Talk:Latvian War of Independence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Quick-fix POVing

To Irpen -- interesting, what is cheap and blatant? And "quick-fix"!? I had hoped that the revert would restore the title, actually. So quick-fix wouldn't be changing the title without any discussion whatsoever, I guess... not if your buddy Ghirla does it? Isn't this the very first entry in this discussion? Ever read a non-Soviet history book, Irpen? What is this war called? "Latvian-Soviet War"? Where? Read the original text of this entry, please. This type of crap, strongly contributed to by you, is one of the reasons I will no longer edit. Poka! --Pēteris Cedriņš 05:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will ignore the personal remarks and will reply on the issue only. Quick-fix POVing is making some easy but significant POVish changes to the very start of the article. Words like liberation/occupation/invasion do have such flavor and all you did is invaded the intro with liberation. CHanges of such kind is an easy way to introduce a strong POV over the whole article without doing any work.

Relatively obscure EE conflicts often do not have universally established names in the English language literature. For such conflicts, the neutral descriptive title is the best solution. MilHist project has guidelines for the article names and "XY War" is such name. If you want to argue otherwise, that the POVish name is a single most widespread name in the English books that also has a significant usage, care to use the talk pape. Ata, --Irpen 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because somebody flatly states something is non NPOV, doesnt mean it's so. Firstly, "war of liberation" is a term defined in English Wikipedia itself. Secondly, renaming you (sorry, Ghirlandajo) did is manifestly incompatible with the contents of the article - it was not a strugle of Latvians against Soviets alone, it was a struggle of Latvians against several adversaries, Soviet Russia among them. The reasoning provided - namely, arguing from "analogy" of not naming something else something - has nothing to do with this article. I'm reverting. Doc15071969 13:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You failed to provide evidence about the prevailance of the name you use (see my paragraph above). --Irpen 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See, I need not to prove anything just because you or any other editor decides to arbitrarily delete or replace some words not to your liking, summarily charging "POVishness" in a way of pretext. It is up to those arguing something to substantiate it, up to those making changes to provide a reasonable grounds - something in a way of argument "why" - rather than flatly stating that that name is "POVish", but this is "such [guidelines] name". I have read the guidelines, and I gave an explanation why the renaming did not improve anything - it made it worse.

Both "war of liberation" and "war of independence" are used to refer to events in question, in both cases - Estonia and Latvia. Some examples can be found on Google's book search, the most notable author to used "war of liberation" is perhaps Winston Churchill in "The second World war". One will hardly find any extensive and detailed scholarly works on those events outside Baltic states themselves - because they don't exactly represent milestones in the world history, whereas in the history of Baltic states - they do. So, for the reasons already stated earlier and especially because Latvian-Soviet unjustifiably narrows the scope of the events, why "jump" on this few paragraphs article just to "extirpate" word liberation? :) When there is the definition of the term present in Wiki itself, when there are other articles (closest example: Estonia) named similarly. It was a liberation for Latvian people, and a reasonable person would see it that way. If you'd prefer it that way, let's switch the "liberation" and "independence" around, but "Latvian-Soviet" narrows the scope; the conflict encompassed more than that. Doc15071969 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Move request

I was not aware there is a move request pending and, unfortunately, nothing in the article or on the talk page indicated it either. I have also changed about half of articles that previously linked to "Latvian War of Liberation". I suggest we leave the article at "Latvian War of Independence" (and withdraw the move request) because: 1) the use of "independence" was not objected by editor who made first move (Ghirlandajo) or who otherwise objected (Irpen); 2) there is similarly named category for this kind of conflicts; 3) the phrase is used to refer events in question in both English (Google Book search Google Scholar search) and Latvian; --Doc15071969 17:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Date

I got a problem with this - It doesn't seem to be correct to say war started on 18 November, 1918, proclamation of independece may be causus beli, but war surely didn't break out the very day. My History textbook gives 3 March, 1919 as the Latvian-German forces started counter attack Isoklat. Isoklat, which had conquared most of Latvia crossed Latvian border on 5 December, 1918. I choosed 5 december as apparent first offence as begining of war, but then I noted that book also says that war lasted exactly 628 days, which based on my quick calculations, gives 22 November, 1918 as date of beginning, if the end date is 11 august (apparently most of fithing had ended on 1 february and there were only few border conflicts afterwards, so it also could be concidered the end date in the book). Any ideas about which date should be used ? -- Xil/talk 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bermont

You'll pardon the gaps and not that good at military terms or transliterating Latvianized German and Russian names, and doing this all too quickly...

The German occupation army, in accordance with the peacekeeping agreement of November 11, 1918, was to remain in Latvia until the Latvian Republic's leadership could organize its armed forces. However, the German forces evacuated to Germany, opening the way for the forces of Soviet Russia. Without its own arm, the Latvian provisional authorities discussed creating a joint force with Germany. The anticipated force was: 18 Latvian ROTAS, 5 BATERIJAS; 7 German ROTAS and 2 BATERIJAS; and 1 Russian ROTA; altogether, 26 ROTAS, 5 BATERIJAS with 6,000 soldiers and 870 horses. It was decided to appoint a commander from a neutral power (perhaps Sweden), but until such a commander was found, German army's major Sheibert was put in charge. But he soon returned to Germany because of differences with the local Germans. For a short while he was replaced with general major baron Freitag-Loringhoven. The union with the German forces did not work out, they left; nor did they leave arms for the Latvian force. What arms they did leave they left for citizens of German extraction.
... skipping the Soviet Russian invasion...
The Baltic Germans (the lords of their manors, not the Baltic German commoners) were not ready to give up their power, wishing to remain in charge of a Latvia turned into a German colony. They got the German army leadership and Obershtab under their influence, in opposition to the Latvians and their government. First, general von der Gotz prohibited mobilization of forced by the provisional authorities. Documents seized off a Swedish commander disembarking off the Swedish steamship Runeburg on February 18 in Liepaja laid bare the barons' landmarshall Heinrich von Stichs' plans against Latvia. Strichs disappeared. Von der Gotz quashed release of this information as well as any further investigation. February was spent spent with both sides, Latvian and German, preparing for hostilities. Kalpaks commenced military operations for the Latvians on March 1st.
...
Under Kazdanga's baron Hans Manteifel, with outside assistance [of German forces], toppled the provisional government on April 16th. (Leadership escaped and took refuge on a British warship in Liepaja. Riga was still under communist control.)
...
After heavy fighting, Estonian and Latvian forces defeated von Goltz and his forces liberating Riga (now under the Germans) with a truce signed July 3, 1919.
...
Goltz was eventually ordered to return to Germany with his forces. The Baltic Germans were not ready to give up. Goltz persuaded his troops to proclaim their independence from Germany and to go into the service of the Russian "Western Army" service, whose leadership had been taken over by the former Russian commander (translation for ROTMISTRS?) Bermont. Bermont arrived in Jelgava in the summer of 1919 and started forming a unit (the Keller Corps) from Russian prisoners from Germany. Bermont unified a number of Russian forces along with Goltz's former German forces and prepared for war against the Latvian forces.
...
"Bermont's forces. Bermont in his book estimated the total of his forces at 51-52,000, of which 40,000 were German volunteers."
...

