Jump to content

Talk:Invasion of Poland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleInvasion of Poland is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 27, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 29, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 1, 2005, September 1, 2006, September 1, 2007, September 1, 2008, September 1, 2009, September 1, 2010, September 1, 2011, and September 1, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article

Can someone with Permission add "Fourth Partition of Poland" as one of the bolded 'alternate' names

[edit]

It comes up a lot in Polish historical discussion 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:787C:7E6B:3058:B54D (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danzig as participant

[edit]

There appears to a disagreement on the article about whether to list the Free City of Danzig as a participant in the Invasion of Poland - it's probably worth discussing it here to avoid edit warring. Forces from Danzig certainly took part in the initial stages of the attack, with the Free City of Danzig Police and the SS Heimwehr Danzig both involved - the question is whether they can be considered as significant, and whether the can be reasonably be seen as independent or just part of German forces.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why they wouldn't be included. Just read Free City of Danzig Police#Nazism, political repression, and conflict with Poland. After Nazi control, the independent city-state of Danzig police force was heavily militarized, and when the German army attacked Poland, the Danzig police (along with Danzig SS) attacked the Polish buildings and personell in Danzig ("post office" in the city and naval installations at Westerplatte). They only merged with Germany after their common victory there. --Havsjö (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish, @Havsjö do you have sources that presents Free City as a participant? Marcelus (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference for that. It is well documented that the Free City of Danzig police participated in two separate engagements. The Defense of the Polish Post Office in Danzig and Battle of Westerplatte. The source I added was a book about the Invasion of Poland (Prelude all 4 "invasion" forces involved - German, Soviet, Slovak, and Danzig). In it, it directly mentioned the Danzig police and SS Heimwehr Danzig participating in the post office battle. It mentioned the Danzig police as well in the Battle of Westerplatte and the battle's casualties were counted for a combined German/Danzig casualty count in the book. Hopefully this clear up any confusion had. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter, @Nigel Ish; Please provide a specific page where there is information that would confirm the statement about the participation of the Free City in the invasion of Poland. Besides, I emphasize that we are talking about a source confirming that the Free City was a party to the conflict, not that units formally part of the Free City's forces took part in the fighting with Polish forces. Marcelus (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On page 108 of that book: “In Danzig itself, the SS Heimwher Danzig, supported by a Marinesturmkompanie and some paramilitary units, began attacks on the Polish Westerplatte base and overwhelmed the Polish Post Office, where the workers had armed themselves and resisted.” Page 142 of that book: “The garrison [Battle of Westerplatte] was attacked by a mixed force of SS Heimwehr Danzig, Danzig Police, and regular Wehrmacht troops…The combined German forces…had lost over 300 men in a week of fighting.” That supports the addition of the Free City of Danzig as a belligerent. The SS Heimwehr Danzig was created by the Danzig government in June 1939 and the Free City of Danzig Police was the official law enforcement of Danzig. Aka, official organizations from Danzig attacked the Poles twice (Post Office Physical military garrison). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting the sentences I quoted are what specifically mention Danzig forces by name. The book goes on into details about each of the engagements, but referenced the forces are “combined” during the engagements. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is not confirmed. We need a clear statement that the Free City of Gdańsk has declared war on Poland or attacked Poland. The participation of individual law enforcement units does not explain this at all.
Please undo the changes or find the correct sources. Marcelus (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So did Germany attack Poland during the Battle of Westerplatte? Germany didn’t declare war on Poland. Can we really mark that battle as a German victory? That statement is as clear as it can be. Official Danzig forces attacked and helped captured a polish military garrison. If you do not consider that to be a clear attack, then we have a bigger issue, as it would be unclear that Germany attacked Poland at Westerplatte. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia articles are based on sources. If you claim that something happened, you need to find confirmation of it in the sources. Whether you or I interpret these events one way or another does not matter.
Moreover, the Free City was annexed by the German Reich, which meant that it lost any features of a state (it was never sovereign anyway). Marcelus (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the definition of belligerent is incorrect? A belligerent, per the Merriam Webster dictionary, is someone taking hostile actions against another. Your claim states we need a declaration of war, since you don't accept the fact that a source states an attack occurred as being a belligerent. Your reasoning would also mean Germany is not a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland, as they did not declare war. That source I provided directly stated forces from Danzig were engaged in hostile actions against a polish military garrison. You seem to be the one not basing your interpretation on sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are dishonestly referencing my points. My point is one and simple, provide a source that says that Free City was a belligerent, that's all. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Forczyk's Case White: The Invasion of Poland 1939 has a marine unit of the Danzig Police taking part in the assault on Westerplatte on 1 September, and both the Danzig Police and SS Heimwehr Danzig taking part in the attack on the Post Office. The issue is whether these should be counted as independent enough of the main German forces - they had been heavily reinforced by soldiers from Germany wearing Police uniforms.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Free City of Danzig

[edit]

Should the Free City of Danzig be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, on the German side? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer Yes or No in the Survey with a brief explanatory statement. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion is for.

