Talk:Military occupations by the Soviet Union/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Soviet occupation" is not a separate term

The lede appeared to have serious WP:NOR and WP:V problems. Firstly, the sentence:

"Soviet occupations is a term used for military occupations by the Soviet Union from the prelude to the aftermath of World War II."

is not supported by the sources. The first and the third sources do not contain the definitions of the term "Soviet occupation" ("subject" + "predicate" ≠ "new term"); the second source is a school textbook, so it is hardly the best source WP should rely upon. Therefore, the opening sentence fails both WP:V and WP:NOR. The second sentence is not sourced at all.
Obviously, this article is a typical list article, and the title is purely descriptive. I changed the lede accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 57#Based on what ground the statement "XXX is a term" can be made in WP articles?, I tweaked the lede. Nug (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Purely descriptive terms should not be in bold. I fixed it. More importantly, by making this edit you set too narrow timeframe: I doubt Afghan war or Prague spring falls into the period called "aftermath of WWII". When, in your opinion, this historical period ended? If you believe your version of the lede is an improvement, we need to remove Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary. If we want to keep them, I suggest to return to my version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the main aftermaths of WWII was the Cold War, the origin of which was due to Europeans and Americans interpreting the Soviet occupations as part of a Communist expansion that threatened to extend to the rest of the world. --Nug (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, the origin of the Cold War was due to the Western concern about Communist expansion (and, conversely, in Soviet concern about the perceived or real hostile intention of the Western powers). Occupations had no relation to that: remember, the Cold war started before the Western troops had been withdrawn from the ex-Axis countries, so the physical presence of Soviet troops in EE could not be per se a reason for the Western concern. In your interpretation, the whole XX century history, until 1991 was the aftermath of WWII. That is too stretchy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out that Campbell et al. is not a proper reference to the title as it does not use the term 'Soviet occupations'. Instead the cited page 461 refers to the 'Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe'. We either change the title or find relevant sources to support it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

If this territory was occupied, not annexed, then it would be interesting to know when and how the occupation ended: the territory of Bessarabia was not returned to Romania even now, and by calling the Soviet territorial acquisition "occupation" we question the legality of formation of Moldova. As far as I know, most scholarly sources call this event "annexation", not "occupation". I am waiting for the ideas how to bring the Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina section in accordance with our policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How about we discuss specific sources and not Google searches. I'm sure we can both craft searches that back whatever contentions we care to make in this regard. Some specific sources instead would be a welcome digression from dueling searches. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The meme that occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive is false. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but such an argument is pure demagogy: I provided specific sources that I obtained by google scholar (not Google). Those sources speak about annexation (which is a mainstream term).

With regard to the "meme" that occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive, I asked quite simple question: if we speak about occupation (which by definition is deemed temporary and has a well defined time frame, a source for this statement: David M. Edelstein International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 2004), pp. 49-91), then can anybody explain when this occupation started, when it ended and why its consequences still are not deemed null and void.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul, what are you suggesting here, that it is possible to annex territory without first physically occupying it? Or that once that territory is legally annexed on a certain date, then retrospectively that prior occupation is deemed as not to have occurred at all? In 1947, as part of the Paris Peace Treaties, Romania and the Soviet Union signed a border treaty confirming the border fixed in 1941. So therefore that border treaty would have given legality to the Soviet annexation, thereby ending the state of occupation. --Nug (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, you perfectly know that the territory can be annexed without occupation, and, for example, the US history provides numerous examples of that.

Re the Paris peace treaties, you probably forget that the USSR never recognized legality of annexation of Bessarabia by Romania in 1918. You also forget that Romania re-occupied the Bessarabian territory in 1941. However, what is more important is your thesis that territory is deemed under military occupation until the legality of annexation is not confirmed. That thesis is somewhat dubious, and I expect you to provide a source that confirms this your idea.

One way or the another, I am glad we agreed that the information about the date of the formal end of occupation should be added. If you believe that that date should be 1947, please, provide a source that support this thesis. Meanwhile, I'll try to find the information about the end of the state of occupation by myself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there border treaties directly between Romania and the current countries? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What relation does it have to the article's subject?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not Romania considers itself de jure bound by treaties it may maintain were entered into under duress, which may affect views of the circumstances subsequent to the the act of occupation you are discussing here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Romania never renounced the 1947 Peace Treaty, which includes a provision confirming the legality of the 1940 territorial transfer. Not that it has any relevance, considering that, under international law, de jure Romania never legitimately held Bessarabia after 1878.Anonimu (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean to go back to 1818 and annexation by the Russian Empire? In that "transaction", the Ottoman Empire had no territorial sovereignty over the Principality of Moldavia, there was nothing to cede by treaty, so the (already done deal) Russian annexation by tsarist decree was not supported de jure. The 1856 to 1878 period only affected 2 counties so it's a bit of a red herring where 1878 is concerned with regard to occupation by tsarist Russia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And to whom the sovereignty over the Principality of Moldavia belonged by 1818? AFAIK, Dimitrie Cantemir was the last legal head of the Principality of Moldavia, and Constantine Ducas was appointed by the Ottomans. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I would have no reason to go to 1818, as nothing relevant to international law happened then. If you mean 1812, you're wrong again: under international law, the Ottoman Empire's relations with Moldavia were codified by the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, and nothing prevented the Empire from disposing of Moldavia's territory as it saw fit (since the beginning of the 16th century, the Ottomans had been annexing Moldavian territories they deemed necessary, so a "lack of territorial sovereignty" was not even part of the customary law).Anonimu (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) It's 1812, not 1818, apologies for the typo. As for the rest, let's not confuse Ottoman suzerainty as impacting Moldavian territorial sovereignty. No amount of exercise of suzerainty transfers rights of territorial sovereignty to the party exercising same. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To whom sovereignty over Moldavia belonged by 1818, in your opinion? And how the 1818 events justified the annexation of Moldavia by Romania in 1918? Going back to the major point of the dispute, since no mutually recognised border existed between Romania and the USSR, it is hard to speak about any occupation based solely on illegality of Soviet ultimatum. Therefore, if we look at the factual side of the 1940 events, we can speak about territorial transfer (annexation) of some territories. Is it a subject of this article? I doubt. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct, the Moldavian Democratic Republic succeeded from the collapsed Russian Empire in 1917 and voted to merge with Romania in 1918 and that merger was recognised by the Allied Powers in the Treaty of Paris (1920). Romania joined the League of Nations in 1919, which provided international recognition of that state. So this talk of "whom sovereignty over Moldavia belonged by 1818" is pointless. --Nug (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on people, at least do your homework before presenting such "arguments". The Moldavian Democratic Republic proclaimed itself part of the Russian Federative Republic, even if they had little to no contact with the Petrograd governemnt. Then the Romanian army invaded, and, magically, they decided they wanted to be independent, and after a while, as the Romanian army didn't feel like leaving, they decided to "unite" as an autonomous region (of course, this was not enough for Romania, so it gathered a handful of Moldovan MPs in the middle of the night to drop that condition). The 1920 Treaty of Paris never came into force, as it was not ratified by all signatories as its articles requested (Japan "forgot" to ratify it) - that's why the UK, one of the signatories, had no problem in 1941 in acknowledging Bessarabia as Soviet territory.Anonimu (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article Moldavian Democratic Republic first before making up these claims. The Russian Democratic Federative Republic ceased to exist after the Bolshevik coup, so Sfatul Ţării then the voted for independence, thus legally succeeding from Russia. --Nug (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh... One of the only 3 sourced statements in that miserable article says "The Sfatul Ţării (National Council) of Bessarabia was elected in October-November 1917, and started to work in December 1917. It proclaimed the Moldavian Democratic Republic as a federal subject (autonomous republic) of the Russian Democratic Federative Republic". Since history doesn't seem to be one of your strong points, I must emphasize the fact that December comes after October (as in October Revolution). As for what you call "claims", they are all firmly established historical facts, as can be ascertained by checking reliable sources such as this (and not a wiki article sourced with a google snippet and two untraceable "references"). Anonimu (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to return to the main issue, namely, if we can speak about occupation in this case. I found few sources on that account, and the article published in The American Journal of International Law, (Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1944), pp. 667-673) seems to be the most authoritative. Since it analyses the legal aspects, I don't think this source to be outdated. It describes a situation as follows:

"In the course of the general decomposition of the Russian Empire which followed the Bolshevik coup d'etat of November 7, 1917, Bessarabia was caught up in the welter of separatist agitation and successively claimed territorial autonomy, proclaimed itself the Moldavian Democratic Republic and finally voted its annexation to the Kingdom of Romania.7 All these acts were "revolutionary" in relation to the constitutional norms of Tsarist Russia, and undoubtedly altered to Romania's advantage and the disad- vantage of the Russian State the territorial status of, and inferentially the legal title to, Bessarabia. Finally, the Principal Allied Powers gave a tincture of legality to the process of acquisition of Bessarabia by the Treaty of Paris of October 28, 1920, concluded at the very end of Allied intervention in Russia. Its phraseology is redolent of the period and attempted to make legal an ex parte judgment on the merits and validity of Romania's claims. By contrast, the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and, after its formation, the USSR, enunciated, reiterated, and consistently maintained a policy of non-recognition of the validity of the territorial change which is almost unique in Soviet annals. The stand of the USSR was tacitly accepted by many other countries such as the United States, which regarded the Bessarabian treaty as involving a res inter alios acta, which lacked the all-essential element of Russian consent.

On this exiguous legal basis Romanian possession of Bessarabia continued down to 1940, notwithstanding various transactional arrangements for a de facto patrol of the Dniester by a mixed commission, and the avowal of the Soviet Government, in inviting Romania to implement through the Litvinov Protocol of February 9, 1929, the General Act for the Renunciation of War, that the Bessarabian question was not closed thereby, the USSR interpreting the Protocol as meaning not a renunciation of title but a renunciation of means.(...)

