Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

There is a website on Terijoki, - http://terijoki.spb.ru/ with even an English-language part (though lacking in substance compared to original Russian content) at http://terijoki.spb.ru/en/ ; they do have an extensive history section there.

If there are somebody willing to translate our russian historical pages from http://terijoki.spb.ru/history/ to english or finnish you are definitely welcome.We just have no enough man power to translate all materials we have. You can write me to abravo at terijoki dot spb dot ru .

I think somebody should add a line about the Decision of the League of Nation to expulse the USSR because of its agression against Finland.

Disambiguation of Occupations

I changed the introduction to clarify that from a logical standpoint, there were 3 occupations, 4 if you want to consider the post-war period separately:

• First Soviet occupation
• Nazi occupation
• Second Soviet occupation (war-time)
• continuing into post-WWII occupation

—Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to the Article

I'd urge the contributors not to simply remove content that contains valuable and undeniably relevant information (especially when merely flatly stating its irrelevance and poor wording as reason), when it can be easily improved. Also, marking or listing facts or statements that, in the opinion of those tagging article, need referencing, would be much more constructive than "dropping" a tag, deleting something and leaving. To those familiar with the history of Baltic States, much of the content consists of easily verifiable and widely known information. Please state where do you see the problems, with reasonable clarity, or there might just develop another unnecessary tag/un-tag feud. Doc15071969 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of my books continue to be packed up in boxes, however, I've managed to take care of all the outstanding tags. Do we feel that the current text is now adequately cited?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot, looks good (much better) to me. It would be great if we could get the tagger, or somebody taking decidedly critical stance, like Irpen, to review/tag some, because I still feel there may be details not widely known and not easily found in (online versions of) other encyclopedias, like Britannica.

I think, it would also be worthwhile to structure the article a bit more, in particular the the content under "First Soviet occupation".

1. I'd move out everything concerning repressions into separate section, it would need expansion, such as breakdown of totals, especially in light of newer investigations and materials, which may contain more precise data. There are several that concern Estonia: Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes against Humanity, White Book by Estonian State Commission on Examination of the Policies of Repression. Regarding Latvia, there is newer information (online, unfortunately, still only in Latvian) regarding two events: deportation of June 14, 1941 and deportation of March 25, 1949. I haven't looked for info in Lithuania.
2. Another section could, IMO, be dedicated to the status of Baltic countries under international law, and the policy of other states. That is: basically the paragraph starting with "Between July and August 1940, Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian envoys to the USA and UK made official protests against Soviet occupation and annexation of their countries".
3. I'm unsure how and where the long paragraph starting with "The events in the Baltic Republics were not isolated." best fits in - perhaps it could be merged into "Historical considerations"?

Doc15071969 15:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Occupation of Baltic states. I couldn't find enough evidence of biased votestacking which would cause this poll to be void. Furthermore, Irpen and Khoikhoi seem to oppose the title on the grounds of inherent POV of the term "occupation", rather than the term "states" which is the change proposed here.--Húsönd 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Baltic Republics → Occupation of Baltic States

– Phrase "Occupation of Baltic States" is used more often than "Occupation of Baltic Republics" — 277 [1] vs 30 [2] Doc15071969 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

