[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Polish–Soviet War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articlePolish–Soviet War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 17, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
November 17, 2006Featured article reviewKept
February 28, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
September 16, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 18, 2005, February 14, 2010, February 14, 2011, February 14, 2013, and February 14, 2016.
Current status: Former featured article

"Polish victory" returned

[edit]

In various wiki articles that mention this war, Poland is named the victor. How so? Poland attempts to grab land in the Ukraine, the Red Army pushes back to the gates of Warsaw... how did Poland win?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.60.184 (talk • contribs).

This war didn't end at the gate of Warsaw, after polish victory in Warsaw battle bolsheviks were pushed back east again, one month later polish forces won again in battle of Niemen river and next in the final polish autumn offensive all 3 russian armys at polish front were defeated and polish foces recaptured Minsk, and at this moment war ended (so absoluty not at the gate of Warsaw)

regards Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.17.191 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article, pay attention to the result note in the infobox and the aftermath section. Note that the war didn't start in April 1920 but in February 1919, with the Bolshevik Target Vistula offensive stopped in spring/summer 1919 first. Poles failed tp secure independent Ukraine for their Petlura-led allies from UPR, but they prevented the Red Army from carrying the revolution to Poland and further West. There are reasons why Lenin in his secret report to the 9th Conference of the Bolshevik Party on September 20, 1920, called the outcome of the war "In a word, a gigantic, unheard-of defeat" ([1])... PS. This issue has been also discussed above, look through the archives too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not really prove anything. The war still ended with the border further west than the pre-war border. The Soviets were still holding parts of the pre-war Polish territory. The military achievements do not contradict the fact that the Soviets achieved most of their goals while being on the defense while the Poles failed to achieve most of their goals while being the aggressors RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! A peace treaty should not be used where it is. We can say that nobody "won" the war. But, if what I have read is true, the Russians sued for peace. How is this different that World War I? The Germans sued for peace, and we agreed. Yet, the 'World War I' article deems the Allies victors. Why not change the result to 'Treaty of Versailles'? If you don't understand what I am trying to say; I am trying to say that when a war results in an armistice, the victor is the side who agreed. Not the side who sued. Suing for peace = conditional surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.99.211 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sueing for peace is not a surrender by default. Especially since the Soviets were on the defensive side of the war. There were several negotiations for a peace treaty and Poland had to make much more significant concessions than the Soviets.
The victor in a war is the one who achieved his goals. The Poles failed to achieve their goals. The Soviets achieved most of their goals. Suing for peace =/= surrender. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As had been said above, a white peace treaty is not by any means a victory for either side, especially for the aggressor (in this case Poland) who invades and then is forced to agree to an unconditional treaty.212.40.143.6 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Treaty of Riga was not a white peace. As for the aggressor, the Soviets attacked (in 4-6, January 1919) the Vilnius where they were Poles. Only after that Poles started their offensive. And not the Poles were forced to sign a peace, only the Soviets (See Battle of the Niemen River). The Soviets offered the Poles even Minsk but Polish delegations represented by opponents Piłsudski (were opposed to his plans of federal states Międzymorze) refused join Minsk to Poland to prevent plans Piłsudzki.Kcdlp (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Both sides won a defensive war, but while Poles never intended to get as far as Moscow - just to secure the old PLC borders - Russians wanted to overrun Poland and turn it into another soviet republic. The war ended with the Polish borders being somewhat less then PLC (but that was also due to the disagreements between Polish politicians about how far the borders should stretch; in the end the faction that won preferred to claim less territory then Soviets were willing to offer!). It's quite clear who was the victor here, even if it was not a total victory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is it stated that the Soviets wanted to overrun Poland. The Poles started the war and the Soviet goal was to simply secure the pre-war border. The Poles intended to aquire all PLC territory and cut off the Soviets from the Baltic and Black Sea. In the end, the Soviets kept almost all the territory that they had pre-war (The new border was 100km further west than the frontline!) while the Poles only got minor gains in Belorus and Ukraine, had to give up all other claims, had to cancel their alliance with Ukraine and had to recognie an independent Ukrainian state. It is quite clear who was the victor here, even if it was not a total victory. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just completely incorrect. Vilnius was a Lithuanian city. They city was part of Lithuania at that time and the Soviets captured it on 16 January 1919. It had nothing to do with Poland. Poland became the aggressor by launching the Lida offensive in March 1919 and later the Vilna operation against the Soviets in April.
The Poles were forced to sign a peace treaty. The Poles also made significant concessions to the Soviets. The Soviets did not offer Minsk at all. In fact, the Soviet offer that the Poles accepted was actually 100km further west than where the frontline was. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The plan of the International under Lenin was to conquer Poland and then spread revolution to Hungary, Austria, Romania, Italy and Germany. Pilsudiski anticipated the Soviet invasion by striking an alliance with Petlyura to create an independent Ukrainian republic. Recognised historians, like Fuller, realise that the Polish victory at Warsaw 1920 and in the war stalled these Soviet plans. Following the defeat in this war, the Soviet union turned into "revolution in one country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.4.126 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Pilsudsky's plan was the establishment of Intermarium, turning Poland into a regional power and expanding its territory manyfold. These plans were also dashed (no independent Ukraine either), making the outcome of the war kind of a mutual defeat: far-reaching plans of both sides were shattered, whereas the immediate results were rather inconclusive. As Poland did gain some land in the end, it was still a limited Polish victory. The Battle of Warsaw certainly was a decisive Polish victory. The whole war itself - not so much. --illythr (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pilsudski's plan was to maintain an independent Poland and help creating an independent Ukraine allied to Poland. The plan of Lenin and the International was to turn Poland into a Soviet Republic and then continue launching the Revolution from its territory. The outcome of the war was an independent Poland. This was sufficient for the Polish opposition to Pilsudiski. The Soviet war aims in Poland failed completely. Please respect the historical facts, including the quotation of Lenin's assessment, and take POV-opinions elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.4.126 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to interpretations of Lenin's assessment, I would dispute that this consists a concession of defeat in the war as a whole: the quotations are from a speech that was delivered prior to peace talks with Poland, and does not reflect an assessment of the entire aftermath of the conflict. Concessions of defeat apply to the significant defeat in the Battle of Warsaw and a justification for the abandonment of the Soviet Republic's most ambitious war goals, but Poland also abandoned its most ambitious war goals in the peace process. Moreover, the article should not prioritize the evaluations of those involved directly in the conflict (let alone evaluations made before the conflict ended!), but rather seek to reflect a post-facto academic consensus, which other sources in the article identify as being disputed--to overrule these assessments in favor of content from a secret speech given by Lenin is original research. Per these sources, I propose that the infobox say "Disputed between minor Polish victory and indeterminate outcome".Rosguill (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"As Poland did gain some land in the end, it was still a limited Polish victory"
The Soviets gained land too. Actually many times more land than the Poles. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Pilsudski's plan was to maintain an independent Poland and help creating an independent Ukraine allied to Poland."
What is your source for this? Every single article I came across regarding this topic states Ukraine was meant to be incorporated in Poland.
"The plan of Lenin and the International was to turn Poland into a Soviet Republic and then continue launching the Revolution from its territory"
Again, source? Lenin did not even have plans for Poland prior to the war. The war was started by Poland and thus the Soviet aim was to secure the territory they had captured from the BNR and Ukraine prior to the Polish offensive.
"The outcome of the war was an independent Poland."
Poland was already independent prior to the war. The outcome was Poland cancelling it's treaty with Ukraine, gaining portions of the territory it captured in 1919, relinquishing it's claims on former PLC territory and recognizing the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs. Effectively, Poland achieved miniscule territorial gains while the Soviets got almost all of Ukraine and Belorus.
"This was sufficient for the Polish opposition to Pilsudiski."
Not to Pilsudski however, who started the war and was leading Poland during the peace talks. He himself stated that the war ended in Polish defeat.
"The Soviet war aims in Poland failed completely."
The Soviet war aims when talking about the general westward offensive ended in near complete success. There never were any plans to turn Poland into a sattelite state. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The plan of the International under Lenin was to conquer Poland and then spread revolution to Hungary, Austria, Romania, Italy and Germany."
Source? The Soviets had no plan for Poland. That is why they did not start a war with them. The Poles started the war because they wanted to annex all land that was once controlled by the PLC and wanted to cut off Russia from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea.
"Pilsudiski anticipated the Soviet invasion by striking an alliance with Petlyura to create an independent Ukrainian republic."
Pilsudski entered an alliance with whatever was left of the UPR (that Poland was actually at war with and later annexed it!) only AFTER he had already invaded the Soviets in March 1919. The war was already going on by the time they allied the Ukrainians. This Ukraine btw. was also annexed by Poland.
"Recognised historians, like Fuller, realise that the Polish victory at Warsaw 1920 and in the war stalled these Soviet plans."
The victory at Warsaw has no bearing on the outcome of the war. Fuller does not state that the Soviets had any intent for Poland whatsoever. Historians and Davies generally agree that the Soviet goal was to secure the border roughly according to the Korzun line, which is roughly also how it happened.
". Following the defeat in this war, the Soviet union turned into "revolution in one country". "
Socialism in One country came MUCH later, only with Stalin. Following the Polish defeat in this war, it had to recognize an independent Ukraine and Belorus, had to cede much pre-war territory to those states and had to abandon all claims. Polish reputation was ruined and Pilsudski himself called the treaty a defeat for Poland. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of the War

[edit]

The "limited Polish victory" thing was ridiculous enough, but "inconclusive"? It's historical fact that Poland won, the editor who changed it has a very clear Russian bias too (check his own page). Not that everyone isn't biased (myself included) but come on. Stuff like this is what makes Wikipedia a joke.Red Hair Bow (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical facts here (as presented in article text) are: both sides failed to achieve their goals, both sides failed to hold what they gained during their respective offensives, the Peace of Riga was considered a setback by all sides. Poland did get a monetary compensation out of it (as well as a recognized border eastwards of the Curzon line), so "Limited Polish victory" is accurate. The prevailing consensus established among the editors over the years here supports either "Peace of Riga" or "Minor Polish victory" as a result. I don't recall who changed "minor" to "limited" but that looks better than either to me. --illythr (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a read of the article and it seems like it was far from a complete Polish victory. So in line with what the article actually says and with past consensus, I agree that "Limited Polish victory" seems best (and not at all ridiculous), and I have changed it back to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder you came to the conclusion, the whole article is vastly pro-polish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.121.205 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is not clear that Poland won which is what the Aftermath section is for. There are valid arguments discussed in this thread that speak for Polish failiure RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Victory?

