Talk:Latvian War of Independence

No "one fell swoop" (continuing infobox...)
(ec) Leaving aside "interests," the proposed infobox is less confusing than Latvians in two belligerents columns. We're not going to resolve this all at once, so if we have something that is less confusing we should implement it even if it doesn't address all outstanding concerns. Perhaps we can consider about how to separately/in parallel indicate that "anti-Bolshevik" does not mean "pro-independence". Not a panacea, but this does seem to beg the question as to why there's no "Alliances" section for the infobox; listing parties together in any particular "Belligerents" column is clearly insufficient to address the issue of changing alliances or alliances for expediency at ultimately crossed purposes. (post ec) And we can continue to decide how to refine dates and notable exceptions. My basket is full at the moment; since it's on my long-term project list anyway, I'll commit to scan Švābe and privately provide to anyone interested for the purpose of this article. The article covers both the civilian/historical and military aspects of Brīvības cīņas. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two recently proposed infoboxes have Latvians in two belligerents columns. Both of them have the Landeswehr in two columns. One of them separates the Landeswehr units by ideology (Latvian and Russian units, and others) and the other one by actions in different periods (Landeswehr fighting with the Latvian forces until 5 June 1919 and fighting against the pro-Latvian Estonian army from that date). Which one describes the situation better?
 * Re: Perhaps we can consider about how to separately/in parallel indicate that "anti-Bolshevik" does not mean "pro-independence". - It's easy - group them by actual parties or alliances.
 * Re: this does seem to beg the question as to why there's no "Alliances" section for the infobox - Just read the guidelines - the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. The belligerents column ought to present alliances.
 * Re: listing parties together in any particular "Belligerents" column is clearly insufficient to address the issue of changing alliances - It's easy - indicate dates when the situation changed and the situation after it.
 * In short - I have posted an infobox on this page to match your thoughts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * listing parties together in any particular "Belligerents" column is clearly insufficient to address the issue of changing alliances or alliances for expediency at ultimately crossed purposes I don't see why you feel that way, nor how you suppose adding more fields would make this clearer, this can currently be explained with subheaders and/or notes (IMO ideal option would be to have a two cells wide field above the combatant section joining the allaince together, however this probably would be of no use in other articles). In my view infobox is meant to sumerize the article, not explain every detai of history. Neither of the two recently proposed infoboxes have Latvians in two belligerents columns. - have you at least dropped that idea? One of them separates the Landeswehr units by ideology - as do most encyclopedic and other sources on this war - the other one by actions in different periods (Landeswehr fighting with the Latvian forces until 5 June 1919 and fighting against the pro-Latvian Estonian army from that date) - which is more confusing than listing them on two sides with explenotory tile that they fought Bolsheviks together, given that mainstream historical sources state that there always was tension between Germans and other parties. Also Germans were not "fighting against pro-Latvian Estonian army from that date" - this is was one engagement, compared to rest of the war in which Estonia was not involved  Xil  (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: In my view infobox is meant to sumerize the article, not explain every detai of history. - This is not a very novel idea. All of us are trying to do that. The difference between us is I try to use the best available experience for it in Wikipedia and you think you are so educated you can apply your own rules.
 * Re: as do most encyclopedic and other sources on this war - Show me a single source that claims the Prince Lieven detachment was on the opposite side from the Landeswehr (I do not currently propose to include the Latvian brigade on the Landeswehr side).
