Talk:Battle of Berlin

Clodfeller reference

Above reference sites 125,000 civilian casualties. Reference match made. JasonMoore (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

What? 50.111.19.34 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Who removed Poland as an participant?!

Poland had its own army fighting in Berlin so why remove them??? The user who removed them said they were fighting in soviet union but that is untrue they were fighting in the 1st Polish peoles army not the red army so whoever deleted them is clearly uneducated and should not be allowed to edit. 82.132.219.206 (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

soviet AND Polish victory

can we add "soviet and Polish victory" since these 2 countries were the only allies to win in Berlin and not just the soviet union. Jakub2k03 (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Please post what sources describe the Battle of Berlin as a "Soveit and Polish victory".

@GizzyCatBella: What sources say that the Battle of Berlin was Germany v. Soviets + Poland, as opposed to Germany v. Soviets? Levivich 22:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You removed [1] Poland from the Belligerents section claiming that Polish forces were part of the Soviet Army that is false. In your own words--> Polish troops in the Soviet Army. Did Poland participate in the battle of Berlin or not Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the two sources cited (Zaloga 1982, p. 27 and Glantz 1998, p. 261), it was the Polish People's Army (LWP) that participated in the Battle of Berlin, not "Poland", not forces loyal to the Polish government-in-exile, and not "Polish Armed Forces in the East". Levivich 23:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Uh.... the Polish People's Army WAS part of Polish Armed Forces in the East. It helps to know basic info about a subject before starting edit wars on an article. Volunteer Marek 23:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

According to those two sources, it was specifically the Polish People's Army part of the Polish Armed Forces in the East, and not Anders' Army, that participated in the Battle of Berlin. The Polish People's Army was created by Stalin, trained south of Moscow, and led by officers loyal to the USSR, 40% of whom were non-Polish Red Army officers. These army units did not in any sense belong to Poland, according to the two sources cited. Levivich 23:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Um, yes, PPA was part of PAFitE. What's your point? And no, the sources do not say "these army units did not belong to "Poland"". That's your own original research. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What source says that "Poland" was a belligerent or participant in the Battle of Berlin? Levivich 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Already given. Now, it looks like you're going to try insisting on very specific particular wording here - that a source must use the word "belligerent" or it doesn't count - but that of course is just trying to play word games. Volunteer Marek 21:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. While the Polish troops were under Soviet command, so what? That just means we should only put Soviet commanders in the commanders infobox. A lot of WW2 campaigns and battles involved multinational forces on both sides. To single out the Poles here seems quite problematic. Volunteer Marek 23:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Zaloga 1982 p. 27 expressly talks about the establishment of the Polish People's Army (LWP) by Stalin, trained south of Moscow. "Troops were recruited from the prison camps, from Soviet soldiers of Polish extraction and from volunteers ... On average, about 40 per cent of LWP officers and NCOs were non-Polish Red Army men, but these percentages were far higher in technically oriented units like air, artillery or communication groups." They weren't Polish troops (i.e., belonging to Poland) under Soviet command, they were a Soviet unit populated by Poles.

The other source cited, Glantz 1998, lists the 1st and 2nd Polish Army as part of the "Soviet Forces" in its Orders of Battle tables; the tables have two columns, not three columns. They're not called "Soviet and Polish Forces". But that's secondary; most important is that these aren't troops raised by, or loyal to, Poland. The state of Poland did not send troops into that battle; it was the Soviet Union who created Polish army units. Poles fought in the Battle of Berlin, but not Poland. Levivich 23:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

None of this is irrelevant. By the same logic, the Polish People's Army between 1945 and 1989 was also "not loyal" to "Poland". Volunteer Marek 23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean, "None of this is relevant". How can the text on the page of the cited source not be relevant? Levivich 23:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources state that this army was created by Stalin and was to a significant extent staffed with Red Army officers. So what? The same thing was true of Polish armed forces up until 1956 yet no one disputes that it was a Polish Army. The forces in question here were in fact "loyal to Poland" - to communist, Soviet controlled Poland. But again, same thing was true for all armies of the Eastern Bloc up until 1989.

Now please stop it with the original research. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not OR, I'm quoting the sources cited. I'm not even doing any research, the sources were already in the article.

The "Polish Army" under Stalin is not "Poland". An army unit created by Stalin does not belong to the country of Poland. If an army unit created by Stalin fights in a battle, that doesn't make the country it's named after a participant in that battle. The fact that these army units created by Stalin were called "Polish Army" doesn't make them part of Poland.

