Talk:Curzon Line

message: The Curzon line was a boundary line proposed in 1919 by the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, as a border between Poland, to the west, and Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine, to the east. It lay approximately along the border which was established between Prussia and Russia in 1797, after the third partition of Poland. The line separating the German and Union zones of occupation following the defeat of Poland in 1939 followed the Curzon Line in places, while diverging from it around Bialystok in the north and in the southern region of Galicia. The Line was used in 1945 as the basis for the permanent border between Poland and the Soviet Union, although with substantial differences.
It is often said that the Curzon Line represented an ethnic border between Poles to the west and Russians and Ukrainians to the east. This was not the intention when Lord Curzon proposed the line: its origins were diplomatic and historical, not ethnic. Nevertheless it did run along a line which, with some notable anomalies, approximated a division between regions to the west which were mixed, but majority Polish, and regions to the east which were mixed but majority non-Polish. (see Ethnography of eastern Poland).
(map)
===History of the Curzon Line===
During World War I the Allies agreed that an independent Polish state should be formed from territories previously part of the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 said that the eastern border of Poland would be "subsequently determined." The lands lying between Poland and its eastern neighbours were inhabited by a mixed population of Poles, Jews, Lithuanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Belarussians, with no single group being a majority. During the Polish-Soviet War Lord Curzon, on behalf of the Allies, suggested a line running from Grodno through Brest-Litovsk to Lwow, although leaving unclear which side of the proposed border Lwow would be on. A later version of the Line, known as Curzon Line "B", definitely awarded Lwow to Poland (see map).
Because the Russian Empire had collapsed into a state of civil war following the Russian Revolution, there was no recognised Russian government with whom the eastern border of Poland could be negotiated. One of the first acts of the Russian provisional government in 1917 was to publicly denounce the treaties of partitions of Poland. The Bolshevik regime which came to power in October 1917, however, wanted to invade Poland in order to carry the socialist revolution into the heart of Europe, and particularly into Germany. In this circumstances war was inevitable, and broke out in late 1919. 
In December 1919, the Allied powers made the following declaration: The Principal Allied and Associated Powers, recognising that it is important as soon as possible to put a stop to the existing conditions of political uncertainty in which the Polish nation is placed, and without prejudging the provisions, which must in the future define the eastern frontiers of Poland, hereby declare that they recognise the right of the Polish Government to proceed, according to the conditions previously provided by the Treaty with Poland of June 28, 1919, to organise a regular administration of the territories of the former Russian Empire situated to the West of the line described below [the Curzon Line]. The rights that Poland may be able to establish over the territories situated to the East of the said line are expressly reserved.
After an initial Polish offensive into Ukraine, which captured Kiev in May 1920, the Bolsheviks gained the advantage and advanced into Poland, and in July the Poles appealed to the Allies to intervene. On 11 July Lord Curzon proposed to the Soviet government a ceasefire along the line which had been suggested the previous year. Polish parliament, after a long discussion, accepted the line because it was seen as a last chance for remaining independent. However, the Soviets, believing they had the upper hand, rejected the proposal, and fighting continued. In August, however, the Soviets were defeated just outside Warsaw and forced to retreat. At the Treaty of Riga in March 1921 the Soviets had to concede a frontier well to the east of the Curzon Line, giving Poland both Lwow and Wilno (today Vilnius}. The area around Wilno, called Central Lithuania was the subject of a referendum in 1922, which was followed by its incorporation to Poland according to the wishes of 65% of the voters. The Polish-Soviet border was recognised by the League of Nations in 1923 and confirmed by various Polish-Soviet agreements.
The terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers. In September, after the military defeat of Poland, the Soviet Union annexed all territories east of the Curzon Line plus Bialystok and Eastern Galicia. The territories east of this line were incorporated into the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics after so-called referendums, and hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews were deported eastwards into the Soviet Union. In July 1941 these territories were seized by Germany in the course of the invasion of the Soviet Union. During the German occupation most of the Jewish population was killed.
In march 1943 Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that the Polish government would have to agree to some compromise with the Soviet Union regarding the eastern border. In 1944 the Soviet armed forces recaptured eastern Poland from the Germans. The Soviets unilaterally declared the former Soviet-German border (approximately the Curzon Line) to be the new frontier between the Soviet Union and Poland. This time, however, Bialystok was retained by Poland. The Polish government-in-exile in London bitterly opposed this action, and at the Teheran and Yalta conferences between Stalin and the western Allies, the allied leaders Roosevelt and Churchill asked Stalin to reconsider, particularly over Lwow, but he refused. The Curzon Line thus became the permanent eastern border of Poland, and was recognised as such by the western Allies in July 1945.
<-- Need proof. AFAIK Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to the line long before Teheran and that was only a confrmation Halibutt -->
It's important to realize agreeing to the Curzon Line by Churchill and FDR didn't initially mean including Lviv in Ukraine.  That issue took a bit longer to hash out, though it was ultimately agreed to at one of the Big 3 conferences (I believe at Tehran) rather than beforehand. (9 June 2014).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.84.247 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: my editions are in italics. Change them to normal if you agree.Halibutt 11:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: shortened version of article

