Talk:People's Republic of Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poland Portal
People's Republic of Poland is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments

Contents

[edit] Old talk

The material added to this article by the various 145 users is useful and important, for which I thank them. I will fix up the English when I get time later loday. Adam 23:40, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First: It was the quotation in Russian. Except, the Pomerania and Silesia, some territories belonged to the Brandenburg province before WWII. Some of them, they are considered part of Pomerania, some of them were called Province od Lubus, from the Polish province from XIII century.

Thanks for that. Firstly this article is not about 13th century Polish geography, and secondly it is being written in English, so I will leave the description of the annexed areas as it is. Adam 08:41, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The article you gave me to read says: "Wladyslaw Gomulka, and the Natolin faction, came to power in 1956," Adam

All I wanted, was to give you the web sites that uses the name. There were Polish historian Jerzy Jedlicki and he wrote an article ("Chamy i Zydy") exactly "Dumms and Jews" the names they given to each other. What has happenned, Pulawy called Gomulka to power, but he wanted to "divide et impera" do he kept Natolin and Pulawy balanced. One of the Natolin boys, Mieczyslaw Moczar, tried to seize power in 1968, but was rejected by Soviets. The only the plot organized by Edward Gierek with the provoked massacre in the coastal cities 1970 made Gomulka to resign.

The more national look of communism started as late as in 1968. For example, for the first time, the effort of non-communist resistance were appraised, but obviuosly with torn apart proportions: allegedly pro-communsts partisants were the main power, London-based were the 2nd and allegedly their effort was positive on the level of soldiers, not commanders. As an example, non-communists partisants songs were allowed only after 1968. AM

Yes we will get to Moczar and Gierek later. I don't think we need to go into to much detail about these factions. Adam

Whoever last edited these articles is illiterate. "an one-party system"? here's one I like: "Stalin send to Poland also Poles from Ukraine, Bellorussia and Russia, who had already been brain washed for 20 years in serving Stalinism. "

And what? Help sound it better in English, instead of reverting.

The editing method we are using here is that I write a section in what I hope is good English, then the Polish comrades come along and make additions on points of detail or add new information or argument, in what we agree is not very good English, then I come along later and incorporate some (but not all) of their material into the text in proper English. This seems to be working quite well so please be patient. Adam 02:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have now written text down to the Gdansk Agreement of 1980. I will leave it for a few days and allow the Polish History Club to add comments and more material as they see fit (in English please, Comrades). Then I will come back and do an edit. Adam 11:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] changes

This article is filled with editorializing, and opinion after opinion after opinion without a fact in sight. Poland is continually referred to as a satellite state of the Soviet Union, which I will buy into when the histories of the Western European countries all state that they were satellite states of the US.

Here's a sentence that is a good example of complete editorializing: "Stalin was determined that Poland's new government would be controlled by the Communists, and therefore ultimately by him."

This sentence strikes anyone familiar with the early Cold War who is not in the John Birch Society as ridiculous. Note the context as well - in Yalta, Stalin had decided, in early 1945, that Poland would be *personally* controlled by himself, personally. This is stated as encylopediac fact. Also, Adam Carr who wrote this presumably has a John Edward like ability to read Stalin's mind, since he tells us what Stalin was thinking. I don't even know how to respond to this, it's just so ludicrous.

Anyhow, these nonsense editorializing opinions, where every Warsaw Pact country is a satellite state (unlike the free countries of Western Europe, where most of the blue collar workers had somehow been duped into joining the Communist parties there), where the Red Army is an occupying force, while in Western Europe, the US military presence is a friendly ally protecting the country from the Evil Empire (and perhaps even its own local agents - the countries working class) and so on and so forth.

