Talk:Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theTreaty of Brest-Litovsk article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
| Archives (index):1 |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theOn this day section onMarch 3, 2005,March 3, 2006, andMarch 3, 2007. |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.—Precedingunsigned comment added by82.239.25.20 (talk)10:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is no caption for the second picture down from the top. 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no caption for the second picture down from the top. 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.126.0.7 (talk)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Andrik Fuller was added without discussion by an anonymous editorhere. Nonsense, obviously.john k (talk)03:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 1917Kerensky 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done:[5] --Arturius001 (talk)09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The result of the move request was:pages moved.Anthony Appleyard (talk)21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
– To undo the recent move. I feel the Russian treaty is clearly theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC here.power~enwiki (π,ν)04:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty with Ukraine was doubtless important to Ukraine. However, the treaty with Russia was of world-historical significance and isWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Iendorse the decisions which have been made. (I'm only saying this in case a similarWP:RM orWP:MOVE is made again, just getting my vote in early.)Narky Blert (talk)03:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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_II 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)[reply]
Should there be a translation of the text?Cornelius (talk)08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 ofImperial Russia's commitments to theAllies 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am confused by the map of the territory ceded by Russia. According to the article (and from other things I've read) Poland was Russian territory and Russia and had to give it up. The map seems to indicate that Poland was already German before the treaty (it isn't highlighted in red). Am I wrong or does this map need a modification?PotatoKugel (talk)00:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)
![[1]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fdl.dropboxusercontent.com%2fu%2f20512754%2fKarten%2520Brest-Litowsk%2fbl_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fdl.dropboxusercontent.com%2fu%2f20512754%2fKarten%2520Brest-Litowsk%2fbrest2qu0.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fdl.dropboxusercontent.com%2fu%2f20512754%2fKarten%2520Brest-Litowsk%2fgreatwar05alle_0187.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aTratadoDeBrestLitovsk.svg){kind=link}
![[5]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aMap_Treaty_Brest-Litovsk.jpg){kind=link}