message: During World War I the Allies agreed that an independent Polish state should be formed from territories previously part of the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 said that the eastern border of Poland would be "subsequently determined." The lands lying between Poland and its eastern neighbours were inhabited by a mixed population of Poles, Jews, Lithuanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Belarussians, with no single group being a majority. During the Polish-Soviet War Lord Curzon, on behalf of the Allies, suggested a line running from Grodno through Brest-Litovsk to Lwow, although leaving unclear which side of the proposed border Lwow would be on. A later version of the Line, known as Curzon Line "B", definitely awarded Lwow to Poland (see map).
Because the Russian Empire had collapsed into a state of civil war following the Russian Revolution, there was no recognised Russian government with whom the eastern border of Poland could be negotiated. One of the first acts of the Russian provisional government in 1917 was to publicly denounce the treaties of partitions of Poland. The Bolshevik regime which came to power in October 1917, however, wanted to invade Poland in order to carry the socialist revolution into the heart of Europe, and particularly into Germany. In this circumstances war was inevitable, and broke out in late 1919. 
In December 1919, the Allied powers made the following declaration: The Principal Allied and Associated Powers, recognising that it is important as soon as possible to put a stop to the existing conditions of political uncertainty in which the Polish nation is placed, and without prejudging the provisions, which must in the future define the eastern frontiers of Poland, hereby declare that they recognise the right of the Polish Government to proceed, according to the conditions previously provided by the Treaty with Poland of June 28, 1919, to organise a regular administration of the territories of the former Russian Empire situated to the West of the line described below [the Curzon Line]. The rights that Poland may be able to establish over the territories situated to the East of the said line are expressly reserved.
After an initial Polish offensive into Ukraine, which captured Kiev in May 1920, the Bolsheviks gained the advantage and advanced into Poland, and in July the Poles appealed to the Allies to intervene. On 11 July Lord Curzon proposed to the Soviet government a ceasefire along the line which had been suggested the previous year. Polish parliament, after a long discussion, accepted the line because it was seen as a last chance for remaining independent. However, the Soviets, believing they had the upper hand, rejected the proposal, and fighting continued. In August, however, the Soviets were defeated just outside Warsaw and forced to retreat. At the Treaty of Riga in March 1921 the Soviets had to concede a frontier well to the east of the Curzon Line, giving Poland both Lwow and Wilno (today Vilnius}. The area around Wilno, called Central Lithuania was the subject of a referendum in 1922, which was followed by its incorporation to Poland according to the wishes of 65% of the voters. The Polish-Soviet border was recognised by the League of Nations in 1923 and confirmed by various Polish-Soviet agreements.
The terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers. In September, after the military defeat of Poland, the Soviet Union annexed all territories east of the Curzon Line plus Bialystok and Eastern Galicia. The territories east of this line were incorporated into the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics after so-called referendums, and hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews were deported eastwards into the Soviet Union. In July 1941 these territories were seized by Germany in the course of the invasion of the Soviet Union. During the German occupation most of the Jewish population was killed.
In march 1943 Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that the Polish government would have to agree to some compromise with the Soviet Union regarding the eastern border. In 1944 the Soviet armed forces recaptured eastern Poland from the Germans. The Soviets unilaterally declared the former Soviet-German border (approximately the Curzon Line) to be the new frontier between the Soviet Union and Poland. This time, however, Bialystok was retained by Poland. The Polish government-in-exile in London bitterly opposed this action, and at the Teheran and Yalta conferences between Stalin and the western Allies, the allied leaders Roosevelt and Churchill asked Stalin to reconsider, particularly over Lwow, but he refused. The Curzon Line thus became the permanent eastern border of Poland, and was recognised as such by the western Allies in July 1945.
<-- Need proof. AFAIK Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to the line long before Teheran and that was only a confrmation Halibutt -->
It's important to realize agreeing to the Curzon Line by Churchill and FDR didn't initially mean including Lviv in Ukraine.  That issue took a bit longer to hash out, though it was ultimately agreed to at one of the Big 3 conferences (I believe at Tehran) rather than beforehand. (9 June 2014).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.84.247 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: my editions are in italics. Change them to normal if you agree.Halibutt 11:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Curzon Line