Perhaps all this editorializing by Mr. Know-It-All Carr is what took the space of some relevant facts. Like neglecting to mention that the "Polish" land Russia "annexed" had been "Polish" for only 21 years when Russia had ceded it in Brest-Livotsk under the threat of invasion, a giveaway of Russian land that practically caused a mutiny against Lenin (with the Politbuto, Central Committee and country). Also not mentioned are the Vatican's attempts to help in destabilization of the government, just that the Polish government began "persecuting" the Catholic Church. John F. Kennedy had to swear he would not take orders from the Vatican when he ran for president in the US decades later, yet here was the Vatican ordering Catholics to withdraw from the Polish government. Señor NPOV 14:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou Hanpuk, your opinions are duly noted. Adam 00:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to revert his edits, surely you could address the issues at hand better than that. The version you reverted to is riddled with POV problems and the changes improved them at several points. Everyking 01:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

King i would be carefull before supporting Hanpuk (AKA LanceMurdoch etc). Adam is right - even if the old version was "POV", Hanpuk wants to replace it with a leftist POV. I have been accused of supporting Adam because i am his "close friend" - in fact one person accused me and him of being "after work drinking buddies" - a little difficult given A) we haven't met in real life yet, B) i don't work because of my disability and chonic illnesses and C) i don't drink alcohol because of the medicines i take because of said illnesses. PMA 01:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not supporting anybody or any particular version per se, I'm just noting that this article is POV (as I said once before when this was nominated for featured status) and needs balance. Simply reverting the changes and dismissing the talk comment wasn't helpful. Everyking 01:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Everyking if you or other genuine editors want to edit the article or propose changes then you and they are welcome to do so and we can discuss them. But I have had long experience with the Stalinist fanatic Hanpuk and I will continue to revert him on sight. Adam 02:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Split

This article will soon be splitted into several subarticles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This used to be a long and fairly good article, although somewhat biased. Now it's almost nothing. I think that's a problem. I mean, moving content around is fine, but one shouldn't delete it in the meantime. Everyking 15:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The content was moved to History of Poland (1945-1989). This article is named a fomer country and thus it is supposed to be about it. History is just a subarticle - as good as it was, and now under a correct name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, all right, I didn't notice the history article. Everyking 17:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I rv anon move (cause it didn't use move function). I wonder, however, if current name is truly the proper one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economy and culture

Additional material:

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economy section

Needs serious beefing up. Tony 23:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government and politics

This also needs ome beeinf up. And a sep. article on the 1952 constitution. Hypnos

Both are on my 'to do' list, but there is only that much I can do in 24h a day :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's Republic of Poland

The real name was Polish People's Republic~. polska (Polish) is an adjective, like in the names of Soviet republics. Xx236 06:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has changed... Shall I do the dirty job? Xx236 09:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Both translations are correct, but the second seems slightly more prevalent. I say go ahead and change it, as long as you also make sure to have a redirect page. --24.58.13.127 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] History: John Paul II

That paragraph seems a little too enthusiastic. His election was definitely a big event, but calling him the "de facto leader of Poland" is just hyperbole. Perhaps "spiritual leader"? Also: "... he encouraged the creation of an 'alternative Poland' of social institutions independent of the government..." - how exactly did he do that? Any citations? --24.58.13.127 21:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PSL

This article refers to "the PSL" three times without ever expanding or explaining the acronym, nor providing a wiki-link for it! Silverhelm 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Map

The map at the top of the article is quite distorted and could be improved. The article Poland has a much better locator map, but shows Poland as a member of the EU. Robert Hiller 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Statehood

After the destruction of the Second Polish Republic in 1939, Polish territories either became part of the General Government or parts of other countries. This article says that the PRL began in 1952. What existed between 1945-1952? I mean "officially". Was it Poland, or was there some other constructed name? Or is the article mistaken and the People's Republic of Poland began earlier? I'm aware of the de facto situation, just curious as to what the spin might have been. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of PRL was estabilished by the Polish constitution of 1952. The question of the name of the country before that is an interesting one. Technically, I don't think that Second Polish Republic was an official name (like in France); it was created for help with historiography. PRL is often applied retroactively, as it sounds somewhat better than "communist Poland", which begun with PKWN Manifesto of 1944. Amusingly, PKWN Manifesto claimed to respect March Constitution of Poland (of 1921), so did the Small Constitution of 1947 which used the term 'Rzeczpospolita Polska'. Ludowa was added only in 1952. Nonetheless nobody could seriously claim that communist government of 1944-1952 (and particularly of 1947-1952) had much in common with the pre-1939 government... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does anybody know the death toll

Inflicted on Polish population inflicted by this Soviet creation ?--Molobo (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)