From "Latvijas brīvības kaŗš" (Latvia's War of Independence), 1928, published by Army command headquarters training division So, Bermont Russian, forces largely German. Both Gotz and Bermont were focused on the continuation of Baltic German hegemony over the Baltics. (How I read it.) PētersV 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What about French navy ? Didn't they also support Latvian forces, my sources mention something like that ~~Xil...sist! 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bermondt-Avalov

The Western Volunteer Army was formed primarily from Russian POWs captured by Germany during WW1 and later merged with the Russian Imperial Army corps in the Baltic region. General Bermondt-Avalov was appointed to his position as the commander of West Russian Volunteer Army by General Yudenich himself, the supreme commander of White Russian forces in the West. Bermond-Avalov was a subordinate of Yudenich and obeyed his orders until 1919.10.09 when Gen Yudenich declared Bermond-Avalov a traitor because of the latter's refusal to withdraw from Riga. Germany, pressured by the Entente, stopped supporting him as well and withdrew the Landeswehr and the Iron Division from Latvia a month later. The German Reserve Guard division was transferred to Bermond's command (in the hope of maintaining German presence in the region), however it was not enough and the Western Volunteer Army was subsequently defeated by Estonian-Latvian-British offensive and Bermond-Avalov escaped to Germany. It should be noted that although Bermodt-Avalov was a self-proclaimed Germanophile and monarchist, he never took orders from Berlin. http://www.vojnik.org/civilwar/2 http://www.hronos.km.ru/biograf/bio_b/bermondt_avalov.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.113 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The POW's were only a part. Three quarters of Bermont's forces were German army which Goltz left behind. Goltz obeyed the orignal recall but told his army to remain. They became a "volunteer" force (40,000 out of Bermont's 51-52,000). Neither "Germany" nor "Russia" are the most appropriate for Bermont.

   That said, the Baltic German gentry's role is consistent throughout in looking to topple the Latvian government and to retain their possessions and power. They were the primary driving force.

   As I've said elsewhere, if the Baltic Germans had a flag, that would be the best choice. The German flag is better than the Russian flag (there was no Russia per se).

   If our (anonymous IP) friend at Stevens Institute of Technology insists on correctness, then there are three choices:

1. no flag for Bermont
2. Baltic German crest for Latvia
3. all three flags for Bermont: Russian, German, and Latvian (since the German nobility were essentially conducting a civil war)

Thoughts? There was no alliance with Russia as non-Soviet Russia did not exist. PētersV 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bit more checking, found the right flag... United Baltic Duchy. :-) The right answer. PētersV 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with the current status, let them be under the UBD flag while the commanders under their national flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions about casualty figures

Hi all. I am trying to track down a specific source for these casualty figures. Bonus points if anyone knows a source in English. Thanks. Cissyhammers (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Those given in infobox are from the book given in references, it is a textbook for 9th class available in Latvian and Russian (maybe in other languages as well, but I haven't seen any other translation)~~Xil...sist! 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Poles

Now if I can only remember where I read that the Poles briefly partnered with the Latvians in their attack on the Bolsheviks (negotiations had failed) in the taking of Latgale but things went sour when along with Vilnius the Poles also wanted to keep Dvinsk (Daugavpils) as part of a buffer zone. The Latvians wound up threatening to attack the Poles unless they vacated (which they did). —PētersV (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Try: Edgars Andersons, Latvijas vēsture 1914–1920 (Stockholm: Daugava, 1967). Part III, chs. 9 & 10 deal with the Latgale offensive in 1919/20 and the problems of demarcating the new borders thereafter. — Zalktis (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

As the article currently dosen't give much insight in the acctual events, I translated timeline from Latvian Wikipedia - it is a bit rough and in my opinion should be removed if someone expands the article to cover the events in prose ~~Xil...sist! 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I read through the time line, I think it's valuable even when we get some real prose. I have a couple of Latvian books on the war of independence, I'm hoping to get to scan them in some time later this year. One is a Latvian army publication so I think it counts as being in the public domain, another was written in the U.S., published by a committee to commemorate the 50th anniversary, I'm trying to track down heirs/etc. to get official permission on that one. —PētersV (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Including timlines in articles isn't exactly good thing (perhaps it could be split into seperate article later). Also I noted that it has some issues which should be corrected - it dosen't give full facts - e.g. it says that peace treaty was signed in Strazdmuiža, but dosen't say by who, it dosen't refer to military units clearly - it uses both army and brigades to refer to Latvian forces, refers to Germans, never naming units, and some details are unclear - Latvian government was in Riga to proclaim the state, but next time it's metioned it is in Jelgava; It says that Battle of Cēsis continues until 3 July, yet it is won on 22 June ~~Xil...sist! 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because current government on Latvia is not too keen on discussing Latvian Civil War. They need politically correct version, but there is too much controversial data. Sides of conflict include Antanta, Germany, Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, White Russia (contrrevolutionaries), Communist Latvians, pro-Antanta Latvians, pro-German Latvians, Baltic Germans, Latgalian nationalists, Estonian nationalists etc. And almost everyone got their own version of events. Hence a lot of inconsistencies, omitted facts and outright falsifications. For instance, independence was initially declared in 1917 but by 1918 Germans completely conquered Latvia and created their own puppet government. Which eventually came to be recognized as "true" independent government after some of its leaders managed to get support from Antanta.--46.109.54.96 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maps?