See #Vote fraud alert. --Irpen

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Doc15071969 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (however, it should be "Baltic states", not "Baltic States") --3 Löwi 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Constanz - Talk 09:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support M.K. 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose since both names are inappropriate and do not fit the NPOV. The article under such name should either be about the initial event (1940 act of military occupation) or about the usability and usage of the term (referenced account of scholarly research of why the term may be applied until 1990s, pretty much what Vecrumba have written elsewhere in articles where that stuff did not belong) but not about the period of history like this article is. In the latter case, it should be calles non-comittaly, like Soviet control of Baltic (Republics or States), or Baltic (republics or States) under the USSR or smth like that. --Irpen 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this scholarly enough for you?: "Latvia had been occupied by the Soviet Union for half a century." Dreifelds (1996), Chapter 2 - Latvia, section: "National Security", Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania Country Studies. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. Washington, DC: Iwaskiw [3] Martintg 11:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Baltic states article for example says, "The Soviet control of the Baltic states was interrupted by Nazi German invasion of the region in 1941." In my opinion, "control" is more neutral than "occupation". I'm not sure if the Soviets would have referred to it as such. It's best to find the middle ground. Khoikhoi 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support //Halibutt 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support just make it states and not States. Renata 12:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support—I have only rarely heard them called the Baltic Republics, always as States. Question on Wikititling... I know the convention is to use lower case after the initial cap, however, "s"tate indicates state as part of a larger federation while "S"tate indicates an independent sovereign entity, something we might want to consider (if "S"tates, then the "Baltic states" article title would need to be changed, too.)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Jmnil 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Although the issue seems to be already decided, I only want to add an info how this sounds in a different language: Romanian. The term more often used is Ţările Baltice (Baltic countries), roughtly 90% after 1989, less frequently Statele Baltice (Baltic states), roughly 10% of cases. The term Republicile baltice (Baltic Republics) was used until 1989 in Moldova by the official Soviet media, while people were indiscriminantly using 4 terms: Statele Baltice, Ţările Baltice, Republicile Baltice, Pribaltica. Since in Romanian the adjective "Baltic" comes after the noun "States", the latter is automatically capital, so no relation to that.:Dc76 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand Irpen's objection. The article stops with chronology at 1941, don't know if this is because it is not yet developed or else.:Dc76 04:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just check the very first sentence: "The occupation of Baltic Republics generally refers to the occupation of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) by the Soviet Union, then Nazi Germany, and then Soviets again during World War II, and to the Soviet presence in the Baltics from 1945 until the re-establishment of their independence." Stops at 1941? --Irpen 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Should be states and not States. Martintg 08:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (should be states) However there still is Baltic republics -- Xil/talk 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud alert

The outcome of this vote is likely to be affected by the huge scale Wikipedia:Canvassing undertaken by User:Doc15071969. While the voting was going on at a slow and moderate pace, there seemed to have been mass influx of votes that poured in after this notice at the very public forum likely to be attended by the supporters of the move. Additionally, the notice was made in the highly inflammatory form and included the massive ABF. This is not to doubt the good faith of the attracted voters but a similar announcement at, say, Portal:Russia would have likely affected the course of voting in a similar way, although in the opposite direction. However, as of now, no one attempted to canvass votes at the Russia Portal. --Irpen 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to complain to whomever who in a position to intervene or mediate. Suffice to say that I disagree with your characterizations,--and, after re-reading the policies you linked, I don't see how those characterizations can be supported by what they say,--but will maintain that this posting is a violation of ABF on your part. Towards those who have voted and myself. Doc15071969 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no assumptions from me towards those who voted. I stated that clearly and apparently you failed to read my entry above to the end. As for your cherry-picking of the boards to change the vote outcome, you would perhaps seen it differently if a similarly inflammatory message was posted to the Portal:Russia, which, btw, was not done. --Irpen 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A single notice on a closely related noticeboard isn't huge spam, it helps to quickly resolve issues, if we would anolish this practise some disputes could take even years to solve (how often do you visit, for example, article curd snack ?) -- Xil/talk 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Allright, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles, it appears that 'states' would be more suitable. I have no problem with it and will be adjusting request. Doc15071969 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the change is on hold, as per Peters comment. Honestly, I am unsure which version would be correct in English. Doc15071969 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of the occupation

