Talk:Western betrayal/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Baltic states section

The section tells that "the western allies failed to take up the defence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania". This view is ahistorical and reflects some local national POV. France and Britain failed to take any actions because (i) no war was declared: if even the Baltic states themselves did not declare war on the USSR, what is the reason for other states to interfere? (ii) Secondly, and more importantly, by the moment of Soviet intervention, both France and Britain were deeply involved in the hostilities in Western Europe, which lead to their catastrophic defeat (and the end of French Third Rebublic). It would be an absolute nonsense to speak about any betrayal in this case.
Moreover, the above mentioned French and British problems in 1940 were caused, among other reasons, by their refusal to agree on Soviet demands during the triple alliance negotiations in 1939. The USSR was concerned about strong pro-German stance of the Baltic states, and it requested France and Britain to provide a freedom of hands for the USSR in the Baltic region in a case if the political situation would develop in a way not favourable for Soviet security. Both France and Britain refused to do that, which lead to failure of the political part of the negotiations. Therefore, neither France nor Britain betrayed the Baltic states (which, btw conducted quite egoistic policy that created significant problems for their western supporters).
The Memel section is quite obslure for me. Does it have any rrlation to any betrayal?
I remove both sections (which are totally unsourced). I expect to see strong and sourced arguments that describe those events as a manifestation of some generic "Western betrayal".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your "no war was declared" is in line with your "more of an intervention". ROTFL! "Egoistic?" On the contrary, bending over backward to accomodate the USSR.

As for the negotiations, it is well documented that Britain and France had already given away the Baltics when negotiations with the Soviet Union terminated. The wishful thinking (and here you are repeating a Baltic myth) is that Britain and France stood firm on the Baltics in the face of Soviet demands, causing negotiations to fail. There was a time I believed that, too. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the my comment above on Dr Vilnis V. Šveics, I pointed out that the monograph Vecrumba points to his correction of a general Latvian perception that there was no betrayal. We could add a paragraph to a none specific section summarising that article. Along the lines "Most Lithuanians do not consider the British and French diplomatic manoeuvrings in the 1930s to be an act of betrayal... however some do. Dr Vilnis V. Šveics states that ..." If more sources can be presented then this paragraph can be expanded and placed into a separate section. -- PBS (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@ VєсrumЬа. You started with the statement that the Latvian WaffenSS were the Allies (and refused to provide a source). Now you continue with another interesting statement: that "Britain and France had already given away the Baltics when negotiations with the Soviet Union terminated". I would like to see a source for this claim, because the only reason for suspension (not "termination") of the political part of the talks was the Estonian/Latvian issue. Can you please provide a source in support for this statement (of course, the physica inability of Entente members to do anything to support the Baltic states during the Battle of France by no means was a betrayal). If no mainstream and reliable sources will be provided, can I ask you to refrain in future from making statements that you are unable to support with reliable sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul,

"in the course of the political negotiations HM's Government have given way to (Russia) as regards — 1. covering the case of the Baltic States..." Zalcmanis, Jānis, Die Preisgabe der Baltischen Staaten, 1939, p 9. (with sources).

The source Zalcmanis quotes is Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, Vol. VI, page ("S") 764 and ("u") 782, so this is not his opinion, it's straight from the horse of British diplomacy's mouth.

At the time negotiations were superseded by other developments (I meant "terminated" in the passive sense, not the active), the issue of the Baltics wasn't even on the table. I'll write a properly sourced section when I have a chance. If I haven't reverted your wholesale delete, it's not because there was no betrayal, or because your insistent version of history is correct, it's because the section was crap to begin with (at least there we agree). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. @PBS, I would note that while Šveics cites Zalcmanis if you've taken a look, I do have the original Zalcmanis source in front of me, so I've confirmed this is a direct quote of recorded British foreign policy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you provided no extended quote from Zalcmanis (and no full citation), so I am not sure I fully understand the main thesis of this author. However, he seems to directly contradict to another source, Michael Jabara Carley. End of the 'Low, Dishonest Decade': Failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1993), pp. 303-341. The author writes:

"The failure of Franco-Soviet staff talks in 1937 was a prelude to the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations in 1939. The same questions were on the table: passage of the Red Army across Poland and Romania, fear of provoking Germany or driving Poland into the arms of Hitler, hostility from the Baltic states, among other factors"

Therefore, not only Carly says the issue "was on the table", it was no the table for a second time. The same author describes a reaction of the British ambassador, Seeds, on the Baltic issue:

"When Molotov spoke of the Baltic guarantee, Seeds 'uttered deprecatory noises', tapping his fingers on the paper which explained the Soviet proposals."

Carley also explains the reason of the failure of the triple talks as follows:

"The key issues were over guarantees of the Baltic states, a definition of 'indirect aggression', and negotiations for a military convention tied to the political agreement. The British feared giving the Soviet government licence to threaten Baltic independence. The Soviet Union feared German aggression through the Baltic with or without consent. Meanwhile, the Baltic states looked on nervously. They referred a year of Nazi occupation to a day of Soviet-which was what worried the Soviet government.' The Baltic ambassadors made regular inquiries at the Foreign Office; British ambassadors reported Baltic anxiety and anti-Soviet hostility. In early June Estonia and Latvia signed non-aggression pacts with Germany; German officers supervised the building of their fortifications."

Therefore, not only the Baltic states were openly hostile towards the USSR, they even took a direct steps to reinforce Soviet fears, and eventually to the failure of the triple talks.

Another author, Derek Watson, describes the events in the same vein:

"Increasingly afraid of German economic and political influence in the Baltic states, the USSR feared that Hitler's ambitions had been diverted in that direction.18T he reluctance of the Western powers to offer guarantees to those countries made Molotov and Stalin suspicious that they were opening the door for an attack on the USSR by Germany through them. The signing of a non-aggression pact between Germany, Latvia and Estonia on 7 June 1939 may have been an important factor driving the USSR towards an understanding with Germany when it could not secure an alliance with France and Britain." (Derek Watson. Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722)

He described the key issue as follows:

"Strang claimed that Molotov realised the 'impropriety' of his previous definition of 'indirect aggression' when, on 8 July, he suggested defining it as 'the use by a European Power of the territory of one of the undermentioned states for purposes of aggression either against that state or against one of the three contracting countries'. Seeds believed that Molotov put forward this formula spontaneously, in an effort to be helpful.' This was a high point in the negotiations; Strang describes Molotov as 'affable and cooperative'108 and there was now some chance of agreement.' This change in Molotov's attitude may have been caused by alarm over the warm reception of a German military mission to Finland, Latvia and Estonia in late June,10 or he could have been lulling the Western negotiators into a false sense of confidence to secure more concessions. On the next day he had refined the definition to

action accepted by any of the [listed] states under threat of force by another Power, or without any such threat, involving the use of territory and forces of the state in question for purposes of aggression against that state or against one of the contracting parties.

"The British government objected to the phrase 'without any such threat', fearing that this permitted the USSR to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Finland; and also 'against that state', which might allow Soviet intervention in the event of a coup d'6tat overthrowing an existing government."(ibid)

I have no idea is the source cited by you are reliable and mainstream. In contrast, the two sources used by me are English sources written by leading Western professors, and published in peer-reviewed journals (which means they had been vetted by scholarly community). They are among the most reliable sources, and are definitely mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You conflate that the Baltics did not wish for Soviet guarantees of security and initial positions of the British and Frensh in negotiations with where those negotiations actually left off. But thanks, I'll be writing to the authors you cite for their clarification given the diplomatic record.

This is just one in a series of events, including the politically charged interpretation of the Atlantic Charter by which Churchill and FDR accepted the staged forgeries ("elections") in the Baltics as an expression of will of the Baltic peoples to join the USSR.

Ultimately, the only question here, with regard to "betrayal" is those scholars who focus on the victims (that they were betrayed) and those who maintain Churchill and FDR (the perceived betrayers) had "no choice" (which leaves that "no choice" still needs to be explicitly equated to "not betrayal" to be an alternate scholarly POV, otherwise if we make that connection ourselves it is WP:SYNTHESIS.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But apart from the one source you have provided on this talk page (a Latvian historian's mongraph), that says that most Latvians do not hold that the behaviour of France and Britain in the 1930s was a betrayal but one historian does, you have not provided any sources where historians or politicians says that British and French behaviour was a betrayal. As the US was not involved in those 1930s discussions I am not seeing the linkage here with the decisions in the 1940s. Please provide quotes from sources written by historians that say:

1. There was a betrayal in the 1930s
2. That it was linked to the decisions taken by the Allies during World War
3. that this was a betrayal (or betrayals if no linkage is provided)
4. and the majority of historians agree with this POV (I realise that this is the most difficult to find but such a source would help with writing about the [alleged] betrayal).

This is directly linked to my posting directly out-dented below this one, which is a also request for these sources and a repeat of two other similar requests. I am disappointed that you are continuing this thread instead of providing sources that state there was "Western betrayal" which was made by me over an hour before your last posting to this thread. -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I conflate nothing. The scholars quoted by me do that. Feel free to ask them, however, from my previous experience, you prefer ignore the explanations from the authors (Malksoo) when they do not support your viewpoint.

