Talk:1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania

Battleship?
Re this edit, was Prezidentas Smetona] a [[battleship? I would really like to read an article on a battleship made from a converted minesweeper... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would gladly give few titles, however as those are not google book scraps, dont think you manage it. And if you do not like how karo laivas is translated feel free to convert it to warship. M.K. (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification request
Some questions - (the wording reflects my recent ce):

"Apparently, Germany hoped that Lithuania would voluntary give up the troubled region, and a public stance could have disturbed its sensitive discussions with Poland over an anti-Communist alliance." - could we clarify anti-Communist here. As written it could be interpreted either as an agreement to suppress local/regional communist party organizations, or to a PL-German alliance against Soviet Russia.

"Lithuania secretly informed the signatories of the Klaipėda Convention about these demands, since technically Lithuania could not transfer Klaipėda without the approval of the signatories.[14] Italy and Japan openly supported Germany in the matter, while England and France expressed sympathy but could not offer any tangible assistance." The transition from "secretly informed the signatories" to official expressions of support for Germany, or sympathy but no dice, is rather abrupt. Maybe just a phrase like "after the takeover took effect" in front of "Italy and Germany..." ? Novickas (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the copyedit! [[image:smile.png]]
 * 1. Clarified - it was against Soviet Russia.
 * 2. There was no official support, but Italy and Japan sympathized with Germany on many issues in general and did not mind the ultimatum in particular. Hopefully removing word "openly" solves the issue.
 * Renata (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

—Lithuania–Germany Treaty as quoted in The New York Times
Is that really the exact wording as quoted from the New York Times? Because I find it hard to believe that an American paper (or any medium in the English language) would use the word Klaipėda, as during that time Memel was the far more common name for the territory in English language media. I found an article from the Chicago Tribune archive about the same treaty, that used the wording "Memel territory" instead of "Klaipėda Region": http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1939/03/23/page/2/article/treaty-signed-in-berlin/. 82.136.225.137 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Date format needs to be consistent
Both mdy and dmy date formats are used in this article. This needs to be fixed. (WP:DATE) Ddxfx (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"only access to the Baltic sea"
So in the Aftermath section, it states "The loss of its only access to the Baltic Sea was a major blow to the Lithuanian economy. Between 70% and 80% of foreign trade passed through Klaipėda". But, Lithuania still had access to the Baltic sea technically, right? I'll rewrite it as "...loss of its only port to the Baltic Sea" for now unless someone has a better idea 2600:4040:558F:2E00:F978:EEEA:3286:DE13 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)