Talk:Treaty of Brest-Litovsk/Archive 1

Old talk

The following paragraphs were for unknown reason removed by anon:

Peace negotiations which began at Brest-Litotes on December 22, 1917, a week after the conclusion of an armistice between Russia and the Central Powers, soon ran into trouble over the Bolsheviks' demand for "peace without annexations or indemnities" - in other words, a settlement under which Russia would give neither territory nor money to her enemies.

Frustrated with continued German demands for cessions of territory, Leon Trotsky, Bolshevik commissar (minister) for foreign relations and head of the Russian delegation, on February 10 announced Russia's withdrawal from the negotiations and unilateral declaration of the ending of hostilities, a position summed up as "no war - no peace".

As far as I can remember and judge, also after a brief check in written sources, the paragraphs seem factual, why I consider to revert the removal.
--Ruhrjung 17:02, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Was the Brest-Litovsk border of the USSR the same as the western border of today's Russian Federation?

They look very similar but I don't think they're exactly the same.

The biggest difference is Ukraine. Cameron Nedland 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a piece of vandalism and removed it. I was slightly alarmed...

PeterSP 22:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Something concerning the matter. 1917 dec. 6 the Finnish parlament (which was the parlament of autonomous Finland within Russia) declare Finland to be independent state. 18th of december the SNK of the RSFSR accepted the declaration.

Finland was already independent. The same concerns Poland.

How come Poland was independent in 1917? Halibu tt 13:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I mean independece from Russia (Poland could not be truly independent before the end of WWI, because of German occupation, of course). More strictly, that Poland and Finland have gained their independence with approval of Soviet Russia.

Formally: 1. "Self-determination" right declaration (Lenin, 1917). You (Halibu) already informed about that by other users. 2. In Brest-Litovsk it was claimed by the soviet delegation, that Poland have the self-determination right and should be considered independent. Of course it was not taken seriously by Germans. Officially: 3. 29/08/1918 Lenin signed the decree, which makes obsolete the partitions of Poland (from the Russian side).

Well, obviously, but take note that all Bolshevik declarations were nothing more than words, since they neither had any sovereignity over Polish territory (ceded it to Germany) nor the Partitions of Poland treaties were in force (made obsolete by the outbreak of the WWI). So, even the declaration of the Partition treaties as null and void had only propaganda value.

Contrary to what the Soviet claimed after WWII, Poland's independence was not won by comrade Lenin... And it definitely did not happen before 1918 - despite all the declarations by both Kaisers, by Lenin, president Wilson and many other politicians of the epoch. Halibu tt 17:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

De jure, the decree have indeed based the independence of Poland. The control over territory means nothing. Otherwise aggressors would prove de jure their rights to agression object simply via occupying a territory.

You have gained similar answer from other peoples. Your retort containing too many emotional flame. Find me please the exact source of the rather meaningles statement: "Poland's independence was won by comrade Lenin". I see you deliberately combined two different phrases.

I think, further "discussion" on the matter is not rational, because it does not concern the main article. It mainly concerns general theme "POVed Polish history in Wiki", of "History creation phenomena in Wiki(Polish history). If you want to discuss on this matters, please, open a talk page (on meta for example). I think, really many users would be interested in such page.

Well, de iure the Russian tsars lost the rights to the Polish throne in 1830, during the November Uprising. Since they were ousted by the Polish parliament they created themselves and gave it the right of secession and there was no peace treaty after the uprising, the Russian sovereignity over Poland was not "legal" any more. That is of course only theoretical application of modern international law to 19th century situation, but if we decide that the military control over a given territory is not equal to sovereignity over it, then the area of Russian-held Poland was not "Russian" since 1830.

As to the rest of your comments - I don't really understand what you mean. Poland declared her independence in November of 1918, following a long struggle, both diplomatical and military. The main reasons behind the creation of the new state were the acceptance of the idea of Poland as an eastern ally of France and UK after Russia collapsed. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk was important to the Polish independence mainly for three reasons:

Russia collapsed and France, UK and USA were looking for another eastern ally
The idea of German-backed Poland was no longer supported by Germany, at least not in the same way as it was before (see: Regency Council)
The Polish area was controlled by only two states, that were both in the wrong alliance and were about to lose the war.

Whether Lenin issued such a declaration or not, it had no influence on what happened in Poland whatsoever. He had neither military control nor influence over Poland in any way and his state was not even a part of the war any more. In Soviet history books it was often portrayed as if his declaration paved the way for Polish independence. The concept was usually tied to the "bad and ungrateful Poles who attacked Russia soon afterwards". However, on the international scene the president Wilson's 15 points and the recognition of Polish provisional government by France were far, far more important.

