Talk:Latvian War of Independence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Continued, just speaking of the infobox, not the history detail (please continue above)

The main issue is that the infobox doesn't have the flexibility required. For example,

• pro-German + pro-independence AGAINST pro-Bolshevik
• pro-Bolshevik AGAINST pro-German + pro-independence

but

• pro-German AGAINST pro-independence

and even that is oversimplified, given there were more than three players. Still thinking about it. I'll see if Švābe's write-up can assist. I'm leaning toward headings regardless.

Not an official suggestion but if we think along the lines of

• "Independence movement (anti-Bolshevik)"
• "German sphere (anti-Bolshevik)"
• "Russian sphere (Bolshevik)"

that might be helpful in working to a resolution. Baltic history is complicated, the infobox structure isn't made for it. Thinking out loud, perhaps the infobox needs a separate "Alliances" section rather than all that always being jury-rigged and stuffed into the "Belligerents" section with a confusing cornucopia of references and parenthetical text. I suspect that might be useful for MILHIST in general. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I proposed and how it used to be represented in article in the first place. German and Bolshevik side had quite clear and singular goals. The Latvian side though was mixed in with allied intervention and some of the white movement. Jaan hower thinks it should be like this:

• Bolsheviks (pro victory of the communism)
• Northen Brigade (pro Independence)
• Southern Brigade + Landeswehr (pro German)

And it would appear that no amount of argument will convince him that Balodis was not guarding German rear so they could go fight Estonians. I don't wish to discuss history ad nauseum and try to talk Jaan into believing in the main stream view - we are just going to have to repeat same thing over and over again as it's been whole week. I would just like this fringe belief is not represented front and center, but rather discussed somewhere in the text of the article, if at all. Apparently Northen brigade had some doubts about loyalities of the Southern forces, so it might warrant some reflection in the article, however besides that nobody has ever disputed loyality of Southern brigade - I of course welcome any proof of the opposite ~~Xil (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's 20-30 or more pages in Švābe's encyclopedia, I also have some other write-ups of Brīvības cīņas. Certainly narrowing my initial read to Balodis and this particular aspect of the war, might expedite the conversation here.

I would rather appreciate if I could express my thoughts myself. Otherwise, what next? Will you break into my account and start pretending you are I?

What I have tried to express in the infobox and explained in this discussion is as follows:

• Latvia and its allies Estonia, Poland, and the U.K.
• Landeswehr, Freikorps, West Russian Volunteer Army, and the forces under the Landeswehr led by the Commander-in-chief of Latvia (to 3 July 1919)
• Soviet Russia --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Jaan, did I misrepresent your opinion for you to have reason to complain? Just trying to speed up discussion. Including forces which did not exist at the time, nor whose inclusion on one or other side is discussed doesn't make any difference. The fact is that you do not wish to see the Southern brigade as pro-Independence force prior to Landeswehr being disbanded. Is this not so? Is anything else being discussed? ~~Xil (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(Sigh). Yes you misinterpreted my arguments so I suggest you rather not randomly interpret but cite me (or ask for clarification). I have never claimed the South Latvian Brigade was not pro-independence. Belligerent sections in the infoboxes do not represent ideological groups (e.g. see the Soviet Union, the U.S., and Finland grouped in the same section in World War II infobox) but alliances or other international organisations. The 'independence movement' was not such, so it should not be prioritised in an infobox. The belligerents section should first present active alliances, like the one between the South Latvian Brigade and the Landeswehr. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at this and I must say the current inbox is frankly bizarre. We have Latvia listed twice as belligerents, as if they were at war with themselves. This contention that the Southern Brigade and Landeswehr were pro-German and supported von der Goltz against the North does not fit with my reading. As I understand it, the Landeswehr were suppose to fight the Bolsheviks but von der Goltz had a different ideas and went north to attack the Estonians instead. After that debacle von der Goltz was kicked out and command of the Baltische Landeswehr was taken over by the British officer Lieutenant-Colonel Harold Alexander in mid-July 1919 and was pro-Latvian after that. --Nug (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The infobox just presents the reality that until July 1919 there were Latvian forces at both sides of the conflict. You are correct that the Landeswehr switched on the Allied side in that July, hence the note to July 1919. In complicated wars like this, armies at different sides are not necessarily in direct engagement against each other. In the World War II infobox, for instance, you don't assume most Allied countries were at war against Finland. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed - do I really need to quote every time you referred to Southern brigade as pro-German force over the last week? Did you not say yesterday that this force was covering Germans so they could dispatch troops to fight the Northern brigade? If that somehow was not your intent you sure as hell are not making good job in making yourself clear. Fighting Bolsheviks together with Germans does not equal force fighting for German goal to secure German political influence in the country. The infobox text suggests you can list political motivations again. Even if you interpret it differently, there is no rule saying that following infobox instruction to the letter is needed, when it produces dubious result. The fact that Germans were originally included in anti-bolshevik aliance with Latvians subordinated to them can be explained with a mere footnote without listing Latvians as fighting against themselves. The only reason not to do that and have an obscenely long discussion about it is believing that that was the case, to which end please present any proof that this is a widely held view. And why exactly did you revert me this time? I did not place Southern brigade on different side, but merely made some cosmetic improvements. This again proves that you are making it impossible for anyone else to improve the article ~~Xil (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth. I do not say, the South Latvian Brigade was pro-German. I say it was allied with the Landeswehr, was at the Landeswehr's disposal and passively formed the Landeswehr's rearguard until July 1919.

