Talk:Curzon Line

Early discussions

This definition of the Curzon Line is nonsense. I will write a proper article later tonight. What is it with Polish history at this encyclopaedia?

The map showing the Curzon line is wrong! Curzon line does not follow the modern border between Poland and Belarus, but with some variations, especially near Bialystok and Lvov(Lviv, Lemberg).

Can you refer me to a map showing that? Adam 05:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Later: I have found a maore detailed map and I will make some changes to the map at the article. Adam 05:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have made some alterations to the map and the text. Adam 06:22, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The sentence If there had been a plebiscite in the area (which neither side would have permitted), the attitude of the Jewish population would have determined the outcome. (falsely) suggests, that other ethnic groups would be happy to join the soviet paradise. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem very NPOV.Halibutt 03:06, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The sentence does assume that the Ukrainian and Belorusian populations would have voted to accede to the Soviet Union rather than to Poland. If the choice had been between Poland on the one hand and a free and/or independent Ukrainian and/or Belorusian state on the other, there is no doubt they would have chosen the latter. Whether they would have voted to accede to the Soviet Union as it was in 1939 cannot of course be known, but I agree it should not be assumed they would have done. I will amend the sentence. Adam 03:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's much better now, thanks. Unfortunately, nobody has acces to true percentages of the infamous "referendum" of 1939, but there are countless sources by all nations (not only Poles) that it was seen as a tragedy rather than "reunification with the motherland". Including some Belorussian peasants' diaries I've read recently, in which one of them stated "What the Poles failed to achieve in 200 years, the soviets accomplished in just a year: we're all Polacks now." - which is an obvious referrence to the terror started immediately after Sept. 17th.Halibutt 09:34, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

As to the ethnic cleansing - I used this term since IMO it better reflects the situation than the terms used at the time or some longer description (i.e. mass murder connected with expulsions and expropiations). I was referring to:

• Zamosc area (mass expulsions to other areas and to death camps; done by the Germans to create a purely-German area)
• Wołyń/Volynia area (Kowel, Łuck, Równe) 1943-1944 - mass executions of Poles made mostly by the Ukrainian OUN-UPA in order to create an ethnically-clean area -- 50-60.000 Polish civilians dead.
• Mass deportations in the 1939-1941 period of the 'anti-soviet elements' (between 1.080.000 and 1.114.000 Polish citizens, mostly Poles). In the 1944-53 additional deportations took place and the overal number of Poles deported to Siberia, Kazakhstan and GuLag rose to approximately 2 millions. Approximately 500.000 died.

If you think that there is some better term for this - feel free to post it here.Halibutt 10:12, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. It should go in an appropriate article, perhaps History of Poland (1939-1945). This level of detail does not belong in an article on the Curzon Line, which was an episode in diplomatic history. Adam 01:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

80 years is quite a long time as for an episode, don't you think? Nevermind.Halibutt

Not in historical terms, no. Adam 01:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is half of what we call the modern history. Longer than independence of India, twice as long as human presence in space. Curzon Line is not just a line on the map, it's millions of people dead or expelled from their homes. I think that, similarily to the Oder-Neisse line article, we should put some info on the post-war events here as well. What do you say?Halibutt 13:47, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I say what I said before. Adam 14:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Following text was moved to talk: Ethnography to the West of the Curzon Line

Similiar problems pertained to the West of the Curzon line. The Polish population was generally overwhelmingly predominant in the towns and especially the cities, but the opposite situation, based on older settlement patterns, was often in evidence in the rural districts. Significant rural populations (as much as one-half million)of the Belarus' nation were incorporated into modern Poland around Bialystok. The area around Chelm (Ukr.Kholm), Przemysl (Ukr. Peremyshl) and a part of the Boyko mountainous regions and the entire Lemko mountainous region extending along the southern border of Poland nearly as far west as Cracow included around one-million Ukrainians in the territory of post-war Poland. Much of this population was forcibly resettled into Poland's newly acquired territories of Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia after World War II.

What kind of problems do I have with the text? First, it looks good as an attempt to underline, that Curzon line was not an ethnic border between Poles on one side and Ukrainians, Belorussian and Lithuanians on the other hand. Ethnic border was simply not possible to implement, since all nations were mixed on the whole area of Eastern Border. Nevertheless, the paragraph, as it is written right now, gives impression, that deals with areas West of Curzon line. I think it is not proper place to state it.

Other problem I have with it, that it is POV and factually wrong. First of all Lemko and Bojko are Ruthenians. If they were Ukrainians in 1945 it is doubtfull. Secondly, this doesn't describe Polish-Soviet population transfer, that occured in 1945. Cautious 15:48, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like this paragraph. After some corrections (Lemkos, Boikos, Poleszuks), addition of more details on the ethnic patern after WWII and a paragraph on the Wisla Action and the population transfer - it could be inserted again.Halibutt 17:44, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have reinstated a shortened version of the parapgraph. I am sick of this article being cluttered up with detailed ethnographic argument and Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and who knows what else nationalist propaganda, mostly in bad English. Adam 23:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could you explain why did you cut the piece of information concerning the Line being extended further south? IMO it's quite important to explain that the line originally did not include the areas south of Chelm.Halibutt 00:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And do you really find the piece of information about the Lwów/L'viv area a nationalist guff? I thought it's a simple fact...Halibutt 12:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The following was removed by Adam

Multinational solution(attempts)

Since the areas of Eastern Poland used to have mixed populations, there were many attempts of fair for all nations solution of the problem. This was serious alternative to artificial division of the country and forced population transfer. One of those alternatives was to re-establish Great Duchy of Lithuania in its historical borders. This initiative was supported by Jozef Pilsudski. Other concept, was to establish autonomus regions as Ignacy Paderewski suggested.

After the Polish-Soviet war the new state called Central Lithuania, that included the area around Wilno, was established. Various diplomats and local politicians believed that the area could have formed the common country for all nationalities populating the land. A cantonal status was proposed (see: Hymans' Plan). This idea, however, was abandoned since both Poland and Lithuania did not want to give up claims to the city of Wilno. Eventually, the state was the subject of a referendum in 1922, followed by incorporation to Poland according to the wish of 65% of the voters. The Polish-Soviet border was recognised by the League of Nations in 1923 and confirmed by various Polish-Soviet agreements.