Hello, do you know or have any good maps of the war? I am creating some maps for Lithuanian wars and I could incorporate Latvian front... Renata (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got some (copyrighted) maps in Latvian, I could scan them (tomorrow) for you if that suits you ~~Xil * 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, you can email them to me (just attach Gmail to my username). You can see what I am up to here. Thanks, Renata (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual Mistake

The artichel says that on 6th of July Latvian and Estonian troops entered Riga. Estonian forces never entered Riga as far as I know. Sorry I can't quote it at the moment, but if you look around in Estonian history writing it's mentioned in alot of places.

Yeah, but it was Allies demand. Estonion officers visited Riga at 6th. --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seperate numbers for the Germans and the Communists

OK, I have split the Germans and the communists to show that they did NOT fight alongside each other, but I was unable to find a way to accurately split the numbers from those two sides. Can anyone find a source for numbers of troops for the German-Freidkorps and for the Soviets? ELV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.149.129 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2007‎ (UTC)

Belligerents in the infobox

Please refrain from deleting verified facts. Thank you. I have added reliable sources as references for the fact that the 1st Latvian Independent Brigade was part of the German VI Reserve Corps. User Xil has stepped over the line in deleting the facts, dismissing my arguments on a national basis and in breaking the 3RR rule. I and the user have been engaged in a dispute on my talk page which until now had been quite civil. However, he has failed to counter these sourced facts, only deleted them in an uncivil maner. Instead of edit warring, I post one more reliable source proving the Latvian brigade took part in the German campaign. I demand this fact to be added to the infobox. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't step over anything - I tried talking with Jaan and finaly realised that he believes that this war was fought between Estonians and Germans, that is just ridicilous. I never suggested a nationalist bias - just that he is concentrating on Estonians and his sources porbably also revolve aroun them, while leaving out facts about Latvians, thus his view is somewhat Estonian-centric. It is confusing to list combatants with diffrent agendas as one force and if we go by chains of comands we should have many more sides. I don't see why I have to provide him with sources for well known facts he otherwise agrees with. ~~Xil (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not I who is presenting the Latvian brigade as part of the German force, it is the history books. Is this source or Bermondt-Avalov's reports Estonian-centric? Oh you wouldn't know because you deleted those without even looking at them? I suggest you drop the nationally biased talk and start addressing the arguments instead of the editor. The different agenda does not erase the fact that the Latvian brigade fought as part of the German army. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Once more - what is wrong with listing sides according to their agenda? I swiched places of Germans and soviets so that now it can be interpreted as Allies+Germans vs. Soviets and at the same time Germans vs. national governments. Or do you claim that Latvians fought against their own government or Estonia? ~~Xil (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Once more - what is wrong is the denial of the fact that the Latvian brigade belonged to the German chain of command and participated in a number of German campaigns. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that this Latvian brigade fought under German command during the period when the Germans were clearing Bolshevik forces from the country, not because they opposed independence. Until the spring of 1919 it would be possible to say the Germans fought on the Latvian/Estonian side, but after the the Bolshviks were cleared from the country, it became obvious that the Germans opposed independence and so the Lantvians/Estonians fought against them. Given that the article is about Latvia's independence war, inclusion of this brigade under the German side would give a misleading impression. It would be better to add the German forces as being allied with the Latvians/Estonians until 1919. --Martin (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In reality, the German corps was not allied with the Latvian government they first hindered and eventually toppled. It is just as wrong to say the Germans switched side in some time in the war. They were openly pro-German and anti-Latvian throughout their activities. At the same time a Latvian brigade fought under their command. It goes beyond me why is it so important to some editors to hide that fact. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don`t start to push conspiracy theories - nobody is trying to hide anything, it`s just that you want it your way (which is misleading to extent) and are refusing to explore any other options ~~Xil (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with 'my way'. I am fully open for "any other options" that comply with wikipedia policies WP:AD and WP:V, which is "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Please propose one or I will be forced to restore the content that you deleted. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading in adding the Latvian brigade to the German belligerent side. After the coup d'etat on 16 April, the brigade remained under the German command and participated in the German Riga offensive. Colonel Zemitans requested Balodis to switch side on 3 June, which some of the troops did, but generally Balodis and his brigade remained on the opposing side. During the Battle of Cesis, the brigade did not participate in direct action but performed rear security duties for the Landeswehr hence enabling them to push all other available forces to the front. Colonel Zemitans made several reports where he expressed special concern and anxiety about the brigade's manoeuvres, especially when they moved to positions in Jaunpiebalga and Vecpiebalga against the far left flank of the 3rd Division, which they covered until the end of the battle. How is that not being on the German side? At the same time, von der Goltz hampered the Ulmanis government in every possible aspect, most importantly forbidding the mobilisation of Latvians in the whole country. How is that fighting on the Latvian side? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This work by Ē. Mugurēvičš in Latvian claims (my translation): "With the Latvian Provisional Government guarding civil order of the Minister on December 31, 1918 lieutenant Oskars Kalpaks was appointed the Commander of Latvian units which were subject to the headquarters of the Landeswehr". Janis Balodis in his memoirs confirms this. In the same report, Balodis details the order colonel Zemitans issued in the name of the Latvian government on 10 June 1919, which Balodis disobeyed. In the memoirs, Balodis confirms that during the battle of Cesis, his detachment was officially part of the Landeswehr and obeyed Fletcher's orders. Even knowing that Balodis and his detachment had a Latvian agenda, their circumstances forced them to follow German orders therefore making the detachment a German ally. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems rather conclusive that Balodis' detachment was officially part of the Landeswehr and was following Fletcher's orders while disobeying the Latvian government. Therefore he should be listed with the Baltic German flag rather than the Latvian flag. --Martin (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not that simple either. Balodis claims he had no direct contact with Ulmanis and all information came either from the Landeswehr headquarter, British envoys or Zemitans. He claims he recognised only the Ulmanis government and explicitly non-recognised the Niedra government. He explains it was impossible to leave his front section, leaving it open for the Reds, and make his way through the German and Estonian fortifications, therefore stabbing the Germans to the back. He was also worried the desertation would lead to clashes with Germans, which could undermine the British support to the Latvian cause. He also argued, deserting the German side would have meant the loss of any control over Riga and subsequent loss of morale for the Latvian force. His disobedience of Zemitans' order is also a very complicated issue. Ulmanis had appointed Balodis the commander of the Latvian forces loyal to Ulmanis' government. In his memoirs, Balodis expresses his deepest surprise upon Zemitans' order, apparently because he felt Zemitans had no authority for such an order and because he felt Zemitans' concern about his loyalty to Ulmanis was unreasonable. Hence the Latvian flag is appropriate for the Latvian forces under German headquarters and its commanders, as it is fair to say the German headquarters were allied with the southern Latvian forces. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaan, I just checked the article Estonian War of Independence, what I don't understand is, in that article you stripped out all but the main participants and top commanders[1], and yet in this article you are insisting of fully detailing participants down to Brigade level and commanders down to colonel level. Why the inconsistency? --Martin (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Colonels Kalpaks and Zemitans were listed here long before I joined in. All I did was to move Kalpaks and his brigade under the correct belligerent side. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat again and I sincerely hope this time you`ll get it - I agree with the facts you have provided, I don`t see why I have to offer any sources to confirm the same facts. The only fact you disagreed with, I told you what the source was. Your time would be better spent, if you`d add these facts to article, instead of flooding the talk page. What I disagree with is how you wish to present these facts in the infobox. The way I see there are two ways - ideological or chain of command. I have provided you plenty of possible compromises, but you keep on refusing any other option than your own. ~~Xil (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your time would be better spent, if you`d add these facts to article, instead of flooding the talk page. - These facts have no significance outside this debate, and if they do, just feel free to add them. I cannot believe someone could get reprimanded for providing facts in Wikipedia.

