish, of course ;)).
This article was intended not as a typical stand-alone piece of information but rather as an expansion of other articles, with information on a specific subject that is not identical to neither of the WWII-related articles. As such, the title is of rather small importance since I doubt anyone will type it in a search box; the majority of visitors would probably come here from links rather than from Google. It's similar in concept to any list on wikipedia, just check List of alternative country names or Expulsion of Germans after World War II for reference.
I don't know what would be the term with which the whole thing is called in English. I doubt there exist any English term at all. Two English-speaking authors I know have mentioned the "betrayal" used simply a translation of the terms used in Polish. That's why I thought it would be best to leave the title under Western betrayal. However, you are right that such a title might suggest a little too much and would sound strange as for an encyclopedia.
Perhaps the perfect solution would be to use the title used in Poland ("Western betrayal") and place a visible note/disclaimer with a full, understandable explanation that the article does not discuss whether the Allied policies were an act of betrayal or not. Perhaps such a disclaimer could be even put in a frame or table for greater readability. What do you think?
As per your remarks about history: first of all note that the cavalry charging tanks is a myth, created and used by German propaganda. And the usage of horses was extensive in all armies of the time, not only in Poland. Also, note that Germany had cavalry divisions even in 1945. This is a good example of double standarts in European history: Poland had cavalry = Polish army was outdated. Germany had cavalry = ...? The same goes for horse-drawn artillery and horse transport. Finally, note that the Polish cavalry was mounted infantry, not cavalry as such. The guys had normal carbines, machine guns and artillery, just like a typical infantry division. The only difference was that they were much, much faster. And the cavalry brigades used in 1939 were one of the most successful units against German infantry.
Whether Poland could've won in 1939 on her own or not is rather obvious - no way. However, if Polish army was dislocated along the Vistula line, the number of divisions per 100 kilometres would be more than tripled. There are also a number of other what-ifs. For instance: what would happen if only September 1939 wasn't the most dry and sunny September in Poland in more than 100 years? What if Germans had to redirect half of their forces to the West, to counter a French offensive? And so on, and so forth... Poland would not win, but the defence would most probably take longer and would certainly take less lives. Anyway, this is slightly OT. Halibutt 14:30, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Varia
1. When this article will be moved to main Wiki section?
2. Btw, I am not editing your main article becouse it is on your private user pages and I don't know what you exactly wish to do. When you move it to public Wiki I'll be happy to help more, untill then I will just give you some suggestions on the talk.
3. In recent discussion on Usenet I read that Poland did not conduct espionage service among Allies (UK, France), hence it didn't realize the attitudes of those countries and small weight of their guarantees. I don't have a better source for this, but if it is true it is an interesting piece for the puzzle.
4. For Czechoslovakia, some interesting data may be found here: History_of_Czechoslovakia#World_War_II.2C_1939-45 and in the below section. I think it is important to add that WA did nothing/little to prevent the communists from taking power in various Balkan/EE states and destroying the democratic elements in those countries.
5. As for German 'allies' - Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria - I think they used to be in the France sphere of influence, and France inactivity and desire to placate the Germans with other countries sacrifices was an important factor in forcing them to ally themselves with Germany. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure. I'd like to finish this article ASAP (the Polish section is almost ready), but on the other hand I'm a bit anxious. Adam wrote that no matter what's inside this article If you post this article, it will be reverted and listed for deletion and all the usual stuff. I'm not sure if revert wars with anyone is what I want to do.
Feel free to edit the article, be sure that I know how to revert your changes in case anything goes wrong :D
It is a nice tale, but I don't find it credible. Poland did have an intelligence net in the West (most notably in France) that was later used after France signed the peace treaty with the Axis. However, it is a fact that the 2nd department was a bit anxious to spy on the Allies in order not to harass the relations with France.
Yup, the Czechoslovak section needs improvement. Could you add some info from the article you mention?
As to the minor axis - the matter is a bit tricky. Except perhaps for Romania, all the rest did not have alliances with France. I'm not sure if adding Hungary and Bulgaria to the list would add to the article. That would have to be based on assumptions rather than facts. Romania, however, is an interesting case.
1. Don't worry about that. It is a topic bound to stir some controversy, but it survived to previous VoDs and this time the article will be much more POVed/toned down and with more facts. Truth can't lose... :D
2,4,5 Ok, I will start editing soem stuff, but I'd prefer to do it on public Wiki....
3 Still it is an interesting piece of info, if you have the source - or are sure of it - please add it. At least to me it looks important.
Except for the American promises like the Atlantic Charter and such, Poland did not have any alliance with the USA. Therefore, no alliance could be broken. I'd rather see the part of the Katyn massacre article expanded on the FDR influence than adding this kind of info here. Similarly, the Operation Keelhaul and other such operations do not really violate any treaties. However, in this case a link in the See also: section would not harm anyone, I hope. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Baltics
Should Baltics be included? I can provide the information. Andris 22:15, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea. If it doesn't fit the article we can always make a separate article about it later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Western betrayal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What is this article
Please note that this article is an explanation of certain societies' point of view, not of actual facts. It is clearly stated in the header and the purpose of this article is nothing more than an explanation of this view shared by many in Central Europe. It should not be deleted simply because it explains someone's point of view since this is a situation where no compromise version is possible. See Regained Territories and Oder-Neisse line, Holocaust and Final Solution or any similar pair of articles for reference. If someone is really willing to explain the opposite views - feel free to create an article about Allies generous help to the Central European countries in WWII and place the link at the top of this article
Also, this article is similar to many articles about psychology. Note that the Agoraphobia article explains why people are afraid of public spaces, not are public places dangerous or should public spaces be feared. Similarly, this article explains what people believe in, not whether their beliefs are right or wrong. The dispute about whether France, USA and UK could or should help their allies more in WWII started shortly after the Polish September Campaign and is far from finished. I'm not the person to judge and I believe that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. This article is about the phenomenon -- and nothing more. Halibutt
Why did I create this article and what is it for
User:Naryathegreat asked me on my talk page why waste time on such an article. He (or she, I'm not sure) also argued that such topic would simply be read only by Poles who know it anyway. Here's what I replied:
As you already noticed, the article under construction is mostly focused on Poland. There are two reasons behind that:
Since the article describes a sociological and historical phenomenon rather than a deed or a single historical fact, the article is mostly focused on the country I know the most.
Also, in Poland the sense of betrayal by the Western Allies is the strongest (AFAIK). The purpose of this article is to explain why people feel/felt betrayed, not were the countries actually betrayed or could the Allies not betray Poland. I hope you get the difference. Also, you can ask any Pole here in English wikipedia if he heard of such phenomenon. I bet he (or she) would answer "yes", despite of his (or hers) personal views or beliefs. If so, I believe that the topic is worth explaining.
It is somehow similar to the articles about psychology: the article on Agoraphobia explains why are people afraid of public spaces, not are public places dangerous or should public spaces be feared. That's not that clear in the present version of the article and that's why I decided to prepare a new one. So far the info about nations other than Poland is but a sketch. Hopefully some time later someone will drop in and explain the feelings of other societies better than I did.
Also, whether the Allies could do more or not is a matter of personal opinion. And it's a fact that many Poles feel that they could. Also, it has nothing to do with Polish nationalism. It's about feelings of a large part of Polish nationals. Get the difference? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]
Discussion about the title, moved here from "Poland's betrayal by the Western allies"
A suggestion about the title and some additional contents - Yalta
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 resentment 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 was 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?
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 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.
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 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 Wikipedia at large. I'm looking forward to any comments.
Please take a look at the Western betrayal 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. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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 still think it will be worth the effort. Any ideas? --Thorsten1 17:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There were some suggestions along the line Allies attitude to Central Europe 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 all. ATM I care less about the title then about the article content though... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[quote]There were some suggestions along the line Allies attitude to Central Europe and such, but I am not sure they are more appopriate.[/quote] - 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.
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> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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 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.
[quote]...between painful truth and political correctness...[/quote]. 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.
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 moral judgment, and there seems to be a minimum consensus that this is counterproductive and out of place here.
[quote]I care less about the title then about the article content though[/quote]. 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.--Thorsten1 19:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. So we need a short yet meaningfull NPOV title. Ummmm. I am out of suggestions ATM... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So am I. But I'm all for keeping the title discussion going until a more acceptable solution has been found. --Thorsten1 15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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: 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 time --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
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. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Well, not quite. First off, I think we all agree that the name the phenomenon is known by, is zdrada, not betrayal. Even so, I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the argument about the allegedly different connotations of zdrada and betrayal. 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 zdrada. There may be a certain difference in connotation, but if so, then it is much too subtle to make any difference here. Zdrada is not a neutral term such as breach (naruszenie); rather, it has a very distinct moral connotation indeed, very similar to betrayal, treachery, treason, unfaithfulness, perfidy - all of which are possible translations. Similarly, Stanislawski's authoritative dictionary defines a zdrajca as a "traitor" (ten, kto przechodzi na strone nieprzyjaciela, 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 zdrada - in English, "betrayal" does imply a moral condemnation of the action it denotes, and in this version of Wikipedia, 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.
As for there being no books about the subject in English - there are plenty, most prominently Arthur Bliss Lane's I saw Poland betrayed. But the mere fact that Western authors support the "betrayal" theory does not make the term any more legitimate as a title. --Thorsten1 15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are of course right that there is a certain moral judgement in both betrayal, zdrada and zrada. Moreover, technically speaking the phenomenon described here could be interpreted by means of international law terms. As such the title should be more of a "The breaking of alliances and not fulfilling the pacts signed with various Central European nations" rather than betrayal or treachery (those terms do not exist in international law). However, this is not a solution either since if we accept it we are left with the good old Allied policies towards Central European governments and pacts and alliances signed with them problem.
The basic meaning of betrayal in Polish is indeed similar to the English words you cited. The only difference is that sometimes the Polish zdrada (and Czech zrada as well) can be used to describe a situation where pacts were not fulfilled, while English has not a synonym to that. The "Zdrada zachodu" or "zdrada aliantów" terms mean something more than they should in wikipedia, but their advantage as a name of an article is that they are actually used to denote the phenomenon described in this article, while all of the proposals so far are either too long or both inaccurate and unknown as such. Although I agree that the translation of the Polish and Czech terms is not the best solution, I'm afraid we'd have to live with that, at least unless someone finds a better solution. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:15, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
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 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 Wikipedia. --Thorsten1 15:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Apparently you did not read it close enough which would probably make you surprised that I fully agree with that too. Fully, entirely and in 100%.
I have to admit that I drew the line when the discussion moved on to a different page. After all, there is only so much one can read, and the argument had already been going round in circles well before that. That's why I may have missed how you buried the hatchet. However, re-reading the new article, I do have some serious doubts about whether Adam's critical input (which, as we seem to agree, was fully justified) had much impact on it. I'm going to explain why below. --Thorsten1 23:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's why I decided to replace the original version of Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies (check the historical versions...) with simple facts, without any comment or moral judgement. If the reader concludes them in the same way I do - it's good. If not- it's great as well. I tried to avoid putting my own point of view in the article that was supposed to be a Wikipedia article and not some essay or magazine article. As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) I succeeded.
Since you asked to be corrected - I wouldn't say you're all wrong, but you're not right, either. In a way, this new version is even more dubious than the old one, I'm afraid. Overtly it may strictly be a representation of facts; however, the way these facts are selected and edited remains truncated and tendentious. They are conveniently stringed together to build a case for the accusation of "betrayal", which has now slipped between the lines, thus becoming even less assailable. And even if anyone were to miss the direction they are being ushered to, the article's titles makes it unmistakably clear what the facts are about.
The facts listed in "Diplomacy" beg to be amended with the other side that this story has to it just like any other. The alliances signed with Poland after WW I are duly mentioned; but there is no mention at all of Poland's domestic development since then. Let us not forget that interwar Poland was hardly a model democracy. Hitler himself made no secret of his admiration for the way Pilsudski took over government. After signing the non-aggression treaty with Germany, Poland had been drifting steadily further away from her Western allies; together with Nazi Germany it set about undermining the Leage of Nation's authority and - few people in Poland care to remember this - made common cause with Germany during the Sudeten crisis, forcing Czechoslovakia to surrender the Cieszyn region and Lithuania to recognize the annexation of Wilno, thus causing disillusionment and even profound alienation from Poland in Western publics. The French pacifist slogan mourir pour Dantzig, often and not without justification bemoaned as prime evidence of the West's lack of loyalty towards Poland, is to be seen in that context.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not mentioning this to put the blame for the West's behaviour on Poland. But the question whether or not the West committed an act of "betrayal" by not attacking Germany earlier cannot be seriously addressed if detached from this very background.
To make things worse, the article makes some assertions which are incorrect or at least highly misleading. E.g., the Anglo-Polish agreement on mutual assistance of 25 August 1939 is being presented as an "an annex to [the] Polish-French alliance". In reality, the Franco- and Anglo-Polish agreements were in no way whatsoever dependend on each other. Further, it is claimed that "in case of war [the] United Kingdom was to start hostilities as soon as possible; initially helping Poland with air raids against the German war industry" etc. Quite apart from the fact that "as soon as possible" is too vague a statement to base the claim of betrayal upon, none of this is actually included in the aforementioned agreement, nor in its secret additional protocol, both of which I have in front of me as I write. The most tangible statement is made in Article I, according to which one party "will at once give the [...] party engagend in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power". Quite obviously, it was up to each party to decide what it considered to be "in its power". There was no mention of air strikes against certain targets, and no date for the disembarkment of an expeditionary corps. Such details might be included in lesser agreements (although I personally think this is improbable); in this case, they should be backed up by an exact source citation. Otherwise, the claim of a breach of pact will remain unsubstantiated.
(To put it more sharply, one reference to a document would be certainly more useful than three links to dictionary definitions of "betrayal" which contribute nothing whatsoever to clarify the issue at stake.)
Now, quite irrespective of whether or not the Allies' tactics in the first phase of the war involved a formal breach of contract in terms of international law - as is implied here - they may indeed have frustrated morally grounded expectations of the Polish public; and this frustration may with some justification be termed as a kind of "betrayal". In the end, however, this is a moral and subjective issue which should be addressed as such and is not to be confused with legal aspects - which, unfortunately, is precisely what the article and its title do. The title "Western betrayal" is an amalgamation of a statement of fact (a "fact" which is extremely controversial to say the least) and a statement of moral judgment (which as a title is improper by definition). --Thorsten1 23:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can see no more frases in the article that would suggest more than they should. See my Agoraphobia example above to see what I mean.
Well, I can see plenty such phrases here, but in the end the question is what they should and what they should not suggest - I suppose this is where we differ. The Agoraphobia example is a good one, but it rather supports my point of view: After all, the article is entitled "agoraphobia" and not "The Dangers of Open Spaces". Likewise, this article could be properly entitled Polska zachodniofobia; this may sound harsh, but formally speaking it would still be more acceptable than "Western betrayal". I'd suggest something like Polish embitterment about Western wartime policies. It's a bit longish, but that is certainly the lesser of two evils. --Thorsten1 23:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. Remember it is not only Polish sentiments we are talking about. Perhaps [Central Europe embitterment about Western wartime policies]]? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, although it means bloating the alternative title by yet another word. I was concentrating on the Polish attitude here, as it clearly provides the starting point for the article at hand. Obviously, if the article is to be written from a supra-national perspective, at least the Czech experience needs to be included. Czechoslovakia, being the only functioning democracy in the region by the 1930s, had closer ties with the West than Poland did, and was "betrayed" in a much more obvious and tangible way than Poland was: The West politically accepted the country's territorial mutilation, which was not the case with Poland. The Phony War may have been phony, but in the end it was a war, not another naive proclamation of some phony "peace in our time" that the Czechs were made to swallow.
That said, I am not sure if the inclusion of countries such as Finland, the Baltics, Yugoslavia, or even Ukraine (which had never been independent in the first place) is a good idea. While the West could have arguably done more to assist any of these societies before and after the war, I think that the article's focus should be on Poland and Czechoslovakia in order not do dilute the whole issue. After all, there were dissidents in Germany and the Soviet Union, too, who were harbouring grudges towards Western politicians because of their appeasement policy. --Thorsten1 19:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
However, I believe the title of this article could never be perfectly NPOV. If it's left the way it is some could assume that Wikipedia supports one of the sides. It would be hard to think that after one reads all the disclaimers I put in the header, but the title would be POVish anyway. However, perhaps you can think of some other disclaimer that would make the matter even more plain and simple?
I'm afraid that no disclaimer, however cleverly worded, will repair the skewed first impression the present title evokes. As has been said earlier on, it will make unbiased readers instinctively distrust the article; and for readers who already come to it with an anti-Polish bias it will only reinforce the unfortunate notion that rehashing old historical arguments and smugly pointing fingers at others is a favourite Polish pastime. We should not allow that to happen. --Thorsten1 23:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand this article has two lungs. One is the statement of pure facts while the other is the statement that certain people see them as a proof of betrayal while others see them in a different light. A descriptive yet short title would neither name the psychological phenomenon of certain nations feeling betrayed nor the political and historical facts properly. The other lung is purely about feelings and as such IMO cannot be expressed in a pure NPOV way. There will always be someone who thinks of them differently. There are plenty of POV titles and articles here on wikipedia but the difference is that none of them is controversial. The whole Emotions series, morality, ethics, Love, hate... they are all written from a personal perspective and as such are purely POV. There are also other similar historical articles.
I get your drift, but let us not use the fact that other topics have similar POV problems as an excuse to throw all POV discipline completely overboard. That perfect neutrality can arguably never be achieved does not absolve us from the consensually grounded obligation to strive for it nonetheless. Also, the comparison with articles which are inevitably largely based on introspection (morality, ethics, Love, hate) does not hold water; we are discussing a historical, legal, and sociological topic here that needs to be measured with a somewhat different standard than love or hate. --Thorsten1 23:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note that what is known as Drang Nach Osten to Germans, in Poland could be described as a trail of tears, rape, murder and robbery. The German term "push eastward" seems perfectly neat and NPOV, but indeed it can be treated as a POV way to conceal the sad truth.
Funny that you should mention Drang nach Osten as I came across this article the other day. This is clearly one of the worst contributions to Wikipedia I have seen so far. For the time being suffice it to say that the slogan Drang nach Osten, in spite of being in German, is a product of Eastern Europe, where it happens to be largely synonymous with "tears, rape, murder and robbery"; whereas in Germany itself it is all but completely unknown. --Thorsten1 23:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All in all, I believe that the title, although far from being perfect, should stay. Perhaps we could split this article onto two separate entries: one describing the socio-political and psychological phenomenon known as Western betrayal in at least two countries and the other one listing facts in for and against such a feeling. However, this wouldn't change much and we'd still have the same problem with naming the other article. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:15, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
As a final note: there indeed is a difference in connotations of the terms "zdrada" and "betrayal". Both you and Naryathegreat have suggested that "betrayal" automatically causes the reader to subconciously distrust the page. I don't think this is the case in Polish. Although the very word treated separately has negative connotations, the terms "zdrada aliantów" or "zdrada zachodu" seem as neutral as Phony War or Iron Curtain. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
In the meantime I had the opportunity to talk to a person who is bilingual in English and Polish, and who agreed with me that the difference in connotation, if it exists at all, is infinitesimal. In Polish, the moral connotation of zdrada zachodu or zdrada aliantów might have worn off a bit through frequent use - but as Google lists 30 results for one and 22 for the other I do have some doubt about that. But even if you are right, your argument fails to convince me: We can't possibly wave through "Western betrayal" on grounds that the connotation of zdrada zachodu is supposedly different! After all this is the English-language edition of Wikipedia, and like it or not we will have to accept the connotations that the words we use have in English. Anything else will only create misunderstandings and confusion.
In case the link doesn't work - http:// tinyurl.com/7ywnj. It mentions an article by Artur Hajnicz in Gazeta Wyborcza, entitled "Zdrada Zachodu – fakt czy obsesja?". As soons as I have some time I shall try and track down that essay, I have a feeling that it could be quite useful to inform an improved version of this article. --Thorsten1 23:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thorsten, I'll reply down here since I don't like it when separate paragraphs start their own life and become separate discussions. I hope you don't mind. Also, for now let's discuss only the facto graphical part, we'll get to the socio-psychological phenomenon a bit later. Also, sorry that you had to wait so long for my reply, I had to dig up a booklet I received some 4 years ago (see below) and it took me quite some time.
You're right that perfect objectivity is something rarely (if ever) seen in the world we live in. Even the mere selection of facts might be not objective. However, one has to chose the facts he puts in an article. Otherwise Wikipedia would evolve into a series of separate books rather than articles. I was trying to prepare an article on the phenomenon so I chose the facts related to it somehow. If you find some facts lacking - please be so kind as to add them. The current version of the article still lacks the other views and they are only marked instead of explained. The reason for that is not my bias or anything, it's that I simply do not know the facts that support those who state that "Poland was not betrayed". During my endless discussions on various fora only those who supported the idea were able to provide sources and references, while those who opposed them were mostly focused on, for instance, "Why the Allies couldn't help Poland in 1939", not "Why the Allies didn't help Poland in 1939" or "Did the Allies help Poland in 1939".
I don't know if a description of the internal situation of Poland in the interbellum would add much to the article. After all what I was trying to describe was a history of various pacts, that is documents subject to international law. They are valid regardless of form of government, names of the contracting parties or their background. Poland indeed was not a model democracy, but does it make alliances signed with her null and void? Hardly so.
Also, the description of the powers (or rather lack of such) of the League of Nations would not add much to the article either. After all France made alliances with other states and not with the League of Nations. The same goes for the Cieszyn Silesia crisis (<shameless ad>be sure to check my History of Cieszyn and Tesin series</shameless ad>) which can be used as a proof of many things, like for instance a proof for Poland being in closer relations with France and UK than ever. The western press indeed called Poland a "Munich jackal" and "Polish hyena", because it was seen as having a common cause with Germany, but as a matter of fact it was a completely independent move (no matter right or wrong) and it had little to do with the pacts signed later. I don't get how the Lithuanian ultimatum of 1938 would add to the matter since it was primarily about resolving diplomatic relations and respecting the rights of Polish minority in Lithuania. Polish government saw it as a de facto acceptance of the borderline, but this interpretation was not shared by Lithuania (<shameless ad>check also my Central Lithuania article :)</shameless ad>). All of the above might've had some influence on how an average Pierre or Bob viewed Poland, but I doubt it had influence on how Gamelin or Ironside saw their signs under the documents.
The agreement on mutual assistance of August 25 was seen by the Polish side as an annex to both the treaty with France and to the earlier British unilateral declaration of March and British-Polish agreement of April ([1]). Perhaps it should be stated more clearly and possibly the word annex is not the best choice here (amendment? addition?). The document itself (I guess you found it in the British War Blue Book, didn't you) does not mention the earlier minutes of the talks with General Ironside and his mission to Poland that have arrived to Warsaw in July. This article (in a rather credible weekly) mentions that Ironside even declared that in a case of war a carrier could be transferred to the Baltic. I did not find that info in the minutes of the talks he had in Warsaw (such a declaration would sound bizarre, to say the least), but I did found a declaration that the RAF will start reprisal actions against German cities should Germany start bombing civilian targets and open cities. This did not happen. On the other hand Ironside made it clear that no Expeditionary Force could be sent to Poland soon enough and later the idea of transferring the RAF squadrons to operate from Polish airfields was also dropped.
Anyway, the air raid remark was based on Edward Raczyński, The British-Polish Alliance; its origin and meaning. A very interesting lecture, really. I'll quote the whole caption not to leave any doubts. If someone wants I could scan the whole booklet, it's only 22 pages long.
(pages 20 and 21) General Waclaw Stachiewicz, at the time GHQ. C.O. has written in the weekly Wiadomosci (XI-46, 23rd Nov.) an article which throws important and interesting light on this matter (Raczyński refers to the earlier remarks on Gen. Ironside's mission to Poland - [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]). According to Gen. Stachiewicz, mutual agreement was already well advanced by May, 1939, chiefly through Staff talks led on the British side by Gen. Clayton. Further talks were conducted in July with Gen. Ironside. They were mainly concerned with support from the air for Poland. In case of a German attack on Poland "British Bomber Command stationed on bases on British and French soil were to constitute an attacking force ready for immediate action", writes Gen. Stachiewicz. The R.A.F. were to raid German military targets. In case of German raids upon civilian targets in Poland, the R.A.F. was to answer in kind in Germany. This latter step, however, was conditional upon consultations with "Britain's allies, i.e. France. In addition it was planned that an aircraft base should be established in Poland from which "bombers which were part of the Home R.A.F. might temporarily undertake operations in case of war". Regarding this plan, a British military mission was to come to Poland, but the war broke out before it ever started. So much for Gen. Stachiewicz. I myself heard after the event, that the French Government had refused to agree to the reprisal bombing of Germany, fearing that the all-powerful Luftwaffe might retaliate by bombing French cities. The matter requires further clarification.
