Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Occupation of Baltic states
Status	Open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	DLX, Lantios, possibly others
Mediator(s)	Jac roe
Comment	Geting somewhere... Hopefully...

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Occupation of Baltic states]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Occupation of Baltic states]]

Request Information

Who are the involved parties?

DLX, Lantios, possibly others

What's going on?

User Lantios keeps inserting {{POV}} tag to the article, without giving any valid reasons for that. This topic has been discussed very extensively before and the article is also very well cited. See Talk:Occupation of Baltic states#POV and also previous discussions on that talk page.

What would you like to change about that?

Have the validity of the POV tag either confirmed or invalidated.

Where'd it go?

It went into the /Archive, my friends. It was too much to look at and decipher as I am not a history guru. Please be patient. We will wrap this up soon. Please look at the sections below. WP:V states:

“ The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ”

WP:RS states:

“ Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

”

Jac _roe 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To save on endless WP:OR point/counterpoint, I would suggest the sources for and against occupation be limited to those which specifically use the term occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This would render "anti-occupation" list almost worthless, as this very term was highly disfavoured by Soviet sources and sources which considered Soviet position valid. Occupation is a pretty charged term and generally disfavoured by those who support the action (for example, Canadian Jewish Congress considers use of the term "occupied" instead of "disputed" territories to be sign of anti-Israel bias). This is not unlike the suggestion to discuss "were all Latvians Nazi sympathizers during WWII" (highly provocative question, but I intentionally use ab absurdum approach) and to prohibit use of the sources not containing word "Latvian Fascists". You're end up with the whole bunch of links from Soviet agitprop garbage to (probably) some articles from peer-reviewed sources supporting the view, but not a lot of material explaining position Latvia found herself in in 1940-1945 and tough choices people had to make. RJ CG 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We can limit to peer-reviewed only for the purpose of this mediation. We have yet to see anything in a reputable peer-reviewed publication which contends the Baltics were not occupied. The best we've gotten on this topic, not the first time, (not counting creative personal speculation) are links to news stories containing (official) Russian derision of the notion of Baltic occupation, and the Russian Duma proclamation of course, which I myself added.

     So far, the non-occupation reference list contains one reference to an encyclopedia article which did not specifically indicate the Baltics were occupied--inferring that lack of such a statement is scholarly endorsement of the non-occupation position.

     As I have indicated to Petri in an Email, another dispute same topic, he should consider his inability to provide reputable sources which say "the Baltics were not occupied" (as opposed to finding sources which he through mental twists and turns construes to imply not occupied) as perhaps indicating he should examine the factual basis for his position.

     As he considers myself and my ilk to be "ethno-fascists," I'm not holding my breath for that introspection to happen any time soon. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed Western publications from the height of Cold War? Why don't you use Dr. Goebbels' articles or Pravda op-eds? They're almost as NPOV as those publications. Face it, there're no NPOV sources on Baltic history in XX century. Those territories became playground of Great Powers of the day and each side crafted it's own interpretation of events and version of history. Permanently marking all wiki articles on "Soviet Estonia" and "Occupation of Estonia" (same about Latvia and Lithuania) as POV is the only sensible solution for next 200 years. Dixi. RJ CG 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV sources don't exist at all. Every source, everything has its point of view. WP:NPOV is not about this, NPOV is achieved by representing different sources. Colchicum 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Even "POV" sources can have a sound basis built on facts, events, circumstances. The "pro-occupation" sources have lots of those. The "non-occupation" sources... well, we haven't seem to have found any except for Soviet and now Russian pronouncements of "no occupation" but which are curiously devoid of any detail beyond that.

     Surely there must be something in the the 15+ years since the collapse of the Soviet Union that has been published in a peer reviewed source somewhere--especially as Russia continues to strenuously contend the USSR didn't occupy anybody--that examines/supports the factual basis for Russia's contention there was no occupation (if there indeed was no occupation). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources Refuting Occupation

In this section add sources that refutes with occupation using the following format:

Title of Article Brief summary. Jac _roe 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre 1991 sources

Basicly all sources refering to Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR or Lithuanian SSR are sources refuting occupation. This includes practically all pre-1991 reliable sources. The occupation POV on the other hand denies the existance of the Soviet republics, and claims them to be puppet governments of the Soviet occupation forces. This view has little support in pre-1991 sources. -- Petri Krohn 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Suuri Tietokirja - Finnish Encyclopedia from 1961 by WSOY. (based on Swedish: Kungskapens bok) Part 8 on page 373 has an article named Baltian Neuvostotasavallat (Baltic Soviet republics):

“ Viro, Latvia ja Liettua, yhteiseltä nimeltään Baltian maat, muodostavat Neuvostoliiton läntisimmän osan Itämerta vasen... ”

Translation: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, togeter known as the Baltic Countries, form the westernmost part of the Soviet Union, bordering the Baltic Sea.

There is no mention of an ongoing "occupation" or a government in exile. -- Petri Krohn 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Petri -

1. Your premise that being labeled a "S.S.R." indicates "no occupation" is sadly mistaken. The Soviets had already created maps labeled fill-in-your-Baltic-State S.S.R. before they ever invaded, a clear confirmation of their intent to subjugate the Baltics.
2. Your example of an encyclopedia entry NOT mentioning occupation does not imply occupation did NOT occur. Encyclopedia entries regarding the Baltics during that period of time were woefully inadequate (basically consisting of "X" marks the spot on the globe).

You really should try and come up with something more worthy. I'm sorry but your general contention that "occupation" is a post-Cold War artifact seeking to besmirch the Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe is sadly mistaken. The Soviets invaded the Baltics before Hitler did. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Let's try something simple:

1. Source uses the word "occupied" = "occupied"
2. Source uses the words/phrase "not occupied" = "not occupied"
3. Source does not use the word "occupation" in either sense = does not say (and certainly does not disprove occupation)

 —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the source says the Baltics belong to the USSR, it certainly disproves occupation as occupation is a control over foreign territory.--Dojarca 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if the source says "incorporated legally according to international law." Otherwise you are essentially making the same argument as Petri Krohn--anything that does not specifically use the word "occupied" in either sense, yes or no, means "not occupied." So, in your example, a source indicating the Latvian S.S.R. was part of ("belongs" being used in that sense, not implying legality) the U.S.S.R. in no way confers legitimacy on Latvia's incorporation (meaning no occupation). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some claims that Earth is flat. There are probably very few sources stating "Earth is not flat", but many that say Earth is round. If the Earth is round, it cannot be flat. Just the same here. If the countries belong to the USSR, they are not occupied regardless how they became part of the USSR.--Dojarca 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way:

In 1939, there were three Baltic states. They had governments, and the governments had territory.