Regarding "diplomatic record", I expected such an experienced editor as you to be more familiar with our core content policy: the official diplomatic records are primary sources, which should be treated with cautions per WP:PSTS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, because historians cite diplomatic records, my indicating the source of their scholarly contentions is now my violating Wikipedia editorial policy regarding primary sources? When I've got a new section written to post, feel free to make such contentions there if and only if I cite a primary source directly and not the scholar. I don't see that we are having any sort of productive dialog here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No "historians", please. They both are the historians without quotation marks. Regarding the quote, it is quite ambiquous: what does "HM's Government have given way to (Russia)" mean? Does it mean Britain was ready for all possible concessions in this case? If yes, then what are the examples of such concessions during the pre-WWII period? The tripartite negotiations stalled over the "indirect aggression" definition (in a situation when the Baltic states themselves made openly unfriendly steps towards the USSR and thereby provoked Soviet fears), so neither France nor Britain made even a single concession to the USSR. What the betrayal consisted in? In the physical inability of Britain or France to do anything during the Battle of France? And why had they to do anything to save openly pro-German states with strong German diaspora?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The stall was ultimately resolved in favor of the Soviet Union (i.e., meeting Soviet demands). What else would that mean? There's no talk of anything "physical". As for your "openly pro-German" that's an old saw. Stalin also accused the Baltics for Nazi sympathies regarding Hitler's "call home" (which was actually Hitler getting Baltic Germans out of Stalin's "sphere" that the two agreed to). I suppose Baltic fears of Soviet designs were baseless and that the Stalin-sanctioned attempted coup in Estonia was just a misunderstanding? Only giving way to Stalin's demands is pertinent to the topic here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, quoting Zalcmanis:

"Die noch immer in exilbaltischen Kreisen verbreitete Annahme, dass die "Westmächteverhandlungen" in Moskau misslangen auf Grund der Einstellung der baltischen Staaten zu "Garantien" und "Hilfe", ist abwegig. Bereits im politischen Stadium dieser Verhandlungen (April-Juni) hatte man sich über Formulierungen geeinigt, "welche die Sowjetunion hinsichtlich Estlands, Lettlands und Finnlands befriedigten."[citation]"

The widespread assumption still alive in exile Baltic circles that the "Western Power talks" in Moscow failed owing to the attitude of the Baltic States regarding "guarantees" and "assistance" is absurd. Already in the political stage of negotiations (April-June) terms were agreed upon "which satisfied the Soviet Union with respect to Estonia, Latvian, and Finland." [citation]

And what source does Zalcmanis quote for his scholarly contention? Soviet Peace Efforts on the Eve of World War II, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Moscow 1973/76, Nr. 213, 232,233,239,241,273,279 and 286. So, Zalcmanis also cites Soviet records of the negotiations stating that Soviet demands were met. Since I don't have the sources you cite, I can't confirm whether or not they state anything about the state of affairs specifically at the point the MR pact overtook events. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think to trust Soviet sources selectively is a fair strategy.

Regarding the sources I use, I can give you an opportunity to see how concretely do they describe the last meeting of failed triple talks. Watson (op. cit.) writes:

"What proved to be the final meeting in the political negotiations took place on 2 August, in an atmosphere which Strang later described as 'extremely cool'. Seeds reported the composition of the British military mission, and Molotov asked whether it would have full powers to negotiate. He then protested that Butler, in a statement in the House of Commons, had grossly misrepresented the Soviet formula on 'indirect aggression' as meaning that the Soviet government wished to infringe the independence of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Finland, whereas, on the contrary, it wished to guarantee their independence and neutrality.¹³⁸"

The ref 138 says the following:

"Butler had said that the main remaining difficulty was

whether we should encroach on the independence of the Baltic States. We [i.e. the British and French] are in agreement ... that we should not do so, and the difficulty of reaching a formula on that point is one of the main reasons why there has been a delay in the negotiations.

Hansard, Parliamentary Debates vol. 350, col. 2099."

As you can see, not only the Soviet concern had not been addressed, it was a key issue which lead to the failure of the political talk (military talks that stalled over passage of the Soviet troops through the Polish territory were of less importance, because no military treaty would be signed by France and Britain without achievement of political understanding with the USSR).

It is funny that you, who frequently accuse me in pro-Soviet bias, rely upon the Cold war era Soviet sources, whereas I build by arguments based on the best quality western sources...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, you mischaracterize. All I have done is cite sources which, in turn, cite official diplomatic records regarding the western and Soviet accounts of the situation of negotiations. Butler's statement was clearly outdated. As for the allegation that there is something amiss regarding Cold War sources, (1) unless you have scholarly evidence that the Soviet diplomatic records were doctored in some manner, it's irrelevant; moreover, (2) there was no "Cold War" at the time the original diplomatic record was entered.

What I find "odd" is that you cite Soviet records but complain that I cite Soviet records. As for your "best quality" sources, as I indicated, I'll be writing to them.

Somewhere I recall your requesting an extended quote from the German-language source. I'll get that up online when I have a chance, since it would be relevant to a (properly) reconstituted section on the Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is counter productive, because we do not need to provide evidence of whether or not there was a betrayal, all that is needed is to show if there is a reputable school of scholars or leading politicians who have stated that there was (and for NPOV balance with a scholarly or political refutation if one exists). To give another example. Under the Genocide Convention and International Court of Justice 21st century interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the deportations of Balts by the Soviet regime was probably not a genocide (but was probably a Crime against Humanity). But in our article on Genocides in history we mention that there is a state supported Museum of Genocide Victims in Lithuania, without trying to prove if the deportations and surrounding events were or were not genocide. @Vecrumba to facilitate development of this article please could you answer here my questions left hanging at the end of #PBS's sample questions and #The perception of betrayal. -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure the sources telling about betrayal (and their criticism for balance) is the only thing we need. As you correctly noted elsewhere, we need an evidence that such a viewpoint is mainstream, because by presenting a viewpoint X supplemented by some criticism we imply that X a mainstream or majority views. Meanwhile, a situation may be possible when not X, but Y is a mainstream viewpoint, and the viewpoint X is not being criticised simply because of low notability of the later.

The sources provided by me demonstrate that by Sept 1939 Britain and France made no steps that could be considered as a betrayal of any of their ally or potential ally. BTW, I do not understand what betrayal of the Baltic states can we speak about in a situation of ongoing intensive rapprochement between them and Nazi Germany.

Moreover, I would say that all questionable steps of the Entente members during pre-1939 period fit the concept of Appeasement, which has its own Wikipedia article. In connection to that, we need to seriously think how to avoid POV forks here. Probably, some material from this article should be merged into the Appeasement article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And my source quoting British and Soviet diplomatic archives indicate that betrayal was complete at the time the MR pact overtook the tripartite negotiations. As I mentioned, I'll be contacting your authors*. As for "rapprochement", the non-aggression pacts made for the Baltics having such pacts with both Germany and the Soviet Union. There's no conspiracy being driven by Baltic Germans, who were completely dispossessed of their hegemony. You ignore that there was no love of the Germans after seven centuries of German mastery.

* I shall, of course, have to obtain the texts and read both prior to being able to craft cogent correspondence not based on text snippets.. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case we can speak not about betrayal as the fact, but about the views of some authors. In any event, could you please provide an extended quote from your source (or at least a full reference)? I would like to read it by myself. In addition, what "betrayal" are you talking about if neither Britain nor France had no obligations to protect the Baltic states (which, by the way, were significantly Germanophilic)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the Baltics were not Germanophilic so stop repeating this subtle yet unmistakeable victim blaming on your part. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

French military commitment to Poland

I've already alluded to bad faith on the part of the French earlier, here is a bit of material from another source:

It is also clear that the French government made no plans to implement its pledge, given in a military agreement with the Poles signed in Paris on May 17, 1939. In this agreement, which interpreted the military convention of March 1921, France committed herself to take immediate though limited land and air action in the West if Poland was attacked by Germany. France would also launch an all-out offensive against Germany on the fifteenth day after a German attack on Poland. (French mobilization would take fifteen days). This was a pledge made in bad faith because the British and French General Staffs had agreed in April 1939 that if Germany attacked Poland, they would fight a purely defensive war to gain time. Thus, the French pledge aimed to secure the longest possible Polish resistance in order to win time for France.

Citation: For an analysis of British and French policy toward Poland in 1939, see Anna M. Cienciala, "Poland in British and French Policy in 1939: Determination to Fight, or to Avoid War?," Polish Review, v. XXIV, no. 3, New York,1989, pp. 199-226; reprinted with abbreviations in: Patrick Finney, ed., The Origins of the Second World War, Arnold Readers in History Series, London, New York, 1997, pp. 413-433.

at http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/communistnationssince1917/ch4.html

It indicates pretty much what I wrote earlier, with the addition of noting the prior agreement between the French and British General Staffs. I should add that politics between the wars are a digression from the topic here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The same problem as with the last MarshalGerogyZhukov's edit: if you have a mainstream source saying that the French refusal to fulfill her military commitment to Poland was a part of some big Western Betrayal, this material belongs to the article, otherwise it is not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

New section, alternatives to western betrayal idea

Let me first say I have been watching this article for years and have been impressed (intimidated) by the level of passion and persuasion the various editors have employed. I happily stayed away but now that there seems to be a new direction in editing, I would like to contribute a few thoughts – and maybe a few amateurish contributions or edits. I feel certain that most of what is in the article probably belongs on Wikipedia somewhere. But does it belong under such a broad and grandiose title? Does it belong without any scintilla of context or alternative explanations for 20th Century Eastern Europe, especially Poland and WW2? Is history so unequivocally damning of the WW2 allies as the article now presents?

