Talk:Invasion of Poland/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Misconceptions section

There's a discussion of this section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Invasion of Poland#Misconceptions Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Archived at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 136#Invasion of Poland#Misconceptions. The discussion went nowhere. Poeticbent talk 17:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms

Neither Polish nor German here, I have no horse in this race but the figures seem radically skewed here at best. No distinction is being made between combat losses vs abandoned or faulty vehicles, especially the tanks. By these numbers Germany lost 23 tanks per day (28 if you want to include armored vehicles) from day freaking one of the campaign versus the Polish losing 4 per day? This seems incredibly unlikely that the Polish were blasting away tanks/vehicles somehow yet getting slaughtered otherwise with Hitler being in Danzig by the 19th of September and tanks being outside Warsaw by the 8th of September. If it's to be believed that German tanks were used conventionally to support infantry this figure of 832 German tank losses to Polish troops and only 132 Polish tank losses seems tremendously hard to believe. It's cited under the Battle of Bzura that took place from the 9th - 19th of September that 50 tanks were destroyed. So excluding that period that's 33 tanks per day, everyday, for the rest of the campaign and before that battle.

Guys.. with the best will in the world it doesn't add up.

- The cavalry bit is hard to verify because all accounts seem to vary wildly about the event surrounding the cavalry. That needs a complete rewrite to be far more neutral. I'd agree it's Nazi propaganda, but it doesn't really have any relevance to the actual campaign. Move it to another page, one about Nazi propaganda.

- The lack of an official Polish surrender seems ultimately irrelevant as hard as that is to hear. For all intents and purposes they were defeated unless we want to revise history.

- As someone mentioned in the talk, "operational causes" really does not count as being shot down or destroyed. Once again a lot of these numbers suspiciously don't seem to specify whether these were combat losses or whether they included being destroyed on the ground, damage, etc.

- The Blitzkrieg bit is pretty accurate but again, is utterly irrelevant since it was never actually a coherent strategy used by the Germans. The term itself was largely coined by the press at the time. This is alluded to further on the page itself. I don't think it needs to be here again specifically for this page if there is already consensus elsewhere that the term is borderline meaningless from an operations point of view.

I would honestly just remove this section entirely, it stands out like a sore thumb and really only presents subjective concepts. Statements like, "A common but false belief is that Poland offered little resistance and surrendered quickly" can hardly be considered neutral. Wikipedia is not the place for colored opinions or even analysis. It's an encyclopedia of facts and information regarding people, places, events and things. 86.45.89.94 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

How is "a common but false belief . . . " not a neutral statement?? It is reliably sourced, also. Seems a simple - and bland - clarification. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invasion of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


Cavalry numbers

The article by Peszke is available here [1]. I don't understand why well referenced numbers for cavalry content in the Polish army cannot be added. What is controversial about this?JustSomePics (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Cavalry mentality"

An editor added this to the article:

Contrary to the frequent criticism that the Polish army was preoccupied with the concept of horse armies and had a cavalry mentality, only 8% of its officers and men were in cavalry service.[1]

References

  1. ^ Michael Alfred Peszke, Poland's Preparation for World War II, Military Affairs 43 (Feb 1979): 18-24

I removed it, because the statistic presented does not "prove" that the Polish army did not have a "calvary mentality". To do this, one would need percentages of the cavalry over time I.e. did they reduce the number of soldiers on horse as they modernized their army), percentages of numbers of tanks over time and numbers of infantry in mechanized units (again, to see if they were modernizing at the same rate as other countries) and -- most importantly -- the percentages represented by the cavalry in the armies of other countries for comparison. Poland can only be said to have or not have a "cavalry mentality" in comparison to other armies - it's not some kind of absolute that a single figure can prove or disprove. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Peszke (a well respected historian) claims that Poland's army did not have a cavalry mentality. Can you cite other historians who have a contrary view? JustSomePics (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You cannot write something in Wikipedia's voice that is said by a single historian. I have read numerous histories that claimed that one of the reasons the Poles lost was that they had failed to modernize their army sufficiently, and still held on to cavalry well past the point that it had any functional purpose. You have cited a single historian saying otherwise -- that's not nearly enough. If it's going to be in the article as a fact, it needs to be accepted by historians in general.
    You've also completely failed to address my point that "the cavalry was only 8% of the army" is not sufficient to prove the argument you say Peszke attempted to make. It's somewhat equivalent to saying that only 0.05 percent of NFL football players are quarterbacks, therefore NFL teams don't have a "quarterback mentality" - it's an extremely superficial analysis which, if Peszke actually made it (and you aren't mis-attrubting what he said), is not one that should ever be made by a "reputable historian". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • We are not professional historians or military experts so it is not our place to have this kind of debate. Would you object is I simply incorporated the fact that cavalry comprised 8% of the Polish army somewhere into this article? I am willing to avoid mentioning anything else.JustSomePics (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This discussion is entirely appropriate, as it concerns what to include in the article. And, yes. We don't put random facts in our articles, especially when they have the potential to create an inappropriate impression. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I certainly do not want to throw in facts at random, nevertheless I think this information might be useful. There might be some people out there who might have the wrong impression that the Polish army consisted mostly of cavalry. Can you suggest some possible phrasing which could incorporate this information without giving any wrong impression? JustSomePics (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
No one who knows anything about the subject thinks that the Polish Army was all cavalry. Anyone who knows nothing about the subject and thinks that is the case is an idiot, and we don't write our articles for idiots. I have no phrasing to suggest, because without context, it's meaningless, and should not be in the article. Period. If you want it in, do some research and give it the context it requires. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
During the invasion of Poland at the very beginning of World War II cavalry was utilized on both sides of the initial conflict. Things changed only in the following years. Here's the German cavalry in action. Poeticbent talk 22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the photos above.
Cavalry had its uses, especially for reconnaissance.
Regrettably, some authors still write incorrectly about the Germans, in World War II, having destroyed the Polish Air Force on the ground; and about Polish cavalry having charged German tanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Germany AND Russia?

