Talk:Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080615014231/http://www.kilb.ee:80/polva05_1.htm to http://www.kilb.ee/polva05_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge to Occupation of the Baltic states

The subject of these two articles appear to be identical. I fail to see the reason for having two articles.Axxxion (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It is clearly not. Occupation of the Baltic states deals with three occupations (Soviet in 1940, Nazi in 1941, and Soviet again in 1944). This article deals only with the first occupation in 1940. Speedily removed merge tag. Renata (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Occupation or Annexation?

I'm surprised that English Wikipedia decided to present a completely one-sided and verifiably inaccurate terminology in the name of this article. Let me be clear - whatever we might feel about legitimacy of control of certain territories, there are specific terms used for various types of said control. In this case, we're dealing with annexation, of which modern examples would be, for example, Jerusalem (Jerusalem Law) or Crimea (Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation). In fact Annexation of Baltic Republics just redirects here, so the term is at the very least also accepted. I could provide modern examples of occupation as well - Iraq (occupation of Iraq), or Israeli occupation of the West Bank fit the bill perfectly. Occupation is commonly understood as Military occupation, and certainly this is what is implied in this case (it doesn't seem to have much to do with a job, protest, or residency), and on the page of its very own it is described as following:

Occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.

I don't know anything about any "temporary nature" intended for annexations of 1940, nor was it strictly military (with civilian rule established immediately), nor of any denial of citizenship rights, with Baltic citizens often rising to near the very top of the Soviet ruling classes (just one example being Boris Pugo, who was a Minister of Internal Affairs, and, briefly, one of the members of the collective leadership of USSR during GKChP) and always controlling the top positions in their own republics.

Annexation is not necessarily better than occupation - Czech lands were annexed as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia by the Nazis 1939. On the other hand, Cuba was briefly under military occupation during the Spanish–American War, which ended with the island obtaining its independence. What I don't understand is why does the Wikipedia insist on using the wrong terminology in order to make a political statement on behalf of the post-1991 governments of the Baltic States, who, unlike Finland, were quite peacefully annexed by the USSR, whatever the legality of the action would be in retrospect. In fact, annexations are, unlike occupations, rarely legal. Occupation of Germany certainly was legal, while annexation of Austria (aka Anschluß) would rarely be considered as such.

So, please, be so kind as to explain to me why I shouldn't switch the name of this page to Soviet annexation of the Baltic States (1940) with the current name working as a redirect for the proper title? I mean - really? Because outside of political considerations, there are literally no solid reasons to keep things as they are. Commissar of His Imperial Majesty, Metropolitan of the Politbureau CK CPSU, Serene Prince of the Council of People's Commissars - idio3. (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just went ahead and moved it. If anyone disagrees, I welcome the opportunity to hear your reasons - but please do provide them.