Talk:Warsaw Uprising

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleWarsaw Uprising is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 6, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
August 20, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 29, 2006Featured topic candidateNot promoted
July 8, 2007Featured article reviewKept
February 25, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 1, 2004, August 1, 2005, August 1, 2006, August 1, 2007, August 1, 2008, August 1, 2009, August 1, 2010, August 1, 2011, and August 1, 2013.
Current status: Former featured article

Details on mentioned crimes by Russian auxilaries?[edit]

At the start of the article we can read that "Atrocities by Russian auxiliaries on the German side included a raid on a ward of Polish female cancer patients, who were raped in their beds, burned alive, then shot as they tried to escape" but this is not mention anymore in the article, neither are we presented with the sources for this claim. Would like to know more about this event and want to know were the author got his info from! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured? The article needs a lot of work to be done.[edit]

As per my edits, there is a huge amount of work to be done to meet the FA criteria. A small list of what should be done follows:

  1. Add references where needed (about 40 sentences for now, and I haven't fully read two sections...).
  2. Look through #W-hour and #Capitulation and correct all the untrue sentences, expand these section a bit.
  3. expand #Eve of the battle (and Lead up to the Warsaw Uprising as well) to cover more political and military reasons and actions taken by the AK just few days before the Uprising, #Capitulation to include information about the AK leaving Warsaw, about Gen. Okulicki taking the position of Commander of the Home Army and the reasons of Bór-Komorowski going to slavery, shorten #Soviet stance (remove doubled information, write more about Berling's landings in Warsaw).
  4. do the whole to-do list (e.g. include Cultural representations of the Warsaw Uprising into the main article, polish the style, copy-edit, remove red links, proofread and so on)

I feel the article doesn't meet the FA criteria for now. There were and still are bits of untrue statements -- e.g. the sentence stating it was Bór-Komorowski who signed the capitulation order in the presence of von dem Bach-Zelewski. In fact, it was not him--the act of capitulation was signed by Kazimierz Iranek-Osmecki, Zygmunt Dobrowolski and Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. The article contains many such examples and they all need to be re-written or removed. --Teodor Jan Ranicki (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can start right away, feel free to improve the article. By definition, no WP article is "ready". //Halibutt 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second Halibutt. WU has fallen behind our standards, and keeps on falling, despite our occasional attempts to improve it. Help from a new editor would be vastly appreciated! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see in the talk archive some discussion about "W-hour" as opposed to "L-hour". Polish radio says "w" stands for "battle for freedom". Davies admits in a frustratingly patronising way that he's translated as many Polish words as possible into English. (He also contracts everyone's surnames to an initial letter because he thinks Polish surnames are too difficult for English readers. Paradoxically, I find this makes his book more difficult to read rather than less.) Anyhow, I wonder if his "L-hour" is "Liberation-hour"? I don't speak Polish, but an internet-based translation gives "Wybawienie" as meaning "Liberation". Any comments? DrKiernan (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, Davies, p.430, does says "L" stood for Liberation. I think this may be a fair but loose translation of "Wybuch". DrKiernan (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may not. "W" in the W-hour probably means "Wybuch", but I also recall seeing it could stand for "Wystąpienie"; however, both of these words do not mean "Liberation" ("Wybawienie"). I will have to look it up in some archives ("Polskie Siły Zbrojne", v. III "Armia Krajowa" should do), as neither Kirchmayer, nor Borkiewicz go into details in here; the Internet isn't a good source in here as well, as results in Google do vary a lot. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My first thought would be w for wolność (Polish for freedom...). Second - wyzwolenie (liberation). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I went to library yesterday and looked the whole thing up in some books ("Polskie Siły Zbrojne", "Studium Polski Podziemnej" -- google it for more information). As far as I see, and I have seen the original plan of Rowecki [Raport Operacyjny W-154], there was no information about what does the "W" letter stand for. However, Rowecki has mentioned the word "wybuch" (outbreak), so we can suspect it is what "W" means. There are two ways, then: (1) no specification of "W" was given and (2) the meaning of the letter was given in the interior correspondence and orders of AK, not in the correspondence between AK's Commander and Commander in Chief. Any ideas how to solve this problem? Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Borowiec, who fought in the uprising, says in his book (p. 79) that "W" stands for walka meaning "combat". DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've recently bought myself Przygoński's Powstanie warszawskie w sierpniu 1944 r. and he definitely says "W" stands for "Wystąpienie" meaning "outbreak" or "intervention" (military). Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys, look at the PW symbol... It means Polska Walczaca, which means Polish Fighting. Davies is more like a drama writer then historian, he tries to turn the historical accuracy into a fairy tale, sorry. Also The "W-hour" doesint have to mean anything, if its not obvious dont push it, its like trying to translate "Operation Overlord"... Its a code name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Weapon list on 1 August: "300 machine pistols" and "60 submachine guns", is wrong, but I don't know what author understood under this terms. There was probably not one machine pistol in the whole uprising - most probably it refers simply to submachine guns, but what is 60 then? Pibwl ←« 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably right. I don't know much about firearms but I'm guessing that one of these (probably the 300) is supposed to be the Blyskawica gun which in the relevant article is interchangeably called either "submachine gun" or "machine pistol". It's possible that the 60 refers to RKMs - not sure what the English translation is but I think they were Light machine guns - maybe like an earlier version of the Soviet RPKs. That seems like a lot of RKMs though.radek (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, an equivalent of RKM is LMG (although LMG covers also somewhat heavier weapons, known in Poland as LKM, like Lewis gun, or UKM, like MG-34 ("universal machine gun")). The correct English term for weapons like Błyskawica and MP40 is submachine gun (a confusion might come from a fact, that submachine gun in Polish is "pistolet maszynowy"). Pibwl ←« 14:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed this to "300 submachine guns" and "60 assault rifles", as estimated by pl:Aleksander Gieysztor and given by pl:Władysław Bartoszewski, but I don't know the makes. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems probable. Only assault rifles available could be MP-43/Stg-44. Submachine guns were of course a variety of Stens, Błyskawicas, MP-38s/-40s and other less popular models. Pibwl ←« 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we get a ref for the number of weapons produced/captured during the uprising? I've added the refs for the vehicles and some other items; one of the captured SdKfz's even has an article on pl wiki: pl:Szary Wilk (transporter opancerzony).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed Tiger tank - where did you find it? :-) There were certainly none on the Polish side - unless some miraculous source has been discovered recently, that I don't know about :-) (there was probably one PzKpfw-IV captured, but it was lost some hour after, in a stupid way, without any combat action, when a soldier just drove it accidentally towards the German side). And there was also Jagdpanzer 38 captured, which might be added, but it stood in vain as a reserve, until a building collapsed upon it. Pibwl ←« 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tiger is mentioned here: "German Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger. One tank was captured on August 4th in Ochota district. It was pressed into service but was lost on the same day." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no reliable source saying it was Tiger. Probably it refers to the same vehicle, which, according to Jan Tarczyński "Pojazdy powstania warszawskiego", was most probably PzKpfw.IV (there is no material reference). However, due to its very short career, lack of combat usage, and probably even lack of "commissioning" as insurgent vehicle, it's not worth to be mentioned as insurgents' weapon. On contrary, two Panthers created an "armoured platoon" and were actively used. I have doubts if Jagdpanzer 38 deserves to be listed - it could be used, but it wasn't. Pibwl ←« 19:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question[edit]

I don't understand the sentence "It became obvious that the advancing Red Army might not come to Poland as a liberator but rather as "our Allies' ally."[8]" Could the editors make it clear? Vb (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ally of our allies doesn't mean our ally. I am not sure how to make it more clear...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmm, i try to make it clear. Poland was attacked in 1939 both by Germans and USSR. USSR attacked Poland on 17th september... They make us "knife into back" (i'ts my translation, i hope you understand it) because Polish army was still fighting. Next, nazis and USSR shared Poland between themselves. So, west Poland came into Nazis and east came into USSR. You know that nazis killed many Poles and Judes but the same happened in polish east teritory (just search something about masacre in Katyń). In 1944, when after Yalta Poland was sold to USSR by Churchill and Roosevelt we didn't know what Russians would make with Poland. And they made new Axis here. Red Army once again started to kill Poles, soldiers of Home Army etc. During the II World War we had two enemies. Sorry for my english, i hope you understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Although the facts you presented are correct, your interpretation is correct only partially. I absolutely agree that Katyn massacre was an outcrying crime. I agree that Stalin had to take some measure to support Warsaw uprising. However, I cannot fully agree with your other points. Although Polish army was still fighting, it became clear that Poland was doomed: France appeared to be unable, or unwilling, to attack Germany from the west, the UK had neither army nor capabilities to deliver any substantial help to Poland. With regards to the Soviet "stub in the back", let me remind you that during pre-war period Soviet-Polish relations were between hostile to moderately hostile (not only due to the Soviets). In addition, in 1938-39 Poland vehemently opposed to any anti-Hitler pact where the USSR would participate. Although different point of view exist on that account, many reputable western historians think that that silly position of the Poles eventually lead to a failure of anti-Hitler triple alliance negotiations. Therefore, the Poles may be partially (note, I write "partially") responsible for WWII outbreak. Let me also remind you that eastern Poland, occupied by the USSR, was situated generally east from so called Curzon Line, and the Poles were a minority there (although a considerable minority). Therefore, I see no considerable difference between the seizure of eastern Poland by the Soviets and the seizure of Český Těšín with the surrounding area by Poland.You also forget that as a result of WWII the territory of Poland decreased insignificantly, as Poland acquired valuable territories in Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia etc. With regards to killing of Polish civilians, although everyone agrees that that took place, no evidences exist that it was an official policy of Soviet authorities (as opposed to Nazis). Home Army was a paramilitary formation, not civilians, and I am not sure about who attacked first. You also forget about Polish military units fighting on the Soviet side.
Once again, I don't claim you are completely wrong. My point is that everything was not as simple as you are trying to represent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, he is more right than you are. Read about Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which violated the first treaty even before Soviet invasion on Poland (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Soviets were responsible for starting World War II by agreeing to invade Poland in conjunction with Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939. ( (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Poland's allies, Britain and France, declared war on Germany in 1939, but not on the USSR. Therefore, they considered Germany the aggressor, they did not consider the USSR the aggressor. Don't try to rewrite history, this is HISTORICAL REVISIONISM. (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

link to documentary film[edit]

Can be added link to documentary film Forgotten Soldiers? <link removed> It's worth to promote this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:YOUTUBE. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I probably didn't understand something but the info box looks a little bit inconsistent. Berlingowcy are listed in the casualties section, but aren't mentioned in the belligerent section, although, AFAIK, they weren't subordinated to the Polish Underground State. It is also not completely clear for me why Berling is absent in the commanders' list. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably the best thing would be to put the Berling casualties at the bottom with a short caveat. Something like "Additionally, XX Berling troops".radek (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, they were fighting and dying, but they didn't deserve to be named among belligerents. Did I understand you correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh?radek (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No you did not understand correct. Berling's troop weren't part of the uprising proper, they were trying to cross the Wisla to help but were unable to do so. Of course the main culprit for their failure is @sshole Stalin but that's another story. Loosmark (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "Berling's troop weren't part of the uprising proper". Wehrmach also wasn't a part of uprising. The info box is intended to list not the participants of the uprising, but belligerents. Therefore, the question is, were berlingowcy the belligerents, or not? I believe, the answer is obvious....--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. I don't think saying that Stalin was an asshole (not @sshole) would be incorrect or uncivil... --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wehrmach also wasn't a part of uprising. uhm what? the "Wehrmach" as you call it directly fought against the uprisers so i don't get what exactly is your point. Loosmark (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Wehtmacht directly fought against the uprisers", and berlingowcy fought directly against Wehtmacht troops, therefore, they were belligenents, although, as you correctly pointed, not the participants of the uprising. Berlingovcy participated in the hostilities directly related to the uprising, they are listed among casualties (about a quarter of total casualties). Obviously, they must be among the belligerents, and Berling must be in the commander's list. In my opinion, division of the Poles onto first sort and second sort Poles is unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Berling on the commanders list?!? Total absurd.:) but maybe his troops could be listed in the belligerents section????--Jacurek (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably, it is an absurd, but I still got no reasonable explanation why it is an absurd. Berling was not a commander of rebel forces, however, it commanded troops that were involved in Warstw uprising related hostilities (and that sustained about 1/4 of total losses).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paul Siebert, the Warsaw Uprising was lauched by the people of Warsaw and the AK units located there. They were the main combatants, Berling's units never managed to force the Vistula. To put it brutally they were of no help to the uprisers (i'm not blaming them, it was impossible to do more due to Soviet commies not wanting to help due to ideological reasons). Loosmark (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You probably misunderstood me. I am not insisting on incorporation of berlingowcy into the belligerent list. However, if they are not in that list they also should be removed from the casualties list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think berlingowcy should be mention in both places, although clearly labelled as such. They were not subordinated to the Underground States, but unlike the Soviets, they considered themselves its allies - and paid the price for it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So are we going to include Polish troops of Berling in the belligerents section? If yes we it will need also short but clear explanation of their role and that it was spontaneous action without the Soviet approval. Are you up for the challenge Paul?--Jacurek (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. I believe, it should be explained clearly that, whereas berlingowcy weren't the participants of the uprising, they were belligerents, and, accordingly, Berling, who was not subordinated to any of the uprising's leaders, should be in the commander's list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My only objection is Berling in the commander's list.--Jacurek (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can deal with via footnotes - add a footnote to Berling and his troops that will briefly explain it. Now, as for Berling, I am not sure - did he know and authorize crossing the river? I recall contradictory sources - one saying he didn't know about it, other saying he did, as well as contradictory sources about why was he relieved of his post soon afterwards (some say it was because of this escapade and differ on whether it was because he supported it or didn't discover it till it was too late, others say it had nothing to do with this either way). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piotrus, Berling did not have full control of his troops who crossed the Vistula river. Some soldiers started to cross more or less on their own. There was possibility of revolt in the First Polish Army and Berling was also fighting his own conscious. Details have to be checked because it was a while but in my opinion he absolutely should not be among the commanders of the Uprising because he was not in charge and did not even communicate with the real Uprising leaders.--Jacurek (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toward an unbiased article[edit]

