Talk:Żeligowski's Mutiny

Name

I wonder if Żeligowski's Mutiny wouldn't be more appopriate?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a big differnce as for me - it is rather emotional "tone" aspect, rather than changing something factual. Zeligowski's invasion would be more accurate, especialy as we knot, that mutinity was staged.--Lokyz 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources I have refer to it as a mutiny (of course, staged). Mutiny is a subset of rebellion, so it would seem more accurate. Unless you can show that invasion is more prelevant in the context, I think a mutiny would be better (and the article of course mentions in lead it was staged).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just kidding:) I've already told, both names suit me.--Lokyz 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. In that case, there is only a technical issue: should we use 's or not? I.e. Żeligowski's Mutiny or Żeligowski Mutiny?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my hope that this article can be a starting point for some cooperation and scholarly input between certain editors who (myself included) had difficulty doing so in the past. Avoiding the "three-ringed circus" that developed out of "Operation Wilno" would be a wonderful thing. Personally I do not care for "rebellion" or "mutiny" as they have a peculiar meaning in English that does not completely correlate with the events as they unraveled in the article's time frame. Who did LG actually "rebell" or "mutiny" against? To avoid the issue of WP:OR, I'm sure there is something that is a better choice in English. Or am I mistaken? Dr. Dan 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Officially, Żeligowski has mutinied and rebelled against his superiors in the Polish army.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Officially or supposedly, yes, but the reality of what really was happening might be a better title. How do your English sources name the event? Dr. Dan 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Greimas

While secondary citations are acceptable on Wikipedia, I am more then happy to provide interesting readers with primary refs (unfortunatly I cannot verify them, as they are in Lithuanian). Bojtár is citining the following work: A. J. Greimas, Antanas Smetona ir kas toliau (Antanas Smetona and what is next), Naujoji Viltis, Chicago, 1988/21, 32-40.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure Andrzej Sapkowski did also write about Zeligowski's grand son in his novel - a sure funny one to read. As for the Greimas text i do have it, will provide it as it was written. Sorry, but I had to correct your typoses, because you do not seem to be familiar with Lithuanian spelling. I might send you a few books o help you solve that problem, if you'd provide me with your address.--Lokyz 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bo widzicie, to było tak. Krótko po podpisaniu traktatu z Bundesrepubliką i utworzeniu nowego landu ze stolicą w Allensteinie doszło do plebiscytu wśród ludności gmin Gołdap, Dubeninki, Wiżajny, Giby, Puńsk i Sejny. Wyniki plebiscytu, jak to zwykle bywa, okazały się dziwaczne i niczego nie mówiły, bo też i co najmniej osiemdziesiąt procent uprawnionych nie poszło do urn, rozumując słusznie, że lepiej pójść do knajpy. Nie było zatem wiadomym, czy i jaki odsetek ludności ma się za Wschodnich Prusaków, Północnych Polaków, Lewobrzeżnych Żmudzinów czy innych Jaćwingów. Tak czy inaczej, w niecały miesiąc po plebiscycie granicę przekroczył litewski korpus w składzie dwóch dywizji: regularnej "Gedyminas" i ochotniczej "Plechavicius". Korpusem dowodził generał Stasys Zeligauskas. Litwini zajęli niezdecydowane gminy prawie bez oporu, bo większa część naszej armii była właśnie w Iraku, gdzie spłacała polski dług wobec Wolnego Świata. Mniejsza część naszej armii też była zajęta, bo dokonywała demonstracji siły na Śląsku Cieszyńskim." Just a simple citation to improwe your mind.--Lokyz 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Lokyz, if you are not serious about improving the article and plan to reply to my academic citations with novels, may I remind you Wikipedia is not a discussion forum?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope - justa another citation to make you understand better what do internationay recognised Polish intelectuals think about rewriting history by google generation - "Rząd polski zareagował serią not i wystosował oficjalny protest do ONZ, na co rząd litewski odpowiedział, że o niczym nie wie. Zeligauskas - oświadczył litewski ambasador - działa bez rozkazu i na własną rękę, bo cała rodzina Zeligauskasów to z dziada pradziada zapalczywcy i gorące głowy, nie znające pojęcia "subordynacja".--Lokyz 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)P.S. as for academic sources in my eyes you did spoil Wikipedia by introducing tygodniks as a source. Best wishes.

