Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Notice to new editors

PLEASE REVIEW THE ARCHIVES IF YOU ARE VISITING THIS TOPIC FOR THE FIRST TIME. MOST BASIC QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS STATEMENTS OF POSITION BY WESTERN, BALTIC, AND OFFICIAL RUSSIAN SOURCES HAVE BEEN COVERED THERE.

Occupation — Annexation

While looking at the vocabulary of European Parliament or the US Congress or the Russian Duma may in some ways be useful, at the end of the day these institutions are political institutions and their declarations are political in nature and are to some degree influenced by pragmatic political considerations for both international and domestic consumption.

What we should be doing is to look at what the scholars are saying in peer reviewed publications. The problem with Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states (and this all has be argued before by others) is that generally the act of annexation is seen as the end point of occupation, and thus limit the scope of the article to the period of 1939—40. The most cursory glance at the scholarly literature will show that is not the case, the literature argues that the annexation was illegal, therefore occupation continued beyond 1944. --Martin (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want to keep this title, POV title tag stays, it is as simple as that. There is a simple counter-argument to your point here. What you and the "scholarly literature" argue with regard to occupation and annexation can be easily discussed in a neutral and non-partisan way in an article named "occupation and annexation...". At the same time the opposite POV can not be discussed in any reasonable and meaningful way in an article with such a biased title. Thus the current title is POV and will remain POV, for you did not provide a single argument to the contrary. (Igny (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Your argument has no rational basis. The official political position of the Russian government was that the Baltic states were not annexed, so I am unsure how adding "annexation" to the title makes it less "biased" in your view. You still haven't brought any specific academic source to the table to back your contention, while I and others have brought plenty of specific cites in support. --Martin (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view comes first in Wikipedia, so let's get it straight first. How about, for a fresh start, we cast aside all government-related statements and get an agreement between the two sides on which sources we both regard as apolitical reliable neutral ones? My opening would be D.A. Loeber (2001) "Forced incorporation: International Law Aspects of the Soviet Takeover of Latvia in 1940" in R. Clark, F. Feldbrugge, S. Pomorski (eds) International and National Law in Russia and Eastern Europe as peer-reviewed by a team of leading legal specialists from the Russian Federation, North America, and Western Europe, and Lauri Mälksoo (2003) Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR as peer-reviewed by the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights. Can anyone put forward a solid source arguing against these works? Otherwise we should advance by examining the usage of terms in the works, and adjust the article accordingly. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do these works, in detail:

1. cover all treaties (bilateral, conventions, etc.) which all were party to?
2. review the subject matter with regard to the constitutions of the Baltic states?
3. document and consider the circumstances of the "election" of the parliaments which supposedly expressed popular opinion when they requested incorporation with the USSR; additionally, with respect to #2 above, were the parliaments authorized under the constitution to request such incorporation regardless of the circumstances under which they came to power?

The issue I have seen is where sources discuss theories of international law and apply them to acts of occupation and then apply a general conclusion they have made to the Baltic states without fully considering the details of the Baltic situation. I should mention I did read excerpts of Mälksoo's work a long time ago, unfortunately, I have to apologize that I've forgotten it at this point. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of D.A. Loeber's work and Google book preview is incomplete, so it would be difficult to fully examine it. However I do have a copy of Mälksoo's book (cost me nearly $200). From what I can tell of the former, it appears to be an essay, while the latter was based on a PhD dissertation that Mälksoo defended so it would have been thoroughly peer reviewed as the original dissertation and the subsequent expanded book. So I'm fine with using Mälksoo's book. I also have a copy of Krystyna Marek's book "Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law" which has a thorough treatment of the election process and their legality. --Martin (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

From page 193 of Mälksoo's book: "Not withstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title. The prolonged Soviet occupation of the Baltic States was an unorthodox occupation sui generis, an Annexionsbesetsung (annexation occupation). Until 1991, the Baltic situation resembled in important ways the classical situation of 'occupation': external control by a force whose presence was not sanctioned by international law, and the conflict of interest between the inhabitants and those exercising power over them". --Martin (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On page 195, in the final paragraph Mälksoo concludes: "Altogether, it is submitted that in the context of the illegal annexation of the Baltic states, occupation theory must be confirmed in principle. However, it must be qualified realistically. Despite the fact of annexation, the presence of the USSR in the Baltic states remained, until restoration of the independence of the Baltic states an occupation sui generis under international law". --Martin (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The key point in here is that the occupation is only considered in "in the context of the illegal annexation". The title of this article however, fails miserably in this regard. (Igny (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Non sequitur. What Mälksoo is saying is that the occupation theory is confirmed because the annexation in 1940 was illegal. Annexation is a single event which would normally end occupation, but since this annexation was illegal, then occupation continues. --Martin (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and those are very fine points to discuss in an article named "occupation and annexation...", things such as legality of the annexation and other some such. (Igny (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Guys, I have a feeling that we already discussed that issue before (including the term "occupation sui generis"). Try to read, e.g., this [1]. As I already pointed out before, the Baltic states' issue is very complex, so every attempt to describe it in few words (e.g. "occupation") create just visibility of truth. If it was an occupation, then why these territories and its population had the same legal status as other part of the USSR? If these states were annexed, why that fact was not recognised by several leading Western states, and how this annexation is consistent with the treaties between the USSR and pre-war Baltic states? If the annexation was illegal, why many states did recognise that? These questions, as well as many others cannot be answered unequivocally, so the truth lies somewhere in the middle: annexation sui generi, illegal annexation, annexation, occupation, all of that do not reflect the situation absoluteky correctly. IMO, in that situation "occupation and annexation" would be the most optimal and least POV-charged title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the archive, "annexation" is a discrete event while "occupation" is a state that exists for a period of time. Usually that period of "occupation" ends when the event of annexation has been recognised has having legally occurred. I'm still waiting for Igny to explain how adding the term "annexation" makes the title more neutral, given that official Russia denies annexation ever took place. --Martin (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange. Noone is denying annexation took place, even Vecrumba agreed with me above, and now your argument is... ummm what exactly? (Igny (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, well, "illegal annexation," and such illegal annexation does not terminate "occupation."

Annexation in the case of countries is defined as (usually) being without the consent of the country being incorporated. The Soviet position, in terms of the word I have seen most, translates as "joined" = acts by and emanating from the Baltic states and not "annexation," that is, not a coercive act by the USSR.

@Paul, "same status" as other republics is a red herring. There were not "many" states that recognized the annexations as de jure, quite frankly, most were Warsaw pact members. International law is quite clear on the illegality of Soviet actions in the Baltics; indeed, the case of the Baltics is precedent-setting in international law. There is no "complexity" here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but, according to Malksoo, only three states didn't recognised annexation neither de jure nor de facto: the USA, Vatican and Ireland. 26 states, including Yugoslavia and China didn't recognise annexation de jure, but recognised it de facto. Such Soviet bloc states as Sweden, Holland, New Zealand and Spain did recognise annexation both de jure and de facto, whereas Finland and some other states had no position on that account at all.
Re red herring, please, specify what was the difference between the status of Estonia and, e.g., Moldavia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's curious. According to Legal continuity of the Baltic states, "Sweden ... had never taken a formal position on the recognition of the annexation until 1989 ... in 1989 Sweden declared that it had not recognised the annexation of the Baltic States to the USSR as de-jure." Also, Spain "maintained semi official diplomatic relations, had no diplomatic relations with USSR until 1977. Neither de jure nor de facto recognition accorded." There is also no mention of the Netherlands under the "recognition" column, and I don't know why a NATO country would recognise the occupations. The quoted statements are sourced, though I personally lack the texts they come from, so I can't cross-check, but I'm scratching my head as to where you pulled your facts from, Pavel. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we not go off on a tangent. Can yourself or Igny explain to me why the addition of the term "annexation" makes the title more neutral when official Russia disputes that there was never any annexation at all. Igny claims above "Noone is denying annexation took place", but that is exactly what the Russian foreign ministry has done. They are not claiming annexation was legal, they are claiming no annexation took place at all. --Martin (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The most neutral wording of this article's title would be History of the Baltic states, History of the Baltic states (1939–1991) or History of the Baltic states (1940–1989) or similar, since we all know that about half of the history consisted of occupation and annexation. Lettonica (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be to general for the article discussing the activities of two foreign superpowers in the region. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have read in Finnish sources, Estonia just seezed to exist in summer 1940. Finnish historiography use a term (illegal) annexation. A term occupation is not used events after summer 1940 (except German occupation). Peltimikko (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know to what degree self-censorship may have played a role in Finnish historiography? In Sweden there were published sources like the one by Olof Bergstrom, Gerd Elmerskog and Åke Finnpers titled Ockupationen av Baltikum 40 år (40 Years of Baltic Occupation) in 1980.--Martin (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Paul and Peltimikko: Our common aim should be to distance the discussion from the practice of individual countries towards a NPOV.

Re: Igny Noone is denying annexation took place, even Vecrumba agreed with me above, and now your argument is... ummm what exactly? These are all fine points. Indeed, noone is denying that. And the point of excluding the term annexation from the title is not entirely clear to me from the mass of arguments that has went down along the years. Perhaps it is WP:COMMONNAME?

Anyway, I have now gone through Mälksoo's book and he is actually much more certain about the occupation of the Baltic States than has been presented on these talk pages. Here are the relevant passages: [However, not every annexation could legally terminate a regime of occupation. Pursuant to the underlying concept of the Hague Regulations, premature annexations, i.e. annexations carried out durante bello, were considered illegal and without the desired international legal effects.] He continues in the chapter titled: Conclusions: International rules binding the USSR during its occupation (illegal annexation) of the Baltic States: "If the prolongued application of the Hague or Geneva law of occupation would be challenged in the Baltic case, this would be so for other reasons - such as the very fact of the annexation (as opposed to 'mere' occupation without the animus to annex), or the extraordinary duration of illegal rule..." and "From the constructivist perspective, however, two issues must be distinguished: the question whether the legal status of the USSR in the Baltic States was that of the occupier; and the question which international standard should be used to evaluate Soviet policies. The first question is easier to answer than the second. Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States in 1940 lacked any ground in international law, and a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval of Soviet conquest, the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminetated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991. Notwithstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One point- I am not quite sure how adding 'annexation' makes the title any more neutral. But let's not lose sight of the fact that this article also covers the German occupation as well. As far as I know, there was no 'annexation' there, so the use of the word in the title of the article would be a bit inconsistent with the material presented, or? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:I am not quite sure how adding 'annexation' makes the title any more neutral. Good question. If Mälksoo says it is "correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation'" then why cannot we use this as the title? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: "History of..." as a title, we already had an entire mountain of discussion of that some years ago, that is a much larger topic; indeed, it would POV to make that the title of this article as it would imply that the entire history of the period of occupation was only about the occupation and nothing else of significance occurred during all that time. And we already have the Latvian SSR article for "History of..." for the period of Soviet occupation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Lothar, actually, you are correct, under Nazi Germany the Baltics were administered territories, however, not formally annexed to Germany. My use of "annex" with regard to Germany was not technically correct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That is yet another a good argument in favor to split the article into Occupation and annexation of Baltic states by Soviet Union and Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany, or some such. (Igny (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Not really, as it loses all continuity, the Estonians fighting German and Soviet troops on two fronts, etc. The whole point of one article is that the Baltics were continuously occupied (aside from fleeting glimmers of hope). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources which discuss continuity of the occupation without mentioning annexation? The scholarly claims of the lasting and continuous occupation are either discussed in context of annexation and lack of its de-jure recognition by the Western states. The only cases of "continuous occupation" claims outside the context of annexation I have seen were merely political opinions of various commentators and "personal contentions" of certain WP editors. (Igny (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

Keep it simple

Put another way, with regard to the actions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany regarding Baltic territory, I see no reason to complicate the current title, "Occupation of the Baltic states." There is no added value to expanding the title to include things associated with either Nazi or Soviet occupation and therefore no need to expand the title. This entire controversy over what the article should really be named is a red herring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The current title is biased, so keeping it along with the POV-title tag is by no means "simple". Unless you think that adding a single word to the title and removing the tag is actually more complicated than having a shorter title with the POV-title tag.(Igny (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

You keep stating the current title is biased, but you haven't explained how the addition of the word "annexation" makes the title less biased when official Russia claims the Soviet Union did not annex the Baltic state. Consensus is not unanimity, if your don't offer arguments and specific sources, and avoid answering questions, other participants may come to believe your application of the POV tag is disruptive. --Martin (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, if "occupation" is POV (that is, not so nice with regard to the Soviet Union), then "annexation"—an act without the consent of the party being annexed—is more POV (even less nice with regard to the Soviet Union) as the Baltic states and reputable scholarship say "illegally annexed" and the Soviet/Russian version is the Baltic states "joined" of their own volition. There's also the problem that Germany did not annex the Baltic states during its occupation of same. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Martin, and Vecrumba's even more POV. It has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that annexation is a neutral term (used and acknowledged by every party involved!) and its use in the title opens a debate with regard to its legality. On the other hand the (lasting) occupation is not a neutral term as it presents one POV as a historical fact, which it is not, and its exclusive use in the title prevents any reasonable discussion with the opposing views. (Igny (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

What opposing viewpoint? We have Russian scholars like Professor and Dean of the School of International Relations at St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Konstantin K. Khudoley who characterises it as an occupation[2]:

"When, in autumn 1939, the Soviet Union forced the Baltic governments to sign the Treaties on Bases that allowed Soviet troops onto their territories, Stalin announced that he did not intend to establish Soviet rule in the Baltic states. In reality, he was simply biding his time. By June 1940, the time was ripe. The great powers, shocked by Germany's defeat of France, had their attention focused on Western Europe. No one was able to oppose Soviet policy towards the Baltic states. It is likely that Stalin wanted to occupy the Baltic states and Bessarabia (including Bucovina, which was not mentioned in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) as quickly as possible. It is assumed that he was afraid of the rising power of Germany (nobody in Moscow expected France to fall so quickly) and the possibility that Germany might renegotiate the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact in its favour.