The infobox should first list military alliances not political motivations. Otherwise, in the World War II infobox you should group Finland together with the U.S. as 'pro-democracy' and separate the Soviet Union as 'Pro-communist' from them. This is done in no infobox and the reader expects alliances, not ideologies.

Re: The fact that Germans were originally included in anti-bolshevik aliance with Latvians subordinated to them can be explained with a mere footnote without listing Latvians as fighting against themselves. - An alliance taking up most of the battle description in the text until May 1919 should not be moved to a hatnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see: "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."; "- 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"; ". 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."; "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." - that's putting words in your mouth? This is not World war II and we are not discussing Finland. You cannot always follow same rule in every article. The infobox instruction that you take to be a policy does in fact acknowledge that and leaves interpretation up to editors. I don't understand how, but it would appear that you do not understand that the allied intervention was trying to form an anti-Bolshevik alliance, which is how Latvians and Germans ended up together. This is the alliance the actions of which is described at length in the article. The German units of this alliance attacked other allies, which warrants them being listed as separate force. ~~Xil (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, these are my words for once. However, note that I distinguish being pro-German and fighting on the pro-German side, and so can do the reader.

Re: You cannot always follow same rule in every article. The infobox instruction that you take to be a policy does in fact acknowledge that and leaves interpretation up to editors. - This is not your sandbox but an encyclopedia article; you cannot ignore guidelines and established examples, which are the results of years of work. Compared to that, this discussion is childplay and your arrogance towards other people's work does no good for your arguments. Of course we have a certain degree of freedom in applying the guidelines and other examples, but completely ignoring them is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: The German units of this alliance attacked other allies, which warrants them being listed as separate force. - Exactly, and while they did that, the South Latvian Brigade was part of the Landeswehr, which cannot be hidden from the infobox. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(od)Sigh, it will take a while to go through too much to read above, and let's not get testy.