My broad point is that the Western Betrayal idea needs to be looked at from a world perspective, and not only from the point of view of the betrayees. For instance, it can in part be understood as a common and apparently natural human reaction to tragedy, defeat, embarrassment or national disgrace. Whether we are talking about Germany’s explantion for WW 1 ( Stab-in-the-back legend)' the betrayal of Britain in the Suez Crisis ( ehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6085264.stm), Poland's explantion for WW2 in its Yalta Betrayal legends or Americas explantion for 911 in blaming Al Qaeda, there is a universal habit to blame foreigners, claim betrayal or assert that one’s country was ‘stabbed in the back”. As such if we are keeping this article to strictly Poland and EE centric; I am for including explanations of the betrayal in terms of a national psychology, in the context of political pandering in the Cold War, and in contrast to indisputable blunders by the Polish prewar government. Finally I would like to say that if the mindset here is kept towards “what do historians/scholars/statesemen” have to say about the betrayal topic and not did a betrayal occur, I think a much better article can appear in short order.

I have added a short article section along the lines I mention and I hope it gets edited and improved! But in the face of such contention on this article and the obvious one-sidedness of its current state, I ask that other editors respect the intense sourcing I used and not simply delete without discussion. Many thanks!

MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. This page has been crying out for fresh views. Welcome and please stay around for a while! :) Malick78 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Read on WP:OR and WP:SYNT. As far as I can see none of the sources used are connected to concept of Western Betrayal. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

While there is a wider view, that's outside the bounds of this article unless sources make the connection. For example, many Latvian activists and emigre organizations looked on the Helsinki accord as the final nail in the betrayal coffin at the time. With the passage of time, scholars point to the accords' mention of internally driven change as planting the seed for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. So if a source states "viewed as betrayal at the time... but led to the collapse of the USSR and reestablishment of an independent state", then that can be included as well. Sources must make the connections, not our personal editorial opinions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources reference Yalta betrayal, And all of the sources mention the events which are the subject of the proposed Western Betrayal if not directly by name. As noted above there are a plethora of Polish sources in Polish since it is largely a Polish concept. The fact that historians do not agree that these same underlying events constitute a 'western betrayal' does not means we exclude the source if they are discussing the same body of facts by a different name, or no name at all. Redressing the western betrayal concept does not require a direct use of the WB phrase since non-Polish sources largely don't buy into the concept or offer a broader explanation.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not largely a Polish concept. Baltic sources, for example, are quite clear on the topic, as are all those of countries on the Soviet side of the Churchill-Stalin piece of paper. I don't see that alleged Polish cultural consciousness of identification with "victim" plays here. We do need sources which draw explicit connections, otherwise the article will metastasize into a piece about Polish cultural psychological deficiencies and victim blaming. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I was going to undo the restoration of your section, but I'm willing to see what you and others do to cut it down to its directly applicable content without ruminations of the aforementioned victim blaming, aside from the fact this is not intended to be Polo-centric article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yalta betrayal is largely a Polish concept involving mainly Polish history in the sources I have seen. Western Betrayal is a bulky term invoked by China, Jews, Kurdistan, Arabs, Poland and several others. Since mainly Polish sources or others who agree with the betrayal idea use the term, it is quite wrong to reject sources if they don't use the Polish-preferred terminology of betrayal since other sources covering the same set of facts dont use thos term and instead offer a different explanaation for EAstern European fate. The notable scholars often mention national identities of victimhood in their treatment of betrayals (whether or not they call it 'betrayal')' and therefore it has a place in the article as long as Polish betrayal sources are cited. Because Poland has attached a name to the betrayal (real, imaginary or only half true) does not mean a source is required to use Polish betrayal nomenclature when describing the same set of events. BothPolish and non-Polish sources ascribe a big part of the betrayal idea to national mythologies/psychologies around victim roles so they belong in all treatments of the betrayal claim, at least if we are asserting a neutral point of view. We should not reject explanations for Polands betrayal even if we don't like them and even if they don't use the term western betrayal. Polish state of mind, national identity and history of betrayals is quite important to reveal as stated by reliable sources.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not important. What is important is historical events and the portrayal of those events as either being betrayal, negotiating in bad faith, etc.—or not. Speculations that the Poles are woe is me and betrayal is a psychological cultural affliction is interesting but not applicable. Sources which speculate on betrayal as a myth but do not do so by "debunking" specific historical misconceptions on the parts of name-your-Eastern-European-nationality are off topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding your "May I also add that everyone trying to actually argue for their national interpretation should be ignored or quickly quited by admin action" you're now going to need to work 10 times as hard to prove you're not here to attack what you don't agree with. A newbie advocating for admin action to ban editors to control content looks exceedingly bad for you. An odd contention to make for a newbie, by the way. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Our role is to marsall notable sources into a readable article, not decide if those sources use reasoning of which we approve or come to conclusions in the nicely framed confines which you as a Wikipedia editor have defined. It is absolutely not critical that sources address whether a betrayal occurred - it is instead notable if they address why Poland came up with the whole Betrayal concept, even if the sources don't mention the term at all or discuss a possible betrayal.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Ps I choose to ignore comments directed to me personally and not at article development.MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Marshall, I removed this from the 3O page because it appears two editors have objected to your edits. A listing at third opinion is for seeking a third opinion, not a fourth. I would suggest WP:DRN, WP:ORN, or WP:RFC, should you want an outside perspective. However, giving it a cursory glance, I doubt you will have much success there either. Consider finding better and more relevant sources before pursuing further outside dispute resolution.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm Polish and I'm ashamed at the nonsense in this article. Poland is not perpetually at the mercy of other powers! All this blaming third parties is the same trite propaganda the communist (Soviet) regimes tried to spew with such terrible effect. How to get this article neutralised and not so cry-babyish?Pultusk (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed two large completely unsourced opinion pieces in the article. Really, trying to attach the Soviet crime at the Katyn Massacre to the western powers is absurd and no reputable source blames this on Britain or France..Pultusk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is indisputable evidence (not in Polish sources) of the intentional suppression of Katyn by America in particular, and for quite some time after WWII. The western powers are obviously not to blame, but they did subsequently engage in a significant cover-up of Soviet actions well knowing from the start it was most likely the Soviets--also documented. I agree that crybaby Poles feeling victimized by the universe content is inappropriate and irrelevant.

@MGZ, you continue to question the motives of others so my observation remains relevant. Don't dig yourself deeper. No one debating here currently has advocated for content that is not directly supported by sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Most every party in the war had complaints with every other party to a greater or lesser degree. Not many were satisfied with France and the strange role of their Vichy France alter ego. In Germany Italy was often seen as a liability more than an ally, this of course before the Italians made a dramatic switch in sides. Greece was unhappy with Britain, as was most every other victim of Germany when Britain was fighting alone. Britain resented America's eventual leadership in the west and there was internal bickering throughout the war. Britain was annoyed with Ireland and contemplated invasion. And on and on. Personally I think devoting so much article space to Poland's complaints of its own allies, however justified, misses the bigger point, makes Poland seem an unworthy ally even to this day, and does a disservice to uninformed, especially younger, readers. The overwhelming point that should be made clear is that Poland was delivered into Soviet domination for 45 years. Period. This is the big historical fact, but it's lost in all the Polish nitpicking of Allied wartime strategy. After all, wouldn't the sins of Munich, Yalta, Tehran and the Phoney War have been forgiven if Poland had been protected in 1945 from Soviet control and instead allowed to pursue its own self governed existence?

so I say let's reduce all the internecine problems Poland had with its wartime allies to a few paragraphs, and instead lead and emphasise how allied policy/neglect/indifference/negligence (or yes, even betrayal) gave us a lifetime of low intensity slavery to the Soviets. This is the great mistake we want everyone to consider! And of course we need to hear the other allies' perspective over why they allowed this to happen. Pultusk (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My knowledge is not sufficient to make an authoritative judgement if "Western betrayal" of Poland is a commonly accepted idea or it just a national stereotype. Upon reading some sources I came to a conclusion that truth seems to be somewhere in the middle: this idea is shared by some historians throughout the world, and is more popular (or dominant) in some EE countries. Therefore, if I am right, it would be equally incorrect to present WP as a national stereotype or as a mainstream views.

Regarding MGZ's edits, yes, they are well sourced. However, they have some OR issues. Thus, the source discussing Polish participation in the Holocaust contains no references to WP. To add this source to the article would mean to be engaged in synthesis (which is prohibited by our WP:NOR policy. I suggest you either to find the sources that directly link Polish participation in the Holocaust and the WP issue, or to forget about this piece of text: it cannot be added to the article in the present form. I haven't analysed the whole text proposed by you, but I believe you are quite able to do that by yourself. Try to make sure your text contains no synthetic statements (it is already more or less well sourced, so it has no WP:V issues), and if you will be able to fix WP:SYNTH issues similar to the problem described by me above, feel free to re-add the text back.

