Jump to content

Talk:Lithuanian–Soviet War

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

Polish role

[edit]

Shouldn't Poland be listed as a belligerent in the infobox? Ostap 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Why would you think so? But the answer is no. The Polish-Lithuanian War is separate war treated separately in historiography (it grew into a much bigger conflict not settled until 1940s). Renata (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only thought so because of the section called "Polish advances". Ostap 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Lithuania is not listed as a belligerent in the Polish-Soviet War. Usually we try to stick to more formal declarations - which actually rises an interesting notion: was there a formal state of war between Poland and Lithuania? When did it start? When did it end? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it should not be. It was three sides fighting each other. I don't think there was a formal declaration. Certainly haven't seen a mention about it. Renata (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting very confusing. Ostap 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'cause it is the most complicated subject I have written about and it took me three years to figure it out... and I still get confused. Renata (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the article I think I now what confuses Ostap. While Polish-Lithuanian conflict/negotiations were important to the Lithuanian-Soviet War, they were not a part of it. There was no alliance between Poles, Soviets or Lithuanians, despite the fact that in some places Poles cooperated with the Lithuanian against the Soviets - and in some places, Poles and Lithuanians clashed. I think that the presense of two large section about Polish-Lithuanian relations in the current article is a problem; I'd suggest shortening them into one section, and moving the excess detail into the Polish-Lithuanian War article. With regards to the war, I believe that the PLW took place only in summer 1920, and the previous hostilities/negotiations and such should be explained in the prelude. Finally, the Polish angle is crucial in understanding events leading to the Soviet-Lithuanian treaty - which was a result of Soviets being much more willing to compromise with Lithuanian than the Poles were (and accordingly, Lithuanians willing to compromise with Soviets when they were unwilling to do so with the Poles). In other words, I think that this article should have two aftermaths: the PLWar and the SLtreaty.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time right now, so please don't make any drastic changes. P-L relations are very confusing, but they were major part of the L-S war from April 1919. P-L friendship and hostilities went parallel with the war and they are responsible for some major strategy changes that cannot be otherwise explained. I disagree with combining the two P-L sections as the article is more or less organized chronologically and P-L hostilities explain a month-long break in the L-S war. S-L peace treaty was really the cause for the P-L war. What to do with P-L war article is a whole different question. Renata (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

[edit]

"Lithuania and Poland were suspended in the state of "no war, no peace" until the Polish ultimatum of 1938". The relations were partially stabilized after the crisis of 1927, see Polish-Lithuanian relations which I recently expanded with the info and refs on the 1927 event. See also my comment at Talk:1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania#1927_crisis.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no stabilization, border skirmishes with KIA from both sides continued all the time, being at level of vague war. I think it was hidden from the society both by Polish and by Lithuanian government. Besides, it is referenced, so I do not find it to be erroneous in any way.--Lokyz (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an error. Up until 1938 there were absolutely no foreign relations between the two countries (hence the need for the ultimatum). Even simple mail had to go around thru Latvia or Germany. And this state has been described quite widely as "no war, no peace." The 1927 crisis was inching to declare war, but when it was resolved it did not declare peace either. Renata (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is stressing counteractuality of an opnion undue or editorializing?

[edit]

Regarding this edit, and similar ones in other articles, which seem to be on the verge of an edit war (with an editor first attempting to remove this text outright, and later adding the counterfactual claim, separating it into a dedicated section, or doing both (as in this article) I'd like to ask for an outside opinion. It is my belief that adding "counterfactual" to the opening sentence and making the entire paragraph a dedicated section is problematic for the following reason:

  • "if... then"/"what.. if" form is often used on Wikipedia, and it is not, usually, linked to counterfactual history. As such, stressing this point is as weird as saying, after a sentence in a past tense, like "X died in 2000." that "This is a statement about a historical event that occurred in the past". In other words, it is unnecessary - the reader should be quite aware what "if... then"/"what.. if" sentence implies.
  • undue stress of the counterfactual aspect seems to be problematic per WP:UNDUE, and involves editorializing to put the value of the statement in doubt
  • the sources themselves do not use the word counterfactual, and use the "if... then"/"what.. if" as part of normal narrative. The very claim that it is counterfactual is thus ORish/editorializing.
  • the dedicated, tiny para looks strange in the overall structure of the article

