Talk:History of Poland (1945–1989)

Pic for lead

Which picture do you think would be best for lead (and eventually, Wiki main page when featured)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some photos: forbidden until 1989, life, posters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC

Feedback for FAC

This article shows promise, so I will try to give it as much critical feedback as possible. I'm starting a list now, and will eventually expand it... By pointing out some POV problems I hope to help resolve some of the objections on FAC.

• There linking is excessive. The same items only need to be linked once, and there really is no need to link non-proper nouns, which often take the reader to irrelevant ontological topics, and not articles related to Polish history.
  • Right. It should be fairly easy to fix, I already went over 45-56 section and will soon fix the excessive ilinking in later sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Great. I'll go through the text a couple of more times myself and also work on the links. 172 22:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• With little opposition from the Western Allies, who had accepted the fait accompli at the Yalta Conference, Stalin's agents, the Polish Communists Yet this article later correctly notes: "In September Gomułka, who had always been an opponent of Stalin's control of the Polish party, was dismissed from his posts..." Soviet influence in the party was critical, but, as personified by Gomułka, never total. So the description of the Polish Communists as "Stalin's agents" is somewhat problematic. I'd change that fragment to the following: "With little opposition from the Western Allies, who had accepted the fait accompli at the Yalta Conference, the Soviet-backed Polish Communists..."
  • All right, Stalin agents is a bit POVed, on second thought. Changed per your suggestion. Tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Destalinisation loosened the totalitarian grip of Communist Parties... "Totalitarianism" has never been a universally execpted explanatory model for Communist Poland, and it has been falling out of favor in academic literature. Linz and Stepan, who offer what comes closest to a standard for typologies of regime types in comparative politics, argue that Poland was always closer to an authoritarian than a totalitarian regime, even in the 1949-1953 period, because of the ability of parts of civil society to resist the regime's ideology and the relative sphere of autonomy of the Catholic Church... Journalistic accounts and popular histories often (mis)use the terms "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism" as if they are interchangeable, but this usage annoys historians and political scientists... So the unsourced and unchallenged references to totalitarianism will have to go if the article is going to consider all established points of view in the academic literature.
  • Agreed, academic difference is what we strive for here. However, from what I read, until destalinisation the totalitarism was the right term, and only after destalinisation the Party's control diminished somewhat so that it became more authocratic. However, if you feel this is not enough, I could agree for removing totalitarism here if it is linked somewhere else in the article in the context you feel is NPOVed enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've read persuasive material arguing that until destalinization Poland could best be understood as totalitarian as well, but since there is another point of view in the scholarly literature (indeed some works arguing that the totalitarian model is not useful for understanding the USSR at the height of Stalin's terror), the term should be avoided in accordance with NPOV. (Djilas and Linz and Stepan, whom I mention below, are among the most influential writers who argue that totalitarianism was never installed in Poland.) 172 22:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I will leave it up to you to replace totalitarian adjectives with more fitting ones (single party state, authoritarianism and communist state would probably be less objectionalble, and for other ideas see this list). Perhaps we can add the works you mention below to reference section, it's rather small anyway. One of my favourite references online is Matthew White's Atlas. While he is not a famous academic writer, his website is very informative. He does make a good case against the use of totalitarism and instead differentiating between facism, single-party, communism and autocracies see here. Thus we can in fact replace totalitarian with communist state, whose article itself explains the pros and cons of calling this system totalirarian. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Terms like "puppet state" and "satellite state" need to go. They are pejorative in the context in which they are used. They do not add to the factual content of the article, since the article explains Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe well enough without them.
  • But they serve as a summary term in the lead. Without them, one could assume PRL had some autonomy regarding foreign affairs, for example. PRL was a puppet/satellite state of Soviet Union, definetly during the Stalin era and well until 1980s, woudln't you agree? Still, if those terms are POVed, perhaps there is a more academic description we can use? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, there is. It'll help resolve the objections on FAC by Everyking and Ruy if we just state instead that Poland was under the Soviet sphere of influence or Soviet hegemony. 172 22:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I replaced puppet state with more correct and less controvesial satellite state. Until Everyking or Roy specifcially object to satellite, I would leave it as it is - it ddoesn't seem to be POV-loaded, and besides it has its won article when Soviet sphere of influence or Soviet hegemony have not, thus being more informative. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much more to come... But I have to log off now. 172 05:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to add... Despite these problems the article begins to deal with the the exceptions to repression and Soviet domination-- when the regime allowed spade for civil society outside the party's authority and when Poland achieved some room to maneuver in determining its own affairs independent of the Soviets-- adequately, particularly when discussing agriculture. Noting these exceptions is not matter of making the regime seem 'less bad.' Instead, these are import realities to consider in explaining why Poland was the first Soviet bloc country to develop an effective opposition. 172 05:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Could you expand on this with examples in the text? Or just change what you think is needed, I am not sure if I follow your argument here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Imposition of the Soviet model on the Polish life was generally slower and less traumatic than in the other East European countries, notably in the limited pace of collectivization when Soviet-style reforms antagonized Polish farmers, and the Church was relatively autonomous. Thus there was greater social space more of a civil society for the later emergence of opposition movements than in Russia. For this argument see Milovan Djilas, "The Disintegration of Leninist Totalitarianism," in Irving Howe, ed., 1984 Revisited: Totalitarianism in Our Century (New York: Harper and Rowe, 1983). Djilas reviewed the history of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe, and concluded that only in Poland totalitarianism was never installed... If you are interested in similar works, let me know. Personally, I find them quite useful, as they lay out many ways in which Poland was a very interesting case in the Soviet bloc, and think that you might be interested in Djilas' look at the Catholic Church and peasant holdings. 172 22:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, yes, I understand and agree correctly. You may want to copy some of the above to the article, I think it is missing such a clear statement. I have read on this issue; one that I'd like to hear more is on the arguments wheter the stalinist Poland was or wasn't totalitarian. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion/Aftermath section

I think it would be a good idea to add a section at the end with some concluding thoughts, instead of just breaking off abruptly. It would give us a chance to look at the "big picture", so to speak. There we could:

• Discuss what was the "net effect" of Communism in Poland? What would the country's development have been like if that system was not imposed after 1945? Contrast Poland's economic trajectory with that of Spain, a country with similar economic potential in 1945.

• In general, contrast the experience of communism in Poland with that of other Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union.

• Discuss the current perception of the legacy of the Communist system in Poland, i.e. discuss how some Poles see PRL as largely illegitimate, while others (SLD voters etc) have some pride in its achievements and even miss the (low level) of economic security it (sometimes) provided.Balcer 28 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

• • Considering this is a subarticle to People's Republic of Poland, I think such material should be moved there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 2 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

As to the first point of Balcer's remarks - I generally like the idea, but... Firstly, it would border the WP:NOR rule. Also, I'm afraid there can be no comparison between Poland and Spain of 1945. There were too many differences, apart from mere economical factors. Poland ended up as an occupied, completely destroyed country, with almost half of it being an economical desert or wasteland. Also, it lost half of territory (theoretically exchanged for the wasteland in the West, especially after the Allies bombed the hell out of German industry, then Germans dismantled the factories and sent them westwards and finally the Soviets stole all the rest). Lastly, the country had lost roughly 22 per cent of the population, including a large part (incomparably high) of the educated classes, intelligentsia and the specialists. These factors cannot be compared and all of these problems would have to be solved regardless of the political system in Poland. Halibutt July 2, 2005 09:14 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that Spain escpaed the ravages of WWII is an important factor. Just as a sidenote, the western desert was not warse then the eastern one - ruined German cities were not much worse then the dirt poor villages of 'Poland B'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 2 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)

Split ?

How about dividing it into two shorter articles ? maybe 1945-1980 and 1980-1989 (or 1945-1981 and 1982-1989) ? I know from Polish perspective it's the same period of Soviet domination, but the article seems pretty long already. Lysy 2 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, we might even split further into 1945-1956, 1956-1970, 1970-1980 and 1980-1989 periods. We certainly have a lot to write about here. Balcer 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article grow too long first, split then. Besides, I'd be more interested in getting this FAed, not splitted (note there was no objection to size during last FAC). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 3 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

It seems long already. The FAC objections were not very serious but most of them concerned the initial part only, so splitting the article could help getting the other part FEed. Possibly. I don't insist, though. --Lysy (talk) 3 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)

It is usually good to have an overview article covering splits. So, rather than splitting this one - create more specific articles covering a fewer number of years but ensure they get into more detail and depth. Thus this can remain an FA while more specific articles can work up to that status. --Oldak Quill 4 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure subarticles to current sections will be created sooner or later, so we will have articles on Bierut, Gomułka, Gierek and Jaruzelski decades... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article a bit, so that there are now subheadings under portion of the article dealing with the early years of Communist rule. Hopefully this will make a split somewhat easier. 172 6 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Position of Jews in Poland around 1946

I'm a bit puzzled by these sentences:

1. Although all parties officially condemned anti-Semitism, there were a substantial number of Jews in the Communist Party's leadership, such as Minc and the Party security and ideological chief Jakub Berman.
2. While these Jews were held responsible by many Poles for the regime's repression, the Communist regime itself ordered that the properties of returning Jewish Holocaust surviviors not be returned to them.
3. Pervasive anti-Semitic feelings at that time came to a head with spreading reports of a blood libel that resulted in the Kielce pogrom in July 1946. During the pogrom, a crowd attacked a building housing Jews preparing to emigrate to Palestine, killing approximately 40 and wounding approximately 50.

Each of them seems flawed or illogical in one way or another and I find it hard to find what was the original message there.

How about replacing it with:

Many of the Holocaust survivors shared the common fate of other people in post-war communist Poland and were not able to reclaim their property upon return. Meanwhile some others, mostly those who returned from Soviet Russia, including Hilary Minc and the Party security and ideological chief Jakub Berman assumed prominent positions in communist leadership and were in result held responsible for the regime's repressions by many Poles. This inspired pervasive anti-Semitic feelings, that sparked by a falsified rumours of Jewish blood libel, resulted in the Kielce pogrom in July 1946, when a crowd attacked a building housing Jews preparing to emigrate to Palestine, killing approximately 40 and wounding approximately 50.

--Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

All right since there are no objections I'll try this :-) --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

For some background, I will first duplicate a recent talk page discussion between Lysy and myself:

In History of Poland (1945-1989) you've recently written that the Communist regime itself ordered that the properties of returning Jewish Holocaust surviviors not be returned to them. I'd be interested to learn whose order or what law specifically you've had in mind. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

See Jewish Polish history during the 1900s#Post-war. Thanks for the inquiry, HKT 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but information there is even less specific then what you've written. It mentions 1945-1948 emmigration as the result of the above mentioned order but the property was not even nationalised by then so how could it be not returned. I'm concerned that this statement may be not based on facts as long as there has not been a decree or otherwise law issued not prohibiting the return of Jewish property specifically in these years ? --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)

I see - in that case the situation is alas well too known to me (as my family lost all the property this way as well). The notion of "ownership" just lost its previous meaning under communists, especially after the war. However this concerned all the people in Poland, not the Jews only and then hardly can be described as anti-semitism. What do you think ? --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Are you saying that, under the communists, land was allowed to be kept by whomever seized it? For example, if one Russian (Vassily, let's say) would simply begin to inhabit a second Russian's (Yuri) home while Yuri was on vacation, Vassily could keep the house? HKT 6 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what happend in Poland after the war. Most people lost their property in post-war communist Poland regardless of their ethnic origins and I believe the same was true for other countries that fell into Soviet bloc. With massive population moves during and following the war people were not able to return to their own houses othen simply because someone other moved in ("owned it") in the meantime. More lucrative property would be "nationalised" or shared between more prominent communists. Those seeking justice would usually be labeled as enemies of communism and imprisoned and killed or sent to Siberia if they were lucky. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

I can relate to this to some degree: My family narrowly escaped from Ukraine ~1920. I wasn't aware, however, that properties would change hands like that so typically in post-war Poland. Anyway, feel free to change that part of my edit (and I'd like to see a source for this, too). Thanks for the pointer, HKT 6 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Lysy: (1.) I have not seen the source that I asked for regarding your assertion vis-a-vis random reallocation of properties in Poland. (2.) You call the quoted statements "flawed or illogical," never mentioning why. (3.) You waited less than 4 hours and then declared that "there are no objections." That was a shock for me to find when I logged in!

Now, here are my main problems with the suggested change (that is now more than suggested):

(1.) You claim that previously non-existent anti-Semitism exploded because some Jews were in the communist party. This is categorically false (and you will immedietly agree that you have, at least, left it unsourced). (2.) Again, you bring no source for reallocation of properties in Poland according to whoever happened to take over. Looking forward to seeing you dispel my confusion, HKT 6 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism did exist in Poland pre-1939, as in most of Europe - see History of Jews in Poland for more details. As for communism, property and Jews post 1945, just today I found an interesting article [1]: Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Kosciuszko Chair of Polish Studies at the University of Virginia, argues in his new book against interpreting postwar killings of Jews in Poland as the result of antisemitism. He cites three reasons that Poles killed Jews: resistance to Jewish communists, to Jews determined to execute Poles who had collaborated with the Nazis, and to Jews attempting to reclaim property expropriated by Nazis and since claimed by Poles. (...) Jews were disproportionately represented in the Communist power structure Not very detailed, but a start in references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

I apologize for being fast and impatient here as I've lost my notion of time. I was under the impression that you agree with me. But every edit can always changed :-) Adressing your specific concetns: (1.) The fact that ethnically Jewish people were prominent communists contributed to anti-Semitism that led to the pogrom. They may be also other factors. Are you able to name them ? (2.) What kind of source would you expect here ? Do you think there was any research conducted on this ? --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

It's fine. :)

(1.) See History of Jews in Poland#Rising Anti-Semitism, which briefly details that the Jews at the time were frequently considered suspicious outsiders. When suspicious outsiders return to one's country, he uses communism as something to "hang his hat on," so to speak. In other words, he will tend to find some way to associate negativity with the outsiders (despite that what he comes up with isn't the cause of his animosity).

(2.) Why shouldn't reallocation of properties have been well documented historically?

Hopefully, I'll add details to both points tomorrow. HKT 7 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

Concerning (2.):

• Stanley Von Rundstedt "The Restitution of Property After Communism:Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland" Parker School Journal of East European Law 4
• Istvan Pogany "Righting Wrongs in Eastern Europe" Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press, 1997
• and some press commentary online in English, not a research but related

--Lysy (talk) 7 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)

Your link talks about nationalized property. That's not germane to this discussion (even the US (Federal, State, and Local goverments) can now take away private property and give it to other people for the sake of government profit) :(. I'm talking about private citizens directly seizing properties of other private citizens without any accountability. (More to come). HKT 7 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)

I think I know where the dog is buried, as the Germans say. The problem is that there are two different topics here, distinct but related:

1. post-war nationalisation (often against the commie rules and laws)
2. wartime expropriation

The earlier is quite well-documented as practically everything was nationalized in Poland (or pressed into cooperatives and then closed down, as in the case of bars, restaurants and other such businesses) and it would be hard to find examples to the contrary. For instance, in the area of Warsaw there was only one restaurant that remained in private hands while some 98% were first nationalized and then closed.

The latter is much more complex, as the matter is closely related to the Holocaust. In all cities with Ghettos, the German authorities created organizations to take over and manage the houses abandoned by people forced into ghettos or sent to concentration camps. Up to certain point these things could be handled by normal civilian authorities. However, with the Shoah speeding up in 1941 and 1942, the number of abandoned houses was rising and separate offices were created.

The main task of such units was to manage the emptied houses - and the best and most sensible idea was to grant them to people who lost their homes in the effect of the war of 1939 (roughly 2 millions) or to the reffugees and people resettled from areas directly incorporated to the Reich. This, for instance, was the case with the small houses to the north of the main square in Kielce, which were emptied and then granted to people from the area, whose houses were burnt by the Germans as part of anti-partisan actions.

And now it's time for a conclusion: it's 1946 and many Jews and gentiles alike return to their pre-war homes, only to see some people living there. Given the number of DPs that war produced, there must've been millions of people in similar situation. And now we need to find a proof that the commie authorities purposedly prevented such people from reclaiming their property. And, if we find such a proof (law, act, decree, order, whatever), it will have to be pretty clear that it was aimed at Jews only. Otherwise it would not be an example of anti-Semitism, but rather anti-Everyone, which was the case with most of commie policies. Halibutt July 7, 2005 18:13 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty logical possibility (tangentially, communist anti-Everyone policies tended to contain a twist of extra, specific anti-Semitism). I'd like to see sources for this. I'm a bit skeptical about whether this can account for everything, though, partly because I've encountered numerous accounts of returning Holocaust survivors who specifically found previous neighbors and housekeepers running their homes (though it's theoretically possible to attribute this to your theory, also). HKT 7 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on your own point of view whether you underline the anti-Semitism or anti-Polishness or anti-Kulak or anti-intelligentsia or anti-anyone in the long and sad history of commie persecution of everyone.

As to sources - what sources do you need? The number of DPs? Or the number of those who returned? Or some sources proving that the post-Jewish property was administered by civilian authorities during WWII?

Of course, there were zillions of cases where the houses were simply first taken by the neighbours, who in turn left their own houses for the others to settle in. There were millions of victims of German policies and even more DPs in Poland in WWII, so the scale is huge and I bet you can find a proof for everything among them. Anyway, similar was the case of part of my family, who had their home confiscated by the German soldiers and moved into a house of a wealthy Jewish family. As a sidenote, after the war the house was first nationalised, then some more people were massed in (a common thing in post-war Poland) and then it was taken by some local commie bonzo. Halibutt July 7, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that good sources to have would be those that show that all types of DP's were prevented from getting their houses back. I'm confident that you'll be able to find some sources that either confirm or deny this. Unless there is a major historical controversy over this (which I doubt), one or two reputable sources should be fine.

On another note, perhaps you could weigh in on my earlier comment (regarding causes of the Kielce Pogrom), which discusses an issue of (I think) significantly greater import. As of now, I'm disturbed by the current formulation of a passage in this article which implies that Jewish involvement in communism was the primary motivating factor behind Polish anti-Semitism. The passage reads:

"Meanwhile some others, mostly those who returned from Soviet Russia, including Hilary Minc and the Party security and ideological chief Jakub Berman assumed prominent positions in communist leadership and were in result held responsible for the regime's repressions by many Poles. This inspired pervasive anti-Semitic feelings, that sparked by a falsified rumours of Jewish blood libel, resulted in the Kielce pogrom...."

I wrote:

"See History of Jews in Poland#Rising Anti-Semitism, which briefly details that the Jews at the time were frequently considered suspicious outsiders. When suspicious outsiders return to one's country, one uses communism as something to "hang his hat on," so to speak. In other words, he will tend to find some way to associate negativity with the outsiders (despite that what he comes up with isn't the cause of his animosity)."

Thoughts? HKT 7 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Just for some background, here are some quotes from The Journal of Modern History (University of Chicago Press):

"In Poland, the semidictatorial government of Pilsudski and his successors, pressured by an increasingly vocal opposition on the radical and fascist right, implemented many anti-Semitic policies tending in a similar direction, while still others were on the official and semiofficial agenda when war descended in 1939.... The government's response, in 1937, was to organize the Camp of National Unity (OZN or OZON).... In 1938 OZON came to dominate the Polish parliament, where it began drafting anti-Jewish laws of the kind adopted in Germany between 1933 and 1935, in Romania in 1934 and 1940, and in Hungary in 1938 and 1939, Already since the early 1920s the Polish government had systematically excluded the Jews from employment in the public sector, from obtaining licenses to operate businesses in the broad sphere of the government-regulated or government-monopolized economy, and from receiving any considerable government bank credits. In the 1930s the realm of official and semiofficial discrimination expanded to encompass limits on Jewish export firms, on Jewish artisan shops, on ritual slaughtering (which was a major source of tax income for Jewish communal self-government), on admission to medical practice and the bar, on membership in nationwide business associations, on access to university-preparatory secondary education and university-level student organizations, and, increasingly, on university admission itself. In 1921-22 some 25 percent of Polish university students were Jewish, but in 1938-39 their proportion had fallen to 8 percent."

"Actual government service itself had been closed to Jews to all intents and purposes from the very beginning, very firmly indeed at the central administrative level, but at the less exalted level of the railway and postal service as well, in 1931...of the postal workers 21 out of 16,840 (.1%) were Jews...of the 28,895 railroad workers 44 (.1%) were Jews... or the 41,905 state administration and court officals 534 (1.3%) were Jews."