I made substantial edits to the article in an effort to move it closer to the standards of objectivity one would expect in a good encyclopedia. The article had contained a large number of speculative and partisan remarks. To cite just one among many examples, the article had contained this statement: "It is speculated that Stalin did not aid the Home Army because he concluded that it would oppose his aim to dominate Poland." The only reference given was [22], a 114-page survey essay by David M. Glantz. (Incidentally, it does not appear that this essay was ever subjected to vetting by an academic publisher.) The Glantz essay, however, does not remotely support the above quoted speculation. On page 84, following a discussion of engagement of Soviet forces during the time they failed to provide reinforcement to the Polish resistance, Glantz concludes: "Political considerations and motivations aside, an objective consideration of combat in the Warsaw region indicates that, prior to early September, German resistance was sufficient to halt any Soviet assistance to the Poles in Warsaw, were it intended. Thereafter, it would have required a major reorientation of military efforts from Magnuszew in the south or, more realistically, from the Bug and Narew River axis in the north in order to muster sufficient force to break into Warsaw. And once broken into, Warsaw would have been a costly city to clear of Germans and an unsuitable location from which to launch a new offensive."

I am not insensitive to the antipathy to the Soviet leadership on the part of prior contributors to the article; however, expressions of opinion are out of place in an encyclopedia.

HeraclitusEphesus (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your explanation of the huge mass deletion you made doesn't even close to be satisfactory therefore i'm forced to restore the text. Btw your activity on wikipedia is very interesting, all you have done is you made 8 edits on the Holyfield-Tyson II article in March and now after 6 months you re-appeared to mass delete sourced material from The Warsaw Uprising article. Something doesn't quite ring right here. Loosmark (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I have to partially agree with HeraclitusEphesus. I write "partially" because, although this concrete Glantz' work didn't pass a vetting procedure, David Glantz is a highly reputable military historian. However, I read this Glantz' work and I confirm that this work cannot serve as a support of the article's statement removed by HeraclitusEphesus. In addition, since Glantz is a well known Eastern Front expert, his opinion that:
"Political considerations and motivations aside, an objective consideration of combat in the Warsaw region indicates that, prior to early September, German resistance was sufficient to halt any Soviet assistance to the Poles in Warsaw, were it intended."
is extremely valuable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. Re: "Btw your activity on wikipedia is very interesting, all you have done is you made 8 edits on the Holyfield-Tyson II article in March and now after 6 months you re-appeared to mass delete sourced material from The Warsaw Uprising article. Something doesn't quite ring right here." Let me remind you that it is a direct personal attack that is prohibited by WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First check what was deleted, it is far more than the section sourced to Glantz. Also it is well known that the sicko Stalin prevented the Red Army to help the Warsaw uprising, as well as he forbid the allied planes with help to land on Soviet territory. You can write about the "great German resistence" as much as you want but those are facts. Loosmark (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since my comment related to Glantz only, I don't have to check everything else. With regards to Glantz, his point of view was severely misinterpreted in the article. He is a reputable military historian, and you must provide at least equally reliable source to refute his claims. Your claim that "it is well known" is a pure WP:weasel words. BTW, although my personal attitude to Stalin is highly negative, one has to keep in mind that the Red Army's combat capabilities were high, but not unlimited, so, independently of Stalin's decision, something could be done only at very high cost. Would it be fair to save 20,000 Poles at cost of 100,000 Russians?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. In addition, I agree that there were some steps Stalin could made to help the Poles, namely, to help Western allies to provide air support to insurgents, or something else that required no extensive Red Army involvement. He did nothing and that clearly demonstrated that he was not interested in the uprising's success. However, we must separate Stalin's dirty policy from Red Army's real military capabilities. My point was that the Red Army was unable to help Poles, and fortunately Stalin was unwilling to do that. I write "fortunately" because had Stalin ordered to help the Poles at all cost, the Red Army, probably would help, but the cost would be really terrible...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alll encyclopedias include expressions of opinion, aolso you clearly are both insensitive and patronizing- it really takes soem gall to imagine there are no other sources which state as much, or evidence to shispart.
Not least all of those cited in the Polish article. The call in radio moscow at once with the lack of recognition and explicitly denying any support or usage of the nearby air base either on their own nor even allowing its use for allied supply drops, who needed to take the long route from Italian bases acroess the balkans, but even those were not allowed until, under pressure, mid september. At first the soviets sent none as well, and the soviet canisters were at first dropped with no parachutes.
Look up the Vilnius and Lwów/L'viv uprisings, they are easy to find, or the cases of Zamość or other places, and how insurgents who coordinated with the Red Army to take cities 'french resistance' style were treated, involves disarming and gulags, soviet miltiary administration if you're not 'smart' enough to understand. Also look at all of the documentary statements about the home army or polish resistance, and the character of the PPR, and any other source of information on this matter. The rising being a folly is true to the extent that the soviets had no reason politically to help anyway, even when they arrived on the other bank- the usage of disparate subunits of the most untrained part of Berling's soviet-created 1st polish army in a symbolic crossing across the river with no spare ammo seems a mockery, Nikita Petrov himself cliams it was obviously a purely political stunt. Prior contact wasn't made for obvious reasons, but even local soldiers, let alone people looking across the river, knew something was wrong, with the radio silence as well- they could have allowed help and done it rightly, and from the start they could have recognsied it, they could have sent serious aid and 'endangered' themselves a bit by firing at least, as if the varsovians did not endanger themselves much mroe so- and ofcourse, the home army couldn't have known how close they are' they knew that if the red army helped, they would at best be able to hole up leadership in a factory warehouse, where they would have had a few hours to defend themselves from capture and being sent to moscow to show world public opinion what those, not indolent as stalin claimed, fighters and their leaders got, because they had broadcasting equipment. The fact that it is treated as if soviet generals denying as nything other than something that would make no sense politically due to the repeatedly stated, goals policies and actions is a travesty 2A02:A310:E23F:400:A052:4FC7:24:BE17 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to hear that my explanation failed to convince everybody. Let me try again. Here are more examples of the commentary that I attempted to remove: "The Soviets and the Poles had a common enemy—Nazi Germany—but other than that, they were working towards different post-war goals; the Home Army desired a pro-Western, democratic Poland but the Soviet leader Stalin intended to establish a communist, pro-Soviet puppet regime." "They feared that if Poland was 'liberated' by the Red Army, then the Allies would ignore the Polish Government in exile in the aftermath of the war." "The Red Army's order to halt just a short distance away on the right bank of the Vistula, and not to link up with or in any way assist the Resistance forces, is blamed on post-war political considerations and malice by Stalin.... The destruction of Polish resistance guaranteed that they could not resist Soviet occupation, that it would be the Soviets who 'liberated' Warsaw, and that Soviet influence would prevail over Poland." "Possibly because the operatives were unable, as part of a repressive totalitarian regime, to express opinions or report facts which diverged from the party line, they 'deliberately resorted to writing nonsense'." "Due in part to the lack of Soviet cooperation, and often active Soviet aggression, the Warsaw Uprising and Operation Tempest failed in their primary goal: to free part of the Polish territories so that a government loyal to the Polish government-in-exile could be established there instead of a Soviet puppet state." "Memories of the Uprising helped to inspire the Polish labour movement Solidarity, which led a peaceful opposition movement against the Communist government during the 1980s."

The scare quotes around "liberated," references to "puppet regimes," "repressive totalitarian" regimes, "pro-Western, democratic" governments, "peaceful" opposition movements, divining Stalin's malicious motives, etc., will be regarded as editorializing by any reader I can imagine.

In addition to the mis-citation of Glantz mentioned earlier, there is an over-reliance on the Norman Davies source, which is the only reference cited for the above speculations and assertions of opinion.

At this point I think it is pointless to keep going back and forth deleting and undeleting the biased commentary. I will leave the article as it stands, with my edits removed, and simply point out that an article that is very obviously seeking to glorify Poland and vilify the USSR will not be trusted by readers even in those places where its facts are correct.

HeraclitusEphesus (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: "Sorry to hear that my explanation failed to convince everybody" Not correct. Your comment regarding Glantz was justified, I just fixed that problem (maybe, the new text needs some rearrangement now, however in its present form it correctly reflects what Glantz says). With regards to your other points, I simply didn't have enough time to analyze them. On the first glance, the overall tone is too propagandistic for WP, however, it is hard to say if all your deletions were justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They will not be regarded as editiorializing, because they are not, they are simply factually accurate
Every encyclopedia, especially the 1911 Britannica which forms the basis of wikipedia articles, and amny current event wikiepdia articles, and maqny obscure ones espcially, hodl opinion .Not stating soemthing and leaving some confusion by implication is allowance of an opinion .You clearly odn't know, due to being distant, the case, and therefore intepret as 'shrill'- no you are not 'any reader'. These are simply notes adding objectivism to the situation, 'liberated' makes clear that 'liberated' is understood differently, including in the case of WW2. Whatever the semantic usage, in any case, you simply want a different 'default' message or opinikn, not no opinion, or rather, a different factual stat eof things communicated thna there is. The fact that you call them 'assertions of opinion' suggests you think they're uncertain, biased or untrue, when the whole point is that, the factual 'centre' is 'biased' in that direction;, rather than the one you want to take it. Those are all statements within reasonable humane verification, and leaving them out produces precisely the contrary position, ie the false 'opinion' that theyr're merely opinionated. 2A02:A310:E23F:400:A052:4FC7:24:BE17 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it is an ancient comment, but it seemed like an unjust example, when there are significant examples of simple political tracts in other articles, in smaller sections that attract less attention.
It was slightly on the nose or unnecessary, could provide more explicit elaboration or argumentation to show the reasoning for why it was used. The deletion process was obviously very hackneyed and resulting froma disproprtionate 'revulsion'- the same way people might do for completely different somewhat poltiically laden tracts, and it is at minimum overzealous and not focused one laobrating the sources of opinion or statements tha tmight provbke disagreement. Howeve,r any strong statement may provoke disagrement and occasionally simply leaving them as is is required to follow the model of other articles in which the question is clsoe to 'your' heart, and being aware of it less 'negotiable' for obvious reasons. You did not realize the lack of ambiguity which exists in realit yitself due to yourself being distantf from it
There is no possibility of correcting attrpution without EC on this article 2A02:A310:E23F:400:A052:4FC7:24:BE17 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UNA and RLA as separate belligerents[edit]

I am not sure mention of these military units as separate belligerents is justified. 14th division was a WaffenSS division, it personnel took personal oath to Hitler and they were directly subordinated to German military command. Ukrainian government in exile (if we can speak about it seriously) had no authority over this unit. Similarly, Vlasov had even no visibility of independence. "His" divisions were in actuality 600th and 650th German infantry divisions, they were a part of Wehrmacht, and, therefore, they cannot be considered a separate belligerent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed both of those (possibly Kaminski and Dyachenko sould be removed from commanders list too). I am not sure if UNA and RLA even existed at that time. Also if they actually participated then they should be shown only if their participation was major, and even then they should be shown like Estonian conscripts are shown in Battle of Tannenberg Line article, not as separate combatants.--Staberinde (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with the removal, as they were simply different units under German command. But I do want to note that participation of non-Germans in the quelling of Warsaw Uprising is often stressed in some sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Western Betrayl"[edit]

Why is "Western Betrayl" on the "See Also" list? I don't see that the Polish uprising has anything at all to do with Soviet Propaganda. I am deleting it from the list.