Survey

[edit]
  • Yes — Several sources describe the SS Heimwehr Danzig (created by the Free City of Danzig Senate) and the Free City of Danzig Police (official police department of the Free City of Danzig) participating, alongside the German forces at the Battle of Westerplatte as well as the Defence of the Polish Post Office in Danzig. In The Polish Campaign, 1939 (1985 book), it says, On page 108 of that book: “In Danzig itself, the SS Heimwher Danzig, supported by a Marinesturmkompanie and some paramilitary units, began attacks on the Polish Westerplatte base and overwhelmed the Polish Post Office, where the workers had armed themselves and resisted.” & on page 142 of that book: “The garrison [Battle of Westerplatte] was attacked by a mixed force of SS Heimwehr Danzig, Danzig Police, and regular Wehrmacht troops…The combined German forces…had lost over 300 men in a week of fighting.” That, along with several sources in both engagement Wikipedia articles, support the inclusion of the Free City of Danzig as a belligerent (engaged in hostile actions) alongside the Germans during the Invasion of Poland. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This names units participating in combat. Perhaps they belong in the unit box. Perhaps clarification is needed on who ordered these actions or who they were subordinated to.
    But it doesn’t say anything that would warrant inclusion under belligerents, for example:
    • “Danzig was a belligerent.”
    • “Germany and Danzig invaded Poland.”
    • “Danzig chose to join Germany in invading Poland.
    • “The Danzig government ordered attacks.”
     —Michael Z. 14:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I see what WeatherWriter is getting at, but Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September 1939, the date that the Invasion of Poland began, so Danzig was officially part of Germany (under both the Hitler and Forster legal declarations; it was a mutual agreement) for the entire invasion. That various bodies (police groups and such) within Danzig that were not technically part of the Nazi war machine took part is immaterial; that sort of "join the violent party" behavior was common throughout German-controlled regions, and they don't equate to an official/formal involvement of something called "the Free City of Danzig", because that had ceased to legally exist the same day. At most, maybe a few hours passed during which FCoD persons/bodies were involved in starting to attack non-FCoD Polish facilities before they FCoD officially became part of Germany, but that would be both original research to assert, in all probablility, and of no encyclopedia-level relevance, but just momentary trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes — I agree with SMcCandlish. Danzig did not exist in the form of "The Free City of Danzig" during the invasion. While Danzig was never really autonomous. I think it should be included in Germany instead of it's own unit —Matteow101 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The salient question is: was Danzig a sovereign actor during a significant part of the invasion? Did it have an independent government that could decide on its own whether its forces would participate or not (whether authoritarian or democratically driven, and even if it was pressured so that it felt it had no choice)? I’m not very familiar with the history of the city, but it appears that that was not the case at all, as of the annexation on the day before the invasion. —Michael Z. 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more reading tells me the German Nazi Party held majority power in the Danzig Senate from 1933, and Hitler’s Gauleiter Forster remained in charge until 1945. I’m reasonably confident that Danzig was fully subordinated to Nazi Germany upon its annexation.  —Michael Z. 04:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • N0 per Michael Z. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Michael Z. and the fact I mentioned earlier: we must have clear evidence that most academic sources consider the Free Cities to be the belligerent side of this war. So far we don't have a single one.Marcelus (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Though I can understand the position of those who advocate "yes", I do not think there is sufficient evidence to support the Free City of Danzig constituting a separate belligerent, either politically or militarily, further substantiated by Danzig's absorption into Germany on 1 September. I would need to see significant and convincing citation, indicating some consensus among historians, that Danzig was an independent belligerent in the conflict to support its inclusion as one. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September and thus not a sovereign entity thereafter. Parham wiki (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September and thus not a sovereign entity thereafter. We also don't have reliable sources indicating that Danzig was a belligerent. Betelgeuse X (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Matteow101. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you mean no? Parham wiki (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Danzig was not sovereign then. killer bee  16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as they were not an independent actor in the timeframe discussed. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. TL;DR it was just part of Germany at that point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Was Hitler’s annexation seen/considered on a formal scale though. That is a question I think some people should look at as well. If I understand it correctly, it was more of a de facto annexation, not seen on the international scale. Also, was it a true annexation or was it just Hitler signing a law? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t understand the distinction in the last sentence. The text of Gdańsk#Inter-war years and World War II sure makes it sound like the “free city” status under the League of Nations and some relationship with the state of Poland were completely gone in favour of total political and military control by the German Nazis, never to be restored. Was there some government of Danzig in exile that clung to de jure sovereignty while still ordering its forces to join Germany in the invasion?  —Michael Z. 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A little clarification for my questions since I don’t think I asked them the right way: How official vs de facto was the annexation? Like, when Hitler annexed Danzig, did the government instantly dissolve, or was the Danzig government still, in some capacity, an entity when Hitler signed the law? That is more or less my question. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I’d guess that whatever sovereign identity remained with the local government, perhaps it wasn’t notable enough to talk about it in the article about the city. As SS member Albert Forster was Nazi Germany’s Gauleiter of Danzig from 1930 to 39, head of state for nine days, and then Reichsstatthalter until 1945, and seeing as the German Nazi Party had already seized a majority in the Danzig Senate as of 1933, I don’t suppose there was much independent spirit.
    I’m glad to be corrected if I’ve missed or misinterpreted anything.  —Michael Z. 04:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a long time since I touched this topic, but to my knowledge, there as nothing resembling a Danzig government in exile until after World War II had ended. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point that isn't directly related with the RfC, but if the RfC decides against listed it as a belligerent, given I think we have (so far) a consensus with sources that Danzig forces were involved in active combat, would those of you opposed to the idea support it in the infobox under "Units Involved"/"Invading armies"? I obviously still support it being listed as a direct belligerent, however, so far, I haven't seen anyone deny that Danzig units (Police/SS) were not active-combat units during the Invasion. If one or two of the editors who answered "No" in the survey could respond to this question, that would be much appreciated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with it in principle. Inclusion would depend on whether they were notable or significant enough, or at a high enough level of command to rate inclusion in the infobox—I don’t know enough about the specifics to have a confident opinion on this part of the question.  —Michael Z. 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Mzajac, replies/questions are suppose to be in this section, rather than a direct reply in the survey section (per the RfC directions). I’m going to go ahead and reply to it here, but I am formatting my comment so you could do a copy/paste of that reply comment in the survey section down here above this. The definition of belligerent means any hostile action, so those quotes directly stating that two units from Danzig participated, militarily, in two battles means they participated in a hostile action, and therefore are belligerents. That is my reasoning for yes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this conversation has run its course. There's enough support against Danzig being listed as a belligerent that it can be removed from the infobox. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolute hogwash. This is the dumbest conversation I've seen on a military conflict in a long while. Guess we should remove Donetsk and Luhansk PR from the Russo-Ukrainian War page because they agreed to become part of Russia. Apparently the definition of "Autonomous" is foreign to you all. Just in case you didn't, autonomous =/= independent. Crimea was an autonomous government within Ukraine, for example. It was not independent of Ukraine. GustavaKomurov (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany and the Soviets should be two separate belligerents.