[edit]

Polish&Ukranian alliance invades most of the Ukranian territory initially and at the end in spite of Soviet defeat at the Warsaw, Soviets reoccupy their losts. So, where is the Polish Victory? (79.123.128.136)

ask Lenin- he was pretty clear on the subject. See other threads on this page.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell us what Lenin supposedly said. All I could find was him recognizing Polish independence prior to the war. 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:E4F5:D71B:C7C2:D632 (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical assessment

[edit]

Who exactly says that Soviet Russia won? Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davies, Norman, "White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-20" RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Result

[edit]

@Utryss: Didn't the Poles try to conquer a territory equivalent to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't. The main Polish goal was to secure independence and statehood, to halt soviet expansion and to secure eastern border as far from Warsaw as possible but at the same time not too far to not become minority in their own country. This was particularly important issue for Polish authorities at that time. Restoring pre-partition borders was political concept of Roman Dmowski (Dmowski's Line) who was an open political opponent of marshal Józef Piłsudski who led Polish military operations and had a more strategic-military approach, but even Dmowski in the end spoke out against going too far east and supported giving Minsk to soviets during Peace of Riga negotiations. His idea of restoring borders one-to-one did not gain public support in Poland. In the aftermath there is decribed what was Piłsudski's unrealised vision for the future political and military organisation of Central and Eastern Europe (Intermarium) and this was not supported by Polish government nor Polish delegation to the Peace of Riga negotiations and this should be stated there clearly. And the war ended undoubtedly with Polish victory. Ultimately Second Polish Republic achieved all its main goals and soviets failed to achieve all of their main goals especially to carry their revolution to Europe, this is confirmed by both Piłsudski and Lenin and thus the result of the war should be marked as Polish victory. --Utryss (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the aftermath says different and the Polish army invaded Ukraine. Note that the result criterion in the infobox does not allow itemisation and hair-splitting and the infobox shouldn't contain material not cited in the body or contradict it. It isn't our opinion that matters, it's the OR. Oh and we shouldn't change the article until we gain consensus. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The aftermath does not say it was not Polish victory. The aftermath says certain people called it Polish victory and indeed it was a victory from Polish perspective and a defeat from soviet perspective and as such is considered since the end of the war. One side won and the other lost and there should be no "itemisation and hair-splitting" about it. Polish Army invaded Western Ukraine during Polish-Ukrainian War, Ukrainians allied with Polish Army during Polish-Soviet War and Western Ukraine remained part of Second Polish Republic but how is this related to the subject of discussion?. I gave straight facts, the war is Polish victory, if you can prove otherwise, feel free to do it but as you said "we shouldn't change the article until we gain consensus" so according to this lawful rule the result remains Polish victory until you prove it was not. Utryss (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Aftermath section does not call it Polish victory either. All it says is that some historians call it a Polish Victory while some others call it Soviet Victory. And it indeed was a victory from the Soviet perspective and a defeat from the Polish perspective and as such is considered since the end of the war. Once side won and the other lost and there should be no "revisionism" about it. The Polish army invaded Lithuania and Belorus in March 1919 thus starting the war as the aggressors. Poland then crushed the UPR in Galicia and strongarmed the rest into an alliance as a Polish to-be-annexed client state. Poland launched another offensive against the Soviets that failed and got driven back to Warsaw. After the Polish counter-offensive, the war ended with the Soviets on pre-war Polish territory, the border 100km west of the actual frontline, Ukraine and Belorus remaining in Soviet hands and Poland having to abandon it's claims.
Realistically the war was a Soviet victory but since no agreement can be reached by the cited sources, it should at least be referred to as inconclusive. 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:E4F5:D71B:C7C2:D632 (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The poliosh army didn't invade Lithuania or Belarus in March 1919. In fact the Red Army invaded Lithuania in 1919 and Belarus in 1918. The red army first attacked Polish Self-defense units in Vilnius in early January (Battles for Vilnius (1918–1919)). Olek Novy (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The poliosh army didn't invade Lithuania or Belarus in March 1919."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilna_offensive
Vilnius was a city owned by Lithuania in 1918/1919. The Red Army captured it in January 1919. This was not an act against Poland but Lithuania. Poland captured this city from the Red Army in April 1919 and refused to hand it over to the Lithuanians. By definition Poland invaded the geographical territory of Lithuania. This btw. also marked the start of the Polish-Soviet war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Minsk
Shortly after the capture of Vilnius, the Poles invaded the Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and Belorussia and captured Minsk from the Soviets.
"The red army first attacked Polish Self-defense units in Vilnius in early January"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian%E2%80%93Soviet_War
The Self Defence force was Lithuanian and Belorussian, although it doesn't matter since the local self defence forces were not the armed forces of any nation. Vilnius was a city within the Republic of Lithuania at that time. Not Poland. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Vilna offensive was an offensive to take the Lands that were lived by poles.
Second: read the article about the Battles for Vilnius including this section
and Third the self defense force was Polish and made up of Polish commanders that served in the Russian army during ww1. Vilnius was a city claimed by four governments at that time: The Belarusian government, the Lithuanian government, the Polish government and by the Communists. more information is said in this video Olek Novy (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly after the capture of Vilnius, the Poles invaded the Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and Belorussia and captured Minsk from the Soviets." does this even make any sense? the Vilna Offensive was against the Soviets not the Lithuanians. Olek Novy (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Vilna offensive was an offensive to take the Lands that were lived by poles."
Doesn't matter. It was an offensive against the Sovets which at that time were at peace with Poland.
"Second: read the article about the Battles for Vilnius including this section"
What is it supposed to say what I have not said already? Vilnius was owned by Lithuania, captured by the Soviets and then captured by the Poles.
"and Third the self defense force was Polish and made up of Polish commanders that served in the Russian army during ww1."
What part of "Lithuanian and Byelorussian Self Defence Force" did you fail to understand? And again, what is your argument? Polish self defence forces are not the Polish army. Even if there were Polish Self Defence forces it would still not constitute an attack against Poland.
"Vilnius was a city claimed by four governments at that time: The Belarusian government, the Lithuanian government, the Polish government and by the Communists."
And? It was defacto owned by Lithuania. That is all that matters.
"does this even make any sense?"
What part doesn't make any sense?
"the Vilna Offensive was against the Soviets not the Lithuanians"
Ok so now you admit it was against the Soviets, good. I specifically said it was on the TERRITORY of Lithuania. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets were never at peace with Poland. In fact the Soviets invaded the Baltic States and Belarus as a part of their westward offensive. The Poles launched an offensive due to the fact that the Bolsheviks would invade a newly independent Poland. Just because its called : "Lithuanian and Byelorussian Self Defence Force" doesent mean that Belarusians and Lithuanians were the main nationality there.
The reason why the Poles captured Vilnius in January of 1919 is because they anticipated that the Germans would give it to the Bolsheviks on January 5 1919.
And what does it mean that it was on the territory of Lithuania? The Bolsheviks just occupied 1/3 of the country? Olek Novy (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about, of course the Soviets were at peace with Poland. The Soviet invasions of the Baltic states are completely unrelated to Poland. Same for Belorus. The westward offensive targeted all Brest Litovsk states EXCEPT for Poland.
Where exactly did you take this from that the Soviets would invade or that the Poles anticipated an invasion?
The Poles invaded simply to aquire the territories of the former PLC. It made no difference what the Soviets did or did not do.
"Just because its called "Lithuanian and Byelorussian Self Defence Force" doesent mean that Belarusians and Lithuanians were the main nationality there."
1. That means the reverse applies for the Polish Self Defence Force
2. Again, that absolutely does NOT matter at all. They were not soldiers of the Polish Armed Forces. Therefore you can not use them being under attack as an act of war.
"The reason why the Poles captured Vilnius in January of 1919 is because they anticipated that the Germans would give it to the Bolsheviks on January 5 1919."
The Germans were already long gone by that time. The Poles launched their Vilna operation on 16 April, MONTHS later.
"And what does it mean that it was on the territory of Lithuania? The Bolsheviks just occupied 1/3 of the country? "
That means this territory was LITHUANIAN territory under Soviet occupation. Either way, when the Poles invaded the area of Vilnius without handing Vilnius back to Lithuania, they effectively violated Lithuanian sovereignty. This is also why the Lithuanian-Polish war happened. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Operation "Target Vistula
2." That means the reverse applies for the Polish Self Defence Force" You didnt even read the article.
3. The Germans weren't gone for a long time You should see Ober Ost
4. wdym by "violated Lithuanian sovereignty" and The Polish-Lithuanian conflict only started in the Sejny Region. Olek Novy (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nothing more than reconaissance
2. You didn't even read the article
3. The Germans left in January. The Poles in invaded in April. Yes, they were gone for a long time
4. Wdym "did not invade Lithuania". It was literally Lithuanian land. The entire Polish-Lithuanian war was over Vilnius. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first battle of the war was in Feburary, The article of the self-defene says this: Self-Defence units were composed mostly of Poles loyal to the nascent Second Polish Republic, formed after a century of Partitions. Their areas of operation were centered around Vilnius (Wilno), Minsk (Mińsk) and Grodno. In January 1919, the Polish Self-Defence was officially organized as the 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division; the division took part in the Polish–Soviet War of 1919–1920. Poland didn't recognize the Vilnius Region as Lithuanian Land in fact most countries that had governments in Vilnius recognized it as their own. Olek Novy (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first battle of the war was in March 1919 with the screening operations against the Soviets at Vilnius.
Loyal to Poland does not imply formal or legal Polish service.
"The Red Army entered Polotsk on 21 November, Drissa and Rahachow on 22 November, Zhlobin on 24 November, Babruysk on 28 November, Barysaw on 3 December, Slutsk on 8 December and Igumen on 9 December. On 10 December 1918, the Red Army entered Minsk almost unopposed, putting an end to the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic. On 1 January 1919, the Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia (SSRB) was proclaimed in Smolensk. On 8 January, the SSRB government relocated to Minsk. At the same time, Polish and Belarusian self-defence units sprung up across western Belarus. Ill-equipped and composed mostly of local recruits, they were determined to defend their homes from what the newspapers described as a "Red menace". Similar Bolshevik groups were operating in the sector and a series of skirmishes ensued."
Clearly the Belorussian defence units weren't even Polish in the first place.
Again, not that it matters since none of them were official Polish military.
It doesn't matter what Poland recognized. Fact is that Vilnius was on the territory of Lithuania and thus owned by it. Poland, by not handing the city back to Lithuania, had commited an act of war. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Lithuania here? weren't they fighting with the Soviets aswell? Olek Novy (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? And? That does not invalidate what I said at all RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The first battle of the war was in March 1919 with the screening operations against the Soviets at Vilnius." absolute nonsense the first battles of the War were in Mosty and Bereza Kartuska (14th of Febuary) Olek Novy (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense, Mosty and bereza Kartuska were minor border clashes without either nation ordering those engagements. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The main Polish goal was to secure independence and statehood, to halt soviet expansion and to secure eastern border as far from Warsaw as possible but at the same time not too far to not become minority in their own country."
Incorrect. The Polish goal was to incorporate Ukraine and Belorus as well as all other territories of the former PLC into Poland and replace Russia as the main power in eastern Europe.
"but even Dmowski in the end spoke out against going too far east and supported giving Minsk to soviets during Peace of Riga negotiations."
Dmowski was not in charge of Poland at the start or end of the war. Pilsudski was. Pilsudski heavily disagreed with the Peace Treaty and called it a defeat for Poland. Pilsudski's plan was to go east as far as possible to reclaim the borders of the PLC pre-partition. This meant all the way up to Smolensk.
The war ended undoubtedly in Polish failiure.
Ultimately, Poland failed to achieve any of it's goals apart from retaining some of it's pre-war territories.
The Soviets achieved close to all of their goals. They never had the intention to "Export the Revolution". The Soviets succeeded in pushing the border east, gaining Belorus and Ukraine and forcing Poland to abandon it's claims. This is confirmed by both Pilsudski and Lenin and thus the result of the war should be marked at the very least as inconclusive. 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:E4F5:D71B:C7C2:D632 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that says Poland wanted to incorporate Ukraine and Belorus as well as all other territories of the former PLC into Poland and replace Russia as the main power in eastern Europe? Olek Novy (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aviel Roshwald, "Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empires: Central Europe, the Middle East and Russia, 1914–1923", p. 37
"Piłsudski hoped to incorporate most of the territories of the defunct Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth into the future Polish state by structuring it as the Polish-led, multinational federation. Piłsudski had wanted to break up the Russian Empire and set up the Intermarium federation of various different states: Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and other Central and East European countries that emerged from the crumbling empires after World War I. In Piłsudski's vision, Poland would replace a truncated and vastly reduced Russia as the great power of Eastern Europe. His plan excluded negotiations prior to military victory."