In 1940, Soviet troops came, shooed away the governments, and set up their own puppet governments -- the SSRs. From then onwards, these puppet governments ran things.

By 1990, Soviet central power was weak, and its power to maintain the puppet government was diminishing. Thus, the legitimate governments got a chance to come back and restore their rule over the territory.

Thus, what was occupied was the territory, and what belonged to the USSR were not the real states, but voodoo dolls of them. Digwuren 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By 1990s the authority of Soviet government was near absolute zero and nobody wanted to belong to a state ruled by people such as Gorbachev. Not only Baltics but also Ukraine and even RSFSR declared their independence. Note that there was even a movement to declare Treaty of the creation of the USSR illegal. But we do discuss sources here.--Dojarca 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Silly boy! (OK, that's an assumption) Let's put it this way:

About: "If the countries belong to the USSR, they are not occupied regardless how they became part of the USSR."

One of the most sacred and fundamental principles of law: "ex injuria non oritur jus."

"An illegal act cannot give rise to any right (in law)."

Your contention is, alas, fundamentally and fatally broken beyond even WP:OR hope. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Ancient Roman Law are applied by Baltic nationals to the International Law? I think someone really need to study international law.Vlad fedorov 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you trumpet your ignorance this way, and in bold print no less. It's a concept used in every discussion of territorial sovereignty today, for example, in War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 2005 edition this legal principle even has its own index entry: ex injuria jus non oritur doctrine 157, 170, 172. You might consider informing yourself more thoroughly before employing derision which only highlights your own lack of acquaintance with the subject matter. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Vecrumba for confirming your ignorance in Public International Law matters. From your argument I see that you are not an internationa lawyer. Citation from the leading authority:

"Conquest and the use of force How far a title based on force can be regarded as a valid, legal right recognisable by other states and enforceable within the international system is a crucial question. Ethical considerations are relevant and the principle that an illegal act cannot give birth to a right in law is well established in municipal law and is an essential component of an orderly society. However, international law has sometimes to modify its reactions to the consequences of successful violations of its rules to take into account the exigencies of reality. The international community has accepted the results of illegal aggression in many cases by virtue of recognition".Page 422 "INTERNATIONAL LAW" Fifth edition MALCOLM N. SHAW QC Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law

Vlad fedorov 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry, Vlad, but it is, again, your personal interpretation that this quote somehow applies to the situation of the Baltics making it all legal after the fact regardless, this time because of completely unspecified "exigencies." And a shame, taking the care to put it up in neon lights, hoping this makes it appear nothing short of a definitive trump card in your favor.

• there were no "exigencies" under which Stalin had any excuse for invading the Baltics (and as opposed to the view espoused by those saying that Stalin did it to head off Hitler, there is evidence Hitler invaded because Stalin took the Baltics preemptively--but another conversation for another time).
• there were no "exigencies" under which there was any requirement for the Soviet aggression against the Baltics to somehow be considered a legal act (and you will recall that the Soviet Union and Baltics signed a treaty which specifically indicated that no exigency can be used to justify any act, one against the other, which is illegal according to international law)
• and so, to the point, you completely fail to address the utterly simple question: the Russian Duma has declared that Latvia (and the Baltics) joined the Soviet Union legally under international law--no claim of "exigencies", no claim of "well, we occupied them so long they might as well be ours." No, a claim of legal according to international law--according to all laws and treaties in effect at that time.

Once again, in responding to a call for reputable scholarly sources supporting the Russian position, you come up with something you interpret as perhaps fitting the situation which mentions... the Soviet Union? No. The Baltics? Not a one. Occupation? No. Ergo, more WP:OR. Nice job sourcing, though, at least it was in the area of international law, I'll give you that. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vecrumba, your ignorance in international law is legendary. I have just published citation from Malcolm Shaw, who is a leading academician in the UK and worldwide in International Law. I never interpreted him and your attemps to ascribe to me all the bad, all the evil features including misinterpretation of anything, demonstrates your inability to provide any academic argument in defense of your utterly ridiculous claim. Your unsupported propaganda statements with unubiquitous statements like "there were no.. " predate your biased and unscholarly approach. The best example of your elementary mistake is the occupation of Iraq by the US. The initial "casus belli" for the occupation was Weapons of Mass Destruction, which wasn't found. Following your ancient Roman law principle, occupation of Iraq today is illegal, right? As also the occupation of the US territory by every individual except native Indians, right? Every competent person could infer that today's claims by Baltic states of occupation are political and not legal ones. If USSR occupied Baltics then we are in a state of war, right? have Baltics ever claimed war to the USSR or Russian Federation? No war = No occupation. Please, free me now from your attempts to restore your reputation after such hilarious unacademic claims. I wish legal education to be better in Baltics. Vlad fedorov 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is another Roman legal principle Ex facto jus oritur. Anyway if to follow your thought, the very independence of Baltic States illegal as their declarations of independence were illegal. And note that illegality of occupation of Baltic states was not proven in any court.--Dojarca 09:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The "principle" you cite (the Latin equivalent of "right makes might") is not the legal principle which is applied to questions such as invasion, occupation, soveregnty, et al. It is not an equally valid principle to the one I cited. Once the Soviet Union signed treaties with the Baltics, those defined the basis of legal relations between countries. Again, you are coming up with your own theories. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if to follow your principle, these treaties were also illegal because they were signed between illegal states, just as Khasav-Yurt Accords.--Dojarca 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How a Chechen cease-fire applies to treaties between the Soviet Union and the Baltics is a mystery to me. Exactly how do you propose that the USSR and the Baltics were "illegal states?" What scholarship are you citing? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