message: Ok, good gentlemen, some explanation and feedback.  Someone should be able to read this article and not perceive any wish that one side should have gotten more!  That's the bottom line that would move this article from encyclopedia into the "Wish" division. Perhaps some neutral statement of the line being immperfect for all four groups would be a second best option?
I like the overall lines of the "shortened version."  I think the history of the Curzon Line Section, is way too deep, and instead should be handled by a link to " History of WW I," or "WW I, Eastern front" (or something like that). A few sentences to the aftermath of the "Curzon Line" proposal would seem to suffice. (e.g. the military outcome determined an interwar border 200 miles to the east...?)
Secondly, what was known or supposed by Curzon and his 'dialogue group' about the nature of the polictical state of Poland's Eastern neighbors?  Would it be most accurate to speak of the government of certain ethnic groups instead of states (or "today's" Ukr., Lith., Bel. ?)   Was the line proposed as resolving a "Polish issue?"  (it's eastern border?)  Apparently the answer was yes?  Finally, would a NPOV way to say the issue be a border between homogenously populated territories of both groups? majority? ethnically non-mixed?  Or was it seen differently at the time?  As in, say, between Polish areas and mixed areas--or Polish areas and other nationality areas? Genyo 21:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortened version discussion

message: The problem with Churchills opinion in Teheran is that, according to his own memoirs, he accepted the line unconditionally. He himself writes that he was surprised by how far westwards the border was to be moved. Also in his memoirs there's a caption describing that the only person to underline that Lord Curzon did not plan the line in Galicia and that Lwow should be left on the Polish side was, surprisingly enough, Eden. The only question Roosevelt asked was if Stalin believed that a peaceful and voluntary population transfer is possible. Stalin agreed and that was the end of the discussion.Halibutt 11:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Need proof or a source.Halibutt 02:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: "At the Yalta conference in February 1945, relatively quick agreement was reached on the eastern frontier of Poland. In pressing the acceptance of the Curzon Line, Stalin argued that he could hardly claim less for the Soviet Union than Curzon and Clemenceau had offered after World War I. He also argued that the Soviet-Polish border was a matter of vital security to Russia. Roosevelt noted that Polish-American opinion was ready to accept the Curzon Line, but he urged Stalin to cede Lvov and possibly some oil fields in compensation for the annexation of Konigsberg. As Stalin was not especially sensitive to the feelings of Polish-Americans, this suggestion went nowhere." Adam 02:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: South of the Line, Teheran, Churchill and Roosevelt

message: Nazi-Soviet pact border - which pact? There were two of them, in August and October.
Xx236 15:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: This statement is obviously false. The border is a little different than the Curzon line. 
Xx236 11:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Curzon Line thus became the permanent eastern border of Poland, and was recognised as such by the western Allies in July 1945. 

