Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Title Bias

The Russian Wiki's version of this article has a name that translates to "Accession of the Pribaltika to the USSR" [Присоединение Прибалтики к СССР], which is a fair and NPOV of approaching the issue. Similar changes for this article should be considered.

This event is not known under such name in English literature. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest additions

This addition is controversial.

Use of the term "Baltic nationals" is also controversial, implying that they were not Soviet citizens when in actuality they were.

And whether it qualifies as a reliable source is dubious. Without extensive attribution, this source cannot be cited.

This work has been completed as a result of the work of the Estonian State Commission on Examination of the Policies of Repression and with the supportof the Riigikogu, the Government of the Republic of Estonia and Ministry of Justice. -- this sounds propagadistic. The purpose of this is not academic research, but is the consequence of the agenda of a government and its ministries. And it amounts to original research to try and connect "forced mobilisation" with service in the Red Army, as large numbers of people volunteered.

Regarding the citizenship of the Baltic nationals, read State continuity of the Baltic states.

The agenda of the commission was "to publish a scientific investigation into all the losses and damages suffered by the Estonian nation during the occupation regimes”.

There is no such thing as volunteering under a general mobilisation.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, and certainly cannot be cited without attribution. The pamphleteers talking about "scientific investigation" is not very interesting. Оther sources describe it as propaganda with inaccurate and misleading information. See for example:

:::"... From M. Laar to the official "White Paper" - they nothing to do with scientific research....These data in these papers about the "Soviet occupation terror" from a historical point view are totally unfounded, self-contradictory, are not supported by archival documents and, as a rule, go back to concoctions propagandists of Nazi Germany."

Passing off the claims made in the "White Book" as something representing the consensus is very dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity which are universally recognized as the foremost source about the topic, are worthless. We should instead use a source that identifies itself with a Russian unit known for killing civilians and having close ties to an organized crime. Yay! --Sander Säde 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The source cited above indicates that the White Book is not reliable, meaning that your suggestion about the White Book being the "universially recognized as the foremost source on the topic" is questionable. You dismiss the Спецназ России journal, but you produce nothing about it being unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The blog site liewar.ru is hardly a reliable source. --Nug (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Historian A. Dyukov, who is the author of the transcribed text, is considered a reliable source, and he says that the White Paper is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll feed the troll by ROTFL. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

I construe this edit as disruptive because hasty conclusions about the source's reliability are reached without sufficient knowledge about the source. Specnaz Rossii has been cited in scholarly studies, such as "The Nature of Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance, 1942-44: The North Caucasus, the Kalmyk Autonomous Republic, and Crimea" in the Kritika journal by Professor Statiev, where in endnote #50 on p.301 he specifically cites this source for his data. Since we don't have sources of comparable quality of this topic in English, the Spetsnaz Rossii article will stay.

50...Igor Pykhalov, “ ‘Kavkazskie orly’ Tret´ego Reikha,” Spetsnaz Rossii, 61, 10 (2001)

This book also cites the same article in its endnotes. See p.172

"...In 1941-44, Soviet law enforcement agencies destroyed 197 gangs in the CIASSR; 657 of their numbers were killed, 2762 taken prisoner, and 1113 surrendered, this making 4532 a total number of defeated gangsters. (see e.g. Igor Pykhalov, "Kavkazie orly' tretiego reikha', Spetznaz Rossii, No. 10, October 2001. p. 172

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Spetsnaz Rossii is a reliable source for the viewpoint of Spetsnaz#Alpha_Group veterans, nothing more. --Nug (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above sources corroborate it's reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

