Talk:Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty

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

References[edit]

Could I suggest contributors use at least minimal bibliographical rules in referencing part? M.K. 10:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What do you mean ? --Lysytalk 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For start - add pages... M.K. 10:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Lokyz will have pagenumbers for Čepėnas. --Lysytalk 10:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian military supporting Soviets[edit]

Allowing for free movement of Soviet forces on Lithuanian territory[edit]

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)[reply]

Military support of Russian offensive against Vilnius[edit]

It was rather symbolic only, as Lithuanian forces arrived on site in 14th July in the morning and the fighting only continued for several hours, as the Bolsheviks prevailed and entered the city in the evening. --Lysytalk 10:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for formula aiding Bolsheviks -isn't it rather an assumpion? Lithuanians might have rushed to take Vilnius before Bolsheviks arrive, and secure the city (assumpion for an assumption:)) It was a state capital after all, so I do not understand, why help Bolsheviks instead of having own intentions?
AFAIK, there was an order for Polish troops to leave city for Lithuanians, not for Bolsheviks.--Lokyz 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Lithuanian military started moving only on July 13th, after having signed the treaty, so this was clearly a coordinated action. They arrived and started the fight on 14th in the morning. And indeed the Poles received the order from Warsaw to give up the town to Lithuanian forces, but not the Bolsheviks, but it arrived on 14th in the evening, too late, as the latter already broke through (and then installed Kapsukas and you know the rest of the story). --Lysytalk 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poland attacked?[edit]

Other historians do state, that it was Poland army, who did attack Lithuanian forces. I cannot find any claim to support this in the ref given. Please quote the the part of the book that supports this claim. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link was given, i did correct that mistake, thank you for noticing. I've previously completely messed that up.--Lokyz 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as far as I understand it, it's again a matter of interpretation, who attacked first. Lithuanian forces tried to enter Vilnius, and the Poles defending the city stopped them (which probably means started shooting at them). So from LT POV that might seem like: "Oh, we were just travelling to Vilnius, our capital, and suddenly the Poles started shooting at us without apparent reason", and the Polish POV could be "the Lithuanians tried to enter the city and we stopped them". So, who attacked whom ? --Lysytalk 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Łossowski goes into this in much detail and it is clear that it was Lithuanians who attacked. Can we get an exact quote for "Poland attacked"? Seriously, Poland had other things to do in July/early August than to attack Lithuanians... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it myself on p.253. Quoting below for discussion:
Russo/Lithuanian hostilities (1919-20) ended with the Treaty of Moscow on 12 July 1920. The Bolshevik regime, then at war with Poland, recognized Lithuania including Vilna. In return, the Russians were allowed to cross Lithuanian territory to cross Lithuanian territory to engage the Poles. That provision triggered a crisis for Poland. It responded two days later with an attack on Lithuanian forces near Vilna triggering a crisis for Lithuania. Full-scale war continued through the summer. This seems like an error, see information below (I couldn't identify a single action in which Poles attacked Lithuanians). In any case, Lithuanians have engaged Polish forces as early as on July 7. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested citations from Łossowski about Lithuanian attacking Poles: Konflikt polsko-litewski..., p.119: on July 7 Lithuanian troops attacked Poles near Dukszt and took prisoners

  • ibid, few days (July 11-13) later Lithuanian troops engaged Poles near Butrymańce, Niewiejltany and other places
  • ibid, p.121: on July 13 a Lithuanian train on route to Wilno with its new Lithuanian garrison tried to pass Polish lines in Kazimierzówka, was stopped and a few hour battle ensued
  • ibid, p.122: discussion of various Soviet soldiers memoires about Lithuanian-Soviet cooperation
  • ibid, p.122-123: discussion of Lithuanian soldier memories about above; notably one by Stasys Tomkevicius who noted that his cavalry unit begun to move towards Wilno on July 13 and "engaged Poles in several places".
  • ibid, p.123-124: discussion of Polish...
  • ibid, p.127: on July 19 Lithuanian troops engaged an irregular Polish partisan unit near Klejwy village near Krasnopol
  • ibid. on 30 July Lithuanian troops engaged Polish troops in Suwałki, capturing a train
  • ibid. "Lithuanian and Bolshevik troops cooperated on tactical and strategic level"

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful reference[edit]

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)[reply]

I would not think, that removing would be good - I'd suggest to double reference instead.--Lokyz 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, double is better.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) and Latvian-Soviet Riga Peace Treaty were also related with Poland?--Lokyz 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Polish interpretation of Lithuanian-Polish conflict[edit]

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)[reply]

See above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

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)[reply]

Is this more popular in sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian or Soviet treaty?[edit]

In any case, this was obviously a Soviet treaty, not a Russian one. History of the Soviet Union begins in 1917 and so on... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, History_of_Soviet_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union_(1917-1927)#Creation_of_the_USSR. Please differentiate (which I don't) between Soviet Union and Soviet Russia (ie Russian SFSR). So technically it's not Soviet Union's treaty. It's Soviet Russia's but we don't have such a category. We probably should, though. Renata (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be raised on talk of Russian History WikiProject. The common differentiation is that Russia is non-communists (could apply to White Russians) and Soviet is communist.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! The treaty was signed by Bolshevist Russia. Same problem with the title of the Latvia article. That the history of the Soviet Union starts in 1917 is a mistake, it did not exist. —PētersV (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC) ... see Treaties affecting USSR-Baltic relations[reply]

This makes me recall old discussions on whether Polish-Soviet War was not in fact the Polish-Bolshevik War. Yes, Bolshevik is more technically correct - but most sources use Soviet... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a weird comment. According to you, "Bolshevik is more technically correct-but most sources use Soviet". So to hell with sources. Right? If I'm not mistaken Dr. Goebbels liked to use "Bolshevik" even after the U.S.S.R came into existence. At least after their cooperation ended (speaking of their accord). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latvian stub states, incorrectly, that the Soviet Union signed the treaty. A country that did not exist cannot sign a treaty, so I'll have to strenuously disagree on this one. :-) All the sources I have read on the treaty attribute it properly. This is crucial as Bolshevist Russia and the Soviet Union were two different entities under international law, therefore any terms of the treaty and their applicability to the Soviet Union are governed by legal succession and were not agreed to in the original instance by the Soviet Union. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this should be clarified in the text, the question of the common name is slightly different (consider, for example, the fact that 99% of sources when referring to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth use the not the most precise adjective "Polish").--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the country, the signatory of the treaty, was R.S.F.S.R. with the second letter (S.) being "Soviet". While it is correct to say that this was a "Soviet" treaty, it was not (and could not be) a treaty of the Soviet Union. Same applies to the Peace of Riga. It was signed by Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine separately. Coming back to this, if the cat was "Soviet treaties", it would have been all right. But the cat is "Treaties of the SU"" and this does not apply here since there was no SU at the time. --Irpen 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen read the term "Bolshevist Russia" used in regard to the RSFSR at this time, though I'll admit to only beginning to research WWI in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. "Soviet" is too easy to misinterpret as the USSR (common usage), and "Soviet Russia" is too easy to misinterpret as Russia as part of the USSR. Some rigor in terminology and limiting "Soviet" to the USSR where Russia is concerned would help clarify the situation. This is Wikipedia after all--to the vast majority of readers "Soviet" and "of the Soviet Union" are one and the same. I've had to revert well-meaning editors changing "Bolshevist Russia" references to "Soviet Union" on more than one occasion. —PētersV (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolshevist Russia is not the name of the country. If you click on the link, you would see that this is the article about the term, not the country. The country was RSFSR. --Irpen 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that in reading about pre-USSR era events, "Bolshevist Russia" is the most common shorthand term used to refer to the RFSFR when talking about the country, so using Bolshevist would be less ambiguous and less prone to misinterpretation. Not to mention that every incarnation of Soviet rule, whether short- or long-lived, and regardless of territory, had "Soviet" as part of its official name, making "Soviet" alone rather ambiguous at the same time.
   In fact I'm sure I recall reading "Bolshevist Russia" in some formal treaty text somewhere. And, just as an example, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is most often referred to as being signed by "Bolshevist Russia" in the sources that I've read. —PētersV (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Of course a quick check shows Britannica Online uses "Soviet Russia." :-) —PētersV (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everyone uses "Soviet"... I came across "Bolshevik" only a couple times in Lithuanian texts, and almost exclusively when dealing with the Bolshevik-Lithuanian War. Renata (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is to avoid people believing "Soviet-Lithuanian" means "USSR-Lithuania," less whether or not we call Russian politicians or troops of the time "Bolsheviks." —PētersV (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. And necessary to make clear. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the Belarusian position[edit]

I'm not quite sure about Belarusian ethnic lands - could you be more specifi, because we do have opinions that it was Lithuanian ethnic land, and also that it was Polish ethic lands. If the territory is defined by Russian Empire state sponsored linguist Karsky theories, it is no wonder indeed, especially knowing "there are no Lithuanians" stance taken by that state. We could discuss this at someplace else, as this is very complex issue. Further - as far I do remember, Belarusian Rada of BPR did recognize Lithuania's Republic rights to Vilnius and Gardinas. It was contemporary decision, it might have changed later.--Lokyz (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the context of the treaty, the Belarusian historiography talks primarily of the Hrodna-Maladzyechna-Braslaw strip, however, the issue of the ethnic composition of the Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna region in the beginning of the 20th cent. is a complicated, controversial issue, too. And yes, it deserves a separate text.
2. If the Karsky map of 1903 was proven scientifically wrong, I'd be obliged by your providing the references. The general labelling in the vein of "Russian state sponsored" isn't sufficient anymore, sorry.
3. What has the Rada of BPR to do with anything? For that matter, which one of them? Yury Tarasievich (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hrodna itself was on the edge of Lithuanian language strip. Could you clarify this on your original post in article itself. Karsky critique is presented by Vytautas Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai Vilniaus vyskupijoje 1798-1918, 2006 ISBN 9955699426 M.K. (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info addded, and I'd ask a favour of you: would you please post at least the principal argumentation of Merkys book in English? There's nothing at Google Books, and nothing at Amazon. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant translation about Karskiy (rough translation):
Merkys also discuss and Anonymous, Rozwadowski maps (as well as other notable statistics) in book. He suggested that Anonymous was an amateur historian, Modernia, who illegally processed Plater data. With variuos mistakes Anonymous work was incorporated to Rozwadowski maps. BTW, could you clarify, I am looking to Ладысеў suggestions about ethnic Belarussian territories and a bit lost, somehow I a bit differently read a message, is it really imply that Vilnius and its region is a Belarussian ethnic land? P.s. there is no Lida mentioned. Or maybe I am looking to different source. M.K. (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lida's mentioned in History of Belarus 1917-1945, V.5 and in Encyclopedia of History of Belarus, V.5, p.206-207. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Yefim Karskiy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps it's just the roughness of translation, but I find the Merkys's comments somewhat "stretched".
Karskiy was quite an ethnographer himself, and did fieldwork, and at the very least didn't just "draw the map using other other maps". Also, when he undertook the writing of the "Belarusians" he could rely on lots of fresh data (Romanov, Radchenko, Chubinskij, Fedorowski, Shakhmatov, and Sobolevskiy too).
As for the Sobolevskiy's remarks quoted — possibly it's just the quick translation — but I've read another interpretation of the Karskiy's works — that he went out seeking the scientifical proof for the West-Russism but actually found something else. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Using third-hand opinions[edit]

I do not think it is acceptable to cite Senn or Laurinavicius based on how Lossowski quoted them... It reminds me of a childhood game "broken telephone": you tell something to a friend, then it tells to another, and to the third... when it reaches the end no one can decipher what the original message was.

The point is that it does not pass reliability test: Lossowski interpreted Senn/Laurinavicius, took their opinions out of the context, and now Piotrus is interpreting Lossowki's interpretations... You can see how quickly this can get out of had without having the originals. That is especially true as were are dealing here not with hard facts, but with opinions/ interpretations. It is even more suspicious because Lossowski could very well come to the same conclusion himself. Why doesn't he? Why does he have to rely on a second opinion?

So I request that (A) somebody finds and verifies Senn/Laurinavicius original opinions, or (B) they should be removed as unreliable. Renata (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Łossowski provides direct quotations (in Polish translation) from those two. So while usually it should be attributed, in this case it's as good as original work.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provide exact citation there Alfred E. Senn explicitly noted that Lithuania has violated its neutrality towards Poland so far that Poland would have been quite justified in declaring war against Lithuania at that time as well as Lithuanian historian Ceslovas Laurinavicius[15] noted that the Lithuanian-Soviet cooperation created a pretext for the latter Żeligowski's Mutiny. Secondly, obviously, it was not used their publications directly by contributor but rather taken from Lossowski's book, therefore it is a complete mislead to use sources, which actually was not used. At least in should be noted "as cited in ..." M.K. (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with "as cited in..." but I see no reason to use quotations, when actually our WP:MOS suggest we use our own words instead of overly quoting copyrighted texts when it is not necessary.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please include the relevant passages of Lossowski's text here - those that support your interpretation of L.'s interpretation. Polish is ok, in fact, in some ways preferable. Novickas (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Per request (Łossowski, Konflikt..., p.128): --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
W pracach bezstronych historykow, do których należy bez wątpienia cytowany już tutaj Alfred Senn, znaleźc można wyraźne stwierdzenia o niedotrzymaniu przez Litwę neutralności. Senn między innymi tak pisał: "Choc nie było bolszewicko-litewskiego sojuszu, jednak Litwini nie mogą pretendowac, ze byli scisle neutralni. Wojsko litewskie przekroczyło linię z 8 grudnia na Suwalszczyźnie pod koniec lipca, gdy wojsko polskie ewakuowało ten rejon. Po walkach wzdłuż linii kolejowej na zachód od Wilna, chociaż nawet nie było znaczniejszych star pomiędzy wojskiem Polski i Litwy, Litwini nie powinni byc zdziwieni, gdy w końcu sierpnia Warszawa nie zechciała uznac neutralności Kowna."
W literaturze litewskiej temat złamania neutralności w 1920 r. jest na ogół omijany. Z tym większym szacunkiem i uznaniem należy potratowac stwierdzenia Ceslovasa Laurinaviciusa, który napisał: "Litewska polityka w 1920 r., niestety, z trudem zdawala egazami n z neutralnej suwerenności." W innym zaś miejscu dodawał: "Litwie nie udało się utrzymac potrzebnej równowagi między Rosja a Polską. Tendencje, które objawiły się w polityce Litwy stworzenia sojuszu z Sowietami, stały się dobrym pretekstem do akcji Żeligowskiego."
Reasumując, stwierdzic należu, iż powstaje wyraźny obraz naruszenia przez Litwę neutralności w wojnie polsko-sowieckiej; naruszenia idącego niejednokrotnie tak daleko, że czyniło z Litwy stronę zaangażowaną aktywnie i zbrojnie przeciwko Polsce. Toteż rząd polski móglby z pełnym uzasadnienieniem potraktowac Litwę jako państwo uczestniczące w wojnie po stronie przeciwnej, ze wszystkimi tego następstwami politycnymi i prawnymi.
Feel free to provide English translations as other contributors definitely would like to investigate this piece. M.K. (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I know that others, including you, have sufficient knowledge to translate this, I think I will concentrate on other issues. I will be happy to verify any translation here, of course.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP is a bit bigger then "I", therefore many contributors would like familiarize with this piece, plus it is you who added claims in article, so it is your obligation to present adequate information that they actually got a support from sources.M.K. (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak/read Polish. Please translate. Renata (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so, if nobody else does it, when I have a little more time to deal with translations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Narrower translation request: the four quoted sentences from Senn, so that we may compare them to your interpretation. Novickas (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the thorny way:"Z tym większym szacunkiem i uznaniem należy potratowac stwierdzenia Ceslovasa Laurinaviciusa, który napisał: "Litewska polityka w 1920 r., niestety, z trudem zdawala egazami n z neutralnej suwerenności." W innym zaś miejscu dodawał: "Litwie nie udało się utrzymac potrzebnej równowagi między Rosja a Polską. Tendencje, które objawiły się w polityce Litwy stworzenia sojuszu z Sowietami, stały się dobrym pretekstem do akcji Żeligowskiego."
I do have four problems with this citation.
  1. This is English Wikipedia,and most of the users are seeking information in this language, so please provide your citation translated, as my translations were many times decribed as bad English.
  2. As far I do understand, this citation does speak about two different contexts (W innym zaś miejscu dodawał). I' like to see both citations In their representative contexts, not a mix of two sentences taken out of context.
  3. Also i do have problem with "dodawał" - does it really mean "added" e.g. stated some reerence (obviously from some other context), or just a jugglery of two different books/articles/pages?
  4. The last problem - did Lossowski provide Lithuanian citation, or did he give credit for translator? Do we know if Lossowski does understand Lithuanian? Was the Laurinavičius book translated into Polish?--Lokyz (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested translation by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the works of neutral historians, to whom the already quoted Alfred Seen certainly belongs, we can find clear statements about Lithuania not keeping its neutrality. Seen for example wrote: "Although there was no bolshevik-lithuanian treaty, Lithuanians cannot pretend that they were strictly neutral. Lithuanian army crossed the line of 8 December on Suwalszczyzna at the end of July when Polish army was evacuating that region. After the fights along the railroad lines west of Wilno, even though there were no major battles between Polish and Lithuanian military, Lithuanians should not be suprised when at the end of August Warsaw did want to recognize Kaunas neutrality".
In the Lithuanian literature the issue of breaking the neutrality in 1920 is usually omitted. Thus with much respect and recognition the statements of Ceslovas Laurinavicius should be treated; he wrote: "Lithuanian politics in 1920, unfortunately, had much difficulty passing from neutral sovereignty." In other places he added: "Lithuania failed in keeping the needed balance between Russia and Poland. Tendencies, which revealed itself in Lithuanian politics of allying itself with the Soviets, became a good pretext for the Żeligowski's action".
Summing up, it should be stated that a clear picture emerges, one of Lithuania breaking its neutrality in the Polish-Soviet war; a breaking going often as far, that it made Lithuania a party engaged actively and with military force against Poland. Thus Polish government could have with full justification treated Lithuania as a country participating in the war on the other side, with all of its political and legal implications."
From the quote given Senn did not explicitly say that Lithuanians violated neutrality principles. He said that Lithuanians did not strictly follow them and that Poles claimed LT violated... He describes the situation, but does not pass a judgement (which, BTW, Wikipedia should also do per NPOV policy). Same goes for Laurinavicius, and his quote about Zeligowski needs more context and the way it is said it makes no sense. Poland claimed that it had nothing to do with his mutiny of local residents, so how come violation of LT neutrality was a pretext for it? The only one to offer concrete judgement/opinion is Lossowski. Renata (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and thank you for the translation. Renata (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, but it (the translation), wasn't a particulary good one. And truly, P.K aka P.K., your extrapolation of what you wanted to get out of Senn's wording, doesn't agree with your interpretation of the events that occurrred. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, from Senn, page 34, original English edition:

"Thus there was no Bolshevik-Lithuanian alliance, but the Lithuanians cannot claim to have been "strictly neutral". Lithuanian forces crossed the line of December 8 in the Suwalki area late in July, after Polish forces had evacuated that region. Although, after the fighting along the railroad west of Vilna, there were no clashes of note between Polish and Lithuanian forces, the Lithuanians should not have been surprised when, at the end of August, Warsaw refused to recognize Kaunas's neutrality."

Since there is a wide difference between this and "and Alfred E. Senn[14] explicitly noted that Lithuania has violated its neutrality towards Poland so far that Poland would have been quite justified in declaring war against Lithuania at that time", I'm rewriting the sentence. Novickas (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context (a bit OT)[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Good article?[edit]

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)[reply]

Ethnic borders[edit]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Full text pdf[edit]

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)[reply]

1919 tidbit[edit]

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)[reply]

The secret clause refers to free transit permission for Russian troops. Renata (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting it is called "an alliance", isn't it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Secret clause[edit]

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)[reply]

Countefactual claims and undue editorializing[edit]

Please see RfC here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet–Lithuanian_Peace_Treaty&oldid=1208982519"