Berling troops[edit]

Berling troops did briefly participate but I think technically they were Red Army troops. We may need a USSR flag instead of the Polish one. Incidentally Berling was fired by Stalin after he participated in the WU, some sources even indicate B may have acted unilaterally. Of course, this Berling or Soviet participation was too little, too late and consensus sees the Soviet role in the WU is extremely dubious. SO a third column may be the solution, indicating the reality that the Berling or Soviet contribution should not be seen as united with the AK struggle. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

?????? 2000 Polish soldiers in Operation Market Garden are worthy of representing Poland, and 100,000 Polish soldiers of 1 Polish army are unworthy? I call you to reason. (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph needs to be edited--it looks like someone cut themselves off mid-sentence ("The Soviet advance stopped short, however, while Polish resistance The Uprising began on 1 August 1944, as part of a nationwide rebellion"). I don't feel like I know enough about this topic to do it myself. Stf8907 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call. Looks like a GF mistake by an IP here [1]. Am fixing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The accuracy of this somewhat anachronous term seems doubtful. The wikipedia page Insurgent defines it as follows:

"An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents."

In this case the Polish forces involved in the Warsaw Uprising were subordinate to the Polish Government-in-Exile, a widely recognised state at the time which also operated regular formations alongside the French and then the British army. I'm not sure if this word is used in good faith, or as part of a contemporary political agenda, but it doesn't seem the most appropriate. (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dwight Macdonald has been often compared to George Orwell, but Macdonald's analysis of the Warsaw Uprising was much sharper than Orwell's, imho. His writings may deserve mention (or interest editors):

  • Dwight Macdonald, 'Warsaw', Politics, 1, 9 (October 1944), 257-9
  • 1, 10 (November 1944), 297-8
  • 1, 11 (December 1944), 327-8.
    • Collected in Memoirs of a Revolutionist: Essays in Political Criticism (1960). This was later republished with the title Politics Past.

To avoid OR, one may cite

  • 'My Kind of Guy': George Orwell and Dwight Macdonald, 1941-49 David R. Costello Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 79-94 URL:

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This sentence in the article doesn't make sense:" By 16 September, Polish forces under Soviet high command reached a point a few hundred meters from the Polish positions, across the Vistula River, but they made no further headway during the Uprising, leading to allegations that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin could not advance because the Red Army had been exhausted from the previous campaign." Allegations because they were exhausted? What is really meant? Wereldburger758 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, AFAIR the original sentence was more like: "...leading to allegations that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin wanted the Uprising to fail." I'd support correction back to that. It seems someone has come along and inserted the reply that the Red Army couldn't advance rather than wouldn't advance, without knowing what the word 'allegation' means in English. Also "from the Polish positions" should go to "from the insurgents' positions" for disambiguation. Also "made no further headway" should go to "made little further headway" as there was actually a small Berling Army landing on the west bank per Forczyk (2009). -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, will you change it? Wereldburger758 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The head of the Katyn commission was Burdenko, not Rudenko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

B-class review[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soviet casualties in the infobox[edit]

Why are the soviet casualties limited to losses the 1st Polish Army? Other units definitely participated in the Soviet drive to Warsaw - for example: "The second tank army maintained it's offensive on the right bank of Vistula, generally in the northern direction, after a failed attempt to get to the other side of Vistula on the railroad bridge at Demblin. The army acted with a weak covering of the right flank by the 6th cavalry division, while the 3rd Tank Corps, which advanced the furthest, was left without any infantry or cavalry cover. By Aug 3 it was surrounded and nearly destroyed. The 8th guards tank corps suffered heavy losses, while the 16th tank corps suffered significant losses. During Aug 5-6 the Second Tank Army, having lost 284 tanks by than (337 according to german data), was taken out of combat for reinforcement and reforming. On 2 Aug, the 69th and 8th guards armies were forced to go on a defensive, having been hit by a German counter-stroke from the area of Garvolin. The battle continued until Aug 10. As the result, the German counter-stroke was stopped, fortifications in the areas of Magnushev and Pulava remained under control of the RKKA, but the 1st Belarussian Front in this area was left without mobile units and hence without the ability of a mobile offense" "2-я танковая армия вела наступление по правому берегу реки Висла в общем направлении на север после неудачной попытки 25 июля прорваться на другой, варшавский, берег Вислы с ходу по железнодорожному мосту у Демблина. Она действовала при слабом прикрытии правого фланга 6-й кавалерийской дивизией, а вырвавшийся вперёд 3-й танковый корпус остался вообще без какого-либо пехотного или кавалерийского прикрытия. К 3 августа он попал в мешок и был практически уничтожен. Тяжёлые потери понёс 8-й гвардейский танковый корпус, значительные — 16-й танковый корпус. 5-6 августа 2-я танковая армия, потерявшая к тому времени 284 танка (по немецким данным — 337), была выведена из боя и отправлена на пополнение и переформирование. 2 августа были вынуждены остановить наступление и перейти к обороне 69-я и 8-я гвардейские армии, попав под немецкий контрудар из района Гарволин. Сражение продолжалось до 10 августа. В результате немецкий контрудар был остановлен, предмостные укрепления в районах Магнушев и Пулавы остались в руках РККА, но 1-й Белорусский фронт на этом участке остался без подвижных соединений и был лишён возможности манёвренного наступления." Tvoi Ded (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the scope of the article is the Uprising itself not the battle for Warsaw or the wider Soviet push. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Than we have to part with the soviet part of the infobox alltogether. Tvoi Ded (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soviets "liberated" vs "entered"[edit]

Re [2].

Personally I'm not entirely adverse to using the term "liberated" when referring to some instances of the Soviets driving out the Nazis from occupied Poland. But the use of the term should depend on the context and the particular event. For example saying that the Soviets liberated Auschwitz is perfectly fine [3].

Here it is inaccurate. First, it's a bit strange to say they "liberated" the city after failing to support the Uprising for two months. Second, the Soviets more or less entered an abandoned city, with little fighting and little "liberating".

Stating that the Soviets "entered the city" is both accurate and NPOV hence I'm restoring that wording.  Volunteer Marek  19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, my edit does not mention "Soviets" at all, I wrote "liberated from Germans", which is absolutely accurate and neutral: no source exists that challenges the idea Warsaw was liberated from Germans.
Secondly, the statement: "the city was destroyed by January 1945, when the Soviets entered the city" implies some wrong casual between Soviet entry and city's destruction. What is more relevant, is the fact of liberation, not who was a liberator.
Thirdly, if I am not wrong (although I can be wrong here), the units that entered Warsaw were Polish units, although that is hardly important.
In any event, I do not find the criticism correct. Failure to support Warsaw uprising does not change the fact that the city was abandoned primarily due to Soviet military successes. The Germans decided to abandon the city because the course of the events in other segments of the Eastern Frond forced them to do so, and that was a result of Soviet military successes.
In summary, I suggest you to revert back to my wording, which is accurate and neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is mostly clarified in this version, although we may also want to address the fact that Soviets early on took control (liberated?) the right-bank Warsaw, and the uprising for the most part was taking place in the left-bank Warsaw. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am not wrong, destruction occurred mostly on the left bank, so the mention of the right bank is hardly necessary. With regard to the version mentioned by you, it is stylistically awkward. Is it an adequate price for avoiding the word "liberated"? If yes, your may replace "when the city was liberated" with "when the course of the events in the Eastern Front forced the Germans to abandon the city", which will be totally accurate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the right bank is mentioned here. I'd be fine with "when the course of the events in the Eastern Front forced the Germans to abandon the city". Should I put that in?  Volunteer Marek  21:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I see here is a group of anti-Soviet users are trying to underestimate the role of the USSR in this event, delete anything sympathize the USSR and add anything that say "Soviet is evil, Soviet is bad." This article is extremely unneutral and strongly anti-Soviet, and it will be more unneutral with the presence of these anti-Soviet influence. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really, if Stalin had kept his word that the USSR sought no territorial aggrandizement, there would be no problem with using "liberated". However, one power displacing another and not returning legitimate sovereignty to the indigenous peoples (i.e., instead, subjugating 100,000,000 Eastern Europeans) cannot be, by the very definition of the act, termed "liberation" from anything. VєсrumЬаTALK 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite similar things can be say to the western Allies. (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you are lynching Negroes is not a valid argument. Through quite fitting here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is not only "liberated" or not. It is the anti-Soviet attitude and sentiments in this articles and other WWII articles; and that severely damages the neutrality of the articles. As I already said, someone are trying to underestimate the role of the USSR in these events, delete anything sympathize the USSR and add anything that say "Soviet is evil, Soviet is bad." If you consider the fierce battles and Baltics, Carpathia, East Prussia and Hungary on 1944, you can easily understand why the German could manage to block the USSR at Warsaw. And there are quite a number of sources (both Russian and Western sources) have already pointed out this matter. Unfortunately, the anti-Soviet powers still do not or purposely do not understand this. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what powers you speak of. Nobody is denying that the USSR went to great sacrifice and effort in fighting with the Nazis. However, quite a few of Soviet apologizers seem to ignore that for many, Soviets were about as bad as the Nazis. Case in point, the non-communist Poles, whose destruction Stalin assured on numerous occasions. Read about the Katyn massacre, it may prove enlightening. With regards to the Warsaw Uprising, Stalin chose to let the Germans kill of the Polish insurgents, to cripple a force that he didn't want to deal with (i.e. the Polish government in exile loyalists). He chose to focus on different parts of the front rather then to help them, it's as simple as that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, whereas I cannot fully agree with Шолохов, something in this article look really weird. For example, what is three column infobox supposed to mean? Common interpretation of three column infobox is that each party fought against other two. Can anybody provide an evidence that hostilities took place between AK and Berling units? Obviously, the infobox is a clear demonstration of someone's bias. Yes, the Soviets provided little help, and this help was not provided timely. However, in this particular battle they were no fighting between them and AK (as a reader may conclude from the infobox). This and similar mistakes must be fixed, otherwise Шолохов-type arguments will always have some reasonable ground. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. Re "Stalin chose to let the Germans kill of the Polish insurgents", whereas I have no doubts your description of Stalin's intentions is quite correct, I think you are missing one thing (and I probably already explained that in past). As Glantz correctly noted, almost every Soviet successful offensive ended with German counter-strike that pushed the Soviets slightly back. The reason is, as Glantz explains, that Soviet commands forced the Red Army to move forward even when the troops were almost totally exhausted, and only local defeat could convince them that the army needs a pause. In the Warsaw case, Stalin (for totally different reason) gave Red Army a break it really needed. It is quite possible that the attempt to save Warsaw would be very costly of the exhausted Soviets. In connection to that, the arguments from Polish nationalists and from Russian nationalists are quite similar: "We needed help, and we do not care how costly it would be for you", and "we needed a rest, and we do not care about the price you paid for our inactivity". --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm ok with those two columns being combined. I think the footnotes and the mention of actual dates is sufficient. Give it a few days and see if anyone else objects with a convincing argument, and if not, then combine them. Volunteer Marek  03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would really make sense having 2 columns in the infobox, as there was no fighting between the Polish resistance and the Soviet forces.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the removal of the third column from the infobox on the grounds that the Soviet and German military actions in the sector are beyond the scope of this article. The perfect solution would be creating a separate article dealing with those actions; the "third column" losses would go there alongside with tens of thousands of Soviet and German casualties.Tvoi Ded (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Piotrus: It seems to be if you were the commander of the Red Army, it would have been suffer much more terrible loss in WWII. I have already said (Paul Sievert also said later) about the military situation of the Red Army at Warszawa. At this area on August 1944, there were many fresh Nazi units, since Germany sent many of its reserve forces and their force at other fronts to defend the Wisla river (including eltie divisions like the SS Divison Wiking). For quelling the Warszawa uprising, Hitler and Himmler also sent there a lot of SS units so that Walter Model could be free to deal with the Red Army. Moreover, the German managed to obtain some information about Operation Tempest and made some sorts of preparation. The distance between rear and front, and the front length were also reduced greatly for the German. Meanwhile, on the Soviet side, the logistic tails were greatly enlongated, the Red Army were already exhausted after two month continously fighting. Many facilities for logistic work at newly liberated Polish and Byelorussian territories were still unavailable because of damage or being heavily mined (that is the reason why even if the USSR had agreed to lend the airport to the US on August, no US pilot would have dared to land on them). The fierce fighting at the Magnushew bridgehead, at river Narew and at Praga already proved that, the USSR could not enter Warszawa no matter whether Stalin wanted to or not. And that is the problem of this article. This focus very little on the military difficulties of the Red Army and makes the readers think that, the USSR had a lot of troops but did not want to enter Warszawa. Actually, I have no opinion about Stalin's intention. The USSR's hostility to the exiled Polish government was clear, and nobody objects that. The thing I want to say to you is, it is not simple as that. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They actively shot at Poles trying to escape through the river, and, as recently released documents say, actively provided intelligence to the Nazis. Thus, any usage of the word "liberated" is spitting in the faces of those who died trapped in the uprising — which was supposed to be mere mopping up. And when the uprising fell and soviets finally replaced their nazi buddies in the city, they gave survivors a Bucha treatment. Source: my grandma was there, out of 8 siblings 2 survived, their all friends died, her first husband died, and so on.
I consider putting the "liberators" in the place they deserve, in one column with the nazis. -KiloByte (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A photo caption reads as follows: "Polish victims of the Wola massacre burned by members of so-called Verbrennungskommando." Why is the word "so-called" used here? It has two meanings. The more common one is "So named; called by such a name, with a very strong connotation that the item is not worthy of that name." (Wiktionary). The other one seems to be restricted to science and math (and lacks the negative connotation). I don't see the applicability of either one here.Kdammers (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unreliable source - biased POV website[edit]