The USSR enforced its demands by ultimatum, and Romania formally acquiesced, in an exchange of notes,"2 before the Soviet military occupation of both areas began. The new status, irrespective of all preceding legality or subsequent constitutional evolution, was therefore, from an international legal standpoint, based on a formal agreement contained in an exchange of notes, consenting to the retrocession of Bessarabia and the cession of the North Bukovina" (Op. cit.)

in other words, according to this source the legal basis for Romanian possession of Bessarabia was "exiguous", and the Romanian consent on the retrocession was obtained before the occupation would start. The source clearly speaks about cession/retrocession, and not about occuaption.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure that this singular legal appraisal from 1944 is interesting and relevant to a continuity section in the article Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, it remains the fact that mainstream sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica continue to assert that Soviet troops did occupy Bessarabia[1] --Nug (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, try to familiarise yourself with the ongoing discussion on the RSN regarding the usage of EB as a source [2]. Secondly, EB tells about 1944 occupation. Obviously, the advancing Red Army occupied half of Europe, simply by virtue of the fact that it was the major fighting force in the East Front. Occupation of the territory is inevitable in that situation. I would say, in 1944-45, whole Europe, except few neutral states and Britain, was occupied by either the US, UK, France or the USSR. Let me also note that the whole article seems to be devoid of intergity, because it must explain that most Soviet occupations in Europe and Asia had been made as a part of Allied war effort, Eastern Poland, Finnish Karelia and, probably, the Baltic States being the only exceptions. However, that is the subject of another thread.

Revenons a nos moutons, however. (i) Encyclopaedia Britannica does not apply an epithet "occupation" to the 1940 events. (ii) We have a reliable source that describe the 1940 events as the transfer of territory Romania possessed on "exiguous" base (by the way, have you taken into your consideration the fact that the Paris treaty where the European states confirmed annexation of Moldavia occurred when those powers participated in military intervention of Russia?). As a result, we have no reason to discuss "occupation" of Moldavia. If some sources will be presented that confirm the fact of occupation, we can add few words about that, however, that should be presented just as of of alternative viewpoints.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moscow Peace Treaty

Whas the Moscow Peace Treaty an illegal act or de jure valid treaty? We can speak about any occupation after 12 March 1940 only if this treaty was null and void. Otherwise, we speak about transfer of Finnish land to the USSR and about occupation of this territory by the Finns in 1941-44. I'll try to find the sources that confirm that the MPT was illegal, and, if I'll find that that was not the case, all story about occupation of Finland after 12 March 1940 should be removed from the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Petsamo, which was Finnish territory under the Moscow Peace Treaty and occupied by the Soviets after 12 March 1940. --Nug (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a lacuna in my education here. I know that Petsamo was ceded (and later partially sold) to the USSR in 1944, and I know that it was not transferred to the USSR in 1940 (except small part of the Rybachy peninsula). However, I do not completely understand under whose actual control Petsamo was between 12 March 1940 and 22 June 1941. As far as I know, Moscow treaty stipulated withdrawal of all Red Army troops from Petsamo by 10 April, 1940. Do you imply that they didn't withdraw?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've re-read the section, there appears to be a disconnect between the issue you raise here and what is actually discussed in the Finland section. What is "all story about occupation of Finland after 12 March 1940 should be removed from the article"? --Nug (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The section tells mostly about territorial transfer as a result of officially signed formal treaties, which has nothing in common with military occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Did not the Soviets occupy some Finnish territory during the Winter War and set up the Finnish Democratic Republic? Seems to me the section is about that. --Nug (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the major part of the section is devoted to territorial transfers, not to the events you are talking about.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The section seems to have all the right elements providing the context, describing the prelude, the occupation itself and its aftermath. If the middle part seems a bit thin in comparison to the other parts then the solution would be to give a bit more text to it. --Nug (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Territorial transfer was not an aftermath of occupation, it was an aftermath of the Winter/Continuation war. It should be replaced with a single short sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, Finnish territory was militarily occupied by the USSR at the conclusion of the Winter War, I can't think of an instance in history where significant territory not occupied by foreign troops at the conclusion of a war was transferred. Had an armistice been called at the point where the USSR had not been on Finnish territory, I find it hard to conceive that any transfer of territory would have taken place. Thus holding and occupying disputed territory is the key factor in territorial transfers. In any case a single sentence would be way to short to give adequate coverage. --Nug (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The territorial transfer as a result of the Winter War was a result of the treaty signed in Moscow, on 12 March 1940. After signing of the treaty, the territory had been transferred to the USSR, and was not considered as occupied any more. In addition, although the Red Army troops occupied the territory of Petsamo during the war, they had been withdrawn as a result of the treaty. We cannot speak about occupation after 12 March. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The treaty was signed because the Finns did not have the man power or sufficient arms to end the Soviet occupation and repel Soviet forces from Finnish territory. --Nug (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Finland as a sovereign state never questioned the legality of the peace treaty. Indeed it considered the conditions unjust but never illegal. Note that not even at the outbreak of the Continuation War did the Finnish government address the peace treaty as illegal.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the section that mentions the treaty is illegal, nor is it being discussed here. The issue at hand is that Paul wants to reduce this section into a single short sentence, removing any context or mention of the subsequent peace treaty that ended the occupation. On any topic I think there should be a description of not only the phenomena, but also how it came to be and how it came to pass. I think this section does this, though some more text should be added about the occupation itself, rather than delete the parts on how it came to be and how it came to pass, as that would remove context. --Nug (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All Paul is trying to delete is the part that presents the Finnish cession of territories according to the peace treaty as occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have re-read the section twice and I don't see it, where does it present the cession of territories as occupation? --Nug (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The section should present only the occupied territories. Other areas are irrelevant and confusing. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question, where does it present the cession of territories as occupation? Most articles present the prelude and aftermath, which is relevant, which makes for a well-rounded topic. How does removing context make something less confusing? --Nug (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The section does not specify the occupied territory. Instead it presents other territories, which is confusing. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The section specifies Finnish Karelia and Petsamo as the territory occupied before being ceded in the aftermath. --Nug (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole article gives a biased picture by combining quite different subjects

In my opinion, the article should be re-written because it pushes the idea that is not present in majority sources. The factual basis for the article is as follows:

1. On the eve of the WWII the USSR invaded and occupied Eastern Poland, which had been annexed soon.
2. It also started the Winter War that lead to occupation of the part of Finland, creation of the puppet government there with subsequent transfer of this territory to the USSR.
3. The USSR forced Romania to cede a disputable territory of Bessarabia, as well as North Bukovina; using staged elections, organised under a military pressure, it illegally annexed the Baltic states.
4. After entering the WWII in 1941, the USSR, being the Ally, invaded and occupied territories of several Axis states (Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia), Axis co-belligerents (Finland), Axis occupied countries (Czeck part of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, North Korea, North China), neutral states (Iran).
5. In post-war period, the USSR performed military intervention in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.

Obviously, those events were quite different, and cannot be connected together. ##1,2 do belong to the article, and its description is more or less adequate (although it still needs in some minor corrections). # 3 does not belong to the article (except a short discussion of the state continuity of the Baltic states, which includes the thesis that, since the annexation is generally seen illegal, it could be considered as occupation when the state continuity issue is concerned.) Moldavia does not belong to this article. # 4 does belong to the article, but the accents should be shifted: a historical context should be added, and occupation of, e.g., the Axis states and, the states formerly occupied by the Axis should not be combined together to create an impression that all those states were equal victims of the evil Soviet regime. The difference in the policies should be explained, as well as the description of denazification of East Gremany, etc. With regard to # 5, I see no difference between the legal aspects of the Soviet interventions in Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia and the US war in Afghanistan or Iraq. In all those cases we can speak about military interventions, about elimination of the old government with subsequent installment of new leadership, however, I do not understand why the former events are described as occupations, whereas the latter are not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Under the current title, everything that qualifies as a Soviet occupation should be included regardless of the differences. I can see two complementary methods to proceed towards a reasonable article: a) to rename the article according to the general scholarly view and b) to exclude the events that fail to qualify as an occupation. Nothing else can serve as the basis for exclusion from this article. Everything else is just a matter of prose, which everyone is welcome to improve. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Jaan, accept there is no requirement that the article name follow some form found in scholarly sources, descriptive titles are permitted by policy as acknowledged by Paul with this edit[3]. So I think the current name is adequate. --Nug (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This thread is not devoted to the article's name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Paul, you are quite clear in pointing out that the Moscow Peace Treaty ended the state of occupation in some parts of Finnish territory, but what treaty ended the state of occupation in the Baltic countries? Or are you claiming rigged elections and a law of accession to the USSR passed by a puppet regime but never ratified by the second parliamentary chamber nor put to a referendum as required by the constitution sufficient? You oddly don't see the parallels in the Soviet strategy of setting up puppet regimes on occupied territory in Finland and the Baltic states. But please, do present a scholarly source that explicitly states the Baltic countries were never occupied. We have Ellman, Wheatcroft and others directly debating each other in the scholarly press over the Holodomor, please point to a similar debate regarding the occupation of the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As I already explained, we can speak about occupation only in a context of state continuity. This issue had been raised mostly after the dissolution of the USSR, because there was a urgent need to resolve some legal aspects, mostly regarding state continuity vs cessation, and regarding the fate of non-indigenous population. The thesis about occupation helped to resolve this issues. However, the real status of the Baltic states within the USSR was identical to that of other Soviet republics, so the contemporary sources described them as annexed or absorbed, not occupied. The closest analogy would be Anschluss of Austria: the sources, as a rule, do not tell about occupation in this case.