Whether the Phony War was a war or not is a matter of personal opinions rather than encyclopaedia. Politically it was, but technically it wasn't. I guess we could discuss the matter 'till the end of time, it's complicated enough. Perhaps the Baltics and the Ukraine adhere more to the socio-psychological part rather than the political. However, Yugoslavia did have an alliance with the UK and the alliance was broken. Also, the pacts with Draza Mihajlovic were broken in a very similar way to the pacts with Poland broken (or rather ignored, if you prefer such a term) in Yalta. Anyway, I only wanted to underline that Yugoslavia should remain in the article, let's concentrate on Poland now.
As I said, I don't see why the title will make unbiased readers instinctively distrust the article, but perhaps you're right that it's simply more neutral if used in Poland among those who know the topic than when used among those who know nothing of it. Perhaps it is simply a "mental shortcut", but please try to find some better title than the Polish westophobia you mentioned. BTW, that title would be not only POV, but also misleading since this article is not about the Polish fear of the West.
I don't find the Drang nach Osten article as one of the worst, in my opinion the matter is simply too complex to be described in such a simplistic manner. It simply needs significant expansion. As to that discussion - I also read it. It is one of many such discussions on various fora, if you want some links - just leave me a note on my talk page. For now: how about concentrating on the possible inaccuracies of the text itself and improving it (if it's needed) and leaving the title discussion for a while? Perhaps with time we'd find some acceptable title. Regards, [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:26, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Western betrayal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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? johnk 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. —MichaelZ. 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. johnk
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. —MichaelZ. 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 PiotrusTalk 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? —MichaelZ. 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 PiotrusTalk 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? johnk 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 PiotrusTalk 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. johnk 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. johnk 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). johnk 02:38, 13 Apr 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 PiotrusTalk 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. —MichaelZ. 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. johnk 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.
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. johnk 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 PiotrusTalk 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. johnk 15:50, 13 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 PiotrusTalk 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 PiotrusTalk 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. —MichaelZ. 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. johnk 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 PiotrusTalk 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? johnk 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 PiotrusTalk 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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 PiotrusTalk 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 PiotrusTalk 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? —MichaelZ. 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. johnk 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 PiotrusTalk 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. —MichaelZ. 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. —MichaelZ. 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 PiotrusTalk 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.
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)
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?
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 PiotrusTalk23:07, 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.
Bdell55500:16, 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. Szopen10:36, 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.
Bdell55500:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
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.nobs00:35, 7 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.Bdell55501:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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? [2]nobs16:06, 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!)Bdell55501:42, 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. Constanz15:21, 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 Vozenilek15:14, 18 February 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. Melchoir08:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
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?]
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 Underburrow11:09, 20 March 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 Clayworth20:32, 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.
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
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.
Because of simple cowardice dressed in political expectations. You know, the good ol' "let's wait and see what happens" tactics
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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 Clayworth20:30, 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 Guard04:15, 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.
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)
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 Guard02:29, 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 Guard23:09, 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 Guard00:13, 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. //Halibutt19:41, 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.--Nixer19:56, 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 GB21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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 Clayworth21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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.--Caranorn13:29, 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. //Halibutt11:43, 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.--Caranorn09:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's sum up the facts before we continue:
The French were to start an offensive with the majority of its forces by mid-September. However, instead they halted all offensive manoeuvres.
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.
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. //Halibutt11:40, 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:
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.212.216.211.15113:18, 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.212.216.210.7013:11, 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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. JamesMLanetc00:22, 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. JamesMLanetc19:52, 9 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. JamesMLanetc20:27, 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 betrayalCommunicat (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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions about Western betrayal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Lopsided structure of article
The article could be interesting, but I have to say it appears to be only half of what is needed. What it consists of now are the arguments why a decision appeared to be controversial, but there is no substantial rebuttal to the arguments. For example, in the part about Churchill and Stalin's discussion concerning a landing in the west, it mentions Churchill's odd contention that the Germans had "nine divisions" in the west. Churchill may have believed that but it is completely untrue. In 1942, there were 35 divisions in the west and this had increased to 40 by 1943 (Harrison, p. 142.) Any discussion of this possibility would have to identify the numbers of divisions and aircraft on both sides at a given date to realistically assess what the chances of military success might have been. Given the often below-average performance of Allied formations before 1943, a landing in 1942 could well have led to a decisive Allied defeat in France and perhaps even a permanent closure of the western front dictated by an armistice with the Germans. 1943 was also problematic because the Allies were still building troop strength, and even when the invasion took place in 1944, by the time the Allies got to the German border it had become clear that there were not enough infantry divisions as well as serious manpower concerns that compounded the problem. The Germans became rather famous for statements like "if the other side had only pushed hard at this moment ...", but history documents that no matter how hard the Allies (or Soviets) pushed, the Germans were always capable of providing spirited resistance. The morale and cohesion of the German forces did not notably diminish in the west until the Rhine River was crossed in March 1945 and in the east, it remained hard-bitten to the end.
Another example - Western allies were fielding 91 full-strength divisions against 60 weak German divisions whose overall strength was roughly equal to only 26 complete divisions. -- This strength quote is picked from a point in the campaign in which the invasion force has been brought up to full strength in 1945 -- at which point a massive offensive was launched and which did not really stop until Germany was defeated. The article really needs to bring out the rest of the story in these sections, because as it is, the information brought out in it appears to selected in such a way that it supports the notion that there was a controversy of some sort, but does not provide any information that would indicate there were valid reasons for something not to happen, such as the inability of the Allies to push into Germany in late 1944 (they tried that with numerous offensives but all ground down primarily because of logistical and manpower issues.)
The current approach to the article only examines issues from a viewpoint of revisionist history without mentioning key aspects that often explain the events took the course they did for very mundane reasons such as problems with logistics. Given an approach where the controversies would be examined in a more balanced manner, followed by dispassionate analysis of the situation, the article could provide valuable lessons on how to interpret history with due attention given to the various influences that affected command decisions. That is unfortunately not the case with the current state of the article; it appears more concerned with making accusations that are supported only by cherry-picked citations that appear to bolster the article's arguments. As is pointed out above in the case of Harrison's work, reading further into the cited material makes it clear that the article is ignoring very pertinent information regarding the topic at hand. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the article is lopsided, no doubt about that. I was under the impression that wiki editing is supposed to be done collaboratively, and that some knowledgeable and interested individuals would actively contribute (rather than just criticise) by providing properly sourced analyses, counter-arguments or whatever. That is clearly not the case. I personally cannot claim to have read everything ever published about WW2, whereas collaborative editors between themselves could have broadened the scope of endeavour if they really wanted a "balanced" or NPOV article.
Speaking about lopsided though, the burning issues, facts, matters etc that I raised first in the Western Betrayal article, (which were vigorously disputed for "anti-Western bias" etc etc), and now in the renamed and reworked Controversial Command Decisions article, should properly have been dealt with in the main WW2 article in the first place. That article, by the way, and as far as I can tell, cites only one Soviet source. Yet nobody who feels strongly enough about lopsidedness or NPOV bothered to complain then about "anti-Eastern bias".
I have read the flurry or inter-administrator correspondence together with the criticisms above, and I can see where all this is heading. If administrators who don't want to accommodate the Soviet view want to scrap the article, then so be it. If they want the article to remain a collaborative work in progress, then so be that too. But I personally don't want to get involved in point-scoring and endless debates with people who's views clearly support only the dominant Western narrative, and who's own productions may lend themselves to charges of (anti-Eastern) lopsidedness. Communicat (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If you believe other articles lack balance, then, as you point out, "edit collaboratively" to introduce more balance. Introducing new lopsided articles is not a constructive way of addressing perceived lack of balance in existing articles.
Please do not assume you understand the views and knowledge of others. I would be strongly surprised if the majority of editors with a strong interest in the Second World War do not realize that many decisions were controversial. I have no issue with these controversies being discussed on Wikipedia but it is important to approach the issues with an open mind to the situations of both parties in an given controversy, otherwise one takes only one side of the dispute and yet another unbalanced article is produced.
You should consider your titles for articles with more care. If your intent is to highlight the Soviet view of events in the Second World War, then why not title the article "Soviet View of the Second World War" or something similar -- it would also make it more straightforward to write and remove the impression that a lopsided "controversies" article is being written -- and by its very nature, a reader would expect to encounter the Soviet POV.
Anything written on Wikipedia is by definition subject to criticism. Most of the time, "criticism" is expressed by deletion or replacement of existing article material, often without any prior notification. You should note I have not attempted to force changes to your articles and that I made my view of the articles clear, both on the articles' talk pages and on your talk page. A lot of editors on Wikipedia don't receive that courtesy. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy. Yes, I agree that WW2 was riddled with controversial command decisions, sometimes conspiratorial, sometimes just because of the fog of war. But length restrictions would make it impossible to do justice to them all.
Controversial command decisions were made by all sides during, before and after the war. The most infamous and controversial Soviet decision, possibly, was the one resulting in the Katyn massacre. The editorial neutrality of the article should become apparent if or when all such decisions are consolidated into a cohesive whole in this start-class article. Communicat (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Communicat, as a result of the rescue tag I'm taking a look at the proceedings and may get involved. I will, however, take issue with your calling the Katyn massacre "possibly" a "controversial command decision". First, because Stalin called the shots, and either gave a thumbs up or down on such matters, and second because this kind of behavior (murdering hostages, opponents, and prisoners) was more or less ingrained in the Soviet system for quite some time before Katyn. It hardly needed a debate in order for the decision to be implemented. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Munich Agreement etc ?
I haven't looked at this page for ages, but why was the concept of 'Western Betrayal' (whether or not it is a fair concept) been conflated with command decisions? Ongoing Czech grievances about the Munich Agreement are often described as a sense of 'Western Betrayal', just as much as Russian grievances about the postponement of D-Day are. The title redirect is very misleading. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
For some possible explanation, have a look at contents of the longggg section above commencing 3 Mar 2010 headed "Anti-Western POV bias". Communicat (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Citation formatting
There are syntax errors in identifying citations; the tag "ref" should be preceded by "<" and closed with ">". These are reversed in the case of several citations in the article, preventing the citations from appearing in the proper area of the article and cluttering the article text. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Forget rescue. It ought to be deleted wholesale. It does not warrant its own article (these "controversies" should be mentioned in individual articles that deal with the subject of the "controversy" in question). The fact that it has its own article at all means that certain POV is tacitly approved here at WP. Get rid of it. Jersey John (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I recommend against summary deletion. I think the article aims to document a school of thought among Polish historians, or Eastern Europeans historians. The test of its suitability as an article is whether those historians have made notable contributions to the field, and whether those contributions can be sourced. I'm not convinced that the article meets that standard at the present time, but I think it's worth an effort at rescue. Innocent76 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleting this article would equal a spit on the face to several communities in countries like Poland or the Czech Republic. The "Yalta betrayal", or however you call it, did exist, live with it. Gregorik (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Why Spain?
I don't see what the section of Spanish Republicans and their complaints has to do with the Yalta conference, or alleged Western betrayals in Eastern Europe. I think that section should be removed from this article. Can anyone think of a reason why not? Innocent76 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Why Yugoslavia?
The same question as the above can be asked for the section on Yugoslavia, and this has been brought up here before. I have alleviated this WP:UNDUE violation by explaining it in the article, but it could still be argued that it is pointless to talk about it here (rather in History of Yugoslavia). The lead section states clearly that the concept of betrayal is based on the breaking of pacts and reneging on military alliances. In the case of Yugoslavia, such a straightforward action did not happen (even the Tehran conference conclusion wasn't a betrayal of Yugoslavia as a whole, only of a particular faction that turned out to be out of the mainstream, so to speak). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to find a more textbook example of betrayal of an ally than that at the peace of Riga (signing the separate peace treaty specifically forbidden in a previous treaty and accepting 120 million roubles in gold to sign the separate peace treaty). Is there any reason why this act of western betrayal should not be in the article? Varsovian (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Scope
I'm not saying anything new here, but this article has come up on my radar from time to time, and I honestly believe that while it does represent a valid historical viewpoint, the scope of this article needs to be significantly tightened. A proper definition of what "Western Betrayal" or "Yalta Betrayal" is needs to be provided. The introduction in itself is too sprawling: it reads too much like "whenever the Soviets did something bad in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Western allies didn't immediately take a strong enough line against the USSR that was Western Betrayal". Mentioning the Hungarian Revolution and quotes by George W. Bush seem way off topic. Sending Vlasov and Ustashe members back to Soviet-occupied countries is likewise an interesting form of "betrayal", as the Western allies had no formal treaty responsibilities towards Axis military forces (besides the Geneva Conventions). Memel and Spain really don't belong, and those sections read like "some people in x country were unhappy that the US and UK didn't do Y", which gets towards weasel words issues. The Baltic States section is questionable as well, considering that it contradicts the official US position of regarding their occupation by the USSR as illegal. Furthermore, it would be great if a mention could be made of the CIA's covert operations supporting armed resistance in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and the Balkans (as in Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes).
Here is my suggestion.
Definition
Section 1: History of this term. Where has it been used, by whom, why is this significant?
Section 2: Focus on broken pre-war military committments, ie the Munich Agreement, Anglo-Polish Military Alliance, Franco-Polish Military Alliance, etc.
Mention Katyn and Anders Army, etc. but refer the reader to the appropriate articles, of which there are many. Also avoid any command controversies, as noted in above discussions.
Section 3: Focus on the Tehran Conference, Yalta Conference, Potsdam Conference, and Percentages Agreement.
Anything about DPs, or Operation Keelhaul or the like: mention, but refer to those articles. Same for any Cold War issues, which should be kept to a minimum in my opinion.
Section 4: Criticisms of this term/viewpoint
Section 5: References, etc.
Then I think this article would be back on track. Remember, keep it specific: once it veers off into "this terrible thing happened and the West didn't do much" then we get more political, and also way more open to critical refutations. Just focusing on pre-war treaty obligations and end-of-war conferences will keep the article focused.209.235.2.8 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an old post, but I can't help noticing that this is a good recommendation, which unfortunately has never been followed up on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Czech territory acquired by Poland at the Munich Agreement
I added two words ("and Poland") to the section on Czechoslovakia to more accurately portray that Poland itself gained territory from the Munich Agreement. I included two cites. Although the concept of Western Betrayal has merit, it is also important to imply an opposing view, which is that Poland helped along the betrayal itself in several ways, one of which was happilly grabbing up land from a small nation as the result of Hitler's diplomacy at Munich.Leidseplein (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed another editor reverted the two word addition of "and Poland" mentioned above, although it was cited from reliable sources. The reason "and Poland" should be included is for one simple reason: it is true, (as made clear in Munich Agreement). Deliberately trying to hide the fact that Poland gained territory from the Munich Agreement at the expense of Czechoslovaia and because of Hilter is denying readers the right to read ALL the facts, and not merely facts which tend to justify the "Western Betrayal."
[6] (with edit summary Poland took land from Czech at Munich) and the reference [7] which is this one [8]. My reversion of this addition was reverted [9] (with edit summary Discuss reverts of fully cited two word additions on talk page please before trying to impose your POV on the world).
The edit and the double revert are problematic.
The addition is problematic because:
This is an article on "Western betrayal" - in sources Poland is not mentioned as one of the "betrayers" but rather as one of the "betrayed". This tries to flip this for unclear reasons.
The edit summary is mistaken - Poland did not take "land from Czech at Munich". Polish annexation of Zaolzie happened AFTER Munich but not AT Munich. Basically, a small slither of land that was disputed between Poland and Czechoslovakia since 1920's, that was part of Czechoslovakia was given to Nazi Germany at Munich. Polish government, realizing that the area that was under dispute was going to be transferred to the Nazis, told Czechoslovakia that they were going to preemptively take it. And at that point Benes pretty much said "whatever" (it wasn't going to be Czech anyway).
The area concerned is a very small piece of land the barely visible part labeled with a "2" It's a bit strange to add "and Poland" to "Germany" but for example, completely ignore the much larger areas seized by Hungary, with Hitler's approval (unlike the annexation of Zaolzie which was done AGAINST the wishes of Nazi Germany, and probably against those of Chamberlain and co., but with approval of the Czech government). Like I said, it's a bit of a strange edit.
The source added does not support:
4.a. the fact that "Poland took land from Czech at Munich" - what is says is that Poland occupied areas with Polish minority around Český Těšín, there's no "at Munich" in that sentence (and for a good reason - it wasn't a Munich)
4.b. any kind of link between the Zaolzie dispute and "Western Betrayal".
Basically, what you need here is a source which links Munich and Zaolzie and Western Betrayal. Absent that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
The double revert is problematic. The burden lies on the person adding the text to present adequate sources for text which may be/is challenged. My first (and only) revert was obviously a challenge to the text and as such part of the standard WP:BRD cycle. At that point it is up to the editor wishing to restore the content to take the next step, "discuss", rather than revert. Two reverts within a short period of time are not a violation of WP:3RR but they can be interpreted as edit warring, especially if they are not backed up by any kind of effort at discussion.
Furthermore, an edit summary that uses phrases such as trying to impose your POV on the world is unnecessarily combative and fails to assume good faith. Contrast that with my edit summary (but 1) this isnt considered to be part of WB 2) different circumstances than German occupation of Sudetenland) which directly focused on content rather than accusing any editor of wrong doing. As such an edit summary which accuses me of trying to impose your POV on the world can be seen as a violation of WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE.
Please provide an actual source linking Poland to the concept of Western Betrayal in this manner. Discuss challenged text on talk, and when doing so focus on content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason Poland should be listed as a gainer of territory from the Munich Agreement
The point of this article is to explain a point of view called the 'Western Betrayal', which in a nutshell is a view commonly held in Poland that the western Allies in WW2 betrayed Poland. In order for a reader to fully appreciate the facts that we are told led up to the betrayal, a reader should be informed of ALL THE FACTS, not merely the facts that tend to support the idea of a 'Western Betrayal'.
Specifically, in this case we are told in the article that the idea of a Western Betryal began when Germany took land from Czechoslavokia after the Munich Agreement. Isn't it VERY relevant that Poland itself also took land from Czechoslavakia as a result of the Munich Agreement????
Isn't the fact that Poland BENEFITTED from the Munich Agreement through a territorial increase relavant to the assertion that the 'Western Betrayal' was born by the results of the Munich Agreement??? In other words, since Poland itself also happily participated in the grabbing Czech land, like the Germans, doesn't the reader have a right to see that what the proponents of the 'Western Betrayal' now condemn (namely the Munich Agreement) was in fact at the time happily used by Poland to Poland's own advantage?
The only addition I think is appropriate is simply adding two words -"and Poland"- to the line in the Czechoslavkia section of the article, so readers know that Poland itself benefitted from the Munich Agreement which was allegedly the birthplace of the whole 'Western Betryal' concept. Leidseplein (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
As explained above the situation was different. What you need here is a source which connects the Zaolzie dispute to "Western Betrayal" - especially since the situation was different (Poland took land, with Czechs agreeing to it, that was going to become part of Nazi Germany anyway). You can use caps and multiple question marks all you want, but that does not make your arguments stronger. Sources do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I strongly disagree. Wikipedia does not require all sources to mention the 'Western Betrayal' for them to be used in the article about the 'Western Betrayal'. A BALANCED representation of the facts includes mentioning that Poland itself benefitted from the Munich Agreement because it is now the Polish idea of 'Western Betrayal' we are told in the aticle originated because of the Munich Agreement.
Just as editors so strongly oriented towards a pro-Polish POV prove, any source discussing the 'Western Betrayal' is unlikely to mention that Poland itself gained from the Munich Agreement since that tends to imply Polish hypocrisy (taking territory when it suits them) and Polish complicity with Hitler. Leidseplein (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I should also add that the claim that "The point of this article is to explain a point of view called the 'Western Betrayal', which in a nutshell is a view commonly held in Poland that the western Allies in WW2 betrayed Poland. " is also false. That's not the point of this article. For starters the term has currency outside of Poland (as the article extensively explains) and even outside of Eastern Europe, as it is used in Western sources (and hell, more or less by Churchill himself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require all sources to mention the 'Western Betrayal' for them to be used in the article about the 'Western Betrayal'. - strictly speaking this is true but it's also irrelevant - it doesn't require that a source mention the terms "Western Betrayal" and "Fiji" together either, but adding stuff about Fiji to the article would not follow Wikipedia policies. The situation with Zaolzie was complicated and the proper place for discussing stuff like this is in the relevant articles (like the one on Zaolzie). The Polish occupation of Zaolzie is not regarded in sources as part of "Western Betrayal". The Polish acquisition of Zaolzie happened after Munich and with Czech agreement. The only country "betrayed" here by the Polish action was Nazi Germany which got less territory out of Munich then it was going to otherwise. The whole area is very very very small and the issue in Polish-Czech relations at that point was negligible, yet somehow this canard/red herring gets dragged up for all kinds of reasons where it's simply not relevant.
Adding "and Poland" here is a classic example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
"Polish complicity with Hitler" is straight up POV pushing and false.
Just as editors so strongly oriented towards a pro-Polish POV prove - this is another WP:BATTLEGROUND statement that violates WP:AGF and borders on a personal attack.
any source discussing the 'Western Betrayal' is unlikely to mention that Poland itself gained from the Munich Agreement since that - problem for you is that no source, "pro-Polish" or otherwise, discusses Zaolzie as part of Western Betrayal.
tends to imply Polish hypocrisy - more hyperbolic rhetoric, battleground and POV. Please stop making such inflammatory statements or we'll wind up at a board other than 3O.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the threats, hypocrisy and false appeals to Wikipedia guidelines, and despite your threat, this was already referred to a board other than 3O early on. So, I will end my input for now and wait to see where this ends.Leidseplein (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Another editor claimed I reverted the article twice - by using the term 'double reverts' and called this in such unquestionable authority, 'problematic'. This is NOT true, there was no double revert. I added two words ("and Poland") to the article and then added cites. Another editor reverted this addition without discussing on this user page. I then reverted to my addition that includes the added words with cites because I believe so strongly in Discuss challenged text on talk, and when doing so focus on content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC). Leidseplein (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My bad, it was a single revert. Still, it was done immediately and without an attempt to discuss things on talk. I was in the process of writing my post above when you reverted me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Basic factual inaccuracy
In regard to the above it is not true that "Poland gained territory at Munich". I notice that Leidseplein has switched to the wording "has gained territory from Munich" which appears to be an attempt to insinuate the same thing but tiptoe around the fact that it didn't.
Munich awarded a bunch of Czech territory to Nazi Germany. Seeing that the Germans were going to seize territory which Poland had a dispute with Czechoslovakia over, Polish government sent a note to the Czech government telling them that they were going to take it instead. The Czech government agreed. I guess one could describe this as "from Munich" or "as a result of Munich" but without a proper explanation, that kind of phrasing obviously grossly misrepresents the situation.
This is beside the fact that no sources link "Western Betrayal" to Zaolzie. This conversation in fact should be continued somewhere else, like at Zaolzie. Here it's just WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Basic factual accuracy and proposed solution (compromise)
The article currently reads:
The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany and Poland,
...which is accurate if it includes my proposed solution
The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany, Poland and Hungary,
Attempts to deny printing in this article the FACT that Poland gained territory in the wake of Munich is simply an attempt to advance a pro-Polish/anti-Western POV. It is exceptionally INCONVENIENT to the whole idea of a Western Betrayal if a reader learns that Poland happily took Czech land itself (where we are told the idea of Western Betrayal was born). No doubt at the time Czechs felt they were betrayed by the west for not protecting Czceh interests against POLAND, when ironically Poland itself later would suffer the same exact fate IT SO HAPPILY CONDONED in the wake of Munich.
I propose sticking to the facts as outlined in the article on the Munich Agreement - namely that not only Germany, but also Poland and Hungary took Czech land, an act which gave birth to the idea of Western Betrayal.
And despite all the false accusations and appeals to Wikilingo, it is NOT original research to report the FACT that Poland acquired land from Czechoslavakia after Munich - it is, instead, merely embarassing, embarassing to those who so passionately believe in the Western Betrayal.
(edit conflict) First, please thread your comments properly otherwise it looks like you're having a conversation with yourself which makes following it extremely confusing.
Second, adding "and Hungary" does not address the underlying WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problem, which is that no sources mentions Polish acquisition of Zaolzie as part of "Western Betrayal"
Third, Hungary is a different case from Poland. The Czech lands acquired by Hungary were transferred with approval of Hitler and Nazi Germany (and implicitly Chamberlain and others). Zaolzie was transferred to Poland with Czech agreement.
Fourth: Attempts to deny printing in this articlethe FACT that - no one's disputing any facts (well, except that this was done at Munich). But facts can in fact be misleading when they are presented out of context or in irrelevant situations. That is, in fact, why we have policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as well as WP:TRUTH, on Wikipedia. Respect'em.
Fifth, I am going to ask you one last time to stop accusing other editors (me) of "pro-Polish POV" or "anti-Western POV". There's no POV here, your addition simply is irrelevant, and violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Note that I am not, nor have I so far, speculated on your own motives here.