The article tells us that the three Baltic States were occupied by the USSR. But do you know that the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania lived much better then any other nation (Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians...) within the Soviet borders? Was it really occupation? Or, probably, other Soviet Republics (predominantly Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR) had been working for encouraging and funding these Baltic Republics. -- Taamu. 10:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Russians also lived much better than, say, Uzbeks. That the Baltic people also lived a bit better than Russians is due to the fact that communism had been rampaging there since 1917, in the Baltic states - only since 1940. If you compare GDP of Estonia/Finland in 1940, then those were almost equal. But if you compare the situation in 1988...
So could you please forget the “Was it really occupation?” myths and the ideas, that the Baltic states were somehow funden by the generous Soviet imperialism. We didn't ask for your generous “assistance (or) funding” in 1940, just like Hungary didn't need your “help” in 1956 and Czechoslovakia didn't wish it in 1968 either. Is this really hard to comprehend? Constanz - Talk 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Constanz. My suggestion would be to resist temptation to respond to un-sourced (and to me - inflammatory) comments like the one Taamu made. According to WP:Talk page guidelines: "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." And while this clearly has not evolved into something we had at occupation of Latvia talk, and while the ArbComm has apparently decided to simply designate what took place there as "extensive and heated debate" and to basically ignore it (or we failed to get the point across), I see no other purpose for comments Taamu made as inflammatory. They don't, IMO, meet the "with a view to prompting further investigation" criteria, and merit no other response than perhaps citing that guideline and trying to get attention of someone in a position to intervene. The best response to such comments would be to add into article statistics of executed, killed, deported, imprisoned, arrested and/or otherwise repressed, or exiled citizens of Baltic states, statistics regarding partisan war - all with appropriate references. Also, properly attributed information regarding the losses from Soviet rule calculated by governments (Lithuania has estimated them, I think), GDP rank then and now comparisons - there are plenty to document with a view of explaining the "legacy" of occupation. Doc15071969 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, Doc15071969, I see you are good in citing the Wiki's policy. Although, you will ignore me, I want you to take into consideration the fact, that you have forgotten about Latvian Riflemen, who supported the Red Army. FYI -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Riflemen. -- Taamu. 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Latvian Riflemen supported the revolution because they were under the impression that said support would help insure independence for Latvia. They were not supporting the "Red Army" per se--they guarded the Kremlin, saved Lenin, and dispatched his enemies. They also (tragically) mistook Bolshevism for European communism. As we know, the Italian communists have yet to deport anyone.

     It's still an occupation. I should point out that using your logic, the proper gauge is that everyone as compared to before the Soviet occupation was living worse or was dead.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Taamu, you are mixing up two different things - Latvian Riflemen supported communism during the world war I, not during the world war II, and in fact even during the WWI many Riflemen left Soviet army (this realy should be clerified in riflemen article), and acctualy we shouldn't disscus it - it has nothing to do with content of the article---- Xil/talk 12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Xil. I didn't want anyone to get me wrong. I guess you didn't notice that I had started the discussion "History of the occupation". When I mentioned Latvian Riflemen, I just wanted to show that it is our mutual fault, and we should first of all blame ourselves. -- Taamu. 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed how you have called this, exactly the reason why I didn't understand why did you mention riflemen. This article describes Baltic states during WWII, not the origins of communism in (Imperial) Russia or economical situation in Baltic states after war and the use of term "occupation" also isn't related with these issues. You shouldn't disscus issues that are not directly related to contents of this article, because this is not a forum and if this dispute will be continued it will likely burst into a war (I hope that's not your goal). -- Xil/talk 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with such approach fully. If the article is to describe the Baltic states during the WWII, I have no problem with the title. I will ammend the lead paragraph to reflect that. --Irpen 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

??? You agree that the scope is the occupation of the Baltics during WW2, I include a reference from a reliable source to the Soviet re-occupation in 1944 keeping within the scope of the article, you then delete that reference and add four references regarding the Holocaust (which I don't see is appropriate in the context of the topic introduction), then claim I am expanding the scope of the article! Either it spans WW2 or it doesn't. If it does, we must include the 1944-45 Soviet re-occupation. I have cited a reliable source directly concerning the occupation, I am reverting your edit, please don't delete this cite. Martintg 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have, once again, arbitrarily, without citing any source for doing so, without so much as consultation - much less something that can be called consensus, - attempted to narrow the scope of the article. To illustrate, from was in the article prior to your edits:

"The occupation of Baltic Republics generally refers to the occupation of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) by the Soviet Union, then Nazi Germany, and then Soviets again during World War II, and to the Soviet presence in the Baltics from 1945 until the re-establishment of their independence. Russia continues to maintain that the Soviet Union liberated the Baltic states."

you have removed:

- phrase "generally refers to the occupation" - i.e. removed information that it the term is generally used to refer to the events described (and yet to be described) in the article, as well as the internal Wikipedia link to relevant background information;

- removed information regarding the very presence of Soviets in Baltic countries after WWII;

- in one cut excluded from the scope of the article the whole time period from 1945 onwards, which includes the time when Soviets committed some of the worst crimes against humanity in Baltic States, such as mass deportations of civilian population (summary regarding Estonia here). This can not possibly stand, and no - it is not an attempt to find compromise no matter how many times you call it so. Doc15071969 12:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had to restore the introduction in its entirety (Marting, could you please see if your reference still fits in there - I have not read this article). Irpen, please do not try to reduce this article to military aspects of occupation--there are political, demographic, humanitarian, and plenty other aspects yet to be included,--and please do not unilaterally introduce sweeping changes to the scope of it. If you have verifiable and reliable sources arguing that Soviet rule over Baltic countries should be regarded as anything other than occupation, please present them. Let's then see how those views can be attributed and incorporated into article. Doc15071969 13:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply provided the refs that use a different term to what the Soviet takeover in 1944 was. But we can easily avoid the dispute on the issue altogether. If the article's scope is WW2, the 1944 is simply the time where the article's scope ends. We can just use the non-committal phrasing and so that the article will take no position on the issue to which it is not devoted anyway, the proper term to use for the post-war Soviet control. Let's see whether the compromise can be accepted.

At the side note, I see the same big problem as the Occupation of Latvia article. An elaboration goes at a huge length on the 1940 Soviet takeover and 3 short lines only devoted to the Nazi time and nothing on local collaboration. I suggest the following:

• This article is renamed to Occupation of Baltic States (1940) and will be devoted to the act of the Soviet takeover since this is an article's subject anyway.
• An "Occupation of Baltic States (term)" becomes the article where the scholarly usage of the term "occupation" as applied to the Soviet control is summarized. (Vecrumba already wrote a couple of pages on that elsewhere.
• There is no need of the all-encompassing article on the Nazi occupation of the Baltics since this should be covered in three separate articles titled Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania under the Nazi occupation, respectively

Please note that this will not reject the POV that Soviet control was an occupation in this article. We would simply localize the issue to where it belongs. How about that? --Irpen 05:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You first agree that the article's scope is the occupation of the Baltics in WW2, now you declare the article's scope ends in 1944. As I recall there were still German troops fighting on Latvian soil until May 1945, so what is your justification of limiting the scope to August 1944? As to your suggestion about using the term "control" rather than "occupation" is rather nonsensical, afterall, the article is about Occupation of the Baltic states not Control of the Baltic states. Besides, I have cited a refereed secondary source that it was an occupation, where is your reliable source that it wasn't occupation, and therefore occupation term is POV? I'll give you a week to come up with a refereed paper that supports you claim.

As regards to the lack of material in the Nazi section, why don't you expand this section yourself, rather than suggest splitting the article, you found those four references on Nazi activities during that period easily enough. It is tagged "expandsect" afterall. Martintg 06:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that for all the Baltics and for all the period of occupation, this should be the summary article that brings and keeps all the pieces together. Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania-specific articles can then be edited or sliced and diced however appropriate.