My question is: shall we focus only on border (as it is in Oder-Neisse line), then we should remove all that POV staff, that the new border was good. Otherwise, we should state, that the only fair solution would have been to allow all nationalities to live in peace on the same land. The current version is propaganda of ethnic cleaning. Cautious 12:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is not our job to say that anything was or was not fair. This started out as a simple article describing an episode in diplomatic history. It is being turned into a morass of ethnic propaganda, mostly driven by this obsession with righting Poland's historical wrongs that causes so many conflicts at Wikipedia. I will continue to do what I can to prevent this, but fanatics usually win these arguments in the long run by a process of exhaustion. Adam 13:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that parhaps the best way would be to write a simple article about what Curzon Line was and its' evolution while the rest (all the ethnic, cultural and sociological stuff) could be moved to Talk:History of Poland for discussion and further integration with that article (if needed). However, a paragraph explaining the difference between the actual Curzon Line and present-day eastern border of Poland should be included. It is important.Halibutt 13:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It is certain that Adam is obsessed with anti-Polish bias. However, the ethnic desription should be moved elsewhere. Cautious 16:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is not certain and I'd rather you stopped pro personam arguments here. On the other hand I'd like him to explain his rv a litte.Halibutt 19:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is the standard response of the Polish nationalist lobby here to accuse anyone who attempts to oppose their narrow agenda of "anti-Polish bias." I am neither pro nor anti-Polish. I am pro-history and anti self-serving propaganda cluttering up articles. Adam 23:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you not obsessed? So why you insist that the list of concentration camps, where Poles were detained, is itself anti-Semitic? Who started the next discussion with my from Aj!Waj!?? Cautious 08:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Be whoever you are, but could you please answer my question?Halibutt 23:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What was the question? Adam 00:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I bolded it for you.Halibutt

All right, apparently you didn't find my questions. I'm reposting them here

Could you explain why did you cut the piece of information concerning the Line being extended further south? IMO it's quite important to explain that the line originally did not include the areas south of Chelm.Halibutt 00:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And do you really find the piece of information about the Lwów/L'viv area a nationalist guff? I thought it's a simple fact...Halibutt 12:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Point of View and Resolution

I think that perhaps a way out of this mess would be to shorten this article greatly and provide links. The prelude to the Curzon line could be covered in one introductory paragraph. Curzon's efforts should be described in a few paragraphs. It really seems contrary to accepted convention, though, to describe THE Curzon line as a multitude of possibilities, each deserving equal treatment. Putting in detailed info about exactly how many people were where and when goes beyond the scope of what one expects from an encyclopedia article. Use the links instead. It also seems tenditious to list areas of today's Ukraine and Belarus' as "Eastern Poland." Wouldn't a more neutral POV be "East of the Curzon Line?" Another alternative would be to briefly summarize, non-judgementally, the disadvantages/advantages for the four peoples/nations involved. Why is this article so big? We need to face the white and red elephant in the middle of the living room here. The massive length of this article is driven by the POV that the areas left OUT of a political state called "Poland" justly should have been Polish! We need a new section of Wikipedia for this type of thing -- it should be called Wishipedia -- or, to honor the content that awaits it, Wyshypidia. Could someone please help me with the proper Polish spelling on this one? Genyo 17:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you said that and not me, comrade. You are of course quite right. I wish you luck. Adam 01:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course when you do confront the white and red elephant on this or other issues they claim you sympathise with the black and gold eagle PMA 08:51, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me gentlemen, but how does this add to the solution of our problem here? Maybe I'm wrong (correct me then), but for me remarks of wishipedia and polish conspiracy are equally worthless as namecalling and Nico-bashing. Perhaps one of you could prepare a new, shortened version of this article and post it here for further discussion. I'm sure we could reach some compromise - but there must be some help from your side too.Halibutt 08:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I arrived at this page when trying to refresh my memory regarding the Curzon Line, given the historical relevance between the Russo-Polish War of 1920 and the ongoing conflict in Georgia, and was fairly surprised to end up regarding it as an extremely biased, even revisionist, version of events. In any case, these sentences, in particular, struck me: "[O]ne of the first acts of the new Russian government was to publicly denounce the treaties which had partitioned Poland. That left Poland in legal possession of the territories that Poland had held before the Partitions of Poland in 1772. The Bolshevik regime in Russia, on the other hand, wanted to invade Poland in order to carry the socialist revolution into the heart of Europe and particularly into Germany. In these circumstances, war was inevitable, and hostilities broke out in late 1919." To begin with, the contention that the war was inevitable is unknowable. We do know, however, that the Poles started the war, basically on the calculation that the Russians were preoccupied by a Civil War--whether or not they ultimately planned to dominate the world. The notion that Poland had legal possession of the territories that were Polish prior to the partition of 1772 due to the "denunciation" of it is, well, debatable at best, and, not, I think, accepted by any serious historian of international law. In any case, a citation, at the very least, is required for such a claim. Bingo7 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

---

shortened version of article

The Curzon line was a boundary line proposed in 1919 by the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, as a border between Poland, to the west, and Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine, to the east. It lay approximately along the border which was established between Prussia and Russia in 1797, after the third partition of Poland. The line separating the German and Union zones of occupation following the defeat of Poland in 1939 followed the Curzon Line in places, while diverging from it around Bialystok in the north and in the southern region of Galicia. The Line was used in 1945 as the basis for the permanent border between Poland and the Soviet Union, although with substantial differences.

It is often said that the Curzon Line represented an ethnic border between Poles to the west and Russians and Ukrainians to the east. This was not the intention when Lord Curzon proposed the line: its origins were diplomatic and historical, not ethnic. Nevertheless it did run along a line which, with some notable anomalies, approximated a division between regions to the west which were mixed, but majority Polish, and regions to the east which were mixed but majority non-Polish. (see Ethnography of eastern Poland).

