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.

Neutrality

Here is a link to an article about state continuity of the Baltic states. It seems that the matter is unclear and in dispute. Therefore, per neutrality, we should not present either the Baltic or the Russian views as facts, but explain the different positions. Whether 1940-1990 was an occupation or whether the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union is in dispute. Both views have been taken by different international organizations. TFD (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of Baltic versus Russian opinion. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC

Per your source, court cases clearly uphold the continuity of the Baltic states as the refusal to grant automatic citizenship to Soviet era immigrants from the Soviet Union is not considered a violation of rights, which it would be if the Baltic states were considered successor states. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is whether the Baltic states were occupied by or absorbed into the Soviet Union under public international law. The Baltic states and the Soviet Union (and Russia) took differing views on the matter. TFD (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say, the scholars are too serious people to discuss that b/s. The actual question is whether the Baltic states ceased to exist as a result of Soviet absorption, or their existence was not interrupted. (The mainstream POV is that it wasn't)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD's source pretty much cements "mainstream" is pretty much "any state except Russia"—other than some of the frozen conflict zone breakaways, I can't even say whether Russia has any vassals these days. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note it is the position of official Russia, many independent Russian academics share the same view as Western academics on the issue. --Martin (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Russian POV is essentially WP:FRINGE, and should be WP:WEIGHTed accordingly. We have discussed this matter before, I believe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When we use the term "mainstream" we are referring to academic and legal opinion, not political opinion of states or academics in the states affected. "The specificity of the Baltic case... illustrates the tension between the rinciples of legality (ex injuria non oritur jus) and effectiveness (ex factis jus oritur)". TFD (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And the conclusion is that ex injuria non oritur jus triumphs over ex factis jus oritur. --20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not always. Case to the point: Georgia failed to prove it was occupied since 1918. (Igny (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

That is true, Georgia failed, the Baltics succeeded. --Martin (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The source, which is neutral, shows that there is no consensus on either interpretation for the Baltic states and in fact both have some degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

More on the Malksoo's conclusion (Igny seems to cite him when he writes about Georgia). Malksoo concludes that the references to some international laws are not always justified, because in the situation when these laws are more frequenly violated than observed (which was the case in XX century), they become a fiction. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please read the article I presented, which discusses the status of the Baltic states under international law. We must present the accepted views and not argue about which Eastern European scholar's view we prefer. TFD (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out that, since the Western countries are (at least now) non-totalitarian, the opinion of the Western scholars is not a monolith. For instance, many of them attribute the Soviet actions in 1939-41 not only to bare expansionism, but also to simple self-defence. For instance, Teddy J. Uldricks (University of North Carolina) notes:

"With the exception of Czechoslovakia, each of these states not only gravitated toward authoritarianism in the 1920s and 1930s but also adopted policies hostile to the USSR. During those years, Soviet military planning documents routinely listed Poland, Rumania, and the Baltic states as likely to attack the Soviet Union. Moreover, as the Kremlin leaders well understood, the populations of these countries (Czechoslovakia again excepted) were not only overwhelmingly anticommunist but in many cases also deeply anti-Russian. Thus the tragic dilemma arose (which Wettig ignores): security for the USSR and genuine freedom for the East Europeans were essentially incompatible." (Icebreaker Redux: The Debate on Stalin's Role in World War II Continues. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 11, Number 3, Summer 2010, pp. 649-660 (Review))