It doesn't seem to me like Jewish involvement in communism created anti-Semitism ex-nihilo. HKT 7 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

There's no doubt that there was a strong anti-Jewish movement in Poland in late 1930-s, it may be disputable how strong it was, but its existence is a fact. I'm not sure to what extent this can be used to explain the situaton in late 1940-s, as there's no doubt that the perception had to change completely during the war years. However, it was not my intention to suggest that the active role of ethnically Jewish people in the communist government could justify pogroms in any way. They obviously contributed to the anti-Semitic feelings and therefore I find the current wording of the article ("fed into existing anti-Semitism") better. --Lysy (talk) 9 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

And in fact I do not believe that this has much to do with the incidents of people being attacked upon their return home, which had more to do with greed (although this is more complicated again). Therefore I've changed the order of sentences a bit to avoid this suggestion. --Lysy (talk) 9 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Davies in his God's playground wisely notes that (as we have already shown in the article) most of Jews that were alive in Poland around 1945 left out of their free will, especially as the vision of their own country was much preferable to remaining in place of the Holocaust, devastated by war, threatened by Soviet commie regime and still exhbiting some signs of anti-Semitism. Thus those few that remained either were dedicated communists or opportunits, none of which (regardless of their race) were the type of human being kindly regarded by majority of Poles (remeber there was still a civil war going on till 1947 at least, with killings, repressions, etc., plus the usual NKVD 'nice guy' acts stirring the populace). As most of those Jews that remaind were pro-commie, this gave the rise to the idea of Zydokomuna, fueled anti-Semitic excesses and such, and forced more and more Jews to chose between leaving the country or embracing the regime and security/opportunity it offered. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 9 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

May I suggest expanding Polish Jews after the War to National Minorities in Poland after the War, and include a discussion about the fate of Germans and Ukrainians who in 1945 were on Polish territory. Somehow the article skims over the essential feature of Poland after 1945: that for the first time in its history it was overwhelmingly inhabited by ethnic Poles. It should explain how that came about. Balcer 8 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Agree. At least German and Ukrainian minorities should not be completely ignored here. The fate of some other might deserve mentioning as well. --Lysy (talk) 9 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

Done. Retitled and added a paragraph on non-Jewish minorities. There were no other significant minorities in pre-war Poland (with exception of Bielorussians, but they suffered mostly the same fate as Ukrainians - lived at Kresy and were gobbled by the Stalin border change). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 9 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

So far, I have no argument with anything written on this talk page since my last post or with the current version of the "minorities" section in the article. I'm quite impressed with the content and development of the article and am planning on voting support for FA. Good work, all collaborators! HKT 06:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As has been pointed out at FAC, the 'Minorities in Poland after the War' section is important, but it can be moved to a subarticle, thus making this article a bit shorter. I am not a great fan of shortening articles, but I think it will have to be done eventually. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I would rather leave it for now, until its length justifies a separate article, and even then I would keep a short section here. Just that noone thinks it's ignored later. --Lysy (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

'Minorities in Poland after the War' section fails to mention concentration camps for Germans in Poland as well as conditions under which Ukrainians were deported to USSR (Akcja Wisła - Vistula Action). On the other hand, portion dedicated to Jews selectively duplicates information already contained in the History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Communist_rule:_1945-1989 and Kielce Pogrom articles - it needs to be summarized here. --Ttyre 13:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wyszyński photo

It would make more sense to include a photo of Wyszyński in public in the 1950s in this article, as opposed to a portrait. I've found one here, but since I don't read Polish, I would not be able to include the date. I'd appreciate it if anyone would be interested in taking a look at those photos. Thanks. 172 6 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

These photos are from a book, I don't know if they are licensed to be used elsewhere or not. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

I don't see a 'clear copyright notice', so I'd say that Template:PD-Poland applies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Thanks. Before I upload them, could you give me some ideas for a caption, since, as mentioned, I don't know Polish. 172 6 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Unfortunately that page doesn't seem to give any specific contexts for the photos. I can make as much sense as you looking at them :> The third one is the best for our article, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Thanks. Is this the one you mean? 172 6 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Yes. Perfect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Also, the photos of Walesa and Pope John Paul II can be replaced by ones of them attending rallies, in particular the Pope's visit in 1979. I'll upload some and let everyone take a look on talk. 172 6 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

How about this as a replacement for the portrait of John Paul II? 172 6 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Here's one of the Pope and Walesa in 1981 [2] 172 6 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

Great photos. Feel free to add them in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added them. 172 6 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Polish legislative election, 1947

I think I read somewhere that the some documents/memoirs now openly admit the communists knew they couldn't win. As 172 asked for the source of this info, and I can't remember it, perhaps somebody else can? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty clear even back then. Rememer the case of the Kraków constituency during the 1946 referendum? In short, the original, unaltered, partial results were published before the commies falsified them and it turned out that some 80% of people actually voted against the commies (see, for instance, pl:Referendum ludowe).

As to the 1947 election themselves - there are lots of books published recently on the topic, including the classic W imieniu Kremla by Stefan Korboński, Kampania wyborcza i wybory do Sejmu Ustawodawczego 19 stycznia 1947 by Janusz Wrona, Wybory do Sejmu Ustawodawczego z 19 stycznia 1947 r. w świetle skarg ludności by Michał Skoczylas, a book by Czesław Osękowski, Referendum 1946, wybory 1947 and Sfałszowane wybory by Stanisław Wójcik (the latter forst issued by NOWa in 1981) and perhaps many more. Just pick your poison :) Halibutt July 8, 2005 06:04 (UTC)

Check also [3]. Halibutt

Polish October

Under the heading De-Stalinzation and Polish October. The phrase is Polish October is never mentioned once. Could someone add some inf or change the heading

---

BirgitteSB

Move: 1944 or 1945

After reading the article yet again, and Davies in the meantime, I am convinced we need to rename it to History of Poland (1944-1989) (and the previous article in the series, History of Poland (1939-1945) to History of Poland (1939-1944). The 1945 - end of IIWW - does not in itself create a new era in history of Poland. It was the occupation/liberation of Polish territories by Red Army, that started in 1944 (the year of PKWN among other things), that begun this new era. Note also that thhe previous article deals mostly with German occupation of Polish territories, but it was all but gone by the January 1945. True, there will always be some overlaps, but I think that adoption of 1944 into this article will clear some confusion (which was also mentioned in the FAC). What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point, but both 1944 and 1945 would be fine really. Because of the anniversary of victory, 1945 is almost a standard watershed in the discipline of history, even if it is kind of arbitrary. I don't think that anyone would fail to realize that 1945-1989 covers the Communist era for any Eastern European country. 172 21:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer 1945, as in 1944 only a small part of what today is Poland was freed from German occupation by the Red Army, and the Lublin government established in July 1944 had much less international recognition than the Polish Government in Exile. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences which sealed the postwar fate of Poland took place in 1945, and the Soviet-sponsored government was recognised by the other great powers in the same year. But of course we are arguing about 6 months here, so either year would be fine with me. Balcer 22:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

some points regarding npov

OK, 172 says he wants to get this article to npov and then to "featured article", so I'll go along for him.

I and other have read this article and seen massive POV by the first, second or third line. I have been reading down this article and the first three sentences seem fine now. So I'll comment on what I see, although I won't edit the article - yet.

"The new regime in Warsaw subdued a guerrilla resistance in the countryside and gained political advantage by gradually whittling away the influence of their noncommunist foes."

Shouldn't it be mentioned that some of the guerilla resistance not only worked with the Nazis, but was on some level activated by "ex"-Nazis like Reinhard Gehlen who suddenly found themselves in charge of intelligence for West Germany (which re-enacted the Nazi era ban on the KPD in 1956)? And they received material support from them - the same goes for the other "political...noncommunist foes". If the Russian influence is mentioned, so should this influence. There was Vatican influence as well of course, but this is mentioned already.

Errrr. This would be the first I heard about a pro-Nazi Polish guerilla resistance. Are you sure you are not confusing something here? Could you elaborate on this? Anti-Soviet does not equal pro-Nazi. If you could provide more info and references, I am sure we can include this here or in some related subarticle (this is getting big already). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about we put all negative references to the Soviet Union in a sub-article as well? Ruy Lopez 03:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruy, see my proposal below. I'll go look for references on the fact that there was a connection between some guerrilla fighters and the German occupation. 172 04:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If you do find some, they should probably go into History of Poland (1939-1945), not here. I suggest you check Narodowe Siły Zbrojne first, as this was the organisation most frequently accused of collaboration with the Nazis. Balcer 04:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As the Cold War got going in the late 1940s, there were some within the United States government who wanted to encourage anti-communist guerrilas and spies in newly-communist Eastern Europe. They were to be used as guerillas in the present and as a Fifth column in the event of World War III, which some thought was inevitable. The details on this remain murky, but apparently at least in Poland the efforts appear to have ended in failure. As far as I remember, the policy was not pursued for long, as the West quickly adopted the policy of containment (as opposed to rollback).

Here is some info, from review of the book Operation Rollback: America's Secret War Behind the Iron Curtain. Here is the key quote:

One of the worst failures of Rollback, Grose says, concerned the Polish underground movement, "Wolnosc i Niezawistosc" (Freedom and Independence, or WIN) (p. 176). In February 1949 U.S. intelligence officials began to finance the WIN network[1] Most of them strongly believed that the Soviet Union planned to launch an offensive toward Western Europe and that the most direct route was through the Polish heartland; hence the urgent need for an early warning system and pro-Western underground network in Poland. For three years the CIA funneled large amounts of Marshall Plan aid to WIN, only to discover that one of the top WIN leaders in Poland, Sienko, had long ago been turned into a double agent by Soviet security officials (pp. 178-79).[2]

We can certainly use an article Wolnosc i Niezawislosc/Wolność i Niezawisłość (Freedom and Sovereignity). With material from this very discussion we have enough for a stub. I still fail to see *any* reference to Polish resistance movements collaboration with Nazis during the IIWW. I do agree some - like NSZ or WIN - could and likely did receive funds from US, and as US was in control of the Western Germany (then still the US Occupation Zone I think) it was the US which primarly used former Nazi people/facilities/know how against Soviets, not Poland. Ruy, please provide references for this or aplogise for insulting the Polish resistance of collaboration with Nazis. It offends the momory of great people like Witold Pilecki (ever heard of him?), participants of Warsaw Uprising and many other. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Article on WiN can be adopted from Polish PWN encyclopedia entry: [4]. Anybody willing to translate? There is also sufficent information to create an article on Civil war in Poland, but I am not sure about the name for the article. Suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"de-Stalinization"

I feel this is POV and can be put another way. The death of Stalin and liberalization is mentioned, why does this phrase, which I feel is POV, put in? Do we call the New Deal "Rooseveltization" and getting rid of the New Deal "de-Rooseveltization"? It seems rather silly, and POV, to me.

de-Stalinization was an actual event in the Soviet Union, so that is why it was used. That name was also used too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What Zscout370 sais. It is defined as: social process of neutralizing the influence of Joseph Stalin by revising his policies and removing monuments dedicated to him and renaming places named in his honor; "his statue was demolished as part of destalinization". It is used by Davies as well. I don't think it is POVed in any way. Note the correct spelling is 'destalinization' without the '-'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"The rises were a fatal miscalculation, for they turned the urban population against the regime." I feel "were a fatal miscalculation, for they" is POV. Why do those words need to be in the sentence? It is a POV attempt to portray the Polish bureaucrats as cold, calculating automatons.