 * Re: this is was one engagement, compared to rest of the war in which Estonia was not involved - Boy do you live in denial. This was by far the biggest engagement for the Landeswehr both in terms of troops and casualties, inflicting 39% of the German side's overall casualties and effecting the Landeswehr's end as an independent army. I'd say the Landeswehr chose the most peculiar way not to be fighting against a pro-Latvian army. Let me also stress, that the essential idea is not just the campaign against Estonia but the first of two full-scale campaigns against pro-Latvian armies, with the campaign fought under Bermondt as the other one. -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The main argument for inclusion of "Latvia" on the pro-German column (or however you want to call it), is that Balodis remained in Riga to protect it from possible Bolshevik attack, allowing the Germans to attack Estonian forces at Cesis, but is Balodis' (in)action necessary anti-Latvian independence or pro-German? After all, Riga is the capital of Latvia and protecting and controlling Riga is much more important to latvian independence than stopping a German adventure north, at least in terms of the topic of this article, is it not? Seriously what did General Reek expect from Balodis, abandon Riga to attack the German rear? --Nug (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you cannot see my proposed infobox I can post it here again. As a hint I can say I am not currently proposing to list the Latvian Brigade in the Landeswehr column. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, the page is so long now it doesn't easily fit in my browser so I missed it. It is an definite improvement, but what of the Landeswehr under Harold Alexander? --Nug (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be represented as detachment of the Latvian army equipped with a 'from July 1919' note. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "I try to use the best available experience for it in Wikipedia and you think you are so educated you can apply your own rules" - interesting, did you know that best available expierience on Wikipedia encourages use of mainstream scholary sources, not Wikipedia expierience? "Boy do you live in denial" - do I? Pretty please point to any other major battle involving Estonia that should warrant all war being summed up to best reflect Estonia's participiation in it. "I am not currently proposing to list the Latvian Brigade in the Landeswehr column" - yeah you are, you are now proposing whole landeswehr spliting away from main force in June. Furthermore, Nug, I don't feel good about including dates - some dates are clear but that cannot be said about when Germans split off. Like now the offer is June, altogh previously it was argued it was only in July and there is also a reason to believe it was in April. Furthermore most sources consider them as having different agenda from very begining (let's not not forget they were opponents in the WWI that had just ended). Hence I still think that simple short grouping by political ambition is best way to go. Despite what Jaan has been claiming even the infobox documentation alows for listing sides according to "political clout" and most encyclopedic/textbook sources describing the conflict in general detail choose the approach of viewing it as three different political forces fighting over influence in same region. "the page is so long now" - how would you feel about archiving everything above this section? "Seriously what did General Reek expect from Balodis, abandon Riga to attack the German rear?" I've been wondering about the same thing. But however well it is documented that Estonians and norther brigade had some weird expectations, I think these and other opinions should be reflected in the text, not the infobox. Xil  (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: did you know that best available expierience on Wikipedia encourages use of mainstream scholary sources - Please show me a source that says belligerent sides are not comprised by alliances but ideologies. This is basically the arguement because we have agreed the Landeswehr and Latvia were allied at least until June.
 * Re: you are now proposing whole landeswehr spliting away from main force in June. What do you mean by 'main force' here and where is the split besides the South Latvian Brigade and Prince Lieven unit, and the Baltic German units which you insist, must be represented separately? What I propose is to mark the start of the war between the Landeswehr and Latvia as the split of the Landeswehr to the anti-Latvian side. What is all this hoo-ha about?Like now the offer is June, altogh previously it was argued it was only in July and there is also a reason to believe it was in April.'' - Who has argued the Germans split from Latvia in July? I have argued it was straight from the beginning or from April but this would not be very convienient as the Latvian army as a significant contributor among the Landeswehr until May should be listed as such.
 * Re: Hence I still think that simple short grouping by political ambition is best way to go. - Your infobox is not at all simple or short.
 * Re: even the infobox documentation alows for listing sides according to "political clout" - Master cherrypicker, the part of the guidelines is not about grouping but the listing order. The relevant part, though, reads: "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. "because we have agreed the Landeswehr and Latvia were allied" I don't get your point
 * 2. a. Latvian and Russian units up to July were inseperable for rest of landeswehr, as you pointed out b. you are propoisng that whole landeswehr attacked Estonian-Latvian forces in June. You have thus again placed Latvia on the side fighting Latvia. And you can't date events as you (or anyone else) find convinient. The method you insist on is therefore extreamly problematic.
 * 3. It is simpler, clearer and less prone to OR than your is.
