Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Pauls Seibert's edits

Paul Seibert appears to be edit warring over the article tag[1],[2], yet he seems unable to continue the discussion on talk above. It is unacceptable that he should avoid this article while maintaining the tag, stating that he is busy with something else: "I think we probably should finish with Holodomor first. And, for a while, all tags should stay." Either he continues here or that tag should go if he can't proceed. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say, removal of the POV tag (in a tag team fashion) without obtaining consensus has more traits of an edit war. The state continuity issue is not the only issue we disagree about. You preferred simply to ignore some of my concerns, for instance, the post I made on 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC). The dispute over the last lede paragraph is one of several issues we need to resolve before the POV tag cam be removed, and I see no progress so far. Therefore, I respectfully request you to immediately restore the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I have not actively participated in the discussion here due to the RL reasons, I have followed it closely, and I fail to see any consensus to drop the tags. (Igny (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Pribaltika nationalities among the Soviet forces

The people of the relevant countries were not unanimously opposed to the Soviet system and did not overwhelmingly welcome the invading Germans. Data suggests that those fighting against the Soviet system were in fact outnumbered by those that fought on its behalf.

Large numbers of people belonging to Baltic nationalities served in the Soviet Army:

In 1941-42, the Soviets raised an Estonian and Latvian rifle corps and a Lithuanian division...The 201st Latvian Rifle Division...went first into battle in Decemer 1941...the 308th Latvian Rifle Division was awarded a Red Banner Order for the fights in Riga i the fall of 1944. The 16th Soviet Lithuanian Rifle Division was praised for its actions in the battle of Kursk. By March 1945, 99,974 Lithuanians were drafted into the Red Army - almost three times as many as those who served in the German-sponsored police battalions. About 25,000 Estonians, 5000 Latvians, and 20,000 Lithuanians diedin the ranks of the Red Army and labor battlions.

Prominence is attached to the eviction of some numbers of people in the countries, but nothing is mentioned about the reported atrocities committed by the anti-Soviet forces in the immediate post-war years, which influenced Soviet policies on coercion and security.

"In Latvia, from 1944 to 1952 "Forest Brothers" made more than 3 thousand subversive and terrorist acts that killed 1,562 council representatives Komsomol activists, 50 soldiers of the Soviet Army, 64 MVD and the MGB, 386 fighters destruction battalions as well as many members of their families"

This article and the one linked to it reduce the entire 50+ year existence of the Pribaltika SSRs to paranoid claims about Russification and immigration seeking to inflict harm on the local population. But this is highly disputed, as historians Soviet policies promoted the culture and languages of nationalities rather than trying to suppress them. Historians argue that the large, compact communities of nationalities in the USSR faced little chance of assimilating into Russian culture, while those living away from such communities often did assimilate or get into mixed marriages.

In the Pribaltika, there was concrete socioeconomic and political progress in all areas of life, as the abundance of historical literature and works of journalism argue. This needs to be elaborated on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.169.69 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC) In 1941-42, the Soviets raised an Estonian and Latvian rifle corps and a Lithuanian division...The 201st Latvian Rifle Division...went first into battle in Decemer 1941...the 308th Latvian Rifle Division was awarded a Red Banner Order for the fights in Riga in the fall of 1944. The 16th Soviet Lithuanian Rifle Division was praised for its actions in the battle of Kursk. By March 1945, 99,974 Lithuanians were drafted into the Red Army - almost three times as many as those who served in the German-sponsored police battalions. About 25,000 Estonians, 5000 Latvians, and 20,000 Lithuanians diedin the ranks of the Red Army and labor battlions.

Surely, as the Soviets were the first occupation regime to conduct a general mobilisation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"In Latvia, from 1944 to 1952 "Forest Brothers" made more than 3 thousand subversive and terrorist acts that killed 1,562 council representatives Komsomol activists, 50 soldiers of the Soviet Army, 64 MVD and the MGB, 386 fighters destruction battalions as well as many members of their families"

This is correct, the Forest brothers fought for the independence of the Baltic states (this is the name in English, as opposed to Pribaltika) and against the occupation regime. You are welcome to add the numbers to the articel. However, normally we don't treat guerillas or partisans as terrorists. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This article aims to represent the mainstream scholarly view, as opposed to the Soviet and Russian official point of view. If you have sources we are missing, you are welcome to bring them forward. The prosperity of cultures and nationalities sounds like an excerpt from a Soviet textbook. Considering the social and economic progress in the Baltic states, the population grew only due to immigration, while the indigenous population remained the same. The development of industry is generally regarded as colonial, mainly subcontracting for the Soviet military industry while the local supply of civilian goods was insufficient. The agriculture was developed in a similar way, aimed at the Soviet market while the local food supply was scarce. And I am talking about the 1970s and 1980s as well, when a lack of food is hardly a sign of 'socioeconomic and political progress'. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not turn the Talk Page into a battleground. Here you are making controversial, politically-motivated claims about how "Forest Brothers" fought for "independence" when in fact others argue the opposite and refer to the reported war crimes committed by them, as shown in the cited works above. You belittle opposing opinions merely as "Russian official point of view". But who else is going to have a point of view on the subject? Almost all information about the region comes from primary and secondary sources published in Russia or the Pribaltika states. Yet, you single out the Russians for not being credible.