This wiki article gives the impression the invasion of Poland was some kind of coordinated, two-pronged attack by two sides of one party, although in reality it isnt. I suggest this article be changed, like in the German Wikipedia, to the German attack on Poland, and the Soviet attack on Poland some 2 weeks later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:501:2700:71e4:75de:11a9:e465 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact". Nihil novi (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, it was; at least in principle. As far as I know the general staffs involved did not assemple together and said "we draw this army group from the left and you draw this front from the right". But the political leaders involved really did say "we take this part of Poland for us and you get this part of Poland, once it's defeated".--2001:A61:260D:6E01:493A:3631:689B:C016 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Bolesławiec is linked

Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

spring 1939 interim

From the 'prelude' and 'breakdown of talks' sections:

On 31 March 1939, Poland formed a military alliance with the United Kingdom and France
On 28 April 1939, Hitler unilaterally withdrew from both the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 and the London Naval Agreement of 1935

Do any articles cover notable events that occurred during the time between March 31 and April 28? Bloody_Sunday_(1939)#Background mentions some broad descriptions:

By March 1939, these ambitions, charges of atrocities on both sides of the German-Polish border, distrust, and rising nationalist sentiment in Nazi Germany led to the complete deterioration of Polish-German relations
months prior to the 1939 German invasion of Poland, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.

I am interested in knowing if we have covered this propaganda campaign somewhere, or gone into the specifics of these accusations. For example, on what dates were the accusations made? How many people did the the papers/Hitler claim had been cleansed? Did cleansing refer to murder or deportation?

If there is no article specifically about that (not sure what it would be called) would there be a section on another article which explains it more? ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Joint invasion and timing

Note: original header was: was a joint invasion of Poland by Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Slovak client-state that marked the beginning of World War II. but the Soviet Union invision was on the 17th of september DBaK (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

so will put it was a two stage invasion when Nazi Germany invaded Poland that was when ww2 started Jack90s15 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Polish armed forces hoped to hold out long enough so that an offensive could be mounted against Germany in the west, but on September 17 Soviet forces invaded from the east and all hope was lost. The next day, Poland’s government and military leaders fled the country. On September 28, the Warsaw garrison finally surrendered to a relentless German siege. That day, Germany and the USSR concluded an agreement outlining their zones of occupation. For the fourth time in its history, Poland was partitioned by its more powerful neighbors.Jack90s15 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germans-invade-poland
Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939 drove Great Britain and France to declare war on Germany, and World War II had begun.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/world-war-ii-historyJack90s15 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a bigger mistake here. The text says:
"...or the 1939 Defensive War (Wojna obronna 1939 roku), and in Germany as the Poland Campaign (Polenfeldzug) or Fall Weiss ("Case White"), was a two part invasion of Poland by Germany, that marked the beginning World War II, the Soviet Union, and the Slovak client-state . "
That implies Fall Weiss was the joint invasion of the three states, which is obviously not true. Fall Weiss was an exclusively German plan, and the USSR was not informed about its details (even about the start date). In 8 September, Ribbentrop send a telegram to Stalin where he was asking what the Soviet plan to do with "their" part of Poland. That means no previous agreement existed on that account. Ribbentrop was event threatening that if the USSR would not take Eastern Poland under its control, Germany would have to do that by itself. All of that was a demonstration that no joint invasion occurred.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the Help!Jack90s15 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome. I formatted your posts according to the talk page guidelines format, please, try to stick with this style in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unacademic page

Your reverted my changes saying they were unsourced. No, 95% of my changes were simply correcting the fictions in the existing grammar. Moreover, this is a myth and cannot be found in any German archives or in any memoirs. It is pure Polish propaganda:

The object of the war is … physically to destroy the enemy. That is why I have prepared, for the moment only in the East, my 'Death's Head' formations with orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need. [1]

Until you stop letting Polish nationalists and the Far Left (an odd combination I know) write up European history pages Wikipedia will continue to be the joke that most historians think it is. As Lloyd George said to the Polish claims at the Paris Peace Conferences "You have to be joking!" 109.151.157.186 (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Piotrowski 1998, p. 115.
  • I'm sorry, but our contract with the International Association of Polish Nationalists and Crazy-Haired Far-Left Lunatics requires us to run everything by their Committee on Making Wikipedia into an Academic Joke for their approval, so our hands are tied. If I remember correctly, the contract is up in 2020, so if you'd like to organize an Association of Disapproving Wikipedian Hand-Wringers, perhaps you could make a counter-offer that The Cabal could not possibly refuse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Headers

The very long headers in use for some sections are making the history of this page very unwieldy, in fact almost impossible to use on some devices and a PITA on others. I have shortened them as follows:

  • was a joint invasion of Poland by Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Slovak client-state that marked the beginning of World War II. but the Soviet Union invision was on the 17th of september TO Joint invasion and timing
  • The Nazis started World War II on Sep 1, 1939. it had nothing to do with the Soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September. The Declaration of war by France and the United Kingdom was given on 3rd September 1939 from the Nazi Invasion Not the soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September TO Timing, start of war, Soviet invasion