Sixth, if It is exceptionally INCONVENIENT to the whole idea of a Western Betrayal if a reader learns that Poland happily took Czech land itself then find a source which states this. Otherwise all we have is your own assertions and interpretation. WP:OR.
Seventh - No doubt at the time Czechs felt they were betrayed by the west for not protecting Czceh interests against POLAND - find a source for that claim. This is your own ... "guess" of how Czechs (what, all of them? every single one? how do you know?) supposedly "felt" 70 years ago. I could not think of a more classic example of WP:OR.
Eight - ironically Poland itself later would suffer the same exact fate IT SO HAPPILY CONDONED in the wake of Munich. - alright, here you are just trying to enflame tempers by making purposefully battleground statements.
Ninth - I propose sticking to the facts as outlined in the article on the Munich Agreement - namely that not only Germany, but also Poland and Hungary took Czech land, an act which gave birth to the idea of Western Betrayal.; yeah, except the article on the Munich Agreement does not say that. It does not say that the acquisition of Zaolzie by Poland "gave birth to the idea of Western Betrayal". You've invented that part out of thin air. And it can't say that because there is no source which says anything like that.
Tenth, if by despite all the false accusations you mean that I said you reverted me twice, I've already corrected myself. I don't see anything else that can be called a "false accusation". You are the one discussing editor's (mine) supposed motives.
Eleventh, in regard to appeals to Wikilingo - yes, following Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is important. We have them for a reason. And the reason is so that we don't put nonsense like this into articles.
Twelfth - it is NOT original research to report the FACT that Poland acquired land from Czechoslavakia after Munich - it is original research to pretend that the dispute over Zaolzie had anything to do with "Western Betrayal".
Leave it too Wiki readers to Decide whether Poland's Acquistion of Czech territory is relvant
I was asked by a third party to point out that in the article Western betrayal it says,
After the Communist Party assumed all power in Czechoslovakia in 1948, the betrayal was frequently referenced in propaganda. This interpretation of history was official and the only one allowed.
My point is that there should not be ONE interpretation of history allowed on Wikipedia as advocated by another editor - let Wiki readers decide whether the fact that Poland acquired Czech land after Munich is relevant to the story of how the 'Western Betrayal' began in Poland. Print the full facts, and be more inclusive of the facts, don't exclude facts or advocate only edited facts that support the premise of the article.
What "third party" are you talking about? I don't know what you are talking about in the rest of your comment and I don't see how Communist era views are relevant to the issue under discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My point is that there should not be ONE interpretation of history allowed on Wikipedia as advocated by another editor - let Wiki readers decide whether the fact that Poland acquired Czech land after Munich is relevant to the story of how the 'Western Betrayal' began in Poland. Print the full facts, and be more inclusive of the facts, don't exclude facts or advocate only edited facts that support the premise of the article.
Nobody here, certainly not me, is advocating "ONE interpretation of history" on Wikipedia or anywhere else - please don't try to misrepresent me or my statements. I am simply asking you to provide sources to back up your OR.
It should be according to reputable sources what is said about Western betrayal (the common word across a whole range of countries and languages and scholarship being the operative "betrayal"). And, clearly, that is, in turn, rooted in foreign policy which dates to the close of WWI. No one woke up one morning to say, out of the blue, "Hmm... does X really need all its territory? Let's give it to someone we think is more deserving... or Let's give a chunk of X to Y just to shut them up...." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no "he said/she said" here. The French, British et al. governments don't dispute what they did and therefore there's something for readers to decide here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite passionate denials, there ARE sources that mention Poland's acquistion of Czech territory in the birth of the 'Western Betrayal'
Basically, what you need here is a source which links Munich and Zaolzie and Western Betrayal. Absent that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH..Volunteer Marek(talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC
Fine, as always, your wish is my command:
:Communist party member even linked the recognition of Kosovo to the infamous "Munich betrayal" in 1938, when Western European powers decided that frontier regions of what was then Czechoslovakia were to be given to Nazi Germany, Hungary and Poland.http://aktualne.centrum.cz/czechnews/clanek.phtml?id=606315
Naturally, since we followed your explicit, not-to-be-contradicted instructions and found a source that links Munich and Zaolzie and Western Betrayal, this discussion is now over and you can not help but agree that adding Poland to the list of countries which took Czech land is now required. Leidseplein (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a start. However, that's pretty thin - not even sure if that source is reliable. Can you find an academic source - like a book or a journal article - to back up the claim? The source you ... wait a minute, who is this "we" you're talking about? Are you editing along with someone else? This is getting strange.
Sure, I'll find a 'respectable academic source. Not some online webpage...'
....as soon as someone finds respectable academic sources to replace the first 15 online webpages cited in the article Western Betrayal including such gems as the entertainment site Warsaw-life.com. I means its only fair to apply the same ridiculously harsh standards to all sources in the article, right? Its a total mystery why some sources that are focused on Warsaw nightlife are perfectly acceptable for an article like this, while mainstream Czech news sources mentioned frequently in Wikipedia, such as Aktuálně.cz are not????? hmmmmm
Actually I agree that some of these sources do not belong in the article and I'll go through some of them and remove them. In the mean time see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just cuz there's already crappy sources in the article that's not a good excuse to add more crap. Second, you should be aware that per Wikipedia policy "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources".
Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. - your single source does not directly support the information as it is presented in the article.
For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context. The nature of the article is of particular importance. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. - your source mentions the issue only in passing, unlike some of the other articles-as-sources you are pointing out which are specifically devoted to this topic.
I must also say, your behavior at this article and on this talk page stands in stark contrast - in fact, it is very very different - then the reasonable advice you provided via 3O at Siege of Kolberg and the comment you left at my talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I also want to point out that the heading title of this section is, again, unnecessarily inflammatory - what "passionate denials"? I've been calm and polite through out this whole exchange.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed some of the sketchy sources. Some of the other ones you refer to, however, are in fact written by academics, they just happen to be online somewhere. I do agree that in general the article could use a good clean up. But like I've already said, the fact that there's already junk in the article is not a good reason to add more junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:the fact that there's already junk in the article is not a good reason to add more junk
Really, is there no end to the new excuses and reaching complaints you will use to try and keep facts you don't like off wikipedia?
The mainstream publication
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktu%C3%A1ln%C4%9B.cz
...is only junk to editors who dislike what it says, to Wikipedia, the Czech media market and any unbiased person, it is as high quality as any source in this article
Actually I agree that some of these sources do not belong in the article and I'll go through some of them and remove them.
That would be a tremendous waste of time. I do not try to hide my POV by attacking sources, citing wikispeak and using false claims to guidelines that you learned when you felt disciplined by other wikipedians, etc... and those who do are easy to spot a mile away because they do it over and over again in the same type of articles.
...I'm fine with the whole article even if it includes about.com and Warsaw nightlife websites because the article was generally accurate. I don't stand on formality, cite rules to achieve the goal of spreading my worldview on Poland, and I don't use red herrings to achieve my POV, I'm happy to let all POVs express themselves reasonably....which is what I did when I talked about the Kolberg article and what I'm doing here. You will never see me attacking a source if the statement using it is accurate, likewise I never demand extreme source regimins (or sources at all) for statements that are plainly true, even if I don't like what is said. Note you're not attacking the truth of whether Poland took the Czech territory - you are demanding in all your glorious 13 points this fact be banned in this article...and lamely standing on misapplied wiki policy to support your demands for censorship. ... You just don't want this fact in there because you're passionate about Poland, I understand, so am I. But hiding the truth won't win converts to a more enlightened view of Poland in the war, which is plainly your noble goal, in fact these hiding efforts always backfire.
I must also say, your behavior at this article and on this talk page stands in stark contrast - in fact, it is very very different - then the reasonable advice you provided via 3O at Siege of Kolberg and the comment you left at my talk page
My outlook and approach is always the same - all POVs and all facts should be portrayed, I'm using the same outlook and approach here as I did on Kolberg, it's just that here you are trying to censor facts and present a POV without equally and adequately letting opposing views or facts which challenge your POV enter the article.
I've been calm and polite through out this whole exchange:
That's a laugh and actually explains everything - one thing about becoming an adult is the ability to apply the demands, standards and criticisms you make on others to yourself - first. I'd love to go on,but by wife demands I end for bedtime. Goodnight and good luck.Leidseplein (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It would at least help matters if you could concentrate on talking on the issue at hand rather than writing essay about what you imagine my motives are. It would help even more if you stopped making personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, some editors are allowed to write about 'canards', make threats, talk about my work on kolberg, ask me to explain their feelings of weirdness, call my work 'crap', 'irrelevant', 'nonsense', post non-topical questions on my talk page, etc... and with all the stern motherly authority they can muster at such a young age, dramtically announce a 'problematic' double revert accusation when there were no double reverts, (whoops, someone had to retract that, thanks for the long attempted distraction though),
BUT,
others are strictly instructed to concentrate on the issue at hand and keep out of the realm of the personal. Standards should only apply to others, not oneself, afterall. Leidseplein (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Unsourced material that doesn't bother ME
To illustrate my motivations and how I don't stand behind false appeals to wiki guidelines and diversionary attacks on reputable sources, I will point out that I have NO PROBLEM with the limitless parts in this article that go unsourced including:
1. two paragaphs and more in the 'phoney war' sub-section (in the Poland Section)
2. the entire subsection in the 'Atlantic Charter' (in the Poland section)
3. the entire subsection 'Katyn and the Soviet pressure' (in the Poland section)
4. several paragraphs in the 'Yalta' subsection (in the Poland section)
5. almost the entire 'aftermath' section (in the Poland section)
6. the entire sections of both 'Cossacks and White Russians' and 'Baltic States'
7. almost the entire section on 'Yugoslavia' (all of during the war' and almost the entire 'after the war' subsections)
I repeat that I'm not demanding sources and citations for this incredibly large unsourced material and I don't complain about the huge size of the Polish section in this article vis-a-vis othe nations BECAUSE THEY ARE FACTUALLY MOSTLY TRUE or widely accepted, and as such, any complaint about sources would only be PEDANTIC and serve only to waste editors time. Taking a redundant, selectively applied and severe stance on sourcing is one way to attack facts another editor doesn't want mentioned, (such as the fact Poland acquired Czech land after Munich), but not applying their new-found zeal for 'academic non-online sources' to a largely unsourced article is the best evidence here that neutrality is not anywhere near this entire article or another editor.Leidseplein (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Prooposed Compromise to Editor Dispute
It seems me and another editor have a dispute centered on two issues
1.
Two words ("and Poland") which appear in the first line of the Czechoslavakia section, and now reads
The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany and Poland, losing the system of border fortifications and means of viable defence against the German invasion
Another editor wants the two words and Poland removed, because, (we are told in the article) Poland is a primary victim of any Western Betrayal. Therfore mentioning that Poland acquired land in the result of the Munich Conference is perceived by this editor as weakening Poland's claim to a Western Betrayal.
2.
Among a diarrhea of diversionay flase claims, a pontificating 13 points of attack, personal insults and red herrings, another editor's second point with which I strongly dispute is the false claim and red herringthat any source mentioning Poland's acquisition of land in the wake of Munich must also mention Western Betrayal to be included in this article.
As a courtesy, I provided such a source which meets the tough standards another editor so fervantly demands for a mere two words in this article while happily ignoring mountains of unsourced material elsewhere - namely, I provided a mainstream Czech news outlet. In other words, the other editor and I disagree about validity of sources - in fact I say ANY RELIABLE SOURCE about Czechoslavkia on the days after the Munich Agreement can be used in the Czcechoslavakia section and not merely sources diplaying a pro-Polish POV which mention Western Betrayal.
I offer 2 more compromises in addition to the compromise offer ignored above:
In order to move back to my real passion of writing entirely new articles and to avoid a waste-of-time dispute over two words, I propose either of two compromises:
1. add a qualifying sentence after 'and Poland' in the Czech section which explains Poland's land grab in Czech was small (or words which otherwise lessens its impact) (naturally, I impose no pedantic source requirements for this qualification sentence), OR
2. Remove the 'and Poland' reference in the Czech section and I will happily write a new section in the article titled something along the lines of 'Debunkers of the Western Betrayal idea' which will explain in detail mainstream published opinions against the victimization mentality of the 'Western Betrayal', including of course Poland's land grab attempts in Czechoslavakia and Lithuania as well as Polish collaboration with Hitler prior to the Polish invasion. As with the dozens of articles I've contiributed to Wikipedia this section would contain top notch inline citations in virtually every line.
Marek is no longer satisfied with resolving this issue on this page and has asked for arbitration, which I encourage everyone interested in this article to read or comment on by clicking on 6 below
This article begins, "Western betrayal, also called Yalta betrayal, refers to the foreign policy of several Western countries between 1919 and 1968 regarding Eastern and Central Europe. These policies violated allied pacts and agreements made during the period from the Treaty of Versailles through World War II and to the Cold War." This combines two different issues, whether the British accepted violation of Versailles in favor of Germany during the inter-war period and whether they sold out Eastern Europe after the Second World War. The article assumes that the western allies were wrong on both counts. Can anyone explain what scholarship links these two issues? TFD (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Increasingly scholarship has taken a more holistic view of the first half of the 20th century, in particular, tying the egregiously punitive actions taken against Germany at Versailles and inevitable subsequent breech of conditions all the way through to the post-WWII landscape of territorial control. Those holistic views take into account French, British, et al. policy toward other sovereign parties throughout the time period in question: the close and aftermath of WWI sowing seeds for the next conflict through WWII and aftermath. There's no "combination of two different issues," rather, you are dealing with scholarship regarding an appropriate continuum of policy on the part of the great powers. There are plenty of sources in this regard. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Third opinion on Zaolzie / Trans-Olza, Poland and Western Betrayal
Response to third opinion request (Zaolzie / Trans-Olza, Poland and Western Betrayal):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Western betrayal and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
After reading through the disagreement, I recommend the following edits and adding of sources:
1. Alter the first sentence and add a second sentence to the first paragraph of the Czechoslovakia section, as such:
The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany, losing the system of border fortifications and means of viable defence against the German invasion[15][16][17][18] (see Fall Grün - the country was eventually invadded and occupied in March 1939). Linked to the Western betrayal — as a "natural consequence"[1] — is the forced annexation of Czechoslovakia's Zaolzie region by Poland.[2][3]
2. Add the following as a second paragraph in the Czechoslovakia section:
As a "natural consequence of the Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia", and based on a variety of motives, the Polish government forcibly annexed the small but long-disputed Trans-Olza/Zaolzie region of Czechoslovakia.[1][2][3]
References
^ ab Cienciala, Anna (1968). Poland and the Western Powers 1938-1939. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd / University of Toronto Press. pp. 142–145. ISBN9780710050212. Retrieved April 5, 2011. On 2 October, Polish troops marched into Trans-Olza occupying Western Teschen and Fryštát. [...] The most important aspect of the event was not, however, the rectification of an old injustice, but the fact that it was the natural consequence of the Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich. [...] The forceful annexation of Trans-Olza was not dictated by mere greed, nor was it a factor in the fall of Czechoslovaka but a consequence of the Western surrender of the Sudetenland to Germany.
^ abLatynski, Maya (1992). Reappraising the Munich Pact: Continental Perspectives. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars / The Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 91. ISBN9780943875392. Retrieved April 4, 2011. Munich provoked such general indignation in Poland that we feared mob assaults on the French embassy, and particularly on the British embassy; we also feared demonstrations against the government. [...] we spent a long time discussion whether we should mobilize in defense of Czechoslovakia. [...] We took the path of recovering Zaolzie. It was a scrap of booty, thrown [to us] by way of consolation.
^ abCienciala, Anna (1999). Lukes, Igor (ed.). The Munich Crisis, 1938: Prelude to World War II. Goldstein, Erik. London: Frank Cass & Co. p. 60. ISBN9780714649955. Retrieved April 5, 2011. At the same time, as recent Polish publications reveal, there was another, parallel facet of Polish policy that had remained virtually unknown. The new sources show that the Polish government had pursued secret intelligence-gathering activities in Trans-Olza, made efforts to build up secret Polish organizations there since 1935, and tried to organize guerrilla groups in summer 1938
Mmmmmm... it's in the right direction, I do have a few quibbles though.
I would put the phrase "Linked to the Western betrayal — as a "natural consequence"[1] — is the forced annexation of Czechoslovakia's Zaolzie region by Poland" at the end of the paragraph after the Churchill quote. As it is currently written the paragraph is a well written coherent whole with good flow which nicely explains the origins of the concept. Slapping that into its middle would break it up and make for awkward reading. I would also change the "is" to "was" which I think would be the proper tense ("linked" is past tense, the "forced annexation" occurred in the past). Or...
...It seems you are suggesting to include this "natural consequence" twice, once in the first paragraph and once as an additional paragraph by itself. I think that's not quite correct, why repeat a phrase more than once? Especially twice, one right after the other? Maybe just put in the second paragraph and that's it.
I'm not sure how the third reference is related. It also appears to be unnecessary so why include it?
As long as we're providing this "context" the parts from the sources which state: "The forceful annexation of Trans-Olza was not dictated by mere greed, nor was it a factor in the fall of Czechoslovaka but a consequence of the Western surrender of the Sudetenland to Germany" seems particularly relevant and more reflective of what the source is actually saying than quoting the "natural consequence" (which could mean a lot of different things) out of context.
Second, from the second source "Munich provoked such general indignation in Poland that we feared mob assaults on the French embassy, and particularly on the British embassy; we also feared demonstrations against the government. [...] we spent a long time discussion whether we should mobilize in defense of Czechoslovakia. [...] We took the path of recovering Zaolzie. It was a scrap of booty, thrown [to us] by way of consolation" isn't quite in line with the proposed text it is supposed to be sourcing. In particular it is about: a) Polish indignation at the Munich agreement - this is not in proposed text. b) fear of assaults on the French and British embassies as a manifestation of this indignation - this is not in the proposed text. c) the fact that Polish government considered mobilization in defense of Czechoslovakia, in opposition to Western powers and Germany - this is not in the proposed text. Only the last part is used in the proposed text, but if we're gonna put that in "for context" then we should include the rest as well.
Honestly, I still think that including discussion of Zaolzie here is unnecessary and undue and hurts the quality of the article - a proper treatment of the subject opens up lots of cans of lots of worms and an adequate discussion of the topic is outside the scope of this particular article (of course it should be included in articles on Munich, or the First Vienna Award or Zaolzie).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice that a new editor has unilaterally ignored the tremendously valuable 3rd opinion provided above; I request editors whose only interest in this article is the matter of Poland's annexation of Czech territory (and whether or not this fact should be presented or hidden to Wikipedia readers), to discuss proposed changes here or simply follow the third opinion.Leidseplein (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, the third opinion provided above was next to useless and the original addition of the text pointless. No one's trying to "hide" Poland's annexation of Czech territory. This simply isn't the article for it. Hence I am not surprised at all that other editors have the same problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks as always for your neutral POV efforts, obviously you have no particular POV about Poland or the Western Betrayal and your history here means you should be trusted. Those who have been sanctioned and banned multiple times for ignoring and trying to circumvent the 3o and other dispute resolution processes and those who were caught in a conspiracy to flagrantly gang-attack editors and articles they didn't like should be trusted on this matter given their great record of respecting Wikipedia. Those with published evidence of email traffic where they discuss using puppets to avoid 3r and other editing rules, those who've discussed in public sources how to circumvent the whole Wikipedia process, and those who spend most of their time on Wikipedia in disputes AND trying to trap other editors they don't like via Wikipedia lawyering ...those are definitely the kind whose opinion should be trusted here...The DOZENS of previously pro-Polish editors like myself driven away from doing anything that might be construed as helping your tortured cause (like write Polish articles) is the result of the terrible efforts. How surprising the 'other editor' appeared magically out of nowhere to edit this one point that you feel doesn't show Poland heroically enough for you. Best wishes in the inevitable nonsense you will now begin yet again over this two word edit dispute...Leidseplein (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
First, see WP:OUTING. Second, see WP:SARCASM. Three, see WP:NPA. Might as well note that your statements about me - again, you're focusing on editors rather than content - are false, whether deliberately or accidentally so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly:
- my understanding how the encyclopedias should work which lead me to the decision of deletion of the "two words" was to correct the false information they created when inserted (as was briefly explained when deletion was done); it is not clear if the author of the insertion is still aware of it or it is some other intention of this, he undid my corrections restoring the sense of a sentence that implies very "revolutionary" approach to Munich agreement and its aftermath (btw. such "revelations" deserved to be written down on the above mentioned agreement page of Wikipedia if not more, if trustworthy); the addition in my belief was done on the basis of the then source [15] which was also resurrected after my deletion (as an unreliable one), I did open it and read that: ‘...Communist party member even linked the recognition of Kosovo to the infamous "Munich betrayal" in 1938, when Western European powers decided that frontier regions of what was then Czechoslovakia were to be given to Nazi Germany, Hungary and Poland...’ the same more lengthy news of czech electronic newspaper says in czech language: "...Kromě Klause proti uznání nezávislosti Kosova sociální demokraté a komunisté, kteří například přirovnávají uznání Kosova k 'mnichovské zradě'" not the same info, different accents applied. One has to ask about the historical quality and worthiness of such a source information in the context of Wiki or even a History; another source attached was then [16] the page of Chemical Institute of Prague introducing the history of Czech Republic to English speakers where is written: "...Adolf Hitler used the opportunity and, supported by Konrad Henlein's Sudeten German Party, gained the majority German speaking Sudetenland through the Munich Agreement. Poland occupied areas with Polish minority around Český Těšín,..." not a word about polish participation in Munich agreement and etc;
but why to write about something that the author himself accepted as worth rectification and agreed to accept the so called "Third opinion on Zaolzie / Trans-Olza, Poland and Western Betrayal" where the obvious misinterpretations were corrected, because
Secondly:
My belief is not to create redundant information in encyclopedic sources, the idea to salvage the intentions of the author of insertion of the "two words" and to correct it in the way the author of Third opinion did (separating Poland in the context of the participation in 'mnichovské zradě') wasn't strange to me but please read the first words part of this sentence; there are separate pages concerning both Munich Agreement and Zaolzie and the "Third opinion..." remarks should be inserted there if providing new data.
And thirdly he reverted to his original insertion without taking into account any proposition to rectify the problematic content of page. Achensenamon (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Title POV concerns
A title that presupposes its topic orientation is a bit of a concern. Although some parties and historians may describe this as a "Western betrayal", this is not really an appropriate title for the article, which should use a more descriptive title that characterizes the matter better. Even more so when the first paragraph itself contains weasel words and notes that "some historians" dispute the concept and "some misjudgments" took place at the time.
I suspect we could find a more encyclopedic title - the present one comes across as quite non-neutral which is a shame in this article. FT2(Talk | email)02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, the article most certainly has some POV and OR problems, particularly, as you note, in the lede. Having said that, the article is about a concept called "Western betrayal" so it doesn't make sense to have it titled something else. I mean, the only thing I can think of that would be more descriptive would be "Western betrayal (concept)" but that's a bit of over doing it.
Even that would be an improvement - it changes it from a discussion of an alleged actual Western betrayal (characterized as such in WP's voice) to a discussion of the concept of one, on which Wikipedia doesn't have a formal opinion. A slight improvement. Can we reach a fully descriptive title though?
Western foreign policy consistency during the Nazi era and Cold War
During the 20th century, the political policies of the West (principally the United States, Great Britain and allies) underwent great changes as a result of shifts in global politics, due in large measure to the fragmentation of old empires and alliances, World War II, and the Cold War.[CITE] This article examines the consistency of Western foreign policies to other European countries and nominal allies in that period. At times these have been described as being inconsistent with past treaties, public commitments, or stated principles, or perceived and described as a "Western betrayal" in historical texts and analyses.[CITE] They continues to be a source of anger today[CITE]......"
That's not a very good title for several reasons. First, just in terms of aesthetics it's not very good; it sounds like a clumsy euphemism, which is actually what it is. Second, in a related manner, it's sort of OR - there are sources which discuss the concept of "Western Betrayal" and while I'm sure there's sources out there talking about policy consistency I don't think they actually consistently call it this. Third, it's not really accurate - in fact, a cynic might say that western policy towards Eastern Europe has been very consistent but that's not the problem. The concept is about something other than consistency of policy, it's about perceived ... betrayal. By ... Western states. So I think as an article title "Western betrayal" actually works pretty well and I don't think it's POV or an endorsement of the view any more than having an article titled Geocentrism is an endorsement of the proposition that the sun revolves around the earth.
So from your proposed intro I'd keep just the last sentence. Maybe something like:
Western betrayal refers to the view found in some historical texts and analyses, as well as political discourse, that the foreign policy of several Western countries between 1919 and 1968 (? - VM) regarding Eastern and Central Europe has been inconsistent with past treaties, public commitments, or stated principles. The term can cover various phenomenon depending on the context, including the Munich Conference (Munich Betrayal), the Phoney War, the Yalta Conference (Yalta Betrayal) or certain aspects of Western policy during the Cold War.