Bottom line, I think that the version with the stress on counterfactual is unnecessary, undue, not-neutral and bad style. PS. I've already asked a related policy question here, where another editor agreed that clearly sourcing the assertion (per WP:V/WP:RS is enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little off topic but just wanted to note that there have been Noble prizes given for work in "counterfactual history" so this attempt to deprecate the info through the usage of the adjective seems a bit bad faithed and a little misguided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, although I think most people are not familiar with the term, and undue stress on the word counterfactual - which they may not follow to read about it - may create the impression that it is some "worse" type of analaysis. Further, works described as counterfactual are dedicated to the "what... if" question in a significant extent, with essays or entire books. When historians use the "what... if" in the short form, discussing it briefly in several sentences, as in the works cited, the word counterfactual is not really used. PS. If anybody is familiar with any serious counterfactual work dealing with Polish-Soviet War, and described as such, please list it here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the text that has been inserted, but, unfortunately, I still do not understand: does it say anything else than this part of the last paragraph of the version prior to the edit war ([1]): "Instead Soviets planned a coup to overthrow Lithuanian government and establish a Soviet republic. However, Soviets lost the Battle of Warsaw and were pushed back by the Poles. Some historians credit this victory for saving Lithuania's independence from the Soviet coup."? Maybe it would be possible to "sidestep" the conflict by moving the references to this "old" part and deleting the "new" one? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are right, the old (and quite stable) version had almost everything in it. I think this would be a good solution for the article; how about the situation in the two other articles where this content is being "counterfactualized" - Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty and Republic of Central Lithuania? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with the article "Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty" seems to be similar: [2] includes "The Bolshevik forces were the first to enter Vilnius on July 14, 1920, and despite the treaty did not intend to transfer it to the Lithuanians. The Soviets installed a puppet government, the former Litbel, with the intent of fomenting a socialist revolution. Leon Trotsky and Mikhail Tukhachevsky were making preparations to overthrow the Lithuanian government. The plans never came to pass as Poland defeated Soviet forces in the Battle of Warsaw between August 13 and August 25.". The article "Republic of Central Lithuania" does not seem to include anything like that - but should it? The connection seems to be a little too distant... And I doubt we can count that as "Aftermath" ([3]) when Republic of Central Lithuania was established several months after the Battle of Warsaw...
However, the references could certainly be used in Battle of Warsaw (1920)#Aftermath ([4]) to give an example of importance of Polish victory (the current text "Bolshevik propaganda before the Battle of Warsaw had described the fall of Poland's capital as imminent, and the anticipated fall of Warsaw was to be a signal for the start of large-scale communist revolutions in Poland, Germany, and other European countries, economically devastated by the First World War. The Soviet defeat was therefore considered a setback for Soviet leaders supportive of that plan (particularly Vladimir Lenin)." seems to be too weak and would be improved by this example). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some form of mention in the RoCL is justified. It is seen by some Lithuanian scholars as a puppet state that took over disputed territories, and this view is presented in the article. At the same time, the alternatives to RoCL creation were either the Miedzymorze federation (mentioned in the RoCL article) or Lithuania falling to the Soviets two decades before it really happened. The omission of the latter scenario would seem strange to me. Perhaps it should be moved to the "Polish-Lithuanian War" section in that article, from the aftermath? I agree with your other suggestions, and you are more than welcome to be bold and edit the affected articles (your edits are also much less likely to provoke a knee-jerk revert reaction from certain editors, I'd feel). Thanks for your input so far! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is another question - how do those opinions fit with aftermath section? Aftermath is rather obvious. There was peace was established, forces withdrawn, some relations established. Strange, but it just happened. Sooner or later it also happened in Estonia, Latvia and Poland. Why the massive additions of opinions by several historians to the Lithuania related articles, on what could have happened are poured never minding Latvia And Estonia? Maybe if does deserve a separate section in the region hstory, not only cherry pickedarticles regarding Lithuania? And, please be reminded that we're discussing not counteractuality, but counterfactual history--Lokyz (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why in Lithuania articles? Because the references discuss Lithuania, that's why. If you can find references discussing this in the context of other Baltic states, please add them to the relevant articles. With regards to Poland, I am pretty sure those claims are there, but feel free to point out if a relevant article is missing them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange, because I've attended the lectures of the professor you've mentioned. And i did have a privilege to talk with him, hence, I can assure you - you are wrong in your cherry picked citationsout of context:)--Lokyz (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to verifiable and reliable sources, shall we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did add the mention in the article "Battle of Warsaw" ([5]), although I used the reference that is more accessible for me.
Now, on the matter of article "Republic of Central Lithuania". If I understand you correctly, you say that the article mentions the point of view of "some Lithuanian scholars" that it was a puppet state, while leaving out another point of view. And (again - if I understand you correctly) you want to correct this defect (balance the article) by mentioning the fact that Lithuania would have been taken over by the communists, had the Poland lost the Battle of Warsaw. So, did I understand you correctly? Assuming that I did leads to two questions that I am going to discuss in more detail.
