Talk:History of Lithuania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	History of Lithuania is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Comments	Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Paganism 2 Soviet deportations 3 Article quality 4 Ethnic "disturbances" 5 Elections in Central Lithuania 1922 6 World War II (1940-1945) 7 Glinciszki massacre 8 The Republic 9 german colonists 10 poniatovskis 11 Lithuanian nationalists 12 Revert 13 Overly optimistic recount of 1990? 13.1 Rebels 13.2 Occupation 13.3 Number of victims 13.4 Gorbachev's role 13.5 Suspended independence 13.6 The Holocaust photo 14 Copyedit 15 Partisan discussion 16 Memelland 17 Resettlement of Poles 18 Spliting issues 19 Usage of verbatim text 20 Territorial change 21 "Annexed" 22 Population of Vilnius after partitions. 23 Soviet history 24 Removal of picture continues 25 Important fact

[edit] Paganism

"However, Mindaugas was later murdered by his nephew, subsequently resulting in great unrest and a relapse into paganism."

There /must/ be a better way to describe the return to paganism than as a "relapse", which generally implies a return to a state of illness or a regression after an improvement.

Do we really have doubts that christianity meant progress for Lithuania ? I believe "relapse" is right here. Lysy 19:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes we really have doubts that christianity meant progress. Return to paganism would be more neutral language. --Fenris23 19:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Literacy and connection to larger European political and economic networks was one thing. Fire, sword and destruction of traditional faiths and cultures were another. The price of progress can be very high indeed. --EikwaR

[edit] Soviet deportations

Do we have any firm sources to support the 120000 figure ? On top of that we would have another 100K people imprisoned and sent to gulags o killed. And then the "repatriation" of Poles would add probably another 100K ? Lysy 17:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's false. According to Pavel Polyan (leading Russian expert in history of deportations) 17,5 thousands Lithuanians were deported in 1941, primary activists of organizations that were called "anti-Soviet". It's pointed in chapter 3 of his book "Not of own free will" with historically firm sources--81.195.31.170 21:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality

Very poor article - has to be rewritten or at least reviewed by someone with more knowledge on subject. Many important facts (i.e., rule of Grand Duke Vytautas (Vitold), battle of Grünwald) are ommitted and some dubious statements are presented as facts (i.e. I couldn't find anywhere that Gediminas was "slain").

Please go ahead and improve it. Specifically what "cleanup" do you think it needs ? Lysy 18:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is not poor! OK, it needs rewriting and review, and contains big holes. However: what's written, is written in a NPOV and a factual pretty encyclopedic style. Those who wrote something deserve praise, please go on and repeat their success, harvest glory and honor! Rursus declamavi; 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic "disturbances"

User:DeirYassin replaced significant parts of text recently calling the former version "Soviet propaganda". Among the most notable changes are deletion of mention of Ponary and other crimes of the Lithuanian collaborators. IMO if we mention the Armia Krajowa reply to the Lithuanian and German terror, then we should mention also its cause. Also, the very fact that there were Lithuanian collaborators taking part in the initial massacre of Jews and Poles is not disputed by historians (at least not that I heard of).

I'm thinking of reverting to the previous version by Lysy, though perhaps I'm wrong and DeirYassin could explain his edits. Halibutt 19:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Returned the mention of Paneriai and as well wrote a whole new chapter about Lithuanian involvement with nazis. Basically I did the change to clean off some Russian propaganda, like that many Lithuanians seen Germans as liberators, which wasn't true, only in German-dominated Klaipėda it was so. But (some) Russians even these days believes that propaganda, they also believes obviously untrue things like that there was SS unit in Lithuania or that in Vilnius there is a statue built for SS soldiers lol (I was discussing with a bunch of them on these topics). So I tried to beshed such misconceptions, however it might be that I went too far, therefore now I did and if needed I will readd information which was deleted without reason.DeirYassin 20:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, many people living in SU when Germans invaded viewed them as liberators - it is a fact, and nothing to be ashamed of - at that moment, when Germans appeared, little was known about their ideas or crimes. We definetly need a section on how Soviet rule affected Lithuanians before IIWW, how did Germans conducted themselves during their occupation, what factions were there among Lithuanians - pro-German, pro-Soviet, pro-independent, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People in Lithuania knew a lot about Nazi ideas as Lithuanian authorities were fighting with Nazi parties in Klaipeda district since 1933 and the Nazi ideas were pretty well presented in its press. As in 1939 Germany occupied Klaipeda nobody forgot it in 1941 and were not particularly happy about Germans. A part of population still thought that it is better than Sovjets and were hoping to get at least a puppet state status. About collaborators - I would not be so happy about Lithuanian collaborators as there were Poles collaborating with Germans either, so to try to find out about every collaborators nationality is a wrong path I guess. Dirgela 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elections in Central Lithuania 1922

Why was the word "free" removed from the paragraph about the elections for Central Lithuanian parliament ? Is it disputed that these elections were free ? Lysy 05:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was removed in regards to disputes I mentioned in other articles, that is, redrawing the borders of elections region excluding vast parts of Vilnius region, but including a small additional part to the east. Although this does not makes the election not free, ussually such tactics (in modern days the redrawing of electoral region boundaries is more common however (to separate people of certain opposing groups into several electoral regions), rather than all region in which election would take place, for understandable reasons) makes election results more disputable, and this needs to be explained. Also prefferably the percentages of people of various nations who voted should be said, although this doesnt interferes with freedom that much. However, that is some work and all that is done in Vilnius region and Central Lithuania articles anyways, so for now it might stay like this, the fact is that there were elections, while it isn't said if they were free or not as that is subjective.DeirYassin 12:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the elections were free, even if they were not fair because of dividing of Central Lithuania in the regions, as you explain above. This is however done with most of the contemporary elections anyway. What is important is that Polish forces withdrew from the area for the duration of voting and also that despite the fact that many Lithuanians boycotted the elections, still over 65% of the population cast their votes, which is a significant result even for today's criteria. Lysy 17:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mean not the dividing Vilnius region (that was just an example), but rather the fact that the area of elections (I mean, area where people voted) itself excluded several large parts of Vilnius region, including major cities like Grodna, and some Lithuanian-dominated areas, e.g. Druskininkai region. And also elections included an additional small part which was without Lithuanians and not even claimed by Lithuania, to the east Breslau. And attendance was high only among Poles, among Jews it was like 20% and 10% among Lithuanians, while among Belorussians - 45%.DeirYassin 17:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's the data that I have: altogether voted 249325 ppl, which is about 64.4% of all eligible voters. Two areas that were included in the elections were "Lida" and "Bratslav" (not Breslau I think) because apparently Lithuania claimed these regions as well. Most of Lithuanians and Jews boycotted the elections, but they were the minority anyway and even without them over 64% of the population voted. I agree that this could be explained better in the article, but this does not also mean that the elections were not "free". Lysy 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lida and Breslau were claimed, territory to the east of Breslau wasn't - I have a map which shows the border of Lithuanian claim and a border of voting. That area near Breslau was very small though, so probably did not made a large impact: however as I said vast areas which were claimed were excluded from vote. I am not claiming that the elections were not free however, don't get me wrong: I did not stated in the article anywhere that they were not free. I just removed the tag claiming that they were free, because that's disputable. It could be written that people were free to vote, but then the fact about not included areas and voting percentages should be included too, because free elections might seem as fair elections to somebody who reads it first time, and that is disputable... Anyways will try to edit it myself later to tell more about elections DeirYassin 18:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made some edits in the meantime, see if they make more sense. But do you serisouly think that Poles would need to cheat in these elections if they had the majority there anyway ? BTW: Is Breslau the same as Bratslav (It seems like a German name for Wroclaw to me) ? Lysy 19:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's probably be the same, the city is now known as Breslau, in Belarussian, and in Lithuanian it would be Breslauja. I am not claiming that Poles cheated for sure, just telling facts and possible disputes, so the reader could decide himself/herself; as of the percentage of Poles in whole Vilnius region, I also seen very differing numbers in various places, probably depending on different censuses and such.DeirYassin 19:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mixed up, Braslau is Belorussian name, not Breslau, while Breslauja really is Lithuanian.

