Talk:1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
June 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Battleship?[edit]

Re this edit, was [[Prezidentas Smetona] a battleship? I would really like to read an article on a battleship made from a converted minesweeper... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would gladly give few titles, however as those are not google book scraps, dont think you manage it. And if you do not like how karo laivas is translated feel free to convert it to warship. M.K. (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification request[edit]

Some questions - (the wording reflects my recent ce):

"Apparently, Germany hoped that Lithuania would voluntary give up the troubled region, and a public stance could have disturbed its sensitive discussions with Poland over an anti-Communist alliance." - could we clarify anti-Communist here. As written it could be interpreted either as an agreement to suppress local/regional communist party organizations, or to a PL-German alliance against Soviet Russia.

"Lithuania secretly informed the signatories of the Klaipėda Convention about these demands, since technically Lithuania could not transfer Klaipėda without the approval of the signatories.[14] Italy and Japan openly supported Germany in the matter, while England and France expressed sympathy but could not offer any tangible assistance." The transition from "secretly informed the signatories" to official expressions of support for Germany, or sympathy but no dice, is rather abrupt. Maybe just a phrase like "after the takeover took effect" in front of "Italy and Germany..." ? Novickas (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit! Smile.png
1. Clarified - it was against Soviet Russia.
2. There was no official support, but Italy and Japan sympathized with Germany on many issues in general and did not mind the ultimatum in particular. Hopefully removing word "openly" solves the issue.
Renata (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

—Lithuania–Germany Treaty as quoted in The New York Times[edit]

Is that really the exact wording as quoted from the New York Times? Because I find it hard to believe that an American paper (or any medium in the English language) would use the word Klaipėda, as during that time Memel was the far more common name for the territory in English language media. I found an article from the Chicago Tribune archive about the same treaty, that used the wording "Memel territory" instead of "Klaipėda Region": http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1939/03/23/page/2/article/treaty-signed-in-berlin/. 82.136.225.137 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Greetings!

Here are some initial comments; please note that if you don't agree, tell me and we will work it out (this type of review, IMO, will help the article reach A-class easier, as well):

  1. The signatories of the 1924 Klaipėda Convention, which had guaranteed the protection of the status quo in the region, could not offer any tangible assistance. - I, admittedly, don't know anything about the Klaipéda Convention, but who were the members? The only reason is because I feel like this is arguable, and perhaps should be sourced, given that countries like France and Great Britain could offer tangible assistance, but chose not to due to the policy of appeasement. On the other hand, if this Klaipéda Convention was made up of small states that could not offer military assistance, then that's another matter entirely. But, I would still feel as if this statement could be argued. ... This text has been included after finishing points 1 - 4; I realize now that this Convention was made up of Japan, Italy, France and the United Kingdom. I, for example, feel that France and GB could offer 'tangible' assistance, but chose not to (see above). This is recovered in point 5, below.
  2. For Germany it was the last territorial acquisition before World War II; for Lithuania it was a major economic and moral downturn. - Moral or morale?
  3. However, most of the pro-Nazi prisoners received amnesty. In the wake of the amnesties, Lithuanian prestige suffered both abroad and in Klaipėda, allowing Germany to strengthen its influence in the region. - Not major, but this probably needs to be sourced. From experience, there will aways be people that think otherwise, whether its pendantic, based on semantics, or just a genuine differing opinion.
  4. Dr. Ernst Neumann, the chief defendant in the 1934 trials, was released from prison in February 1938 and became the unofficial führer of Klaipėda. - Was he really known as a führer, or was he just a 'leader'? If he was officially the Führer of Klaipėda then there should be no issue, although if this is just a title that is being given to him in the article it should probably be replaced by leader.
  5. Italy and Japan supported Germany in the matter, while England and France expressed sympathy but could not offer any tangible assistance. They followed a well-publicized policy of appeasing Hitler. England treated the issue in the same way as it had treated the Sudeten Crisis and made no plans to assist Lithuania or the other Baltic States if they were attacked by Germany. - This is the same the first point. I think re-wording could avoid conflict. For example; 'Italy and Japan supported Germany in the matter, while England and France expressed sympathy but chose not to offer assistance.' Something similar, at least.
  6. Without any material international support Lithuania had no choice but to accept the ultimatum. - 'Material support', in my opinion, is better than 'tangible' assistance; the word is less opaque.
  7. The quote of the treaty does not follow the MoS, in specific Attribution. From the text - The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote.

Overall, it's a good article, well-written and well-sourced, and apart from a few petty contentions above, I think the article is fit for GA status. JonCatalan (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was the quickest GA review I have seen. Thank you!
  1. The signatories were France, GB, Japan, and Italy - I hoped the next sentence implied that. Corrected to "four signatories" and "did not offer". BTW, good point. They "could" offer just chose not to.
  2. What's the difference? Smile.png Checking dictionary... Fixed... English vocabulary improved...
  3. Citation added.
  4. Ernst Neumann was widely nicknamed "führer of Klaipėda" - do not know how official it was. However, changed it to just "leader." The nickname does not seem to work into the text.
  5. Fixed, and again, good catch.
  6. I treat "assistance" as synonym to "support" (so that the same word is not repeated over and over again). But you are probably right about material vs tangible - replaced.
  7. I thought it was quite implied where it is from... My bad, added source inside the template. Hope that will suffice.
Anything else I can do for you? :) Renata (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine now and I passed it. Good luck with further aspirations in regards to this article! JonCatalan (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yippee! :) Renata (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)