Regarding Vecrumba's "Baltic sources, for example, are quite clear on the topic", I still see no evidences that those countries, which never been the Allies, whose citizens made virtually no contribution into the Allied war efforts and actively participated in Nazi war efforts, and even in the Holocaust, can be equated to one of the most devoted Ally, Poland. That is simply not modest.

In addition, when I tried to find something on that account, google scholar gave just 49 results. The first two sources in this list tell about western betrayal ... of Russia! I doubt the idea of Western betrayal of the Baltic states is notable outside a closed circle of nationalistic authors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. In the next few days I will redact edits from sources that do not directly tie the holocaust to WB or restate them so that there is no potential OR/SYNTH issue. Also, I hope to add some transition and introductory sentences to my main edit just for the sake of readability. I wanted every point to be well sourced so I initially put a cite after very single sentence and so it is blunt fact after fact without any finesse in language; I will change this with minor edits. Thanks again. MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement

Since I have been (falsely) accused of acting in violation of WP:OWN on this article, I am simply going to disengage from this article and this discussion. For the record I want it noted that the allegation is bogus, it's really just a smear by an IP-hopping editor whose intent is to harass and attack me. The fact that I've only made very few edits to this article in the past, that I have had no problem with many other editors making edits here (though I did object to the problematic edits of the said IP-hopping editor), that I actually agree with much of the criticism of the contents presented here by others, and that at the end of the day this isn't even an article I care all that much about should be sufficient proof that there's no WP:OWN going on here. Still, I feel that my continued participation in this discussion will, through no fault of mine, push the discussion off-topic and as a result will hinder improvements to the article itself. Therefore I am ceasing my involvement here.

Before leaving I would like to reiterate my suggestion that the best course of action may be to split this article into two, one on "Yalta betrayal" and one on "Betrayal at Munich". Furthermore let me once again draw your attention to these comments made some time ago by somebody else [1] - IMO, this is basically the outline to follow in improving this article. VolunteerMarek 20:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your decision to disengage from this article is hardly correct. I hope that will be just a short break and I am looking forward to see you here again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea to split the article onto "Yalta betrayal" and "Betrayal at Munich" deserves a serious discussion. In connection to that, can I ask you the following: how do you propose to distrubute a content between "Yalta betrayal" and Yalta conference, and "Betrayal at Munich" and Munich Agreement articles? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Such split, I am afraid, would risk deletion of the sourced section of 1939 events in Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. In connection to that, do you have mainstream sources that combine the Sept 1939 events in Poland with Munich and Yalta under the generic name "Western betrayal"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have several sources that mention the acts in 1939 as betrayal, I think it would be wiser to just give different countries in the article and describe what Western Betrayal means to them. Note that failure to support Warsaw Uprising and pursue the issue with Katyn is also mentioned in this.

Out of hand some sources that use western betrayal concept to September 1939(some connect this to later decisions):

Najnowsza historia polityczna Polski, 1864-1945: Okres 1939-1945. Władysław Pobóg-Malinowski - 1981 - uW Podziemiu nie brakowało głosów, ostrzegających, że nawet wrzesień r. 1939 był fragmentem lżejszym od tego, co się zbliża. Umysły wnikliwsze przeczuwały już zdradę Zachodu

W służbie Marsa: Tom 3 Przemysław A. Szudek, Komisja Historyczna b. Sztabu Głównego - 2001 - - Widok krótkiego opisuWówczas jednak dokonywał się przy całkowitej obojętności sprzymierzonych z Polską rządów Zachodnie Europy. Nie należy przy tym zapominać, że Wielka Zdrada miała swój początek pierwszego września 1939 roku

• Kultura bezpieczeństwa narodowego w Polsce i Niemczech Krzysztof Malinowski - 2003 - Widok krótkiego opisuTe doświadczenia zostały szybko zaklęte w języku narodowej traumatycznej symboliki: „wrzesień 1939 r. ... stało się też synonimem zdrady i porzucenia przez cały Zachód.
• Armia Krajowa w dokumentach 1939-1945: Wrzesień 1939-czerwiec 1941. Halina Czarnocka - Widok krótkiego opisuDziwić się zresztą temu nie możemy, bo Kraj cały nie otrząsnął się jeszcze po tragedii wrześniowej, widzi i węszy zdradę i krótkowzroczność polityczną, oraz nie entuzjazmuje się pociechami idącymi z Zachodu.
• Finał klasycznej Europy. Juliusz Mieroszewski, Rafał Habielski, Juliusz Mieroszewski - 1997 Zachód zdradził nas we wrześniu 1939 roku. Jałta była konsekwencją tej zdrady.
• The murderers of Katyń. Vladimir Abarinov, Vladimir Abarinov - 1993 - They considered themselves twice betrayed. They felt that the western allies had failed them in 1939, by neglecting to act on their declaration of war; and in 1943, by secretly agreeing to place Poland in the Soviet sphere of interest

As noted this is only to September 1939. Precise information about betrayal(mainly false promises and claims-made fully aware that they are false) to Poland during the war by France) are sourced, although I can expand this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Franco-British passivity during invasion of Poland was tantamount to betrayal (although formally it was not) is obvious. However, the question is: what is the reason to combine in the same article some instances of betrayal of some states by Western great powers (betrayal of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc), and what is the reason for exclusion of other examples of real or alleged betrayals (betrayal of Palestine and other examples discussed above)? In addition, do you think we can collect in the same article only the sources that describe those events as "betrayal" and to exclude the sources that describe those events otherwise?

By writing that, I do not propose to remove that material from Wikipedia. However, in my opinion, the sources describing betrayal of Poland in 1939 are more relevant for the article German invasion of Poland and Phoney War, and so on. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"The fact that Franco-British passivity during invasion of Poland was tantamount to betrayal (although formally it was not) is obvious". It is not at all obvious to me. @MyMoloboaccount can you pleas provide an English translation after/below the Polish quotes? -- PBS (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Zachód zdradził nas we wrześniu 1939 roku. Jałta była konsekwencją tej zdrady." is translated as:

"The West betrayed us in 1939. Yalta was a consequence of this betrayal".

The problem with those quotes is that they do not support the existence of "the Western betrayal" concept. Instead of that, they tell about different betrayals by (various) Western powers. As a result, we jump from various real or perceived betrayal by the Western powers to some "Western betrayal" as a phenomenon. However, "betrayal by some western power" is not necessarily the "western betrayal" (a term), similar to "occupation by the USSR" is not "Soviet occupation" (a term). We cannot create new concepts, which in actuality we are doing top results are WP mirrors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not obvious at all. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If sources mention the events of 1939 as "Western Betrayal" the article needs to cover this, and the introduction needs to be written taking into account this fact. Editors own views on what was "real" or "perceived" are irrelevant. The same with personal views on events characterised named as "western betrayal".

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. However, if we include the events of 1939 which were characterised as "western betrayal" of Poland, why should we exclude other events, which are also described as a western betrayal [2]? In my opinion, your arguments would be absolutely correct if the article's name was "Western betrayal of Poland in 1939"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as sources deal with the betrayal of the collective Eastern Europe and the Baltics, there is likely no need for a "Western betrayal of X per each occurrence" article where France, Britain, and the U.S. are the constants and there is constancy in their policy as well. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What is a reason to group France, Britain and USA together (taking into account that the US were not involved in 1937-39 events, and France did not participate in Yalta)? What is the reason to group the allied Poland, the Axis member Romania and hiddenly pro-German Latvia together? Why the events described by you should be called "The Western Betrayal", whereas similar betrayal of Arabs should be called "Western betrayal of Arabs"? I got no answer so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Paul and Misty: currently, editors or synthesising/indulging in OR. The whole concept is so vague it becomes whatever an editor wants it to be. Why not add Arabs to this article? Why not add China? The word 'Western Betrayal' is used in connection with them too. We need a rigorous method in order to go about cleaning up this article: include all countries betrayed, or justify why we only select some and give some reasoning for it. Malick78 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If other countries use the term western betrayal for policies of western powers, and if it is sourced-feel free to add them. Note that events of 1939 are sourced as being named as western betrayal, so there is no OR or synthesis here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that no proof has been provided that we are talking about "The western betrayal", not many separate "western betrayals". Thus, I have no evidences of a linkage between Munich and Yalta...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We are. Words in parenthesis in Polish strongly define separate terms and definition and are not causal part of sentence.:

Poznawanie Miłosza: 1980-1998: Tom 2;Tom 2 Aleksander Fiut - 2001

rozgoryczenie „zdradą Zachodu".

Dialog: Tom 41,Wydania 5-8;Tom 41,Wydania 5-8

Biblioteka Narodowa (Poland), Związek Literatów Polskich, Biblioteka Narodowa (Poland) - 1996

"W kręgach dawnej Armii Krajowej za przełomowy uważano rok 1944/1945, kiedy nastąpiła „zdrada Zachodu"" − Przestrzeń spotkania: eseje o kulturze paryskiej

Leszek Szaruga - 2001

oczywistym echem doswiadczeñ II wojny swiatowej i tragedii, jakq dla kraju stala siç „zdrada Zachodu"

Also I am not writing about Munich. The events of 1939 are linked to events of 1944-1945 by some sources though. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• The point of definition is real: what, for the sake of argument, if a single individual claims the west betrayed them personally (e.g. Khodorkosvky saying (he hasn't, this is an imagined example) that the west should have stood up for him more)? Would we put that in? Most editors here wouldn't... yet the article doesn't ever state only countries can be betrayed by the west. That's an example of the problem of definition, which hasn't been addressed. I think that MyMolo hasn't quite understood what I, Paul, and Misty mean: there are different accusations (from countries) of betrayal... yet we're conflating all of them on this page. As soon as an editor sees those magic words, WB, they can add it to the page. Malick78 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount, do you have any reliable sources in English? And could you please quote the sources with English translations of the relevant sentence from the sources you have cited above. Also what are the qualifications that the authors have for their opinions, are the professors, or international lawyers, or military historians etc.