(map)

History of the Curzon Line

During World War I the Allies agreed that an independent Polish state should be formed from territories previously part of the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 said that the eastern border of Poland would be "subsequently determined." The lands lying between Poland and its eastern neighbours were inhabited by a mixed population of Poles, Jews, Lithuanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Belarussians, with no single group being a majority. During the Polish-Soviet War Lord Curzon, on behalf of the Allies, suggested a line running from Grodno through Brest-Litovsk to Lwow, although leaving unclear which side of the proposed border Lwow would be on. A later version of the Line, known as Curzon Line "B", definitely awarded Lwow to Poland (see map).

Because the Russian Empire had collapsed into a state of civil war following the Russian Revolution, there was no recognised Russian government with whom the eastern border of Poland could be negotiated. One of the first acts of the Russian provisional government in 1917 was to publicly denounce the treaties of partitions of Poland. The Bolshevik regime which came to power in October 1917, however, wanted to invade Poland in order to carry the socialist revolution into the heart of Europe, and particularly into Germany. In this circumstances war was inevitable, and broke out in late 1919.

In December 1919, the Allied powers made the following declaration: The Principal Allied and Associated Powers, recognising that it is important as soon as possible to put a stop to the existing conditions of political uncertainty in which the Polish nation is placed, and without prejudging the provisions, which must in the future define the eastern frontiers of Poland, hereby declare that they recognise the right of the Polish Government to proceed, according to the conditions previously provided by the Treaty with Poland of June 28, 1919, to organise a regular administration of the territories of the former Russian Empire situated to the West of the line described below [the Curzon Line]. The rights that Poland may be able to establish over the territories situated to the East of the said line are expressly reserved.

After an initial Polish offensive into Ukraine, which captured Kiev in May 1920, the Bolsheviks gained the advantage and advanced into Poland, and in July the Poles appealed to the Allies to intervene. On 11 July Lord Curzon proposed to the Soviet government a ceasefire along the line which had been suggested the previous year. Polish parliament, after a long discussion, accepted the line because it was seen as a last chance for remaining independent. However, the Soviets, believing they had the upper hand, rejected the proposal, and fighting continued. In August, however, the Soviets were defeated just outside Warsaw and forced to retreat. At the Treaty of Riga in March 1921 the Soviets had to concede a frontier well to the east of the Curzon Line, giving Poland both Lwow and Wilno (today Vilnius}. The area around Wilno, called Central Lithuania was the subject of a referendum in 1922, which was followed by its incorporation to Poland according to the wishes of 65% of the voters. The Polish-Soviet border was recognised by the League of Nations in 1923 and confirmed by various Polish-Soviet agreements.

The terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers. In September, after the military defeat of Poland, the Soviet Union annexed all territories east of the Curzon Line plus Bialystok and Eastern Galicia. The territories east of this line were incorporated into the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics after so-called referendums, and hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews were deported eastwards into the Soviet Union. In July 1941 these territories were seized by Germany in the course of the invasion of the Soviet Union. During the German occupation most of the Jewish population was killed.

In march 1943 Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that the Polish government would have to agree to some compromise with the Soviet Union regarding the eastern border. In 1944 the Soviet armed forces recaptured eastern Poland from the Germans. The Soviets unilaterally declared the former Soviet-German border (approximately the Curzon Line) to be the new frontier between the Soviet Union and Poland. This time, however, Bialystok was retained by Poland. The Polish government-in-exile in London bitterly opposed this action, and at the Teheran and Yalta conferences between Stalin and the western Allies, the allied leaders Roosevelt and Churchill asked Stalin to reconsider, particularly over Lwow, but he refused. The Curzon Line thus became the permanent eastern border of Poland, and was recognised as such by the western Allies in July 1945.

<-- Need proof. AFAIK Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to the line long before Teheran and that was only a confrmation Halibutt -->

Adam 09:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

my editions are in italics. Change them to normal if you agree.Halibutt 11:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shortened version discussion

Ok, good gentlemen, some explanation and feedback. Someone should be able to read this article and not perceive any wish that one side should have gotten more! That's the bottom line that would move this article from encyclopedia into the "Wish" division. Perhaps some neutral statement of the line being immperfect for all four groups would be a second best option?

I like the overall lines of the "shortened version." I think the history of the Curzon Line Section, is way too deep, and instead should be handled by a link to " History of WW I," or "WW I, Eastern front" (or something like that). A few sentences to the aftermath of the "Curzon Line" proposal would seem to suffice. (e.g. the military outcome determined an interwar border 200 miles to the east...?)

Secondly, what was known or supposed by Curzon and his 'dialogue group' about the nature of the polictical state of Poland's Eastern neighbors? Would it be most accurate to speak of the government of certain ethnic groups instead of states (or "today's" Ukr., Lith., Bel. ?) Was the line proposed as resolving a "Polish issue?" (it's eastern border?) Apparently the answer was yes? Finally, would a NPOV way to say the issue be a border between homogenously populated territories of both groups? majority? ethnically non-mixed? Or was it seen differently at the time? As in, say, between Polish areas and mixed areas--or Polish areas and other nationality areas? Genyo 21:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the line was indeed not perfect for anyone. What is hard to understand from Westerners' point of view is that these areas were indeed of mixed population, much more mixed than Lorraine or Ulster. This is especially visible in history of Lwow, which had at least 10 significant minorities apart from the "big three".

I've been taught at school (and most Polish history books support this) that the line was based mostly on four factors:

• the borders of the "Congress Poland"
• The whole ethnic explanation was based on Russian pre-war censae (far from being 100% credible) as lord Curzon apparently had no knowledge about the German 1915 census (much more reliable and the only census on which both Poles and Lithuanians agree - see Central Lithuania).
• it was approximately the frontline the Reds reached at the moment the line was finally proposed by Curzon. And that's why the Bolsheviks refused it since they were the ones to propose it at first (December 8th 1919), when the Poles reached the Ferdinand Foch Line: Niemen river-Grodno-Wilno-Dyneburg (Nemunas River-Hrodna-Vilnius-Daugavpils, with both Wilno and Lwow on the Polish side. The Soviet counter-proposal was seen as impossible then since Pilsudski was still on his march eastwards. Then he stopped not to help Denikin (since the latter did not accept the very existence of independent Poland). However, in 1920 when the line was dug-out by Curzon (not invented!) it was the Soviets who saw it as unacceptable since they were about to capture Warsaw.

