Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Notice to new editors

PLEASE REVIEW THE ARCHIVES IF YOU ARE VISITING THIS TOPIC FOR THE FIRST TIME. MOST BASIC QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS STATEMENTS OF POSITION BY WESTERN, BALTIC, AND OFFICIAL RUSSIAN SOURCES HAVE BEEN COVERED THERE.

Occupied Nations Don't Look or Live Like That

SERIOUSLY. When ever did an occupied nation acting in the role of a province of the occupying country enjoy a standard of living and quality of life far *above* the average of the other provinces (Soviet Socialist Republics, to be more precise)??? Since when do occupied territories enjoy full citizen's rights, participate in the occupying nation's government, etc., etc.?? Aadieu (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, how spoiled they were... ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. According the definition of occupation a country cannot occupy its own territory. Those who defend the 'occupation theory' imply the states were never part of the USSR. So does say this article.--Dojarca (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic countries. It installed Soviet authorities preventing the legitimate authorities from functioning. The USSR was deporting citizens from the Baltics even before the countries "petitioned" to join, including most of the Baltic states' legitimate governmental authorities and elected parliamentary representatives. What is "theory" is the "theory" of non-occupation.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How is being murdered or sent to concentration camps as slaves or denied freedom and human rights "enjoying full citizen's rights"(!!!)? Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aadieu, at the risk of violating WP:NOTFORUM, as I recall, the majority of native Balts were purged from government positions within the the Baltics and replaced by imported personnel. As far as standard of living goes, yes it is true that the Baltic countries did enjoy the highest standard of living within the SU, but that was still far below the standard of Finland for example. I've seen a study that indicates that in 1939 the standard of living in Estonia was comparable with that of Finland, which demonstrates how ruinous Soviet occupation was to the Estonian economy. --Martintg (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that no matter what happened after, the act of occupation (1939-1940) remains an occupation imho. Regarding the standards of living, I think that this info should be added to this and related articles, it shouldn't be hard to find sources for that. Alæxis_¿question? 11:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the standard of living somehow a part of the definition of occupation or has got anything else to do with the article at hand? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously yes, if you choose to call the 1944-1991 state an occupation. This info shows how Baltic republics were perceived by Soviet authorities. Most of the books about the subject discuss the economical situation in the Baltic countries, see for example "The Baltic States, years of dependence, 1940-1990" by Misiunas and Taagepera, pages 184,185

