Talk:Polish People's Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

changes[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split[edit]

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

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

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

Name[edit]

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

Economy and culture[edit]

Additional material:

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

Economy section[edit]

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

Government and politics[edit]

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

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

People's Republic of Poland[edit]

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

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

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

History: John Paul II[edit]

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

PSL[edit]

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

Map[edit]

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

Polish Statehood[edit]

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

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

Does anybody know the death toll[edit]

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

POV Problems[edit]

Why,in the name of all that is descent does Wikipedia insist on linking the Nazi Flag with Poland. Why is the Nazi flag posted on this article as if it were the flag of Poland??? What kind of insult is this ? Please remove the Nazi flag from this article.*********

Ever hear of the Nazi occupation that caused a big war in Europe, 1939-1945? ukexpat (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever representative for the Law and Justice party who edited this article should be shot. I've never seen such a biased piece of garbage in my life. I did a huge edit on the intro, and tried to edit some of the body, but was unable to without deleting the entire frigging article. The idiot who edited this repeatedly used the word 'totalitarian' and claimed that the Polish Communist Party killed and tortured 'hundreds of thousands' of people, and that all elections were personally rigged by Josef Stalin- all without any cited references. I know that the PRP was not in any way a democratic state, but remember this is supposed to be a fair, objective encylopedia, not some soapbox for personal political opinions. -p1nkfl0yd, June 19, 2008, 13:26 (PST)

Arrangements[edit]

I made some arrangements about histotical limits of the PRP. First, the State effectively changed its name from PRP to RP only in 1990, as proven by Polish banknotes (on this note [1], released on 1 February 1990, the State name was already PRP, on this note [2] released on April 20 1990, the name changed and the eagle became crowned). The birth of Communist Poland was on 31 December 1944, when the Lublin commettee declared itself as the Provisional Gvmnt of the restored Republic of Poland; previously, the page linked erroneously to the Government of 1945, formed when the Provisional Gvmnt (read: Stalin) accepted some democratic ministers to satisfy UK and US pressures. It was erroneous the link to the Polish Underground State as predecessor of PRP: the Underground was linked to the Government-in-exile in London, and had no relationships with the Communist and USSR. Leaders: yes, legally each State has a Head of State and (generally) a PM, but we can agree that historians that in later 21h century will speak about nowadays Libya, won't make a simple list of Presidents and PM of that country, excluding this man only because he has no offices. In each communist State, the Leader of the Communist Party was the real leader of the country. Gomulka was the first leader of communist Poland, and Jaruzelski the last one. We can choose every way to explain this situation, but we must explain it.--Cusio (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely I must disagree with your viewpoint regarding the beginning and the end of the existence of PRP. The name of this country is defined by its enacted law, NOT by the inscription in a banknote. The relevant constitution (Constitution of the People's Republic of Poland of 22 July 1952) and the "December amendment" of 29 December 1989 are the sole sources of law that define the names and dates when the changes of the country's names took place. Therefore, People's Republic of Poland appeared on 22 June 1952 and disappeared on 31 December 1989. Having the above in mind, I will change the beginning and the end dates in the article.
One more comment: in the period when the 100,000 PLZ note was elaborated, horrible inflation was observed in Poland. The National Bank of Poland had to sufficiently early prepare the emission process, so the emission date (1 February 1990) was only an official one, and the printing process commenced well before this date, so nobody could expect that the name of the country and its emblem would change. This is the reason why you were mislead by the bank note.
Finally: before you start with editing the worldwide read English wiki, check thoroughly with the national version. These two must be consistent, and I give priority to the national experts. JPFen (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