Anyway, the line was totally inacceptable for Poland. It was accepted at the Spa conference by the government which saw no other choice, but the situation on the Home Front was tragic and public riots almost overthrown the cabinet of Grabski.

So, on to your questions:

• Secondly, what was known or supposed by Curzon and his 'dialogue group' about the nature of the polictical state of Poland's Eastern neighbors?

I doubt such factors were important to them. They simply decided that the last chance of stoping the Reds before they reach Germany was by "proposing them their own proposal". The only two major players were Poland and Russia, nobody cared about Belorussians or Ukrainians.

• Would it be most accurate to speak of the government of certain ethnic groups instead of states (or "today's" Ukr., Lith., Bel. ?)

Apart from the Ukrainian government (in exile at the moment of Curzons proposal) there was no other government. The Peoples' Republic of Belarus was incorporated into Bolshevik Russia (there was no Soviet Union yet) and Lithuania was trying to pretend she's not there in order to stay independent and not to fall victim of Russian agression.

• Was the line proposed as resolving a "Polish issue?" (it's eastern border?) Apparently the answer was yes?

The line was proposed by the Reds as resolving the "Polish issue" and by Curzon as resolving the "Red Germany" issue. At that moment Poland was seen as a game-over situation. That's why Curzon agreed to all Russian demands, includng the Russian economc rights, dsarmament of the Polsh army and other political concessions.

• Finally, would a NPOV way to say the issue be a border between homogenously populated territories of both groups? majority? ethnically non-mixed? Or was it seen differently at the time? As in, say, between Polish areas and mixed areas--or Polish areas and other nationality areas?

Just as I say, when the Reds proposed it, they argued that the border of Congress Poland was equal to Polish ethnic boundary. It was based on Russian censuses and wasn't really credble, although it was definitely closer to the ethnic border (if it could be drawn) than the 1938 border. However, I doubt lord Curzon and the League of Nations thought of that when they were trying to resolve the issue. That's why they did not prepared a fixed line in Galicia and proposed the frontline reached on the day of the cease-fire instead.

Sorry for making ths post so long, but I wanted to give some in-sight.Halibutt 23:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

South of the Line, Teheran, Churchill and Roosevelt

The problem with Churchills opinion in Teheran is that, according to his own memoirs, he accepted the line unconditionally. He himself writes that he was surprised by how far westwards the border was to be moved. Also in his memoirs there's a caption describing that the only person to underline that Lord Curzon did not plan the line in Galicia and that Lwow should be left on the Polish side was, surprisingly enough, Eden. The only question Roosevelt asked was if Stalin believed that a peaceful and voluntary population transfer is possible. Stalin agreed and that was the end of the discussion.Halibutt 11:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know I have read that Roosevelt asked Stalin, either at Teheran or Yalta, to reconsider the Lwow question, but I can't source this at present. Adam 00:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Need proof or a source.Halibutt 02:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[1]: "At the Yalta conference in February 1945, relatively quick agreement was reached on the eastern frontier of Poland. In pressing the acceptance of the Curzon Line, Stalin argued that he could hardly claim less for the Soviet Union than Curzon and Clemenceau had offered after World War I. He also argued that the Soviet-Polish border was a matter of vital security to Russia. Roosevelt noted that Polish-American opinion was ready to accept the Curzon Line, but he urged Stalin to cede Lvov and possibly some oil fields in compensation for the annexation of Konigsberg. As Stalin was not especially sensitive to the feelings of Polish-Americans, this suggestion went nowhere." Adam 02:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rest is moved to: User:Adam Carr/anti-Polish bigot

Adam, you are not showing bigotry. You are showing unwilligness to made a compromise. Also, "rule greater part of Lithuania" is simply wrong, since that part of Lithuania which was ruled by Poland HAD POLISH MAJORITY FOR GOD SAKE.

ALSO, it was not "Whatever Poles could grab in 1922". Again, it was Soviets who striked first; war started in 1919; and in peace of Riga Soviets offered much more than Poles accepted. LET ME REPEAT: Polish delegation refused to accept much bigger territorial concession from Soviets!

If you articulate such sentences then one may start to wonder whether you know ANYTHING about the issue eexcept for the propaganda. Szopen

This argument is now taking place at four different places. See my comments at Talk:History of Poland (1939-1945). Adam 06:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice NPOV change, there PMAustin! The old form seemed to settle the POV before the topic is even introduced. Genyo 13:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm probably getting involved in a huge, endless debate, but I would have thought the mutual ethnic cleansing (yes, Poles killed Ukrainians as well) during WWII would be relevant to an article on the Curzon line. And although I see someone has argued that the term ethnic cleansing should not be used since it's a 90s invention, I think many scholars have adopted the term for relevant historical events (I refer to Timothy Snyder's The Reconstruction of Nations). --Iceager 06:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

This is an article about the Curzon Line, which is an episode in diplomatic history. It is not an article about ethnic cleansing by anybody against anybody. There are a dozen other articles where that topic can be addressed. And please put your edits here at the foot of the page so people can find them. Adam 07:36, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Ethnography to the west of the Curzon Line

The Ethnography to the west of the Curzon Line section of this article includes the nonsense sentence: "The southern area a large population." This seems to be the remnant of text added in this edit which read "The area around Chelm (Ukr.Kholm), Przemysl (Ukr. Peremyshl) and a part of the Boyko mountainous regions and the entire Lemko mountainous region extending along the southern border of Poland nearly as far west as Cracow included around one-million Ukrainians in the territory of post-war Poland.". This was modified in this later edit to the current version, and nobody caught it yet. I'd guess it is supposed to say something like "The southern area of post-war Poland had a large population of around one-million Ukrainians.", but I don't know if that's true (and why the ethnic Ukrainians would have been "resettled in Poland's newly acquired territories of Silesia, Pomerania, Eastern Brandenburg and East Prussia after World War II", as the article goes on to say in the next sentence). Since I'm not quite sure what the sentence is meant to say, I'm going to leave it to an expert on this area to fix it. Noel (talk) 18:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The missing link here is the article on Action Vistula, or a major anti-UPA (and anti-Ukrainian as well) action of the post-war communist authorities of Poland and Soviet Union. In the effect of the action, almost all inhabitants of the Beskides were resettled to newly-acquired lands in the west. The resettled included almost all Ukrainians, Lemkos, Boikos and Poles living there. Paradoxially, this spared them the fate of the Ukrainians expulsed to Soviet Union between 1944 and 1947, who were in a large part sent to Kazakhstan and Siberia. But this is a completely different topic. Halibutt 19:27, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The map

Nazi-Soviet pact border - which pact? There were two of them, in August and October. Xx236 15:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Curzon Line thus became the permanent eastern border of Poland, and was recognised as such by the western Allies in July 1945.