message: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_2_transcript.pdf
U.K War Cabinet meeting notes.
W.M.(43) 53rd Meeting. 13th April, 1943.
II. Foreign Secretary’s Account of his Mission to Washington.
    * A.E.
Politial ques. Main point U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. President troubled - feels Litvinov’s posn in Moscow less influential than Maisky: also troubled about his Amb. in Moscow: wants send Davies back when well enough to go. They don’t tell R. as much as we do abt. day-to-day dipl. events. I suggested eg. U.S. Amb. Moscow shd. give them full a/c our talks.
USSR. Terr. claims. Reconciled to Baltic States - fait accompli. Wd. like plebiscite as conscience clause.
Polish frontier. If P. got E. Russia & something in E. Siberia, P. wd. well to accept the Curzon Line. Tactics: we, U.S. & R. shd. agree fair solution & get P. to accept it: better than letting negotns between R. & P to get into mess.
(Note, The pdf states E.Russia & E.Silesia, probably as a result of poor stranscription of the original documents. A more likely transcription would be East Prussia & Eastern Silesia) Basicaly the west was hapy to grant Russia the eastern half of Poland.
Stor stark7 22:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.K. & U.S.A. policy in early 1943 

message: The weblinks I added at the end of the list can be used to flesh out the article, in particular as regards the Yalta and Teheran agreements fixing Polands new borders. The links contain excerpts from the memoirs of Churchill and the U.S. foreigne minister, describing how they agreed with Stalind that Poland should be divided, but compensated by getting part of Germany.
The European Union site that provides these documents has for some reason decided to use Flash Player, and sometimes it takes a while do download, but be patient, it is worth it...
Stor stark7 21:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Weblinks

message: Your Demographic data is incorrect, the ethnic breakdown you have is for the area occupied by the USSR in 1939 which includes Bialystok and a sliver of territory in the south, this territory was returned to Poland in 1945. The actual territory east of the Curzon Line had 28% Polish Roman Catholics and 10.563 million total inhabitants in 1931. This needs to be corrected. Source for data: Population of Poland by U.S. Bureau of the Census 1954.--Woogie10w 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic Data 

message: I am in shock, absolute SHOCK that somebody would edit this page to include RSFSR.  this is absolute nonsense, and i am having trouble thinking that somebody would be literate enough to edit this relatively academic and specialist article, but be so.. i don't even know how to say it politely -- absolutely stupid .. to call it an RSFSR border.  My mind is full of conspiracy theories or general visions of some Russian nationalist stupidity as to why the terms 'Belarus' and 'Ukraine' (or their respective SFRs) doen't appear in the first page of this document but why terms such as 'Russia' (as opposed to 'Russian Empire'), 'RSFSR' and so forth do prominently.
I didn't see the article before whoever before "Adam Carr" below claimed some pro-polish bias.  Maybe it was horribly stupid and biased the other way (no nation lacks its nationalist morons), but whoever put "RSFSR" into this article should leave and never come back. It's inexcusable sloppiness and/or deliberate bias.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.166.7 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify your problem with RSFSR? Soviet Union, of course, would not come into existence until 1922. Soviet Russia redirects to the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. Bolshevist Russia notes: "The official name of the country was the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic.". It's no secret that any other FSRs were puppets, so we can hardly equal for example Ukranian SSR with Russian. And it's illogical to discuss an armistice between a state (Poland) and a sphere of influence (Russian/Soviet). It's only logical it has to be between state and another state, and either Bolshevik or Soviet Russia fit this description. PS. Please consider creating an account.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSFSR? 