    The "POV" offense would be that it wasn't (a) a continuous period of occupation which includes (b) pre-Nazi and post-Nazi Soviet presence called an occupation. As everywhere else, and let's try and not to descend into this again: cite the source that it was not an occupation. Russia's position ignores that it occupied the Baltics before Hitler's invasion of Russia and lumps the USSR's re-occupation with the "liberation of Europe." (And Lavrov was so close, as representative of the central Soviet authorities, to recognizing the USSR's occupation before the USSR broke up..., WO:OR from those directly involved, unfortunately.)

    And in that regard, I do agree with Irpen (!) it would be worthwhile to have a separate article on "Occupation of the Baltic states (term)", which would address "occupation" as applied to 1941-1991, dealing with "Soviet," "Nazi," "Second Soviet," and "Post-War Soviet."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

40s to 90s is very long period, may I suggest that 1.) move this article to Baltic states during WWII - it will make scope of the article definite, won't feel POV to some and it is more flexible than titles you are proposing now - occupation is only part of war action and certaint years, if we take it very strictly, won't allow to include events prior to that year and aftermath 2.) expand already existing articles, for exsample occupation after WWII is in scope of articles on these SSRs -- Xil/talk 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is definite, and in time, too, - the whole period of foreign rule over Baltic states. Although much of the content is expressed in a form of factual assertions and many of them are incontrovertible facts, there is nothing, per se, wrong with POV (omission of a significant POV published by a reliable source is). Occupation is definitely not restricted to the activities during wartime or "war action" (see, for instance ICRC's Q&A on Occupation and international humanitarian law on the conditions when occupation ends), it also encompasses a legal concept (ECHR did not designate the whole period of Soviet rule in Estonia as occupation just because it suddenly felt inexplicable urge to do so), it also is a word that is used colloquially. True - the SSR articles are in dire need of improvement (for instance, calling them "states" - even if puppet, grossly misrepresents facts), but the time, unfortunately, is limited.

I think the scope of this article is fine, but would try to chip away at the facts/factoids as they get added (whether or not their inclusion is merited). Doc15071969 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn't occure to me that there are two complitely different meanings to what I said - ofcourse occupation isn't limited only to time of war, what I wanted to say was that war isn't only occupation. But fifty years is very long period of time - I don't see a need to sqeeze it all (and there different states) in one article and there are other articles that already cover that. As for POV - I din't say that this is POV (acctualy this article is better than some history textbooks I've seen), but obviously some users feel otherwise, since we are disscusing posible move of the article it might be better to choose title that doesn't affect anyones POV and doesn't narrow the scope of the article ---- Xil/talk 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two definitions of "ocupation", one is the act and other is the state: e.g. Fred occupied his house on friday; Fred occcupied his house for ten years. This article ought to cover the act of occupation, which occured prior and during WW2. We already have other articles that cover the state of occupation, I see no sense in duplicating the content. I agree with Vecrumba, this article should give the overall context of the occupations across the Baltics (thus the timeline given is excellent), while the other articles can give more detail. Martintg 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I see again some try to turn this into a circus circa Occupation of Latvia mess. I clearly made some peaceful suggestions above for a compromise with the solution to keep narrow controversies to their narrow articles instead of spreading them thin layer all over Wikipedia. Some just can't not have the issue not pasted to as many articles as possible thus killing articles one by one.

This goes beyond pale. We could just improve the articles, discuss what belongs where and slowly work towards encyclopedicity. What we get instead, is that some favor pushing same stuff all over sacrificing encyclopedicity to the POV.

Fine, have it your way. The article is to be tagged and I expect the tag not removed until my good faith suggestions are discussed reasonably.