The reason for asking this is because as far as the British and French histories are concerned France and Britain declared war on Germany after giving the Germans an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland, and they were unable to help Poland directly because of the geographic location of Poland and the speed of its collapse. France's whole strategic thinking, tactical training and deployment was for a defensive war (so they could not launch a large attack against Germany without a complete volte-face in their strategic thinking. After such a change in thinking the training and redeployment of their armies would have taken more than a month) and the British expeditionary force was still deploying to north-west France after the fall of Poland. According to standard British military histories, to describe British and French actions in September 1939 as a Western betrayal makes as much sense as saying that the Poles betrayed themselves in loosing so fast in the same way that France betrayed itself by loosing the Battle of France. So how do these authors you have cited describe and explain the 1939 Western betrayal? -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason for asking this is because as far as the British and French histories are concerned France and Britain declared war on Germany after giving the Germans an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland"

This is not the obligation British and French made to Poland. Also non-English sources are perfectly fine(although English will be used as well). Regarding "According to standard British military histories"-we write about all points of view, not just British ones. "France's whole strategic thinking, tactical training and deployment was for a defensive war (so they could not launch a large attack against Germany without a complete volte-face in their strategic thinking. After such a change in thinking the training and redeployment of their armies would have taken more than a month)" If true(not saying that it is) then it indeed confirms that France was lying(as stated among others by Ironside) when it made promises to Poland that it was fully aware were not possible to fulfil.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course foreign language sources can be used, but please give translations on this talk page of the text in the sources, so that others can evaluate what they say, as in English language sources that claim that Britain and Frances's deceleration of war on Germany was a betrayal are not going to be very common (and as such would fall under WP:FRINGE) for example a search of Google Books only returns one book that specifically mentions "Western betrayal" and "1939" in the same sentence: "For them, the 1944 Warsaw uprising became a symbol of Romantic futility once the conscious of Western betrayal and indifference, both in 1939 and at Yalta seeped through". This is not enough of an analysis on which to base an Wikiepdia article. This book cited in the article states that Maurice Gamelin promised the Poles that French forces would take the offensive but the article also says that he agreed nothing of the sort with Britain. It is not clear from that article if the French Government specifically agreed to such terms, and the footnote 33 (on page 294) implies that they did not support him. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The French-Polish military agreement Gamelin signed May 19th laid out a schedule of specific military actions to be taken by the French (and Poles) in the event of a German attack: immediate French air attack, limited French army mobilization and offensive within 3 days, and mobilization of and offensive with the bulk of France's forces—"les gros de ses forces"—within 15 days; Poland would wage defensive action if it were attacked; if France were attacked, the Poles would take offensive action to tie up as many German divisions as possible.

The French wished Britain to assume the same responsibilities, whereas Halifax did not see that the free city of Danzig fell under British obligations to defend in all cases (also Bonnet's position on the part of the French), so that the French only signed the political agreement confirming the May 19th military agreement 3 days after the German invasion, that is, one day after...

• France entered the war but ultimately failed to fulfill its military obligations and, incidentally,
• Berlin communicated to Moscow that the USSR should commence its invasion from Poland's east.

Texts which indicate that the British and French negotiated with the Poles "in bad faith" apply here, as such negotiations set false expectations. Expectations, once set between parties, do not need to qualify as "realistic" or "unrealistic" to be betrayed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not need to discuss whether there are substantive reasons for believing there was a betrayal (that leads into OR). All we need to do is discuss who believes that a betrayal took place in 1939. The predominant position in English language histories is no mention of a betrayal, so such mention is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs high quality reliable sources. It has to do with national historiography, just because something is unexceptional and accepted as the norm in one country's history does not make in common coin in all national histories. -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I said that sources which indicate western powers acted in bad faith apply to this article; I would add that whatever those acts are, we should also have a source stating such act of bad faith was subsequently viewed as betrayal. My other point here is that you simply cannot state there is a "predominant" position of "no betrayal" in English language sources. Lack of a huge amount of discussion of a thing does not make the thing exceptional. If you wish to maintain France did not act in bad faith when it signed agreements with Poland on which it abjectly failed to deliver, then you need to provide a source which provides an alternate view of that specific circumstance to balance sources which do view the specific circumstance as betrayal. If we are to have point/counter-point, then it must be on a level playing field with both "sides" on the question of betrayal held to the same standard. See added section below.VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure I can provide more sources and translations if requested. As to declaration of war-that was never the core issue of agreement with Poland and France and UK. The obligations in treaties went further than that. Note also that French did lie about their actions to Poles. I will expand the section.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) PS:It is not clear from that article if the French Government specifically agreed to such terms, and the footnote 33 (on page 294) implies that they did not support him Gamelin asked both Daladier and consulted Foreign Ministry before signing on 19th May the Kaspczyki-Gamelin protocol which contained obligations regarding military actions. French politicians did communicate that it would be valid after confirmation of Bonnet-Lukasiewicz protocol. French Government affirmed French-Polish Bonnet-Łukasiewicz protocol on 12th May, and French Foreign Minister signed it on 4th September. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of the section in the article is not what is needed it needs to be drastically reduced and focused on the specific issue! Yes please provide translations of the relevant information from the sources given above. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Expansion is very much needed. For instance looking at above posts it seems people are confused about what were the obligations of France and that it did lie to Poles in 1939. It won't hurt to add this, in order to clarify. Feel free to mark parts needing translation, and I will gladly do so in footnotes in the main text.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is contained in the article can you please place the translations here (and the expertise of the authors). -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not make myself clear (hence the strikout). Please provide quotes from the sources and translations (and the expertise of the authors of those sources) for those you cite higher up this section if you still think that what they have to say is relevant to this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

An NPOV proposal

Upstream of PBS's questions etc, there's the key issue of how to delineate the encyclopaedic scope of the article. Terminological issues aside, the current lede seems to outline the potential scope of the page rather clearly in terms of the "range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1938 and 1968 regarding Central and Eastern Europe." Pursuing a clearly delineated scope of this sort would entail NPOV documentation, principally based on secondary/tertiary sources, of the views expressed by pertinent commentators, including academic historians and prominent public figures (perhaps even stretching to noteworthy representations of the concept in the arts and media). Focusing on the "range of critical views" would obviate the lack of public opinion data within the general populations of the eastern-bloc countries—a consideration which must inevitably undermine any encyclopaedic attempt to describe the "perception of betrayal on the part of the peoples" (my italics). On the other hand, the writerly challenge of describing the range of non-fringe critical views should facilitate NPOV.

Imo, carefully documented work along these lines would contrast with the inadequately sourced treatments of POV which, I fear, characterize much of the present page. It should also eschew OR in the form of dangerous attempts by Wikipedia to provide direct answers to overriding historical questions regarding the existence and characteristics of the alleged betrayal. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated when Paul Siebert deleted the Baltics states section, I allowed that delete to stand because there really was nothing to salvage there (no specifics, no sources cited). I don't believe viewing this topic as "perception" is, however, appropriate. Acts such as accepting staged falsified elections as valid expressions of peoples to join the USSR in order to not violate the Atlantic Charter is a quite clear betrayal of signing treaties which state principals of conduct and commitment thereto and then knowingly abrogate those commitments—or FDR explicitly asking that his commitments be kept secret to not anger Polish-American voters in the following election. Scholars describe acts where western leaders were clearly conscious that they were wronging other peoples and nations as acts of betrayal. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is, your sacrificing others for an alleged greater good which does you good, but does no good to those sacrificed. History teaches us that such sacrifices never work out well in the end. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you reread my comment, you'll find that I wasn't suggesting focusing on the perception of betrayal, but rather on the range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1938 and 1968 regarding Central and Eastern Europe, as currently announced in the lede. (Or perhaps an improved definition of the scope along those lines.) At the moment it isn't at all clear what this article is really about, and I fear this vagueness is something a concern for Wikipedia, given the attention that articles such as this one attract online. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed for Perception of Betrayal

The first section of the article's body, Perception of Betrayal, is wildly unsourced while making claims about nations who lie, fail to meet expectations, or make bad misjudgments. Unnamed "historians'" we are assured, make these pronouncements. It has been tagged for lacking sources and improper synthesis for a while. I would like to edit it to include only sourced material. Does anyone want to add sources or rewrite a new introduction with sources? Pultusk (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Trachtenberg note mentioned higher up this talkp page could be used to source an eastern European lead. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I used the Trachtenberg note as suggested and found another source calling western betrayal an eastern European belief centered primarily on WW2 and it's aftermath. I'm trying to work through the article and add sources where tagged or where obviously needed. It is a stumbling block to find sources that match what the article currently says because the term western betrayal is used more commonly today in other contexts like Kurdistan, Afghanistan, China, Russia. Many sources mention a betrayal at Yalta or Munich or a betrayal of Poland, but very few use the term western betrayal as a cogent term and idea of commonly understood meaning in reference to the subject of this article. Is the current title reflective of reality? Pultusk (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

plagiarism removed

While working through the article trying to add sources, I discovered that the entire section called 'Up to 1939' and subsection 'diplomacy' is copied verbatim from

http://www.minelinks.com/war/bad_harzburg_doc5.html

So I deleted it, especially since the plagiarized document is itself unsourced.Pultusk (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the foot of the web page you'll see This document is not copyrighted. (It might actually have been taken directly from Wikipedia rather than the other way round.) —MistyMorn (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did notice the plagiarised document says it is not copyrighted. But that is not the main problem, IMO. The problem is that it is unsourced. The entire large block of unsourced text fits in with the other large unsourced narratives on that web page, which leads me to believe it is the original plagiarised document that someone pasted onto Wikipedia. Also, in this western betrayal article large chunks are verbatim duplicates of unsourced material elsewhere, such as Phoney War, so I'm thinking much of the article (the big chinks lacking any cites) was a cut and paste effort from elsewhere, probably synthesis or original research. Pultusk (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree about the underlying problems. As I've said above, I think this sort of thing is unhealthy and a potential concern for Wikipedia. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pare down Phoney War and Yalta sections?