Speaking as an occasional visitor to this page I would really appreciate it if we could please avoid doing this. Of course if you feel this is an unwarranted and unhelpful interference and it wrecks your sacred Talk Page Freedoms then you must revert me, template me and perhaps take me to ANI. Or maybe reword my version to something that better reflects the OP's intent but with fewer words (hint hint). Whatever. But in a kinder and more reasonable world, these headers would just be shorter and this situation would be avoided. Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The German-Soviet invasion of Poland was agreed in advance in late August 1939, following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hitler could only invade Poland in 1939 if Stalin did as well, as Germany was not yet ready for a two front war. (FrederickLindemann (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)) Comment struck. Block evasion by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The Nazis started World War II on Sep 1, 1939. it had nothing to do with the Soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September. The Declaration of war by France and the United Kingdom was given on 3rd September 1939 from the Nazi Invasion Not the soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September

it was not a Joint invasion

The Declaration of war by France and the United Kingdom was given on 3rd September 1939 from the Nazi Invasion Not the soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September on 8th of September, Ribbentrop send a telegram to Stalin where he was asking what the Soviet plan to do with "their" part of Poland. That means no previous agreement existed on that account. Ribbentrop was event threatening that if the USSR would not take Eastern Poland under its control, Germany would have to do that by itself. All of that was a demonstration that no joint invasion occurred

and it does talk about the molotov–ribbentrop pact the Page Jack90s15 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

and it does say one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union. The Soviets invaded Poland on 17 September so its historically the opening Jack90s15 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

user FrederickLindemann is a Sock puppet for the User HarveyCarter and was blocked situation resolved Jack90s15 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly. The username FrederickLindemann definitely represents block evasion by User:HarveyCarter but it has not yet been blocked. Stay alert for more disruption from socks. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Timing, start of war, Soviet invasion

Note: original header was the entire paragraph below. DBaK (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Nazis started World War II on Sep 1, 1939. it had nothing to do with the Soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September. The Declaration of war by France and the United Kingdom was given on 3rd September 1939 from the Nazi Invasion Not the soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September

it was not a Joint invasion

Fall Weiss was an exclusively German plan, and the USSR was not informed about its details (even about the start date). In 8 September, Ribbentrop send a telegram to Stalin where he was asking what the Soviet plan to do with "their" part of Poland. That means no previous agreement existed on that account. Ribbentrop was event threatening that if the USSR would not take Eastern Poland under its control, Germany would have to do that by itself. All of that was a demonstration that no joint invasion occurred The Nazis started World War II on Sep 1, 1939 Jack90s15 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about the start of World War II, it is about the Invasion of Poland. It is true that the German invasion was the precipitating event which set off the war -- the UK and France having said beforehand that they would declare war if Hitler invaded -- but the Soviets moving in up to the dividing line which had been agreed upon in advance in the secret protocol of the Friendship Pact was also part of the invasion, albeit delayed, although not a cause of World War II, as France and the UK did not declare war on the Soviet Union.
From the perspective of the time, without public knowledge of the protocol, the Soviets' move could have been interpreted in a number of ways, but in any case, neither of the Allies were prepared to take on Stalin -- they were barely capable of taking on Hitler, hence the year-long "Phoney War" while everyone got ready to fight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
But to say the German invasion and soviet invasion marked the beginning of World War II is wrong The German invasion started it
The Declaration of war by France and the United Kingdom was given on 3rd September 1939 from the Nazi Invasion Not the soviet Invasion that was on the 17th of September on 8th of September, Ribbentrop send a telegram to Stalin where he was asking what the Soviet plan to do with "their" part of Poland. That means no previous agreement existed on that account. Ribbentrop was event threatening that if the USSR would not take Eastern Poland under its control, Germany would have to do that by itself. All of that was a demonstration that no joint invasion occurred Jack90s15 (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd advise you to read the article again. It doesn't say that the Russian invasion of Poland instigated WWII. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
it said it be for I fixed it Jack90s15 (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Then why do you keep complaining about it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Just was responding to you its all good now!Jack90s15 (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The German invasion began one day after the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union had approved the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. (81.159.82.125 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC))
This is banned editor HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description purpose

We've had some reverts over the short description recently, without discussion. Let's discuss, shall we?

Short Descriptions are a new thing in WP, and many are not familiar with them. To review, the purpose of the Short Description is an aid in searches, especially on mobile devices, by giving a very brief unique feature of the subject, so it can be easily and readily distinguished from the other items listed by the search. As such, it should not repeat the article title, as the reader will already have that, and should not try and precisely define the subject, as that will usually exceed the guideline of 40 characters or less.

The following are recent versions of this article's Short Description:

1. Invasion of Poland by Germany, the Soviet Union, and a small Slovak contingent (over 70 characters)

2. Start of WWII in Europe (~25 characters)

3. Start of WWII in Europe triggered by Nazi Germany (~50 characters)

4. German invasion of Poland that triggered World War II (~55 characters)

Version 1 is well over the guideline in length of 40 characters or less, and includes the small detail of the Slovaks, which in no way helps distinguish the subject. In fact, other invasions of Poland might also fit this description.

Version 2 is under 40 characters, and uniquely distinguishes the subject.

Version 3 is over 40 characters, and is the same as v2 adding "triggered by Nazi Germany" which, as that could already be inferred by the preceding "WWII in Europe", doesn't help distinguish the subject.

Version 4 is over 40 characters, and repeats "invasion of Poland", which are already known from the article title. It is also slightly inaccurate, as the article covers the Soviet invasion of Poland, not just the German one.