The "some" in the above might sound like a bit of weaseling but I don't think it's possible to get around it - the idea is widespread enough to be notable and merit its own article, but at the same time it is important to indicate that this isn't a universally accepted view. Also, I have no idea why the cut off date given in the present text is given as 1968... Prague Spring maybe? Oh yeah, the term might also be used in the context of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 but there I'm not sure off the top of my head.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm no historian, but my very limited understanding is that whereas Poland had for a very long time - going back centuries - been subject to a number of insults to its borders, primarily by both Germany and Russia, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution was a clear case of "betrayal" in the sense that it was actively encouraged by Washington, at least unofficially, and the Hungarians fully expected Western intervention which was never forthcoming. I'm not aware of this having been the case of the Prague Spring. These are all simply impressions - I have no relevant sources. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your comment about what the article is about, explains pretty well why this is a POV problem as a title. The article is about "perceived" betrayal. "Betrayal" is not necessarily settled as being the consensus view by mainstream historians. Yet it presents it as both of these in Wikipedia's voice.
That said, the modified intro text goes a long way to improving it. Listing some of the events and matters it has been applied to gives it a more neutral dispassionate tone. But adding "(concept)" in the title wouldn't be bad either, since that makes it clear the article is discussing the concept (NPOV) rather than asserting the reality (POV). Change "has been" to "was". "Some" is fine so long as it's citeable - a selection of 2-3 credible cites evidences it.
The rest of the intro has serious POV issues too - essentially asserting a view rather than analyzing a concept or perspective. But they are a little easier to address once the basic frame is improved. FT2(Talk | email)09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Intro text removal
I have removed the following from the introduction:
"Supporters of Yalta are sometimes outraged at the notion that Yalta was a betrayal of Eastern and Central Europe without considering the fate of Poland [who?]. Polish forces had fought the Germans longer than any country since the beginning of the Second World War. They fought alongside the U.S., British and Soviet troops in most major campaigns[1] in Europe, including the final battle of Berlin, with the strength of the Polish Armed Forces in the West peaking at 249,000, 180,000 in the East and over 300,000 in underground[2]AK.[3][4] In the final stage of war the Polish troops on all the European fronts, excluding the Home Army, amounted to some 600,000 soldiers[5] (infantry, armored troops, aircraft and navy). This made the Polish Armed Forces the fourth largest after the Soviet Union, United States and British Armed Forces.[5][6] The Polish government in exile was an official ally of the U.S. and Britain. All this did not prevent Roosevelt from acquiescing in the installation of a communist government in Poland. Even as the men of the Polish 1st Armoured Division, determined to link up with the American 90th Division under Gen. George S. Patton's Third Army and to close the trap on the German armies in Normandy, were battling the German Army and the Hitler Youth SS Panzer division,[7] Roosevelt was planning to hand Poland over to Stalin.[8]"
In this we learn something about "supporters of Yalta" (whoever they are); that "some supporters" (unspecified) are "sometimes" (unspecified which/when) outraged (POV/tone/non-encyclopedic); that the subject of their "outrage" is that Yalta was a betrayal without considering the fate of Poland (whatever that meaningless English sentence means); and that Poland did a number of great things in the war, recited in full detail, along with a full length historical narrative, all of which are very important in some articles and places - and completely off topic for the introduction here.
The introduction summarizes the article briefly and dispassionately. It is not a place for a large paragraph of Polish outrage and facts about how important/big/significant Poland was in the war. That can be added later if important. Not only it's impossible as drafted to work out what it means (who exactly is objecting or angry about what exactly) but it's full of POV issues and actually doesn't add much to the introduction. Removing this block of text also makes the introduction a lot easier for a reader to understand the topic. FT2(Talk | email)04:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The scope of this article is: Perceptions and evidence concerning the inconsistency and unreliability of Western foreign policy towards its notional allies during the post-WW1 era, Nazi era and Cold War. A concept of "Western betrayal" is genuinely discussed or alluded to in a range of sources, and genuinely was (and is) a common term used to allude to the issue, but titling the article this way assumes a view in Wikipedia's voice. So it's not clear what would be a good rename or improved approach. There is some discussion above and at the NPOV noticeboard, copied below for convenience. Discussion sought to work out what to do here. FT2(Talk | email)01:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Summarized to date (short)
From article talk page
[T]he article most certainly has some POV and OR problems, particularly, as you note, in the lede. Having said that, the article is about a concept called "Western betrayal" so it doesn't make sense to have it titled something else. I mean, the only thing I can think of that would be more descriptive would be "Western betrayal (concept)" but that's a bit of over doing it. [...]–Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
[T]here are sources which discuss the concept of "Western Betrayal" and while I'm sure there's sources out there talking about policy consistency I don't think they actually consistently call it this. Third, it's not really accurate - in fact, a cynic might say that western policy towards Eastern Europe has been very consistent but that's not the problem. The concept is about something other than consistency of policy, it's about perceived ... betrayal. By ... Western states. So I think as an article title "Western betrayal" actually works pretty well and I don't think it's POV or an endorsement of the view any more than having an article titled Geocentrism is an endorsement of the proposition that the sun revolves around the earth. [...] the idea is widespread enough to be notable and merit its own article, but at the same time it is important to indicate that this isn't a universally accepted view.–Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comment about what the article is about, explains pretty well why this is a POV problem as a title. The article is about "perceived" betrayal. "Betrayal" is not necessarily settled as being the consensus view by mainstream historians. Yet it presents it as both of these in Wikipedia's voice. [...] adding "(concept)" in the title wouldn't be bad either, since that makes it clear the article is discussing the concept (NPOV) rather than asserting the reality (POV).–FT2(Talk | email)09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
From NPOV noticeboard
Title NPOV issue. We should surely be using a more neutral title here, even if this is a term some parties use to discuss the matter. Eyeballs? FT2(Talk | email)02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a bad title. it's very parochial. I tried working out which particular betrayal it meant before going there, it was on the list of possibilities but it would be better as the Yalta betrayal I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I did a newspaper search for the term "western betrayal" -- major papers in the US & Britain and worldwide -- and I did not get any kind of sense that the term western betrayal had some coherent meaning. Rather, it sometimes referred to criticism of foreign policy actions of nations such as Britain and France towards eastern Europe on the eve of WW2; but there were many other senses too -- it's been applied towards policy towards Afghanistan in recent years, Iraq. The time frame -- 1919 to 1968 -- too huge. You see, Bataan Death March refers to a specific event; ditto your other choices above. But Western betrayal is so vague that, in my view, is practically meaningless, and may be a catch-all term for original research. My sense is the article has major issues, including the title; perhaps it should be broken up into separate articles about foreign policy?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I made my points above already, so here I will just reply to Tomwsulcer's last point - that he didn't find it in newspapers. Ummm, "Western Betrayal" is an academic term used in political science and/or history. So it's not surprising it's not found in newspaper (especially present day ones). But that's irrelevant. On the other hand, looking at google books we've got more than 300 hits [11], many of which are key works by prominent authors, like Tony Judt's Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945: [12]. Likewise, google scholar yields 150+ hits [13]. I'll look on jstor soon when I got easy access to it.
So:
1) As FT2 concedes, the term IS used quite often in sources, hence it is a notable concept and
2) As Quest for Knowledge points out, the fact that somebody may perceive the title as POV is irrelevant, as long as most reliable sources use the term. (Nice examples too - I was trying to think of some before but it was late at night and all I could come up with was "Geocentrism". Pretty lame of me).
So the title should stay as is. Btw, I do think FT2 is doing a good job improving the article and removing some of the POV and OR.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
To respond to VM's point -- what I'm saying is that the term western betrayal lacks a consistent and specific meaning. And my searching through newspapers reflects this, since newspaper articles will pick up treatment by academics who use the term. For example, if I did a newspaper search of Bataan Death March, it will pick up usage by academics, historians, reporters, and others who refer to a clearly-defined incident over a specific span of a month or so. It's a clear term. In contrast, the term western betrayal, whether used by reporters, by academics, by foreign policy experts, is all over the map. Merely getting google hits in books is insufficient in my view. Are we talking about Czechoslovakia's feeling about foreign policy decisions by Britain and France on the eve of WW2? Poland's? Hungary's? Which countries were the betrayers? What was betrayed exactly? When did this happen? The time span -- 1999 to 1968 -- covers half of a century -- policymakers in the 1920s were dead by the 1950s and later. So, what are we talking about here? My sense is if you ask a historian or foreign policy expert to define western betrayal, they'll respond -- well, what do you mean exactly? They won't know what we're getting at either. My sense is IF you'd like to keep this content, make the article "Western betrayal" shorter, almost like a disambiguation page perhaps, but have it point to more specific articles which are spun off from this one -- one possible article might be British and French betrayal of Poland on the eve of WW2 possibly (although I don't like this title wording particularly).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I am open to consideration of alternative titles, but I cannot think of one. Overall, I agree with VM above. Also, this article needed a good rewrite and referencing for years..., and is certainly one of the (low intensity but still) magnets for POV-pushing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The title is perfectly good. People who use the term with approval use it, people who claim the term's analysis is fundamentally flawed use it. Try and ensure the focus of the article is on the term itself primarily, and only use exemplars derived from the highest quality sources which actually discuss them as exemplars (or counter-proofs against) the term specifically, and use main article bridge outs to articles which deal with the incidents in depth. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I just saw the RFC request in my watchlist and it sparked my interest. For starters, "Western Betrayal" refers to a very specific series of events (mostly) in post-WWII Europe. As mentioned above, the description is widely used in academia and can be found in peer-reviewed journals. What else could the article be titled? I think the article could be streamlined a bit, perhaps including an infobox enumerating casualties and those affected? At least a hundred million people became refugees during the betrayal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am no expert but it seems that "Western Betrayal" is the most commonly used term so we should use it. If course, the article itself can discus historian's differing views on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Another POV article that presents a thesis that Munich and Yalta were the same thing, fascism and communism are the same thing. TFD (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
"The appropriateness of describing these as 'betrayal' is a matter of dispute between historians"
In one of the paragraphs in the lede, it says, ""The appropriateness of describing these as 'betrayal' is a matter of dispute between historians" but the rest of the paragraph does not discuss the appropriateness of the term 'betrayal'. Instead, it discusses other disputes between historians. I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove the opening sentence to that paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The existing text is (unfortunately) largely written from one viewpoint and it is more of a recital of events rather than a discussion of the term and characterization of how historians and different perspectives see it. See the section on Czechoslovakia for an example - not one view by a credible historian or analyst, much less a balanced reflection of academic views. Just one side represented.
At present the article is non-neutral and not really very encyclopedic - it sums up (primarily) a view of one "side" and does not largely reflect a balanced summary. Nor does it contain much of secondary sources and their analysis which is pivotal to any article. It is likely that we will find the characterization as "betrayal" will indeed be disputed or seen as simplistic in a range of academic sources. Historians will point out other reasons that some of these took place, or point out other interpretations of the known facts. None of this changes the topic per se but it's important to characterize the topic by drawing upon reliable sources rather than "making a case" or arguing a position. If the article were well written we would surely find that historians are not unanimous on it and that there is a division of mainstream views and analysis.
Anyway happy to leave it reverted for the while. If it was accurate it will eventually become obvious. FT2(Talk | email)19:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you know for a fact that historians are in dispute? What if they're not? I would not be surprised at all if there was no significant debate within the academic community over this. Just because the article reflects one POV doesn't necessarily mean another POV exists within academia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't had any past involvement with East European topics. The writing style of the article as was did not give any confidence that it was based on research and academic or other credible reliable sources, I think that's not in dispute. It was a "here's what I know about topic X" kind of write-up, which is rarely good for contentious historical topics.
I took a look at scholarly articles and books to get a sense of the scope of the topic and the secondary sources discussing it, and it seemed on a quick review that there is quite a lot of debate about the term and its meaning and the different perspectives involved. So broadly I would say "yes, it seems so", but it obviously needs more review of high quality sources to ensure significant views are described in a balanced manner - and to also ensure that the views already included are placed on a firmer footing. Either way happy to leave it out per your edit for the while, as your point is valid too. FT2(Talk | email)19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The article was/is certainly written in a polemic tone (I think at one point in its history it wasn't but then the inevitable happened) but that doesn't immediately imply that a controversy exists among historians (it may). There's a difference between "You guys betrayed us so you guys suck!" and "There was a betrayal". The former is non-neutral (and sort of what the problem with the current version is) but the latter can be neutral (if supported by sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In general I agree with this, but with a word of caution. It can be neutral but may not be. You still have to be incredibly careful. For an example see the discussions of using "is a terrorist" or "is a terrorist organization" to describe certain people and organizations -- usually the better wording is "is described by X as (possibly prejudicial label)" or to avoid the dubious term if possible. Similar discussions exist for other widely-used-but-potentially-non-neutral labels. Even when there are many reliable sources we need to consider whether there is a mainstream consensus and any weight due to its pejorative sense. FT2(Talk | email)04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, when there is no dispute over a fact or an opinion, I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to use in-text attribution. For example, the Battle of Stalingrad was a disaster for the German war effort. No historian would dispute this. I think it's perfectly fine to state that Battle of Stalingrad was a disaster in Wikipedia's voice versus saying "According to historians, Battle of Stalingrad was a disaster for the German war effort." Just my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the act of not going to the war with Germany in 1939 is a Western betrayal - that is a fact. I see no historians anywhere disputing that. Allies were obligated to do so, and using a term "Phony War" is just a very, very contrived euphemism invented for Anglo-Saxian purposes to blunt the deed. Thus we can easily argument that the term "Phony War" is controversial in itself and very POV - from the Western perspective. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Winston Churchill once said of Neville Chamberlain "he viewed world affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe" (Robert C. Self. Neville Chamberlain: a biography. p. 12.) This was a clever insult on so many levels (Chamberlain's family had made their name as politicians in the local city politics of Birmingham and came from trade -- unlike the aristocratic Churchill--...)
This article reads like that, and many of the discussions on this page show a similar myopic view of the world. This probably occurs because people are reading different histories from different national perspectives. Something that is common in one national history and is a "known fact" can be completely contradicted by another national historical narrative. This is particularly true for histories aimed at the none specialist reader (rather than those targeted at professional historians and history buffs). Take for example the Battle of Waterloo. Each nation that took part has its own broad sweep view of what happened:
British -- We gave the Frogs a good malletting (as we usually to do), the Belgians ran away and the Prussians arrived late, just in time to helped with the mopping up.
Dutch -- We fought heroically besides the British, and it was our men who saved the British from a good kicking.
Prussians -- Wellington was about to loose and it was only our timely innervation that saved the day.
French -- We fought with style, valour and élan (things les rosbifs[15] can not understand) but in the end were overwhelmed by the combined armies of Europe.
Secondly it seems that the article take a view different from the old Charles de Gaulle maxim that "Countries have interests, not friends", which is the reality of all international relations and has been repeated many times since, and although it may be "a very sad way to look at the world"[16] this article should be viewed from that point of view. So what this article needs to do is state what were the commitments made, by whom were they made, who broke them and who are the sourced authorities that make these allegations of betrayal. Also for a NPOV view who are the authorities who take these claims of betrayal seriously and have tried to refute them?
It is some years since I read this article and longer since I edited it. In those far off days of 2007 there was less demand for inline citations, and the article started Western betrayal is a popular term in many Central European nations since when has it become common parlance in English language histories to state "Western betrayal, also called Yalta betrayal, is a term that refers to a range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1919 and 1968 regarding Central Europe". If it is not common coin in English language histories who uses the term?
Historically it was intertwined with some of the most significant geopolitical events during the 20th century, including the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, 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 above does not summarise the article and the article does not clearly elucidate what the betrayal was and who considers it to be a be betrayal.
The article does not explain who the "West" is. It seems to be used as an amorphous lump, rather like saying "they're all out to get me" without defining who "they" are. so:
Who's defines what the West is? What is the West defined as?
As the US was isolationist during in the interbellum, did not join the League of nations and unlike Britain and France did not enter the war because of treaty obligations, (but because they were attacked by Japan physically and legally by Hitler),they were under no moral or legal obligation to help anyone else so
Who says the Americans were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
Who says the British were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
Who says the French were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
What other countries were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
Using those simple questions and the stunning lack of sources, this article is riddled with WP:SYN and other forms of WP:OR. I can go through a lot of this article sentence by sentence but will only list a few from the start of the body of the text.
"The perception of betrayal on the part..." Who's perception?
"Western Allies promoted democracy and self-determination, signing pacts and forming military alliances prior and during World War II," What is the source for this sentence in the article? The link is to allies of World War II, were they allies before the war? Before the war British and French did not promote "democracy and self-determination" if they had then how is that squared with the imperial power status? What alliance existed before World War II who was in it and which alliance "signing pacts and forming military alliances prior ... to World War II"?
"Poland, were annexed or conquered by Nazi Germany without regard for earlier treaties that ostensibly provided support or protection" Britain and France went to war over the invasion of Poland so they "ostensibly provided support" so that is a false statement.
"In a few cases deliberate duplicity is alleged,..." Who alleges duplicity (source needed)?
"In the case of the Yalta Conference and its aftermath, some historians" this sentence turns itself inside out. Rather than "some historians", most English language histories make the point of self interest. To fix that sentence it needs to be rewritten to start with which historians consider Yalta to be a betrayal, why it was a betrayal and then the reasons for the betrayal (power politics, self interest and Britain's impotency).
I could go on with comments like this for almost every paragraph in the artilce but I think that will do for a start. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this excellent deconstruction of a very poor and POV article. The first thing that struck me was the conflating in the lead of Yalta with "Western betrayal", defined as the period beginning in 1919. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. A fair evaluation. The article is inconsistent, vague, biased, self-contradictory, and perhaps should be deleted so we can start again. Malick78 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. One more point. "Yalta betrayal" cannot be a term for description of the events preceding the Yalta conference, so by changing "1919" to "1938" we do not resolve the issue. In my opinion, the only solution is to remove Yalta from the lede.
Moreover, in actuiality, the article deals with two quite different events: betrayal of Czechoslovakia by Britain, France and Poland, and betrayal of several EE countries by the US and Britain. Those events are totally different, and I do not think it is correct to combine two quite different events together under the same name. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that sources refer to both events as "Western Betrayal" (some of them call the second one "the second Western Betrayal" or something along those lines). I guess we could have two articles, one on "Western Betrayal at Munich" and one on "Yalta Betrayal".VolunteerMarek21:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that various sources use the words "western betrayal" for many events, from China to Palestine, so to group just two instances of such betrayals under the name "(The) Western betrayal" means to pay undue attention to some national viewpoint. The idea to have two separate articles for Munich and Yalta is good, however, we have a problem here: both of those events already have their own articles, so separate articles about betrayals will be considered as POV forks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is either Yalta or Munich. And while "Yalta conference" and "Munich conference" have their own articles, "Western Betrayal at Munich" and "Yalta Betrayal" don't. I don't think they would be POV forks.VolunteerMarek22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, if you have any idea on how to write those two articles avoiding POV fork, please, do that, although I don't think it will be easy to avoid a fork. I think it can partially be avoided if we combine Munich with some post-Munich events (French refusal to help to Czechoslovakia during its occupation, and polish refusal to allow passage of Soviet troops). Regarding Yalta, a solution may be just to add a separate chapter to the Yalta conference article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. It is synthesis to combine betrayal at Munich and betrayal at Yalta, because no source connects the two as a single topic. Note too that the Munich Pact was negotiated by Chamberlain alone and he had nothing to do with Yalta. In the first case, Czechoslovakia was betrayed to the Nazis, in the second case all of Eastern Europe was betrayed to the Communists. The American isolationists, who stayed out of conflicts pre-war, complained about Yalta. It may be that there is some Eastern European victimization theory connecting these two separate events, but we need sources. TFD (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A footnote in Marc Trachtenberg's book (p. 8) says, "The myth plays an even more important role today in eastern Europe. In the early 1990s, this interpretation of Yalta as a betrayal of eastern Europe was used, particularly by the Czech president, Vaclav Havel, but by other eastern European leaders as well, to shame the West.... See... Havel's speech on the "third betrayal of the West," Munich and Yalta being the first two "betrayals" and the refusal to expand NATO being the third."[17] It seems that per WP:FRINGE, there are insufficient sources to support an article. But at least this source resolves the synthesis problem by showing that the connection has been made, alkthough maybe "Western betrayals" would be more accurate. TFD (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Until it was changed earlier today by Malick78 to now read from 1938, the article earlier said from 1919, in reference to Versailles. Is this post-WWI conference also included in any of these references to "Western betrayal"? Just asking.
Separately, I notice that since PBS first posted this section, there's been a lot of editing and deleting going on in the article. It seems to me this is not a good idea for anyone to be making major changes to the article while this discussion is under way, until there's some agreement and consensus as to what the article should properly say, and how. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me to be a very good idea to alter the text while we discuss it and would be a good idea to remove every paragraph that does not have sources under WP:PROVEIT. And those that do have sources that use them to SYN -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that the Trachtenberg note cited in this thread is a very good place to start creating an article. IE start the lead with something link this:
In eastern Europe the interpretation of the outcome of the Munich Crisis of 1938, and the Yalta Conference of 1944, as a betrayal of eastern Europe by Western powers has been used by eastern European leaders to put pressure on Western countries to acquiesce to more recent political requests such as membership of NATO (Trachtenberg p.8)
The way to avoid this article being a POV fork is not to focus on the events which are covered in other Wikipedia articles, but on the people and organisations making the accusations of betrayal and their motives for doing so. The article does not need to be along one, but it should be explaining to English speaking people (who we can assume know about (or can read the articles on) Munich and Yalta) what the "Western betrayal" of these events is, how it fits in to historiography if the events, how it affects international politics, and any affects it has (had) within the different countries of eastern Europe. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I very much disagree. Here you've got a single source (Trachtenberg) and in fact just a footnote from this source, which links WB with Nato. Most sources which discuss the term do not mention NATO at all. [18][19][20][21]. And very obviously the concept predates NATO. Doing it this way would be a pretty textbook example of cherry picking sources and WP:UNDUE.VolunteerMarek20:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
From the history of the article 07:38, 24 March 2012 Volunteer Marek "no source for 'used mainly in Central and Eastern Europe' - OR. In fact the authors who use the term are mostly British and American" Your source for that statement? -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I already gave some sources and there are more in the article. Of course it's true that in some sources this idea is ascribed to Central and Eastern Europe but not in others. And this is the lede, which is supposed to summarize the text. Finally, it's not up to me to provide sources to remove unsourced text but the person who wishes to add text into the article to source it.VolunteerMarek20:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem seems to be: the phrase has been translated into English, and VM therefore thinks that when it's found in an English book, it is "used by US and GB" authors. In fact, they're usually quoting Central and Eastern Europeans. Who are most likely to mention the concept. So, the concept is C/E European (oh, and Chinese, Israeli... whoever in fact), and most English speakers who happen upon this page will never have heard of the concept before. That's what I was trying to reflect. I didn't expect it to be controversial. Malick78 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This is false if anyone just checks the sources. Additionally, while I can't speak for Czechs, it's actually in Polish that the terms "Zdrada zahodu" or "Zachodnia zdrada" sound awkward (which is why it's usually called "Zdrada w Yalcie" etc). In English the term sounds just fine. I don't know if the term originated in Czech and was then translated into English or if it originated in English. But neither do you - you've just made an assumption to support your POV - and you have not provided any sources at all to explain the origin of the term or to support your assumption.VolunteerMarek20:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
"I already gave some sources and there are more in the article. Of course it's true that in some sources this idea is ascribed to Central and Eastern Europe but not in others." Which is the most reliable source in the article which uses the term "Western betrayal" that falls under the category "others"? -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I really can't believe we're now discussing "myths" and motivations for using myths to create political pressure. For example, Latvians were lobbying Washington and London for arms to defend their homeland when FDR had already laughed out loud in conversation with Stalin at the prospect that the U.S. would come to Latvia's aid. Just because "Western betrayal" plays a major role in seeking historical justice and winds up in political discourse does not make it a "myth." There are 100,000,000 motives: the 100,000,000 Eastern Europeans left to Stalin. The notion that "Western betrayal" is some sort of conspiracy motivated by political ambitions is misplaced at best. Trachtenberg (in the line quoted) mentions only the public face of betrayal, the surrounding events include far more, which prevents this from being a POV fork of articles on individual conferences. For example, Yalta was the public rubber stamp for decisions made in Tehran (and stretching back earlier).
Nor does it help that Truman saved Greece from the Communists—oh, wait, that was Stalin violating who got what in his division of Europe with Churchill. At least Churchill lived to regret his actions.
"Western betrayal" in contemporary political dialog is a necessary section but it is not the topic at hand. Unfortunately, as with much of Eastern European history between the wars, and during and after WWII, opining without intimate familiarity with that history based on perceptions of what is reasonable isn't as helpful as one might expect (although the effort is appreciated). 13:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
For example, Churchill interpreted the Atlantic Charter in a manner whereby technically (by Soviet propaganda) the Baltics "joined" the USSR of their own accord, so everyone could sign up to honor the words while simultaneously, fully knowingly, giving them the lie. When the British government was faced with the direct question regarding this in Parliament, the answer was telling silence. VєсrumЬа ►TALK13:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Refusal to provide help that had never been promised is not a betrayal. In addition, what was a reason for Roosevelt to feel any obligations towards the Latvians, who actively supported Nazi troops? It is interesting that switching the sides by Latvians (active, although informal support of Nazi before 1945, and immediate request for help from the US after German defeat) is seen as normal by you, and not providing help to the ex-Nazi ally (not de jure, but definitely de facto) is seen as some betrayal.