I went through the whole article and added sources at most of the spots tagged 'citation needed'. I cleaned up a few cases of incomprehensible phrases. I think as it stands now it is sourced somewhat better than it was and is less one-sided. Now I really think the thing that detracts most from an effective article is the excessive minutia found in the Phoney War and Yalta sections. If a reader wants that much detail, the full articles on these subjects are linked. As it stands now the evidence supporting the western betrayal idea is lost in all the military history in these sections. Agree or disagree Yalta and Phoney War topics need to summarised better and not so detailed? Pultusk (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis connecting Phoney War to Western Betrayal?

I've reviewed the sources in the Phoney War section and can not find any that mention it's connection to Western Betrayal. I propose to include in this section only sources that mention Phoney War was part of Western Betrayal, does anyone have such a source(s)? Pultusk (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I also think that the section "First World War aftermath" is too large and misleading for example I can not find any wording in the s:Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland-London (1939) which commits Britain to "to fully mobilize and carry out a 'ground intervention within two weeks' in support of the ally being attacked". -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

France is the only nation with a potential two week timeline to act in the sources I can see. In any event, I don't see any sources linking western betrayal with the aftermath of WW1 or the Phoney War. Attaching western betrayal to the Warsaw uprising is weak as well. The Westen betrayal term, where it used at all, is mainly attached to the WW2-era conferences which gave the USSR control over parts of central and eastern Europe for the next 45 years. Pultusk (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I erased Phoney War, I looked closely at the sources cited and have searched other sources quite a bit, but I can't find any that tie in Phoney War with western betrayals. I think the article is stronger when it is shorter and also think Yalta needs reduction. Pultusk (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

PBS's sample questions

The questions are fair, and there is no impediment to producing sources which in English or their native languages use the word "betrayal" with regard to the behavior of the Western powers. I should mention that "because very few in Britain or the US consider the actions of their governments to be a betrayal" is not really true, there was quite the furor in Britain over Churchill's "interpretation" of the Atlantic Charter, for example, among those who were aware. One should not conflate lack of consideration and unawareness.

• re: the Baltic states, here is a (Latvian) historian's monograph on how the Baltic states were handed over to Stalin. And yes, the word "betrayal" is used—and with regard to the Baltics and all Eastern Europe falling under Stalin. Perhaps a bit impassioned, but a thorough and concise presentation nevertheless. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that whenever the word "betrayal" is used in reference to the West, we're to put it in the article? Or should it only be the full phrase "Western betrayal"? Seems to be the former allows a lot of leeway for POV pushing and synthesis.Malick78 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The only approach that we can take is to use Trachtenberg and similar sources to say that some Eastern Europeans draw a connection between Munich and Yalta. Adding any source that does not explicily mention the alleged connection is coatracking. Here's another source: ""V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression," Bush said in Latvia on May 7. "The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact," he added, referring to two treaties that cleared the way for World War II. "Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable."" ("Bush, Yalta and the Blur of Hindsight", Jon Meacham, Washington Post, Sunday, May 15, 2005. TFD (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Republicans (such as Bush) have historically been against the Democrat-brokered Yalta deal? See here.Malick78 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless a source connects the two. Note that the isolationists supported Munich, while Churchill and Roosevelt opposed it. But of course they often re-write history. TFD (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked you "If you have sources from experts who say that the actions of the British French and American governments were a betrayal then add them to the article as in text attributions,.." I am not sure what the "(Latvian) historian's monograph" is meant to prove. Far from saying that the betrayal is widely held Latvian view, it seems to support the contrary: That in the 1930s "Britain and France drew the line against Soviet demands for the Baltic states... [is] widely held among the Baltic diaspora of World War II refugees and their progeny", and that Dr. Vilnis V. Šveics is trying to show them the error in their views and that "The plain and irrefutable facts fly in the face of long-and widely-held beliefs which have taken root in the collective Baltic consciousness". Or put another way the betrayal theory is a minority view and that Dr Vilnis V. Šveics is one historian who holds it. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Annexation of Lithuania"

"Poland was ruled by the dictator Józef Piłsudski.[50] [51] After failing in his goal to annex Lithuania..." - I thought, that Wikipedia wants to be neutral... when did Piłsudski tried to annex whole Lithuania? And where did author find it? In Lithuanian history book?

Piłsudski ordered gen. Żeligowski to "rebel" and take control of Wilno with it's region. But he wanted confederation between Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Roman Dmowski had diffrent point of view: he wanted to annex whole Lithuania, but it was Piłsudski, whomade decisions, as a head of state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.217.3 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

I realise this probably crops up often, but the title seems inherently POV. A more neutral one would be Western betrayal (term), highlighting the fact it's a term, not an absolute, uncontroversial concept. What say you? It's a minor change, and quite accurate. Malick78 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that names be neutral. The question here is whether historians use this term. Unfortunately, I don't think we have any subject matter experts here to tell us. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This HAS been discussed to death and the current title is fine [3] - as Malick78 well knows.

And I don't know what you consider "subject matter experts" but historians most certainly do use the term.VolunteerMarek 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There are articles about the new world order, blood libel and unicorns. So long as a term is the one most generally used, then we can use it. TFD (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the term is a) too broad (12,000 hits for "western betrayal" + china -Yalta) b) is very POV, assuming that the term is non-controversial, and c) would not be used naturally be English speakers not already knowledgeable regarding the subject ('betrayal' is an abstract noun, 'western' does little to define it, or say from whose viewpoint - and therefore is not like other POV but common titles such as the Boston Massacre, which, being created by native speakers, are less confusing), and therefore many sources on the net add a phrase to help, such as "the term" or "concept of...", such as here, to help show what is being referred to. Basically, "Western betrayal" is a calque. This issue of non-native-English-speakerness is again present in the first sentence of the article, btw, when we say "Yalta betrayal" without a definite article. It should be "the Yalta betrayal" - see here. Lastly, adding "(term)", clarifies while keeping everything that the likers of that term like, surely. That's the nature of compromise and consensus. (Btw, Deuces, your examples are a) all from English, b) less controversial ('blood libel' as a term doesn't suggest it's true, quite like WB suggests it might be true, in my view)). Malick78 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this has already been discussed to death and you're not bringing anything new to the table. Adding "(term)" in parentheses would be justifiable if there was a need to disambiguate this title from some other - if there was some other "Western betrayal" that the term could apply to. But there isn't. But this is the term most commonly used by historians.

Your google search is meaningless - 12,000 hits on google itself is nothing. Doing the same search on google books gives only 82 results, many of them false positives (i.e. still relevant to this topic) [4]. If however, were someone to write a "Western Betrayal of China" article, then possibly that kind of disambiguation in the title would make sense. Until then there's no need.VolunteerMarek 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd compare it to the article Nanking Massacre, which uses that term, rather than the more popular term Rape of Nanking (or "Rape of Nanjing"). The latter two combined have almost three times the amount of hits on Google compared to the phrase used as the article's official title. Why? As they say here, they want to be more NPOV. If only we could find such compromises here... Malick78 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)]

There is no need for renaming, unless a disambiguation is needed. Per WP:COMMONNAME. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• So why do you think we don't have a Rape of Nanking page? That it's a redirect to Nanking Massacre? The former is the common name. The current name of this article seems childish, to be honest. No English speaker would ever refer to it naturally as such, and the only uses of it in literature are when it's the 'concept' being described. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Because "Western Betrayal" is how historians refer to the subject of this article. Your claim that No English speaker would ever refer to it naturally as such is patently false. Your assertion that The current name of this article seems childish is your own opinion - find a source to that effect. While we're here, your claim above that "Western betrayal" is a calque" only shows that you don't quite understand what the word "calque" means, as this is most definitely not an example of one.