Therefore, the most correct way to describe this event in this article (note, I do not propose to remove it, by contrast to Bessarabia) is to explain that these states were illegally annexed in violation of international treaties (no such treaty existed between Romania and the USSR, and not all states recognised Moldavia as a part of Romania), and, despite the fact that these states were full members of the USSR (according to the domestic Soviet laws) and no regime of military occupation existed there, the concept of state continuity of the Baltic states assumes that some specific state of occupation existed there since 1940 till 1990.

With regard to your "do present a scholarly source that explicitly states the Baltic countries were never occupied," I respectfully request you not to demand me to prove the opposite. I have a huge amount of sources that describe the Baltic states as having been annexed to (absorbed by) the USSR, and these sources do not tell about occupation at all. Therefore, I expect you to provide a reason why this opinion should be ignored in this article, and why should be speak about these events solely as occupation

Regarding the debates, the authors may disagree even without any debates. I know a huge number of cases when different authors simply ignore the works of each other, so the usage of different terminology, even in the absence of any debates may imply that there is no agreement on the subject in the literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I think you are falling into the fallacious belief that since some sources describe the Baltic states as having been annexed, this is in opposition of them being "occupied", when in fact these terms are used in a complementary manner. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As we agreed, the Moscow treaty lead to annexation of some Finnish territory, which ended the state of occupation. Occupation implies some quite specific legal status, and when the domestic law have been expanded onto some territory (either legally or illegally), we cannot speak about occupation sensu stricto. I already provided the sources for this claim, and you are perfectly familiar with them. Therefore, any your attempts to speak in general are senseless. The terms occupation and annexation are being used for the Baltic states simply because this case is unique, and this uniqueness should be clearly explained, which I have done in my previous post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be to end the section with the end of the sovietisation when the the Soviet legal system was fully applied. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul, the application of domestic laws is irrelevant. the key factor is whether or not sovereign title had passed to the occupying state. In the case of Finnish territory sovereign title passed to the USSR via the Moscow treaty. In the case of the Baltic states, the USSR retained defacto control, but never gained sovereign title over them.

The legal concept is not unlike real estate law in many countries. Anyone can move in and occupy a house and impose their rule within it and exercise defacto control over it, but they do not have legal title to that house and can be forcibly evicted if the real owner has sufficient strength (and they usually do because they can get a court order and assistance from the police). Now in some cases when an occupier of a house lives in it for a sufficiently long period of time (in Australia it is 12 years), title can be transferred, but only if no one objects during that period, i.e. there is general recognition afforded.

The fact that the elections rigged and the law on accession to the USSR was illegal (it never was ratified by the upper chamber or subject to a referendum per the constitution), that a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval for the Soviet acqusition, the resistance by the Baltic people to the Soviet regime, and the uninterrupted functioning of rudimentary state organs in exile support the legal position that sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union. --Nug (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I already explained elsewhere, the Baltic issue still has no simple answer. Similarly to the Anschluss of Austria, it is not correct to speak about military occupation from 1940 to 1991. Yes, for the purpose of determination of citizenship, and as an argument in the state continuity dispute we can consider that the states resumed their independent status after some period of illegal foreign rule (you may call that occupation is you want). However, since the Baltic states were de facto the part of the Soviet Union, and taking into account that all states (except the US, Island and Vatican) recognized that (de facto), does not allow us to list the Baltic states here as an example of military occupations.

By writing that, I do not claim that the Baltic state story should be removed from this article. In connection to that, I propose the following (that is my reply to Jaan). In my opinion, and taking into account that the overall structure of the article should be re-considered, I suggest to mention the Baltic states twice. Firstly, the illegal annexation of 1940 should be mentioned, which should be supplemented by the fact that, since the annexation had been performed under threat of military force via staged elections, and, despite the fact of the annexation had been de facto recognized by majority states, the illegality of such annexation allowed many authors to speak about occupation; based on these considerations, regaining of independence by the Baltic states in 1991 is currently considered not as seccession from the USSR, but as restoration of pre-war Baltic states, which, for this purposes are considered as continuously existing.

Secondly, I propose to discuss occupation of the territory of the Baltic states in 1944, which initially had many traits of military occupation: military administration, hostile local population, partisan resistance, etc. The pre-history of those events (massive Soviet repressions of 1940-41, massive Baltic collaboration with Nazi, armed resistance to the advancing Soviet troops) should also be presented here, followed by the story about "forest brothers", etc.

However, for this story to fit the article's narrative (and to avoid article's POV), the whole article should be re-written. We must split them onto the 1939-41 ("pre Barbarossa") period, 1941-ca 1947 ("post Barbarossa" period), and the Cold War period. Accordingly, the events should be but into historical context, namely:

1. During the first period, the USSR occupied (by military means) Eatsern Poland and Finland (two schools should be presented: "expansionist" and "defensist"), and annexed three independent states, illegally and under a threat of force (but not militarily), the step that had some traits of occupation, according some authors.
2. During the second period, the USSR, being a member of the Grand Alliance, defeated and subsequently occupied territories of several Axis states, their satellites, co-belligerents, as well as the territory of some Allies or neutral states that were previously occupied by the Axis. The Soviet leadership took advantage of the fact of occupation to facilitate installment of Communist (or pro-Communist) regimes there. (Here the above mentioned second part of the story of the Baltic states should also be added)
3. During the Cold War period the USSR performed several intervention (in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc) to affect the development of the political situation there in direction that deemed dangerous for the Soviet leadership. (In connection to that, we need to decide if we can use solely the term "occupation" to describe the Afghan events: the Nadzhibulla's regime was definitely not more an occupation regime than the current Afghan regime, and the proof of I can refer to an obvious fact that it continued to exist in Afghanistan even after Soviet withdrawal from there.

These are the steps needed to convert the article into something neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Paul, there is no evidence that the occupation of the Baltic states was not militarily enforced. Considering the mass deportations of Baltic nationals regardless of race or religion, there is nothing "defensive" about that belligerent occupation. 23:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As for disparate ("quite different") concepts, the uniting thread is Soviet aggression and forcible subjugation of its neighbors. The USSR could have not been the first to invade its neighbors, it could have not usurped control of its neighbors after WWII. Unfortunately, for your editorial position, that was not the case. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to proof the opposite: if you believe that was a belligerent occupation, please, provide the source (and if you will be able to do that we will analyze other sources to establish if your source represents majority, minority or fringe views).

Regarding "defensiveness", your focused on the Baltis issue does not allow us to discuss the events in wider perspective: under "expansionist" and "defensist" I mean two schools of historians who believe that the territorial expansion was a primary goal of Stalin (and his pact with Hitler was just a mean to achieve this goal), and the school that believed that the territorial expansion was dictated by (wrongly understood) security considerations.

Re your third paragraph, what was the difference between the Soviet and British invasion of Iran? What was the difference between the Soviet invasion of Bulgaria and British invasion of Iraq? Do you believe the USSR had a choice to invade Slovakia or Hungary or not (I even do not speak about Germany; interestingly, the fact that Germany attacked the USSR has not been mentioned in the article at all)? Do you think that there was a considerable difference between the policy of Britain in Greece and of the USSR in Poland? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul, this "defensist" argument was promulgated by Stalin himself to justify to the West what was in reality a long standing "expansionist" policy of the incorporating the Baltic states. As of Professor Khudoley of St Petersburg University writes:

"In the 1920s and 1930s, official in Moscow believed that the defeat of communism in the Baltic states was only temporary, and that Soviet rule would be established in due course. The Comintern doctrine was, moreover, that all countries under Soviet rule should join the Soviet Union. Soviet foreign policy during 1939-1940 cannot therefore be seen as signalling a marked deviation from official doctrine, but merely the evolution of an existing long-term strategy. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union was merely waiting for the 'right time', and this finally came in 1939…"[4]

In other words the rise of Nazism in the 1930s did not mean a change in the USSR's foreign policy towards the Baltic states, as they always had intended on expansion since the 1920s, the Nazis just gave them the right opportunity which was crystallised in the M-R pact. Khudoley goes on to write:

"In seeking to justify the occupation of the Baltic states, Soviet and many Russian historians have utilised the argument of military advisability, which was presented during Second World War by Stalin to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Yet the occupation of the Baltic states made the Soviet Union neither weaker nor stronger in the face of possible German aggression."

The notion of a state exercising de facto control, with that control lacking legitimacy, is a feature typical of belligerent occupation. The difference between pacific occupation and belligerent occupation is that fact coercion was involved in giving consent to the entry of troops. In international law there is equivalence between the illegal seizure through coercive threats of war and seizure through an actual war, the outcome is the same. As Krystyna Marek writes in Identity and continuity of states in public international law on page 567:

"For it is consistent with the inner logic of the problem that, just as the illegal act in question is in substance equivalent to a war of conquest, so its consequences are equivalent, and have in fact been assimilated, to mere belligerent occupation. This result has been secured not withstanding the contrary claim of the aggressor, this claim in turn being analogous to a proclamation of premature annexation. In the whole process described above, there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form"

So there is no question, the key fact that foreign rule was imposed illegally and through the threat of force makes it a belligerent occupation. --Nug (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, since all objections concern only the Baltic states, I see my proposal about re-arrangement of the whole article structure raised no objections in general. As time allows, I'll do that.

Regarding "defendist", the fact that that argument was promulgated by Stalin does not make it a priori incorrect. Let me remind you that, for example the idea that notorious Barbarossa just a preventive attack of the USSR, who planned surprise attack of Germany, was firstly proposed by Hitler, which does not prevent us from discussing it seriously. I had no time to do a systematic search, however, at least for contemporary observers the idea that Stalin initially didn't plan to occupy/annex the Baltic states, and he was forced to do that by the course of the events was quite obvious (see, e.g. Bulletin of International News, Vol. 21, No. 24 (Nov. 25, 1944), pp. 991-1000). Whereas I think that Khudoley's position is highly commendable (being a Russian, he probably feels some historical guilt), however, even if he expresses the opinion of some (liberal) part of Russian intellectuals, we need to present not a Russian (Estonian, Latvian, etc) position, but a global point of view. Many authors (Haslam, Carley, Roberts, et al) agree that Soviet policy in 1930s was opportunistic, they mention mutual hostility between the Baltic states and the USSR, however, they write nothing about occupation of the Baltic states as a long lasting strategic goal of the USSR. By contrast, many authors write that its goal was security, not expansion.

