I was referring to the following statement by GS in post 69.
"Had the Poles not extended their borders eastwards, they almost certainly would have faced defeat at the hands of the Red Army bent on returning the lands of the old empire to the fold. A speculative comment, but Bolshevik behaviour of the period gives me little indication otherwise."
History is full of examples where the winner got away with calling "acts of agression" as "justified preventive wars". I do not believe in legittimate "preventive wars", if you have the military strength to attack you also have enough for a good defence and probably to bring your opponent to the negotiang table too if you are truly looking for a solution and not a land grab. Surprise is a big force multiplier but not as big as that assuming you are willing to face the cost of staying mobilized.
I do not believe the 1919 Red Army would be stopped without some combat but they had a lot of other problems to deal with so without the move to Kiev they may very well have ignored Poland. The Poles by discriminating the ethnic Germas gave Hitler a perfectly good "casus belli", that he chose not to use it and instead fake an attack is more proof of his ultimate insanity.
Ah that makes more sense. My apology.
In regards to "preventive wars" I think your assumptions are in error. Initiative can make a huge difference especially if one lacks space to operate in. Of course in the situation you are talking about there is a real question as to whether or not it was defensive space that was desired or just space. I'm sure there were some "good guys" in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWI but I don't think many if any made it to the top leadership positions. My impression is that you need a score card not for keeping track of the players but for keeping track of the sides there.