Noone "saved Greece from the Communists", in actuality, some western powers interfered into a civil war, and destroyed Communists (who, btw, made significant contribution into anti-Nazi resistance). The only Stalin's role here was in his refusal to interfere. The idea that all Communist movements in the world existed only due to the Moscow support and were lead by Moscow is not supported by majority of serious authors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I appear to be the WP:ITCH you need to WP:SCRATCH. Quite frankly, if the Devil himself came into your town having driven out the occupying force which just mass deported most of your town the prior week after pointing a loaded gun to the back of everyone's head for a year and your neighbors disappearing never to be seen or heard from again, you'd be happy to see the Devil. And it wouldn't take you long to figure out (as the Latvians did) that yes, indeed, the Devil had come to town. Don't spread Latvians support Nazis hate speech. Latvia was neutral throughout the war and you are well aware of that. Seems to me you have too many articles of interest to you for you to lobby to get yourself permanently banned from the topic area. VєсrumЬа ►TALK15:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in that situation, one's happiness to get a support even from the Devil is quite understandable. However, upon doing that, one loses any right to moan about some "betrayal". Please, do distinguish between the Poles and the Latvians.
In addition, I neither spread any hate speeches nor blame any nations. However, I am not sure it is correct to remain silent in a situation when some nation is being depicted as a victim of some betrayal in a situation when their representatives actively participated in the Axis war efforts and the Holocaust. And, please, correct me if I am wrong, but this country currently is arguably the only country in the world where one can see peoples marching in real (not fake) SS uniform.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
VєсrumЬа I think you are making a mistake in the way you are discussing this. Whether there was a betrayal or not is a matter of a political/historical interpretation of the facts and opinions based on those interpretations. It has been found in Wikipedia articles that the best way to express a contentious point of view is to attribute in the text the points of view to the experts who express that point of view (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I have put together a paragraph that does not use the word "myth" (that was used by the author who I have paraphrased and I deliberately did not use it because it expresses a specific point of view), but it does explain to the English speaking audience of this encyclopaedic who holds these points of view, because very few in Britain or the US consider the actions of their governments to be a betrayal.
There will be other experts, organisations and politicians who have drawn similar conclusions and that paragraph does not exclude adding them to the article as well. The paragraph was only meant to be an example of how this article needs to be reconstructed, in a way that is informative to English speaking people (the target audience for this encyclopaedia).
If you have sources from experts who say that the actions of the British French and American governments were a betrayal then add them to the article as in text attributions, but "For example, Latvians were lobbying Washington and London for arms to defend their homeland when FDR had already laughed out loud in conversation with Stalin at the prospect that the U.S. would come to Latvia's aid." is not an example of betrayal unless an expert has said it was, because without an expert saying so it is OR. The paragraph I have suggested above starts to answer the questions:
Who says the Americans were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
Who says the British were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
Who says the French were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
What other countries were involved in a betrayal? What was the betrayal? who was betrayed?
and perhaps you can suggest similar sourced paragraphs from other sources that can help answer theses questions. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk about the talk page not the article
VєсrumЬа, please, do not collapse the posts that are relevant to the discussion's subject.(Sorry, I didn't realise the content was collapsed by PBS, not you. I bring my apologies.)
PBS, my argument has no relation to the Godwin's law: it is hard to speak about any American/British "betrayal" of the Latvians after 1941-45 events (just about insufficient American and British good will), and that would be incorrect to equate e.g. the Poles (who were among the core Allies) and, e.g. the Latvians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with PBS, and I can also add to that the following: one can speak about betrayal only if some concrete obligations had not been fulfilled. What obligations did the US take regarding the Baltic states? What concrete (realistic) steps they failed to take to restore their sovereignty? Were those steps possible, taking into account post-WWII realities?
As far as I understand, the US and Britain made everything they could to eventually restore sovereignty of the Baltic states: they refused to recognise, both de jure and de facto, the fact of the annexation of the Baltic states, and they continued to treat pre-war Baltic consulates as the representatives of de facto non-existing Baltic states. Moreover, they refused to persecute numerous WaffenSS legionaries of Baltic origin, thereby stressing semi- or involuntary participation in the war on the Hitler's side. In other words, they made everything they could to provide future restoration of those states. To speak about any "betrayal" in this case is simply dishonest and ridiculous: it would be weird if the US started a real war against its former ally (the USSR) to restore independence of some country that had never been an Ally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not even going to dignify your "refused to persecute [sic.]" Waffesn SS, you know very well they were conscripted and were only fighting to stave off Soviet re-invasion, all while wearing Latvian flags folded under their uniforms hoping to repeat the day, just as after WWI, when they drove both Russians and Germans from their homeland. You ignore that the Latvian Waffen SS were stationed as Allied guards at Nuremberg, so, yes, they were Allies. As for non-recognition, it was fortunate for both American and English PR that FDR and Churchill negotiated the sellout of Eastern Europe via personal, not diplomatic, channels. As I recall, FDR wanted to hold off on announcing the deal so he wouldn't lose the vote of the substantial Polish American constituency in the presidential election. If that isn't damning, I don't know what is. What Truman did afterwards has nothing to do with the betrayal. You fail to acknowledge that the sovereignty of the Baltics or the rest of Eastern Europe was not FDR's and Churchill's to personally bargain away. You ask what specific commitment was broken? That's so off target as to be laughable. Consign 100,000,000 to Stalin? No problem when they are the citizens of countries not your own. VєсrumЬа ►TALK21:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The idea that Latvian Waffen-SS were the Allies is rather fresh. Do you have sources supporting this statement? Could you please drop a reference? That would be interesting reading, which could probably change my vision of those times' events...
Regarding the remaining part of your post, please, keep in mind that Roosevelt and Churchill had a dilemma: (i) to save the lives of their own solders at cost of some political concessions, or (ii) to ignore the danger of possible losses in pursuit of their political goals. Stalin, as a rule, preferred the second option (which is normal for totalitarian leaders). Why are you surprised that Churchill and Roosevelt, being democratic leaders, preferred the option "(ii)"? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Statement - My apologies to other participants in this discussion, but I simply refuse to take it seriously or to participate in a meaningful manner while the talk page is subject of ongoing harassment campaign by an IP editor, who's used three different IP addresses so far [22], [23], [24] to engage in personal attacks, slander and trolling. Some of these edits had to be oversighted, but this is obviously the same person (all these IP addresses geo locate to the same location). One account was already blocked but the user just switched IP addresses to continue. It doesn't inspire confidence that some of the participants in this discussion were canvassed here by this very same abusive editor, in a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Additionally, this is very obviously not a new user. Obvious similarities in editing style and prose suggest that this is the same person as User:Leidseplein who was active on this talk page some time past, and who seemed to go a little crazy with the personal attacks and harassment, despite efforts at engaging him in civil, meaningful discussion. I say "seemed" because now it seems very likely that that account itself was a sock puppet.
I simply don't see a possibility of a meaningful discussion on this topic in these circumstances. And yes, I will remove this person's comments. Please do not restore them, per WP:BANNED, and per the common sense/common decency of not enabling abusive accounts.VolunteerMarek01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Statement in Reply - My apologies, as well. Volunteer Marek, you have absolutely no right to take it upon yourself to simply delete anyone else's posts. Don't ever do this again. You may strikeout a post that you can provide evidence was posted by a banned sock, but I'll be happy to report you to an administrator if I ever see you deleting other people's posts again. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You can try and report me but quite simply I have every right to remove comments which violate talk page policy. These include comments whose only purpose is to harass and attacks others (check), which are nothing but a bunch of WP:SOAPBOXING (check) and which are made by banned users (check).VolunteerMarek02:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You may NOT delete them. You may label them as posted by banned sock, and strike them. But never delete other people's posts. You've done this several times before. I'd especially like to know what gives you the "right" to come to my own personal talkpage and delete other people's posts there. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Removing rude and vulgar comments by banned IP's seems common on Wiki. Can you give a WP policy that forbids this? It's the first time I hear this is again WP rules.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There was absolutely nothing rude or vulgar in any of the posts VM deleted - he simply disagreed with them. And I've still never seen any evidence that this user was either ever banned, or a sock. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Just look up the IP addresses. They're all from the same place. And yes, the posts were rude personal attacks and harassment. Wikipedia doesn't need that and there's no way that a constructive discussion can take place in an atmosphere like that.VolunteerMarek02:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
AGREED with Milkinderwood. Volunteermarek is apparently selectively deleting another editor's comments because s/he doesn't like their content. But there is nothing personal or delete-able in anything volunteermarek has deleted; follow volunteermarek's editing (deletions) today and note s/he has targeted another editor intentionally and even removed comments from the talk pages of 3rdparty editors and admins. 64.134.58.83 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Great. Another anonymous IP shows up to support other anonymous IP's attacks. Strangely enough this one's from a different location than the previous ones. Either it's the same person (and it does appear that way, at least superficially) hopping IPs to avoid detection or somebody put out some kind of "call to arms" somewhere out there on some internet forum. Did I mention there is no point in discussing anything as long as these harass-only SPAs are active on this talk page and this atmosphere continues?VolunteerMarek02:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, when Volunteer Marek came to my own personal talkpage and deleted someone else's post there, I completely lost my temper, and intemperately called him a son of a bitch, and told him to stay the fuck off my talk page. I apologize here to him, and to one and all. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, he did it to me too (I noticed an hour ago). I think VM is dangerously close to editing disruptively. I'm not defending the IP, but VM makes allegations against others and then breaks the rules himself.Malick78 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I am here reinstating a post from the IP in question, that was twice deleted by Volunteer Marek. It is not very well written, but I do not see that it is any more a personal attack than many other posts on this page:
Tactic successful: good faith discussions about proposed edits distracted by personal arguments and the routine appearance of a regular provocateur. Return to the point at hand and concentrate on the one major protagonist fighting Desperately to keep the article as-is. Wearing down disagreers is the primary success of this article's owners. 72.145.253.232 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Whereas I agree that there is no need in allusions to the notorious list in this discussion, I cannot fully agree with your interpretation of the IP's words. The full sentence is
"Once caught as criminals, today they pretend the role of police."
I think it is pretty clear from a context that both "police" and "criminals" are just an allegory.
By writing that, I by no means imply that the wording used by the IP is fully appropriate. I think neither PBS nor my humble person need in additional encouragement, moreover, the posts of that kind are more harmful then helpful. However, I doubt VM had a right to delete them. I think we all (including myself) should make a short break.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Whereas I agree that there is no need in allusions to the notorious list in this discussion, I cannot fully agree with your interpretation of the IP's words. The full sentence is
"Once caught as criminals, today they pretend the role of police."
I think it is pretty clear from a context that both "police" and "criminals" are just an allegory.
By writing that, I by no means imply that the wording used by the IP is fully appropriate. I think neither PBS nor my humble person need in additional encouragement, moreover, the posts of that kind are more harmful then helpful. However, I doubt VM had a right to delete them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. This is bullshit. While I have a lot of respect for both you (Paul) and for Philip there is just no way that a meaningful discussion can take place while one side in a conversation is under constant attacks and harassment by anonymous cowardly IPs, and while some other editors find it "useful" to enable these trolls.
As it happens I think this article has a lot of problems (which is why I already deleted a large chunk of it), there's lots of POV concerns and there are legitimate issues that have been raised as to scope and title. But there's no way we can discuss it in this atmosphere, where I have to devote my energies to fending off nasty attacks by these IPs (and yes, their enablers) whose only purpose appears to be somehow leverage disagreements here into full fledged drama, slander and possible block shopping. Come on, you've been around Wikipedia long enough. Do you honestly think that all these different IPs showing up all at the same time, canvassing people in the same way, and posting the same attacks is a coincidence?
If you want to have an adult conversation, where we talk about reliable sources, how the topic is treated in scholarly literature and what the best way to approach the subject from an encyclopedic perspective is, then that's fine. In fact, that's what I want to - though honestly, I actually don't really care that much about this article in the first place and have only been drawn into the conversation by the fact that the IPs, for whatever reason, have chosen THIS particular article as the venue for their harassment. But that's not going to happen until the abusive accounts either leave the conversation on their own or are excluded. As they should be, per Wikipedia policy.VolunteerMarek03:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't read that post that I reinstated as "harassment", but just as a complaint about the deletion of posts that were disagreed with. As I said, it wasn't very clearly written, but I interpret the "Tactic successful" as referring not to a tactic of the IP poster, but the tactic of others, deleting posts. This page is rife with ownership. And I apologize for the delays in my responses - my computer is currently refreshing very slowly. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion.
Since the discussion has so much heated up and the issue with harassing SPA's needs to be solved, how about all involved people in discussion here give themselves a 24hour break from the article?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Good proposal. I'll wait until the time that Paul has mentioned, however, if the attacks continue, I will continue to remove them.VolunteerMarek03:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent suggestion, too. But what you're seeing as "attacks" and "harassment" are in the eye of the beholder. You do not WP:OWN this page, and your own comments can be every bit as offensive as what you're seeing in others'. Comment all you want, but you have no right to delete. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with proposal, and also with Milkunderwood - VM has also been intentionally offensive on this page. (For the record, he also deleted another editor's comment on MY talkpage today WITHOUT permission, yet above says that I followed him to this page (I didn't). He seems to be making wild, self-contradictory allegations).Malick78 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have collapsed some parts of the recent comments to this talk page, because they are not advancing the development of this article. I have done this as an administrative action. I am also going to put a block on any IP addresses editing either this talk page or the article for 7 days, because currently IP comments are distracting from article development.
If you disagree with these administrative actions then take it to ANI. In which case an uninvolved administrator can take over administrating this page and article.
-- PBS (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Attempts to delete the comments of non-subsevient editors aside, the distraction wrought by this article's owner are once again (for the moment) serving the intended purpose of frustrating Wikipedia. The issue is THE ARTICLE, not the editors. Don't be distracted by wiki lawyering.
The article is a whiny POV piece. Poland, or at least certain polish Points Of View, are outstandingly addressed.
is there a British explanation for Polish complaints? Does the US have a side to this story? WHO KNOWS.? ... We are treated in this article to only one side of the story, presented as fact and with all attempts to moderate hastily deleted, rejected, attacked or ignored by the owners of this article so apparently obvious in its editing histOry.184.36.234.102 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
A question to the various anonymous IPs posting here: is there any good reason for you to not register with an account at Wikipedia? I suspect that if you were registered users it would be much more difficult for people (a person) to go around deleting your posts. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, but as far as I am aware there are no privileges nor negative presumptions towards an anonymous editor where Wikipedia policy is concerned. The owner of this article and his/her disciples are active on Wikipedia and beyond, always ruthlesssly pursuing an obvious agenda; as I have a family it is just as well to remain anonymous....NOW,please forget this personal stuff:
Do "western" sources agree with the polish concept of western a betrayal.
how is the WB narrative used as a political scapegoat in today's or historical Eastern Europw?
It's true that IPs are not discriminated against in posting. But being registered makes it much easier to bring a complaint about having posts reverted or deleted.
It's quite unclear how any of the IP's comments are constructive. I recommend she/he stay on the subject of improving the article, and stop discussing other editors, or the editor may find her/himself blocked or this Talk page semi-protected. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you at all. My complaint is simply with the deletions of posts that take issue with the POV in this article and talk page. [Edit]: A far better procedure, if a sock is known, would be to strikeout the post, and to challenge the poster as a sock. If a post needs to be deleted, it should be done by a neutral party. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Malik shabazz, thanks for the caring advice, but a carefule review of the edit history and the comments made by the articles owner indicate that noncompliant comments about the subject of this article are simply deleted by the article's owner while personal comments against me and others (by the articles owner) are happily tolerated, encouraged and oddly undeleted. I ask for the tenth time where is the British or American answer to Complaints of betrayal in this article but presumably this will be called 'trolling' and deleted.184.36.234.102 (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I see very little qualitative difference between the IP's (/IPs') posts and VMarek's. Both sides sometimes discuss content, and sometimes address users (VM more frequently with rudeness, actually - the IP prefers insinuation). That the IP gets looked down upon just because of his/her IP status is weird (and shows a double standard). I may be wrong and the IP may be a puppet, but so far that's not been proven. As for the IP's points - yes, POV is a problem. Somebody needs to research this to find the West's viewpoint, but, in the real world, it'll always be the Eastern Europeans who put in more effort regarding research I feel. They have more passion regarding the topic.Malick78 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that it's entirely warranted for a whole number of reasons, already mentioned elsewhere on this page. Malick78 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yugoslavia
I do not understand why the choice between royalists and partisans is a betrayal of Yugoslavia. During the WWII, Chetniks fought mostly against partisans, not Axis occupants, so the decision to support the latter was quite natural, and it had no relation to any "betrayal". In addition, Yugoslavia had always been essencially independent from the USSR. This section should be removed, in my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed it. If someone wants to re-add it, please, provide a mainstream source that links those events to some generic "Western betrayal". --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Name
Comment from an 'outside' contributor without strong POV:
I do not doubt the assertion that a sense of "betrayal" by the WWII allies is common in parts of eastern Europe. At the same time, I find the bald title "Western betrayal" puzzling: frankly I expected to find an article on a novel or film!
The lede currently opens with the statement "Western betrayal is a term [my italics] that refers to a range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1938 and 1968 regarding Central and Eastern Europe." However, I found little support elsewhere in the article for the implicit claim that "Western betrayal" is a commonly recognized term in the English language. The wikiquote entry leaves me none the wiser. More worryingly perhaps, Google scholar currently gives me just 132 results for the exact phrase "western betrayal", many of which seem to regard the Arab world rather than Central/Eastern Europe, and some of which obviously derive directly from Wikipedia. An underlying concern is that, at least as far as the title is concerned, this Wikipedia article risks taking on the role of an opinion leader rather than a genuinely impartial tertiary source. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what I've been saying! For a native English speaker the title sounds horribly weird, vague, and mythical. "Betrayal" is a broad concept, not a particular instance (for that it would need to be "The Western betrayal", which still ain't great). The title is simply a translation of a Czech/Polish phrase (there's no way it's the construction of native English speakers), and renders horribly in English - it works only in languages that don't use articles (Czech - check, Polish - check) - yet I fear editors who are natives of such languages will never appreciate our viewpoint. In my view, the phrase is only used in English sources when the context has already been spelt out by preceding description. For that reason an encyclopaedic name would better be Western Betrayal (Eastern European concept). Malick78 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That the term is not widely recognized is not a problem, most specialist terminology and many historical concepts are similarly unknown to the wider public. The questions to ask is 1) it this an OR title and 2) is the concept notable 3) is there a better, more popular title? For 1) and 2), as discussed before, no, this is a term used in reliable sources ([27], [28], [29], [30] and others). For 3), again, it was discussed before, and nobody has been able to suggest a more precise or popular title, without violating various naming guidelines (proposed alternative titles are either original research; non-neutral; or unnecessary long). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me20:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
My original point regarded the lede's definition of Western betrayal as a "term" rather than a concept, and the appropriateness of its use as a 'bare' title. The isolated examples of usage of the phrase provided by Piotrus haven't convinced me that it's a recognized, or even broadly recognizable, term in the English language; personally, I feel the opening sentence of the lede needs to be reworded in this respect. I agree with Malick that introduction of a disambiguation term in the title could provide a possible solution to the titling issue. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
MistyMorn, I'm glad to see your comments here. I have not bothered to do any of the research that you have, but my impression is exactly the same as yours. That, plus all the nonsense posted on this talk page, is what prompted me to tag the article as POV. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the concept of "Western betrayal", but like you, the term was new to me. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Aside to Milkunderwood: Thank you. I came here from your Talk page, feeling that some considerations outside the fray might be helpful. Having regularly passed large Polish war cemeteries on the way out of towns from London to Bologna, I'm certainly not insensitive to the issues. I found this fictional treatment of the concept both sensitive and stylistically musical. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the lede should be restored to what it was prior to the latest mucking over personal contentions. Certainly I've been aware of "Western betrayal" and the scholarship behind the events characterized as the western powers "nodeva Latviju" (betrayed Latvia, in Latvian) in both non-Baltic and Baltic sources for a very long time. That is simply because I have had an interest in the topic and researched it. Whether or not the title sounds like a movie title to someone is (I'm sorry to say) irrelevant. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Re "That the term is not widely recognized is not a problem, most specialist terminology and many historical concepts are similarly unknown to the wider public." That is incorrect. You mix two things, "the term that is not widely recognised", and "the term unknown to the wider public". These are two quite different things: some term that is virtually unknown to the wider public can be widely recognised among the specialists. For example, I am pretty sure that the term "alternative splicing" is virtually unknown to the wider public, however this term is widely recognised by specialists, and, therefore, is mainstream. In connection to that, I expect to see the evidence that the term "Western betrayal" is a mainstream term, i.e., it is being widely used by the historian throughout the world to describe the policy of the Western powers towards EE countries during ????-1968.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Whereas I recognize the term "alternative splicing" instantly, the out-of-context title "Western betrayal" seems to me (by itself) highly ambiguous, even though I have some familiarity with the concept, at least as far as Poland is concerned. A parenthetic disambiguation term could help, imo, set this descriptor in appropriate context. (Perhaps it would be good if someone started a page entitled something like Western betrayal (Middle East); material isn't altogether lacking [31].) —MistyMorn (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Extensions to an article title such as "Western Betrayal (Eastern European concept)" has been proposed and rejected several times at wikipedia talk:Article titles since December last year. Consequently the AT policy still discourages such extensions and I do not think that extensions should be added to the name unless it is needed for disambuauation purposes (such as a new article called "Western betrayal (Kurdistan)"[32] or "Western betrayal (Karen)"[33] or "Western betrayal (Palestine)"[34] etc). -- PBS (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That was actually rather the sort of thing I was trying to suggest. However, I realize that some suitable scribe needs to volunteer... My lingering concern is that the present title quite unintentionally aligns Wikipedia, with all its publicity weight, with a particular usage of the phrase "Western betrayal". That's my outsider's two cents, for what they're worth... (I felt that disinterested third-party observations might help defuse some of the animosity). —MistyMorn (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, WB is hardly a EE concept. I also do not think that EE sees Western states as traitors in general. In actuality, it seems to be a significant minority viewpoint shared by EE and non-EE authors. According to this view, Western countries (France and Britain), pressurised by Hitler, betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1937-38. Later, Britain and USA betrayed come Central European country that fell into the Soviet occupation zone as a result of Soviet advances during late stages of WWII. I do not see any evidences that those two acts are combined into a single concept "Western betrayal" (neither in EE nor somewhere else). Therefore, a correct title would be not "Western betrayal (xxx concept)", but "Western betrayal of xxx".
I also find the last VєсrumЬа's post highly inappropriate. By calling mast modification "mucking" he insulted several good faith editors trying to improve the article. I also find his references to someone "personal contentions" offensive. I think he needs to apologise and retract that his statement. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The lede informs the reader that the WB concept "refers to a range of critical views... ". Terminological issues aside, that statement seems NPOV (assuming one accepts the notability of the viewpoint/s). But then the main text immediately starts to inform the reader on "The perception of betrayal on the part of the peoples..." That sort of wording seems to me much more problematic. For WP:Balance, such a mass assertion would surely require strong, unequivocal evidence that the viewpoint/s constituted a dominant ideology/perception within those peoples? Without wishing to get involved in the nitty gritty of the dispute, I wonder whether there are any specific WP guidelines to help write NPOV articles that describe a particular historical interpretation/POV like this? —MistyMorn (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it meets NPOV, but it fails SYNTH: I got no evidences that Munich and Yalta are the instances of some generic "Western betrayal" (which does not include Western betrayal (Middle East), etc). In my opinion, this type articles are powerful POV attractors, because they collect the sources viewing those events as a betrayal, whereas the sources that do not refute such views, but provide alternative view of the same events, appear beyond the article's scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
@Paul, "term" et al. did nothing to improve the lede. I see no support for your contention of "minority" view in EE sources. Certainly there is absolutely no support for "Western beneficence", i.e., "we were privileged and would have gladly volunteered if only asked to be sacrificed to Hitler to achieve peace in our time" and "we were privileged and would have gladly volunteered if only asked -- indeed, we in the Baltics did ask of our own free will to join the USSR as FDR, Churchill, and Stalin all agreed by the terms of self-determination in the Atlantic Charter -- to join the great Soviet family and closely aligned friends."