With regard to the Baltic occupation, you are smashing against the unlocked door: I agree that for the purpose of identity and continuity of the Baltic states (the Marek's book is devoted to this subject, isn't it?) they can be considered as occupied. However, as Malksoo writes, we cannot speak about continuous military occupation during the 1940-91, moreover, the 1940 event was not invasion but intervention. I repeated that for many times, and your refusal to accept that my opinion (which coincides with the Malksoo's opinion) is astonishing.

Regarding the idea that illegal annexation makes it merely occupation, this idea may be valid now, however, during those times it was not the case. In connection to that, it is interesting to read the article authored by Josef L. Kunz (Identity of States Under International Law. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 68-76). In this article, written in 1955, the author analysed several cases (Ethiopia, Austria, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic states), and came to several interesting conclusions. Thus, according to him, recognition or non-recognition is just a political statement, not the sanction. It may help to restore satus quo ante, but it cannot undo what has already been done. The author uses analogy with punishment of a murdered that does not help to revive his victim. Secondly, the author notes that annexation of, e.g. Ethiopia was recognized (the act that cannot be revoked according to law), which did not prevent restoration of this country after defeat of Italy. Austria was not restored, but re-created, and, again, that happened not due to "non-recognition doctrine", but due to war. Interestingly, Kunz absolutely correctly predicted the fate of the Baltic states: he wrote that, whereas some states applied a non-recognition doctrine to the Baltic states' annexation, they did nothing and do nothing to change a situation, and the situation may change only in a case of new war (in actuality, it was not a war, but revolution in the USSR, however, Kunz was right that "non-recognition doctrine" had no relation to that). The author's main conclusion was that there was no self-consistent international laws since Napoleonic war till 1950s that regulated these questions, and the states acted according to some "amorphous principles of politics". --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed, earlier you dismiss Glantz who writes of military occupation of the Baltic states, because he "is an authoritative expert in the military aspects of the WWII, not in the legal aspects" [5], then when I cite Marek, an eminent scholar in the legal aspects, who writes of belligerent occupation as well, you dismiss that too!

I hardly think Kunz's 8 page editorial comment carries more weight than Marek's meticulously argued and widely cited monograph of some 600 pages! --Nug (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not dismiss anyone. It is you who dismiss any source that describe those events not as occupation. Thus, you totally rejected the opinion of Malksoo, explained explicitly for us in his e-mail. By contrast, my point is that, whereas those events does belong to the article (in contrast to Bessarabia), they should be described in somewhat different manner to reflect what all majority sources say.

Re Kunz, imo, his opinion is valuable because it was not affected by the knowledge of the 1990-1991 events: whereas it is tempting to present restoration of the Baltic states as a result of non-recognition policy, the actual reason (as in the case of Ethiopia or Austria) was quite different: those states were integral parts of the USSR, and overwhelming majority of states did recognize that de facto. Only the 1990-91 revolution in the USSR changed the situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not misconstrue Malksoo—yet again, and you do so repeatedly. He specifically writes that the USSR "crushed" and "occupied" the Baltic States. The illegal annexation and civil administration and duration made some aspects of the occupation unique (the "sui generis" aspect). That does not make it an occupation absent of maintenance by military force. You cannot dispute that the occupation was maintained by military force of arms, that as the USSR began to disintegrate it was attempted to be maintained by force of arms and the murder of innocent civilians by the OMON, that even after the fall of the USSR, Russia invoked its forces still in the Baltics as a threat in political dialogue. There is no schism of "differences" amongst the Soviet occupations and their belligerence with regard to the peoples and territories occupied. The key here is the use of the word "occupation" in all cases the article documents. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I admit that a possibility exists that either I or you (or both I and you) may be far from neutrality, therefore, some cherry-picking cannot be ruled out, and the voluminous Malksoo's monograph provides numerous possibility for that. However, fortunately, we have an explanation (or summary) of the author's views provided by the author himself. Here it is:

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

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

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

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

Lauri Mälksoo,

Professor of International Law,

University of Tartu"

As you can see, the major Malksoo's reservation is about the legal consequences of the illegal annexation ("The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR."), the point I never contested. Therefore, it is quite correct to speak about occupation in a context of state continuity, however, it is not correct to speak about military (belligerent) occupation to describe the historic events in the Baltic states in 1940-80. Just one example: do you imagine it is in accordance with the Olympic rules to participate in Olympic games organised on the militarily occupied territory? As far as I know, majority world states send their sportsmen to participate sailing competition in Tallinn, thereby de facto recognising that there is no occupation regime there. And numerous similar examples can be provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, only 23 nations participated in the regatta, which is not a majority of anything, while Australia, Belgium, France, New Zealand, Portugal, and the U.K. boycotted it.

I don't understand which part of the text you find inadequate? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott was Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Regarding the text, the recent edits improved it considerably, however, as you probably noticed, this thread is devoted to the article structure in general rather than to the Baltic issue. We need to rearrange the article (see above), and after that we will see if the current text fits well in the overall narrative, or it needs to be improved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The countries competed in Moscow but boycotted the regatta. In addition, the 24 May 1980 De Telegraaf, the largest daily paper in Amsterdam, dedicated a page to the controversy under the headlines "Dutch water sportsmen to the enslaved nation" and "Russians celebrate the usurpation of Estonia with an Olympic regatta". Ben Staartjes, the leader of the Dutch sailing team said: "We have decided that we won't perform under the Dutch flag or take part in the opening ceremony."

How do you propose to change the structure? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delayed response, I was busy in my real life. The way I propose to modify the article has been described on the top of the section: most occupations should be put in a historical context of the course of the WWII, because the fact that Soviet troops stayed in, e.g., Hungary of East Germany after May 8th, 1945 does not make them post-WWII occupations. Other details have also been discussed above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Staying" on foreign and/or annexed territory and enforcing by military presence Soviet hegemony over Soviet-installed puppet regimes is not occupation? I look forward to your sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious as to your contention that Soviet presence maintained by military force is not belligerent. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, staying on foreign territory is occupation. Staying on the annexed territory is not. I believe, we are speaking in general. If that is the case, then the source is David M. Edelstein. Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail. International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 2004), pp. 49-91. According to him, the difference between occupation, annexation or colonialism is determined primarily by intentions of the occupying power.

During XX and previous centuries, the integrity of mmany states was maintained, among other factors, by military force. The army was an important factor maintaining integrity of the USSR (at least, during some periods of its existence). Do you imply the USSR was occupying itself?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no general opposition to the changes proposed by me. In close future I plan to start rearrangement of the article accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no academic support for your personal meme that annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive, but we've had this conversation before. I would also be remiss not to mention that you are a bit off in your centuries, war ceased to be a legal means for settling disputes/acquiring sovereignty/etc. in the 19th, not 20th, century. I believe we've had that conversation before as well, or perhaps I'm thinking of Vlad Fedorov (a shame, I do miss debating him on international law). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, there is no academic support to your contentions. The Edelstein's article deals with military occupations from 1815 till 2003. He describes the difference between occupation and annexation as follows:

"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland."

"To distinguish occupations from colonialism or annexations, I examined the ex ante intentions of the occupying power. Did it plan to return sovereignty to the occupied population in relatively short order, was it planning to stay for a longer duration, or did it have no particular goals for when it would withdraw?"

Since some phenomenon cannot be simultaneously permanent and temporary, it is quite understandable that Edelstein did not develop this idea into the statement that "annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive", however, this thesis directly follows from his article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Do you imply the USSR was occupying itself?" Do you imply that the Greater Germanic Reich was occupying itself? Yet there is consensus that parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Eastern Europe and parts of the Soviet Union were deemed to have been occupied. I note that Edelstein excludes the German occupation of France and the Japanese occupation of Southeast Asia during WW2 from his study, since he states they had intended on maintaining control indefinitely and it was only their defeat that made them temporary. He goes on to state that he is only considering two of the four more common types of occupation in this paper, and writes in the footnote that there are in fact seventeen different types of occupation defined. Similarly, given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of Baltic independence, means that Soviet control over the Baltics was temporary, even if it lasted 50 years, particularly given that Edelstein considers the 72 year rule of Egypt by Britain as an occupation.

Edelstein states: "Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland." in stricto sensu, it can be said that Petseri County, Jaanilinn and surrounds, and Abrene were annexed to the RSFSR since these acquisitions remain permanent and now belong to the Russian Federation, as confirmed by border treaty. --Nug (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. The scholars tend to separate, e.g., Anschluss of Austria from occupation of Western Soviet Union. There is almost a consensus among scholars that Austria was not occupied, but annexed, because the German Anschluss has nothing in common with "conquest", or "occupation", but is closer to "junction", "association", "connection" (btw, Anschluss was internationally recognized). In addition, the Greater Germanic Reich you refer to is a fiction, it is a state entity that never existed in actuality, because Germany appeared to be unable to create it.