You have to show undoubtable evidents and proofs when saying such LIES "Years later, the Communists revealed that the first two questions had passed only by means of massive fraud on their part.[citation needed]" and not to vomit on the article without no proof. History is the facts and not the falsification. 147.102.141.124 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs added. No serious modern historian disputes the massive fraud committed by Polish communists (aided by their Soviet supervisors) in 1946 and 1947. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious historians are based on serious historical analysis and this crap "The leaders of our party tried to reproduce the results of voting on the basis of polling data from 4320 (less than 48% of all wards) - according to these estimates, the first question given up 83.3% of negative responses. W Krakowie, gdzie urny udało się zabezpieczyć przed machinacjami, procent negatywnych odpowiedzi był bardzo wysoki: 1. In Krakow, where the ballot boxes could be protected from the machinations, the percentage of negative responses was very high: 1 - 84%, 2. - 84%, 2 - 59%, 3. - 59%, 3 - 30%. - 30%. Wyniki referendum ukazały słabość PPR iw konsekwencji doprowadziły do bezwzględnego zwalczania przez nią ugrupowań opozycyjnych. The results of the referendum showed the weakness of the PPR and consequently led to the absolute control of her opposition groups."

THAT PROVES NOTHING AND YET YOU HAVEN'T POINT OUT THE SOURCE! this is clearly POV! 147.102.140.82 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law of PRL[edit]

Does anyone care to start "Law of the People's Republic of Poland"?

My curiosity was triggered by a novel of Joanna Chmielewska. I don't remember neither the title nor plot, but in one episode one guy was scared at night when someone or something big and black rushed upon him, and he killed him/it with halberd. In the morning it turned out to be a hog. A confused policeman stubbornly tried to incriminate the "illegal slaughter of livestock" or something similar. Quick google search "illegal slaughter"+Poland also shows "illegal slaughter of a cow" and the concept of "illegal slaughter" during WWII rationing in Britain

Can someone fill the two redlinks? - Altenmann >t 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a satellite state - literally thousands of sources refer to it as such[edit]

Regarding this [3] - it's not just one source who gives this "opinion" (this is as much "opinion" as me saying that Mr. Ed was a horse) but thousands [4]; 5440 hits, or 5260 hits if we remove references to Napoleon's Duchy of Warsaw [5].

Andy, I usually appreciate your edits and I think most of them are correct and are instrumental in keeping out all sorts of stupid nonsense out of thew Wikipedia. However in this particular case, you happen to be incorrect - "satellite state" is the best designation for this state, and if that's not in the template, then the template should be simply changed. Thanks.

VolunteerMarek 00:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just add 5 o 6 reliable ones of that thousands of sources, and problem solved.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move → Polish People's Republic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this state was never 'People's Republic of Poland'. Translated properly, Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa means 'Polish People's Republic'. Notice that the 'Polska' comes before rzeczpospolita, unlike in the modern 'Republic of Poland' (Rzeczpospolita Polska), where 'Polska' comes after it. In the case of the Polish People's Republic, 'Polska' is serving as a reference to the people ('the Polish nation', notacja polska), and not as a proper noun like it is with regard to the 'Republic of Poland'.

  • Furthermore, English reliable sources have always favored the name 'Polish People's Republic', as can be seem at this link to the Google Ngram Viewer. Click the 'search' button after you arrive.
  • Take a look at this international agreement signed by both the Polish People's Republic and the People's Republic of China, in English. Notice that the state is called 'Polish People's Republic', and not 'People's Republic of Poland'.
  • Take a look at this contemporary article from Foreign Affairs. Notice that the state is called 'Polish People's Republic', and not 'People's Republic of Poland'.
  • This naming convention is no different than German Democratic Republic, or Italian Republic, or Hungarian People's Republic. It is standard English-language practice for many states, and we do not override the proper translation in favour of an incorrect one.
  • Given that the name 'Polish People's Republic' has always been favored in English-language reliable sources, it is certain that this page should be moved to the more appropriate title. RGloucester — ☎ 19:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Also, if moved, these pages should also be renamed:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved with two votes[edit]

Let's see what I find in Google Books, just to be on the safe side.[6]

  • "name of the state, the Polish People's republic (Polska rzeczpospolita ludowa, Prl)" (Wrobel)
  • "name of the Polish state, Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa (People's Republic of Poland)" (Mazierska)
  • "very name of the Polish People's Republic (Polska rzeczpospolita ludowa)" (Cavanagh)
  • "identity as Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa (Polish Peoples' Republic)" (Bodman Rae)
  • "in 1948 Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa: People's Republic of Poland" (Applebaum)
  • "Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa (Polish People's Republic)" (Piotrowski)
  • "the PRL (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa [Polish People's Republic])" (Szczerbiak)
  • "PRL — Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa — Polish People's Republic" (Berman)