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

An action may be morally right and legally wrong, and vice versa. TFD (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So a totalitarian state consuming other states is "morally right", then? Hah. I've heard nearly identical arguments from Nazi apologists regarding the invasion of Poland. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Absorption of an authoritarian state (like Lithuania) by a totalitarian state (like the USSR) was no more moral than absorption of a republic (like Hawaii) by a democratic ctate (the USA). The question is different: was the annexation a result of non-provoked Soviet expansionism, or the USSR had serious reasons for that? Of course, it is not an apology. For instance, noone can deny that Hitler had several very serious reasons for invasion of the USSR, although that is not an excuse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I never made any claims regarding the US. I was responding to TFD's insinuation that the occupation was "morally right", which I find risible. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And I made a claim that such an action, as well as most political steps, cannot be considered based on moral criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the paper that you presented and it states that Russia is the only country in the world to explicitly reject the legal continiuity of the Baltic states. Shrug. --Martin (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Baltics posed a threat to the USSR? That's an entertaining thought. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they posed, and the British and French refusal to recognise Soviet fears that Germany could invade the USSR using Estonia and Latvia as a bridgehead was a primary reason for the failure of the anti-German triple talk negotiations.--Paul Siebert (talk)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to T. Uldricks, though the source might be mentioned in a proper place. I remember Paul once (2009?) brought up Uldrick's earlier (critical) review of Viktor Suvorov's thesis, which - perhaps rightly harsh in tackling some problems in Suvorov's argumentation - seemed to be quite one-sided, actually aligning with the pre-1990s consensus in Soviet/Russian historiography treating controversy over Stalin's plans 1940/1941, completely ignoring other interpretations more favourable to Suvorov, that I tried to point out, if I remember correctly. MIaceK (woof!) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Although this would be a deviation from the major discussion topic, let me point out that the Uldricks' view on Suvorov are mainstream (if we speak about Anglo-American, not Central European scholars). The Suvorov's works have been criticised and debunked by most English and American scholars (others, except Raack, simply ignore him).--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the discussion in the section above regarding Soviet aggression and the timing of Barbarossa actually almost mirrors some of what Rezun/Suvorov writes about, so perhaps he's not entirely wrong. But I digress... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As for Soviet military planning, the possible military actions against Finland and the Baltic states were definitely phrased as defensive measures for the event of an aggression by those countries, something very difficult to imagine in reality. As for the population being anti-Russian, I think Uldricks is not correct regarding the situation in interwar Estonia or (esp.) Latvia. I have read that Ulmanis actually summed things up rather pessimistically in 1940, suggesting a Soviet takeover would mean some people would perish, whereas a German occupation would mean the Latvian nation would perish. We shouldn't forget that for many strata in the Balticn states, Germans, not Russians remained the archenemy till 1940. Hence, it would seem unfair to describe the people there as simply anti-Russian: even if they were, this was more of a sentiment of wariness about a Soviet threat (Germany no longer bordering Estonia/Latvia would no longer be a direct threat geographically). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Uldrich doesn't say the population was totally anti-Russian, he says in many cases it was anti-Russian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, and there were anti-German or (in the case of Lithuania) many anti-Polish elements, too. My point here would be that there was nothing that would've made the three countries inherently (largely) anti-Russian. Also, as far as the end of the quote is concerned - Thus the tragic dilemma arose (which Wettig ignores): security for the USSR and genuine freedom for the East Europeans were essentially incompatible I'm afraid the author is as close as we can get to falling to the once tempting trap of rationalizing Stalin's aggressive undertakings as defensive measures. This kind of argumentation used to be common perhaps 20 years ago, but no longer is in the Western scholarship I think. Today, more and more authors emphasize that most of the so-called dilemmas of security were created by Stalin's very policies, not vice versa. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Haslam, Carley, Roberts, Gorodetsky and other scholars are pre-1990s scholars. They represent a present days opinion, and this opinion seems to be mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it must have been a recent (Estonian) review of Norman Davis's book that encouraged me to think that the Stalin apologist trend has been steadily losing ground in the Western scholarship, too. But I'm afraid we are straying into other topics here, too.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no Stalin apology in the works of the scholars listed by me. The difference between them as the writings of Davis and similar writers is that they (i) do not represent Soviet leadership as some monolith; (ii) try to take into account as many archival data as possible (not only those that demonstrate diabolic nature of Stalin); (iii) do not present Stalin as some infernal monster, instead of that they try to outline rational motives behind his actions. I do not think it is an apology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether Stalin's motives were rational is a matter for debate. Konstantin Khudoley states there was no real military or economic benefit:

"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."

