Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:05, 25 September 2006

archive1 archive2

Lithuania has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

Lithuania GA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Review comments: Needs better referencing & culture section. Renata 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:V0.5

You might be interested in visting Lithuania Portal. There you can find some interesting information, tasks you could do, and a place to ask general (or not) questions, make comments, and ask for help with Lithuania-related topics. Dont forget to sign the guest book!

History

In the third division only a very small part of Lithuania till the Memel came under Prussian controll and for only few years

Not mentioned is the frensh occupation of Klaipeda Memelland a mixed populated area. The frensh onesidet handet over this part to Lithuania 1923, the Lithuanians gave the area a sort of semicultural autonomy

Johann

GA Nominee

I haven't looked at this article in detail, but right off the bat I would say that this article doesn't have enough in-line references. There are several references at the end, but some more inline ones would be great.--Esprit15d 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ok we will try to do something ASAP M.K. 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

These are indeed improvesments. However, the sections that give me the most pause are the ones with statistics. Have you heard the expression "62.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot?" So they need to be substantiated so (1) they are credible and (2) they can be put in a chronological frame of reference, since even accurate statistics change often. It is cumbersome to put a citation after each one, but it would be sufficiant to just say somewhere in the paragraph (like near the beginning) "According to the 1998 World Almanac..." or "Statistics published from The World Health Organization 2004 report say..." Either that, or put one or two inline references at the end of paragraph to indicate that this whole paragraph is based on this source. The "Economy" section is done well, while the "Demographics" and "Geography" sections are of concern.--Esprit15d 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ok we will try to solve these issues M.K. 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

I've promoted the article, since there is now sufficient citation. I would recommend that every fact have an inline citation to confirm it, would encourage continued addition of such referencing. --CTSWyneken 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto

Does anyone have a reference for the motto Vienybė težydi? I found that it is the last line of the national anthem, but nothing else. Pruneau 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not very popular or widely known. The grat coat of arms of the president of Lithuania have this motto written down. See Image:Coat of arms Lithuania Grand.png. However, this COA is not yet confirmed as official. Renata 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Small correction, if mine memory not fails me, this coat of arms belongs to Seimas, while president has quite similar, only without crown and motto CoA. M.K. 09:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Occupation"

The entering of Soviet forces cannot be described as "occupation", there has not been war between the USSR and Lithuania. See Military occupation for further explanation of the problem. 212.116.151.110 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh, entering after ultimatum - it is. Acceptance of ultimatum is considered as a military defeat. And this is the case: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." --Lokyz 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lokyz. The "occupation" word would be controversial if there existed an alternative point of view, e.g if the Soviets maintained they "liberated" Lithuania, but since nobody claimed this, the word can stay. Also I'd suggest to try to keep the history section of the article rather brief, and expand the History of Lithuania with all the exciting details instead. --Lysy 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite some source of international law, affirming that the acceptance of an ultimatum is equal to military defeat? It is incorrect that USSR enters and annexes Lithuania in accordance with Ribentrop-Molotov. In the treaty Lithuania is determined to be in the Soviet sphera, but there's nothing about it being annexed. The annexation is the direct cause of the alliance pact and the ultimatum.

Molotov-Ribbentrop specifically included language saying that if something should happen in this area, then Stalin gets X and Hitler gets Y. Considering Hitler's sphere of influence could only extend itself through occupation, it does not take rocket science to discern Stalin's means for extending his sphere of influence. (And recall Stalin pre-emptively invaded Poland up to the line of demarkation as set by the amended protocol of the pact in order to insure Hitler stayed on his side of the line.) Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact official Soviet propaganda claims exactly that the USSR liberated the Lithuanian people from the White dictatorship. It's no matter of political controversy here, it's a matter of legal accuracy.

Also, you removed some facts, like the one with the USSR granting the district of Wilno to Lithuania without any explanation. Could you please provide some arguments for it? 212.116.151.110 13:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

District of Vilnius was granted according to 1920 peace treaty.

Ultimatum stated - nevertheles whether Lithuanian government would accept or would not accept ultimatum, USSR army will march into Lithuanian teritory. And there's evidence, that some Soviet units did not get information about that ulitmatum was accepted. They shot few people in uniform (Lithuanian border policemen) - this is what exactly can be called a war.

Don't you think, that this supposedly "liberating" act only proves, that Soviet army did gain control over territory? Was it Soviet territory to be "liberated" or "eternal Russian lands" that briefly escaped and formed Lithuanian national state? And what do you call whites? There was no White army in Lithuania, only national Lithuanian Armed Forces (btw, considerably smaller than occupying forces). So please tell me, what is this liberation in your oppinion?

