Talk:Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania

Questions

"Official Soviet sources claimed that the presence of the Soviet military was necessary to strengthen defenses of a weak nation against possible attacks by Nazi Germany." Since they had just signed 2 major treaties, it sounds weird, since these things are usually accompanied by a lot of official hoopla about a new era of cooperation. Is there any way to put something in along the lines of "despite the Pact and Treaty, the Soviet Union maintained some distance from Germany"? Or is it possible that the Lithuania-needed-protection-from-Germany rationale was issued later? Novickas (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting observation. No, the "Lithuania-need-protection" rationalle was used immediately (there is a New York Times headline in line of "Soviet Union Proclaimed Defender of the Baltics"). But Russia indeed was very friendly with Germany (later there were even accusations that Lithuanians are not friendly enough to Germany and too friendly with England and United States). My best guess that while Russian and Germany were friends, that did not include the small states in between them. So Germany could attack Lithuania without violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and still maintaining cosy relationship with Russia. Anyway, it was just an excuse. Renata (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"In February 1940, the Lithuanian government decided to relocate the army units so that they could shield the government while it retreats abroad." Were the army units actually relocated? Novickas (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, the source did not specify. But knowing how lazy the government was, I would guess no. Renata (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1939 ultimatum -article needed

I think there should an article 1939 Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania, because that had more signifigance to the Lithuanian's future. For example after the 1939 ultimatum and Soviet–Lithuanian Mutual Assistance Treaty the Soviet Union used its military bases in Estonia and Latvia against Finland in the Winter War and also the Treary meant the end of Baltic Entente, the defense alliance. 1940 ultimatum was just "technical". Lithuania ja other Baltic countries lost their independence in 1939. Peltimikko (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no ultimatum in 1939 for Lithuania. Because Lithuania received Vilnius, it did not need an ultimatum like Latvia and Estonia. Renata (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you actually gained? Interesting and obvious, but I really did not think that way. I wonder what would happened if Finland made territorial exchanges as the Soviet Union suggested before the Winter War. Probably the country would be occupied, but after that unpleasent experiense... Who knows. Peltimikko (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1940 Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. Overall this is a pretty good article! However therea re some issues that I will outline below.

• Prose
  • Lead sections should be at minimum 2 full paragraphs, see WP:LEAD. My suggestion is to make the first paragraph more about the background and why it lead to the acceptance, with the second paragraph the implementation and effects.
  • "Therefore the Soviets followed semi-legal procedures: took control of the government institutions, installed a new puppet government, and announced show elections to the People's Seimas" -does not make sense. Either needs a they before "took control" or a modification of the colon.
    • Added. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "in part as an attempt to buy time against this possibility" -does not make sense (metahpor mixing?) Buy time to prepare for this possibility, perhaps, or "in an attempt to delay this"? I'm not sure exactly what the original source said so I dont want to change the meaning.
    • Changed. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "In February 1940, the Lithuanian government decided to relocate the army units so that they could shield the government while it retreats abroad.[19] Although various resolutions were forwarded, nothing tangible was accomplished." The first sentence seems to interrupt the flow of ideas that continues with the second sentence. Also, it's not clear--did the army units move? The "nothing tangible" suggests that they didn't.
    • Deleted. The source did not specify. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Izvestia published an article warning that it was naive for a small country to attempt neutrality"-- should make it clear in the text that Izvestia is a Soviet newspaper, to clarify.
    • Clarified. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The statement "Lithuania lost its independence." comes out of nowhere in the 'Ultimatum and acceptance' section. Make it flow a little more naturally?
    • Moved. Better? Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Since there had been strong opposition to Smetona's rule, it was interpreted by some Lithuanians as a destruction of presidential power rather than as a loss of independence."--needs a reference at the end of it
    • Added. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The official fraudulent.[56] results showed a voter turnout of 95.51% and that communist delegates received 99.19% of the votes."--incomplete sentences!
    • Fixed. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Communist Party of Lithuania with some 1,500 members[61] and its youth branch were designated the only legitimate political entities" need commas after lituania and members in order to add proper flow and direction.
    • Added. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Final lines of 'Impacts and evaluation' section are only two sentences, not a true paragraph. Flesh out or merge the lines somewhere.
    • Merged. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Images
  • Due to the massive amount of info that is crapped into it, File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg is rather useless even at the high resolution it is linked at. Perhaps a redrawing of the map would help, shunting the key into a separate section, like the image here: [1] I think that would require the original uploader's assistance though.
    • Uploaded a new map without legend (which is on the description page). Added another map. I am not aware of any other suitable maps/images. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Antanas Smetona 2.jpg is currently up for deletion--I'd remove it for now and reinstate it if it's kept.
    • I prefer to leave it alone until things sort themselves out. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Any other images that could be added? (Say, maps of locations to add in reader understanding of geography?)
• References
  • References all appear to be reliable print publications or books.
  • Other than the above example I did not see any issues with under-referencing.
• Styles
  • Em dashes should not have spaces between them, as in "However, Merkys could not be found — he was apparently resting at his estate near Kaunas."
    • Fixed. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the general styling appears consistent and in agreement.
• Overall: I am putting the article on hold pending the above improvements. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I have very little time these days. Hope to address any other issues tomorrow. Crashing to bed now. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for being thorough. As I read it, all that needs to be done is expansion of the lead, and I'll pass as GA. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Agh, sorry for the delay. I worked probably like 60 hours this week. I think I am officially brain dead :( I expanded the lead and I hope it meets the criteria. Let me know if anything else needs fixing. Thanks for the patience! Renata (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't worry, I had a couple of real-world issues to address too and have been away for the past three days or so. :) I will try and read through it again and respond later today. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright, I've double-checked and it seems like my main issue (the lead) has been taken care of. The article looks much better, and I am happy to pass as GA. Congrats! Martin Raybourne (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you very much! Renata (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.jnvm.lt/muziejus/index.php?id=13&fid=53&sid=54
  • In 1940 Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania on 2011-05-25 03:15:13, 404 Not Found
  • In 1940 Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania on 2011-06-04 16:11:09, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"demanded to allow"?

Hello. A blurb for this article has appeared on the front page in the "On this day" section - well done - but I have a slight concern over the phrase above. To my English ears, this doesn't sound quite natural. A quick Google search seems to show that the first few matches featuring this exact phrase are from non-English sources. May I suggest an alternative wording for this lead paragraph to be: "The Soviets, using a formal pretext, demanded that an unspecified number of Soviet soldiers be allowed to enter the Lithuanian territory [...]" Normally I would be bold and change it myself but as it's the lead paragraph of an article with which I have no knowledge, I would be happier to gain agreement here first. Regards, Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 07:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

p.s. The Main Page blurb has already been modified; see discussion here.

Yes, please, go ahead. It's called English as a second language :) Renata (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)