message: It's a scandal! Somebody, surely the symphatizer od Ruthenians (unfortunetely not the symphatizer of historical true) change this map in a graphic program and this is well visible! In Tarnopol Voivodship 50% of citizens were Poles - not only in the main town of a region, but also in the whole area of "Polish Podolia" as well in some districts in Eastern Little Poland (with capitol Lwów). I am a geographer of nations and I know what I'm saying. Compare this map to the map from Polish version.
The problems with this map . It was created by a WP editor; saying it was based on an academic does not automatically guarantee its accuracy. The image description "Dominating nationalities in Poland and around, 1931" is untrue in at least one instance that I know of: the city of Kaunas and its surrounding regions, which are described by Anna Cienciala thusly: "In Lithuania, Poles had majorities in the Vilnius [P. Wilno, Rus. Vilna] and Suwalki areas, as well as significant numbers in and around Kaunas [P.Kowno]." . That's just one reference; but really, Poland did not conduct a census in Kaunas in 1931. I thought about changing the caption to "areas with a Polish presence", which seems more reasonable, but I really think the map needs vetting first; altho if you change the caption along those lines I won't object. I see that its caption in Second Polish Republic is at least more vague ("Nations of II Polish Republic in 1931"). Have not checked its other usages. Unless you can show evidence that this map has been examined and vetted by multiple other editors, it should go away. Novickas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is based on an academic source. Maps are often not 100% accurate, but per WP:RS/OR/etc. we use referenced maps, and try to avoid creating our own new ones.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; this single major error makes the entire image questionable. There is no urgent need for an image. Use referenced text instead. Novickas (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is helpful, as it address the ethnic areas claims. If it has errors, well, this should be pointed out with the addition of other maps.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: No, errors mean the map should go away until they are addressed. You are describing it as a POV question and implying that I should counter the POV by creating and puttting up another map; I don't think the burden is on me to do that. I am presenting 2 good refs showing the map's inaccuracy in regard to Kaunas -  and  ]     but that is just a start. The ethnic composition of the urban/suburban/rural areas often varied considerably, but the mapmaker doesn't even attempt this. Novickas (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assuming it's an error because you have found one reference that is different and more to your liking. I am afraid per NPOV that's not enough. Again, as I wrote above, scholars have different POVs/data/and so on, and even maps may be different. You are welcome to add a different map, or show criticism of this one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe where the foundation of both the Polish presence in Kaunas and the surrounding area and the interwar Polish claims that Poles were highly under-represented in Lithuania comes from is the Russian 1897 Census.  The data for the Kovno Governorate, which both during the interwar years and now, makes up the majority of Lithuania's area and population, shows the region having a population of 1,544,564, of whom 139,618 or 9.04% were Poles.  Now this map, shows the Kovno Uyezd being 23.2% Polish.  Now this is skewed Russian data, however the Russians were no friends of the Poles, however it does as I said, show the basis for those maps. Prussia1231 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re inclusion of map Image:Nationalities in Second Polish Republic ca. 1931.png 

