Talk:Polish government-in-exile

Poland High‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations (9 May 2021):

The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Move

I moved to a more simple location. There were no other Polish governments in exile, so the dates in the name of this article are not needed.Halibutt 09:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

London Poles

Proposed insertions in the opening: The Government of the Polish Republic in exile also known as the London Poles and derisively by the Soviet government as the Sikorski regime, maintained a continuous existence in exile from the time of the German occupation of Poland in September 1939 until the end of the Communist rule in Poland in 1990.Nobs 16:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's too short. I've expanded it a little, to say more about what the government did (more than simply exist) and the change in relationships after 1945. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can create redirects for London Poles and Sikorski regime. I'm an idiot & dont know how. Thx. Nobs 16:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You click on the red link, which brings up the editor and then put #REDIRECT [[Polish government in exile]] as the total article content. DJ Clayworth 02:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I expanded the London Poles thingy to a disambiguation page. Halibu tt 09:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good and I beleive that will help. Nobs 14:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the term London Poles is neither official nor neutral; to me it sounds more or less like Bush's clique or Band of the Four. I suggest we continued to use the full name. Halibu tt 15:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Often we are stuck with terms newspaper headline writers used from the time (FDR, Big 3, London Poles etc) to communicate ideas that won't fit on a headline, Like "Ike" instead of "Eisenhower" or "Free French" instead of "French National Committee". It takes up less space. Even "Nazi" was easier to use & print than "Weimar Republic" or "Germany". There is nothing derisive about the term, and I beleive, it has actually become the standard term of reference when searching CIA, NSA and other U.S. government search engines and archives. Nobs 17:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google search: "london+Poles" = 429. "Polish government in exile" = 14,500. Even discarding Wiki and its mirrors it seems london Poles are a distinct minority. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find a date they went out of business. Evidently they continued long after 1945 and this should be noted. Nobs 19:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last exiled President of Poland, Ryszard Kaczorowski, resigned his post on December 22, 1990, after Lech Wałęsa was sworn in the Polish Sejm. The following day he created a Liquidation Commission which, by December 31, 1991, closed all the offices of the Polish government and passed all responsibilities to the Warsaw-based government. Does it answer your question? Halibu tt 20:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

So then we can rightly state, and have evidence to conclude, that the current democratic government of Poland is the legitimate successor state to the legitimate government of Poland. Nobs 20:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the current Republic of Poland is direct successor (both in terms of legality and even symbols) to the pre-war and wartime Republic of Poland. Even the presidential insignia were passed to the first democratically elected president of Poland as soon as it was possible.

After all the legal basis for the existence of the government in exile was lack of peace treaty ending the war and lack of possibility to elect new authorities in Poland. When the Sejm and the President were elected, the government lost its rationale. After the 2+4 conference and the final peace treaty between Poland and Germany, the last of the reasons was gone. Halibu tt 21:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Note that members of the Polish Government in Exile are included in the official website of The Chancellery of the Prime Minister - for example see Council of Ministers » History » Prime Ministers of Poland » Edward Szczepanik who was the last PM [1]

Tom Szczepanik 02:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorski: "the most talented"?

From the article:

"In an unfortunate coincidence, Sikorski, the most talented of the Polish exile leaders, was killed in an aircrash near Gibraltar in July. He was succeeded as head of the government in exile by Stanisław Mikołajczyk."

I know little about the history in question here, but the description of Sikorski as "the most talented of the Polish exile leaders" seems to be more of an opinion than fact. I would suggest changing the text at least to "Sikorski, considered by many people to be the most talented..." or (ideally) coming up with a better justification for referring to him as such. Colin M. 13:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it would be a weasel word anyway. Almost everything I read agrees Sikorski was 'the most talented' Polish contemporary leader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Government in Exile

May I suggest that the capitalisation of this page should be changed from "Polish government in exile" to "Polish Government in Exile" with capital G and capital E. That is how they wrote about themselves in their quarterly English language journal "Polish Affairs" e.g. No 127 (Final) 1990

Tom Szczepanik 02:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which had majority Ukrainian and Belarusian populations, should remain in Soviet hands,

Not true, some mostly Polish regions remained in the SU, eg. Wilno. Xx236 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland, Spain and Vatican City (till 1979) were the last countries to recognize the Government in Exile.