Perhaps the answer is staring us in the face. It could be as simple as having the Germans allied with the Latvians and then separate--so Germans in two columns, not Latvians in two columns, which indeed makes no sense at all given it is the Latvian war of independence--it's impossible to change sides in your own war of independence (Xil, I think that distills your concerns), which is what the Latvians in two columns indicates. It's all relative, rather than shifting the Latvians around, shift the Germans around. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also an option, though as everyone agrees that it was evident that Germans will pursue their own goals from very beginning of the war, I still much rather see them on their own side with footnote explaining that the two forces were supposed to be allies. ~~Xil (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peters, the Baltische Landeswehr was originally formed with the agreement of the British allies to defend Latvia against the Bolsheviks, but von der Goltz had his own goals which were revealed when he attacked the north. The Allies objected to this and brought the Baltische Landeswehr back under allied control by appointing Harold Alexander (I don't know why the Baltische Landeswehr article does not mention Alexander). So it is the Baltische Landeswehr that should be in two columns. --Nug (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, Georg Von Rauch in Die Geschichte der baltischen Staaten states that the Baltische Landeswehr fought along side with three Polish divisions on January 3rd 1920 to liberate Latgale from the Bolsheviks. --Nug (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct but that does not change the fact that the South Latvian Brigade fought under the Landeswehr even after the Liepaja coup. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nug, I took a look at what formed Landeswehr - I agree now that they should represented on both sides as it wasn't just Latvian and German units, but I couldn't find much on what became of rest of it, perhaps, if your source says which units were not disbanded after Stradmuiža treaty for taking part in action against allies (i.e. what remined under Alexander), we could split represent seperate units on each side? ~~Xil (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The South Latvian Brigade was subordinated to the Landeswehr, and the Landeswehr was originally created to defend Latvia against the Bolshviks, then von der Goltz misuses the Landeswehr for his own agenda, the allies kick him out and place the Landeswehr back under Latvian control after removing the pro-German elements. It is difficult to determine precisely which units were removed. So it is clear that it is the Landeswehr than needs to be in two columns, perhaps with a footnote indicting it was von der Goltz's unilateral action against the wishes of the allies that he attempted to misuse the Landeswehr for his own agenda. --Nug (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The period after the Treaty of Strazdmuiža has never been an issue. It's the period between the Liepaja coup and the treaty that's problematic as the South Latvian Brigade took part in the Landeswehr's Riga offensive and should be indicated as allied with the Landeswehr during the period. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The text of Strazdmuiža treaty talks about "German forces", considering the make up of the Landeswehr we could a. represent all non-German units on one side and german - on the other or b. list one side as "Landeswehr" and the other as "German units of Landeswehr". How does that sound? ~~Xil (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good solution, list one side as "Landeswehr" and the other as "German units of Landeswehr" --Nug (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Strazdumuiža text talks about "the Landeswehr and the forces under the German command" (Landesvēru un vācu pavēlniecībā esošo karaspēku), so splitting the Landeswehr in the middle of the battle is unjustified and unsourced. But give me a solid source that discusses the 'German units of Landeswehr' as a separate force from the Latvian and Russian units, and I will be ready to give it a thought. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you propose that any other units of Landeswehr that were not German took part in fighting for German goals? Nug, bit of cosmetics issue - for one is it appropriate to use that flag for Landeswehr on allied side? The picture information says it is from book about the force, but the article on force uses that flag for Baltic nobility. Also would you agree on explanatory headers of parts as I did in this revision? And also as far as I understand the volunteer army was formed later from all German forces - so maybe they all need note saying "untill July 1919" and then either add similar note to Bermontians or, instead, we could place a subheading between these saying "Merged into:"? ~~Xil (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course the South Latvian Brigade and the Prince Lieven detachment took part in the Landeswehr's Riga offensive in May 1919.

The bulk of the Landeswehr troops wore blue and white shoulder straps all through their history.

The explanatory headers do not comply with the actual alliances as I have explained already.