This statement is obviously false. The border is a little different than the Curzon line. Xx236 11:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

U.K. & U.S.A. policy in early 1943

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_2_transcript.pdf

U.K War Cabinet meeting notes.

W.M.(43) 53rd Meeting. 13th April, 1943.

II. Foreign Secretary’s Account of his Mission to Washington.

   * A.E.

Politial ques. Main point U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. President troubled - feels Litvinov’s posn in Moscow less influential than Maisky: also troubled about his Amb. in Moscow: wants send Davies back when well enough to go. They don’t tell R. as much as we do abt. day-to-day dipl. events. I suggested eg. U.S. Amb. Moscow shd. give them full a/c our talks.

USSR. Terr. claims. Reconciled to Baltic States - fait accompli. Wd. like plebiscite as conscience clause.

Polish frontier. If P. got E. Russia & something in E. Siberia, P. wd. well to accept the Curzon Line. Tactics: we, U.S. & R. shd. agree fair solution & get P. to accept it: better than letting negotns between R. & P to get into mess.

(Note, The pdf states E.Russia & E.Silesia, probably as a result of poor stranscription of the original documents. A more likely transcription would be East Prussia & Eastern Silesia) Basicaly the west was hapy to grant Russia the eastern half of Poland. Stor stark7 22:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New Weblinks

The weblinks I added at the end of the list can be used to flesh out the article, in particular as regards the Yalta and Teheran agreements fixing Polands new borders. The links contain excerpts from the memoirs of Churchill and the U.S. foreigne minister, describing how they agreed with Stalind that Poland should be divided, but compensated by getting part of Germany.

The European Union site that provides these documents has for some reason decided to use Flash Player, and sometimes it takes a while do download, but be patient, it is worth it... Stor stark7 21:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Map of ancient Polish borders

Oder-Neisse line corresponds closely with the area of Poland under the rule of Piast dukes. Polish modern western border is moved slightly east.

This map, showing the borders of Poland ca. 850 years ago (Boleslav the Wrymouthed died in 1138) is used on the Oder-Neisse line article as some sort of historical justification for the border. It might as well be used in this article also, as as far I can se it also has some corresponcende with the Curzon line. The source is " Political History of Poland" written by E.H. Lewinski-Corwin and published in 1917. Any objections to the inclusion of the map in this article? --Stor stark7 11:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stork somebody used the map as justification, where ? --Molobo 11:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that a map showing ca. 850 years old borders is included in an article about a modern political boundry indicates that it is used as a historical justification for that boundry. And besides, your reply in Talk:Oder-Neisse_line#Dubious map shows that you se it in exactly that way: The fact that Poland had those territories before Germany was often recalled in Polish publications. As such the map is notable.. (and it is "Stor stark7", not "Stork") --Stor stark7 11:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please no Original Research Stor. --Molobo 12:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, great comeback there. From Talk:Oder-Neisse_line#Dubious map:The fact that such borders existed before is already justification for presence of such a map in the aritcle.. Then is it your opinion that the map is relevant in this article also? --Stor stark7 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Curzon line determined border in the East not in the West --Molobo 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the image shows a historic border for Poland in the East too, does it not? Is it then not just as relevant to show the historic eastern border in relation to the Curzon line as it is to show the historic western border in relation to the Oder-Neisse line? --Stor stark7 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember policy of no Original Research. The Curzon line was determining only Eastern borders and its shape does not resemble the map in question. --Molobo 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia Policys. its shape does not resemble the map in question. In that case neither does the Oder-Neisse line resemble the map in question. Point out deviations in the east and I can probably show you deviations of similar size in the west. And to return to your previous statement where you tried to justify the presence of the map in the Oder-Neisse line article: The fact that such borders existed before is already justification for presence of such a map in the aritcle.. When I use the same type of argument that you used, you suggest I remember wikipedia policy? Sounds like it is you who needs to read up on no Original Research policy, or be more consistent in your arguments.--Stor stark7 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case neither does the Oder-Neisse line resemble the map in question

The map shows shape of Poland not the line on Odra and Nysa. The fact that it resulted in similiar shape as before German colonisation of Polish territories is notable. --Molobo 14:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So your purpose in lobbying for the maps presence in the Oder-Neisse line article is The fact that it resulted in similiar shape as before German colonisation of Polish territories is notable. --Stor stark7 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like OR to me Poland didn't had similiar shape ? --Molobo 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it aparently was you who inserted the map [2], I guess it is up to you to justify its presence in the Oder-Neisse line article. From what you've written you seem to have these approaches.

Your case for using the image in the Oder-Neisse line article.:

1. The fact that Poland had those territories before Germany was often recalled in Polish publications. As such the map is notable.

2. The fact that such borders existed before is already justification for presence of such a map in the aritcle

3. The map shows shape of Poland not the line on Odra and Nysa. The fact that it resulted in similiar shape as before German colonisation of Polish territories is notable.

You case against using the image in the Curzon line article seems to be:

1. Curzon line determined border in the East not in the West

2. The Curzon line was determining only Eastern borders and its shape does not resemble the map in question.

3. Please no Original Research Stor

I find your arguments to be completely inconsistent.