On 15-16 June 1940, the Soviet Union demanded that more of its troops be allowed onto the territories of the Baltic states and that the governments of the three countries be changed. This demand was met, and power over domestic affairs duly transferred to Soviet emissaries Andrey Zhdanov (Estonia), Audrey Vyshinskiy (Latvia) and Vladimir Dekanozov (Lithuania). New elections were quickly organised according to the 'one candidate-one seat' system. Opposition forces could not participate. The elections were neither free nor fair, and thus the decisions of the newly elected parliaments to join the Soviet Union cannot be considered legitimate. These decisions were not approved by the upper chambers of the parliaments of the Baltic states, even though such approval was required by the countries' constitutions. These decisions were nothing more than evidence of Soviet dictatorship.

In seeking to justify the occupation of the Baltic states, Soviet and many Russian historians have utilised the argument of military advisability, which was presented during Second World War by Stalin to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Yet the occupation of the Baltic states made the Soviet Union neither weaker nor stronger in the face of possible German aggression. The occupation bolstered anti-Soviet public opinion in the USA and United Kingdom - potential Soviet allies in case of German aggression — as well as engendering resistance in the Baltic states themselves. Nationalisation of industry and services, imposition of communist dogmas in cultural life, declining living standards and, most especially, mass deportations all created a backdrop for mass hatred of the Soviet Union, and led some circles to express sympathy for Germany and the Nazi regime. The subsequent guerrilla movement in the Baltic republics after the Second World War created domestic problems for the Soviet Union, using up already limited military and economic resources during the 1940s and 1950s."

The only opposing viewpoint is a political viewpoint of the Russian government that claims the Soviet Union did not annex the Baltic states. On the other side we have scholars, including Russian, who agree that occupation occurred. You are asking us to give equal weight to the opinion of politicians to that of international scholars. That is not how NPOV works. --Martin (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote, majority of sources agree that occupation did take place (although Google scholar gives 3,410 results for ""Baltic states" Soviet annexation -occupation" [3], and 10,600 results for ""Baltic states" Soviet occupation -annexation" [4], so the majority is not overwhelming). The point is, however, that, whereas Germany treated the Baltic states as subordinated territories and didn't annex it, the USSR considered the Baltic states as a part of the USSR, and did annex them, thereby granting to them the status identical to all other Soviet republics. In the latter case annexation did take place, although legality of this act was not recognised by majority of foreign states. Therefore, it is simply incorrect to use the same terminology for the periods of German and Soviet dominance in the Baltics. Therefore, if we want to combine both these two periods in one article, the title should be more generic, something like "Baltic states under foreign dominance".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is purely OR. Can you show a source that argues that way? Are you actually questioning Dr. Mälksoo's works where he explicitly concludes illegal annexation => occupation of the Baltic States? Not everything different must be called with a different name. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What concretely is OR? Please, note, that no reliable sources exist that explicitly explain what should be and what should not be written in Wikipedia, or which title is the most neutral, so to use a good search engine to decide what term is the most neutral by no means can constitute OR, because I do not add any statements that are not explicitly present in the sources, but discuss the most neutral article's title.

Re Mälksoo, the very fact that such a detailed and comprehensive monograph has been devoted to this issue serves as an indication that the issue is non-trivial and very complex. And, by the way, his work was focused on the issue of continuity of the Baltic states, not on terminology, which played an optional role in his work; his point was that since the annexation was illegal (mostly due to contradiction of that step to the treaties signed by young USSR with the Baltic states on the eve of their existence, not to those times' international laws), and since it had some traits of occupation ("occupation sui generis"), we can speak about state continuity. However, Mälksoo uses the term "annexation" in his monograph more frequently than "occupation" (sometimes as "occupation and annexation", i.e. "occupation with subsequent annexation"). Therefore it would be OR to omit the term "annexation", since this, as well as many other sources use it very extensively.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as the German occupation is included together with the Soviet ones (which it should be, for continuity's sake), it is simply incorrect to use the term "annexation" in the title. If we wish to discuss a completely new title, that is one thing, but "annexation" should not be part of the title of the article as it stands. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You probably noticed that my proposal was that the title should be more general to embrace these two different events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. You believe occupation and annexation are two discrete events. However in the context of the title, "occupation" is a state or period of control. The term "annexation" is an act or an instance of annexing. The juxtaposition of the term "annexation" in the title changes the context of the term "occupation" and its meaning becomes an act or an instance of occupying rather than as a state or period of control. --Martin (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as I already wrote, the word "annexation" in the title of the article dealing, among other events, with German occupation is misleading, and in that sense I agree with Lothar von Richthofen. However, you must remember that annexation terminates occupation, because, whereas the state of military occupation implies that the occupied territory is under the rule of martial laws (and the status is regulated by Hague conventions), the annexation changes the status of the territory, and from this moment on this territory is being administered not by military authorities, but by civilian authorities. Since no military administration existed in the annexed Baltic states, since the population was treated as Soviet citizens, and the life was regulated by ordinary Soviet laws, this state could not be described as "occupation". These territories were illegally annexed, and, to reflect this fact Mälksoo coined the term "occupation sui generis", which obviously is something different than just "occupation".

In any event, since I do not propose to add the word "annexation" in the title, let's stop these unneeded debates. My proposal is to develop more general title, and I propose "Baltic states under foreign dominance" as a starting point. Do you have any comments on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that advances the view "Since no military administration existed in the annexed Baltic states, since the population was treated as Soviet citizens, and the life was regulated by ordinary Soviet laws, this state could not be described as "occupation""? Because the only published view found so far, that of Russian politicians, is that no annexation took place at all. So arguing that in the case of the Baltic states "annexation" ended occupation is not an argument supported by the Russian government. --Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An opinion of Russian politicians (as well as of any others) is a primary source. As a rule, we deal with secondary sources. These sources clearly tell that these states (more correctly, their territories) were annexed, although legality of this step is disputable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We've been through all this numerous times before, occupation takes place when the rightful sovereign authorities are prevented from exercising authority, that authority being usurped by the occupying power. "Military" is a red herring. All three Baltic states took action to vest their sovereign authority in exile; all such holders of sovereign authority formally transferred that authority back to local Baltic authorities upon dissolution of the USSR. Occupation only ends when full and free exercise of sovereignty is returned to the rightful authorities. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In English, "occupation" refers to several different terms, however, its only meaning that is relevant in our case is the Webster's #3 [5]:

• a  : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : seizure;
• b  : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force
• c  : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it.

In other words, whereas the "a" contains no reference to usurpation (in that sence, the Estonians, as well as all other people, occupy the land they live in), both "b" and "c" contain a direct reference to the military force.

With regard to "red herring", let me point your attention at the fact that, whereas I generally considered the former members of some notorious list as my opponents, I sympatised them, because they, as a rule are able to conduct a discussion politely, are prone to arguments and frequently put forward quite reasonable arguments. You probably noticed that during last year I tried not to edit the most sensitive articles having a relation to the Eastern European issues, and I never supported any administrative action having a connection to the members of this list. I would like to preserve my generally good impression about you and your colleagues. Please, do not disappoint me. Try to be civil, please. (This is not a warning, by the way).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your edit summary (" Paul your contention of annex terminates occupation is your personal contention not grounded in international law"), have you read Mälksoo's monograph? Unfortunately, I have only Russian and Estonian translations, not English original, however, if you want I can e-mail the pdf to you. I also strongly advise you to read the archive (you can find the link in this section); among others arguments, it contains a quote from the David M. Edelstein's article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" (International Security, Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91. doi:10.1162/0162288041762913, MIT press), which I re-reproduce below:

"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state’s homeland. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission. Although colonial powers may insist that they are on a civilizng mission to foster the eventual independence of a colonized territory, they are frequently willing to stay indeanitely to achieve these goals. This distinction is what makes successful occupation so difficult: in an occupation, both sides—the occupying power and the occupied population—feel pressure to end an occupation quickly, but creating enough stability for the occupation to end is a great challenge. Occupations are also distinct from short-term interventions in which the occupying power exerts little political control over the territory in which it has intervened."

----Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My short response is that there are many things we can personally contend apply to the situation of the Baltic states. That is all WP:SYNTHESIS. I've already had extensive debates with Vlad Fedorov about that issue whenever he started quoting extended passages from reputable sources on international law. Unless a source specifically discusses the Baltic states, it is not applicable because of their unique historical situation, as numerous sources which do deal with them, specifically, point out. As for your side comment on civility, I'm not aware of anything in our past debates to indicate we can't stay on topic, and I appreciate your restraint while were unable to debate EE topics. (But how I took it...) Try to not accuse me again. Not commenting on my civility would have been not an accusation. Enough said. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re SYNTH. Your statement was quite unequivocal: "...occupation takes place when the rightful sovereign authorities are prevented from exercising authority, that authority being usurped by the occupying power. "Military" is a red herring." You have to concede that nothing in this statement suggested that we discussed the Baltic states specifically: this statement, as well as your edit summary, was about occupation in general, therefore it would be quite logical to provide the refs to general reliable sources. With regard to your Unless a source specifically discusses the Baltic states, let me remind you, that, although I fully agree that this case is very complex, no specific terms have been developed to describe this particular case, and majority sources tell about "occupation and annexation" (or "occupation and subsequent annexation"), although most of them agree that that annexation was illegal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The case of the Baltics is discussed using "standard" terms such as occupation, annexation, legality, sovereignty, etc. My initial comment was in response to yours here on talk (continuous military control is not a prerequisite for occupation). My subsequent point is that we need to stick to scholarly sources which specifically deal with the case of the Baltic states and remove our personal interpretations as well as contentions of applicability of sources not specifically about the Baltics. Then what is left is what should be represented in the article. Anything else (including parliamentary pronouncements) is an opinion. Best! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, your argument about continuous military control is a general argument, therefore it needed in a general answer. You got such an answer and instead of throwing accusations in SYNTH you have to concede you were not right.

Re the Baltic states specifically, see below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you say: "As a rule, we deal with secondary sources. These sources clearly tell that these states (more correctly, their territories) were annexed, although legality of this step is disputable", please cite a secondary scholarly source that claims this annexation was legal. --Martin (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

By writing that "although legality of this step is disputable" I meant that some sourced claim that annexation was legal whereas others leave this issue beyond the scope. I didn't mean I saw the sources that explicitly claim that the annexation was legal, and I do not want to waste my time in attempts to find them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you need to spend time to find such a source, since it is central to your thesis that military occupations end on the act of (legal) annexation, because it is generally accepted that illegal annexations do no end occupation. --Martin (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

De-jure recognition of the annexation by some states is not enough for you? (Igny (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

De-jure recognition by a state is a political act, I'm asking for a secondary academic source that claims annexation was legal. --Martin (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a secondary source which claims that annexation did not take place? (Igny (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

The issue here is legality; legal annexations end occupation, illegal annexations do not end occupation. --Martin (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no. The idea that illegally annexed territories remain under a control of military forces (this is a definition of "military occulation", because "non-military occupation" is something I never heard of) is something that needs to be proved by a reference to some reliable sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The core of this debate can be worded in Malksoo's own words

The core of the debate is the refusal of the Kremlin to recognise the illegality of the Soviet occupation and annexation of the three Baltic republics in 1940. Almost all countries, historians, and international law scholars confirm the Baltic view that the Soviet ‘incorporation’ of these republics violated international law in force at that time. But the government of the Russian Federation continues to deny this view.