I don't quite understand your issue. You haven't explained why the scope should be restricted to 1944, when you initially agreed that the scope is WW2, which ended in 1945. If you agree that WW2 ended in 1945, then ofcourse we should include the second Soviet occupation, particularly since I also posted a cite to a reliable source regarding the occupation. What's so controversial about that? The allies occupied plenty of places until the war was concluded, for example the USA militarily occupied Iceland for the duration of the war. Also I am quite happy for you to edit and extend the section on the Nazi occupation which you yourself added, I am totally happy for you to add all those cites to the Holocaust if you like. As to your alternative solution below, I will continue to be an active participant here. Martintg 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative solution: of the disputants from the now infamous Occupation of Latvia article, Vecrumba and myself seem to be the only two parties not admonished by ArbCom for the behavior. I propose that under these circumstances, Vecrumba and I try to reach a compromise and we see how it works while Martin, Doc and Constanz just watch instead of intruding with new inflammatory comments as observed by ArbCom. If Vecrumba agrees and this group trusts him enough, this may also be the way to go. It would just then become and informal mediation between two users trying to find a common ground. In any way, the tag stays for now. --Irpen 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Irpen: "This article is renamed to Occupation of Baltic States (1940) and will be devoted to the act of the Soviet takeover since this is an article's subject anyway."

You are welcome to initiate a request to move the article, even if it comes couple of days after consensus in favor of moving the article to its current name was established. You may not, however, act as sole "keeper" of the scope of this or any other article. The scope of it was outlined in the introductory part before you took the liberty to change it, unilaterally, without indicating the necessity (and sources supporting your argument), without so much as consulting anyone or trying to ascertain if anyone objects, - much less trying to establish some consensus.

Re: Irpen: "An "Occupation of Baltic States (term)" becomes the article where the scholarly usage of the term "occupation" as applied to the Soviet control is summarized."

You are welcome to do so, so long as it is not made into an impermissible WP:POV_fork.

Re: Irpen: "(..) Martin, Doc and Constanz just watch instead of intruding with new inflammatory comments as observed by ArbCom"

I have not made any inflammatory comments, whether observed by ArbCom or not. This false information as well as suggestions of "intrusion" is inflammatory.

Re: Irpen "The article is to be tagged and I expect the tag not removed (..)"

It will be removed, unless you, within a reasonable timeframe, act in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute, namely: "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why." Same goes for other alleged problems implied by the tags. Doc15071969 23:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Marting:

Ideally, it could be a summary of most significant facts and statistical data concerning the consequences of occupation, all three countries taken together. Duplicating every bit of information would be unnecessary, but having main facts accessible in a single location has obvious advantages for reader interested in the topic. Lots of information I have seen in "History of ..." articles remains unreferenced. Referencing facts here can help improving those as well.

I'd continue to argue against narrowing the time frame to the end of WWII because that leaves out one of the defining events - deportations of 1949. - or the resistance. Doc15071969 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the scope should be broader in terms of time. In my view, this article ought to be a top level view that places the occupation in the wider international context, while the individual state based occupation articles would go into specific details, such as the 1949 deportations and various other repressions. By international context I mean the listing and description of the various events such as the EU and USA declarations, etc. With the use of hyper-links all the main facts and consequences of the occupation mentioned in the individual country articles such as the deportations can be made accessible from this top level article anyway. In other words, this article could cover the external story, while the individual country articles could cover the specific internal stories. Martintg 10:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The second world war started in 1939, so the occupation started during the war, only thing that happened before that was signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The deportations of 1949 are already covered in Collectivisation in the USSR, the common resistance started only in 80s, which could be covered in article Singing Revolution (estonian users however think that this term is applied only to Estonia (it's also applied to Latvia, don't know about Lithuania)) and there is also Forest brothers, and even regarding WWII section "Aftermath" could be included, that would shortly go over mayor events affecting all three countries until 90s -- Xil/talk 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect to claim that the common resistance only started in the 80's, there was an insurgency that lasted into the 1950's, until collectivisation destroyed the support base for the insurgents. Martintg 10:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Xil & Martin

I do not suggest that we ought to reproduce in all detail bits and pieces that can be gathered from other articles - I think we need something qualitatively different. The problem with the "coverage" of the topic of Soviet occupation (and Nazi too, to a lesser extent, because there are now "Nazi Occupation of ..." articles for Latvia and Estonia) as I see it is twofold:

1) precisely the fragmentation of the information - there is no comprehensive compilation of significant facts and events;

2) sourcing and referencing (I mean those "lists of literature" at the bottom) - more often than not, the text and the facts, assertions, and statistical data contained in it are not directly tied to the literature.