“If the countries belong to the USSR, they are not occupied regardless how they became part of the USSR.” (Dojarca) That's exactly the way of thinking they promote. Hitler seized Poland and Czechoslovakia - so from that time on, they also 'belonged' to him, because (as we are told here!) you can't occupy something that 'is yours'. The moral principle of such people is clear: 'We conquer you, because we are stronger - and that's the most ethical thing to do'! Dojarca, please tell me, did Western Russia also 'belong' as of right to Hitler in 1942 or is it now совсем другое дело? E.J. 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to believe both in that some territory belongs to Germany and that the territory occupied. For those who considered Austria, for example a part of Germany, it was not occupied, and for those who considered the territory occupied, it was not part of Germany. Russian territory was not annexed by Germany and as such, it was occupied in both points of view. In short, nobody can believe in both the following at the same time:

1. The territory X belongs to country Y

2. The territory X is occupied by country Y.

--Dojarca 09:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This amounts to original research. We are required to represent different existing points of view fairly (even if they contradict each other) and not to decide between them. This is what WP:NPOV is about. Colchicum 09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is dictionary definition of the word occupation, though I agree that all points of view should be represented fairly. Note that those who speak about occupation does not recognize them to belong the USSR. And any source stating the Baltics to belong to the USSR consequently makes occupation impossible.--Dojarca 09:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We are not in a poisition to decide where the truth is. We only have to represent sources. Colchicum 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But the article in its current state represents some sources as truth and others as not.--Dojarca 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now the only POV part I see there is "ignoring the fact that it had already occupied the Baltics". Colchicum 10:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reworded slightly, it is important to note that the Soviet Union was in the Baltics before returning to "liberate" them, setting them apart from (most of) the rest of Eastern Europe when it came to the war against Hitler. «forgot to sign —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding...

1. The territory X belongs to country Y

2. The territory X is occupied by country Y.

The distinction must be made in the source whether the "belonging" was legal (Baltics joined USSR legally according to international law, in line with Duma 1999 pronouncement) or the "belonging" was illegal (Baltics were illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed, under which annexation they continued to be occupied). If that distinction is not made, then it is neither for nor against the contention of occupation, and representing the source as doing either is WP:OR. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again. Legality does not matter at all. Was incorporation of Texas in the US legal? And do we need a source that states it was legal to say that Texas belongs to the US? Was incorporation of Scotland in the UK legal? Is there any source supporting that? And if it was illegal (and if such sources exist) does it mean Scotland do not belong to the UK? The matter is simple: if one belives Earth is round he cannot at the same time believe Earth is flat. If source states the Baltics belong to the USSR, it automatically means they are not occupied.--Dojarca 03:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of the Baltic case with Scotland or Texas is unsuitable with regard to international law. As far as I know, annexation of Scotland (and of Texas) was not illegal at the time. However, in the 20th century the law had progressed, so that Soviet aggression against Finland/the Baltics was clearly illegal as was the Nazi invasion of Poland. It is also worth of mention, that by its aggression the USSR broke the treaties it had concluded with the aforementioned states. So, law in the 20th century disapproved of practices which had been legal some centuries before - though even now, some subjects do not act according to law. E.J. 06:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's business to determine what was legal and what was not. The pre-communist governments in those countries were nothing more legal than communist ones and the very independence may be considered legal only on the basis of revolutionary law.--Dojarca 06:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia does not define legality. The reputable sources (see below) do. Dixi.E.J. 07:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which represent only one point of view. Anyway legality has no connection with "occupation" terminology as I pointed above.--Dojarca 07:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) A "point of view" replete with reputable and reliable references based on voluminous facts. You have yet to cite a single reference that in any substantial way counters what your POV characterizes as a myth. Your characterization of the Baltics as illegal states is wild speculation.
    Once again, the Soviet Union (eventually) recognized as sovereign over its territory and the Baltics, recognized sovereign over their territory, concluded treaties recognizing and respecting their mutual territorial and political sovereignty for all time. The Soviet Union subsequently illegally invaded and occupied, abrogating every agreement it had

signed

. Your sources in opposition?
    For someone who disputes occupation as "myth", your position appears to be to contend that nothing which documents the reality of occupation, circumstances of and illegality of, matters; meanwhile, you apparently need produce nothing supporting your own contention. If you agree with the Russian Duma that the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law (which is the only circumstance under which there is no occupation), then surely there must be a reputable source you can produce, not just your personal speculations.

No. No matter now the baltics joined the USSR, since that moment it cannot be occupation, as an occupation is the control over foreign territory. Can you please learn the dictionary definition after all? What a pity to see people who believe Earth flat and round at the same moment!--Dojarca 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    There is no myth, there is no controversy, there is only contentiousness on the part of those that have no reputable sources to back their position that the Soviets did not occupy the Baltics. In all these so-called "controversies," not a single reputable source has ever been produced anywhere supporting the view that there was no occupation. Just denial and invective.[1]  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Any source stating Baltics as part of the USSR eliminates the possibility of occupation at the same time, just as any source saying Earth is round eliminates the possibility of flat Earth. It seem that some people here do not understand what occupation is. Occupation is a military control over foreign territory.--Dojarca 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem using reputable sources to indicate when and how Latvia legally became a "domestic" territory of the USSR and therefore (allegedly) ceased to be occupied. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again. Probably there are sources on how Latvia became part of the USSR, but this is irrelevan how it was done. If source says it is part of the USSR, it automatically means it is not under occupation.--Dojarca 06:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If sources say this, then it means that _according to these sources_ it is not under occupation _at that moment_.

This doesn't mean that according to these sources it has never been under Soviet occupation. In this case only sources explaining how it became part of the USSR count. The Soviet POV is that there was no occupation because the Baltic states had joined the USSR voluntarily, and we have to respresent sources with this POV (if they are found). I am sure there are some formally reliable sources, but it is difficult to find them outside Russia. Colchicum 10:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There are even many various sources saying about "Soviet occupation of the Baltics and consequetual incorporation them in the USSR" which indicates the source does not count the period after incorporation as "occupation". So there are three POVs in fact and all of them should be indicated in the article:

1. Soviet POV. The Soviet troops stationed in the republics according the agreements. The republics [fearing Nazi expansion] elected new pro-communist governments and asked to accept them into the USSR. No occupation existed.

2. Non-Soviet POV. The consent of the local governments to station Soviet troops in the republics was made by threat of force. They made pro-Soviet coups in the countries and installed pro-Soviet governments (as a result of non-fair elections). Consequently the USSR incorporated the states, which was made by force rather than the will of the peoples. USSR borders after the incorporation though not disputed as they were recognized by [a number] of countries, which was reflected in Helsinki accords. Occupation existed after entering Soviet troops and until the final incorporation in the USSR.