message: Ok, I have seen the figures of Poles listed as living East of the Curzon line, and some of them are outrageous.  The statement "usually vary between one and 3½ million at a total population of 12 million" shows that.  A mere 1,000,000 Poles between the Curzon Line and the border set at the Treaty of Riga?  Or a mere 1,000,000 counting those in Kresy, those in the USSR, those in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania?  After all, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, along with Bessarabia and North Bukovina, home to the majority of the Romanian Poles were later annexed by the USSR.  Talk about an anti-Polish, pro Soviet, or East Slavic bias.
There were more than 1,000,000 Roman Catholics in Eastern Lwow as well as the remainder of Eastern Galicia, the total numbering roughly 1,350,000.  Indeed based on Religious estimates, there were some 3,150,000 Poles to the east of the Curzon Line in 1931, not including the 1,100,000 or so in the USSR.  Given the population increase between 1931 and 1939, that leaves you with around 3,475,000 Poles living between the Curzon Line and the Riga border, with an additional 1,325,000 in the USSR for a total of 4,800,000.  If you count the Polish population of Romania, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, the combined figure is just under 165,000, and that is not counting the population increase, especially with regard to Lithuania's 1923 figures and Romania's 1930.  All in all, it seems like a 'fair range' of 4,750,000-5,250,000 best describes the number of Poles living in territories which the USSR would annex in 1945 as of 1939 with 3,500,000-4,000,000 being a 'fair range' for those in the Kresy regions (depending on how many Greek Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Poles there really were, along with how many Catholic Belorussians lived in inter-war Poland). 
The figures of under 3,000,000 don't make demographic sense, as, when one counts the Poles who were repatriated, fled or were deported westwards from 1944-1948, you get a figure of 2,200,000, along with 1,300,000 remaining in the USSR (of whom 250,000 would be repatriated between 1956 and 1959), you get a total of 3,500,000 alone there.  Not to mention you have the roughly 500,000 killed by the USSR, the 150,000 killed by Ukrainian, Belorussian and Lithuanian nationalists (100,000 by Ukrainians alone) for a subtotal of 4,150,000.  Add to that those killed by the Nazis either in mass executions, terror killings or as slave labor. Combat casualties also need to be taken into consideration, as Eastern Poles died as part of the resistance, part of the allied forces in the West and those fighting alongside the Red Army. Finally any Eastern Poles who fled westwards to the US, UK or France need to be counted as well. A final figure of 5,000,000 on the eve of war in 1939 seems logical and reasonable taking that all into consideration. Prussia1231 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There exist a number of academic texts on the subject, eg. by Piotr Eberhardt. Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under-Counting the Polish Population 

message: Who cares what did The Times estimate regarding 1931? What about NYT estimating 1800 or Le Monde estimating 1000?Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[The Times]]'' estimated  

message: The Soviets offered Poland Minsk but Polish nationalists didn't want it.Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviets had to concede ?

message: Where exactly "with Lithuania"?Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Curzon line became Poland's eastern border with Lithuania 

message: That the Pilsudski's decision actually proved a very costly burden on Poland, and besides Lviv region the whole area was a economical drain on Poland in interwar-being almost completely impoverished, which required constant investments in basic infrastructure, being full of hostile population which again needed resources to control. It was generally known as Poland B-and known economical graphs to me show that almost nothing of value was produced there.
In short gaining anything besides the Line B was one of the worst decisions Polish(or rather Kresowiak) leaders made in history of our country.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should focus on the Curzon line itself. There are more sources, e.g. The Curzon Line: a historical and critical analysis ; Lord Curzon and the "Curzon Line"   I propose that the paragraph here beginning 'As concerns possible expansions of Polish territory...' be moved to the rather neglected Causes of the Polish–Soviet War, also that detailed discussions of the consequences of the Treaty of Riga be put in Aftermath of the Polish–Soviet War. Novickas (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: What was "Pilsudski's decision"? Xx236 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  We probably should add this 

message: I don't see any page from Shirer about the Curzon line. Please correct or remove.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shirer 

message: The article suggests that there existed two ethnicities - Polish and Russian/Soviet. Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were Ukrainians or Belorussians Soviet? 

message: The lead of the article is unprecize and misquotes sources.  Please read your sources and correct the article.
*There are two totally different problems:
**The Prussian-Russian border in the North. 
**Lines A and B in the South.
*The quoted source "Katyn..." doesn't say that the line in the north was based on etnicities, it "coincided". The source doesn't discuss Wilno region. If Poles were a minority there, who was the majority? Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does a reader understand? 