You make a brief statement about the war period, but you apparently have not researched the issue because large numbers of Pribaltika nationalities actually volunteered to serve in the Army and partisan forces. So why comment on the issue if you have not researched it?

Your denial of the fact of concrete progress in the economic and social spheres would have to be described as fringe, as it totally conflicts mainstream literature on the issue.

Your claim about colonialism is inaccurate according to specialists, as Fomenko argues in the International Affairs journal:

The Baltic infrastructure was developing at a fast pace on the federal budget money, that is, at the expense of the Russian territories. Till the very end of the Soviet Union, on the eve of its "second independence," the Baltic republics were still getting money from the Center. Under the 1986 and 1987 budget laws of the U.S.S.R., Lithuania received money from the federal budget: 48,052 thousand rubles in 1986, and 230,225 thousand rubles in 1987. 24 In 1988, the republic got no money yet the republican budget retained 98.2 percent of sales tax (the main tax proceeds) and 100 percent of income tax. The R.S.F.S.R. could count only on 50 percent.]

You mention immigration and population growth. But observers point out that immigration was a response to the low population growth in Estonia and Latvia, whose economies could not cope with a labor shortage. Lithuania, by contrast, had healthy birth rates and therefore did not receive immigration. Likewise, you ignore the fact that large numbers of Pribaltika nationalities migrated to Russia in the last 100 years: 1926 Soviet census shows over 295k Estonians and Latvians living in Russia and its neighboring republics, who by the xenophobic logic of certain nationalist activists would be classified as "occupiers" undeserving of the rights coming with citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you take a closer look, this article looks only at the political context of the occupation, not social, economic, or cultural. If you are that eager to get your material published in the Wikipedia, bring it to the Talk:Baltic states in the Soviet Union (1944–1991) and equip it with something more solid than Russian news reports. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the Baltic volunteers among the Red Army, I would be happy to see the figures. Although how can these be great under a general mobilisation, when every fit man is compulsed to join the army anyway...?

Regarding Forest Brothers war crimes and terrorism then killing one's enemy in a war is not a war crime. The Forest Brothers were Baltic citizens who fought against the Communist regime, so active Communists were their enemies. Soviet partisans made subversive attacks againsst Nazis and killed them, I couldn't believe it if you called that a war crime or terrorism. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Soviets illegaly conscripted the peoples of the Baltics just as the Nazis illegally conscripted them. Individuals wound up fighting against brothers, or for both sides in succession. Baltic Soviet units were so unreliable (they would not kill their own) that they had to be deployed elsewhere along the Eastern Front. As for population growth, mass deportations would have an effect, no? Let's not pretend that the mass influx of resettled immigrants during post war occupation was anything except the stamping out of nationalism. And let's not forget the purges of Baltic communist nationalists. @75.51.170.140, that you cannot even call the Baltics by their proper name, preferring the transliterated Russian, rather betrays your POV here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim about the Soviet side "illegally" conscripting Pribaltika peoples is obviously controversial. And did you read anything stated above? Because your claim about the Pribaltika peoples being "unreliable" in the Soviet forces is at odds with the research on this subject. Statiev cites convincing data to prove that the Pribaltika peoples made impressive contributions to the Soviet war effort. Anyway, my point is that this information needs to be included in the article because the current version gives the impression that these people were unanimously anti-Soviet when in fact the vast majority were even either pro-Soviet or politically passive. Regarding immigration, there is plenty of literature that challenges the nationalist paranoia about "colonization".

You are misreading the Alexander Statiev source. He states that there were three types of people who joined for the Red Army: (1) loyalist Balts who had evacuated with the Red Army, (2) Balts who permanently resided in the Soviet Union (presumably those Balts who had emigrated into other parts of the Russian empire/Soviet Russia before 1920), and (3) conscripted labour battalions formed during the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about Baltic nationalities living in Russia forming the bulk of participants in the Soviet war effort. Statiev states that ca. 100,000 Lithuanians were in the Red Army. The 1939 census only shows that 32,624 Lithuanians lived in the USSR, meaning that the vast majority of Lithuanians on the Soviet side came from Lithuanian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of Lithuanians were conscripted into the Red Army, Statiev states: "By March 1945, 99,974 Lithuanians were drafted into the Red Army". Since Soviet sovereignty wasn't recognised over the Baltic states back in 1945 (some argue the 1975 Helsinki Accords afforded recognition, but even if we accept that for argument's sake, such recognition isn't retrospective under international law), conscription was illegal. --Nug (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's original research on your part. Other legal analysts and scholars affirm the legality of the joining to the Soviet Union. Since this conflict exists, the drivel of the White Book cannot be cited without clear attribution and the consideration of alternative arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The 75.51.170.140 editor, as well as this guy 99.96.6.245 (who are obviously the same person) both appear to be socks of indefinetly banned user JacobPeters. The edits made by these socks should be reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Title Bias

The Russian Wiki's version of this article has a name that translates to "Accession of the Pribaltika to the USSR" [Присоединение Прибалтики к СССР], which is a fair and NPOV of approaching the issue. Similar changes for this article should be considered.