3. US & their allies POV. US did not recognize pro-Soviet governments of the Baltic states just as it did not recognize the USSR until 1936 (and maintained white governments in excile as legitimate). As such, the legitimate representatives of Baltic states were goverments in excile which maintained embassies and issued passports. Soviet sovereignity was not spread over the Baltics. Occupation existed until 1991.--Dojarca 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(2) and (3) are essentially the same thing (the Baltic states were de facto, but not de jure part of the Soviet Union) but if you want to represent it twice, I won't object to it. What you should do is to find sources for (1). Colchicum 11:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong saying that (2) and (3) are equal. The differece between them is the recognition of post-WWII borders and territorial integrity of the USSR. It is just as difference between British and US positions in regard of the USSR in 1930s. While both parties agreed the October Revolution was unfortunte event, Britain recognized the Soviet government in early 1920s while the US maintained White goverments exciled in the US as legitimate.--Dojarca 11:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Even Kaliningrad Oblast borders were only recognized in 1957. Colchicum 11:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources for what precisely?--Dojarca 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For the recognition of de jure Soviet sovereignity over the Baltics and of its Western borders by the European states. On the coutrary: [2] Colchicum 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an embassy of the Estonian Government in Exile in the UK, the Estonian embassy in Germany didn't become Soviet property either, etc. Colchicum 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Those countries were allies of the US, so the (3) is applied here. But note this British-Soviet additional protocol [3] to a British-Soviet traty for establishment accordance on post-war order in Europe of 1941. Paragraph 14 states that Britain recognizes Soviet sovereignity over the Baltic states, more over the parties delclare restoration of Baltics as part of the USSR as their common aim. The British position changed after the war.--Dojarca 12:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not a reliable source. Has it been signed or it is just a draft? No references, no responsibility claimed etc. Here it is claimed that this is a futile Soviet draft that hasn't been signed. Colchicum 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be frank here, even your article doesn't say that it has been adopted. Colchicum 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Yes, really it is a draf as says the article. I did not read it throug. The Soviet sovereignity over Baltic states was recognized by Sweden in a Soviet-Swedish Aagreement of 30 May 1941. Is it what you want?--Dojarca 13:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Where is the text? Colchicum 14:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Helsinki Accords say nothing about recognition of illegal borders. If a border doesn't exist legally, there is nothing to recognize. For many of the signatories this would go against the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Colchicum 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I should note that, pursuant to the Treaty of Paris (Kellogg) signed on August 27, 1928, the USSR, Latvia, and neighboring countries signed an additional Protocol in Moscow in February 9, 1929, which in Article I specifically states "the Treaty for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, signed in Paris on August 27, 1928... shall come into force between the Contracting Parties..." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It say about all post-war borders and territorial integrity.--Dojarca 13:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Helsinki Accords cannot apply to legally non-existent borders and are absolutely irrelevant here. According to the Western opinion, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't de jure parts of the USSR, so there is no territorial integrity to talk about. Moreover, the Helsinki Accors are not about diplomatic recognition. Please, cite sources rather than make your own inferences. Colchicum 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if we focused on reputable sources which actually discuss whether the Baltics were or were not occupied? As I mentioned above, as Russia maintains there was no occupation, surely someone of good scholarly repute has examined Russia's position and uncovered what facts/events/circumstances there are that point to its veracity.

    For now, as has already been indicated, Russia simply contends there was no occupation. We have Russian quotes saying: (a) because the Baltics joining the Soviet Union was legal under international law and (b) because you can't occupy something that belongs to you. If we had more detail on the basis for the Russian position, I (for one) would be glad to add it. Still waiting. Still getting nothing but "no occupation" WP:OR slung against the wall to see if something sticks. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources Supporting Occupation

In this section add sources that supports with occupation using the following format:

Title of Article [http://www.example.com Example.com] Brief summary. Jac _roe 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States Irina Saburova, Russian Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 36-49 [4] An examination of the history of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal. Martintg 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States and Their Incorporation into the USSR: Political and Legal Aspects Alex Shtromas, East European Quarterly, 19, September 1985, 289-304, Not available online. An examination of political and legal aspects of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal. Martintg 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Latvia: The Soviet occupation and incorporation Encyclopedia Britannica, [5]. Discusses Soviet occupation and annexation of Latvia. Martintg 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

scholarly sources, before and after 1991. Colchicum 10:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Taagepera, Rein (1986). Citizens' Peace Movement in the Soviet Baltic Republics. Journal of Peace Research 23 (2), 183-192.

Soon after, US President Ronald Reagan used a reception for Baltic Americans to comment on Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, stressing that the United States does not legally recognize the Soviet annexation of these states. (p. 189)

• Stevenson, John R. (1965) Case Notes. The American Journal of International Law 59 (3), 642-653.

On motions of the Consuls General of the Governments in exile of Latvia and Estonia (joined in by the Attorney General of the State of New York), the court stated that the Government of the United States had never recognized the forceful occupation of Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union or the absorption and incorporation of Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union. (p. 643)

• Saburova, Irina (1955) The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States. Russian Review 14.1, 36-49.
• Prazmowska, Anita J. (1992). Review of Between Churchill and Stalin: The Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the Origins of the Grand Alliance by Steven Merritt Miner. The English Historical Review 107.424, 769-770.

In particular he sees British willingness to condone the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states as a gesture which did little to improve Britain's negotiating position, but which encouraged Soviet expansionism. (p. 769)

• Lillich, Richard B. (1972). The Anglo-Soviet Claims Agreement of 1968. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 21 (1), 1-14.

Clearly, Great Britain's de facto recognition of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States carried with it no acceptance of the Soviet Union's claim that the Baltic nationalisation law had extraterritorial effects.

• Lewis B. E. (1977). Soviet Taboo. Review of Vtoraya Mirovaya Voina, History of the Second World War by B. Liddel Gart (Russian translation). Soviet Studies 29 (4), 603-606.

Stalin's occupation of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia (p. 143) and his designs on Romania and Bulgaria in 1940-41 (p. 145) are similarly deleted, along with quoted private opinion from the German side suggesting Russian willingness to join the Axis in order to extend its influence in this latter region. (p. 604)

• Page, Stanley W. (1960). Review of Soviet Policy toward the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1918-1940 by Albert N. Tarulis. The Journal of Modern History 32 (4), 411-412.

