Talk:1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1938 Polish 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 31, 2008Good article nomineeListed

"Relevant" Fact[edit]

For starts the Anschluss had nothing to do with Poland's southern borders. Furthermore it had nothing to do with Poland issuing Lithuania the ultimatum. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had absolutely everything to do with it. If there was no Anschluss, the "no war, no peace" situation could have continued for years. It explains why the ultimatum was given in March 1938 and not, say, sometime in 1939. Just read any book. Renata (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple thing is to provide a scholarly ref that draws this connection, and we are done. I assume this will be restored. I also think it is relevant to clarify that in the L-Soviet treaty, the Soviets recognized the border in exchange for the Lithuanian support in the war.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really relevant why they signed the treaty . The relevant issue is what came out of it; ie a Lithuanian ally against Poland. Oh, and BTW, collapse of Lozoraitis' efforts to negotiate had nothing to do with JP's death in May 1935. They continued till Jan 1936 when Beck made anti-Lithuanian speech and Smetona responded in kind later. But that's too much detail for this article. Renata (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on what I read, death of Piłsudski, who always had a sentiment towards Lithuania, meant a rather significant deterioration in attitude towards Lithuania in the Polish foreign policy - so it is rather relevant. Beck would not have made that speech if Piłsudski was still alive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beck (from what I am reading) was rather moderate. Eidintas does not give an explanation why he gave that speech and is rather abrupt why the negotiations collapsed. But the fact that they continued for 8 more months after JP death alone supports that it had nothing to do with it. If you can find a reliable citation, feel free to add it. But as of right now it's just your speculation. Renata (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quick ref for death of Piłsudski interrupting P-L negotiations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic. "It" had nothing to do with this. Instead of reading "any" book, take a look at any atlas (I've provided a map so you don't have to go out of your way looking for one). Nor have I ever heard before that the Anschluss was the reason for the Second World War. Of all of Hitler's actions it was the least opposed by the West. And unlike in most cases of the other aggressive actions of Hitler, the Austrians were overwhelmingly in favor of it. The Anschluss is not the reason that Poland gave Lithuania its ultimatum. The commonly held view is that the "ultimatum" was the result of the Polish-Lithuanian border incident, and the desire of the Warsaw camarilla of Rydż-Śmigły to flex a little muscle. The distant borders of Austria's borders to Poland's (then, as now) southern borders was, and remains irrevelant to the reason for this ultimatum, and played no significant role in the subsequent events of September 1939. Nor would Lithuania's agreement to accept this ultimatum, affect Poland's southern or northern borders, as Poland had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, and even superficially cordial diplomatic relations with Germany and Italy, the article has Jozef Beck vacationing in Sorrento, during this crisis (he was at the Berghof for New Year's 1939). Whether this ridiculous extrapolation of the Anschluss remains in the lead of this article as the explanation of Poland's ultimatum to Lithuania hardly seems worth arguing about, as the majority of these articles edited by this "little club" are full of such nonsense anyway. It remains a major flaw in the project, but more and more knowledgeable and rational editors are fortunately correcting this tendency of presenting this kind of erroneous information, and the subsequent attempts to defend it. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations
German's absorption of Austria on March 12, 1938. and the subsequent sharp rise of tension in the international situation gave Poland an opportunity to resort to drastic measures to force Lithuania to open diplomatic relations. - Eidintas, page 154
Lietuvos ir Lenkijos santykiai iš esmės pakito po to, kai Vokietija 1938 m. kovo 11 – 12 dienomis užgrobė Austriją. Lenkijai kilo realus pavojus iš Vokietijos pusės. [1]
Practically simultaneous with the Trasninkai incident was the Anschluss of Austria. The Czechoslovakian situation was also unstable. As a result, with the aid of allied appeasement, the fragile interwar peace of Europe was being threatened by Adolph Hitler. Poland was watching events with a keen eye. Germany was becoming more and more of a threat to Polish national security. It was becoming increasingly evident to Polish political and military leaders that their country would not be able to defend itself single-handedly. Therefore, they looked for options to strengthen Poland's hand vis-a-vis the Reich. [2]
Last week, the example of Germany fortnight ago in bringing within the Reich the whole of Austria without bloodshed (TIME, March 21) appeared to be irresistibly attractive to the Polish Government. - Times in 1938
Need more?
Renata (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but thank you for proving my point, yawn. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he was at the Berghof for New Year's 1939. This is a very interesting piece of information, and it suggests that Jozef Beck had a clone, who spent the 1939 New Year's day at the French Riviera, invited there by Bonnet. Any more news on Beck's clone? Tymek (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seems to have better access to Beck's 1938-1938 itinerary, and I have never claimed infallability, perhaps you can tell us when Beck was at the Berghof and how many times he visited it. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for Anschluss, it indeed had a direct impact on the ultimatum (citations available upon request). First of all immediately afterwards Hitler made it clear that Austria was the first step and Memel should be the next, so Lithuania could not expect any backing from Germany. At the same time France and the UK were too preoccupied with chancellor Hitler's actions in Austria to give a darn about Lithuanian or Polish claims in an obscure part of the world. //Halibutt 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Tymek[edit]