Situation seems to be exact like in one of occupation definitions :"42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

As for legal considerations - I'm not a laywer, so cannot provide a law to prove this.

And all the "elections" were forged because: 1. there was only one party "to be elected", 2. All people who went to "vote" had their passports stamped 3. Soviet army was everywhere 4. "Government", that did organize elections was controlled by soviet agents Vladimir Dekanozov and Antanas Sniečkus.

You seem to read Soviet books, find some never literature. Good luck.--Lokyz 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Misplaced Pages is not the right place to promote Nazi or Soviet propaganda concepts. --Lysy 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be deeply affected by the political background of the period, I suppose you are Lithuanian. I never argued that elections were not forged or that the post-15 July government was not a puppet one. The only thing I oppose is the term "occupation". Shooting several policemen on the border is not a war in legal terms, it is called "a military incident". A "war" means full-scale armed confrontation. And an "occupation" occurs after a war has been fought.

I did not promote any propaganda concepts. I just cited what Soviet propaganda said about the annexation of Lithuania and the other Baltic states. 212.116.151.110 07:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider registering, because discussions with anon users are not very popular in Misplaced Pages.--Lokyz 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here I am. Now do you have something to the point or should we change the article? DamianOFF 10:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Change what? If you're insisting to push an opinion, that Lithuania was not occupied please tell me what term would you use for a fact that foreign army enters a state, remove it's constitutional government and this army imprisons several high ranking state officers (like internal affairs Minsiter, head of State Security Deparatament)? --Lokyz 11:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There could be put all the consequent facts - the German-Soviet pact, the alliance pact, the accusation from Moscow for breaching the latter, the entering of the Red Army, the staging of forged elections and the final annexation by the USSR. I would not deny that I am pushing an opinion - the one of the creators of international law. According to which, an "occupation" is preceded by a "war". DamianOFF 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "occupation" is widely accepted. It used in internatinal politics, in foreign relations, in newspapers, scientific journals, academic research, textbooks, history books, movies, shows. You are in no position to change that. Renata 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Popular" and "correct" have different meaning. DamianOFF 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And who are you (or me, or Lokyz) to determine what's correct? I think, it's way out of our abilities and capabilities. Therefore we need to go with the widely accepted term. Renata 13:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many popular terms and facts that are not scientifically correct. For example, Bulgarian national revolutionary Vasil Levski was hanged on 2 February(new style 18th), but today's Bulgaria mourns him on the 19th. Every year. DamianOFF 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Damian, occupation is not a scientific fact. It's a matter of judgement and interpretations. Since you (or me) are in no position to judge and interpret, we gotta go with what the world thinks and says. And it (except for Russia and other Soviet countries) thinks it was occupation. Renata 12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DamianOFF, no, I am not Lithuanian and I believe you are not Russian. Does it matter ? Are you trying to say that when armed forces occupy another country without declaring a war first, then it is not a real occupation ? What is it then ? A friendly help ? I suggest you go to Museum of Occupation in Riga to confront your theories with reality. --Lysy 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not Russian and I think I am not biased, concerning this article. Once again, I'll try to point out the general difference between political and scientific definition. If a foreign military force enters a country, and the people of this country hates it, you can call it an "occupation" on commemorative meetings, you can build up monuments of people who died "fighting against the foreign occupation", you can name museums in this country "museums of occupation", but you cannot call it an "occupation" in a scientific text, unless a war has been fought against the foreign force.

A war does not have to be fought for a country to be "scientifically" and legally occupied. This has nothing to do with "hating" the Soviet Union. It is sufficient that there indeed be an occupation army and that the sovereign government of that territory can no longer function. There does not need to be a declaration of war, a military occupation commission, etc. etc. etc. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you still wouldn't be convinced by what I say, I suggest we put an inquiry on the Misplaced Pages:Village pump concerning the usage of the term "occupation".DamianOFF 07:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing erroneous sources endlessly (or repeating erroneous statements endlessly) does not make them any more true, unfortunately, though some would try to make "fact" versus "fiction" a popularity contest. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't argue with Misplaced Pages, argue with:

• Britannica: On June 15, 1940, the U.S.S.R. confronted Lithuania with an ultimatum demanding the immediate formation of a "friendly" government and the admission of unlimited numbers of Soviet troops to its territory. The same day, the country was occupied.
• Encarta: In the summer of 1944 the Soviets reoccupied most of Lithuania...
• Dick Chaney: The United States never recognized the legitimacy of that occupation,...
• George Bush: But I recognize that in the West, the end of the second world war meant peace, but in the Baltics, it brought occupation and communist oppression.
• U.S. Congress: the Government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania .
• New York Times: The referendum also demands that Lithuania be compensated for damages resulting from the Soviet occupation and annexation in 1940.
• Can come up with more. Just gotta go. Renata 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Damian would be appeased by an entry in the references that reads something like "Disputation regarding the term "occupation" as applied to Lithuania". But then it must link to some reasonably reputable source - not blogs or other personal websites.