According to Edelstein, vatrous types of occupation differ in their goals, etc, however, the common feature of all occupations is that both occupants and occupires see them as a temporary measure. Therefore, any attempt to dilute this issue by references to tiny details are totally senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Petseri County, Jaanilinn and Abrene you are right, they were annexed to the RSFSR. However, the Baltic states were annexed to the USSR as whole, and the first event and the second event are not mutually exclusive. Of course, this forceful and illegal annexation creates some legal problems, so, as soon as the state continuity (and citizenship) issued are concerned, we may consider these states as occupied, however, that does not change the fact that these three states were de facto parts of the USSR, and there were no special occupational regime there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've struck Austria, it doesn't affect my argument. As I said, Edelstein doesn't consider France was occupied, and the Nazis had every intent to create a Greater German Reich, but they lost the war, and according Edelstein intent makes all the difference. In fact Edelstein lists none of the German occupations of WW2 in his paper. But more importantly he makes no mention of the Baltics what so ever, either occupied or annexed. So using his paper and applying it to the Baltic case is synthesis. --Nug (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Austria is a very good analogy, probably, the best one, and it is quite incorrect to exclude this quite relevant example. As I already pointed out, it was amalgamated into the German Reich, and most great powers recognized that step de jure. However, later they changed their opinion, and, after Germany was defeated, declared that Austria was occupied by Germany. However, such a declaration does not change an obvious historic fact that Austria was an integral part of the Third Reich in 1937-45, and no occupation regime existed there. This is also a demonstration that de jure recognition proves nothing. For source, see Robert H. Keyserlingk. Austria in World War II: An Anglo-American Dilemma. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1990 ISBN 0773508007, 9780773508002. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

De facto part of anything is immaterial to the act of Baltic occupation. You cannot say there was no special regime, even an ostensibly civilian regime is special when imposed and maintained by military force.

While one cannot take aspects of one occupation and project them on another, on the other hand, disparate aspects of occupations don't mean they don't belong together. Is there any occupation here which was not precipitated by/maintained through Soviet military action? No. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be consistent? The initial thesis was that my "personal meme that annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive" has no academic support. I demonstrated that that in not the case, when we speak in general. You immediately switched to your lovely Baltic issue. Is it the good way to conduct the dispute? I am not sure. I think I have a moral right to ignore everything what you write on this account until the statement that "there is no academic support for my personal meme that annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive" will not be retracted as false and insulting. Only after that can we continue our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you have ignored the fact that not only does Edelsten narrow his study to only two of the seventeen forms of occupation, he further excludes any Axis occupation, explicitly the Nazi occupation of France and the Japanese occupation of South East Asia. Therefore you cannot contend that Edelsten has formulated some general definition based upon his own selectively narrow dataset. He excludes the Nazi seizure of territory because of their intent to keep it, even though it proved to be temporary due to their defeat, and thus deemed ex post facto an occupation. Similarly the withholding of de-jure recognition by the international community implies that they viewed the Soviet seizure of Baltic territory as also temporary as it proved to be in 1991, lasting 50 years rather than 5. Since Edlesten does not mention the Baltic states what so ever, we cannot draw any conclusions on why he excluded them from his study, as you are tending to do. --Nug (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Neither I ignore anything, nor I try to draw some concrete conclusions about the Baltic states. My point was quite simple:

1. Peters declared that "there is no academic support for my personal meme that annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive";
2. In response, I cited the Edelstein's viewpoint, according to which occupation in general is intrinsically temporary, and is deemed as temporary by both sides. By contrast, annexation is something that is deemed permanent by the annexing side. Based on that, Edelstein defines the intrinsic difference between occupation and annexation, implying their mutual exclusiveness.
3. Based on that, I conclude that the Peters' statement (which he persistently repeats everywhere) is false and insulting, and requested him to retract it. Note, neither I nor Peters mentioned the Baltic states specifically: both Peters' and my statements are general statements.
4. In your response you declare that my point is flawed because Edelstein does not discuss the Baltic states. However, since we are talking in general, your argument is totally irrelevant.

BTW, you totally ignored my argument about Austria. Please, comment.

Re witholding of de jure recognition, I found a notion in one of the sources cited above that at least in mid XX, such withholding was not allowed per international laws.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, unless you have sources SPECIFIC to the Baltic states, you cannot apply general principles. You appear to quote Malksoo's suis generis when it suits you to state not an occupation (seemingly always forgetting Malksoo's "crushed" and "occupied"). But, then, you are also fond of also quoting sources which don't apply to Malksoo's application of suis generis and which don't specifically discuss the Baltics. Your contentions of temporary and implied timeframes for occupation are ultimately your own WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS applying what does not discuss a specific topic to that topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To my insulting (? not sure what that is) contentions regarding occupation, if what is true in general is not true in specific cases discussed in this article, then what is true in general is what is irrelevant. We should stick to scholarship which discusses the specific instance(s) of occupation appearing in the article. Otherwise we will keep going in circles. Surely that is an approach we can all agree to whatever our editorial opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not dodge the answer: you wrote that my personal meme about mutual exclusiveness on annexation and occupation is not supported by mainstream sources. In response, I provided a source that directly supports my statement, thereby demonstrating falseness of your contention. I am waiting for apologies, because your statement is an insult of common sense (the only type of insult I am sensitive to).

The argument that the statement I refer to is not true in some specific (Baltic) case does not mean it is wrong: every rule has exceptions. In addition, the idea that it does not work for the Baltic states is questionable: no consensus exists on that account, so your contention is a circular argument: according to you, my argument is incorrect because it wrong (strange logic). In addition, by making such statement you pretend that you know truth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Alas, there is consensus on occupation. As for Edelstein, he has no issue with Eastern Europe being considered occupied for the duration of the Soviet presence. I'm not dodging anything, you are simply insisting on applying a source which itself states it does not apply, and if it did, occupation of all Eastern Europe for the duration is the only likely consideration. Imagine that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am applying a source to some general question, as you formulated it. See below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Paul, your assertion that no consensus exists with regard to the Baltic states is not supported by any reliables source. We have Ellman, Wheatcroft and others directly debating each other in the scholarly press over the Holodomor, please point to a similar debate regarding the occupation of the Baltic states. Only then can you claim "no consensus exists on that account". --Nug (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(I believe you don't mind me to re-format your post: by no means is that your post a reply on my request addressed to Vecrumba.

Regarding the essence of your post, you should have to realise that you request me to prove opposite. Since I do not propose to to this (or other articles) a direct statement that "no consensus exists with regard to occupation/annexation of the Baltic states", the burden of proof is not on me. Instead of that, I expect you to propose a way to reflect the following facts:

1. That the sources describing the Baltic states as occupied during 1940-91 exist;
2. That the sources describing the Baltic states as annexed, or absorbed during 1940-91 also exist;
3. That the amount of both type sources is almost equal;
4. That the sources exist that claim that "occupation" (in general) and "annexation" are mutually exclusive phenomenae.

In that situation, if you want Wikipedia to present just on viewpoint (#1), you need to demonstrate that this viewpoint is the sole generally accepted mainstream viewpoint, so the burden of proof is on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, you are the one asserting there is no consensus. If there is no consensus, it should be relatively easy to find a source that describes these "two opposing viewpoints" explicitly together with respect to the Baltic states. It is easy enough to do with aspects of the Holodomor. I've provided many sources related to (1) in the past, the onus is for you to provide sources related to (2) and prove (3). By applying (4) you are presenting a false dichotomy with regard to the Baltic states, because in that case annexation was illegal, there was no transfer of sovereign title and the states were not extinguished, thus they remained occupied as Mälksoo, Marek and others have shown. Find a scholar that disagrees with Mälksoo, Marek, et al, just like we can find papers where Wheatcroft and Ellman disagree. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Did I understand you correctly that the only case we can speak about the lack of consensus is a situation when the authors directly dispute with each other? And how do you propose to deal with a situation when different authors express different viewpoints without directly disputing with each other?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

But can we assume they are actually expressing different viewpoints? If they are, then how come there is no source that summarises these viewpoints along the line of XXX and YYY view the period as occupation while AAA and BBB view it as an annexation. Clearly it is a hot and contentious topic within Wikipedia, but you have to ask yourself why this isn't reflected in published sources, why authors don't directly dispute each other as they have done with the Holodomor. Perhaps because they are talking about the same thing for which there is wide consensus:

illegal annexation == occupation. --Nug (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nug, you are not making any sense. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat is interpreted here in the way that the one who claims there is a consensus, has to prove it, not the one the one who denies it. Contrary to what you are saying, consensus is something established between at least two people, and does not exist by default. To say authors have consensus is OR until established by a reliable literature analysis. To claim authors do not have consensus is the assumed fact until proven false.

P.S. This is a technical remark regarding claims on consensus over any matter in general, not my opinion on this specific topic itself. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nug for making a simple claim that can easily be verified. As a result, we have two conflicting claims:

1. Whereas annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland, the intrinsic temporary character of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. The temporary vs permanent character is determined, among other factors, by the intentions of the occupying/annexing party. (The source supporting this claim is David M. Edelstein. Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail. International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 2004), pp. 49-91)
2. illegal annexation == occupation. (The source ????. I would like anyone to provide a source to support this general statement).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, if a source does not mention a specific territory, its application is your WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS with regard to that territory, plain and simple. And, yet again, occupied and annexed are not mutually exclusive, the illegal annexation of the Baltics was merely a continuation of the occupation already in effect, at which point they became equivalent. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Peters, apologies first. I have no desire to discuss your personal assertions based on no reliable sources. No soapboxing, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) So your #4 at top is your complete and personal synthesis, just to be clear. And the rest of your argumentation is equally flawed. If some encyclopedia says "Latvia became part of the Soviet Union" that says nothing about occupied or not. A source which does not mention "occupation" specifically does not preclude said occupation, so stop formulating WP:SYNTHESIS postulations which are based on annexation or "part of" precluding occupation. Malksoo stating "crushed" and "occupied" and "occupation" regardless of suis generis aspects is good enough for me. Soapboxing? Please! You are the one soapboxing your personal interpretations and applications of sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. On Edelstein:

I also have excluded the cases of the Soviet Union in Central and Eastern Europe after World War II. In these cases, the Soviet Union retained a considerable amount of control over the states of the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. If one were to code these cases as occupations, it would be difficult to identify when, aside from 1989, these occupations ended.

