Talk:Lithuanian Wars of Independence

Untitled
As far as i know there were no Polish troops in civilians clothes in VIlnius. There was local population self-defense units and later regular Polish army, and later Zheligovksy. I will wait few days and if they will be no explanation, I will change the reading of the paragraph Szopen 09:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If you know *for sure*, you can change. I read it this way (about civilian clothes) somewhere but now don't exactly remember where. DeirYassin 09:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Changed. The part about series of Polish-Lithuanian wars after 1918 should be probably expanded. Szopen 07:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wars
I wonder if the Lithuanian aggression against Poland (Suwałki and so on) is also treated as part of the same set of wars, or is it treated as a separate one in Lithuania?  // Halibutt 02:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not treated in any way. It's skipped :) Seriously, it should be the same one thing. Renata 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

USSR and Lithuania
Copied from my talk page ( // Halibutt):

Hi, I am currently working on this article and I got lost at one point: how does the war against Bolsheviks fit into the bigger picture of Polish-Soviet war? I hope you could help me out a little. Renata 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me be a little more specific. As far as I understand Lithuania had about 18,000 men army in 1919. Now in Polish-Soviet was we are talking about 100,000's of men. If bolsheviks wanted they could have crushed Lithuania in no time. Why didn't it happen? Any thoughts? Renata 03:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Davies assumes that the true reason why USSR seeked alliance with Lithuania instead of annexing it outright was that they wanted to seize Warsaw first, and only then redirect their forces elsewhere. This seems quite plausible to me as, apart from the mere number of men at arms, the wars are waged (and won) by forwarding, transport, crews of munition depots and supply trains rather than with brute force (German soldiers at Moscow in 1941 anyone?). And redirecting parts of their forces to a completely different front at the height of their offensive westwards would make the Bolsheviks even more vulnerable: after all they'd have their Western Front split onto North-Western sector facing Lithuania (quite dense population, rivers and forests), Western Front as such (facing Vistula at three different sectors), South-Western Front (facing Lwów salient - check the maps, the town was almost surrounded, but the "almost" here made a huge difference since their lines had to be spread thin there), not to mention the fronts facing the Whites in southern Ukraine and the very insecure border with Romania.
 * Another logical explanation is that Lithuania was a hard nut to crack: although it was quite weak on its own, it used to have some support from the west in 1918-1919 and was much, much closer to France or UK. An attack on Lithuania would most probably result in either Lithuania's alliance with Poland (which would be a political defeat of Lenin) and/or western intervention there. However, contrary to Entente's landings in Archangel or Murmansk, the landings in Lithuania would face no serious logistical problems. This is but my own assumption though. I'll check with my books ASAP.  // Halibutt 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, UK, France, Italy, etc. recognized Latvia and Estonia de jure on Jan. 26, 1921. Lithunia only on Dec. 20, 1922, almost two years later. Clearly they wre not favorable to Lithuania (have in mind that Latvia and Estonia did not have their states before, Lithuania had GDL). I could find only explanation to 1920 July 12 Russo-Lithuania treaty: to give Lithuania recognition so that Poland would have less claim for it (sort of, it not mine, nobody's). Would be interesting to know what your books say. Renata 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that Entente's ships did help in repelling the original Bolshevik offensive in the area back in 1918, so it was not that one-sided. Sure, the general instability in the region and unwillingness to push the intervention from Archangel played a major role, but an intervention on behalf of Lithuania was by no means impossible. Besides, I bet the Germans would have been be more than happy to "help" if only invited... :) Anyway, I still have some things on my to do list so it might take me some time to sit down and browse through my dad's collection, but feel free to remind me in a week or so, ok? I'm sure there was pretty much on the topic in Pobóg-Malinowski's book. There was also a nice essay in one of the Polish-Lithuanian quarterlies on the topic, I'll ask at my faculty if they still have it.  // Halibutt 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You raised a good point. One reason why the Bolsheviks were not able to defeat Lithuania easily in 1919 was of course that they were overstreched fingting on many fronts. In addition to that, the Soviets didn't have economic and logistical capabilities to support a large army in yet another direction. So the army they sent was perhaps largest that could forage on the spot. By the way, same was true for the Lithuanian army itself. Evan if small country, it sure had some 100.000-200.000 men but not infrastructure to make an army this size. More than that, if the overall forces were not impressive, then every single engagement was on even smaller scale (there was no single decisive battle). In order to forage, the armies had to split to about battalion size units. The Lithuania army fared better at this, for at least they were fighting on a friendly ground. That might have been no small factor deciding the outcome of the war. I'm not a historian, just interested. Unfortunately I don't remember which source raises this explanation78.60.73.182 (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)AndriusD


 * Regarding the order in which the three Baltic states were recognized by Western European countries. Clearly they were not friendly to Lithuania, because Lithuania's independence would have weakened Poland - the main ally against communist Russia. The independence of Latvia and Estonia, on the other hand, only weakend Russia, so that was OK. The argument that Lithuania had had a state before while Latvia and Estonia didn't was most propbably turned around in the European minds! Lithuania was indeed a strong state in XIII-XVI centuries, at least de facto. But by the end XVIII century it was regarded by most as an integral part of Poland. So the argument must have been - if it no longer belongs top Russia, it should be returned to Poland. Indeed, the very idea of independent Lithuania came as a big surprise for many even as close as Poland itself. The reason must have been mass education which in XIX century Lithuania shifted the political power from Poland-leaning (and long Polish-speking) elite towards much more numerous Lithuanian peasantry. That went little noticed under Russian occupation. Latvia and Estonia, although affiliated with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1795, probably still had the image of distinct nation(s) early XX century due to cultural differences, and still influential german population. 78.60.73.182 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)AndriusD

Bermontians in Riga
There is major mistake as article says that Bermont-Avalov's army captured Riga, Latvian capital (sentence - "In Latvia, they took the capital, Riga"). In reality they took only half of the city and were forced to stop further advance as Latvian army succesfully stopped them. For one month frontline was on the Daugava river (it seperates Riga in two parts) as no side could gain upper hand in battle. Latvian army's 11. november's attack broke Bermont's positions and drive them away from city. Riga has never felt to Bermont, but went througt a period of urban warfare and bombardment by Bermont's forces. I think that this sentence must be changed to something like "almoust fell to Bermont forces"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.146.132 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

War with Latvia
Is there is need of this article? No war was declared and there was only minor sopradic skrimshes when latvian units disarmed few Lithuanian garnisons and one Lithuanian soldier was killed in action and two more wounded. Later Latvia returned control over Palanga to Lithuania and in reply Lithuanian army retread to Lithuania.

The dispute over Vilnius
There was "dispute over Vilnius". Lithuanians claimed that the city of Wilno was their capital. Did any country support the claims? The city was known as Wilno or Wilna, but not Vilnius. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

of Independence ?
Annexation of ethnically non-Lithuanian Wilno region wasn't an instance of Independence. It was a war about borders.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lithuanian Wars 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/20100822142853/http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1204 to http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1204
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050321032026/http://www.atgimimas.lt/ssi.php?id=1023268232&which=1&f_text= to http://www.atgimimas.lt/ssi.php?id=1023268232&which=1&f_text=

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) 16:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)