However Wikipedia policy dictates that such websites are only really reliable for their own viewpoints. --Nug (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is a sock of indef banned user Jacob Peters. Just revert on sight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In 20 days his flotsam will be autoarchived. I have no objection, however, to simply deleting all the threads he started here. Any modicum of constructive conversation that resulted which would genuinely apply to improving the article can be repeated in a more collegial atmosphere. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that this IP is a sock puppet. He[1] has made similar tendentious edits to the articles August Uprising, Rape during the occupation of Germany as 76.191.230.178, who is a confirmed[2] sock puppet of User:Orijentolog . --Nug (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. What should be the consequences with the article, should we revert to the stable version prior to his involvement? I am talking about the section 'Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces', which is now adequate but the sock started it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a bit off-topic to have a sub-section "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" in the section "German occupation 1941–1944". Estonian nationals in Soviet forces is already mentioned in Estonia in World War II, while Military history of Latvia during World War II seems under-developed and there doesn't appear to be a corresponding article for Lithuania in WW2. Perhaps a sentence about Soviet conscription added to the section "Soviet occupation and annexation 1940–1941" because they were already conscripting labour battalions as a form of repression, and move "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" to the relevant articles (may have to create Lithuania in World War II). --Nug (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

POV title tag

Considering that the article covers occupation of the Baltic states by USSR and Germany as well as the annexation of the Baltic states by USSR as per multiple sources cited in the article as well as discussed in the talk page here, I am going to restart the discussion on why the annexation and occupation (clearly two diffferent phenomena) are mixed under this title. (Igny (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Seems that your multiple discussions in the past have not gained WP:CONSENSUS - from 2009 on, and consistently failed to cause any change in the title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What new arguments can you bring to the discussion, Igny? I seem to remember that the reason for the failure of previous discussions has largely been that Igny et al have not been able to back up their claims with sources. Otherwise, I don't see a reason to beat that particular dead horse again. --Sander Säde 06:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument is, in my opinion, that no old issues have been resolved, and no consensus have been achieved. With regards\ to the lack of sources, that is simple a lie.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, there was no consensus to move the title and thus it remains as it is. Placing a POV tag because of an unsuccessful move attempt shows an inability to accept the community's view that a move is unnecessary. That the first thing Igny does after coming off a six month topic ban is to place such a tag exemplifies a level of disruptiveness which you seem to support. --Nug (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I suggest you stop such personal attacks. We've gone over this numerous times and the issue has always been that Igny and you fail to bring solid, reliable mainstream sources that actively support your claims - at best there have been "but this author does not mention" type of sources - otherwise we would have been done with this issue years ago. You know this as well as I do.

I'd say say we've discussed this issue over and over and over - and unless there is even a single new idea, a new source, a new insight from protesters - I see no need whatsoever go over same arguments and sources once again.

--Sander Säde 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, which claim I was unable to support? That many reliable and mainstream sources speak about "annexation", and that we cannot use the sole word "Occupation" in the title and in the article? If that is the claim I failed to support, in your opinion, your statement is a lie. However, if you meant something else, please, let me know, and I'll gladly apologise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, stop being a WP:DICK and just apologise. Maligning the other party as being liars is immature and uncollegial. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Re stop being a WP:DICK. Now, that is an insult. I see how usage of the term "personal attack" has evolved here. Apparently nowadays using the dick word in political debates is quite kosher. I also see that very little has changed in last months on WP. Same group of people is pushing their own agenda at all costs. (Igny (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