They refers t the rises, not the bureaucrats. Not that I consider this sentence the height of beautiful prose, feel free to reword it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence. Ruy Lopez 04:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OK - so I'm three paragraphs in and these are the sorts of still POV insertions I see, along with the omission of significant facts like that of some of the countryside guerillas connections with the Nazis from the 1940s onward, and that sort of thing. Ruy Lopez 23:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If you think that 'countryside guerillas connections with the Nazis from the 1940s onward' were significant, then one of us needs to do some serious reading on this place and period... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Ruy is saying that the bulk of them had Nazi connections, but he is correct in pointing out some of them did. The unfortunate fact is that in every territory occupied by the Germans, the Nazis found local collaborators, especially under the guise of anticommunism, as is the case for every territory that has come under colonial subjugation. Ruy should feel welcome to add about one or two sentences, with a proper citation, pointing out this connection. 172 02:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Were anti-communist guerillas really active in Poland "well into the 1950s"? I know this was the case in the Baltic States and in Ukraine, but from what I remember in Poland there was an amnesty and most anti-communist fighters took advantage of it, so by 1950 there was almost no conflict anymore. Can someone with the sources at hand clear this up? Balcer 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I wrote it up several days ago, but I can't recall the source. Davies which I reread today mentions that majority of armed opposition ceased around 1948. Hmmm. If we cannot find a source soon, I'd say remove it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See: Ewa Kurek, Zaporczycy w Fotografii 1943-1963, Wydawnictwo Clio, 2001. The last anti-communist guerilla Józef Franczak "Lalek" committed suicide after being surrounded by SB forces on Oct. 21, 1963 in Stary Majdan village near Lublin. --Ttyre 02:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, probably there were Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungles thinking the war was still on for decades after 1945. This fact of course does not imply that Japan was still engaged in significant conflict. I am not so much interested in the "last guerilla" but in the last significant action by the guerillas, the last large unit operating in the forest etc. Balcer 02:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

One thing I didn't notice before - the word regime is mentioned four times in the first three paragraphs. I have replaced the word regime with government in each instance. If one looks on Google for "US regime" (sans false hits with "US regime change") or "American regime", almost all of the opening articles are negative. This is not the case with "US government". Regime seems to have negative connotations, so I have changed it to the more neutral government. Ruy Lopez 04:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think even stepping back from things like the word regime - the entire tone of this article is a negative one about Poland from 1945-1989. Everything that went wrong in Poland is mentioned, but positive things like the building of the Warsaw Palace of Culture and Science, or the Centrum Zachód complex are not mentioned. These are still tourist attractions today. Or whatever.

"Accentuate the positive / Eliminate the negative / Latch on to the affirmative" Ruy Lopez 04:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Your concept of neutrality is going a bit too far.

Here is the Webster definition of regime (one of 2):

2 a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government <a socialist regime> c : a government in power <predicted that the new regime would fall> d : a period of rule

I don't see anything strongly negative implied in this definition. But even if the word were to have a negative connotation in popular use, then why should we not use it? Surely you are aware that the communist government in Poland was on the whole a negative phenomenon (keywords:dictatorship, secret police, suppression of democracy, economic crisis, etc etc). Sure some buildings were built (though actually the Warsaw Palace of Culture and Science is a truly unfortunate example). But guess what? In Nazi Germany buildings were also built, roads were paved etc. etc. By your rule, do you want to "accentuate the positive" when writing about that period of German history?

In my experience, neutrality is required on Wikipedia if there are two groups of editors which have opposing views on the subject, and to resolve the conflict both try to reach a neutral position somewhere in the middle, or at least to discuss both viewpoints. So far I don't see any such situation here. Those who think the communist regime in Poland was a positive development, please raise your hand!

Before I get too emotional here, let me get something off my chest. Please keep in mind that some of the editors writing here (myself included) have spent their childhood and youth in communist Poland, and they or their families were probably in one way or another affected by all the negative features of that system. Try to understand that if we choose the word regime instead of government, there are some reasons stemming from personal experience behind this. Like it or not, it is sometimes hard for people like me to write about communist Poland in "neutral" terms. Balcer 04:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem, as I've said before regarding this page, is that there is a basis of neutrality for how to describe these things. The example I gave is the History of Italy. If the Polish government was a "regime" then the Italian government must be called a "regime". If Polish people were in some ways affected by all the negative features of that system, so were Italian people. And so forth. For many people, especially Italian workers, there is no difference between the US presence in Italy, government repression against them and so forth than whatever level of oppression Polish workers felt in Poland during those years. Yet the History of Italy reads nothing like the laundry list of negative comments against the Polish government.

Someone trying to change the subject could say, "well, rewrite the History of Italy then", but that is the most obvious of distractions - we are talking about this article. We are talking about the cold war, and if five good things and five bad things happen in Italy and Poland, we can't have only the five bad things mentioned in the Polish article, and only the five good things in the Italy article. When I edit the Polish article, I'm told I'm being too positive (in the face of an overwhelmingly negative article), when I'm editing the Italy article, I'm told I'm being too negative, anti-American and so forth (in the face of an overwhelmingly positive article). I am constantly accused here of being anti-American despite the fact that I'm American. Can you imagine if I began accusing here of being "anti-USSR" as if that's something they should come running to apologize for? People would laugh their heads off.

The History of Italy is the level of neutrality we are aiming for here. And please don't try to change the subject and say to edit that article when we're discussing this article, someone said this before, which means they've completely missed the point of what I have been saying. Ruy Lopez 05:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have little interest in rewriting History of Italy. But you piqued my interest and I will find time to at least read it.

Let me get to my main point. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that you see no moral difference between the two sides that have participated in the Cold War. (Or at least you believe that no such moral difference can be discussed in Wikipedia articles). Hence to you the case of Italy and Poland are simply mirror images, with no moral distinction between them. I must say I find this view deeply disturbing, and smacking of the worst kind of relativism.

While I will of course admit that Italy is not perfect, that it has US bases on its territory, that it has corruption etc etc, let's look at some key differences between Italy and Poland, and Eastern Europe and Western Europe, at the time. This is by no means comprehensive, just a list of obvious differences that come to mind.

1. Italy had democracy, with free elections in which the Communist Party could freely compete. In Poland and all of Eastern Europe, such elections were out of the question.

2. Economic performace. No argument here, Italy was doing much, much better than Poland.

3. Freedom to travel. Italy: yes. Poland: only with the permission of the government. To put things more generally, think who built the Berlin Wall and which way people were trying to escape across it.

4. Censorship: Italy - practically none. Poland - total.

Now, I would like to understand your position. In light of what you seem to believe, do you: (a) believe that the above differences did not actually exist? (b) do you think that they do not matter in the moral and ethical evaluation of the two systems (or lack of it)? Balcer 05:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Balcer, the debate on "moral equivalency" in the Cold War has been raging since the 1960s, throughout much of Eastern Europe dealing with the legacy of Communism and in Western academia. There is little reason to play it out now on Wikipedia. Editors with diverging views on this debate can easily work around it on Wikipedia by dispassionately reporting the facts, a practice in fact required by the NPOV policy. 172 06:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Italy had democracy, with free elections in which the Communist Party could freely compete. In Poland and all of Eastern Europe, such elections were out of the question." That Italy had free elections throughout 1945 to 1989 is absolutely ludicrous. The 1948 "elections" were a complete fraud. The US spent millions of dollars supporting the Christian Democrats, and attempting to undermine the communist party, from 1948 on. The US openly (and secretly) did everything it could to make the Christian Democrats win in 1948 and the communists lose, despite this massive interference they still could not win and had a fraudulent, thrown election in 1948. And this goes right up until 1989 (and afterward). There are plenty of declassified US memos talking about this, including discussions of whether to have an invasion of Italy after a potential communist win (the dove position), or whether an invasion should be done even beforehand (the hawk position). You talk about Eastern Europe - what elections were taking place in Spain? Portugal? There were no free elections in West Germany - the government decided all of the candidates and parties (the KPD was banned in the 1950s). West Germany did not have free elections, but East Germany did.

Good points on the U.S. in Italy. To everyone else, these are all correct statements. One definitely has to acknowledge these facts, regardless of his stance on the debate of "moral equivalency." 172 07:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus and Halibutt already covered much of the ground in this discussion, so let met just make a short comment here. Sure, I am aware that elections in Italy had murky aspects, especially the one in 1948, in which the USA interefered in various ways. Note that I said that Italy had free elections, not necessarily fair elections. Still, the Communist party was allowed to compete. It could publish its newspapers which openly criticised the regime. In Poland, public criticism of the regime was a crime. Founding any political organisation which could even in theory challenge the communist party without the party's permission was a crime. All newspapers which were allowed by the Communists to be published were fully supportive of the regime. As for rigging the votes, there was no vote to rig because only candidates approved by the Communist party were allowed to run. Could the vote numbers in Italy have been distorted? Most likely yes, especially in 1948. However, I do not believe that the Communists in Italy ever came to enjoy overwhelming support (say about 75% of the "true" vote). In Poland, if the Communists had allowed free elections, probably 80% of the population would have voted against them (though of course we will never know for sure).

To put it even more simply, in Italy the Communist Party and other opposition forces had to participate in a political process which was in many ways stacked against them. In Poland the Communist party simply excluded all opposition from the political process. To use a very approximate soccer analogy, in Italy the opposition team had to play against a goverment team which controlled the referees. In such a match the opposition team could still win, if they were much better than the government team. In Poland the government team simply arrested the opposition team, then played the soccer game with only one team on the field, declaring a glorious victory. Balcer 14:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Good comparison, Balcer :) The article on Polish people's referenda, 1946, which I composed of Davies and Polish Wiki, has some interesting numbers (I am still looking for more sources, Polish wiki material was of course unsourced, eh....). PWN encyclopedia (rather undisputable - think Polish Britannica) writes: PSL (opposition) estimated that 3xYES was given by 15% of respondents. Secret protocols of PPR (the communists) show 27%. Official results were 68%. This should show you the extent to which Polish communists twisted the votes - do you say that it was just as in Italy? I still have to write the article on 1947 election, but don't expect many revelations there - it is just more depressing. Note: can I request references for the "The Communists admitted in the last year of their rule that they had also resorted to systematic vote-rigging, both in a referendum in June 1946 which legitimised the provisional government, and in the 1947 parliamentary elections," - I didn't write it, and a direct reference would be very useful? My primary reference, Davies, goes just up to 1970s. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as travel, you mention Poland and West Germany. I'm most familiar with the United States travel. People in the US did not have freedom to travel, and do not have freedom to travel. Even today American citizens only have freedom to travel to certain countries - we are forbidden to travel to countries such as Cuba. I can think of many Americans were denied the right to travel abroad at all - Paul Robeson, William Hinton, WEB DuBois and so on. I know the situation was similar in Italy, although I'm more familiar with the US, I will have to look at this more. I should also add that I know plenty of people who moved to the US from Hungary, Russia, Poland and other countries of Eastern Europe between 1945-1989. It seems to me that the majority of Polish people, ie. blue collar workers, if they wanted to travel to or move to the US or Western Europe, could apply, and there might be some red tape and paper work, but if they were persistent, they almost always were able to leave (if another country wanted them). And of course there is red-tape and paper-work getting a passport in the US as well - I sent in for a passport and was denied because they said I filled out one part of my form incorrectly. The USSR would have been delighted if Sakharov had left them alone and left to live in the US or somewhere like that, he was much more of a problem to them in the USSR than he would have been in the US. It is probably true that a small number of highly skilled workers were probably given more red-tape and so forth in terms of leaving, but how is that different than Robeson, Hinton, DuBois etc. being denied passports for a while? Travel to Cuba forbidden? and so forth...

As far as Italy - the media was controlled by the capitalists, or the government, which was a capitalist government. The situation was similar throughout Western Europe. There was censorship in Western Europe as well. Books come to mind, and not just ones with sexual material - Peter Wright's "Spycatcher" was banned in the UK, and there are other examples as well, *especially* in Italy. Someone was recently threatened with a year in jail for publishing a picture of Pope Benedict in the Hitler Youth uniform he used to wear.