The final two-fifths of the book recounts the story of Soviet occupation of the Baltic States in terms of human experience and is by far the most arresting section. (p. 411)

Colchicum 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Time Magazine, Monday, Jul. 01, 1940 edition: Russia's Sphere. Russia was preoccupied with consolidating her own position to the east of Hitler's Europe. On the heels of her occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, those three countries set up left-wing Governments that looked like steppingstones to complete sovietization. Hotly Russia's official news agency Tass denied that her Baltic grab was aimed against Germany. Tass said only 18 or 20 divisions, not the 100 reported from London, had moved into the Baltic States. Germany took the occupation calmly. Germany's calm was doubtless real, since last year's deals gave Russia a free hand in the Baltic as well as Bessarabia. Martintg 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you include all these sources in the article "Occupation of Baltic states"? Note that some Russian sources also talk about occupation. There is no clear separation of sources as "Russians" versus "others" in this case, as is currently claimed in this aricle. Biophys 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I hadn't enough time. But Lewis 1977 is really interesting. It shows which pages of B. Liddel Hart's book were censored out by the Soviets.Colchicum 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

To reach WP:NPOV, I suggest that we make two new sections in the article one stating the debate on occupation and why some people believe the baltics were occupied and why some people believe that they were not because the belonged to Russia/U.S.S.R. Does that sound all right or is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard? I can't make heads or tails of the sources because although there are plenty supporting occupation there is also much discussion on why they were not. I'm only here to offer advice, not to make a decision on who's right or wrong. — Jac _roe^Blank 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On one of the talk pages I translated the Russian Wikipedia article on Latvia's occupation (contends there was none) which pretty much contains all the POV non-scholarly arguments that the Baltics were not occupied. (Which article by the way is marked POV.) Unfortunately, I can't use it for the occupations of Latvia or the Baltics since it's only a list of various ways people contend the Baltics were not occupied without actually providing any basis (citing particular events, circumstances). It's all "I say they couldn't be occupied because...", not "Reputable source XYZ presents an argument supporting the case that the Baltics (a) were never occupied/ (b) ceased to be occupied as of XYZ, etc." Have you seen even one source actually cited?

     I paraphrase: "Anything saying the Baltics were a part of the USSR proves they ceased to be occupied." OK, then let's see where that proposition is presented, analyzed, and supported in a reputable scholarly/academic source. Surely there must be at least one if the contention of "non-occupation" has any merit. (And please, let's not say since there was no occupation, there was nothing to write about, therefore there are no sources. Since there are plenty of sources that do say there was an occupation, the lack of sources contending specifically that there was no occupation certainly would imply that occupation did occur.)

     I have never opposed detailing the Russian position and its factual basis (or even manufactured contentions) in as much detail as people would like. It would be extremely useful to Wikipedia's readers. I've got higher priorities right now than writing an article in support of the opposition--the least they can do is to research and write it themselves if they feel so strongly, as opposed to tagging articles, forcing mediations and arbitrations, and through it all not citing one source in their support. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. So far, only citations have been Petri Krohn's here (encyclopedia does not mention occupation) and Petri Krohn's elsewhere regarding his interpretation of an EU statement which, in the end, did not say what he interpreted it to say (recognizing the Baltic SSRs as legitimate governments). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jac, looking at the result for your call for sources, we can see two things: many sources were provided that supports occupation, while in the refute case we are only given one questionable source and lots of debate. According to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So in the supporting case, it was fairly easy to to provide many sources, therefore this viewpoint must be in the majority. In the refuting case, it seems sources are more difficult to come by, but we can say that we can name prominent adherents: Putin and members of the Russian government for example, therefore this view point is held only by a significant minority. WP:UNDUE dictates that minority views should not be given as much coverage as the majority view, so therefore if we adapt your proposal to having just one section concerning Russia's refutation of occupation within the article (since the article is mostly reflecting the majority view anyway), this should be sufficient to provide balance and NPOV according to Wikipedia policies. Martintg 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Any source that says the Baltics belong to the USSR should be counted as a source excluding possibility of occupation at the same time.--Dojarca 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a source that backs your view that the act of belonging excludes the possibility of occupation? Martintg 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory.--Dojarca 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to [6] discussing occupation. What you cite (Hague and later humanitarian law on occupation) fully supports the view that the Soviet Union occupied the Baltics. That you interpret it to indicate the Baltics were not occupied is your own synthesis. Again, what reputable scholarship exists that indicates the Baltics were not occupied? One would expect something in the last 15 years. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you read? Occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory (regardless declared war or not). Any source stating the Baltics belong to the USSR excludes possibility of an occupation. Furthermore, occupation is the situation when the territory is placed under authority of hostile army. First. The Baltics were never placed under army's authority, and second Soviet army cannot be hostile to the Soviet republic (i.e. part of the Soviet Union).--Dojarca 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You argue that any source stating the Baltics belong to the USSR excludes possibility of the Baltics being a foreign territory. This is wrong. The only thing that a source stating the Baltics de jure belong to the USSR does is saying that according to this source there is no occupation at the moment it was written. It would only be a POV rather than the ultimate truth, concerning only a certain moment in history.Colchicum 11:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. It excludes the possibility of occupation in the view of this source. Another source claiming the Baltics do not belong to the USSR (i.e. occupied) has different POV.--Dojarca 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it would be more fruitful if you could write down a consistent and well-sourced Soviet POV here or on the talk page, and we will see what can be done with it and how it can be represented in the article. Nobody seems to object. Colchicum 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, I suggest to read WP:OR. Now let me make little analogy, some users believe that USSR counts as Axis co-belligrent in 1939(see here for details). They made exactly same point that USSR participation in Invasion of Poland fully fits in definition of Co-belligerence. If you use such methods for deciding that Baltic were not occupied then I assume you would also support for example adding USSR to Axis side at Template:World War II or moving USSR in Axis powers from Controversial cases section to co-belligrents section?--Staberinde 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Both definitions do not work here: that the USSR was an Axis power or the Baltics were under occupation until 1991, but both supported by voicy state-sponsored historians in the respective countries.--Dojarca 10:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re... "Can you read? Occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory (regardless declared war or not)... Furthermore, occupation is the situation when the territory is placed under authority of hostile army. First. The Baltics were never placed under army's authority, and second Soviet army cannot be hostile to the Soviet republic (i.e. part of the Soviet Union)"

• And the unprovoked Soviet invasion of the Baltics in 1940 by a hostile Red Army (and starting right where it left off when it reinvaded) would not fit "occupation" how? You have yet to cite any scholarly evidence that the Baltics were not "foreign" nations relative to the Soviet Union.