So, Edelstein entertains that all Eastern Europe could well be considered occupied by the Soviets, and if so, the only term that makes sense is for the entire duration, i.e., until the demise of the USSR in 1989. Odd how we read the same source and come to completely opposite conclusions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. You eventually decided to read some sources. However, obviously, the Central and Eastern European states mentioned by Edelstein were those states where the USSR was militarily present in 40s-80s, but not the Baltic states, which were the part of the USSR during that period. The second sentence made that fact quite clear: whereas it is difficult to determine when concretely occupation of Poland, East Germany, Hungary, etc ended, the occupation of the Baltic states (if we, following what some sources say, decide to describe the period of Soviet dominance using this term) had quite concrete end dates: the dates of restoration of the independence. Obviously, Edelstein does not mean the Baltic states, and he does not mean that the USSR was continuously occupying the EE and CE states in 40s-80s.

In addition, I suggest you to look at the modality: Edelstein writes "If one were to code these cases as occupations...", which by no means implies that he endorses this thesis. His point is that, whereas such an idea (to consider EE&EC states as occupied) cannot be ruled out completely, this intellectual exercise is useless for him, because, as he rightfully note, it is impossible to define a date of the end of such occupation. That is sufficient for Edelstein to exclude EE&CE states from his scheme, and it is sufficient for us to conclude that he meant not the Baltic States, which (i) re-gained independence at very concrete date, and (ii) are neither EE nor CE, but Northern European states... --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. In addition, by writing when, aside from 1989, Edelstein explicitly excludes the Baltic states, which restored their independence later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point that there is no impediment to (a) considering the Soviet presence as an occupation, and if so, (b) for the duration. Regardless, we both agree Edelstein specifically excludes all of Eastern and Central Europe (i.e., he does not deal with the Soviets and Cold War, period). If he explicitly avoids the topic, then clearly you can't say apply any of his analysis to the topic he avoids. I can therefore see no reason for your continuing to push Edelstein as a source except to support your (classic!) WP:SYNTHESIS contentions with regard the Soviet Union in Europe. I must say I do laud your creativity in contending that Edelstein by stating "1989" did not mean post-war Soviet occupation would have been continuous up to that point. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I ignore nothing. By contrast, you persistently ignore the fact that the Edelstein's general statements precede the description of concrete case, therefore, the choice of concrete examples does not affect the initial thesis. I expect you to withdraw you ridiculous and offensive claim about some my "personal meme", which in actuality is fully supported by reliable sources.

You added one more insulting claim, namely, you accused me in pushing some POV using Edelstein as a source. Please, retract.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edelstein does not deal with occupation regarding the post-WWII Soviet Union. He certainly had a reason for leaving that out--perhaps because he entertains the possibility occupation, if so, then for the duration. That is data outside his model. I therefore surmise that what he states about occupation, generally, has nothing to do with what he might state about occupation, specifically, regarding the actions of the Soviet Union. Since you insist on continuing to argue the merits of your editorial POV with a source that clearly states "I'm not getting into the middle of this," I can only surmise your insistence on promulgating your personal WP:SYNTHESIS must be in order to further your POV, whatever that is, and not to further content which fairly and accurately represents sources which are specifically relevant to the topic (which Edelstein clearly is not) because if you were interested in fair and accurate representation of relevant materials specifically about the topic, you wouldn't be quoting him. You create your personal synthesis and then you accuse me of insulting you. That's rich—when you can't provide a reasonable explanation for why you repeatedly cite a source which applies only by inference, attack your editorial opposition. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not divert the discussion into the details. My point was quite clear: I demonstrated that my general claim is totally supported by the general statement made by Edelstein. Thereby I have proven the falseness of your contention that my thesis was not supported by reliable mainstream sources. You are trying to dodge the question, under a ridiculous pretext that Edelstein did not mention some concrete cases, however, that tactics is hardly successful: the choice of concrete examples does not affect the validity of the general Edelstein's statement. Your personal contentions would have some reasonable ground, had the Edelstein's article been organized in the following way: (i) analysis of several arbitrarily chosen cases of occupation; (ii) general conclusions about the nature of occupation. However, in actuality, the article is organised in a directly opposite manner: the general statements go first, and the analysis of several specific cases just supplements them. Therefore, the general Edelstein's statements are totally independent from the choice of the concrete examples. Moreover, it is absolutely ridiculous to expect that in normal scholarly articles the author's general ideas are applicable only to the examples he explicitly mentions.

I ask for the last time: do you plan to apologize and stop this nonsense?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Do not divert the discussion into the details."? That's the first time in any scholarly discussion regarding any specific topic I am aware of that someone (other than polemicists) has complained that details are a diversion. (!) To "apply", a thesis has to be specific. If your thesis is general, it "applies" to nothing specific.

Do you plan to introduce sources which are specific to the topic? (Taking your complaint about details, perhaps not.)

Regardless, Professor Edelstein has indicated to me that he is not expert in the Baltic cases and did not research further when he decided to exclude them from his case list. So let's move on to sources which explicitly apply.

However, if you'd like to discuss application of Edelstein's modeling to the Soviet occupations of Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltics, I'd be glad to do engage in that worthwhile exercise, but that would be our collective WP:OR outside this forum. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This your argument is totally wrong. The statement "there is no support of the meme that occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive" is a general term, which requires a general answer. To reject the general answer under an artificial pretext that the author, who made a general statement, did not discuss some particular example is tantamount to dodging the question.

I may consider a possibility "to discuss application of Edelstein's modeling to the Soviet occupations of Eastern and Central Europe", however, I'll do that not earlier than you conceded that your general claim amout "my personal meme" was wrong, and apologise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I don't see why Peters should apologise for his observation with respect to the Baltic states. Edelstein only selects those concrete cases that conform to his particular thesis, you cannot claim this thesis is a general statement because it only applies to two out of the seventeen forms of occupation and he explicitly excludes both Soviet and axis occupations, nor can you extrapolate it to the Baltic case, that is clear synthesis. --Nug (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin, Peters definitely doesn't need to apologise for his observation with respect to the Baltic states. What he should apologise for is his attempt to jump from general to country-specific arguments and back when his arguments appears to be exhausted. As I explained for several times, he made some general claim, which I proved to be false, he made that repeatedly (even after I proved its falseness), and I expect him to acknowledge that, to promise not to made that claim in future. He (and you) need to acknowledge that the idea that occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive is supported by reliable sources (although not universally). After that we can return to the Baltic case, however, both you nor him must avoid returning to this argument in future.

Re your " Edelstein only selects those concrete cases that conform to his particular thesis... " I failed to find any indication of that. Edelstein put forward a general statement, and then analyses some concrete cases. Your argument is a logical fallacy: following your logic, the Newtonian law of gravity has a limited scope, because initially Newton excluded Pluto, Neptune and Uranus from consideration.

Re your "because it only applies to two out of the seventeen forms of occupation". Have you read the source carefully? Edelstein outlines four types of occupation: security occupation, comprehensive occupation, collateral occupation and caretaker occupation. He just tangentially mentions the Adam Roberts', "What Is a Military Occupation?" where more detailed classification of those four sub-types had been provided, but he does not follow this more detailed classification. And, if you are reasonable person you should concede that, had Edelstein decided to consider the Baltic states case, it would fall into a "comprehensive occupation" category, so other two categories (caretaker and collateral) are totally irrelevant.

Re your "and he explicitly excludes both Soviet and axis occupations" False. You simply haven't read my answer to Peters, which I reproduce below:

"I suggest you to look at the modality: Edelstein writes "If one were to code these cases as occupations...", which by no means implies that he endorses this thesis. His point is that, whereas such an idea (to consider EE&EC states as occupied) cannot be ruled out completely, this intellectual exercise is useless for him, because, as he rightfully note, it is impossible to define a date of the end of such occupation. That is sufficient for Edelstein to exclude EE&CE states from his scheme, and it is sufficient for us to conclude that he meant not the Baltic States, which (i) re-gained independence at very concrete date, and (ii) are neither EE nor CE, but Northern European states..."

By the way, I am still waiting for a source from you that confirms your general thesis that "illegal annexation == occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I expect clear and unequivocal answers from you, which would allow us to end this ridiculous dispute once and forever. If not, I propose formal mediation. If you and Peters reject this proposal, I'll have to think about arbitration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, since all our discussion here has been with regard to Soviet occupations and annexations—so, primarily the Baltic states but also including parts of Romania, et al., or simply Soviet occupations—my observation on your insistence on applying the unsupported meme that annexation terminates occupation to the countries of interest within the scope of this article stands. If you really insist it was all just a "general" discussion and that I'm attacking and misrepresenting you, then you should take care to not engage in discussions over contentious issues in inapplicable general terms which action appears to create your personal WP:SYNTHESIS of scholarly claims to apply to Soviet occupations and annexations, and what specific content should be reflected in the article whether or not it specifically applies; you should, instead, endeavor to discuss specifics with editors based on sources which actually deal with (by specific mention) the topic at hand. Or are you asking I apologize for misunderstanding that you were actually discussing something in a context ("general") that has no bearing on this article? Your blustering over "general" and being misunderstood, misrepresented, and insulted appears to be an attempt to mask and deflect attention from your getting caught with your scholarly pants down, harping on a source which itself states it has omitted the subject matter herein from its thesis, analytical modeling applying said thesis, and conclusions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And I reflect again and congratulate you on "1989" as the only logical date ending Soviet occupation of the Warsaw pact countries—were one to "code" the Soviet presence as occupation—doesn't mean the author intended that said occupation (were it such) was continuous from the end of WWII to 1989.

In the past, I have used the example of "moon cheese" (short for the moon is made of cheese, i.e., contentions unsupported by any basis in fact) regarding certain geopolitical claims. I see now that I must extend the metaphor to include "Swiss cheese" occupations—you know where the slice of cheese (occupation) starts and ends, but there are amorphous holes in the middle. BTW, did you know they "turn" the cheese halfway through the aging cycle to insure the voids are evenly distributed and don't bunch up to one side? There's an over-extended metaphor in there somewhere, waiting to be released. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See my response to Nug above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your sturm und drang all ignores that your fondly quoted source does not deal with any aspect of any Soviet occupation. Since Edelstein does not discuss any Soviet occupations specifically and omits them explicitly (including conscious omission of the Baltic states as well, indicated in correspondence), any application whatsoever of Edelstein to the discussion here with regard to the content or content created based on Edelstein as the source is your WP:SYNTHESIS. I suggest you move on to sources which do specifically apply to the topic and article we are attempting to discuss here. And do stop endlessly belaboring general contentions which do not apply here and which do not belong in the article in any way, shape, manner, or form. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. There is nothing to "mediate" here as your alleged dispute concerns a source that by its own explicit internal statement excludes consideration of Soviet occupations. Your postulations of "swiss cheese" occupations et al. don't even qualify as a content dispute. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not? One of the possible subjects of mediation (or even arbitration) may be your persistent circular argumentation. Edelstein made some general claim, namely, that occupation is temporary and annexation is permanent, and the intentions of the occupying/annexing party is the major feature that distinguishes these two. How can this thesis be affected by the number of examples Edelstein discusses in his article, and why do you expect the Baltic case to be included if the author explained that he discusses occupations only, and not annexations, whic is a totally different subject, according to him? Can you give a direct answer?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) P.P.S. Obviously, that also means there is nothing to "arbitrate" either, unless you are volunteering to self-report your truculent attitude upon being confronted with the fact that a source you've been quoting turns out to have nothing to do with the subject matter by its own admission. [YODA VOICE] Troubling, another editor, point out, had to. [END YODA VOICE]. As you observed, I do read sources. I am sure I speak for myself and others in indicating we're quite content to simply put this to rest and to move on to constructive discussion of sources which speak to the subject matter explicitly.

(add since ec) If and when Edelstein applies his model to the Soviet case and publishes a paper on it, I will be the first to lobby for its inclusion as a source. Until then, I've given you the direct answer, how we think what Edelstein states affects the Baltic case and/or wider European scope of the Soviet presence/occupation is utterly irrelevant sheer speculation on our part—at least with regard to the content here. As I indicated, I am happy to take that discussion off-line, again, acknowledging it is nothing but a personal intellectual exercise not relevant to this article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As for my expectations, Professor Edelstein graciously responded to my inquiry and indicated that he had not researched the Baltics further when he decided not to include the Soviet case. He did not indicate what research he had, or had not, performed regarding the rest of the Soviet case. Feel free to speculate on what that means all you want, it's not relevant here except to underscore that there was no detailed research or consideration of the Baltic case in preparing any of the source you are discussing "in general." BTW, you do realize that you are asking me to cross over into speculative WP:OR regarding a work which has not been published (nor which, as far as I know, is being written). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you claim "Edelstein outlines four types of occupation: security occupation, comprehensive occupation, collateral occupation and caretaker occupation. He just tangentially mentions the Adam Roberts', "What Is a Military Occupation?" where more detailed classification of those four sub-types had been provided, but he does not follow this more detailed classification." is an example of this apparent tendency of yours to misinterpret sources. Edelstein states:

"Although there are at least four different types of occupations, I am concerned with the two most common types: security occupations and comprehensive occupations.12"

and the footnote states:

"12. The two other types of occupations are collateral occupations and caretaker occupations. Collateral occupations hold foreign territory until some indemnity is repaid. For example, following the Franco-Prussian War, 50,000 German troops occupied six departments of France until the French paid 1.5 billion francs in war reparations. Caretaker occupations are designed to hold a territory until a long-term settlement of the status of the territory is devised. The British occupations of Cyrenaica, Eritrea, Somalia, and Tripolotania after World War II are examples of caretaker occupations. I exclude these two types from this study because they are qualitatively different from either security or comprehensive occupations. For a more detailed typology that delineates seventeen different forms of occupation, see Adam Roberts, “What Is a Military Occupation?” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 55, (1984), pp. 249–305."

Nowhere does Edelstein say the 17 forms are a more detailed classification of those four types he identifies. I don't have access to Robert's paper, but this source[6] states:

"Roberts (1985) distinguished between 17 types of military occupation that vary in terms of the circumstances in which they occur, the degree of consent of the occupied to the action, the identity of the occupying entity, and the former status of the occupied territory."

further on this source states:

"Roberts (1990) argued that the legal definition of occupation is based on an implied assumption that it is a temporary state that may end or change status within a short period of time. Accordingly, he suggested that ‘prolonged occupation’ must be regarded as a category that is entirely distinct from temporary military occupation. He defined prolonged occupation as lasting more than five years and continuing even when military hostilities subside or cease. In addition, prolonged occupation raises legal questions concerning the aims of the occupier, who may intend to change the status of the occupied territory. This situation may occasionally lead to pressure from the international community calling for termination of the occupation"

therefore we can conclude that while Edelstein's paper narrows it focus upon two of the seventeen types temporary occupation, there is also defined a "prolonged-occupation" which is entirely distinct from temporary military occupation that Edelstein discusses. Therefore I agree with Peters, Edelstein's paper is not applicable here. --Nug (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for providing the new source, I'll read it when my schedule will allow me. Regarding the Edelstein's article, the quote says: "For a more detailed typology that delineates seventeen different forms of occupation, see Adam Roberts..." To the best of my knowledge, the words "For a more detailed typology... see..." mean the reference to some more detailed classification, not to more whide one, so I do not see any misinterpretation here. Moreover, since Edelstein never wrote that he analyzes two of seventeen forms of occupation, but two of four, your claim is a misinterpretation of what he writes.

In addition, since the dispute is not about the universal applicability of some claim, but about the support (or the lack of thereof) of the general idea that occupation and annexation are as a rule two different phenomenae, I believe I sustained my burden of proof, and you, being an honest person must recognise this fact. That would allow us to close this part of our discussion, and to move further, for example, to the discussion of the interesting article found by you. Of course, if you really are interested in a progress of this discussion...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the source provided by you. I found the following definition there:

"Accordingly, a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’ (Benvenisty, 1993: 4). Edelstein (2004) adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future (see Lustick, 1993)."

As you can see, the same Edelstein's thesis has been reproduced by another author (Lustick, Ian S (1993) Unsettled States, Dispute Lands. Ithaca, NY & London: Cornell University Press.), who seems to fully support it. The authors themselves (Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv) also do not contest this thesis, although they add to that that such occupation may be "prolonged" (" lasting more than five years and continuing even when military hostilities subside or cease. ") Although such occupation "raises legal questions concerning the aims of the occupier, who may intend to change the status of the occupied territory. ", the authors speak about no apparent conflict between this Roberts' thesis and the currently common Benvenisty-Edelstein-Lustick definition of occupation. In addition, since this work is devoted primarily to the psychological aspects of the Israel occupation of Palestine, I am not sure it may be useful for anything but such a general conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Edelstein only names four types of occupation. Roberts is a separate more granular classification of occupations. In the absence of a more specific statement by Edelstein, the "don't assume anything more than stated version" is:

1. Edelstein deals with two types of occupations.
2. There are two, specifically, he doesn't deal with.
3. Those four are part of a larger whole.
4. "Here's an example of seventeen types of occupations."

There's really no explicit relationship stated (derivation, summary, subset, superset,...) between 1,2,3 and 4 other than Edelstein obviously including Roberts in his research. At most, the relationship between Edelstein's and Roberts' views would be per that reasoned above by Nug. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you are wrong. Edelstein makes some general statement, and only after that he selects two (of four) types of occupations for his analysis. Nowhere in his article can you find a ground for the idea that the statement he made has been derived from the choice of the examples he used.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edelstein makes a statement, then discusses specific classifications and related sets of data in light of that statement. Any inferences outside the classifications and data selected are WP:SYNTHESIS. Edelstein makes it clear he does not mention all cases (e.g., Roberts' 17 as a possible sampling), and that he selects two of his four stated cases for analysis. Any introductory statements Edelstein makes to frame his analysis cannot be taken as the alpha et omega on all cases since his (4) cases are, by admission, incomplete. You cannot cleave Edelstein's "general" statements from the context of his 4 cases mentioned and analysis of 2 cases. To do so is, as I've indicated, WP:SYNTHESIS. Edelstein states he does not consider the case of the USSR in CE/EE (or the Baltics) so there is nothing to settle or decide here, none of it applies to this article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to write a general article on theories of occupations, that would be a good place for the research you've done. Unfortunately, given unique circumstances including, but not limited to, longevity of the Soviet presence/occupations, it is counterproductive WP:SYNTHESIS to cite any sources which are not explicit to the cases under discussion in the article here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Peters, please, stop it. I see no value in continuation of this discussion with you. In contrast to Nug, whose arguments more or less logically consistent, who brings fresh sources or builds reasonable arguments based on the existing ones, your posts are just a repetition of already addressed arguments and soapboxing. If you have nothing to argue, just stop.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a most (!) odd manner of agreeing to conclude our discussion of Edelstein, since I've been asking you for some time now to close the Edelstein thread. Be that as it may, as you've signaled in your own way (blame me) you're ready to move on, I look forward to discussing sources which explicitly cover the topic at hand. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Nug, we have a general statement ("a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’. Edelstein adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future". Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Socio-psychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59) that seems to reflect the commonly accepted definition of occupation, as well as the difference between occupation and annexation (which fully supports the thesis initially proposed by me). Obviously, that proves a total falseness of your statement about some my "personal meme", and your refusal to accept the obvious changes nothing. In future, do not try to re-iterate this thesis again: that will be tantamount to disruptive activity, and will be treated accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Nug. I tried to find Roberts' "What Is Military Occupation?", however, this book is not available for me so far. Instead of that, I found the article authored by Roberts, which is specially devoted to the "prolonged military occupation" issue. You can find this article here. In the second sentence, the author explains that the question of prolonged occupation "assumed prominence because of exceptional duration of occupation by Israel of various territories..." That means that, according to Roberts, there was no need in this term for description of preceding events. Interestingly, whereas the author discussed various examples of "prolonged military occupation", the Baltic issue remains beyond the scope. In addition, in the chapter II, the author does not question the provisional nature of "prolonged occupation", which is implicitly assumed by everyone (in full accordance with what Edelstein writes). --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, this discussion is all well and good for the article Military occupation, but it is irrelevant here. To drawn any conclusion from the omission of any mention the Baltics or CEE from this source is WP:SYNTHESIS. All Roberts' article demonstrates is that he defines an 18th form of occupation: "prolonged occupation". However Mälksoo defines another form of occupation specific to the Baltics: "occupation sui generis". Attempting to use what you call a "general definition" to negate "specific definition" is WP:OR. I really think this thread has gone beyond its productive limit. --Nug (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your idea that it would be better to move this discussion to the Military occupation. However, after that discussion will come to some logical end, its results should be applied to this article.