As far as your comment on the economies - I do not at the moment want to dive into an economic history of Italy and Poland for these years. I do know that Eastern European agriculture often out-performed Western European agriculture. But anyhow, for now you win this point, since I have thus far offered nothing to contradict it. Ruy Lopez 07:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruy, I'll try to resolve your objections by adding a note on the connection to the German occupation among some anti-Soviet guerrillas and by adding a section on social history-- ethnicity, gender, labor, and class-- where many of the more "positive" developments are noted in the historiography. 172 07:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I find this comparison really strange, but that's probably because we look at it from different perspectives. For me an oppressive regime is the one who kills its opponents. For you it's the one that supports one of the sides in elections with l;arge sums of money... We're both right here, perhaps...

Yes, and of course Italy never killed any of its political opponents (Giuseppe Pinelli), right? Ruy Lopez 09:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, to address your points: the US of A perhaps supported one of the sides in the elections with money. The differences however are, that:

1. In Poland after 1945 (or rather 1938...) nobody supported one of the sides with money during the elections since there was only one side: one party with two facade parties.
2. In Poland it was the party that chose the candidates to the Sejm - all of them, including those who were theoretically members of other unions or unaffiliated
3. In Poland it was the Party that in fact chose the members of the parliament, since nobody even counted the votes; all elections prior to 1989 were set up. The last voting in which the votes were (at least partially) counted was the 1946 referendum. But even then the final result was falsified (and we're not talking of 1 or 2 per cent difference here).
4. In Italy the Christian Democrats did not imprison or kill their opponents

As to freedom of travel - these situations are incomparable. In US you can't go directly to several countries in the world (Cuba, Iran, which else?). In Poland you couldn't go to any country. Since 1970 the rules were slightly liberalised and people could go to other Soviet states and even Yugoslavia, but travelling anywhere else was practically impossible - unless you were a party member, of course.

Also, the examples of censorship you give sound really funny. You know, in 1981, shortly before the Martial Law in Poland, the Solidarity forced the commies to accept a law that stated that each intervention of the censors should be mentioned in the text. That's when newspapers started to appear with mostly blank pages. In other words, in the West there were examples of several books withdrawn from the libraries. In Poland all books, newspapers, screenplays, films, and so on were heavily censored - and many were completely banned. Polish translation of The Master and Margarita was finally allowed, but it was shorter by ca. 50 pages. Isaac Babel's books were also allowed, but with some 75% of the content left out. And so on. Also, in 1988 someone counted that in the Tygodnik Powszechny weekly, the censorship intervened roughjly 10 times a week, with almost 100 texts completely banned. Did anything similar happen in Italy? I doubt it. Halibutt 08:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ruy. Comparing Italy to Poland, while it is interesting, will always show that whatever disputable methods US used, what USSR used in Poland was thousandfold more vicious. You say CIA assasinated some commie leaders in Italy - how many? Dozens? Hundreds? Hundreds of thusands of people died in PRL - *heroes* like Witold Pilecki, leaders of AK and RJN sentenced in the Trial of the Sixteen. When Stanisław Mikołajczyk escaped to UK in 1947, Churchill told him 'I am surpised to see you still alive'. Censorship? The triumph of censorship: Poland, 1947. Vice-prime minister Mikołajczyk's protest against the censorship has been... censored. not only from press, but from the minutes of the offical Sejm debate. Travel? Forget about going abroad. You had to had permits to use trains and travel between cities. *Every* intercity (and intercountry) phonecall was tapped and listened by Urząd Bezpieczeństwa. Elections. There was no opposition - the Party nominated every single candidate. Economics - guess why average real income in Poland was 1/1000 of that in US (exchange zloty's per dollars), and now is *only* 1/5th. Also, doesn't it make you wonder that there is not a single Pole here who would leap to defense of the PRL regime? PRL had its good sides - more then Nazi Germany, sure - but the bottom line is it was a murderous, opressive and undemocratic regime, and those of us who lived here *know* it. I was only 10 when PRL dissolved, but I do remember the grey, dark streets, empty shelves, ration cards for milk, and that things like bananas, oranges or *meat* were rare, luxury items. Brief note on regime: I don't mind either way - regime or government, both are fine to me. Finally, feel free to provide sources contradicting me. We have provided plenty of sources in references - have you read any of them? Davies God's Playground is quite NPOV (he is British, not Polish). Perhaps you should read up a little on this period, since I am afraid your knowledge of Italy simply doesn't suffice for understanding Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruy, I just realised a major difference in what we are talking about. You say that Communists in Italy were opressed, and we all agree it was the case. But in PRL, everybody but Communists was opressed. Do you see the difference? Also, some numbers from PWN encyclopedia for further discussion: "forces of Red Army were stationed in Poland (1945 - 500,000; until 1955 - 120-150,000, until 1989 - 60-80,000). Minstry of Public Security was responsible to Soviet 'advisors'. In 1945 Soviet generals and advisors formed 80% of officer cadre of Wojsko Ludowe, by 1948 30-40%. ". Those numbers well illustrate the difference between the level of control US in Italy and USSR in Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, as to the word "regime" - it's much better than the government since:

1. Poland had two governments at that time
2. The Warsaw-based government had no power and the actual power was vested in the Party and Soviet embassador

All in all, it was not the actual government that ruled Poland at that time. Halibutt 08:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The debate is getting pretty interesting, but we're all better off focuing on strategies to improve the article. I think that I can satisfy Ruy and Fifelfoo's objections on FAC, without taking a side on the debate on "moral equivalency" by adding a section on social history (more on class, ethnicity, and gender) along the lines of the section on "changes in Soviet society" in History of Russia. Any thoughts? Broadening the perspective and introducing more historical data should satisfy parties of all political orientations here. 172 08:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

When I designed the Polish series, I decided that the Template:Polish statehood series should be the main article. From each of its subarticles - which would be like that about any modern country (see Polish-Lithuanian Commownealth for FA example) subarticles on history, economy, culture etc. should spin off. So yes, we are missing article on Culture of the People's Republic of Poland, which should be a subarticle of People's Republic of Poland and Culture of Poland, just as this history is a subarticle of People's... and History of Poland articles. While I am all for adding a section on history of culture/economy/etc. here, I would like to stress that (IMHO) this should only be a short section (this article is long enough already) with major contributions going to the relecant subarticle. Of course, feel free to start with a section first and create the subarticle only when there is too much material (more then one long para, at the very least). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep working within the framework that you have established as the main author. The narrative structure of this article fits in most closely with the "traditionalist" paradigm in the historiography that Davies represents. So, naturally social history and political economy are going to take a backseat to the topics that are emphasized already. But a brief subsection on "changes in Polish society" toward the bottom of the section under the heading "consolidation of Communist power" would bring the article the histriographical balance needed to resolve the remaining FAC objections. 172 11:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I just found a book that may be useful in those chapters: An Outline History of Poland by Jerzy Topolski, Interpress Publishers, Warsaw, 1986. While it is obviously communist-POV biased and thus has little value in the political history area, it contains interesting chapters on 'Education, science, culture and artistic life', 'Industrialization and social changes, intesnification of national bonds', 'Formation of modern society and a socialist nation' and such. While this would have to be taken with a grain of salt, and it is likely to 'forget' about anti-opposition culture like Jacek Kaczmarski, Piwnica pod Baranami and such, it may have quite a lot of materials useful for those chapters, if anybody is interested in writing them. Davies also has quite a lot of useful info, although it is mixed up with other aspects of life in PRL in the large, last chapter of his book. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Source

"The crisis came in June 1967 with the Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab states. Since the Arabs were seen as Soviet satellites, Poles cheered the Israelis." It's from Davies, God's Playground. Looking at relevant para just now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming help!

Trying to keep with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.) I have few problems regarding which name to use when referring to the govermental bodies of early PRL period. Brackets - Google hits. Does anyone has access to English orginal of Davies God's Playground? I'd love to see what names he uses. What are the translations he uses for:

• Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego - 1,020 (but only 144 on English language pages), (Polish Committee of National Liberation - 731, Lublin Committee - 231). Seems like it would be wise to keep English name.
• Krajowa Rada Narodowa - 645, 140 in English, (State National Committee/State National Council/National Council of the Country/People's Home Council/National Council - seems like only a few relevant hits each). Seems like Polish name should be used.
• Rząd Tymczasowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej - 85 hits, none in English, (Provisional Government of Republic of Poland - no hits, Provisional Government of Poland - 180 hits but it can be easily confused with the other provisional government - see below, Provisional Government of Rzeczpospolita - no hits). Seems like Polish name should be used.
• Tymczasowy Rząd Jedności Narodowej - 420 hits, none in English, (Provisional Government of National Unity - 640 hits, although not all relevant to Poland, most seem to be). Seems like English name can be used.

However, the results are a bit confusing - use English name for two bodies, Polish for the other two. If we want to use English, we would have to virtually invent the name for RTRP. Eh. Help me out here!

Same for the names of Polish political parties/resistance movements/other similar bodies - should we use the Polish name or English? Or do a Google check case by case? In both cases, of course, when the term would be used first, the other language version would be given in brackets. Abbreviation used would be from the language we decide to use as main.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Remaining problems to be addressed before feature on the main page

Given its multiple authors, this article contains a mix of British and American English grammar and spelling-- British spellings like stabilization go along with American spellings ending in "-ization." Commas and periods are going both inside and outside of quotations. Let's choose on dialect over and other and standarize (or should I say "standardise") usage across this article. 172 00:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Changes in Polish society

I understand the purpose of adding the material in this section, but in the current from it looks like a rather arbitrarily inserted chunk of text which breaks the flow of the narrative and seems out of place. I think it would be more appropriate to put it at the end, where it could even be expanded, possibly under a new section title Changes in Polish society during Communist rule or something similar. Alternatively, we could take the material in this section and split it into a paragraph or two to be added at the end of each the main sections in the article. Balcer 00:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The existing structure of the article does make it difficult to insert content on social history, and where it is inserted is hardly perfect. However, it is important that such a section precede the final section, as the changes in social and economic structure covered are essential for understanding the fall of Communist rule. 172 01:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If that section is to be a list of necessary preconditions for the fall of communism, then I must disagree with its present content. A good chunk of it is about the increased role of women in Polish society. This was of course a positive development, but did this particular change accelerate the fall of communism in any special way? That's the first I hear of this. I can't think of a single woman playing an important role in the leadership of either the government or the opposition in those years. As for the exodus from the rural areas, if anything it strenghtened the communist regime, as the peasants were usually conservative and typically opposed to the government which often treated them less than fairly. Free health care was all fine and good, but how did it in particular contribute to the fall of communism? Why didn't it, for example, strenghten the regime? As for the worker's councils, I must say I have not heard much about them, or about any important role they played. What was the Polish name for them? Maybe that will jiggle my memory.

If one really wants to talk about the preconditions for the fall of communism, the most important ones I would propose were:

• The increasingly glaring contrast between the quality of life in Poland and in the West, which became particularly acute in the 1980s, after the people briefly tasted Western consumer goods in the 1970s during the Gierek years. Things eventually got so bad that even a communist government minister had a standard of living inferior to that of an average middle class worker in the capitalist world. Under these circumstances, maintaining the regime was not in the interests of even the ruling class, much less the people.