Either they were free or they weren't. That word has a rather specific meaning refering to the elections. Were there any international observers - from League, UK, France, Germany, US, etc.? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World War II (1940-1945)

Why WW2 is defined here by the period 1940-1945 and not 1939-1945. Is it on purpose ? Lysy 05:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was on purpose, because the 1939 is rathe covered in collapse of state part of independent interwar Lithuania as it was still independent then, and WW2 would be about WW2 in the Lithuanian soil, which started only in 1940, as well as occupations of Lithuania (first Soviet and nazi German). Although of course if it would be decided so, this could be changed to 1939-1945 or the chapter name could be changed to "Occupations during World War 2" or "World War 2 in Lithuania".DeirYassin 08:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WW2 in Lithuanian would be a much less confusing title then redefining WWII dates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, do you know anything about Lithuania and Poland..?as i can see - no! It was almoast war betwean Lithuania and Poland and you want to say, they could fight together? And you, Wojsy1, i sugest you to read molotov-ribentrop pact, maybe then you will understand why... comment from Poškus (01:14, 11 July 2006 85.206.130.86)

Err, the fact that Lithuania benefited from the 1939 part of the WWII could be mentioned there as well, don't you think? If so, why not stick to the commonly accepted dates? Besides, this article often messes up Lithuania as a political and geographical term. If so, then part of (Polish) Lithuania took part in the war as early as 1939. //Halibutt 08:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glinciszki massacre

Is it really disputed that the massacre of Glinciszki and other similar were performed by Lithuanias ? What is the alternative version then ? Lysy 06:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I undertsand, it is rather the possible involvement of Lithuanians in all these things what is disputed, and werether they (those who did that) were ordinary people or nazis, hired by Germany, or, as Russians tries to claim, partisans fighting for independence, etc. Also what numbers of Lithuanians took part in all this, and werether it was organised by some Lithuanians or by others, etc. So you could edit the mentioned parts accordingly if you feel currently it is not NPOV DeirYassin 11:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The account that I have at hand says that:

• Armia Krajowa killed 4 Lithuanian policemen near Glinciszki in June 1944
• in retaliation Lithuanian police murdered 39 Polish peasants from Glinciszki
• on June 23rd 5th brigade of Armia Krajowa murdered 27 innocent Lithuanian civilians in Dubinki (including women and children).

All of these are tragic and shameful and don't think that any of the murders of civilians can be justified. As for the massacre in Glinciszki, it seems obvious - if these people were Lithuanian police, they could not be "partisans fighting for independence" but were simply Nazi collaborators. Lysy 15:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We need sources, preferably Western (i.e. not Polish, Lithuanian or Soviet, but neutral). Can you guys give your sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have only Polish sources on this at the moment :-( I believe they are pretty neutral anyway (I don't sense the nationalistic flavour there if you know what I mean). I doubt we'll find anything in English that is not even indirectly influenced by Polish, Lithuanian or Soviet sources. Lysy 21:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armija krajova didnt kill only policemens or something, they killed anybody, who showed them theyr Lithuanian passport, if you dont beleave(polishes), i could find you some documents and many witness. Where did you find such a nonsence about Lithuanian reaction by killing theyr peasants(maybe they had krajova inicials only) Also, there was Lithuanian partizans(in Lithuania territory) and so callded "krajova", which act in Belarus, Lithuania and poland. Could you find me such document, proving that Lithuania had police officers near Glinski? If i hadnt proves, i wont say that. Also i can prove, krajov's partizans act in all Vilnius region and Alytus region. Im Lithuanian. Deir Yasin, if you dont see rasizm from polishes, than you are blind, i could call it unproved nonsences...Lysy, nazis?i beleave you are comunist than!lithuanian partizans fighted only soviets.Say any German name in Lithuanian partizans lists?!NONE.And there Was only 20(moast 40)Lithuanians in German army,how much krajov's leaders fighted in germans side during war..? Poškus (01:38, 11 July 2006 User:85.206.130.86)

Can you cite some sources or is this "truth" known only by you? I've also heard about atrocities commited by AK in Lithuania an Belarus, altough never seen any proof ot that. Isn't it - "Poles are bad, everybody knows that" attitude? Without facts it seems just so.--Lokyz 06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Republic

Dear DeirYassin, the state is indeed most commonly known in Poland as Rzeczpospolita, with the difference that it's not Rzeczpospolita Polska, but Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów (Republic of Both Nations, sometimes translated as Commonwealth of Both Nations). Halibutt 17:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] german colonists

"In 1316, Gediminas, with the aid of colonists from Germany, began the restoration of the land." That is a strange statement indeed. Why there was restoration needed? According to some sources Gediminas invited Germans to settle in the country, but I wonder if any of them came as I never heard of any sources telling about successful german colonisation in Lithuania. Dirgela 19:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] poniatovskis

"Poniatovskis" looks very funny in the English article ;) And btw. who has spoiled the whole article into this wood of empty headings? Dirgela 16:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian nationalists

Killing of 5,000 Jews in Kovno by Lithuanian nationalists in June 1941 ? ...hm... Xxxyyyj 19:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This is remarkably well documented. Jonas Klimaitis's Lithuanian National Front conducted a series of pogroms immediately prior to the arrival of German forces. This is even part of the Einsatzgruppen Operational Situation Report USSR No. 12, dated July 4, 1941[1] --Goodoldpolonius2 16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well not prior, but at the time of arrival of Einsatzgruppen. He was also instructed by the same Einsatzgruppen officers. Recently there's been a "TV research" of these atrocities, with respectable historians involved.

Just some clarificatioon - there was no such organisation as "National front", only Lithuanian Activist Front, and Algirdas Klimaitis also known as Jonas Klimaitis was not subordinate of it.

Another one thing - at the time city was called Kaunas, not Kovno.

As for nationalists in picture - most of them are freed from prison criminalists, the masacre is going on on Lietūkis garage teritory. You should also note soldiers in German uniform in the background. This proves that German forces were already in the city.--Lokyz 08:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted these edits. It seemed like strong POV language without any discussion here. --Bookandcoffee^{(Leave msg.)} 17:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overly optimistic recount of 1990?

I found that the history article sort of glossed over the times during Lithuania's fight for independence where the government was less than resolute. Lets not forget that after oil and gas shipments were suspended by the Soviets, Lithuanians voluntarily suspended their independence. While it's completely understandable and probably the best thing that they could have done in hindsight, it clashes with the article's 'Give me liberty or give me death' style heroism of Lithuanian politicians. I'll change the article shortly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.99.155 (talk • contribs) .

Would anyone like to discuss my edits before they accuse me of bias and revert my changes? Lysy? I'll reinsert my changes and ask for constructive criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.99.154 (talk • contribs) .

Well, these were your changes that are an issue here, so I'm afraid is up to you to explain them ... --Lysy ^(talk) 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused--I listed the reasons for my changes in the above paragraph before I even touched the article yesterday. I'm still open to a constructive debate on the issues, but I feel that my original changes were made in good faith and followed appropriate procedure. I will continue to make such changes to this and other articles where I think that my contribution adds value.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.99.155 (talk • contribs) .

Well, for starters - it's highly POV. You say the article now is Lithuanian POV. But you replace it with a very strong Russian POV. Examples: you remove number of civilians killed near Vilnius TV tower (that's a hard fact), but insert heroic Gorbachev who saved countless lives (it's not based on anything). You call the whole movement rebellion, which is not widely accepted. I have read tons and tons of Western articles (New York Times and such) about 1989-1992 and in any of them I found the word rebellion. And so on. Renata3 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that neither my version of the article nor Lysy's is completely NPOV, but I do believe that my edits were an improvement over what was there before. Let me take issue with a few of your points: 1) I don't think that what I wrote was any more POV than what was there before, but I can see your question. You would have a stronger case though if you called my writing a Soviet POV rather than a Russian one though. It's interesting that the word 'rebel' carries such negative connotations, but that's another article. I submit that 'rebel' is a more accurate word than 'Lithuanian' for this particular section though, because using 'Lithuanian' characterizes an entire nation. Certainly you would agree that there were some 'Lithuanians' who opposed declaring independence. One could use the complete phrase 'Lithuanian who worked to eliminate Soviet authority over the geographic area occupied by the Lithuanian SSR' but I chose a more succinct word, 'rebel.' I'm open to some compromise between 'rebel' and 'beautiful freedom loving patriot'. 2) I absolutely and on a personal level sympathize with the people who died at the Vilnius TV tower, and I have respect for anyone willing to die for their deeply held beliefs even if I disagree with them. If you feel strongly that the number of people killed should be included, then that’s fine with me. My rationale for removing it was not to downplay the importance of their deaths, but as a sort of triage of information. I thought it was enough for the article to mention the incident rather than be specific. 3) I believe that it is a reasonable and widely held view that the breakup of the Soviet Union could have easily turned into a catastrophe. Gorbachev saved countless lives by showing restraint, unlike some of his predecessors. It could have been the Hungarian Uprising all over again, or at the very least a European version of the Tian'anmen Square massacre. It seems that several hardliners in Moscow thought he wasn’t acting strongly enough and staged a coup, which would give credence to the idea that Gorbachev showed restraint. I think it’s great that we’re discussing this and I’m looking forward to reaching a compromise on content for the article.

1) The world "rebel" carries negative connotations in this context, as it indirectly implies that Soviet occupation of Lithuania was lawful. 2) The information about the number of civilians killed is important. It's good to know if there were 10, 1000 or 100,000 murdered. What possibly could be the reason to hide this information ? 3) These are interesting speculations but not very relevant to the situation in this part of Europe. It would be good if you could support these ideas quoting some respectable sources, though. Especially the role and personal influence of Gorbachev on Russian intervention in Lithuania would be interesting to know. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebels

'Rebel' only carries a negative connotation if you give it one. Speaking from personal experience and my time in the United States, many people from the American South consider it a compliment and wear their cultural identity as rebels with pride. Again, in my country the 'founding fathers' were all rebels and have large statues built in their honor. If you have a problem with it though, I'm willing to work with you. Could you suggest something more descriptive than 'Lithuanians' and less perjorative than 'rebels'?