Lauri Mälksoo. Which Continuity: The Tartu Peace Treaty of 2 February 1920, the Estonian–Russian Border Treaties of 18 May 2005, and the Legal Debate about Estonia’s Status in International Law. JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL X/2005 Is this secondary and reliable enough? (Igny (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

1. The territories of the Baltic states (not the states themselves) were annexed by the USSR;
2. That was done forcefully (by means of occupation), and illegally;
3. The fact that this annexation was illegal and forceful does not automatically mean that these states remained under military occupation until 1991.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the quotes make sense only in the context of one of his main conclusions: "...the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminetated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991. Notwithstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title." All of us fully agree that annexation and incorporation took place. However, Mälksoo demonstrates that an illegal annexation does not terminate an occupation and it is therefore entirely correct to speak of the occupation of the Baltic States.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Paul: What concretely is OR?: Both the title promoted by you and the argument behind it. What you are trying to do is to create a middle ground between the Soviet/Russian government POV and the scholarly POV. While I acknowledge your spirit of appeasement, you are supporting a title and a point of view that simply does not exist in neither scientific nor the Soviet/Russian government sources, because the former say the Baltics were illegally annexed => occupied until 1991, and the latter deny any annexation at all. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Annexation" is not an appropriate word for the title of the article in its present form, as the German occupation did not include annexation. If an editor is concerned about the neutrality of the title's wording, he/she should propose an entirely new title instead of tendentiously demanding the insertion of a word which does not apply to all of the article's contents. Sorry to shout, but this debate is not going anywhere and will not ever get anywhere. We need to change our focus and put this absurd bickering over a single word to rest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The quickest way to end it is to rename it in accordance to NPOV policy. Otherwise the title will remain POV-biased and no shouting can help you here. (Igny (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

Mhm, that's nice. Your statement is exceptionally vague and essentially meaningless. I was hoping that other editors would take the hint to let go and move on and perhaps begin discussing new ideas for a title (as Paul had earlier mentioned) rather than clamour uselessly about the term "annexation" (which should under no circumstances be part of this article's title due to the nature of the German occupation), but you seem to have clearly missed my point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather strange statement at the end of a very detailed debate. Your argument is not against use of the neutral term annexation, but for splitting the article into Occupation and annexation of Baltic states by Soviet Union and Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. This article's main goals is to describe the history of Baltic states under foreign rule, and there are more neutral terms than what is being used here (such as history of Baltic republics under Soviet rule). I would actually support the approach of splitting the article, unless someone provides a very good argument to keep these occupations together. (Igny (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

Igny, you repeatedly state that unless the term "annexation" is added the "title will remain POV-biased" without explaining why, despite being asked several times to do so. Some are beginning to wonder if you have any reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jaan makes a very good point that adding such a term conveys an idea that is not actually in the sources when he states "supporting a title and a point of view that simply does not exist in neither scientific nor the Soviet/Russian government sources, because the former say the Baltics were illegally annexed => occupied until 1991, and the latter deny any annexation at all". I don't think there is any consensus in support of your POV tag. --Martin (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Arguably, while Russia maintains "you can't occupy what belongs to you" and all, we will keep having these debates. In the future, however, I suggest we refrain from personal interpretations, quoting dictionaries, quoting politicians, etc., and stick to reliable sources dealing with:

• international law AND
• which specifically discuss the case of the Baltic states

so that we can all apply our energies to more useful purposes, and at least keep any such future debates on topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And to Igny's earlier, there is no reputable scholarly debate whether the annexation of the Baltic states was legal. That is simply a version of Soviet history Russia continues to maintain for its own purposes; I won't speculate here on what those might be. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Igny, the last quote you cited from Mälksoo does not support the renaming as it does not say Russia claims the Baltics were annexed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus that inclusion of the term "annexation" makes the title any more neutral, therefore it follows that there is no consensus to tag this article as POV on the basis of the absence of the term "annexation" in the title. --Martin (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the word "annexation" is completely inappropriate for this article due to the nature of the German occupation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Igny that the last Lothar von Richthofen's statement could serve as a ground for splitting of this article onto two separate articles, because it tells about two very different events. However, there is one trait that combine these two events: the periods of Soviet and German dominance comprise a continuous period of dependence of the Baltic states. Therefore, the title "Baltic states under foreign dominance" of "Period of dependence of the Baltic states", or something of that kind, would reflect the essence of this article more correctly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now the Baltics were dependents of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? Please present reputable sources that state they were not occupied. What is the rush for milquetoast? There is no basis for splitting the article.

After all, Paul, did you not argue that rape of the women of Germany during/after WWII did not need to be split into separate articles for American and British and French rapes versus Soviet rapes because a rape is a rape? (I'm sure with some effort I could find the diff.) Similarly, an occupation is an occupation. Your appear to argue for joining where you can ameliorate Soviet crimes by conjoining them with American, British, and French, and for separation where you can ameliorate Soviet crimes only my making them disjoint from Nazi crimes which are book-ended, front and back, by Soviet crimes and form a continuity of crimes against the citizenry of the Baltics—which originated with Stalin's and Hitler's pact to divide Eastern Europe. You may, of course, not have been even aware of this dichotomy in your approach—I'm only pointing out the inconsistency. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Occupation, by contrast to rape, is not a physiological act. There is no disputes about what should be considered as "rape" and what should not. Your assertion about motives ("ameliorate Soviet crimes by conjoining them with American, British, and French") is just your assertion. Please, demonstrate, what concretely in my edits contradicted to the reliable sources I used, and how concretely did I misinterpret them. Otherwise, please, refrain from such accusations.

Re separation of Soviet and German crimes. They were really different (Soviet actions were not directed against ant concrete nation, whereas Nazi killed mostly Jews; there were almost no armed resistance to German dominance in the Baltics, and many people even collaborated with occupation authorities, whereas anti-Soviet partisan movement was very strong even after the war; the Germans didn't even attempt to annex the Baltic states, whereas the Soviet did, and these territories had the same legal status in the USSR) and, as a rule they are being discussed in the literature separately. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I regret that I don't even know where to start to pick apart your purely personal construct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Try to start with the analysis of the the sources that discuss German and Soviet occupation together, and compare them with the amount of sources that discuss in details only Soviet occupation/annexation/incorporation (I myself hadn't done this analysis yet, so I cannot tell for sure what the results will be).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reasons against "occupation"?

Before we discuss such a title-change, I would like somebody in the dissenting camp to please outline clearly and civilly the reasons against the current title, that is, reasons why the term "occupation" violates WP:NPOV. "Look at the archives" is not an acceptable response, nor is a meaningless, obfuscatory "adhere to NPOV" response. We need reasons to change the title, not personal opinion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how and why no one acknowledged all my arguments here. No one have yet addressed those issues.

1. Annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union did occur, every scholar agrees with that
2. Legality of annexation or lack thereof is not grounds for not including the term into the title of an article which discusses the very event of annexation of Baltic states by the Soviet Union.
3. The argument that the occupation of the Baltic republics by Germany did not constitute annexation is just an argument for splitting a separate and non sequitur event from what may constitute a synthesis of ideas in order to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the sources, that is that incorporation of Baltic states into the Soviet Union was the same as occupation of the states by the Nazi Germany. The article in the current form is focused on similarities between these two events while ignoring all the differences.
4. Every aspect of continuity of occupation is or can be covered in every detail in state continuity of the Baltic states.
5. When all these POV issues were brought up for discussion before, whoever argued for neutrality of the word "occupation" used the fact that US officials, EU officials, other international institutions and scholars stated that occupation lasted all the way to 1990. Now for some reason, when the same argument was used for including the term "annexation", you claim that the use of such term by political entities was politically motivated and thus should be ignored. But then the argument that the occupation was lasting until 1990s falls apart for the same reason, that is the political motivation of people who insist on that.
6. Every scholar who insisted on the occupation lasting for decades could not avoid discussing the event of annexation which took place in 1940. The very concept of decades long occupation relies on claims of illegality of annexation. Validity of such claims or their opposite views or their acceptance does not matter, whoever claimed that occupation lasted for decades never rejected the event of annexation.
7. Ignoring views not published in English, such as this article by Simonyan also constitutes breach of neutrality.
8. The fact that Russian officials use the word присоединение (joining, incorporation stressing what in their view was a voluntary event) rather than аннексия (literally, annexation) is a red herring, considering that annexation is one of acceptable translations of the term присоединение
9. Last but not the least. I myself consider annexation as a neutral compromise between the Russian voluntary "incorporation"/"joining" and the Baltic "occupation". How you fail to see the bias in the very word "occupation" is beyond me.

(Igny (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, I believe this has all been addressed, however I don't think you're hearing the answers. "Annexation" being the midpoint between joining and occupations is like arguing that a banana is a midpoint between an apple and an orange. Do try to put something forth based on reputable sources; under-representation (per you) of "Russian" language sources does not make the article POV, if they are not reputable accounts of history based on verified facts, they are not encyclopedic except as expressing an opinion as a version of history. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

These argument have not been addressed yet. Attempts have been made to dismiss them. However the arguments have enough merit not to be dismissed and to warrant the POV tag at the moment. (Igny (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

Prove to us all that these arguments "have enough merit not to be dismissed". Consensus, both scholarly and amongst us editors, seems to oppose your views rather firmly. Please don't make claims without support. Even Paul has said that he disagrees with the inclusion of "annexation". It is starting to seem like you are just clamouring about NPOV out of hand and that you really don't have a strong argument based on reputable sources. Perhaps you could start by explaining to us why "occupation" is so blatantly POV? Right now the tag on the article is just starting to look rather disruptive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Prove to us all that these arguments "have enough merit not to be dismissed". Here you have just admitted that you do not have other counter-arguments to my points other than a groundless "they have to be dismissed". Re:Consensus, both scholarly and amongst us editors, seems to oppose your views rather firmly. You are blatantly false in this statement. There is no consensus whatsoever present here. (Igny (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Hogwash. I have admitted nothing of the sort. I am asking you to actually put up a legitimate defence, not just stonewall the rest of us with vague statements of opinion.

From WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate [emphasis mine] concerns raised."; "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." You seem to be the lone voice vehemently vociferating for "annexation", and you have not yet put up a wholly convincing arguement for it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Look. You asked me to provide arguments for the tag. I have done so. Now you asking me to provide arguments to provide my other arguments can not be dismissed. Then what? You will ask me for yet more arguments to prove that my arguments are serious enough not to be dismissed? No. The ball is on your side to prove that you can dismiss my arguments without addressing my concerns, and so far you have miserably failed. Re Consensus. It is not applicable to this polarized debate. I do not see any neutral editors here to prove your point about majority and consensus. (Igny (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

So, for example, Simonyan's blatantly and incontrovertibly false statement that the decision to "join" the Soviet Union was made by the "legitimate" governments of the Baltics, the parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which had been elected on the basis and in accordance with state law in those countries ("а решение о вступлении в СССР приняли в 1940 году легитимные органы власти - парламенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии, избранные на основе существующих в этих странах государственных законов") can at best be presented as an opinion given it is an outright documented lie. Nothing more. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are replies to Igny's points, directly based on Mälksoo's monograph:

1. Agreed but the scholars constantly stress the annexation was illegal.

2. Lack of legality of annexation constitutes occupation hence legitimises the use of the term without the addition of the term 'annexation'.

3. Legally, both the Soviet and German rules in the Baltics were occupations. The legal difference between them is not explicitly stated in any scholarly sources.

4. Don't you think the topic is a core theme of this article?

5. We should rely only on neutral reputable sources.

6. This only proves that "annexation of the Baltic States" is a valid term. What it does not prove is the invalidity of the term "occupation of the Baltic States".

7. No need to get carried away with harsh words. Papers such as Simonyan's article in the International Affairs journal get ignored because they their peer-reviewers are partial in this matter. The editors here have made their best effort to provide neutral sources. I am sure you would either get angry or start laughing if I built my case on sources from journals with Andrus Ansip or Raivis Dzintars on the editorial board. Why do you insult the editors here with biased sources?

8. Surely you knew it was too far fetched? Аннексия - насильственный акт присоединения государством всей или части территории другого государства в одностороннем порядке. Do you think that represents the Soviet/Russian government view on what happened in the Baltics? If not then whose view does it represent? Yours?

9. Yes, well according to WP:OR you need to back your "considerations" and "compromises" up with reliable neutral sources. And Mälksoo does not suit you because although he does not use the term 'occupation' in the titles of his works, he uses it as the proper noun for the event. For example, in his "THE GOVERNMENT OF OTTO TIEF AND THE ATTEMPT TO RESTORE THE INDEPENDENCE OF ESTONIA IN 1944: A LEGAL APPRAISAL" published in Estonia 1940-1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity he uses the term "Second Soviet occupation" to denote the capture of Estonia by the Soviet Union in 1944. So we share our inability to see the bias in "the very word 'occupation'" with the scholars. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Jaan.

1. Good, but no buts.
2. It legitimizes use of the word occupation, it does not legitimize drop of the word "annexation"
3. "Legal definition" is just one of similarities between these events, still no reason to put them under one article. Besides, this argument is not even addressed in this article.
4. Are you saying this article is a coat rack for some other topic entirely?
5. It can not get any more reputable than official declarations and motions by the governmental institutions. Are you questioning the neutrality of the Western governments now?
6. I never said use of "occupation" was invalid. Lack of use of "annexation" is appalling though.
7. That is it. An RS was ignored, period.
8. That is why Russia is against use of such a term. That is why I claim it is perfectly neutral.

(Igny (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

The problem rejection of the Simonyan's article is that by formal criteria it is more or less reliable source. Of course, the "Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'" ("[International affairs" http://en.interaffairs.ru/editors.php]) is not as reliable source as, e.g. "American historical review", however that does not allow us to dismiss it completely: by contrast to the USSR, Russia is not a totalitarian state, and in that sense there is no significant difference between it and other European countries. Generally speaking, the situation when the works of some scholars are being dismissed because someone believes they are false is hardly acceptable and will lead to an impasse. If you dismiss the article written by R. Simonyan (D. Sc. (Sociology), professor, head of the Russian Center for Baltic Studies, RAS Institute of Sociology), does that mean that you reserve a right to arbitrary dismiss the works of any Russian scholar you don't like? And why such an approach cannot be extended on other European countries, e.g. Romania, Poland, Estonia?

Of course, you may argue that the article has been written in Russian, and English sources are preferable in Wikipedia. I am ready to accept this argument, however, could you please explain me why some WP articles are full of the sources written in Estonian, Latvian, Polish? What makes the sources written in these languages more reliable that the sources written in Russian? In addition, some the Simonyan's works have been published in English, for instance, this one [6].