Anyway, Poland was by no means independent in 1917. Halibu tt 20:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image

An image would be nice. A good example of a useful image can be found here. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

{{POV-section|talk page section name}}. The description of the bargaining positions shows a decided anti-Bolshevilk bias The section take the view that the initial Russian position was absurd & indefensible--but this will depend on one's opinion of the Russian Revolution as a whole. Examples:

"would give neither territory nor money,"

"a very easy deal, "
From the talk page above, I see others have mentioned POV problems as well. " Trotsky subsequently defended his action on the grounds that the Bolshevik leaders had originally entered the peace talks in the hope of exposing their enemies' territorial ambitions and rousing the workers of central Europe to revolution in defence of Russia's new "workers' state"." - cf the good Trotsky article, he had no choice--it was a sacrifice to get out of the war at all costs, & the revolution would have failed without it. The only source cited is the book by Sir John Wheeler Wheeler-Bennett, GCVO, CMG, OBE, FRSL, FBA, " who. sccordingto his bio in WP, "..was a conservative English historian of German and diplomatic history, and the official biographer of King George VI. Perhaps Wheeler-Bennett's most tragic flaws were his pleasure at the murders of members of the German Resistance by the Gestapo and the SS, as well as his early trust in Adolf Hitler, which led to Wheeler-Bennett's claim that "Hitler, I am convinced, does not want a war" and description of Hitler as "the most moderate member of his party." DGG 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's law. 24.243.187.190 09:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Wheeler-Bennet's judgement was execrable and you want to quote him?Prezen 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imperialism

I reverted Mikkalai's removal of the phrase " and in practice remain an empire. " because the nascent USSR wanted to retain the areas of Poland, Lithuania, etc., therefore intending to retain the Russia's imperial territory, not just Russia itself. Parsecboy 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Russia, soviet Russia still was a Russia itself. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was not recognized in Versailles and German army was left in occupied Russian territory to defend it from Bolsheviks. These territories were viewed as part of legitimate Russia. Baltic states, Belarus were not recognised in that time. Entente (especially France) respected the legitimate rights of their former partner Russia. Vulpes vulpes 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide a reference for Bolsheviks and Soviets remaining an empire; I just read a book with such a claim.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what relation to the current topic it would be? I't rather suggest you update the poor article Soviet Empire, which badly needs refs you mention. `'Míkka >t 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

factual mistake?

please correct me if wrong but under the section "resumed hostilities" the previous edition goes:

"Through the ice of the Baltic Sea, a German fleet approached the Gulf of Finland and Russia's capital Petrograd. Despite strikes and demonstrations the month before in protest against economic hardship, the workers of Russia failed to rise up, and on March 3 the Bolsheviks agreed to terms worse than those they had previously rejected."

"the workers of Russia failed to rise up" - The Russian workers had already risen up the previous year and hence the soviet government was installed. In 1918 it was the German workers who the Soviet hierachy hoped would rise up and overthrow the government, thus ending hostilities between Russia and Germany as the new German state would be socialist/communist in nature and therefore the soviets presumed would end the war immidiatedly upon gaining power. The previous paragragh expresses this correctly but then "resumed hostilities" gets confused, along with someone who blindly reverted my previous correction of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.102.217 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a fact tag to claim that Russian troops retreated to borders of Democratic Republic of Armenia. This is original research, treaty was signed on March 3, 1918, DRA was created on May 28, 1918, how could Russian forces retreat to the borders of DRA whic never existed at the time of the treaty? Atabek (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Peace Treaty of February 9

Shouldn't the article mention also the peace treaty signed on February 9 between the Ukrainian People's Republic and the Central Powers? Narking (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I believe that the map used in the article is incorrect. While it shows the limit of German occupation in 1918, areas further west were formally ceded to Germany in the treaty. The map implies that only the highlighted area was ceded, when in fact a larger area was given in the treaty. The highlighted area only shows German territorial gains in 1918. Earlier in the war, Poland and Lithuania were occupied by Germany and later formally ceded in the treaty. Additionally, Finland was also included in the treaty, but this is not shown in the map.

This map shows areas of Poland, Lithuania and what would become Belarus as part of the Brest-Litovsk treaty area. As these lands were part of the Russian Empire before the war, they should be included in the Brest-Litovsk treaty cession. http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/outline.weekfive.html Axeman (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year?

I'm unsure whether the date should be March 3, 1918 or March 3, 1917. I was under the impression the Treaty was signed in 1917. Envsgirl (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Envsgirl[reply]

Okay nevermind, I confirmed that the date is correct. Envsgirl (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Envsgirl[reply]

New section on comparison to Versailles

I added a short paragraph on comparison(s) to the Treaty of Versailles; I would be interested in others' reactions/feedback to it. Historian932 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]