More importantly, no source tmk says that Poland and the Soviet Union fought against the Germans at the Battle of Berlin. They all say it was the USSR against Nazi Germany. Not USSR and Poland. Levivich 23:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The OR is your claim that this was not a "Polish army" because something something something. None of these sources say "this was not a Polish army". The "something something something" you invented is the original research part. Volunteer Marek 00:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Look at Normandy Invasion. It lists "Belgium" and several other countries as belligerents. Do you think there really was an independent "Belgian Army" at Normandy? Volunteer Marek 00:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it was not a "Polish army", I said it was not part of "Poland", doesn't belong to "Poland", doesn't make "Poland" a belligerent in this battle. What source says "Poland" participated in the Battle of Berlin, I ask again? Levivich 00:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Virtually all sources on the subject discuss the role of Polish troops in the battle. Your objection is a convoluted word game. "Polish army" is "part of Poland". Or not. What does that even mean? By the time of the Battle there were two Polish governments, the one in London and the Communist controlled one. Both the communist controlled Polish government as well as its Polish Army were Soviet run. Again, so what? All your arguments apply equally well to post WW2 Polish army. Are you willing to seriously argue that the Polish army in, say, 1968, didn't belong to "Poland"? If you're serious about it and are acting in good faith, then perhaps you might want to start by removing any mention of Poland from the infobox over at Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia? Let's see how that goes first. Volunteer Marek 00:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, in contrast to France, Poland never surrendered after it was conquered by Germany. Therefore, it seems correct to consider all hostilities where Polish military were involved in as a part of Polish war efforts. I see no difference between the degree of involvement of Poles in Battle of Berlin and, e.g., Battle of Monte Cassino.

You made only one strong argument: we need a source saying that BoB was a Soviet AND Polish victory (or, at least, a source that list Polish troops as a separate belligerent). So far, I was unable to find such a source, but my search was not exhaustive. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

At the first glance, VM's rationale looks quite rational. Indeed, Polish People's Republic was internationally recognized as an independent (although Soviet-aligned) state, and Polish troops that fought in Berlin later would become a part of Wojsko Polskie (Polish Army). There is no indication that "London Poles" was an internationally recognized Polish government, and that only those troops that were under control of "London Poles" should be considered "true" Polish troops (even Warsaw uprising was poorly coordinated with London). In connection to that, it would be unfair to deny the fact that numerous troops composed of Polish citizens were fighting in the Battle of Berlin. Yes, they were under a tight Soviet control, but, as far as I know, most Polish regular military units (in the East and in the West) were, to some degree, under a foreign command. Therefore, I cannot understand most Levivich's arguments.

However, there is one argument here that deserves attention. When I started to write this post, I made a brief search for sources that confirm that the Polish troops that were fighting for Berlin are described as "Polish troops" (or something like that) in a historic literature. To my big surprise, I found just a couple of Wikipedia mirrors and some irrelevant sources.