I propose to write something like "National income per capita was higher in Estonia/Latvia than elsewhere in the USSR (44/42% above the Soviet average in 1968)" there and there. There it's immediately relevant; then we could think what to add to this article and where. Alæxis_¿question? 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We have the articles Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic and Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic where information on the standard of living could be placed. I think it is enough that this article has links to those Xxxxx Soviet Socialist Republic articles rather than duplicate content here. --Martintg (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would normally insist on the same, but this article's scope does cover the period of time up to 1991. The fact, that it ceased to be a military occupation after the occupied territories were fully integrated into the Soviet state, is thus directly relevant here. I would suggest to change the section name from "Soviet re-occupation, 1944–1991" to "Soviet re-occupation, 1944" and then directly state that following the military reoccupation of the Baltics in 1944, their territories were reintegrated into the USSR and existed as constituent Soviet Republics until 1991, at which point they regained independence as the modern states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. --Illythr (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering mass deportations, etc. continued after said "reintegration", that deported individuals, if they managed to survive Siberia, were only allowed back to their country (but not former homes) after twenty years, etc., occupation extends for the entire period, as has been described in scholarly sources. The purpose of this article is to discuss the occupation and acts committed impacting the Baltic states and their peoples. It is not a "history of" or other general article. Again, the SSR articles are the ones for general topics regarding the Soviet era. Hope this helps.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The deportations were not a sign of any special status these territories had within the USSR - population transfers in the Soviet Union (as well as political persecutions, "dekulakization" and so on) were a general policy at the time. Indeed, this article discusses the occupation, yet it fails to demonstrate the obvious fact that the Baltics were fully integrated into the Soviet infrastructure (as every other Soviet Republic) after 1944 and were not under military occupation for the entire period of 1944-1991, as it suggests now. The elevated economic status of these SSRs is merely a visible trait that underscores this fact. --Illythr (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets refer to any encyclopedic source such as A geography of the U.S.S.R.(1967), [1] by California University: The baltic Republics, Belorussia, and Adjoining parts of the USSR. This part of the USSR lies west of Moscow and North of Polesye. or Information U.S.S.R.: an authoritative encyclopaedia about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same university (1962): The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was formed on July 21st 1940; since August 6th 1940 it has been a part of the U.S.S.R.. The international definition of occupation I already gave here: [2] but can repeat: situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. This is according the International Red Cross.--Dojarca (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting piece of research, and if you can find a published book that discusses this viewpoint that would be great. However until that time comes, we have to rely upon what exists today in published sources, and David Smith, one of the most eminent scholars of Baltic history today states quite clearly that the Baltics were occupied from 1940 to 1991. --Martintg (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your source seems to imply that the World War II lasted until 1991. This is crealy not a mainstream point of view. This though may be a rhetoric hyperbola for the caption as in the text itself the author uses word 'reincorporation' rather than 'occupation': For the Estonians and their neighbours, on the other hand, 'liberation' by Soviet forces was simply the prelude to focible reincorporation into the USSR. --Dojarca (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To Matintg: are there any sources that support your claim that the government positions were occupied by "imported personnel"?--Dojarca (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, see page 139 here. --Martintg (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh by "imported personnel" you mean ethnic Balts who lived in other parts of the USSR? Then the current president of Estonia and the former president of Latvia were also "imported". Does it mean Latvia after the breakup of the USSR fell under US occupation?--Dojarca (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jaan Pärn, I don't see how standard of living is in any way relevant here.--Staberinde (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to put economic statistics in the relevant articles regarding the SSRs. Those are not relevant to this article.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that if there's a section about the 1944-1991 period in this article all aspects of life (military, cultural, social, economical as well as various persecution) should be mentioned. The alternative is to write only about the military occupation of 1944 and the events that immediately followed it. Alæxis_¿question? 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm going to remove this section from the talk page shortly. This is not a forum or a discussion board about the subject but is meant for discussing improvements to the article. Thanks for understanding.--Termer (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. for the future, anybody wishing to improve the article: What is the source you're referring to, who has published it and what does it say about the subject and the facts and opinions from it can be added to the article. Regarding the standard of living in the Baltic states, how it went down during the Soviet occupation, all relevant facts should go into relevant article Sovietization of the Baltic states. Thanks again!--Termer (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Termer's statement as a simple reiteration of wp:source and wp:forum which for some reason gets forgotten on this talk page every once in a while. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is about improving the article by adding info about the economical situation in Baltic states during the Soviet rule and this issue is not yet solved. Alæxis_¿question? 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why stop at economical situation? Why not add also info on which kind of pets people had, what they ate for breakfast in the occupied Baltics and more fun but, from the article's perspective, irrelevant stuff? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The article implies that the situation of 1944 extended all the way up to 1991 without noting that the republics were fully incorporated into USSR. Details should indeed go into the individual articles, but the general status change should be clearly stated here. Also, since the Forest brothers are mentioned here, it should be added that they ceased to exist as a cohesive movement by 1952 (same problem). --Illythr (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"the republics were fully incorporated into USSR" according to whom? The facts according to the sources speak exact opposite. The soviet Union didn't see most of the money that the Baltic states had in banks abroad, the baltic ships that the soviets didn't capture were never turned over to Soviets. The accredited Baltic diplomatic missions continiued to function,etc. so where and according to whom is this "the republics were fully incorporated into USSR"? Again, please stop posting personal opinions to this talk page but refer to secondary published sources instead while making suggestions. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Baltic SSR's (see the source presented by Dojarca above, for example). As for the Forest brothers - that much is already stated in the article about them, no futher sourcing is necessary. --Illythr (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the Baltic SSR's? I do not understand how this is relevant? The Baltic SSR's were administrative units of the Soviet Union formed on the occupied territories of the Baltic states. The Baltic states however had their accredited diplomatic missions open, funds in the Bank for International Settlements etc. and other assets like ships in the international waters etc. This article is not about "occupation of the Baltic SSR's" that were sc.constituent republics of the Soviet Union but about the occupation of the Baltic states that were founded in the aftermath of WWI, OK.--Termer (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Baltic SSR's were administrative units of the Soviet Union formed on the occupied territories of the Baltic states. - that's what this article should state. --Illythr (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That formulation sounds okay with me. --Martintg (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certain bank accounts were not incorporated, I agree. But their territories were incorporated. So they were not occupied. And puppet emigrant governments in the United States were successors of the pre-war Baltic states only in the view of a limited number of countries. Other countries considered the Soviet republics to be the successors. --Dojarca (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "But their territories were incorporated. So they were not occupied. And puppet emigrant governments in the United States were successors of the pre-war Baltic states only..." — The content of this quote is oxymoronic, since why should there exist socalled "puppet emigrant governments" in exile if the territory were incorporated, not occupied? The word incorporation makes it sound like it was done willingly, as a bilateral agreement of some sort — even though it is known that (revolutionary) communism does not take no for an answer. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, for me incorporation sounds just as it is: incorporation. Willingly or not willingly or semi-willingly etc. For example, Martintg's source seys they were reincorporated unwillingly.--Dojarca (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting viewpoint, all that remains to be done is to find some reliable secondary sources to support it. You can list the author, book or academic paper title and page number here so that we can evaluate it. --Martintg (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, until no solid sources are given to explain what exactly Dojarca is talking about other than Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Position_of_the_Russian_Federation which is part of the article already, this discussion doesn't go anywhere but into WP:FORUM. And who exactly considered and who didn't consider the "Soviet republics to be the successors" is also part of the article already : Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Recognition_and_non-recognition_of_annexation_and_occupation. So in case Dojarca you do have anything new to suggest, please do not hesitate. until then there is no point to return to things that are well spelled out in the article and talked through at the talk page.--Termer (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Martintg, I've already gave you numerous sources that the republics were part of the USSR or were incorporated in the USSR. If this is not enough for you, I can add some more.--Dojarca (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Also, please keep the facts straight, for example "certain bank accounts were not incorporated" - Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an international organization of central banks. Its not just a "certain bank account" but assets belonging to the state institutions Cental Bank of Estonia, National Bank of Latvia and Bank of Lithuania.--Termer (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)--Termer (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "puppet emigrant governments in the United States", there has been no "emigrant governments in the United States" (puppet or not) at least from the Baltic states in any time in history.--Termer (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberation versus occupation