The site takes a very one-sided view of why the rising failed, blaming it on the Soviet's wishing for the leadership of the rising to be destroyed without taking into consideration the military situation between the Germans and the Red Army around the Warsaw area that was documented back to at least 1964, and has been reinforced by recent scholarship. By drawing only political conclusions, the "About" statement on this website makes it very circumspect - in my opinion they are not being honest about who supports the site and the reason it was created. See the "The main reasons for the Uprising's failure:" section - while some of this is substantiated by historical scholarly works, the general tone reflects the old Polish-Russian antagonism that goes back for centuries. I'm going to weed out references in the article that utilize it. We need neutral Reliable Sources for articles. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that source is fine. The fact that you personally don't like it doesn't mean it's unreliable.
You mention "recent scholarship". What exactly are you referring to? Most modern sources do put emphasis and blame on Stalin, and this has nothing to do with "Polish-Russian antagonism" but rather with the fact that Stalin was, well, Stalin.Volunteer Marek 09:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ridiculous reply, Marek ... sheesh ....-IP User
That site does not meet criteria usually applied to historical scholarship, so, taking into account that we have a lot of really good sources on that subject, this concrete site should not be used in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, first let's agree that this is a reliable source, regardless of whether it meets the higher standards set out by WP:HISTRS. I've been dealing with other articles which are full of stuff from blogs, personal webpages, and various other random "crap found on the internet" and from what I've been told, for better or worse, all this stuff is "reliable sources" so this * definitely* qualifies as RS. It seems that if this isn't WP:RS then probably something like 90% of Wikipedia articles would have to go (might not be a bad thing).
Having said that I actually do think it meets WP:HISTRS. In particular, as far as I can tell, this is a website of a public nonprofit organization which has had input from professional historians [4]. This would satisfy this point of WP:HISTRS What is historical scholarship.
And at this point I'm going to get a little cynical and venture forth the opinion that the OP above is basically making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT objection (s/he says as much) which doesn't have much substance to it. Note that the particular instance where he removed this ref ALSO had another, fully historical-academic-scholarship ref to it, so it's not really about the text which is being cited being problematic. In fact, his contention that this source contradicts "recent scholarship" has it exactly the opposite. The website actually *represents* modern scholarship (for example the historians mentioned at the page above), it's just that it tries to make it accessible to the non-specialist historian, i.e. the general reader, which is the same target audience as Wikipedia.
So if there's some particular passage in the article which is cited to this source which you really think is objectionable and which can be contradicted by other sources which meet WP:HISTRS then we can talk about that. But if not, then it's really a non-issue.Volunteer Marek 02:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I intentionally didn't read what this source say, so I cannot tell if I like it or not. However, by formal criteria the site does not fully meet even WP:V: the site contains no references, no author's names, it is unclear if the content was peer-reviewed, its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is unclear. With regard to Acknowledgements, reliability is defined not by authors' names: the personal blog of even very reputable author has questionable reliability. Again, the source is hardly acceptable for purely formal reasons.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An interesting point. I suggest taking it to WP:RSN. If an organization is reliable, what about its websites? There is plenty of examples - can we use mostly anonymous and not-peer reviewed content from sites like or ?
The Warsaw Uprising Museum portal is reliable, although certainly not perfect. I see no reason to remove it; most modern sources have reached consensus that the Soviet inaction purposefully contributed to the Uprising's failure. This is hardly an extraordinary claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was once an almost universal opinion that the Earth was flat. So what? Now in Poland, if we believe you - the General opinion that Russia is bad and did not save the Warsaw uprising. I think it's something of a past consensus that the Earth is flat. That is, this is a misconception. (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stop using the word "insurgent" in this article. The term has a rather negative connotation in the English language, and is defined as a armed revolt agains civil authorities. The Germans were not the civil authority, but the occupiers. --Factor01 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Largest single military effort?[edit]

I have found this statement in the introduction:

"The Uprising was the largest single military effort taken by any European resistance movement during World War II."

This is a clearly POV statement. For example, there was Uprising in Serbia (1941) that lasted for five months and partisans achive to liberate many towns. There's a lot of similar examples. So, everyone claim that their Uprising was the largest one. --Mladifilozof (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably right. In internet everything has a source to prove itself. Uspzor (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it depends on how you define "large", the Serbian Uprising involved more territory (area) but the Warsaw Uprising involved potentially more "insurgents".Historian932 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information is totally wrong: Soviet partisan "Operation Rail War", "Concert" and those during Bagration were much larger operation. Rail War for example, employed 177 partisan brigades and 96,000 men.

The Warsaw uprising was probably the biggest of Polish resistance, but not the biggest in Europe. --Bentaguayre (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're going to dispute this, then you need sources, not personal opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Also, this isn't "POV" (?), and it's not "internet" - it's from an academic work by two prominent historians).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There you got:

Rail Wars Operation, 96,000 partisans involved, summer 1943: "The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: A Critical Historiographical Analysis", p.244,000+partisans&hl=es&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=partisan%20operation%20rail%20wars%2096%2C000%20partisans&f=false

These two prominent historians claiming Warsaw uprising was the largest of WWII anywere in Europe are wrong. --Bentaguayre (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bentaguayre: Before we proceed with this, please take a moment to read: Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bentaguayre: I am not able to see page 244. Could you quote the relevant part here? (This would come in handy for quoting the source in the article). Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are the problems though. 1) The original source for this claims appears to be this book from Progress Publishers, not exactly reliable for this kind of stuff. 2) a lot hinges on what a "single military effort" is. The Rail War Operation could be seen as a collection of military efforts rather than a single one (same thing goes for the Uprising in Serbia). So we leave the call to reliable sources, which we've got.
Ok, now some common sense commentary. Seeing as how the Soviets had *at most* 11k partisans in Belarus the 98k numbers is extremely dubious. It looks like standard Soviet era exaggeration. And even 11k is probably way too much. Where would these partisans come from? In that area Soviet partisans composed mostly of some officers that had been parachuted in, some Red Army stragglers from Operation Barbarossa, some escaped POWs and local bandit bands which adopted an "ideology" as a cover for "expropriation" from the local populace. So it's hard to see how there could be even 11k of such individuals, nevermind 98k. The locals, having lived through the Soviet occupation, weren't very keen on joining the Soviet partisans (they joined either local Belorussian self defense units or the Polish Home Army).
Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know for sure or is it just your opinion? Do not forget that the Germans carried out a policy of repression in response to partisan actions. And the Polish resistance movement adopted the passive tactic of "standing with weapons and wait" and therefore could accumulate forces. The Soviet partisans did not act this way. (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I wonder if, in the summary on the right, it should be Result: German Victory. It hardly seems right (or respectful to the thousands of men women and children who were tortured, raped and murdered to refer to what happened as a 'victory'. 'Result: Wholesale slaughter of population' would be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Warsaw Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have just read "Warsaw Boy" by Andrew Borowiec ( ), an account of his wartime experiences that included his being wounded the day after his sixteenth birthday. I also note the sidebar to the article linking to Mały Powstaniec. I suggest that somebody with more knowledge than I might wish to initiate a section on the Polish child-soldiers - it's a fate so removed from our comfortable western existences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

War Crimes Trials[edit]

The book "Warsaw Boy" by Andrew Borowiec ( ) makes scattered references to post-war trials that arose from war crimes committed during the uprising, e.g. "We were in no doubt about our fate," said Aleksandra Kreczkiewicz (whose evidence, like Wanda Lurie's, would be heard at the Nuremberg war crimes trials). These are matters regarding which my expertise and library do not permit me to contribute usefully; but I would be appreciative if a more knowledgeable editor addressed the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo IDs[edit]

According to a posting on Flickr, the other two soldiers in this iconic photo are: Kazimierz Gabara (code name "Łuk") - 17 years old, center, and Mieczysław (Ryszard) Lach (code name "Pestka") - 15 years old, right. Sca (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warsaw Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced content: In popular culture[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link. Please see also WP:MILPOP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German losses[edit]

the infobox section claims that the German losses comprised 16.000 KIA+MIA. The reference quoted is a private site dedicated to the Uprising, which indeed provides such a figure with no further sourcing.

The issue seems to result from a long-standing controversy.

The figures of 10.000 KIA and 7.000 MIA have allegedly been provided by Bach when in Polish captivity; they were first quoted in a Polish source, and then re-quoted and re-re-quoted countlessly; Bach has later neither confirmed nor denied them in public. The figures of 10.000 KIA and 6.000 MIA were provided as German losses in Warsaw by the Gehlen report, prepared for the Nazi high command in April 1945. However, it is not clear what exactly they refer to; they might refer to overall losses, sustained also in combat with the Soviets.

No scholar has tackled the issue in detail; works released during the last 20-30 years or so refrain from conclusive statements. though the recent ones tend to favour figures in a range of few thousand. Discussion about historiographic theories related to the German losses is available here [in Polish].

Given all the above, current info on German losses seems unacceptable to me. They should either 1) be noted as "discussed", "unclear" etc, or 2) provided as a range of 2.000-17.000 (both figures footnoted), or 3) perhaps detailed as 2.000, which is the opinion which currently seems to prevail (see the link). Alternatively, 4) one might consider a section or paragraph on German losses in the main body of the entry, though this would appear a bit of an overkill to me. -- (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no response from anyone so far. Will wait until the end of August and unless challenged, will change the casualty figures as suggested in option 2 above. I am afraid a lenghty footnote will be a must. -- (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
I did my best to squeeze the info on casualties into a footnote, but failed. It would have been a lengthy, windy, hardly legible footnote which would need referencing itself. Hence, have finally settled for re-editing the "casualties" section. -- (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The German Death toll numbers are being inflated by Polish Nationalists. According to to Krzysztof Komorowski, Bitwa o Warszawę ’44. Militarne aspekty Powstania Warszawskiego, Rytm, Warszawa 2004. Which are the most accurate numbers. The death toll is 2000 Germans Killed. 9000 Injured 100-200 German Civilians killed.

Doubtful, this is not a verifiable source, only Dirlewanger soliders were 3000 killed. So 2000 is an ordinary and brazen lie. LechitaPL (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LechitaPL source, please? -- (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The German Death toll numbers has been researched by both Polish and German researchers. As stated above. The Polish Right seems to have overinflated the numbers.