Re: ideological vs. command - can you point out the Wikipolicy or even give a single example of an infobox that separates an army into separate belligerent sides based on ideology?? For example, in World War II, the Soviet Union and the Western Allies had ideologically 180 degrees different agendas. All they had in common was the enemy. Still they are regarded as allies. Please demonstrate how this logic does not apply here.

From the legal aspect, we discriminate between alliance and co-belligerence, the former being a formal agreement and the latter just fighting a common enemy (a good example are the Axis powers where Finland, Iran and Thailand are not regarded as Axis allies but co-belligerents). In the present case, Latvia fulfills the full alliance criteria, as its relation to the Landeswehr was formalised in the pact signed by August Winnig the German attorney, and Ulmanis on 7 December 1918. The fact that the pact was still in force even after the 16 April cop d'etat is witnessed by Janis Balodis in his memoirs when he, upon his meeting with von der Goltz in the beginning of May 1919, refers to the pact and demands the arms delivery promised by the Germans in the pact. Therefore the only correct way to describe the relationship between Latvia and the Landeswehr up to 5 June would be an alliance.

I believe the only 'compromise' you offered was to add the German army as an ally of Latvia and Entente. My reply urged you to try how it works out. Why don't you? I am still curious about it. Just keep in mind that: 1) there was neither an agreement nor any coordination between the German headquarters and Estonia (although in April and May, von der Goltz sued for cooperation with the Estonian army, whereas the Estonians replied negatively), and 2) Estonia and Landeswehr fought each other in a war during 5 June - 2 July 1919. As long as the infobox is in coordination with these facts, I will support possible changes regarding the German status.

Speaking of compromises, it has passed unnoticed that I replaced Latvia with Latvian Independent Brigade to indicate there was just a part of the Latvian army involved on the German side. I guess it was not accepted as a compromise after all and I'll just restore the name of the country for the matters of simplicity and standardisation, and give further explanations in the footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will (when I get home), matter of fact I noticed several such articles related to WWI, allies of WWII had a common goals and didn`t fight each other, so I find that example questionable. In the mean time, please, provide a policy that states order of battle is prefered. I didn`t reprimand you for providing facts, I merely noted that instead of providing facts here, where they have little use (as they are not being questioned), you could acctualy have improved the article, given you allready invested almost two weeks in fact finding for this argument ~~Xil (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Latvian force in question never fought the Germans. It was formally allied with the Landeswehr and fought with it. Therefore Latvia did not even meet the mere co-belligerence criteria but was simply allied to the German force. Any way you look at it, Kalpaks and Balodis never opposed the Landeswehr, a fortiori they were part of it. What else do you need? Let me also point out that it is well documented that Commander-in-Chief Balodis and his detachment switched side on 2 July whereas it is hard to establish if the German force did that before 2 July. However, an alternative option would be to list the German forces as Entente co-belligerents until 5 June 1919 and start its separate bellierence from only that date. The downside of that approach would be the ignorance of two facts: 1) the Landeswehr hampered the legal Provisional Government of Latvia and eventually toppled it, and 2) the Commander-in-Chief of the forces loyal to the legal Provisional Government followed the German plans and orders until 2 July 1919, and failed to address colonel Zemitans' order to join the Latvian Northern Brigade, which would make an awkward discrepancy between the date of the beginning of war between Latvia and the Landeswehr and the date when the Latvian Commander-in-Chief switched side. However, I would be open for discussion upon that option. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there we go again. I was merely responding to your comment about WWII - Latvia fought Germans in this war using the same armed forces, contrary to allies of WWII who never fought each other. Expand the article, if you are so keen to look for facts, please. I asked you to provide a policy that states your way is the best, not to prove that Latvia was allied with Landeswher for short time at begining of war for questionable reasons. If anything find a proof that at the tim Latvians were under German command they fought anything other than Soviets ~~Xil (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not defending any 'my way' so will you just stop personalising my request. Template:Infobox military conflict says the combatants section should list the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict, and Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. Latvia was a country whose forces took part in the conflict as it was formally, strategically and tactically allied with the German army, meaning they were joined by a pact, they pursued a common strategic plan and conducted joint operations. As for Latvia fought Germans in this war using the same armed forces, contrary to allies of WWII who never fought each other. - Kalpaks and Balodis and the South Latvian Brigade never fought the Landeswehr, quite on the contrary. As for short time for questionable reasons then the South Latvian Brigade was allied to the German army for half a year which accounts for a third of the war, during which the fate of Vidzeme was decided and which is considered the time that gave the momentum to the struggle for freedom. These victories have received great attention in the Latvian historiography so there is no ground to dismiss them. The 'questionable reasons' are no reason to exclude the fact itself. As for find a proof that at the tim Latvians were under German command they fought anything other than Soviets - I have claimed the exact opposite: that the Latvian force fought the Soviets with the German corps. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued

Before you flood me with another ton of history facts, I'll make a note that it is not what is disputed, Jaan, but the lack of common sense - you claim that sides must be listed according to chain of command (even though infobox documentation says that according to political influences is also okay, it is done so in other articles and it is noted in the infobox that Latvians were originaly under German comand) and doing so list Latvia as fighting its own independence. ~~Xil (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To indicate a country that fought on both sides in a war, we commonly use dates. For instance, see the infobox in the Eastern Front (World War II) article, where a number of countries is indicated at both sides with the exit dates. Removal of countries is not the answer. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding indicating a group of armies in the infobox, it would work if the group as a whole was involved. In this case, however, only three of the dozens of states seeking independence were involved. As such, the groups can leave a wrong impression of a wider alliance being involved in the war. Here is the policy, which says alliances or other organisations can be grouped. The independence movements were not such organisation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the note in the infobox did indicate date. And as far as I remember you're the one who was up for removing countries - after all if we go strictly by the chain of comand, one part of Latvian forces was under Estonian comand and one - under German comand, why list Latvia at all? The German forces with Bermont were formaly fighting for restoration of Empire - that's white - not so formaly they made territorial claims, so naming could be better, although no naming is not a big deal. Now - observe how the article you call example does list parties according to their alignance. Better yet look at related article on Russian Civil War with even more parties listed. Also note how there they don't list Latvia as fighting under Germany, perhaps you need to update that article too and see how it goes since here nobody can really do anything to object you? The infobox documentation is not a policy, nor does it call for such ridicilously strict interpretation. Matter of fact it calls for listing parties in a manner that improves reader comprehension. I don't see listing a country as fighting its own independence war against itself as improving comprehension, especialy when article is a stub and all historical facts are selectively provided on talkpage just because somebody is more willing to split hairs over a tiny detail, rather than actually interested in improving the article. ~~Xil (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your section touches a number of issues. I will try to address these one by one.

First of all, the note in the infobox indeed includes the date. I was just offering a way to improve the 'confusing' infobox.

Second, we must not exclude Latvian army from the period until 3 July 1919 because Latvia as a state considers the 1st Latvian Independent Battalion and its successor Latvian Brigade as the foundation of the Latvian army, and its commanders Oskars Kalpaks and Janis Balodis as the commanders-in-chief of the National Armed Forces.

Third, the West Russian Volunteer Army's action in Latvia was not independent as you are trying to show. Bermondt-Avalov was an adventurer and it is impossible to completely determine his real intentions but we know for a fact that his army was in fact formally hired by the Andrievs Niedra government and included mostly the ethnic Germans who had formerly fought in the Baltische Landeswehr and the Freikorps in the Baltic. Therefore it is both formally and essentially incorrect to list its military contribution as anything else but pro-(Baltic)German.

Fourth, regarding the Russian Civil War article, it would be correct to include Latvia at the pro-German side. However, please note that the infobox only includes armies significant enough to warrant at least a mention in the main body of the article. For instance, it does not mention most of the Pro-independence movements in Russian Civil War and most armies involved in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. If you bothered to check out the talk page, you would see it has been suggested to further shorten the list of belligerents for the sake of conciseness.

Finally, the war was complicated and full of contradictions, especially for the Latvian government. Under the overbearing Soviet pressure, the government had no other choice but to ally themselves with the pro-German army and to allow the Latvian National Armed Forces under the pro-German command. The removal of the Latvian National Armed Forces from the pro-German command where they belonged during the first war period would be just denial of that complication and these contradictions; and this removal would not serve the main goal of the infobox - to concisely explain the complicated situation to the reader.

Please also note that I am not defending the infobox strictly as it is. As you can see, I am open for suggestions and proposing changes myself. It's just that your latest removals and additions have been erroneous. I still hope these explanations will help you to provide more correct solutions. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are defending infobox exactly as it is, quite obviously there is no chance you will alow Latvians not to be listed as fighting for Baltic German cause - you even suggest they should be listed as pro-German in another article. Don't you really see how redicilous it is? Really, go bring it up with that article, will see what other people say, because for now Latvia IS listed there. Also it would be minor change to replace white movement (even though they were understood as part of it by the general population back then, hence "the white terror") to something like "United baltic duchy". Also explanatory note that Pro-independence movements are fighting on one side, followed by list of particular countries involved wouldn't be taken to mean that every single pro-independence movement is involved by any sentinent being. And it isn't really all that confusing - it can be simplified to two enemies joining forces to fight a common enemy and then afterwards fighting each other and explained with a simple note - it's just that you refuse to see any other way than making it as confusing as possible ~~Xil (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained why I do not support adding Latvia on the Central Powers side at the Russian Civil War article - because its actions on the pro-German side were insignificant in the context of that war. Which does not mean they were insignificant in the context of this war.

The United Baltic Duchy ceased to exist even in the German and Baltic ambitions in November 1918. So please come up with something correct for a change.

The common policy is to list countries. In cases where there is a large number of countries, it makes sense to group them under a common organisation, if applicable. However, in this case we have an infobox section with only five armies, which is not so hard to explain. Vice versa, the grouping would only confuse things, as basically this was not the war of several independence movements against their enemies, but Latvia's war against its enemies, aided by Estonia and the rest of the Allies. The cold fact is that from April to July 1919 there were forces loyal to Latvia giving a significant contribution on both the Allied and the pro-German side. There is no reason why the infobox should show a significant army only in a hatnote.

Hypothetically, we can replace all belligerents with notes. However, the policy and common sense is to list the belligerent countries, not just show them in hatnotes.

