Talk:Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia

Comment
Halibutt wrote: ''The purpose of the document was to limit the public dissent after the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in which Russia was forced to secede most of its western areas to the Central Powers. In fact Lenin and Stalin agreed to liberate mostly the territories they had no sovereignity upon. The declaration was also in accordance with the German concept of the Mitteleuropa, which assumed creation of several buffer states in Central Europe.''


 * (1) The Declaration pre-dates the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk by several months. (2) Lenin and Stalin did not specify which territories they agree to liberate. They stated that any nation could secede if they wished so. &mdash; Monedula 09:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you're right. However, this article suggests that thanks to the declaration the following countries declared independence. This is entirely false, at least in Poland. Apart from the SDKPiL (the Polish reds), I doubt anyone even knew of the document at that time. It were the Germans who created puppet Poland and it were the Poles who de-puppetized it. Lenin and Stalin had nothing to do with it, except perhaps for trying to destroy it shortly afterwards. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:06, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Declaration is little known today, because of decades of Anti-Soviet propaganda (the activities of the Soviet government itself often being the best Anti-Soviet propaganda). But in 1917, the Declaration had a tremendous effect.  Today you take Polish independence for granted &mdash; in 1917, however, everything looked differently.  The Russian White movement was bitterly opposed to any secessions.  As to Germany, it is commonly believed that their original intention was to simply annex Poland, if Germany won WWI. &mdash; Monedula 12:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You are totally wrong! The declaration is well known today (at least in where I live) thanks to the half of century of commie propaganda. After WWII it was often cited as one of the basic documents to create the independence of Poland. The official history was (roughly) that:


 * Lenin and Stalin gave Poland the free choice
 * Poland re-emerged, but the power was seized by imperialists...
 * ...who joined the whites in their crusade against the land of liberty...
 * ...and won the war in order to suppress the workers.
 * However, contrary to this line of thinking, the influence of the SDKPiL was minor. Most of its members withdrew in 1915 together with Russian troops and did not return to Poland until the Polish-Bolshevik War, when they tried to start a revolution -- and failed. On the contrary the socialists (Pi&#322;sudski's PPS being the most notable) were quite influential - yet they at first supported Austria-Hungary and then switched sides and joined the winning camp of France and USA.
 * The meaning of this document might've been tremendous in Russia itself, but its significance abroad was very limited if any. The situation in Russia was indeed important for the Polish case, but it wasn't that simple. Until 1917 France was afraid to support the Poles openly for fear of weakening its eastern ally. However, after the collapse of Russia and the february revolution it became clear that Russia is on the verge of a breakdown and even the French socialists saw need to create a new eastern ally after the war. That's why the alliance with Dmowski was signed in mid-August. However, it was possible mainly because of the overall situation in Russia and not because of some specific document. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:47, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Also, the main problem with the acceptance of the Declaration in Poland was that the SDKPiL and the later KPRP were against the independence or rather in favour of an unified revolutionary state (roughly: Poland as a Soviet Republic, to make things short). When they started to create workers' and farmers' councils in 1919 they gained quite big popularity (100 councils with 400 000 people). However, it was too weak to control the councils and most of them drifted away from their case since most of the workers saw Poland as an independent state with a leftist government and not a communist one. That's why when the government decided to ban all the councils on July 19, 1919, it met with little or no opposition. It appears that at this moment we didn't have a political force in Poland to share Lenin's vision. There were only far-left communists (apparently far more orthodox than Lenin was at that time!) and the rest - which wanted an independent Poland, but opposed the joints with Russia. So the only political force to know about the declaration - opposed it for ideological reasons. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:58, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Independence dates
The article mentions dates when various countries declared independence. Can I get a source for that? The dates for Latvia and Lithuania are different from ones that these countries celebrate as their Independence Days now. Andris 12:18, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * The date for Poland was strange too (November 3), but I corrected that. I suppose that the author used some old bolshevik source from before the calendar reform in Russia. That would explain both the dates and the explanation of meaning of the declaration. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:21, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to with calendar reform. The difference between old and new calendar is exactly 13 days, so the above discrepancies do not originate here. &mdash; Monedula 12:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * So what's the reason for wrong dates given? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would really like to see the source (if it is online) or a description of what it says (if it is not online). Latvia's discrepancy is 10 months (January 13 vs. November 18, 1918) but there was some form of a provisional government in place before the now-recognized date of November 18. It might be reasonable to have something like "(formally declared on November 18, provisional government since January 13)" but we have to know what exactly January 13 refers to. Andris 13:06, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dates have been taken from this page (in is in Russian). The author is Richard Pipes, and the title of the page is "Creation of one-party state in Soviet Russia (1917-1918)". &mdash; Monedula 13:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am somewhat confused now. That appears to be a credible historical article by a well-known author but dates for Latvia do not match any other source (and Pipes paper does not give any reference/explanation). I will continue trying to unwind this mystery. Andris 06:49, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * This appears to be an English language source for January 12 . Andris 22:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Latvia's date is still a mystery. Latvian language sources do not mention Jan 12 at all, but mention a declaration of "intent to establish Latvia as an independent state" on Jan 30. I will change it to November 18 which is what Latvians celebrate now. Andris 22:44, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Two legs
The source you cited has got many mistakes, partially due to lack of explanation of certain facts. It also says that ''&#1042; &#1088;&#1077;&#1079;&#1091;&#1083;&#1100;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077; &#1075;&#1086;&#1089;&#1091;&#1076;&#1072;&#1088;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;, &#1085;&#1072;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1103;&#1097;&#1077;&#1077;&#1089;&#1103; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1091;&#1085;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1095;&#1077;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1074;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100;&#1102;, &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1089;&#1100; &#1082; &#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&#1088;&#1080;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1103;&#1084;, &#1085;&#1072;&#1089;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1074;&#1077;&#1083;&#1080;&#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080;, &#1090;. &#1077;. &#1082; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;&#1084; &#1056;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1080; &#1074; &#1089;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1080;&#1085;&#1077; &#1089;&#1077;&#1084;&#1085;&#1072;&#1076;&#1094;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1074;&#1077;&#1082;&#1072;.'' which is a complete nonsense since it suggests that before the declaration or the declarations of independence of the states in question their territory was under communist rule.