"Krzysztofa Komorowskiego i Hansa von Krannhalsa: około 2000 poległych, 9000 rannych oraz 100-200 zamordowanych cywilów"

Bibliografia: Hans von Krannhals, Powstanie Warszawskie 1944, Bellona, Warszawa 2017. Piotr Rozwadowski, Warszawa 1944-1945, Bellona, Warszawa 2006. Krzysztof Komorowski, Bitwa o Warszawę ’44. Militarne aspekty Powstania Warszawskiego, Rytm, Warszawa 2004. Norbert Bączyk, Każdy pocisk – jeden Niemiec?, „Polityka” 42/2014. Rafał Jabłoński, Żonglowanie stratami Powstania, „Życie Warszawy”, 8 października 2009. Tadeusz Sawicki, Rozkaz zdławić powstanie. Niemcy i ich sojusznicy w walce z Powstaniem Warszawskim, Bellona, Warszawa 2010. Norman Davies, Powstanie ’44, Znak, Kraków 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Warsaw Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have just removed this content:

The Soviet Union refused to allow American bombers from Western Europe to land on Soviet airfields after dropping supplies to the Poles.[1]

This needs clarification because the single American supply-run from Britain flew on to Soviet-held Poltava for resupply. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ History of the Second World War, 611, B. H. Liddell Hart

Clarification needed[edit]

Concerning this sentence: " the Polish Service of Radio Moscow calling for the Uprising to begin while unaware of Stalin's order for the 1st Belorussian Front to stop" - the Polish Service was likely directly ordered by the Soviet authorities to call for the uprising. This needs to be phrased in an appropriate manner. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) sockReply[reply]

Agreed. The solution is to double-check what the source is saying. If it seems to think Radio Moscow would have called for anything else if it only knew what Stalin's military orders were, then we pull up sources showing Radio Moscow was under Stalin's orders. Alas this prompts a second point: the AK leadership knew Radio Moscow was under Stalin's orders too, so the narrative that they were tricked by it is moot, too. The AK leadership were not naive; most of them had lost relatives in Katyn and Siberia, so they wouldn't have taken Radio Moscow at face value either. This supports the thesis that the Uprising was partly a consequence of emotion and notions of honor, rather than political and military objectives alone. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that the uprising was made by people who had STRANGE notions of honor. Was it not strange to shake hands with the fascist generals after surrender? There are well-known photographs of how Bach-Zalewski shakes hands with Bour-Komorowski. This should be surprising. Is the war of 1939-45 was a knightly war? Is there at least one photograph of a Soviet or English or American general and a fascist general shaking hands? This is stupid and strange. But such people were leaders in Warsaw. (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German Casualty Count[edit]

It seems the numbers that were given as German Casualties are overinflated by certian aspects from Polish Society. Only 2000 Germans were KIA.

The numbers are from Polish Historians:

The most probable numbers seem to be the one given by Krzysztof Komorowski and Hans von Krannhals: about 2,000 killed, 9,000 wounded and 100-200 murdered civilians.

Also the same numbers are confirmed by IPN:

Marek Getter. Straty ludzkie i materialne w Powstaniu Warszawskim. „Biuletyn IPN”. 8-9 (43-44), sierpień – wrzesień 2004. , s. 70.

And from the German Report by Zalewski:

German losses were 73 officers and 1453 NCOs and soldiers were killed, 242 officers, 8196NCOs and soldiers Wounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubtful, this is not a verifiable source, only Dirlewanger soliders were 3000 killed. LechitaPL (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, LechitaPL. What is the source of your claim that Dirlewanger suffered 3,000 KIA losses? You make a claim which is not substantiated, and then you use this unsourced claim as a yardstick to measure other estimates. I am not sure I follow. Regards, -- (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is your doubts coming from other than your POV? You seem to edit this page because you do not like the facts. Please source your claim. For now Polish and German Historians have both agreed it is 2000 dead. (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop vandalizing the article against the sources! Sources (not communist) are added to this number and if you do not stop vandalizing, you will be punished with a blockade. LechitaPL (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, LechitaPL. So far it is you who comes with unsourced claims. Please could you provide references which substantiate your claim about 3,000 Dirlewanger KIAs. Regards, -- (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello LechitaPL and, first off lets' try to remain civil here. Casting aspersions and threatening blocks will help noone. Secondly, do you have a source for your number Lechita? Kb03 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completely biased anti-soviet standpoint[edit]

From reading the article introduction it seems like the Soviet Union was the big enemy and not the german nazis. While this may be so from the perspective of the current polish right wing anti-russian zeitgeist it wasn't nearly so in historical events. This has more a western cold wqar propaganda twist than a contemporary understanding of the events (For example the Koestler quote which has nothing to do, as he isn't even polish and worked from the British Empire as a cold warrior propagandist). The text blurbs makes it seem as the soviets deliberately did nothing while in the actual combat timeline we see they collaborated with air support from september 13, earlier than any other major power other than britain and certainly than the USA which are despicted as concerned saviors. Plus according to the very text of the later timeline Soviet attacks on the ground including with tank divisions existed even on August 26, when the uprising was well still on the way. They provided artillery cover and air support to Polish forces whila mantaining full contact, even trying to advance trought the river after the germans dynamited all bridges, a thing one would never imagine by reading the biased introduction which states "Soviets ignored Polish attempts to maintain radio contact with them and did not advance beyond the city limits". Skewed interpretations directly contradict facts and are unprofessional and propagandistic. Either the conflicting statements should be removed, rewritten as contested allegations instead of uncontested facts, or the article itself marked with a NPOV tag. -- (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you taken a look at the sources? The text you don't like is supported by reliable sources on the subject. Of course the war was against the Nazis, but the Soviets were looking to control Poland. The Soviets encouraged the uprising but then failed to support it well enough. By September, Polish leaders were expressing outrage at the British and Soviet allies. The outrage is probably the tone you don't like, but it's in the sources. Binksternet (talk)

15:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I will make an important clarification: the USSR sought to prevent the new formation of a very hostile state nearby. I think this is a reasonable desire. The experience of 1920-1939 showed that living with such a neighbor is very uncomfortable. (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German criminal garnizon[edit]

It is not mentioned in the article that Germans garnizons participating in Warsaw Uprising included very brutal criminals of the worst sort who were liberated from the German prisons and converted into soldiers. They were very active in killing, raping and robbing. One of the German generals confessed in Nuremberg in 1946 that he saw another German commander leaving Warsaw with the suitcases full of silver, gold and diamonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anon will not stop edit warring[edit]

The 17,000 figure has been sourced, no kidding, but the number has been specifically cited as being unreliable by an official source. Due to that, it is inappropriate for it to be in the infobox. Multiple other articles on battles such as the Battle of the Bulge do not include certain numbers that are not considered reliable. However the number has remained in the aftermath section for public consumption, which is where it belongs, but not the infobox given how dubious that statistic is, with the primary source for authors being communist propaganda and the poles themselves, rather than the Germans who actually suffered the casualties and were in a far better position to judge their own losses. Despite this, and even the infobox figure still being generalized as “Over 8,000” in every edit I’ve made, an anonymous editor has repeatedly reverted my edits without giving any concrete reasons, and yet presumptuously threatens me with being blocked (even tho he is not an admin or in any position of authority whatsoever) when he himself has contributed nothing to the conversation but edit warring and making false accusations of lying and vandalism. Anon, it doesn’t matter if there are multiple sources, if the number contradicts the actual German casualty reports, are considered unreliable by an official source, and were primarily used in communist states, it has no business being in the infobox. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quoted sources do not come from books from the communist period, so you are lying brazenly. Some historians still consider this number to be correct, unfortunately we do not know exactly what numbers are, because German / Nazi data is mendacious and they should not be believed (for example three thousand Dirlewanger soldiers died). This number has not been disproven definitively and can be taken into account as far as possible - all the more so in the face of mendacious German / Nazi information. Please end this editing war because you will be punished with a blockade. (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There you go again using a straw-man argument against me. “Primary source” means where the authors got their information from, not that they themselves are communists. The 17,000 figure was recycled multiple times by communist propaganda, and it was first coined in a post-War historical journal that got the statistic from a German officers estimate whilst being interrogated, the interrogaton being alleged as noted in the aftermath section. Further ~3,000 losses for Dirlewanger is for ALL casualties, which includes not just killed and missing but wounded too. On top of that, you naively believe the Germans lied and downplayed their own losses (with no source actually claiming that I might add) yet refuse to consider the Poles having every motive to exaggerate German losses. All this aside, the primary point still stands; the figure of 17,000 German killed and missing has been specifically stated to be unreliable by a verifiable source(Andrzej Leon Sowa), while no such source has stated that the ~8,000 figure is unreliable. Again, the number will still exist in the aftermath section for those looking for further details on losses, but because it’s validity is so in doubt, it can not be used for the infobox. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most Polish historians are not inclined to the number 2000. The number 17,000 is obtained from important sources, your sources are false. 3,000 Dirlewanger's soldiers died - let alone the other, so do not lie brazenly. You can not believe German data because they are hypocritical in every respect. (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Over 2,000 German killed and missing”[edit]

It has been brought up time and time again with the only objection ever forming from LechitaPL (and once an Anonymous user) who often doesn’t even add a summary, but merely reverts it. Consensus both on this page and amongst historians does not support him. The clear majority of historians favor the 2,000 figure with only few exceptions. That the high numbers cited were first used by the Poles themselves shortly after the war when the cost and usefulness of the uprising was under heavy debate, and then it was refuted countless times, is enough reason for it to be considered a [potentially unreliable source]. This would be okay if there was no reliable information, but there is. The high figure has been mentioned enough to justify its existence in the casualty section, but not the infobox or lead which is reserved for sources that are not of dubious origin at best. HMS Berwick (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, most Polish historians are not inclined to the number 2000. For the number 17,000 are given important sources, and your sources are fake. In addition, data about 2000 killed are German lies. There were 3,000 Dirlewanger soldiers killed - not talking about the others. Not only do I restore the data ca. 17000, but also other users, because no one agrees with the lies. LechitaPL (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lots of controversial claims by LechitaPL. First, currently Polish historians who specialize in the Uprising (Komorowski, Sawicki, Rozwadowski, Bączyk) tend to support 2,000; the figure of 17,000 was widespread in Polish historiography until the 1990s, but since then it is less and less popular. Whether "most Polish historians" support this or that figure is a hard to say, as there is probably a few thousand of them and no one has surveyed them all :-). Second, 17,000 figure is indeed supported by some "important sources" (e.g. official publications of the Polish Instytut Pamięci Narodowej), but other "important sources" (specialized historiographic works, including these which specifically target the casualty controversy, like this by Bączyk) support 2,000. Third, 2,000 figure is supported by professionals, also in Poland (names above), and is based on sources from the era, like official German casualty reporting, which can hardly be considered "fake". Fourth, no source or historiographic work claims Dirlewanger KIA are 3,000; Michaelis tends towards 3,000-3,5000, but these are overall losses (KIA+MIA+WIA). Fifth, the style employed by LechitaPL does not generate much confidence when it comes to his/her impartiality and judgement. Regards, -- (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you lead this barren discussion? Up to 17000 there are sources and this number will remain. We have sources up to 2000 and up to 17,000. None of the versions has been removed, understand this finally. I am finishing the discussion because the topic has been clarified to the end, and blocking editing was the first warning for you. If you continue to destroy and delete data against sources, you will be permanently blocked. LechitaPL (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, LechitaPL. No, the topic has not been clarified at all, the discussion is not "barren", and your constant claims to the opposite suggest you want to silence wikipedians who happen not to agree with you. Besides, the article has been locked for not-autoconfirmed users by Scottywong, and you falsely pose as a person with block/ban rights, which appears to be in line with your overall bullying strategy. Grateful if you could adhere to WP-adopted guidelines for discussing controversies and abandon your customary arogant language. I have already raised the problem of your bullying here. Regards, -- (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User LechitaPL is inserting his POV to the causality count of this article with unsourced rightists refrences (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was your last warning. Next time will be a blockade. LechitaPL (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You both need to stop edit warring. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, with reliable sources. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. (Hohum @) 18:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reliable sources are added. The IP user is trying to delete information against the sources. LechitaPL (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, sources pointing to both 2,000 and 17,000 figures are discussed and footnoted in detail the Casualties section. The paragraph there offers a review of a fairly wide range of international works. It demonstrates that there is no agreement on German casualties (especially KIA). Regards, -- (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article locked[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that today it is not possible to edit the entry. However, I found no info on who, why and for how long locked it. ??? Regards, -- (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was protected by Scottywong, because of persistent vandalism. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Here it's October 2, but October 3 in the link:

--JFCochin (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In this topic we can note a clear and undoubted anti-Russian bias. There is a point of view, previously and especially today popular in Poland, that the USSR allegedly intentionally did not provide assistance to the Warsaw rebels. That is why the USSR is allegedly responsible for the defeat of the Warsaw uprising. At the same time, nothing is said about the mistakes of the leaders of the uprising and the emigrant government in London. Well, nothing at all. NOTHING. Nothing at all. This approach is absolutely unacceptable. With this approach, you can easily see the impact of the political situation in the world. When a history is used as an argument for a political company. For example, as Poland is doing now. When it seeks to increase its international importance by blaming Russia.. Many people in Poland have a habit of blaming Russia. What is called RUSSOPHOBIA. All this is clear, but where is the historical science? Where is the historical truth? It's not there.