Federation does not mean independence. Federation means direct rule with limited autonomy. Like the Russian Federation and the Republic of Yakutia for example. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read this source Olek Novy (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Polish. Read the source I sent. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a translate option:) Olek Novy (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The translate option just returns to the homepage :)
It also isn't a source but a simple unsourced pop-history article that does not contradict the academic source I provided at all. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The people that written the text know more history then you. And why are you using you're own POV, just accept the fact that Poland Won and the bolsheviks lost. Olek Novy (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally provided you with a peer reviewed source and a quote. You provided me with a link to random artricle. Why are you using your own POV, just accept the fact that Poland lost and the Bollsheviks won. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Poles losing and the Bolsheviks winning is absolute nonsense and clearly POV pushing: The soviets never considered this a victory as said in the article: "Lenin spoke of a great military defeat suffered by Soviet Russia". The Bolsheviks were also forced f 30 million rubles in gold at 1913 prices as compensation for the contribution of Polish lands to building the Russian economy during the partition period.
From the Soviet side: the Treaty of Riga was treated from the beginning (like the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ) as an ephemeral ceasefire in the foreign expansion of the Soviet state to the West, forced by the military and political situation. National Democracy's predictions about the transitory nature of the communist regime in Russia turned out to be illusory. After signing the Rapallo Agreement in 1922, the USSR , through a political agreement with Germany (Weimar Republic), avoided repaying the international obligations of the Russian Empire  and broke its diplomatic isolation. The consequence was the official recognition of the Soviet state by Great Britain (1922), France (1923) and finally the United States (1934). Olek Novy (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Poles winning and Soviets losing is absolute nonsense and clearly POV pushing. The Poles never considered this a victory as said by Pilsudski when talking about the Treaty of Riga. The Poles were also forced to recognize Ukraine and Belorus, hand over close to all of their lands to them and abandon all their claims of the PLC.
From the Polish side: In Poland, the Treaty of Riga was met with criticism from the very beginning. Some characterised the treaty as short-sighted and argued that much of what Poland had gained during the Polish-Soviet war was lost during the peace negotiations. Józef Piłsudski had participated in the Riga negotiations only as an observer and called the resulting treaty "an act of cowardice". Piłsudski felt the agreement was a shameless and short-sighted political calculation, with Poland abandoning its Ukrainian allies. The treaty substantially contributed to the failure of his plan to create a Polish-led Intermarium federation of Eastern Europe, as portions of the territory that had been proposed for the federation were ceded to the Soviets." RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Polish version of the Treaty of Riga Olek Novy (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I do that? You can read the Russian then if you want to. Is it really this hard to find a credible source? ;) RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can talk about these goals as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that the Poles secured their independence and won this war. Olek Novy (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can talk about Polish independence all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it was never a factor in this war and that the Soviets got the land they wanted while the Poles did not, which meant that the Soviets won this war. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets wanted all of Belorussia and Ukraine give me a source that says this except of pushing your POV Olek Novy (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they wanted all of Belorus and Ukraine. And they got by far most of it. What's your point? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where is you're source? The Soviets attempted creating a Polish soviet socialist republic and expansion of communism towards Europe in which they lost. The Soviets were humiliated in this war not only in Warsaw but also in the Niemen River. Olek Novy (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Losing half of you're army isn't a victory:) Olek Novy (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And where is you're source?"
Literally just 2 comments further up
"The Soviets attempted creating a Polish soviet socialist republic and expansion of communism towards Europe in which they lost."
They didn't. You have yet to name a source that says they did.
The Poles wanted all the PLC territory and failed to get even a little of it.
The Poles were humiliated in this war not only in Belorus but also at Kiev. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Polish Revolutionary Committee and the war doesn't end at Kiev but a Mińsk on the 18th of October of 1920 Olek Novy (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? Last I checked it was meant to manage Polish volunteers and former Polish Tsarist soldiers. I am still waiting for a source for Lenin trying to turn Poland into a socialist puppet or wanting to export the revolution. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] page 504 Olek Novy (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is in Polish. Nobody but you can read it lol. I still don't see what you are even trying here. Even the Polish (heavily biased) sources don't say Poland won lol. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about lol Olek Novy (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with Polish sources? honestly i sent you a link to a Polish socialist republic and you still have a problem Olek Novy (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because I can not read Polish and Polish sources on a war involving Poland are definetly more biased and less reliable than English ones? Especially since your articles aren't even peer reviewed? You failed to send me a link to your mythical Polish socialist republic and you still have a problem. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me one English source that said nothing about the Soviets winning the Polish-Soviet war. Olek Novy (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I sent you a source listing the goals from which anyone can deduce who won and who lost. You have yet to provide me a source that lists either other goals or outright saying Poland won.
In fact, you have not sent a single source at all lol. All you did was push your own POV RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to restore a nation doesent mean a goal of a war lol the real reason for the war was the Soviet plans to extend the Bolshevik Revolution beyond Russia. Olek Novy (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about lol? Restore what? I repeat AGAIN, as you clearly failed to read the sources sent to you. Since the Soviets did not start the war, they had no goal but to retain their territory. Poland, who started the war, wanted to aquire all land of the former PLC.
This is NOT up to debate. You failed to provide a source for this mythical Soviet export of the revolution. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how did Poland even start this war lol, stop listening to Soviet Propaganda claiming all their defeats to be victories. Olek Novy (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, the literal quote for how Poland started this war along with the source is in this thread. I sent it here to you lol.
Stop listening to Polish propaganda and claiming all their defeats to be victories. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The soviets started this war, not the Poles, like i already said the Soviets invaded 5 ne nations 3 of them were bordering Poland. According to you the Soviets were at peace with Poland which is absolutely wrong. The poles unlike the Soviets dont have a history of claiming victories in embarrassing defeats Olek Novy (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources disagree. The Poles started this war, not the Soviets, like the sources already said the Soviets did not invade Poland (even you said that lol). According to you the Soviets were somehow already at war with Poland from the moment the Russian revolution began which is absolutely wrong. The Soviets, unlike the Poles, don't have a history of claiming victories in embarassing defeats. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Losing half of your army, 1/3 of your territory and your entire ally is not a victory;) RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What ally are you talking about. And what do you mean by half of you're army lol. Olek Novy (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Ukraine just didn't exist? And what do you think happened to the Polish army after the Kiev offensive lol? Did the Soviets just teleport to Warsaw? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think happened to the Soviet Army during the Lviv Offensive and the Defense of Zamość lol. Olek Novy (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think happened to the Polish army during the Kiev-Galicia offensive and the Belorus offensive lol. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The war doesen't end in Kiev or Galicia but in October of 1920 in Minsk Olek Novy (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the war ended on Polish territory with Soviet gains, what's your point? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym by Soviet Gains lol Olek Novy (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym Minsk lol? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
never read the list of battles of the Polish Soviet war? Olek Novy (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never read the Treaty of Riga? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what about it? Olek Novy (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the list of battles? Poland gave up Minsk to the Soviets lol. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Minsk in 1920 ending the War was a Polish victory. Olek Novy (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neihter did the battle end the war nor did Poland keep the city lol. It literally gave it up the Soviets, along with much other territory that prior to the war was under Polish control. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets lost more then half of their territory claimed by the russian empire lol Olek Novy (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets literally got 40% more territory than what they held prior to the war lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Becuase of their war with Ukraine not with Poland lol. Olek Novy (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poland and Ukraine were allied lol. Poland literally gave up all of Ukraine AND gave up half of it's Belorussian holdings too LMFAO RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by belarusian holdings they didnt lose any land they occupied in belarus in January of 1919. Olek Novy (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviet-Polish border after the Treaty of Riga was both in Belorus and Ukraine further in the west than it was in March 1919 and only marginally further in the east than in January 1919. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In march 1919 the Poles reached Pinsk what are you even talking about? Olek Novy (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In March 1919 the Poles haven't even reach Vilnius yet what are you even talking about? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned Vilnius Olek Novy (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned Pinsk which is further away than Vilnius. Ffs, connect the dots arleady xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its in two different regions Olek Novy (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say... RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poland lost almost half of the territory it held prior to the war lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
prior to the war Poland held the territories of congress Poland. What are you even talking about. are you trolling? Olek Novy (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the war Poland held the territories of Galicia and Volhynia and western Belorus. What are you even talking about? Are you trolling? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Olek Novy (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look literally just in this thread. I will not send it for a 3rd time. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? the poles had barely any Western belorusian lands ibefore the War the Bolsheviks had most of the land of western belarus. Olek Novy (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? The Poles held over half of western Belorus by the time the Soviets reached their border. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And will you even send me a map before saying this😂? Olek Novy (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did, you literally refused to look 😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it? you sent me a book not a map. lol Olek Novy (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally in this thread. If you had read the book, which is available one, than you would have seen the map lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accesed the source and there is no map of this lol. Olek Novy (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, buddy. Even though you literally asked me where the source is you magically managed to pick the right one out of the 5 sources I sent and magically it contained no map lol. Sure.
The map is right there on the very page I listed lol. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You talking about this map? Olek Novy (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is an overlay of the 1939 map with coloring of occupation zones from various stages of the interwar period.
This is right before the westward offensive:https://omniatlas-1598b.kxcdn.com/media/img/maps/europe/europe19181204.png RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That map does not show Polish forces occupying half of belarus like you said. Those are most likely German Ober Ost units . Olek Novy (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of pre-westward offensive did you fail to understand? The immidiate pre-war border is illustrated in the book RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see the Poles controlling Western Belarus in this map lol Olek Novy (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally right there on the map in source I posted lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dark green colour in western belarus isnt Poland Olek Novy (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poland on the map in the book is pink. The map linked here is not from the book I posted. Just check the book. Again, the sources are all here RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it this? http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/53722/1/32.pdf.pdf Olek Novy (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time I am sending this source in:
Davies, Norman. White Eage, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-1920.
The troop movements including Polish movements east into Belorus are described from page 19 - 58.