How does this addition tie into anything? It cites a specific incident -- too specific to draw any conclusions -- without giving any "bigger picture" explanations... Please clarify what it is its purpose. Renata (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me agree with Tymek on this one. Other than being poorly formulated in terms of English grammar and syntax (I might re-write it), it is appropriately located under Acceptance and Aftermath, shows a change in the the relations between the two countries without question due to the ultimatum, and it is "sufficiently" referenced (the Holy of the Holies) to be included in the article. Furthermore after the barn door has be opened by someone, it too late for that person to blame anyone else for the escape of the horses. Since other irrelevant nonsense has been added and defended, as the song goes, now Anything Goes, or is fair game. I'm sure when it's finally done, you won't even recognize the article any longer. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renata, general Stasys Raštikis was not an ordinary general, he was the commander of Lithuanian army. Visit of such high-ranking official marked a significant change in mutual relationships, and as such it should be included IMHO. Interestingly enough, after the ultimatum, Polish and Lithuanian sports organizations began organizing various competitions, games and tournaments, including such a weird event as a weight-lifting game between Warsaw and Kaunas, suggested by the Lithuanians in May of 1939. I did not include this in the article, as I do not think such facts are relevant. Dr Dan, thanks for a tip on my grammar and syntax, obviously my English is not as good as your Polish (BTW dzieki is spelled like this) Tymek (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken Tymek, the word is correctly spelled "dzięki", but I'm often too lazy to use diacritics. Besides I got my spelling off of google no less, and that should probably get me a few days of indulgence from purgatory. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Tymek, was the proposed weight lifting competition a "weird" event, because it was to be between Warsaw and Kaunas, or because it was it was suggested by Lithuania? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. It was weird IMO, as weight-lifting competitions of teams are not common. Usually they sum up scores of individual athletes, not teams. Warsaw, Kaunas or Lithuania has nothing to do with it. A weight lifting game between Katowice and Bratislava would be weird to me, too. Tymek (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem weird to me (and I'm sure its not the first or last time that such a competition was suggested or held). Anyway, what about "dzięki"? Since you brought it up, I hope you're right and I'm wrong, because my "Polish language ego" is probably suffering worse than your English counterpart. And I'd like to settle that matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem weird to you, but it seems weird to me. Also, your spelling was dzienki. Tymek (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Now that we've established what seems weird to each other, and you didn't care for my incorrect spelling of "dzienki", did I properly correct my error, and yours too? Or is this a "no comment", Hmm? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know who was Rastikis, but I don't understand/see what exactly is that "significant change"... I and wrote the whole thing! So a random reader would - no doubts - be lost also. "Warmly welcomed" sounds cryptic and is not exactly encyclopedic. Also, please use proper citation templates, like {{cite journal}} or {{cite web}}. Thanks, Renata (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After years of "no war, no peace" (hope you remember Pilsudski's question to Voldemaras, asked in Geneva on December 10, 1927?), without keeping diplomatic relations between the two countries, such a visit was a major change, and sincerely I do not understand your problem, Renata. It was not an ordinary event, nothing like this had happened before. I do not speak Lithuanian, and I do not know how it was presented in Lithuanian press. In Poland this visit was widely described. The General came to Warsaw Main Rail Station by train on May 9, 1939, at 8:50 am. He was welcomed by Marshall Rydz-Smigly, then he went to Warsaw castle to meet President Moscicki. At 4 pm he laid flowers on the Tomb of Unknown Soldier. On the next day, Rastikis made a speech in Polish, then he met minister Jozef Beck and went to visit armament factories in the Central Industrial Area. Thanks for the tip about templates, feel free to add them. Tymek (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1927 crisis[edit]