After liberation of Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany by Soviet Union in 1944-45, Soviet domination and control over Eastern European countries in general, and incorporation of Baltic countries into USSR, in particular, were considered by many in Western world and by nationalists in annexed republics as an occupation. My questions are as follows. Do opinions in the Western literature justify diminishing the act of liberation from Nazi Germany to a mere fringe theory or propaganda, the way it is currently treated in this article? There is an obvious conflict of views between Russian and Western POVs stemming from the Cold War, with Anglo-Saxon view firmly solidified in Western literature after collapse of the USSR. However, wouldn't downplaying official Russian POV amount to violation of NPOV? (Igny (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

No, neither the Western nor Russian POV are NPOV. Only scientific analyses can be used as a source for a NPOV and there are none concluding that the Baltics were liberated by the Red Army. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are more than twenty sources in the talk page ranging from pre-1950 to modern scientific journals. All of them discuss the event as a second occupation or reoccupation. Igny's original source for "liberation" was Soviet magazine from 1984, the height of the Cold War. So far he has not been able to provide any peer-reviewed sources supporting his view and has turned down compromise ("gained control"). Soviet viewpoint is already present in the article - there is a section Soviet sources prior to Perestroika which discusses the topic in-detail. --Sander Säde 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Liberation" is a Soviet-myth, which has no academic background. This is a not about west vs. russia - rather science vs. science fiction. Peltimikko (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Please note that I seek comments of uninvolved editors before addressing counter-arguments. However, I would like to point out that while my opponents here are happy with status quo, I am trying to improve the article by bringing it closer to NPOV. (Igny (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
  • No, you are trying to push a Soviet Russian nationalist and negationist POV. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• That the Baltic republics were liberated from the Nazis is the majority point of view in the world How should one view the events of 1944 when the Soviet Army drove the Germans out of Lithuania, Estonia and most of Latvia? As the liberation of the Baltic State from the Nazis? As an important step towards the final victory over Nazism? Undoubtedly, and this is precisely how the events are perceived in the world. In Russia the perception is especially strong, with it forming part of the basis of national self-awareness.[3]. On the other hand, theory that the states were 're-occupied' contradicts the majority of encyclopedic sources which state that the republics were restored as part of the USSR after the war (Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia[4], Hutchinson encyclopedia, Blackwell Reference, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Britannica)--Dojarca (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dojarca, you are trolling. It has been explained to you in numerous occasions that the Baltics were incorporated into the Soviet Union de facto, not de jure. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