The Ceasefire of Strazdumuiža on 3 July 1919 ordered the Freikorps to dissolve and leave Latvia, none of which actually happened. Instead they remained organised as a division, looting Courland. Von der Goltz arranged them to join the West Russian Volunteer Army in September 1919. So please account that in placing dates. The official status of the VI Reserve Corps remains a mystery for me, would be glad if anyone could solve that for me, but 12 October 1919 is the last time I see it mentioned in Latvia as general lieutenant Eberhardt assumes its command from von der Goltz. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing up issue about the flag. Though, if it was just Lieven and Latvians (German Wikipedias shortest list suggests so), maybe we should still go by units as most of Landeswehr was on other side... VI reserve corps actually included Freikorps and Landeswehr, German wikipedia lists just one other force as part of it and that force is described as taking part in action in Poland after July. And per lv.wikipedia von Goltz was also forced to leave Latvia after he made agreement with Bermont. I figure the parts that did not merge into Bermont's army had left the territory before next major German engagement ~~Xil (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the disposition of the Landeswehr after July 3rd, according to Von Rauch on page 66 (his entire book is free to view here) it was only the Germans nationals, i.e. born within the borders of the German Empire that were discharged, presumably Baltic born Germans remained. Control of the Landeswehr passed to General Sīmonson, the Latvian Commander-in-Chief, who then appointed Alexander to command the force. Alexander praised the fighting spirit of the Baltic German troops who he said were very different from the "licientious soldiery" of the German Volunteer Corps. --Nug (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding with your edit after all that I have pointed out. So you think the Landeswehr fighting against its 'German units' without a single comment or hatnote makes more sense than the South Latvian Brigade as allied with the Landeswehr on the opposite side of the rest of the Latvian forces?! And the 'German units of Landeswehr' were never a separate force. Please also address the Landeswehr and its possible divisions during the combat, not after the ceasefire. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not clear to me what you are suggesting here, I merely stating what was written by Von Rauch, which is a reliable source. You say the Landeswehr were on the Latvian side to May 1919 but seem to deny that they were also on the Latvian side after 3rd July. Please explain why you removed Harold Alexander as commander and fail to acknowledge the Landeswehr was put under Latvian command after July 3 after all German nationals were removed and involved in the liberation of Latgale in January 1920. --Nug (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, removing the Landeswehr from the period after the Ceasefire of Strazdumuiža was not my primary concern. I will restore that part. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You're just unbelievable - if three people agree that only units acctualy fighting against their allies should be listed as a side, consensus is reached and you should bite the bulet. Especialy, if you admit that you don't know history of the conflict and apparently aren't even trying to educate yourself - it is not our job to teach you. Now I will again remove Latvia from the wrong side and please stop adding it back. And as to your argument that "the Landeswehr fighting against its 'German units'" - as you pointed out one need not to be fighting anything to be listed on opposite side. The Landeswehr after ceasfire continued fighting on, so there is no reason not to include them. ~~Xil (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: ...three people agree - Please do not mix consensus with democracy and counter relevant arguments before counting votes.
Re: only units acctualy fighting against their allies should be listed as a side - Where was such an agreement made? The other editors only suggested to group belligerent armies according to their political goals and I have explained why this should not be the primary concern. We cannot label the groups until we have settled how to deal with the Latvian Brigade as part of the Landeswehr when the latter was opposed to the Provisional Government. Also, I have pointed out before, that the mainstream sources do not consider the Landeswehr or the Freikorps as part of the White movement.
Re: one need not to be fighting anything to be listed on opposite side - The version I proposed at least makes an effort in explaining why this force is listed at both sides ("subject to the pro-German headquarters until 3 July 1919."), while you bluntly put the core of an army (most of the Landeswehr was made up of 'German units) simultaneously at two clashing sides without any relevant explanation.
Re: The Landeswehr after ceasfire continued fighting on, so there is no reason not to include them. - The Landeswehr after the ceasefire has never been an issue and I have not opposed considering it on the Allied side with the remark again from July 1919.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I am ready to discuss how to include landeswehr, but I think current version is erronous. It is hard to establish when exactly they swiched side, so dating may not be good idea and also it should be indicated that only part of Landswehr swiched side. If they merged back, we could do a footnote about what they did and what happened after the treaty. I do think though that dating for their merge with Bermont's army should be kept and don't understand why that has been removed ~~Xil (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are ready to discuss then discuss before hasting to insert your favourite version. I am here trying to reach the best solution and ignoring me will take you nowhere. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is ignoring you, I inserted footnotes as you wished. You however reverted me again. You are disrupting my and other editors atempts to improve article further. Please before you next revert somebody present your counteraguments on talkpage first. Accusing others of having "favourite version" is not an argument, not helps the discussion ~~Xil (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your footnotes do not explain anything before July 1919 while your proposed infobox leaves the impression the Landeswehr was simultaneously at two sides from the start of the war to July. The version with the Latvian brigade included at the Landeswehr side at least specifies the brigade, the reason why it is presented at the German side (being part of the Landeswehr), and the date it left the Landeswehr. From your version, the reader cannot get any of such information but is left wondering why the Landeswehr is simultaneously at two sides. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have presented the counterarguments on numerous occasions as well but I don't mind reiterating them upon your wish. 1. The Landeswehr was not on the Allied side at least from the Liepaja coup until the Ceasefire of Strazdumuiža. 2. The South Latvian Brigade was an important part of the Landeswehr during that time, participating in the Landeswehr's decisive Riga offensive and remaining at the Landeswehr's disposal during the whole period. 3. The 'German units' formed the core of the Landeswehr during its history, so there is no way to separate them at a different belligerent side. 4. Mainstream sources do not consider the Landeswehr or the Freikorps as White forces. Your proposed infobox epically fails in regard of these major historical facts. There are less important counterarguments as well but addressing these adequately would already be an enormous leap forward. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because IT WAS simulteniously on two sides. I don't understand how you find this to be impossible, when you are pushing for forces fighting for one goal being on opposite sides. I didn't explain how part of Landeswehr ended up on opposite side, because I placed big fat sub-header explaining it, which also accounts for the joint actions fighting bolsheviks. You yourself argued that they always were opposed to independence movement, so where do you see a need to explain something else before July? My version too explains that Landeswehr included Latvian and Russian units and what happened to them. 1. The Landeswehr formaly was on alied side all the time. 2. The joint anti-bolshevik actions are not being questioned. 3. They formed about a half of the force 4. I don't know what in your view is mainstream, but Germans called themselves white and every source I read thus far doesn't question it. ~~Xil (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Which Landeswehr units were on the Allied side during the Liepaja coup or the battle of Cesis? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

3. This still does not clarify which units you consider on the Allied side and which ones on the German side, especially during the coup and the Battle of Cesis.