  After the incorporation in the USSR they are not "foreign" any more. And there are many sources for that the countries became part of the USSR.--Dojarca 10:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically, you have yet to to provide any scholarly evidence whatsoever that the Baltics in any legal way shape manner or form ever "belonged" to the Baltics. The Russian Duma proclaims the Baltics (resolution specified Latvia, but the intent regarding the Baltics was clear) joined legally according to international law. Let's see some reputable evidence. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  Open any pre-1991 encyclopedy, for example the cited above Finnish one.--Dojarca 10:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Anything that does not specifically discuss occupation and/or the legality of the Soviet presence in the Baltics is not a scholarly reference for or against occupation. It is your interpretation that the use of the words "belongs" and "part of" means "no occupation." Nor have you produced any scholarship that "part of" the Soviet Union precludes "occupation." Again, repeating myself again, just as you are repeating yourself, the Russian Duma has proclaimed the Baltics joined the USSR legally according to international law, ergo no occupation. Reputable sources? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Equating Nazism and Communism

This sounds resonable (the compromise proposed by User:Jacroe above), for an article on the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. The article however now also includes material on the Nazi German occupation. In its present state the article is an attempt to equate the Soviet Union and its policies with Nazi Germany and Nazism. Before anything can proceed, this Nazi material must be expunged from the article. -- Petri Krohn 09:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does the article equate the policies of Soviet Union with Nazi Germany? Should we also expunge Nazi references from the article Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact too because they shared similar policies in regard to non-aggression in their respective spheres of influence. You can't just expunge historical fact. Martintg 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the central themes to the history of the Baltics is their having been at the crossroads of power struggles between east and west: Sweden vs. Russia, Lithuania-Poland vs. Russia, Germany vs. Russia. Stalin's deal with Hitler is one in a long line of bids for supremacy over the Baltics--with devastating results for the Baltics yet again. The occupation of the Baltics is the story of how two--not just one or the other---genocidal maniacs--sometimes as allies, sometimes as enemies--ravaged the Baltics and their inhabitants. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The above comment addresses the question of "equating", it does not imply the story of the occupation ends with Hitler and Stalin. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article

Another problem is the scope of the article. It would be OK to have an article on the 1940 and 1944 events, call them annexation or occupation if you wish. The present article now claims to cover the period from 1940 to 1991, making it by definition a WP:POVFORK of Baltic Republics. -- Petri Krohn 09:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why, there are boat loads of sources that mention Soviet occupation lasting over 50 years, so it must be the majority view, or do you disagree with Jimbo Wales' criteria for assessing how widely a view is held? Martintg 10:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposition has been put forth in several places that occupation articles--particularly if an extended occupation--are POV forks of "History of..." articles. The article structure is:

• overall article (Baltics), discusses occupation in summary, points to more detailed article on occupation...
  • that is this, more detailed article (Baltics), still a summary article covering all 3 Baltic states, points to...
    • more detailed articles which deal with specifics of/in each country (still need both Soviet and Nazi together to not loose the thread/relationship of events); finally, as needed,..
      • even more detailed articles on specific aspects--Nazi occupation, Soviet occupation (first, second wartime, post-war), current Russian position, basis (scholarly) for occupation, etc.

At least that's how I see the organization. I don't see any needless forking in this structure. If we could stop spending time over whether the Baltics were occupied, we could arrange the information in a more coordinated/nested fashion than it appears now.

    If people just want to argue, then instead we'll just spend our time on pages such as these, again and again and yet again--with none of the non-ocupation contenders ever producing evidence for their position, except as we see here, "everything that states the Baltics belonged to the Soviet Union confirms there was no occupation"--well, according to whom, other than Wikipedia editor WP:OR?

    In a decade and a half since the collapse of the USSR there should be some reputable scholarship somewhere that examines the Russian position and documents its factual basis, if any. If there is not, and the majority (scholarly) opinion is 50 years of occupation (100% "occupation" so far), then we're done as far as that's concerned. We can always have an article on Soviet historiography of the occupation. I've said more than once such an article would be an invaluable addition. But it's quite another thing to insist that Soviet historiography, apparently slightly warmed over in today's Soviet-era-rehabilitating Russia, is true. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are historians who reject occupation, but you reject them for being Russian.--Dojarca 12:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the current Russian government and its lackeys, all I ask is for any scholarly source which backs up the contentions of the Russian authorities or the proclamations of the Duma. I hardly see that as rejecting a position because it is held by a Russian. You can do better than the I'm a Latvian rejecting all things Russian accusation. I enjoy my столични. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it can cover period from 1940 to 1991. But the discussion is too much about words ("occupation" versus "liberation"). After all, occupation might be a good thing (such as occupation of Nazi Germany). The real question is what the occupiers did with the country. Did they conduct "mersiless mass terror"? Did they try to establish democracy? So, I would recommend to focus on the real deads of "occupiers", whoever they are, Soviet, US, or Chinese.Biophys 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of interesting things to discuss in greater detail, later mass deportations, the purges which descended when nationalism reared its head, the installation of people as "leaders" who had the right sounding name but were actually somewhere from the depths of Russia, having escaped Stalin's purges, and not speaking a single word of their supposedly "native" language... even the portrayal of events in Soviet historiography (and an analysis using scholarly sources and the facts to show where that historiography is false)... but alas, we are all stuck in the "occupation = POV" quagmire yet again, and still not a single reputable source for the "non-occupation."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice Biophys. Using your logic we could create articles than like "Occupation of Iraq by the United States", "Occupation of Afganistan by the United States", because so far there are no democratic states there. Right? "Occupation" is a legal term and there it should be used not by the authority of some people opinions cited but by the legal ground. Please, present the legal ground for calling it "Occupation od Baltic States". And you could use only international law that existed up to 1945 year if it concerns Baltic States. This is your task if you want to call it occupation. Vlad fedorov 03:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• The USSR broke a considerable number of treaties, including its going out of its way to sign a specific ratification of a Protocol (in 1929) between itself and the Baltics affirming the Kellogg Pact (1928). Perhaps this is yet another area you might consider getting to know the subject matter first. There is no shortage of references discussing the legal basis for characterizing the Soviet presence in the Baltics as an occupation. There does seem to be a shortage of references discussing the manner in which the Baltics came to be incorporated into the Soviet Union in a manner which was "legal under international law", hence no occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Vecrumba makes me laugh more and more. Soviets never were not signatories to Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928). Moreover, until the end of 1930-ies Soviet Russia wasn't generally recognized as a state by Western countries. I don't care for biased propaganda statements claiming "occupation" because we have vast number of sources stating directly the opposite - say any Soviet school textbook of history. Vlad fedorov 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically, the Soviet Union signed agreements between itself and its neighbors recognizing the terms of the Pact. Britain recognized Bolshevist Russia in 1922 I believe. Your ability to ignore facts seems boundless. So your tactic now is to say that people who have the facts are making you "laugh" and you're entertaining yourself by endlessly editing the article to change titles and push your unsourced and unfactual POV? At this point, even if there were some valid point somewhere in all your contentions, it's lost in your contention that Soviet schoolbooks are valid characterizations of history. "Schoolbooks" from a regime which stated that "history serves politics."
• Thank you for confirming that your ONLY PURPOSE HERE IS TO PUSH THE SOVIET VERSION OF HISTORY. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I added a section listing all the treaties in effect between the USSR and the Baltics prior to 1940. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Since you asked for 1945, I added those as well, so we have all treaties prior to the Soviet invasion of 1940 and then through to 1945 (so including Yalta, et al.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. the discussion is not about occupation vs liberation as occupation is a legal term while liberation is not.--Dojarca 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia, not a court room. It is only important how this term was applied in scholarly sources that we cite in the article.Biophys 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course one could create an article "Occupation of Iraq by the United States". Please see Occupation of Iraq and List of military occupations. Biophys 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term occupation

