Jump to content

Talk:Western betrayal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Non-constructive.
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|
{{WikiProject Military history
{{WikiProject Military history
|class=C
|class=C
Line 6: Line 6:
|Russian=yes
|Russian=yes
|US-task-force=yes
|US-task-force=yes
|WWII=Yes
|WWII=yes
|British-task-force=yes
|British-task-force=yes
|French-task-force=yes
|French-task-force=yes
Line 22: Line 22:
|B-Class-5=yes
|B-Class-5=yes
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Cold War|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Czech Republic|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Czech Republic|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Poland|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=Mid|mil=yes|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|mil=yes|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=C|importance=Mid|mil=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Mid|mil=yes}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject France|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject France|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject History|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject European history|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Slovakia|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Slovakia|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Europe|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=High|fascism=y|fascism-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Austria|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Austria|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=High}}
}}
}}
{{Old AfD multi
{{Old AfD multi
Line 69: Line 69:
<!--Bot in hours: 24 * 30.5 * 2 = 1464 ~= 2 months since section edit-->
<!--Bot in hours: 24 * 30.5 * 2 = 1464 ~= 2 months since section edit-->
<!--PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE-->
<!--PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE-->

== Subsection on [[Operation Unthinkable]] ==

I have added this subsection. The planning of [[Operation Unthinkable]] is a source support for two issues presented in the article: that Yalta agreement was not honored by Soviet Union, up to considering military enforcement, and that the enforcement might not be realistically possible. I do not insist on keeping this section, but please discuss with me before removing. There is already a reference in the article to Operation Unthinkable, but it drums up the sensation ("enlist Nazi troops") which I think seriously distorts the issue. [[User:Szafranpl|Szafranpl]] ([[User talk:Szafranpl|talk]]) 10:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

== Section needed on modern Ukraine and the western betrayal against them with regards to the Budapest Memorandum! ==

The title says it all, young independent Ukraine gave up 2500(!) inherited ex-CCCP live nuclear warheads, for security guarantee but they got a literal toilet paper undersigned by USA, UK, France and later China. None of them have fired even a blank warning shot while Vlad Putin is eating .ur alive... [[Special:Contributions/80.99.11.157|80.99.11.157]] ([[User talk:80.99.11.157|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Is the long quotation from[[Ernest Mandel]] [[WP:UNDUE|due]]? ==

Ping [[User:Albrecht]] re [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Western_betrayal&oldid=prev&diff=990530220&diffmode=source&fbclid=IwAR04l_sfmk1rtc2x0SOQH-XrTfV0pyuTsLZsmLp1NAwGWAFk3GkFVqHJDFg]. I am concerned that the opinion of this person is not [[WP:UNDUE|due]]. Could you comment on why we need such a long quote here? I would be willing to compromise by shortening his opinion to a single sentence, that seems more reasonable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 02:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
:Significant source, needed for neutrality for this conspiracy theory.[[User:Birbor|Birbor]] ([[User talk:Birbor|talk]]) 14:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
::Welcome to Wikipedia! Please tells us who calls it a conspiracy theory? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 02:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

:I take your point that the large block quote probably takes up [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] space relative to a fairly small subsection &mdash; but this points, I think, to a wider and more structural problem with the article: the "[[Western_betrayal#Poland|Poland]]" section goes into extraordinary detail to effectively make a case for a "Western betrayal" interpretation of WWII, and does so without clearly distinguishing ''empirical facts'' from their (partisan) ''interpretation'' (''pace'' the user above, I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy theory"; merely a metanarrative that should be open to various levels of contestation and rebuttal). The problem is that this large and sweeping section contains virtually zero contrary viewpoints or criticism; so, relative to this great mass of "pro-Western betrayal" content, I don't think Mandel's counterargument is out of place or excessive. That said, I'm open to any number of suggestions on how best to structure the article to accommodate diverging points of view. [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] ([[User talk:Albrecht|talk]]) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
::{{rto|Albrecht}} This article needs much improvement, both in terms of new sources needed, and properly referencing/attributing existing viewpoints, no argument here. My problem with Mandel is primarily that his argument is irrelevant here, as it is a critique of a policy of the government-in-exile and its attitude to Soviets. What does it have to do with the behavior of Western Allies? The answer is, not much. Now, yes, the Polish-Soviet spat did make it obviously difficult for the Western Allies, but so did many other issues - we might as well blame the Poles for not giving in to the Hitler's demand for '39, like the Czechs did. And anyway, if we want to talk about the Polish-Soviet relation here, I think we need a source that clearly connects this issue to the Western betrayal concept, and MAndel doesn't do so, so I stand by my view that his quote is both UNDUE and OR/SYNTH here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 02:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

:::{{rto|Piotrus}} We had this exchange briefly in edit summaries, and to be honest I remain puzzled by the reasoning: the "Western betrayal" perspective ''itself'' consists of a wide-ranging critique of the policy of ''Western governments'' and ''their'' attitude to the Soviets; if this narrative is to be challenged at all, it seems only natural and inevitable that the attitudes and actions of the ''Polish'' government-in-exile should come under scrutiny, no? I can accept the argument that perhaps not every detail in the quote &mdash; the Curzon line, the tug-of-war over cabinet posts &mdash; is strictly speaking ''necessary'', but his underlying point about the possibility of a Polish&ndash;Soviet accommodation prior to Tehran and Yalta helps restore agency to the Polish side and undermines the (IMO simplistic) account of Poland as a helpless victim.