 * 4. Indeed, the infobox documentation does not say a word on how to choose who to place on which side. But I was not the one who introduced it as argumernt to defend use of chain-of-command (a term used only in that very same sentence, master cherry picker). And what you qoute now is also irrelevant as it talks about what counts as participiants, not on which side who should be listed Xil  (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we have been looking at this the wrong way. Independence wars are fought between those who want to split from the empire and those who want to preserve the empire. The Bolsheviks wanted to preserve the old empire but with Soviet rule. Latvians wanted to split from the old empire and establish an independent republic ruled by Latvians. The Germans wanted to establish the United Baltic Duchy, also independent but ruled by the Baltic nobility. So the "independence war" was between the Bolsheviks on one side and the Latvians/Germans on the other. But what we have between the Latvians/Estonians on one side and Germans on the other is in fact a mini-civil war over whether this new independent state was going to be a Republic or a Duchy. Does that make sense? --Nug (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree slightly - labeling Bosheviks as wanting to establish the old empire is wrong on very many levels and Germans also would not have mined being part of the empire, might even wanted to see it reborn more than anyone else, so the battle between old empire and it's ways rather is between Latvians and Germans. But those I think are unimportant details (at least for this discussion), I agree to seeing it as war over what form of state to choose. This fits with what majority of sources describe Xil  (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This still misses the Balodis troops fighting under or at least allied with the Landeswehr. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, not again. You know what? Infobox is meant to sumerize the article not be the article. And I see the text of the article addressing the issue of Germans initaly fighting together with the rest of the alliance several times Xil  (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I am currently the only one arguing for the representation of alliances in the infobox, I am ready to go on with the version representing ideologies just to retain peace on this page. What is currently wrong, even if only ideologies are considered:
 * 1. The Baltic German colours and the label Landeswehr are wrong for the Latvian and Russian units, as they were ideologically on the opposite side.
 * 2. The labels for the parties are false and do not improve understanding. This was basically Latvia's and its allies' war against the Soviet Russia and the pro-German forces. All of these have clear names so why use lengthy group labels? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're making progress, actually, but have come to a decision point or needing new inspiration (below). Re: Švābe, on Kalpaks and the Landeswehr, after 1/1/19 and the British decision not to support the defense of Rīga, he indicated Kalpaks remained to guard the German rear as they withdrew from their positions at Jugla. He also mentions Kalpaks' units were "tactically" under German command (I've expanded any abbreviations in the original for readability):
 * "Taktiskā ziņā tā [Kalpaks' reorganized "vienība"] tā bija pakļauta landesvēra štāba priekšniekam valstvācu kapteini fon Bekmanim."
 * So, this fits with our general tone of--indulging a bit of oversimplification--tactical (shared opponent) versus strategic (shared objective) alliance.
 * To our decision point:
 * Personally I am leaning slightly to the infobox indicating who fought with/against whom (tactical view) versus who shared goals--that is, which Latvia was to be (strategic view) as opposed to "anything except Bolshevik". If we take the strategic view of Belligerents then by definition we don't show the Latvian-Landeswehr tactical anti-Bolshevik relationship:
 * tactical view: along the lines of Jaan's proposal, work out the details of indicating what doesn't quite fit
 * strategic view: Estonians and Latvians versus all flavors German versus all flavors Bolshevik
 * I've been struggling with how to meld both these (valid) views into a unified Belligerents section, i.e., "door number three"--which I think is the actual root of our disagreements here. I'm hoping for another light bulb to go off--the prior one winding up with Jaan's Landeswehr in two places, not Latvians in two places, which at least solved Xil's fundamental issue of Latvians fighting against themselves.
 * Personally, I'm going to let this percolate on the mental back burner for a few days and try to get some scanning done in the meantime. This may be one of those situations where we need a bit of patience to wait for the eureka! moment.