In connection to that, can you VM provide a source that directly supports the statement that the battle of Berlin was a Soviet and Polish victory? Again, I find your arguments convincing, but I couldn't find sources that confirm them. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul, what exactly is the phrasing you're looking for? Pretty much every sources talks about Polish troops or Polish divisions, Polish army etc. Are you insisting on the word "forces"? Volunteer Marek 00:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In particular sources frequently distinguish between "Soviet" and "Polish" armies as distinct (all of which participated in the battle), for example [2]. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Same source refers to "Soviet and allied Polish forces". I think that's what you're looking for, no? Volunteer Marek 01:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This book you cite to by Steven Zaloga published by Osprey Publishing is 96 pages long including illustrations. Yes, it does refer to "Soviet and allied Polish forces", although it only mentions the 1st Polish Army and 2nd Polish Army briefly in passing. But 96 pages long? Surely this isn't one of the top academic works about the Battle of Berlin. I can't find a review of the book, and it only has one citation on Google Scholar [3]. Do we have anything better to point to? Does anyone else besides this book talk about "Soviet and allied Polish forces", or similar distinctions, at the Battle of Berlin? Levivich 15:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Omg. This is the *same* author you were quoting right above [4]! But now that it turns out the author doesn't support your position you're looking for excuses to dismiss it? Come on! Volunteer Marek 21:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul, "Poland", the state, did not raise, train, equip, staff, or command, the Polish People's Army in 1945. Stalin captured Polish soldiers and later put them into two army units and used those units in the Battle of Berlin (and elsewhere). That doesn't make the state of Poland a participant in those battles. There was a Polish government in exile and it had a Polish Army in the West loyal to it, plus there was Anders' Army loyal to it, but the Polish People's Army was part of the state of USSR, not the state of Poland. It's an army unit that was created by and (in 1945) commanded by the government of USSR, not the government of Poland. The sources say "1st Polish Army" and "2nd Polish Army" and "Polish People's Army", but not "Poland". Participation in the battle by Polish troops in a Soviet army unit called "Polish Army" does not make the state of "Poland" a "belligerent" in that battle. I hope this clarifies my argument for why "Poland" shouldn't be listed as a "belligerent" in the infobox. Levivich 01:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is half irrelevant (it doesn't matter who trained or equipped the army, lots of armies have been raised, trained and equipped by foreign powers) and half incorrect. I'm not even sure what it means for an army to "be part of a state of USSR". This is the convoluted wording that you yourself invented. As already mentioned, there was indeed a Soviet sponsored Polish government at this time. Sources - an author which you yourself quoted - distinguish between "Soviet forces" and "allied Polish forces" so.... that kind of settles it. You should probably drop the stick now. Volunteer Marek 01:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong Levivich [5]. Okay? [6]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems with writing "Poland" in the infobox is that the reader will understand that to refer to the Polish government-in-exile, and not to the "puppet government" set up by Stalin. Levivich 16:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly have it link to the appropriate article. Volunteer Marek 21:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

By contrast, Antony Beevor seems to consistently describe the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies as belongs to the Soviets, not Poland, and contrasts these two Polish units, loyal to the Soviets, from Anders' Army, loyal to the Polish government-in-exile.

• From chapter 42 of The Second World War (book):

  Stalin ignored the protests of the government-in-exile. As far as he was concerned, his puppet government of ‘Lublin Poles’ was now the true government. It was backed by General Zygmunt Berling’s 1st Polish Army, although many of its Red Army officers felt it a farce to pretend that they were Polish. The point was that, unlike the army corps of General Anders, they were on Polish territory.

• Similarly, in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Chapter 2, he refers to the Polish formations as belonging to the Red Army:

  Soldiers of the Red Army, and its Polish formations especially, were unlikely to feel any more merciful after what they had witnessed in the Polish capital.

• Same book, Chapter 13, also talks about soldiers wanting to defect from the Soviet 1st and 2nd Polish Armies to the Polish forces loyal to the Polish government:

  The Soviet authorities had another reason for concern at the advance of the Western Allies. They were afraid that the majority of the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies would want to join the Polish forces which owed allegiance to the government in exile in London.

Not sure if these two are among the "best" works on the Battle of Berlin, but they're at least wiki-notable works. I will keep looking at what other sources say, and if anyone else wants to share any cites/quotes on the subject, I'd appreciate it.

One of the problems with writing "Poland" in the infobox is that the reader will understand that to refer to the Polish government-in-exile, and not to the "puppet government" set up by Stalin. Levivich 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

None of this actually supports the contention that "Poland" was not present on the battle. Nobody is disputing that these were Polish armies under Soviet command. So what?21:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tony le Tissier:

• Zhukov at the Oder: The Decisive Battle for Berlin (Praeger, 1996), Chapter 2:

  Also fighting under Soviet command were the recently raised 1st Polish Army, soon to be joined by the 2nd, the 1st Polish Composite Air Corps with 390 combat aircraft, and various other Polish units, including a tank brigade and a cavalry brigade. These had originally been founded from prisoners taken when Poland was overrun in 1939 and then subjected to lengthy political indoctrination. Their numbers had later been augmented by partisans and recruits called to the colors by the so-called Lublin Government after the "liberation" of their country."

• Soviet Conquest: Berlin 1945 (Pen & Sword, 2014), introduction to Chapter 4, p. 73:

  The Polish Army raised by the Soviets consisted in fact almost entirely of Soviet citizens except for those young Poles who had reached military age during the war.