• Just as a side note, it is also interesting to consider that the gap in GDP and living standards between Poland and many economies at its income level, particularly in Latin America, did not increate at this time. The gap did not increase as they all plummeted. Hyperinflation and economic stagnation plagued both Eastern Europe and Latin America, where import substitution development models were faltering following the 1973 oil crisis. So the more apt comparison for a social science researcher may be with some of the better off countries in Latin America, not the rich countries of Western Europe and North America. 172 10:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see your point here. We can of course compare Poland to other communist countries, or Latin/Middle East/African corruptocracies to show it didn't fair badly by itself, but it would only prove that there are other inefficient economic systems beyond communism. The only useful comparission (in the culture section) is with the Western boomining capitalist economies, which, even considering the brief stagflation and recession post-1973, greatly outperfomed rest of the world (which is not divided into 'First, Second and Third' for no reason). I don't know if the impact of their perfomance on non-commie countries was same as here, but in Poland, as Balcer pointed out, it vastly contributed to the public dissatisfaction along the lines: "Why are we poor when they are so rich?". Rembemr that in 1980s many ppl, including those in the Solidarity movement, wanted to import 'democracy+capitalism' in one year, and also thought that they would became rich as Westerners in one year. This led to the new wave of dissatisfaction after Balcerowicz reforms, the return of the 'post-communists' and such, but I think this belongs more in 1989+ history section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Poles looked to Western Europe and not to developing countries at Poland's income level at the time. In that sense this is the only comparison relevant to cite in this article. However, I'm just pointing out that this is not to be confused with social science research. Social scientists are interested in controls on the variables, so they compare Poland to other countries at the same stage of development in (say) 1945, other former Communist countries, other middle-income countries, or countries alike in other ways in order to test the effect of some sort of independent variable in which they are interested. Such studies might shed light on other causes underpinning the gap between Poland and the West aside from Soviet development strategies. At any rate, this was just a side note to Balcer, not anything particular to any of the content in the article. 172 23:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Conveniently, the Soviet ruling elite came to a similar realisation at the same time. The retreat of the Soviet Union from imperial policy in Eastern Europe was probably the most important prerequisite for the fall of communism in Poland. In my opinion, if that reatreat had taken place place in the 1960s or 1970s, communism would have almost certainly fallen in Poland at that time. Balcer 03:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• You are pointing to anticommunist arguments, which were picked up in many individual Poles' demands for change. But it is also worth considering from a macro level any relationship between modernization and the emergence of an organized opposition. To oversimplify for the sake of brevity, the bulk of the work relating industrialization and urbanization of Communist Poland to democratic development draws on modernization theory, which holds that advances in technology, education, and urbanization (trends these autors tend to relate to increased rights for women) underpinned the collapse of Communist rule in Poland and elsewhere in the Soviet bloc, with Communism as a factor in its own destruction. Still, the section is not certainly not a comprehensive overview of the "preconditions" of the fall of Communism in Poland, so I now agree that the title should be changed once again so that a reader does not assume incorrectly that the section purports to be one. 172 10:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Modernization theory might apply quite well to Russia and the Soviet Union, where Communism was "home-grown", so to speak. In Poland, however, Communism was imposed by force from outside, and the fundamental reason for the regime's staying power was the ever present threat of Soviet intervention. Therefore, I don't buy the idea that Polish society first had to "modernize" in order to be able to overthrow Communism.

Anyway, I am glad you moved that section to the end of the article. Now we can expand it. Some kind of overall assessment of the communist periond in Poland should be added somewhere in that section. Balcer 16:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it was an outside imposition does not matter so much as the fact that similar socio-economic trends can be observed. Soviet specialists indeed have done more work with modernization theory, but that's probably because there are more of them. I can post a reading list of work in this area on Poland if anyone's interested. 172 23:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

By all means, please do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Davies, IIRC, gives a nice quote by Stalin to Bierut (or Gomułka...?) around late 1940s: "If not for the backing of Red Army, they (Poles) would have shot you like ducklings." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest moving this section to the culture section of the People's Republic of Poland. Note I have begun developing economy section there. Please compare to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for how I'd like this to look in the future - don't try to cram all history in History... article. Culture, economy, government organisation, etc. - those deserve separate articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This section is too unstable and undeveloped for a FA article. Unless there are any objections, I will move it in 24h to People's_Republic_of_Poland#Culture - or perhaps one of you would like to do it sooner? Although I agree that a section on 'Changes in Polish society' should remain here, with 'main' tags to the relevant culture and economy articles. For now, though, I feel this is substandard compared to the rest of the (FA) article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I object. Politics is not the only locomotive of history. Socio-economic change is just as relevant-- some would say even more relevant-- than everything else presented in this article. 172 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thus I agree we can have a section, however, don't you think the main article should (eventually) be the Culture of People's Republic of Poland and Economy of the People's Republic of Poland? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hum. I'll have to take a look at the naming conventions and get back with you on that one. 172 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You may want to see the proposed template at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization. The template is now fairly outdated, but I like the economy/culture sections - at least the general idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Piotrus, see my note on British and American English spellings above. You prefer British English spellings, right? So, that's how I should go about standardizing (or shall I say "standarising") the article's contents, right? 172 22:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no preference, really. Choose what you think is best, I will support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer American, which is what I'm used to. But I get the impression that most editors here are non-American, so I'll go ahead and use British. 172 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This section is substandard to the entire article. Unless it is improved soon, I will move it to the PRP article until such a time a FA level summary will be done and copied here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Recall Fifelfoo's objections on the FAC, stating that the article did not cover social history well. I did not object to the FAC myself because I was certain that something could be worked out before the article would go up on the main page. I'd be very disappointed to find out that I was wrong, with the final product continuing to lack social and economic history. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'll put it this way: Social, economic and political history are each equally important, and good historical writing is engaged in relating each of these perspectives. 172 | Talk 19:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I'd consider it a little bit more fair to write something like "The only compensation Poland received was in the form of the recovered territories." instead of writing "The only compensation Poland received was in the form of the property left behind by the German population of the annexed western territories." Barlotto

Poland and Hungary in 1956

There is nothing in the 1956 Hungarian Uprising on the (then) recent events in Poland and how they influenced events there.

Would someone care to add a few lines?

Jackiespeel 16:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Pre-feature edits

I've been doing some edits prior to this article being featured on the main page, to maximize it awesomeness before it is being flooded with viewings and edits. Feel free to comment on anything I've done here; I'll gladly discuss handling things in other ways.

First matter: I removed "Other groups targeted by the Communists were veterans of the wartime Home Army and army veterans who had fought in the west." because it seemed redundant to me, considering that text almost immediately above, "The Communist party's principal rivals were Mikołajczyk's Polish Peasant Party (Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe; PSL), veterans of the resistance movement Armia Krajowa, and the veterans of non-communist Polish armies which had fought in the west." But if you think we should keep it, let's at least change "Home Army" to "Armia Krajowa" for consistency's sake... -Silence 04:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The other sentence I removed for the exact same reason: total redundancy. Read:

Stalin had died in 1953, and by this time Nikita Khrushchev had come to power in the Soviet Union, denouncing Stalin's cult of personality at the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in March 1956. The de-Stalinization of official Soviet ideology left Poland's Stalinist hard-liners in a difficult position, especially following Nikita Khrushchev's attack on Stalin at the 20th Congress.

See? We don't need to say it over and over again in rapid succession. Readers get the message.

By the way, since it seems this article's your baby, I have to say: fantastic job with it. -Silence 04:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Tnx for the help! Two notes: 1) you changed the header of one chapter from 'reform communism' to 'Communist reform' - but I am not sure if this is correct, as there was in fact something called reform communism (as in a type of communism) in Poland. However I don't know enough about this to explain it atm. 2) Shouldn't lead had 3 paragraphs (per Wikipedia:Lead recommendations)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't notice the comment hidden on the Image talk page asking for confirmation. Though, I don't think the quality is that bad - I'd actually say that it's better than several of the images already on the page, in terms of visibility, getting its point across, and illustrating an important part of the text. More importantly, are there any alternative images anywhere we could possibly use in its place somewhere in "Minorities in Poland after the War"? That section is currently by far the longest span of text in the entire article that has no images; adding at least one would help keep the flow of the article from slowing down at that specific section, and avoid making the section look noteworthy by virtue of its very lack of any type of image and illustration. What about Image:1968_Poland_banners.jpg? I didn't choose it before because it's not very high-quality, but it looks like the only related images on Wikipedia right now... Arr. -Silence 11:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, User:151.188.16.40 was me; this computer's not very good, keeps logging me out. Anyway, I'm glad so many people are also going to help try to maximize the page before its big unveiling on the 19th! Groups are always more fun. -Silence 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There. I've finished my copy-edit and reorganization of the page. Imporant things I see as still needing to be done (though I'm probably not the man to do them):

1. Make the first paragraph a more clear-without-being-specific and interesting-without-being-biased (hard, I know) summary of the article as a whole.
2. Work hard to eliminate POV editorial statements throughout the article, or better yet to turn them into quotations from cited sources.
3. Add a lot more citations and references to the article in general. We currently have only five references, and 0 url links and other reference-links in the entire body of the article, with the exception of the "Changes in Polish society" section. This would help combat the POV problem as well.
4. Possibly shorten opening paragraphs a little bit by compacting summaries and eliminating or rewording near-identical lines later in the text.
5. Possibly re-integrate the "Changes in Polish society" section into the rest of the article, as it currently violates the established structure of the page by ignoring chronology, and much of the info would probably be more helpful as a summary of some of the events that occur in various parts of the article, like the starts of sections. Some of the more major changes mentioned in "Changes in Polish society" could even be moved to the opening paragraphs, while others could help round out coverage in some sections—for example, we could add the information on Polish women during this time period to the "Minorities in Poland after the War", giving that section more general significance.
6. Possibly rename the links in the "History of Poland" infobox. Having the historical periods in the links named after the name of Poland at the time rather than the years it spans not only makes it more difficult to find a specific event you know happened in a certain span of years, but also could easily cause confusion: History of Poland (1945-1989) is listed as "People's Republic of Poland" in the infobox, even though there's also an actual article called People's Republic of Poland.