I know that rebels can be positive, esp. to anyone who watched Star Wars ;-). Anyway, I believe that "Lithuanians" may be the best term in this context, as it was a truly people's movement. I know that national minorities in Lithuania (Poles and Russians) did not support it, but virtually all the Lithuanians did. What is your problem with this ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From answers.com: Rebellion: Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government. That's the biggest of my objections. There were no armed conflict. Russian solders had guns and tanks, but all Lithuanians were civilians and the provisional governmnet worked hard to make sure it stays that way (nobody denies that it wanted to win the sympathy of the Western coutries). Also, other part - resistance - does not fit the situation. This word would imply that Russia had the initiative, but in fact Sajudis was doing its own things (as legally as possible) and Russia was just responding. Hope that clarifies my stand. It is not that rebel is negative, it is that its definition does not fit the situation. Renata3 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So we've all agreed that 'Rebel' won't fit. I still reject 'Lithuanians' because my point behind this whole thing has been that there were people in Lithuania and the world community that disagreed with the notion that it was a heroic struggle for absolute good and everything that the Soviets did was evil and bad. It seemed to be painting a very complex time with a very broad brush. I'll go ahead and suggest a term that's currently in vogue: 'insurgents'. I'm sure that Renata3 will make the very good point that it is currently used by many news sources to refer to the armed rebellion/glorious fight for freedom currently underway in Iraq. It comes down to the fact that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. I just find it ironic that if the Soviet Union had used more decisive action, we'd all be talking about a 'failed insurrection.' Oh, and I guess I should start signing things... 68.33.74.123 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, insurection does not work too. In general, I don't really see a reason to label anybody. Any label will be POV whatever you do. Just say: Sajudis, Supreme council, independence movement, anti-soviets, even nationalists. Or you can say "rebel nation" (taken from many articles I have read today), but not rebels (refering to groups of people).

And you should register an account. Renata3 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation

The legality of the Soviet 'occupation' (another loaded word) of Lithuania is certainly a matter of dispute. I'm pretty sure that I'm never going to convince you that it was completely legal and you're certainly not going to convince me that it was illegal, so maybe we could agree to include arguments for both sides in this or another article linked to this.

I'd rather suggest to leave this one for now, as it's powefully loaded, very difficult to compromise and a spoiler to the rest of the discussion. Let's return to it when we have the other issues settled, OK ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me, but I do think it is an important issue and one that must be eventually discussed in the context of Lithuanian and Soviet history.

You'll need to heavily source whatever you say on that topic from independent (ie not Russian and not Lithuanian) sources. Renata3 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of victims

Why do you think that I'm trying to 'hide' this information? Didn't I say in my last post that the only reason I deleted it was because I didn't think that including the exact number was important? Of course 10 or 1000 or 100,000 are very different numbers and should be differentiated, but was there anyone who was going to mistakenly assume that 1000 or 100,000 were killed over a riot in a television station? Like I said above, if you want it included that's fine with me but it has to be included in a context that recognizes that the Soviet government and soldiers were the recognized de facto civil authority and that by occupying a TV station those people killed were knowingly breaking the laws of the de facto recognized civil authority. Setting them up like martyrs (I've even visited the Hill of Crosses) ignores the point of view of many stakeholders active in the SSR at the time.

Come on, you don't shoot civilians, even if they occupy a TV station, do you ? As for setting up the victims as martyrs, this is exactly how they are seen in Lithuania (the Hill of Crosses doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, I'm afraid you're confusing something). Anyway, I see no harm by giving the number of the murdered. If you see it the same way, I believe we don't need to discuss this item any more ? --Lysy ^(talk) 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? People occupied tv tower??? They were protecting it from Russian forces. In essence: people gathered around (not inside) not to let the russian solders inside. But the solders got in and the translations stopped. Just they did not stay there for a long time. Renata3 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll never hear me say that it was a good thing that the Soviets killed those people. As a matter of fact, my personal opinion is that it was a bad thing on a number of different levels. But it's not my job to put my personal value judgements into the article. As far as why I removed it the first time, the passage read as if the people in question were walking around with halos and the Soviets were bloodthirsty people with no moral compass who just wanted to kill some innocent people. The easiest way to make it objective would be to provide as little information as possible, which is what I did in my first edit. What's easiest might not necessarily be best though. What about "in a violent confrontation at the Vilnius TV tower, 13 Lithuanian pro-independence protestors lost their lives along with a Soviet paratrooper, while many hundred more received various degrees of other injuries." Oh, and with regard to the Hill of Crosses--I meant to use that as an example of how tragic deaths can often become a political tool. I realize that it ws there long before the 1990 events. 68.33.74.123 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"The easiest way to make it objective would be" not to write anything. You have to mention that those were unarmed civilians. You cannot deny it and I won't let you hide it :) This photo is considered to be the best one [2]. You see - civilians with bare hands against tanks. Please notice somebody's feets under it. Renata3 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorbachev's role

I'd like to quote respectable sources (with regard to the disputed referendum on independence), but I doubt that you would consider the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs respectable. I'm not sure what you don't believe about Gorbachev's role in the coup or his efforts at detente, but there are a lot of recently declassified documents at the State Dept.'s FOIA electronic reading room that have information on that.

In fact I do believe in Gorbachev's role, but would also like to see how much can be attributed to him. People believe various things, like Wojciech Jaruzelski for years claimed that he had imposed Martial law in Poland in 1981 only in order to avoid Soviet military intervention and bloodshed. Recently revealed documents including those passed by Ryszard Kukliński prove otherwise. How do we know about the true motivation and influence of Gorbachev without reliable sources ? Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs certainly cannot be seriously considered here, as they obviously had their political agenda, and disinformation was one of their major tasks. Without sources there are just speculations. Nice, but not reliable. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Second Lysy. But also your facts are wrong.

You said: Gorbachev, in an effort to bring the conflict to a close without further bloodshed, instituted an embargo on oil and natural gas on April 13. By waiting to begin the embargo until the worst of the winter had passed and families were no longer dependent on petroleum for life saving heat in the otherwise frigid Lithuania, Gorbachev saved countless lives.

Now the facts are: March 11 - independence is declared. April 13 - an ultimatum from Gorbachev (The letter Lithuania's parliament of "anti-constitutional actions" including halting conscription into the Soviet army; trying to seize property of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; and enacting a law April 5 establishing identity cards for Lithuanians "that discriminates against Soviet citizens" in the republic. If Lithuania's leaders don't rescind those actions "within the next two days, instructions will be given to stop supplies to the Lithuanian S.S.R. from other constituent republics of those categories of products that are sold on external markets for freely convertible currency," the letter said. From: Gorbachev Issues Ultimatum to Lithuania. BRIAN FRIEDMAN. 915 words. 13 April 1990. The Associated Press).

Gorbachev did not wait till the winter is over to save lives. The winter was over when independence was declared. Renata3 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You said it yourself, Gorby waited more than a month to issue his ultimatum. I'm not denying that it gets cold in Lithuania in April, nor am I saying that he gave the anti-Soviet leaders very long to conduct negotiations to work out their differences. I am saying, however, that turning off the gas a month later was helpful to the average Lithuanian person who needed to heat their home. Will add more comments below. 68.33.74.123 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Helpful does not mean that it saved lives. Also, it is no indicator that Gorby waited for that reason. Gorby was changing constitution at that time, he was elected as president, also there were some talks, going back and forth with letters, requests and other political stuff. Also there were tanks sent to Vilnius to demonstarate power. A lot of happen in that months, it cannot be really called waiting. Renata3 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspended independence

Finally, can we at least agree to put in the section on how Lithuania suspended their independence after Moscow cut off their oil and gas shipments? It's got particular relevance to the recent disagreement between the Ukraine and Russia and it'd be nice to have that working while interest in the topic is so high.

This is interesting, but hmm, was it significant ? Frankly, I've not even heard about this, and my biased and nationalistic books about modern Lithuanian history are also silent about the role of the embargo or any "suspending" of Lithuanian independence because of this. Where did you get this from ? --Lysy ^(talk) 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by all means feel free to refer to secondary sources. We do not want to do any original research here, do we ? --Lysy ^(talk) 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You are gonna need sources for that, and not Russian. The moratorium was for 100 days only and it would loose power once the talks with Russia ends. Renata3 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you think this isn't significant. The whole crux of the disagreement was on independence for Lithuania, and the anti-Soviet leaders really didn't have the power to achieve that with anything but diplomacy and referenda (again, not saying that what they did was legal or illegal, but pratically speaking). I'm not sure about your 'biased and nationalistic' books, but a few seconds of searching brought me a New York Times front page article from 5/17/90 titled "EVOLUTION IN EUROPE; LITHUANIA AGREES TO SUSPEND LAWS ON INDEPENDENCE." I know about the rule regarding individual research, but I did a term paper in college about this that I'm going to try to dig up and use the bibliography. If I remember, there was quite a bit on JSTOR so if you've got access to it you should check it out. I think it's relevant to the recent Ukraine-Russia dispute because it shows the significant power that Russia/USSR can wield with the threat of an energy embargo. 68.33.74.123 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is significant. I spend today 3 hours looking through about 1000 articles from US and UK newspapers from april to june 1990. I plan to write a full article on the blocade and moratorium. But whatever you do, you need to get your facts straight: that article says that Lithuania agreed to suspend laws (mentioned in my earlier quote: about drafting to military, about citizenship, etc.), not independence (indepence was suspended on June 30 for 100 days; if you speak any Lithuanian, here is the original text: [3]). And at that time it did not suspend even those laws. It just agreed to if Moscow would start negotiating. But it did not and the laws were not suspended. Renata3 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Holocaust photo