Comments? !votes? Other suggestions? --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary.[2]
@A D Monroe III: it not inaccurate The German invasion started world war 2 --Jack90s15 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III: I figured out how to use the Short description helper and changed it to 1939 Defensive War — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Jack90s15;
No one said that 40 characters was a hard limit; as stated, it's the limit suggested in the guideline.
No one said the invasion of Poland in 1939 did not start WWII in Europe. I agree that this is the most important fact of this subject.
My comment of "slightly inaccurate" was about attempting to describe this subject as "German invasion of Poland", when the article also covers the Soviet invasion of Poland.
Editing a subject during its discussion without consensus is considered disruptive. Please revert your changes.
I'll add your edit to the list of suggestions:
5. 1939 Defensive War (~20 chars)
This version is short, but completely fails to distinguish the subject for any reader that isn't familiar with its Polish name, which will be the great majority of readers. The automated "short description helper" isn't helpful for the majority of articles, else the short description wouldn't be created to be edited. This case is a particularly good example of its unhelpfulness. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III: I put it Back to what I originally put before the discussion Jack90s15 (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
6. German and Soviet attack that started World War II (50 chars). Helps with searches for - start of the war and German and Soviet attack. No duplication with title. (Hohum @) 17:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


@Hohum: the German attack started World War II On September 1 The soviet one was on the 17th


This is from @Paul Siebert: a Experienced user on the subject on may 9th seems relevant to thisJack90s15 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC) 