Whew. Thoughts? -Silence 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First, let me again say thanx for the help. I always said that the 'changes in society' section was temporary and should be moved to 'People's Republic of Poland' article. As for the template, in the first version which I created, it had the dates instead of names, but some people argued names are more descriptive - I believe the discussion is at the template's talk page. I don't have to add that being bold and changing them is always a possibility, do I? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. Of course, a lot of the names aren't very descriptive, either; for example, "People's Republic of Poland" would mean very little to the uninformed layperson, whereas "Communist Poland" or similar would be very clear. Anyway, how about some sort of compromise, like this? Or if you think the links are a bit to indistinct with the extra text, maybe something bolder..? Thoughts? -Silence 17:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

They are interesting. Please link them to the current template page for discussion, or boldly replace the current one with yours - I do think it is an imporevement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, some names are simply too obvious for us to see that they might be not as obvious for the rest of the world.. Good idea, Silence! Halibutt 12:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Shortening Intro Paragraphs

Heya! I really feel that though there's a lot of information here, the intro will be troubling for the casual reader who wants to get an overview of the article (I know I was totally overwhelmed). I took a stab at refocusing it, and I think something more like the following would hit the high points. Though I usually feel comfortable making these kinds of edits, this article packs too much for me to be reasonably confident that I have done this accurately—or that I could move the "remainder" into the right place in the body of the article! But here goes for anyone who wants to think about it and hack away:

The history of Poland from 1945 to 1989 began with Nazi German forces being driven from Poland by the Soviet Red Army. In the aftermath of World War II, the nation became the People's Republic of Poland, and was strongly shaped by Soviet Communism. This led to periods of relative prosperity, followed by instability that culminated in the suppression of those who spoke against existing policies. Yet in 1988, summits which became known as the "Round Table Talks" radically altered the structure of Polish government and society, facilitating peaceful transitions away from Communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe.

Economic problems contributed heavily to the diminishing of the Communist party's political power. In December 1970 the government suddenly announced massive increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs—leading to dissatisfaction, especially among city-dwellers. Demonstrations against the price hikes broke out in the coastal cities of the Gdańsk region, which was addressed by some basic reforms and the importing of a capitalist economic system. Despite an immediate rise in living standards and expectations, worldwide recession and the 1973 oil crisis led to another price hiken—causing another wave of public protests.

Opposition to Communism in Poland was further catalyzed by the election of Polish Pope (John Paul II) in 1978. With protesters now supported by the Roman Catholic Church, a wave of strikes reached the politically sensitive Baltic coast in early August 1980. An independent trade union, "Solidarity" (Polish Solidarność) was formed by a strike leader named Lech Wałęsa, and had nine million members by the end of 1981. This was a quarter of Poland's population and three times the membership of the Polish Communist Party, who became concerned and outlawed of Solidarity. The legalization of the party in April 1989 sparked off a succession of major victories for Solidarity in limited elections.

I'd be thrilled if something more like this were used...fitting my quest to make all articles adhere to the three-paragraph-intro guideline and the "lost art of the topic sentence" :) Metaeducation 23:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that shortening the intro paragraphs is probably a good idea; I'll look over your edits in-depth and try to establish a good compromise between the two versions. -Silence 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The length of the introduction has gone from far too long to ludicriously long. Could someone please cut it down by 50-80%? →Raul654 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There. I've cut down on all the paragraphs substantially, removing all but the most significant details. I think you will probably be much happier with the paragraphs' accessibility , though I encourage you to make any further fixes you see necessary—though not "50%-80%" removals. Such massive cut-downs would be a disservice rather than a help to this article. The "three paragraphs" guideline is just, and I quote, a "general guideline", not a policy or rule or even a specific guideline, and is intended solely as a very basic and overarching suggestion at how to handle intro paragraphs. If you actually read individual Wikipedia articles, you'll find that even a very large number of featured articles have more than 3 paragraphs in their intro, and this is perfectly fine; every individual article has its own needs and unique formatting requirements in order to best get the specific information to the reader, and these should not be sacrificed for the sake of rulemongering (or guidelinemongering, in this case). This is a long article, and requires an introduction of about the length we have now in order to properly summarize the events below so that people who don't read the entire article (i.e., the vast majority of people who will be visiting this page at all) gain a decent understanding of the events that occurred, though without any unnecessary repetition or redundancies; just a nice, solid overview.

Also keep in mind that the opening section looks much longer than it really is due to the very large image, fairly large infobox, and other medium-sized image in the text, all making the text look longer than it actually is: try reading it and you'll be done much quicker than you might think. Although my current edit looks just as long at first glance as the one before my last few edits because I added a few more paragraph breaks into especially long paragraphs (to make them a lot easier to read, and to better denote changes in topic): I actually trimmed the 5,658-character opening into a 4,735-character one—including my additions to the opening paragraph to make it a better very brief overview of the whole page's topic; if you ignore the opening paragraph, the change is from a 5,430-character opening to a 4,109-character one. I welcome debate on how best to handle the opening paras if people still aren't happy with them, but all I ask is that demands be based on the needs of this specific page and the best possible way to effectively convey its specific information, not on general, abstract suggestions for Wikipedia articles in general. Er, not that I'm accusing you of doing that; just a general tip. -Silence 01:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your changes are a drop in the bucket. It needed to be cut down A LOT and (at least 50%, preferably more around 80-90%);, you trimmed it a modest 17%. →Raul654 03:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've finished my own pruning of it. It's still quite a bit longer than I'd prefer, but it's a big improvement. I took out the Lech Walesa/Pope picture beacuse after pruning down the text, there were too many pics at the top, and the article is already congested with them. →Raul654 03:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, actually. I still disagree that any large-scale removals are necessary, including the one you just did, but at least you implemented it very nicely; I particularly like your trimming of the paragraph on Gierek, because it managed to preserve almost all of the information conveyed while shortening the delivery substantially. However, the placement of the first image on the page no longer works, as it fits awkwardly next to the table of contents and overruns slightly into the next section. A definite aesthetic thumbs-down; lemme do some more image fiddling to compensate for this big new change in the layout. -Silence 04:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I reintroduced the picture to the article, corrected one glaring error (Soviet Union didn't collapes in the 1980s!) and added notes on martial law and Roundtable to the lead, they are very important. While I can appreciate the need for lead treaming, I am not sure if it is a good idea to be doing so now - the previous version, if on the long side, was carefuly NPOVed and reviewed in the context of key information. Still, if nobody else objects, I guess we can stick with the current one. PS. The Party image doesn't interfere with my thumbs down, but it was much more impressive in its previous, larger version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not true that "nobody else objects", because you and I both object (though my objection has nothing to do with NPOV whatsoever, unlike yours). Not only was the previous version more informative, but it was also much more compelling, dynamic, and well-laid out, providing an excellent combination of elements that would shame any professional textbook. The new layout, by contrast, is dull, dead, obvious, academic, an exact mirror of all the other Polish History pages, with a few big blocks of soulless text and a plain infobox beside it.

So, sorry to have to rant, but... here I go.

There's no way to re-add the images and have it work nearly as well with the new format, because this amount and distribution of text aligns much better with just the infobox: that's the one plus, I always like it when text and infobox manage to end at about the same point, it's pleasing to the eye. However, it's not compelling, like the previous version was. To illustrate, compare the current page to the layout we used to have: User:Silence/Poland. Which one of those two are you more likely to read? I also don't see the great, pressing need to shorten the section so terribly. If it's well-written and short enough that it does its job of introducing the article, who cares that it doesn't follow a strict formula of exactly what every page on Wikipedia has to look like in your view?

It was a good way to start the section, and I'd be happier if we still had the old layout, with only a few more of the especially unnecessary lines trimmed, at most. It just made the entire page work better; the Partia image worked perfectly near the top, where it was a unique and compelling image that would immediately draw anyone into checking out the rest of the page. Now that's not possible to include there without it looking terrible, withered and small. Likewise, the John Paul/Wałęsa photo fit perfectly into the context of the text, vastly better than it could anywhere else in the article (its current spot, where it was originally), but now moving it back to the top would be a bad idea without at least one other image to accompany it, because it doesn't capture the feel of most of the article as a whole (unlike the propaganda poster does), just an important later aspect of it as Poland changed dramatically from what it was in most of the article. Without that sense of change in the images, best to keep it in the article text, even though it doesn't work well anywhere in the article because it doesn't fit into any of the text's context (trying to add text to put it in context would just add redundancy anyway, most likely) and the best place on the page it does fit now is directly after the photos of both of the people who are in the picture, making the image painfully redundant where it is now! But the only better alternative was the old intro paras layout, which would work poorly with the new, three-to-four-bulky-ugly-paragraphs style. No good, man. -Silence 05:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can move a pic back if we move the template down, for example, to the ToC line? Anyway, I am off to sleep. Silence, I agrew with your rant and pass the torch and my vote (for what's it worth) to you until I am back. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Naw, the table of contents is far too short. And even if it wasn't, the current spot for the template is ideal; it's the stuff around it that needs to be returned to the old style to be as effective. At least while this is Featured Article, I think we should go with this sort of layout; it will get the article much more attention because it's so much more unusual, striking, and compelling than a typical article (i.e. what Raul wants it to be), and thus will get more activity and more of the edits that will help it grow. We'll have plenty of time to discuss all sorts of major layout changes afterwards, but for just one day, I think we should stick with the opening layout that helped get it featured in the first place. Re-adding oldstyle opening paragraphs, with more text cut out in a bunch of places to attempt a bit of a compromise.. -Silence 05:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, to be clear: the pretty version is 3768 characters long, the plain version is 3,380 characters long. So there's actually not a significant difference between the two at all: only about 400 letters, spaces, and punctuation marks betwixt the two. I don't think that's enough of an improvement in shortening the passage to merit tossing aside a great layout. I could probably even get the pretty version even shorter if we really needed to, by greatly compacting/tossing out the middle chunk of the third paragraph (though too much willy-nilly shortening will make the two images too close and cripply the layout, and everything we've currently got is rather important anyway). Then they'd be pretty much even. But that's not really necessary at this point; we have yet to get a single complaint that the paragraphs are too long from a reader's rather than an editor's standpoint. :) -Silence 05:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And I have to say, though I never noticed this before, looking at the layout again, I love the subconscious symbolic value of the intro, the way the meaning and layout interweave with each other. Consider how the text is always bound on one side or the other, or both, by images and boxes that prevent it from reaching its natural limits, the edge of the page, as we describe the years of Communist Poland. And then, in the last paragraph of the intro, finally, this changes: the text is freed from its barriers and allowed to spread itself out onto the full page, exactly coinciding with when the text is describing Poland's liberation from Communism and its first free election in over 50 years. I'm a terribly silly person, aren't I. -Silence 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Bet you this version of the opening paras will get three times as many people to actually read this page. And those who would have any will get more out of it. (version comment by Silence)

Ummm...well, I'm sorry, but I don't like the version, and the people I've sent it to don't like it either. I support →Raul654's version far more, though I'm preferential to something even more "bird's eye" as with my intro at the head of this section. After all, what reader trying to get a simple overview of this article actually cares what precise shipyard the Solidarity leader had worked at? He's got his own article to click through anyway.

To be fair, most of the people who side with my opinions on "introduction brevity" are not really that interested in the subject matter of the article. I've surveyed my thoughts on the larger question of "what audience do you target" and being experimental with layout in my notes on featured article form. I have also made some comments about my dislike of the use of a sidebar as the main picture in this essay on avoiding "See Also" templates in introductions.

Anyway, it's great that you are so passionate about the subject and want to get people excited with some details. But I'm just concerned that sidestepping the rules of writing tight paragraphs and a good WP:LEAD is going to turn off the casual reader—not intrigue them as you suggest. There's a whole article body for the people who are really interested... Metaeducation 08:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you've talked to people who prefer the image-less version to the current one, then I welcome those people to post here and explain their reasoning. If you don't think mentioning the Gdank Shipyards in the opening paragraphs is a good idea, then why not remove "from the Gdańsk Shipyards,"? There, one problem down. I have no problem with trimming down a few details like that which aren't especially significant or necessary to summarize the article. But to cut it down by 50-90%, as has been suggested, would be to sacrifice usefulness for the sake of blind rule-following, in my view.