 * I'm hoping Švābe's extensive account also assists with clarifying the extent of Estonian involvement, since portrayal of that is a separate area of disagreement. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Obviously I'll be checking Balodis too, who, incidentally, returned to command Latvian forces from German imprisonment. Talk about "complicated." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't we indicate that Germans fought together with Latvians with a subheader? I think it is done so allready, but if you got an opinion what else should the subheader do tell... The tactical goals change during wars, the strategical remain the same. It is the grand strategy that dictates how the war is run, not tactics employed in individual battles. Jaan objected to calling Landeswehr's German units by that name, otherwise, we could do something like this, where we list the units who supported each party under their flag at the same time explaining their make up
 * Latvian side:


 * Latvian army
 * Merged from:
 * (on July)


 * Southern brigade, part of Landeswehr
 * Northen brigade, initaly under Estonian command
 * Russian white movement, part of Landeswehr (leaving after July)
 * Estonia
 * Poland
 * Lithuania
 * Allied intervention
 * German side


 * Reserve corps
 * Landeswehr's German units
 * Freikorps
 * Merged to:
 * (in September)


 * Beromntians
 * With notes potentialy stating that some Russian forces also jined Bermontians and that some Baltic German units joined Latvian force, as these seem to be minor part of those forces. Potentialy notes of what was part of Landeswehr also could be in notes section, but I figure Jaan will object. Anyways this is a rough draft of what I'm thinking, feel free to suggest better wording Xil  (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And BTW "Personally, I'm going to let this percolate on the mental back burner for a few days" - perhaps a good idea, could take a break, say, untill after Midsummer's day Xil  (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both ideologically and tactically, the Landeswehr should be called Landeswehr. If we are to separate the smaller Russian and Latvian units that did not share the views with the bulk of the Landeswehr, we should represent them under Russian and Latvian flags and not call them Landeswehr but their respective names. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox issue
The inclusion of the UK as a belligerent keeps being reverted by user Xil despite the fact that they are mentioned as a combatant. The Latvian article has no problem in here. Shire Lord (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This was a land conflict over future status of Latvia. Allies were actually involved in Russian civil war, therefore it is hard to tell which of them were involved in this and what they did here was trying to get land forces of other nations to fight Bolsheviks for them, because they didn't have their own land forces, their involvement in combat was limited to supportive fire from navy in battles close to water. Listing allied powers in supportive role is the best way to reflect both why they were here, what they did and to avoid accidently not listing any of them. Meanwhile I don't see what exactly overemphasizing British involvement in particular would achieve, besides having pretty flag in the infobox. Xil  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Russian Civil war is a different article altogether and we should thus focus on this one. The infobox belligerents should be listed as relevance to who is mentioned in the article. Other allied powers are not mentioned as such but they did support the Latvians so that is fine as it is. The UK Royal Navy were not just supporting the Latvian's they were actually in combat with them against the Bolsheviks. The Latvian article says that artillery fire from the British ships was a major factor during the recapture of Riga during the battle there between November 3 - 11. In addition British troops under General  Hubert Gough arrived in the Baltic with the task of clearing the Germans from the region and organizing native armies for the Baltic States. The Baltische Landeswehr was placed under British authority - Harold Alexander to ensure its return to Latvian control. Shire Lord  (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Latvian Wikipedia says that British navy provided support during capture of Riga. The question isn't that they took part, the question is why you want to emphesize their participation over other allies and list them seperatly with main participants of the conflict that acctualy had land armies. Furthermore I wasn't talking about the article on Russian civil war I was talking about the Russian civil war - Allies were primarily involved in that, not this, they were trying to get armies involved in this war to fight Bolsheviks in order to achieve their goals in another conflict. What is and is not mentioned in a stub article or another Wikipedia is not relevant, there could be bits left out and there are no hard set rules as to what infobox should include (or in this case apparently exclude), it should give summary of the conflict at a glance and listing Britain seperatly doesn't do that - it creates impresion that they weren't part of Allied intervention in the Russian civil war, but rather had seperate goals in this particular conflict  Xil  (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I said - the navy (which was more than supporting) was involved & that is why the use of brackets was put for 'naval' which I think on balance is fair. Poland is an example they had separate goals in this yet they are mentioned in this conflict too. Yes British were part of the allied intervention in Russia they were in Archangel and Vladivostock too but British Naval command ordered that the Baltic States to be defended at all costs and wholeheartedly supported Latvian and Estonian independence - the reason why the Navy were sent there. The emphasis on them is that they are mentioned in the article while others are not and as far as I know no other other allied power was involved in relevance to this article. If you find others that were involved then please feel free to add them within the article. If that is the case then I will be happy to then revert to original infobox stance as just allied powers. I hope that is agreeable? Shire Lord  (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, even Latvian Wikipedia you refered to multiple times says it... I came up with a different solution, however, namely instead of listing Britain in belligerent section, their (and I guess also French) ships could be listed in the strenght section, that way it would both show which nations had forces involved and avoid suggesting that they were acting alone. Xil  (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with this & sorts out the solution of a more cluttered Infobox. I will do more research on how many ships there were & add them accordingly. Shire Lord (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Red army numbers
Just 5,600-6,300 must be mistake! About 20,000 were in February 1919 and additionally 25,000 were conscipted until April. Maybe 56,000-63,000? Dukurs (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latvian War of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713185842/http://www.latvietislatvija.com/Militarais_stavoklis.htm to http://www.latvietislatvija.com/Militarais_stavoklis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822143207/http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1207 to http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1207

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Monumento a la Libertad, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 09.JPG