@MistyMorn, feel free to read the materials at the link I posted elsewhere on this page and see what you think about what constitutes events absent of interpretation and what constitutes a "POV" interpretation of events. For example, what do you think of FDR's position that EE being under Stalin wasn't so bad, perhaps in twenty years the Eastern Europeans would get used to the Russians and even rub of on the Russians and make them less barbaric, related as follows:
"It is natural that the European countries will have to undergo tremendous changes in order to adapt to Russia, but he [FDR] hopes that in ten or twenty years the European influences would bring the Russians to become less barbarian. ... The European people will simply have to endure Russian domination, in the hope that in ten or twenty years they will be able to live well with the Russians." (Gannon, Robert I., Cardinal Spellman Story (N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1962), pp. 222, 23.)
I suggest PBS's simple list of questions is a reasonable way forward for the time being rather than perceptions over perceptions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK17:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments on user behaviour
VєсrumЬа, I see you neither apologised nor retracted your insulting statement. Moreover, you continue in the same vein, declaring that my notion about significant minority views (not EE, btw. I explicitly wrote that I do not believe it is only a EE concept) is just my "contention". In connection to that, let me inform you that it is your purden to prove that the viewpoint you support is majority view. Therefore, my good faith arguments are supposed to be treated and addressed seriously, and if you fail to do that you should not complain when your viewpoint will be ignored.
I also formally inform you that my self-imposed obligation not to request for administrative actions against you is not in force any more: I see no reason to demonstrate good faith in a situation when that does not leads to any progress. In future I strongly suggest you to be careful with your language, because I have no desire to tolerate it any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I was unaware of your magnanimous behavior since you usually threaten me about once a week on average. Thank you for you past indulgences. Do let me know how filing AE requests over content disputes work for you. Until you prove your view is the vast majority you say it is, I invite you to produce historical accounts that the Western powers stood up for Eastern Europe and the Baltics. I regret to note here that you are factually incorrect on the tripartite negotiations, as I've already noted, so your contentions regarding majority view are not as reliable as you believe. VєсrumЬа ►TALK00:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The perception of betrayal
@VєсrumЬа: Perhaps I didn't make my meaning clear. The opening sentence beginning ""The perception of betrayal on the part of the peoples in the territories caught between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union comes about because... logically presupposes the existence of a perception of betrayal on the part of the peoples in the territories.... I'm not saying that such a perception does not exist. What I am saying is that appropriately sourced support for its existence — and the extent of its existence — needs to be provided here. I felt that was a helpful point to make to facilitate NPOV. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe PBS's approach addresses your concerns and have already stated same. The issue here is that the historical facts document the betrayal. The "perception" is on the part of those that believe there wasn't a betrayal. VєсrumЬа ►TALK00:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There were a set of actions and events. Historians document some of those actions and events (usually those mentioned in the historical record, but sometimes they extrapolate). However what facts they choose to ignore or emphasise and how they put them together creates a history of the actions and events. As Wellington put it when asked for his views on the Battle of Waterloo:
The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance.
In this case some/most historians (and politicians) interpret the actions to be a betrayal. "perception of betrayal" has POV connotations unless it is balanced with "while others perceive no such betrayal" (so it is not really suitable as as section heading). The content of the section has real problems and I propose it is deleted and replaced with the two sources recently presented on this talk page (the Trachtenberg note and the Šveics memorandum).
In the talk section "#PBS's sample questions" you, Vecrumba, produced the Šveics memorandum which implies that in Latvia no such general perception exists. Vecrumba what in your opinion is the best source(s) that covers "the betrayal" and what "the West" means? -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Cossacks and White Russians
Unless there is a source that ties this section in with the rest of the article I think it should be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. In addition, "White Russians" is ambiguous, because it may refer to either the White Guard (anti-Communist opposition) or Belorussians (which literally mean "White Russians").--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Whilst the British government may have may or may not have been a betrayal who if anyone links it into the concept of "Western betrayal" of eastern Europe? -- PBS (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Western betrayal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Baltic states section
The section tells that "the western allies failed to take up the defence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania". This view is ahistorical and reflects some local national POV. France and Britain failed to take any actions because (i) no war was declared: if even the Baltic states themselves did not declare war on the USSR, what is the reason for other states to interfere? (ii) Secondly, and more importantly, by the moment of Soviet intervention, both France and Britain were deeply involved in the hostilities in Western Europe, which lead to their catastrophic defeat (and the end of French Third Rebublic). It would be an absolute nonsense to speak about any betrayal in this case. Moreover, the above mentioned French and British problems in 1940 were caused, among other reasons, by their refusal to agree on Soviet demands during the triple alliance negotiations in 1939. The USSR was concerned about strong pro-German stance of the Baltic states, and it requested France and Britain to provide a freedom of hands for the USSR in the Baltic region in a case if the political situation would develop in a way not favourable for Soviet security. Both France and Britain refused to do that, which lead to failure of the political part of the negotiations. Therefore, neither France nor Britain betrayed the Baltic states (which, btw conducted quite egoistic policy that created significant problems for their western supporters). The Memel section is quite obslure for me. Does it have any rrlation to any betrayal? I remove both sections (which are totally unsourced). I expect to see strong and sourced arguments that describe those events as a manifestation of some generic "Western betrayal".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Your "no war was declared" is in line with your "more of an intervention". ROTFL! "Egoistic?" On the contrary, bending over backward to accomodate the USSR.
As for the negotiations, it is well documented that Britain and France had already given away the Baltics when negotiations with the Soviet Union terminated. The wishful thinking (and here you are repeating a Baltic myth) is that Britain and France stood firm on the Baltics in the face of Soviet demands, causing negotiations to fail. There was a time I believed that, too. VєсrumЬа ►TALK00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
In the my comment above on Dr Vilnis V. Šveics, I pointed out that the monograph Vecrumba points to his correction of a general Latvian perception that there was no betrayal. We could add a paragraph to a none specific section summarising that article. Along the lines "Most Lithuanians do not consider the British and French diplomatic manoeuvrings in the 1930s to be an act of betrayal... however some do. Dr Vilnis V. Šveics states that ..." If more sources can be presented then this paragraph can be expanded and placed into a separate section. -- PBS (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
@ VєсrumЬа. You started with the statement that the Latvian WaffenSS were the Allies (and refused to provide a source). Now you continue with another interesting statement: that "Britain and France had already given away the Baltics when negotiations with the Soviet Union terminated". I would like to see a source for this claim, because the only reason for suspension (not "termination") of the political part of the talks was the Estonian/Latvian issue. Can you please provide a source in support for this statement (of course, the physica inability of Entente members to do anything to support the Baltic states during the Battle of France by no means was a betrayal). If no mainstream and reliable sources will be provided, can I ask you to refrain in future from making statements that you are unable to support with reliable sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
@Paul,
"in the course of the political negotiations HM's Government have given way to (Russia) as regards — 1. covering the case of the Baltic States..." Zalcmanis, Jānis, Die Preisgabe der Baltischen Staaten, 1939, p 9. (with sources).
The source Zalcmanis quotes is Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, Vol. VI, page ("S") 764 and ("u") 782, so this is not his opinion, it's straight from the horse of British diplomacy's mouth.
At the time negotiations were superseded by other developments (I meant "terminated" in the passive sense, not the active), the issue of the Baltics wasn't even on the table. I'll write a properly sourced section when I have a chance. If I haven't reverted your wholesale delete, it's not because there was no betrayal, or because your insistent version of history is correct, it's because the section was crap to begin with (at least there we agree). VєсrumЬа ►TALK23:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. @PBS, I would note that while Šveics cites Zalcmanis if you've taken a look, I do have the original Zalcmanis source in front of me, so I've confirmed this is a direct quote of recorded British foreign policy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK23:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you provided no extended quote from Zalcmanis (and no full citation), so I am not sure I fully understand the main thesis of this author. However, he seems to directly contradict to another source, Michael Jabara Carley. End of the 'Low, Dishonest Decade': Failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1993), pp. 303-341. The author writes:
"The failure of Franco-Soviet staff talks in 1937 was a prelude to the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations in 1939. The same questions were on the table: passage of the Red Army across Poland and Romania, fear of provoking Germany or driving Poland into the arms of Hitler, hostility from the Baltic states, among other factors"
Therefore, not only Carly says the issue "was on the table", it was no the table for a second time. The same author describes a reaction of the British ambassador, Seeds, on the Baltic issue:
"When Molotov spoke of the Baltic guarantee, Seeds 'uttered deprecatory noises', tapping his fingers on the paper which explained the Soviet proposals."
Carley also explains the reason of the failure of the triple talks as follows:
"The key issues were over guarantees of the Baltic states, a definition of 'indirect aggression', and negotiations for a military convention tied to the political agreement. The British feared giving the Soviet government licence to threaten Baltic independence. The Soviet Union feared German aggression through the Baltic with or without consent. Meanwhile, the Baltic states looked on nervously. They referred a year of Nazi occupation to a day of Soviet-which was what worried the Soviet government.' The Baltic ambassadors made regular inquiries at the Foreign Office; British ambassadors reported Baltic anxiety and anti-Soviet hostility. In early June Estonia and Latvia signed non-aggression pacts with Germany; German officers supervised the building of their fortifications."
Therefore, not only the Baltic states were openly hostile towards the USSR, they even took a direct steps to reinforce Soviet fears, and eventually to the failure of the triple talks.
Another author, Derek Watson, describes the events in the same vein:
"Increasingly afraid of German economic and political influence in the Baltic states, the USSR feared that Hitler's ambitions had been diverted in that direction.18T he reluctance of the Western powers to offer guarantees to those countries made Molotov and Stalin suspicious that they were opening the door for an attack on the USSR by Germany through them. The signing of a non-aggression pact between Germany, Latvia and Estonia on 7 June 1939 may have been an important factor driving the USSR towards an understanding with Germany when it could not secure an alliance with France and Britain." (Derek Watson. Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722)
He described the key issue as follows:
"Strang claimed that Molotov realised the 'impropriety' of his previous definition of 'indirect aggression' when, on 8 July, he suggested defining it as 'the use by a European Power of the territory of one of the undermentioned states for purposes of aggression either against that state or against one of the three contracting countries'. Seeds believed that Molotov put forward this formula spontaneously, in an effort to be helpful.' This was a high point in the negotiations; Strang describes Molotov as 'affable and cooperative'108 and there was now some chance of agreement.' This change in Molotov's attitude may have been caused by alarm over the warm reception of a German military mission to Finland, Latvia and Estonia in late June,10 or he could have been lulling the Western negotiators into a false sense of confidence to secure more concessions. On the next day he had refined the definition to
action accepted by any of the [listed] states under threat of force by another Power, or without any such threat, involving the use of territory and forces of the state in question for purposes of aggression against that state or against one of the contracting parties.
"The British government objected to the phrase 'without any such threat', fearing that this permitted the USSR to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Finland; and also 'against that state', which might allow Soviet intervention in the event of a coup d'6tat overthrowing an existing government."(ibid)
I have no idea is the source cited by you are reliable and mainstream. In contrast, the two sources used by me are English sources written by leading Western professors, and published in peer-reviewed journals (which means they had been vetted by scholarly community). They are among the most reliable sources, and are definitely mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You conflate that the Baltics did not wish for Soviet guarantees of security and initial positions of the British and Frensh in negotiations with where those negotiations actually left off. But thanks, I'll be writing to the authors you cite for their clarification given the diplomatic record.
This is just one in a series of events, including the politically charged interpretation of the Atlantic Charter by which Churchill and FDR accepted the staged forgeries ("elections") in the Baltics as an expression of will of the Baltic peoples to join the USSR.
Ultimately, the only question here, with regard to "betrayal" is those scholars who focus on the victims (that they were betrayed) and those who maintain Churchill and FDR (the perceived betrayers) had "no choice" (which leaves that "no choice" still needs to be explicitly equated to "not betrayal" to be an alternate scholarly POV, otherwise if we make that connection ourselves it is WP:SYNTHESIS.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK14:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
But apart from the one source you have provided on this talk page (a Latvian historian's mongraph), that says that most Latvians do not hold that the behaviour of France and Britain in the 1930s was a betrayal but one historian does, you have not provided any sources where historians or politicians says that British and French behaviour was a betrayal. As the US was not involved in those 1930s discussions I am not seeing the linkage here with the decisions in the 1940s. Please provide quotes from sources written by historians that say:
There was a betrayal in the 1930s
That it was linked to the decisions taken by the Allies during World War
that this was a betrayal (or betrayals if no linkage is provided)
and the majority of historians agree with this POV (I realise that this is the most difficult to find but such a source would help with writing about the [alleged] betrayal).
This is directly linked to my posting directly out-dented below this one, which is a also request for these sources and a repeat of two other similar requests. I am disappointed that you are continuing this thread instead of providing sources that state there was "Western betrayal" which was made by me over an hour before your last posting to this thread. -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I conflate nothing. The scholars quoted by me do that. Feel free to ask them, however, from my previous experience, you prefer ignore the explanations from the authors (Malksoo) when they do not support your viewpoint.
Regarding "diplomatic record", I expected such an experienced editor as you to be more familiar with our core content policy: the official diplomatic records are primary sources, which should be treated with cautions per WP:PSTS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Really, because historians cite diplomatic records, my indicating the source of their scholarly contentions is now my violating Wikipedia editorial policy regarding primary sources? When I've got a new section written to post, feel free to make such contentions there if and only if I cite a primary source directly and not the scholar. I don't see that we are having any sort of productive dialog here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No "historians", please. They both are the historians without quotation marks. Regarding the quote, it is quite ambiquous: what does "HM's Government have given way to (Russia)" mean? Does it mean Britain was ready for all possible concessions in this case? If yes, then what are the examples of such concessions during the pre-WWII period? The tripartite negotiations stalled over the "indirect aggression" definition (in a situation when the Baltic states themselves made openly unfriendly steps towards the USSR and thereby provoked Soviet fears), so neither France nor Britain made even a single concession to the USSR. What the betrayal consisted in? In the physical inability of Britain or France to do anything during the Battle of France? And why had they to do anything to save openly pro-German states with strong German diaspora?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The stall was ultimately resolved in favor of the Soviet Union (i.e., meeting Soviet demands). What else would that mean? There's no talk of anything "physical". As for your "openly pro-German" that's an old saw. Stalin also accused the Baltics for Nazi sympathies regarding Hitler's "call home" (which was actually Hitler getting Baltic Germans out of Stalin's "sphere" that the two agreed to). I suppose Baltic fears of Soviet designs were baseless and that the Stalin-sanctioned attempted coup in Estonia was just a misunderstanding? Only giving way to Stalin's demands is pertinent to the topic here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
@Paul, quoting Zalcmanis:
"Die noch immer in exilbaltischen Kreisen verbreitete Annahme, dass die "Westmächteverhandlungen" in Moskau misslangen auf Grund der Einstellung der baltischen Staaten zu "Garantien" und "Hilfe", ist abwegig. Bereits im politischen Stadium dieser Verhandlungen (April-Juni) hatte man sich über Formulierungen geeinigt, "welche die Sowjetunion hinsichtlich Estlands, Lettlands und Finnlands befriedigten."[citation]"
The widespread assumption still alive in exile Baltic circles that the "Western Power talks" in Moscow failed owing to the attitude of the Baltic States regarding "guarantees" and "assistance" is absurd. Already in the political stage of negotiations (April-June) terms were agreed upon "which satisfied the Soviet Union with respect to Estonia, Latvian, and Finland." [citation]
And what source does Zalcmanis quote for his scholarly contention? Soviet Peace Efforts on the Eve of World War II, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Moscow 1973/76, Nr. 213, 232,233,239,241,273,279 and 286. So, Zalcmanis also cites Soviet records of the negotiations stating that Soviet demands were met. Since I don't have the sources you cite, I can't confirm whether or not they state anything about the state of affairs specifically at the point the MR pact overtook events. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think to trust Soviet sources selectively is a fair strategy.
Regarding the sources I use, I can give you an opportunity to see how concretely do they describe the last meeting of failed triple talks. Watson (op. cit.) writes:
"What proved to be the final meeting in the political negotiations took place on 2 August, in an atmosphere which Strang later described as 'extremely cool'. Seeds reported the composition of the British military mission, and Molotov asked whether it would have full powers to negotiate. He then protested that Butler, in a statement in the House of Commons, had grossly misrepresented the Soviet formula on 'indirect aggression' as meaning that the Soviet government wished to infringe the independence of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Finland, whereas, on the contrary, it wished to guarantee their independence and neutrality.138"
The ref 138 says the following:
"Butler had said that the main remaining difficulty was
whether we should encroach on the independence of the Baltic States. We [i.e. the British and French] are in agreement ... that we should not do so, and the difficulty of reaching a formula on that point is one of the main reasons why there has been a delay in the negotiations.
As you can see, not only the Soviet concern had not been addressed, it was a key issue which lead to the failure of the political talk (military talks that stalled over passage of the Soviet troops through the Polish territory were of less importance, because no military treaty would be signed by France and Britain without achievement of political understanding with the USSR).
It is funny that you, who frequently accuse me in pro-Soviet bias, rely upon the Cold war era Soviet sources, whereas I build by arguments based on the best quality western sources...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, you mischaracterize. All I have done is cite sources which, in turn, cite official diplomatic records regarding the western and Soviet accounts of the situation of negotiations. Butler's statement was clearly outdated. As for the allegation that there is something amiss regarding Cold War sources, (1) unless you have scholarly evidence that the Soviet diplomatic records were doctored in some manner, it's irrelevant; moreover, (2) there was no "Cold War" at the time the original diplomatic record was entered.
What I find "odd" is that you cite Soviet records but complain that I cite Soviet records. As for your "best quality" sources, as I indicated, I'll be writing to them.
Somewhere I recall your requesting an extended quote from the German-language source. I'll get that up online when I have a chance, since it would be relevant to a (properly) reconstituted section on the Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that this conversation is counter productive, because we do not need to provide evidence of whether or not there was a betrayal, all that is needed is to show if there is a reputable school of scholars or leading politicians who have stated that there was (and for NPOV balance with a scholarly or political refutation if one exists).
To give another example. Under the Genocide Convention and International Court of Justice21st century interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the deportations of Balts by the Soviet regime was probably not a genocide (but was probably a Crime against Humanity). But in our article on Genocides in history we mention that there is a state supported Museum of Genocide Victims in Lithuania, without trying to prove if the deportations and surrounding events were or were not genocide.
@Vecrumba to facilitate development of this article please could you answer here my questions left hanging at the end of #PBS's sample questions and #The perception of betrayal. -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure the sources telling about betrayal (and their criticism for balance) is the only thing we need. As you correctly noted elsewhere, we need an evidence that such a viewpoint is mainstream, because by presenting a viewpoint X supplemented by some criticism we imply that X a mainstream or majority views. Meanwhile, a situation may be possible when not X, but Y is a mainstream viewpoint, and the viewpoint X is not being criticised simply because of low notability of the later.
The sources provided by me demonstrate that by Sept 1939 Britain and France made no steps that could be considered as a betrayal of any of their ally or potential ally. BTW, I do not understand what betrayal of the Baltic states can we speak about in a situation of ongoing intensive rapprochement between them and Nazi Germany.
Moreover, I would say that all questionable steps of the Entente members during pre-1939 period fit the concept of Appeasement, which has its own Wikipedia article. In connection to that, we need to seriously think how to avoid POV forks here. Probably, some material from this article should be merged into the Appeasement article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
And my source quoting British and Soviet diplomatic archives indicate that betrayal was complete at the time the MR pact overtook the tripartite negotiations. As I mentioned, I'll be contacting your authors*. As for "rapprochement", the non-aggression pacts made for the Baltics having such pacts with both Germany and the Soviet Union. There's no conspiracy being driven by Baltic Germans, who were completely dispossessed of their hegemony. You ignore that there was no love of the Germans after seven centuries of German mastery.
* I shall, of course, have to obtain the texts and read both prior to being able to craft cogent correspondence not based on text snippets.. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
In that case we can speak not about betrayal as the fact, but about the views of some authors. In any event, could you please provide an extended quote from your source (or at least a full reference)? I would like to read it by myself. In addition, what "betrayal" are you talking about if neither Britain nor France had no obligations to protect the Baltic states (which, by the way, were significantly Germanophilic)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the Baltics were not Germanophilic so stop repeating this subtle yet unmistakeable victim blaming on your part. VєсrumЬа ►TALK02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
French military commitment to Poland
I've already alluded to bad faith on the part of the French earlier, here is a bit of material from another source:
It is also clear that the French government made no plans to implement its pledge, given in a military agreement with the Poles signed in Paris on May 17, 1939. In this agreement, which interpreted the military convention of March 1921, France committed herself to take immediate though limited land and air action in the West if Poland was attacked by Germany. France would also launch an all-out offensive against Germany on the fifteenth day after a German attack on Poland. (French mobilization would take fifteen days). This was a pledge made in bad faith because the British and French General Staffs had agreed in April 1939 that if Germany attacked Poland, they would fight a purely defensive war to gain time. Thus, the French pledge aimed to secure the longest possible Polish resistance in order to win time for France.
Citation: For an analysis of British and French policy toward Poland in 1939, see Anna M. Cienciala, "Poland in British and French Policy in 1939: Determination to Fight, or to Avoid War?," Polish Review, v. XXIV, no. 3, New York,1989, pp. 199-226; reprinted with abbreviations in: Patrick Finney, ed., The Origins of the Second World War, Arnold Readers in History Series, London, New York, 1997, pp. 413-433.
It indicates pretty much what I wrote earlier, with the addition of noting the prior agreement between the French and British General Staffs. I should add that politics between the wars are a digression from the topic here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The same problem as with the last MarshalGerogyZhukov's edit: if you have a mainstream source saying that the French refusal to fulfill her military commitment to Poland was a part of some big Western Betrayal, this material belongs to the article, otherwise it is not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
New section, alternatives to western betrayal idea
Let me first say I have been watching this article for years and have been impressed (intimidated) by the level of passion and persuasion the various editors have employed. I happily stayed away but now that there seems to be a new direction in editing, I would like to contribute a few thoughts – and maybe a few amateurish contributions or edits.
I feel certain that most of what is in the article probably belongs on Wikipedia somewhere. But does it belong under such a broad and grandiose title? Does it belong without any scintilla of context or alternative explanations for 20th Century Eastern Europe, especially Poland and WW2? Is history so unequivocally damning of the WW2 allies as the article now presents?
My broad point is that the Western Betrayal idea needs to be looked at from a world perspective, and not only from the point of view of the betrayees. For instance, it can in part be understood as a common and apparently natural human reaction to tragedy, defeat, embarrassment or national disgrace. Whether we are talking about Germany’s explantion for WW 1 ( Stab-in-the-back legend)' the betrayal of Britain in the Suez Crisis ( ehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6085264.stm), Poland's explantion for WW2 in its Yalta Betrayal legends or Americas explantion for 911 in blaming Al Qaeda, there is a universal habit to blame foreigners, claim betrayal or assert that one’s country was ‘stabbed in the back”. As such if we are keeping this article to strictly Poland and EE centric; I am for including explanations of the betrayal in terms of a national psychology, in the context of political pandering in the Cold War, and in contrast to indisputable blunders by the Polish prewar government.
Finally I would like to say that if the mindset here is kept towards “what do historians/scholars/statesemen” have to say about the betrayal topic and not did a betrayal occur, I think a much better article can appear in short order.
I have added a short article section along the lines I mention and I hope it gets edited and improved! But in the face of such contention on this article and the obvious one-sidedness of its current state, I ask that other editors respect the intense sourcing I used and not simply delete without discussion. Many thanks!