To correct the situation, I put several texts with the opinions of modern Russian historians in the article. Unfortunately, many local visitors started deleting these texts and blocking editing. You can see that these are people from Poland. Please note that I didn't delete anything. I only added the opinion of modern Russian historians. To understand historical events, you need a balance of different opinions. But you don't need to impose one opinion that someone likes. This is completely unacceptable. Therefore, I will put on this page the texts that were deleted.

Topic: After the war

But those who pushed the Warsaw revolt, did not think about the connection with the approaching troops of the Soviet Union and the Polish army. They were afraid of it. They thought of something else-to seize power in the capital before the arrival of Soviet troops in Warsaw. So ordered the gentlemen of London. [1]

Modern Russian historiography highlights the errors of the Polish insurgents. Among them is the lack of communication with the Soviet command (the Soviet command did not know about the beginning of the uprising before it began), the unsuccessful time of the beginning of the uprising, the failure to capture bridges, the passive defense tactics of the rebels in the city, the refusal to act outside the city. Such an assessment of the uprising is given, for example, by the Russian historian Alexey Isaev. [2]

The Russian historian Alexey Isaev concludes: "Did the uprising even have a chance? There was, but in January 1945, when the Germans really hastily left the Polish capital under the threat of Soviet encirclement. But then Warsaw was already a Ghost town, and the rebels were killed or captured. So that all acute questions poles, first of all, should address not to the Soviet, but to their own commanders".[3].

Topic: Stalemate

At the same time, the Soviet Army tied up almost all the Nazi reserves in the Warsaw area. The Germans did not have a single army division that could be immediately deployed to suppress the uprising. The regular units could trample the mutiny very quickly. In fact, this happened later, in September, when the Germans pulled the regiments from the front line. Street battles lasted for 2 months only because rebels was opposed by punishers, collaborators, and other rabble. Despite the use of "miracle weapons" (radio-controlled tankettes, 600-mm mortars and "Shturm-tigers" with 380-mm rockets), the cleanup of the city was conducted quite slow. [4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Рокоссовский К. К. Солдатский долг. — М.: Воениздат, 1988. c.282/Rokossovsky, K. K. a Soldier's duty. — Moscow: Military Publishing, 1988. p.282
  2. ^ Предсказуемый провал: 5 ошибок Варшавского восстания. Predictable failure: 5 mistakes of the Warsaw uprising.
  3. ^ "Буря" и натиск" 31.07.2019 Алексей ИСАЕВ, военный историк. Газета "Культура". "Storm" and onslaught " 31.07.2019 Alexey ISAEV, military historian. The Newspaper "Culture"
  4. ^ "Буря" и натиск" 31.07.2019 Алексей ИСАЕВ, военный историк. Газета "Культура". "Storm" and onslaught " 31.07.2019 Alexey ISAEV, military historian. The Newspaper "Culture".


After reading the entire article, there is a strong impression that those who write do not know at all how the actual military actions developed in August 1944. We can assume that ordinary people write here who are far from military issues and therefore represent the war in 1944 in the most general way. Well, it's like the Red Army is moving to Warsaw, and then moves to Berlin. Well, it's like a train is coming. That's why they scold the USSR and Russia. "Those Russians didn't want to help us". All this is completely wrong. Let these people now (at least once in their lives) read the real history, find out how it really was. I will quote excerpts from the work of the contemporary Russian historian Meltyukhov, "In August 1944. The myth of deliberate stopping Red Army outside Warsaw". I'm well aware that it's almost impossible to convince people of something they don't want to believe. But at least they should know what it's about. I strongly ask you to use the map of Poland when reading. To make it clear what tasks are assigned to the troops.

In August 1944. The myth of deliberate stopping Red Army outside Warsaw

Now that the anti-Soviet concept has become prevalent in Poland-historiography, and new documents have been published in Russia, should be reviewed again the question of what importance the Soviet command attached to Warsaw and whether the Red Army could liberate it in late July or early August 1944. To do this, it is necessary to analyze the development of the situation on the Central section of the Soviet-German front and on the approaches to Warsaw in the summer of 1944 [1].

"The defeat of army group Center, the successful offensive in Western Ukraine and the Baltic States, the allied landings in Normandy, and the attempt on Hitler's life on July 20, 1944, created hopes for an early defeat of the enemy. On July 19 the Deputy Supreme Commander Marshal of the Soviet Union G. K. Zhukov sent the VGK to the Headquarters report No. 316 with a proposal for further operations in the Western strategic area-direction:

1. The main strategic goal of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Belarusian fronts the next stage should be: access to the Vistula river to The Danzig Bay, inclusive, and capture of East Prussia or at least simultaneously with the exit to the Vistula cut off East Prussia from Central Germany.

2. East Prussia by the presence of fortified lanes, engineering equipment, and- native conditions are a very serious obstacle. Approaches to Konigsberg from the South- the East and South are covered by five fortified bands, and from the East, in addition, to the West-Insterburg prepared the area for flooding. The most favorable directions for the offensive in East Prussia:

1st direction - from the Tilsit area along the coast in the General direction to Kenigsberg via Liboc.

2nd direction - from the area of Kaunas-Alytus via Gumbinen to Konigsberg, bypassing definitely from the South area of the sinking and Lezenski fortified area.

3rd direction - from the Mlava district via Hohenstein-Allenstein to Braunsberg. In addition, a strong group must be thrown East of the Vistula in the General direction of Marienburg to cut off East Prussia from the Danzig region.

1st direction-a strike from the Tilsit area can only be carried out when it is Lithuania was cleared of Germans. The 2nd and 3rd directions can be used in the development of the 3rd and 2nd offensive Belarusian fronts.

3. Chernyakhovsky can strike through Gumbinen, but he must advance as part of the forces North of the August forests through Suvalki to Goldap. The 2nd Belarusian front is to strike from the mlava area in the following directions- deposits: a) one group per Allenstein; b) one group to Marienburg to reach The Danzig Bay; C) one group must reach the Vistula on the section Gruzians – Nieszawa, where to gain a foothold. To the left, to the border with the 1st Ukrainian front, the 1st Belarusian front should go out, at the same time the front must capture good bridgeheads on the West Bank the Wisla river. 4. The 1st Belorussian front will have enough troops to perform the above tasks. Him we need to add 300 tanks and 100 self-propelled guns. The 2nd Belorussian front will need one army of 9 divisions and one rifle corps – three divisions, two or three tank corps or tank army, four heavy tank regiments, four regiments of self-propelled artillery units-152 mm and strengthen the front with aviation." In conclusion, Marshal Zhukov outlined proposals for dividing lines between fronts.

Thus, Zhukov believed that the defeated army group "Center" will not be able to provide serious resistance to the troops -the 1st, 2nd, and 1st Belorussian fronts, which will soon be able to liberate the Eastern and North-Eastern Poland. More complex and difficult seemed to him the operation against the East-Prussia, which, apparently, was to become the main one in the Western direction in the autumn of 1944. [2].

"On July 27, a meeting of the VGK Headquarters was held in Moscow to discuss the current strategic situation on the Soviet-German front. Successful offensive of the Red Armyon the front from the Baltic sea to the Carpathians, it allowed us to assess the situation in General optimistically. It was assumed that soon it would be possible to liberate Central and Southern Poland, and in the future to cut off the German troops in the Baltic States from East Prussia, and East Prussia itself from Germany. As for the troops of the 1st Belarusian front, although its right-wing connections and lagged 200-250 km from the left flank, and the rear lagged, it was considered possible-continue the offensive into the Central regions of Poland".

"Troops of the 1st Belarusian front received Directive No. 220162, according to which they were required "after the capture of the Brest region, Sedlec right wing of the front to develop an offensive in the General direction of Warsaw with the task no later than August 5-8 to capture Prague and capture a bridgehead on the West Bank of the Narev river in the area of Pultusk, Serotsk. The left wing of the front to capture a bridgehead on the West Bank of the Vistula river in the area Demblin, Zvolen, Solets. Captured a bridgehead to use for a strike in the North-West direction in order to collapse the enemy's defenses along the Narev river and the Vistula river and thus ensure that the Narev river is crossed by the left wing of the 2nd Belorussian front and the Vistula river by the Central armies of their front. In the future, keep in mind to advance in the General direction to Thorn and Lodz" [3].

I will specifically speak out here and draw attention to an important question - where is Warsaw? As sensitive as it is for the self-esteem of Polish citizens, the question of Warsaw was not important for the Soviet command. It was not to Warsaw that the Soviet troops were rushing, but to East Prussia. Coming to the line of the Vistula and Narev rivers, capturing separate bridgeheads. But the main goal is East Prussia. The Soviet command was well aware that the Germans would not just give up the bridges, they would blow them up. The main task it saw in reaching the line of rivers (the Vistula and the Narew) and actions against East Prussia. From a purely military point of view, this is perfectly reasonable. To attack Berlin and still have such a node of defense as East Prussia in the rear is suicide. An offensive through Warsaw would have been possible if the circumstances had been extremely favorable. For example, For example, bridges across the Vistula should be intact and it would be possible to step on them, and not fighting for bridgeheads. But that's exactly what didn't happen! The uprising in Warsaw was so unfortunate that the rebels did not capture the bridges. What was the military command's interest in this uprising? From a purely military point of view =0. There is no connection with the rebels. The Soviet command knew nothing about the uprising. Bridges are not captured. The coastline of the Vistula river is not captured. The rebels have very little strength. They can't provide any significant support. The rebels have no artillery at all, they only have 40 machine guns. 40 (!!!!!). This is less than one regiment (!!!!!). On the contrary, the rebels demand help. We need to help them, look for strength, this is when the Germans attack. I understand the Soviet commander Rokossovsky when he spoke very harshly about the leaders of the uprising in Warsaw:

"The Home Army command made a terrible mistake. We [the Red Army] are conducting military operations in Poland, we are the force that will liberate all of Poland in the next few months, and Bur-Komorowski and his henchmen stumbled in here like a red-haired man in a circus — like the clown who appears in the arena at the most inopportune moment and is wrapped in a carpet... If it were only a matter of clowning, it would not matter, but it is a political adventure, and this adventure will cost Poland hundreds of thousands of lives. This is a terrible tragedy, and now all the blame for it is trying to shift to us. It pains me to think of the thousands and thousands of people who died in our struggle for the liberation of Poland". [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deliberate falsification of German losses in men and military equipment[edit]

German archival data show that military formations lost irrevocably 1 t-V tank and 2 Hetzer self-propelled guns, police units and collaborationist military formations lost irrevocably several tanks [5]. Almost all damaged tanks and self-propelled guns were evacuated and repaired by the Germans (some tanks and self-propelled guns were repaired several times)[6]. All formations of the Third Reich lost irrevocably several tanks[7] and several self-propelled guns. According to the Polish side, 290 tanks, self-propelled guns and armored vehicles were destroyed[8] , that is, several German tank divisions in August 1944, which is not true. German archival data show[9] that all formations of the Third Reich (including all collaborationist formations) lost irrevocably about 3 thousand dead and died of wounds (many of them died from Soviet artillery and aviation, as well as in battle with detachments of the 1st army of the Polish army) and about 12000 wounded. The losses of the von dem Bach group amounted to 9044 people, including 1570 killed[112][113]. The calculation of the total losses of the Third Reich in the fighting in Warsaw since 1947 is based on the outright falsification of German losses [3] to the level of 17 thousand killed and 9 thousand wounded. Conscious forgery was repeated by Winston Churchill[10]. This and similar absolutely absurd "information", fabricated by the same "method", is widely found in the media, in history textbooks, in modern works of the Institute of national memory, a number of historians[11] and publicists, In the Museum of the Warsaw uprising[12]. These fabricated "calculations" of German losses that had nothing to do with reality are repeated in many publications (the book the Warsaw uprising of 1944 in documents from the archives of the special services[13]) , etc. — - falsification of history is still being tried to support, including at the state level[14] , [15] . A key argument in support of the 17,000-man figure-in addition to quotes from Bach and Gehlen-is the total losses suffered by the Kampfgruppe Dirlewanger, one of the few operational units forming German troops fighting the poles. Currently, they are designed for 3,500 people[16].

This is a material from the Russian Wiki. I think this is very informative. Of course, "17000" is a monstrous exaggeration, fabricated by propagandists in modern Poland in order to inflate the significance of the Warsaw uprising like a child's balloon. I have great respect for the people who died in battle with the German invaders and their collaborators. But that's why I'm against lying about the Warsaw uprising.