Let me try to illustrate on this example Chapter from "Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the table of democracy. David Mendeloff has has quite a good summary narrative and set of numbers concerning Soviet occupation(s) (starting on Page 82), yet the topic of the international status of Baltic states during occupation is absent. Same for forcible collectivization, expropriation of property, or, for instance effects on such aspects and spheres of societal life as religion, education, arts. Not all of those aspects, perhaps, merit a sentence in this "high level" article, but some do, I think. Second "problem" with his narrative are some of the numbers. They are mostly estimates, and, because investigative work on many topics still continues, there may be "better" (as in resulting from latest investigations and writings) numbers out there. Take, for instance, figure of 17000 deported June 13-14, 1941 from Latvia, citing NKVD records, on page 83. Latvian researchers have been able to ascertain identity of 15424 deported on that day. That to me means: 1) one can put the lower margin on the number; 2) numbers need to be corroborated from more than one source.

My proposal would be: let's not try to define in all specificity what is to be included in advance (agreement that it has to be major, significant facts and events), let's instead treat it on a case by case basis. And specifically, - I'd propose to include David Mendeloff's numbers "for starter", to corroborate them from other sources, and adjust them, if and when "better" numbers are available.

-- Doc15071969 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article needs to be qualitatively different to the other articles, and I also agree that we need an article that brings the fragmented picture presented in the individual articles into context and also the issue of sources you mention. I don't think it is possible to define specifically all aspects up front, but I do think we could define some general principles to guide us in editing this article. Some things would more naturally fit in this article, for example the international responses over the period, since they are generally made in reference to the "Baltics" in general. Hence my view that we focus the article in the international aspect as well as the major events. If you read the general tone of the article as it stands now, it does present this international aspect as well as the major events anyway. Martintg 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then two of us basically are in agreement. Doc15071969 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I metioned the Forest brothers, I'm not sure if it was one organisation in all Baltic states, therefore I didn't call it "common", even if it was common unitil around 1950, the next common resistance started in late 80s, there's 30 years inbetween them. I'm not arguing about history, my point is that 40s-90s is too broad scope, that will not allow to go in details about the very act of occupation and this period is already covered in other articles, for example, I didn't mention in my previous comment, the Baltic republics article - it has exactly the same scope - three states that existet from 40s to 90s -- Xil/talk 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If one takes as scope time-period only then there ought to be one-two articles only. Simple comparison of the contents alone allows, IMO, to determine that the scopes of the articles differ - one is dedicated to the Soviet administrative units and contains mass of false, dubious, un-sourced information (such as "formally kept a form of sovereignty", "[a]ccording to Soviet law, the three local languages (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian) had the status of official languages in the three respective "Republics"; [there was no such law, at most one can talk about is unwritten "custom", supported by the capacity of the regime to meticulously implement chosen policy, which resulted in so called asymmetrical bilingualism] - to name two). No, they were not states - as in sovereign political entities - under any commonly accepted definition or understanding of the word. However, this is not the best place to discuss that article - I will put back in the merge proposal with Baltic states, which was removed by anon in middle of February.