What about Portugal and Cuba? Xx236 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? Cite your sources and update the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vatican City, I noticed the the government-in-exile had some rather difficult relations with the papacy during World War Two, essentially because of an alleged complacence on the part of the Holy See towards German invaders. This could perhaps be noted in the article, along with relevant sources of course. ADM (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State of war with Soviet Union

Why article does not mention that exile government of Republic of Poland declared state of war with Soviet Union in Novemeber 1939 caused by transfer of Wilno to Lithuania?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.83.114 (talk • contribs)

This is the first time I have heard such claim. What are your sources for this? Szopen 06:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the source for that information is "Советская историческая энциклопедия" (Soviet historical encyclopaedia) volume 11 1968, p. 316, article "Польское эмигрантское правительство" (Polish government in Exile). The full text of the article in Russian:

ПОЛЬСКОЕ ЭМИГРАНТСКОЕ ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВО — было создано 30 сент. 1939 в Анжере (Франция) из представителей польского монополистич. капитала, пилсудчиков и нек-рых оппозиционных «санационному» режиму бурж. и мелкобурж. партий. Признавало в качестве легальной основы своей деятельности реакц. конституцию 1935 и проводило антинац. и антисов. политику. П. э. п. создало на терр. Польши свои подпольные воен. орг-ции (Союз вооруж. борьбы, а затем Армию Крайову и др.), рассчитывая, однако, в основном на помощь зап. держав в освобождении Польши от нем.-фаш. оккупантов. В нояб. 1939 П. э. п. объявило состояние войны с Сов. Союзом. В июне 1940 П. э. п. переехало в Лондон. 30 июля 1941, вскоре после нападения гитлеровской Германии на Сов. Союз, пр-во СССР и П. э. п. заключили договор о взаимопомощи, по к-рому на терр. СССР были созданы польские воинские части. Весной и летом 1942 П. э. п. вывело эти части с терр. СССР на Бл. Восток. Вскоре П. э. п. открыто возобновило свои притязания на земли Сов. Украины и Сов. Белоруссии и совершило ряд. др. враждебных СССР действий, что вынудило Сов. пр-во 25 апр. 1943 порвать с ним отношения. До июля 1943 пр-во возглавлял В. Сикор-ский, с июля 1943 по нояб. 1944 — С. Миколайчик, а с нояб. 1944 по июнь 1945—Т. Арцишевский. После создания в Варшаве в июне 1945 Врем, пр-ва нац. единства пр-ва зап. держав, связанные решениями Крымской конференции 1945, перестали признавать П. э. п. Название П. э. п. впоследствии незаконно использовали мелкие группы реакционных деятелей польск. эмиграции в Лондоне.

In bold - "In 1939, November, Polish government in Exile declared state of war on the USSR". --Nekto 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... Seems absurd to me. AFAIK Poland broke diplomatic ties with SU, but no DoW was issued. Soviet historical encyclopedia, no offense, is not valid sources for me. Any other sources? Halibutt, where are you when I need you? Szopen 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://ehq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/4/591.pdf#search=%22Poland%20declared%20war%20Soviet%20union%20November%201939%22

It seems that Poland had not DoW-ed SU, though it would do that if England and France would follow. In november Poland had plans to help Finland fight against SU, but nothing came out of the phase of initial planning - so it seems to me. Szopen 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know Poland and Soviet Union broke diplomatic relation, but were not in the state of war - it was SU which declared Poland as non-existent, but I never read that any party declared a state of war on another. See also Sikorski-Mayski Agreement. And per Szopen, Soviet encyclopedias are not very reliable - if you could find this fact in the English academic papers it would be much more reliable (per WP:RS).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I've found in the Polish version of the article this information:

"18 grudnia rząd wydał deklarację, która formułowała najważniejsze cele rządu emigracyjnego. Deklaracja określała Niemcy hitlerowskie jako głównego wroga Polski, potwierdzała stan wojny z ZSRR (która toczyła się de facto, natomiast rozpoczęcie wojny de iure nie miało miejsca) ... "

Does anybody have the original text of declaration mentioned in the excerpt?--Nekto (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 1939. I could not confirm that other than on Polish wikipedia; I've requested inline cites for this and for now I'd call it dubious.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment

I am reworking this section as it does not match the books I have read. Anyone who disagrees then please at least say why you think this slightly altered version is wrong. Jniech (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive recognition

We say that the reception of the symbols of the Polish state by Walesa was in effect retroactively recognizing the legitimacy of the Government in Exile. Do we have a source for this contention? It doesn't seem obvious to me. Retroactively recognizing the government in exile's legitimacy would also mean retroactively recognizing the illegitimacy of the communist state, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Among other things, the Communist state's recognition of its postwar eastern border did not have to be done again after 1989, did it? And the constitution of 1992 appears to have been an amendment to the communist constitution of 1952. So, while there might be symbolic recognition of the legitimacy of the government in exile, there certainly does not seem to have been any legal recognition of the same. This language should be tightened up. john k (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite clear that the Polish State does give recognition to the Government in Exile as its Presidents are listed as Presidents of Poland on on the Polish President's Website at http://www.president.pl/en/about-poland/polish-presidents/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katyn

...and the graves were confirmed to contain the corpses of Polish officers who had been killed with Soviet weapons. - They were killed with German weapons, actually. This needs to be fixed in accordance with what the Germans had really claimed. --Illythr (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously doubt the Soviets used German weapons in the massacre of the Polish officers.