They were incorporated. Period. Some countries (and the United Nations) recognized it de-jure and some only de-facto.--Dojarca (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR in 1940 and "the republics were restored as part of the USSR after the war" - it is quite logical that occupation was restored, hence the title of this article. As suggested elsewhere on this page, the wording "gained control" is a neutral way of describing what occured after the liberation from Nazism. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Occupation(if existed) ended in 1940 after the republics were incorporatied in the USSR. This is the point of view of Russia, UN and any countries that recognized territorial integrity of the USSR.--Dojarca (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would appreciate if owners of this article stopped interrupting my work in progress. That is, of course, if you want a better article, and not a pile of nationalistic POV. (Igny (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

I think, if you want avoid "a pile of nationalistic POV", then you should stop inserting a particular nationalistic POV and follow the NPOV yourself instead. --Sander Säde 07:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A comment from an uninvolved third party: The Stalinist Soviet conquest of the Baltic states was not a "liberation", that's only a POV held by supporters of Stalin's genocidal regime. The fact that one occupying power was replaced by a different occupying power didn't mean the countries were "liberated". Besides, most of the population of those countries actually preferred the Germans over the Russians and viewed the Germans as the liberators. I don't see any "downplaying" of the outrageous Stalinist POV, but obviously, the article should primarily rely on mainstream views supported by English language literature. The "official POV" of an authoritarian and underdeveloped state like Russia that has yet to come to terms with its history, that contradicts the views of all serious scholars and most of the world, is less relevant. I vehemently oppose treating Stalin's POV as equally valid as the mainstream views of serious scholars. That would mean official Nazi views also had to be treated as equally valid in all relevant articles. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two aspects to the word "liberation" - the physical liberation from Nazism, the Nazis did not just dissolve into thin air by themselves - and the Soviet propaganda of Balts being ever grateful of being "liberated". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that sense, the German invasion would also be a liberation (from the Soviets and the initial occupation). Is the German invasion also described as "Germany liberated the Baltic countries etc."? I don't think so. It's not neutral or scholarly language. Liberation in English means that you become free. But the Baltic countries weren't freed in any way, only the occupying power was replaced by a different one and the countries remained occupied for decades. Virgil Lasis (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The German invasion was actually considered as a "liberation" by many Latvians for a brief period after the "Horrible Year" (Latvian: Baigais gads) under Soviet rule. The word "liberation" is neither neutral nor scholarly, that has been my point until now. But, it seems there is a black and white approach to the word. You are right, that liberation in English means that you become free - but, noone ever attributed a fixed duration to that notion. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with User: Peltimikko, who pointed out that "liberation" is Soviet propaganda with no academic background. The article needs to be based on scholarly sources, not Soviet propaganda and stalinist historical revisionism. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think I am done at the moment with improving this article, notwithstanding Virgil Lasis' vandalism. Please note that we have successfully found a middle ground between calling events in 1944-45 as liberation from Nazis (Soviet POV) and Soviet occupation (western POV): both can coexist in the same article if nationalistic feelings of certain editors are put aside. I am still watching this article of course, and looking for sources to improve it further. Thank you for attention. (Igny (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• • The only vandalism to this article is your extreme edits. Virgil Lasis (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming in late... Calling it "liberation" IMO is valid, unless you think control by Nazis was a good thing. That the Sovs were little better doesn't change that. It's a narrow technical usage IMO, rather than a broader cultural one comparable to "women's liberation movement", say. Nor is it IMO a matter of Sov/Western POV, tho I can see why Igny says so. The subsequent Sov not leaving makes it occupation, IMO, but the initial act was liberation. (Have I succeeded in having it both ways? ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Extremist POV pushing, describing Soviet occupation as "liberation"

The extremist POV pushing of User:Igny, including the attempt to describe the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states as a "liberation", supported only by a politically extreme, Soviet source, is unacceptable.[5] The very destructive POV pushing of User:Igny, that damages the neutrality of the article, needs to be stopped. Having an article that describes Soviet crimes/occupation as a "liberation" damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Virgil Lasis (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone would pay attention to unfounded accusations of a vandal, especially if you are likely to be a sockpuppet of someone who was blocked for nationalistic POV pushing. (Igny (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Stop being ridiculous. Your extreme POV pushing speaks for itself. Your nationalistic POV pushing has already been pointed out by other users on this talk page. As for vandalism, your edits are the only edits I've seen to this article (and some others) that can be characterized as such. Virgil Lasis (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That the baltic republics were liberated in 1944 is the primary point of view in the world[6]. This article presents a minority POV as the only truth.--Dojarca (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are definitely mistaken. The predominant view of most of the world, as well as the official view of the Baltic states (as demonstrated by many of the article's sources), is that the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union in 1939, briefly interrupted by a German occupation, and then from 1944 remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the fall of communism. The predominant view is that the Baltic peoples were subject to totalitarian Russian oppression, a criminal occupation regime and genocidal policies, and denied their human rights for decades. Only Russian historical revisionists claim that the Baltic countries were not occupied. The article should be based on mainstream science and the official view of the countries in question, not Russian science fiction and historical revisionism and/or genocidal irredentism, i.e. fringe theories with no academic credibility.