Huh, why was the Holocaust photo from Kaunas removed now ? --Lysy ^(talk) 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain or put it back, or let me revert it. --Lysy ^(talk) 10:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

In response to the copyedit tag, I'm going to work my way through this (very good) article trying to improve the language. I'm not an expert on the subject though, so if I mess anything up, please let me know or correct it. Kcordina 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob, I'll check it. It's on my watchlist. I am sure User:Lysy will join me. And thanks for being interested! Renata 17:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Finished! I hope it is all OK. Kcordina 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good! I just caught one tiny thing... Nice job! Renata 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan discussion

I responded to some <!-type comments that someone left in the article (I couldn't find who did it or when in the history) but 213.190.42.88 moved part of my response here. I'll just move the whole thing here:

Can someone provide some sources for this? One version, mostly attributed to the Russians, claimed that all Lithuanian partisans, except for pro-Soviet ones, were Nazi collaborators who killed numerous innocent people. This version is now generally seen as Soviet propaganda against those who fought for liberation of Lithuania, because after the Red Army occupied Lithuania again the same partisans fought against the Soviet Union, and for the Russians it was impossible to understand that partisans might support neither side (neither Germans nor Russians). Although this theory was largely denied, there still remain some Lithuanian support for Germany: some Lithuanians took part in actions of Nazi government against some (?) groups. However, other Lithuanians were helping Jews to hide. One of the major German attempts to attract more Lithuanians to their side was an attempt to create a special army unit, which was meant supposedly to defend Lithuania. However, once the unit was created, the Germans tried to change its purpose to help German causes in war against Soviets and such instead. However, before the Germans succeeded, the unit was dissolved by its leadership, and no SS unit was formed in Lithuania. --unknown user, article comment, if this was you please sign it.

There were 2 distinct partisan movements in Lithuania during WW2 era. See Soviet_partisans#Partisans_in_the_Baltic_States for a bit of info on "pro-Soviet" partisans and Forest Brothers for info on the "anti-Soviet" partisan movement (rather large, engaged in guerilla warfare against Red Army/NKVD until approx. 1952). These are both quite well documented, not by the Soviets but among Jewish and Lithuanians respectively. It is all still somewhat murky at times though, naturally. The anti-Soviet partisan movement possibly did contain Nazi elements, and was partly formed from approximately half of the "disbanded" German-created Lithuanian "Defence Force" that was created to combat Soviet partisans. The Nazi authorities arrested the senior staff of this ill-equipped but 20,000-strong force in May 1944 within months of its creation when they saw that it was becoming a nationalist threat. It grew into a broader movement though, eventually backed significantly by Western secret intelligence services. heqs 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok to move whole discussion here I believe. As for the Soviet Partisans article, the only two sentences about Lithuania are: "In Lithuania, the partisans had a separate command from November 1942, under Antanas Sniečkus. In the Vilnius Ghetto, a resistance organisation called FPO-Fareinikte Partisaner Organizatzie was established by Communist and Zionist partisans - their first leaders were Yitzhak Witenberg, a member of the Communist Party, and the writer Abba Kovner.". Two sentences is not enough to link to article as "see also", there are probably two sentences about events related to the history of Lithuania in many articles, so there would be far too many links. Soviet partisans are already mentioned in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.190.42.88 (talk • contribs) 9:30, 1 May 2006.

Don't forget these sentences: "Soviet Partisans also operated in the Baltic States." "In all three Baltic States the largest number of the Soviet partisans were Russians, Jews and Belarusians. The resistance movement of the Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians was separate, and generally hostile to the Soviet political sytem, therefore, only a small number of people of these nationalities joined the cause of the Soviet partisans."

As far as I know there is no policy about how many sentences that include the name of the article being linked from a "see also" article must have. Zero sentences are required... it need only be relevant, related information... which it is in this case. Like I said in my comment, "just adding some relevant see also's for now". I'd like to add more later. heqs 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that some of my above comments about the partisan movements were a bit simplistic. I've been doing a lot more reading on this lately. heqs 09:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memelland

Lithuanians should carefully report about Memelland (or Klaipeda region), as the election results there clearly showed that also many Lithuanians did not want to be ruled by the Lithuanian state. --Matthead 01:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh.. Watcha talking about? What elections, what results, what report? If Lithuanians do not want to beruled by Lithuania, then ruled by who? Do you know national composition of the region now? --Lokyz 07:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC

The history of the Klaipeda region has been one of the most influenced by propaganda of many countries including Nazi, Soviet, Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, German and more. Also much of the research of the region have been influenced by propoaganda. One should be careful before making statements like "many Lithuanians did not want to be ruled by the Lithuanian state". Consider your sources carefully, first, and see how biased they might be. --Lysy^talk 07:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resettlement of Poles

Hi there. I wanted to add a separate mini-chapter on the resettlement of Poles from what is now Lithuania during and immediately after the WWII, but I'd like to gather some comments first. I've seen too many Lithuania-related revert wars not to know that it might be a waste of time in case someone wanted to delete such a chapter as soon as I add it (sad but true).

The reason why I wanted to add it here is that it seems that Poles constituted a huge part of the population of what is now Lithuania and what Lithuanians consider to be "their" area in 1930's and 1940's. In addition to roughly 12,000 people sent to Siberia from Wilno and the surrounding area in 1940 and 1941[4], there were 40 to 90,000 people (Poles in huge part) resettled from what is now Lithuania by the Germans and Lithuanian collaborators during the war[5]. Finally, there were also roughly 200,000 people who were allowed to leave the Soviet paradise in 1945 and 1946 (less than half of those who registered for depatriation)[6] and perhaps another 100,000 allowed to leave in 1950's. In addition to that, there is also a question of Lithuanization of roughly 120,000 people in Lithuania proper in 1920s and 1930s. Altogether, the group comprised some 20 to 25% of what was the population of Lithuania in 1939. That's why I think it merits some mention here. //Halibutt 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not need such "improvement" M.K. 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Any specific arguments? //Halibutt 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt your 20-25% estimate of Poles. In 1923 census, 83.9% were Lithuanians and we also have to account for all the Jewish people. [7] E.J.Harrison, British diplomat who worked in Lithuania 1919-1922, in his book Lithuania: Past and Present (first published in 1922), estimates that Polish population "hardly exceeds 3% of the total population." (page 109) Renata 23:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no objections on mentionign Polish emigration (my family members used this opportunity, although they do still speak Lithuanian ir Wroclaw), in case someone would add a separate chapter to Poland History about closing schools teaching in other languages - Lithuanian, Belarussian, Ukrainian - all around Poland for the whole 20th century. The veryvlatest example is confiscation of Lithuanian School (built by Lithuanian community money) in Punsk for Polish customs sake. Mr. Halibutt sems to be eager to do this.Lokyz 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong place, Halibutt. Note that the title of the article. The History of the nation is best presented within the chronological flow of events. Writing a chapter on your pet part of someone's history is a wrong approach. Whatever of those events are important enough to be relevant for such a broad topic article needs to be integrated into one of the chronological chapters. You may want to write a separate article on that though.

As an analogy that would certainly be clear to you, how would you view adding a chapter titled Operation Wisła directly into the FA History of Poland (1945–1989)? Or better yet, how about pasting a paragraph on that to the lead? --Irpen 03:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look closer at History of Poland (1945–1989), you'll see that "Minorities in Poland after the War" and Operation Wisła is mentioned there. Do you think that we should pretend that there were no Poles in history of Lithuania ? Or that they miraculously disappeared after WW2 ? --Lysy^talk 09:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks, for your appreciation and for understanding my motives. As Irpen notes, what I proposed was indeed replacing the intro of this article with information on my "pet part"... no comments...

1. Renata, I was not writing of Lithuania as such, I was writing of "what is now Lithuania", which included the ethnically Polish parts of what is now the surrounding of Lithuanian capital. There are documents precisely counting the number of people to register for depatriation and the number of people actually expelled, so it's not disputable. I was not writing that "in 1923 there were 25% of Poles in Lithuania". What I wrote was that out of roughly 2 millions of inhabitants of what is now Lithuania in 1945, some 20 to 25% were expelled. Simple maths.
2. Lokyz, I would not object to writing the article you propose, provided it sets the thing in some context. 'Cause in both Lithuania and Ukraine it is often argued that "Poles closed down our schools", yet it is not mentioned that the Poles closed down many more Polish schools in the same period.

//Halibutt 12:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, please note that the section in the PL article is about minorities in general. No Ukrainian, Belarusian or Lithuanoan POV pusher made and attempt to create a chapter on situation of their compatriots and paste it to the History of PL article. You are requested the same courtesy. Write an article on the issue as detailed as you like. If you feel like the subject is underrepresented here, integrate some non-excessive info to the chronological flow of events and not a separate chapter about the Poles in Lithuania.