Map is on page 103 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no map on page 103 Olek Novy (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 103 isn't even available on the online preview lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And whats the point of sending it? Also the amin topic of this discussion was that the poles started this war. Which is false First - On 16 December 1918, at a unifying congress of the SDKPiL and PPS-Left, on instructions from Moscow, the Communist Workers' Party of Poland was formed. The party adopted a programme platform which included the control of the Councils of Workers' Delegates in order to create a centre of revolutionary power rival to the Polish government, which would form one of the Republics of the Councils from Congress Poland and possibly Western Galicia, incorporated into the Russian Federative Socialist Soviet Republic. It was recommended to deepen the state of turmoil and disorder in the country, to conduct propaganda against elections to the Sejm and agrarian reform. The creation of a Polish Army was opposed, as it would hinder the victory of the revolution in Germany and would be an obstacle to the Red Army in 'liberating' Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Revolutionary agitators demanded revolutionary tribunals and the withdrawal of democratic rights from 'reaction'. The programme, adopted by the unification congress, left no illusions that the communists of the Communist Workers' Party of Poland intended to carry out a Bolshevik coup in a reborn Poland. Second - The Bolsheviks, having concluded a secret agreement with the German command in November 1918 on the direct takeover of the Ober-Ost occupation areas by the Red Army, created the Western Army already on 16 November 1918 from the transformation of the Western Defence Region, with headquarters in Smolensk. The army initially numbered 10,000 soldiers in fighting condition, by the end of December 1918 there were 19,000, and by February 1919 there were 49,000. The army was to occupy Belarus and Lithuania, reaching the German border in East Prussia, and then heading towards Poland. The march of the Soviet forces westwards began on 17 November, on 11 December 1918 they seized Minsk from the Germans, and on 5 January 1919, after fighting with the Polish self-defence, incorporated on 29 December 1918 into the reborn Polish Army - Vilnius. It was the attack of the Bolshevik army on Vilnius on 4 January 1919 that should be considered the actual start of the Polish-Bolshevik war. On 3 January 1919, the Bolsheviks formed the Revolutionary Military Council (Riewwojensowiet) of Poland, which was to serve as the future Polish government.
all of these text prove that the bolsheviks were nowhere near peace with poland (like you said). Olek Novy (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And whats the point of sending it?"
Maybe so that you can actually do some proper research with proper sources and not unreviewed random articles?
"Also the amin topic of this discussion was that the poles started this war."
Yes, from which you deflected. I listed the map because you asked for it.
"Which is false First - On 16 December 1918, at a unifying congress of the SDKPiL and PPS-Left, on instructions from Moscow,
the Communist Workers' Party of Poland was formed."
Absolutely false. Poland started this war. I could not find a single source that confirmed the formation of such a party. All I could find was
the formation of a Soviet polish rifle unit to recruit Polish pro-Bollshevik soldiers.
"The party adopted a programme platform which included the control of the
Councils of Workers' Delegates in order to create a centre of revolutionary power rival to the Polish government, w
hich would form one of the Republics of the Councils from Congress Poland and possibly Western Galicia, incorporated into
the Russian Federative Socialist Soviet Republic. It was recommended to deepen the state of turmoil and disorder in the country,
to conduct propaganda against elections to the Sejm and agrarian reform."
Source? Again, you say a lot but you fail to provide sources. Lenin even after nullifying the Brest Litovsk treaty, recognized Polish independence,
avoided any acts of war against Poland, specifically halted his troops whenever they encountered Polish forces in Belarus and Lithuania and
never intended to cross it into Germany.
"The creation of a Polish Army was opposed, as it would hinder the
victory of the revolution in Germany and would be an obstacle to the Red Army in 'liberating' Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine."
The Polish army was absolutely no issue for Soviet ambitions in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine whatsoever. According to your logic,
Poland was being completely docile and thus the Soviets had no reason to suspect Polish incursions into those areas. Congratulations,
you played yourself again.
"Revolutionary agitators demanded revolutionary tribunals and the withdrawal of democratic rights from 'reaction'."
When? Where? Source?
"The programme, adopted by the unification
congress, left no illusions that the communists of the Communist Workers' Party of Poland intended to carry out a Bolshevik coup in a reborn
Poland."
Except that nothing of this happened at all and given the factors I mentioned earlier left no doubt that the Soviets never intended any hostile
relations with Poland at all.
"Second - The Bolsheviks, having concluded a secret agreement with the German command in November 1918 on the direct takeover of the
Ober-Ost occupation areas by the Red Army, created the Western Army already on 16 November 1918 from the transformation of
the Western Defence Region, with headquarters in Smolensk."
And? What does this have to do with Poland? The Ober Ost regions did not involve Poland at that point anymore and the army had
it's HQ in Kaluga, not Smolensk. Not that it matters since nothing of this even addresses what you said at all.
"The army initially numbered 10,000 soldiers in fighting condition,
by the end of December 1918 there were 19,000, and by February 1919 there were 49,000. The army was to occupy Belarus and Lithuania,
reaching the German border in East Prussia, and then heading towards Poland."
Wrong. The Army was meant to capture the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine and STOP at Poland which is exactly what it did in January 1919 which is
why the border between Poland and the BSSR did not move at all between January 1919 and March 1919 until the Poles started the war by
launching the Vilna operation against the Soviets.
"The march of the Soviet forces westwards began on 17 November,
on 11 December 1918 they seized Minsk from the Germans, and on 5 January 1919, after fighting with the Polish self-defence, incorporated on
29 December 1918 into the reborn Polish Army - Vilnius."
Again, WRONG. The Polish army at that point had not left Poland. The Soviets fought with the LITHUANIAN and BELORUSSIAN self-defence force
and captured Minsk and later Vilnius, a Lithuanian city that Poland did not control and was defended by Lithuanian soldiers at that time.
"It was the attack of the Bolshevik army on Vilnius on 4 January 1919 that should be
considered the actual start of the Polish-Bolshevik war. On 3 January 1919, the Bolsheviks formed the Revolutionary Military Council
(Riewwojensowiet) of Poland, which was to serve as the future Polish government."
This is so unbeliebably stupid lol. Vilnius was not a Polish city. It was owned by Lithuania in January 1919 when the Soviets captured it.
The Soviets never formed such a council, only a volunteer unit for Polish bollsheviks.
The start of the war was the Polish Vilna operation in March 1919 which attacked the Soviets who, AS THEY WERE AT PEACE WITH POLAND, were not
expecing a Polish attack. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing your POV again i already argued with you about this. How cant you find any information about this? There is an entire section here[3]. There were no Lithuanian soldiers in vilnius in fact a Lithuanian army wasnt formed until February of 1919. Ive been constantly begging you to send me a source about the Bolsheviks being at peace with Poland. i a;ready sent you my explanations on why the bolsheviks were the aggressors. Olek Novy (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing your POV again i already argued with you about this.
"How cant you find any information about this? There is an entire section here[20]. "
WHERE?! All it says that a VOLUNTEER DIVISION was formed. I could not find a single source that claimed that the Soviets
had any plans for Poland AT ALL. I already sent you the book by Davies explaining how the Soviets never attemped to install communism in Poland
or break through to Germany.
There were no Polish soldiers in Vilnius in fact a Polish army wasnt formed until November of 1918 while Lithuania already fielded a self defence force for the battle
of Vilnius against the Soviets. Literally how the hell were there any Polish soldiers when the city was in Lithuania?!
Ive been constantly begging you to send me a source about the Bolsheviks being at war with Poland.
i already sent you my explanations on why the Poles were the aggressors. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Soviets were at peace with Poland then why did they create the Red Warsaw Infantry Regiment. Why did they make the 52nd Rifle Division where half of the commanders were polish? Why did they support A communist uprising in Zamość? In fact I debunked all you're explsinations that the Poles were the aggressors Olek Novy (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If the Soviets were at peace with Poland then why did they create the Red Warsaw Infantry Regiment. "
Because why not? There were thousands of Polish soldiers within the Imperial Army and many of them were pro-Soviet. Why
would the Soviets not create Polish volunteer divisions? What does this have to do with the Polish-Soviet war?
The Division (Not regiment) was founded even before the westward offensive, so how does it's existance prove a state of war between
Poland and the RSFSR?
"Why did they make the 52nd Rifle Division where half of the commanders were polish? "
See above.
"Why did they support A communist uprising in Zamość?"
They didn't lol. And even if they somehow magically managed to do that, it still would not constitute an act of war either.
In fact I debunked all your delusions that the Soviets were the aggressors RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the main goals of the Polish Communist Party. Olek Novy (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading about the westward offensive and the goals of the Polish invasion of Ukraine and Belarus RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Poles are the aggressors then why did the Soviets want the lands of the Russian empire? In fact Youre only argument to the Poles being the agressors was the Vilna Offensive but before that the Bolshevik authorities of Lithuania and Belarus united to form the Lithuanian-Belarusian Socialist Soviet Republic . The areas it controlled included class terror and detailed legal regulations in the Bolshevik spirit. The victims of the regime were mainly landowners, the intelligentsia, independence activists and the clergy. Some cultural heritage was also destroyed. Polish uprisings in the Nieśwież region in March 1919 were also bloodily suppressed. Olek Novy (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If the Poles are the aggressors then why did the Soviets want the lands of the Russian empire? "
Even if they did (they did not), where is the argument here? Soviet ambitions have absolutely ZERO effect on who started the war.
The one who started the war, Poland, started it not because of it's ambitions but because of it's ACTIONS, it's invasion of the Belarussian SSR.
"In fact Youre only argument to the Poles being the agressors was the Vilna Offensive but before that the Bolshevik authorities of
Lithuania and Belarus united to form the Lithuanian-Belarusian Socialist Soviet Republic . "
And where is the act of war here? What did that have to do with Poland? This was not an act of war or even aggression at all.
Meanwhile Poland literally invaded a nation it was at peace with, the Lithuanian-Belarusian Socialist Soviet Republic, that you just mentioned.
You literally have no arguments for the Soviets starting the war at all.
"The areas it controlled included class terror and detailed legal regulations in the Bolshevik spirit. "
As if that wasn't the norm for any non-Polish person in areas occupied by Poland lol.
Also, where is the argument? Stop deflecting and POV pushing.
"The victims of the regime were mainly landowners, the intelligentsia, independence activists and the clergy.
Some cultural heritage was also destroyed."
And? Disregarding the fact that Poland did that to the nations it conquered too, where is the argument? What does this have to do with
Poland starting the war?
"Polish uprisings in the Nieśwież region in March 1919 were also bloodily suppressed."
By Poland, yes. And? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Liberation of the Belarusian SSR in 1919 was a response to the Soviet crackdown on Polish civilians in the area. Olek Novy (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The occupation of the Belarussian SSR was no response lmao.
1. Polish civilians literally were not cracked down on
2. If they were, it is still not an act of war
3. You literally admit Poland started the war by invading Belarus.
Dude, no matter how you twist it, Poland started the war for no reason other than imperialistic gain in the east with the goal of recreating the PLC and replacing Russia as the eastern European great power. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained to you why the Soviets started the war: After concluding a secret agreement with the German command in November 1918 on the direct takeover of the occupied territories of Ober-Ost by the Red Army , the Bolsheviks created the Western Army on November 16, 1918, from the transformation of the Western Defense Region, with its headquarters in Smolensk . The army initially numbered 10,000. soldiers in combat condition, at the end of December 1918 there were 19 thousand of them, and in February 1919 - 49 thousand. The army was to occupy Belarus and Lithuania, reaching the German border in East Prussia , and then move towards Poland. The march of Soviet forces westwards began on November 17, on December 11, 1918, they took over Minsk from the Germans , and on January 5, 1919, after fighting with the Polish self-defense, incorporated into the reborn Polish Army - Vilnius on December 29, 1918 . The attack of Bolshevik troops on Vilnius on January 4, 1919 should be considered the actual beginning of the Polish-Bolshevik war. On January 3, 1919, the Bolsheviks established the Revolutionary-Military Council (Riewwojensowiet ) of Poland, which was to act as the future Polish government. (Jerzy Borzecki: Peace of Riga and the formation of the interwar eastern europe) Olek Novy (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained to you why the Poles started the war:
After occupying the border regions in Belorus and forming a border with the Belarussian SSR, the Poles started the Vilna operation in March 1919
against the LBSSR and by extension the RSFSR. This marked the start of the war.
"After concluding a secret agreement with the German command in November 1918 on the direct takeover of the occupied territories
of Ober-Ost by the Red Army , the Bolsheviks created the Western Army on November 16, 1918, from the transformation of the Western
Defense Region, with its headquarters in Smolensk . The army initially numbered 10,000. soldiers in combat condition, at the end of December
1918 there were 19 thousand of them, and in February 1919 - 49 thousand."
I already explained why this is not an argument and has nothing to do with your claim at all.
"The army was to occupy Belarus and Lithuania, reaching the
German border in East Prussia , and then move towards Poland."
Nope, it was meant to stop at the Neman river. It was never meant to attack or occupy Poland. Your source also does not state Poland at all.
"The march of Soviet forces westwards began on November 17, on December 11,
1918, they took over Minsk from the Germans , and on January 5, 1919, after fighting with the Polish self-defense, incorporated into the
reborn Polish Army - Vilnius on December 29, 1918 . The attack of Bolshevik troops on Vilnius on January 4, 1919 should be considered the
actual beginning of the Polish-Bolshevik war."
Nope, they took Vilnius from the LITHUANIAN Army, clashed with Lithuanian professional soldiers, the attack against the Lithuanian city of
Vilnius defended by not a single citizen of the Polish nation has nothing to do with Poland. The Polish self defence force was not incoorperated
in any army and this would have marked an attack against Lithuania lol. The attack of Polish troops against Vilnius in April 1919 marks
the start of the Polish-Soviet war.
"On January 3, 1919, the Bolsheviks established the
Revolutionary-Military Council (Riewwojensowiet ) of Poland, which was to act as the future Polish government.
(Jerzy Borzecki: Peace of Riga and the formation of the interwar eastern europe)"
They did not such thing. They only formed a volunteer division according to Jerzy Borzecki.
