Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

--Termer (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Tag misuse is disruptive, Dojarca, who was instrumental in applying {{POV}} to this article, makes an interesting case that a casual Wikipedia user should be able to see objections to an article. I do not yet know my final position on this issue, but this article seems like a nice test case. Accordingly, I've replaced the problematic {{POV}} tag with a factually accurate {{I dislike this}} tag, with reference to Dojarca. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the reasons for tagging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_Baltic_states#Occupation_of_Baltic_states . They also presented in the archive. As the issue has not be resolved since, the reasons are still valid.--Dojarca 09:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on syllogistic history elsewhere. Editors insist on pushing the Russian position as equally valid (though 100% devoid of any sources whatsoever), or that absence of the word occupation somewhere denotes absence of occupation, or that occupation is just such a terribly "judgemental" term. Apparently we don't want to offend the very dead Soviet bear.

    Occupation is a proven fact, voluminously sourced, and contradicted by no source that has ever been produced by any editor. Again, the Russian Duma proclaimed Latvia joined the USSR legally, ergo--for that reason, and that reason alone--no occupation. Sources, please. If there is no reputable source produced backing the Russian position (detailing the particulars of how the Soviet annexation of Latvia was legal) within 30 days, I am untagging the article indicating your contention of "POV" is unsubstantiated WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tell you what, I'll leave your tagging untouched until November 1st (2007)--though I can only speak for myself, obviously. Good hunting for sources. As industrious as you and the other "disputing" editors have been, with all the time you've been able to apply here to protecting the very dead Soviet Union's honor, I do not expect this to be a challenge for you.

    While I must admit to admiring Anonimu's creativity in contending everyone knowing there are no sources because no one bothers to write about what is true, only liars need to write fiction about history (paraphrase, originally re: Romania), I expect a real source. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Application notes

If this becomes an accepted practice, some sort of bannershell will need to be developed to facilitate larger numbers of dislike tags. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fresh perspectives, not involved prior, new sources

No one has, as yet, found sources for Russia's contention of non-occupation of the Baltics by the Soviet Union. As an editor who believes the Baltics were occupied, even I have, nevertheless, sought reputable sources on Soviet historiography which lay out a factual basis for the Duma's proclamation that Latvia (and rest of Baltics) joined the USSR legally according to international law, simply to better understand history. To date, however, no reputable sources have appeared.
   Casual readers may not bother to look at talk pages, I am hoping we can stimulate new outside interest. I believe that as editors striving to practice "good faith", we would all prefer not to simply replay the last debate, now thankfully and mercifully archived. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that the search for a source on the Russian position is not simply about "occupation" or "non-occupation." If the Baltics joined the USSR legally according to international law (so, by their own laws/constitutions, by Soviet laws/constitution, by international laws and prior treaty obligations), then that supports the position that the current Baltic republics are not continuous with the first republics. All three republics, however, contend that they are continuous with their first incarnation. This question of continuity has far wider and greater implications than simply the question of occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think any state can proclaim its continuity with some state in the past if it wants.--Dojarca 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All three Baltic states point to specific actions and events as preserving continuity of their sovereignty regardless of events on their soil. It's not just a matter of declaration, there are legal ramifications (outside "occupation") stemming from whether the states are continuous or not. For example, I believe a Latvian is currently suing Russia for the Soviets deporting his family. No continuity/continuity determines whether that deportation was strictly a domestic matter or an act of aggression by one sovereign state against citizens of another sovereign state, respectively. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There are still Russian imperial family members still "preserving continuity" and Russia can declare its continuity with Russian Empire in some point in future depending on political situation.--Dojarca 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is quite true, but it has nothing to do with international law and sovereign rights. Continuity is a legal issue, royalty is hereditary and, as to any exercise of authority or national representation, purely political. Comparing the two is WP:SYNTH. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Importantly, there's an international consensus regarding the continuity of Baltic states being valid. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Source?--Dojarca 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article cites: Van Elsuwege, P. (2003). "State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States". Leiden Journal of International Law 16: 377-388.

    In all sincerity, have you read any of the sources cited in the article? We're not going to move beyond tagging unless we:

• read sources already cited;
• read new sources;
• determine if they are reputable (what they contend is based on independently verifiable facts presented in other reputable sources);
• once cited, affirm that their editorial representation in the article is factual and maintains the original sense of the source.

    As diplomatic verifiers of continuity, there are numerous pre-WWII treaty-governed relationships which were resumed after Baltic independence--that is, treaty in force from before WWII, no official act by either party to pass/ratify a new agreement, parties simply began observing again in terms of rights and obligations. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no free copy from that source in the net, can you provide a quote from that source that supports the statement?--Dojarca 15:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, Dojarca, since you asked for a source, you will indulge my asking if someone could finally produce a reputable source explaining the factual basis for Russia's official parliamentary declaration that Latvia (and by extension the Baltics) joined the USSR legally according to international law. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Russia can declare its continuity with Russian Empire in some point in future depending on political situation. Please note Dojarca that WP is for sharing knowledge, not fantasies. And why exactly has this article been tagged again? Is it yet another fantasy that the countries were not victims of the Soviet imperialism? The article has all possible POV-s present therefor the tag should be removed ASAP. Thanks!--Termer 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I still wait for the citation from the source regarding international consensus.--Dojarca 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Must be because you promptly ignored all the sources presented, including those mentioned in the arbcom and mediation you participated in. But because the sources are so easy to find, I'll amuse you one more time. The book Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR (ISBN 9041121773) should be a great read. On its 382 pages, it describes and analyses the issues of international law -- including the international recognition -- in depth. Oh, and before you complain -- Mälksoo is a recognised scholar of international law. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give us first the exact citation from this source supporting "international consensus".--Dojarca 05:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, you are starting to become very tedious with your constant demands for citations. Just because you do not have access to a free online version of something, does not invalidate it for the purposes of Wikipedia. If you really cared about the subject, and wanted to know the other side of the issue, you could go to a library and order a book or article, by Inter-library loan if need be. Anyhow, since you insist on being stubborn, here's a direct quote from Peter van Elsuwege's article in the Leiden Journal of International Law (ISSN 0922-1565; according to OCLC WorldCat, it is available at over a hundred research libraries worldwide, plus many more with online subscriptions):

The answer relies on the legal analysis of the prewar incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. According to the generally accepted view this was an illegal act, both under customary and conventional international law.⁵¹ (p. 387)

Illegality of annexation does not mean legal continuity, dont you agree? Otherwise Russia should be considered a legal successor of the Russian Empire as the October Revolution (and February revolution) were illegal. Estonian war for independence was also illegal according the imperial law. And I found no about international consensus. He may refer to his country's society or american society. This is obviously not correct for Russia for example.--Dojarca 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you protest further, footnote 51 refers to K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (2nd ed., 1968; OCLC 465725), p. 390. While one might be able to dismiss Mälksoo as part of some Baltic apologist cabal that is distorting the sacred precepts of international law, note that Peter van Elsuwege is a researcher on EU-Russian relations [1] and Russian minority issues in the Baltics.[2] — Zalktis 10:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give a citation?--Dojarca 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And, Dojaraca, can you cite "This is obviously not correct for Russia for example." Not quoting politicians, military, et al. but a reputable source which discusses how it is obvious based on verifiable facts that the Baltic republics are not continuous/were not occupied/were legally annexed/...? You insist on reverting the argument over that Soviet presence to:

• all reputable sources (not just Baltic political pronouncements and Baltic scholarship) indicate "illegal" = this would be consensus where writing an encyclopedia article is concerned
• all (current) official Russian political pronouncements indicate "legal"--the Russian-Lithuanian peace treaty mentions the annexation, but I don't have the text, perhaps someone can look up the 1st preamble?
• no reputable source indicate "legal"

ERGO (according to you and a very small cadre of other Wikipedia editors) the question of illegality vs. legality is an issue of POV. It is not.

To appropriately reflect the official Russian POV:

1. article represents Soviet actions according to reputable sources = illegal
2. "Official representations by governments"

1. Russia officially disagrees
2. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania agree (perhaps obvious, but note separately)
3. Others

I believe the article does so already, making it NPOV. To your latest requests on continuity, I suppose we could start "Continuity of Baltic states" as a separate focus.

Unless we want to recreate the article talk just archived, I am content to wait for Dojarca (and other) editors to bring a source--not their personal contentions--to the table to have something new to discuss. We've already proven that attempting to counter personal contentions with reputable sources does not make for effective editorial discussion. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that well known fiction writer from Wikipedia already made this article or atleast aimed at doing that. Suva Чего? 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask at last: is there any source for international consensus?--Dojarca 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof at last!

Since nobody else is even bothering to try to come with counter-sources that demonstrate the legality of the Soviet takeover of the Baltic states and/or the disrupted continuity of these states, in the name of WP:NPOV I'll have to give it a go. I've dug up a little morsel from The American Journal of International Law, vol. 48, no. 1 (Jan. 1954), p. 163.

It's a divorce case (Pulenciks v Augustovskis) in a Belgian Civil Tribunal from 1951. The judgement contains the assertions that, despite differing viewpoints about the use of force and the illegality of annexation and occupation, Latvia had ceased to exist, i.e. that "there was at present no state of Latvia or Latvian nationality". This court of first instance thus decided that Latvians were to be considered de facto and de jure Soviet nationals. Of course, numerous other rulings reported in the same journal from various American and European jurisdictions over the years run counter to this isolated Belgian interpretation, including a contemporaneous French ruling cited in a footnote to the case notice given here.

Do I get the prize, Pēters? Or is my source invalid, 'cause it's on JSTOR, and Dojarca probably can't access it...? — Zalktis 15:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit obscure but at least it's the first thing we've had to discuss. Did the ruling specifically use either the terms de facto or de jure, or simply state that, practically speaking, there was no state/nationality of Latvia? Certainly a place to start compiling some references.

    Still not examining legality/illegality (so Dojarca et al. are not off the hook) but it's more than has been produced since this "debate" started (which would be nothing). Academic articles archived on JSTOR are fine (as far as I'm concerned).

    I'll give due consideration to an appropriate prize. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with syllogistic history (in this case, substance by association as it has something to do with Belgians), I will also mention that as far as I'm aware, Belgium is also the only place where Latvian POWs were beaten and used for target practice. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This summary of the court ruling doesn't explicitly use the terms de facto or de jure, but it does include the following: ... the court found that "annexation and incorporation result in change of nationality," so that the parties became Soviet nationals. To my (admittedly, non-lawyer) mind, this means pretty much the same thing.

As for an appropriate prize, maybe you could award me a Kangars Barnstar – for services rendered in treacherously betraying one's compatriots to foreign invaders? I'm not choosy, though. Being a reptile, anything bright and shiny that I can horde will do! — Zalktis 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lāčplēsis... mm, haven't read that for 15 years at least, should re-read it. -- Sander Säde 07:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kangara kalnos drūmīgi šņāca lielajie meži,

Dziļajie purvji izsvīda miglu kalnāju starpās;

Mežos plosījās plēsīgi zvēri, nāvīgas čūskas

Lodāja purvjos, un bailīgi ūpji kauca pa naktīm. —

In the hills of Kangars wailed the great gloom-filled forests,

The abyssal swamps' sweated fog rising 'tween the hills;

Predators ran rampant through the woods, deadly snakes

Slithered in the swamps, and the eagle-owls howled fearfully through the night.

 —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems (Zalktis) a reasonable request! Well, the ruling conveniently sidesteps the issue, it's a "for the purposes of the court's ruling, the court views the individual as being a Soviet citizen" ruling. The phrases de facto and de jure are absent for a reason--neither can or should be inferred.

   Since my parents were in Latvia when it was annexed, I too was a Soviet citizen. Perhaps I'll mention that in your award. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Here is another brick in the wall: The Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe in the Light of International Law, by Jerzy August Bolesław Gawenda, published 1974, Foreign Affairs Publishing Co. [3] p135: "Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States is thus regarded as legally void, they must be regarded as being under Soviet occupation pure and simple" Martintg 03:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tag

I've removed the tag that Dojarca has put here as a part of his campaign to falsify history. The occupation of the Baltic states is not disputed, it is an accepted fact that can be found in any encyclopedia, not to mention any reference work on WWII. I suggest users to read the position taken by Encyclopedia Britannica on the matter. Yes, there are some people who deny that the occupation took place, but that doesn't change the fact one bit. There are people who deny the Holocaust, people who deny that the world isn't flat, people who deny that the earth moves around the sun, etc. If someone think they can add POV-tags to any article they happen to disagree with, they are mistaken. If an article is properly sourced, as this one is, and the claims in it are in line with the views taken by experts on that matter, then the article is not POV although its content may be displeasing some users. JdeJ 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this will keep the tag away. What you naively fail to see is that all English-language encyclopaedias, mass media, so-called "scholarly" publications, etc. are inherently biased, and therefore quoting them is likely to be viewed by neutral, unbiased editors (whose objectivity surpasses that of us mere mortals) as tantamount to POV-pushing. The only thing more biased than an English-language source is one in Polish, Latvian, or Estonian — none of these should ever be considered reputable. The tag will be back in a flash ... just wait and see! — Zalktis 09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's only a matter of time now that someone devoid of good will posts a diff somewhere affirming that "Even Zalktis denounces all English-language sources as biased." ... just wait and see! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That would only demonstrate that such persons do not understand that, as a snake, I inevitably speak with a forked tongue. — Zalktis 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Again. Occupation is possible only of foreign territory. Saying the Baltics were occupied until 1991 is contrary to the definition. Why Western sources should be regarded as more reputale than Soviet ones?--Dojarca 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• No one has posted any specific Soviet sources. I will remove the tag until you post some references to these Soviet sources you think exist. Then we can make progress. Martintg 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The source is the constitution in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia whach states the Baltic states are the parts of the USSR.--Dojarca 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why Western sources should be regarded as more reputale than Soviet ones? Thank you for the question Dojarca. As far as I'm concerned, Soviet sources can't be considered as encyclopedic sources at all simply because it was an authoritarian and totalitarian regime. Although I think it's just interesting to include these as an example of manipulated historic POV.--Termer 02:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  This is simply your POV that it was totalitarian. Anyway the Soviet authors still alive and the point of view should be attriobuted to the researcer personally.--Dojarca 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, you are proving my ironic comments above to be correct. If I understand you correctly, Soviet sources are to be treated as reliable, because in the scholarly writing about history, politics, international relations, etc., the CPSU never exerted any political pressure or censorship on the scholars in question. Soviet scholarship was a bastion of academic freedom. (This of course, runs completely counter to the what is said by the scholars I have met who worked in the Latvian SSR, who often no longer stand by what they were allowed to publish back then, and also to the documentation of the CP's meddling in academic publishing that I have seen; however, these sources could be just lies and fabrications intended as part of a malicious, cowardly post-factum smear campaign against the USSR.) On the other hand, "Western" (i.e., English language sources, which are supposed to be the mainstay for English Wikipedia) allegedly were and are still completely tainted by the overwhelming bias of Cold War anti-Soviet propaganda. They are therefore not reliable, as when the WSJ reports on a position attributed the the Russian government, such as that "Russia is a great power that shouldn't be ashamed of its past".[4] This, then, justifies their immediate deletion from an article.