message: E. H. Carr has also written that older generation of Lithuanians didn't like the incorporation into the SU, but the younger one understood the advantages. Is he always relaible or only every second line? For me he was a biased Soviet propaganda volunteer, rejected by Joseph Stalin. Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  E. H. Carr as a source 

message: There are two statments at the article's beginning which I concider to be misleading.
First of all the article claims "The Curzon Line was a demarcation line [...]".
A demarcation line is a "[...] border, often agreed upon as part of an armistice or ceasefire." Actually, a demarcation line is not just often but USUALLY assumed to be the result of an armistice or a ceasefire.
The problem with the Curzon-Line is, that it has never been used in a ceasefire. The parties of the Polish-Soviet War have never agreed on it. Both sides have at some point been ready to accept it as the basis of an agreement - in both cases when their military situation was perilous - but such an agreement was never reached.
Moreover its main purpose was not to serve as the temporary border for an armistice, but to become the basis for the eventual border between the re-emerged Polish state and Bolshevistic Russia. Although the Allies specifically did not exclude the possibility of Poland acquiring some territories to the east of the line, it meant to roughly outline the future border.
However this has also never happened. The Curzon-Line has not even been in any way relevant for the border Poland and the Soviet Union agreed upon in 1921 in Riga, since the line and the eventual border were at average 250km apart.
Therefore I would suggest to change the introductory sentence to:
"The Curzon Line was put forward by the Allied Supreme Council after World War I as a demarcation line between the Second Polish Republic and Bolshevik Russia and was supposed to serve as the basis for a future border."
Tholomaios (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would work better indeed. Go ahead and change it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Demarcation line"

message: Failed for WPPOLAND due to insufficient citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: The quoted text uses official Polish estimate, not Carr's. Carr participated in designing of Polish-Soviet border as an anti-Polish pro-Bolshevik activist, unaware of mass exterminations in the SU, both before and after the WWII. So mentioning him as a historian is biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading the book page preview , I really couldn't decide whether the author was speaking on his own authority or on Carr's. To be on the safe side I attributed it to Carr. Because I still can't be sure, I'll take it out. Novickas (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A similar contemporary estimate (under 2.5 million Poles) was given by historian E. H. Carr. 

message: The section doesn't contain any reference. It doesn't also inform about (partially forced) emigration to the Soviet Union.Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity west of the Curzon Line - references needed 

message: Is it the same?Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ethnography to the east" versus "Ethnicity west" 

message: Belarusians...in the combined southern sections ??? Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainians and Belarusians outnumbered Poles in the combined southern sections.  

message: "Off topic content: Holodomor and Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937–38) did not affect territories under Polish administration"
:Off humanity comment: If the UK succeeded millions of people (not only etnic Poles) would have been persecuted in the USSR. The line didn't mean another language at school only, it meant death or Gulag or Kasakhstan.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edit 

message: German ambassador did inform. The more I read this article, the more bias I find.  Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? Which German ambassador ... informed whom ... about what ... and when? Please, put a bit more attention into what you are saying next time. I'm trying to help, so don't make it harder than it needs be please. Thank you in advance, Poeticbent talk 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, not the ambassador but a diplomat: Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, "German diplomat Hans von Herwarth, whose grandmother was Jewish, informed Guido Relli, an Italian diplomat,[85] and American chargé d'affaires Charles Bohlen on the secret protocol regarding vital interests in the countries' allotted "spheres of influence", without revealing the annexation rights for "territorial and political rearrangement".[86][87]" Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unaware of the prewar Nazi-Soviet agreement 

message: #There existed several Curzon Lines, so such generalization is probably ignorant. It's classical crative quoting typical in this Wikipedia. 
#The Wilno region has till today areas with Polish majority, after several exterminations and expulsions. Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased ''areas to its east were inhabited by Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles, Jews, and Lithuanians'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Curzon Line. 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/20131004231628/http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/census/2009/pc2009.php to http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/census/2009/pc2009.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified