Talk:Polish-Lithuanian War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

As to what Dr. Dan's edit, it seems partially right, but partially completely inaccurate. Indeed, the view that the Polish-Lithuanian conflict over Suwałki/Suvalkija was not a part of the Polish-Bolshevik War but rather a part of the Russian Civil War or even a separate conflict seems valid. While I don't remember any author describing it as such (any sources for that?), it would seem logical. The conflict would most probably never appear if it wasn't for the Russian offensive, but still...

However, contrary to what Dr. Dan suggested, the conflict is not a great source of pride for Poland, as it is barely ever mentioned in modern historical handbooks and is by far the least known war Poland was engaged in in 20th century (none of my friends studying history at the Warsaw University ever heard of the Sejny Uprising prior to their specialisation lectures). In fact barely anyone knows of it and people usually mistake it for the later (and quite unrelated) conflict over Wilno. Also, contrary to what Dan stated, it was not the conflict that formed the basis of relations between the two nations until 1938. It was one of the conflicts to shape the border, but the Polish-Lithuanian relations in the interbellum were the direct result of the struggle for Wilno and not Suwałki. Finally, Poland got immediate recognition from the LoN, as the border line defended by Poland was in fact proposed by the LoN itself, or rather its' predecessor, the Conference of Ambassadors. Halibutt 18:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish to respond to this, unfortunately, lack of time at the moment prevents me to do so. Please bear with me. Dr. Dan 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Being the fan of Polish history, I will start with a disclaimer that I have not studied that period as deeply as some others. That said, I have never heard of Sejny Uprising before reading some articles on Wiki, and I think Halibutt is undoubtedly right in deleting the 'great source of pride' steming from an event unknown to 99,999+% of Poles. Dr. Dan, I'd suggest you provide some reference to back your claims.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Although there was a "dream" on the part of Pilsudski to resurrect the "Former Commonwealth", this did not come to pass. This Polish-Lithuanian war and the Wilno conflict pretty much ended that dream (at least in Lithuanian popular opinion). Does that statement require a citation? One last master stroke on behalf of this dream, took place when Pilsudski made Narutowicz, President. An ASSassin destroyed this last hope, five days later.

Now to the remark that my edit, "seems partially right, but partially completely inaccurate". The only greater oxymoron than that statement, comes from the oxymoronic logic that accompanies what follows it. The little box that I edited in the article, to distinguish the Polish-Bolshevik war from this Pol-Lith War was not incorrect. I even acknowledged that there is some overlap between the two events. As to my remark about the victory being a great source of pride for Poland, perhaps I am reading too much in the box where Result: Polish Victory is concerned. Stalemate, Inconclusive, or some other neutral outcome is not a possibility in this article about a war which was undeclared and no document of surrender was signed. It has like so many of the articles that I have encountered lately, a very pro-Polish bias. Please take care to note I try (maybe not always sucessfully), to differentiate between an opinion on the talk pages and an edit in an article. I intend to remove the commingling of this war and the Polish-Bolshevik war once again. I, in retrospect, shouldn't have stated that this "victory" is a great source of pride for Poles. I can imagine what the response to a remark like "this conflict should be a source of great shame to Poland", would have been. While we are on that topic, is there anything in Polish history that Poles are ashamed of? Dr. Dan 20:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any country that isn't ashamed of some parts of it's history?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Prokonsul, there isn't. Now can you give me an example of a Polish one? Dr. Dan 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for all Poles, but personally I am most ashamed of stupidity (arrogance, greed, intolerance) of szlachta, which led to the destruction of PLC, and of similar qualities represented by Dmowski and his allies, who torpedoed the idea of Międzymorze. Both of those had the potential to greatly benefit Central/Eastern Europe, but in the end they became only footnotes in the history of the region. Those are only the 'grand' things, I could name many smaller ones, like treatment of minorities in the IIRP, or it's politics towards Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. What about your country, Doctor?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Invasion of Iraq, the "selling out" of Eastern Europe, slavery, treatment of the Native Americans, would be a good start. BTW, unfortunately Poland had to get involved in my first example. Dr. Dan 21:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. How come you didn't include Molobo. Or maybe you did in a round about way. (Molobo, I hope you can take a joke).

Dr. Dan, I have reverted your edits and explained the reasons in the edit summaries. As I've mentioned on your talk page, I'm open to discuss these, but would rather prefer to avoid a revert war instead. So: please try to explain your specific edits here. I'm sure you are aware that Lithuania supported the Soviets and vice-versa in this part of the conflict. --_Lysy^talk 19:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I see nothing oxymoronic in my statements and your comments shed no light on that matter. Indeed some of what you added to the article was true, while other remarks simply did not hold the water. The fact that some might see this conflict as separate from the P-BW is just that, a fact. However, other remarks seem completely unbelievable, as was the case of the alleged great pride. Indeed Poles (just like any other nation) feel proud of many things, yet this conflict remains largely unknown outside of Lithuania. From my endless discussions with User:DeirYassin I assumed that what is considered a non-notable struggle for some tiny wood somewhere at the end of the road in Poland, in Lithuania is portrayed as one of the most important facts of early 20th century. However, as I said in Poland barely anyone knows that the conflict happened at all.

Now then, as to the result of this conflict (Battle of Volodarka anyone?), indeed there was neither a declaration of war nor a peace treaty signed, but so was the case of World War II. Yet I never met anyone to claim that the result of WWII was inconclusive, a stalemate or anything. Anyway, the aims of both sides were clear and we can easily tell whether any of the sides achieved them. The Lithuanians wanted to seize the Polish-held area of what they knew as Suvalkija. They invaded, were repelled and had to abandon their plans. At the same time the attacked side simply wanted to reclaim the lost areas, which it did. The Poles did not want to push further on and stopped at the line proposed by the Conference of Ambasadors. Of course one could say that no war could be won since ex definitione wars are not about who's right but about who's left, and all who wage wars loose. However, apart from such rhetorics it seems clear to me that the conflict with Lithuania was won by Poland.

As to other issues, if you feel this article is biased, then perhaps you could cite the exact parts that, in your oppinion, deserve expansion or NPOVing. Finally, as to things in our history I feel ashamed of - there are too many to list'em here. Post-war demoralization, pre-war ilusions of grandeur, the way Dmowski and others threw the Ukrainians out of the window in Riga and the szlachta's black legend (or rather it's roots) mentioned above by Piotrus, to name but a few. Halibutt 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note a few things - this particular war of few months is not seen as something very important; it is the general context of the establishing of independence and in general all the fights and intrigues against Poland, the Bermontians and the Bolsheviks that is is seen as important. And disputes over Vilnius region and such did not started with this war. As for mutual Lithuanian and Soviet support, I am not sure - Bolsheviks had been fighting Lithuanians fairly recently by then. They supported the Litbel back then and wanted to see socialist Lithuania, while the Lithuanians had different goals. DeirYassin 12:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, Deir. Good to see you back. As to what you wrote above - from our earlier discussions I assumed (and your comment above seems to confirm this) that the conflict over Suvalkija is well-known in Lithuania. Not as crucial for that country's history as the struggle for Vilna, but at least regarded as one of the milestones in establishing the border. In Poland similar post-WWI conflicts for the borders are widely-known and well-established in general knowledge of pretty every primary school graduate. These include the Silesian Uprisings, Greater Polish Uprising, Polish-Ukrainian War with the battle of Lwów (1918) and the Polish-Bolshevik War. However, neither the Polish-Lithuanian War for Suwałki nor the Czechoslovak invasion of Cieszyn Silesia are widely known to the public. Halibutt 12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, though I am not really back - will quit again soon; just came back for a little to help establish the Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. DeirYassin 13:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I realize this is pure personal opinion, but I suspect there is some shame in some quarters of Polish thinking, and of Poland's treatment of its smaller neighbor. Especially, since Pilsudski came from Lithuania, and was in fact the architect of the military operations against a historically associated friend. This may be why this "knowledge" is not widespread, and in fact "swept under the carpet". If you have ever visited Pilsudski's crypt in Wawel, as I have, more than once, you will note that the gate to the tomb does not have the Coat of Arms of Poland on it, but rather the Coat of Arms of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. You will remember that on this Coat of Arms, there is not only the White Eagle of Poland, but the Lithuanian Vytis, as well. You may also note that these emblems of the Eagle and the Knight, are equally proportioned and represented as equals. Dr. Dan 04:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, it would be nice to see some statistics. Personally I don't think I learned about PUW or Lwów battle in school, and IIRC it was my father, not the school cirriculum, that tought me about the P-Czech conflicts.

Dan, there is definetly some shame like you mention, nonetheless I'd bet that majority of ignorance stems from the fact that it was really a small conflict that took place in the period of much larger ones (PSW for example). For comparison, ask yourself how many Americans can tell you about Quasi-War, Philippine-American War, Barbary Wars or the Seminole Wars?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Deir: Too bad, currently your tiny Lithuanian club in English wiki has shrinked even more and there is only Renata here...

Dan: Of course I visited the tomb of Piłsudski (being a liberal pilsudskyite myself, at least in situations where I am to chose between him and Dmowski's vision of Poland). Anyway, just like Piotrus I don't think the reason why this conflict is barely known is some sort of national phobia, shame or fear. I'd rather blame it all on the scale. Just take note of the contemporary "wars for the borders", as they are sometimes referred to. In Greater Poland we have the Greater Polish Uprising with several divisions engaged on both sides (4 on the Polish side and 5 on the German) and the battlefield covering roughly 30,000 sq. km. In Galicia we have the Polish-Ukrainian War waged on roughly 63,000 sq.km., with 12 brigades on the Ukrainian side and up to 7 divisions on the Polish side. At the same time the conflict for Suwałki was waged on ca. 1500km² by up to several regiments on both sides. It's a completely different scale, incomparable.

Piotrus: As for statistics, I'm not really sure what you mean. However, perhaps we could check how much place in modern high school handbooks is dedicated to each of the conflicts. Anyone has Roszkowski-Radziwiłł at hand? Halibutt 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Break Needed

The discussion is getting long and needs a division of sorts. Prokonsul, sad but true, many American's can't tell you who the participants of WWII were, let alone what the wars you metioned above, were. Dr. Dan 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Halibutt

"Dr. Dan's edit, it seems partially right, but partially completely innacurate".

To suggest that something could be both partially and completely inaccurate at the same time is genuinely oxymoronic. Also, if something is completely inaccurate then it logically cannot be concurrently partially right. Jasny? Dr. Dan 16:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

To make long thing short:

XXX says: "2+2=4, 2+3=99 and 9*0=1"

YYY says: "Dear XXX, what you said is partially right (in that 2 and 2 make 4), partially wrong (in that 2 and 3 make 5 and not 99) and the matter of multiplication by zero is a complicated matter".

Get the idea? No oxymorons there, no burning water, living dead nor fast turtles. Halibutt 16:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, you are partially right (no burning water, living dead nor fast turtles), but partially completely inaccurate (that your statement, statement, is not an oxymoron). Night-night. Dr. Dan 04:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Statement?

Re: Polish-Bolshevik War ... and is sometime considered part of it. This statement is formulated with weasel words, and is not encyclopaedic. It needs a citation or should be removed. Dr. Dan 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)