I cannot say I fully agree with Simonyan's writings. However, by formal criteria, his works are not less reliable than the works of most Baltic scholars, therefore, the claim that his statements are "blatantly and incontrovertibly false" is just a personal PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА's opinion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you leave me incredulous. There is no reputable scholarly source that does not describe the parliaments of the Baltic states as illegally and fraudulently (per Soviet records!) installed puppets of Soviet authority. Don't smear reputable scholarship by suggesting it's just Vecrumba's opinion and don't insult me by implying I just pontificate. My contention has ZERO to do with Baltic versus Russian partisanship. Of all editors, I expect better from you than purporting this is about reduction ad opinionem, Baltic versus Russian. And let's stick to the topic at hand without wringing our hands over generalizations and implications over languages, countries, and all sorts of other cases. Personally, I don't care what language a source is written in as long as it is reliable. THAT is the bar. Simonyan is clearly unreliable with regard to this particular topic as his position is demonstrably and incontrovertibly and per SOVIET RECORDS incorrect. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You should have noticed that I wrote "I cannot say I fully agree with Simonyan's writings." In addition, after re-reading the article again I came to a conclusion that it is hard to distinguish between the own Simonyan's opinion, and the opinions he refers to. Thus, he writes:

"А вот здесь уже есть предмет для обсуждения: были ли или не были нарушены подписанные условия ввода и условия пребывания войск на военных базах. Если окажется, что были, то тогда можно говорить об агрессии, но никак не об оккупации. Латвию, Литву и Эстонию в 1940 году не оккупировали, а силой при активном содействии местных компартий и поддержке части населения присоединили к Советскому Союзу. Формально даже не по инициативе Кремля, а по просьбе парламентов этих стран."

In other words, according to him we can speak not about occupation, but about "forceful incorporation" (although formally voluntary).

Again, I cannot say I fully agree with him. My point is different. You cannot claim that the source that formally meets RS criteria in unreliable just based on your own analysis of the source's content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, again, this is not "my" analysis. Simonyan makes statements at odds with reputable non-partisan scholarship, at odds with the records of even Soviet archives, but in support of political Russian administration pronouncements. That makes him a WP:FRINGE viewpoint with regard to the topic of Soviet actions in the Baltic. I'm not making any statement as to whether or not he is reliable elsewhere. That is immaterial to the discussion here. There is no reputable scholarship that calls it "voluntary" occupation either, being it was coerced. Again, I expect better. I'm not the one making personal contentions ignoring reputable scholarship.

My apologies for being blunt, but I don't care how much you agree or not with Simonyan, neither your opinion nor my opinion matter. The question is, does what he states line up with reputable scholarship? (Or even reflect reality?) And the answer is NO. In the case of Soviet actions in the Baltic states, it does not.

Finally, and yet again, I have no issue with presenting opinions that the Baltics joined legally and voluntarily, were not occupied, were not forcibly annexed, etc. etc. But that can all be presented as opinion only, being unsupported in reputable non-partisan scholarship. Such opinions may in no way be represented as reputable mainstream scholarship. That is how encyclopedias are written regardless of the subject matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not share the idea that the Baltic parliaments were elected legally. However, you cannot make a decision about reliability or non-reliability of this source. We can speak about minority or even fringe views here, however, your statement about "blatantly and incontrovertibly false" Simonyan's statements is just your assertion.

In addition, other Simonyan's points seem reasonable, namely his mention of the role of local Communists and of part of local population, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You are (just now) making personal contentions as to suitability whereas I am making contentions as to suitability based on no reputable non-partisan source supporting his statement that the Baltic parliaments were legal representatives. I completely fail to see how your contentions constitute scholarship while my contentions constitute my own personal judgement clouded by my alleged Baltic POV. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all very well, but we need more than just one scholar to demonstrate that this is an view worth treating with significant weight in the article. Near as I can tell, Simonyan's views are in the minority camp of global scholarly opinion, perhaps even pushing the fringe. We don't give Viktor Suvorov and his supporters' views equal weight to mainstream views in the Operation Barbarossa article (and that rightfully so). Hell, even the article dealing with his views is labelled Soviet offensive plans controversy, not Planned Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany. What indication is there that Simonyan's views here are accepted enough to be the basis for renaming this article? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Simonyan's views don't seem to be accepted by mainstream Russian academia, when considering that you have academic heavy weights like Professor, Dean of the School of International Relations and vice Rector of St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Konstantin K. Khudoley calling the events in the Baltics as an occupation and stating:

"On 15-16 June 1940, the Soviet Union demanded that more of its troops be allowed onto the territories of the Baltic states and that the governments of the three countries be changed. This demand was met, and power over domestic affairs duly transferred to Soviet emissaries Andrey Zhdanov (Estonia), Audrey Vyshinskiy (Latvia) and Vladimir Dekanozov (Lithuania). New elections were quickly organised according to the 'one candidate-one seat' system. Opposition forces could not participate. The elections were neither free nor fair, and thus the decisions of the newly elected parliaments to join the Soviet Union cannot be considered legitimate. These decisions were not approved by the upper chambers of the parliaments of the Baltic states, even though such approval was required by the countries' constitutions. These decisions were nothing more than evidence of Soviet dictatorship.".

Note that the "Journal of International Affairs" was founded in 1954 by the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which claimed up until 1989 that the Secret Protocols of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact never existed), and that this journal continues to be affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs[7]. --Martin (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that confirms it as a mouthpiece of the Russian authorities, case closed. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I expected this argument to be put forward. Since Russia is not the USSR (i.e. not a totalitarian state), I don't think there is any formal difference between Russia and other Eastern European countries. Therefore, if we do not reject the sources having close connection with authorities of other countries, why should we do that in this case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, I would hope to not lose my respect for your command of applicable sources. The official Russian position regarding legal joining et al. is no different from the version of history promulgated by the Soviet Union. That Russia is not ruled by Stalin is immaterial. That the NKVD no longer exists is immaterial. I am not rejecting a source because it is associated with Russian authorities, I am rejecting a source because it substitutes fiction for fact in a manner wholly consistent with official pronouncements of the Russian Federation which identically substitute fiction for fact according to all reputable scholarship and indisputable facts. Nothing to do with my opinion, everything to do with Simonyan's "opinion" in the support of the official Russian "position."

I have to ask, has there been something that has happened somewhere on some article or in the real world that has radicalized you? I would not have expected this sort of defense of demonstrably fact-free propaganda a year ago. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you decided something had radicalised me? As I already noted (several times), I myself do not think this Simonyan's statement to be valid. It is either minority or fringe views, and should be treated as such. However your claim that this article is not a reliable source is hardly reliable either: if some views are fringe, that does not automatically mean the source is not reliable. Similarly, the brilliant Martin's observation that "Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'" was a former Soviet journal, and that now it is affiliated with Russian ministry of foreign affairs makes it not less neutral than, e.g. Hoover institution (of course, I discuss only formal aspects). Again, the idea that some sources can be considered as unreliable because they contradict to what other sources say (many reliable sources contradict to each other), because they reproduce Soviet times' concepts (sometimes, not frequently, even Soviet sources were correct), or because they are have a connection to some state authorities (what about Free Europe Radio?) is hardly acceptable.

Once again, we disagree not about the validity of this concrete Simonyan's statement: that statement is not shared by contemporary Russian or Western scholars, and it can be rejected as fringe views. What I disagree with is the attempts to draw a conclusion about reliability of the source (or even the author, or a journal as whole) based on your analysis of this statement, or based on the fact that the journal where this article was published has a connection with Russian ministry of foreign affairs. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving back to the actual discussion now: "It is either minority or fringe views". Okay, excellent. So why then should we give undue weight to this position by including it in the title? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, we shouldn't. However, this conclusion has a relation to this Simonyan's statement only (about legal joining). Since we never planned to add naything of that kind to the title, I don't see a connection between this statement and the discussion about the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To Igny:

1. What I'm saying is that one thing is to agree about a legal term is applicable per se and another one to agree that it should be part of the title.

2. You cannot legitimise a drop of something from a title that has never even been part of it.

3. What could be more important here than the legal definition of these events?

4. I just say that the continuous occupation of the Baltic States is and should remain a core topic of this article.

5. Yes, for a week now I have been urging us to use only neutral peer-reviewed sources.

6. Got a source to back up that opinion?

8. Got a source to back up that claim? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough has been said above already

Other than listening to an endless rehash of everything that has been said before, there's little purpose in continuing the discussion regarding "annexation" in the title further (or its absence being grounds for a POV tag):

• the absence of "annexation" does not make the title less POV; in fact, the addition of "annexation" effectively supports the POV that annexation ended occupation, effected the end of Baltic sovereignty making the current Baltic states "new" as opposed to a "continuation" of their former selves, etc. also implying the legality of actions is separate from their effect or not on continuity of sovereignty
• the inclusion of "annexation" only applies only to the actions of the Soviet Union and therefore is inappropriate to a title referring to a continuous subjugation of Baltic territory under two invading powers across three invasions:
• it is historically significant that the Baltic states were continuously occupied by the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and then the Soviet Union again and so it is also inappropriate to lobby for a split of the article on the basis that the USSR annexed while Germany administered.

@Igny, I'm sorry, but there is no scholarly (as opposed to personal contentions which we can all debate until the proverbial cows come home) basis for your objection and contention of POV here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, I have learned to let go of some long-held beliefs upon researching topics for WP—when something I've believed in the past doesn't stand up to the cold hard facts of reputable scholarship, it's time to move on. You might consider the same with regard to some of your concerns regarding the scholarly portrayal of certain aspects of the Soviet legacy. My perception, of course—you likely feel differently and are certainly entitled to do so. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion

@Paul: We do appear to be uncharacteristically not connecting—as opposed to connecting but disagreeing. WP:FRINGE is being overly kind with respect to Simonyan, usually even fringe opinions are based on some sort of kernel of fact. The "legal joining" theorem (along with the "not occupied" and related "troops invited in" theorems) has been more than totally debunked by scholars far more qualified than myself—nor is that debunking a function of Baltic scholarship. What I am perplexed by is your seeming insistence that I am opining from my pedestal as opposed to representing reputable scholarship. You might consider with greater care what sources and authors you choose to defend. While your defense of Simonyan is (commendably) less than enthusiastic, the issue is that his views don't merit any inclusion whatsoever insofar as trustworthy reputable sources are concerned. If an author is shown to perpetrate complete misrepresentation of undeniable facts as verified by reputable scholarship (not Vecrumba), who are we to then decide where the lies and misrepresentations end (per your "other Simonyan's points seem reasonable")? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You still are missing the point. Consider a following situation.

1. A scholar A made a statement X the mainstream sources B, C, D and F disagree with.
2. A Wikipedian B cites these sources and based on that declares the statement X is fringe;
3. A Wikipedian C cites these sources B - F and based on that declares that the scholar A is a fringe theorist.

Obviously, whereas 2 is correct, 3 is not necessarily true. That was the only idea I tried to convey. I myself faced similar situations before, and I fully understand that to claim the the scholar X, whose claim Y contradict to what reliable sources say, is not a reliable source would be WP:OR. If you want to dismiss this concrete Simonyan's statement, I'll fully agree with that. However, if you want to dismiss Simonyan as whole, you must either provide reliable sources that debunk him explicitly, or to demonstrate his low notability (using, e.g., google scholar). That will be an evidence I would fully accept, and, frankly speaking, I suspect you will be able to do that. However, the arguments used by your are not satisfactory. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is helpful, as your notion of appropriate examples does not match mine, so that should give us something more concrete to discuss.

Consider the (alternate) following situation.

1. A scholar A made a statement X the mainstream sources B, C, D and F indisputably show to be false. Scholar A is closely associated (affiliations, activism, head of institute) with the topic area to which statement X pertains. [Simonyan is head of the Russian-Baltic Center at the Sociology Institute.]
2. A Wikipedian B cites these sources B - F and based on them declares the statement X is false regarding the topic area statement X pertains to;
3. A Wikipedian C cites these sources B - F and based on that declares that the scholar A is unreliable regarding the topic area statement X pertains to, regardless of their relevant professional associations.

The issue is that Simonyan's purported area of expertise is the Baltic states, Baltic-Russia relations, etc. That he is incontrovertibly shown to make false statements regarding the Baltics calls his entire scholarship into question. You state my contention that he has shown himself to be unreliable is WP:OR and is not satisfactory (that is, insufficient to make the leap from "statement X is incorrect" to calling his overall reliability into question).

As demonstrated gross misrepresentation of historical fact is insufficient, then, really, any reputable sources calling Simonyan's scholarship into question can be disputed as simply being alternate opinions, and we wind up back where we started, dooming us to an endless looping litany of contention and counter-contention. (On a separate but related note, your Google search notability test is flawed as anything out of the mainstream does not generate sufficient hits across a statistically significant range of sites to be meaningful.)