Again, we've been through this half a dozen times, so why waste people's time with the same old tired arguments? Unless that's part of the purpose.VolunteerMarek 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to waste people's time. Don't make unfounded accusations (and AGF). As for calques, if the phrase in Czech is "zrada Západu" (according to the article), and that means "betrayal of(=by) the West" - how is "Western Betrayal" not a calque? Did the Czechs take it from English? Me thinks you do not know what a calque is... (We already know you don't know how to use "sic") Malick78 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you have a very ... "convenient" memory, as well as the super human ability to accuse others of making accusations while engaging in the very same thing yourself. If you care to recall correctly, my usage of "sic" - or its absence - was perfectly correct. If a secondary source cites a quote and does not include "sic" when quoting, then you, as a lowly Wikipedia editor, have no business trying to "correct" the secondary source according to your own opinion.

Anyway, whether the phrase "Western betrayal" is or is not a calque is a red herring (though come to think of it, that's an interesting question - where was the term first used?). The page on calque which you link to explicitly states The common English phrase "flea market" is a phrase calque that literally translates the French "marché aux puces" ("market of fleas")., yet, horror of horrors, the English Wikipedia has an article on this calque term Flea market! Why don't you go over there instead and try to get it changed to "Flea market (term)" or something.VolunteerMarek 23:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you agree that my use of the word calque is correct. Thanks. Anyway, regarding flea market, it's because it's a well-established term amongst normal English speakers. So no 'term' needed. WB isn't as well established. When a flea market is referred to it isn't preceded by "the term" or "the concept of". WB usually is. Now, does anyone else have an opinion? VM is against. No surprise. Other people? Malick78 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, saying that something is a red herring is not the same thing as saying "you are correct". You do have some serious problems with logic.

And also with mistaking baseless assertions of your own for established fact. Specifically, your contention that "When a flea market is referred to it isn't preceded by "the term" or "the concept of". WB usually is" is, again, patently false. Searching for "term Western Betrayal" gives ... 3 gbook hits [5], all of which are irrelevant to the subject of this article. A search for "Western Betrayal" throws up a plethora (plethora means "a lot" as in "more than three") of English language sources. Hell, a search for ""Western Betrayal" -term" throws up a buttload (that also means "a lot") of English language sources [6]. Quit making stuff up.VolunteerMarek 23:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing finer points of "flea market" is all very interesting; I have to note that Western betrayal shows up in multiple languages all in the same context and meaning. "Term" implies it's just a label for something typically called something else, such as "Great Patriotic War (term)" being used by the USSR and Russia for part of WWII. Rename not required, not supported. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge asked me to express my opinion on this subject. Although it is not a field of my primary interest, I decided to check the subject for notability and WP:NOR. Google scholar gives just 132 results for "western betrayal". I haven't analysed the whole list, however, upon reviewing first six pages I came to a conclusion that the concept of "the Western betrayal" does not exist in scholarly literature: "western betrayal" refers to

1. Western betrayal of Africa (Maurice Taonezvi Vambe. Autobiographical representations of the Rwanda genocide and black diasporic identities in Africa. African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 2008, 185-200): "For Melvern (2000) and French (2005), the fate of the Hutu demonstrates the Western betrayal of the African continent"
2. The Western Betrayal of East Timor (Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, The Western Betrayal of East Timor. Z Magazine. http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political2.htm)
3. Western betrayal of Russia [7]
4. Western betrayal of Middle East Christians [8]
5. Western betrayal of promises to the Arab world over Palestine [9]
6. etc.
   In addition to that, several sources in this list are Wikipedia mirrors, so they should be excluded from this list. In connection to that, we need to think if the article about some the Western betrayal fits notability and NOR criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
   PS One more point. Whereas the article depicts some Central European states solely as the victims, it totally ignores the fact that position of some of them (especially Poland and the Baltic states) contributed into the WWII outbreak. Thus, openly anti-Soviet stance of the Poles was the ultimate reason for the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet triple negotiations and to signing of the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. We definitely need to add this information into the article to avoid the article's one-sidedness.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The words "Western Betrayal" or "Western" and "betrayal" are of course used in other context (East Timor, Africa, Detroit, whatever) but this is a primary meaning. Google books returns almost 800 hits [10] and most of them relevant. I'll add as an aside that I've become more and more skeptical of "google scholar" as a search engine as it seems to both return non-scholarly hits AND fails to find lots of scholarly sources - it's one of the "google fail" projects.

Your statements that Whereas the article depicts some Central European states solely as the victims, it totally ignores the fact that position of some of them (especially Poland and the Baltic states) contributed into the WWII outbreak and openly anti-Soviet stance of the Poles was the ultimate reason for the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet triple negotiations and to signing of the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are plain weird and very much represent a fringe view, as I'm sure you're aware. Honestly, I expect more out of you, these claims are just bunk.VolunteerMarek 03:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If most of them are relevant, please, demonstrate that. Whereas France and Britain betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1937, and Roosevelt and Churchill came to some agreement with Stalin in Yalta, I am not sure the concept of the Western betrayal exists. I do not claim it doesn't, however, the burden of proof is on you.

Re fringe, such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe. In addition, I do not imply the responsibility for the outbreak of WWII lies exclusively on Poland, however, Polish egoistic policy also played some role, and this fact should be reflected in the article, as soon as pre-war negotiations are being discussed here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It has already been demonstrated - like I said, this is about the fifth time that this discussion is taking place. Key works like Tony Judt's use "Western Betrayal" precisely in this sense. So do many others, but honestly, I'm too tired of having the same argument over and over again.

such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe - lemme see some links here, what specifically are you referring to? And honestly, do you realize what statements like I do not imply the responsibility for the outbreak of WWII lies exclusively on Poland sound like? I hate to get all Godwin's Law on this, but if there's a weaselly framing of a situation which deserves it then this is it - if someone said "I do not imply the responsibility for getting raped lies exclusively with the victim" (because, you know, she wore provocative clothing or something or obviously "led Hitler and Stalin on"), that'd be pretty much along the same lines. This conversation is degenerating fairly quickly and it's not because of anything I said, just the crazy statements that apparently this issue evokes from some.VolunteerMarek 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar gives just 2 hits for "western betrayal" + Tony Judt. One of them is about "Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia", and another just mentions Yalta Western 'betrayal' (in quotation marks). That is an indication that the Judt is not too popular.

Re the second part, the vision of Poland as some innocent virgin who was raped by evil monsters is somewhat ahisotric. In late 30s, the policy of all major players, including Poland, was egoistic, immoral and sometimes even stupid. Therefore, all of them, in greater or lesser extent are responsible, and later sufferings do not justify that. You correctly hate to use the Goodwin's law, and in this particular case it is especially irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I already said, google books gives almost 800 hits and most of them relevant. Again, maybe the problem is with google scholar not the term. As a personal piece of evidence, I've tried once or twice using google scholar in my own research and have found it completely useless - it's not that a literature didn't exist (it could easily be found by using disbih=925 here]. Lastly, adding "(term)", clarifies while keeping everything that the likers of that term like, surely. That's the nature of compromise and consensus. (Btw, Deuces, your examples are a) all from English, b) less controversial ('blood libel' as a term doesn't suggest it's true, quite like WB suggests it might be true, in my view)). Malick78 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this has already been discussed to death and you're not bringing anything new to the table. Adding "(term)" in parentheses would be justifiable if there was a need to disambiguate this title from some other - if there was some other "Western betrayal" that the term could apply to. But there isn't. But this is the term most commonly used by historians.

Your google search is meaningless - 12,000 hits on google itself is nothing. Doing the same search on google books gives only 82 results, many of them false positives (i.e. still relevant to this topic) [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22western+betrayal%22+china+-Yaltacipline-specific databses), it's just that google scholar sucks as a search engine. This is probably even more true for disciplines like history where the primary means of scholarly communication is books not articles.

Again, can you give links to the such authors as Derek Watson or Michael Gabara Carley are by no means fringe?