Lokyz, by failing to recognize the diffrence between fiction and academic works, as well as the genre of political satire, you only further show that you misunderstand the purpose of this project. In any case, it's EOT for me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By failing to understand the ironic position of the Polish prominent writers towards this quite clear issue of international law violation and even failing to present a proper name of publication you were referring to. Ah whatewer. Failure after failure inspite of Polish Imperial Ncylopedia.--Lokyz 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Polish prominent writers :D Sure, Sapkowski is indeed an example of modern mainstream political thought. The way he described the nuances of the Orkish-Elven relations is truly excellent. //Halibutt 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No This one wasn't about Wiedzmin. And you've just violated two of WP: policies.

You still have 23 hrs to provide an exact citation, or I'll remove the para completely. Cheers. --Lokyz 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of Polish Toponyms on English WP

Could the editor Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus kindly remove the non- English "Wilno" and replace it with Vilnius the accepted English toponym for the city on English WP? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lopsided

This article lacks the perspective that the "mutiny" was bogus. If one goes to the article on the Gleiwitz incident one will easily see that the actions of the Nazis were to create a pretext for aggression. No attempt to soft pedal or weasel the facts. Due to the nature of the events that occured here, it would be much more accurate and informative to emphasise that the "mutiny" was a staged mutiny, rather than to say the mutiny was staged. To do otherwise would be either misleading or an unfamiliarity with the English language in conveying the facts properly. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if we can link the false flag article from this one as we did in the Gleiwitz incident. Comments? PS. I have no problems with your latest rephrasing - I just want the date to be included in the lead.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We probably can link the false flag article here somehow. Anyway I'm satisfied with the lead for now. The Puppet state issue is not resolved yet, however. Regarding times and dates, sometimes they give the leads too much clutter and TMI, especially if it is later elucidated in the article, and we're not dealing with a stub. I just removed 10:00pm and 7:22am from the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln article lead, and expect flak there too. Here, it's a small issue and I don't really care, if you insist. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogus

For the benefit of some editors who have difficulty with the nuances of the English language, I suggest they consult with an English dictionary before they consider certain terminology to be "unencyclopedic". Bogus... aptly applies to the nature of the mutiny. Since staged...[1] does not describe the true nature of the mutiny, I'm substituting "Sham" in it's place. See...[2] for definition. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Żeligowski launched an offensive to occupy all of Lithuania

Polish sources themselves, e.g. Institute of National Remembrance, admit that Żeligowski's troops began an offensive to occupy Kaunas, the temporary capital of Lithuania, and the rest of Lithuania as well:

W dalszej kolejności podjęto ofensywę na Kowno. [source]

Generał zamierzał pójść za ciosem i zająć także resztę Litwy z Kownem. [source]

If sourced statements that Żeligowski's troops launched an offensive to seize Kaunas and the rest of Lithuania do not count in your view as clear proof of his attempt to end Lithuanian independence, then I don't understand why you would consider the German offensive on Warsaw in 1939 as an attempt to end Polish independence, which I presume you see as such. Both of these were essentially identical attempts to end the existence of an independent state by seizing its capital.

+JMJ+ (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this source verified?

Its said that this was after his mutiny and also if he wanted to make such an offensive on Kaunas why did he propose peace talks in late October of 1920?

What do you mean Is this source verified?? The first statement from the Institute of National Remembrance was made by a professional Polish historian Maciej Zakrzewski. Żeligowski broke a ceasefire immediately after it was agreed upon. I think you understand that this action ruined the reputation of any subsequent Polish peace offer immediately, considering that the Poles just broke an official agreement immediately after agreeing to it. Arguably, even worse, the Polish government made an agreement that it already planned to break while proposing it. There was no reason to think that later peace offers, especially made by someone who was publically claimed by the Polish government to have mutinied against it, would be any different. Considering the historical closeness between the Lithuanian and Polish nations, many Lithuanians saw the breaking of the Treaty of Suvalkai by the Poles as an unforgivable treachery, whose effects are still felt even now.--+JMJ+ (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This proves absolutely nothing that Żeligowski wanted an offensive on kaunas. Also the Mutiny ends on the 12th of October the "offensive on Kaunas" starts in November of 1920.