Once again, I do not think the infobox is perfect, and I have made changes to it even during this discussion, and I am still open for any of your suggestions reasonable and bound to facts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right - the acctual difference is that in the other article there will be more people to protest this lunacy. There were no Latvian actions on pro-German side, there were joint Latvian and German actions on anti-Soviet side. You yourself proposed that the German side had its own agenda unrelated to anything else, so you come up with how to call it. Besides as I said there is no requirment to call it anything, just figured it would make things clearer, but I understand that goes against everything you believe in. ~~Xil (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the fact is that during these 'joint Latvian and German actions', the Latvian forces were directly under the pro-German supreme command. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Which brings us back to you not being able to prove that there is any requirment to list forces solely by the chain of command even when it hinders understanding ~~Xil (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the policy, and the common sense, the infobox should present alliances. Are you saying the Latvian National Armed Forces were not allied with the Baltische Landeswehr until 3 July? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that German force is represented seperately precicely because that aliance ceased to exist (and Germans displayed hostility well before it formaly did), thus it is common sense not to list two forces fighting for different cause as one, especialy when it means listing a country as part of rouge army fighting against its independence; rather it would make sense to place a note in the infobox explaining that the two forces were originaly allied. And infobox documentation is not a policy, it is instruction of use so you would know what data to put in and as it stands the instruction for combatant field merely suggests that you do not always need to list countries in the box, but that when it makes more sense, you may list aliences, seperate units or omit some parties when there are many involved and that you should list them according to importance to the conflict (and not always going by the chain of command). ~~Xil (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alliances often cease to exist before the end of the respective wars and the former allies turn their weapons against each other (see the Eastern Front of World War II for instance). Normally we indicate the allied countries and the alliance periods, just like in this infobox. I do not think you can put forward sufficient arguments how is this case different from other such cases (for instance, from Finland, Romania, or Bulgaria in World War II). It is just hard to argue against the facts - the Baltische Landeswehr or the Freikorps never switched either side or objectives while the Latvian National Armed Forces switched from the pro-German to the Allied side as sanctioned in the Strazdumuiža Treaty on 3 July 1919. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud - Latvia did not fight to install German government in its territory. The dates could be easily indicated in any case. If you are so keen to cite examples, do find another one where a country is listed fighting againt its very existence ~~Xil (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) @Jaan, I appreciate your perspective. However, in both the aftermath of WWI and WWII the same dynamic was at work: which was that the unwelcome and occupying Germans were the instrument by which to beat back the Russians, to be followed by beating back the Germans. There was never any alliance with Germans (or Russians, except by Latvian Communists in both cases) with respect to any goals regarding Latvian territory. Švabes Latvijas Enciklopēdija has quite an extensive write-up of the Brīvības cīņas. If I can scan/make that available, would that assist in this discussion? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Finaly some sanity. Vecrumba, I don't see any way to convince Jaan (I suppose he still sees the war from Estonians fighting Germans perspective and isn't event trying to understand what else was going on politicaly), but would you support article being revereted back to this (with allied intervention maybe listed as list item bellow the other participiants since ony their navy played a role), because even though Jaan claims that German agenda was too mysterious to name (and was not either to form their own state or to restore Russian Empire with Baltic provinces run by Germans) White is just loose term for "fighting bolsheviks" (which they did) ~~Xil (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Finland in World War II did not fight to install a Soviet government in its territory but under immence pressure were forced to ally themselves with the Soviets whose objective was to install a pro-Soviet government. I do not see how this case is different.

I appreciate Vecrumba's acknowledgement of the end of World War II as an analogy. Indeed, just like Finland in 1941, Latvia in 1918 had to choose the lesser of two evils. How come nobody is trying to remove Finland from the German co-belligerents section of the infobox at the Eastern Front article?! The claim of Latvia never being allied to the pro-German army is plainly wrong. On 7 December 1918 the Provisional Government of Latvia signed an agreement with the A. Winnig, the German deputy, on the creation of the land defence (Baltische Landeswehr). According to this, it was allowed to form 18 companies consisting of Latvians, seven companies of Germans, and one company of Russians. The equipment were to be provided by the government of Germany, the food by the Provisional Government of Latvia. On 29 December, the parties signed another agreement on granting Latvian citizenship to everybody who fought for the defence of the country at least for four weeks. The 1st Independent Latvian Battalion under Oskars Kalpaks was part of the Baltische Landeswehr, and took active part in the recapture operations of western Latvia commanded by the pro-German headquarters. The Latvian Brigade remained a regular part of the Baltische Landeswehr until the Treaty of Strazdumuiža on 3 July, according to which it switched over to the Allied side. Now, I am open for alternative facts from the Latvian encyclopedia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Stick to the point Jaan and leave the historical trivia and your speculations out of the discussion - no one has contested historical facts, its about how to better represent them. As an alliance it ought to be listed as single force - and it was in the olden days, however, recognising that Germans had different goals, somebody decided that they should be represent as a different force. I wonder why rather than reverting the infobox to that previous state you rather choose to claim that Latvian government was pro-German although you have clearly shown that you must be aware of what was going on in the reallity? Not that I would support such move, but with you reverting any changes and deflecting any proposals for change, this seems to be just a chit-chat anyway ~~Xil (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Provisional Government of Latvia was allied with the Baltische Landeswehr from 7 December 1918 and the Latvian National Armed Forces were part of the Landeswehr until 3 July 1919. Currently in the belligerents section, Latvia is shown as allied with the Baltische Landeswehr until 3 July 1919. Deleting this information, even if moved to a hatnote, would be hiding it so this is not a correct solution. Therefore, I am waiting for you to come up with a more valid idea. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all you didn't answer my question - why, if you see Baltic Germans as a part of alience, you don't represent them as such, but as a third force? Might it have something to do with the fact that after libarating Cēsis form Bolsheviks the joint Latvian-Estonian force refused to let the "allies" into the city in fears that they will slaughter Latvian population (as they did in Riga) and had a big, ugly fight about it? And secondly it was shown as allied with Landeswehr in my revision as well. The diffrence is that as it stands it does not show Latvia as part of alience, but as part of Baltic German force that fought against it. Latvia was allied with the Baltic Landeswehr as it was supposed to be part of Latvian army to fight the Soviets - the government promised the soldiers citizenship in return and all. The German army, whose presence was mandated by allied intervention, also was there to fight Bolsheviks. Instead the German forces staged a coup to overthrow Latvian government (and that after killing Latvian commander and pretty much leaving Latvian detachments to fend for themselves, rather than undertaking joint action). Which leads as to the fact that I also asked you to present another case where country is fighting against itself, instead you compared the situation with Finland in WWII after Vecruma drawing parallels to Latvian Legion, but his argument was that Germans were used as tool, not what I asked about - if you are going to present examples, get one that shows a situation similar to what you are proposing here, where after a coup the regime being overthrown is allied with the preperators of the coup, while at same time fighting against them ~~Xil (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For the first time, but now in a very correct context, you mention the North Latvian Brigade, which was on the other side of the frontline from the (South) Latvian Brigade now considered as the Latvian National Armed Forces. However, there is no way to ignore the fact that not the North Latvian Brigade commanded by Zemitans but the (South) Latvian commanded by Balodis is considered as the National Armed Forces. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering the Finnish case, I indicated an example of another case where an army has switched side like the Latvian National Armed Forces did. I agree that the North Latvian Brigade, which stayed on the Allied side all through the war, makes the situation more complicated. Still, the North Latvian Brigade are not considered as the National Armed Forces before 3 July 1919 and the infobox should show the alliance between the (South) Latvian Brigade and the Baltische Landeswehr. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well then explain your example more thorowly and give a reference to particular article. I think you see this from Estonian perspective in which Northen brigade is probaly more important. However this is Latvian independence war and the Latvian government should be seen as more important entity politicaly. Latvian government made agreements with both Germany and Estonia to form Latvian military forces under their comand. And I think here you make serious mistake of not considering Northen brigade part of Latvian army. The Latvian army itself was not formed untill after peace treaty you keep refering to as date defining end of Latvian aliance with Germany. Latvia considers Southern brigade beginings of its army because it was the first military force it formed, however although the Northen brigade was formed about a month later it also later merged into the army and it was as much a Latvian force under foreign comand as the first one. Matter of fact we should consider the Landesehr part of the Latvian forces at the time too. None of the forces made up from Latvians was ever loyal to any other government than Latvian. The German force swiched sides and became loyal to pro-Germanic government. The way you just presented your argument it would seem that answer to my question about not presenting these as just one force is that you indeed think that Latvian Southern brigade too swiched sides and was fighting the Northen brigade. That is a serious factual error and I hope you merely misworded the statement and don't really see that way, because I doubt you are going to let anyone do anything to correct you ~~Xil (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I see some serious arguments here. By the way, labelling me will not do any good for your arguments.