Don't you see that you are getting the same reaction whether you attempt to polonize the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Lithuanian topics? By Polonization I don't mean giving the Polish issue the reasonable amount of space in non-Polish articles but your permanent habit of giving the unwarranted saliency to a Polish issue to every subject as if the entire world history turns around Poland.

In no way anyone would oppose to your writing a separate article on, say, defence of every shed by Poles from the foreign aggressors or about resettlement of or resentment by Poles. However, the amount of space devoted to the Polish issues in the non-Polish articles should be reasonable. I have no hope that you will ever get it. --Irpen 22:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So far the article is completely silent about the population changes during and after WW2, one of the critical factors for understanding what is Lithuania and Lithuanians today. How about adding a "population changes" subsection at the end of WW2 section ? Then it could contain not only the "Polish" but other population issues as well. Unless, as I said, we prefer to pretend that there was no issue at all. --Lysy^talk 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone's pretending that way. Altough I do not have reliable sources to write about it, it is not researched well. Somehow those digits given by Halibutt does not sond convincing.--Lokyz 07:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

See Irpen? Whatever smells of Poland to you must be "Polonization". No mention of Poles at all is fine, any mention - bad. Besides, what you apparently missed is that I first proposed the issue here, not pushed it anywhere. I bet people would be more inclined to accept your changes if you followed the same way. But let's move forward.

Lokyz, that's precisely why I find such a mention necessary. The history of Polish Lithuanians is apparently not being taught in Lithuanian schools at all. As to the numbers - go and check for yourself, that's why I posted the links to some sources. If you want more, here is one decent description (check the following page as well), but also here, here... many more available, numbers are almost always the same - after all they are based on official documents of both Polish and Soviet commissions. More sources are here (though this one probably cites only the number of people expelled - or "repatriated", as the process of "de-patriation" was euphemystically called - until the end of 1944), here and here (on the 1957 period)... //Halibutt 12:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I've seen enough of your non-pushy habbit, you know. Do you remember by any chance who wrote a whole chapter about PL for Soviet partisan? More examples?

I never said non-mention of Poles is fine. Reread what I said above: "Whatever of those events are important enough to be relevant for such a broad topic article needs to be integrated into one of the chronological chapters". or " If you feel like the subject is underrepresented here, integrate some non-excessive info to the chronological flow of events ". Where do you get my preference towards nonmention of Poles from that? --Irpen 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps from your insistence that the mention chapter of relation between Soviet partisans and Poles is not necessary at all in that article? That said, I believe that the current compromise - a separate article and a section summarizing it in various articles - is a pretty good solution.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am glad you think so. Note that I've been proposing this all along instead of the original offer by Halibutt to write this as a chapter for this article. Please see what Halibutt as well as myself said above. --Irpen 05:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know about that "repatriation" action, altough digits seems a bit overexagerated. I've already told you, that I do not consider Google bokks as solid references - becuse I cannot see nor their references (altough i'm interested on what documents based 220 thousand poeple are to be found repatriating only from Lithuania), neir whole content of the book. "Out of context phrase citation" is sadly most common mistake in research.

Fact about 120 thousand emigrees (suppose, Halibut, means" Polish"?) in 1920-1930 is absolutely not known for me.I suppose there were szlachta who left Lithuania after Polish Lithuanian war and land reform, altough 120 thousand hardly (it would sound acceptable only in case if there would be counted also Lithuanian emigrees to US, Argentina and other parts of the world). Again, i do repeat - I have not seen any research citating proper documents.

BTW, talking about Vilnius it was all the time considered Lithuania Proper, and you should remember Polish imigration during Polish occupation 1920-1939, that os considered to be about 120-200 thousand.--Lokyz 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the sources, the problem might be lack of Lithuanian research of the subject. I'm sure this will change but I'm afraid for now most of the sources are Polish, and obviously some of them are less fair than the others, so they need to be approached with caution (but not dismissed on the spot). A piece of research that I have at hand is "Polacy w Litewskiej SSR 1944-1989" by Aleksander Srebrakowski. The author, among the other things, discusses the "repatriation" figures given by J.Czerniakiewicz in his "Repatriacja ludności polskiej z ZSRR 1944-1948. According to Czerniakiewicz there were total 197,156 people evacuated from the territory of Lithuanian Soviet Republic to Poland in 1945-1947. 177,814 of these were Polish, 16,958 were Jewish and 2,328 other nationalities. Then there was a second wave of population transfer to Poland in 1955-1959 which seems to be more difficult to assess in numbers. --Lysy^talk 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems in line with what I wrote above. And it really seems to me that such a notable group of people could be mentioned. But since this article does not need such "improvement"...

As to the number of 120,000 Poles in Lithuania proper after 1923, this is the most disputable, as it is but an estimate based on both pre-war number of Poles living there and on membership of short-lived Polish organizations (banned by the Lithuanian government soon afterwards). At the same time the Lithuanians claimed that there was less than 20,000 Poles in Lithuania, which was why they did not merit the status of a minority. I guess the actual number must've been somewhere in between. Halibutt (can't log in from work)

Do you also mentioned how many Poles ran to what is now Republics of Poland willingly, or they all in term "forced" "repatriation" or "forced" "resettlement"? M.K. 13:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How could you measure how many Poles fled from German army into Russia and/or Poland, how many left Lithuania for newly created Polish state wilingly? I did never heard about any actions form Lithuanian government to relocate Poles or any other nationality. BTW, could you name Polish organizations, that were banned? Was it not POW for example? --Lokyz 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not plan to write a lengthy article describing the possible motives behind leaving the homeland by the people deprived of it between 1944 and 1958. I planned to simply note the subject here, where it belongs.

As to the organizations, POW was never legal, so it could not be de-legalized. I meant for instance the ban on Polish private schools, the practical impossibility to declare ones' nationality in the documents - and then requiring both parents to have their nationality put down as Polish in order for a child to be sent to a Polish school and so on. As to organizations - just take the number of schools liquidated. Need more? Take the Polish Society of Small Credits, founded in Kaunas in order to provide the local Poles with credits for economic development. Need more? Take the Polish Cultural Union founded in Panevezys. Need more..? Halibutt (still at work)

I was talking about WWI, as many local inhabitants fled (including Lithuanians). No need to overreact to my questions on organisations, i'm just asking, because never heard of them:)--Lokyz 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the current poor state of the article, I would suggest addressing the issue in a separate article and linking it here from a sentence; otherwise any even reasonably good section will be longer then the entire entry on PLC times or other important periods. That said, I am again disappointed by the behaviour of some users, who seem to make a hobby of personal attacks (or at least incivility) against such valuable editors as Halibutt. Please, read what you write, and remember that your edits are up there for eternity.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What else would you expect from nation of peasants, who lost their great supervising super-nation?--Lokyz 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

May our supreme übereditors be forgiveful to poor representatives of young (childish) nations, who may not fully comprehend eternal value of editions stating that Lithuanian perception of Lithuanian history somehow equals to Portuguese perception of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to figure out mistery of one of many very valuable and not derogative towards anyone in any possible way, editions. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

While I have nothing but respect for Lithuanians, unfortunately, indeed some editors here seem to behave rather childish. Well, if that's the way you want to behave, it's your problem - just don't expect others to take you seriously.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I reserve the right not to join your praise of very valuable editions such as this. I know it is very childish to think that Lithuania has a little more to do with Litwa Srodkowa, than Portugal; and poor, poor Laurynas Gucevicius has just a little bit more connections with Lithuania than Willliam Shakespear, but that's just me Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The more edits one has, the more easy is to find something to criticize. Although this is an interesting case. On the first look I wanted to agree with you that Halibutt edit was inappopriate. On the second, however, I see that his edit - replacing of Lituania with international - is rather constructive, as international includes Lithuania and is more informative (as well as, interestingly, more supportive for Lithuania - an interesting edit for somebody who is proclaimed by some an Lithuaniophobe, I'd say). Regarding the second part of the edit, I find the information (that Lithuania did not recognize the election) is not that important (states, on average, do not say much elections in another, and we usually don't include information in lead of election of articles who recognized them or not, much less in article about states themselves). Of course, in this particular instance (controversial state, controversial election), I would say it is certainly appopriate to have this information in article's body, and even have an article on the election itself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, I'm not talking about edit itself, but rather about header of edit. "Portugal so what" stuff. Together with it, edit has completely different meaning. P.S. You don't have to reply, I've just read you edit at Wikiproject:Lithuania and I am finding your aproach apropriate and welcome Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to reply, as I did not indeed comment above about the edit summary, which was indeed rather brusk and inappopriate. I can see how from one perspective you can find the entire edit offensive - even through it was not intended as such, which I hope you realize, and point out that in the end it was Halibutt who did the right thing and solved the situation in the best way possible: with the major content edit. I will further reply on the Wikiproject page as this is getting OT here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On separate article. I don't think it should be called "Resettlement of Poles from Lithuania" but rather "Resettlement of Poles from Soviet Union". Further more, correct me if I'm wrong, there was some sort of agreement between Poland and Soviet Union on population exchange and some Lithuanians, Ukranians and Bielorussians were resettled from Poland to SU. So both processes should be mentioned (not just resettlement of Poles) in the article and it is name. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A very good point. Actually, don't we already have an article on Polish minority in the Soviet Union? And then there is the World War II evacuation and expulsion. Perhaps that article should start under a section in one of those?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As to other articles and links, unrelated to my humble proposal above, it should also be mentioned that my edit comment was but a pointer to the talk page where I explained my stance thoroughly.