Were I to attempt to sum up the difference between your example and my response, I might pose it as a question: does a false contention qualify as a "fringe viewpoint" or is it simply false? Is it WP:FRINGE to contend the earth is flat, or is it simply false? I'm extremely busy the next few days, please feel free to take your time to formulate a response for us to discuss further. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In humanities things don't tend to be objectively clear even when we think they could be. So in this case the neutral scholarship deals with the Russian government POV as a significant minority view. The article should deal with that in that manner while the title should reflect only the NPOV. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fringe" or "false", this doesn't matter. I personally do not think the statement that the Baltic states were annexed following the request of legally elected governments should be in the article: even if it is not false, it is too fringe to be included. However, your 3 is not right because you cannot expand the conclusion about one statement on the whole topic. Secondly, the very idea that something can be rejected, because it is "a mouthpiece of (some) authorities", is also incorrect, otherwise many sources should be excluded. These are my two objections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

While I have a personal love for metaphors and similes, they are not the best manner in which to argue encyclopedic content as any metaphor or simile already has as its basis a systemic bias. With that caveat, on #3, this case would be like:

1. an astronomer, head of a moon institute, states the moon is made of cheese (i.e, unequivocally false)
2. the astronomer's pronouncements are a verbatim copy of the pronouncements of the "Moon Cheddar Society"
3. the astronomer states something else about the moon or planets

Do we conclude the astronomer is:

1. a reliable source regarding the moon, head of the moon institute after all, he's just off on the cheese part
2. potentially a reliable source on astronomy, but not reliable on the topic of the moon in general (cheese et al.) as he espouses a position supporting that of the "Moon Cheddar Society" and which is unequivocally false, his being head of a moon institute notwithstanding
3. not a very good astronomer in the first place, we can't consider any statement reliable

Simonyan objectively fits conclusion #2. It is only conclusion #3 which oversteps the bounds of consideration. Your contention that there are many people who echo official positions, by my logic all such statements would need to be excluded, misses the mark. It is the echoing of (official or not does not matter in this context) positions which are unequivocally false that is at issue; and it is the advocating for an unequivocally false position as factual which qualifies an individual as being a "mouthpiece" for organizations—official of otherwise—which advocate that position. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the issue of the journal being affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs presents a serious question mark about the degree to which ministry officials exert editorial influence either through selection of authors invited to contribute or directly upon the subject matter discussed, let alone the effectiveness of its peer review processes. Astonishingly we see published as recently as 2010 in the journal fringe views by those who apparently continue to deny Soviet involvement at Katyn and deny the existence of the secret protocols of the Soviet-German pact: "The “evidence” of the existence of the so-called secret protocols to the 1939 Soviet-German Pact was the Nuremberg Trial's other major contribution to the cause of historical revisionism. Immediately upon the proclamation of the Cold War, Western judges floated the theme by allowing it to surface at the Nuremberg Trial" with a footnote referencing a fringe paper by A. Kungurov: "The Secret Protocols or Who Forged the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Moscow, Eksmo-Algoritm Publishers, 2009". The journal has a disclaimer at the bottom of the article "The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of editorial", but why publish these fringe views in the first place? And why hasn't academic heavyweights like Konstantin K. Khudoley (who is Dean of the School of International Relations so the topic of "International Affairs" would be right up his alley) been invited to write on the topic of the Baltic states for this journal? --Martin (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Сыр луны! Published since 1954 with no change in its editorial stance, apparently, even as a totalitarian state where "history serves politics" (not my words) crashed down around it. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the title of this article appropriate?

Is Occupation of the Baltic States an appropriate title for the article given the views presented by current reliable sources and in regard to the material covered in the article? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My interest in a number of articles on this and similar topics has been sparked by a developing interest in family history and although I have Latvian ancestry, due to historical accidents, I haven't been exposed much to Latvian culture and so consider myself fairly neutral in this debate over the title of this article.

For beginners, this article serves as a useful introduction to the topic and the period, with the various sections being expanded in a series of major articles. As it is an introduction, there is no need to unnecessarily dwell on controversies which can be better dealt with in the main articles.

In my opinion, the major flaws in the article have to do with its style and grammar, and I have spent some time in improving this aspect. I think that it is a pity that so much of other editors' time and effort has gone into this debate, that could have otherwise gone into adding content and improving the quality of this and other articles.

I vote to keep the article's current title as it is. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is the appropriate title for the English Wikipedia. It would not be an appropriate title for an encyclopedia run by the Russian state. It can't get simpler than that.--Termer (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think for such a controvesial subject it is undersourced. Something like a variation o f the "History" thereof woud be more neutral.(Lihaas (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)).

"History of..." would be the Latvian SSR. You can also read individual articles on the Baltic states for additional detail/sources. This is an overview article: Soviet+Nazi+Soviet, Estonia+Latvia+Lithuania. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment The title sounds OK. The annexations were never internationally recognized, therefore the majority view is that the countries were occupied the whole time. Unless I'm missing something. --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• The title is not neutral. Whereas many (most) sources agree that the annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR was illegal, most of them do not describe the period of Soviet rule as a period of military occupation (there is no term "non-military occupation" in English). Since the Baltic case was somewhat unique, no exact term exist in literature to describe the period of 1940-91 (especially 1945-91). The sources use many terms, and the most reliable sources prefer to avoid simple labels.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Obviously we travel in different academic circles. Your contention that there is no term "non-military occupation" meaning occupation must only be under military administration instead of a forcibly and illegally imposed civilian administration enforced by a (massive) military presence is your personal synthesis. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we do not. We read similar sources, however, the conclusions we made are different. For instance, in the Malksoo's monograph someone can make a stress on his conclusion on illegality of the annexation, which may mean that the regime had some traits of occupation ("occupation sui generis"), whereas another party of the dispute prefers to focus on the fact that this scholar extensively uses the word "annexation" to describe the status of the Baltic states in 1940-91. Of course, the best way to reject accusation in non-neutrality is to put forward a counter-accusation in synthesis. However, synthesis is defined as "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Therefore, to refute an accusation in synthesis I need to provide at least one reliable source that describes the events in the Baltic states as occupation or annexation. Here it is:

"When a state re-establishes its sovereignty after illegal occupation or annexation, its international rights and obligations are automatically recovered as a rule. In 1918–1940, Estonia concluded over 210 bilateral treaties and was a party to over 80 multilateral conventions." (Tanel Kerikmäe & Hannes Vallikivi. State Continuity in the Light of Estonian Treaties Concluded before World War II. JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL V/2000, p 30-39)

It is clearly seen from this quote that the authors, whose article is devoted to the issue of the legal status of the Baltic states, uses the words "illegal occupation or annexation" to describe possible status of the Baltic states. The authors use the words "annexation" and "occupation" interchangeably, but "occupation" more frequently refers to the event, whereas annexation to the period of the Soviet rule.

Again, the weakness of your position is that you, by contrast to me, insist on the use of only single term, whereas I insist that neutrality requires to use both.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, your argument is well known, but you have not provided a source that presents this argument. We can't attribute this viewpoint to "Paul Siebert", we need a reliable source. Mälksoo on the other hand concludes: "the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991. Notwithstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title". He makes clear the distinction between the terms: "annexation" is an event while "occupation" refers to a period. --Martin (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You got it wrong. Notwithstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title". Which, according to Martin's viewpoint, is enough to drop the term annexation from title of an article about occupation and annexation. (Igny (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Except it would be absolutely moronic to use the term "annexation" to describe the German occupation. It would also make little sense to exclude the German occupation, as it would break the timeline unnecessarily and imply that the Nazi and Soviet occupations were unrelated events (which they were not). The state continuity article is meant to describe the occupations from a legal standpoint; this article deals with the historical standpoint. So stop pushing "annexation" and come up with a more sensible solution. This is becoming tiresome. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct. We cannot speak about German annexation. You are right that Soviet and German regimes were different. The only thing I cannot understand is why do you want to conceal this fact by omitting "annexation" from the title? The fact that Germany never annexed the Baltic states does not mean the USSR didn't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is absolutely imbecilic to refer to people who are smarter than you are as morons. So I would suggest you retract your personal attack before I consider to counter your argument. (Igny (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Paul- We can't have "annexation" in the title of this article because there was no German annexation; "annexation" is inappropriate for the title because it does not accurately describe the full content of the article.

Igny- Your schoolyard "Shut up, I'm smarter than you!" taunts don't frighten me. I did not call you a moron, I said that it would be moronic to use "annexation" to describe the German annexation occupation. There was no annexation on the part of the Germans, which is why using "annexation" in the title would be moronic. Everyone here is very hung up on the Soviet occupations, and we often lose sight of the fact that there was another occupation in between them. Perhaps this is merely because the decades of Soviet rule seem to drown out the years of German rule, or perhaps this is out of a desire to weaken the association between the "good Allied" Soviets and the "evil Axis" Nazis. Whatever the case, we cannot ignore the German occupation and the fact that it was not an annexation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did not call you an imbecile then either. However it is also absolutely imbecilic to write an article on occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union without mentioning the German occupation of the Baltic republics as a reference to a relevant historic event. Coming to think about it, writing about two paragraphs (or ~400 words in a 6500 word article with 8 references out of almost 100 is about right amount of material about the German occupation to put into an article on the Soviet annexation. Oh wait, I got an idea. Let us rename this article into occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union, and with just a few changes in the leading sentences it will be fine as it is. Then it would be at least less SYNTH as it currently is. (Igny (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict)Herr von Richthofen. There were no German annexation, however, the Soviet annexation did take place. As the sources cited below state, the USSR did not install occupation regimes in 1940 in the Baltic states, and many sources agree that the Baltic states were annexed (although majority sources agree that that annexation was illegal). To speak about these events as just occupation is to push the Baltic POV, which sometimes assumes a rather weird forms: thus, the former Latvian president Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga proclaimed that the period of 1795–1918 was a period of first Russian occupation (which is a full nonsense; that demonstrates her obsession with the word "occupation", and unfamiliarity with those times' international laws).

Going back to your argument, do you find it logical to claim that the title of the article about the occupation of the Baltic states by Germany and annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR cannot contain the word "annexation" because Germany didn't annex the Baltic states? --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, may I point out to you that the title of an article need not be "neutral". See for example Rape of Belgium. Hence the wording of the RfC question: "Is the title of this article appropriate", not "Is the title of this article neutral". You seem to have missed the point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the title don't need to be neutral "when a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources)"; in this case " Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids..."

The problem is, however, that the subject has no single name, and I persuasively demonstrated that. Therefore, this argument doesn't work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. You perfectly demonstrated my point: everyone finds in the sources what he wants to see. You ignored one source (Tanel Kerikmäe & Hannes Vallikivi) quoted by me, and you quoted Malksoo selectively. Unfortunately, I have no electronic version of the English original, so let me copypast some quotes from the Russian version of his monograph.

"В то же время данная ситуация отличалась от классической ситуации оккупации в других аспектах. С практической точки зрения факт инкорпорации стран Балтии в СССР и длительность советского правления414 ставят под вопрос применимость в этом случае всех международных норм оккупационного права в 1940–1991 гг. “Но фактически СССР после 1940 года не установил оккупационных режимов в странах Балтии...”415. Именно в этом пункте нельзя совершенно проигнорировать факт и реальность аннексионистской деятельности, сделав вид, что их никогда не существовало. В противном случае внутренний конфликт между буквой права и его нарушением аннексирующим государством стал бы настолько напряженным, что поставил бы под сомнение наличие смысла в концепциях международного права416."

The ref 415 Malksoo cites ("In actuality, the USSR did not install occupation regimes after 1940 in the Baltic countries...") is taken from T. Schweisfurth. Soviet Union, Dissolution. in: EPIL, Vol. 4, 2000, pp. 529–547. In other words, the source cited by Malksoo states unambiguously that there were no occupation regimes in the Baltic states under the Soviet rule. Which synthesis are you accusing me in?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Schweisfurth is certainly stating that the USSR did not install a military administration (i.e., "occupation regime"). He is not stating that an illegal act of occupation according to international law (precedents having been set in the 1930's) did not occur. The problem with contentions here is that when "A says X", that is represented "therefore, A says not Y." The latter is synthesis. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what we have: no declaration of war, no hostilities, no military administration... what kind of occupation it was? Maybe you even support the Vīķe-Freiberga's thesis about "first Russian occupation in 1795-1918"? The thesis "illegal annexation = occupation" is not what majority sources say. The word "occupation" has a very concrete meaning, and the Soviet regime in the Baltic states can be characterised as occupation only with significant reservations (what Malksoo does, by the way). That is why the scholars usually avoid to use a single term to describe these events. And that is why a single word "occupation" should not be in the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re when "A says X", that is represented "therefore, A says not Y." The latter is synthesis. Guys, do you even synchronize your doublethink?(Igny (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Really, Paul, I expect better from you than tired quasi-official-Russian contentions of it was all peaceable amongst friends and synthesis of no occupation—you've only left out the part about the Baltic peoples rising up to overthrow their bourgeoisie oppressors to "rejoin" the Soviet family the same way they had "joined" as part of the glorious Revolution.

The pacts of mutual assistance were agreed to under direct threat of invasion (stated by Stalin), Soviet troops invaded (the Baltics chose to live to fight another day does not make it not an invasion), etc. etc. The usurping of Baltic sovereignty by the USSR is confirmed in reputable scholarship as confirming Soviet occupation.

Lastly, there is no "thesis" that "illegal annexation = occupation." The occupation is the occupation is the occupation. How the USSR chose subsequently to administer that occupation—in this case, by illegal annexation placing it under civilian administration orchestrated via fraudulent elections and unconstitutional parliamentary actions to appear to be the will of the Baltic peoples, is an entirely different matter. Nazi Germany chose a military administration. Had it won, I'm sure that would have been transformed into a civilian administration as well—which, again, by usurping power from the rightful sovereign authorities, would still constitute an occupation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your first para, you are right. I really left out the part about the Baltic peoples rising up to overthrow their governments, however, I did that not in order to conceal my alleged adherence to quasi-official-Russian position, but because I do not believe that was the case.