You can find the details on where the Balodis brigade was located and that they were not an independent force, in the Balodis memoirs. ---Jaan Pärn (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Provisional Government did not fight the war but the Latvian National Armed Forces did. The ideological loyalty to the government does not erase the fact that the Latvian Brigade fought hard under the Landeswehr. The agreement between the Provisional Government and the German deputy sanctioned the creation of a joint defence force and the Germans pursued a pro-German policy already at the making of the agreement so I don't see when do you propose the Germans switched side.

Of course I regard the North Latvian Brigade as part of the National Armed Forces, and the infobox is reflecting that right now. However, the infobox should also reflect the brigade under Balodis as the commander-in-chief of the Latvian Armed Forces active on the other side of the frontline. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never labeled you anything, just pointed out your error. Your approach is fundamental wrong, you haven't done anything to prove otherwise, in fact your arguments are looking ever more erronus, yet you insist on having your version of infobox and won't consider any other alternatives (I suggested one I myself don't like, yet you never answered what is wrong with that from your standpoint). I never argued that Balodis was leading an independent force, in fact, I stressed that this force was under German comman just as the other one was under Estonian command. I find your idea that armed forces fight without a political cause, but just for sake of fighting rather curious. Landeswehr was also technicaly Latvian National armed forces up untill the point when Latvian army was formed. You now say that you are well aware that Germans were pursuing hostile policy all the time they were suposedly allied with Latvia. I am very well aware where Balodis was at the time of battle of Cēsis and it was not fighting Estonian-Latvian forces, but guarding Riga. Had you read the memoir yourself you'd noted that he goes at lenght describing German hostility and that attack from them is imenent and how it was the main reason for not joining the forces with Northen brigade - they'd need to fight Germans, positioned inbetween both, just to join forces and march back to Riga. This dosen't exactly sound like concerns of commander of pro-Germanic force hostile to Northen brigade. ~~Xil (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand - you have 'never argued that Balodis was leading an independent force', yet you insist on presenting the South Latvian Brigade as independent from the Landeswehr.

Naturally, armies fight for their political causes. What you are missing is that armies with conflicting causes can be allied against their common enemy. What you also do not understand is that the belligerents section does not group the armies according to their goals but according to alliances.

I have never said the South Latvian Brigade fought against the North Latvian Brigade. What I have said is that they fought at opposite sides, which is a whole different thing. Regarding hostility towards the North Latvian Brigade, then I would not use that word but the two headquarters were obviously in conflict because of the South Latvian Brigade's alliance with the Germans. Balodis did not communicate with the North Latvian headquarters before the Treaty of Strazdumuiža at all. Another obvious fact is that during the Battle of Cesis the South Latvian Brigade formed the rearguard for the Landeswehr, which enabled the Landeswehr to dispatch the respective number of troops against the North Latvian Brigade. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is quite clear that you don't understand and don't want to understand. I don't insist on presenting them seperatly, I insist on them not being listed against fighting their own country. If they are to be listed according to aliences then Germans should be listed under rest of anti-Bolshevik allience, whish you also don't see as a possibility for reasons unknown. Constantly calling a force German and fighting on opposite side is not much diffrent from actual engagement - it is labeling Latvian force as the enemy of other Latvian force. And again if you had read the Balodis memoirs you'd see that he did communicate with Northen brigade. And that during the battle of Cēsis he was stationed in Riga as there was no other force left to guard this strategicaly mportant city from bolsheviks, since Germans again had elected to pursue other goals. That you see them as "rearguard for the Landeswehr, which enabled the Landeswehr to dispatch the respective number of troops against the North Latvian Brigade" just proves that you indeed believe that they were enemy of Northen Latvian brigade. Although Balodis actions are sometimes questioned, the majority view is that he was loyal to Latvian government as clearly proven by the fact that he later held many high offices in Latvian army and government. It is a policy to promote mainstream views, not conspiration theories and therefore I will revert the article to version which reflects majority view. If you feel Southern Latvian loyality is to be questioned, please do this in the text of the article as the policy suggests. ~~Xil (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Well, it is quite clear that you don't understand and don't want to understand. - Please assume good faith.