   The only example of Nazi-Soviet cooperation in warfare was in Poland. However, it is hard to say if it was close enough to call them de facto allies. At least, for contemporaries it didn't look close: just read what Churchill wrote about that. Only after the secret protocol was discovered some people started to speak, retrospectively, about an alliance, however, if something didn't look like an alliance in 1939, how can a discovery of some paper make it a de facto alliance? Ok, I could agree that, had some secret document been discovered that was a secret military alliance between Nazi and Soviets, we could speak about a de jure secret allians, however, "de facto allies that didn't look like allies according to the contemporary observers" sounds odd. Moreover, on Sept 9 Ribbentrop sent a telegram to Stalin asking if the USSR was going to invade Poland, and threatening that if it would not invade, Germany would have to occupy Eastern Poland. By no means that can be interpreted as "close cooperation".
   Furthermore, there was no Axis in September 1939, however, if we assume there was some informal Axis by that time (which actually developed from the Anti-Comintern pact, an alliance directed against the USSR (sic!)), we have to keep in mind that there was a de facto state of war between another future Axis member, Japan, and the USSR, which ended with an armistice (not a peace treaty) only on September 15. How could be the USSR a de facto member of some de facto alliance in a situation when it was still having a military conflict with one member of this alliance?
   Next, there is a fraction of historians who believe that all USSR's territorial gains in 1939-40 were the result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, this view is shared only by a significant minority of authors, mostly political journalists. Actually, only Eastern Poland was obtained in accordance with the pact, all other territories were not. German and Soviet interpretation of "spheres of interest" were different, and, whereas "mutual assistance treaties the Baltic states were forced to sign with the USSR were in accordance with the pact, a complete occupation and subsequent annexation were considered as a hostile act by Hitler. It was annexation of the Baltic states which triggered a start of preparations for Barbarossa planning. Moreover, Geoffrey Roberts writes (in "Stalin's War") that the decision about annexation was made by Stalin after he saw how easily and quickly was France, the strongest military power in Europe, was defeated by Hitler. Stalin realized that, from that moment on, the USSR is vis-a-vis with the extremely strong and efficient military machine, and he decided to move the border of the USSR westward as far as possible. In other words, occupation of the Baltic states was a part of preparations to the future war with Germany, according to Roberts. And, again, Hitler correctly interpreted that as a hostile step. If these relationships were de facto alliance, then I even don't know what to say.
   Finland. If you remember, the whole Winter war started because Finland refused to cede territories around Leningrad, as well as the Hanko military base. What was the reason for that request? A military threat from which power forced Stalin to do that? Obviously, neither Finland nor any other power except Germany was incapable of posing any serious threat to Leningrad, therefore, the goal was, again, to prepare for was with Germany. And, by the way, Germany unofficially supported Finland in this war, at least, German public opinion was on Finnish side.
   Bessarabia. In contrast to Eastern Poland, Finland, or Baltic states, the USSR had never recognized annexation of Bessarabia by Romania (it occurred according to the scenario that was very close to the recent annexation of Crimea by Russia), moreover, if I remember correct, some other states, including the US, didn't recognize it too. Therefore, this case is a separate story, and, again, annexation of Bessarabia was seen as unfriendly act by Germany, because it threatened to the strategically important Romanian oil fields. With regard to Bukovina, it was a direct violation of the pact.
   To summarize, despite the fact that the USSR made some territorial acquisitions during 1939-40 (I am not aware of any acquisitions in 1941), there is no consensus in scholarly community on whether they were made in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet pact, and whether they can serve as a demonstration of de facto allied relationship.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II/Archive_56#Since_1939_and_until_1941_Soviet_Union_was_in_Axis_de_facto_and_is_trying_to_hide_thisJack90s15 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The attacks were at the start of the war. The Short Description isn't for a nuanced examination of the subject, it's to give quick results when searching. In conjunction with the title, finding results for German, Soviet, Poland, invasion, attack and start of World War II will all be satisfied. (Hohum @) 17:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
or what about back to "Start of WWII in Europe" @Hohum: ???Jack90s15 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
No mention of two of the three combatants seems as lacking core information. (Hohum @) 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What information is considered "core information"? IMO, the core information is that (i) Poland was invaded, (ii) it was invaded by Germany on Sept 1st 1939, (iii) that lead to declaration of war on Germany, and that war would later become WWII, (iv) That USSR joined this invasion (later). Slovakia definitely is not essential.
What information can a reader obtain from these descriptions?
  1. Invasion of Poland by Germany, the Soviet Union, and a small Slovak contingent That Germany, Slovakia and USSR invaded Poland. Obviously "small Slovak contingent" is by definition not essential. Does a reader learn about the start of WWII? No. Conclusion: a lot of non-essential information, lack of essential one.
  2. Start of WWII in Europe That information is important, but some important information is missing.
  3. Start of WWII in Europe triggered by Nazi Germany "i" implicitly present, "ii" and "iii" is present, "iv" is not.
  4. German invasion of Poland that triggered World War II "i - iii" are present.
Therefore, although all these descriptions are incomplete, #4 is least incomplete. If we add "USSR" to "iv" (German-Soviet invasion of Poland that triggered World War II that would add "iv", but that misleads a reader, who may conclude the USSR and Germany were allies, and the war was declared on both of them (which is not a case). In other words, I don't know how to add the USSR without creating a totally misleading impression.
Finally, some brief gscholar search results (compare the number of results):
Soviet invasion of Poland About 941 results
German invasion of Poland, 3,730 results
Soviet-German invasion of Poland 5 results
German-Soviet invasion of Poland About 56 results
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "German and Soviet attack that started World War II" misleads the reader - within the confines of the character limit given. Using the very limited text of a short description as the only source of information would be ridiculous for ANY article. If they read the first few sentences of the lead they will get more - but still be misled if you split hairs, next they have to read the article - but wait, they will still be misled, better read all the reference material too, in every language. The short description is a summary of a summary of a summary. Be realistic on what it can convey. I don;t see how gscholar is relevant - this isn't an article title, its a very short aid on what the article is about. (Hohum @) 23:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hohum: @Paul Siebert: is Right that would misleads readers and people may conclude the war was declared on both of them and they Invaded at the same time Jack90s15 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The text gives the exact dates of the two invasions, no? Volunteer Marek 04:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, the discussion is not about the text, but about Wikipedia:Short description. I didn't know about that feature before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hohum, if I were a reader having zero knowledge, what conclusion would I have drawn from the statement: German and Soviet attack that started World War II? That Germany and USSR were fighting together, and their joint attack forced UK and France to declare war. The actual picture was totally different, and you perfectly know about that. Do you really think that the local event (annexation of Kresy) is so essential that we have to mislead a reader?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If someone reads a 40-50 character summary of a summary of a summary and extrapolates meaning from it that isn't there - the problem isn't with the summary. It's not there for nuance it's there for a bit more disambiguation/context than the bare title gives. There is only so much that can be done in the space. If they can bear to read the first three sentences of the lead, things will be come clearer - the entire lead, clearer still. etc. You're hoping for more than the short description is ever meant for. (Hohum @) 00:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I realised I don't understand something. Where do these words "German invasion of Poland that triggered World War II" appear in the article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the short description has to be a verbatim phrase from the article (not required by WP:Short description), or are you suggesting the article doesn't cover that WWII was started by the invasion? (Hohum @) 02:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hohum, I am not suggesting anything. I've just realized I probably misunderstood the subject of the dispute. Now I know what short description is. In my opinion, the most essential information is that Poland was invaded on Sept 1, 1939 by Germany, and that gave start to WWII. Obviously, the role of the USSR was important from local (Polish) perspective. From global perspective, Soviet invasion was seen as unimportant. If we write about German and Soviet invasion, we give an undue weight to those authors who saw those two regimes as military allies and create a wrong impression that the USSR was on the Axis side during the first period of WWII. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Ahh! So, do you have a suggestion? Doesn't need to be a full sentence, shouldn't repeat the title. (Hohum @) 15:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I already explained. "German attack of Poland that started WWII" is good in all aspect but the absence of the mention of USSR: it tells what happened, and puts it into a global context.
"German and Soviet attack of Poland that started WWII" adds USSR, but it creates a wrong impression that WWII had started after some joint attack by the two powers, which is not the case. IMO, that gives an undue weight to the local interpretation of this event, and de-emphasizes global aspects. Therefore, although the first version is not ideal, it is better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how most of these points fit within the SD's purpose. No form "Poland was invaded" should be in the SD, as this is the article title, uselessly duplicating the only information that the reader already has. "Sept 1, 1939" should not go in the SD, as the date won't be recognized as significant by many readers. ("Start of WWII", however, will be recognized as significant by virtually all readers.) Again, the SD is presented in addition to its title, to very briefly distinguish the article from similar subjects. Insisting on a balance of multiple important features in the SD is beyond the brief as possible (second bullet in SD page) scope of the SD; unless the most important features can be described by very few words (like only one each), the SD will have to have only the most important feature.

Adding "USSR" or "Soviet" might confuse rather than clarify since it was cooperating with Germany at that point even though best known as its mortal enemy. But adding "Germany" without "USSR" is slightly inaccurate, since the article covers both, so this may also confuse the reader. ("WWII in Europe" implies Nazi Germany without having to either include or exclude the USSR.)