4. Take, for instance, Peter Kenez's "The Ideology of the White Movement", Soviet Studies XXXII where he defines the White movement as the armies run by Russian nationalist officers. The Germans were hardly Russian nationalist. The Russian nationalist officers like Prince Lieven were a minority in the Landeswehr. I can go on with "The White Generals: An Account of the White Movement and the Russian Civil War" by R. Luckett, "The White Russian Army in Exile, 1920–1941" by P. Robinson, and so further, if necessary. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC) --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you guys missed my post above regarding the composition of the Landeswehr. According to Von Rauch on page 66 it was only Germans nationals, i.e. born within the borders of the German Empire who were discharged after July 3, Baltic born Germans remained. Von Rauch quotes Alexander as praising the fighting spirit of the Baltic German troops, stating that the Baltic Germans were very different from the "licientious soldiery" of the German Volunteer Corps who were presumably composed of Germans from Germany and it was these people who were discharged, not Baltic born Germans, so it is inaccurate to say in the infobox that all germans were discharged from the Landeswehr after July 3. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Freikorps or other German nationals were not part of the Landeswehr at all but formed the Iron Division. But how does this explain placing the Landeswehr on the Allied side during the Liepaja coup and the Battle of Cesis? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Liepaja coup, Von Rauch (on page 60) states is was a detachment of shock troops attached to the Baltiche Landeswehr under the command of Manteuffel, acting without von der Goltz's authority, that overthrew the Latvian government in Liepaja. Von Rauch states that Manteuffel attempted to get the support of Balodis but failed, so in this case it was renegade units of Landeswehr that acted and were not supported by other units of the Landeswehr. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Battle of Cesis, Von Rauch states (page 65) it was more a case of mutual suspicion between the two sides. The Estonians wanted the German troops to pull back south, while the Germans wanted the Estonian troops to pull back north to Estonian territory. There were negotiations but they failed and thus the battle was made. Von Rauch states that the Latvians under Balodis and Prince Lieven's Russians were not involved in the battle. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I explained that in footnotes. Does something seem wrong in them to you? ~~Xil (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I re-read it, seems okay. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is outrageous Latvian POV cherrypicking. The Liepaja coup established the Niedra government to power with von der Goltz as its War Minister and the Landeswehr as its army. This brought an acute conflict with the Allies who recognised only the Ulmanis government instead. You have got to be kidding if you represent the Landeswehr at the Allied side after this.

The Landeswehr's campaign in northern Latvia, 5-10 June and 19 June - 3 July 1919, however mildly you redress it, involved full-scale combat between ten thousand troops on either side (for comparison, note that the Latvian armed forces comprised around three and a half thousand at the time). This 'mutual suspicion' inflicted 1,500 casualties to the Landeswehr, which is 39% of the pro-German force's overall casualties in the war. It is absurd I have to explain the armies fighting against each other in this campaign were at different sides during it. Dismissing that is POV-pushing. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed Balodis or Lieven were directly involved in the campaign. However, they performed guarding duties at the disposal of the Landeswehr during it and therefore, willingly or not, formed its rearguard. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"the Allies who recognised only the Ulmanis government" - judging by the wording you mean only Estonians. And you accuse everyone else of cherry picking? "It is absurd I have to explain the armies fighting against each other in this campaign were at different sides during it" where exactly do you see the units fighting each other listed on the same side? ~~Xil (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jaan, I'm not Latvian, I'm just reporting what Von Rauch (who apparently is German) writes, so your contention of "outrageous Latvian POV cherrypicking" is rather off track. Do you have a source that states Balodis acted as a "rear guard", or is that your own conclusion? --Nug (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Love an argument impossible to oppose. So they were supporting Germans just by the nature of being Landeswehr. Sorry, I don't see how it is a valid argument - there are plenty of things one is not taking part in, does it mean automatic passive support to everything going on in the world? You don't have any proof they guarded Riga so Germans could go fight Estonians. On the other hand we got Balodis memoir stating he was not willingly supporting Germans and expaining reasons for not being able to take any action against them at lenght. ~~Xil (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: I am not Latvian - You don't have to be Latvian or use Latvian sources to pick cherries to promote a Latvian POV, and vice versa, being Latvian or citing Latvian sources does not imply a Latvian POV. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Estonian general Nikolai Reek writes in his „Lemsalu—Roopa—Võnnu—Ronneburgi lahing 19—23. VI 1919. a.”, p. 156 „Sõdur” no. 6/7/8, 1928: Although colonel Balodis' units did not participate in direct action, they were at the disposal of the enemy headquarters and fulfilled domestic duties in the rear, allowing the Germans to concentrate almost all forces against us. The manoevering of Prince Lieven's and colonel Balodis' units south of our left wing greatly concerned our division headquarters several times.”