Anyway, let's add the other leg to the article and make it NPOV. How about my last version? I added the other point of view and erased the list of states to declare independence since their independence was not directly related to the document. This way there won't be any more disputed matters in the article and both views will be explained. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:50, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I see Monedula decided to put back the list of states that seceded at the end of WWI. Fine with me, but we should add a piece of information stating that their secession had little or nothing to do with the declaration. Otherwise, we'd have a POV article. Also, why didn't you add the names of the republics formed strictly because the declaration was issued? (Kazan Republic, Bashkiria, Ufa - and so on?) IMO they belong here much more than Poland or Finland since nobody opposes their joints with the declaration in question. What do you say? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Belarus
I prefer to see Belarus in the first list, because (1) it was independent for almost 4 years, in 1919-1922 and (2) it is independent now. &mdash; Monedula 10:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Initially I thought of moving all of the short-lived countries down the list (including Ukraine, Transcaucasia and Belarus). Especially that the independence of Ukraine was accepted only by Poland, Germany and Austria, not to mention the international situation of Belarus. Also, Belarus was not independent for 4 years, it was less than a year (between the proclamation of BNR on March 25, 1918 and the Soviet seizure in January 1919). Later when the Polish Army recaptured the area, the quasi-government of Belarus was re-established, but it was never given any real authority and the division of gen. Bu&#322;ak-Ba&#322;achowicz was unarmed shortly after the Polish-Bolshevik war. So, the matter is somehow complex since on one hand Belarus existed only for several months, while on the other hand it has existed ever since (Germany and Austria never withdrew support...). But let's have it your way. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought that independent Belarus (just as independent Ukraine) continued to exist until December 1922, when Soviet Union was formed. &mdash; Monedula 12:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, international law is not that straight as it should be. Theoretically (according to international law) nowadays we have two states of Belarus: the one on exile that is the successor of BNR (states like Germany now accept Belarus as the only Belarus, but AAMoF they never officially withdrew support for the BNR). So one might say that:


 * BNR existed until de facto annexed by Bolshevist Russia in 1919
 * BNR existed until conquered by Poland in 1920
 * BNR existed until Poland withdrew support for its authorities (1921, AFAIR)
 * BNR existed until the Treaty of Riga that divided its territory officially
 * BNR existed until swallowed by USSR in 1922
 * BNR still exists on exile.
 * The problem is that all of the above statements are true and none of them is true at the same time. In Polish historiography the date 1919 is usually given, 'though all other choices seem fine as well. The same problem is with independent Ukraine. Theoretically it never ceased to exist, even after Petlura's death in exile. Poland still supported it officially (although not practically for fear of loosing the Eastern Galicia).


 * Anyway, both Ukraine and Belarus might be considered as short-lived as opposed to states like Poland or Finland that managed to survive until WWII. However, if you prefer to call them long-lived as opposed to short-lived Orenburg or Ufa - it's fine with me. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:14, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * We may have to give a country-by-country comments here. A paragraph for each country explaining the details. A lot of them (Baltics, Belarus, possibly others) had two governments at that time, a Soviet and non-Soviet one. Russia would recognize them but under the Soviet government, meaning Russia would send in Russian army to fight the non-Soviet government in those countries. Essentially, this can be viewed as an attempt to establish Soviet puppet states (successfully in Belarus, unsuccesfully in Baltics).


 * I added a text about that in the article. But I think we should also say, for each country, whether it declared independence as a Soviet or non-Soviet state, whether there was a war, etc. The cases of different countries listed are so different that it seems unfair to lump them all together. Andris 14:52, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Three lists?
I split the countries into three lists: ones that had long-lived non-Communist governments, ones with long-lived Communist governments and short-lived ones. I think this adresses both the distinction between Poland (long lived, not allied with Russia) and Belarus/Ukraine (4 years under Communist government closely allied with Russia) and the distinction between Belarus/Ukraine and really short-lived Orenburg and Ufa. Does this work? Any other proposals? Andris 15:00, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)