Remember we're thinking about a reader that's given the title "Invasion of Poland" and the SD. For that SD, what info is the most important feature the reader needs in order to give a context to distinguish which invasion of Poland this covers, and how to express that as clearly, easily, and briefly as possible? Most of this discussion seems off-topic to this. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

There was some confusion. I think we're on track now. (Hohum @) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We should say "German and Soviet invasion" because that is how the subject is currently described on this page. The lead and infobox should simply summarize the content of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A D Monroe III, Hohum, did I understand correct that what a reader sees is:

"Invasion of Poland. (and SD)"?
If that is the case, let's discuss both the title and SD together:
  1. Invasion of Poland. German and Soviet attack that triggered World War II
  2. Invasion of Poland. Start of WWII in Europe
  3. Invasion of Poland. Start of WWII in Europe triggered by Nazi Germany
  4. Invasion of Poland. German invasion of Poland that triggered World War II
If that is the case, then #1 is somewhat misleading (for the reasons discussed above), #2 is too short, ##3,4 are pretty much the same, but #3 is shorter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Paul Siebert; To (belatedly) answer your question, yes, your understanding is correct. As an example, the {{Annotated link}} template (designed to be used in WP for things like "See also" sections) when used to link to this article would (currently) produce:
Invasion of Poland – German, Soviet, and Slovak attack at the beginning of World War II
--A D Monroe III(talk) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
If you want to change the title of the page, please start new thread. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
We aren't seeking to change the article title. He was showing SD in context with it. I'd suggest '1', but change triggered to started since its simpler and shorter. (Hohum @) 11:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Saying #2 is "too short" is backwards. SD should be as brief as possible. Being shorter is a positive, not a negative, as long as it properly distinguishes the subject. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
#2 is perhaps too short, in the sense it doesn't mention the invader(s). (Hohum @) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That sense would not make it "too short", which is impossible per the SD guideline, but somehow insufficient in distinguishing the subject. Of all the many invasions of Poland, the most common invaders are Germany and Russia in their various forms; adding them is of little help distinguishing the subject. Plus, as noted, adding Russia and Germany together may be confusing to readers that think of Russia as the arch-enemy of Germany in WWII, and attempting to clarify that in some way would make the SD too long; adding Germany without Russia is somewhat misleading, since the article covers the Russians invading as well. Further, as noted, stating "WWII in Europe" already implies Nazi Germany involvement; specifically naming them as invaders is largely redundant. "Start of WWII in Europe" uniquely distinguishes the subject -- there is one and only one invasion of Poland that did this. Plus, it tells the reader why this subject is so important. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be alternately assuming the reader knows nothing, and will be confused, or knows more, and will be confused because of that. Either way, the SD isn't supposed to be nuanced exploration of the subject, it's to *quickly* distinguish the article beyond the title. To be honest, if they are confused that Germany and Russia both invaded, perhaps they will be bothered to read the article and educate themselves - likely the reason they are searching wikipedia about the subject in the first place. (Hohum @) 21:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Readers are not homogeneous, of course. Some may know fact A but not B, some may know the opposite.
Stating readers that don't understand the SD will be therefor encouraged to read the article implies a confusing SD is better than an unambiguous one. Further, the purpose of the SD is not some kind of advertisement to get readers to read this article; it's to let them make informed decisions on which article to read.
Again, adding Germany and/or Russia does not help distinguish the subject, can be inaccurate or confusing, is largely redundant, and thus just adds verbiage without benefit. The reason given to add it is that otherwise the SD is "too short" is contrary to the SD guideline. With no good reasons to add invaders to the SD, and multiple reasons not to, are we done? --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree, but I'll live with it. (Hohum @) 23:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
With that tacit agreement and no outstanding disagreement for a couple days, I changed the SD to "Start of WWII in Europe". Thanks, everyone. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Eyewitness account" section

What is the point of this section? It seems to be an extremely wordy way of saying there are some more sources, but not saying anything about what's in them. Additionally, the recently added entry isn't sourced. (Hohum @) 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this section, even though I was involved in it. I find it difficult to see how it could be expanded in any way that improves it, and agree on your assessment as it stands. I'm okay if it's just deleted. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Reversal

@A D Monroe III: could you please address which agreed-upon terms I violated? I made a few minor edits with regard to the way a certain couple of statistics were reported, but my edit was solely motivated from an aesthetic point of view. Recognizing that aesthetic edits never take precedence, I won't dispute anything, of course! Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 01:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Short description, for one; see #Short description purpose. I didn't check if any specific contention existed among the other infobox changes, but given this infobox has been argued over many times, it might be good to just explain here what need changing first. But if you want to make the rest of the changes without discussion, I'll leave that to other editors to deal with. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! So I take it to mean that you won't mind if I reinstate my edits but left the short description alone? My motivation is essentially moot, really, as it's aesthetic. From my point of view the overall legibility of the infobox could stand to improve from a polishing. It suffers the same fate as many other military conflict infoboxes in that over time, it's become more and more crammed with excessive details that are often best left to be dealt with by prose, some haphazardly added flags icons, as well as numerous accessibility violations (MOS:VLIST). I'll wait a while before reinstating my infobox edit to give others a chance to weigh in. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 02:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, I'm dubious of all the changes, but I'll leave judgement to other editors. --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Seidner note in "Combat between Polish cavalry [...]" section

There is a note at the end of this section which reads: Seidner takes issue here with this contention on at least one occasion. Seidner, Marshal Edward Śmigły-Rydz Rydz and the defence of Poland

Does anyone have access to the source who can clarify this? I'm not sure what to take away from this other than that a person wanted it to be known that a particular historian "takes issue" with a particular claim, but didn't feel it warranted being put in the actual body of the article. WP Ludicer (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

German casualties

On infobox is this number of german casualties:

"16,343 killed, 320 missing, 27,640 wounded"

But i think is wrong. Why??:

1. In Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik, Stand 30.11.1944 we can found this number (Heer only):

16843 KIA, 36473 WIA, 320 MIA

You see two different numbers 16343 and 16843. Real number is "16843", but anybody in the past read "3" at the point where is "8" and until today this wrong number is still put.