Re: I don't insist on presenting them seperatly, I insist on them not being listed against fighting their own country. - Being listed in an alliance does not imply direct engagement with all the members of the opposing alliances. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to assume good faith for a week, it obviously hasn't achieved anything. As I allready said listing a force, which is not enemy is such is wrong, regardlesly of what you are attempting to imply. Also you have quite clearly indicated that your intent is to imply that this force was supporting German force, which is fringe theory every source you've presented thus far disagrees with. If you wish this view reflected in the article, please, go ahead find a source and include it somewhere where it doesn't conflict with mainstream history ~~Xil (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending the South Latvian Brigade did not support the Landeswehr? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting they supported Landeswehr's attack against Northen brigade? ~~Xil (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of their intentions, they passively did. They remained under the command of the Landeswehr during the battle, and fulfilled guarding duties, which without them would have tied up a respective part of the forces dispatched against the North Latvian Brigade. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely not use the word 'enemy' here but 'allied with an oponent' instead. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say anymore... All the anti-Bolshevik forces were allied. The German force however eventually attacked their allies. It is therefore represented as seperate side in the conflict. The rest of allies where never involved in a battle on German side and there is no proof they supported Germans in any other way. Although there certanly were some conspiracy teorries to the opposite floating around afterwards. Wikipedia however avoids representing such theories. Therefore it would make sense to represent forces who never turned on the alliance as part of the alliance. A seperate side in conflict does mean "enemy", not "allied with an opponent". If though you insist on such meaning, you also need to take into account that in that sense all the anti-bolshevik forces were allied to Germans and represent them as one side. ~~Xil (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also you went at lenght how only important forces should be presented. How is representing a force that never took part in any battle for pro-Germanic side following that rule? ~~Xil (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To those less familiar with the complexity of Baltic history, this might appear to be arguing. For me, at least, it's a spirited debate which only underscores that complexity. Just wanted to thank you both for caring about the subject and presenting it as accurately as possible. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: ...nobody has ever disputed loyality of Southern brigade - I of course welcome any proof of the opposite. - I have never disputed the loyalty of the South Latvian Brigade, so what you are building here is a straw man. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: ...no amount of argument will convince him that Balodis was not guarding German rear so they could go fight Estonians. - I am sorry, but the brigade did not fulfill its duties in a military vacuum. In the actual context of the war, the South Latvian Brigade guarded Riga from the Soviets while the Landeswehr was fighting the Estonian 3rd Division. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: A seperate side in conflict does mean "enemy", not "allied with an opponent". - Was Poland the enemy of Finland in World War II? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: The rest of allies where never involved in a battle on German side and there is no proof they supported Germans in any other way. and How is representing a force that never took part in any battle for pro-Germanic side following that rule?

• 31 January: Most of Latvia is under the control of the Red Army, the Latvian government and German forces control the neighbourhood of Liepāja.
• 3 March: United German and Latvian forces commence counterattack against the forces of Soviet Latvia.
• 6 March: Oskars Kalpaks, commander of all Latvian forces subordinated to German Headquarters falls from German friendly fire. He is replaced by Jānis Balodis.
• 10 March: Saldus comes under Latvian control.

...

• 22 May: The Baltische Landeswehr captures Riga.
• 23 May: The Latvian Independent Brigade marches into Riga.

Now please continue on how the South Latvian Brigade 'never took part in any battle for pro-Germanic side' and never 'supported Germans in any other way'. Or do you think this text is flawed? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Therefore it would make sense to represent forces who never turned on the alliance as part of the alliance. - This is a logical fallacy. Not turning against an alliance means not being part of an alliance, especially if you are part of another alliance. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That bit about logical fallacy is so deep that I am going to need it explained with pictures :) Like this:

• Anti bolshevik aliance > splits into
  • Anti bolshevik aliance
  • Pro German force

How is not spliting off from the aliance not being part of alliance? And where do you see another alliance? ~~Xil (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The alliance between the Landeswehr and the South Latvian Brigade as the latter was part of the former. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you propose the Landeswehr presented in the same belligerents section with the Allies till the coup d'etat in April? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, although I don't consider it the best possible outcome, I asked you like ten times why, if you insist on representing formal alliances, rather than the political loyalty why you do not represent Landeswehr as part of anti-Bolshevik alliance. I hope to finally get an answer. ~~Xil (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not insist on representing formal but actual alliances. I have not looked into that thoroughly but it may be correct to consider the Landeswehr as allied with the U.K. until the April coup, which the U.K. took as inacceptable and therefore may be considered as switching side. However, as it is presented the text, the South Latvian Brigade continued fighting under the Landeswehr so this probably will not solve the need to present the South Latvian Brigade as Landeswehr's ally until July 1919. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should "look into that". Had you read any of the sources you provided you would have noted that allied intervention may have disproved of German actions, but they still were trying to keep them in the alliance fighting Bolsheviks - just because British took coup "as inacceptable" doesn't mean they stopped considering Germans their allies. It was politically and strategically important for everyone else to follow the wishes of allied intervention. Had you, for example, read Balodis diary you presented, you'd see him discussing the imminent battle with Germans and discussing how allies would disprove of that. He also describes his consultations with allies and discussing German actions with them. The British disproved of Germans getting ready to attack Northern brigade too. They also disproved of Latvians and Estonians killing off Germans after the battle and get them sign a treaty. And the remaining units of Landeswehr were placed under British command. Now how do you propose that could have had happened, if everyone wasn't allied with allied intervention in the same loose alliance? ~~Xil (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The remains of the Landeswehr were put under the British command not because they were in a loose alliance with them but because they lost the war and surrendered. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the units which "lost the war and surrendered" were disbanded ~~Xil (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Must be a blank page in my history book but I do not know any Landeswehr units that did not take part in the fighting in Northern Latvia in June but were put under the British command. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)