Contents

Talk:Treaty of Riga

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2006, March 18, 2007, March 18, 2008, March 18, 2013, and March 18, 2018.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Belarus Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Poland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Soviet Union: History / Military Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force. Russia: History / Military Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Military history: European / Polish This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Polish military history task force International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Latvia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It should be stressed that Soviets offered in Riga MORE that finally Poles have taken. The POlish delegation wrote something as (IIRC) "we think that the following border would better serve for POlish-Soviet friendship" and resigned from some offered territoriesSzopen 16:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the treaty itself, it was between Poland one side and Russia and Ukraine (as separate entities) on the other. The treaty was ratified by Soviet Russia on April, 14; by Poland – on April 15; by Soviet Ukraine – on April 17. It became valid only after the three parties exchanged the signed ratified copies on the 30th of April in Minsk.--EugeneK 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Ukraine was a non-entity as fair as the war is concerned, and Petliura pro-Polish Ukraines were much more important. We should be careful with our wording to avoid confusing the readers. It's ironic that Soviet Ukraine was a party to this treaty, yet Petliura wasn't.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Poles who were stopped in the Riga truces, since they could not restore the borders of 1772 and destroy the RSFSR, which Pilsudski suggested 37.54.230.242 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence under the subtiltle The Treaty, ...They were lacking what brought Poland independence..., should be rewritten or removed as it is confusing, too POVish, and non-encyclopedic. I'll wait for someone who agrees, to do the honors. Dr. Dan 02:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should use either "Polish-Soviet" or "Polish-Bolshevic." I don't know which is preferred, but the featured article on the conflict is entitled "Polish-Soviet War", and I'd assume they had a similar discussion when going for FA status. - IstvanWolf 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed some time ago at Talk:Polish-Soviet War. PS won; basically, PS is more popular in English, PB in Polish sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you put the Polish name "Traktat Ryski", shouldn't you also give the Russian version? Tsf 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone fix the placement of the "Territorial changes of the Baltic states" box since it appears over the text? I can't get it to work myself.radek (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at WP:VPT. I see that the Polish template was recently fixed, maybe you could just copy the fix? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to expand this further - can anyone reccomend texts, or even offer assistance in locating an English copy of the treaty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.117.203 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still interested, there's a full copy here [1] Varsovian (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to provoke--however, I did find the section on Polonization post-Treaty (under Consequences) to be quite lacking (as in East Belarus, it was hardly a time unfamiliar with violence and conflict). In describing Bereza Kartuska as a concentration camp, I'm not trying to provoke, I am simply literally using Lubachko's words (he literally describes the facility there as such). Given that the Wikipedia article acknowledges that there are many who consider it as such--for example, Ukrainian nationalists--it's hardly surprising.

Again, I don't wish to provoke or alienate, I just think that, in quoting Lubachko (or Vakar), it's best to use their own words in something of that nature. I hope this does not appear to be something deliberately anti-Polish, any more than details of the severity of 1930s purges of the Byelorussian SSR would be seen as provocatively anti-Russian or anti-Soviet. How is it relevant? Well, it was the destination of many Belarusians considered enemies of the central government--the action against them is a consequence of the new government established in part by the Treaty. Why wouldn't it be relevant? (For the same reason, Belarusian leaders purged by Moscow are also relevant.) Removing all elaboration on Polonization simply over the designation of Bereza Kartuska hardly seems like a good solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.83.194 (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has two problems. First, it uses the controversial name for Bereza Kartuska prison; there is no need to use the "concentration camp" name, where the neutral "Bereza Kartuska prison" term is available. Second, I think your edit puts undue weight on the fate of the Belarusian minority. Compared to two sentences on Poles, none other ethnicities, we now have five or six on the Belarusians. Further, there is little relation between fate of ethnicities and the Peace of Riga. Many things happened after the peace, we may as well discuss economics, for example. Peace, by itself, said nothing about what was to happen to various elasticities, and addition of such information here seems not necessary. I'd suggest moving the content you added to Polonization and/or Belarusian minority in Poland, where it would be more relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing of the kind (https://i.imgur.com/yElrsT8.png). The link has been removed, see revision history. Gnosandes (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusians and Ukrainians, having failed to create their own states, were subjects of extermination in the Soviet Union, e.g. during Holodomor.

Too incomprehensible wording. Either it is not cited from the source, or it is written by someone else, or it is an obscurant work of the author. States such as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic were created. These are union republics in the future composition of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is completely incomprehensible why Belarusians and Ukrainians were targets of extermination in the USSR during the Holodomor? Where is the reference to other scientific historical works that criticize these attacks, completely unscientific judgments? Why is it only about the Holodomor? And why is the abbreviation "e.g." here? Is this such a propaganda pseudoscientific tactic? Gnosandes (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check his profile he clearly has bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.133.18 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]