We have not only a WP:DICK, but WP:DUCK also. If it looks like a lie then it probably is a lie. However, you probably noticed I didn't call anyone a liar. I just wrote that if some user made a statement X, then the statement X is a lie. I admit that it might be a mistake, and, if that is a case, I am ready to apologize. The only thing I need for that is a proof that I failed to support my above statement ("many reliable and mainstream sources speak about "annexation", and that we cannot use the sole word "Occupation" in the title and in the article ") with mainstream reliable sources. The problem is, however, that I don't remember my arguments had been refuted so far, and, frankly speaking, I don't believe it is possible to refute them, because I do not propose to remove some word and replace it with another one; in contrast, I propose just to supplement one word with another, and such authors as Lauri Malksoo (an author of the book that is considered as a reliable source by all parties of this dispute) explained us that that would be more correct. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, the statement that I failed to support my claim with reliable sources is a blatant lie, and I, per WP:DUCK call it accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, we have discussed this many times before, look in the archive. You are not bringing any new arguments, just exhibiting an apparent propensity to flog a well and truly dead horse. --Nug (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To unilaterally decide that the horse is dead is not a solution. I do not need to bring new arguments when the old ones are being ignored. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments have been thoroughly refuted. As I observed in a previous thread[3], you seem to have a tendency to abandon a thread when your argument fails and return some months later to repeat it all over again. You claim you have provided reliable sources to support your arguments, in the last instance it was van Elsuwege, when I pointed out that he also agreed that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years you disappeared from that discussion!! And here you are, claiming "I don't remember my arguments had been refuted so far", well no wonder, you keep running away when ever some inconsistency in your argument is highlighted. What a joke. --Nug (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what dead horse are you talking about. It seems to be an unresolved editorial dispute. To claim that "no consensus" on the previous move discussions somehow resolved the dispute is not true, no consensus =/= keep. There have been many strong arguments for moving the article which have been largely ignored. Most of your counter-arguments have been addressed and dismissed as irrelevant. My main argument remains as strong as ever. The article in current form is titled with a strong bias to the Baltic nationalistic POV. Scores of arguments based on netrual and widely accepted sources used in support of "annexation" in the title have been ignored. (Igny (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

If you believe it is not a "dead horse" then present new and cogent arguments on the topic. Your prior arguments have not remotely gotten consensus, and at some point it is likely you should simply accept that not all decisions will conform with what you WP:KNOW to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember my old arguments had been refuted. What about the Malksoo's e-mail? I remember no logically correct refutation.

The same is true for my gscholar results. If many sources speak about "annexation", we cannot use a single term.

Position of all of you may be summarised as follows: "We do not like the word "annexation", and, based on that, reject your arguments. Please, provide new arguments". However, I see no reason to provide fresh arguments in a situation when old ones are being ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be dishonest Paul, we have listened to you repeated arguments many times, but it is you who ignores our responses and disappears when we attempt to refute them. As I indicated here, in the last instance you claimed van Elsuwege discusses "annexation", but when I pointed out (with page number) where van Elsuwege also concurs that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years, you abruptly abandon the discussion!! So no wonder you cannot "remember" your old arguments being refuted, you never hang around long enough to hear them!. --Nug (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(To Igny's initial post) Since occupation and annexation are different only as a matter of your opinion and Russia's proclamations that you can't occupy what belongs to you, there is no unresolved dispute regarding the title. Annexation was merely an act in the continuum of Soviet occupation. Let's not start this again.

@Paul, you've proven yourself incapable of rational discussion of the USSR regarding the Baltics. I don't see what you hope to gain, editorially, here by jumping on Igny's bandwagon. Your "old arguments" have been conclusively refuted and your grossly prejudiced POV clearly documented by your own words. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest?!

In his last post, Nug mentioned such a category as honesty ("This appears to be dishonest Paul..."). In connection to that, I have to ask the following question:

We all regard the Malksoo's book as one of reliable sourcea, and Lauri Malksoo himself as a reputable author. We had had a long dispute about some statement from his monograph, and we got explanations from himself [here. In his e-mail he writes:

" 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."

Taking into account that we all agree that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal and created no extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR, and that the article in its present form explains that more than unequivocally, my question is:

"What is a reason for rejection of the Malksoo's recommendation?"

I tried to avoid using the term "dishonest" to describe the position of the users who rejected Malksoo's opinion (and who accuse me in incapability to conduct a rational discussion) however, I am afraid that that the word "dishonest" is the only appropriate characteristic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, unfortunately your past arguments have then moved on to take Malksoo's precision and misapply it, arguing that annexation created less of an occupation, it was more of an intervention, et al. Malksoo is also quite clear that "annexation" is not to change the fact of occupation. Additionally, this covers the entire period, so let's not rehash the Malksoo discussion.

