Talk:Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

Poland

Was Poland mentioned in the Treaty??? At the beginning it says it was NOT but later in the article the Terms section contradicts saying it IS. Someone please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.25.20 (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the treaty, it appears that Poland is only indirectly mentioned: "The territories lying to the west of the line agreed upon by the contracting parties which formerly belonged to Russia, will no longer be subject to Russian sovereignty." So Russia lost sovereignty over Congress Poland, but Poland was not specifically mentioned. john k (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

There are no mentioning of the delegates of the Ottoman Empire in the negotiations. It gives an unbalanced impression. --Xact (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture

There is no caption for the second picture down from the top. 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture

There is no caption for the second picture down from the top. 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.0.7 (talk)

Citation Warning

I have resolved the lack of citations for the most part. How do I get the yellow warning removed from the top of the screen? Koniglich (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrik Fuller

This is nonsense, right? I can't find any evidence for this gentleman's existence, and he's not even mentioned in this article besides the intro. Is he a trap to see if undergraduates are using this article as a source for IDs on exams? (Very useful for me in grading exams, incidentally, but not a very good reason to include nonsense in the article.) john k (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrik Fuller was added without discussion by an anonymous editor here. Nonsense, obviously. john k (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sentence removal

The following sentence was removed: "In any event, Germany's treaty with the Bolsheviks spurred Allied efforts to win the war". What is meant by "spurred Allied efforts to win the war"? It implies that the allied powers weren't already doing all they could to win the war. By 1918 the Allied powers had had both their economy and population mobilized for war for almost 4 years. If it were possible to elaborate what practical difference was created by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on the Allied War effort then I would agree to the return of this sentence.King <Ref> (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is not very technical, but it was probably meant more as a colorful way of looking at the pressure the Allies must've felt. However, the many reasons for the victory such as the increased amount of U.S. troops leads me to agree not to have a sentence like that. Just saying for anyone else who like me might have liked the poetic feel it has.Cornelius (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Background"

The "background" section was completely out there. It was not covering the background of the Treaty, which is covered below instead. It presended the whole Russian Revolution as a German plot, and was terribly worded. Just think about it: "extraordinary event happened in Imperial Russia—Czar Nicholas II abdicated" - sounds like if there was no February Revolution at all, and Tzar just retired for no reason! The section implied the war was losing popularity only due to German propaganda pamphletes - like if February Revolution was not sparked by the hardships of war already. It presented Germany as desperate "seeking to gain an upper hand" in Eastern Front with use of coup d'etait, like if Germany didn't just turn 1917 Kerensky Offensive into the catastrophe for Russian army. And it directly was calling Vladimir Lenin a "Germans weapon", rather than a leader of Bolshevik Revolution. Quite a usual wording for a neo-monarchist pamphlete, but we're in an encylopedia, I presume.Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your removal is that those sentences had citation. I could agree that they are biased, but they had a citation. I believe that the best option here is to make it public that the text represents the author's understanding of what happened. In this case you are free to add a counter understanding. For example, a 10 part documentary about World War I states that Germany paid for Lenin's train trip back to Russia through Finland and even financed the printing of pamphlets. Germany also financed revolution in Ireland. I agree that the text you removed is terribly worded, but couldn't some of it be returned with a new wording? King <Ref> (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• That part mostly cited sources for such facts as "Lenin was eager for action" and "Germany spread propaganda pamphletes", which hardly prove the whole section. I presume the background section may be told like it is in the Eastern Front of World War I article, though.Garret Beaumain (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Just because material is cited does not mean it cannot be removed, surely. Material has to be relevant to the article at hand, and it should also represent the scholarly consensus on the facts described. This seems like a pretty clear example of the use of citation to create what is, in effect, a tissue of original research and POV pushing. john k (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Great addition Garret Beaumain. Your new text added depth to the article, depth which I was expecting with that horrible text you deleted. And the hyperlinks allow the reader to read more on this subject. I have two questions though.

• How many Governments recognized Lenin as the head of state of Russia at the time of his The Decree On Peace or even at the time of the signing of this treaty? I guess this is an interesting point, but it is very hard to determine. I don't think that such information exists on Wikipedia.
• fulfilling, on unexpectedly humiliating terms, a major goal of the Bolshevik revolution of November 7, 1917. - Isn't this POV? Isn't the Russian Civil War the reason why Lenin agreed to the humiliating terms? He basically had no options. King <Ref> (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Map

Here are maps that show the borders drawn up in Brest-Litovsk: [1], [2], [3]

The current map is not related to the treaty and shows the territory that was occupied by Central Powers until the end of war. --Arturius001 (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Unfortunately Wikipedia is a bit strict with copyright, so we can't use your linked maps directly. However we do have this image[4] which matches your linked maps, but it is in Spanish I believe. However is permitted to modify existing Wikipedia images, so this image could be copied, translated and then upload, then we could use it in this article. --Nug (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The maps above are from pre-1923 released books. I could re-research the sources. But a English version of the Spanish map would be better of course. --Arturius001 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If the maps are from a pre-1923 released book then I think it would be okay to upload as they would now be public domain, as long as you can provide details of the books the image came from. You can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to fill in the relevant details. --Nug (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done: [5] --Arturius001 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! I've updated the article with your uploaded map. --Nug (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of ambiguity in this article of historically significant events.