--Martin (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Even rational motives (i.e. those derived from the logical analysis of the situation) can lead to wrong decisions, and some irrational motives (nationalism, phobia, etc) may accidentally lead to correct steps. Therefore, your example does not demonstrate your point. In any event, Soviet (not only Stalin's) motives could be rational or not, however, it is absolutely incorrect (and non-polite) to call those who tries to find the rational motives "apologists".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you miss the point that nothing about an alleged perceived need for a buffer of territory (as opposed to it being a mere pretense for subjugation) justifies murder and deportation of hundreds of thousands of nationals of other sovereign states. If you artificially separate motive from method you become a de facto apologist. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(out) I presented the book,From Soviet republics to EU member states: a legal and political assessment of the Baltic states' accession to the EU by Peter Van Elsuwege (Brill Publishers).[1] The book reviews the various standpoints and explains the degree of acceptance of each one. The author conducted part of his studies at universities in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It makes more sense to use this book as a source than to argue over which interpretation of history we prefer. Does anyone question it as a reliable source? TFD (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have to read more on his treatment of ex factis jus oritur," the book being based on Van Elsuwege's doctoral thesis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

A couple of weeks have gone by with no further activity. I am hab/hatting the rename discussion (if I remember how to do that) and removing the renaming template. I would suggest we now discuss what is it, specifically, in the article which is "POV" which merits the tag. Based on a small modicum of success, I think it was with Igny, I would suggest that instead of stating something general involving interpretations of sections of content that we limit discussion to at most several sentences at a time so that only ONE point of dispute is under discussion at any time. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreed that the title should stay, and, taking into account all arguments and sources presented during this valuable discussion, I plan to modify the article to make clear that, despite the title, we cannot speak about pure occupation during the whole period of 1940-90.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree your plan is in the spirit of all relevant arguments presented here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to all as well. The dialog we had was, in the end, a bit more informative than others on the same issues. I do want to remind everyone that the scope of the article is:

the period of three contiguous occupations by two foreign powers with regard to the manifestations of those occupations

and that we should discuss changes prior to making them. With respect to the Soviet era, there may be content which is better suited for the articles on state continuity or the respective Baltic SSRs. And, once again to my request above, let's stick to ONE point at time so we can discuss specific perceived deficiencies in content and remedies in a focused manner. Let's avoid debates on whose view is the more "mainstream." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you meant by what is it, specifically, in the article which is "POV" which merits the tag. It is almost as if you have just arrived and never participated in any discussion earlier. While there was no clear consensus to rename the article, it is as clear that the tag should stay. Could you be more specific with regard to what part of the earlier discussions you need to repeat? (Igny (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Igny, since a discussion about neutrality became dormant, the tag can be removed. If you want to re-insert it, please, renew a dispute over some concrete neutrality issue. However, I recommend you to try to fix it by yourself first, and to re-add the tag only if the BRD cycle will lead to an impasse. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"discussion about neutrality became dormant" =/= "POV issue was fixed". Nowhere in WP:NPOV they say I need to restart the dormant discussion every so often for the tag to stay. Tag can only be removed after the dispute was resolved, and as I understand the policy, stonewalling and vetoing were never a part of dispute resolution. If they were, consider this comment as my veto to remove the tag. (Igny (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

I have to agree with Paul, it would be more constructive if you could at least articulate the issues that you see with the article. Consider using section level and inline tags so that we can focus in on the specific issue. Placing global tags and claiming veto without restating the particular issues of concern to you is not helpful. --Martin (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Below is the explanation of how to use this template (taken from Template:POV)

I also do not think the article is fully neutral, however, we all must concede that the discussion over its neutrality is dormant. Therefore, I remove this tag. Let's try to focus on concrete changes, and, if we will come to an impasse the tag may be restored. However, I see no reason for the tag to be here now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate closure

I am going to undo both the tag removal and the hatting as they are clear violations of WP:RM/CI. On such a contentious issue as this, we must follow protocol to a T. I shall request an admin to give this a legitimate closure. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be too formal. Since all participants agree that the discussion is dormant during last two weeks, this closure is just a formality.:-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Formality is needed in such a hostile environment as this. While I do not disagree with the attempted closure, it was highly improper and could pose problems down the road. I can envision accusations of debate-manipulation surfacing in the future, when tempers become inflamed once again. Plus, hatting a requested move discussion does not actually close it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't believe my closure violates WP:RM/CI as two weeks had passed (well beyond the suggested one week discussion period) since our exchanges ended on not pursuing a rename further. It appeared appropriate for us to move on to any issues editors had around specific content. Closures by non-admins are permitted. If you prefer to handle more formally, that is fine, of course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, the #1 summary point of the closing instructions says : "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey". You must admit that you were an active participant. Also, "non-administrators should restrict themselves to: Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days); Where there is no contentious debate among participants". The discussion was not unanimous and was subject to contentious debate (as is everything on this page).