2. Luftwaffe losses is:

549 KIA, 407 WIA

3. Kriegsmarine losses is:

77 KIA, 115 WIA, 3 MIA

4. So - result is (Heer + Luftwaffe + Kriegsmarine):

17469 KIA, 36995 WIA, 323 MIA (actually died, but body never found)

This data not included number of german irregular units (Selbschutz, Freikorps, Abwehr and SD sabotage units). —87.204.160.51 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 September 2009‎ (UTC)

So where's your source for that ?

Wehrmacht Zentralstatistik, Stand 30.11.1944, you tell us - ? What is that ? By the way, of course the now given number of some 17,269 "killed" is not founded, not by Note 2, which gives only a margin (estimate). Fake precision, that's what such claims give us. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

see for a discussion of that: Rüdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, 2009, p. 54. German research (by date August 30, 1944) was at 15,450 dead [only Heer, i. e. German Wehrmacht ground forces !], with the remark, that research work has not yet finished (and wasn't, in fact, because in 1945 war ended with total German defeat. Numbers floating around at least 15,000 to 16,000. Reference for given table: OKW/AWA/WVW (V), Az. 31 t 61, Nr. 245/44 gKdos. vom 30.8.1944, Betr.: Statistik der Menschenverluste im Kriege, BA-MA, RH 7/v. 653 - Counting German dead was Germany's business, counting Polish dead Poland's, etc. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The whole page is dirty propaganda

1. Hundreds of thousands of Polish civilians were killed during the September invasion of Poland and millions more were killed in the following years of German and Soviet occupation.

It is like "during the FDR presidency 6 millions Jews were tortured to death". Formally it is right, but really it is hilarious, pathetic and dishonorable manipulation.

2. The German invasion began on 1 September 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union

Less than year after disgraceful Munich Betrayal, leaded to Molotov–Ribbentrop "Pact".

3.violation of the Riga Peace Treaty, the Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, and other international treaties, both bilateral and multilateral.

Was there any condemnation from League of Nations or national governments of the Allies? No. Why? Because Poland was not exist, as a side of those treaties.

Etc.

The article is unilateral view of western "historians" who condemn Soviet Union in advance and is whitening western betrayal of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, and even SU (from Оperation Pike to Operation Unthinkable via delaying of D-day).

Just be brave to give some facts, like "There is no strict evidence that secret protocol was" or "Allies never really fought for Poland" and so on. Be about facts, not about word play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.26.76 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Of course there is "no strict evidence" of R-M pact. Although it was already published in many books, together with its photo copies. Long time I didn't see that amount of Nazi-propaganda from the Germany like yours on Wikipedia. Matrek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
history or rather writing history was never free (and presumably never will be free) of certain propaganda elements, as our russian friend surely knows. That's what it is for: engineering memory, to a certain extent. --2001:A61:2B66:7E01:31CE:415:417E:617C (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Überfall

Moin! In the german wikipedia, after a long discussion, this articels name is for a long time "de:Überfall auf Polen". Why did you, without a comment (!), delete it? --ot (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

what german wiki uses is completely irrelevant for english wiki. Plus your change is not representing the term it should be a translation of. --Denniss (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Your first comment is absoluty right, but the second not.
The translation from Feldzug is campaign. Just a campaign and not an invasion.
Finally, and most important, the german science of history and the political science used the term: "de:Überfall auf Polen", as the german name of this article. Please accept it. Stay healthy! --ot (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Well Denniss, I see here no argument of you. If you need more information about it, please look here: de:Diskussion:Überfall auf Polen/Archiv/010. You are able to read it in german. Stay healthy! --ot (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Robert Forczyk, in Case White: The Invasion of Poland 1939 (2019), states on p. 333 that "there are no solid estimates of Polish civilian losses during the 1939 campaign, but they are generally believed to have been around 150,000". That's one estimate, but what do other RS's say?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

Could the links to Brute Force (book) please be disambiguated to Brute Force (Ellis book)? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. François Robere (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Change "The invasion of Poland (September campaign, Polish: Kampania wrześniowa, 1939 defensive war, Polish: Wojna obronna 1939 roku, Poland campaign, German: Überfall auf Polen), marked the beginning of World War II."

to "The invasion of Poland (September campaign, Polish: Kampania wrześniowa, 1939 defensive war, Polish: Wojna obronna 1939 roku, Poland campaign, German: Überfall auf Polen) marked the beginning of World War II."


Remove the comma following the first end parentheses giving the name in other languages. The grammar is incorrect and one can see from other articles that it is not Wikipedia convention to use a comma after the translation parentheses. EaseofUsePal (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

The hyperlink for "Defensive War" goes to the wrong article, about "a strategy and phase in the Arauco War": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_War

This is in the paragraph beginning as follows: "The invasion was referred to by Germany as the 1939 Defensive War (Verteidigungskrieg)..."