Seems just about right. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, somehow this one slipped by me as well. No objections, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has non-working links[edit]

Regular editors might look at Polish People's Republic#Demographics. It contains three piped section links to other articles, to material which isn't there any more. (Wildbot has flagged these at the top of Talk):

These links go to the respective articles, but the sections aren't there. Maybe these links are fixable; if not they could be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "Status" section[edit]

I changed the former label "Satellite State of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact state during the Cold War" by separating it to make it more easy-to-read. I also omitted the "during the Cold War" part of the former label due to its redundancy, as the Warsaw Pact existed until the end of the Cold War. Thus, its existence during the Cold War is already implied.

If there are any digressions please let me know.

BUjjsp (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unilateral reversal of move via copy-paste[edit]

SocialismGreece100, you have been attempting to reverse the previous move of this page in your edits here, here, here, and here. Please seek consensus for such a large change here before undertaking it on your own. Also, please do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, as this method does not retain the edit history. Nick Number (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessor and successor edit proposal.[edit]

The current predecessor in the Polish People's Republic infobox is the Second Republic of Poland. I think that we should add the General Government as second predecessor and keep the Second Republic of Poland as the first predecessor because from 1939–1945, the General Government existed in the territory of the Second Republic of Poland. I think we should keep the Second Republic of Poland as the first predecessor because the General Government was illegal by international law, I also think we should add a note ( {{efn|group="note"]] ) containing the information on how the General Government was illegal by international law. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the references to Communism be with capital Cs?[edit]

Socialistguy (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, per MOS:ISMCAPS. Communism, liberalism, socialism, conservatism, revanchism, marxism...no capitalisation for ideologies. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent category[edit]

I've removed the "atheist state" category as inappropriate. While the communist regime certainly intended to eventually achieve an atheist state, as confirmed by the cited sources, it never actually became an atheist state. As noted in the referenced main article Polish anti-religious campaign: Atheism never became widely accepted in Poland (as it had been in the USSR), and vast numbers of Poles continued to believe and even to attend Mass. And the lack of success in achieving an atheist state was also noted: As in most other Communist countries, religion was not outlawed as such (an exception being Albania) and was permitted by the constitution, but the state attempted to achieve an atheistic society ... It became the strongest opponent of the regime throughout the rule of Communism in Poland, and provided a more successful resistance than had religious bodies in most other Communist states ... This led to the antireligious activity in Poland being compelled to take a more cautious and conciliatory line than in other Communist countries, largely failing in their attempt to control or suppress the Polish Church.
Xenophrenic (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Aspirations are not reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2017[edit]

Under the 'History' tab, paragraph 5, line 5 Gomułka is referred to only as Gomułka. There is no prior introduction as to who he is. 2601:240:E:A36A:8487:BCDA:D208:83E5 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I was going to mark this as "Unclear", but it took me a good few minutes of searching to figure out who you were talking about. I found a mention of him in paragraph 4, and have placed his full name there. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish People's Republic. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet hate[edit]

I know that people hate the Soviets, especially Polish people, however the article seems to saying, whenever possible, that the Soviets imposed communism on Poland. Yes, its true... but does it need to be mentioned every time? --TIAYN (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The neighbours Czech people introduced Communism themselves, but Poles didn't. Many readers see Central Europe, Eastern Europe or Emerging markets as a whole. Poland is different. Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

The party's most successful accomplishment[edit]

Communist propaganda. Warsaw was reconstructed by the whole nation, including prisoners nad German slave workers. Illiteracy was fought by teachers, who had different political views. The adults had to read propaganda texts. [7]Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

constant internal struggles for democracy and better living conditions[edit]

The phrase is ambiguous. Either a Communist claims that the party fought for democracy and welfare or an anti-Communist believes that Poles fought for democracy and welfare fighting the Communists. Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

followed by industrial Lodz and cultural Kraków[edit]

The biggest aglomeration was industrial Upper Silesia with Zagłębie. Their symbol was the Śląsko-Dąbrowski Bridge in Warsaw.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Lodz was after the war a cultural center, because it hosted some Warsaw universities. Kraków obtained the biggest steelworks.Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Lodz was textile rather than industrial.Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology[edit]