Finally, the ongoing moral equivocation in your comments between states like Nazi Germany and Soviet Union on one hand, and the countries which they invaded and destroyed on the other, pretty much shows that a violation of Godwin's law was very much in order. At the very least if you're going to push ridiculous claims like that (the victim of aggression to blame for the aggression nonsense) at least choose your words more wisely.VolunteerMarek 03:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Add: or to put it another way, the statement That is an indication that the Judt is not too popular is just patently ridiculous. Tony Judt. Tony Judt. Tony Judt. Etc.VolunteerMarek 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should have two articles, Western betrayal at Munich/at Yalta. Or perhaps incorporate it into an article about perceived victimhood in East European nations. TFD (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I already said (I find myself using words like "again" and "already" again and again in this discussion), if there's some other article on some other Western Betrayal then we can talk about properly disambiguating the two titles and discussing which is the primary name. Otherwise we go by WP:Commonname. Your suggestion would be plausible if another article existed. But it doesn't.VolunteerMarek 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a discussion of the American oil embargo on Japan is relevant to understanding Pearl Harbor, it is SUPREMELY relevant to discuss the numerous Polish Policies and actions which contributed to their disaster in WW2. The dramatic outrage and hysterical comparisons to a rape victim aside, which besides revealing for the millionth time blatant POV pushing by pro-Polish editors, adds nothing to the discussion except the idea that some parts of factual history don't belong on Wikipedia because it makes Poland look bad or -heaven forbid- may imply Poland had some role in creating its own fate. The fact that Poland was raped does not mean we exclude all the evidence which doesn't nicely place all the blame on the rapists. Most of the English speaking world disagrees with the idea of a Western Betrayal, but this article is merely an essay supporting a one-sided explanation of history - with the opposing view always squelched by he same one or two editors whose mission it is to convince the world their POV is correct. HALF THIS ARTICLE should be devoted to the opposing view and it's Polish focus should be eliminated (or the title changed to reflect accuracy, e.g. "Polish Concept of Western Betrayal," which is the only accurate title for this opinion piece.98.92.207.190 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Same old trolling as previously, as elsewhere.VolunteerMarek 05:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:EEML anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.207.190 (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Gee wilkers, how does a brand new anon ip account with only a few edits to its name know about a very old arbcom case. Sock puppet much?VolunteerMarek 05:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Were you betrayed at Munich or at Yalta? If the two were part of the same betrayal, then we need sources to say that. Otherwise they are two separate events deserving two separate articles. TFD (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I wasn't betrayed by anyone. And yes, the possibility of splitting it into the Munich part and the Yalta part, has, um... *already*, been discussed.VolunteerMarek 05:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussed by who exactly? You? This whole talk page is little more than one editor defending a POV against all challengers...read all the way to the top and one name is always arguing to keep this article as is. The fact that one editor with an admited pro-Polish POV discussed something (*already*) and decided yet again not to change the article is valueless - as this one editor *already* has completely taken over this article and talk page, and shows up minutes after every edit. PLEASE can we allow other voices here?98.92.207.190 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Other voices like communicat or leidesplain? Or more people who like to hide behind anon ips?VolunteerMarek 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• No change, per WP:POVTITLE "Western betrayal" is perfectly acceptable. "Yalta betrayal" is the alternate name to the concept articulated in the article, but that term is already mentioned in the lede. --Nug (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• No change, per Nug (common usage, regarding "Yalta betrayal", Yalta was the public seal of betrayal for negotiations which had already taken place at Teheran--so "Western betrayal" with no "at location" is the most appropriate term, there is no need to split into locations). "Betrayal" is the mighty using weaker countries as pawns for their own needs and purposes and rendering agreements, such as the Atlantic Charter, into hollow words. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "This conversation is degenerating fairly quickly and it's not because of anything I said, just the crazy statements that apparently this issue evokes from some..." [said by VM, above] - VM, you have insulted at least three editors on this page in the last 24 hours. Please - you are the one who is making this degenerate. Please be more polite to others. Furthermore, you adhere to the fact that there is nothing to discuss - yet are so panicky about the very existence of this discussion - it's as if you fear the very fact that people are discussing this. If they're discussing it (yes, "again"!) - it's because many editors have a strong feeling that this article's title is too POV. How about letting some others speak for a change? If you're right and it obviously doesn't need changing, then there will be a clear consensus. Also, in my view especially, the title sounds shit. It is a calque from Czech or Polish probably, and doesn't sound natural in English. I presume, from your English, that you're not a native, so this part of the discussion can only be discussed by natives. Sorry. As for the common name rule - it's overruled by WP:Common Sense. The title is misleading, sounds bad, is too POV, and over broad. (And the article is biased and badly structured to boot). Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@VM. You claim that most of 800 google books hits are relevant. You may be right or wrong, however, you provided no concrete evidences in a support of that your claim. It would be better if you were more concrete. And, if possible, please, keep in mind that among 800 hits one can find (i) non-scholarly and non-academic books of questionable reliability (that is why gscholar results, which filter out most of garbage, are more reliable), (ii) the books telling about "western betrayal of ...", (such as the story about Western betrayal of Chinese interests in 1919), and (iii) Wikipedia's own mirrors, such as Alphascript Publishing the first hit in my list. Whereas I agree that we can and should speak about Wetern betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1937, of Poland in 1939, it is incorrect to speak about some "Western betrayal" as a concept. By the way, the very fact that the first hit belongs to the Wikipedia mirror should serve as a "red flag" suggesting that the whole topic is a Wikipedia's own creature, a situation reminiding of another synthesis article.
Re Carley etc. Marek, you know me well enough to be sure that I never make claims that I cannot support by reliable sources. In addition, since you followed past discussions concerning the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, you should be aware of all those facts (I presented all needed facts, along the extended quotes; just go through the talk page archives). It becomes evident from the mainstream sources provided by me that almost all major victims of German aggression (including France, Britain, USSR, Poland, but excluding Czechoslovakia) were partially responsible for that, because their mutual mistrust and their failure to create the international security system in Europe made WWII possible. Poland, being a strong regional power bear significant responsibility for that. My language is quite adequate and balanced, and I suggest you to avoid this type argumentation in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul there never was an attempt of comprehensive international security system in Europe, you had regional blocks like Little Entente or attempts of alliances between major powers(like the attempt between UK,France and SU- which would ignore interests of smaller countries or even abolish their sovereignty), but a European wide system was not seriously considered by anyone as far as I know. If anything the Little Entente system was good option for preventing WW2 or raise of Nazi Germany if it would be expanded with Poland, but due to Polish-Czech conflict and attitudes this never happened. But this is just speculative history making. We only write about what happened.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What about "Litvinov's line"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Victim blaming

Re: statements such as "...Therefore, all of them, in greater or lesser extent are responsible,...", next thing we'll be hearing it's Poland's own fault for not granting Hitler the corridor he wanted. Hitler and Stalin were responsible for WWII, let's not tar the innocent (if short sighted) for their crimes. (And don't even get me started on the Soviets training Luftwaffe pilots so Germany could ignore stipulations regarding limits on its militarization.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Vecrumba is perfectly capable of stating things like "theories of collective blame are nonsense, here's my theory of collective blame". Stalin was just about the last political player one could possibly consider "responsible" for World War II - he had virtually nothing to do with the conflict for two whole years. Stalin did acquiesce to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but agreeing not to go to war can hardly be construed as responsibility for the war. Neither the Soviet invasion of Poland nor the Winter War constituted a Soviet entry into World War II (see infobox, for example).

If one does not view a German-Polish war to be a "world war", then, if anything, the argument can perhaps be made that World War II was started by the United Kingdom. The UK declared war on Germany to protect its overseas interests, while Germany made no aggressive acts towards Great Britain whatsoever. In addition, Great Britain was invited by Germany to negotiate a peace settlement in 1940, but refused any peace proposals consistently. Poland cannot be "blamed" for not giving up its own territory, that was not an act of war, but the British and French declarations of war - were acts of war, essentially without direct provocation. Poland was not in an actual military alliance with Great Britain until a mere five days before the actual attack. If we disregard all this, then the blame can be placed solely on Germany itself. -- Director (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Poland's fault was obvious: absolute refusal to collaborate with Britain and France during the Tripartite Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiation lead to their failure, and to signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

According to my knowledge Poland was not invited to these negotiations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right. In 1938-early 1939 Poland a priory refused to participate in any agreement the USSR would be involved in, so it is quite natural that it was not invited to participate in the tripartite negotiations. Later, Poland refused to discuss a very possibility of passage of the Soviet troops through its territory in the case of war with Germany, the issue which brought tripartite negotiations to a halt.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it would be hard to agree to a treaty concerning country's territory if said country was not involved in its formulation or shape and had no say in the matter. This would be rather strong violation of sovereignty. Of course Poland and Soviets were engaged in diplomacy on their own and had non-agression pact[11] which was re-affirmed in 1938.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. However, we need to consider all aspects: during the triple negotiations it become clear that the USSR (i) was supposed to bear a major brunt of the prospective war with Hitler; (ii) was expected to field the largest army. However, the USSR appeared to be deprived of any strategic initiative: it had no possibility to attack Germany and had to wait until the later would occupy some territory to mount its own attack of the USSR. In addition, all Western meighbours of the USSR (Romania, Poland, the Baltic states) were deeply anti-Soviet, so the possibility could not be ruled out that some of them would align with Hitler (which happened to Romania).

In other words, during the tripartite negotiations, the UK and France tried to impose significant obligations on the USSR, and simultaneously applied significant limitations that prevented the USSR from fulfilment of those obligations. In addition, you should have known that during the final stage of the tripartite negotiations Britain and especially France put enormous pressure of Poland, requesting her to allow passage of the Soviet troops.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In essence, the Versailles concept of Poland being the power to the east backfired badly. But then again few at that time (or indeed at any time) could have predicted the Germans would be able to bring down countries in months rather than years.. -- Director (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry are you (fill in insult which is very richly deserved to EVERYONE who has a mind shallow enough to defend Stalin) offended by it because you are a political zealot who refuses to read about the USSR from a source other then Howard Zinn or Michael Moore but the USSR was overtly seeking the conquest of Eastern Europe; you can't blame Poland for not wanting Russian soldiers on it's soil when those Russians overtly intended to conquer Poland. The USSR helped Germany defeat Poland then killed tens of thousands of Polish soldiers and officers (Katyn massacre alone is over 20k). So shut up about USSR being innocent, it was an axis power 60 seconds before Hitler betrayed it, sending food and war material the axis desperately needed, and when not fighting a western power the USSR fought in German military operations. I don't know what you call the Soviets invading the section of Poland the Poles intended to resist from before the counter attack they planned, killing the soldiers who intended to fight the Germans and sending survivors and intellectuals to Gulags was but I call it helping Germany. I wonder how many of you would like Stalin doing that in your own nation if it was invaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.72.42 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)