1920年的立陶宛缓冲问题

Česlovas Laurinavičius
{"title":"1920年的立陶宛缓冲问题","authors":"Česlovas Laurinavičius","doi":"10.30965/25386565-02301003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Curzon Line is usually identified as the line of 8 December 1919 (similar to the current eastern border of Poland), running to the east of the Daugavpils-Vilnius-Hrodna railway. Typical historiographical texts state that the Soviet government decided to ignore the Curzon Line after 17 July 1920. But in fact, the Red Army crossed the Curzon Line on 13–14 July and continued to occupy Vilna (Vilnius). Another inaccuracy follows from this one. The prevailing trend is to interpret the Lithuanian state’s situation in 1920 as facing one of two ideology-based alternatives: either Lithuania is sovietised, or it is ‘saved’ by Poland, which occupies Vilnius and separates Lithuania from contact with Soviet Russia. But this raises a whole swathe of questions: how should the Lithuanians’ struggle for Vilnius during the whole interwar period be viewed? How should assistance to Lithuanians from other countries, such as Germany, the USSR and Great Britain, be assessed? Finally, how should the return of Vilnius to Lithuania in 1939 be viewed? There is no answer to these questions, but the possibility of Lithuania as a buffer zone thanks to the Curzon Line, is ignored or hardly analysed at all. Using historical documents from Lithuania, Great Britain and Russia, and referring to the studies by Alfred Erich Senn, this article aims to find an answer to the question, why was the idea of Lithuania as a buffer state not realised in the summer of 1920? The idea that it would be more appropriate to call the line alongside Lithuania established at the Spa Conference ‘the Lloyd George Line’ is also discussed.","PeriodicalId":39190,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian historical studies / Lithuanian Institute of History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Lithuania Buffer Problem of 1920\",\"authors\":\"Česlovas Laurinavičius\",\"doi\":\"10.30965/25386565-02301003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Curzon Line is usually identified as the line of 8 December 1919 (similar to the current eastern border of Poland), running to the east of the Daugavpils-Vilnius-Hrodna railway. Typical historiographical texts state that the Soviet government decided to ignore the Curzon Line after 17 July 1920. But in fact, the Red Army crossed the Curzon Line on 13–14 July and continued to occupy Vilna (Vilnius). Another inaccuracy follows from this one. The prevailing trend is to interpret the Lithuanian state’s situation in 1920 as facing one of two ideology-based alternatives: either Lithuania is sovietised, or it is ‘saved’ by Poland, which occupies Vilnius and separates Lithuania from contact with Soviet Russia. But this raises a whole swathe of questions: how should the Lithuanians’ struggle for Vilnius during the whole interwar period be viewed? How should assistance to Lithuanians from other countries, such as Germany, the USSR and Great Britain, be assessed? Finally, how should the return of Vilnius to Lithuania in 1939 be viewed? There is no answer to these questions, but the possibility of Lithuania as a buffer zone thanks to the Curzon Line, is ignored or hardly analysed at all. Using historical documents from Lithuania, Great Britain and Russia, and referring to the studies by Alfred Erich Senn, this article aims to find an answer to the question, why was the idea of Lithuania as a buffer state not realised in the summer of 1920? The idea that it would be more appropriate to call the line alongside Lithuania established at the Spa Conference ‘the Lloyd George Line’ is also discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lithuanian historical studies / Lithuanian Institute of History\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lithuanian historical studies / Lithuanian Institute of History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30965/25386565-02301003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lithuanian historical studies / Lithuanian Institute of History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/25386565-02301003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

寇松线通常被确定为1919年12月8日的线路(类似于目前的波兰东部边界),位于Daugavpils-Virnius-Hrodna铁路以东。典型的历史文献表明,1920年7月17日后,苏联政府决定忽略寇松线。但事实上,红军于7月13日至14日越过寇松线,继续占领维尔纳(维尔纽斯)。另一个不准确的地方来自这个。主流趋势是将1920年立陶宛国家的处境解读为面临两种基于意识形态的选择之一:要么立陶宛被苏联化,要么被波兰“拯救”,波兰占领维尔纽斯,将立陶宛与苏俄分离。但这引发了一系列问题:如何看待立陶宛人在整个两次世界大战期间为维尔纽斯而战?应该如何评估德国、苏联和英国等其他国家对立陶宛人的援助?最后,应该如何看待1939年维尔纽斯回归立陶宛?这些问题没有答案,但由于寇松线,立陶宛成为缓冲区的可能性被忽视或几乎没有被分析。本文利用立陶宛、英国和俄罗斯的历史文献,并参考阿尔弗雷德·埃里克·森的研究,试图找到一个问题的答案,为什么立陶宛作为缓冲国的想法在1920年夏天没有实现?还讨论了将Spa会议上建立的与立陶宛接壤的线路称为“劳合-乔治线路”更合适的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Lithuania Buffer Problem of 1920
The Curzon Line is usually identified as the line of 8 December 1919 (similar to the current eastern border of Poland), running to the east of the Daugavpils-Vilnius-Hrodna railway. Typical historiographical texts state that the Soviet government decided to ignore the Curzon Line after 17 July 1920. But in fact, the Red Army crossed the Curzon Line on 13–14 July and continued to occupy Vilna (Vilnius). Another inaccuracy follows from this one. The prevailing trend is to interpret the Lithuanian state’s situation in 1920 as facing one of two ideology-based alternatives: either Lithuania is sovietised, or it is ‘saved’ by Poland, which occupies Vilnius and separates Lithuania from contact with Soviet Russia. But this raises a whole swathe of questions: how should the Lithuanians’ struggle for Vilnius during the whole interwar period be viewed? How should assistance to Lithuanians from other countries, such as Germany, the USSR and Great Britain, be assessed? Finally, how should the return of Vilnius to Lithuania in 1939 be viewed? There is no answer to these questions, but the possibility of Lithuania as a buffer zone thanks to the Curzon Line, is ignored or hardly analysed at all. Using historical documents from Lithuania, Great Britain and Russia, and referring to the studies by Alfred Erich Senn, this article aims to find an answer to the question, why was the idea of Lithuania as a buffer state not realised in the summer of 1920? The idea that it would be more appropriate to call the line alongside Lithuania established at the Spa Conference ‘the Lloyd George Line’ is also discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Vasilijus Safronovas, Klaipėdos miesto istorija, Klaipėda Mažosios Lietuvos istorijos muziejus, 2021. 304 p. ISBN 978-609-9603-21-6 Kamil Frejlich, Pod przysądem horodnictwa wileńskiego. O jurydyce i jej mieszkańcach w XVII wieku, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2022. 336 p. ISBN 978-83-231-4694-0 Silvia Foti, The Nazi’s Granddaughter: How I Discovered my Grandfather was a War Criminal, Washington: Regnery History, 2021. 376 p. ISBN 978- 1684-511-08-2/Silvia Foti, Vėtra Lietaus šalyje: Jono Noreikos anūkės pasakojimas, Vilnius: Kitos knygos, 2022. 344 p. ISBN 978-609-4275-15-9 Larry Wolff, Woodrow Wilson and the Reimagining of Eastern Europe, Stanford University Press, 2020. 304 p. ISBN 978-1503-611-18-4, 978-1503-611-19-1 The Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the Kražiai Massacre in Lithuania and Poland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1