Talk:Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty

message: Could I suggest contributors use at least minimal bibliographical rules in referencing part? M.K. 10:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. What do you mean ? --Lysytalk 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For start - add pages... M.K. 10:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think Lokyz will have pagenumbers for Čepėnas. --Lysytalk 10:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: :As if they would have asked - that area was already in hands of Poland, so it would be strange to keep Red Army outside territory, that was granted for Lithuania during peace talks would be rather strange.--Lokyz
::The secret clause explicitly made the provision for free Red Army movements in Lithuanian territory, and was signed during the Polish-Soviet war. So Lithuania was hardly neutral but instead took sides in the conflict (as evidenced by the following actions). --Lysytalk 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowing for free movement of Soviet forces on Lithuanian territory 

message: A useful English ref I had time to look at again as I remembered it discusses this treaty: [Survival and consolidation: the foreign policy of Soviet Russia, 1918-1921 By Richard K. Debo, 1992]. Some highlights: Soviet were prepare to sacrifice Lithuania in 1919.  March-May beginings, July. This mostly confirms what the article states, but it would be useful to replace non-English refs with English ones when possible.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not think, that removing would be good - I'd suggest to double reference instead.--Lokyz 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, double is better.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure. There were lots of negotiations going on at that time; I know Poland hosted at least one regional conference (to which Lithuania was not invited), and Moscow held another one. Poland had signed various treaties with countries around it, but so had all of them. Thus I'd estimate majority of them were not related to Poland. The two above treaties were not related to Poland, I believe - the Latvian one would be 'kind of' related as Poland tried hard to sign Latvians to Miedzymorze, and didn't want them signing treaties with Soviets (but failed, obviously).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful reference

message: Just curious, maybe Lysy could provide an exact citation of Lossowski's statement on Lithuanians attacking Polish forces in support of Bolshevik invasion. I cannot find the book in Libraries near me. Polish language would be ok.--Lokyz 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish interpretation of Lithuanian-Polish conflict 

message: I propose to rename the article to Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty. It describes that content better and is it known more as a "peace treaty" than a "treaty of 1920". If there are no objections, I'll move it in couple days. Renata (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this more popular in sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: Would it be correct to add that the Treaty was invoked by Lithuanian government officials who had broken with Moscow and were openly agitating for Independence in the the late 1980's,  prior to March 11, 1990? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen anything indicating their "original" peace treaties were invoked any more or less by the three Baltic states, but worth doing some more research. —PētersV (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't incorporate it into the article, but I distinctly recall a "Soviet" Lithuanian diplomat debating with Vladimir Posner on Nightline, hosted by Ted Koppel, in the late 80's or early 90's, bringing up the subject. As you say, it's worth doing some more research on the matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: :: Unfortunately, this all needs to be put into context that Polish-Lithuanian animosity began more with Polish actions in the Baltics. Despite Latvia working with the Poles attempting to salvage the Polish-Baltic Union later (which failed), the Latvians also threatened to attack Poland when they were planning to keep Latgale as a buffer zone between Poland and the Bolsheviks. It was a case of a union against the Bolsheviks gone sour. So let's not go there ("legal and political implications"). So if Poland had not backed down and Latvia had been forced to attack Polish forces in Latgale, would that be "siding" with the Bolsheviks? Nothing in the Baltics is "clear". —PētersV (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Latvians did not aided to the Soviets - albeit considering how Poland helped them in the Battle of Daugavpils, one could expect they would return the favor with aiding the Poles. Lithuanians on the other hand aided the Soviets. Facts are facts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm suggesting that the Baltic lesson at a more abstract level is that the Baltic nationalists "allied" with whichever side most aided its nationalist goals, that is, any "support" was with an ulterior purpose often diametrically opposed to the aims of whomever was being "supported" at the moment. That's how geopolitics works in a territory that has been overrun from all directions. Are we so sure the Lithuanians were supporting the Bolsheviks as opposed to using them? It's the narcissism of the larger powers (including Polish accounts) that it's all about them (e.g., Poles versus Bolsheviks, quite the epic struggle, actually) and that any other parties have to by definition "support" one side or the other. —PētersV (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly, the Lithuanians thought they were using the Bolsheviks. The wisdom of such a strategy is self-apparent, I believe. But in any case, how is this relevant to the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Very relevant. As for the "wisdom" of various strategies, I think you were born in the PRL, if I'm not mistaken. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Context (a bit OT)

message: The article is pretty comprehensive. Anybody thinks its close to a WP:GA status? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article?

message: I think there should be no statements made on disputable topics which are out of scope of this article, like the recent addition on the Lithuanian etnographic borders in the East; or that at the very least such statements should be qualified with "as seen by Lithuanians".
I tried to add such qualification recently, but it was reverted  by user:Vecrumba, with rather smug explanation that the historical extent of Lithuanian ethnic settlement not a Lithuanian opinion. Seems I raised my hand on some axiom here. I understand that adding the information on the *West* ethnic borders of *Belarusian* settlement is out of question, then? Yury Tarasievich (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I did not catch this earlier. Most sources, including Western, describe the the borders of the Baltic states as closely following historical ethnic settlement. It's not a Balto-centric view; the wording as inserted made it a purely Lithuanian POV, which would be incorrect. There was no intent to be "smug." PetersV       TALK 19:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic borders 

message: It is partially corrupted, and doesn't seem to contain the secret clause.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  10:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full text pdf 

message: Poking around for copy of the above (treaty w/clause) came across this tidbit, New York Times index, 1919:
 POLAND :-
 ...
 Russian Bolshevist Govt, Relations with --
   Lithuanian Foreign Minister Voldemar
   says secret treaty of alliance exists, J1
   30, 6:4
on Google books. PetersV       TALK 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The secret clause refers to free transit permission for Russian troops. Renata (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting it is called "an alliance", isn't it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we're missing that the indexed topic is "Russian Boshevist Government, Relations with POLAND | Lithuanian...", that is, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister is alleging a deal between Poland and the Bolsheviks. :-) PetersV       TALK 20:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1919 tidbit 

message: Only "clause" (between Lithuania and Bolshevist Russia) I have found so far is "gentlemen's agreement" in 1926 non-aggression treaty, no text available in archives, see paper here. PetersV       TALK 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret clause 

message: Please see RfC here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countefactual claims and undue editorializing