Instead of just deleting the lies of others, why don't you actually improve Wikipedia and reduce its inherent structural bias by beefing up the article with all the Soviet sources that poke holes in the calumnies of the obfuscators? — Zalktis 10:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution is simple: all sources if they are in controvercy should be attributed "Soviet scholar N noted", "Western historian X calculated" etc. No sources should be deleted.--Dojarca 00:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No Dojarca, that's a fact that the USSR was a totalitarian state.--Termer 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly so, in fact it is widely disputed by political scientists whether USSR ceased to be totalitarian already after Stalin's death or with the beginning of Perestroika: Totalitarian#Criticism_and_recent_work_with_the_concept -- Borism 20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the very term "totalitarism" was invented by liberal ideologists with only one purpose: to equate Soviet regime and Nazi Germany under one umbrella.--Dojarca 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Dojarca. The terms "totalitarian" and "totalitarianism" were first coined in the 1920s to describe the ambitions of the regime in Fascist Italy. The Italian Fascists actually used these words to describe themselves, as they saw "totalitarian" as something positive. It was the Italian anti-Fascists of the Left who first gave "totalitarian" negative connotations. The use of totalitarian theory to compare Nazism and Soviet Communism only developed later, starting in the late 1930s. My source for this chronology? Oxford English Distionary, citing Sturzo's Italy & Fascismo (English translation, 1926), amongst others. — Zalktis 09:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the opinion can by accepted as a POV at best I guess, although not that serious one. After all, even the regime in Nazi Germany was based on popular support. Hitler came to power via free elections after all unlike the communists in the USSR. And the popular support in Germany didn't change the fact that it was a totalitarian regime exactly like any popular support to the communists doesn't change the facts regarding the USSR--Termer 20:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler did not come to power by elections. He was appointed by only one man: reichspresident Gindenburg. And Bolsheviks came to power winning election into II All-Russian Congress of Soviets.--Dojarca 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand your opinion. Question whether regime is totalitarian or not is not for us or popular support to decide, it is a research subject of political scientists, they come with a definition, they put a label. Same goes with occupation - historians decide that. Except that it takes much longer time (if at all) to reach consensus between historians. Maybe several centuries from now they'll reach consensus on that, and indeed that occupation took place, but surely it was unconventional occupation (no resistance, no bloodshed)! So long, happy arguing... -- Borism 20:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[to Borism] Again, as many times before, bloodshed, declaration of war, et al. are not required for occupation. It's cut and dried. The Russian Duma says Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally under international law--which means Latvia could not be occupied. We have yet to see the evidence, only empty contentions like "unconventional" or "those who wrote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia are still alive." All Wikipedia editor speculation. Let's see a source. There's no opinion or popularity contest involved. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was never talking about my opinion, I was referring to the few political scientists that base their opinion on the popular support the regime had.--Termer 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to Borism :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion suggestion

Perhaps adding a section on the policy of Sweden towards the Baltic occupations would be an interesting addition to the article, and give a more nuanced picture of the international debates on recognition/non-recognition of the occupation.

For instance, in 1940 the Swedish government recognised the annexation of the Baltic states to by the USSR. Thus, the postwar Baltic refugees in Sweden were appalled to find themselves registered as being Soviet citizens. Sweden also extradited around 140 former Baltic military (mainly Waffen-SS) internees — along with about 3000 interned German soldiers, I might add — to the USSR in 1946. The trades unions in Sweden, knowing that Balts were generally suspicious of the left, were prone to referring to the Baltic refugees as "baltfascister" (Baltic fascists), and called for them to be shipped off back where they came from. On the other hand, the Swedish intelligence services collaborated with the US and UK in exploiting the Baltic guerrilla resistance movements for information gathering about the USSR in the immediate postwar years. The Swedish security services were more concerned with Soviet sedition, thus even those Balts with murky pasts from WWII could find safe refuge there in actual fact — their anti-Communist credentials were sound (similarly, numerous Norwegians and Danes persecuted in their homelands as collaborators found a safe haven in Sweden after the war for similar reasons).

(The Swedish dealings with Nazi-occupied Ostland — such as continued interest in "repatriating" Estonian Swedes — are another chapter altogether ...)

Yet, when it came to the 1980s, the fact that Sweden had officially recognised the occupation and annexation came as a kind of benefit. The Swedes were able to open consular representations in the Baltic SSRs during the Third Awakening, and provided valuable technical and moral support to the pro-independence Popular Front Movements. When independence from the USSR was finally fully realised in 1991, Sweden reneged on its 1940 stance, and formally recognised that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were legally continuous with the states illegally occupied by the USSR in 1940. Perfidious Swedes!

Given a bit of time, I could assemble some good sources on this historical case. Sadly for Dojarca, much of the sources will be in Swedish — yet I'm sure that Petri Krohn and other Wikipedians conversant in Swedish will be able to rise to the occasion and ensure that NPOV standards are upheld. — Zalktis 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Sweden's policies regarding the subject can make up it's own article. There was much more to that than you Zalktis have pointed out. For example the people from the Baltic states that became Swedish citizens during the Cold war were told directly that the Swedish government can't be responsible for them in case they choose to travel to any Soviet controlled country. Also, Swedish army used the people across the Baltic sea who had became Swedish citizens by making it clear that in case there was a war with the Soviet Union, the USSR would still look at them as Soviet citizens fighting against the USSR, not as Swedish. At the same time I have no idea if any published research as been done about the subject...--Termer 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Petri Krohn's view - that Estonians, who went to Sweden, were all Nazi concentration camp guards and carried pocketfuls of gold teeth... -- Sander Säde 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why exactly was this worth mentioning unless someone called Petri Krohn can be considered a WP:RS.--Termer 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That was supposed to be a joke, showing how far some editors can go in flawed beliefs. -- Sander Säde 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

About: "Also, Swedish army used the people across the Baltic sea who had became Swedish citizens by making it clear that in case there was a war with the Soviet Union, the USSR would still look at them as Soviet citizens fighting against the USSR, not as Swedish." I'm not sure it's totally clear this has nothing to do with Sweden versus the USSR. Soviet policy was that everyone who was a Baltic citizen at the time of annexation was henceforth a Soviet citizen etc. etc. So, from then on, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians fighting against the USSR would simply be shot as traitors. Just the act of leaving the Soviet Union without the approval of authorities made you a traitor. Again, just visit the USSR and risk being simply shot. By Soviet "law" I myself, born of traitorous Soviet citizen parents, but Soviet nevertheless, am a (now former) Soviet citizen as I understand it. Yours, камрад Товарищ Vecrumba 04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba

Comrade Vecrumba! Please note that if your truly consider yourself an ex-Soviet, you should sign off as товарищ (tovarishch), which is the proper word in the language of the Vanguard of the Proletariat. The term you used is suspiciously reminiscent of Kamerad, a word from the language of the fascist occupiers. Does this mental slip reveal your true political sympathies? Or does it simply reflect the fact that your language skills have irreparably degenerated after decades of living amongst hostile capitalists in a so-called "democracy"? Either way, you should report immediately to the Special Officer in the Personnel Section for purging! — Zalktis 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had signed properly, which I remembered from my high school days, but when I went to do an automated translate to double check, I wasn't getting the right hit and thought I had misremembered. So, sincere thanks for confirmation that, at least in this instance, I should have followed my instincts. :-) Yours, Товарищ Вецрумба  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why Vecrumba didn't chime it with regards to Termer's statement that Swedish refusal to protect naturalized citizens if they go to their former countries is something worth wasting WP space on. Vecrumba can't be unaware that such a policy is used by most countries (USA included) in dealings between it's naturalized citizens and their former countries, so there's nothing in Swedish policy that merits separate mention (as well as Sweden's use of former Nazi collaborators as valuable allies in the Cold War, it was such a common practice). RJ CG (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm don't believe you're making the proper distinction here.

   My mother, as a naturalized U.S. citizen, was formerly a citizen of Latvia. The U.S. would not regard her as a citizen of the U.S.S.R. had she visited her family once she had (through sheer dogged persistence for nearly two decades) reestablished contact with them upon their return to Latvia after surviving Siberia--and been detained. She could appeal to the U.S. embassy for intervention.

   On the other hand, Sweden, as the only country granting de jure recognition of the Soviet presence in Latvia at the time of occupation (besides Hitler), would also recognize the U.S.S.R. claim that, had my mother been a naturalized Swedish citizen similarly detained, as a (recognized by Sweden) U.S.S.R. citizen prior, she would be abandoned to the Soviets. She would have no recourse to appeal to the Swedish embassy for intervention.

   Therefore the Swedish example does merit specific mention, as it is an anomaly with regard to how other countries dealt with the Soviet definition of citizenship regarding the Baltic territories it occupied.

   Your generalization of policy regarding naturalized citizens does not apply as you imply it does. So, RJ CG, it's Wiki-space well spent. —PētersV (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel for your mother, who had to spend 50+ years of her life in the most prosperous country on Earth during the longest period of prosperity this country had ever seen, as well as for her relatives, who survived whatever hardships life threw on them. Wish I could say the same (they survived) about my relatives, executed by Germans and their Latvian collaborators (this isn't a figure of speech, we investigated the matter privately in late 1970s, when there were still a lot of live witnesses, all of them referred to "Latysh batallion") in Belarus. RJ CG 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some Holocaust research (the history of Jews in Latvia article needs some updating) so I can clarify which are the collaborators, that is, the SD units--not Waffen SS--formed immediately following Nazi occupation and which aren't--that is those who were conscripted/"volunteered" for the Waffen-SS to fight against the Red Army in 1943, after the Holocaust. I would be interested in any further detail you could provide, mainly timeframe and any further detail on where in Belarus to see what I can track down. You can respond on my talk page or send me Email.

   Just as an FYI, when food ran short while my parents were still in the DP camps, they were advised to eat grass. They arrived with nothing but the clothes on their backs and one small wooden suitcase with a few personal effects. In Latvia they had been professionals; their first professions in their "prosperous" new home were house-cleaning maid and hospital orderly.

   My sincerest sympathies for your family and relatives. My wife's family lost their closest friend in Latvia (who was Jewish) to the Nazis--my father-in-law, then a teen, was sent to warn her when word started to spread, picked his way across fields strewn with bodies only to arrive at her house and find her beheaded. No one denies the Holocaust or that it had its collaborators, or that it was horrific.

   I trust your feeling for my mother was not sarcasm. That would be unfortunate. —PētersV 00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not all made it back from Siberia. A bit rough, having no winter clothes, being whipped until your shoes ran full of your own blood and all. And that was just how they treated the women. My uncles were taken away separately and never heard from again. I shouldn't have implied they all survived. —PētersV 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On the overall topic (Sweden with regard to the Baltics), there are these tidbits from the Latvian foreign ministry site:

1940

• According to a decision made by the high council of the Soviet Union on the 6th of August, all Latvian embassies and consulates should cease their activities. The Latvian envoy considered the Soviet government in Latvia illegal and refused to turn over the embassy to the Soviet Union.
• On the 19th of August the embassy is turned over to the Soviet Union through mediation by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• On the 25th of August all Swedish diplomatic presence in the Baltic countries is terminated.

1946

• On the 25th of January all Baltic soldiers--the majority of them were Latvian citizens--are extradicted to the Soviet Union. (I saw a number of 30,000 quoted elsewhere.) This deserves particular mention considering how brutally the Red Army treated (including torture and execution) captured Latvians. PētersV (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"all Baltic veterans of Waffen SS, as well as different paramilitary units of the Nazi Germany--the majority of them were Latvian citizens--are extradicted to the Soviet Union". Fixed it for you. RJ CG 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You do know the Waffen SS was only formed in 1943. —PētersV 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I need to do some more research, though I suspect "forcibly repatriated" is probably a more accurate term. I would see no reason to repatriate anyone who was not Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian. This would have been consistent with Sweden's "recognition" policy. It's unfortunate (that word again) that there are those that believe they were all Nazis who deserved what they got when they were ostensibly returned home. —PētersV 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Baltic Waffen SS veterans were conscripts, all rehabilitated also by the Soviet Union according to the Nuremberg trials. Considering that the most if not all men at the age were conscripted into Waffen SS by the Nazis, in case captured by the soviets, they were just prisoners of war. That was the case also with the most of the Latvian Waffen SS units that surrendered in the Courland Pocket.--Termer 11:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To RJ CG, there is a difference between Waffen SS units that were conscripts and volunteer Police battalions that were involved shooting civilians. Therefore using the "Latysh batallion" should be approached more carefully. My sympathies to your lost family members as well.--Termer 11:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm?

I am fully aware of the forceful inclusions of the three Baltic states - but occupation, even though they were republics just like Russia or Kazakhstan? --PaxEquilibrium 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

well, this just shows how bad idea is it to archive the talk pages. You'd need to go over the same thing from scratch. But OK, in case you PaxEquilibrium have any questions regarding the occupation I'd suggest looking into the refs in the article that speak about the topic. Thanks--Termer 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The joining was not legal, ergo they remained in a state of occupation. Their sovereignty continued to exist in exile (documented for all three states). For some background, I suggest Soviet Aggression Against the Baltic States. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "nationalist" sources, but one with irrefutable factual citations. Just because the Soviets lied doesn't mean those opposing the Soviets also lied in some out-lie the liar contest (the logical conclusion if you contend it's all just opinion). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article

It is missing a Soviet POV. --Unionvouce 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, see Occupation_of_Baltic_states#Historical.2C_pre-Perestroika_Soviet_sources. Martintg 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't occupy whats already yours

..seems to be the fundamental argument regarding the soviet Occupation of the Baltic states between 1944-1991? Thats fine, it's just another POV, please feel free to add it to the section. Just that I personally am more familiar with the POV that says the lands belonged to the Batic states and the only legal representatives of the states during the occupations 1940-1991 were the Baltic consulates in NY. So for me personally the "can't occupy whats already yours" doesn't make much sense since the lands belonged to the Baltic states, not to the Soviet Union. --Termer (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the problem is that invading does not equal possession. Hopefully, someday Russia will be have leadership more interested in integrity than in glorifying dead totalitarian empires. PētersV (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's impossible to occupy twice. How it's possible? Lets say Baltic states were occupied in 1940, logically thinking Baltic states should once again proclaim independence, and only now it is possible to occupy in second time. Well Lithuania declared independence in 1941, but this declaration was not recognised internationally, and even today Lithuania not recognise this act, but how about Latvia and Estonia. Now, how Germany could occupy Baltic states when such political entities don't existed? Tarakonas (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I steal your car. Pēters then steals the car from me. I beat Pēters up and take the car back, I'm not stealing the car, the car was mine when Pēters stole it from me! Martintg (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Situation is more complicated - Pēters thinks that car is yours not mine. So there was no occupation from Germany or there was occupation of some parts of Soviet Union. Tarakonas (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

However the car remains stolen property until it is returned to the original owner, regardless of how many hands it passes through. Martintg (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If the stolen property on the second day was taken from one criminal to another criminal, this not means the car was stolen from You. Tarakonas (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"So such political entities don't existed"? I'm sorry to point out that Tarakonas has missed something here, there was no need to declare independence simply because the "political entities" the only legal representation of Lithuania 1940-1991 recognized by the Western countries was the Lithuanian Consulate in NY. They had access to all the funds abroad belonging to the Republic of Lithuania, remained on the diplomatic list to the US from 1940-1991 etc. so no matter what's the POV of the Soviet Union, The POV of the Republic of Lithuania including the US, UK etc. was, the territories of Lithuania + other Baltic states were first occupied by USSR, then by Nazi Germany and then again by USSR until the restoration of sovereignty. Please see the refs in the article for further inf. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So why Lithuania declared independence in 1941 if the legal represenative was Lithuanian Consulate in NY? Tarakonas (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lithuania also declared independence in 1991. You know, it's like Martintg reminding everybody once again whose the stolen car was in case anybody didn't get it yet.--Termer (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarakonas Germany occupied independent Lithuania though Latvia and Estonia as part of Soviet Union? please let me remind you that Germany did not recognize "independent Lithuania" but Lithuania as a part of USSR. Therefore it's only possible to state things here according to Soviet and Nazi Germany POV, meaning, the Baltic states were a part of USSR; or according to POV of the US, UK etc. and the Baltic States themselves, Germany occupied the territories of Baltic states that was not recognized by the Western allies as legal exactly like previous Soviet occupation.--Termer (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

John was robbed by Steve, on the next day Steve was robbed by Peter, after three days Peter was robbed by Steve, after fifty days Steve returned the car to John. How many times was robbed John? Only one time! But article says three occupations - this is really an WP:OR and WP:POV. And please, if source says workers welcomed with flowers, do not shorten. Tarakonas (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read the sources before claiming OR and POV (for example [5]: "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991.")? And "source says workers welcomed with flowers" - does it mention double circle of Soviet sailors around them and that people were herded to "welcome" Soviets? -- Sander Säde 07:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been through this that you attempt to start all over again Tarakonas. the article is well sourced and written according to WP:NPOV all viewpoints are present therefor nothing justifies your playing around with this article by misusing tagging. --Termer (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

regarding the image Tarakonas has kindly provided for the article. If anything, this should go to the Pre perestroika Soviet sources. What I like the best about the image is the guy wearing the Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union uniform on the foreground. That's amazing that anybody in Lithuania had the uniform handy right after the Nazi occupation at the time when the Soviets marched into Kaunas and made it to the picture.--Termer (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Young Pioneer organization appeared already in 1940 in Lithuania. So why the boy couldn't dress himself in such uniform? Maybe his fathers were supporters of Soviet power? Photo is a photo, sources are sources. 200,000 families supported Soviets asking the land in 1940. Tarakonas (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the facts Tarakonas, 200,000 out of about 3.5 million gives a good proportion concerning the article and WP:NPOV policies. Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views . Also, regarding the flowers and etc. Please note another important principle about WP:NPOV The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. therefore it's the best to keep the image without any additional commentary to it. Thanks--Termer (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

200,000 families means about 1,000,000 persons or more. On 1940-01-01 in Lithuania lived 2925271 persons [6], in 1944 many emigrated (mostly opposing Soviets). Census of 1957 shows 2,697,000 persons. So I guess about 50/50, anyway not a small minority. Tarakonas (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tarakonas, regarding your last edit, just a friendly reminder that perhaps you should take another look at Wikipedia:Consensus before things get out of hand here. thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Where would quoted numbers such as "200,000 families supported Soviets asking the land in 1940" be coming from? Soviet "land reform" dispossessed farmers and collectivized the land. PētersV (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

More then 200,000 families asked land from kulaks (buožė). Only in Lithuanian [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarakonas (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they loose the land soon after due to collectivisation policies?--Termer 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they loose the land, but later. In 1941-44 the land was returned to legitimate owners. The first Kolkhoz was established in 1947, and massive collectivisation was done in 1949-51 in Lithuanian SSR. Tarakonas (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image use

There is a lot of toing and froing surrounding this image:

File:1944 Kaunas.jpg

It is tagged as {{PD-Russia}} even though the rationale for this tag is not entirely clear. The stated source of the image is the Lithuanian website [8]; however, this website does not, from what I can see, either support the claim that the image is WP:PD, or that its copyright status should necessarily be governed by the relevant legislation of the Russian Federation. As such, I would be inclined to have this image tagged as being of indeterminate copyright status (cf. WP:SCV), and that it be deleted, should a copyright violation be determined. If, however, it is actually PD, then a better tag and explanation should be provided on the image page, i.e. either referring to Lithuanian copyright law (if the .lt website is retained as the image origin) or with a proper Soviet-era or Russian source for the image (to keep the Russian PD tag). — Zalktis (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, everything published by and in the Soviet Lithuania falls under Template:PD-Russia as the legal successor of the USSR. Lithuanian copyright law can only apply to things published by and in the the Republic of Lithuania. The only legal representative of the Republic in 1940-1991 was the consulate in NY and anything relevant: things published by them during the period would fall under the Lithuanian tag and relevant copyright law. Therefore I can't see any problems with copyright status, the image comes clearly from a soviet source. The fact that it is a staged photo can be a question for how appropriate the image is for an encyclopedia like WP. All kinds of political commentaries are not definitely appropriate. We do not need to explain the motives of anybody on the image whatever the alleged source says. The pic and the facts should speak for themselves --Termer (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, one can't just take a photo from a website or blog and declare that it's PD, 'cause it looks Soviet. For example, some of the images on the same web page in question are obviously from private collections. If this image is indeed from a standard Soviet-era work on Lithuania during the Great Patriotic War or suchlike, then that should be given as the original source instead. Then the PD-Russia tag could be appropriate ... depending on where, when, and how this image was first published (see the limitations mentioned in the template). — Zalktis (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You got a valid point there. The pic could be taken on May 9 1954 or any date and therefore not be in PD. The reason I doubt its anything shot in 1944-1945 is the communist youth guy in the white shirt at the foreground. So most likely it is a pic of a Soviet military parade from later time but when exactly needs to be determined.--Termer (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Soviet-German agreements under Chancellor Brandt established that the existing European borders were inviolable. The Helsinki Accords of 1975 declared that the European frontiers were inviolable. Furthermore, if there was a Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, why was this not discussed by the United Nations General Assembly? Why didn't emigrant groups pretending to be the governments of these countries get a seat or voice at the United Nations? International precedent shows that when there has been an occupation in the territories of Namibia and Palestine, there has been a demand for the withdrawal of foreign troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All the Helsinki Accords did was to recognise the borders in fact, not in law. When the Soviet Union holds veto power in the UN, ofcourse there will be no discussion when it is politically expedient. Martintg (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Helsinki Accords: In the US Gerald Ford's administration issued an official statement, affirmed by Congress on February 16, 1983 that reiterated American nonrecognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in order to counter speculation to the contrary following the signing of the Helsinki Accord. @ Diplomats Without a Country: Baltic Diplomacy, International Law, by James T. McHugh, James S. Pacy; P. 84 ISBN 0313318786 .--76.168.108.240 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The signatories of the Helsinki Accords recognized the territorial integrity and inviobility of a country's borders. This pertains to the Baltic states as it does to the Oder-Neisse line between Poland and Germany. The opinion of the United States administration does not have any binding legal force. Nor is the opinion of the United States credible on this issue in the context of the Cold War. There is there any consistency in this position considering the U.S. occupation of Puerto Rico and the repression of its people. Regarding the United Nations, the General Assembly could have easily passed a resolution demanding for the end to the alleged Soviet 'occupation' to the Baltic states as it did towards South Africa regarding Namibia. That the United Nations did not recognize a Soviet occupation of the Baltic states demonstrates that the opinion of the United States was isolated from international opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's all very interesting. In case ...Nor is the opinion of the United States credible on this issue in the context of the Cold War so would be any Soviet viewpoint and we can just ask the Baltic peoples themselves or we can just follow the opinion of the EU including the Baltic States, the European court of human rights etc. nowadays after the cold war has ended, at the times when the Helsinki Accords are meaningless. the opinions nowadays that are no different what the US had to say in the 70s or any other given time. So the bottom line, I miss your point. It's 2008, the cold war has ended including the occupation of Baltic states has ended, the Helsinki Accords have no meaning any more, so what exactly are you after is kind of hard to get over here.--76.168.108.240 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another dissent towards comment left by IP user 204.102.210.1: the Helsinki Accords doesn't necessarily mean the facts on grounds recognition of the absolute inviolability of the national borders as it stood in 1975 because West Germany still held reunification as the ultimate goal. Also only the Baltic people themselves have the ultimate right to declare whether the Soviet Union constituent republics from 1940 to 1991 were legitimate governments or usurper regimes. A more extreme example, but pointing example, is Poland: the official historiography today says the People's Republic from 1945 to 1990 was the usurper regime and the legitimate government was the government-in-exile in London, despite the on the ground government in Warsaw being the People's Republic of Poland and that was the very state that every other foreign nation recognized at that time - the diplomatic angle has zero effects on the national historiography. Perhaps one day if the People's Republic of China crumbles and the Republic of China returns to China as the legitimate government of all China, all textbooks would need to be rewritten to reflect the de jure fact that the Chinese government between 1949 and, say, 2015, was based in Taipei and the Beijing government being an usurper. (Of course I'm taking it too bit far, grin) And coming back to the Baltic states: their own national historiography reports that the SSRs were considered occupational/usurper regimes by their own people and by the states today, and you as a foreigner should just accept this decision. It doesn't matter if your interpretation of the Helsinki Accords says otherwise. --JNZ (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The inclusion of Nazi Germany as those that recognized the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States is not relevant to the discussion or the historical period. The relevant section pertains to the attitudes of certain States towards the Baltic States in the 1945-91 period rather than in 1940. Nazi recognition of Soviet annexation had of course been nullified by the 1941-45 war.

Others persist in either consciously or unconsciously making false statements in this article. For instance, it is stated that German-occupied Netherlands recognized the Soviet annexation. In fact, it was the Netherlands Government in London which recognized the USSR de jure, without any reservations as regards the Baltic States. There is a false statement made regarding Spanish recognition of the annexation. But there were no diplomatic relations between Spain and Russia between 1939-75. Such recognition was accorded with the restoration of diplomatic relations between th two countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thats all fine but once you have such a take on the subject, just that please let me point out: all recognitions of Soviet annexation had of course been nullified by now as the Soviet occupation has ended and the troops have pulled out from the Baltic states more than 10 years ago by now. --76.168.108.240 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree re: Nazi Germany, as the only other country at the time which also recognized the annexation de jure was Sweden, and that recognition by Sweden continued after the war. Circumstances under which recognition was granted is significant. Australia's de jure recognition was granted by a documented Baltophobe and someone who couldn't tell the Baltics apart from the Balkans in their parliamentary inquiry hearings--but they were sucking up to the Soviets because they fancied themselves a candidate for U.N. Secretary General. (Those two individuals were solely responsible for the recognition, which was granted contrary to all prior statements regarding official position of the Australian government.) —PētersV (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It must be said that this de jure recognition by Australia was formally withdrawn on December 17, 1975, following the elections on December 4, which saw the defeat of Whitlam. Martintg (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add it was Don Willesee who was currying the favor of the Soviets. The announcement of Australia's de jure recognition of the Soviet takeover was even issued in Moscow. —PētersV (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized and retitled (need to shorted) the "Controversies" section. Re: Spain I think it was 1977. Whether the annexation was recognized depends on how diplomatic relations were established. Recognition of sovereignty over territory is by inheritance. If Spain and the USSR reestablished relations, then the Baltics were excluded. A separate recognition would have been needed specifically relative to the Baltics; resumption of recognition does NOT automatically include recognition of all territorial changes. —PētersV (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to copy edit this abit, it is not clear in the paragraph structure which countries offered de jure, de facto, or none of the above. Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do, basically I tried ordering along: de jure, de facto not dejure, and neither de facto nor de jure. It does get a bit lost in the list of countries as I tried to summarize it. —PētersV (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, added back Canada quote which I had pushed into ref plus some new tidbits on Sweden. —PētersV (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deportations

I don't have the ref handy, but the 6.000 (actually I think I saw 7,000 originally) comes from research by Dov Levin. That's obviously much higher than the newly inserted Latvian archives number. I'll try and track that original ref down again (that is, Levin's article, note people quoting it), it should probably mention as a "possible high" range. PētersV (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1939

I feel that the inclusion of historical context is necessary. For the past 1000 years there has been competition among forces including the Germanic Crusaders, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Russia for control of Latvia and Estonia. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania had all at one point come under soviet rule in the 1917-1919 period, only to be overthrown by either the Germans, Poles, Entente interventionists, and their allies in the Baltic states. During the interwar period Moscow had never reconciled itself to having lost the Ukrainian and Belorussian provinces annexed by Poland, Moldavia annexed by Romania, and the separation by the Baltic states from Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is already a number of "History of XXXX" articles that adequately cover the period. Martintg (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

During the interwar period Moscow had never reconciled itself... that's interesting from where exactly do you get such ideas since peace treaties signed by Moscow like for example Treaty of Tartu etc. speak of exact opposite: Moscow renounced in perpetuity all rights to the territory of Estonia. Unless of course you have access to some sort of inside interpretations coming directly from Moscow, that would be interesting to know what else does it say? --76.168.108.240 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to start off with "Come now!" (there's a history of POV-pushing on this topic), but I'll take that to be an honest question. For example,

• Moscow attempted a putsch in Estonia (1924) barely after the ink was dry on the first treaties.
• Even the treaty of commerce between the USSR and Latvia (1927) was a geopolitical weapon. The Soviets used the treaty to lure Latvia into building industrial capacity that could have only been used for output for the Soviets. As Latvia predictably struggled to meet its treaty commitments for production, the Soviets reneged or let agreements lapse; meanwhile diplomatically-protected Soviet agents stirred unrest among the unemployed the Soviets had created.

What the Soviets signed and said was not what they intended or did. That's rather the whole point here. —PētersV (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now it is getting funny, user 204.102.210.1. You wanted us all to believe the Helsinki Accords signed in 1975 must be read such that all other signatories accept and respect the Soviet Union's claimed territorial expansion post-WWII wise as de jure, but the Treaty of Tartu doesn't mean the words state. And an international treaty is infinitely more binding than a declaration from the basics of international relations. --JNZ (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the Helsinki Accords, you will find that absolutely nothing is said of borders, only of frontiers. The agreement was that the established frontiers would not be violated. Frontiers are nothing but current lines of demarcation. Absolutely nothing de jure about anything in the accords. Although Baltic nationalists in particular saw the signing as a sell-out. —PētersV (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and in fact this makes things even clearer. It appears all the West was saying would be they would not use force to unilaterally change the "established frontiers" i.e. send in the military to liberate the Baltic states, but of course says nothing of what happens if the frontiers change from within, which is exactly what turned out in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. --JNZ (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Former President Ford made that point exactly (change from within) in an interview years later. I rather thought, though, that he painted the Accords as more of a positive influence than they were in actuality. —PētersV (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename: missing the

Hello, hopefully no one will object that I move the page to Occupation of the Baltic states... The current title is missing the... Renata (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, the non-"the" version never did read correctly. :-) PētersV (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The long lead-up to Yalta

I added some additional references primarily with regard to the Baltics although also including at various points other parts of Eastern Europe. There's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over Western betrayal and who had what choices and whose hands were forced and how. I intentionally stayed away from that by only presenting quotes and not making any editorial conclusions other than the obvious, which is that as demonstrated by Eden's position, the Baltics had once again become pawns. —PētersV (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That the Holocaust could only be so effective with widespread popular support

I'm sorry, but I just heard this (same implication) at Columbia University re: Poland, someone asking a presenter: "Do you think it would be just as easy to set up widespread death camps in Poland today?" Let's not confuse the Germans' capacity for efficiency with "widespread" popular support. There is incontrovertible documentation the Nazi command lied about local support to portray local welcoming and acceptance of the Nazi regime. It's unfortunate that the vast majority (I've heard 90% quoted) of Holocaust studies are taught by people who are not trained historians. Let's keep the blame for the Holocaust where it belongs: Hitler, the Nazis, and their proven collaborators. —PētersV (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer:

Unfortunately what i wrote about the strong Lithuanian nationalism ... the Jews being associated with Soviet support (rightly or wrongly)....contributing to the anti-jewish sentiment, which increased the already traditional anti-semetism ... this is all true. See Sharunas Leikis (Vilnius University) and other researchers of the matter concerning this... the Lithuanian cooperation towards the genocide... was widespread in lithuania... ask most (over 95%) of holocaust survivors....ask any Lithuanian who father or grandfather was a policeman in the countryside at the time ... ask lithuanians (their were many at the time doing so) living in Kaunus... i think my text should be put back since it is simply the truth. There were of course exeptions. Exceptions to the rule (there is a book concerning this too).

Concerning "Trained Historians" - fortunetly or unfortunately history is not black and white and there is much room for interpretation - yes, even by "trained historians". The genocide rate by many accounts was one of the highest if not the highest in Europe. The relative local cooperation (in Lithuania) and the relative lack of jewish assimilation (in many areas of Eastern Europe - including Lithuania) are factors contributing to this - yes, factually and historically. Where cooperation was not all pervasive the genocide rate wasn't as absolute (nearing %100) as in Lithuania) - France, the Neatherlands. Where the resistance to the Nazi policy towards Jews, Roma, Communists, and others (which every one knew about) was presant there was (nearly) no genocide - Denmark, Bulgaria.

Historically and factually ... we must account for the truth ... what accounts for the differences?

The Nazi ecouraged and profiled, (in Hungary it were the fascists, in Lithuania national resistors to the Soviets), their welcomming in their so-called "Ost Gebiet".

In lithuania ... in the first few months (2-3 months) of the occupation ... it was called a liberation (from the Soviets).... There was no lack of cooperation. I too wish it was otherwise ...

Within 6 months of the occupation the Lithuanian Jews were either slaughtered or sealed into Ghettos where their fate was sealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.234.83 (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Surveys on attitudes and beliefs on Eastern Europe and its participation in the Holocaust align along some predictable, some not so predictable, boundaries. Those who survived the Holocaust, those who teach Holocaust studies, for example, are much more inimical in their statements of local participation than historians (both Jewish and non-Jewish)--that is, the divide is not along religious/ethnic lines but according to personal experience and extrapolations and generalizations thereof versus rigorous historical inquiry. Here on WP I've been told that the "majority" of Latvians were eager for the opportunity to pick up guns and slaughter Jews. And, certainly, with the actions of Latvian-staffed SD units in Belarus and reportedly as far as Poland, one can easily paint a picture that support for the Holocaust was so fervent that it spread outside the territory of Latvia. And the Holocaust "could not have succeeded without widespread support." That accusation has been leveled against the Balts, Ukrainians, Poles,... As I've focused most of my time on the situation in Latvia, I can tell you that the portrayal of widespread local support has been unequivocally documented to be the manufacture of Nazi propaganda. The reality is that the community of such Latvian collaborators at least was on the order of a thousand--not an entire people hell-bent on annihilation of the Jews, a community with whom there was a centuries-long positive relationship. Your point on whether the Jewish community was, or was not, assimilated, and that lack of assimilation made it easier for Jews to be slaughtered, is completely invalid. (However, that lack of assimilation and Jews tending to live together in one quarter of a town or city, certainly made it much easier for the Nazis to seize their victims.) Jewish practice, that is, following the orthodox practices, is an obstacle to assimilation. It is a leap, however, that orthodoxy should be an impediment to a positive relationship of intertwined, though separate, communities. There's no attempt to deny the Holocaust or to deny that the Nazis had their collaborators here, only the statement that one must not present perceptions, no matter how plausible or convincing or heartfelt, as the ultimate reality.

   Is there a sense Jews supported the Soviet when they invaded? It's funny you should ask that as at least American Jewish leadership has vehemently denounced any mention of any possible action by the Eastern European Jewish community that could possibly be looked at askance, for example, exploited by Nazi propagandists. Any "success" of the Holocaust in Eastern Europe is uniformly blamed on centuries-old Eastern European anti-Semitism. I can only say that from our own family's experiences, the Soviets brought in Jewish workers to replace Latvians in key situations (such as the post/telephone). Do I think they were therefore collaborators? Hardly, like everyone else under a Soviet occupation where people just disappear, just someone else trying to stay alive.

   That I can attend a seminar in 2008 discussing the relations of Jews and Poles, for example, and have someone in the audience ask, sincerely, "Do you think it would be just as easy to set up Jewish death camps in Poland today?" reflects--again--less a historical reality more a perceptual reality. Ultimately "asking" individuals or groups for their experiences and then generalizing to the total population is fraught with inaccuracy. (I would also mention the issue of Poland applies to Vilnius, a significant number of Holocaust victims came from territory which was Polish between the wars and which people have counted "toward" Lithuania subsequent to the Nazi invasion and territorial un-annexation/un-occupation/re-annexation/re-occupation depending on which side of the Polish-Lithuanian conflict you find yourself.)

   How many perished and where should be accurately reflected. Laying blame on the Nazis is appropriate. Laying blame on an entire ethnicity, be it Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian,... for "widespread support" of the Holocaust, killing Jews in eager anticipation of the Nazis, etc., is not appropriate. —PētersV (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet colonisation efforts

The article should mention the Soviet colonisation efforts and resulting shifts in demography of the region during the second Soviet occupation preferably with accompanying statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.196.42 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometnig is broken

Please see top of section "Soviet re-occupation, 1944-1991" and fix, whoever knows what's going on here. `'Míkka>t 19:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Renata (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:German Soviet.jpg

Resolved

The image Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A greeting card from a Soviet captain in 1939, Ventspils, Latvia

I've uploaded my granddad's greeting card to the WikiCommons. Might be useful. Sent home at the end of 1939. Says "Happy New Year of 1940". --CopperKettle (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia SSRs recognized by most countries

Most governments which recognised the USSR after World War II in effect granted de jure recognition to the Baltic republics.

Edgars Dunsdorfs, The Baltic Dilemma: The Case of the de Jure Recognition, p.77 RZimmerwald (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then provide the list of such countries from the source. Otherwise it remains obscure. --Erikupoeg (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for any of that, the article spells it out according to WP:RS in utmost detail who exactly recognized the SSR and granted de jure recognition and who didn't.--Termer (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunsdorfs states clearly that most countries that formed dimplomatic relations with the USSR extended de jure recognition. There is no need to list the position of every state in a world where 192 countries exsit. That Erikupoeg proceeded to delete this fact demonstrates a rather hostile attitude. RZimmerwald (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

using "Most" on WP is in conflict with WP:WEASEL and any such statements should be avoided as not encyclopedic. Please feel free to add any solid facts according to any WP:RS you might be aware of instead.--Termer (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a quote from some kind of parliamentary/government proceedings. It is marked with quotation marks in the original. See excerpt here, note that the lower excerpt refers to a different page. Apparently it is not a statement by Mr. Dunsdorfs, but bv someone else. Yaan (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I recognise User:RZimmerwald's pattern of behaviour. He googlebookses a random piece of text that appears to support his idea du jour, then pretends it's an immensely important tidbit by "serious scholars", no matter what else scholars have written on the topic. He does so on a large number of articles dealing with former Soviet spheres of influence.

Under WP:BITE, I'm obligated to point out that this pattern can be consistent with that of a newbie, although some of his actions tend to point more towards a sockpuppet. Would somebody who's better than me with that sort of thing please explain to him how the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE work together? If he's a newbie, he'll get better; if he's, say, a reincarnation of Anonimu, the trolling will become that much clearer. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 02:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Dunsdorf's works. In fact I had even corresponded with him prior to his death. Now as for RZimmerwald's ridiculous edit and bad-faith accusations of hostility:

• The passage in question (indeed all of page 77) is part of Senator Willesee's prepared statement for the Australian Senate
• Willesee was Edward Whitlam's mouthpiece in justifying Whitlam's/Australia's (ultimately short-lived) de jure recognition of Baltic annexation by the USSR.
• Willesee couldn't keep Balkans and Baltics straight in his testimony before the Senate. Nor did he demonstrate any understanding of the difference between de facto and de jure. Sad for a minister of foreign affairs.
• Willesee was censured by the Senate for supporting the de jure recognition.
• Australia's "recognition" of de jure annexation was announced from Moscow, not Australia, and why? It was speculated that Whitlam fancied himself the next Secretary General of the U.N.; Willesee held the same ambition.
• In fact, it's quite clear from Willesee's statements and testimony that he was clueless about Baltic history in general and about Baltic annexation in particular; for whatever reason, he blindly served a documented Baltophobic prime minister who, prior to Willesee's assuming post of minister of foreign affairs, in the role of prime minister acting as minister of foreign affairs, solely on his own initiative with no consultation decided to grant de jure recognition to the incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR.

WP is not a home for anti-Baltic clap-trap. I suggest RZimmeran take his/her extraordinarily poor knowledge of Baltic history and most especially their contentions of hostility and vandalism regarding editors who justifiably dispute/revert their edits elsewhere. —PētersV (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for nationalistic agitprop. To insult users for posessing an allegedly "poor knowledge of Baltic history" is unacceptable. Readers do not care to hear your insult a statesmen as "Baltophobic". If there is a statement to be found that most countries which formed diplomatic relations with the USSR after WWII recognized Soviet Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, then it has a place in this article. There is an appeal to authority fallacy in the section about the diplomatic position of certain countries as though it undermines the legitimacy of Soviet Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. But as has been pointed out in Dunsdorf's source, far more many states extended de jure recognition Soviet Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.RZimmerwald (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the text you quote from Dunsdorf is an excerpt from an Australian parliamentary procedure called "Question Time" where members of parliament can ask any questions, including rhetorical questions, to government ministers. I think inserting text based on quotes of questions asked or opinions expressed by an obscure antipodean politician back in 1975 would be considered WP:UNDUE. Martintg (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Forgot to clarify the above after responding to RZimmerwald. It is Willesee's prepared statement as recorded (with introductory question and comments included on Dunsdorfs' p.76) in the Senate Hansard (official record of Australian parliamentary proceedings), p.781-782 for that session. Pushing Willesee's understanding of anything Baltic goes far beyond WP:UNDUE. I should mention that after quoting Willessee's statement, Dunsdorfs goes on to completely and utterly demolish him (based on simple facts). —PētersV (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Clearly then RZimmerwald is tendatiously mis-quoting Dunsdorfs. Martintg (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear RZimmerwald. You want to play games, fine. Who have I insulted? The only person I "insulted" was Willesee, and rightly so--the man couldn't tell the Balkans from the Baltics as documented by his recorded testimony. That you have represented what Willesee states as encyclopedic speaks for itself. For his part, Whitlam is documented to have called Baltic immigrants "f**king Vietnamese" (i.e., undesirable boat people). The account you reference on page 77 has nothing to do with Dunsdorfs. Only on WP are simple facts called "nationalistic agitprop." Your denunciations betray your POV. —PētersV (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How is there even a debate that Donald Willesee is a reliable, useful source in this discussion? If RZimmerwald wants to use this source, I find it pretty clear that the burden is on him to give some persuasive reasoning as to why the controversy concerning this source doesn't disqualify it as reliable. Blue Danube (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What? the claim of Willesee given in his speech is a reliable source? Nobody would object if it said what the fact is all about: that Willesee claimed in his speech when he justified the de jure recognition of Estonian, Latvian Lithuanian SSR-s by his government that "...The most of etc.", Once again, this is not a fact but a claim made by Willesee that cost him loosing the office and ended with Australia withdrawing the de jure recognition given by Willesee shortly afterwards.--Termer (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

contrast to the Free City of Danzig

Hi Vecrumba, I noticed you attempted to copyedit the additions by Ulf Heinsohn [9]. I think it would benefit the article if such not sourced political commentaries would be simply removed in the future. In case anybody thinks the Free City of Danzig is somehow related to this article, fine, but then any facts or opinions should come from WP:RS sources that do analyze and show the connection.--Termer (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I support Termer here. What does Danzig has to do with this? Baltic Sea? Then Finland, Bornholm, and Eastern Prussia are just as legitimate. I don't think someone includes Danzig in the term "Baltic states" Dc76\^talk 06:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Name and scope of article

Full disclosure, Dojarca asked me to take a look at this article regarding his concerns that the article is biased only to the POV of the post-independence Baltic states. In reviewing the article, I do see his general point, and would like to suggest that the scope of this article be reconsidered.

I think there is a valid POV out there which considers the time spent under Soviet rule to be an occupation. That said, I think there is an equally valid POV that the Baltic states were an integral part of the USSR. As it stands, this article definitely does not present both views. Speaking from my own POV, that of an American who grew up during the Cold War, I was always under the impression that the Baltic states were part of the USSR... mainly because it was shown that way on every single map. Whether they wanted to be or not seems to be what this article should actually be about.

Rather than "Occupation of the Baltic states", it strikes me that this article should be centered on 20th century sovereignty of the Baltic states. To view the Baltic states as merely occupied seems to speak only to the national POV of the post-independence period. Since this is a credible position, it is an important one, but one which should be a section within a larger article that discusses the factual reality of soveriegnty for Baltic states between 1939-1991; significant portions of the population wanted independence, but the countries were not sovereign, and were firmly under Soviet control. An interesting section of the article would also center on the national and international significance of the view of a Soviet occupation since 1991, particularly in relation to how this plays against the policies of Russia under Putin.

As for good comparisons, do we have any similar articles which discuss questions of sovereignty in countries that spun out of other large states or empires during the 20th century (i.e. Occupation of the Caucasian states, or states that emerged from the French, British, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian empires)? It strikes me that during the better part of the 19th and 20th centuries a majority of the planet's modern states were occupied in the sense of the term as used in this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Art. 42 of the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907):

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." In 1940, the Baltic Fleet put the Baltic States under naval blockade, voicing an ultimatum to the Government of Estonia to resign. Before the Government could sign the resignation, the advance troops of the Red Army entered Estonian territory. De jure, these actions meant the start of the occupation of the Baltic States and were recognized by the U.S. as such. The current article represents not only the POV of the 'post-independence Baltic States' but the official positions of the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, U.K., U.S., and more countries.

The parallels of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or, for that matter, the Roman Empire are childish, as the case should be resolved upon the international law valid at the moment when the governing power is changed in the territory, basically the Hague Conventions. The governments of the Caucasian states never acquired sovereignty over significant portions of their territories before 1991. The relevant parallels are the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Occupation of Denmark, Occupation of France, Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Occupation of Poland, and Soviet occupation of Romania. Were anybody to put parallel claims on the occupied countries a la:"To view France as merely occupied seems to speak only the national POV of the post-WWII period" or:"I think, there is an equally valid POV that Denmark was an integral part of Germany," his or her mental welfare would be in serious doubt. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Hiberniantears This has been discussed several times:To view the Baltic states as merely occupied seems to speak only to the national POV of the post-independence period. Please familiarize yourself with the subject: According to the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council [10], the governments of the Baltic countries,[11] [12]the United States,[13] and the European Union,[14] the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union. Also see: 110TH CONGRESS2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 87.--Termer (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

PS.the factual reality of soveriegnty for Baltic states between 1939-1991, significant portions of the population wanted independence, but the countries were not sovereign??

I have no idea what are you talking about. The sovereignty didn't cover the territory because it was occupied by USSR. It doesn't mean the sovereignty of the states didn't exist de jure. For example :DYK that the republics of Estonia and Latvia were among the 73 countries around the world who sent the Goodwill Messages to the Moon in 1969?--Termer (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca has been active elsewhere too [15] trying to remove the references to the Occupation of the Baltic States article, pushing forward the "you can't occupy your own territory" argument. Oth (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this has been discussed before, and I am not disagreeing with any of the ideas put forth above. Rather, it appears that we have a false consensus on what this topic should be (i.e. many editors worked hard to craft a fine page, but the page does not take into account that there are other legitimate views of the topic). It appears to me that nobody would dispute that there was an occupation, and that this occupation was disputed by at least some continuous group of resistance, but at some point we have to account for the fact that the occupation was a flat out conquest in which the states in question become an integral part of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, these states would not be independent. Fast forward to the modern Wikipedia, and this article looks to be little more than a part of the contemporary national rivalries between Baltic states and Russia, rather than a balanced view of historical reality. The Baltic states are right to view the period within the Soviet Union as an occupation, but the Russians are right to view the same period as something else (in this case, a Soviet Union).

Let me also be clear that I am not fully backing Dojarca's position on this either. He and I have had a fair amount of head butting elsewhere, and do not see eye to eye on many things. However, I do agree with his over arching opinion that there is more balance which can be introduced into this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Hiberniantears the page does not take into account that there are other legitimate views of the topic??

Please read the article, the Stalinist POV is well spelled out in following sectionsPolicy_position_of_the_Russian_Federation, Soviet_sources_prior_to_Perestroika, Russian_historiography_in_the_post-Soviet_era, Official_position_of_the_Russian_government. That's more than enough to cover an WP:UNDUE opinion that's only supported by Russian chauvinists, an ideology that has chosen to take pride in the countries Stalinist past. If you think such a POV should dominate the article even further, I disagree.--Termer (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"POVs" and interpretation do not apply, it is a case of simple facts

Dear Hiberiantears, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here.
   You have been duped by Dojarca into believing the "sounds reasonable" postulation that this is a clash of equally valid POV's over an event:

1. Baltic "nationalists" claim "occupation";
2. Russians categorically state there was no occupation--Russian generals saying "You can't occupy what belongs to you" and Putin commenting that even as a drunk student he knew there was no occupation.

That this is a clash of POVs over the same set of events is not the case.

1. What is characterized as the Baltic "nationalist view" is an objective accounting based on reliably and indisputably verified facts. This objective and factual accounting of history is supported and accepted by any nation with an interest in the facts, the exception being Russia.
2. What is characterized as the Russian "national" (no "ist", it is the government's position) view is that the USSR was forced to assist the Baltics in a change of regime, that the Baltics joined the USSR legally (including a post-Soviet Russian Duma proclamation specific to Latvia), etc. This is a view of history based on Soviet fabrication, that is, a pack of lies.
   

   Let's crystallize the issue, and let me stick to Latvia to keep it simple. The Russian Duma issued a statement as its "duty" to "remind deputies of the Latvian Saima [sic.] that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law from the international juridical point of view." That is, Latvia joined the USSR legally:

1. according to Latvian law,
2. according to Soviet law, and
3. according to international law (minimally, all treaties in effect between the two parties).

This legal joining of Latvia to the Soviet Union makes it, legally, not an occupation.
   Despite years of asking for it, not one proponent of "equal and valid POVs" has produced a single shred of reputable scholarly evidence in support of the current Russian position as having any basis in fact. Not even WP editors with degrees in international law from Oxford. I should note that Russia does not pick on Lithuania not because of language laws or voting rights but because Russia signed a treaty recognizing the USSR impinged on Lithuania's sovereignty, acknowledging occupation in every way except not using the word itself.
   The Russian POV born of Soviet fabrication is noted as it should be. Based on reliable sources built on verifiable facts, it deserves no more.
   I am truly sorry that you have allowed yourself to be bamboozled into believing this is some conflicting-nationalist name-calling issue requiring a "balance of opinion." If you are truly interested in the issue of the Soviet occupation of the Baltics based on verifiable legal aspects, I suggest background reading here. PetersV       TALK 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. All three Baltic states took steps to preserve the continuity of their sovereignty regardless of territorial events. That sovereign authority was returned to the then territorial authorities after the fall of the Soviet Union at the moment independence resumed. PetersV       TALK 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess I'm just seeing this article as little more than a tug of war between Russian nationalist view points, and various Baltic nationalist view points. Neither one makes for a credible encyclopedia article. I will continue to review this and submit my ideas for any changes that I think may offer sustainable NPOV content. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• It has been already stated that not only Russia, but also Sweden, Finland, all Eastern bloc countries, Australia (for a short time) accepted the Baltic republics were part of the USSR at the time the USSR stil existed. This is not a POV of one country, but POV of at least a half a world. There were also Helsinki accords were all European countries declared they recognize borders of each other by how thery were at the time the accords were signed. On the maps issued in the USA these republics also were included into the USSR (but on some maps there was a footnote that US government does not recognize it). I doubt such footnotes were on maps printed in China, India and any third-world country. And again. Occupying its own territiory is nonsence. You either recognize this territory to belong to the USSR or you think it's occupied. You cannot believe both.--Dojarca (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you come arguing here, please acquaint yourself with the terms de jure and de facto as used in international law. Printing maps is a typical case of de facto reckognition. Currently, countries are printing maps with Abkhazia in different colour than Georgia. This doesn't mean they are recognizing Abkhazia as a state, just acknowledging the fact of it being separate. Exactly the same goes for the Baltics up to 1991, when countries just accepted the fact of them being part of the Soviet Union while not recognizing it as legal annexation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And what are your grounds for stating that the Baltics were the Soviet Union's 'own territory' in June 1940? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, I'm over it.

• The Helsinki accords specifically stated that there would be no military action undertaken crossing existing frontiers. There was NO recognition of borders, NO recognition of annexations. There was only the commitment that the West would not invade the Soviet Union. The word "border" does not appear once in the Helsinki agreement. Nor does any implication of recognition of legality.
• Shown as part of the USSR on maps? Don't make me laugh.
• "Occupying its own territory is nonsense"? Please, Dojarca, produce one reputable source based on verifiable facts that Latvia (et al.) joined the USSR legally according to international law, as the Russian Duma has proclaimed. That reputable evidence, and that alone, would make it not an occupation. That evidence does not exist anywhere in the known universe and you know it.

Please, Dojarca, save your breath. PetersV       TALK 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. You should be banned for attempting to rope in uninvolved editors in to be your unwitting meat-puppets. PetersV       TALK 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where my degree in international affairs comes in handy. It strikes me that Jaan Pärn's points are precisely what this article should be about. "Occupation of the Baltic states" is a loaded term. The issue here is the politics surrounding de facto and de jure recognition. This should be an article on "Sovereignty of Soviet controlled Baltic states". Hiberniantears (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I already stated, it is irrelevat whether they joined the USSR legally or not. If they joined - then no occupation. Period. It is impossible to imagine occupation of own territory. Or would you insist Hawaii or Texas are still occupied because they joined US illegally? Some countries recognized they joined the USSR and some - did not. I do not say they joined the USSR legally, I only say that if they joined(legally or not) then they were not occupied in the view of those who recognized they joined the USSR. And there are plenty of sourced thay they joined (as well as opposite sources). If to speak about legality, then why not to say the Baltics still belong to Russian Empire because the October revolution was illegal? Why do you start counrting legality from 1940, why not from 1917?--Dojarca (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's important to notice how Dojarca attempts to present the illegality of annexation as a minor infraction of legal procedure. That is not so; the illegality in question is not one of procedure; it is one of international law. International law is very flexible regarding domestic matters such as the Communist revolution in Russia, but it has its say -- and it's an authoritative one -- where violation of treaties, waging war of aggression or massacring civilians is involved. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Briefly to the above:

• Occupation is not a "loaded" term if it's based in facts, which it is. Hiberniantears, if you wish to have a discussion of this based on your "degree in international law", please give it your best shot, I can fully and incontrovertibly support the proper objective use of the term "occupation." There is no wiggle room for opinion on occupation or sovereignty or continuity of sovereignty.
• It's "joined legally" versus "occupied, annexed illegally and continuing to be occupied". There's no middle ground of de facto joining which makes it not an occupation, therefore...
• ..."de facto recognition" here is the loaded term in being taken as meaning no occupation.
• Arguments over the Russian revolution are immaterial. Arguments over Hawaii, Texas, et al. are immaterial. There are piles of treaties between the USSR and the Baltics which were all unilaterally violated by the USSR.
• It is not a question of "joined" versus "joined legally." There was no act of "joining" executed by the Baltic states. Parliaments elected whose election results are published 24 hours in advance of the close of elections executing acts illegal according to constitutions do not "join."
• Dojarca's argument that he does not dispute legality, it's only that the Baltic states did "join" and that there were representations that the Baltic states were "joined" to the USSR and so no occupation has no basis in supportable fact.

Show ANY FACTUAL BASIS the Soviet presence was legal, show ANY FACTUAL BASIS that Baltic sovereignty was terminated beteeen 1939 and 1991 and we can discuss some other title regarding Soviet actions. PetersV       TALK 16:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not go quite that far either. There was definitely an occupation. However, at some point the occupation gives way to an incorporation of the Baltic territories into the Soviet Union. Whether this incorporation was legal, illegal, willing, or unwilling is moot to the facts on the ground, which was a conquest in the historical sense of the word. Both of these things transpired in the aftermath of WWII, and the rest just seems like Cold War politics. In any event, all three countries were not in the same boat as Romania or Hungary, or Poland, or any of the other Warsaw Pact client states, which were still sovereign, even if they were completely dominated by Moscow. The Baltic States, on the other hand were both dominated, and incorporated into the Soviet Union. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are piles of treaties between the USSR and the Baltics which were all unilaterally violated by the USSR. - heh, if the October revolution was illegal, then the USSR was also illegal and all of its treaties were also void. Parliaments elected whose election results are published 24 hours in advance of the close of elections - so you contest the elections? Does it mean that any goverment in the world whose elections contested, illegal and also its treaties void? Do you think the pre-Soviet regime in Estonia which was a dictatorship, was more legal? Do you think the governments in excile which were not elected at all were more legitimate? Show ANY FACTUAL BASIS the Soviet presence was legal I already said that in the view of those countries and institutions who recognized incorporation of the republics into the USSR, Soviet presence there was legal because it was their own territory. Not all countries recognized this - this is true. --Dojarca (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop publishing personal opinions on this talk page but refer to published sources instead

Thank you!--Termer (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources already had been presented numerous times:

• occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory [16] (International Red Cross)
• From 1940 through 1990 the USSR comprised 15 constituent republics [17] Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia. © 2006 World Almanac Education Group.
• A former federation of 15 republics occupying the northern half of Asia and part of Eastern Europe, comprising Russia, Belorussia (Belarus), Ukraine, the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Georgia, Armenia, Moldova (Moldavia), Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. "Soviet Union." A Dictionary of World History. 2000. Encyclopedia.com. 29 Apr. 2009 [18]
• Former republic, eastern Europe and northern and central Asia. It consisted, in its final years, of 15 soviet socialist republics that gained independence at its dissolution: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia (now Republic of Georgia), Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.[19]
• Viro, Latvia ja Liettua, yhteiseltä nimeltään Baltian maat, muodostavat Neuvostoliiton läntisimmän osan Itämerta vasen... (translated: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, togeter known as the Baltic Countries, form the westernmost part of the Soviet Union, bordering the Baltic Sea.) Suuri Tietokirja - Finnish Encyclopedia from 1961 by WSOY, article "Baltian Neuvostotasavallat" ("Baltic Soviet republics")

--Dojarca (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is your synthesis. The fact is that the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United States and the European Union have all recently re-affirmed that the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union for 50 years. This re-affirmation comes after the the end of the Cold War and is backed by scholarship. This is not simply some kind of Baltic nationalist POV, but the mainstream view of major western nations. To say that the Soviet POV must be given equal weight would breach WP:UNDUE. Martintg (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking critically, should we be defining the last half century like this? Deciding what was, and was not the Soviet Union after the fall of the Soviet Union doesn't really seem to be constructive. It still strikes me that what matters most is what was the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union existed. Discussing how the Baltic states were illegally acquired is really what this article is about, but saying that these components were never part of the Soviet Union seems a bit of a red herring. Most large countries have component territories which were acquired by less than legitimate ways (see the western half of the United States, or Tibet), but that doesn't dispense with the reality that these lands are now part of the controlling countries. That's really all I'm getting at when I say we need more balance. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen this particular viewpoint expressed in the literature. I trust that this is not your own personal synthesis, so could you give me a cite so that I can review this argument. Martintg (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dojarca, in the end this is the same tactic that Petri used before he was banned, i.e., anything that indicates simply the Baltic states were "part of the Soviet Union" means they were not occupied; anything that does so without explicitly stating they were occupied means they were not occupied. Show the scholarly sources which indicate:

• the pacts of mutual assistance, appearing to be legal, were not done under duress thereby making them an agreement gone into willingly
• the invasions of the Baltics were a legal act under international law
• the deportations of citizens from the Baltic to another country as soon as the USSR invaded (recall, for the Soviets to maintain the Baltics joined "willingly" they had to still be sovereign) were a legal act
• the "elections" in the Baltics were free and fair (sorry, just teasing, we all know the results for Latvia were published in London 24 hours in advance, apparently someone couldn't tell what day it was)
• the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law as the Russian Duma has found itself "duty" bound to remind Latvia in particular

The article bends over backwards to go through all the phases of the Soviet/Russian version of events (BTW, none of it contributed by any editors defending the Russian position as far as I know, the so-called derided "nationalist" editors had to do that part too)--it's not POV because it's an opinion based on Soviet lies, not objectively verifiable facts. I admire your new creative tactics to whine to receptive editors about "balance," attempting to convert and enlist unwitting meat-puppets to your quest and convince them it's about anti-Russian anti-Soviet nationalists (initial words used by one of your receptive targets) unfairly attacking Russia and stonewalling editors writing in her defense. In the end, this will end like every other attempt to propagate Soviet propaganda, that is in failure, because that propaganda tells a tale of history that is merely a fabrication. PetersV       TALK 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And to Hiberniantears, let's get real. Described as being "part" of the Soviet Union and being "occupied" are not mutually exclusive. To contend so is not critical thinking. And how territory was acquired before the 20th century is immaterial as war was then a legal means for settling conflict. PetersV       TALK 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but for half a century, to every Baltic person, to those individuals vested with the sovereign authorities of the Baltic states, to those states which supported them and have affirmed their half a century of occupation since the fall of the Soviet Union, they were occupied. Unless, Hiberniantears, you are WP:OR contending nothing can be occupied for 50 years.

   The herring is Baltic, not Red. PetersV       TALK 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good one. That said, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not Dojarca. Move beyond what brought me here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for any improvement in the article. I'm even fine with leaving this article as the occupations and events--as was originally intended, with mention of the current Russian position, and create a separate article for the "critical thinkers" which details the "facts" each side uses to "support" their so-called "POV." But the answer is not that there is some real controversy over interpretations of history based on the same sets of facts: there is one interpretation based on facts, another on fabrications. The answer is not to milquetoast the title of this article to assuage Russian feelings and nostalgia over the Soviet Union, a dead, defunct, brutally totalitarian state. PetersV       TALK 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Riddle me this, Batman. If official Germany and German collective memory held to Nazi propaganda and dogma and "versions" of history, there would be global moral outrage. Official Russia and Russian collective memory hold to Soviet propaganda and dogma and "versions" of history and there's "controversy." I'm sorry, but I don't know if it's more laughable or more morally reprehensible. In truth, it is profoundly tragic for Russia and its future. You wish to write an article reflecting critical thinking on all of this? That's where it has to start. PetersV       TALK 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the personal slights and general disrespect. I'm only talking about this article, not about all Russian views of history. No credible intellectual thinks the Soviet Union was a nice place, or a good neighbor. Again, red herring. Critical thinking is not consistently making fun of someone who is making a good faith attempt to analyze an article. Look at my actions, and my sum contributions to this discussion and you will see that you are neither discussing the same thing that I am, nor assuming any thing even approaching good faith. Call me crazy, but the fact that you make edits in exactly the same fashion as Dojarca (4 or 5 individual edits at a time to leave one post), makes me suspect you're all just playing with me here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is saying that these components were never part of the Soviet Union? Only the phrase "occupation of" tells me that something must have become part of something. In that sense sure, the territories of the Baltic states became part of Soviet Union. The only thing there is, the majority of western democracies didn't recognize it de jure. See also for example Israeli-occupied territories where these "components" are part of Israel, but not always recognized internationally as such.--Termer (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. So what's your issue with what I'm discussing? Again, same page. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, could you rephrase in a nutshell, what you are proposing? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Originally, I did think an article move was warranted. That's off the table now, as I can see that the article could be appropriately tempered by explaining that this is a view and interpretation of events. I think the article is there, or nearly there following a few minor tweaks from me which amounted to little more than moving around some paragraphs. It was my fault for discussing it here with people too eager for a fight. I should have just done it on day one, and nobody would have cared.Hiberniantears (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hiberniantears. I respect your motives, but it is exactly horses such as "However, at some point the occupation gives way to an incorporation of the Baltic territories into the Soviet Union" that have been beaten to death and remained dead. That was the excuse for Australia's recognition by Whitlam unilaterally in his person, he got booted, Willesee his foreign minister got censured, and it was undone becuase no one has the right to say for someone else "might as well give up, you will never be free again." There is no "at some point" as long as sovereignty and hope remain. PetersV       TALK 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am not at all eager for a fight, but if someone attacks without the facts on their side, I will defend vigorously. This is not a fight, this is an attack by editors with a POV, WP:OR, and no facts to back their position versus editors with facts and no WP:OR.

   You should see the crap on "not occupation" in RU Wikipedia. As long as you're on international law you might look at Russia's annexation of Bessarabia, the Ottomans' "ceding" of that territory (over which they did not have sovereignty, Moldavia was sovereign but under the Ottomans), and the WP:ARGUMENTS over whether it was "ceded" to Russia (given to them, Russians received a gift and are nice guys) or Russia "annexed" it (Russia took it, it was not a gift for the Ottomans to give, Russians are not very nice guys). PetersV       TALK 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So when you say Russians are not very nice guys, is that your fact backed NPOV position, or are you just a gigantic hypocrite? Humans aren't nice... it isn't a quality unique to Russians. Whoever has the most guns usually ends up pounding their neighbor. In any event, you just handily exposed your "anti-Russian" views quite nicely and have been soundly exposed. Moving on, I am not seeking to bend this article to Dojarca's standings, and just as I am not here to turn this article into a nationalist Pro-Russian screed, I am certainly not going to be slapped around or lectured by any other nationalists of any other stripe.

I have been sensitive to your comments, and taken them into full account, yet for whatever reason you feel a need to keep being over the top in your commentary with me. Calm down. Take a few breaths, and understand that I am neither here to ruin your article, nor is it your article to have ruined. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was merely framing another debate going on elsewhere, where political events are also taken by defenders of Russia as being personal affronts on Russian integrity. I have no "anti-Russian" views. PetersV       TALK 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• PetersV, whether elections were fair or whether the deportations were legal is completely irrelevant here to the topic we are discussing. Otherwise I can ask you whether the pre-Soviet elections were fair? I see you're trying to present Baltic peoples as victims, but this also is completely irrelevant. You said "Described as being "part" of the Soviet Union and being "occupied" are not mutually exclusive" - you're wrong. I've already cited the International Red Cross' definition of occupation. Some entities and countries (for example, USA) did not recognize the countries were included into the USSR, so they think the territories were occupied and their viewpoint should be reflected. Other countries (eastern bloc) thought the territories belong to the USSR and hence not occupied. You're trying to present history from the viewpoint of the western countries who were "winners" in the cold war. Why then not to write in the Kosovo article that it is an independnt state just because the USA and the majority in the EU already recognized it?--Dojarca (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to suggest that say, Tajikistan should be counted, I'll gleefully respond by citing Alabama, Wyoming, and perhaps some 48 individual states inbetween. But you've already tried that, so you know that. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• To Hiberniantears, I am not a Russian nationalist. And where do you see Russian nationalist screed? I assert that there are various viewpoint existing and sourced. There is a declaration by European Parliament and by Russian State Duma. I just wonder why the declaration by European parliament should be given more weight. About half of countries recognized the independance of the Baltic republics while they existed and about a half did not. I even do not insist the republics were incorporated into the USSR legally, I agree with you that it is irrelevant.--Dojarca (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And the way Dojarca explains it here is different than the "you can't occupy your own territory" line of thinking. There are multiple views on this topic which have varying levels of validity:

1) The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, legally.

2) The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, illegally.

3) The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, but regardless of legality, the people of those states never stopped fighting for independence.

4) The Soviet Union illegally occupied the Baltic states, and these states were never part of the Soviet Union.

5) The Soviet Union legally occupied the Baltic states, but they never lost sovereignty.

6) The Soviet Union did any of the above, but the USSR later apologized.

6) The Soviet Union did any of the above, the USSR apologized, but Russians long for their lost empire, and now are trying to whitewash history.

7) The Soviet Union did nothing wrong, did not apologize, and now the peoples of the Baltic states are seeking to whitewash history by equating Soviets with Russians.

In a nut shell, these are the debating positions that I've seen on this page in the past few days, often times from the same person. Let me know which was is "The Truth™, lest I overstep my bounds and behave as a rogue. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Positions 2) and 3) are correct, replacing "owned" with "possessed". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not possible, as you can not "own" something "illegally". You can "hold under your control," but you cannot "own." Holding/controlling and owning are in no way equivalent. PetersV       TALK 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The official Russian point of view is that the states joined the USSR legally and there is nothing to apologize for. But my point of view is that whether the joining was legal or not is irrelevant here. Yes it may be somewhat illegal or unfair, but I've also read that there was a wide popular support for the joining. There were countries who recognized the incorporation of the republics into the USSR and there were countries who did not. So in the view of former, the territories definitely were not occupied, and in the view of the others they probably were occupied (or not, depending on what is considerd occupation - purely military administration or civil administration too). The article should be based on the sources which exist in abundance fo any of the points of view. It is interesting for example, Latvian position. I fount this explanation on the site of Latvian foreign office: ([20]) It's title is "Occupation of Latvia: historical and international law-related aspects". Dispite the title the word "occupation" used only a few times in the article. First time the author says that in 1940 Latvia "fell in hands" of Red Army, whih is "one of features" of occupation accurding to 1907 Hague Principles (i.e. "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army"). Saying Latvia was occupied the author cites a magazine and places the entire phrase in quotes. Later the author uses olny words "annexation" and "incorporation" relative to acception of Latvia in the USSR, but notes that the annexation was illegal because it was "based on occupation". The article nowhere says that occupation lasted until 1990.--Dojarca (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The article is titled "1939-1991", you left that off. PetersV       TALK 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    No. Where do you see it? The article is titled "Оккупация Латвии - исторические и международно-правовые аспекты" ("Occupation of Latvia - historical and international law considerations")--Dojarca (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the links to the left, the article you cite appears under:

• Вопросы истории Латвии. 1939 - 1991 годы = History of Latvia, Years 1939-1991

There's also the link:

• История оккупации Латвии (1940 - 1991) = History of the Occupation of Latvia (1940-1991)

While the article itself may not have a date, it's certainly clear what the span of history is and it's also clear what the Latvian foreign ministry indicates is the period of occupation. PetersV       TALK 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This is not RU:WP. Please do the courtesy of posting links to English language sources for the materials you cite so other editors can draw their own conclusions. PetersV       TALK 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is only a name of a web site section. The historian is more accurate in using words in his article.--Dojarca (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts v. points of view

It is unacceptable to compromise the lead in any way suggestive as to the plain facts supported by numerous sources are merely "points of view". This is not Postmodernopedia, after all. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the republics were included into the USSR. And there are numerous sources. Why not to include this fact in the article?--Dojarca (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca, you know full well that the article is about the events that led to the Baltics being so-called "parts" of the Soviet Union. That they were illegally annexed = they were so-called "parts" of the Soviet Union. That is already included in the article, obviously.

   That does not mean as you contend that they were "joined" officially part of the Soviet Union as in "you cannot occupy what belongs to you." Give it a rest already. I know you enjoy getting a rise out of Baltic editors, but recruiting other editors to be your unwitting meat-puppets is both creative and underhanded. Too bad you have to do your own arguing now. PetersV       TALK 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, who are you insinuating is a meat puppet? Hiberniantears (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was talking to Dojarca. I have not said you are a meat-puppet, but that Dojarca was campaigning to find/create meat-puppets to come and do his work for him as he was well aware of the reception his contentions (starting off right where he left off after a year of being banned) would receive. So much better that they should come from someone not in the fray before. As you have stated yourself, you are not Dojarca, nor am I confusing you with him. I am stating Dojarca's strategy in restarting the whole sordid affair of representing the Russian position equally and fairly, woe is Russia beneath the onslaught of the relentless Baltic nationalists. You will partdon my tone of impatience, you've been here several days, this has been going on like this for years. PetersV       TALK 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One last time

Alas, one last time...
Dojarca

• "Whether elections were fair or whether the deportations were legal is completely irrelevant here to the topic we are discussing. Otherwise I can ask you whether the pre-Soviet elections were fair?"
  • One deals with the internal affairs of a country, the other deals in the Soviet Union invading and interfering the the affairs of another country. Deportations of citizens from their own country to the USSR irrelevant? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard from you yet.
• "I see you're trying to present Baltic peoples as victims, but this also is completely irrelevant."
  • Ah, country invaded, citizens killed and deported, that's "trying" to portray them as "victims?" I'm sorry, did they attack the USSR first? Have I missed something here?
• You said "Described as being "part" of the Soviet Union and being "occupied" are not mutually exclusive" - you're wrong. I've already cited the International Red Cross' definition of occupation.
  • The Geneva Convention definition of occupation is that the local legitimate authorities are prevented from exercising power. Done. I have no idea what definition you have that makes the Soviet presence not an occupation.
• Some entities and countries (for example, USA) did not recognize the countries were included into the USSR, so they think the territories were occupied and their viewpoint should be reflected. Other countries (eastern bloc) thought the territories belong to the USSR and hence not occupied.
  • The article is not a contest about who recognized what. Your contention the "Eastern bloc" thought the Baltics "belonged" to the USSR is laughable as those were all puppet governments installed by the USSR.
• You're trying to present history from the viewpoint of the western countries who were "winners" in the cold war.
  • No, I am simply erasing 50 years of lies by a defunct despotic murderous regime whose version of history you appear to be personally bent on preserving.
• Why then not to write in the Kosovo article that it is an independnt state just because the USA and the majority in the EU already recognized it?
  • Different animal. Baltics were recognized by everyone including the USSR before WWII. Just another "Red" herring.

Hiberniantears' understanding
And the way Dojarca explains it here is different than the "you can't occupy your own territory" line of thinking. There are multiple views on this topic which have varying levels of validity:

1. The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, legally.
   • Didn't happen
2. The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, illegally.
   • You can't "own" something illegally, didn't happen
3. The Soviet Union owned the Baltic states, but regardless of legality, the people of those states never stopped fighting for independence.
   • Again, you can't own illegally, not related to kept fighting for independence
4. The Soviet Union illegally occupied the Baltic states, and these states were never part of the Soviet Union.
   • This is the closest, they were never de jure part of the Soviet Union and never ceased being "occupied" during their tenure as "SSRs"
5. The Soviet Union legally occupied the Baltic states, but they never lost sovereignty.
   • Occupation was not legal. Sovereignty was continuous.
6. The Soviet Union did any of the above, but the USSR later apologized.
   • Recognition of the illegality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a first step. No apology has ever been made, so false on that.
7. The Soviet Union did any of the above, the USSR apologized, but Russians long for their lost empire, and now are trying to whitewash history.
   • There's been no apology. Read any scholarly source these days, you will find rehabilitation of the Soviet past. Generally speaking that is looked upon as "whitewashing." That such actions may be born in genuine nostalgia for the past and not intentionally sinister would be even more tragic than it being done intentionally (my personal opinion regarding Russia's future).
8. The Soviet Union did nothing wrong, did not apologize, and now the peoples of the Baltic states are seeking to whitewash history by equating Soviets with Russians.
   • Ah, we come to the crux of it. It is not the Baltic states which are whitewashing/revising anything, nor is it the Baltic states which are "equating Soviets with Russians." Russia through its official position has stated an official Russian version of history which is the same as (and some have argued even more Stalinist than) the fabricated Soviet version of history which came before it. It is Russia that is equating itself to the Soviets in its words and deeds. Don't say the Baltic states are putting words into the mouth of Russia, Russia is choosing words and putting them into her own mouth.

As you can see, there is nothing about any of the series of possible contentions being suggested that hold water, except one, which is that the occupations were illegal and the Baltic states were never officially part of the Soviet Union. So can we all go home now? PetersV       TALK 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Prove it. Each one of my assertions. With sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, prove what? One cannot "own" something "illegally" that is a contradiction in terms. So, what, now every possible contention is considered true until disproven by sources? I rather thought we had and understanding and reasoned discussion outside of the fracas here. Apparently I was wrong, or you've slapped an anti-Russian xenophobic Baltic nationalist tag on me. Before I respond, please let me know whether you're now considering this a WP:BATTLE. PetersV       TALK 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Each of the assertations are in one way or another discussed in Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden - Boston: Brill. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify regarding the above (and your earlier comment re #2, #3) about whether "owned" is not meant as "controlled"? "Own" indicates legality of control and therefore also the extinguishing of the Baltic sovereignties during the time period in question. PetersV       TALK 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. 'Control' or 'possess' is the correct term for the Soviet occupation, not own. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• PetersV, do you really want to discuss moral aspects of deportations? Then why not to discuss killing Jews by those who supported the independence during WWII? local legitimate authorities are prevented from exercising power. Done. Please give a link to such strange definition. And the governments in excile were legitimate in the view of some contries and illegitimate in the view of other countries. those were all puppet governments installed by the USSR. This is your point of view. But they were recognized as legitimate even by their enemies. No, I am simply erasing 50 years of lies - good effort. Had ever heared about historical revisionism? It seems we're moving around. That's sad.--Dojarca (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the good old distraction by unrelated yet loaded issue. We've even got an article on this topic. It's called And you are lynching Negroes. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Go back through all the previous archives discussing this for the definition. I'll be glad to discuss the Nazi Holocaust in Latvia, that has nothing to do with this article. "Jews killed by those supporting independence?" What on earth are you talking about?
   And, oh by the way, Stalin proportionally deported more Jews from the Baltics than any other ethnicity. With all their political and community leadership gone, they were unprepared to organize for the Holocaust when it did come. There's no "revisionism" going on here despite your best contentions. PetersV       TALK 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As for not puppet governments, events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia speak for themselves. My POV? That's rich! PetersV       TALK 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional outsider comment

You know, I just came to this page because Hiberniantears, whom I gathering by his name might be Irish?, asked for some input on a noticeboard. PetersV probably saw the message I left there. For what it's worth, I'm a citizen of the US of German heritage. I make it a point to dissociate myself from power-mad loons with weird mustaches, however.

Hiberniantears says that this article tends to be a bit leaning toward the view of the Baltic states, I have to agree with him there. The title itself, "Occupation of the Baltic states", is a bit prejudicial. Granted, it reflects the opinion of a lot of groups, but there still are a few others, like the old Soviets and the Russians, who disagree. All articles are supposed to be as NPOV as possible, as per WP:NPOV, and having a slightly prejudicial title don't help there a lot. Having said that, it might be one of the easiest versions of the title, so there is some cause to keep it.

PetersV says higher on this page that "this has been going on like this for years". That isn't good. There are ways to resolve matters like this one. Mediation as per WP:MEDCOM, arbitration per WP:ARBCOM, and other means exist. They can and probably should be tried, if they haven't already.

I do note that PetersV in the above thread seems to be in my eyes way to quick to dismiss certain sourceable comments because he has a view of the situation with which they do not agree, and at the same time use language which could potentially be seen as less than acceptable. These are concerns to me, because they lead me to at least think that PetersV might think he knows the truth. We aren't seeking after "truth", however, but just "verifiability", as is indicated in the first sentence of WP:V. "Critical thinking", which PetersV also seems to be important, is not required. It is, in fact, very likely a violation of the policy regarding WP:SYNTH. It seems to me that the claims for the Soviet opinion meet verifiability, so they should be included as prominently as the opposing claims. And, as per WP:NPOV, all significant views must be represented fairly, which means that they should get about equal coverage, taking into account complexity issues, and the article should not take sides. This one, seemingly, does take sides, both in the language it uses and to an extant the article structure. The after-the-fact judgements of any courts are just that, after the fact.

At this point, I would urge all parties involved to accept input from outside editors in the spirit in which it is intended, to help the article. I would also at least suggest mediation as per WP:MEDCOM. Otherwise, unfortunately, I can and do think it likely that the article will remain a constant dispute, will keep causing the generation of ill will which inhibits development of content, and very possibly could lead to sanctions against at least some of the editors involved, probably on both sides.

Hiberniantears made a post while I was writing this asking whether the scope of this article might be a bit too big. I tend to agree that it probably is. One, there is almost certainly enough material for separate articles on the occupation of each of the individual countries. I can't see a lot to be gained by lumping them all together into a single article. I would myself see maybe the following separate articles: Occupation of the Baltic States, the Baltic States and the Soviet Union, and Question of Baltic States' status during the Soviet Union, with perhaps particular emphasis on the last. I myself would probably put a summary section related to this article in the main Baltic states article, and then add summary sections on the two other articles relating to the Soviet Union in this article. That's just my opinion, obviously, but I think it would make it easier to reach the NPOV status that we all more or less are striving for. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The page has been all the way to arbcom and back. This was old when I first arrived to Wikipedia some two years ago. And still, every now and then -- there are certain anniversaries that seem particularly attractive to this sort of thing -- some self-appointed guardian of "balance" shows up and claims that it's "judgmental" to speak about massacres as though it was a bad thing, or that in interests of "balance" there must be a section explaining how the tens of thousands of people deported to Siberia for slave labour were actually criminals, or insists that the European Court of Human Rights doesn't know the first thing about laws, and it would be better if Wikipedians attempted to interpret international law themselves. This horse is dead as a parrot. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I pondered and pondered, but I don't see why such a split would be beneficial. Could you be more specific? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict prior to your last paragraph) Hello, John. I should mention my involvement here stems from (a) Latvian background which is probably obvious and (b) having added all the materials on treaties, et al. which the Soviets abrogated (one in particular states that there are to be NO CIRCUMSTANCES under which one party has the right to invade the other) and (c) having researched and debated the legal aspects of occupation and de jure recognition ad nauseum with all those who have come before. There have been endless mediations and arbcoms where Baltic editors have been called the worst imaginable things for simply sticking to the facts. Formal WP means of resolution have already exhausted man-years of editors' efforts, so let's not suggest we go there again.

   I am not "quick" to "dismiss" "sourcable" comments. Comments are not the issue. The issue is taking comments such as "Latvia was part of the USSR from X to Y" and insisting that means Latvia was not occupied, et al.

   And since there was an occupation, and people were killed and deported (even while their country was ostensibly still independent), how is a title reflecting that "prejudicial"? If reputable sources all indicate the Baltic states were occupied, what is it, exactly, that prevents us from using the word "occupied" in the title? Who are we offending? The Soviet Union is dead and buried. Whose sensibilities are we here to protect?

   Your contention of "prejudicial" presuposes this is truly about POV. It is not. It is about a historical event about which the current official Russian position differs from the facts. And, I should mention, the current Russian position differs from its own treaty still in effect with Lithuania, which acknowledged the actions of the USSR against Lithuania's sovereignty.

   I'm not the holder of any WP:TRUTH. It's only that through research and all that I have gathered over time that I'm likely one of the better informed editors regarding international law and the Soviet occupation. It's precisely your feelings that something may be prejudicial based on what, the use of a particular word, that editors like Dojarca appeal to.

   That the current Russian position denies Soviet actions Russia has already acknowledged in their own treaty with Lithuania is not my problem, nor is it the mission of the article title to reflect that denial as another "perspective" which we must consider as to not prejudice or offend. I hope this helps. PetersV       TALK 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To your last paragraph, the article was intended to be about the events of the occupation. It was the "Baltics were not occupied" litanies incessantly tagging the article and requesting sources which produced the bloat over the period being termed and "occupation" and the multiple paragraphs on the Soviet and Russian positions as evolved over time (all added by Baltic editors, I might add). As I've stated, I've got no objection to any split as long as it does not produce something which paints the Baltic and Russian positions as equally valid "POVs" over the same historical events. The Baltic view is based on facts, the Russian one on Soviet fabrications. That's WP:BLUNT, not WP:TRUTH. PetersV       TALK 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, re: "It seems to me that the claims for the Soviet opinion meet verifiability." Please indicate which claims you believe "meet verifiability" and I'll be glad to respond. PetersV       TALK 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

John is correct, I am a third generation Irish-American. I'm going to follow John's advice and take this to WP:MEDCOM for feedback on moving toward a structure that comprises some variation of Occupation of the Baltic States, the Baltic States and the Soviet Union, and Question of Baltic States' status during the Soviet Union. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your ethnicity is irrelevant. It does not matter in any positive or negative way. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was coming back to suggest as a topic (too long as a title, but) "communal Russian memory regarding the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union". That would save the endless debate over whose memory is correct or not.

   I'll take the ethnic background comment as an attempt to assure us you're not culturally biased--not that culture or ethnic background matter. PetersV       TALK 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Simply pointing out I have no ethnic stake in this. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged ethnic stake is a red herring. Martintg (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Διγουρεν, You've cited European Court of Human Rights. May be it would be interesting for you to know this quote from the ruling of the court on Kononov vs. Latvia case: In the instant case, the parties and the third party intervener agreed that the applicable domestic criminal legislation applicable to the events of 27 May 1944 was the Criminal Code of Soviet Russia, which was adopted in 1926 and became applicable to the Latvian territory by virtue of the decree of 6 November 1940. [21]. So even in 1944 when the territory was under Nazi control, the only applicable domestic law according the ruling was Soviet criminal code.--Dojarca (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are falling into the trap of making a personal interpretation of a court ruling to advance a position. Unless you can find an independent reliable source that makes this interpretive claim, it remains WP:OR. Martintg (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  It is not interpretation, it is exact quote.--Dojarca (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a direct quote, but the problem is that this direct quote is used to support the wider claim that the Baltic states were not occupied. Unless you can find a paper or book that makes the interpretive connection between the court ruling and the wider claim of "non-occupation", it remains OR. In fact, of one reads the full judgment, the majority decision explicitly makes no conclusions as to the legality of the annexation, but accepts the facts established in an earlier case as the historical truth:

"112. The Court notes, lastly, that the parties and the third-party intervener attach considerable importance to certain questions of a general nature, in particular, whether Latvia's incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940 was lawful under public international law and constitutional law.......In this connection, the Court reiterates that it will abstain, as far as possible, from pronouncing on matters of purely historical fact, which do not come within its jurisdiction; however, it may accept certain well-known historical truths and base its reasoning on them (Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 96, ECHR 2006 ...)"

Looking at the Ždanoka v. Latvia case [22], it states as fact:

"Following an ultimatum to allow an unlimited number of Soviet troops to be stationed in the Baltic countries, on 16-17 June 1940 the Soviet army invaded Latvia and the other two independent States. The government of Latvia was removed from office, and a new government was formed under the direction of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (“the CPSU”), the USSR’s only party"

--Martintg (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• As another outsider, I do not understand what's the problem. Looking at this article edit history, I only found this revert of an edit by Dojarca dated June 2007:[23]. Is this is all about removing POV tag? Biophys (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states

I have opened this case at WP:MEDCOM. If you wish to participate, please feel free to add yourself here, and add any issues you wish to be included here. Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added my own name. I would urge all parties who have an interest in this subject to take part in the mediation as well. One reason for that, regretably, is that it seems to me that this argument will not be resolved without some such outside input. If that continues to be the case, then there is a very likely chance that the behavior relating to this article will worsen, and the ArbCom may be called in. The ArbCom has recently become a bit more actively involved in resolving such matters, as can be found by their decision to appoint a trio of outside administrators to resolve naming issues related to Ireland at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure and following. If this matter were to go to ArbCom again, it may well be that, as in the case above, the resolution of the problem might be done by outside parties, and those who have already been involved in the development of the article may find themselves facing a decision with which they very clearly disagree, but which they would be powerless to do anything about. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

John, I'm quite surprised how quickly this has escalated in the space of a day. You must know that ArbCom does not rule on content issues. Martintg (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I would ask you to look at the link I provided again. In that case, and possibly in the future in another one I'm currently involved in, which is why this occured to me so quickly, they didn't directly involve themselves, but they have given themselves the authority to appoint a group of independent administrators who are in a position to decide the matter, in effect appointing a board to resolve it. They themselves still aren't "ruling on content issues", they're just appointing individuals who are. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

?? I read the ArbCom ruling, it is asking that the community develop a procedure for resoling a conflict, nothing about appointing a group of administrators to rule on content. Did you link the correct thing? Martintg (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the following sections as well. They say that if there isn't a decision in 14 days, the ArbCom appoints three outside administrators to resolve the matter. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry John, but my reading is that these outside admins are to develop a procedure resolve the matter, not the matter itself. There is a difference. Martintg (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

True. There is. But exactly how much a difference that will wind up being after the "procedure" (or steps to determine a matter, which is generally equivalent to a "guideline") is finished is still up in the air. Granted, they won't be able to enforce it over the objections of the majority of individuals involved. But in contentious issues, like the one I'm in now, there are going to be individuals from one side or the other who want to "stick it to" the other side however they can. All in all, having looked at the matter myself several times in the past few days, I'm fairly certain I wouldn't want anything I would be concerned about to be resolved in that manner. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

John, so in a nutshell I'm being told I have no choice but to participate yet again (appointed if not participating?). Many people have heard of Ireland and have hear of its strife in the news. Few have heard of Latvia. From that standpoint, "uninvolved" most certainly means "uninformed." As well intentioned as your involvement is, your own suggestion that (at face value) "occupation" is "prejudicial" when it was the Soviet Union that invaded unprovoked is precisely why "uninvolved" admins do not work for this topic. And, personally, if you had an iota of understanding of the degree to which the Soviets raped the Baltics, you would realize that it is you who is offending sensitivities, not the editors indicating the article is rightly titled "Occupation...". So be it, we'll do this all yet again. And what is the "contentious" issue we're looking to resolve? That Russian POV based on lies deserves equal time? I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is all quite misguided, and it has nothing to do with my believing I'm a holder of the WP:TRUTH, that's frankly insulting. PetersV       TALK 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, I said nothing of the kind. I wish you would not try to add to my comments. If I remember correctly, I think I said that the word "occupation" in the title is POV. That's all. I didn't offer the weak comment you just now decided to attribute to me. Your own clear lack of objectivity in the matter, including in your last statement above, makes it quite possible that, like has happened in some of the cases currently before ArbCom, that others may become involved, and that they may become so frustrated as to bring the matter before ArbCom. You yourself have in your own comments said things which could call into question your own objectivity and neutrality. And, unfortunately, if mediation is rejected, the only option remaining is ArbCom. But, your call. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ak vai.

• Well, I read it as if folks don't participate, others uninvolved will be appointed to rule, no?
• You said "The title itself, "Occupation of the Baltic states", is a bit prejudicial." Based on?
• You said "But in contentious issues, like the one I'm in now,..." Contentious based on one editor complaining that the Russian POV is not adequately represented (as stated in the mediation filing)--when Soviet/Russian historiography is discussed at length?
• Achieving a "balanced" point of view requires objective assessments of events--on which various parties may have opinions; representing all opinions as (implicitly) valid does not achieve balance.

So, you believe I've stated things calling my objectivity and neutrality in question? Please, let's have them. While you're making that list, please feel free to read Wiki Cold War from August 2007 for some historical perspective. PetersV       TALK 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Two admins are the uninformed editors of which you speak. We're not above the law, but you don't get to be an admin by being a moron (though some might dispute that). Point is, we're not easily duped. What you're doing here is classic stonewalling, and the mediation case is open for your benefit so that I don't take it to ArbCom. The issues currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 are exactly the type of issues that are in play here right now, and I think it would behoove all involved to take a stab at mediation. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you creating Baltic States and the Soviet Union and Question of Baltic States' status during the Soviet Union, we are not going to do it for you. If that is unsatisfactory, perhaps you should take it to ArbCom then. Martintg (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, ArbCom never deals with content disputes. so why exactly has this been brought up? Has anybody been violating any WP policies? Been uncivil or something, has been engaging in an edit war, has violated WP:OR. The claim that the word "occupation" in the title is POV by John Carter is an opinion like any other. Just that what would possibly be a non-POV-sh title then? Perhaps it's me but I haven't seen any suggestions that would make sense. So what exactly are you guys after Hiberniantears and John Carter? How would braking up this article make a difference? Or else are you in all seriousness supporting the POV of the current Russian government, who's so far the only source out there that disputes Soviet Union occupying anybody. meaning, the countries and the peoples cave up their independents voluntarely?--Termer (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To:John Carter I see you're an American, so why don't you take on Armenian Genocide? The English speaking countries the US, the UK don't recognize such an event as a genocide, so it is clearly a POV title? Unlike 'Occupation of Baltic states' where the majority of scholars and politicians etc. in English speaking countries are on the same page with this article including it's title. --Termer (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever you discuss here, please avoid presenting this as an ethnic dispute. "Soviet" does not mean "Russian". That was Soviet and Nazi occupation, not Russian occupation.Biophys (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Biophys. It has is nothing to do with anybodies ethnicity here, if anything the dispute is a political one. The Soviet style Communism was not an ethnicity but a political regime.--Termer (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) By the way I looked at the Macedonia titling dispute, I'm sorry but it's quite silly by comparison. (Arguing against standard country article naming convention.) And comparisons of WP:IDONTHEARYOU to here are inappropriate. That's projecting other experiences in other disputes to a completely different set of circumstances. PetersV       TALK 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME tells to "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article". If you want the article renamed for neutrality reasons, please provide another common name from the literature in English. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the article up according to John Carter's proposal appears to make a world of difference, as it appears to support Dojarca's view that the occupation ended immediately after it had commenced with the silent recognition of the annexation by the World. All I can say about it, is that before you start pushing such POV, provide a notable source that actually makes such a conclusion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the dispute and status controvercy, not about "occupation" as such. --Dojarca (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway you can verify youself: google search for "occupation of the baltic states" -wikipedia [24] gives 7 730 links, "incorporation of the baltic states" -wikipedia [25] gives 9 850 hits. So incorporation is the more frequently used term.--Dojarca (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "Incorporation" seems to be at least as common as "occupation". As long as the first sentence points out that the incorporation was forcible and therefore illegal, I will not object the renaming. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article must be simple and understandable. Everyone knows what is occupation or annexation. What "incorportion" means is totally unclear. I fixed Introduction simply to make it more simple and readable per WP:MOS. Better? I do not see any reason for you to waste a lot of time here. Biophys (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it is more used, it is more recognizable.--Dojarca (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation is too open to interpretation as to what it means. What is the requirement to milquetoast the title? PetersV       TALK 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And since "incorporation" is used in tandem with "forcible" I see no benefit to "Illegal incorporation of..." or "Forcible incorporation of..." over "Occupation of...". PetersV       TALK 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that this article also covers the Nazi occupation, "incorporation" wouldn't be really applicable. Martintg (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Acttually, if you click through the pages of results, there are infact 458 hits for "occupation of the baltic states", and 295 hits for "incorporation of the baltic states" , so "occupation" has twice the number of hits that "incorporation". Anyway, I think "incorporation" is a narrower term. Martintg (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, during the German occupation the 'Baltic states were incorporated into the Reichskommissariat Ostland' [26] or 'annexed to Nazi Germany as part of its Reichskommissariat Ostland' [27]. This occupation-incorporation-annexation in the context is after all only semantics.--Termer (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To: User:Hiberniantears, please explain your "minor edit": [28]. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Other than the source provided on the military occupation, there is entire chapter on the subject: Reversing Soviet Military Occupation [29] in State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia By Bruce Parrott. there is The major international treaties of the twentieth century By John Ashley Soames Grenville, Bernard Wasserstein, p.886 [30]: ...A related issue was the continnuing Russian miliyary occupation and bases. The Baltic states demanded the withdrawal of all the ex-Soviet troops, numbering at least 100.000. In case more sources are needed, please let me know. Simply removing sourced facts from the article can be explained exactly how?--Termer (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