And I find that the inclusion of the map in the Oder-Neisse article without some sort of sourced supporting text, for instance that it in Poland is said that the territories shown on the map historicaly belong to Poland thereby justifying the Oder-Neisse line, probably constitues OR (By the way I would not be surprised if the Ukrainians promote a similar point of view for the eastern border). If the map belongs in the Oder-Neisse article, then it also belongs in the Curzon-line article, as the shape of historic Poland to modern is similar both in east and west. As inclusion of the image in either article probably constitutes OR, the image should be included in neither article. --Stor stark7 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The shape is similar so the map is notable.As to rest of your arguments please present a clear view of what you are talking about. I don't understand you. --Molobo 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And I find that the inclusion of the map in the Oder-Neisse article without some sort of sourced supporting text The fact that the shape looks the same is argument enough.However the fact that these lands were regained by Poland from Germans was also the reason why they are called Ziemie Odzyskane-Regained Territories. --Molobo 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If the map belongs in the Oder-Neisse article, then it also belongs in the Curzon-line article, as the shape of historic Poland to modern is similar both in east and west Nope, since the shape of Poland is different. If Curzon would have proposed to return to Poland territories taken over by Germans as a result of East Colonisation as Soviet Union did, you would have a point. --Molobo 16:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Including information because you feel you se a connection between different facts (in this the case the shape of a border, pushed east and separated by ca. 850 years) is Original Research. If someone else has made the connection in a publication, then it is OK, but not if it is just you who think there is a connection. --Stor stark7 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Including information because you fee My I ask what is the source on my feelings ? The fact that borders are similiar is notable and as such can be included in the article. Anyway its already explained in the article. Please read it. --Molobo 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Since you are not explaining facts it must be personal feelings that you are promoting.

2. I have most certainly read the Oder-Neisse line article and the presence of the map is in no way explained, other than the text in the image, which constitutes OR. Please don't make any more untrue statements in the future. -Stor stark7 20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you are not explaining facts it must be personal feelings that you are promoting. Please stop personal detours and stick to the topic. I have most certainly read the Oder-Neisse line article and the presence of the map is in no way explained Of course it is, in the segment about origins of people. other than the text in the image, which constitutes OR I didn't create that map Stork. I though you knew that. --Molobo 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet more outright weazling. Have you no shame? There was nothing in the article refering to the map until you just now introduced even more outright Original Research under the heading "minor explanation for the term" [3]. If you can contribute no source for your addition of the text: "due to fact that initially they were part of Polish state of Piasts and only later in their history were heavily Germanised" then it is clearly OR!

In addition, it was you who introduced the map with its associated text into the article [4], therefore you are responsible for the OR that the associated text constitutes. "Oder-Neisse line corresponds closely with the area of Poland under the rule of Piast dukes. Polish modern western border is moved slightly east" Clearly an OR text unless the comparison has been made in some literature. Since the book that the map is from was published in 1917 the text comparing it to the Oder-Neisse line (established in 1945) must come from elsewhere than that book. Where does it come from, Molobo? --Stor stark7 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Demographic Data

Your Demographic data is incorrect, the ethnic breakdown you have is for the area occupied by the USSR in 1939 which includes Bialystok and a sliver of territory in the south, this territory was returned to Poland in 1945. The actual territory east of the Curzon Line had 28% Polish Roman Catholics and 10.563 million total inhabitants in 1931. This needs to be corrected. Source for data: Population of Poland by U.S. Bureau of the Census 1954.--Woogie10w 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RSFSR?

I am in shock, absolute SHOCK that somebody would edit this page to include RSFSR. this is absolute nonsense, and i am having trouble thinking that somebody would be literate enough to edit this relatively academic and specialist article, but be so.. i don't even know how to say it politely -- absolutely stupid .. to call it an RSFSR border. My mind is full of conspiracy theories or general visions of some Russian nationalist stupidity as to why the terms 'Belarus' and 'Ukraine' (or their respective SFRs) doen't appear in the first page of this document but why terms such as 'Russia' (as opposed to 'Russian Empire'), 'RSFSR' and so forth do prominently.

I didn't see the article before whoever before "Adam Carr" below claimed some pro-polish bias. Maybe it was horribly stupid and biased the other way (no nation lacks its nationalist morons), but whoever put "RSFSR" into this article should leave and never come back. It's inexcusable sloppiness and/or deliberate bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.166.7 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your problem with RSFSR? Soviet Union, of course, would not come into existence until 1922. Soviet Russia redirects to the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. Bolshevist Russia notes: "The official name of the country was the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic.". It's no secret that any other FSRs were puppets, so we can hardly equal for example Ukranian SSR with Russian. And it's illogical to discuss an armistice between a state (Poland) and a sphere of influence (Russian/Soviet). It's only logical it has to be between state and another state, and either Bolshevik or Soviet Russia fit this description. PS. Please consider creating an account.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re inclusion of map Image:Nationalities in Second Polish Republic ca. 1931.png

It's a scandal! Somebody, surely the symphatizer od Ruthenians (unfortunetely not the symphatizer of historical true) change this map in a graphic program and this is well visible! In Tarnopol Voivodship 50% of citizens were Poles - not only in the main town of a region, but also in the whole area of "Polish Podolia" as well in some districts in Eastern Little Poland (with capitol Lwów). I am a geographer of nations and I know what I'm saying. Compare this map to the map from Polish version.