I hope we can agree that "Occupation of Baltic states" if important enough topic to merit a separate article. Frankly, I don't understand the need to try to narrow the time frame of such article down from what the law (decision of ECHR & ICRC's Q&A linked earlier) says or implies. What really necessitates it? If unnecessary, unjustified duplication of the content occurs, it could be dealt with on a case by case basis. Doc15071969 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And one more thought - to narrow it, because it would seem less "POVish" to some (say, Irpen) would, IMO, be precisely the wrong way. If there are other significant POVs concerning the post-war period, which are published and supported by reliable sources, they must be incorporated into article. Rather than other POVs removed from it or "watered down".

Doc15071969 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to narrow the scope only to make Irpen happy, I was only saying that as a side effect, this article won't be tagged as having POV title. There is no article covering WWII in all Baltic states. ---- Xil/talk 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just some thoughts/questions

(It was getting a bit tough to edit such a long section...) As I mentioned, this should be the article that covers everything, as there is a continuity of Soviet actions (people re-deported after surviving the first time and only coming home in the 60's, the mass deportations in 1949, etc.). As well, the Nazis used the Soviet occupation for their political purposes, and the Soviets used the Nazi occupation for their purposes--something which can only be put into context if it's all in one place. I think as the article expands, we'll get a better feel. If some part gets too big/detailed, then we can consider turning it into a separate article--but it's too early to say what that would be. I've already agreed, though not with enthusiasm, that the more detailed country-specific articles can be split into smaller time sequences.

I appreciate Irpen's suggestion that if "we two" can come to some accomodation that it could help move things forward. Unfortunately, I attempted that approach in Transnistria at one point (perhaps not obviously with someone else), and while it yielded a useful accomodation, the voices on the side, of either side, were ultimately not adequately represented and I spent more time defending the compromise than moving anything else forward (which was the original intent!). So, let's keep muddling along and see how it goes.

Question #1: On a related issue, is there any consensus on how to deal with the "occupation/not-an-occupation" issue? I can certainly put in the citations for what I wrote which is stuck in the Occupation of Latvia article right now (and there are numerous more citations added since). Are we thinking better as a section here (might be a bit long), or as a separate article? I'm leaning toward a separate article at this point. Frankly, it can then also be a single lightning rod for all those who want to allege, as Regnum recently did in an article, that where Estonia is concerned, for example, people mostly died of old age under so-called Soviet oppression. (And plain out lies about the numbers it quotes from the Estonia white paper.) I'm open to suggestions.

Question #2: On things like what Soviet era encyclopedias say about the Baltic Entente or what Latvian newspapers published about the Soviet invasion, etc., do we have any idea on where best to put those? Baltic Entente would likely go in the discussion of the term occupation article, it's less obvious what to do with newspaper articles. For now, we could just say if it mentions only one country, then country-specific; if more than one country, then "Baltic states."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In regard to question #1, given that there are plenty of sources that confirm the occupation, it is not necessary to have a section concerning the "occupation/not-an-occupation" issue, let alone a separate article. Don't you recall what happened in the Occupation of Latvia, you expended all that effort on a similar section, only to be accused of engaging OR. A separate article would no doubt be considered a POV fork in the future. We have a wealth of evidence that occupation occured. It is up those opposed to that view to come up with new or existing sources that support not-an-occupation view, not for us to continue to dance to their tune and endlessly provide further evidence and proof. So what if the article is tagged for now, our focus should be to continue to develop the article and ensure all parts are correctly cited in full compliance of Wikipedia policies. Martintg 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally created this article to solely handle the first Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, but it has evolved since. The idea came from the lack of knowledge in Wikipedia about how and what happened between 1939 and 1941 on the region. I don't think there is an open question if the occupation happened, it is very well documented in historical sources. But article should still contain the notification that Russia still maintains that occupation didn't happen. --Whiskey 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right Whiskey, there's really no dispute in the world community about the existence or non-existence of the Soviet occupation. But the fact that some Wikipedia editors still insist as if denying the occupation could somehow be more 'neutral', proves that Wikipedia is incapable of ensuring the principles of verifiability and neutrality. Constanz - Talk 08:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)