W dalszej kolejności podjęto ofensywę na Kowno in this context means "in the direction of Kaunas", or "to capture Kaunas", nonetheless there is no mention of any plans to conquer or occupy all of Lithuania. The second source isn't reliable. Marcelus (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are you denying the obvious?

This should help you realise that Żeligowski aimed to end Lithuanian independence:

TKPZK skupiał głównie uchodźców polskich z Litwy. Stanowiąc najbardziej dynamiczną grupę polityczną na terenie Wilna, wywierał silny wpływ na gen. Żeligowskiego, m.in. przedstawiając plan rozwiązania sporu z Litwą poprzez ofensywę na Kowno. ~ [source]

If attacking Vilnius, the official, and then Kaunas, the temporary capital, of a country does not mean in your eyes that the attacking side has plans to occupy the whole country, then that proves that you are extremely biased towards the attacking side. +JMJ+ (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:PERSONAL. You need to provide reliable sources that says what you claim, so far you failed to do so. Your last qoute is about TKPZK, not about Żeligowski.Marcelus (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait. Do we even have a source that says that? If not, that's WP:OR. We should be avoid over interpreting what sources say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Užėmęs Vilnių, gen. L. Želigovskis nesustojo. Jis stengėsi išplėsti "Vidurinės Lietuvos" teritorijos plotą, o jeigu pavyktų - tai užimti ir visą Lietuvą. [After capturing Vilnius, Gen. L. Żeligowski did not stop. He tried to expand the area of the territory of "Central Lithuania", and if he succeeded - to occupy all of Lithuania] ~ p.360, "Lietuvos Kariuomenė Nepriklausomybės Kovose 1918-1920: Monografija" by Vytautas Lesčius.

Gen. L. Želigovskio kariuomenėje kilo naujas šūkis: „do Kowna“ (į Kauną). Judrūs lenkų kavalerijos daliniai veržėsi tolyn - į šiaurę ir į vakarus. [Gen. L. Żeligowski's army has a new motto: "do Kowna" (to Kaunas). The Polish cavalry's mobile units advanced far - to the north and west] ~ same as above.

Vėliau, kai Tautų Sąjungoje buvo keliamas gen. L. Želigovskio „maištininkų“ nuginklavimo klausimas, išaiškėjo, jog lenkai buvo numatę dar tokį planą. Kad išvengtų nusiginklavimo, gen. L. Želigovskis turėjo žygiuoti į Kauną. Dvi lenkų divizijos būtų iš abiejų pusių pasiųstos tariamai jį nuginkluoti. Pasiekęs Kauną, gen. L. Želigovskis turėjęs nuversti Lietuvos vyriausybę, o jį malšinti pasiųstos lenkų divizijos prisidėtų prie jo. Tokiu būdu būtų užgrobta visa Lietuva ir likviduota jos nepriklausomybė. [Later, when the question of disarming the "rebels" of General L. Żeligowski was raised in the League of Nations, it became clear that the Poles had foreseen such a plan. To avoid disarmament, gen. L. Żeligowski had to march to Kaunas. Two Polish divisions would be sent from both sides to supposedly disarm him. After reaching Kaunas, gen. L. Żeligowski was supposed to overthrow the Lithuanian government, and the Polish divisions sent to suppress him would help him. In this way, the whole of Lithuania would be seized and its independence would be liquidated.] ~ p. 374, same book

Tiek „Vidurinės Lietuvos“ karinė vadovybė, tiek Lenkijos vyriausybė tokiomis aplinkybėmis ėmė ieškoti kelių, kaip greičiau ir efektyviau užbaigti karą. Buvo nutarta ruoštis skubiai ir lemiamai ofenzyvai prieš Lietuvą. [Both the military leadership of "Central Lithuania" and the Polish government in such circumstances began to look for ways to end the war more quickly and efficiently. It was decided to prepare for an urgent and decisive offensive against Lithuania] ~ p. 377