Armia Krajowa

The article states that “Thereafter, for the remainder of the war, it commanded Polish armed forces operating outside Poland.” What about Armia Krajowa? Jniech (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Third strongest"?

This assertion seems quite dubious:

"Even after the fall of Poland, and before the Soviet Union's entry into the war, Poland remained the third strongest Allied belligerent, after France and Britain.

What is meant by this? If I'm not mistaken, immediately after the fall of Poland, there were only three Allied nations (France, the UK, and Poland), so being third-strongest means nothing. As, in their time, Norway, the Low Countries, Greece, and Yugoslavia adhered to the Allied cause, they would have (one would think) have been "stronger" than Poland, having functioning military establishments consisting of quite a few equipped and supplied divisions operating on their own territory (except perhaps for Norway), until they were overrun. This whole thing strikes me as meaningless and should be deleted. Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say there were only three Allied nations, then you seem to be ignoring countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa who all declared war on Germany separately, either on the same day as Britain or soon afterwards.

Further Norway, the Low Countries, Greece, and Yugoslavia were all neutral until attacked when the strength of their forces were quickly destroyed. It most likely true that the Netherlands, for example, had a larger army but as it lasted only 5 days.

Polish pilots, for example, were the second largest air force behind the British in the Battle of Britain. I think the point being made is that Polish forces were consistently the third largest between the fall of Poland and Germany attack on Soviets even if for brief periods of times they weren’t. Jniech (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Britain" would mean the British Empire, and its combined armies, which operated under the command of the CIGS, totalled around 4,000,000 men. The Indian Army alone comprised some 2,000,000 men.

File:Tomasz Arciszewski.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tomasz Arciszewski.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tomasz Arciszewski.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further viewing

Added this section with five short episodes available on the Polish Embassy UK YouTube channel - "Republic in Exile" tells the story of the Polish Government-in-Exile. Please forgive and correct me if the form of citiation is not up to Wiki standards. Tom Szczepanik (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Since the flag of Poland was changed in 1980, did the Polish government-in-exile also changed its flag at the same time or has it always had the 1928-1980 as its flag until the current Republic of Poland was established? Or did the Polish government-in-exile use the current flag of Poland before it was first used by the Polish People's Republic in 1980? Elevatorrailfan (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

President Kaczorowski did not "resign"

It is misleading or incorrect to say President Kaczorowski "resigned" in 1990. He simply handed over power to President Walesa, as there was now a legitimate government in Poland. 66.155.23.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish government-in-exile. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027041339/http://geocities.com/skrzydla/ to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish government-in-exile. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040709080724/http://www.republika.pl/unpack/1/dok01a.html to http://www.republika.pl/unpack/1/dok01a.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

www.projectinposterum.org

@The Banner: Please elaborate why www.projectinposterum.org hosting a diplomatic note is reliable and why it is needed when there are two history books as references for the sentence. MozeTak (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MozeTak: Please explain why you call this "abominable sourcing removed". No word why this source is bad. No need for removal as multiple sources are allowed. The Banner talk 22:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a blog by an advocacy group. Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations this fails by a mile. MozeTak (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Proof? The Banner talk 22:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Proof? Look at the website. Do you have any proof anyone reputable stands behind this website? It does not even name any individuals involved in running it. MozeTak (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AK-soldiers Parasol Regiment Warsaw Uprising 1944.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

Shouldn't the hyperlink in the lead section read "Polish People's Republic" (the actual name of the article it's linked to), rather than "People's Republic of Poland" which leads to a redirect? Seems confusing. Am I missing something? Foreignshore (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of the Govt in Exile by the allies

The article states "Escaping from France the government relocated to London, where it was recognized by all the Allied governments". The USSR was part of the Alliance. It has been stated (summarised at History.com) that Molotov declared that the polish government did not exist on the basis that it had fled Poland. This is inconsistent with the statement made in this wikipedia article. This statement needs to be reviewed by a professional historian who has good knowledge of the evidence and this potential source of confusion needs to be credibly clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.146.110 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In this phrase:

Escaping from France the government relocated to London

please add a comma after "France". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tollens (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Gie territorial claim map?

Can a map of the territorial claims of the Polish government-in-exile be added? 129.89.180.75 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]