Maybe instead of "Poland" we should clarify that it was the "Lublin government"? Levivich 16:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The first source doesn't really contradict or even add anything to the discussion. One more time - no one is denying that the Polish forces fought under Soviet command, just like French, Belgian and other countries' forces fought under American or British command on the Western Front. So what? The second source is kinda trashy (and it is incorrect and contradicted by other sources). Volunteer Marek 21:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a doctoral thesis (PDF) from U of Calgary 2020, not an RS, but it goes into some depth about the Polish People's Army (pages 15-18) and has a nice bibliography I intend to plunder. Posting here in case anyone else wants to have a look. Levivich 17:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The question is if Polish People's Republic can be considered an internationally recognised predecessor of the present days Poland. If yes, which is highly likely, then why should we separate Lublin government (which would latter become a core of PPR's government) from "Poland". Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Polish People's Republic was established in 1947, but we are talking about the Polish People's Army in May 1945. I think the question is what "Poland" was in 1945, not what it was after the war. Levivich 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Polish communist government was actually established in July 1944. Volunteer Marek 21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If the PPR was around in 1945, I would agree to write "Polish People's Republic" in the infobox, but it wasn't. Hence, I suggest maybe writing "Lublin government" or "Poland (Lublin)", or something like that. By analogy, it's confusing if we were to describe army units of the French Third Republic and Vichy France as both "France". Similarly, we shouldn't describe army units of East Germany and West Germany as both "Germany". When a country is divided and there are two separate governments competing for right to the national title, we should not treat them as one monolithic entity. In this infobox, we write "Soviet Union", not "Russia", even though present-day Russia is a successor of the historical Soviet Union. So we shouldn't write "Poland" on the basis that it's the successor of the Lublin government. Levivich 17:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Poland (Lublin)". Volunteer Marek 21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Linked to Lublin government, i.e. Polish Committee of National Liberation? Levivich 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that'll work. Volunteer Marek 17:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, keeping in mind Beevor's story of "2 million of raped German woman" (the figure that was obtained by making an extrapolation of some extrapolated figure that was made based on several liberal assumptions), I am not sure we should treat him as a top expert.

I also disagree with your "Stalin captured Polish soldiers and later put them into two army units". In reality, most Polish solders were not "captured" (mostly officers were detained, others were exiled to eastern parts of USSR). Later, some (if not majority) of them volunteered to join Polish military formations. Many of them (like Berling) were devoted Communists.

In general, your argument that Poland, as a state, did not raise, train, equip, staff, or command, the Polish People's Army is quite correct. However, we have to be consistent. In many WP articles, some country is listed as a belligerent because military units composed of its citizens participated as a separate military formation. Frequently, those units were not trained, equipped or commanded by their state. Does it mean we should remove them all?

I think we should discuss that issue not at this page, but at MilHist talk page, because if your approach will be recognized as valid, it must be applied consistently and universally. In connection to that, I propose to leave Poland in the infobox (at least for a while) and ask a general question at the Military History project page. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is getting off topic but Berling was certainly not a devoted communist. He was a straight up opportunists who felt slighted by the Polish military command in the 1930's and who agreed to cooperate with the NKVD (including by infiltrating the Anders Army for them) to save his own skin, since the alternative was getting killed by NKVD at Katyn. Volunteer Marek 21:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Not just raise, train, equip, staff, or command, but also the units were loyal to Lublin, not London (the government-in-exile). What does "Poland", in May 1945, refer to? If it's a state, what is its government? If it refers to the Polish government in exile in London, then the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were not part of "Poland" because they had nothing to do with this government. If "Poland" means the Lublin government, well, we should clarify that in the infobox, because the reader will think "Poland" refers to the exiled government, not Stalin's.

As for other articles, I have no idea. I have no doubt that these infobox problems are widespread, as I keep coming across them often when I read WWII articles. I remember the USSR successor/predecessor debate, and the Axis Powers co-belligerent debate, recently. I think, though, that the Soviet Polish Armies are perhaps unique from other units.

Here, I think the question is whether the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies are part of the state of "Poland", and what state that word exactly refers to in 1945. MILHIST should definitely get involved as those editors will be familiar with these issues, but before I go asking them, I'm trying to gather and look through some sources first. Not sure if the ones I'm finding are any good, but it's what I'm finding that talks about the Polish Army in the Battle of Berlin. Levivich 17:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It refers to a country, not to a state. Poland had no full scale and universally recognized government during that time, but we can hardly exclude a part of military contribution of her citizens from her total war efforts just because they were acting not under a control of "London Poles".