Gen. L. Želigovskio kariuomenės vadovybės manymu, norint užbėgti už akių lietuvių pastangoms Vilniaus klausimą išspręsti ginklu, taip pat 1920 m. lapkričio mėn. numatomai Tautų Sąjungos intervencijai, po kurios tarp lenkų ir lietuvių būtų sudaromos paliaubos, reikėjo žūtbūt greičiau išplėsti jau užimtą Lietuvos teritoriją ir po to reikalauti plebiscito, kartu neišleidžiant iš akiračio ir to fakto, jog lietuviai dar tariamai yra okupavę ir kitas etnografiškai lenkiškas žemes - plotus išilgai dešiniojo Neries kranto ir žemutinėje Nevėžio upės dalyje. Taip samprotaudami lenkai siekė neišleisti iniciatyvos iš savo rankų ir, sutelkę pagrindines jėgas Kauno kryptimi, bet nepamiršę jų reikiamą kiekį palikti Vilniui pridengti, iškovoti lemtingą pergalę prieš lietuvių jėgas, išskaidytas ilgoje fronto linijoje. [In the opinion of the army command of General L. Żeligowski, in order to forestall Lithuanian efforts to resolve the Vilnius issue by arms, as well as the planned intervention of the League of Nations in November 1920, after which an armistice would be concluded between the Poles and Lithuanians, it was necessary to expand the already occupied Lithuanian territory as quickly as possible and after to demand a plebiscite, while not losing sight of the fact that the Lithuanians have allegedly also occupied other ethnographically Polish lands - areas along the right bank of the Neris River and in the lower part of the Nevėžius River. Reasoning in this way, the Poles tried not to let the initiative out of their hands and, having concentrated their main forces in the direction of Kaunas, but not forgetting to leave the necessary amount of them to cover Vilnius, win a decisive victory against the Lithuanian forces, scattered in a long front line] ~ p.377

Kadangi Lietuvai grėsė neapsakomai didelis pavojus netekti nepriklausomybės, padėtį galėjo išgelbėti tik nepaprastai drąsus ir rizikingas manevras. [Since Lithuania was in indescribable danger of losing its independence, the situation could only be saved by an extremely bold and risky manoeuvre] ~ p. 383

Lenkų gen. A. Mokšeckis, prieš pusvalandį Širvintų bažnyčios dekanui gyręsis, kad „Lietuvos likimas šiomis dienomis bus nuspręstas, Musninkai šiandien bus paimti ir frontas likviduotas, o Kaunas, jeigu dar nepaimtas, tai ryt bus mūsų, lietuviai ant kelių išties mums rankas ir prašys valdyti“, tuoj po tų žodžių užpultas Motiejūnuose, iššoko iš automobilio ir metėsi į Širvintą, kur būtų prigėręs, bet, mūsų beginklio kareivio, išsprukusio iš lenkų, ištrauktas, pasinaudojo revolveriu ir pasislėpė miškuose. [Polish Gen. A. Mokrzecki, half an hour ago he boasted to the dean of Širvintai Church that "the fate of Lithuania will be decided these days, Musninkai will be taken today and the front liquidated, and Kaunas, if it has not been taken yet, will be ours tomorrow, the Lithuanians will really reach out their hands on their knees to us and ask us to rule", was attacked in Motiejūnai immediately after those words, jumped out of the car and rushed to Širvintai, where he would have drowned, but, after being pulled out by our [Lithuanian] unarmed soldier who had escaped from the Poles, he used a revolver and hid in the woods.] ~ p. 386

The conclusion is clear. Żeligowski's actions were against the very existence of an independent Lithuania.--+JMJ+ (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

+JMJ+ can you clearly state what content do you want to add and what reference is supporting it? Marcelus (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

See the section title and the last sentence of my previous statement. Żeligowski's actions were against the very existence of an independent Lithuania. The point of this is to prove wrong the claims that Żeligowski was not trying to destroy an independent Lithuania through an offensive to occupy Kaunas.--+JMJ+ (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you present text you want to add to the article? Marcelus (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)