Once again, you cannot present parts of the same army at different sides of a conflict when they were located on one side of the front and active under the same headquarters. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If I am not Latvian and am not quoting a Latvian author, how on earth would I know what the "Latvian POV" was to cherry pick in the first place? I'm just rely upon sources I find and quote them as honestly as I can, so I still think your comment in that regard is still off track. That said, I accept Reek's writing as a valid source. If we accept that Balodis staying in Riga, even though he disagreed with German actions, still helped free up German forces for the battle at Cesis, the next question is: can we place "Latvia" in the column "Units of White forces opposing independence movement"? Now ask yourself how would it be possible for the Republic of Latvia to simultaneously oppose and support independence? Now Balodis and his unit were ethnic Latvian, but that does not permit us to place "Latvia" in that column, because his unit was a part of the Landeswehr which was subordinated to von der Goltz, not Ulmanis as the head of Latvia. --Nug (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Phew, after a week of argument I can finally read from my opponents Balodis was subordinated to von der Goltz and helped to release Landeswehr forces for the north Latvian campaign. At least some progress. However, Balodis simultaneously pledged allegiance to the Ulmanis government and Balodis is generally considered as a commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Republic of Latvia, so he should definitely be labelled as under Latvian allegiance. What makes it so complicated is that even after the coup, Ulmanis cooperated with von der Goltz rather than with Estonia and there is no evidence of the Provisional Government's cooperation with Estonia during the north Latvian campaign. The American deputy Green took the same pro-German position, which remained unchanged until the Cesis negotiations on 13 June 1919. Hence I erroneously represented the initial Allied policy towards the Niedra coup. The Allies even actively opposed Estonian presence in northern Latvia until 13 June. I still repeat, that the Allies, represented by the British deputy Gough, took a clearly anti-German position on 13 June ordering the Landeswehr to leave northern Latvia immediately. The Allied position remained anti-German until the end of the war, so we can indeed place the Allies and the pro-German forces to the same side even up to 13 June. However, we cannot place Estonia in the same side with the Landeswehr as Estonia actively pursued an anti-German policy throughout the war, which escalated into a full-scale conflict between the armies.

Re: can we place "Latvia" in the column "Units of White forces opposing independence movement"? Your questions are invalid as your proposed belligerents section titles represent ideologies rather than alliances (not to mention the false 'White' title for pro-German forces). In addition, these titles do not add any value and are therefore redundant. I still remind you that the guidelines and other infoboxes assume active alliances in the infobox - joint action instead of common rhetorics.

All the above regarded, what I propose as a compromise, is as follows:

Latvian War of Independence
Part of Russian Civil War
Date 5 December 1918 - 11 August 1920 Location Latvia Result Latvian victory Territorial changes Independence of Latvia
Belligerents
To June 1919 Latvia Landeswehr Freikorps Supported by the Allied Powers From June 1919 Latvia Estonia Supported by the Allied Powers	From June 1919 Landeswehr (to July 1919) Freikorps West Russian Volunteer Army	Russian SFSR Latvian SSR

Note that the infobox now represents the joint action between the Latvian and Landeswehr forces till May 1919 while Latvia is now not represented at the Landeswehr side from June, which should resolve the most bitter of the arguments here. How does that look? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cute - did I not say several times that Northen brigades concerns are well known (hence mention somewhere beyond infobox would be warranted) and you should therefore find a source other than contemporary suspicion? Can you please find a proof that this is view of majority of historians, not one Estonian general? Because if we relay on Estonian commander's view, why not include von Goltz's view that pro-independence movement was supporting Bolsheviks or yet some other contemporaries view - these are fine sources for describing every participiants motivations, but they each have different view and we cannot reflect them all in infobox, and we cannot favour one over another. Furthermore it seems you now are providing your own analysis of history - that's original research. There is no proof to the formal alliance ceasing to exist before July, just to UK being "unhappy" on several occasions, and Germans were always opposing independence. Therefore I object to any dates in the infobox as these cannot be determined with any certainty (except for Strazdmuiža treaty and formation Bermont's army, but this doesn't concern these events). And it is wrong to include Bermontians as not being merger of other forces listed right above it - gives impresion that these are seperate entities. And you have again placed whole landeswehr on sidde supporting pro-German interests. Though got to applaud you finaly offering some compromise. ~~Xil (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: 2. The joint anti-bolshevik actions are not being questioned. - Your infobox does not currently have anything about the joint anti-Bolshevik actions, which is all the combat mentioned in the text for the first six months. Your infobox only mentions the Latvian (which are represented under the Latvian flag anyway) and Russian units on the Latvian side, not the Baltic Germans.