I have made a request at WP:AN for a legitimate closure. Also, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your closure as improper, but in 100% good faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Few questions about the "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar"

I am sorry for asking a stupid question, but I cannot find this article in the "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar". The articles listed in this sidebar seem to more or less completely cover a whole period of the Baltic history from late 1920s till 1990s. This article is claimed to be a part of this series, however, it is not clear for me why it is not listed there and what is its role?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the reason for that inadequacy was that the template was a result of efforts of a neutral editor to push the sidebar away from merely whining about how the Baltic states are backward because they were occupied for 50 years to how the Baltic states were progressive in their fight for independence. (Igny (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Mind your tongue. Please at least attempt to demonstrate a facsimile of civility. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me ask again: can anyone explain what role this article plays in the "Occupation..." family? Before I'll start to edit this and sister articles I am genuinely interested to know the overall structure, because, as the sidebar implies, the structure seems to be rather clear and self-consistent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The sidebar has been an area of contention as well and could do with a bit of nested structure. In the meantime, the mainstream view (apologies in advance for using "mainstream", but it is true) is occupied for the duration of Soviet+Nazi+Soviet presence, this article being the parent dealing with acts against the sovereignties and nationals of the Baltic states by the foreign powers in question during the period in question. (Whether there are "unique" aspects to the second Soviet occupation is a separate item.) I hope to clarify the "role" part when I propose an improved template structure, which I believe requires a hierarchy--I'll do that at template talk when I have a proposed hierarchy ready and also post a note here as an FYI. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is close to how I understood this. In connection to that, I think the statement in the sidebar that this article is a "part of" is a little bit confusing: it is supposed to be in, but it isn't. I personally am satisfied with the structure of this "nest", and I will try to preserve this structure during my future work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The history of the sidebar is related to the history of this article. This article was split into a number of sub-articles, this article remained as the overview article and the sidebar was created as a navigation aid between this article and the constituent sub-articles. At the time the side bar article was created, it was anticipated that this overview article would be renamed to "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states" hence the sidebar was called "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar". However that rename failed (that move discussion was held in 2010) and now the sidebar has an anomalous name. I suggest that the template now be renamed to "Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar" to align it with this overview article. --Martin (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See here. (Igny (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Whereas I have no objection against the current article's title, I don't think the sidebar should be renamed. In addition, if this article is a summary of the whole nest of other articles (which seems to be a good idea), it should be modified accordingly. Concretely, the lede is supposed to describe not a single event ("The occupation of the Baltic states was ..."), but a series of different events (for instance "During the period from 1940 to 1991 the Baltic states were ..."). WP:LEDE says: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." That is exactly what we have here: the article describes a period of history of the Baltic states, not a single phenomenon, so the title does not need to appear verbatim in the first sentence. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As you recall Paul, this article was getting rather large and so it was decided to split it into sub-articles[2]: Background of the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states, Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940), Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany, Occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1944), Baltic states under Soviet rule (1944–1991), State continuity of the Baltic states. Per WP:SUMMARY this parent article remains the summary article and the sidebar is a navigation template to tie all the sub-articles that were split from this. Therefore I think there needs to be a link back to this article within the title of the side bar template so people can easily navigate between them. --Martin (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It was split not just because it grew large, but more importantly it became a SYNTH mixture of several topics. In fact, it still is both SYNTH and POV. The sidebar in my opinion should cover more fundamental topic, such as History of the Baltic fighting for independence, and this article should be a small daughter of that topic. (Igny (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

POV issues

The POV-title was removed, but I fail to see how the issue was fixed. Do I understand it correctly that there is going to be a genuine effort to fix the POV issue? Are there some concrete proposals which I failed to notice? Removal of the tags is not fixing the underlying issues, you know. (Igny (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

According to the rules, if the discussion is dormant the tag can be removed (what I have done). If you believe that the article has POV issues, try to fix them, and only if these attempts will face a persistent opposition the tag should be restored. However, I have a feeling that the POV issues can be fixed without it. In any event, we have at least to try...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)