The problems with this map

. It was created by a WP editor; saying it was based on an academic does not automatically guarantee its accuracy. The image description "Dominating nationalities in Poland and around, 1931" is untrue in at least one instance that I know of: the city of Kaunas and its surrounding regions, which are described by Anna Cienciala thusly: "In Lithuania, Poles had majorities in the Vilnius [P. Wilno, Rus. Vilna] and Suwalki areas, as well as significant numbers in and around Kaunas [P.Kowno]." [5]. That's just one reference; but really, Poland did not conduct a census in Kaunas in 1931. I thought about changing the caption to "areas with a Polish presence", which seems more reasonable, but I really think the map needs vetting first; altho if you change the caption along those lines I won't object. I see that its caption in Second Polish Republic is at least more vague ("Nations of II Polish Republic in 1931"). Have not checked its other usages. Unless you can show evidence that this map has been examined and vetted by multiple other editors, it should go away. Novickas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The map is based on an academic source. Maps are often not 100% accurate, but per WP:RS/OR/etc. we use referenced maps, and try to avoid creating our own new ones.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; this single major error makes the entire image questionable. There is no urgent need for an image. Use referenced text instead. Novickas (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The map is helpful, as it address the ethnic areas claims. If it has errors, well, this should be pointed out with the addition of other maps.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, errors mean the map should go away until they are addressed. You are describing it as a POV question and implying that I should counter the POV by creating and puttting up another map; I don't think the burden is on me to do that. I am presenting 2 good refs showing the map's inaccuracy in regard to Kaunas - [6] and [7]] but that is just a start. The ethnic composition of the urban/suburban/rural areas often varied considerably, but the mapmaker doesn't even attempt this. Novickas (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming it's an error because you have found one reference that is different and more to your liking. I am afraid per NPOV that's not enough. Again, as I wrote above, scholars have different POVs/data/and so on, and even maps may be different. You are welcome to add a different map, or show criticism of this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise. You may be interested in my proposal for tagging disputed images/maps.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Another similar map; this one is however completely unsourced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe where the foundation of both the Polish presence in Kaunas and the surrounding area and the interwar Polish claims that Poles were highly under-represented in Lithuania comes from is the Russian 1897 Census. The data for the Kovno Governorate, which both during the interwar years and now, makes up the majority of Lithuania's area and population, shows the region having a population of 1,544,564, of whom 139,618 or 9.04% were Poles. Now this map, shows the Kovno Uyezd being 23.2% Polish. Now this is skewed Russian data, however the Russians were no friends of the Poles, however it does as I said, show the basis for those maps. Prussia1231 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Under-Counting the Polish Population

Ok, I have seen the figures of Poles listed as living East of the Curzon line, and some of them are outrageous. The statement "usually vary between one and 3½ million at a total population of 12 million" shows that. A mere 1,000,000 Poles between the Curzon Line and the border set at the Treaty of Riga? Or a mere 1,000,000 counting those in Kresy, those in the USSR, those in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania? After all, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, along with Bessarabia and North Bukovina, home to the majority of the Romanian Poles were later annexed by the USSR. Talk about an anti-Polish, pro Soviet, or East Slavic bias.

There were more than 1,000,000 Roman Catholics in Eastern Lwow as well as the remainder of Eastern Galicia, the total numbering roughly 1,350,000. Indeed based on Religious estimates, there were some 3,150,000 Poles to the east of the Curzon Line in 1931, not including the 1,100,000 or so in the USSR. Given the population increase between 1931 and 1939, that leaves you with around 3,475,000 Poles living between the Curzon Line and the Riga border, with an additional 1,325,000 in the USSR for a total of 4,800,000. If you count the Polish population of Romania, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, the combined figure is just under 165,000, and that is not counting the population increase, especially with regard to Lithuania's 1923 figures and Romania's 1930. All in all, it seems like a 'fair range' of 4,750,000-5,250,000 best describes the number of Poles living in territories which the USSR would annex in 1945 as of 1939 with 3,500,000-4,000,000 being a 'fair range' for those in the Kresy regions (depending on how many Greek Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Poles there really were, along with how many Catholic Belorussians lived in inter-war Poland).

The figures of under 3,000,000 don't make demographic sense, as, when one counts the Poles who were repatriated, fled or were deported westwards from 1944-1948, you get a figure of 2,200,000, along with 1,300,000 remaining in the USSR (of whom 250,000 would be repatriated between 1956 and 1959), you get a total of 3,500,000 alone there. Not to mention you have the roughly 500,000 killed by the USSR, the 150,000 killed by Ukrainian, Belorussian and Lithuanian nationalists (100,000 by Ukrainians alone) for a subtotal of 4,150,000. Add to that those killed by the Nazis either in mass executions, terror killings or as slave labor. Combat casualties also need to be taken into consideration, as Eastern Poles died as part of the resistance, part of the allied forces in the West and those fighting alongside the Red Army. Finally any Eastern Poles who fled westwards to the US, UK or France need to be counted as well. A final figure of 5,000,000 on the eve of war in 1939 seems logical and reasonable taking that all into consideration. Prussia1231 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There exist a number of academic texts on the subject, eg. by Piotr Eberhardt. Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Belarus today [8].Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The line was based on Curzon's findings of ethnic composition - areas west of the line contained a Polish majority and areas to the east did not

What about Wilno region? Poor Curzon didn't know about its existence? What kind of "findings"? Fabrications rather? Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Till 1922? Wow!Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Piłsudski didn't "annect" or "invide", Poland did. Piłsudski wasn't Adolf Hitler nor Joseph Stalin.Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If we disagree on something, we should try to achieve compromises. I hope, you are of the same opinion. I am aware of the fact that east to the Curzon Line there existed towns, such as Lemberg, with a fairly high Polish population. They were surrounded, however, by regions where the Polish population formed a small minority. Concerning the Wilno region, in the so-called Vilna Governorate the Poles formed in the year of 1897 a minority of 8,2 %. I know that this is not representative for the town of Wilno itself. I also agree that Pilsudski himself has not annexed anything, but it had been a realization of his politics, and the Polish military forces invaded east to the Curzon line under his leadership. I shall try to modify the figure caption in such a manner that we both can live with it. Regards, - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I find your name imperialistic, so if you are looking for a compromise, change it to a neutral one. The last German "emperor" of Europe was Adolf Hitler.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Times estimated

Who cares what did The Times estimate regarding 1931? What about NYT estimating 1800 or Le Monde estimating 1000?Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviets had to concede ?

The Soviets offered Poland Minsk but Polish nationalists didn't want it.Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Still misinformations.Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

the Curzon line became Poland's eastern border with Lithuania

Where exactly "with Lithuania"?Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We probably should add this

That the Pilsudski's decision actually proved a very costly burden on Poland, and besides Lviv region the whole area was a economical drain on Poland in interwar-being almost completely impoverished, which required constant investments in basic infrastructure, being full of hostile population which again needed resources to control. It was generally known as Poland B-and known economical graphs to me show that almost nothing of value was produced there. In short gaining anything besides the Line B was one of the worst decisions Polish(or rather Kresowiak) leaders made in history of our country.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this article should focus on the Curzon line itself. There are more sources, e.g. The Curzon Line: a historical and critical analysis [9]; Lord Curzon and the "Curzon Line" [10] I propose that the paragraph here beginning 'As concerns possible expansions of Polish territory...' be moved to the rather neglected Causes of the Polish–Soviet War, also that detailed discussions of the consequences of the Treaty of Riga be put in Aftermath of the Polish–Soviet War. Novickas (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What was "Pilsudski's decision"? Xx236 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Shirer

I don't see any page from Shirer about the Curzon line. Please correct or remove.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Were Ukrainians or Belorussians Soviet?