Deliberate falsification of data on the area of the city's territory liberated by the rebels[edit]

From Russian Wiki:

The city's territory was 134.7 km2, including 42.9 km2 on the Eastern Bank of the Vistula [17]. Contrary to the facts, it is claimed that the rebels liberated" most of the city " of Warsaw. This absolutely absurd "information" put into circulation by General T. Bor-Komorovsky is widely found in the media, in the modern works of a number of historians and publicists, and repeated by a variety of authors creates the impression of a generally recognized and reliably established fact. However, these conclusions do not stand up to confrontation with the facts and are calculated at the same time for the complete incompetence of the reader.

Example of falsification:

"Despite all the problems, by 4 August the majority of the city was in Polish hands, although some key strategic points remained untaken". [18]

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Majority of the city"!!!!!!!!!!! See the map "Polish Home Army positions, outlined in red, on the western bank of the Vistula (4 August 1944)". Or is it an aberration of a foreign language? "City" in English is exactly "city center"? Well. But what if "some key strategic points remained untaken"??????????????? It is easier to list what is NOT left in the hands of the Germans.

"The rebels were able to occupy only a few of the 406 strategic targets that were planned to be captured (no priority targets were defined) in Warsaw and in Warsaw's powiat, they were not able to completely oust the Germans from the city center, and to seize the main communications, forts, and bridges. In the first days, the rebels liberated about 1/3 of the capital's territory[19]. German strongholds remained inside the occupied areas. The rebels were able to block the military commandant of Warsaw, Lieutenant General Stagel, and the Governor of Warsaw, Fischer, and barricades were erected. In the hands of the rebels was a large part of the city center, but here they were no longer able to continue the offensive, and the government area, stations (except one), barracks, Warsaw citadel, all bridges, headquarters, weapons depots and both airfields remained in the hands of the Germans. The Germans isolated the rebels in separate pockets, so the rebels could not create a single liberated territory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ А. В. Исаев, М. И. Мельтюхов, М. Э. Морозов. «Мифы Великой Отечественной (сборник)» Москва. Яуза. 2010. стр. 230/A.V. Isaev, M. I. Meltyukhov, M. E. Morozov. "Myths of the Great Patriotic war (collection)" Yauza. 2010. page 230
  2. ^ А. В. Исаев, М. И. Мельтюхов, М. Э. Морозов. «Мифы Великой Отечественной (сборник)» Москва. Яуза. 2010. стр. 236/A.V. Isaev, M. I. Meltyukhov, M. E. Morozov. "Myths of the Great Patriotic war (collection)" Yauza. 2010. page 236
  3. ^ А. В. Исаев, М. И. Мельтюхов, М. Э. Морозов. «Мифы Великой Отечественной (сборник)» Москва. Яуза. 2010. стр. 237/A.V. Isaev, M. I. Meltyukhov, M. E. Morozov. "Myths of the Great Patriotic war (collection)" Yauza. 2010. page 237
  4. ^ Рокоссовский К.К. Жизнь замечательных людей. Автор: Карташов В.И. Москва. 1980. стр.98/Rokossovsky K. K. Life of remarkable people. Author: Kartashov V. I. Moscow. 1980. page 98
  5. ^ Norbert Bączyk. Panzertruppen a Powstanie Warszawskie, wyd. Pegaz-Bis 2013.
  6. ^ Norbert Bączyk. Panzertruppen a Powstanie Warszawskie, wyd. Pegaz-Bis 2013.
  7. ^ Andrzej Leon Sowa. Kto wydał wyrok na miasto? Plany operacyjne ZWZ-AK(1940—1944)i sposoby ich realizacji.Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków 2016.стр.618
  8. ^ Encyklopedia Warszawy. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 1994.s 687.
  9. ^ Norbert Bączyk."Ilu naprawdę poległo w powstaniu warszawskim" .Tygodnik Polityka nr 42(2980) 15 X 2014 s. 54-56
  10. ^ Уинстон Черчилль Вторая мировая война. Страдания Варшавы М. Воениздат, 1991/Winston Churchill world war II. Misery Of Warsaw M. Voenizdat, 1991
  11. ^ Norman Davies. Rising 'The Battle for Warsaw. London: Pan Books. 2004. ISBN 0-330-48863-5
  12. ^ World War 2: Warsaw Uprising :: FAQ
  13. ^ Варшавское восстание 1944 в документах из архивов спецслужб. С. 24. Варшава — Москва, 2007/The Warsaw uprising of 1944 in documents from the archives of the special services. P. 24. Warsaw-Moscow, 2007
  14. ^ For example, see - :
  15. ^ Prezydent powstańcom o interesach w III RP // "Gazeta Wyborcza, 3 august 2008
  16. ^ Rolf Michaelis, Das SS-Sonderkommando «Dirlewanger»: Der Einsatz in Weißrussland 1941—1944, Dusseldorf 2012, ISBN 9783895557644
  17. ^ Encyklopedia Warszawy. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 1994.s 737
  18. ^ Hanson, Joanna (2004). The Civilian Population and the Warsaw Uprising. Google Books: Cambridge University Press. p. 79. Retrieved 29 July 2014
  19. ^ Wielka Brytania i Polska. Od Wersalu do Jałty. С. 334. Pułtusk-Warszawa, 2011

Deliberate falsification of the beginning of the uprising[edit]

The organizers of the uprising, having come under fire from Warsaw's critics and not being able to answer them clearly or help them, began to look for a way to remove responsibility from themselves — to shift responsibility for the mass death of the Warsaw people from a sick head to a healthy one. The AK press suddenly announced that the uprising had begun in response to a call from the SPP radio station Kosciusko on July 29. This statement was a lie[12]. It is noteworthy that the AK leadership did not mention this radio program of the Kosciusko radio station either at the beginning of the uprising or in the first half of August — neither in internal documents with the most strident attacks on the USSR, nor in open newspaper publications. The minutes of the meeting of the head of the emigrant government in London Mikolajchik and the head of the USSR Stalin on 3 and 9 August 1944 also do not mention this topic at all. On the contrary, Mikolajczyk, told Stalin that Warsaw would soon be liberated by his troops, he would arrive in Warsaw and raised the question of the return of the Eastern territories of Poland and the borders of 1939. (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deliberate falsification of the landing of the 1st Polish army[edit]

Modern Polish historians do deleberate falsification when describing the landing of the 1st Polish army, which fought shoulder to shoulder with the Red Army. For example:

"By 14 September, the eastern bank of the Vistula River opposite the Polish resistance positions was taken over by the Polish troops fighting under the Soviet command; 1,200 men made it across the river, but they were not reinforced by the Red Army. This, and the lack of air support from the Soviet air base five-minutes flying time away, led to allegations that Joseph Stalin tactically halted his forces to let the operation fail and allow the Polish resistance to be crushed. Arthur Koestler called the Soviet attitude "one of the major infamies of this war which will rank for the future historian on the same ethical level with Lidice."[17]

Polish units from the eastern shore attempted several more landings, and from 15 to 23 September sustained heavy losses (including the destruction of all their landing boats and most of their other river crossing equipment).[92] Red Army support was inadequate.[92]

At the same time, the opinion of the Soviet side is completely ignored. Which, for its part, blamed "AK" for the lack of support.

Expanding aid to the rebels, we decided to land a strong landing force on the opposite Bank, in Warsaw, using floating means. The operation was organized by the headquarters of the 1st Polish army. The time and place of landing, the plan of artillery and air support mutual actions with the rebels - everything was agreed in advance with the leadership of the uprising.

On September 16, landing units of the Polish army moved across the Vistula. They landed on sections of the coast that were in the hands of rebel groups. All calculations were based on this. And suddenly it turned out that in these areas — the Nazis.

The operation was difficult. The first throw of the landing party barely managed to catch on the shore. It was necessary to enter into battle all new forces. Losses grew. And the rebel leaders not only did not provide any assistance to the landing, but did not even try to contact him.

Under these conditions, it was impossible to stay on the West Bank of the Vistula. I decided to stop the operation. They helped the troops get back.... [1]

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The rebels were exhausted by mid-September. And they couldn't provide much help. But it once again speaks about the fact that the uprising was started too early. (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deliberate falsification of the Soviet-Polish negotiations[edit]

The article states:

"One of the reasons given for the collapse of the Uprising was the reluctance of the Soviet Red Army to help the Polish resistance. On 1 August, the day of Uprising, the Soviet advance was halted by a direct order from the Kremlin.[129] Soon afterwards the Soviet tank units stopped receiving any oil from their depots.[129] Soviets knew of the planned outbreak from their agents in Warsaw and, more importantly, directly from the Polish Prime Minister Stanisław Mikołajczyk, who informed them of the Polish Home Army uprising plans:[129][130]"

Deliberate falsification of the Soviet-Polish negotiations.

A reference is given to Ciechanowski's book: Ciechanowski (1974), p. 68.

What does Ciechanowski write?

"The Russians learned about possibility for the first time from Mikolajczyk, at about 9 p.m. on 31 July, that is about 3 hours after Bor-Komorowski had given the order for the insurrection to begin".

That is, the Soviet side did not know the exact date of the beginning of the uprising. And the order to revolt had already been given. What "plans" did the Soviet side allegedly learn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deliberate falsification of the role of the leadership of the uprising[edit]

Deliberate falsification of the role of the leadership of the uprising:

On 25 July, the Polish government-in-exile (without the knowledge and against the wishes of Polish Commander-in-Chief General Kazimierz Sosnkowski[27]) approved the plan for an uprising in Warsaw with the timing to be decided locally.[28]

28.^ Davies, pp. 210–211.

Deliberately silent about the violation by the leaders of the uprising of the instructions for cooperation with the Soviet military command. It is about the presence of such instructions that the source says:

"On 31 July Mikolajczyk saw Molotov. He told him that in spite of the suspension of Russo-Polish relations his Government which was directing the anti-German struggle in Poland, had worked out concrete plans for establishing military co-operation between the Home Army and the Soviet forces during decisive stage of the fighting there. These plans had been submitted to the British and Americans with the request 'that they should be communicated to the Soviet authorities'. Mikolajczyk further stated that practice Russo-Polish military co-operation had 'long since been established … in accordance with the instructions issued by the Polish Government to the Home Army'. Molotov said that Soviet information on the matter did not corroborate this.

The Polish Premier also said that before his departure from London he had discussed with Gen Tatar 'the measures to be taken in connection with the outbreak of general rising in the Warsaw area...' Molotov was not impressed and remarked that the Red Army units were now only 10 kilometers from Warsaw, implying, probably, that Red Army occupation of Warsaw was, in any event, imminent. "[2]

The Polish Prime Minister says that his military forces in Poland have received instructions to act in conjunction with the red Army, specifically, an uprising is planned in the area of Warsaw and instructions were given just before leaving. The Soviet interlocutor does not believe, says that his data do not confirm the statements of the Prime Minister, and does not believe in the possibility of joint actions in the area of Warsaw, since only 10 kilometers remain to Warsaw, and he has no evidence of joint actions. And who was right? Soviet minister. The leadership of the uprising in Warsaw made no attempt to contact the Soviet troops. The leaders of the uprising in Warsaw violated the instructions given to them. They didn't contact the Soviet military leaders. There was no military co-operation. Is someone talking about this in Poland today? No. This is a direct attempt to hide historical facts. A lie through omission about the "uncomfortable" truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deliberate falsification in the topic of external support for the uprising[edit]

Deliberate falsification in the topic of external support for the uprising:

"The Soviet Union did not allow the Western Allies to use its airports for the airdrops[7] for several weeks,[113] so the planes had to use bases in the United Kingdom and Italy which reduced their carrying weight and number of sorties".

The Polish government-in-exile DID NOT ask the Soviet side to help the uprising. On August 3, 1944, during the first meeting of the Prime Minister of the government-in-exile Mikolajczyk and the head of the USSR Stalin, there WAS NO discussion at all (!!!!) the theme of support for the uprising. The main time there was occupied with the formation of a new government and the Eastern border. Prime Minister Mikolajczyk categorically refused to recognize the new border on the main Curzon line and demanded the return of the border of 1939.

Geoffrey Roberts. Stalin`s war. Yale university press. 2008.