Re: There is no proof to the formal alliance ceasing to exist before July - A war between two sides means the end of an alliance, formally or not.

Re: Germans were always opposing independence - Oh do we now have an argument between you and Nug admitting Balodis' unit was a part of the Landeswehr which was subordinated to von der Goltz, not Ulmanis as the head of Latvia. How exiting. Do continue. Let me just point you that this is the old grouped by thoughts or joint actions? - dilemma again. I think we have reached the arguement's core - it's the alliances as sugggested in the infobox guidelines and used in other infoboxes vs. ideological groups as you prefer. At least I cannot detect any objective reason behind your preference.

Re: I object to any dates in the infobox as these cannot be determined with any certainty - Which dates do you mean? The start of the north Latvian campaign between the Landeswehr and Estonia can be precisely dated to 5 June. I can give you the hour, if you want. Numerous infoboxes use dates and there is no reason to avoid them here, especially as it solves the our mutual problems and helps to build a compromise. Otherwise it's just another case of your IDONTLIKEIT.

Re: And you have again placed whole landeswehr on sidde supporting pro-German interests. - Well the South Latvian Brigade is already represented under the title 'Latvia' (or are you now arguing for representing them under the blue and white flag?), and Prince Lieven's unit did not even participate in combat from June, so which detachments would you like to be presented on the Latvian side in June? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1. No, it clearly states that both these sides, even though opposing each other, represented white movement and thus were both anti-bolshevik. 2. All your argument is built upon there being formal alliance, unformaly they hated each others guts, so if you withdraw that argument I don't see what is there to argue about. 3. Actually that Germans were always an opposition was a point you made earlier, which I think we all can agree with. Also nobody ever argued that Latvian and Russian units were not part of Landeswehr, just that they are usualy not considered to be on the same side (by anybody but Northen Latvian brigade at the time of the action - which I pointed out to you well before, you represented Estonian POV - this is their word against Balodis, both equally eager to show themselves in best light - which is why it is questionable to choose to quote them above all later sources reflecting the conflict and concluding that there were three distinct sides marked by their ideology). And I don't have any argument with Nug, I don't understand what you are saying here. 4. Again - this is not a war between Estonia and Germany. Refer back to previous point for the rest 5. The Landeswehr was only disbanded in July, see any problem with dating yet?

IDONTLIKEIT, you keep refering to is an essay about AfD discussions. This is neither AfD nor is an essay a rule to follow. WP:UNDUE though is a policy you choose to ignore as you favour views of Northen brigade ~~Xil (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1. It's getting even better - Latvia represented the White movement as well! Unfortunately I cannot see Latvia listed unter the 'White' belligerents column. Or the Baltic German units under the Latvian side. Or their joint operations. I guess they never took place. What a shame.

2. I have never used the term 'formal alliance' or its synonyms or the concept. What the guidelines and established infoboxes represent are active alliances based on not only contracts but joint operations.

3. Part of the same army but not on the same side? A unique case of military schizophrenia?

4. This still fails to show which dates you think 'cannot be determined with any certainty' and why you object to using dates and indicating periods.

5. I don't have any problem with dating and I haven't discussed events past 3 July.

IDONTLIKEIT - This does not mean you can just object and edit war without a valid reason.

And please answer which Landeswehr units do you think should be placed outside whole landeswehr on sidde supporting pro-German interests. Or did you miss the to July 1919 remark after it? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Links are meant for clicking, had you done so - "a loose confederation of Anti-Communist forces who fought the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War". Also Russian Civil War lists both allied intervention and all the new countries on "white" side, while germany is on the third side. It is not an argument up for discussion merely a shorter way to express a concept

2. Throughout the discussion you have insisted on listing Germans and Lavians on same side for formal reasons, while recognising they were opponents from very begining. Again - if this is not what you are insisting on then what the hell are we talking about?

3. Dissociative identity disorder and, no, it only appears that way if you choose to ignore ideological differences present from very begining of the conflict. Military units are made up of different people. Suggesting that one and the same commander is fighting on both sides though is more currious, wonder why you didn't find that suggesting mental disorder.