But let's get on the topic again. I wanted to tie the mention of resettlement of Poles from Lithuania to the article on Lithuania rather than USSR specifically because it was a much wider phenomennon. It started in early 1920s, continued to some extent in the 1930s, then speeded up during the brief period of Lithuanian occupation of Vilna, then was again speeded up during the first period of the Soviet occupation. Then it was continued, often with harsh and brutal measures, by Lithuanians and Germans during the German occupation, and only in the end found its drastic end with the second Soviet occupation. So, in other words, it was not limited to the Soviet period - nor can it be entirely blamed on the Soviets. Halibutt (again, can't log in from work)

Huh. "First Lithuanian occupation of Vilna" (this supposedly means there was second?). Strange, how can someone occupy it's own capital.

Expelling of Poles in interwar period. Can you give any reference to what you're saying?--Lokyz 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, I think it was you recently pointed out then 'now' and 'then' is an important differentiation. In the first half of the century, Wilno had a Polish majority, right? So from the Polish perspective it was occupied several times. Claiming a city's one capital is just that, claiming, although I would certainly agree that from the Lithuanian perspecive their capital of Vilnius was occupied by Poland afterwards - just as from the 'then' Polish perspective their large city of Wilno was occupied by Lithuanians for brief period during the 1918-1920 conflicts. Nonetheless I'd like to remind all that the word occupation is controversial, and some conflicts may be avoid if we replace it with somewhat more neutral terms like 'be in control of' and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Vilnius was not a part of Poland until 1922, and it was proclaimed Lithuanian capital (recognised as such by Germans). It is really strange that someon should occupy it's own capital. As for majority of Poles, i'd rather say the majority in city were Jews.--Lokyz 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's discuss the international status of some land instead of discussing the possible wording of some article. That's the way to go, Lokyz. //Halibutt 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I was hoping we could work on this together. Judging from warm and friendly welcome here I suppose I was naive. Too bad fears and phobias of some of our fellow Wikipedians are stronger than the sense of community - and the need to cooperate. I will write the article anyway and mention it here, but apparently without any support or comments from our fellow Lithuanians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most natural reaction will be a speedy revert of my edits... and then another set of accusations. It's really hard to write articles if all one gets in exchange is slander, offenses and accusations of anti-whatever sentiments. I wonder why did no Pole object to the mention of unpleasant parts of our history in the article on history of Poland while this article does not need such improvements, but what the heck. Perhaps I'll understand that one day. Halibutt

Here we go again. "It's really hard to write articles if all one gets in exchange is slander, offenses and accusations of anti-whatever sentiments." You're getting such response not for your articles, but for your revert wars, circular discussions, Portugals and posing (like in this instance). And if you take some things personally is doesn't make it personal atack against you. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A good begining would be providing sources, on which you rely talking about this issue. If I'd knew what you're talking about I could take a look and evaluate them. Now I do not know wheter this is not urban legend or someone's bad will.

I suppose thing like that could have happen, although, as I've stated earlier, i do not have sources so cannot state whether stated numbers are not written from a ceiling (excuse me for Lithuanian idiom). It's not stalking, it's a simple question. It's my quirk, if you want, I do trust only documents and research, especialy on the issues, where I'm ignorant and that seems to have some tension in them. i do not fell like shouting like someone is pushing POV or something like that. I just want to make this issue clear for myself, before stating my POV on this.

By such action any revert wars are cut down from begining, and then wording might be discussed in more quiet and calm atmosphere.

And one more thing, if you would be so kind to hear my opinion - there is no need to mix into the same pot interwar things (until June 1940), war things and afterwar things. I find you intelligent enough to understand a difference between Smetona's Lithuania, Hitler's Reich and Stalin USSR.

Like someone said sometimes banana is just a banana, the same goes to a question - it's a simple question, not an insult or stalking.--Lokyz 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, Dude. Unfortunately I would not reply in kind as I believe it would be below my level. But expect the same treatment I receive from you from the others. The more people avoid talk pages, explaining their reverts and trying to talk things over the way I do, the worse this encyclopedia becomes. But I see you'd feel better if I simply accepted your non-orthodox (to put it mildly) views or reverted each of your nationalist POV edits without explanation on the talk pages. Would it really be better? That way we wouldn't have discussion in circles.

Lokyz, too bad you opposed my idea without even taking time to look at it. If you read my original proposal, you'd notice that I posted at least 9 different sources here at this very talk page. No comments.

As to other issues, as can be seen from numerous examples, sourcing the articles is not enough, since there'd always be some Encyclopedia Editing Dude to delete the sources he doesn't like. Which does not mean it is a bad tactics, it only means that some people can't stand it and would obstruct it.

Finally, as to mixing it all, it should indeed be stated loudly and clearly that there was such a difference. However, all of the "resettlements" and attrocities took place in what is now Lithuania and touched Lithuanian Poles, not "Soviet Poles" or "German Poles". And the result of the actions is again notable to the history of Lithuania, and not of Germany or USSR (take note of the scale for each of the states involved; from German perspective the expulsion and murder of 100,000 people or so was not any major achievment, from the Lithuanian perspective a loss of roughly 20% of the population was a major and notable thing. But aparently that's not how it is portrayed in modern Lithuanian schools - or am I wrong? //Halibutt 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Deleted "sources". Maybe in Polish ethnological school it is OK to cite books about architecture (which do not provide links to primary sources, so their claims can not be verified) in topics concerning ethnic issues and vice versa. But this is not how it is done in all the rest world.

2. Nationalism. Oh yes. To revert your unsourced original research on Masulis surname is very nationalistic, but even more nationalistic is to change your translation of "Anykščių šilelis" title. Yes Halibutt, it should be "Forest of Onykszta". Nevermind Baranauskas, he was wrong to name it "Anykščių šilelis", if he wasn't such a Lithuanian nationalist he would have name it "Onikštos šilelis". We must correct bias and nationalistic Baranauskas' POV on title of his poem.

3. Un-orthodoxy. I don't think I can compete on originality with Portugal and Shakespear. Wish I could, but I just can't. You know, your level is not reachable for poor me.

4. Circular discussions. I'm talking about same questions asked and replies not read, over and over again. Sources can be provided. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I do not trust google books. I've read some reviews on the books you're pointing to a page and found quite interesting opinions like: "Excellent book. Shows Pre-ww2 Poland for what it really was an imperiaist warmonger" or "More historical facts and less bias would have made this a better book!". After such statements how could I be sure nothing is written about Poland's deeds? or how can i be sure the facts are true? I'd have to read the book. Btw, none of the facts have references to original document's they're based on.

2. I've found no facts about pre 1939 represions, and in 1939 it was said expelled form schools and jobs. I do understand, that this is outrageous crime, although there's no mention of forcingly expelling from Vilnius region to Poland. (What part of Poland btw - Soviet or German occupation zone?)

3. Can you answer me simply: yes or no - do you think, Lithuanians were the ones who began expelling Poles after WWII? (Under rule of Stalin, at the same time, as about 150 thousand citizens of Lithuania were deported to Siberia?) --Lokyz 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. if you please be so kind, and point to my words, in which i did oppose your idea, I'd more than happy.

Dude, that's all you will hear from me.

Lokyz,

1. You can never be sure the facts mentioned in any book are true. Paper is patient, as we say here, and there's always a chance someone has made something up. Respected publishers like Oxford University Press usually (but not always!) are a tad more reliable, but no, you can't be sure all this bragging is not just yet another conspiracy of the entire world against the poor Lithuanians. But still, on-line sources (even if in such a limited form) are better than no sources and to some - like me - are better than book sources, since in the case of the books on my book shelve (and I have quite a lot of them), you'd probably be asking for English speaking sources or asking how could you be sure the book says what it says if it's unavailable (and most of them are not). As to the sources I cited above, which you initially missed, they were given here just to let everyone know the matter is not obscure and that there are sources written on the matter at all. In an article I would also add the printed books I read, but here it would be a waste of time simply.
2. In 1939 the students of the - delegalized - University of Wilno were sent to some distant town close to the border with Latvia, for instance. But still, the pre-1939 repressions in Lithuania proper, while not even close to what happened during and after the war, are pretty well documented. These of course mostly included closing down Polish organizations (schools, social institutions and so on) and denying the right to declare oneself as a Pole. Nothing comparable to what happened in 1939, 1941 and afterwards.
3. Yes and no. Sorry, but there's no easy answer to such question, as there barely ever are easy answers. Lithuanians were among the ones to start the repressions and among those to organize the expulsion. Whether the majority in each of the commissions or committees was formed by Belarusians, Lithuanians or Jews is hard to establish without going into OR, as I doubt there was anyone interested in establishing that.
4. I can't. And can you point me to my words in which I state you did? //Halibutt 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spliting issues

1.Here's your citation: "Lokyz, too bad you opposed my idea without even taking time to look at it."