The first question is "What is the alternative point of view about the nature of the Republic of Central Lithuania?". I looked at the Polish article pl:Litwa Środkowa ([6]) hoping that it is one place where this alternative point of view could be expected to be found, yet there the definition is "Litwa Środkowa – formalnie niezależny organizm państwowy ze stolicą w Wilnie, którego powstanie zostało ogłoszone przez Polaków 12 października 1920 roku w celu oderwania od Litwy terenów przekazanych jej 27 sierpnia 1920 roku przez bolszewików w zamian za życzliwą neutralność w toczącej się wtedy wojnie polsko-bolszewickiej.". That is, "Litwa Środkowa – formalnie niezależny organizm państwowy" ("Central Lithuania - formally independent state-like entity" - I am not entirely sure about the correct English equivalent to "organizm państwowy", but "state-like entity" seems to be close enough). In the infobox the article writes "Status terytorium: państwo zależne" ("Status of the territory: dependent state"), further in the article it is called "quasi-państwa" ("quasi-state")... So, the question remains: what exactly is this alternative point of view?
The second question is "How is the mention of Battle of Warsaw and its importance in saving much of the Europe (including Lithuania) from Soviets going to balance the point of view about the dependent nature of the Republic of Central Lithuania?". For if the problem is that the article states that Republic of Central Lithuania was a puppet state of Poland and ignores an alternative view that (presumably) it was not, then the natural way to make the article more neutral is to add a mention of that alternative view and not to add some facts that do not concern the relationship between Republic of Central Lithuania and Poland... Or does the connection exist, and it simply isn't sufficiently obvious for me? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you understand my points correctly, controlling for some rough generalization, which I will explain below.
Yes, I'd agree that most sources call it a dependent state (satellite state, client state). This is different from a more loaded language used by some, that of a puppet state.
The discussion of how dependent that state was needs to be developed, but it is a bit off topic here. The question really is this: "is the alternative outcome of the PSW war (Lithuania being taken over by Soviets) relevant in the context of the real outcome of the war (creation of the RoCL and worsening of P-L relations). The critique of RoCL and the extent this has been discussed on talk illustrates that some editors, IMHO, seem to prefer to keep this article focused on critique, and reduce the visibility of any arguments that suggest that its creation might have been not completely negative (and in the context I am discussing it, a "lesser evil"). Going back, let me repeat the question: do you think that the alternative outcome of the PSW should be mentioned in the RoCL article, in the P-L War section, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Now the goal (to make the article more neutral) is good, but the means chosen seem to be unsuitable. First, the alternative outcome is still too distant. Second, I do not feel comfortable with assertion that that there were three possible outcomes... While the sources state that Polish victory in Battle of Warsaw resulted in Soviet Russia too weak to overthrow Lithuanian government and Poland strong enough to take Vilnius/Wilno, the current text (given its presence in the given article) would seem to be close to implying that the establishment of Republic of Central Lithuania was inevitable after the Battle of Warsaw. However, it doesn't seem to be so. For example, Vytautas Lesčius "Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose 1918 - 1920" Vilnius, 2004 ([7]) on page 348 states that Żeligowski was not the first general who received the proposal to lead the "mutiny" - the other candidates refused as they considered the violation of military agreement to be dishonorable. What if Żeligowski had decided to refuse too? Perhaps then we would get another alternative outcome?
Then, in view of those problems, someone sees the addition as "whitewash", gets angry - and that leads to an unnecessary fight...
In short, the whole strategy of making the article more neutral and less "negative" by looking for "positive" facts that could be added to the article seems to be ineffective. I would recommend simply describing "pro-Polish" view of the matter instead. For example, how do the Polish history textbooks describe the matter?
Now, let's take a look at the article itself ([8]). The main problem with it seems to be this: it writes about everything but the "Republic of Central Lithuania" itself. And, by the way, it looks just like a result of both sides applying that same strategy of looking for "positive" and "negative" facts...
Instead, the article in question should discuss the founding and disestablishment of the subject, its actions, government, administrative divisions etc. Then the article is almost guarantied to become neutral. Actually, Polish (pl:Litwa Środkowa - [9]), Lithuanian (lt:Vidurinė Lietuva - [10]) and Russian (ru:Срединная Литва - [11]) articles, written in such way (well, mostly), all seem to be reasonably neutral in comparison with the English one.
Finally, I guess that there should be some overview article for the whole "Vilnius/Wilno question" during the Inter-war period... Much of the content from "Republic of Central Lithuania" should go there. And there, I suppose, we could find a way to fit a short mention of importance of Battle of Warsaw. Also, there it would be fitting to give a more detailed and nuanced view of the conflict (for example, using Andrius Grodis "Lietuvos politinių partijų požiūris į Lenkiją 1920–1926 metais: nuo modus vivendi paieškų iki nuolatinės konfrontacijos", "Lietuvos istorijos studijos", vol. 21, 2008, p. 37-57 [12] to describe the differences of positions of Lithuanian parties). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are quite right. RotCL article is very poor. I agree with your plans, and I'd love to see you try to improve this article, but again, I think that the alternative outcome is relevant, as a small mention. (It is possible that due to terrible state of this article the current mention looks undue). Now, if you have a source about "what if" Zeligowski didn't mutiny, that of course would be even more relevant... I do see the logic as simple: The RotCL was created in the aftermath of the PSWar and the ZMutiny. A brief (referenced, reliable) mention of the alternative outcomes of both of them seem relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see what I can do. Of course, that is going to be a challenge and there is no guaranty of success, but I'll see what I can do. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lithuanian–Soviet War. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lithuanian–Soviet_War&oldid=1207938936"