4. When exactly did tensions between allies and Germans start? Before the war? When they shot a Latvian commander? When they threw over Latvian government? When they attacked other allies? When Britaind didn't like something? You name it. I am sure you know when it came to blows for Estonians, but again - this is not a war between Estonians and Germans, that was just one battle

5. Yeah, but you place them on other side on June, not July. And you are very well aware which Landeswehr units were not supporting German goals

IDONTLIKEIT - the author(s) of the essay disaprove(s) of articles being deleted just because of someone not liking the shape or topic of the article, if it is notable enough

UNDUE - Wikipedia disaproves minority opinion being over represented

See a difference? And I did give a valid reason. ~~Xil (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Here we go with the cherry-picking again. I repeat, please give me a single source that lists the Landeswehr or the Freikorps as part of the White movement. The White movement wikiarticle certainly does not. The Russian Civil War article lists the Landeswehr and the Freikorps in a separate column from the White movement. I have provided reliable sources which give a definition of the movement that does not encompass the pro-German armies. What else do you need?

2. I have not mentioned one formal reason. My main argument is based on Latvia and the Landeswehr operating together for the first six months of the war. Should we represent 5 July as the start of the war between the Landeswehr and pro-Latvian armies, I would not consider the South Latvian Brigade's contribution significant enough to be represented in the infobox. However, until May 1919, the units were operating uniformly and should be represented in the same column.

3. As I have explained, Latvian forces were not just formally but physically fighting as part of the Landeswehr, which cannot be said about Landeswehr and the Estonian army. And no, this is not sufficient reason to involve parts of an army at different sides.

4. This is not a 'tensions' infobox but a 'military conflict' one, and 5 June marks the start of one.

5. The Latvian unit is already represented under the Latvian flag and the Russian unit had an insignificant role in June so it is not mentioned. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1.Which part of what I said you did not understand? Let me reword - I was looking for a shorter way to express myself and put a link to article for you to famarilize yourself with most general meaning of the teerm so you wouldn't be doing what you are doing now. Because this has nothing to do with content and discussing it is absolute waste of time.

2. Oh, great now you are arguing that Latvian army did not take part in the war.

3. You were argunig that alliances should be listed. They were allies. To the other thing I can only say that you are wrong, but I dont see a point to continue discussion when party always says yes and the other says no

4. One between Estonia and German units. This is not a battle infobox either.

5. So if Latvian unit is represented by Latvian flag aren't you your self now spliting the force in two parts? ~~Xil (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1. The White movement wikiarticle does not mention any pro-German armies. Until you provide a source that does, this is your original interpretation. If you do not feel this is important then don't fight for it.

2. Where did I say that? It's clear from the context that I mean it should not be represented separately (as opposed to what I insisted before).

4. You either forget or don't know that the North Latvian Brigade consisted of 1,500 troops which is more than a third of the Latvian forces at the time, so a campaign against that meant a campaign not just against Estonia. I repeat that I am just trying to set the start date of the war between pro-Latvian forces and the Landeswehr.

5. Well this is a far clearer solution than representing the South Latvian Brigade (and Prince Lieven's detachment, for that matter) under the Baltic German colours which they never wore or swore allegiance to. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

4. Does WP:OR say something to you?

5. You said that "the bulk of the Landeswehr troops wore blue and white shoulder straps all through their history" when I asked if it is appropriate to use the same flag for these units ~~Xil (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

4. What is OR, the fact that the Landeswehr launched a campaign upon Latvian forces, the number of troops in the North Latvian Brigade or the WP:CALC?

5. Yes the the bulk, comprised of the Baltic German units, did, not the Latvian or Prince Lieven detachments. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

4. "just trying to set the start date of the war"

5. Just from top of my head sources I read said 4000 Germans, 4000 Latvians and 2500 Russians. That means that they were less than a half of the Landeswehr. And at any rate it is not the number that is important, but what colors you now suggest should be used ~~Xil (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

4. However you call it, we are looking for the start date of the military conflict between the forces.

5. Die Baltische Landeswehr im Befreiungskampf gegen den Bolschewismus : ein Gedenkbuch, p. 25 gives 1700 troops under Balodis and 400 under Lieven during the Riga offensive, end of May 1919, which leaves 17,900 Baltic German troops. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

4. For what purpose? It is only you who wants to introduce exact date, which seems quite impossible to me

5. Latvian Encyclopedia lists 4000 Germans, 4000 Latvians and 1500 Russians in April, bu anyway - how is this an answer to what I was acctualy asking? ~~Xil (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Latvian units were fighting under Latvian colours and the Lieven troops in Imperial uniforms. However, why would you represent a force of 400-1500 in the infobox, that the text does not even deem significant enough to mention? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)