2.My proposition - let's leave interwar period or time being. It is not as systematical and nazi thing, as you're trying to put it. All that hatered only began to escalate a the the time - shooting and expelling Lithuanians from Vilius (for exmple Director of gymnasium Mykolas Biržiška was saved from firing squad only representatives of League of nations, constantly closing Lithuanian schools in Vilnius and the one left Vytauto Didžiojo Gimnazija constantly confiscating it's buildings it's a Polish style also, like closing Cultural organisations and jailing leaders of them. Need examples or will you believe my words? It's even understandable - technically both countries were at the war.

3. as for WWII period, I do regret that has happened, although nationalism was to explode from many sides, (marszalek prowadz nas na Kowno, anyone?). And it did. I do not try to say it didn't happen. Also I do not say it could not be avoyded. And to avoyd this again, respect from both sides should help. I do not justify all those Lithuanian born nazis (2 thousand?), just accusing Lithuanians in a whole it is a little too far. Remeber that, not all batalions of police were involved in kilings and prosecutions. These were not Lithuanian national units, these were Lithuanians serving in German army and Germn police, so calling them everywhere "Lithuanians" is well, a bit overboard. They did act by orders of Germans - they did not choose where to serve (location, not army). Once again by any means i do not justify them, An yes this should be mentioned amnogst WWII crimes for the sake, this would newer repeat.

I'm just asking - do you really think, that actions of some 5 thousand werewolwes does represent whole Lithuania?

4 Well, for soviet union: So according to you, Lithuanians also did organise rresetlement from Ukraine and Belarus? Article, you've given mentions that all the treaties were similar. And one more question, do you relly believe that Lithuanian SSSR could have had it's foreign policy at the times of Stalin. Or the army, that organised all the major acts was Lithuanian? Or do you beleive that in brougth form Russia Lithuanian SSSR comunist "goverment" was similar nationalisic and had the same (presumable) bias as Smetona's nationalists? IMO, this was another one of chack mate games of Stlin - lke moving Crimean tatars, Chechens, assembling all Jews in Siberia, in autonomic republic, and so on. Ant resetlement of poles also fits to the same scheme.

That's how I do see the problem. Let's hear your opinion.--Lokyz 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me add a few cents to this discussion. First, Dude, 'but, cool off and restart. The circle you are both talking is in much limited only to your two circular logic and whining over a few rare past greviances. You are both guilty here: Dude, you should have not removed the reference (per WP:RS), 'but, you are sometimes not very mindful for WP:CIV. So you both should feel scolded by me, and now behave :) Lokyz, 'but. I am really happy to see the discussion raising to much better levels. As I said before, Google Print is just a database, it is no worse and no better then any other. Citing sources is good, and because of GP friendliness it is easier to verify a source from it then from, let's say, JSTOR database (per WP:V). Of course, there are better books and worse books, but arguments against a source should be presented one by one, at talk, and directed against a specific source, not against a database. Second, Halibutt, I think the best thing to do is to write the article (or section) and add references to it, then we can discuss it in more detail. Third, I'd like to draw comparison between the expulsion of Poles from the (Soviet) Lithuania and Germans from Poland: in both cases the local authorities, while generally supportive, were controlled by the Soviets, and it is reasonable to say that if not for the Soviet's masterplan much fewer attrocities would have been comitted. The degree to which the respective local authorities were autonomous and helped is certainly worth describing, but please, stick to sources, preferably English and academic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree wit Dude about those citations, but IMO this question should be moved back where it does belong, here it is OT. we might continue THAT dscussion there.--Lokyz 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, as to the scope of the section/article I proposed, I believe that it would be much better to describe the issue in whole, without limiting it to German expulsions, Lithuanian expulsions or Soviet ones. I know I'm going to get bashed for this shortcut, but I'd rather write a section on how Poles disappeared from what is now Lithuania and not how Poles were expelled by the Soviets, how Poles were expelled by the Germans and How Poles were expelled by the Lithuanians. Hope you get what I mean. In any way, I proposed it here first, hoping that a discussion would be a step in a good direction and that the Lithuanian contributors would appreciate that I don't do anything without their consent, especially that the matter might bring some bad blood. I'm sorry to say so, but it seems that it was but a waste of time. Instead of suggestions of what to include, I received quite a bashing for proposing it here. But let's leave that. I will some more time and try again in, say, one year. Perhaps then the matter would receive more serious consideration. //Halibutt 07:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of verbatim text

I accidentally found out that the article uses verbatim paragraphs long text from external site, this US DoS page. While not a copyvio, since the text is probably PD, it is perhaps not a very good style. I found two paragraphs exactly dupicated. Perhaps, there is more. Someone interested, please overhaul this. It is too important an article and we have to show that we can do it better than copying material from elsewhere. Whoever has time and interest, please consider this suggestion. --Irpen 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial change

I think the article lacks the explanation of why/how the territory of Lithuania changed so significantly at the turn of 19th/20th century. --Lysy^talk 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Annexed"

"...ultimately the Germans annexed Lithuania."

I don't think this is correct. I've never read anything about Lithuania being "annexed" to the so-called Greater German Reich during the Nazi period. Obviously, it was occupied by German forces in 1941-44, but I don't believe it was annexed — as, for example, the Polish territories of the so-called "Wartheland" and the Suwalki district were annexed to the Nazi Reich.

Of course, it's true that the Germans re-annexed, if you will, the former Memelland, which had been part of Germany and Prussia before WWI. But as I understand it, the rest of present-day Lithuania was part of the so-called Reichskommissariat Ostland, which was essentially an occupation regime, not part of what the Nazis considered the German Reich proper. Sca 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, is Balstogė County coterminous with the former Memelland, as it existed pre-1920? This area (which included Memel / Klaipėda), long had a mixed German-Lithuanian population, which it seems to me would be relevant to mention here. Sca 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population of Vilnius after partitions.

The population figure for Vilnius after partition is unbelievable. with 250,000 citizens it would be as large as Vienna, and twice bigger than Warsaw (which was certainly the largest city of Commonwealth before partitioning. I guess there's one "0" too much in this figure.62.179.74.97 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet history

Is there another article detailing what happened in Lithuania under Soviet rule? Surely it is worth going into in some detail as it spans 50 years of the country's development despite as part of another state. The Lithuanian SSR article is not exactly in-depth coverage of a major part of Lithuania's modern history. Lstanley1979 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of picture continues

For quite a time ,a single registered contributor is trying to remove a particular picture [8][9][10][11] Favorite rationale WP:UNDUE. Historic picture represents significant events in Lithuania’s history, namely result or Armia Krajowa criminal actions, which is responsible in total for thousands of Lithuanian people deaths, (like Dubingiai massacre). Actions of Armia Krajowa covered in various Lithuanian academic publications like the newest one (in which I am aware) Lithuanian Historical Studies, 2006; etc. Therefore AK actions in important aspect of Lithuania’s history and this why specific image meets necessary criteria required by WP. Looking deeper ,If we going to use WP:UNDUE as an “argument” in similar cases, almost all pictures of The Holocaust article should be also removed, as they, to certain type contributors, may look like not neutral. In other hand in current article we have various pictures including alleged meeting in Vilnius for “welcoming” occupying Red Army. Of course if any contributor has accesses to pictures there Lithuanians greeting AK with flowers, please by my quest and add it.M.K. (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubingai massacre is a footnote to a footnote to a footnote in Lithuanian history; there are hundreds of events (and photos) more notable for a general article on Lithuanian history. WP:UNDUE sums the issue very well. Ponary massacre, for example, was much larger in scope and is much more known; Glinciszki massacre is just as well known; Ypatingasis būrys is fifteen times (at least) more often described in English works than "Dubingai massacre" (which is virtually unknown; 15 vs 0 hits on Google Print). Nonetheless I was did and never will insist on adding those minor events to general article on history of Lithuania. For the same reason I will continue to object to add minuscule highly non-neutral trivia and photos to that article. This is Wikipedia, not "history by Vilnija". PS. And for the record, it's not a "single editor"; others apparently agree with me too (ex. [12]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A) present academic facts that there are hundreds of photos more notable. B) present facts that Armia Krajowa crime scene is regarded as trivia. C) do you have photos related to Glitiškės? D) history of Vilija is presented in separate article, lost? M.K. (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubingiai massacre is not a footnote to a footnote to a footnote, but still does not merit a photo here in this article, but text still may be expanded. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the article needs much expansion. Nonetheless I still maintain that Dubingai and Glinciszki events are marginal in importance, and too often are brought up by those trying to sour Polish-Lithuanian relations (ex. Vilnija-sponsored publications).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vilnija is a footnote to a footnote to a footnote in the list of organizations in Lithuania, so do not bring it up here. While I agree that there is no need to mention Dubingiai events in this article, we should discuss whether activities of AK need more mention in this article. Can someone check Lithuanian history textbooks whether they mention AK at all (absence of mentions would be a good proof of WP:UNDUE regarding the photo or additional text)? If there is a limited coverage (I seriously doubt it can be extensive) of AK in the textbooks perhaps it can be condensed and presented here as a text (but not a photo). --Doopdoop (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop, why do you so emphasizing Dubingiai massacre, Armia Krajowa carried out ethic cleansing across Eastern Lithuania. I already presented the newest publication which I am aware of in regards of AK: Lithuanian Historical Studies, 2006; same goes with Panorama, 2007 (72), of older publications – Armija Krajova Lietuvoje, 1995 and 1999; moreover Lithuanian government had special commission to evaluate AK activities; Prosecution service of Republic of Lithuania even has case involving criminal charges; in web can be and various additional information. So the pictures clearly illustrate and those activities. In other hand do you suggesting to move this picture to Armia Krajowa and Dubingiai massacre articles.? M.K. (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if AK need more coverage than it already has - particularly if we stick to reliable sources giving due weight to various issues. Do note that "history of Lithuania" armia krajowa gives 0 hits on Google Print; same for "history of Lithuania" "Home Army" and "history of Lithuania" "Polish partisans". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not checked the works (history textbooks, encyclopedias) about Lithuanian history that are written in Lithuanian language by reputable Lithuanian historians. If they do not mention AK at all, that would end the debate. Can somebody perform this check? --Doopdoop (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For sources see above. M.K. (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These sources support your interpretation of AK activities. However they do not clarify the relative importance of these activities for the history of Lithuania, so WP:UNDUE argument remains. --Doopdoop (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will respond then one of the other dispute is solved in which I also participate (due to limited time). Please be patient. M.K. (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that M.K.'s sources were (and apparently, still are) too often reliant on newspaper publications or in case of 'academic publications' come from the chapters written by certain Kazimieras Garšva. The exceptional claims about AK ethnic cleansing are not cited by anybody but a few Lithuanian sources and are strongly criticized by Polish scholars (and also some Lithuanian ones as well). See Polish-Lithuanian relations during World War II for some background; in any case this issue is too UNDUE/FRINGE/POVed to be included here, as we have agreed on above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Doopdoop, I now have few moments and I would like to resume discussion. Could you say specify that exactly I should present in order to clarify the relative importance of these activities for the history of Lithuania . M.K. (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Textbook of Lithuanian history with a similar photos would be a good proof. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A, i see will try to find additional one, M.K. (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean this photo is included in some history textbook?!? --Doopdoop (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Important fact