Thanks to you too. This page has been crying out for fresh views. Welcome and please stay around for a while! :) Malick78 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
While there is a wider view, that's outside the bounds of this article unless sources make the connection. For example, many Latvian activists and emigre organizations looked on the Helsinki accord as the final nail in the betrayal coffin at the time. With the passage of time, scholars point to the accords' mention of internally driven change as planting the seed for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. So if a source states "viewed as betrayal at the time... but led to the collapse of the USSR and reestablishment of an independent state", then that can be included as well. Sources must make the connections, not our personal editorial opinions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK22:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the sources reference Yalta betrayal, And all of the sources mention the events which are the subject of the proposed Western Betrayal if not directly by name. As noted above there are a plethora of Polish sources in Polish since it is largely a Polish concept. The fact that historians do not agree that these same underlying events constitute a 'western betrayal' does not means we exclude the source if they are discussing the same body of facts by a different name, or no name at all. Redressing the western betrayal concept does not require a direct use of the WB phrase since non-Polish sources largely don't buy into the concept or offer a broader explanation.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not largely a Polish concept. Baltic sources, for example, are quite clear on the topic, as are all those of countries on the Soviet side of the Churchill-Stalin piece of paper. I don't see that alleged Polish cultural consciousness of identification with "victim" plays here. We do need sources which draw explicit connections, otherwise the article will metastasize into a piece about Polish cultural psychological deficiencies and victim blaming. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I was going to undo the restoration of your section, but I'm willing to see what you and others do to cut it down to its directly applicable content without ruminations of the aforementioned victim blaming, aside from the fact this is not intended to be Polo-centric article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yalta betrayal is largely a Polish concept involving mainly Polish history in the sources I have seen. Western Betrayal is a bulky term invoked by China, Jews, Kurdistan, Arabs, Poland and several others. Since mainly Polish sources or others who agree with the betrayal idea use the term, it is quite wrong to reject sources if they don't use the Polish-preferred terminology of betrayal since other sources covering the same set of facts dont use thos term and instead offer a different explanaation for EAstern European fate. The notable scholars often mention national identities of victimhood in their treatment of betrayals (whether or not they call it 'betrayal')' and therefore it has a place in the article as long as Polish betrayal sources are cited. Because Poland has attached a name to the betrayal (real, imaginary or only half true) does not mean a source is required to use Polish betrayal nomenclature when describing the same set of events. BothPolish and non-Polish sources ascribe a big part of the betrayal idea to national mythologies/psychologies around victim roles so they belong in all treatments of the betrayal claim, at least if we are asserting a neutral point of view. We should not reject explanations for Polands betrayal even if we don't like them and even if they don't use the term western betrayal. Polish state of mind, national identity and history of betrayals is quite important to reveal as stated by reliable sources.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not important. What is important is historical events and the portrayal of those events as either being betrayal, negotiating in bad faith, etc.—or not. Speculations that the Poles are woe is me and betrayal is a psychological cultural affliction is interesting but not applicable. Sources which speculate on betrayal as a myth but do not do so by "debunking" specific historical misconceptions on the parts of name-your-Eastern-European-nationality are off topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Our role is to marsall notable sources into a readable article, not decide if those sources use reasoning of which we approve or come to conclusions in the nicely framed confines which you as a Wikipedia editor have defined. It is absolutely not critical that sources address whether a betrayal occurred - it is instead notable if they address why Poland came up with the whole Betrayal concept, even if the sources don't mention the term at all or discuss a possible betrayal.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Ps I choose to ignore comments directed to me personally and not at article development.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Marshall, I removed this from the 3O page because it appears two editors have objected to your edits. A listing at third opinion is for seeking a third opinion, not a fourth. I would suggest WP:DRN, WP:ORN, or WP:RFC, should you want an outside perspective. However, giving it a cursory glance, I doubt you will have much success there either. Consider finding better and more relevant sources before pursuing further outside dispute resolution.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm Polish and I'm ashamed at the nonsense in this article. Poland is not perpetually at the mercy of other powers! All this blaming third parties is the same trite propaganda the communist (Soviet) regimes tried to spew with such terrible effect. How to get this article neutralised and not so cry-babyish?Pultusk (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed two large completely unsourced opinion pieces in the article. Really, trying to attach the Soviet crime at the Katyn Massacre to the western powers is absurd and no reputable source blames this on Britain or France..Pultusk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually there is indisputable evidence (not in Polish sources) of the intentional suppression of Katyn by America in particular, and for quite some time after WWII. The western powers are obviously not to blame, but they did subsequently engage in a significant cover-up of Soviet actions well knowing from the start it was most likely the Soviets--also documented. I agree that crybaby Poles feeling victimized by the universe content is inappropriate and irrelevant.
@MGZ, you continue to question the motives of others so my observation remains relevant. Don't dig yourself deeper. No one debating here currently has advocated for content that is not directly supported by sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK14:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Most every party in the war had complaints with every other party to a greater or lesser degree. Not many were satisfied with France and the strange role of their Vichy France alter ego. In Germany Italy was often seen as a liability more than an ally, this of course before the Italians made a dramatic switch in sides. Greece was unhappy with Britain, as was most every other victim of Germany when Britain was fighting alone. Britain resented America's eventual leadership in the west and there was internal bickering throughout the war. Britain was annoyed with Ireland and contemplated invasion. And on and on. Personally I think devoting so much article space to Poland's complaints of its own allies, however justified, misses the bigger point, makes Poland seem an unworthy ally even to this day, and does a disservice to uninformed, especially younger, readers. The overwhelming point that should be made clear is that Poland was delivered into Soviet domination for 45 years. Period. This is the big historical fact, but it's lost in all the Polish nitpicking of Allied wartime strategy. After all, wouldn't the sins of Munich, Yalta, Tehran and the Phoney War have been forgiven if Poland had been protected in 1945 from Soviet control and instead allowed to pursue its own self governed existence?
so I say let's reduce all the internecine problems Poland had with its wartime allies to a few paragraphs, and instead lead and emphasise how allied policy/neglect/indifference/negligence (or yes, even betrayal) gave us a lifetime of low intensity slavery to the Soviets. This is the great mistake we want everyone to consider! And of course we need to hear the other allies' perspective over why they allowed this to happen. Pultusk (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
My knowledge is not sufficient to make an authoritative judgement if "Western betrayal" of Poland is a commonly accepted idea or it just a national stereotype. Upon reading some sources I came to a conclusion that truth seems to be somewhere in the middle: this idea is shared by some historians throughout the world, and is more popular (or dominant) in some EE countries. Therefore, if I am right, it would be equally incorrect to present WP as a national stereotype or as a mainstream views.
Regarding MGZ's edits, yes, they are well sourced. However, they have some OR issues. Thus, the source discussing Polish participation in the Holocaust contains no references to WP. To add this source to the article would mean to be engaged in synthesis (which is prohibited by our WP:NOR policy. I suggest you either to find the sources that directly link Polish participation in the Holocaust and the WP issue, or to forget about this piece of text: it cannot be added to the article in the present form. I haven't analysed the whole text proposed by you, but I believe you are quite able to do that by yourself. Try to make sure your text contains no synthetic statements (it is already more or less well sourced, so it has no WP:V issues), and if you will be able to fix WP:SYNTH issues similar to the problem described by me above, feel free to re-add the text back.
Regarding Vecrumba's "Baltic sources, for example, are quite clear on the topic", I still see no evidences that those countries, which never been the Allies, whose citizens made virtually no contribution into the Allied war efforts and actively participated in Nazi war efforts, and even in the Holocaust, can be equated to one of the most devoted Ally, Poland. That is simply not modest.
In addition, when I tried to find something on that account, google scholar gave just 49 results. The first two sources in this list tell about western betrayal ... of Russia! I doubt the idea of Western betrayal of the Baltic states is notable outside a closed circle of nationalistic authors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. In the next few days I will redact edits from sources that do not directly tie the holocaust to WB or restate them so that there is no potential OR/SYNTH issue. Also, I hope to add some transition and introductory sentences to my main edit just for the sake of readability. I wanted every point to be well sourced so I initially put a cite after very single sentence and so it is blunt fact after fact without any finesse in language; I will change this with minor edits. Thanks again. MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Statement
Since I have been (falsely) accused of acting in violation of WP:OWN on this article, I am simply going to disengage from this article and this discussion. For the record I want it noted that the allegation is bogus, it's really just a smear by an IP-hopping editor whose intent is to harass and attack me. The fact that I've only made very few edits to this article in the past, that I have had no problem with many other editors making edits here (though I did object to the problematic edits of the said IP-hopping editor), that I actually agree with much of the criticism of the contents presented here by others, and that at the end of the day this isn't even an article I care all that much about should be sufficient proof that there's no WP:OWN going on here. Still, I feel that my continued participation in this discussion will, through no fault of mine, push the discussion off-topic and as a result will hinder improvements to the article itself. Therefore I am ceasing my involvement here.
Before leaving I would like to reiterate my suggestion that the best course of action may be to split this article into two, one on "Yalta betrayal" and one on "Betrayal at Munich". Furthermore let me once again draw your attention to these comments made some time ago by somebody else [35] - IMO, this is basically the outline to follow in improving this article.
VolunteerMarek20:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Your decision to disengage from this article is hardly correct. I hope that will be just a short break and I am looking forward to see you here again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the idea to split the article onto "Yalta betrayal" and "Betrayal at Munich" deserves a serious discussion. In connection to that, can I ask you the following: how do you propose to distrubute a content between "Yalta betrayal" and Yalta conference, and "Betrayal at Munich" and Munich Agreement articles? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand your concern. In connection to that, do you have mainstream sources that combine the Sept 1939 events in Poland with Munich and Yalta under the generic name "Western betrayal"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have several sources that mention the acts in 1939 as betrayal, I think it would be wiser to just give different countries in the article and describe what Western Betrayal means to them. Note that failure to support Warsaw Uprising and pursue the issue with Katyn is also mentioned in this.
Out of hand some sources that use western betrayal concept to September 1939(some connect this to later decisions):
Najnowsza historia polityczna Polski, 1864-1945: Okres 1939-1945. Władysław Pobóg-Malinowski - 1981 - uW Podziemiu nie brakowało głosów, ostrzegających, że nawet wrzesień r. 1939 był fragmentem lżejszym od tego, co się zbliża. Umysły wnikliwsze przeczuwały już zdradę Zachodu
W służbie Marsa: Tom 3 Przemysław A. Szudek, Komisja Historyczna b. Sztabu Głównego - 2001 - - Widok krótkiego opisuWówczas jednak dokonywał się przy całkowitej obojętności sprzymierzonych z Polską rządów Zachodnie Europy. Nie należy przy tym zapominać, że Wielka Zdrada miała swój początek pierwszego września 1939 roku
Kultura bezpieczeństwa narodowego w Polsce i Niemczech Krzysztof Malinowski - 2003 - Widok krótkiego opisuTe doświadczenia zostały szybko zaklęte w języku narodowej traumatycznej symboliki: „wrzesień 1939 r. ... stało się też synonimem zdrady i porzucenia przez cały Zachód.
Armia Krajowa w dokumentach 1939-1945: Wrzesień 1939-czerwiec 1941. Halina Czarnocka - Widok krótkiego opisuDziwić się zresztą temu nie możemy, bo Kraj cały nie otrząsnął się jeszcze po tragedii wrześniowej, widzi i węszy zdradę i krótkowzroczność polityczną, oraz nie entuzjazmuje się pociechami idącymi z Zachodu.
Finał klasycznej Europy. Juliusz Mieroszewski, Rafał Habielski, Juliusz Mieroszewski - 1997 Zachód zdradził nas we wrześniu 1939 roku. Jałta była konsekwencją tej zdrady.
The murderers of Katyń. Vladimir Abarinov, Vladimir Abarinov - 1993 - They considered themselves twice betrayed. They felt that the western allies had failed them in 1939, by neglecting to act on their declaration of war; and in 1943, by secretly agreeing to place Poland in the Soviet sphere of interest
As noted this is only to September 1939. Precise information about betrayal(mainly false promises and claims-made fully aware that they are false) to Poland during the war by France) are sourced, although I can expand this.
The fact that Franco-British passivity during invasion of Poland was tantamount to betrayal (although formally it was not) is obvious. However, the question is: what is the reason to combine in the same article some instances of betrayal of some states by Western great powers (betrayal of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc), and what is the reason for exclusion of other examples of real or alleged betrayals (betrayal of Palestine and other examples discussed above)? In addition, do you think we can collect in the same article only the sources that describe those events as "betrayal" and to exclude the sources that describe those events otherwise?
"The fact that Franco-British passivity during invasion of Poland was tantamount to betrayal (although formally it was not) is obvious". It is not at all obvious to me. @MyMoloboaccount can you pleas provide an English translation after/below the Polish quotes? -- PBS (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
"Zachód zdradził nas we wrześniu 1939 roku. Jałta była konsekwencją tej zdrady." is translated as:
"The West betrayed us in 1939. Yalta was a consequence of this betrayal".
The problem with those quotes is that they do not support the existence of "the Western betrayal" concept. Instead of that, they tell about different betrayals by (various) Western powers. As a result, we jump from various real or perceived betrayal by the Western powers to some "Western betrayal" as a phenomenon. However, "betrayal by some western power" is not necessarily the "western betrayal" (a term), similar to "occupation by the USSR" is not "Soviet occupation" (a term). We cannot create new concepts, which in actuality we are doing top results are WP mirrors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
If sources mention the events of 1939 as "Western Betrayal" the article needs to cover this, and the introduction needs to be written taking into account this fact. Editors own views on what was "real" or "perceived" are irrelevant. The same with personal views on events characterised named as "western betrayal".
Yes, you are right. However, if we include the events of 1939 which were characterised as "western betrayal" of Poland, why should we exclude other events, which are also described as a western betrayal [36]? In my opinion, your arguments would be absolutely correct if the article's name was "Western betrayal of Poland in 1939"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As long as sources deal with the betrayal of the collective Eastern Europe and the Baltics, there is likely no need for a "Western betrayal of X per each occurrence" article where France, Britain, and the U.S. are the constants and there is constancy in their policy as well. VєсrumЬа ►TALK02:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What is a reason to group France, Britain and USA together (taking into account that the US were not involved in 1937-39 events, and France did not participate in Yalta)? What is the reason to group the allied Poland, the Axis member Romania and hiddenly pro-German Latvia together? Why the events described by you should be called "The Western Betrayal", whereas similar betrayal of Arabs should be called "Western betrayal of Arabs"? I got no answer so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Paul and Misty: currently, editors or synthesising/indulging in OR. The whole concept is so vague it becomes whatever an editor wants it to be. Why not add Arabs to this article? Why not add China? The word 'Western Betrayal' is used in connection with them too. We need a rigorous method in order to go about cleaning up this article: include all countries betrayed, or justify why we only select some and give some reasoning for it. Malick78 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If other countries use the term western betrayal for policies of western powers, and if it is sourced-feel free to add them. Note that events of 1939 are sourced as being named as western betrayal, so there is no OR or synthesis here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that no proof has been provided that we are talking about "The western betrayal", not many separate "western betrayals". Thus, I have no evidences of a linkage between Munich and Yalta...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
We are. Words in parenthesis in Polish strongly define separate terms and definition and are not causal part of sentence.:
Poznawanie Miłosza: 1980-1998: Tom 2;Tom 2 Aleksander Fiut - 2001
rozgoryczenie „zdradą Zachodu".
Dialog: Tom 41,Wydania 5-8;Tom 41,Wydania 5-8
Biblioteka Narodowa (Poland), Związek Literatów Polskich, Biblioteka Narodowa (Poland) - 1996
"W kręgach dawnej Armii Krajowej za przełomowy uważano rok 1944/1945, kiedy nastąpiła „zdrada Zachodu""
−
Przestrzeń spotkania: eseje o kulturze paryskiej
Leszek Szaruga - 2001
oczywistym echem doswiadczeñ II wojny swiatowej i tragedii, jakq dla kraju stala siç „zdrada Zachodu"
The point of definition is real: what, for the sake of argument, if a single individual claims the west betrayed them personally (e.g. Khodorkosvky saying (he hasn't, this is an imagined example) that the west should have stood up for him more)? Would we put that in? Most editors here wouldn't... yet the article doesn't ever state only countries can be betrayed by the west. That's an example of the problem of definition, which hasn't been addressed. I think that MyMolo hasn't quite understood what I, Paul, and Misty mean: there are different accusations (from countries) of betrayal... yet we're conflating all of them on this page. As soon as an editor sees those magic words, WB, they can add it to the page. Malick78 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
@MyMoloboaccount, do you have any reliable sources in English? And could you please quote the sources with English translations of the relevant sentence from the sources you have cited above. Also what are the qualifications that the authors have for their opinions, are the professors, or international lawyers, or military historians etc.
The reason for asking this is because as far as the British and French histories are concerned France and Britain declared war on Germany after giving the Germans an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland, and they were unable to help Poland directly because of the geographic location of Poland and the speed of its collapse. France's whole strategic thinking, tactical training and deployment was for a defensive war (so they could not launch a large attack against Germany without a complete volte-face in their strategic thinking. After such a change in thinking the training and redeployment of their armies would have taken more than a month) and the British expeditionary force was still deploying to north-west France after the fall of Poland. According to standard British military histories, to describe British and French actions in September 1939 as a Western betrayal makes as much sense as saying that the Poles betrayed themselves in loosing so fast in the same way that France betrayed itself by loosing the Battle of France. So how do these authors you have cited describe and explain the 1939 Western betrayal? -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The reason for asking this is because as far as the British and French histories are concerned France and Britain declared war on Germany after giving the Germans an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland"
This is not the obligation British and French made to Poland. Also non-English sources are perfectly fine(although English will be used as well). Regarding "According to standard British military histories"-we write about all points of view, not just British ones.
"France's whole strategic thinking, tactical training and deployment was for a defensive war (so they could not launch a large attack against Germany without a complete volte-face in their strategic thinking. After such a change in thinking the training and redeployment of their armies would have taken more than a month)" If true(not saying that it is) then it indeed confirms that France was lying(as stated among others by Ironside) when it made promises to Poland that it was fully aware were not possible to fulfil.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course foreign language sources can be used, but please give translations on this talk page of the text in the sources, so that others can evaluate what they say, as in English language sources that claim that Britain and Frances's deceleration of war on Germany was a betrayal are not going to be very common (and as such would fall under WP:FRINGE) for example a search of Google Books only returns one book that specifically mentions "Western betrayal" and "1939" in the same sentence: "For them, the 1944 Warsaw uprising became a symbol of Romantic futility once the conscious of Western betrayal and indifference, both in 1939 and at Yalta seeped through". This is not enough of an analysis on which to base an Wikiepdia article. This book cited in the article states that Maurice Gamelin promised the Poles that French forces would take the offensive but the article also says that he agreed nothing of the sort with Britain. It is not clear from that article if the French Government specifically agreed to such terms, and the footnote 33 (on page 294) implies that they did not support him. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The French-Polish military agreement Gamelin signed May 19th laid out a schedule of specific military actions to be taken by the French (and Poles) in the event of a German attack: immediate French air attack, limited French army mobilization and offensive within 3 days, and mobilization of and offensive with the bulk of France's forces—"les gros de ses forces"—within 15 days; Poland would wage defensive action if it were attacked; if France were attacked, the Poles would take offensive action to tie up as many German divisions as possible.
The French wished Britain to assume the same responsibilities, whereas Halifax did not see that the free city of Danzig fell under British obligations to defend in all cases (also Bonnet's position on the part of the French), so that the French only signed the political agreement confirming the May 19th military agreement 3 days after the German invasion, that is, one day after...
France entered the war but ultimately failed to fulfill its military obligations and, incidentally,
Berlin communicated to Moscow that the USSR should commence its invasion from Poland's east.
Texts which indicate that the British and French negotiated with the Poles "in bad faith" apply here, as such negotiations set false expectations. Expectations, once set between parties, do not need to qualify as "realistic" or "unrealistic" to be betrayed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
We do not need to discuss whether there are substantive reasons for believing there was a betrayal (that leads into OR). All we need to do is discuss who believes that a betrayal took place in 1939. The predominant position in English language histories is no mention of a betrayal, so such mention is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs high quality reliable sources. It has to do with national historiography, just because something is unexceptional and accepted as the norm in one country's history does not make in common coin in all national histories. -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I said that sources which indicate western powers acted in bad faith apply to this article; I would add that whatever those acts are, we should also have a source stating such act of bad faith was subsequently viewed as betrayal. My other point here is that you simply cannot state there is a "predominant" position of "no betrayal" in English language sources. Lack of a huge amount of discussion of a thing does not make the thing exceptional. If you wish to maintain France did not act in bad faith when it signed agreements with Poland on which it abjectly failed to deliver, then you need to provide a source which provides an alternate view of that specific circumstance to balance sources which do view the specific circumstance as betrayal. If we are to have point/counter-point, then it must be on a level playing field with both "sides" on the question of betrayal held to the same standard. See added section below.VєсrumЬа ►TALK19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure I can provide more sources and translations if requested. As to declaration of war-that was never the core issue of agreement with Poland and France and UK. The obligations in treaties went further than that. Note also that French did lie about their actions to Poles. I will expand the section.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
PS:It is not clear from that article if the French Government specifically agreed to such terms, and the footnote 33 (on page 294) implies that they did not support him
Gamelin asked both Daladier and consulted Foreign Ministry before signing on 19th May the Kaspczyki-Gamelin protocol which contained obligations regarding military actions. French politicians did communicate that it would be valid after confirmation of Bonnet-Lukasiewicz protocol.
French Government affirmed French-Polish Bonnet-Łukasiewicz protocol on 12th May, and French Foreign Minister signed it on 4th September.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Expansion of the section in the article is not what is needed it needs to be drastically reduced and focused on the specific issue! Yes please provide translations of the relevant information from the sources given above. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Expansion is very much needed. For instance looking at above posts it seems people are confused about what were the obligations of France and that it did lie to Poles in 1939. It won't hurt to add this, in order to clarify. Feel free to mark parts needing translation, and I will gladly do so in footnotes in the main text.
Whatever is contained in the article can you please place the translations here (and the expertise of the authors). -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I did not make myself clear (hence the strikout). Please provide quotes from the sources and translations (and the expertise of the authors of those sources) for those you cite higher up this section if you still think that what they have to say is relevant to this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
An NPOV proposal
Upstream of PBS's questions etc, there's the key issue of how to delineate the encyclopaedic scope of the article. Terminological issues aside, the current lede seems to outline the potential scope of the page rather clearly in terms of the "range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1938 and 1968 regarding Central and Eastern Europe." Pursuing a clearly delineated scope of this sort would entail NPOV documentation, principally based on secondary/tertiary sources, of the views expressed by pertinent commentators, including academic historians and prominent public figures (perhaps even stretching to noteworthy representations of the concept in the arts and media). Focusing on the "range of critical views" would obviate the lack of public opinion data within the general populations of the eastern-bloc countries—a consideration which must inevitably undermine any encyclopaedic attempt to describe the "perception of betrayal on the part of the peoples" (my italics). On the other hand, the writerly challenge of describing the range of non-fringe critical views should facilitate NPOV.
Imo, carefully documented work along these lines would contrast with the inadequately sourced treatments of POV which, I fear, characterize much of the present page. It should also eschew OR in the form of dangerous attempts by Wikipedia to provide direct answers to overriding historical questions regarding the existence and characteristics of the alleged betrayal. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
As I indicated when Paul Siebert deleted the Baltics states section, I allowed that delete to stand because there really was nothing to salvage there (no specifics, no sources cited). I don't believe viewing this topic as "perception" is, however, appropriate. Acts such as accepting staged falsified elections as valid expressions of peoples to join the USSR in order to not violate the Atlantic Charter is a quite clear betrayal of signing treaties which state principals of conduct and commitment thereto and then knowingly abrogate those commitments—or FDR explicitly asking that his commitments be kept secret to not anger Polish-American voters in the following election. Scholars describe acts where western leaders were clearly conscious that they were wronging other peoples and nations as acts of betrayal. VєсrumЬа ►TALK00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That is, your sacrificing others for an alleged greater good which does you good, but does no good to those sacrificed. History teaches us that such sacrifices never work out well in the end. VєсrumЬа ►TALK00:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
If you reread my comment, you'll find that I wasn't suggesting focusing on the perception of betrayal, but rather on the range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1938 and 1968 regarding Central and Eastern Europe, as currently announced in the lede. (Or perhaps an improved definition of the scope along those lines.) At the moment it isn't at all clear what this article is really about, and I fear this vagueness is something a concern for Wikipedia, given the attention that articles such as this one attract online. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sources needed for Perception of Betrayal
The first section of the article's body, Perception of Betrayal, is wildly unsourced while making claims about nations who lie, fail to meet expectations, or make bad misjudgments. Unnamed "historians'" we are assured, make these pronouncements. It has been tagged for lacking sources and improper synthesis for a while. I would like to edit it to include only sourced material. Does anyone want to add sources or rewrite a new introduction with sources? Pultusk (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that the Trachtenberg note mentioned higher up this talkp page could be used to source an eastern European lead. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I used the Trachtenberg note as suggested and found another source calling western betrayal an eastern European belief centered primarily on WW2 and it's aftermath. I'm trying to work through the article and add sources where tagged or where obviously needed. It is a stumbling block to find sources that match what the article currently says because the term western betrayal is used more commonly today in other contexts like Kurdistan, Afghanistan, China, Russia. Many sources mention a betrayal at Yalta or Munich or a betrayal of Poland, but very few use the term western betrayal as a cogent term and idea of commonly understood meaning in reference to the subject of this article. Is the current title reflective of reality? Pultusk (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
plagiarism removed
While working through the article trying to add sources, I discovered that the entire section called 'Up to 1939' and subsection 'diplomacy' is copied verbatim from
If you look at the foot of the web page you'll see This document is not copyrighted. (It might actually have been taken directly from Wikipedia rather than the other way round.) —MistyMorn (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course I did notice the plagiarised document says it is not copyrighted. But that is not the main problem, IMO. The problem is that it is unsourced. The entire large block of unsourced text fits in with the other large unsourced narratives on that web page, which leads me to believe it is the original plagiarised document that someone pasted onto Wikipedia. Also, in this western betrayal article large chunks are verbatim duplicates of unsourced material elsewhere, such as Phoney War, so I'm thinking much of the article (the big chinks lacking any cites) was a cut and paste effort from elsewhere, probably synthesis or original research. Pultusk (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I quite agree about the underlying problems. As I've said above, I think this sort of thing is unhealthy and a potential concern for Wikipedia. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Pare down Phoney War and Yalta sections?