Please do not break my arguments, do not "spam" them. Vlad fedorov 04:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that the term "occupation" is a legal term and could be used appropriately only within boundaries of international law. The current use of this term in the article itself is illiterate (at least contraversial), because term "occupation" refers to illegal (unlawful) and involuntary (violent) taking hold of the territory of another state. Here in case which concerns Baltics we have treaties made between Baltic States and Soviet Union according to which Baltic States agreed that military units of the Soviet Union should be placed on the territory of Baltic States. However Baltic States in their aspiration of cooperation with Nazi germany violated these treaties. Moreover during prewar time Baltic States (in particular Lithuania) were dictatorships (in Lithuania dictator was - Antanas Smetonas). On July 1940 Soviet Republic of Lithuania was proclaimed by Lithuanians who desired to get rid of dictatorship. Therefore entrance of Soviet troops before dictatorship overthrow - was legal - according to the treaty. And entry of Soviet troops after dictatorship overthrow and joining the Soviet Union was also legal.

By the way, the authors, who tend to the POV of Soviet occupation illiterately use term occupation of Poland by Soviet Union. They pretend "to be unaware" that in 1921 Poland occupied territories of Western Belarus, Western Lithuania and Western Ukraine. The ownership of these territories by Poland itself was illegal throughout all this time. Poland has created concentration camps like Biaroza-Kartuzska Detention Camp Bereza Kartuska on the territory of Western Belarus to oppress Belarusian population. Thanks to Mr. Piotrus and his friends (who is and are Poles, unsurprisingly) the article currently names this concentration camp as the detention camp. Poland had introduced the regime of "sanation" on the territores of Western Belarus which continued up to liberation of Western Belarus by Soviet troops. Considering that in 1939 Belarus was already Soviet, one cannot name it occupation, but only as liberation.

I have to mention that no one had forced Baltic States into making the treaties with Soviet Union. Please present the evidence. Because Lithuania in return for signing the treaty received its western territories and its now capital city of Vilnus. Before that, Vilnus was actually Belarusian town, not Lithuanian. If Lithuanians dispute treaties and claim occupation, the next logical step is the return by Lithuania of its Western territories and Vilnus to Belarus. To my astonishment, all articles on Baltic states shamefully hide the facts of territorial gains due to Soviet Union by Baltic States.

I, even don't mention that modern Lithuania uses old Belarusian coat of arms (Pursuit - pagonya) which is not Lithuanian. The old Lithuanian (or Zhemoitia - its old name) coat of arms is the bear on the shield, and not knight pursuit. Why nobody mentioned that fact in English Wikipedia? Why nobody mentioned the fact that after Lithuania received Vilnus from Soviet Union all Poles and Belarusian were expelled by Lithuanians from the city. It is could be clearly traced by using Polish and Belarusian metrics. So, if Soviet Union is occupation, than current holding of Vilnus and Western territories by Lithuania is occupation also.

Therefore, article needs expand on:

1. ) Creation of Soviet republics on the territories of Baltic States - to clarify and inform about how they were formed and created.
2. ) Territorial gains that were received by Baltic States from the Soviet Union.
3. ) Treaties made between Baltic States and Soviet Union and violation of these treaties by Baltic States.
4. ) Fact that during WW II Baltic States were Nazi allies and cooperated with Germany.
5. ) Clear indication that the term "occupation" is used only in political context by modern Baltic States historians. There are no legal grounds - or cite the legal grounds otherwise. Opinion of people is good, but we need to show exact international law norm that was violated by the Soviet Union. I have seen a lot of disputes in this article, but so far I haven't seen any norm cited by "occupation" POV supporters in support of their claim. Vlad fedorov 03:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to mention one interesting fact about "occupation". All Baltic States were ruled by Baltics nationals since and before 1945, when they were Soviet or non-Soviet. No one Russian national had ever had ruled Baltic States. When you have occupation there must be a foreign ruler. Vlad fedorov 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• And I suppose the "French government" installed under Hitler meant Hitler never occupied France. Please, let's have a serious discussion, not more blatant WP:OR. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• And yet again another attempt to equate Russia with Nazi Germany. Please, Vecrumba, tell us had France received from Nazi Germany Paris and all its Eastern territories? Please, remember, that Lithuania had got in exchange all its Western Lithuania and Vilnus from "bloody tyrannic Russia"!!!! I guess you are not going to answer me directly. Vlad fedorov 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's becoming more interesting, again and again. Isn't it you who wrote "The president of Lithuania, Antanas Smetona, proposes armed resistance but as he doesn't get support from government or armed forces, he decides to leave the country so that he could not be used to legalise the occupation". It is evident that the whole article is unssupported by sources blatant Original Research filled with emotions and hiding some interesting facts of territorial gains by Baltics, expell of Belarusians and Poles from Vilnus, subsequent falsifications of population metrics and etc. This is not only issue between Baltics and Russia, this is also issue between Baltics and Poland, between Baltics and Belarus.Vlad fedorov

