Talk:Suwałki Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Suwałki Agreement appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 20 December 2007.
Wikipedia


[edit] On Vilnius

I removed the incorrect claims the treaty gave Vilnius to Lithuania. Łossowski states clearly that the treaty did not address Vilnius issue. It was under Lithuanian control when the negotiations started and remained under it when it ended, but the treaty did not legitimize this control for the Polish side, as the city was not discussed at all. The demarcation line and ceasefire were limited to Sudovia and did not extend to Vilnius. Lithunian government later claimed that this was not true and it seems that the point is repeated in several sources - but it is directly contradicted by the treaty itself; thanks to Novickas we can see the text of the treaty here. In particular, pay attention to:

  • Article 1: A line of demarcation, which in no way prejudices the territorial claims of the two Contracting Parties
  • Article 2: As regards the cessation of hostilities and the establishment of a line of demarcation between the Lithuanian and Polish troops in the region to the east of the meridian of the station of Bastuny, these questions shall be settled by a special agreement when the Soviet troops have been withdrawn from that region.
    • Note that Vilnius region frontline was east of Bastuny, so the demarcation line and ceasefire did not affect it.

As David Stone mentions [1],and Łossowski's explains in detail, the demarcation line, if extended from its present form (or as the Lithuanian delegation wanted it to be extended on October 3), would indeed leave Vilnius on the Lithuanian side. But the demarcation line was not extended, and the claims that Vilnius was Lithuanian are based simply on the erroneus assumption that the line would be extended and that Poland was not challenging Lithuanians possession of it. In any case, the treat as quoted above makes it clear that - in Article 1 - Poland did not recognize any Lithuanian claims (and vice versa), and in Article 2, that Vilnius was left out of it. If you disagree, please quote from the treaty the part which indicates that Poland recognized Lithuania's control over Vilnius. Simple request, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for provided personal opinion. While nobody prohibits to use Lossowski (I still hope that he did not forget Lithuanian language), but he is not universal truth. Other scholarly opinion exist and it is prevailing one. Multiply English (!) sources clearly states that Vilnius was left to Lithuanians, like Diplomacy in the Former Soviet Republics p. 123; Diplomacy in the Former Soviet Republics p.89, Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 p.137 etc. etc. even close to contemporary sources states the same The Contemporary Review p.736; The Living Age p.490, etc, etc. and only single non English (!) source , according to you, states contrarily. Giving such support for single source is neglect towards WP:UNDUE. So removing English academic sources, like [2][3] is neglect towards WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. Even more as article written only relining on Lossowski's interpretation, it is not to meet worldwide view. And let me remind you that goal here is not the truth, and editors are prohibited to carry out their interpretation of treaty, especially then this interpretation is very well documented in English scholarly works. Summarizing : for removing other - western academic view, promoting only single Polish one is not NPOV, therefore I tanging this article.M.K. (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a selection of international opinion from Google books, all of which use phrases such as violation of the Suwalki Treaty, breach of the Treaty of Suwalki, ceded Vilnius to Lithuania, recognized Lithuania's claim to Vilnius (the German source), etc. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Novickas (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the sources - which briefly mention the treaty in one-two sentences - state that. The prelevance of such an opinion is probably worth mentioning in the article. Nonetheless Lossowski in his detailed study explains (he dedicates several pages to the treaty) why they are mistaken, and such mistake can be easily seen from a cursory reading of the 4-page long treaty - which never makes a single claim about Vilnius. And I asked you above, show us what parts of the treaty have the Poles violated if you want to make your case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are academic works which don't repeat the error you cite above. Herbert Wright, Poland and the Crimea Conference, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1945), pp. 300-30, JSTOR: "In 1920 Vilna was occupied by Bolshevik forces and on July 12, 1920, the Treaty of Moscow was signed between Russia and Lithuania, by which Vilna and parts of Suwalki and Grodno were assigned to Lithuania. On October 7, 1920, Poland and Lithuania signed an armistice in Siwalki accepting as a provisional boundary a revised "Curzon line", which still left Vilna to Lithuania." This is a good correct formulation: Suwalki treaty did not address Vilna issue by not changing anything related to it. I will try to make it clear in the text that as of October 7 Vilnius remained under Lithuanian control.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source which clearly states "Polska zaproponowała Litwie negocjacje w Suwałkach, które zakończono 7 października 1920 ustaleniem linii demarkacyjnej...nie dochodzącej do Wilna, aby nie utrudniać porozumienia, choć Polska się tego miasta nie wyrzekła". This is an article by Polish historian and professor Marek Sobczyński[13]; Procesy integracyjne i dezintegracyjne na ziemiach litewskich w toku dziejów published in translation in English as Integration and Disintegration Processes on Lithuania's Lands During History in Role of the Borderlands in United Europe, vol. 2, Historical, Ethnic and Geopolitical Problems of Borderlands, „Region and Regionalism”, nr 7, Łódź-Opole, 2005. this is also referenced to another Polish historian, Jerzy Ochmański (1982), Historia Litwy, Ossolineum, Wrocław - see English review of his work here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)