Poland was devastated by Particulates and acid rains. Black Triangle (region) was polluted. Kraków buildings were destoied by acid rains. Chemical pollution Carbon disulfide attacked human brains.Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

was a country that existed from 1947[edit]

Either we write about the name, so 1952-1989, or about the system 1944-1989. I'm not sure if 1947 is important.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the socialist government ?[edit]

I'm not sure if such name was used by people in Poland. Socialism was the system in Sweden. There was even no socialist party.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you feel anything needs changes then you are free to add them. However, the lead is constructed perfectly. It was the Communists who fought illiteracy by the program installed with the help of Hilary Minc and early Stalinist officials and it was them who pressured on rebuilding Warsaw, even with forced labour and in different architectural style. There has to be a true positive aspect in the article. Pre-war authorities did not do significant work to reduce it somehow so it wasn't the teachers only the government. Secondly, I do not see how the text you referred to is ambiguous. A fight can include protests in this case. Oliszydlowski, 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And your sources are? Do you really believe that Warsaw people weren't able to reconstruct their houses without Communist instructions? Technically the reconstruction was controlled by the pl:Biuro Odbudowy Stolicy, which committed many errors. Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PRL was not established in 1947 but in 1952[edit]

Autor, ktory odrzucił moja poprawkę "mija się z prawdą". Informacja że PRL istniała od 1947 jest fałszem. Po raz pierwszy nazwa ta pojawiła się w Konstytucji z 22 lipca 1952. NIECH CZŁOWIEK TEN WSKAŻE JAKIKOLWIEK DOKUMENY sprzed 1952 zawierający nazwę "Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa" albo niech mnie przeprosi i przywróci moją poprawkę. --Wi-ko (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Country or state?[edit]

Whilst I'm not particularly fond of this IP's other edits, I do understand the switch from country to state, and would support it. As for why, the 'country' is Poland...and the state is the 'People's Republic'. The Polish People's Republic was one state that governed the country of Poland, just as the present Republic of Poland does the same. Using 'country' in the way it is being used now conflates the PRL with the much older concept of the Polish nation, and for this reason I'd suggest that it be changed. RGloucester — ☎ 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: I wanted to apologize for the revert, I visited most of the articles edited by the IP 191.101.42.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If the change has already been discussed and there's consensus, I don't have any problem with the wording. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Era in the infobox[edit]

An editor keeps changing the era in the infobox from Cold War to 20th Century in this article and some others.[8][9][10] Whilst it is true that the Polish People's Republic existed in the 20th Century, I think that Cold War is more useful because it is more specific and relevant to the topic of this communist state. Toddy1 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Cold War is more specific and defining.--PRL Dreams (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC) strike sock[reply]

Unreliable source - "Throughout its existence, economic hardships and social unrest were common almost in every decade."[edit]

"Throughout its existence, economic hardships and social unrest were common almost in every decade" - this sentence's citation is a website called "Polen voor Netherlands", which seems to be a random WordPress blog - in any case not a rigorous scientific journal, or a respectable news organization, in fact it seems to be self-published. As such, it should be considered an unreliable source. I propose for the sentence to be removed, as it stands now it could be very well considered editorializing, or find a reputable source to back up that claim...

178.218.236.111 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the source is unreliable, however the sentence and the content within it are very much obvious. This can be linked to the number of strikes and pacification in every decade going back to the 1956 protests. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the part about social unrest is true, however the part about economic hardships is untrue, since there were both periods of prosperity, as well as periods of hardships. Maybe change it to "Throughout its existence social unrest was common almost in every decade."?178.218.236.111 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is unreliable, and the sentence is a nothingburger. You can say there was social unrest in the US. Or in Poland after 1989 or before the war. Nearly in every country you can find a social unrest event every decade.--PRL Dreams (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
The "prosperity" can be only described in relative terms, as improvements due to salary rises and other temporary measures. Due to systemic issues of the planned economy, the system was unbalanced and under-achieving throughout the whole period of PRL. I agree with Oliszydlowski that the disputed statement is a valid summary of the contents of the article, as literally in every decade you can find at last one economic crisis leading to a social unrest. Cloud200 (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in lead[edit]