Also, I agree with you entirely that often it's much more important to include a good image or two in the intro than an infobox. I wish you were involved in the discussion in Algerian Civil War, where I've had to fight against the notion that every article in a series has to have that series' infobox right in the upper-left corner, even when it would mean sacrificing a great top image and worsening the layout. In this case, though, my preference does not apply, because we have the best of both worlds: an infobox to satisfy those who are obsessed with putting it in the upper-right corner, and images for those who understand the importance of opening with some good-quality illustrations of the text to draw the readers in. So while I definitely agree with you in principle, in this specific situation, I think the typical infobox placement works unusually well. If you can find another good layout, though, try it out on this page or a test page so we can compare—I'm open to new suggestions; if I wasn't, I wouldn't have spent some time trying to figure out how to best work Raul's image-less opening paragraphs before finally reverting the layout.

And, again, there are not "rules" of intros, there are general guidelines. And even if there were rules, don't make me invoke IAR. Give me some better justification for bringing the intro paras down to the extreme smallness you requested, based on the specific needs of the page, not on general, flexible, Wikipedia-wide tips or on a few people saying "I like this one" or "I like that one"; more reasoning!

Also note for a moment that while our current intro might have a few more paragraphs more than those recommended as ideal by Wikipedia:Lead Section, take a glance at the text requirements: the chart there says that up to around 30,000 characters in an intro is perfectly acceptable! Thus, the disagreement here is not really on the length of the opening: the page confirms that our current length is more than reasonable, at a mere 3,768 characters in length, much shorter than the 15,000-character limit at which it is recommended that more than one paragraph be used. So the dispute between the theoretical suggestions of WP:LEAD and the practical realities of this specific page is not over the length of the opening, but rather over the number of paragraphs the opening consists of. If we strictly followed WP:LEAD's advice on articles, we'd still have the same amount of text we do now (heck, we could have ten times as much text if we wanted!), but it would all be in a single paragraph. Does that sound like a good idea to you? All that would do would be to provide the same information, but make it enormously more difficult to read. Very few actual articles follow all the recommendations given on that page to the letter, and this one should most certainly not become one of them, even if we do end up changing the layout. -Silence 12:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Doi. Of course it's referring to the number of characters in the article as a whole, not in the intro alone. Smart am I. I'm going to do some more research on this now, comparing the other featured articles' average lengths to come to a better conclusion. -Silence 18:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many images.

History Portal Selected Article

Hello History of Poland writers! I'm a random guy who is volunteering to help with the terribly outdated History Portal.

I was very impressed with this article when looking for stuff for the History Portal selected article. It is a very good article. Way to go! However, I went with Italian Renaissance this time, because I feel this article is on the cusp of greatness, but needs a little more help.

Particularly it badly needs to be pruned back (it is eye-bleedingly long) especially in the overview section where a lot of stuff needs to be moved to the Solidarity section near the bottom.

I believe in this article and hope to put it on the front of the History Portal in a matter of weeks.

Also, the only thing I've done so far for the History Portal is make Italian Renaissance the selected article. Please hop on over to the History Portal and help me bring all of it up to date if you can. It's been so neglected it's tragic.

Peace,

NickDupree 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article

On damages made by Soviet Occupation inflicted on Poland: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn/4/biuletyn4_51.html In Polish. Perhaps I shall translate and create article on that. Meanwhile Polish users and editors working on the article are welcome to use the information. --Molobo 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

1947 Election

This article lies about how Poland had its first free parliamentary elections in 1991 since 1928. This shows how the 1947 elections were completely free:

Brittanica states the following: In the first free elections since 1947, Polish voters overwhelmingly gave Solidarity candidates their vote and thoroughly defeated the Communist government's list.

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-206727

This data demonstrates this fact:

http://www.elisanet.fi/daglarsson/dokumentit/polval1.htm#19.1.1947

Results of 1947 election:

Polska Partia Robotnicza - 114 seats (led by Wladyslaw Gomulka)

Polska Partia Socjalistyczna - 116 seats

Stronnictwo Ludowe - 109 seats

Stronnitctwo Demokratyczne - 41 seats

bezpartyjni - 10 seats

Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe - 27 seats

Stronnitctwo Pracy - 15 seats

Polskie Stronnitctwo Ludowe-Nowe Wyzwolenie - 7 seats

Grupy katolicko - 5 seats

444 total seats

Dear anon, thank you for pointing out another mistake in Britannica. The page with reults of Polish elections [5] is quite useful and thank you for brining it to my attention, nonetheless it doesn't prove anything but the fact that there were the elections - it certainly makes no claims about them being free or not. We don't yet have the article about Polish legislative election, 1947, but you may find the following article of interest: Polish people's referendum, 1946. Certainly in 1947 the communist grip on the country was much stronger, and the elections were much less free then the '46. If you don't agree, please find credible academic references which state that the '47 elections were free.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Update. Dear anon, I assume you refer to the following fragment of our article: By 1946, rightist parties had been outlawed. A pro-government "Democratic Bloc" formed in 1947 that included the forerunner of the communist Polish United Workers' Party and its leftist allies. By January 1947, the first parliamentary election allowed only opposition candidates of the Polish Peasant Party, which was nearly powerless due to government controls. Results were adjusted by Stalin himself to suit the Communists, and under these conditions, the regime's candidates gained 417 of 434 seats in parliament (Sejm), effectively ending the role of genuine opposition parties. I think I now understand the source of your confusion, and it is possible some minor changes may need to be made (various sources I checked seem to have varying estimates of seats in the parliament - between 390 and 450), but most of the above information is certainly correct. Please read the above fragment more closely - especially the parts I bolded. The "Democratic Bloc" was composed (source) of PPR, PPS, SL and SD, which gained (according to official, fabricated results) ~80% of the vote. PSL received <~10% of the votes, and most of the parties outside the Block (the ones you listed above which got a few votes each) were also controled by the communists. The article I listed above notes that according to a report from the Russian colonel Pałkin to Stalin, communists in reality gained about ~50% of the vote. If you read Polish, the following books should prove a worthwile read:

• Janusz Wrona (ed.), Kampania wyborcza i wybory do Sejmu Ustawodawczego 19 stycznia 1947, Wydawnictwo Sejmowe (Piotrus note: official publisher of the Polish Sejm), 1999 ISBN: 83-7059-322-4;
• Michał Skoczylas, Wybory do Sejmu Ustawodawczego z 19 stycznia 1947 roku w świetle skarg ludności, TRIO, 2003, ISBN 8388542435

The first of those publications has a quite interesting blurb [6] - I think I'll create a stub on the elections soon. For now, as you may not be able to read Polish, here is a selection of some comments about the '47 elections in English sources via Google Print:

• Geoff Eley, Forging Democracy the History of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000: "In January 1947, manifestly rigged Polish elections gave Communists 80.1% of the vote..."[7]
• Stephen Schlesinger, Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations, "On January 19, 1947, the first Polish elections were held. They were widely seen as fraudulent." [8]
• Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is in Us: Journeys and Encounters, 1987-1994: "By January [1947...] the fixed Polish election that sent the Peasant Party leader Stanisław Mikołajczyk, who probably should have won, into exile."[9]
• Tom Buchanan, Europe's Troubled Peace, 1945-2000: 1945-2000, "...the elections of January 1947 [...] were clearly rigged."[10]

I hope the avoive is enough to convince you that Wikipedia is not lying and that it is Britannica who is mistaken.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created the article on Polish legislative election, 1947. Enjoy!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there simply is no credibility to any of these allegations. The Polish Workers' Party received only 25% of the seats which was below what the the Communists of France received in 1946. The results of the elections I posted exclusively contain those elections which were free and fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.36.57 (talk • contribs)

Dear anon, first of all those allegation are made by credible academics and so it is your revisionism which can be called allegation and/or original research. Second, you base your statement on an glaring mistake in the analysis of the statistics above: PWP might have gained only 25% of the seats, but the Polish communists controlled most of the parties and they so they gained a vast majority in the elections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
• You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 2(c) highly recommends.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I love these suggestions. Your semi-automatic Javascript program does a great job! -Silence 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

error in chronological consequence

warsaw pact in 55 to appease moscow following nomination of gomulka in 56??

the PZPR chose Gomułka [...] as First Secretary in October 1956, despite Moscow's threats to take action against Poland if the PZPR picked Gomułka; the Soviet Union did not intend to allow its influence on Eastern Europe to diminish. After some tough bargaining with Khrushchev, who came to Warsaw to oversee the transfer of power, the Soviets grudgingly decided not to resist Gomułka's rise to power. Even so, Poland's relations with the Soviet Union were not nearly as strained as Yugoslavia's. As a further sign that the end of Soviet influence in Poland was nowhere in sight, the Warsaw Pact was signed in the Polish capital of Warsaw on May 14, 1955, to counteract the establishment of the Western NATO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.150.132.150 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

citation needed

The page states that it is "hotly debated" among historians whether there was a risk of Soviet intervention in 1981. I personally would like to look up a reference to this debate; I worked in Swedish intelligence (at a later date, but I had access to earlier records), and there was massive Soviet troop movements along the Polish border. (And a Czech friend of mine was sitting in a tank by the Czech border, waiting for the order to attack, which never came.) The Poles themselves are in no doubt: rumour at the time said that an entire border village was held hostage by Soviet troops. I think we need citations for both sides; I realize my statements above don't count as substantiation :) 81.226.53.31 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The dabate about the "risk of Soviet intervention in 1981" is not only a factual debate it is also a political debate, if you consider that the risk of the invasion was high then you also have to consider the implementation of Martial Law in Poland as a right decision. So people who do not like general Jaruzelski will stick to the version that there was no "real" threat of a soviet invasion hence the "hot debate" :) Mieciu K 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the Swedish intlligance happy that you reveal clasified informations? Don't they use killers to stop talkative people?

And the Czech historians haven't interviewed your friend, they must be unprofessional.Xx236 10:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• The statement "...the first workers' councils to voice opinions on industrial policy, based on the "Polish October" of 1956, marked a fundamental change in the social status of Polish workers" needs citation, because this is a conclusion that would be original research if not attributed to a reliable source who has already reached this conclusion in print. The same rationale applies to "...led to the formidable labor and professional organizations that would gradually come to threaten the socialist order": they are 'formidable' according to who? Has this type of adjective been used by the literature to describe these organizations, and their influence? We really shouldn't use these sorts of adjectives without citations to reliable sources -- otherwise there are NPOV and original research concerns. "Although eyesores to Western observers, and often lampooned by the Poles themselves due to the sometimes dubious construction quality, this was a massive improvement to the population's quality of life." Which 'Western observers' described the housing this way? Who describes the construction as being of 'dubious quality', and says the increased availability was a 'massive improvement'? Conventional wisdom/the rhetorical image cannot suffice here; each statement needs a cited source. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 23:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)