Source: Davies, Norman: White Eage, Red Star. The Polish-Soviet War 1919. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They didnt clash with any lithuanian army in fact there was no Lithuanian Army in vilnius. there is an entire article about this. Olek Novy (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"They didnt clash with any lithuanian army in fact there was no Lithuanian Army in vilnius. there is an entire article about this."
What the hell are you talking about, of course there was a Lithuanian army in the capital city of Lithuania, there is an an entire article
about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian%E2%80%93Soviet_War
"Aligned with Poland"
Does not mean Polish, allied to Poland or part of the Polish army/Nation RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then mybe give me an article about the Lithuanian Army in Vilnius from the 31st of December to the 5th of January 1919. I suggest reading Battles for Vilnius (1918-1919) Olek Novy (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Then mybe give me an article about the Lithuanian Army in Vilnius from the 31st of December to the 5th of January 1919. "
I literally posted a link to the article in the last comment. The Lithuanian-Belorussian self defence force was not Polish, it constituted
the armed forces of Lithuania.
I suggest reading Battles for Vilnius (1918-1919) RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Self-defence of Lithuania being Lithuanian is total bullshit lol. Did you even read the article about them. Olek Novy (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lithuanian-Belorussian Self Defence for being Polish is utter bullshit lol. Did you even read the posted article? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the article you posted talks about the Poles defending the city not the Lithuanians. In fact the article mentions that the Lithuanians evacuated from Vilnius on the 1st of January 4 days before the fighting ended. Olek Novy (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Half of the article you posted talks about the Poles defending the city not the Lithuanians. "
Literally where lol? The entire article just talks about the Lithuanians defending the city.
"In fact the article mentions that the Lithuanians evacuated from Vilnius on the 1st of January 4 days before the fighting ended."
Where? All it says is that the government evacuated. How can there be a battle for the city if the Lithuanians just left lol?
The Poles were clearly not defending the city, since that would require them to have owned the city in the first place, which they
never did until April 1919 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look up"Lithuanian" and nothing shows up on the First and Second attack of the Red Army also this source: [4] mentions noting about a lithuanian army in Vilnius. Lithuanian historians themselves agree with this. Olek Novy (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Look up"Lithuanian" and nothing shows up on the First and Second attack of the Red Army "
LOL what? I get 219 resutls lmfao.
"also this source: [21] mentions noting about a lithuanian army in Vilnius."
Ah, I guess it literally saying Lithuanian-Belorussian Self Defence force is just not enough for you lmfao.
Polish historians themselves agree with this. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What article are you even talking about? Olek Novy (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one I sent in lol? What else? You failed to provide a source so far. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally sent me battles for Vilnius in 1918-1919 which shows Lithuanian 39 times and not 219 times like you said. Are you actually trolling 😂 Olek Novy (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You literally sent me battles for Vilnius in 1918-1919 which shows Lithuanian 39 times and not 219 times like you said."
Ahahaha, I literally did not send that article xD. I sent the article about the Lithuanian-Soviet war.
Also good to know that you are still contradicting yourself because apparantly not it is not 0 but 39
You are literally making shit up on the spot.
Are you actually trolling 😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions them 81 times and Vilnius is only mentioned 16 times. And it also proves that the Poles were defending Vilnius and not the Bolsheviks and also what's the point of copying what I'm saying you're acting stupid😂 Olek Novy (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It mentions them 81 times and Vilnius is only mentioned 16 times."
So it is still not 0 like you claimed and is still wrong XD
"And it also proves that the Poles were defending Vilnius and not the Bolsheviks"
Where exactly? This is the third time I am asking this and you keep failing to answer this very simple question.
"and also what's the point of copying what I'm saying"
When? LOL, literally when? 😂 The trolling question was honest because at this point noone could be this disconnected from reality.
You are unironically either trolling or being incredibly moronic😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Between 31 December 1918 and 1 January 1919, the German garrison withdrew from Vilnius and passed authority over the city to a local Polish committee, against the pleas of the Lithuanian administration.[22] The Lithuanian and Belarusian Self-Defence, which aligned itself with Poland, took over the posts. The Lithuanian government withdrew to Kaunas, the temporary capital of Lithuania.[23] On January 5, 1919, Vilnius was taken by the Soviets after a five-day fight with Polish paramilitary platoons led by general Władysław Wejtko. Olek Novy (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you finally admit that it was given to Lithuania, defended by Lithuanians and not owned by the Soviets, good. Glad you agree. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read that it was defended by Lithuanian soldiers xD Olek Novy (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Lithuanian-Belorussian Self Defence Force" part xD.
Where did you read that it was defended by Polish soldiers or owned by Poland? XD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuanian-Belarusian self-defence force proves nothing that it was Lithuanian xD the fact that the article it self calls it polish. Olek Novy (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh it literally has Lithuanian in it's name XD. The article never calls it Polish lol. It says one of the commanders of ONE unit among several was Polish.
And the best part is, NOWHERE does it state that ANY Polish citizens/soldiers were present. Only people IDENTIFYING as Poles.
Meaning that even IF they were all magically Polish, it would still not constitute an attack on Poland as they were not Polish military or citizens xD.
Dude, you lose either way. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-Defence units were composed mostly of Poles loyal to the nascent Second Polish Republic, formed after a century of Partitions. Their areas of operation were centered around Vilnius (Wilno), Minsk (Mińsk) and Grodno. In January 1919, the Polish Self-Defence was officially organized as the 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division; the division took part in the Polish–Soviet War of 1919–1920. By you're logic you can start calling all the soldiers in the 1st Ukrainian front "ukrainian" Olek Novy (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-Defence units were composed mostly of Poles loyal to the nascent Second Polish Republic, formed after a century of Partitions. "
Nope, the Lithuanian-Belarussian self defence force was comprised mostly of Belarussians and Lithuanians.
You are talking about the Polish self defence force which fought in Galicia and Volhynia.
Also, neither of them are polish citizens. Doesn't matter who they are loyal to. They do not fight for the Polish
government, don't have Polish citizenship and don't fight on Polish territory. An attack against them does NOT constitute
an attack against Poland.
"Their areas of operation were centered around Vilnius (Wilno), Minsk (Mińsk) and Grodno. "
Their literal article says Galicia, Volhynia and Brest.
"In January 1919, the Polish Self-Defence was officially organized as the 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division; the
division took part in the Polish–Soviet War of 1919–1920. "
Wrong again,. the LITHUANIAN-BELARUSSIAN Self Defence was officially organized as the 1st Lithuanian Division, the division
took part in the Lithuanian-Soviet war and Lithuanian-Polish war.
"By you're logic you can start calling all the soldiers in the
1st Ukrainian front "ukrainian""
No, you can't. Because the Ukrainian front was the name of a theatre of operations.
The Lithuanian Belarussian Self Defence and Polish Self Defence were actual paramilitary organisations. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the main article about the self-defence even calls it Polish XD. read this category in Polish: [5] notice how there is only 1 russian, also Władysłąw Wejtko said this in hois mobilisation order: "all Poles capable of arms, from the age of 17, immediately report to the recruitment office - Užupis (Zarzecze) 5, and all Lithuanians join the Lithuanian army. I leave it to Belarusians and Jews to choose the military formation they want to join." Also the Belarusian prime minister at the time himself protested against this. Olek Novy (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the main article about the self-defence even calls it Polish XD.
The main article about the LitBel SD force even calls it Lithuanian XD.
read this category in Polish: [22]"
How tf am I going to read it in Polish when I cant speak Polish?
And why would I read it in Polish knowing how biased it is xD?
"notice how there is only 1 russian, also Władysłąw Wejtko said this in hois
mobilisation order: "all Poles capable of arms, from the age of 17, immediately
report to the recruitment office - Užupis (Zarzecze) 5, and all Lithuanians join the
Lithuanian army. I leave it to Belarusians and Jews to choose the military formation they want
to join." Also the Belarusian prime minister at the time himself protested against this."
So CLEARLY it was a Lithuanian army xD
The Polish SD force was Polish. It did not fight at Vilnius.
The LitBel SD force was Lithuanian/Belarussian and had SOME Polish people (not citizens) in it.
Władysłąw Wejtko again, according to YOUR OWN source, fought as part of the LitBel SD force on Lithuanian territory
and called onto Lithuanians to join his ranks and literally refered to his unit as the Lithuanian army.
He literally calls on Lithuanians to join the LitBel SD force. Dude, this is like the 5th time you have proven yourself wrong.
I seriouly wonder how the Belorussian PM protested when Belorus at that time only existed in the form of the LitBel SSR? xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets When I look up the word "Lithuanian" nothing shows up in the article lol. Lithuanian is a name of a region so no shit that it would also be called Lithuanian-Belarusian. Lithuanian historians call the self-defense "Polish Legionnaires". If the self-defense was so Lithuanian why did half of it's commanders fight against them also the article about this battle calls the self-defense Polish. Olek Novy (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I look up the word "Lithuanian" nothing shows up in the article lol.
It is literally in the name and just 3 comments back you said there were 16 results lol.
"Lithuanian is a name of a region so no shit that it would also be called Lithuanian-Belarusian."
Yeah and no shit it would contain mostly Lithuanians xD
"Lithuanian historians call the self-defense "Polish Legionnaires"."
No they don't lol. They call the LitBel SD force simply "Lithuanian forces" or "Lithuanian Army"
"If the self-defense was so Lithuanian why did half of it's commanders fight against them"
Literally when and where? You just now said they fought against the Soviets xD
"also the article about this battle calls the self-defense Polish."
Nope, it literally calls it Lithuanian, as the name suggests.
If it was so Polish, why did presumably Poland create it seperatly from the according to you already existing Polish SD force that also
magically fought in the exactly same areas? You are making zero sense at all. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets The article Battles for Vilnius in 1919 calls it Polish lol. The text I sent you also said that it was aligned with Poland 😂 Olek Novy (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article.in Belarusian [6] itself calls it a Polish military organisation Olek Novy (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets How tf am I going to read it in Polish when I cant speak Polish? it's a category the only things in it are the names of the people also what is so biased about a category. Olek Novy (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The article Battles for Vilnius in 1919 calls it Polish lol."
The article Battles for Vilnius in 1919 literally calls it Lithuanian lol.
"The text I sent you also said that it was aligned with Poland"
So it is clearly not Polish 😂
"The article.in Belarusian [23] itself calls it a Polish military organisation"
I have it open right now. The only result for "Polish" in Belorussian is for territory of operation.
It literally calls it a Belorussian volunteer organisation.
"it's a category the only things in it are the names of the people also what is so biased about a category"
There is no such category.
Nothing is biased about a category but about the language and by extension demopgrahic it is written in is biased. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single language that has an article about the self defense calls it Polish xD. The fact that all movies and videos of the self-defense mentions it as Polish. Also I suggest reading everything apart from Lithuanian. Olek Novy (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally not a single language calls the LitBel SD Force Polish expect maybe Polish XD
"The fact that all movies and videos of the self-defense mentions it as Polish."
Since when are movies and videos sources? XD
Literally every historian I encountered like Davies or Wheatcroft call it Lithuanian.
Also I suggest reading specifically the Lithuanian part RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually read the articles I😂😂😂😂😂 Olek Novy (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you that same question several times😂😂😂😂😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets The moment you read Lithuania you just stop reading the article xD Olek Novy (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Says the guy who calls it Polish because one commander asked Poles to join xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets I suggest mentioning when Davies called it Lithuanian and selecting the text Olek Novy (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using your last 2 braincells to scroll up and look at the quote yourself RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polish military formations on the territory of Lithuania and Belarus occupied by German troops in World War I. It was created to protect the interests of the local Polish population, as well as the vanguard of the Polish Army. I selected the texts worth reading for you :) Olek Novy (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuanian and Belorussian paramilitery formations on the territory of modern day Lithuania and Belarus occupied by German troops
following World War I.
They were created to protect the sovereignty of the newly established Lithuanian Republic and Belarussian People's Republic
as well as serving as precursions of the Lithuanian Armed Forces.
I selected the texts worth reading for you :)
I could not find any of the texts you posted in any language of any article. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah😭 this argument is getting stupider and stupider. Name one source apart from wikpedia.that calls the self-defense Belarusian or Lithuanian Olek Novy (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, there are FOUR SEPERATE BOOKS I posted in here WEEKS prior and you still have the audacity to ask for source 😂😂😂😂😂
Norman Davies, White Eagle Red Star Polish Soviet war
Thomas Nigel, Boltwosky Toomas; Armies of the Baltic Independence Wars 1918 - 1920
Georg Rauch, The Baltic States, Years of Independence
Alfred Erich Senn; The Formation of the Baltic Forces 1918 - 1921
Name one single source, wikipedia or not, that calls the LitBel SD Force was Polish or calls it Polish. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets These books call the self-defense Polish lol just because you read the word Lithuania doesn't mean it's Lithuanian. Olek Novy (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Little bro really just checked 4 books in 10 seconds 😂😂😂