I think the 1927 crisis, which resulted in Lithuania agreeing that there is no war, but peace, should be discussed here. Sources for start: [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is obvious from all the provided citations despite shaking hands, there was actually no peace achieved. While the story might seem pleasing to one of the sides, I do not see any resolve in it, There are also known border skirmishes with numerous casualities for almost all the 18 years since 1920.
Ruling of the Hague tribunal in 1931, that Lithuania does not have to allow Polish transit through Lithuanian territory, only proved the status quo. I'm not sure, but as much I do remember, Hague ruled this, declaring Poland as aggressor in Vilnius case. To make sure I'll need to check my books.
Lithuanian government did understand, that after the coup there was small possibility, that Poland would use the coup to justify aggression against Lithuania[7]. It seems Pilsudski did also understand that as a possibility. In his diaries there is a record from 1927: "could not sleep all night, considered whether to attack Lithuania". Although, as the linked article proves, there was active efforts form Germany and Russia to avoid this.--Lokyz (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as the history has shown, Germany and Russia proven to be true great friends of the Lithuanian nation, indeed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This response to Lokyz's neutrally worded and referenced comment is unfortunate. Novickas (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And until recently, I always thought it was Poland that was the true friend of Lithuania. Is this your opinion, or as the history has shown (sic), indeed? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1931 ruling[edit]

Can we get more details on the 1931 "ruling in Lithuania's favor by an international court in the Hague"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all there is at the moment. Details would be good, but given that the source is NATO, the single statement can stand. Quote is not working in the ref, so here it is: "Internationally, the Polish occupation of Vilnius was qualified as such only in 1931, when the international court in the Hague draw the decision that in seizing Vilnius Poland violated international law." Novickas (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While reworking the ending, I removed the fact. I don't really think it's necessary as the job of this article (or Wikipedia for that matter) is not to determine which side had a better claim to the region. A bit more details about it is can be found on Eidintas, Lithuania in European Politics pages 147-148. Renata (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The long wait is over! I'm going to review this GA nom! Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nom has passed! It fulfills all of the GA requirements IMO:

1.wording is fairly clear, well organized
2. plenty of reliable refs
3. stays on topic
4.neutral
5.stable
6. picture has tags

My suggestions for FA: fix the first two sentences in the lead; the first is redundant (you clarify later on) and the second is confusing that early in the article. try moving it down more in the lead. (but that's just my opinion, no one's forcing you to do it.
Read through the article and make sure everything is clear for an idiot like me.
It'd also be nice to have more than one picture, maybe a snapshot of the ulitmatum or some of the key signers, etc.
Finally, you have some red links near the end of the article. Make sure to get rid of them. Congrats! Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thank you :) Renata (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that without mentioning of the 1927 P-L crisis I noted above, this article is not comprehensible enough for a GA status.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing[edit]

Maybe it's me, but I don't see what Poland told Lithuania the consequences of not accepting this ultimatum would be, in this article. What were they? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Article http://www.technologijos.lt/n/mokslas/istorija_ir_archeologija/S-14071/straipsnis?name=S-14071&l=2&p=1 indicates photo http://www.technologijos.lt/upload/image/n/mokslas/istorija_ir_archeologija/S-14071/nuotrauka-28573/03_antilietuviska_demonstracija_vilniuje.jpg is from March 1938 demonstration in Vilnius. Might be useful to add to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norvila (talk • contribs) 07:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania&oldid=1195968535"