If you ever read the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, you'll find that the annexation of the Baltics was contrary to this pact as it provided that no political change should be made in the Baltics. Germany used the Soviet involvement in the Baltics as a pretext for invading the USSR it is note of declaration of war.--Dojarca (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And this would be so according to whom? In case the opinion can be verified by a secondary published source, it should be simply added to the article like any other possible viewpoint on the subject.--Termer (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting opinion coming from a Russia scholar: Elena Zubkova, a senior scholar at the Moscow Institute. She is saying that "the consequences of the introduction of a Soviet regime" and the suppression of the independent state existence of these three countries , Zubkova argued, "turned out to be worse than any occupation could have been." The text in English:[31], and the original lecture in Russian at www.polit.ru--Termer (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want, you can add it but please as an indirect speach.--Dojarca (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can also add this by the same historian: 2 July in Luthuania in Kaunas there was a large 30-thousand military parade on the stadium where marshed Lithuania's military units under Soviet banners(...). Lithuanian's military marshed under red flags and shouted "Long live comrade Stalin!", "Long live the 13th Soviet Republic!".[32] It was before the incorporation of Lithuania.--Dojarca (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit, do you think that 1940 annexation did not violated Lithuania's (and reaming States) sovereignty? M.K. (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Recognition lists

Recognition was multifaceted and nuanced concept in post-WWII international law. Collapsing these nuances into a one-bit "recognised"/"recognised not" decision embodied by two lists is prone to lose information and possibly mislead our reader. Instead of presenting imprecise data as precise, we should either give a full overview without OR classification of the entries, or summarise the available data in a way that researchers have summarised it -- thus, making it explicit that it's a summary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Why not? --Dojarca (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is now split

I just split the article between this, which is now intended to deal with World War II, and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎ which is intended to deal with the post-war to independence period with a very plain, NPOV title. I have move protected this article given the energies exhibited by many individuals in the hope that everyone can step back and calmly evaluate what I did. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good editing practice requires a) in order to split and rename article use appropriate splitting tags, in order to inform parties about such move. Non of this was done. b) before making actual split - find an consensus on talk for such action. Non of this was done as well. More staggering issue that you heavily involved in this dispute, yet you used your sysop abilities to protect this article [33], therefore violated core WP policy WP:ADMIN, particularly - Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. M.K. (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hiberniantears, please show me scholarly sources which indicate the occupation by the Soviet Union after re-taking the Baltics differs in any way from the occupation of the Baltics by the Soviet Union initially. That there is a difference is an opinion unsupported by historical fact. I additionally regret your move protection characterizing the entire community of Baltic editors out to be editors of bad faith, your euphemism of "energies". This in the absence of consensus and professing your own unfamiliarity with the topic.

   The supported split was to discuss so-called controversy regarding after WWII, returning the original article to its intended contents, the events of the occupation for the entire span of the occupation. not to split the time period into during and after based on the official Russian position, the sensibilities of editors who support that position, and the perceptions of editors previously unfamiliar with the topic.

   Frankly, I'm disappointed. I sadly have to concur with M.K that you have overstepped your bounds here by deciding that according to Wikipedia occupation can only apply to WWII as your unilateral solution to Dojarca's complaints to you and to the anti-Baltic position agitations on your talk page (Russavia).PetersV       TALK

Just wanted to say that even though such potentially controversial moves should be done pr. WP:Consensus, I personally don't have any major problems with the overly long and somewhat clumsy new title "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II" since according to Baltic sources for example For Estonia, World War II did not end, de facto, until 31 August 1994 [34].--Termer (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article can remain split along the original lines intended, original occupation title, all events, and Baltic States and the Soviet Union discussing versions of history which make it an occupation or not after WWII. PetersV       TALK 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Current article name is messy. In any case article Occupation of the Baltic states can be made as the summary of WWII and Post WW II events. M.K. (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Entirely correct --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Without having gone into details right now due to lack of wikitime, I can only agree with M.K.

:Good editing practice requires a) in order to split and rename article use appropriate splitting tags, in order to inform parties about such move. Non of this was done. b) before making actual split - find an consensus on talk for such action. Non of this was done as well. More staggering issue that you heavily involved in this dispute, yet you used your sysop abilities to protect this article [35], therefore violated core WP policy WP:ADMIN, particularly - Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.

in that we really have a blatant case of admin tools misused in content disputes. Not only had the sysop concerned had no contributions to the article, until prompted 'to have a look' by some users apparently cherrypicking some people with admin tools - moreover, no attempts have been made to gain some kind of consensus. --Miacek (t) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

When I split the article, I messed up a few citations. Because this article is overflowing, I don't have time to fix that until later today, but invite anyone else willing to sort through the ref tags and find out where I broke things. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

I suggest that Dojarca places here the precise text of any changes he/she wants to discuss and vote if necessary. Same applies to renaming article, moves and splits. Everyone, please follow WP:Consensus. There is no another way around.Biophys (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split of this article

Hiberniantears, please explain, what titles do you suggest for new sub-articles? Why this article needs to be split?Biophys (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is nothing wrong with creating new sub-articles. However, this article can be also kept as an "umbrella article". Why not? But making a protected redirect this article has been unilaterally deleted, which is against the rules.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would like, I would be happy to turn the original article "Occupation of the Baltic states" into a disambiguation page which includes a link to Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And protect the disambig.page? That is precisely why such things should not be decided without an AfD debate. Do we need an umbrella article here? Maybe we need. May be we do not. That should be discussed and decided per WP:Consensus. The normal "evolutionary" approach here would be this: (1) someone creates sub-articles; (2) the corresponding segments of text are only briefly summarized here as to avoid content forks. This way any editorial conflicts would be minimized. Is that the way to go? This also should be discussed.Biophys (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If I change it from a redirect to a disambiguation page, yes, I will keep it as a protected page. However, I do want to specifically address the concerns you raise regarding deletion. Nothing has been deleted, the article was simply split. The most important part if this is that I did not change any of the content. The two articles contain everything from the original article. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Woeful inadequacy of lead

The lead section as it now stands is both fairly obviously pushing a POV and woefully inadequate. It describes in comparatively great detail how some see it as having been illegal, but doesn't actually say much anything about the occupation per se, which, presumably, is the real subject of the article. I cannot see how any reasonable outsider could not come to the conclusion, based on that lead, that this article is not so much interested in describing the subject fairly, but is rather interested in describing a certain variety of responses to the actual presumptive topic of the article. John Carter (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Feel free to re-write it. Splitting the article up is not going to make the lead any better. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, do not do it please. Please place your version of the introduction here for discussion. This is the pointBiophys (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking into consideration that this article is under constant heated debate, major edits to it, should be discussed on talk page first. M.K. (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we keep the occupation article to the events of the occupation, including after WWII, similar to the article on the Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940.

   The other article should be devoted only to the question of occupation with details of events specifically having to do with that (not a repeat of the entire history in the first article). PetersV       TALK 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved version not what the article is right now

Just to be clear this is what I moved here, which you'll note was quickly reverted to the version of the original article. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this article, originally entitled Occupation of the Baltic states, was split on May 1, 2009 into Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union (postwar period).

FWIW, I support the article split and the renaming. Someone has suggested that this is an opportunity to focus on the details of the post-WWII period. To that end, I'm suggesting that the number of Soviet troops stationed in the Baltic states during that time be discussed in that article - can we agree that troop presence is relevant? Not OR since this book draws the connection by describing it as a military occupation and by stating that Soviet troop withdrawal was problematic during the establishment of independence [36]. Sources conflict about number of troops towards the end - for the Baltic states as a whole, NYtimes, during the early 1990s, gives at one point 130,000 [37] and at another point 400,000 [38] Just a starting point for these stats, which would belong in the other article, but there's more discussion here...Note to JC (!!) and HB, I appreciate your involvement. Novickas (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New quality tag

I have added a new tag to the article to revlect the obvious issues the article now has. Specifically, I see whole paragraphs without a single reference citation. In fact, the last two paragraphs of "Soviet terror", the second paragraph of "Occupation by Nazi Germany, 1941-1944", the first two paragraphs of "The Holocaust - Lithuania", and both paragraphs of "Historical considerations" all lack even a single reference citation. The content of the lead section is poor. We are led to conclude that whatever it was the Soviets did was illegal, but we aren't given much if any idea of what it was they actually did, which is almost amusingly inadequate. Section headings like "Soviet terror", "terror" being a very emotionally loaded word, can reasonably be seen as violating WP:NPOV. I honestly cannot see how the tag can or should be removed until all these issues are addressed. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, specific section tags should be implemented, instead. It would allow to see that specific sections needs improvement. M.K. (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. The downside to doing so would be the number of tags, which would be at least six right now. And those are just the obvious ones I indicated above. When that many tags are being discussed, it generally makes more sense to tag the whole article, to reduce the amount of template "noise" in the article. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in lead

I have removed from the lead:

although the majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation.

This was sourced to http://books.google.com/books?id=scc8EboiJX8C&pg=PA104&dq=Baltic+de+jure+recognize+India&hl=ru#PPA103,M1 which states:

The majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation of the Baltic States.

However, this source, http://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA259,M1 written by Antonio Cassese states:

The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States.

So long as this discrepancy exists, the assertion that I removed has no place in this article as written. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit. That last quote "The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States" is from Willessee's personal testimony in procedures which resulted in his being censured. He couldn't tell Balkans from Baltics apart in his testimony. And his testimony as a whole indicated he had no concept of de facto versus de jure. There's no discrepancy. PetersV       TALK 15:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As indicated in various places above, please discuss changes first so that we avoid unfortunate misinterpretations and misrepresentations of sources. PetersV       TALK 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's not Willessee at all. It is the words of Gough Whitlam, read the source it indicates this. We have two sources which say conflicting things. Until such time as the position of ALL states can clearly be clarified, the fragment as written in the article is a no-go. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles states: "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." This has now been done. It should also be noted from here that it says: "It should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic States." Unfortunately "most Western States" does not equate to the "majority of countries". If it is the majority of Western States, then this needs to be clarified, but when he have a Prime Minister of country stating that the "majority of countries" do recognise the de jure incorporation, this is going to create discrepancies. For example, what was the opinion of Togo, Zimbabwe, Chad, Nepal, etc, etc on this matter? Until such time as this can all be clarified, as I said it shouldn't be stated in such in the article, but until then, inlin with general principles at that Arbcom, opinions need to be cited to their proponents. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Truly horrible idea to try to split off part of the article into Baltic states and the Soviet_Union

(1) An article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic States and the Soviet Union 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR and Latvian SSR makes absolutely zero sense.
(2) The "new" article has seriously been titled by someone as "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" as opposed to "Invasion of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union" or "Annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union."
(3) Moreover, the title would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for over two decades, and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union", which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title.
(4) In a perhaps unintended but amusing POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples".
(5) In fact, perhaps more amusingly, the basis for the invasion, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text.
(6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944, which begins 5 years after the Baltic States and Soviet Union began military interactions (1939 Red Army actions) and 4 years after their annexation by the Soviet Union.
(7) The reason for this disconnect is that it is essentially a partial copy and paste job from this article, the Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why it was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense.
(8) Consensus should have been achieved before such a major move was attempted.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the idea was that annexation had happened in 1939, when WWII already started (after invasion of Poland), but yes, this unilateral move and protected redirect were highly unproductive. This is a complicated and sensitive subject that must first be debated.Biophys (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems, all in all, that someone would wish an article entitled 1940 June revolutions in the Baltic states and the re-unification with the USSR. The article we had here did indeed note there was such a viewpoint present, too. --Miacek (t) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I just submitted an ARTICLE FOR DELETION ENTRY FOR Baltic states and the Soviet Union. Weigh in on the topic as desired.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitlam

Whitham is an official person. If his statement should be removed as 'non-scholary' then the reolution of European Parliament, UN, US department of state also should be removed as non-scholary.--Dojarca (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not removed because of being non-scholarly but because it is based on nothing, as shown in depth below in the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the position of the U.S. Depatment of state should not be removed, but position of Australian prime minister should? Because you know the truth?--Dojarca (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is of course against Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles. I hope people realise that. Perhaps those who are claiming that "most countries didn't recognise" can provide List of countries along with whether they did or did not recognise the de jure incorporation. US and EU does not equal the world. It's about time that people get that thru their heads, really. To say that Whitlam's comment is based on nothing is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard. Does one think he got up in Parliament and stated this without consulting the Department for External Affairs for information? Anyone who would think as such, give me your address and I can send you a shiny red clown nose to go with that opinion. But honestly, removal of information which is sourced to their proponents is a no-no, and particularly as it is obvious that this assertion is being disputed by myself and now another editor. I would agree to it being written "The de jure incorporation of these states into the Soviet Union was recognised by most countries, but not by the majority of "western states". Russavia ^Dialogue 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ARTICLE FOR DELETION ENTRY FOR Baltic states and the Soviet Union

I just submitted an ARTICLE FOR DELETION ENTRY FOR Baltic states and the Soviet Union, the new article purporting to split off part of this article.

Weigh in on the topic as desired.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note - the split of this article is being discussed at the Administrator's Noticeboard [39] Novickas (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany

Can we move it now to Occupation of Baltic states by Nazi Germany because current title is based solely on Soviet POV? Oth (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)