Re your second para, I believe you oversimplify the issue, applying the present-days knowledge to the events in the past. In addition, you forget about Germany: the Baltic states had a reason to expect invasions from both sides, and, taking into account that they knew nothing about the secret protocol, it is a big question which invasion looked more imminent for them.

Re your third para, thank you for reminding me that occupation is occupation. I could expand this cynic conclusion by saying that "annexation is annexation", "war is was", "peace is peace", etc. However, such a philosophical concept has no value for Wikipedia, because it explains nothing. In particular, it does not explain what occupation is. In addition, your binary thinking leaves no space for adequate description of the events. For instance, you completely missed the fact that in the past the newly acquired territories could have at least three different fates: they could be annexed (i.e. become a part of another state), colonised (become a subordinated territories) or occupied (put under a control of foreign military authorities). For instance, Germany directly annexed the Western part of Poland, but it converted its central part into the General Government. As a result, the central Poland, as well as Bohemia, got a status similar to that of protectorate or colony. Of course, Germany didn't plan to annex the Baltic states, because it planned to convert them into a subordinated territory within the Reichskommissariat Ostland. However, that was not the USSR did: it did not install military administration in the Baltic states (see the quote form the western source above), it did not converted these states into its colonies/protectorate. It just absorbed them. That is what the western sources say. They also say that this absorption was achieved by staged elections and it was illegal, therefore, it had some traits of occupation, although this term should be used with reservations. And, in accordance what the sources say, I do not demand to omit the word "occupation", I just request the reservations (and alternative terms) to be present both in the article and in the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It will be later in the week before I have time to give you a longer response. I fully appreciate the nuances of the Baltic situation; nevertheless, occupation, at its most fundamental definition in international law (and not a dictionary), is a foreign entity usurping authority rendering the affected sovereign entity's authorities incapable of executing their responsibilities upon their own territory. Certainly, deporting large swaths of the Baltic governments, some of those while even the USSR pretended the Baltics were still sovereign states, is a prime example of such "rendering incapable." I regret that your contention of "no declared war" and explicit thesis that "no resistance = 'no hostilities'" are, with regard to any applicability in international law regarding the question of occupation either in general or specifically with reference to the Baltic states, bogus beyond all imaginings. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but until 1949 the occupation issues were regulated by the Hague Conventions of 1907, which stated that "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "[8] In addition, the convention says nothing about usurpation. Please, provide a source your definition was taken from.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you cite the 1907 convention as if there is nothing else regulating international relations. But this is not the case. The Baltic states and the Soviet Union signed several bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements regulating relations:

• Protocol to bring into force the Pact of Paris (to which all four parties were original signatories), signed in Moscow on February 9, 1929, renouncing war as an instrument of national policy
• bilateral Treaties of Non-Aggression signed with the respective Baltic states and the Soviet Union between 1926 and 1932
• Conciliation conventions related to the Non-Aggression treaties

And lastly and significantly a Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed in London in July, 1933. This Convention for the Definition of Aggression, an initiative of the Soviet Government, defined in Article 2 various acts as aggression, including naval blockades. This Convention also stipulated: "No political, military, economic or other consideration may serve as an excuse or justification for the aggression referred to in Article 2". It is a fact that the Soviet Union committed aggression as defined by its own definition against the Baltic states, a naval blockade was put in place to enforce the Soviet ultimatum. --Martin (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, And how were the Baltics not under control of a hostile army? Governmental offices, communications (telegraph, telephone, post) were all immediately seized by the military and remained under military control. As that authority was exercised throughout the Baltics, rendering the occupation complete.

There is nothing regarding the occupation of the Baltic states that wasn't already illegal when that occupation occurred.

The Hague Convention IV lays down specific rules regarding the law of military occupation in the context of belligerents where war has been entered into with the purpose to obtain redress for an international wrong. So, just a few violations of international law for you which do not require Geneva 1949:

1. "The sovereign Baltic states" joined the USSR willingly and of their own free will. Problem: The USSR deported civilian nationals of the Baltic states to the USSR prior to the willing joining while even the USSR maintains they were sovereign (a staged lie necessary to contend the joining was of "free will"); those acts of deportation were violations of international law already in force.
2. "The Soviet Union was forced to issue an ultimatum, invade, etc." following provocations against the USSR and unprovoked attacks on its citizens in border incidents. Problem: In staging the lie necessary to contend the USSR was "forced" into its actions, the USSR's contending it was provoked and attacked and responded makes their action a redress of international wrong whether or not the USSR formally declared war on the Baltic states, and so an act of war and an occupation
3. And, according to international law then in effect, an occupant does not have the right to effect political and governmental changes in the territory occupied. Problem: That's exactly what the USSR did even while it maintained the Baltics were still sovereign (for its "freely joining" lie), another violation of international law. That an occupant effects illegal political and governmental changes does not change the nature of the occupant being an occupant.

As I said, you'll have to wait for more later in the week, but I thought I'd just give you a quick note back to give you something to chew on.

And lastly as Martintg points out, there were a pile of agreements in force between the Soviet Union and the Baltic states which the USSR abrogated upon invading, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, according to the Soviet Union's own definition, in treaties in force at the time, this and this were acts of war. --Martin (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Browsing through Mälksoo's book I find this in Appendix 3: "The report of the People's Comissar for the Defense of the USSR to General Secretary of the CP of the USSR Josef Stalin and to People's Comissar for the Foreign Affairs Vyatcheslav Molotov, no. 39055" dated 17 June 1940:

'I consider it necessary in the interest of guaranteeing the quickest preparation of the Baltic war theatre (teatr vojennogo deistvii) to start without delay to perform the following actions in the occupied territories:

1. To occupy without delay the border with East Prussia and the coast of the Baltic Sea by our border guard military units, in order to prevent espionage and diversion.
2. To install into each occupied republic one (in the first place) regiment of the NKVD forces for the protection of the domestic order.
3. To solve as quickly as possible the problem of the "governments" of the occupied republics.
4. To start the expropriation of weapons from the armies of the occupied republics and their reformation. To expropriate weapons from the populadon, police and the existing military organizations.
5. To assume control of guarding and garrisoning functions by our troops.
6. To start decisively to sovietize the occupied republics.
7. To form on the territories of the occupied republics the Baltic Military Region, with headquarters in Riga. To appoint, in charge of the troops of the Region, the director of the troops in the Central Asian Military Region, general polkovnik Apanassenko. The headquarters of the Military Area will be formed on the basis of the headquarters of the 8. Army.
8. To start on the territory of the Area works for the preparation of the war theater (construction of fortifications, the change of the width of the rails, the construction of roads, stocks, the creation of reserves etc.)

Certainly the People's Comissar for the Defense of the USSR had no illusions that this was a military occupation. Apparently the bogus elections was the solution to the "problem of the 'governments' of the occupied republics" and the annexation was the solution to "decisively to sovietize the occupied republics", all performed under the command of the military occupation authorities. --Martin (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You guys are jumping back and forward so quickly, that I cannot follow your thought. Initially you requested me to avoid general consideration and discuss the issue only in a context of the Baltic states. Then Peters came out with the general definition of occupation ("nevertheless, occupation, at its most fundamental definition in international law (and not a dictionary), is a foreign entity usurping authority rendering the affected sovereign entity's authorities incapable of executing their responsibilities upon their own territory.") When I asked him to provide the source this definition was based on (and provided the quote from the Geneva convention that defined what occupation is), he jumped back to the Baltic case, and you started to eloquently explain me that the Soviet actions against the Baltic states were aggression. Do you really believe I disagree that the in 1940 the USSR committed the act of aggression against the Baltic states? Do you seriously believe that I do not support this idea? Your problem is that, for some unclear reason, you decided that everything that happens after the act of aggression is occupation. However, that thesis needs serious evidences. Let me remind you that in XX century many states, including very democratic ones, did interfere into internal affairs of other states (e.g. the USA in Latin America, or the USSR in Central Europe), and in many cases they installed, or helped to install new governments in these countries. These were, without any doubts, the acts of hostility, some of which were even condemned internationally. However, that doesn't make the newly installed regimes "occupation regimes". Do you claim, for instance, that US installed regime in Granada, or Soviet installed regime in Hungary were occupation regimes? Obviously, not (even by contemporary standards).

Please, don't jump back and forward. As far as you initiated the discussion about occupation in general, let's finish it first. My point is that, since the major document that regulated all aspects of occupation by 1940 was the Hague convention of 1907, and, whereas this convention states that "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." (note, actually placed under the authority of the hostile army) we can speak about occupation sensu stricto if the army is hostile, and it actually (not via civil administration) controls the territory. In connection to that, can you provide another definition of occupation that was in effect by 1940? I beg you to forget (temporarily) about other issues, let's finish with this first. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, the Soviet Union committed aggression as defined by the Treaty of London (which the Soviet Union intiated) in force at the time, which defines undeclared wars, naval blockades and internal subversion by foreign agents as acts of war, hence the Soviet military forces present in the Baltic states are deemed "hostile". Also presented is a report published in Appendix 3 of Mälksoo book that shows the Baltic states were placed under military control headquatered in Riga, so I'm not sure what you are asking. In sensu stricto Reichskommissariat Ostland was a civilian administration, military occupation was replaced by civilian occupation. --Martin (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, let's finish with occupation first. We have one definition of occupation (from the Hague convention) and the Peters' definition. The second one needs to be supported by reliable sources. Can you provide them, or you agree with the definition form the Hague convention?

Secondly, you again mix "aggression" and "occupation". The USA committed the acs of aggression against Granada (condemned by the UNO) and (re)installed the (overthrown) government there. Is this government the "occupation regime"? Similarly, the USSR, after winning the war against Romania, installed Communist regime there? Was this regime "occupation regime"?

Re Reichskommissariat Ostland. I would say, it was a German colony/protectorate. I don't know if it was under martial laws during this time (it is highly probable that it was), but in any event, since that took place during the war, it is hard to what concrete status (colony or occupied territory) this territory had. However, since a big part of this territory belonged to the USSR proper, and assuming that we discuss the Reichskommissariat Ostland as whole, it is logical to conclude that it was the occupied territory. In any event, the German installed authorities were not internationally recognised neither de jure nor de facto, and, taking into account that throughout all its short history the Reichskommissariat Ostland was a part of the Eastern front, it is hard to speak about supreme authority of civilian administration there.

With regard to civilian occupation, what concretely do you mean under that? Occupation by civilians? In actuality "civilian occupation" means in English mostly someone's occupation during his civilian life (by contrast to his military rank). I found only three sources (one of which is a WP mirror) that contained the term "civilian occupation regime" [9].--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I found one more mention of "civilian occupation" in a context of the Russian Empire period:

"Russia sought to obliterate the Lithuanian nation through assimilation. In fact, the very name of Lithuania was to be erased from the map. By decree Lithuania was renamed the “Northwestern Territory” and proclaimed original Russian land.5 Historical Lithuanian territories were divided into nine Russian administrative provinces (gubernia). Lithuania was ruled by decree. Governor General Konstantin Kaufman euphemistically called the bureaucracy’s arbitrary rule “civilian occupation,” a process of “bringing … new civilization to the country.”6 Let us consider how the “civilizing” efforts of the Tsarist administration fared in Lithuania." ([10])

Thus, this POV is in full accordance with the notorious Vīķe-Freiberga's position (that was criticised by Malksoo) that the period of the Russian rule was "occupation". However, such a wide and amateurish interpretation of the term "occupation" makes it simply senseless: assuming this POV, most contemporary states are occupation regimes; France occupied England after the Battle of Hastings, however, it itself was occupied by Normans, and before by Franks. The USA occupied its own territory, Japan occupied Hokkaido, Romania occupied Transilvania, and so on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, can we stick with academic sources, the problem with politicians like Vīķe-Freiberga is that, well, they are politicians. We agreed that Mälksoo was an acceptable source, but you appear to be rejecting his central conclusion and instead be relying upon footnotes and the fact that he used the term "annexation" to arrive at his conclusion. If you remain unconvinced how about the Dutch scholar Peter Van Elsuwege: "The forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940, on the basis of secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is considered to be null and void. Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries for a period of fifty years, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law"[11]. or the English man David J Smith in the preface to his book "Estonia: independence and European integration": "for the period 1940-91, Estonia was deemed as a de jure independent republic under illegal occupation by the USSR", or Martinson in the International Journal of Social Economics: "After 50 years of Soviet Occupation, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania regained their de facto independence in 1991". The notion that the Baltic states were occupied has been out there for quite a while, ample opportunity for some scholar to say "hang on, I disagree". Unlike the academic debate on the Ukraine famine where we can identify academics to disagree on many aspects, there os no such debate in the case of the occupation of the Baltic states. The only dissenting voice is the political opinion of the Russian government, particularly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and their Journal of International affairs they control; their position is that the Baltic states joined voluntarily, a position that has been roundly refuted by scholars in journals, books, commissions of inquiry, court cases, legal judgements, declarations and political statements. --Martin (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Elsuwege, You are taking his quote out of context here by skipping the preceding sentence: From the outset, supporters of Baltic independence focused on the illegality of the events of 1939–40.. So in the following sentence is considered refers to the considerations of the supporters of the Baltic thesis. (Igny (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