Regarding the alleged Malksoo's "occupation sui generis", you definitely do not understand what sui generis means: this term refers to something unique, which by definition (by virtue of its uniqueness) forms a separate type. However, if you insist that "occupation sui generis" refers to some new type of occupation (in addition to Roberts' 17 types; btw I do not read Roberts as "prolonged occupation" forms a 18th type), just ask Jaan to contact Lauri and to ask him directly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Any discussion or content at Military occupation is fine to come back here, as long as the sources and content explicitly discuss the cases here and are applied only to those respective cases here. We should be able to agree on that as a ground rule since anything else is WP:SYNTHESIS. There are no "general" results which come back here.

Also, I don't think it's appropriate to suck in scholars every time we disagree on something. Let's not overstay our welcome. I'll try not to be repetitive in that Malksoo states "occupation" suis generis, not "annexation" suis generis. I think we can agree that we (@Paul) disagree on whether more weight belongs on "occupation" or "suis generis."

On related, the source in which the Roberts article is published is not readily available. It's not (even) in the collection of the New York Public Library—which pretty much has everything. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Mälksoo's 'occupation sui generis', I will be happy to forward a question to him, if we form it concretely. However, he does not appear to take a stand on what type of occupation the Baltic states experienced. The correct interpretation would be this was an untypical occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, "suis generis" is just fancy Latin for atypical. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of all this is that in 1985 Roberts defines 17 types of military occupations which are all defined as temporary, of which Edelstrin uses two of the four of the most common types of being security occupation, comprehensive occupation, and disregards collateral occupation and caretaker occupation for the purposes of his study. We don't know what the remaining 12 occupations are since none yet has access to source. However in another source written 1990 Roberts discusses a distinct form of ‘prolonged occupation’ must de regarded as a category that is entirely distinct from 17 temporary military occupation. Then we in 1993 Mälksoo shows that the prolonged occupation in the Baltic states was an "unorthodox" (sui generis) occupation which he typed as a "annexation occupation". From page 193 of Mälksoo's book:

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

Then on page 195, in the final paragraph Mälksoo concludes:

"Altogether, it is submitted that in the context of the illegal annexation of the Baltic states, occupation theory must be confirmed in principle. However, it must be qualified realistically. Despite the fact of annexation, the presence of the USSR in the Baltic states remained, until restoration of the independence of the Baltic states an occupation sui generis under international law".

Guggenhiem on the other had discusses three broad categories, belligerent occupation sensu stricto; an occupation following the armistice; and occupation sui generis specific to Germany and Japan. So concluding, it is clear that many occupations can be grouped into particular predefined types, while other individual occupations that do no fit into the current grouping and thus are taken as atypical or sui generis. --Nug (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is almost correct, and I have a feeling that we are moving towards some consensus. You correctly noted that the term "occupation siu generis" has been applied in literature (by Guggenheim) to at least two other cases, namely, to occupations of Germany and Japan after the WWII. However, the reason for using this term in the case of Germany/Japan was quite different: whereas Malksoo used this term primarily because the USSR had no legal title to annex the Baltic states, in the case of Japan and Germany, the issue was about the legal status of those states, especially of Germany, which as a state was completely destroyed as a result of debellatio, and the Allies never attempted to annex neither Germany nor Japan. Therefore, we all must agree that, since "occupation sui generis" has been applied to at least two quite different cases (Germany/Japan and the Baltic states), the words "occupation sui generis" do not refer to any specific form of occupation, and just mean "some unique and a very unusual case".

Therefore, we cannot refer to "occupation sui generis" as some term with some concrete meaning, therefore, to speak about "occupation sui generis" as about some certain type is totally senseless: occupation of Japan by the US and occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR had nothing in common.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to come to agreement about that point to move further, therefore I am asking all of you to answer the question below:

Do we all agree that "occupation sui generis" does not refer to any concrete type of occupation?

• Agreed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. That an occupation has unique aspects does not make it "not any other type of occupation" that any particular scholar may have described and/or categorized. Nor does it matter in any way. If a recognized scholar describes an occupation of type X and applies it to a particular instance, say, Estonia, and another scholar describes an occupation of type Y and applies it to Estonia, and yet another scholar describes the occupation of Estonia as unique, all those descriptions apply and represent content to be integrated into the article.

Your question invites us to participate in yet another injection WP:SYNTHESIS into the discussion here. Whatever any particular sources state about the Soviet occupation of any particular territory is what we should focus on, nothing else. There is no over-arching WP:SYNTHESIS to create here. On the one hand, you complain that these occupations are all things that do not belong together. On the other, you appear bent on creating some "general" summary to apply to the article, bring in content back from an updated "Military occupations", etc. Neither of those are the appropriate editorial action for the content here. There is no "Occupations can be grouped into..." narrative to be added to this article. Another article, certainly. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My logic is not flawed, but yours is. Firstly, the Baltic case didn't have unique aspects, it was a unique case, and the only reason for using the term sui generis is to reflect this fact.

Secondly, your accusation is synthesis should be addressed to yourself: nowhere in scholarly literature can you find the statement that "occupation sui generis" is a concrete type of occupation. Generally speaking sui generis by definition can not form any certain type, because, as you correctly noted above, it refers to something atypical, which does not fit in any existing classification. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, your perspective of Exclusive or with regard to the characterization of occupation, annexation, etc. is grossly inappropriate. You miss or ignore my point that multiple scholars can classify the same physical territorial occupation in different manners depending on the scope and nature of their analysis. You (my empirical observation) seek to define occupation in a manner that only a single scholar's classification applies, a choice of A XOR B XOR C... for example, Malksoo's sui generis regarding the Baltic states precludes any other type of occupation. This would be so much easier if we simply discussed and documented scholarship on each instance of territorial occupation on the part of the USSR. Let me know if and when you are prepared to use the easy way out to expand article content. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not miss your point, however you miss mine. The usage of the term "occupation sui generis" by Malksoo is primarily dictated by the fact that that "occupation" was not occupation sensu stricto (at least, because it had had some legal consequences that are not considered as null and void). Therefore, "occupation sui generis" is in conflict with classical "military occupation".

Re "You (my empirical observation) seek to define occupation in a manner that only a single scholar's classification applies". No. However, it is quite natural to conclude that, since Malksoo describes this event as "occupation sui generis", he does not believe it was a classical military occupation. If other authors speak about "annexation" (and do not speak about occupation) they do not believe it was a classical military occupation.

You (as soon as we decided to discuss each other as contributors, not each other's contributions) seek to describe the events in the Baltic states using just a single term "military occupation", and you oppose to any attempt to reflect other mainstream viewpoints. That is a major violation of our neutrality policy. Please, stop that.

Re your "if we simply discussed and documented scholarship on each instance of territorial occupation on the part of the USSR." In other words, you propose to convert the article into the list article? Let's think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your "...it is clear that many occupations can be grouped into particular predefined types, while other individual occupations that do no fit into the current grouping and thus are taken as atypical or sui generis", I have a question: how widely this term is being used in literature? I myself found just two examples, so to say that "many occupations can be grouped into particular predefined types, while other individual occupations that do no fit into the current grouping " is hardly correct. I would say, "occupations can be grouped into four (Edelstein) of 17 (Roberts) predefined types. The term "occupation sui generis" has been applied to two quite specific cases (Germany and the Baltic states) each of which did not fit contemporary international laws for case specific reasons."--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a general article about occupation. You cannot apply sources which do not specifically discuss the topic at hand. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, but your question "Do we all agree that "occupation sui generis" does not refer to any concrete type of occupation?" makes no sense. "Sui generis" means of its own kind, how would something unique in its characteristics make it less "concrete" than something common in its characteristics? --Nug (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I probably was not clear enough. I meant "does not form a specific type (in addition to those described by Adams)". In other words, if sui generis were applied by Malksoo to one case and by Guggenheim to another, it does not mean that those two cases had anything in common, so "occupation of the Baltic states as occupation sui generis" means that the annexation of the Baltic states was an absolutely unique and unusual case, which poses a challenge for international law, the point I always advocated. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I should point out that advocating particular viewpoints is contrary to Wikipedia policy, see WP:ADVOCACY, especially so if what is advocated is WP:OR, and may well lead to sanction. We should reflect what reliables sources say, not advocate one's personal synthesis of what reliable sources say. The fact of external control by a force whose presence was not sanctioned and thus lacks sovereign title under international law is the common element to any occupation, sui generis or not. --Nug (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is good that you remembered that advocacy may inflict sanctions. In connection to that, how do you propose to reflect the fact that only some sources about, e.g., Afghan war describe the event as "occupation"? In a situation when you and Peters support the idea to include only those sources that speak about occupation, other sources, which describe the event as invasion, intervention, but not occupation, would be excluded. If such an approach is not advocacy, then what it is?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)