Actually, in a situation if "London Poles" were an internationally recognised government that assumed a full control over Poland after the war (or at least after the end of the Cold war), then, yes, you are right. But in reality, the situation was different. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that logic. If Polish troops fought in a battle, that doesn't make the country of Poland a participant in that battle. The Soviet union taking Polish prisoners from the gulag and putting them into an army unit doesn't, in my view, constitute a contribution of troops by the country of Poland. Anyway, by that logic, it seems we should also be listing Ukraine, Belarus, and probably many other countries. That gets back to your point, I guess, about this being a broader issue than just one article. But, before talking about changing any rules or practices, if the status quo practice is that if people of X ethnicity fight in the battle, then X country is listed as a "belligerent", then we should add more countries to the infobox for this article? Levivich 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"The Soviet union taking Polish prisoners from the gulag and putting them into an army unit" That is not what happened. After Hitler's invasion of Soviet Union, Stalin agreed to formation of Polish army. The first one was the Anders army of course. But neither the Anders one or the Berling one involved forcibly putting gulag prisoners into their ranks. Rather, these were volunteers. Yes, some of them were prisoners or exiles in the Soviet Union, but many, most even, were simply *in* Soviet Union after having fled there or been caught there by the front in 1939. The situation with the officers was a bit different, as most of these were in fact prisoners and there weren't that many of them, Stalin having murdered most at Katyn, and a good chunk of the survivors leaving with Anders (that's actually the main reason why the officer corps had so many Soviet citizens in it). Volunteer Marek 21:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Getty, Rittersporn&Zemskov, there were 16133 Poles in Gulag in 1940.

WRT Ukraine or Belorussia ("Belarus" is a neologism), no such states/countries existed in mid XX century.

WRT "if people of X ethnicity fight in the battle, then X country is listed as a "belligerent"", that is not what I say. Thus, participation of Blue Division in EF does not make Spain a belligerent: Spaniards who fought in Blue division were volunteers who joined Wehrnacht, took an oath to Hitler, and the division was an ordinary Wehrmacht division under German command, they wore German uniform and were just ordinary Wehrmacht military. A situation with Armia Ludowa was quite different. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Poland did exist in 1945 but not as PPR but PKWN. on 22nd of june 1944 Poland was reborn and in the communist era it was a national celebration hence the reason in 1966 Poland had a parade celebrating 27 years Of Poland. and PKWN had its armed wing, the PPA which was under the command of Michał Rola-Żymierskim who was in charge of the general command of Polish army (naczelne dowództwo wojska Polskiego). he (M. R-Ż) asked zhukov if Poland can Participate in BoB which later stalin approved and thats how Poland was in Berlin. (Sorry for bad english:)) Jakub2k03 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Also i think BoB is a "Polish and soviet victory" because it is just common sense.. because what else would you classify Poland in BoB... a loser or a winner there is no inbetween. Jakub2k03 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your change to "Soviet and Polish victory". "Common sense" is not a reason. We need WP:RS that say "Soviet and Polish victory"; the sources cited in the article, as far as I can see, say "Soviet victory" (not even "Allied victory", but "Soviet"). Levivich 19:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We're not talking about People's Army (Poland) (Armia Ludowa). The specific Polish troops that fought in Berlin were the 1st Polish Army and the 2nd Polish Army, not AL. AL was created by Poland, but 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were created by Stalin. Levivich 17:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The confusion here is that "Armia Ludowa", People's Army, was also used for the Polish People's Army which was what the 1st and 2nd Polish Army became. Regardless of the naming confusion, Paul is right in that the situation here is quite different. Maybe time to WP:DROPTHESTICK Levivich? Volunteer Marek 21:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The Polish token force was mere cannon fodder, under Soviet command, and had no effect on the direction of the battle. Entirely inconsequential in relation to 1st and 2nd Belorussian Fronts and the 1st Ukrainian Front.--HQGG (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't disparage ~150,000-200,000 people who risked their lives as a token force or cannon fodder. In fact, that's a giant army, by any reasonable measure. The only reason it seems small in context is because it was part of what was maybe the largest land force ever assembled in history, consisting of about 2.3 million soldiers. Levivich 16:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the changes made to the info box and id like to make a suggestion of adding 'Michał Rola-żymierski' to the commanders box just so the reader understands who was in charge of the Polish armies. again this is only a suggestion and id like to hear feedback on this and i only make this suggestion because on the Polish wikipedia version of BoB 'Michał Rola-Żymierski' is listed as a commander. Jakub2k03 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Few thoughts:

• this has been discussed before and the consensus and long-standing version has been, each time, to leave Poland in the infobox. Past discussions: Talk:Battle_of_Berlin/Archive_7#Polish_forces_April_2011, Talk:Battle_of_Berlin/Archive_2#Polish_participation, Talk:Battle_in_Berlin/Archive_1#Polish_troops
• Poland is listed as a participant in Polish, German and French Wikipedias (the three I checked)
• from Template:Infobox_military_conflict: for combatants field: "the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.". For result field: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." I think it is pretty clear that Poland can be included as a combatant, and I don't think we have qualifiers to indicate who was the major or minor participant outside the order of listing (so, Soviet first, Poland second). Whether we need to clarify it was the "Lublin Government" Poland, I am unsure and lean against as unnecessary for infobox (but the link pipe of Poland to Lublin Poland or whatever could be considered) - I don't recall seeing "Poland (Polish gov't in exile)" format used for the Polish participation in the battles on the Western front (Battle of Monte Cassino, Siege of Tobruk, etc.). As for the result, Soviet and Polish victory is ok, although I'd not be that averse to just calling this Soviet victory, since Poles were clearly subordinate here and the Lublin government was a puppet one. We could also just say "Allied victory", since in theory Soviet Union and its Polish auxiliaries were "Allies". We could review what infoboxes for other battles in which First Polish Army (1944–1945) was involved say, I'll note that Battle of Lenino result clearly does not follow MILHIST recommendations, and ask at WT:MILHIST what are the bet practices for the Eastern Front (as noted, a common compromise for the Western front is to say "Allied victory", granted, the Western front also had more participants and they tended not to be puppet states...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus - Poland is listed as a participant in Polish, German and French Wikipedias - Poland is listed as participant in ALL other versions of Wikipedia except one single two version --> [7] and [8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Really, you gonna call out Hebrew wiki like that? Damn those Hebrew speaking people, always following their own path...

Anyway, [9], [10], [11]... not sure if they were all added by the same IP address, I'm too lazy to track them all down, but it really doesn't matter what other wikis do. Levivich 16:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Poland was included in Hebrew wiki until some IPs edit warred to remove it [12] (established users tried to put it back but looks like they didn't have patience to stick it through [13]). Volunteer Marek 22:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

..doesn't matter what other wikis do.. - so all other wiki versions are wrong in your opinion Levivich? GizzyCatBella🍁 16:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if they list "Poland" as a belligerent in the infobox for Battle of Berlin, especially if they link it to Poland. If I think the English-language version is wrong (for the reasons discussed above), and I think "Poland (Lublin government)" is better for the English-language version (for the reasons discussed above), then it logically follows I think the same thing for all other language versions (for the reasons discussed above). Anyway, it doesn't matter what other wikis are doing, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Levivich 17:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: Yes, you are right, Polish troops during the BoB were not Armia Ludowa. They were a part of Polish Armed Forces in the East. In connection to that, I am not sure why you are arguing against inclusion of Poland as a belligerent: Polish armed forces in the East were Polish forces, not Soviet, and, therefore, it would be logical to describe the victory as "Soviet and Polish". As I explained, those troops were not just "released from Gulag" (there were just 16 thousands Poles in Gulag in 1940, which is insufficient to create Polish armed forces. In addition, contrary to modern belief, Communism was popular among a part of Polish population, and not all of them decided to move to the West with Anders.

Furthermore, as Piotrus's quote says, the parties participating in the conflict are " most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict". It does not say "states", and we have no reason to claim Polish Armed Forces in the East were not "Polish": they were composed of (predominantly) Poles, wore Polish insignia and were not considered (de iure) Soviet. What else is needed to link them to Poland (as a country, not as a state)?

Frankly, I sincerely cannot understand why you continue to argue: I agree there are many problems with representation of Polish (and Polish-Jewish) history on Wikipedia pages, but this article is hardly an example of such problems. Why cannot you focus on real problems (which really exist)? In my opinion, this discussion is more harmful than useful, because it undermines credibility of your opinion in the topics that really need your attention. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A few things:

First, I am not continuing to argue anything. I don't like it when I am pinged with questions, and then when I respond, someone characterizes that as "continue to argue".

Second, I'm not "arguing" at all, I'm collecting and quoting from sources. Also, I'm not "continuing" anything because I agree with VM's recent edit following our discussion here. I have no objection to the current infobox entry, "Poland (Lublin government)".