It should either not be hyperlinked, or go to this article about the general term "defensive war": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_war 82.21.117.179 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and good catch! The link has been changed to target the general term, so thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Please change feldgrau.com/stats.html link to https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Statistics-and-Numbers/ Aprospectus (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

To editor Aprospectus:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

I am making a request to change the grammar. Under "details, Polish defence plan" the fifth sentence reads "Thise reasons". I think it should be corrected to This reason or These reasons. Thank you 132.25.0.212 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out! Asartea Trick | Treat 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

image is public domain [3] Aeengath (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

Under Soviets invasion, change "Despite a series of intensifying German attacks, Warsaw, sefended by quickly-reorganized retreating units, civilian volunteers and militias, held out until 28 September." to "Despite a series of intensifying German attacks, Warsaw, defended by quickly-reorganized retreating units, civilian volunteers and militias, held out until 28 September." (change is from sefended -> defended)

Under German plan, change "A main attack over the western Polish border, whicb was to be carried out by Army Group South, commanded by Colonel General Gerd von Rundstedt, attacking from German Silesia and from the Moravian and Slovak border." to "A main attack over the western Polish border, which was to be carried out by Army Group South, commanded by Colonel General Gerd von Rundstedt, attacking from German Silesia and from the Moravian and Slovak border." (change is from whicb to which)

Ta. P.S. please @ me so I can take these off the WP:TYPO lists Xurizuri (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Green tickY - Typos fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

change (Germna: Überfall auf Polen, Polenfeldzug) to (German: Überfall auf Polen, Polenfeldzug) (change typo Germna to German) Proteus03 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Vahurzpu (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Add Link For Austria

There is no link for Austria in the first sentence in Background. ShauryaOMG (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

we maz only add a link if it specified exactly which date the sentence hold/refer.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC))

Discussion of interest elsewhere

A discussion here may be of interest to the editors of this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Change "Danzig Police destroying the Polish border post" in the campaign box to "Wehrmacht soldiers destroying the Polish border post". The men in the image are german soldiers; not danzig police. KommanderChicken (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Image sourced to here, labeling them Danzig police. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can anybody do 1939 battle of wegrow in campaignbox?

Hi I have been working on filling out the Invasion of Poland Campaignbox on this page and got stuck on 1939 battle of wegrow as no Internet sources can be found for this battle.Would appreciate it if someone could click on the red campaignbox link for the battle and make the article to Wikipedia standards(cite and no breaches of copyright). Further details in the Polish battles section under translated articles in my profile. If you do make the article thanks for the effort your article will be on that Campaignbox although heavily edited by others for as long as it is there so people will see it and the article creation will make a difference Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC).

Polish Invasion battles that remain undocumented

For the last couple of months I have added more battles during the Invasion of Poland to Wikipedia. I have just finished adding the last one I will add. The invasion of Poland Campaignbox unfortunately still has two battles missing despite my best efforts as these two battles are not documented online and so the details can only be acquire through books which I can't get my hands on. These two battles are the 1939 battle of wegrow and 1939 battle of Janów Forest. So those two battles still need to be addedto Wikipedia and when they are the Invasion of Poland campaignbox will be complete. I would appreciate it if somebody added the last two battles to complete the Polish Campaignbox Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC).

Questionable paragraph

The following paragraph's veracity is questionable:

"On 22 August, just over a week before the onset of war, Hitler delivered a speech to his military commanders at the Obersalzberg:

The object of the war is … physically to destroy the enemy. That is why I have prepared, for the moment only in the East, my 'Death's Head' formations with orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need. [36]"

https://www.ataa.org/armenian-issue-revisited/the-u-s-congress-and-adolf-hitler-on-the-armenians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.42.61.222 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed

"On 26 August, Hitler tried to dissuade the British and the French from interfering in the upcoming conflict, even pledging that the Wehrmacht forces would be made available to Britain's empire in the future." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.252.14 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2022

Please change "Those two countries had pacts with Poland and had declared war on Germany on 3 September" from paragraph 2, line 4 to "On 3 September based on their alliance agreements with Poland, United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_Alliance_(1921) https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/ylbka1.asp - France https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp - UK AzzAzeL-US (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done I also linked to Western betrayal, as that is what is linked later in the article. This was mainly a rephrasing of things, and I don't think there's a change in meaning in an undue way. SWinxy (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Please fix the link to Slovakia

One of the links redirects to the full history of Slovakia, not for the 1st Slovak Republic . Can someone fix this? OmskYT (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Invation

In the first section of the article the word invasion is misspelt as invation. I cannot edit the article so an going someone who can could make this change. Thanks! 189.203.149.79 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Überfall auf Polen" source

and known in Germany as the Poland campaign (German: Überfall auf Polen, Polenfeldzug).

I'd like a source here when "Überfall auf Polen" ("Assault on Poland") was used in Germany. I know this idiom as GDR & FRG post-war, which should be clarified ("known in contemporary Germany as "Polenfeldzug", in modern usage also "Überfall auf Polen" (assault on Poland)") & sourced; if "Überfall auf Polen" was used contemporarily, I'd also like sources, simply to know where to look.

"National Socialist" language usually stressed the "defence" of the "Third Empire" (Sender Gleiwitz, "Seit 5:45 wird jetzt zurückgeschossen.", "Wehrmacht" meaning "Defence Force"), while "Überfall" (Assault) is clearly referring to an offensive. My guess is that it was coined to counter the NS narrative of a "defensive war". 2003:C8:470C:6D00:C847:2CED:170F:9F9A (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The 'Überfall' (surprise attack or attack without declaring war) theme/name is rather polemic language in today's germany, for comparison in de Wiki they simply use 'Angriff'(Attack) for the japanese attack on Pearl Harbour although it was more an 'Überfall than the german attack on Poland (some mishaps did it not make surprising anymore). Anyway the Überfall was the initial action (attack without declaring war) while the invasion is the military campaign that followed. --Denniss (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

I want to edit this because there are more commanders in the Invasion of Poland. HistoryProfessor123 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

In the External Links section of the article there is one called "The Mythical Polish Cavalry Charge". The link that it uses does not work. In it's place, I suggest using https://www.polamjournal.com/Cavalry-Myth.html Gjm5025 (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The archive link works. Lightoil (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion_of_Poland/Archive_4&oldid=1185017772"