It is as if large parts are plagiarized from poorly written military history sources.

For example, take this:

"Thus the new Soviet government agreed to terms worse than those they had previously rejected."

Nowhere in the previous paragraphs was it mentioned that the Soviet government rejected the terms. In fact the previous paragraphs indicate that the government unilaterally withdrew from the war with Germany, and that the "Left Communists" did not want to end the war. Am I understanding this correctly? --Agamemnus (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

---

• Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Russia–Central Powers) → Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
• Treaty of Brest-Litovsk → Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (disambiguation)

– To undo the recent move. I feel the Russian treaty is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Cannot speak to the subject of primary topic; however, I just wanted to clarify that the recent rename was of the disambiguation page from Treaties of Brest-Litovsk to the singular Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This left around a thousand or so pages with links that needed disambiguation to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Russia–Central Powers) title. I've done several of those, but will cease until this RM has been processed if nobody minds, because upon granting this request, there will be no need to disambiguate the rest of those links. Happy Holidays to all!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support the first move. I have converted the disambiguation page to a set index, because these are two closely related treaties (signed the same day, mostly the same parties), differing primarily by the involvement of Ukraine in one of the two. I would therefore propose moving the second page to Treaties of Brest-Litovsk. bd2412 T 13:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Better than the current setup but not necessary per WP:TWODABS. The treaty with Russia is so overwhelmingly primary that any DAB page is a distraction. A hatnote would work fine. —  AjaxSmack  15:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:TWODABS but the recent move should probably be undone immediately per WP:RMUM as it is so recent and evidently disruptive. I am placing a request for such on the RM page. —  AjaxSmack  15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 December 2017 (contd.)

The treaty with Ukraine was doubtless important to Ukraine. However, the treaty with Russia was of world-historical significance and is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I endorse the decisions which have been made. (I'm only saying this in case a similar WP:RM or WP:MOVE is made again, just getting my vote in early.) Narky Blert (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

most favored nation

The Appendix to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk of March 3 includes many references to Russia and Germany (and other participants) granting each other the "most favoured nation" status in economical relations. See: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Including_Appendices:_Russia-Germany,_Part_I I wonder how this conforms with the "harsh treaty" as compared to Versailles, and wether this should be mentioned in the article. Is there any publication on this treaty that considers these passages? ASchudak (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Translation

Should there be a translation of the text?Cornelius (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Background

In the following paragraph the piece about schools seems a bit vague. Is it sourced ?:

         "As a result of the treaty, Soviet Russia defaulted on all of Imperial Russia's commitments to the Allies and eleven nations became independent in eastern Europe and western Asia.  Under the treaty Russia lost nearly all of the Ukraine, and the three Baltic Republics were ceded to Germany. However, it was never recognized by the Western Powers, and never taught in public schools".

I take it "public schools" is used in the US rather than the British sense,which is fair enough; it's more accurate. But where are the schools Lord Milner refers to; USA,Russia,Poland ,Germany? and at what level,in what context or what time? I cannot imagine even in the USSR of the 1930s, children were still taught that Russia controlled most of Poland. I studied world history in the 20th century in a British "state school" in the late 1960s/early 1970s and we certainly learnt about the treaty and its broad terms,although we did not read the text of the treaty, just as we learnt about the rise of Hitler and the New Deal in the US.Spinney Hill (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Baltic governorate mistake; Baltic republics usage

Articles: "Under the treaty, Russia lost nearly all of Ukraine, Russia also lost its three Baltic republics such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia (so called Baltic governorates in Russian Empire), and these three Baltic republics..."

Lithuania was not a Baltic governorate. The three Baltic governorates were Estonia, Livonia, and Courland, corresponding closely to the territory of modern Estonia and Latvia. Lithuania was in the Western Krai, mostly in the Kovno Governorate.

It is also incorrect to refer to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia as the "Baltic republics" in March 1918, the time of the treaty. They were territories of the Russian Soviet Republic (later, the Russian SFSR). They only became independent states and republics later. 72.74.109.15 (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundant information

The fact that the treaty caused Russia to lose a certain percentage of its territory, population and industry is repeated multiple times throughout the article, to the point of redundancy. Maybe someone who's better at editing articles than me can smoothen it out and make the text less repetitive to read. 77.166.233.243 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)