Lastly, your prior contention that there's no (Soviet) occupation to complain about since the USSR committed the same crimes against humanity against its own citizens as it visited upon the citizens of the occupied Baltic states (my paraphrase) disqualifies you from the topic of Soviet occupation of anything. Accusing editors of dishonesty in light of your own morally outrageous contentions steps way over the line. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your first para, that is exactly what I meant: we have a clear and unequivocal explanation form Malksoo and vague and demagogic arguments from those who dislike it. And after that someone claim I am dishonest?

Re your second para, I believe that is a misunderstanding. I never claimed there were no occupation, or that the annexation was legal. My claim was that the repressions against the Baltic population did not differ in scale and brutality from the repression of the population of the USSR proper. I also claimed that, despite illegality of annexation, no specific occupation regime was established in the Baltic states, and that is also true. I see no morally outrageous contentions in that, just knowledge of the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me summarize counter-arguments from my opponents so far.

• irrelevant ("no-consensus" argument)
• insults ("dick")
• personal attacks ("incapable of rational discussion")
• groundless (the "lack of sources" argument)
• provocations ("morally outrageous contentions steps way over the line")
• groundless accusations of Paul making personal attacks
• clear demonstration of OWNing the article ("disqualifies you from the topic of Soviet occupation of anything")

Did I miss anything? (Igny (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

I would suggest to remove "dick", which was added by good faith Lothar, who seems to be satisfied with my explanations. With regard to the rest, I agree. I would add to that that no satisfactory explanation of the story with the Malksoo's e-mail has been provided (except vague references to some unspecified arguments that had allegedly been presented in past).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

So, Paul, let's see...

1. we have your contention that while Stalin invaded the Baltics, Truman bombed Japan and killed more innocents than Stalin killed in the Baltics, here; typical Soviet/Russian deflection tactics from the topic at hand, i.e., "Stalin a mass murdered? What about Truman?!?!..."
2. we have your contention that Latvians "semi-cooperated" with the Nazis because Hitler was gracious enough to consider them "semi-Aryan" here; actually Latvians were much closer to Jews than, say, the French on the official Aryan scale, but another topic; not to mention that after 700 years of German domination, there was no particular love for the Germans
3. we have your contention here that crimes against humanity committed against the nationals of occupied countries are "totally irrelevant," after all, Soviet citizens were subjected to the same crimes and we don't speak of the USSR being "occupied"; your backpedaling here that you merely stated that identical crimes against humanity were visited on all is a complete mischaracterization of your original statement--I regret there was no misunderstanding on my part

Igny, have I missed anything? I believe that covers all your references to my past statements.

Paul, as for "vague references," I am gobsmacked by your apparent amnesia. Perhaps you can save us time and re-read past discussions? I don't see any purpose to rehashing here simply because Igny showed up to continue from where he left off. Aren't there other articles of common interest to which we could both constructively contribute regardless of our editorial differences? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your 1, this was a part of totally different discussion, which had no relation to the "occupation/annexation" issue. If you want to continue it on the relevant talk page, feel free to do it.

Re your 2, that is just your personal contention. The sources say otherwise: "Because relatively few Germans could be spared for the vast territories Germany was to control, administrators would be procured from elsewhere: from the peoples judged to lie racially between the Germans and the Russians (Mittelschicht): Latvians, Estonians, and even Czechs." (Source: John Connelly. Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice. Central European History, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1999), pp. 1-33). And, again, that is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Re your 3, that is a direct misinterpretation of my position: there are occupations that are not accompanied with crimes against humanity, and some crimes against humanity are committed against its own population. Therefore, my argument is totally valid, and the fact that crimes against humanity took place in the Baltic stated during Soviet rule cannot serve as an argument in this dispute.