I don't understand why this well referenced fact is getting removed. Battle of Warsaw (1920) saved Lithuanian from Soviet occupation in 1920 (as clearly noted by several referenced historians) and hence is a crucial event that shaped interwar Lithuanian history. The fact surely deserves to be mentioned? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is removed per WP:UNDUE. We've seen such adding the same info to multiple articles before, going by a wider and wider scope. This is unacceptable. The trick of pasting same info to several articles is not new ("Brest parade" or Russian Enlightenment (Zaluski library_ examples come to mind.)

There are narrow articles for narrow issues like that. This is the second largest by scope Lithuanian article. This is exactly what was done by now gone user:4 bity muzyki who added a section Homophobia in Poland directly into Poland article even though LGBT rights in Poland was readily available. Piotrus was right to revert the fellow back then and I expect the same standards applied to Polish and Lithuanian topics. --Irpen 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with pasting important fact into several relevant articles. This is a crucial fact that belongs here. The outcome of the Polish-Soviet War saved independent Lithuania - this is stated clearly by several historians who specialize in Lithuanian history (Lithuanian Senn, Polish Łossowski, and others). This is not a fringe undue issue like the one discussed above (a good counterexample); it's a major event that seems quite 'in place' here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your view that "there is nothing wrong with pasting" illustrates the problem perfectly. You did not pioneer this approach and you and I even managed to agree when this was done years ago by Molobo and together removed such stuff. I am saddened to see that you now resort to same. --Irpen 06:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is off topic, but there is nothing wrong with pasting information into many articles - whether it's a redirect / disambig fix, a relevant newly uploaded image, reference or expansion - as long as it is of due weight, as in this case.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be more specific, we are talking the width of the scope here: both of the article (extremely wide scope, second largest scope of all Lithuanian topics) and the piece of content (narrow claim related to a fringe (by the sacle of the topic) event, besides a POV, even if referenced, rather than an undisputed fact.) Same info pasted into several articles of the same scope/width may be acceptable. This is not the case. Just curious, is there a reason why you did not paste this also directly to the Lithuania article to its history section or even lead? If you answer this question, it would be easier for you to agree with me here. --Irpen 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The main Lithuanian article barely has room for the mention of P-L war and the P-S is a bit off topic to it. This article, which has room to mention both and go into the situation in more detail, certainly can mention the not-so-fringe battle (listed by some in the top twenty or so most important in mankind's history) that allowed Lithuania the crucial two decades of independence between the world wars.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the paragraph could be cut down just a tad, I think it can go in there. 1000 bytes of information, with appropriate citations (which this article lacks, btw), could be a bit much. Also use links when needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Irpen here and per similar per WP:UNDUE concerns expressed per above dispute (which I will resume soon after will solve another one). Plus I would like to request a border citation of source Antanas Ruksa, Kovos del Lietuvos nepriklausomybes, t.3, p.417, to pin point a context. M.K. (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pasting a predictably contentious paragraph across several articles - not in the spirit of consensus. As an example of a differing interpretation, from the Cambridge History of Russia: "Not least because of the Royal Navy offshore, the Baltic States - Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia - were where Lenin cut his losses. He granted diplomatic recognition to these bourgeois regimes..." [13] (the recognition was in July 1920 - the Battle of Warsaw was in August). The concept that Russia was planning to overrun a multitude of other states has been contested by Orlando Figes in A People's Tragedy. I don't have any problem with the inclusion of a condensed version of this paragraph as long as it is balanced. Novickas (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate fact remains that "a spirit of consensus" and "balance" are not something that a multitude of edits from certain quarters consistently demonstrate. Your differing interpretations are refreshing and appreciated. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen here primarily due to WP:UNDUE concerns. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What UNDUE? The importance of battle of Warsaw for Lithuanian independence is not a theory of one fringe historian but a fact repeated in many publications by many historians. I have mentioned Senna, Łossowski, Ruksa. If that's not enough, have some more: Snyder Had the Poles been defeated in summer 1920, Bolshevik Russia would have certainly absorbed the tiny Lithuanian state."; Hiden: battle of Warsaw in August 1920, an event which brought considerably nearer the international recognition of the full independence of the Baltic countries; and others. I have no problems with shortening the para if editors think it is too long, but the event is certainly important (and no jokes about Royal Navy in the Baltic doing anything in 1920, please).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There were many events that weakened the Soviets and stopped them from taking over Lithuania and other European countries. While the miracle at Warsaw is one of the most important of such events, there are simply too many of them. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Then can you name the others? With 4 or more citations from major publications for each? I find it dubious that the battle is to undue, when we have an entire unreferenced para on Bermontians; when we have a place to mention the unreferenced but "crucial help of Saxon volunteers" and when we have two paragraphs on how the Poles took control of the Vilnius region - with enough space to go into elections and League of Nations involvement - but we cannot find space to note that the Poles have nonetheless saved Lithuanian independence by thwarting Soviet westward aggression.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you write in the [History of Poland] article that the miracle at Warsaw has thwarted Soviet plans for taking over the whole Europe (or at least Baltic states, Poland, Germany, Hungary)? --Doopdoop (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the relevant articles make appropriate claims; after all Battle of Warsaw (1920) has been a Featured Article for something like two years now. Notable historians such as A.J.P. Taylor, Norman Davies, Ronald Grigor Suny and others have noted as such (although often they refer to the outcome of the PSW in general, although this is a small detail - nobody can dispute that it was that battle which determined the end result of the war more than any other event of the war).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my previous comment. Couple of minutes ago I have added abovementioned information to the History of Poland article, where it is much needed and was missing (maybe you would like to copyedit it a little bit). However in the context of Lithuanian history it should be noted that all anti-Soviet forces had a big role in stopping Soviets (there is even a book called "Churchill's Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia"), keep in mind that Soviets had to divide their resources to fight their many enemies. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just plain silly to compare battle of Warsaw and the Polish occupation of Vilnius in magnitude. Because battle of Warsaw is single bullet in the list. Moreover my plea for citations fo particular publications is not met till now. M.K. (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A major battle in the world (European) history versus a minor border dispute that is major only to Lithuania (with all due respect) are not always comparable; however this article is centered on Lithuania and hence this makes the Vilnius dispute relatively prominent.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Prefect, I see the change in attitude towards Norman Davies, a notable historian, as he described here. Somehow, last time I was using him as reference, he was accused of using flowery language. Any chance that we see at last his quote It was highly significant that Pilsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation - which he once derided as "a nation of morons" - but a Lithuanian of Polish culture as cited in N. Davies; Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland.p.139? M.K. (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No strawmen or off-topic discussions, please.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus is correct. Pilsudski's calling the Polish nation morons is not relevant to the topic. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a mere example, then in one instance it became "Important fact" in other "flowery language". Just trying to understand criteria, that is it. M.K. (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that P.P. likes to use Norman Davies as a source when Davies supports a contention of his, and to dimiss him when it doesn't. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I was very saddened to have read this remark by Dr Dan, who pretends to be a NPOV user, and yet he retreats to personal attacks on Piotrus. What does Pilsudski's remark have to do with history of Lithuania? Perhaps we should stick to the article, it will help in the future. It was just a friedndly remark, Dan, do not be grateful. Tymek (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)