This event is not known under such name in English literature. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest additions

This addition is controversial.

Use of the term "Baltic nationals" is also controversial, implying that they were not Soviet citizens when in actuality they were.

And whether it qualifies as a reliable source is dubious. Without extensive attribution, this source cannot be cited.

This work has been completed as a result of the work of the Estonian State Commission on Examination of the Policies of Repression and with the supportof the Riigikogu, the Government of the Republic of Estonia and Ministry of Justice. -- this sounds propagadistic. The purpose of this is not academic research, but is the consequence of the agenda of a government and its ministries. And it amounts to original research to try and connect "forced mobilisation" with service in the Red Army, as large numbers of people volunteered.

Regarding the citizenship of the Baltic nationals, read State continuity of the Baltic states.

The agenda of the commission was "to publish a scientific investigation into all the losses and damages suffered by the Estonian nation during the occupation regimes”.

There is no such thing as volunteering under a general mobilisation.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, and certainly cannot be cited without attribution. The pamphleteers talking about "scientific investigation" is not very interesting. Оther sources describe it as propaganda with inaccurate and misleading information. See for example:

:::"... From M. Laar to the official "White Paper" - they nothing to do with scientific research....These data in these papers about the "Soviet occupation terror" from a historical point view are totally unfounded, self-contradictory, are not supported by archival documents and, as a rule, go back to concoctions propagandists of Nazi Germany."

Passing off the claims made in the "White Book" as something representing the consensus is very dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity which are universally recognized as the foremost source about the topic, are worthless. We should instead use a source that identifies itself with a Russian unit known for killing civilians and having close ties to an organized crime. Yay! --Sander Säde 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The source cited above indicates that the White Book is not reliable, meaning that your suggestion about the White Book being the "universially recognized as the foremost source on the topic" is questionable. You dismiss the Спецназ России journal, but you produce nothing about it being unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The blog site liewar.ru is hardly a reliable source. --Nug (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Historian A. Dyukov, who is the author of the transcribed text, is considered a reliable source, and he says that the White Paper is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll feed the troll by ROTFL. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

I construe this edit as disruptive because hasty conclusions about the source's reliability are reached without sufficient knowledge about the source. Specnaz Rossii has been cited in scholarly studies, such as "The Nature of Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance, 1942-44: The North Caucasus, the Kalmyk Autonomous Republic, and Crimea" in the Kritika journal by Professor Statiev, where in endnote #50 on p.301 he specifically cites this source for his data. Since we don't have sources of comparable quality of this topic in English, the Spetsnaz Rossii article will stay.

50...Igor Pykhalov, “ ‘Kavkazskie orly’ Tret´ego Reikha,” Spetsnaz Rossii, 61, 10 (2001)

This book also cites the same article in its endnotes. See p.172

"...In 1941-44, Soviet law enforcement agencies destroyed 197 gangs in the CIASSR; 657 of their numbers were killed, 2762 taken prisoner, and 1113 surrendered, this making 4532 a total number of defeated gangsters. (see e.g. Igor Pykhalov, "Kavkazie orly' tretiego reikha', Spetznaz Rossii, No. 10, October 2001. p. 172

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Spetsnaz Rossii is a reliable source for the viewpoint of Spetsnaz#Alpha_Group veterans, nothing more. --Nug (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above sources corroborate it's reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

However Wikipedia policy dictates that such websites are only really reliable for their own viewpoints. --Nug (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is a sock of indef banned user Jacob Peters. Just revert on sight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In 20 days his flotsam will be autoarchived. I have no objection, however, to simply deleting all the threads he started here. Any modicum of constructive conversation that resulted which would genuinely apply to improving the article can be repeated in a more collegial atmosphere. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that this IP is a sock puppet. He[3] has made similar tendentious edits to the articles August Uprising, Rape during the occupation of Germany as 76.191.230.178, who is a confirmed[4] sock puppet of User:Orijentolog . --Nug (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. What should be the consequences with the article, should we revert to the stable version prior to his involvement? I am talking about the section 'Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces', which is now adequate but the sock started it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a bit off-topic to have a sub-section "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" in the section "German occupation 1941–1944". Estonian nationals in Soviet forces is already mentioned in Estonia in World War II, while Military history of Latvia during World War II seems under-developed and there doesn't appear to be a corresponding article for Lithuania in WW2. Perhaps a sentence about Soviet conscription added to the section "Soviet occupation and annexation 1940–1941" because they were already conscripting labour battalions as a form of repression, and move "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" to the relevant articles (may have to create Lithuania in World War II). --Nug (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)