In summary, if there is no misunderstanding on your part, then it is a direct attempt to distract us from the subject of our dispute. However, I prefer to think that there is just a misunderstanding.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, these all form a pattern of your POV perspective on Stalin (not so bad, no worse than elsewhere) and the peoples of the Baltics (Nazi-prone anti-Ally combatants):

1. Truman more evil than Stalin.
2. Your quote of procuring administrators has nothing to do with your blatant conjuring of "semi-cooperation" because Balts were "semi-Aryan". Any "cooperation" consisted of keeping your head down and continuing in your job to avoid being shot, a lesson learned from the Soviet occupation.
3. I don't see my misinterpretation here. Crimes against humanity on occupied territory are an act of war, not "totally irrelevant." Similar acts against one's own citizens are the irrelevant consideration here. You turn the world upside down; what you stated in the manner you stated it is morally offensive. I suggest you re-examine what you said versus your explanation.

This is not a distraction. I am simply not going to waste my energy debating you when you have clearly abandoned sources for the realm of offensive personal contentions. If you wish any editor to take your presence and contentions here and on related topics as other than WP:BATTLEGROUND Baltophobic provocation, more contrition, less explanation, would be a start. And please keep your personal opinions to yourself. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 06:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Peters, that is a misinterpretation of my words.

1. I never claimed the Truman was more evil than Stalin, and your attempts to ascribe such a nonsense to me is a dishonest trick and a personal attack.
2. You misinterpreted my words. I wrote " I (partially) understand their semi-voluntary collaboration with Hitler, who saw them as "Semi-Aryans" and treated them much better then Polish, Russian or Belorussian population. " In other words, my point was not that the Balts, being semi-Arian, collaborated with Hitler, but that Hitler, who saw them as semi-Arians, treated them more mildly, hence their greater will to cooperate. Obviously, you attempt to ascribe racist ideas to me, which is a blatant personal attack.
3. This is a typical example of circular reasoning. "Since crimes against humanity on occupied territory are the act of war, then the Baltic states should be considered as occupied". Nonsense. If we assume that the Baltic territory had a status of occupied territory, then crimes against humanity is a violation of Geneva conventions, otherwise they are violation of domestic or other laws. However, the facts of crimes against humanity cannot serve as additional proof of anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul's amnesia

Paul, we have discussed thia many times before, back in March 2011[4] and September 2011[5] It seems extraordinary that you think Wikipedia policies are dishonest, because while Dr. Mälksoo provides a valuable opinion, at the end of the day we must comply with policy. In case you have "forgotten" between the time you clicked my links above and this point in the text, I will re-iterate: "reliance solely on Dr. Mälksoo's opinion is contrary to WP:TITLE policy, which instructs us not to rely on a single source, but a whole range of sources when determining an article name per WP:COMMONNAME." --Nug (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My amnesia? What about numerous sources provided by me, which use the term "annexation", "incorporation", "absorption", and do not use the term "occupation"? We return to this again and again, and you reject A because of B, and then reject B because of A. And then you are trying to accuse me in dishonesty...--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi!

I was invited to comment on this article.

I think it now represents the views of only one side, the Baltic states. The idea that those states were occupied during the Soviet period is used to justify the currently imposed restrictions of the rights of the ethnic Russians. A significant proportion of the population of these countries (up to 40%) is legally considered occupants or their descendants. They are stripped of their citizenship and having imposed harsh restrictions on them, strikingly resembling those the initial Nazi legislation against Jews. They not only cannot participate in elections, but also cannot occupy various positions such as lawers, firefighters or pharmacists.

It should be noted that the only way to get the citizenship for them is to pass the exams which not only include the language test, but also require them to explain the official interpretation of history, that is to call their parents "occupiers" and to count the Latvian Waffen SS as heroes. Not all people are ready to do so.

It also should be noted that all those people were not citizenship-less initially. In addition to the Soviet Union citizenship they had the citizenship of the respective republics which was guaranteed by the constitutions of the respective soviet republics. So loosing their citizenship was not a natural process of the USSR dissolution, but was organized deliberately by the legislative bodies which they themselves voted for.

If the theory of occupation rejected and the countries considered annexed in the USSR those countries would not have any justification to regard a portion of their modern populations as "occupiers and their descendants". So keeping this theory as an official is necessary for maintaining the current caste system.--UUNC (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)