Third, I really don't care what you think about my credibility or what topics really need my attention. I don't work for you, or for Wikipedia. I'm not here to build credibility with other editors. I was reading the article on Battle of Berlin, saw what I thought were errors, read the sources cited, and made corrections per the sources. I did what I thought was necessary to improve the article and make it more accurate per the sources already in the article. When, where, and how I choose to volunteer my time to improve articles is entirely up to me (as it is for every editor). I'm not here to fix the "many problems with representation of Polish (and Polish-Jewish) history on Wikipedia pages"; that's not a crusade I'm on. I almost never edit in this topic area -- only when I see things on major articles that I think are majorly wrong, such as previously at Holocaust, Axis powers, and now here. If you don't think this particular content dispute is worthwhile, you are not required to participate. I don't tell you how to spend your time editing, don't tell me how to spend mine.

Fourth, the sources cited in the article that I have linked to and quoted on this page do not, AFAICS, talk about "Polish Armed Forces in the East". They talk about "1st Polish Army", "2nd Polish Army", and "Polish People's Army" (LDW), with the former two being more common than the latter.

Whether the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were or were not "Polish" is the subject of the doctoral thesis I linked to above, which goes over decades of historiography in multiple languages. It's complicated, scholars have multiple views on it, there is no clear right or wrong answer.

Most importantly, I'm fine with the current state of the article, and I've thoroughly explained my reasons, and cited supporting sources, above. So I'd appreciate it if everyone stopped pinging me here unless you really need my attention. Thanks. Levivich 19:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am busy now, so I haven't read the whole discussion carefully. If you guys have already come to some agreement, just disregard my post.

WRT yours "third", I neither expect nor want you to care about your credibility in my eyes. I am talking not about me (consider it more like a notion of a side observer). WWII-time history of Poland is a very complex topic, and your attempts to make its description on Wikipedia pages more balanced and adequate are highly commendable. In connection to that, I've just noticed that this dispute hardly deserves your time and efforts. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I am fine with the current solution, GCB's edit that pipes Poland to Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland (note: PKWN or Lublin Government transformed into the Provisional Government in Dec'44 so that was an incorrect link/term in the context of 1945 anyway) while removing the unnecessary clarification "Lublin government" from the infobox (just like we don't add "Polish government in exile" or such to the infoboxes listing Polish participation in the Western front). That said I did notice that the infoboxes usually use "Free French" instead of linking to France. Again, I wonder if this has been discussed somewhere and France got the "exception" through consensus? If someone still cares about this, I'd suggest a discussion at WT:MILHIST, asking about Free French and best practices for the level of detail and links in infoboxes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Observation - Levivich writes above -->So I'd appreciate it if everyone stopped pinging me here unless you really need my attention [14]. Note that was user Piotrus pinged today [15] not Levivich. They replied [16] to the comment not addressed to them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pipe or no pile?

Editors involved in this discussion may want to check Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Free_French,_Poland,_pipes_and_Infobox_military_conflict which I just started. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the consensus above @Levivich? This is regarding your recent revert [17] {and problematic edit summary also, but that later). I’ll ask again and I’m asking other participants. @Paul Siebert, @Piotrus and @Volunteer Marek What is the consensus? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't canvas with selective pinging, ping everyone involved or no one. The consensus at MOS, MILHIST, and here, is to not pipe the link. You and Piotrus need to stop piping that link, as you're in a two-against-many situation. If you think the link should be piped, start a discussion and see if there is consensus for it. You two can't just continuously reinstate each other's edits and ignore everyone else. Levivich 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hard to say (what is the consensus). I am not familiar with a discussion at MOS. The discusion at MILHIST I started did not attract many people (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_166#Free_French,_Poland,_pipes_and_Infobox_military_conflict), I think one person was for, and one was against the piping. Two vs two if you factor in mine and Levivich's comments there. I prefer the long standing stable pipe version, given the lack of consensus. But if people keep disagreeing, I also suggest an RfC. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents

It is completely illogical to assert that one of the belligerents was the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland when the other two were Germany and the Soviet Union. If the PGRP was a belligerent, the other two must have been the Government of the Soviet Union on one side; Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party on the other. Governments don't fight battles, but countries do.

As belligerents are countries, it is correct to say that the Soviet Union (or USSR) and Poland fought against Germany in this battle. WP:COMMONSENSE applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)