"Stalin`s first meeting with Mikolajczyk was 3 August 1944. At the start of the meeting Mikolajczyk raised 3 questions for discussion: joint action in the struggle against the Germans; the agreement the Soviets reached with PCNL (Polish Committee for National Liberation) about the administration of liberated Polish territory; and the Polish-Soviet border issue. Mikolajczyk mentioned that an uprising in Warsaw had broken out and that he would like to be able to go to the Polish capital very soon to form a government that would combine the parties of the London Poles and those of Polish communists. Stalin replied that the questions he had raised were of great political and practical importance but that Mikolajczyk had to negotiate those issues with PCNL with a view to forming a united provisional government - a point that Soviet leader repeatedly came back in the ensuing conversation. When Mikolajczyk spoke of the role of the AK in Poland Stalin pointed out that the units were very weak and lacked guns, let alone artillery, tanks and planes. When Mikilajczyk suggested that AK should be armed, Stalin replied that the most effective aid to the Soviet campaign to liberate Poland would be formation of a unified government. When the conversation turned to the border issue Stalin restated the Soviet position that Polish border should run along the Curzon line in east and the Oder river in the west: Poland would get Danzig but Koenigsberg would go to the Soviets. Responding to Polish claims to Lvov in Westenr Ukraine and Vilnius in Lithuania Stalin said that 'according to Leninist ideology all peoples are equal and that he did not want to offend the Lithuanians, the Ukrainians or the Poles (...) At the end of the talk Mikolajczyk asked Stalin how he envisaged the frontier issue being resolved. Stalin`s answer - that it would be negotiated with a united Polish government - was jet another signal that he was prepared to work with Mikolajczyk.

(...) In Mikolajczyk`s second talk with Stalin on 9 August the Polish Premier raised the question of Soviet aid to the Warsaw uprising. Stalin responded that he did not consider the uprising a 'realistic affair when the insurgents had no guns whereas the Germans in the Praga area alone had 3 tank divisions, not to speak of infantry. The Germans will simply kill all the Poles'. Stalin explained that the Red Army had advanced to within a few kilometres of Warsaw but the Germans then brought up reinforcements. The Red Army would continue its attack and take Warsaw, but it would take time. He was willing to supply the insurgents with munitions but worried about the supplies falling into German hands and asked Mikilajczyk there were safe places to drop guns. After being reassured that there were such areas Stalin promised to give Rokossovskii the necessary orders and to pursue all possibilities"[3].

Here you can clearly see why there was an uprising in Warsaw-the seizure of power in Warsaw and the borders in the East. AK didn't want any compromises. It turns out that British pilots died over Warsaw from German shells for the Polish Lvov and Vilnius. (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polish Lvov? Polish Vilnius? British pilots died for this? But then they died in vain. Lvov today belongs to Ukraine, and Vilnius-to Lithuania. Are they talking about this in Poland today? (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Рокоссовский К. К. Солдатский долг. — М.: Воениздат, 1988 c.282/Rokossovsky, K. K. a Soldier's duty. — Moscow: Military Publishing, 1988. p.282
  2. ^ Ciechanowski (1974), The Warsaw uprising of 1944. p. 66
  3. ^ Geoffrey Roberts. Stalin`s war. Yale university press. 2008.

Deliberate falsification of historical significance[edit]

Currently, a number of Polish politicians, historians and publicists claim that during the Warsaw uprising, a "moral victory" was won — a heroic attempt to stop the Red Army's March to the West, to save Western Europe from the USSR. The very concept of "moral victory" of the uprising arose after the war. Polish "historical policy" tends to keep silent about the mistakes of the Polish government in exile and the leadership of the uprising, which led to hundreds of thousands of dead or trapped in German camps, the destruction of Warsaw and the defeat of the Warsaw home Army, blaming the USSR for everything. The dominant Polish historiography is based on the position of the political group that was represented by the London government (the emigrant government of Poland, which was based in London in 1940-1990) and the leadership of the military-political underground, which was subordinate to the London government. One of the basic ideas of the state historical policy is the "theory of two occupations", the Nazi and Soviet, that is, the replacement of one occupation with another.

In 2004, Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski stated that "this impulse was a revolt against the emerging post-war order and a struggle for an independent Poland"[129].

The Director of the Institute of national memory (Janusz Kurtyka) stated that the home Army sought to prevent the" liberation " of Warsaw by Soviet troops, the army of Ludova and the coming to power of the Polish national liberation Committee[129].

In 2008, Polish President Lech Kaczynski stated that: "the Warsaw uprising was a decision as tragic as it was necessary. This was the last attempt to preserve the independence of Poland. The Soviet army was already entering the Prague suburb of Warsaw. We had the experience of Vilna and Lviv behind us. It was obvious that either the poles would take over Warsaw and a Polish government could appear there from London, or there was no chance of maintaining independence. Let us not forget that on August 1, 1944, the Polish national Liberation Committee was already operating in Lublin — a group of renegades who were preparing to rule Poland on behalf of a foreign power. Thus, this decision was necessary"[130].

On September 16, 2009, the Polish national security Bureau under the President of Poland issued an extensive report (in full, including in Russian and English, published on the official website of the BNB) signed by the head of the Department, Alexander Shchiglo: "the goal of the rebels was not only to liberate the Polish capital from the army of the Third Reich, but also to violate the division of Europe agreed by the USSR, the United States and great Britain in Tehran in 1943."

That is, we can conclude that today in Poland it is openly recognized that the goals of the leaders of the uprising were to create a split between the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, the beginning of the "cold war" in 1944. In fact, this is exactly what Hitler's Germany did. The subversive activities of the leaders of the Polish government in exile were aimed at this. Given the military and political weakness of their positions, they could only hope to get help from the United States and great Britain in the conditions of the "cold war" with the USSR. The Soviet Union received aid because it conducted large-scale military operations against Germany and its allies. The failure of cooperation between the USSR and the United States-Great Britain was the goal of the Polish government in exile. If this policy were successful, it would prolong the war and increase casualties. It is possible that the Nazi criminals could have escaped responsibility. But this did not succeed, and the cooperation of the allies remained in force. Is this being said in Poland today? No.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

Hungarian units used initially[edit]

I read recently (don't remember book title) that Hungarian units were also initially used but they refused to commit atrocities against Poles that why the Russian anti-communists and Dirlewanger and Kaminski types were brought in. Historian932 (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hetzer Chwat photo[edit]

Hello! Could some one add this photo to the gallery? It's a German Hetzer tank destroyer captured by Polish forces and nicknamed Chwat ("daredevil"). Lupishor (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The lede should mention the Warsaw airlift was a failure - more than 50% of the weapons were delivered to the Germans by mistake. (JerzyPilanski (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2022[edit]

In the "In popular culture" section: The videogame Enemy Front is set during the Warsaw uprising, and in various levels the main character directly takes part in the Warsaw uprising. Another Irish Drinking Song (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide secondary sources to demonstrate that this is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is David Glantz's opinion (which seems also in part politically directed) quoted verbatim without attribution as if it were objective[edit]

The idea that the Soviets 'had no deliberate purpose' in particular is spurious given knowledge about the soviet stance towards the support of the uprising and polish rsistance in general 2A02:A310:E23F:400:A80C:B975:FF75:3CD7 (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2022[edit]

Suggest to add the name of Ryszard (Michał) Lach on the picture of Tadeusz Rajszczak Source:,26426.html (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 20:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of sources, contradictions and an anti-Soviet agenda bias[edit]

The main concern is that the article fails to provide any credible source in the majority of statements in which USSR’s Army forces are blamed and overall vilified: ‘…the Red Army temporarily halted combat operations, enabling the Germans to regroup and defeat the Polish resistance..’ - no source, no army order quoted. Also factually incorrect as parts of the Soviet forces did cross the river and did engage the German forces in the suburbs;

‘…but the Soviets ignored Polish attempts to make radio contact with them and did not advance beyond the city limits…’ - no source and factually incorrect;

‘…led to allegations that Joseph Stalin tactically halted his forces to let the operation fail and allow the Polish resistance to be crushed…’ - so it is an allegation and so it has to be clarified as such at each instance;

‘…Red Army support was inadequate…’ - this is not a fact, it may be a conclusion after listing facts, but such are not present here;

‘…landings by the 1st Polish Army …’, ‘… …’, ‘… …’ -

Konstantin Rokossovsky was the Red Army Marshal in command of the Soviet forces outside Warsaw. He was also a Soviet Pole (born in Warsaw, Russian Empire) and Warsaw was him hometown. Under his command attempts were made to come to aid to the Armya Kraiova. None of these relevant facts are mentioned however.

‘…After Stalin's objections to supporting the uprising…’ - no source containing such objection is presented;

‘…Soviet Air Forces flew 2,535 re-supply sorties with small bi-plane Polikarpov Po-2's, delivering a total of 156 50-mm mortars, 505 anti-tank rifles, 1,478 sub-machine guns, 520 rifles, 669 carbines, 41,780 hand grenades, 37,216 mortar shells, over 3 million cartridges, 131.2 tons of food and 515 kg of medicine…’ - an admitted example of Soviet aid, contradicts the general agenda-compliant statement

No mention is made regarding the Soviet tactic of dealing with Hitler retaliation doctrine of ‘stronghold towns’ (when german garrisons of vital towns defend their positions even in full encirclement and are heavily supplied and reinforced, thus making a direct attack through/into the town ineffective and costly) - the encirclement and further advance around such strongholds (much like with all major towns including Berlin). This explains why immediate direct attack into Warsaw was not Rokossovksy’s plan.

‘…the Soviet advance was halted by a direct order from the Kremlin…’ - the source quoted (n.143) is a link to Polish newspaper homepage, the source itself (found directly) does not present such order(s), thus for now, this is factually incorrect;

‘…Soon afterwards the Soviet tank units stopped receiving any oil from their depots.[143] Soviets knew of the planned outbreak from their agents in Warsaw and, more importantly, directly from the Polish Prime Minister Stanisław Mikołajczyk, who informed them of the Polish Home Army uprising plans…’ - same source n.143, no evidence for these are provided in the source either;

The article does not tap into the Soviet Combat Action Journals, which are day-by-day reports with copies sent to the army group command centre and to the high command - they clearly list issues which caused the slowing down of the Soviet advance around Warsaw in July-August 1944.

To sum up - no factual (documental) evidence in support of ‘order from Kremlin to halt’ or otherwise intentional sabotage of the uprising by the USSR authorities are provided. Thus, until such evidence are presented, any statements except allegations and theories (clearly stated as such and accompanied by ‘no evidential support’) should be redacted.

Clear evidence in support of attempts to aid the uprising by the Red Army despite clear tactical & strategical difficulties and lack of trust & communication from Amya Kraiova’s side are present in the article even in its current biased state.

Please review (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First this is the lede so citations are unnecessary if this is sourced in the main text. Second, most of these do appear to have sources. Third, your conception of the subject represents a WP:FRINGE view. Volunteer Marek 03:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV issues in Aftermath -> 1989 to Present[edit]

I think there are POV issues in the section "1989 to Present". For one, the text states, without a source, that "Poland largely lacks a critical view of the leaders of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising". The only source in that entire paragraph is from 1974, which is not only outside the scope of that section, but unrelated to the claim it is making. The rest of the section following this are various quotes condemning the uprising as a waste, with no explanation of alternative views. The section is pretty clearly not neutral POV, it is from an anti-Home Army POV. This needs to be cleaned up. Jogarz1921 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, further the section is more a history of analysis and opinions rather than a chronological approach.
It also just suffers from topical and chronological issues. I will try my best at a neutral approach to truth using peer reviewed research Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jogarz1921 I did my best to address the section. It was out of chronological order and the "After Soviet Union" section made no sense. It read like, "This is why Russia isn't to blame." and was just a list of out of context summaries of disconnected academic work.
It had nothing to do with the Warsaw Uprising nor did it provide any summary of recent scholarship (not that the section was about recent scholarship).
If editors wish to revert please just replace the bias tag and discuss here first. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is that the current Poland has invented a historical myth about the alleged "stab in the back" from the Red Army and the USSR, the Russians and Russia as a whole. This is similar to what the Germans had after 1918, "Dolchstoßlegende", when they also invented the myth of a "stab in the back" from internal enemies. The Germans have long parted with this historical myth, but the Poles have not. You have removed the opinions of the few Poles who have the courage to have an opinion that contradicts the prevailing historical mythology in Poland. Well, this only proves that you are also committed to this historical mythology. (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comparing Polish bitterness over the Soviets’ refusal to aid the uprising and their subsequent hegemony over the country with the idea that Jews stabbed WWI Germany in the back is a tasteless and in accurate analogy. The former is a matter of historical record (though you can argue about the nuances of the situation all day), the latter is an entirely fictional canard. Jogarz1921 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wrong. The German conspiracy theory wasn't just about Jews. I understand that you don't like this analogy. Nevertheless, it is a fact that not everyone in Poland is ready to believe in the theory of a "stab in the back", the theory that the USSR allegedly refused to help the rebels in Warsaw. What did you do? You just deleted their opinions. Is this right? No. (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warsaw Uprising Memorial Day[edit]

I added a section for Memorial Day, if other editors feel it belongs under aftermath we can move it.

I would suggest a Remembrance section and putting, holidays, museums, the mounds etc there. Include the main cultural article link there.

Putting memorial under "Aftermath" doesn't feel like the correct place Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]