Sea Skimmer wrote:
Well you know you could look it up, which is what I did in ten seconds via wikipedia-google bookshttp://books.google.com/books?id=2T9zYX ... ed&f=false
It does have some other stuff in it, such as material and fiscal reparations paid by the Russians to Poland, and a return of all stolen art work since 1772. It also allowed for choice of citizen by peoples on both sides of the border and both sides renounced all further claims to territory or reparations and declare a general amnesty.
My apologies, I may not have been clear. I was trying to find out if there were other crippling
consequences of the treaty (whether written in the treaty itself, or as a consequence of some of its stipulations) that I may have missed. Because so far the only one that could only be construed as that is the loss of 135K square kilometers of territory, and the other reparation (fiscal, material, and artwork reparations) were kind of a drop in the bucket compared to that...
As you said though...
Its not anything like the Treaty of Versailles, its only long lasting provisions are friendly ones like both sides agreeing to free passage of commerce. More or less the treaty was intended to reset relations. The treaty did require Russia to pay off Poland in exchange for peace sure, but I doubt Soviet leaders saw this as very unreasonable after they had launched a massive invasion of Poland and failed at it.
The treaty looks very much like a "reset relations" treaty, so it would indeed be preposterous to claim it could provide the Soviets with a casus belli for invading in 1939.
Also, would Stas have any particular view on this treaty? I'd like to hear some opinions from the non-Western side as well.