The circumstances of the Lithuanian occupation are virtually identical to that of the Latvian, where the application of "occupation" to the full term of the Soviet presence has been dealt with in the discussion page for the Occupation of Latvia article. (The same people have posted here indicating Lithuania was "not occupied.") There is no reason to "appease" anyone's "opinion" that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were "not occupied." Next we will be proposing to appease people who insist the moon is made of cheese. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we are truly "feeding trolls" here. White dictatorship, is this serious enough of an edit, to even bother responding to, at this point? Dr. Dan 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing the officials of the military agressor and occupant state (Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc?) is indeed a very valuable argument. Murmillo 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now this sounds like a Russian TV populism. You don't need to continue, we've heard it all.

Referencing to US as a big daddy looks to me as a parasitic attitude. Most of people are able to make decision on the facts themselves and reference only to facts, not estimations of G. Bush or some other John Doe.

Just let me ask you, whether citing military agressor and occupant as a valuable source (1920 Armenia, 1921 Georgia, 1922 Azerbaijan, 1939 Poland, 1940 Moldova (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to be exact), 1940 Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, 1979 Afghanistan) is valuable argument? If it's not enough, we might continue with Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and so on:)--Lokyz 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is evident - No. Only facts that can be proved make sense. Murmillo 11:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Welt, this is the only one source, that doubts whether there was occupation:)--Lokyz 12:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have not seen any new arguments I once again ask everybody to put this on the village pump and really see what the community has to say on the matter. DamianOFF 08:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I still say - let us link to something on the other side - it could even be a blog. The truth will prevail in the long run, and it doesn't need to fear challenges. Novickas 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if "truth" really has nothing to fear about being challenged, it should be put up as a thesis on the village pump. Or there's someone fearing what the Community has to say? DamianOFF 12:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a international legal organization, so it really does not matter what it has to say. If you have any problems with term "occupation" you might go to Hague Tribunal and ask for clarification of a pure and shiny reputation of Stalin and Hitler.--Lokyz 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources on German-Soviet pact

Could the one who included the sources about the Ribentrop-Molotov pact please cite the exact phrase that claims that there's a text in the secret ammendment to the pact, that directly envisages the entering of Soviet troops in Lithuania? DamianOFF 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? M.K.

Here is a useful site: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-30-46.htm, the March 30, 1946 proceedings of the Nuremburg trial. There is a reference to the occupation of Lithunia. A direct quote: "DR. HORN: Is it correct that on 15 June 1940, after the delivery of an ultimatum, the Russians occupied the whole of Lithuania, including the part which was still German, without notifying the Reich government? VON RIBBENTROP: There was no special agreement concerning this, but it is well known that these areas were actually occupied." Here is another reference, http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_03.htm, which states that "Valentin Falin, then head of TASS, reiterated at a Moscow press conference that no original of the secret protocol has ever been found". Many other references are listed in this latter article. Novickas 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The original terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact put Estonia and Latvia in the Soviet sphere of influence and Lithuania in the German sphere (and certainly, Hitler's "call home" was to insure Germans not find themselves under Soviet occupation): "In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party."

The subsequent amendment to the pact (and remember, all of it was "secret") was a proposal by Stalin to Hitler to "solve the Baltic (Lithuania) problem" where Lithuania was added to what Stalin "got" in return for Hitler "getting" a part of Poland he didn't have under the original terms. Most of my reference books are in boxes, so I don't have that text handy. Soviet occupation of the Baltics was envisaged regardless, as the Soviet Union had already printed up maps of the Baltic republics with the suffix "S.S.R." indicated as early as August 1939—prior to the initial stationing of Soviet troops in the Baltic under the terms of the mutual assistance pacts. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation requested by Lysy

Added the reference that was requested. Novickas 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This source, The US State Dept, is not perfect - it uses the expression "other sources" - but it carries weight in the English-speaking world.

Thank you! I believe that's actually the place where the sentence came from. You know, in early days most stuff on countries was adopted from U.S. gov sources: CIA factbook, country studies, etc. Renata 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• GA-Class Lithuania articles
• Top-importance Lithuania articles
• Lithuania articles with comments