Yeah, intriguing point. I wonder why no international law specialist has ever taken into account this very serious objection. Indeed, native Norwegian Quisling also 'led' Norway, just like Emil Hacha 'ruled' the Bohemian province, which 'belonged to' Greater Germany... E.J. 07:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that neither Norway, nor Czechoslovakia hadn't received its modern capital cities from Nazist Germany in exchange and that your cases do not correspond to the real situation that was in Baltic then. The question is whether the overthrow of dictatorship regime in Lithuania by proclaiming Soviet republic really equates to Quisling or Emil Hacha cases? Had these people overthrown dictatorships in their respective countries? Your argument therefore is senseless. It's like "and you are lynching Negroes". And by the way, does Germany really occupied Norway? As far as I heard some ABBA members were raised in Norway by Nazis implementing their Nordic race program? Vlad fedorov 09:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia, not a court room. It is only important how this term was applied in scholarly sources that we cite in the article. Please also see Occupation of Iraq and List of military occupations to consult with common practice of using this term in wikipedia.Biophys 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Should you have read this article at all, Biophys, you would notice that now this article is titled Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present. Vlad fedorov 02:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only first part of this article called "occupation" See [7] Biophys 03:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you are wrong!!! It's called "military occupation" which is different from plain "occupation". Biophys, you couldn't just write plain without misrepresentations. Now could you tell me that Iraq has got some territorial gains from that, like Lithuanis gaining Vilnus and whole Western Territories? Vlad fedorov 03:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Violated treaties? Molotov's ultimatums were nothing but lies and there was one half-truth in there somewhere. Stalin trades on the Baltics with Hitler. Latvia discusses repatriation of Germans (Hitler knows the Soviets are coming), and because Latvia had contact with Hitler they violated the treaty? Your knowledge of Soviet historiography is superb, at least. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalin wasn't trading with Baltics. Stalin did exactly what was written in Pact - divided spheres of influence, please drop writing your propaganda, not supported by sources. The main thing is that Baltics states signed these treaties in exchange for territorial gains, namely Western Lithuania and Vilnus, which were forcibly and illegaly taken from Belarus and Poland. Vlad fedorov 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

??? Stalin and Hitler traded back and forth on the Baltics, Stalin "got" all three from Hitler. Nothing about Stalin then doing exactly what it says in the pact makes it legal, that's an idiotic contention. What "unsourced propaganda" is it that I am saying? What treaties signed for "territorial gain?"? And why are the Baltics purchasing arms for their armed forces a violation of any treaty they signed with the USSR? (contended elsewhere on this page) You're just spewing.

(It's just as well I'll be out of town for a couple of weeks--maybe by then you'll have found some reputable source regarding something, anything.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please be civil and cool. I am not "spitting". You forgot also Yalta conference where Churchill and Roosvelt acknowledged Russia's rights on Baltics. I understand your need to equate Stalin and Hitler, but then you should also equate to Hitler both Churchill and Roosvelt. You phrase "traded back and forth" only shows that you are presenting here your emotions, but not sources. Vlad fedorov 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Only the Baltics are being discussed here, as they were the only territories invaded and compeltely subjugated by Stalin while he was buddies with Hitler. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Baltics were coerced. Stalin told the Latvian prime minister to his face that as far as Hitler was concerned, he, Stalin, could invade tomorrow. When Finland refused the same "offer," they were invaded. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vecrumba. You don't understand one simple thing. All coerced treates are invalid and void accroding to customary international law. And if these treaties are void, then, at least Lithuania should return Vilnus and Western Lithuania to Belarus. Vlad fedorov 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Baltics violated no treaties, were not Nazi allies, etc. etc. etc. I congratulate you again, on your command of Soviet historiography. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, and receiving of military planes from France, military subsidies from France wasn't a violation of these treaties? Okey-dokey... Your bias is understood. However, isn't it Lithuanians who boast by their military airplanes that were more advanced than Russian ones? You mean Lithuanins build them themselves? Do you have today any plants where airplanes (any) are produced? Vlad fedorov 03:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate you on your command of nationalist Lithuanis history. By the way, when you would return Vilnus and Western territories to Belarus and when you would acknowledge that your current coat of arms was actually taken from ancient belarus symbolics? Vlad fedorov 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I see you have reformed yourself. That's good. But Pēters is Latvian, not Lithuanian. Yes, well, who cares, right? But would you be so kind to tell us about territorial gains of Latvia and Estonia during the WWII? Maybe Abrene, Jaanilinn and Petseri? Colchicum 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Colchicum for compliment. However, I don't need to seek further for other Baltic states. We have the fact of Lithuania territorial gains of Vilnus, Vilnus region, Klaipeda and Klaipeda region. As the article is named "Occupation of Baltic states", then my argument shows that this article should be renamed at least and broken into three different articles, because the story was different for each of the three Baltic States and bandwagon Baltic nationalist propoganda unsupported by the historic sources has to be broken into three different articles. However I would check the story with Estonia and Latvia. Vlad fedorov 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine has put online all of their historical issues. For those who think the term "occupation" is unsupported Baltic nationalist propoganda, read this article from the Monday, Jul. 01, 1940 edition: Russia's Sphere. Russia was preoccupied with consolidating her own position to the east of Hitler's Europe. On the heels of her occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, those three countries set up left-wing Governments that looked like steppingstones to complete sovietization. Hotly Russia's official news agency Tass denied that her Baltic grab was aimed against Germany. Tass said only 18 or 20 divisions, not the 100 reported from London, had moved into the Baltic States. Germany took the occupation calmly. Germany's calm was doubtless real, since last year's deals gave Russia a free hand in the Baltic as well as Bessarabia. [8] Martintg 00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The main thing is that Baltics states signed these treaties in exchange for territorial gains, ROFL. I haven't got so good laugh in wiki for a long time.--Staberinde 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)