:::The suggestion that this is [[WP:SYNTH]], however, is untenable &mdash; all the more so since the "Poland" section is rife with SYNTH, pulling together individual facts from various historical works and arranging them so as to construct a narrative about WWII (effectively, mobilizing them to make the case ''for'' Western betrayal). Mandel's book, far from a random narrative history, is a ''commentary'' on WWII historiography and popular memory (''The ''Meaning'' of the Second World War''), making it far less a candidate for SYNTH than many of the other works cited in the article. [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] ([[User talk:Albrecht|talk]]) 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
::::{{Rto|Albrecht}} I don't dispute this article has many other problems, including with SYNTH, but I don't see how the cited section is not SYNTH. It talks about some semi-relevant issues, but ''does not mention the concept of Western betrayal'' or any plausible synonym. I am sorry, but I don't see how it is relevant here. It would be to [[foreign relations of Polish government-in-exile]] article, yes, but not here. At best, I suggest we start such an article and move this quote there, to the section about Polish-Soviet relations. (There is also an existing article on [[Polish-Russian relations]] that could potentially absorb it too). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 04:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

== Can we add Ukraine in this topic? ==

Ukraine 1994 Budapest memorandum. [[Special:Contributions/119.236.55.84|119.236.55.84]] ([[User talk:119.236.55.84|talk]]) 01:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 ==
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 ==


{{edit extended-protected|Western betrayal|answered=no}}
{{edit extended-protected|Western betrayal|answered=yes}}
Section 'Beginning of World War II, 1939'
Section 'Beginning of World War II, 1939'
Change:
Change:
Line 109: Line 83:


justification: The section currently is partly unsourced (the section on the withdrawal to the Maginot Line) and the quote from Bukacki is more relevant to the Polish response to the perceived betrayal, than evidence of it. Also, the given quote only seems to appear in the Polityka magazine, which itself has no citations, and all other references I could find to this either cite the same Polityka article, or this Wikipedia article. [[Special:Contributions/80.238.115.65|80.238.115.65]] ([[User talk:80.238.115.65|talk]]) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
justification: The section currently is partly unsourced (the section on the withdrawal to the Maginot Line) and the quote from Bukacki is more relevant to the Polish response to the perceived betrayal, than evidence of it. Also, the given quote only seems to appear in the Polityka magazine, which itself has no citations, and all other references I could find to this either cite the same Polityka article, or this Wikipedia article. [[Special:Contributions/80.238.115.65|80.238.115.65]] ([[User talk:80.238.115.65|talk]]) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Your suggested edit doesn't contain all of the (sourced and valid) information present in the prior version. I'll include a citation needed tag for the unsourced parts if it's not there yet, though. If you wish to write a better version that includes all of the information, feel free to include in a comment and tag me, or include in a comment and set the edit request to non-answered again. Thanks for your suggestion. [[User:Amadeus1999|<span style="color: #3D5F83">'''Amadeus<sup><small>22</small></sup>'''</span>]] [[User talk:Amadeus1999|🙋]] [[Help:Notifications|🔔]] 18:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2022 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Western betrayal|answered=yes}}
Change "...including the rise and empowerment of the Third Reich (Nazi Germany), the rise of the Soviet Union (USSR) as a dominant superpower with control of large parts of Europe..." in the lead to

"...including the rise and empowerment of Nazi Germany, the rise of the Soviet Union as a dominant superpower with control of large parts of Europe...".

There's no need to use two names for the same thing when only one would suffice. [[User:Rousillon|Rousillon]] ([[User talk:Rousillon|talk]]) 18:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Nythar|Nythar]] ([[User talk:Nythar|talk]]) 04:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:56, 14 April 2024


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

[edit]

Section 'Beginning of World War II, 1939' Change: The Polish military envoy to France, general Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki, upon receiving the text of the message sent by Gamelin, alerted marshal Śmigły: "I received the message by general Gamelin. Please don't believe a single word in the dispatch".[24] The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from 17 September to 20 September. On September 17, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line, a withdrawal that was completed on October 17.

to

Gamelin made it clear to the Supreme Allied War Council that he would not commit to an offensive, even if the Poles held out for two to three months, suggesting that previous guarantees given may have been deliberately misleading to buy the French time for a war on their own terms.[1]


justification: The section currently is partly unsourced (the section on the withdrawal to the Maginot Line) and the quote from Bukacki is more relevant to the Polish response to the perceived betrayal, than evidence of it. Also, the given quote only seems to appear in the Polityka magazine, which itself has no citations, and all other references I could find to this either cite the same Polityka article, or this Wikipedia article. 80.238.115.65 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ CIENCIALA, ANNA M. “POLAND IN BRITISH AND FRENCH POLICY IN 1939: DETERMINATION TO FIGHT—OR AVOID WAR?” The Polish Review, vol. 34, no. 3, University of Illinois Press, 1989, pp. 199–226, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25778439.
 Not done for now: Your suggested edit doesn't contain all of the (sourced and valid) information present in the prior version. I'll include a citation needed tag for the unsourced parts if it's not there yet, though. If you wish to write a better version that includes all of the information, feel free to include in a comment and tag me, or include in a comment and set the edit request to non-answered again. Thanks for your suggestion. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 18:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

[edit]

Change "...including the rise and empowerment of the Third Reich (Nazi Germany), the rise of the Soviet Union (USSR) as a dominant superpower with control of large parts of Europe..." in the lead to

"...including the rise and empowerment of Nazi Germany, the rise of the Soviet Union as a dominant superpower with control of large parts of Europe...".

There's no need to use two names for the same thing when only one would suffice. Rousillon (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nythar (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_betrayal&oldid=1218886937"