I went through the whole article and added sources at most of the spots tagged 'citation needed'. I cleaned up a few cases of incomprehensible phrases. I think as it stands now it is sourced somewhat better than it was and is less one-sided. Now I really think the thing that detracts most from an effective article is the excessive minutia found in the Phoney War and Yalta sections. If a reader wants that much detail, the full articles on these subjects are linked. As it stands now the evidence supporting the western betrayal idea is lost in all the military history in these sections. Agree or disagree Yalta and Phoney War topics need to summarised better and not so detailed? Pultusk (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Synthesis connecting Phoney War to Western Betrayal?
I've reviewed the sources in the Phoney War section and can not find any that mention it's connection to Western Betrayal. I propose to include in this section only sources that mention Phoney War was part of Western Betrayal, does anyone have such a source(s)? Pultusk (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
France is the only nation with a potential two week timeline to act in the sources I can see. In any event, I don't see any sources linking western betrayal with the aftermath of WW1 or the Phoney War. Attaching western betrayal to the Warsaw uprising is weak as well. The Westen betrayal term, where it used at all, is mainly attached to the WW2-era conferences which gave the USSR control over parts of central and eastern Europe for the next 45 years. Pultusk (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I erased Phoney War, I looked closely at the sources cited and have searched other sources quite a bit, but I can't find any that tie in Phoney War with western betrayals. I think the article is stronger when it is shorter and also think Yalta needs reduction. Pultusk (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
PBS's sample questions
The questions are fair, and there is no impediment to producing sources which in English or their native languages use the word "betrayal" with regard to the behavior of the Western powers. I should mention that "because very few in Britain or the US consider the actions of their governments to be a betrayal" is not really true, there was quite the furor in Britain over Churchill's "interpretation" of the Atlantic Charter, for example, among those who were aware. One should not conflate lack of consideration and unawareness.
re: the Baltic states, here is a (Latvian) historian's monograph on how the Baltic states were handed over to Stalin. And yes, the word "betrayal" is used—and with regard to the Baltics and all Eastern Europe falling under Stalin. Perhaps a bit impassioned, but a thorough and concise presentation nevertheless. VєсrumЬа ►TALK15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that whenever the word "betrayal" is used in reference to the West, we're to put it in the article? Or should it only be the full phrase "Western betrayal"? Seems to be the former allows a lot of leeway for POV pushing and synthesis.Malick78 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The only approach that we can take is to use Trachtenberg and similar sources to say that some Eastern Europeans draw a connection between Munich and Yalta. Adding any source that does not explicily mention the alleged connection is coatracking. Here's another source: ""V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression," Bush said in Latvia on May 7. "The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact," he added, referring to two treaties that cleared the way for World War II. "Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable."" ("Bush, Yalta and the Blur of Hindsight", Jon Meacham, Washington Post, Sunday, May 15, 2005. TFD (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so, unless a source connects the two. Note that the isolationists supported Munich, while Churchill and Roosevelt opposed it. But of course they often re-write history. TFD (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I asked you "If you have sources from experts who say that the actions of the British French and American governments were a betrayal then add them to the article as in text attributions,.." I am not sure what the "(Latvian) historian's monograph" is meant to prove. Far from saying that the betrayal is widely held Latvian view, it seems to support the contrary: That in the 1930s "Britain and France drew the line against Soviet demands for the Baltic states... [is] widely held among the Baltic diaspora of World War II refugees and their progeny", and that Dr. Vilnis V. Šveics is trying to show them the error in their views and that "The plain and irrefutable facts fly in the face of long-and widely-held beliefs which have taken root in the collective Baltic consciousness". Or put another way the betrayal theory is a minority view and that Dr Vilnis V. Šveics is one historian who holds it. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"Annexation of Lithuania"
"Poland was ruled by the dictator Józef Piłsudski.[50] [51] After failing in his goal to annex Lithuania..." - I thought, that Wikipedia wants to be neutral... when did Piłsudski tried to annex whole Lithuania? And where did author find it? In Lithuanian history book?
Piłsudski ordered gen. Żeligowski to "rebel" and take control of Wilno with it's region. But he wanted confederation between Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Roman Dmowski had diffrent point of view: he wanted to annex whole Lithuania, but it was Piłsudski, whomade decisions, as a head of state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.217.3 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Rename?
I realise this probably crops up often, but the title seems inherently POV. A more neutral one would be Western betrayal (term), highlighting the fact it's a term, not an absolute, uncontroversial concept. What say you? It's a minor change, and quite accurate. Malick78 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no requirement that names be neutral. The question here is whether historians use this term. Unfortunately, I don't think we have any subject matter experts here to tell us. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This HAS been discussed to death and the current title is fine [37] - as Malick78 well knows.
There are articles about the new world order, blood libel and unicorns. So long as a term is the one most generally used, then we can use it. TFD (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
In my view, the term is a) too broad (12,000 hits for "western betrayal" + china -Yalta) b) is very POV, assuming that the term is non-controversial, and c) would not be used naturally be English speakers not already knowledgeable regarding the subject ('betrayal' is an abstract noun, 'western' does little to define it, or say from whose viewpoint - and therefore is not like other POV but common titles such as the Boston Massacre, which, being created by native speakers, are less confusing), and therefore many sources on the net add a phrase to help, such as "the term" or "concept of...", such as here, to help show what is being referred to. Basically, "Western betrayal" is a calque. This issue of non-native-English-speakerness is again present in the first sentence of the article, btw, when we say "Yalta betrayal" without a definite article. It should be "the Yalta betrayal" - see here. Lastly, adding "(term)", clarifies while keeping everything that the likers of that term like, surely. That's the nature of compromise and consensus. (Btw, Deuces, your examples are a) all from English, b) less controversial ('blood libel' as a term doesn't suggest it's true, quite like WB suggests it might be true, in my view)). Malick78 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, this has already been discussed to death and you're not bringing anything new to the table. Adding "(term)" in parentheses would be justifiable if there was a need to disambiguate this title from some other - if there was some other "Western betrayal" that the term could apply to. But there isn't. But this is the term most commonly used by historians.
Your google search is meaningless - 12,000 hits on google itself is nothing. Doing the same search on google books gives only 82 results, many of them false positives (i.e. still relevant to this topic) [38]. If however, were someone to write a "Western Betrayal of China" article, then possibly that kind of disambiguation in the title would make sense. Until then there's no need.VolunteerMarek19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
So why do you think we don't have a Rape of Nanking page? That it's a redirect to Nanking Massacre? The former is the common name. The current name of this article seems childish, to be honest. No English speaker would ever refer to it naturally as such, and the only uses of it in literature are when it's the 'concept' being described. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Because "Western Betrayal" is how historians refer to the subject of this article. Your claim that No English speaker would ever refer to it naturally as such is patently false. Your assertion that The current name of this article seems childish is your own opinion - find a source to that effect. While we're here, your claim above that "Western betrayal" is a calque" only shows that you don't quite understand what the word "calque" means, as this is most definitely not an example of one.
Again, we've been through this half a dozen times, so why waste people's time with the same old tired arguments? Unless that's part of the purpose.VolunteerMarek21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to waste people's time. Don't make unfounded accusations (and AGF). As for calques, if the phrase in Czech is "zrada Západu" (according to the article), and that means "betrayal of(=by) the West" - how is "Western Betrayal" not a calque? Did the Czechs take it from English? Me thinks you do not know what a calque is... (We already know you don't know how to use "sic") Malick78 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Lol, you have a very ... "convenient" memory, as well as the super human ability to accuse others of making accusations while engaging in the very same thing yourself. If you care to recall correctly, my usage of "sic" - or its absence - was perfectly correct. If a secondary source cites a quote and does not include "sic" when quoting, then you, as a lowly Wikipedia editor, have no business trying to "correct" the secondary source according to your own opinion.
Anyway, whether the phrase "Western betrayal" is or is not a calque is a red herring (though come to think of it, that's an interesting question - where was the term first used?). The page on calque which you link to explicitly states The common English phrase "flea market" is a phrase calque that literally translates the French "marché aux puces" ("market of fleas")., yet, horror of horrors, the English Wikipedia has an article on this calque term Flea market! Why don't you go over there instead and try to get it changed to "Flea market (term)" or something.VolunteerMarek23:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I see you agree that my use of the word calque is correct. Thanks. Anyway, regarding flea market, it's because it's a well-established term amongst normal English speakers. So no 'term' needed. WB isn't as well established. When a flea market is referred to it isn't preceded by "the term" or "the concept of". WB usually is. Now, does anyone else have an opinion? VM is against. No surprise. Other people? Malick78 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
No, saying that something is a red herring is not the same thing as saying "you are correct". You do have some serious problems with logic.
And also with mistaking baseless assertions of your own for established fact. Specifically, your contention that "When a flea market is referred to it isn't preceded by "the term" or "the concept of". WB usually is" is, again, patently false. Searching for "term Western Betrayal" gives ... 3 gbook hits [39], all of which are irrelevant to the subject of this article. A search for "Western Betrayal" throws up a plethora (plethora means "a lot" as in "more than three") of English language sources. Hell, a search for ""Western Betrayal" -term" throws up a buttload (that also means "a lot") of English language sources [40]. Quit making stuff up.VolunteerMarek23:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguing finer points of "flea market" is all very interesting; I have to note that Western betrayal shows up in multiple languages all in the same context and meaning. "Term" implies it's just a label for something typically called something else, such as "Great Patriotic War (term)" being used by the USSR and Russia for part of WWII. Rename not required, not supported. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge asked me to express my opinion on this subject. Although it is not a field of my primary interest, I decided to check the subject for notability and WP:NOR. Google scholar gives just 132 results for "western betrayal". I haven't analysed the whole list, however, upon reviewing first six pages I came to a conclusion that the concept of "the Western betrayal" does not exist in scholarly literature: "western betrayal" refers to
Western betrayal of Africa (Maurice Taonezvi Vambe. Autobiographical representations of the Rwanda genocide and black diasporic identities in Africa. African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 2008, 185-200): "For Melvern (2000) and French (2005), the fate of the Hutu demonstrates the Western betrayal of the African continent"
Western betrayal of promises to the Arab world over Palestine [43]
etc. In addition to that, several sources in this list are Wikipedia mirrors, so they should be excluded from this list. In connection to that, we need to think if the article about some the Western betrayal fits notability and NOR criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC) PS One more point. Whereas the article depicts some Central European states solely as the victims, it totally ignores the fact that position of some of them (especially Poland and the Baltic states) contributed into the WWII outbreak. Thus, openly anti-Soviet stance of the Poles was the ultimate reason for the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet triple negotiations and to signing of the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. We definitely need to add this information into the article to avoid the article's one-sidedness.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The words "Western Betrayal" or "Western" and "betrayal" are of course used in other context (East Timor, Africa, Detroit, whatever) but this is a primary meaning. Google books returns almost 800 hits [44] and most of them relevant. I'll add as an aside that I've become more and more skeptical of "google scholar" as a search engine as it seems to both return non-scholarly hits AND fails to find lots of scholarly sources - it's one of the "google fail" projects.
Your statements that Whereas the article depicts some Central European states solely as the victims, it totally ignores the fact that position of some of them (especially Poland and the Baltic states) contributed into the WWII outbreak and openly anti-Soviet stance of the Poles was the ultimate reason for the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet triple negotiations and to signing of the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are plain weird and very much represent a fringe view, as I'm sure you're aware. Honestly, I expect more out of you, these claims are just bunk.VolunteerMarek03:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If most of them are relevant, please, demonstrate that. Whereas France and Britain betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1937, and Roosevelt and Churchill came to some agreement with Stalin in Yalta, I am not sure the concept of the Western betrayal exists. I do not claim it doesn't, however, the burden of proof is on you.
Re fringe, such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe. In addition, I do not imply the responsibility for the outbreak of WWII lies exclusively on Poland, however, Polish egoistic policy also played some role, and this fact should be reflected in the article, as soon as pre-war negotiations are being discussed here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It has already been demonstrated - like I said, this is about the fifth time that this discussion is taking place. Key works like Tony Judt's use "Western Betrayal" precisely in this sense. So do many others, but honestly, I'm too tired of having the same argument over and over again.
such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe - lemme see some links here, what specifically are you referring to? And honestly, do you realize what statements like I do not imply the responsibility for the outbreak of WWII lies exclusively on Poland sound like? I hate to get all Godwin's Law on this, but if there's a weaselly framing of a situation which deserves it then this is it - if someone said "I do not imply the responsibility for getting raped lies exclusively with the victim" (because, you know, she wore provocative clothing or something or obviously "led Hitler and Stalin on"), that'd be pretty much along the same lines. This conversation is degenerating fairly quickly and it's not because of anything I said, just the crazy statements that apparently this issue evokes from some.VolunteerMarek03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Google scholar gives just 2 hits for "western betrayal" + Tony Judt. One of them is about "Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia", and another just mentions Yalta Western 'betrayal' (in quotation marks). That is an indication that the Judt is not too popular.
Re the second part, the vision of Poland as some innocent virgin who was raped by evil monsters is somewhat ahisotric. In late 30s, the policy of all major players, including Poland, was egoistic, immoral and sometimes even stupid. Therefore, all of them, in greater or lesser extent are responsible, and later sufferings do not justify that. You correctly hate to use the Goodwin's law, and in this particular case it is especially irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Like I already said, google books gives almost 800 hits and most of them relevant. Again, maybe the problem is with google scholar not the term. As a personal piece of evidence, I've tried once or twice using google scholar in my own research and have found it completely useless - it's not that a literature didn't exist (it could easily be found by using disbih=925 here]. Lastly, adding "(term)", clarifies while keeping everything that the likers of that term like, surely. That's the nature of compromise and consensus. (Btw, Deuces, your examples are a) all from English, b) less controversial ('blood libel' as a term doesn't suggest it's true, quite like WB suggests it might be true, in my view)). Malick78 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, this has already been discussed to death and you're not bringing anything new to the table. Adding "(term)" in parentheses would be justifiable if there was a need to disambiguate this title from some other - if there was some other "Western betrayal" that the term could apply to. But there isn't. But this is the term most commonly used by historians.
Your google search is meaningless - 12,000 hits on google itself is nothing. Doing the same search on google books gives only 82 results, many of them false positives (i.e. still relevant to this topic) [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22western+betrayal%22+china+-Yaltacipline-specific databses), it's just that google scholar sucks as a search engine. This is probably even more true for disciplines like history where the primary means of scholarly communication is books not articles.
Again, can you give links to the such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe?
Finally, the ongoing moral equivocation in your comments between states like Nazi Germany and Soviet Union on one hand, and the countries which they invaded and destroyed on the other, pretty much shows that a violation of Godwin's law was very much in order. At the very least if you're going to push ridiculous claims like that (the victim of aggression to blame for the aggression nonsense) at least choose your words more wisely.VolunteerMarek03:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should have two articles, Western betrayal at Munich/at Yalta. Or perhaps incorporate it into an article about perceived victimhood in East European nations. TFD (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Like I already said (I find myself using words like "again" and "already" again and again in this discussion), if there's some other article on some other Western Betrayal then we can talk about properly disambiguating the two titles and discussing which is the primary name. Otherwise we go by WP:Commonname. Your suggestion would be plausible if another article existed. But it doesn't.VolunteerMarek04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Just as a discussion of the American oil embargo on Japan is relevant to understanding Pearl Harbor, it is SUPREMELY relevant to discuss the numerous Polish Policies and actions which contributed to their disaster in WW2. The dramatic outrage and hysterical comparisons to a rape victim aside, which besides revealing for the millionth time blatant POV pushing by pro-Polish editors, adds nothing to the discussion except the idea that some parts of factual history don't belong on Wikipedia because it makes Poland look bad or -heaven forbid- may imply Poland had some role in creating its own fate. The fact that Poland was raped does not mean we exclude all the evidence which doesn't nicely place all the blame on the rapists. Most of the English speaking world disagrees with the idea of a Western Betrayal, but this article is merely an essay supporting a one-sided explanation of history - with the opposing view always squelched by he same one or two editors whose mission it is to convince the world their POV is correct. HALF THIS ARTICLE should be devoted to the opposing view and it's Polish focus should be eliminated (or the title changed to reflect accuracy, e.g. "Polish Concept of Western Betrayal," which is the only accurate title for this opinion piece.98.92.207.190 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Gee wilkers, how does a brand new anon ip account with only a few edits to its name know about a very old arbcom case. Sock puppet much?VolunteerMarek05:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Were you betrayed at Munich or at Yalta? If the two were part of the same betrayal, then we need sources to say that. Otherwise they are two separate events deserving two separate articles. TFD (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. I wasn't betrayed by anyone. And yes, the possibility of splitting it into the Munich part and the Yalta part, has, um... *already*, been discussed.VolunteerMarek05:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussed by who exactly? You? This whole talk page is little more than one editor defending a POV against all challengers...read all the way to the top and one name is always arguing to keep this article as is. The fact that one editor with an admited pro-Polish POV discussed something (*already*) and decided yet again not to change the article is valueless - as this one editor *already* has completely taken over this article and talk page, and shows up minutes after every edit. PLEASE can we allow other voices here?98.92.207.190 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
No change, per WP:POVTITLE "Western betrayal" is perfectly acceptable. "Yalta betrayal" is the alternate name to the concept articulated in the article, but that term is already mentioned in the lede. --Nug (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
No change, per Nug (common usage, regarding "Yalta betrayal", Yalta was the public seal of betrayal for negotiations which had already taken place at Teheran--so "Western betrayal" with no "at location" is the most appropriate term, there is no need to split into locations). "Betrayal" is the mighty using weaker countries as pawns for their own needs and purposes and rendering agreements, such as the Atlantic Charter, into hollow words. VєсrumЬа ►TALK13:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
"This conversation is degenerating fairly quickly and it's not because of anything I said, just the crazy statements that apparently this issue evokes from some..." [said by VM, above] - VM, you have insulted at least three editors on this page in the last 24 hours. Please - you are the one who is making this degenerate. Please be more polite to others. Furthermore, you adhere to the fact that there is nothing to discuss - yet are so panicky about the very existence of this discussion - it's as if you fear the very fact that people are discussing this. If they're discussing it (yes, "again"!) - it's because many editors have a strong feeling that this article's title is too POV. How about letting some others speak for a change? If you're right and it obviously doesn't need changing, then there will be a clear consensus. Also, in my view especially, the title sounds shit. It is a calque from Czech or Polish probably, and doesn't sound natural in English. I presume, from your English, that you're not a native, so this part of the discussion can only be discussed by natives. Sorry. As for the common name rule - it's overruled by WP:Common Sense. The title is misleading, sounds bad, is too POV, and over broad. (And the article is biased and badly structured to boot). Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
@VM. You claim that most of 800 google books hits are relevant. You may be right or wrong, however, you provided no concrete evidences in a support of that your claim. It would be better if you were more concrete. And, if possible, please, keep in mind that among 800 hits one can find (i) non-scholarly and non-academic books of questionable reliability (that is why gscholar results, which filter out most of garbage, are more reliable), (ii) the books telling about "western betrayal of ...", (such as the story about Western betrayal of Chinese interests in 1919), and (iii) Wikipedia's own mirrors, such as Alphascript Publishing the first hit in my list. Whereas I agree that we can and should speak about Wetern betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1937, of Poland in 1939, it is incorrect to speak about some "Western betrayal" as a concept. By the way, the very fact that the first hit belongs to the Wikipedia mirror should serve as a "red flag" suggesting that the whole topic is a Wikipedia's own creature, a situation reminiding of another synthesis article. Re Carley etc. Marek, you know me well enough to be sure that I never make claims that I cannot support by reliable sources. In addition, since you followed past discussions concerning the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, you should be aware of all those facts (I presented all needed facts, along the extended quotes; just go through the talk page archives). It becomes evident from the mainstream sources provided by me that almost all major victims of German aggression (including France, Britain, USSR, Poland, but excluding Czechoslovakia) were partially responsible for that, because their mutual mistrust and their failure to create the international security system in Europe made WWII possible. Poland, being a strong regional power bear significant responsibility for that. My language is quite adequate and balanced, and I suggest you to avoid this type argumentation in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Paul there never was an attempt of comprehensive international security system in Europe, you had regional blocks like Little Entente or attempts of alliances between major powers(like the attempt between UK,France and SU- which would ignore interests of smaller countries or even abolish their sovereignty), but a European wide system was not seriously considered by anyone as far as I know. If anything the Little Entente system was good option for preventing WW2 or raise of Nazi Germany if it would be expanded with Poland, but due to Polish-Czech conflict and attitudes this never happened. But this is just speculative history making. We only write about what happened.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: statements such as "...Therefore, all of them, in greater or lesser extent are responsible,...", next thing we'll be hearing it's Poland's own fault for not granting Hitler the corridor he wanted. Hitler and Stalin were responsible for WWII, let's not tar the innocent (if short sighted) for their crimes. (And don't even get me started on the Soviets training Luftwaffe pilots so Germany could ignore stipulations regarding limits on its militarization.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK13:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Vecrumba is perfectly capable of stating things like "theories of collective blame are nonsense, here's my theory of collective blame". Stalin was just about the last political player one could possibly consider "responsible" for World War II - he had virtually nothing to do with the conflict for two whole years. Stalin did acquiesce to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but agreeing not to go to war can hardly be construed as responsibility for the war. Neither the Soviet invasion of Poland nor the Winter War constituted a Soviet entry into World War II (see infobox, for example).
If one does not view a German-Polish war to be a "world war", then, if anything, the argument can perhaps be made that World War II was started by the United Kingdom. The UK declared war on Germany to protect its overseas interests, while Germany made no aggressive acts towards Great Britain whatsoever. In addition, Great Britain was invited by Germany to negotiate a peace settlement in 1940, but refused any peace proposals consistently. Poland cannot be "blamed" for not giving up its own territory, that was not an act of war, but the British and French declarations of war - were acts of war, essentially without direct provocation. Poland was not in an actual military alliance with Great Britain until a mere five days before the actual attack. If we disregard all this, then the blame can be placed solely on Germany itself. -- Director(talk)13:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The Poland's fault was obvious: absolute refusal to collaborate with Britain and France during the Tripartite Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiation lead to their failure, and to signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You are right. In 1938-early 1939 Poland a priory refused to participate in any agreement the USSR would be involved in, so it is quite natural that it was not invited to participate in the tripartite negotiations. Later, Poland refused to discuss a very possibility of passage of the Soviet troops through its territory in the case of war with Germany, the issue which brought tripartite negotiations to a halt.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Well it would be hard to agree to a treaty concerning country's territory if said country was not involved in its formulation or shape and had no say in the matter. This would be rather strong violation of sovereignty. Of course Poland and Soviets were engaged in diplomacy on their own and had non-agression pact[45] which was re-affirmed in 1938.
Yes, you are right. However, we need to consider all aspects: during the triple negotiations it become clear that the USSR (i) was supposed to bear a major brunt of the prospective war with Hitler; (ii) was expected to field the largest army. However, the USSR appeared to be deprived of any strategic initiative: it had no possibility to attack Germany and had to wait until the later would occupy some territory to mount its own attack of the USSR. In addition, all Western meighbours of the USSR (Romania, Poland, the Baltic states) were deeply anti-Soviet, so the possibility could not be ruled out that some of them would align with Hitler (which happened to Romania).
In other words, during the tripartite negotiations, the UK and France tried to impose significant obligations on the USSR, and simultaneously applied significant limitations that prevented the USSR from fulfilment of those obligations. In addition, you should have known that during the final stage of the tripartite negotiations Britain and especially France put enormous pressure of Poland, requesting her to allow passage of the Soviet troops.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
In essence, the Versailles concept of Poland being the power to the east backfired badly. But then again few at that time (or indeed at any time) could have predicted the Germans would be able to bring down countries in months rather than years.. -- Director(talk)21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry are you (fill in insult which is very richly deserved to EVERYONE who has a mind shallow enough to defend Stalin) offended by it because you are a political zealot who refuses to read about the USSR from a source other then Howard Zinn or Michael Moore but the USSR was overtly seeking the conquest of Eastern Europe; you can't blame Poland for not wanting Russian soldiers on it's soil when those Russians overtly intended to conquer Poland. The USSR helped Germany defeat Poland then killed tens of thousands of Polish soldiers and officers (Katyn massacre alone is over 20k). So shut up about USSR being innocent, it was an axis power 60 seconds before Hitler betrayed it, sending food and war material the axis desperately needed, and when not fighting a western power the USSR fought in German military operations. I don't know what you call the Soviets invading the section of Poland the Poles intended to resist from before the counter attack they planned, killing the soldiers who intended to fight the Germans and sending survivors and intellectuals to Gulags was but I call it helping Germany. I wonder how many of you would like Stalin doing that in your own nation if it was invaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.72.42 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Western betrayal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
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.VolunteerMarek22:32, 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?VolunteerMarek16:20, 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:
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.VolunteerMarek01:37, 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.VolunteerMarek13:30, 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.VolunteerMarek22:01, 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 here02:09, 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 here04:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Zaolzie / Trans-Olza, Poland and Western Betrayal):