All of them refer to it as Lithuanian, just because some Poles served in it doesn't mean it's Polish 😂😂😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets Cite me where in the book it calls it Lithuanian 😂 Olek Novy (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, is scrolling up to hard for you? 😂
Or do you plan on checking a book that is not available online again? 😂😂😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets You gave me books and never cited any text Olek Novy (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the text and you straight up just ignored it and then asked me for the text AGAIN. Cope harder and learn to scroll up RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets did you just copy my text to you're pov 😂😂😂 Olek Novy (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh you are unironically just copy pasting your own POV over and over 😂😂😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets I'm copy pasting from other wikipedia's you edited the text I sent you and changed it to Lithuanian and Belarusian. Dude just stop cherry picking Olek Novy (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your text literally does not appear anywhere on any article lmfao xD
I am the one posting it straight from the article lol. That is why I am not contradicting myself over and over like you are 😂😂😂
Dude just stop coping RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets It's from the Belarusian article about the self-defense Olek Novy (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Belorussian but putting it into google translate yields literally ZERO results. However entering google translated "Lithuanian" yields results for the words "Lithuanian Army" and "Lithuanian military" 😂😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets There's no Lithuanian version of the article Olek Novy (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was the Lituanian version. You said Belorussian xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets How can't you translate text from English to Belarusian lol is it that hard to go on Google translate Olek Novy (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit, are you incapable of reading or something?😂😂😂😂
I give you another chance to re-read my comment. You can do it 😂 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RumyantsevPolkovodets I translate the text to Lithuanian and it says it's Polish I want you to give me a Wikipedia article that says it's Lithuanian and Belarusian. b-but the name😭😭 Olek Novy (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave you the article and in literally none of the languages you listed it says it's Polish, name me one article that sasy it is Polish except for the Polish one😭😭 RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://przystanekhistoria.pl/pa2/tematy/kresy/67926,Samoobrony-kresowe-w-walce-o-granice-przyszlej-Rzeczypospolitej.html i dont care if you have a problem. Olek Novy (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is
1. In Polish
2. Not a source but a random unreviewed article that does not cite references
I dont care if you have a problem. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And whats wrong with it being in Polish? would there be a dispute on a nationality of a Unit? Olek Novy (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in Polish, not the unit.
You said the Soviets attacked the 2nd Polish Republic because at Vilno the Soviets supposedly clashed with the LitBel SD Force which, according to you was a Polish unit that directly served the 2nd Polish Republic.
I said that this is wrong because of several things.
1. The unit was not Polish, it was Lithuanian and Belarussian
2. Even if it was Polish, it still wasn't an official Polish military or governmental organisation, but a rogue paramilitary group in Lithuania and Belarus. Attacking them does not mean you attack the 2nd Polish republic even if your delusion of them being Polish was true. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is Polish and The soviets were the aggressors in the war due to them wanting to spread their revolution across Europe. Olek Novy (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Polish and the Poles were aggressors in the war due to them trying to reform the PLC and become the great power in eastern Europe.
The Soviets also did not want to spread the revolution across Europe.
I also don't see how it is relevant. The Soviets simply wanting to do something in no way proves that they actually did start the war. This is not about who wants to do what but who actually did what. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Soviets also did not want to spread the revolution across Europe." Waht about the German Revolution of 1919? Also i asked you about giving me a source that claims that the Soviets were at peace with poland. And cite the words that say this. Olek Novy (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? Germany having a revolution does not imply Soviet desire to conquer entire nations. I already adressed this. Read Davies' book. It is literally more likely the Soviets would go for Hungary through Ukraine than through Poland to Germany.
I already gave you the sources and you ignored them. In fact, you actually contradicted yourself. You cited a quote about border skirmishes between Poland and the Soviets in February 1919. This already implies that they were at peace because otherwise those would not be border skirmishes but just regular battles. You proved yourself wrong again. I asked you to give me a source for the Poles being at war with the Soviets prior to the Vilna operation. You failed to do so. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You never sent me the page of you're book or the source. And i gave you many sources lol. Olek Novy (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did lol. Repeatedly even. This thread is public, why lie? And you failed to give me a single valid source. The best you could do were random articles in Polish lmao. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me a book not a page lol and cite the words in the book that say that the Soviets were at peace with Poland. Olek Novy (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you multiple books with multiple pages lol and I even cited them. You literally proved yourself wrong lmfao. Give me a single credible source that states the Poles and Soviets were at war. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You never cited me any page and never cited the words and when you did then I suggest trying again. Olek Novy (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I in fact did cite you both pages and paragraphs, if you can not accept it then I suggest you scroll up and look for yourself. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then cite them again Olek Novy (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, just look up. I will not cite it for the 6th time. The burden of proof is on you. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not cite any pages 6 times, and im asking you politely to give me the book and the page. Olek Novy (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently I did, and I am asking you politely to just scroll up and check for your own good. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll up to over 30 replies? If you're so smart then just give me the book? Olek Novy (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man it's almost like you could have done that sooner, the 1st time when I asked you and not the 4th time. If you're so smart, just scroll up the the multiple books I cited. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any sources then i suggest citing them with the page and with the book. Olek Novy (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any sources then i suggest citing them with the page and with the book. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cant actually cite a book? Olek Novy (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Can you? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SO are you gonna give me you're book and the source, or just no? Olek Novy (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Are you going to actually provide any sort of backup or just keep deflecting? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can you give me the source again Olek Novy (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can. But I won't. If you want to educate yourself you are going to have to put in the effort this time. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to achieve by doing this? i it that hard to give me you're source? Olek Novy (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I know damn well you will just ignore it like the last 5 times and make some poor attempt at deflection or revisionism again. The sources are there. The burder of proof is on you. Unless you can find a way to back up your claims, this discussion is over. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you gonna give me the source or no? the more you talk about on how you gave the source the more you are getting out of this topic. Olek Novy (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you actually going to scroll up to the source or no? The more you refuse to look at the sources I gave you the more you are getting out of this topic. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just give me the boo you cited 6 books and neither of them with pages.
Im gonna give you the reason for the war agiain: On December 16, 1918, at the unification congress, SDKPiL and PPS-Left, at the request of Moscow, established the Communist Workers' Party of Poland . This party adopted a program platform that included, among others: taking over the Soviets of Workers' Deputies to create a center of revolutionary power competitive to the Polish government, which would create one of the Soviet Republics from Congress Poland and possibly Western Galicia, incorporated into the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic . It was recommended to deepen the state of upheaval and disorder in the country, and to conduct propaganda against the elections to the Sejm and the agrarian reform. The creation of the Polish Army was opposed because it would hinder the victory of the revolution in Germany and be an obstacle to the Red Army in "liberating" Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Revolutionary agitators demanded revolutionary tribunals and the removal of "reactionary" democratic rights. The program adopted by the unification congress left no doubt that the communists from the Polish Communist Workers' Party intended to carry out a Bolshevik coup in the reborn Poland  . Olek Novy (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you just give me the book you cited 6 books and neither of them with pages."
I provided pages to every single one of them.
"Im gonna give you the reason for the war agiain: On December 16, 1918, at the unification congress,
SDKPiL and PPS-Left, at the request of Moscow, established the Communist Workers' Party of Poland .
This party adopted a program platform that included, among others: taking over the Soviets of Workers'
Deputies to create a center of revolutionary power competitive to the Polish government, which would create one of the
Soviet Republics from Congress Poland and possibly Western Galicia, incorporated into the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic .
It was recommended to deepen the state of upheaval and disorder in the country, and to conduct propaganda against the elections to
the Sejm and the agrarian reform. The creation of the Polish Army was opposed because it would hinder the victory of the revolution in
Germany and be an obstacle to the Red Army in "liberating" Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Revolutionary agitators demanded revolutionary
tribunals and the removal of "reactionary" democratic rights. The program adopted by the unification congress left no doubt that the
communists from the Polish Communist Workers' Party intended to carry out a Bolshevik coup in the reborn Poland "
Again, you did not source this quote. None of this is backed up in any historic work. This is why I was asking you to post your sources.
I already gave you the reason for the war:
"Soviet Russia, while at the time publicly supporting Polish and Lithuanian independence,
sponsored communist agitators working against the government of the Second Polish Republic,
and considered that the Polish eastern borders should approximate those of the defunct Congress Poland.
Throughout the 19th century, Poles saw the boundaries of their territories as lying much farther east and sought to reestablish the
1772 borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, by 1919, this concept of Polish borders was already considered unrealistic and was used by Polish politicians merely for tactical purposes during the Versailles Conference.
Józef Piłsudski envisioned a revived Commonwealth in the form of a multinational federation consisting of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, and perhaps Latvia – a plan which was in direct conflict with the Lithuanian wishes of creating the
independent Republic of Lithuania. Piłsudski discerned an opportunity for regaining territories that were
once the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and now belonged to the Russian Empire, which was shaken by the 1917 Revolution, the ongoing Russian Civil War, and the Central Powers' offensive.
In the first weeks of 1919, following the retreat of the German Ober-Ost forces under Max Hoffmann, Vilnius found itself in
a power vacuum. It promptly became the scene of struggles among competing political groups and experienced several internal revolutions.
Vilnius, the historical capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, became part of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and was soon proclaimed capital of the short-lived Lithuanian–Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
(Lit-Bel) on February 27, 1919. The Lit-Bel became the 8th government to control Vilnius in two years.
Józef Piłsudski, Polish commander-in-chief, determined that capturing Vilnius,
whose population consisted mostly of Lithuanians and Poles, should be a priority of the renascent Polish state.
He had been working on plans to take control of Vilnius since at least March;
he gave preliminary orders to prepare a push in that direction on March 26.
One of Piłsudski's objectives was to take control of Vilnius before Western diplomats at the Paris Peace
Conference could rule on whom the city, demanded by various factions, should be given to. The action was not
discussed with Polish politicians or the government, who at that time were more concerned with the
situation on the southern Polish–Ukrainian front. By early April, when members of the Kresy Defence Committee
(Komitet Obrony Kresów) Michał Pius Römer, Aleksander Prystor, Witold Abramowicz, and Kazimierz Świtalski met with Pilsudski,
stressing the plight of occupied Vilnius and its inhabitants' need for self-government, Piłsudski was ready to move."
Again, both the book and the pages are already further up in this section. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What book is you're quote from? Olek Novy (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is still the same book I quoted several times with pages. The quote is also up there. White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919–20. You do not own the book and the pages that talk about the actual war are not present in the online preview. I already told you all this. If you want to read it,, you will have to buy it like I did. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book says nothing about the soviets supporting the independence of Poland. They formed a communist party in Moscow and definitely didn't support their independence. Olek Novy (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I knew it lmfao. You once again try discredeting the book without owning it, just as I predicted xD
The Soviets did not form a communist party of Poland and definetly did support the independence of Poland. Refer to the source.