• Not neutral Editors should be aware that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. That means that unless there is a consensus that the Baltic states were occupied, we cannot state There are in fact other ethnic conflict articles where the same arguments are made, e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands (or is it the Malvinas?) Doesn' matter - we don't take sides. While I appreciate that editors wish the story to be told, choosing a name like this makes readers assume it is biased before reading it. Just stick to neutral writing and trust readers to form their own opinions without a heavy dose of propaganda. TFD (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide valid non-propaganda sources or other examples supporting your statements? Or are these just empty words yet again? --Sander Säde 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is apparent that TFD hasn't read the literature, otherwise he would know that ethnicity plays no part, unless of course he believes scholars like John Hiden, David J Smith and Konstantin Khudoley are Balts. Ofcourse I may be wrong and he has in his possession a paper published in a peer reviewed journal that claims no occupation took place, by all means TFD should post a cite here. --Martin (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TFD- As I explained earlier, this RfC is not about neutrality, rather, it is about appropriateness. Article titles need not be neutral; just take one look at Rape of Belgium for proof. As for sources, you would have done well to look through the previous discussions on this page. You clearly have not taken even a glance at them, it seems, so I do implore you to do so at this time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Only neutral titles are appropriate (with limited exceptions). Re exceptions, let me reproduce my earlier post (that has been left unnoticed by Lothar von Richthofen)

"Yes, the title don't need to be neutral "when a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources)"; in this case " Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids..." The problem is, however, that the subject (of this particular article) has no single name, and I persuasively demonstrated that. Therefore, this argument doesn't work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I did not ignore your comment. My point is this: "not neutral" alone is not a valid argument without sources. TFD's comment brought nothing of any real worth to the discussion and demonstrated a significant degree of ignorance towards the subject matter. It was empty recitation of article content policy (not article name policy) laced with pure personal opinion, with no references to any source, reputable or otherwise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The name reminds me of propaganda from the World Anti-Communist League or "Jesus to the Communist World Incorporated". A mixture of forged pictures, distorted facts and screaming accusations - in fact a far right mirror image of Stalinism. When the Soviet Union existed, no one reterrered to the Baltic States as the Soviet-occupied Baltic States, any more than people today refer to Gibraltar as "British occupied Gibraltar". TFD (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Statements like "When the Soviet Union existed, no one referred to the Baltic States as the Soviet-occupied Baltic States" indicate that perhaps you should read up more on this topic before contributing.--Martin (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. Yes, we agreed that Mälksoo was an acceptable source, but we disagree about what his conclusion was central. In my opinion, Mälksoo, as well as many other scholars, was not focused on terminology (simply because the status of the Baltic states cannot be characterised by a single word), preferring to discuss the continuity issue. As a result, the exact wording had auxiliary role: in Mälksoo's monograph you can find the word "annexation" (even in the title), he also used the term "illegal annexation", "occupation sui generis" etc. If you read other reliable sources, you will find that these words are also mixed, used simultaneously, or the word "absorption" is used instead. In any event, since many sources use different wording, the title must reflect that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mälksoo word counting (continuing the above discussion)

@Paul, counting words as if "annexation" and "occupation":

1. are mutually exclusive, or
2. are two different labels with differentiating connotations for the same event (whether that be a point in time or occuring over a period of time, even for decades)

is your personal synthesis. "Annexation" and "occupation" are not mutually exclusive. "Annexation" and "occupation" do not refer to the same thing. You count "15 apples" and "11 bananas" and posit both counts refer to the same fruit and that Mälksoo, in point of fact, prefers bananas. If I keep needing to respond to your seemingly bottomless well of syntheses I'll never get to that "longer response" I promised you (!).

@TFD, more personal synthesis that Gibraltar applies. Forged pictures? Yes, by the Soviets, even the most famous picture of the hammer and sickle being raised above the ruins of Berlin is doctored. Your rant has no constructive purpose in this discussion.

@Paul, @Lothar: Titles should be appropriately descriptive reflecting mainstream scholarship. "Occupation" fits. The underlying "titles must be neutral" thesis here is that "milquetoast" = "neutral". There is no WP:MILQUETOAST. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to be helpful. If you create a title right out of 1950s Cold War propaganda then people will believe the article is propaganda, even if it is written from a neutral point of view. Anti-Communists create sympathy for Communism through their shrillness and distortions. Forged pictures? Yes by both Communists and the far right. TFD (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First you claim it is an ethnic dispute, now you claim it is ideological. First you say "When the Soviet Union existed, no one referred to the Baltic States as the Soviet-occupied Baltic States", then claim the title "is right out of 1950s Cold War propaganda". Please, do some reading, all the sources are based on studies made long after the Cold War ended. --Martin (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Peters. I fully understand that you don't have to provide an evidence in support of your thesis that my statements are my personal synthesis. It is my burden to refute this your statement. However, before I'll try to do that, please, explain me what kind of evidence will convince you in the fact that my words are not my personal synthesis?

In particular, I would like to know if by talking about the thesis that "annexation" and "occupation" are mutually exclusive we are discussing the Baltic case, or we talk about the issue in general? If we discuss the question in general, will the quote below be sufficient proof that I didn't invent this formula ("annexation" and "occupation" are mutually exclusive) by myself? Here it is:

""The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state’s homeland. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission. Although colonial powers may insist that they are on a civilizng mission to foster the eventual independence of a colonized territory, they are frequently willing to stay indeanitely to achieve these goals. This distinction is what makes successful occupation so difficult: in an occupation, both sides—the occupying power and the occupied population—feel pressure to end an occupation quickly, but creating enough stability for the occupation to end is a great challenge. Occupations are also distinct from short-term interventions in which the occupying power exerts little political control over the territory in which it has intervened."

(David M. Edelstein "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" (International Security, Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91. doi:10.1162/0162288041762913, MIT press)

You may argue that this MIT publication may theoretically represent minority or fringe views, however, in my opinion, by quoting this reliable source I persuasively demonstrated that I did no synthesis. If you need additional proof, feel free to ask, however, now I believe I have a right to get exhaustive explanations from you on why do you think the evidence presented by me did not satisfy you.

I would also know if our previous dispute (about the Hague convention and the definition of occupation) has already been resolved, or you still are accusing me in synthesis in this particular aspect too.

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, short answer is that we should limit ourselves to sources which deal with the specific situation of the Baltic states as a primary topic (as opposed to mentioned in some ancillary context). That will go a long way to eliminating reading to each other from dictionaries or from reputable sources but which do not specifically discuss them as primary topic. Any source applied to discussion of the Baltic states' situation which does not specifically deal with it as a primary topic is our personal synthesis. I've had this argument ad nauseum with Vlad Fedorov and numerous other editors. The sooner we rigorously eliminate every scholarly and other source that does not directly apply per its discussion of the Baltic situation, specifically, the sooner we'll have a conversation absent of rants (TFD), of slurs against past Latvian presidents (yourself I believe), of contentions of bogus-ness (that would be me). Clearly, eliminating those aspects of the dialog here will improve its overall quality. (That does not mean an article should not state general cases or concepts, but editors should not make contentions about what applies to the Baltic situation, that is personal synthesis/original research.)

As for Hague and Geneva, again, we can have informative debates (and I expect I'll still give you that longer answer), but as I just indicated, for an article, our quoting treaties and paragraphs thereof directly to make personal contentions regarding occupation or annexation is our synthesis and original research. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, then did I understand you correct that, all your general statements about usurpation, "occupation is occupation", etc, referred to the Baltic states specifically? Does it mean that the term "occupation" in this particular case meant something not covered by a standard definition of occupation (e.g. that given in Hague)?

And one more concrete question. Since many reliable sources use the term "annexation" or "absorption" to describe the event in the Baltic states in 1940 and later, and many of them does not use the term "occupation" at all, would it be a synthesis from my side to insist that both terms ("occupation" and "annexation") should be used in the title? Would it be a synthesis to claim that the USSR did not install occupation administration in the Baltic states?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, Mälksoo devotes an entire chapter to whether the term "occupation" is an appropriate term for the period and his conclusion to that chapter is that it is valid. He uses "annexation" in other parts of his book as he is discussing other aspects related to the act of annexation. "Annexation" is a discrete event, while "occupation" is either an event or state lasting a certain duration, depending upon the context of usage. "Period of occupation" is more idiomatically correct that "period of annexation". We already have the sub article Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940), which deals with the dual events of occupation and annexation. Occupation of the Baltic states is an overview article spanning a period of time. Regarding Edelstein's quote: "The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state’s homeland. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission", well the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states wasn't permanent, was it? It ended after 50 years. Many colonial regimes have similar periods. Certainly some authors contend that it was more an [period of colonialism], perhaps the title Occupation and colonisation of the Baltic states may be more appropriate, but I am not insisting in introducing the term "colonisation" into the title. Occupation and annexation are different things, one potentially arising out of the other, as Edelstein states, the real question is "annexation" or "colonialisation". --Martin (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on your description, annexation would appear to be correct, except annexation usually refers to an event, not a period of time. For example, Texas was annexed to the U.S. but the term Texas Annexation would not be used to refer to the contemporary status of Texas. Colonialism would be incorrect as well because the term is usually used in a very strict sense, viz., overseas European empires. (Tsarist Russia for example was not colonialist, merely imperialist.) TFD (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we can have some agreement that the term "annexation" refers to an event, not a period of time. Imperial Russian colonialism has been extensively written about, but unlike the often brutal overseas European empires, the Imperial Russian colonial masters were fairly benign and even beneficial to the local indigenous populations. A reasonable comparison between Imperial Russian and Soviet colonialism is found here. --Martin (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Some writers may use the term in a broad sense, but generally it only refers to European overseas colonies. See for example the Google book search.[12] Even overseas possessions of the United States (e.g., Puerto Rico) are not normally referred to as colonies. Even Briish Overseas Territories, such as Gibraltar, are excluded. TFD (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin. You write "the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states wasn't permanent, was it?" Yes, if we define "non-permanent" as something that eventually ended, Soviet annexation wasn't permanent. It was no more permanent that British annexation of Ireland, colonisation of India, French colonisation of Louisiana, or Spanish conquest of Central America. I would go even further, saying that if we define "non-permanent" in this way, no permanent things exist in this world. Obviously, under "permanent" Edelstein meant something that is deemed permanent in this concrete moment. The USSR treated the Baltic Soviet Socialist Republics as the permanent members of the USSR, therefore this acquisition had to be considered as permanent during that time. That is obvious.

Re colonization, let me remind you that metropolia has the status that is different from that of its colonies. Please, explain what was the difference between the status of Estonian SSR and Belorussian SSR or RSFRS? If we agree that the Estonian SSR was the Soviet colony, the same approach can be extended on other 14 SSRs, because all of them has the same status within the USSR (except Ukrainian SSR and Belorussian SSR, but not RSFSR, were UNO members).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I did brief google scholar search, and I got three results for "colonisation of the Baltic states" [13] ("occupation of the Baltic states" gives 307 [14] and "annexation of the Baltic states" gives 446 [15]). I think, no comments are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

RRS I re-read the chapter 4, and I cannot say that I found anything new. I would summarise the Malksoo's conslusions as follows: Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, it occurred via intervention, and the fact of annexation was not recognised by major western states. This annexation had many traits of occupation, and can be described as "occupation sui generis", "Annexionsbesetzung" ("annexive occupation"), although it was different from classical occupation in many aspects. That was Malksoo says, and that is an additional argument in favour of addition of the word "annexation" to the lede. Regarding "annexation as an event vs occupation as a process", let me propose to count how frequently used Malksoo the term "period of annexation" (and its variants). Maybe I missed something, but this term is used more frequently than "period of occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You are saying "This annexation had many traits of occupation", but you have this back to front. What Mälksoo is saying in chapter 4 is that the occupation theory is confirmed in principle, by qualified. In other words it is an occupation with traits of annexation. The reason it had traits of annexation is because of the occupation's duration, but in principle remains an occupation. A correct summary of Mälksoo's conclusions is as follows: Soviet occupation of the Baltic states was a quasi-belligerent or forcible peace time occupation, the applicability of the 1907 Hague conventions to forcible peace time occupation is affirmed, normally annexation ends occupation, however annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, it occurred via intervention, and the fact of annexation was not recognised by major western states. This occupation had gained many traits of legal annexation, due to the passing of time, and can be described as "occupation sui generis", but in essence is still occupation. What you are describing is "annexation sui generis", annexation with many traits of occupation. He recap in the first lines of chapter 5: "The conclusions of the previous chapters - that the prescription did not take place in the annexed Baltic states and the three republics remained occupied by the USSR" sums up his chapter 4 conclusions in a nutshell. --Martin (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I have it back to front. You correctly write that Malksoo noted that normally annexation ends occupation, however, the major conclusion in the chapter 4 is that, despite the annexation (which seems indisputable for Malksoo) we can speak about continuation of occupation (which was, nevertheless, some non-orthodoxal occupation). In other words, the conclusion is "illegal annexation with some traits of occupation". In this situation, since I do not propose to remove the word "occupation" from the lede, and taking into account that the term "annexation of the Baltic states" is used more frequently by reliable sources then "occupation of the Baltic states", I simply cannot understand what your objections are based on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet again: From page 193 of Mälksoo's book: "Not withstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title." It is your objections that are based on fiction. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, what objection are you talking about? I do not object against the word "occupation", I would say my opponents object against the addition of the word "annexation".

Secondly, the quote provided by you ("Not withstanding the annexation...") demonstrates that, according to Mälksoo, annexation did occur, although, according to the chapter 4, and by contrast to the normal practice, it did not terminate occupation. Therefore, both events took place, and both of them should be mentioned in the lede.