Obviously Wikipedia strives for neutrality, but some parts of the lead sounds a little strange. Particulary this sentence

"Despite this, some groundbreaking achievements were established during the tenure of the Polish People's Republic such as; improved living conditions, rapid industrialization, urbanization, access to universal health care, and higher education. The Polish People's Republic also implemented policies that virtually eliminated homelessness[5] and established a job guarantee. As a result Poland's population almost doubled between 1947 and 1989. Some of the party's most remarkable accomplishments were the complete rebuilding of ruined Warsaw after World War II and creating a fully literate population.[6][7]"

I feel like this goes a little bit overboard. What is also troubling is that I'm not seeing that much of the negative parts, or criticism in general of the Polish People's Republic being brought up in the lead, compared with the positive parts here. The existence of positive weasel words like" groundbreaking", "virtually" and "remarkably" also make me further question the neutrality of the passage. There's an additional sentence in the end, stating that the "...Polish People's Republic had one of the lowest crime rates in the world." Again, I question if something like this really belongs in the lead. Rousillon (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound very much like someone's revisionist history; maybe maybe now with Prigozhin's troll farms no longer operational, it may be worth trying to revert it to something neutral? 74.83.1.69 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the lead has changed drastically since August 2021, with a lot of the negative parts that actually brought a lot of balance, being removed Rousillon (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead needs some restructuring. It isn't on point and includes more trivial information. Merangs (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think it should be completely removed but it should be trimmed, some is bit too trivial for lead. Mellk (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government type[edit]

@AntiDionysius and 77.13.117.131: These government descriptions do not make any sense at all, and fail to state the defining features of these states. What does "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship" mean? And what I find extremely irritable is that you guys refuse to link to the article that actually defines the main features of this states: unified power, democratic centralism, highest organ of state power, single branch of government, leading role of the party, guiding ideology of the state, class system, political system el cetra and instead make up a convoluted mess of government description. Have you guys even bothered to read the communist state article?

  1. First, what is the article communist state about? It is about the form of government of these states. YOu are refusing to link to the article that deals with the forms of government of these states. That is problematic!
  2. Secondly, by unitary to you mean Unitary power, the principle of political power in these states? The one thing that differentiates their state structures from liberal democracies?
  3. Thirdly, where in the "form of government" do you guys state that is organised on the principles of democratic centralism?¨
  4. Fourthly, where in the "form of government" text do you guys mention that these states have one branch of government represented by the highest organ of state power?
  5. Fiftly, it seems that you're definition of "form of government" does not even define the main differences between a communist state system and a liberal state system
  6. Sixthly, unitary state? You do know that there were no limits on the highest organ of state power in any sense, from the federal USSR and Yugoslavia to China, right? These states might have been federal and unitary, but the highest organ of state power was still unlimited on what it could decide. It also complicates the situation that neither the CPSU nor the LCY was federal, so, for instance, defining the structure as federal when the party structure was unitary would be insane!
  7. What is the defining features of a communist state? READ the article. None of the defining features are mention in you're convoluted wording on the matter. What does "totalitarian" say about a form of government? Nothing. Putin's Russia and China are both authoritarian, but their form of government is completely different. The word is a description about the effects of a government, but is not a description of the form of government... This is basic political science! --TheUzbek (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a quick table to highlight the differences between a communist state and a liberal democratic state and some of the defining principles of the communist state structure. This mess you have failed to mention any of this. More interestingly, all these features are outlined in the communist state article, which you guys refuse to link to!

Outlining of principle features of communist states
Type Communist state Parliamentary liberal democracy Presidential liberal democracy
Party structure One-party system (normally) Multi-party system Multi-party system
Leading role of ruling party Yes None None
Power structure Unified power Fusion of power Checks and balances
State branches One Minimum two Minimum three
Democratic structure Democratic centralism Liberal democracy Liberal democracy
Legislature type Highest organ of state power Parliament Parliament
Does the legislature have unlimited power? Yes No No
State system is based on Class values Universal values Universal values
Transmission belt mass organisations? Yes None None

TheUzbek (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_People%27s_Republic&oldid=1209799867"