You failed to provide a source. This discussion is over. RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me you're page of the source lol. Olek Novy (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already did lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Davies writes in the Same book "At the same time, however, they openly supported internationalist Polish communists who aimed at the collapse of the Republic of Poland. " Olek Novy (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So they clearly supported Polish independence and did not found a communist party. Thanks for proving yourself wrong again xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read that they supported Polish communists, lol Olek Novy (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read that supporting Polish communists and literally threatening their independence are completely different things lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They supported Communist which wanted the collapse of the Polish state lol. Olek Novy (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They supported communists who wanted to establish a communist Polish state which would still be independent lol RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more like as a part of the USSR Olek Novy (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A state that did not even exist at that time? xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If such a republic would happen it would get annexed by them and no arguments again. Olek Novy (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you failed to form an argument.
You can not prove or even logically conclude that a communist Poland would get annexed into the later USSR. Like at all. The Hungarian and German socialist states were not meant to be Russian Socialist aligned. The USSR after ww2 did not annex any socialist states either. You are making this bs up on the spot xD
Come back when you have sources that don't prove you wrong RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Olek Novy (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah you gotta be trolling xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what is you're point here? Olek Novy (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 30: The Bolshevik leaders repeatedly professed their respect for Polish independence for instance. At the same time they openly supported Polish internationalist communists who were working for the downfall of the Polish Republic. Most observers regarded this as hypocritical double-talk. It was suspected that in practice Bolshevik 'independence' meant nothing more than autonomy within a leonine federation, where a centralized ruling party would limit national freedom to matters of schools and street signs. The suspicion was confirmed by the nature of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as declared in January 1919, and of the Lit-Byel, established in February 1919. The Bolshevik leaders identified the frontiers of Poland with those of the Tsarist 'Congress Kingdom'. To the west of the River Bug, they were ready to tolerate for the time being some sort of Polish national state; to the east of the Bug, they assumed they would inherit the realm of the Tsars Olek Novy (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally just confirmed what I said xD
The Soviets tolerated Polish independence beyond the Curzon line, did not establish a communist polish party and only wanted Ukraine and Belarus. YOU quoted this from the same source xD
Do you not realise this or something? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go message me on Instagram or something Olek Novy (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I had instagram, why would I do that? I want everyone to verifiably see what I posted here xD RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First source- https://www.google.pl/books/edition/White_Eagle_Red_Star/o3FWGRxVlSYC?hl=pl&gbpv=1&dq=White+Eagle,+Red+Star:+the+Polish-Soviet+War,+1919-20&printsec=frontcover the fact that even page 25 says that it was made up of polish officers.
Second Source - https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Armies_of_the_Baltic_Independence_Wars_1/HnmGDwAAQBAJ?hl=pl&gbpv=1&dq=Armies+of+the+Baltic+Independence+Wars+1918+-+1920&printsec=frontcover only 2 results that have nothing to do with Lithuania and Belarus.
Third Source - https://www.google.pl/books/edition/The_Baltic_States/emBIdi4LPz8C?hl=pl&gbpv=1&dq=The+Baltic+States+Years+of+Independence&printsec=frontcove litterally no results
Fourth source - doesent exist on google books.
Maybe send me you're links. Olek Novy (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First Source: Does not say the LitBel Self Defence was Polish, it does not mention it at all. All it says is that Polish officers operating under the "Self Defence" insurgeny group attacked communist insurgents in Vilno. It does not adress the topic we are talking about at all.
https://www.google.pl/books/edition/White_Eagle_Red_Star/o3FWGRxVlSYC?hl=pl&gbpv=1&dq=White+Eagle,+Red+Star:+the+Polish-Soviet+War,+1919-20&printsec=frontcover
Second Source: Huh? It has an entire 6 page section dedicated to Lithuania alone and mentions the LitBel SD force consisting out of Lithuanians and Belorussians.
https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Armies_of_the_Baltic_Independence_Wars_1/HnmGDwAAQBAJ?hl=pl&gbpv=1&dq=Armies+of+the+Baltic+Independence+Wars+1918+-+1920&printsec=frontcover
Third Source: Page 99 begins with the interwar period and the Russian Civil War. Your link only goes up to page 83. https://www.google.pl/books/edition/The_Baltic_States/emBIdi4LPz8C?hl=pl&gbpv=1&dq=The+Baltic+States+Years+of+Independence&printsec=frontcove
How exactly would I send you links to physical copies? If you want to educate yourself on this topic then how about you purchase the books like I did? RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send me the page Olek Novy (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already sent you the page RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lets see If other users agree @Piotrus @Marcelus Olek Novy (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the question here @Olek Novy? Marcelus (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Forgive me but I don't feel like reading the very long discussion above (no offence ment to anyone). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He refers to the Self defense in Lithuania and Belarus as Lithuanian and Belarusian Olek Novy (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously wrong, it was a Polish military formation. Marcelus (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is evidently wrong, it was a vaguely Lithuanian and/or Belarussian formation. Araceus (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yiu are wrong, it was a self-defense unit created by the order of Józef Piłsudski. Olek Novy (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I am hearing of this. Usually the conflict about the founder is between Polish officer Rozwadowski and Lithuanian officer Zukauskas Araceus (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about this: Self-Defence in Lithuania and Belarus (1918)? It was certainly a Polish formation, loyal to the Polish state and cause. Nonetheless how is that even relevant for this article? Marcelus (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's what I thought. You indeed confused the "Self Defence" with the Lithuanian-Belarussian Self Defence force. As far as I'm aware, the SD was mainly Polish while the latter was a loose militia formation composed mostly of Lithuanians and Belarussians.
I don't know what this is about. I just saw the claim that the formation was Polish which is obviously wrong. Araceus (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link article (in any language) about this Lithuanian-Belarusian force, please? Marcelus (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a dedicated article to the entire formation, but individual units are listed such as this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slutsk_uprising
Which talks about the Belarussian part of the Lithuanian Belarussian Self Defence force, founded by Belarussian officer Stanslaw Bulak-Balachowicz.
Then there is also the Lithuanian portion of the formation founded by Lithuanian officer Zukauskas:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvestras_%C5%BDukauskas
However some claim it was founded bx the Poles.
Generally I could not find much unified information online, I read about the Lithuanian Belarussian Self Defence Force here: https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Armies_of_the_Baltic_Independence_Wars_1/HnmGDwAAQBAJ?hl=pl&gbpv=1&dq=Armies+of+the+Baltic+Independence+Wars+1918+-+1920&printsec=frontcover
The other two already apparantly linked it somewhere in this thread.
But it doesn't seem like most of the book is available online. Araceus (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anybody is aguing that ever self-defence unit was part of the Polish Self-defence formation, which was an unified structure with a single command of Polish units in Lithuania and western Belarus. There were local self-defence units that had various ethinic background, some of them Lithuanian, Belarusian or maybe even mixed, but I wasn't able find any information about Lithuanian Belarussian Self Defence Force; certainly there is no information about it in the book you linked.
Nonetheless why we are even talking about? How is that relevant to this article? Marcelus (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you decided to say what you said. I just got pinged and then saw this question about the formation. So I answered. I don't know the context of the thread. Do you? Araceus (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Polish "Self Defence" (note the lack of Lithuanian or Belarussian in the name) was a paramilitary formation consisting of Poles, but it is not the same as the "Lithuanian- Belarussian Self Defence" which should be clear by now.
I would seriously like to know how you could deduce that the book I cited did not contain any information on it when the entire section (that is even mentioned in the table on contents beginning on page 99) is not available in the online preview.
Disregarding that, it is also mentioned in the other wiki articles I provided.
I don't know why you decided to say what you said. I just got pinged and then saw this question about the formation. So I answered. I don't know the context of the thread. Do you? Araceus (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they do @Keith-264 @Orczar @Gog the Mild RumyantsevPolkovodets (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are obviously misinformed or confused it with the general "Self Defence" which was actually Polish. It was not a Polish formation. Araceus (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you must reflect the aftermath in the result criterion Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much., you must not change the result until consensus has been established, the criterion must not have bullet points and beware of 3RR. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please come to terms with this, it is not for any editor to "prove" it is a matter for the Reliable Sources. We should be discussing them, I suggest you get to it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that contradict Polish victory? In this case the standard terms do accurately describe the outcome and the aftermath link is not used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. There are no "non-standard terms or contradictory statements". I'm still waiting for you to start discussion and explain your point, I suggest you get to it. Utryss (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rules you're in the wrong and 3RR Keith-264 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I do not see where the current infobox is against them. Utryss (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says that a concencus must have been reached. No concensus was reached in the aftermath section or the cited sources. So clearly, it is inconclusive. 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:E4F5:D71B:C7C2:D632 (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
Eg The MacMillan Dictionary of the First World War (1997) "Pilsudski led the defeat of the Red Army forces in the Russo-Polish War." (p. 364). Or Martin Gilbert's First World War (1995) "On October 12, the Bolsheviks agreed to an armistice. Once again, they had been defeated by a western neighbour. With that defeat ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Eg
The MacMillan Dictionary of the First World War (1997) "Pilsudski led the defeat of the Red Army forces in the Russo-Polish War." (p. 364)."
The defeat of the Red Army does not imply the defeat of the RSFSR in the subsequent peace treaty
"Martin Gilbert's First World War (1995) "On October 12, the Bolsheviks agreed to an armistice. Once again, they had been defeated by a western neighbour. With that defeat ..." "
Not a primary source and not even deductable from the result.
How about:
"Józef Piłsudski had participated in the Riga negotiations only as an observer and called the resulting treaty "an act of cowardice". On 15 May 1921, he apologised to Ukrainian soldiers during his visit to the internment camp at Kalisz. The treaty substantially contributed to the failure of his plan to create a Polish-led Intermarium federation of Eastern Europe, as portions of the territory that had been proposed for the federation were ceded to the Soviets."
-Norman Davies' "White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-192 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:51BD:C8B6:4840:5E4C (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's end this discussion here, consensus in the mainstream literature is clear: the war was victorious for Poland Marcelus (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. time to end this. The concencus in the mainstream literature is clear: The war was a defeat for Poland 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No arguments at all just a copy of a sentence. Olek Novy (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the other sentence had an argument or something? Just a claim that can be disproven easily by just looking at the thread. My copy is the correct representation of the talk section. His is not. 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made 3 comments to this talk page and none of them talked about the result. Olek Novy (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with me? I can clearly see a person saying that the people in this thread agree that Poland won the war while looking at a thread that says Poland lost the war. What does this have to do with me? Are you going to formulate an argument at some point or are just doing this to waste time? 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what "thread" are you talking about Olek Novy (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single thread discussing the result? 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
main point of a talk page is to discuss a user's problem with an article? what do you mean by "Thread" Olek Novy (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages consist of threads? Each topic is a thread. Main point of a talk page is to discuss changes to be made? What do you mean by user's problem? What does this have to do with my comment or the fact that there was no agreement in any thread? 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so why did you unexplainably write that the Poles lost the war. Olek Novy (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources quote directly above my comment says so? Where was the connection between what you asked and the topic here? This Marceleus guy looked at a quote saying Poland lost and said there were no sources provided and thus Poland won. Do you not find that insane? 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather that there was a quote above saying that Poland won Olek Novy (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote above said Poland beat the Red Army in the field. It did not adress the outcome of the war at all 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • GtM comment above is absolutely correct.
RumyantsevPolkovodets you've failed to show the consensus of main stream scholarship support your position. 23:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • RumyantsevPolkovodets comment above is absolutely correct.
Marcelus, you've failed to show the concencus of main stream scholarship to support your position. All 4 result sections at the very least demonstrate a lacking unified concencus and not a single peer reviewed source could be provided to support the idea of a Polish victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:8A80:2CBC:6069:A2BC:ABE6:1D91 (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His comment was rather that the Poles were agressors and he fails to give me source on why. Olek Novy (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding common sense, I see plenty of soures for this fact in the two seperate talk sections in which he participated. Do you have any sources to prove the contrary? Especially since you seem to be the claimant?