Thirdly, do me a favour, please, give a more extended quote (until the end of the paragraph + plus the next para). --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that two events took place being the acts of occupation then annexation, but in the context of the title meaning of "occupation" is related to term of foreign control or period spanning both both Soviet and German occupations, this is an overview article after all. I have no objection to the term "annexation" being included in sub-article Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) which is focused on the two events you speak of. I will post an extended quote from the English language version of the book as soon as possible. --Martin (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this overview article includes the annexionist activity of the Soviet authorities (when they treated the Baltic states not as the occupied territory, but as a part of the USSR), and since Malksoo explicitly writes that that activity cannot be fully rejected as the acts of the occupants, the word "annexation" cannot be omitted from the title. Otherwise, the article's scope should be limited to immediate post-WWII time (which is hardly what you want).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The article overview also includes the German occupation and "genocidist" activity of the Nazis, should we then name the article Occupation, annexation and genocide in the Baltic states? I think adding "annexation" would limit the scope of the article even further to the 1940 period, and we already have an article called Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). --Martin (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re genocide, since German occupation was accompanied by genocide almost everywhere in Eastern Europe the word "genocide" is redundant. It was just one of the aspects of occupation (btw, not only of the German one; if I am not wrong, the actions of the Soviet Union against the Baltic citizens also had some traits of genocide, although were directed primarily against the social groups, not the ethnic groups).

The idea that "annexation" is an act, whereas occupation is the process, is also not fully correct. As I already noted, Malksoo (as well as many other scholars) frequently use the words "during the Soviet annexation" referring to the period, not to the act. Again, the words "during the (period) Soviet annexation" are appropriate when we discuss the Soviet activity when the latter treated the Baltic states as annexed, not occupied territories. That includes industrialisation, capital investments, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Intent of the RFC request

Could someone please explain to me the purpose of this RfC? If it is to draw attention of neutral editors to this highly partisan debate with intent to demonstrate some non-existent consensus to remove the POV-title tag, then it should be obvious by now that it has largely failed to achieve both goals (it neither drew neutral editors nor demonstrated any sort of a consensus). It was poorly phrased with regard to explaining what is actually deemed wrong with the current title nor did it provide any alternative nor did it pave a way to any kind of a compromise. I could see that any request to rename the article would be premature, as they would end with the same result, no consensus, despite the fact that NPOV policy should prevail over voting. It is however clear by now that the POV-title tag should stay indefinitely, because no one has demonstrated any meaningful resolution to the raised concerns short of renaming the article. I agree with Peter above, enough has been said already, everyone has exhausted their arguments and we are mainly being repetitious. This really leads nowhere, although I do applaud Paul's efforts to convince his opposition to adhere to one of the chief WIkipedia standards. (Igny (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Well, shoot a man for trying... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure we will discuss this more/again at some point, however it is quite clear that there will be no agreement (among editors here) for title change or scope of article.

I would note that Latvia administered as an annexed territory was the manner of rule chosen by the USSR; that does not change the USSR's status of occupant. Perhaps that is something narrower that can be discussed further. (But let's not rehash personal contentions that "occupation can't last 50 years.") PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is well known that neutrality requirements cannot be superseded by editorial consensus. I provided the sources (many reliable sources) that demonstrated persuasively that the term "annexation" is used very frequently to describe these events. Therefore, and taking into account that consensus is not a right of veto, but a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised, I am waiting for clear and concrete explanation of why the word "annexation", which is being extensively used by many reliable sources to describe the status of the Baltic republics within the USSR, should be removed from the title. Taking into account the amount of reliable sources cited during this discussion, any further references to "personal contentions" are completely unsubstantiated and will be considered as an attempt to avoid constructive discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

PS In my opinion, by starting this RfC Lothar von Richthofen did a right thing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. Glad to know some people are capable of assuming good faith here... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You gave me no reason so far to doubt in your good faith. I would say, all participants of this dispute are capable of assuming good faith. However, the issue is too personal for some of them; as a result, it is sometimes hard to accept logical arguments from others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Shake hands with one hand, take swipes with the other. I guess all's fair... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good faith or not, let me tell you what may happen next, I am usually good with these predictions. If one tries to initiate a request to move now, it will end with no consensus. The same editors will flood the discussion with same arguments and largely ignore (refuse to hear) any strong counter-arguments or counter them with straw man arguments. The closing admin would decide that he heard equally convincing (or unconvincing) arguments from both sides, and would choose to keep the status quo (the current title) because it is a rather safe bet, NPOV be damned. Ironically, the failure to move would then be another argument of defenders of the current title in future debates. It has happened many times before, it will happen again. The strength of position of proponents of the current title is that the consensus is needed to rename the article. Their weakness is that the consensus is needed to remove the POV tag. I have a feeling that the proponents of the current title have already made peace with the existence of the tag as long as the title stays their way, bringing WP up to NPOV standards at expense of their ideas has never been their goal. If you think that anything I have just said is untrue, let me know, I will initiate the request to move myself. (Igny (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Yes, it's all our fault. Because you always worked to form a consensus. You never flatly rejected requests to come up with a different idea. You were the one to attempt to bring in neutral editors to try and sort things out. Codswallop. Your "my way or the highway" attitude on this talkpage has certainly been one of the contributing factors to the current stalemate. Contrary to your accusations, I started the RfC not with the nefarious desire to kill your tag, but to try and break the impasse one way or the other, because I had become sure that neither side here was willing to give an inch. But the problem is not that my RfC was poorly constructed, it is that RfCs have poor visibility across the encyclopedia. I managed to get a few non-regulars to comment before the thread was hijacked by us in the "usual gang of idiots" (myself included) and driven into yet another stone wall. All told, I agree with Bahudhara's first comment that this endless war over the title is distracting us from improving the actual article. But it seems that we are going to continue this competition in hair splitting ad nauseam, consensus-building be damned. In that case, I'm withdrawing for now. I may rejoin the fray when people here have the maturity to assume good faith and try to reach agreements (that also means not attacking those who try to invite discussion from outside editors). And don't fire back with another weaselly "It's all your fault, not mine" response, because it takes two to tango, my friend. Everyone here holds their slice of blame for the situation which you so apocalyptically described. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not attribute to bad faith what can be attributed to disillusionment. (Igny (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

RFCs are meant to solicit outside uninvolved comment. I purposely held off commenting until Paul jumped in with his comments. If you are disillusioned by the outcome of this RFC, perhaps next time there is an RFC or request for a third opinion, the regulars ought to hold off and allow the process to work. --Martin (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure Bahudhara's is completely correct, because disagreement over the title is a strong indication of the existence of the major disagreement over the article's content. I would say, by reaching a compromise over the title we would facilitate resolution of other article's issues. With regard to your other points, what I cannot understand is the following. I believe I know most participants of this dispute rather well, and all of them seem quite reasonable and sober editors. They definitely are biased, but this bias, after collision with my own bias, usually leads to creation of good and neutral content. However, in this particular case I see something unusual: even when their arguments are exhausted, they continue to maintain the same mantra which, using the paraphrase of the famous Ford's words, sounds like: "You may use any term to describe the events in the Baltic, provided that this term is "occupation"". I am not sure that is the way towards consensus, and I have a strong feeling that any attempts to modify the article to comply with neutrality criteria would hit the same wall.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you and Igny please focus on the topic rather that the people involved. Igny claims adding the term "annexation" makes the title more neutral. NPOV means representing all viewpoints, but given that the only the dissenting viewpoint, that of the Russian government and journals controlled by the Russian government, is that the Baltic states were never annexed (not even legally) but joined voluntarily, how does adding that term make the title more NPOV in respect to the Russian government POV. The claim the title is not neutral rings some what hollow with respect to the real published viewpoints. I suggest there is need to formulate another reason other than NPOV if progress wanted on renaming the article. --Martin (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not know what is the current official Russian POV, and I am absolutely not interesting to know it, and to take it into account. Russian official POV (as well as the official POVs of other states) is just a primary source for us. What I know is that many reliable secondary sources speak about annexation ("forcible annexation", "illegal annexation", "absorption", "incorporation", etc), and many of them do not even use the word "occupation". In this situation the choice between "occupation of..." and "occupation and annexation of..." seems quite obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As others have stated, such a change would preclude the German occupation and focus solely upon the Soviet. That could be problematical given that both occupations are somewhat related via the Soviet-German pact. That said, do you have a secondary source that contends the annexation was legal? I haven't seen one so far. If not, would you accept "occupation and illegal annexation of..."? --Martin (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Title and first paragraph

So let us restart discussion I would like to hear the objections to change of the title and the following rewrite of the first paragraph.

The occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union was the occupation sui generis(ref) of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union under the auspices of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 14 June 1940 followed by their forcible annexation into the USSR as constituent republics.(ref) The Soviet control of the Baltic states was interrupted by occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany during the World War II between June 1941 and autumn 1944. The Baltic states regained independence on 20–21 August 1991.

The rest of the article is fine as it is. (Igny (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

• Pros

1. No more POV tag
2. Elimination of perceived bias in the current title
3. Elimination of the SYNTHesis of Soviet and German occupations
4. The Russian/Soviet POV stays out of the title
5. Put an end to this endless bickering

• Cons

1. The term occupation gets diluted, and the new title may imply that annexation ended occupation
2. Occupation of Baltic states loses continuity due to division into two separate historical events
3. Annexation lacks de-jure recognition, its legality is disputed, so we should ignore it as it never happened
4. Baltic states got occupied and remained occupied for decades, their annexation was a one-time event (they did not remain annexed?)
5. The Russian/Soviet POV stays out of the title

Regarding your pro points: 2) No one has actually articulated what that percieved bias is, just Google counts on which term has more search hits; 3)the so called "SYNTHesis of Soviet and German occupations" still exists in the lede and in the body of the article, and this elimination contradicts your statement "The rest of the article is fine as it is."; 4)As Paul states, this Russian/Soviet POV is derived from political primary sources, in any case it is mentioned in the body of the article;

Regarding your con points: 1) that is a valid concern, and is related to 3; 2)that is a valid concern, readers may not get the full context of the topic as discussed in secondary sources; 3)the legality if the annexation is not disputed in peer-reviewed literature, the primary dispute is a political dispute at government level between "illegal annexation" <-> "freely joined the USSR"; 4)the reasoning here goes - Baltic states got occupied, annexation was attempted in 1940, due to the illegality of this annexation, the international non-recognition of the annexation, the resistance by the Baltic people to the Soviet regime and the uninterupted functioning of rudimentary state organs in exile, sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, hence the territory retained the status of occupied territory under international law, although due to the passage of time certain facts had to be accepted and full restitution was not possible, hence "occupation sui generis". --Martin (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We have professor Mälksoo's opinion

Dear editors, I have contacted professor Mälksoo on the matter. I will post his opinion below. I sincerely hope this will bring an end to this dispute. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been told that a debate has unfolded in wikipedia over whether an article should be entitled "Occupation of the Baltic States" or "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In my opinion, the debate demonstrates the continued relevance and importance of the whole topic. However, I do not think that choosing any of the two titles would result in the 'victory' of any of the political fractions.

In fact, I would agree with those who claim that it is more precise to re-entitle the article as "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". The Baltic Sattes were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation.

However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States.

Many thanks for your interest and with greetings to all wikipedia editors,

Lauri Mälksoo,

Professor of International Law,

University of Tartu

Thank you Jaan Pärn for your good faith attempt to find a way out of the impasse. In my opinion, the debates should be closed now, and the prof Mälksoo's viewpoint should be accepted without reservations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

At last, a conclusion. I would like to remark, though, that Mälksoo does not seem to find the occupation-only title to be "not neutral"; he just finds the addition of "annexation" to be more "precise". I can concede this, and I think that this debate would have been much quicker and more civil had "NPOV" not been thrown about so much with so little justification. In the end, it really does boil down to "appropriateness", it seems. But who am I to talk... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people usually resort to NPOV argumentation when all other arguments are ignored by the opposite party. When I have disputes on others, less politically charged WP pages, we usually achieve consensus without unneeded reverences to NPOV. And, frankly speaking, do you see any new serious arguments in the Mälksoo's response that had not been earlier proposed by the proponents of the word "annexation"? Both sides were quoting the same sources, both sides were pretending that their interpretation of these sources was correct. In that situation, when the course of the events would inevitably lead to preservation of the status quo, I doubt the debates would have been quicker had we avoided NPOV arguments (which, as you probably know, cannot be superseded by the consensus).
We all must learn the lessons from this story. My own lesson is that the dispute over the issue, which is very sensitive for the Baltic citizens, has been resolved due to the honest and neutral position assumed by one Baltic WP editor and one Baltic scholar. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks to Jaan for taking the initiative to contact Professor Mälksoo. Per WP:V, I ask that Jaan forwards Professor Mälksoo's email to me for verification.

In regard to Lothar's comment, it is true that tagging the article "NPOV" was unhelpful, nobody articulated how the addition of the term "annexation" made the title any less POV, since Professor Mälksoo confirms illegal annexation equals extended occupation. Given the use of Google counts by those advocating the name change, it seems to me to be more an issue of WP:COMMONNAME rather than an issue of WP:NPOV

Lastly, Professor Mälksoo makes his agreement conditional upon making it absolutely clear that "The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR". This is directly related to the article State continuity of the Baltic states, and I am not sure Igny would agree to that. So overall the issue remains unresolved pending agreement on that aspect. --Martin (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to use neutral titles. While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV. TFD (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)