The article suggests that there existed two ethnicities - Polish and Russian/Soviet. Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Does a reader understand?

The lead of the article is unprecize and misquotes sources. Please read your sources and correct the article.

• There are two totally different problems:
  • The Prussian-Russian border in the North.
  • Lines A and B in the South.
• The quoted source "Katyn..." doesn't say that the line in the north was based on etnicities, it "coincided". The source doesn't discuss Wilno region. If Poles were a minority there, who was the majority? Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

E. H. Carr as a source

E. H. Carr has also written that older generation of Lithuanians didn't like the incorporation into the SU, but the younger one understood the advantages. Is he always relaible or only every second line? For me he was a biased Soviet propaganda volunteer, rejected by Joseph Stalin. Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "Carr blasted the Polish government for accusing the Soviets of committing the Katyn Forest massacre" (E. H. Carr).Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Demarcation line"

There are two statments at the article's beginning which I concider to be misleading.

First of all the article claims "The Curzon Line was a demarcation line [...]". A demarcation line is a "[...] border, often agreed upon as part of an armistice or ceasefire." Actually, a demarcation line is not just often but USUALLY assumed to be the result of an armistice or a ceasefire.

The problem with the Curzon-Line is, that it has never been used in a ceasefire. The parties of the Polish-Soviet War have never agreed on it. Both sides have at some point been ready to accept it as the basis of an agreement - in both cases when their military situation was perilous - but such an agreement was never reached. Moreover its main purpose was not to serve as the temporary border for an armistice, but to become the basis for the eventual border between the re-emerged Polish state and Bolshevistic Russia. Although the Allies specifically did not exclude the possibility of Poland acquiring some territories to the east of the line, it meant to roughly outline the future border. However this has also never happened. The Curzon-Line has not even been in any way relevant for the border Poland and the Soviet Union agreed upon in 1921 in Riga, since the line and the eventual border were at average 250km apart.

Therefore I would suggest to change the introductory sentence to: "The Curzon Line was put forward by the Allied Supreme Council after World War I as a demarcation line between the Second Polish Republic and Bolshevik Russia and was supposed to serve as the basis for a future border." Tholomaios (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would work better indeed. Go ahead and change it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"two countries disputing borders"

The second misleading sentence is, that there were two countries disputing over their common border. This sentence makes the reader imagine the usual situation where there are two neighbouring countries and one or both question(s) the validity of the current factual border that separates them. This is not at all the situation that occurred after 1918 in the given area.

First: There have been no neighbouring states. Poland was just re-establishing itself 123 years after the Polish partitions. It's main part was forming on territories which belonged to the Russian Empire before World War I. All of its territory was, until recently, occupied by German and Austro-Hungarian troops, which ventured deep into Russian territory and then held it on the basis of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Russia on the other hand was in the middle of a civil war between the "Reds" i.e. Bolsheviks and the "Whites" i.e. troops fightig for the restoration of old tsarist regime. The fights were raging over huge territories and the outcome was still unforeseeable, leaving the land in a state of chaos and anarchy.

As a result one can say, that there was a Polish state, however Poland's adversary has not been a state, but the Bolshevik's and their Red Army. One cannot identify the Bolshevik's with "Russia" at this point, since the war for the dominance in Russia was still raging and it might have as well been won by the "Whites". Moreover, the Bolshevik government wasn't even internationally recognized at that time, ironically not even by the western Entente states, which put forward the Curzon-Line to them.

Second: Even if one would assume, that Poland was fighting the already proclaimed "Soviet Russia" i.e. another state, it is still wrong to say they "disputed their border". As a matter of fact, as well the Whites as the Bolshevik's basically regarded Poland as a rebellious part of Russia (just as all other countries that broke free, some of which were capable to retain their new independence (Finland, Poland), while others were reconquered by the Red Army (e.g. Ukraine, Georgia). As a result, there was no border whose line was disputed, since the Russian side would not accept the mere existence of an independent Poland as such - at least not initially. Poland on the other hand didn't claim any concrete border. There was no consensus within the Polish government whether Poland should be a multinational commonwealth, as it was before the partitions, or rather a national state. As a result different eastern borders have been envisaged. Everything the Polish side communicated to the Russians (white or red) were different proposals.

Ergo: Since no side claimed there was a certain border, there has been no "border dispute". Foremost Poland fought for its independence, at some point it attempted to establish a central/eastern European Commonwealth inspired by the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, however at no point did it fight for a specific border. Alike the Bolshevik's prime task was to bring the revolution to a successful end by winning against the Whites. So their main aim during the first hostile encounters with Polish troops was part of the domestic policy. Later on, when the war with Poland was in the full, the Bolshevik's envisaged a complete obliteration of Poland and a revolution in Germany, as a step towards the World revolution. They too, did not fight for a specific border but either for mere success against an internal enemy and later on the total occupation of the Polish state.

As a result I would suggest the following: "In the wake of World War I, which catalysed the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Russian Empire disintegrated in the ensuing Russian Civil War. Several countries, including Poland, used this occasion to declare their independence. Hostilities erupted when Polish and Bolshevik troops, approaching from opposing directions while taking over the territories of Ober Ost from the retreating German troops, met in the city of Masty." Followed by "The Allied Supreme Council tasked..."

This description would properly describe that rather than a conflict between two states states, the nature of the conflict were two new forces (a state and a political movement) which emerged on the territory of an empire which has just disintegrated. Tholomaios (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Just - is "catalysed" the British English version of "catalyzed" or a typo (not sure)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Good, I implemented both changes. Additionally I moved the sentence, that the current border is an approximation of the Curzon Line, from the middle to the very end of the introduction. It fits better there, for the introduction is a short display of the historic events in chronological order.

Yes, "catalysed" is British English. Tholomaios (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)