Merger proposal, October 2023

[edit]

I propose merging Polish–Soviet War in 1919 and Polish–Soviet War in 1920 into Polish–Soviet War. Both those pages are already covered on this page with proper context and references. Polish–Soviet War in 1919 is minimally referenced. Polish–Soviet War in 1920 is under-referenced, poorly written and substantially overlaps with Kiev offensive (1920) and Battle of Warsaw (1920) which were the two major events of the war in 1920.

When I say merge I effectively mean delete and redirect as I don't see there's anything on either of those pages not already covered here or on the Kiev offensive (1920) or Battle of Warsaw (1920) pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: As you created both the subpages. Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were split long ago and effectively abandoned. Old days. I don't mind redirecting them, there is probably next to no usable content there that is not covered in the main article by now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Piotrus's judgement. I support merging/redirecting. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "Result"

[edit]

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Disputed” is not accurate, and “Polish victory” was the result of the war

[edit]

Yes, some historians say that it wasn’t entirely a Polish victory. Yes, Poland didn’t achieve all it wanted and did receive some losses. However, the war was generally a Polish victory; Poland preserved its independence and acquired a significant portion of territory. Even Lenin (who isn’t really a humble person to say the least) agreed that the war was a Soviet defeat.

And in case you think I’m making this stuff up, here is a source that affirms a “decisive Polish victory” in the war. LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

[edit]

I would like to expand the article. The Amused Albanian (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish–Soviet_War&oldid=1250495955"