[edit]

Last time I checked, Molotov-Ribbentrop was a no aggression pact, not technically an alliance. I think it would work better with 2 belligerents like Wars of the Three Kingdoms's current state or the Syrian Civil War a while ago. 31.205.0.5 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree. These were three-way conflicts in which each side fought the others, at least sometimes, same as in the Bosnian War. On the other hand, in case of the invasion of Poland Germany and the Soviet Union clearly did not fight each other. Alaexis¿question? 20:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"not technically an alliance" - disputable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Molotov-Ribbentrop was a non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but it was an alliance pact against countries of the Eastern Europe including Baltics and Poland since the pact contained its secret portion with "Zones of Influence". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the German invasion of Poland. Why was the word German removed?

[edit]

The word German was recently removed from the title of this article. Are you trying to rewrite history? Nazi invasion ended on 1st September on Western Poland and Soviet invasion started separately on 17th September in Eastern Poland. This is getting too low even for Wikipedia’s standards. What is the point then of having a separate partial for Soviet Invasion. It seems like you’re trying to exculpate the Nazis for their brutal and inhumane invasion of Poland which was initiated by them. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi invasion began and ended on the same day? That's news!
This article is about the invasion of Poland. The USSR was part of the invasion. The Soviets and Nazis divided Poland per their Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and proceeded to invade. What part of that doesn't make sense? Betelgeuse X (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion_of_Poland&oldid=1258679289"