Russia is an underdeveloped and authoritarian country with a very weak academic tradition in the field of history (and many other fields), that urgently needs to come to terms with its history instead of praising criminals and mass murderers like Stalin. Outrageous views of the current authoritarian Russian government should be treated by Wikipedia like we treat North Korean or Iranian views that differ from the views held by the rest of the world. Of course we can mention the negationist view held by the Russian government, but it should not be given undue prominence or presented as the truth. It's an established fact within the academic discipline of history that the claim that the Baltic countries were not occupied is a negationist view. Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How should one view the events of 1944 when the Soviet Army drove the Germans out of Lithuania, Estonia and most of Latvia? As the liberation of the Baltic State from the Nazis? As an important step towards the final victory over Nazism? Undoubtedly, and this is precisely how the events are perceived in the world.[7]. Also do you know what occupation is? I can tell you. situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. This is the definition by International Red Cross. No country can occupy their own territory.--Dojarca (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Baltic countries were not Russian or Soviet territory. They were independent states, recognized by most democratic states, that were occupied from 1939 to 1991 by the Soviet Union, Germany and the Soviet Union again. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

They were Soviet territory. You can refer to any encyclopedy (Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia[8], Hutchinson encyclopedia, Blackwell Reference, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Britannica). Also neither United Nations nor any UN agency recognized them. And I am sure most countries also doid not.--Dojarca (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, some debate. That is what should be expected from any serious editor instead of hastily vandalizing the article and calling to your brothers in arms at the talk page.

You are definitely mistaken. The currently predominant Anglo-Saxon view now is indeed that Allies liberated Western Europe while SU occupied the Eastern Europe. At the turning point of the Nazi invasion, there was an agreement at the Yalta conference which shaped the post-war Europe. No one raised the issue of Soviet occupation back then. But later, at the peak of the Cold War there was a reassessment of what SU did in the war. Suddenly it became an occupation. You are talking about historical revisionism, and here you are right West has rewritten history in 1947-80, and Baltic nationalist revisionists happily joined the chorus in late 1980s. If I were "extremist" as you labeled me, I could have rewritten the whole article from the current official Russian POV, split the article into Occupation of Baltic by Nazis and Annexation of Baltic by Soviet Union, but I didn't. I merely increased visibility of the Russian POV which was indeed downplayed to the status of a fringe theory by the Baltic editors here. And mind you, I have done so with strong adherence to NPOV policy. Currently the article is way more balanced than it was before. (Igny (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

There is no need to increase the visibility of the Soviet POV. It's an unscholarly fringe POV much like the Flat Earth theory, it's worthless and rejected by the states in question and most democratic states. The consensus in the western world and the affected countries is that they were occupied from 1939 to 1991. The Soviet Union is a totally discredited state and its symbols are even criminalized in a number of countries including Lithuania where they are by law regarded as occupation symbols. Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Igny, could you please stop with the stupid "Baltic nationalist revisionists" meme already? It is both a lie and an insult. As it has been demonstrated for your pleasure already, historians have always considered that Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states up to 1991 - no evil "revisionism" or "reassessment" was needed. So far you still haven't come up with any scientific sources to support your fringe theories, only opinion pieces from newspapers (which by and large, actually do not support your position - next time, perhaps analyze instead of grabbing quotes?) and a page from the infamous Institute of Democracy and Cooperation (that you have to go that low is a clear indicator in itself). The evil "reassessed" position, on the other hand, is present in dozens of scientific journals, monographies and books. --Sander Säde 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. But you also forgot that calling official Russian POV as revisionist extremist is no less insulting. (Igny (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

(ec) Ah, where have I called your view ("official"!!!) as revisionist? I must note again a lack of arguments or sources in your reply, as usual. What you are/were doing is comparable to pushing creationist views to articles about evolution, nothing more. --Sander Säde 15:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The position held by the Putin government differs from the position of all serious scholars in Europe (excluding Russia) and the United States, and most states and international institutions. It's worthless from an academic point of view, except that it proves the Russian government and the Russian society still has some work to do in regard to the democratization of the country and coming to terms with its totalitarian past and crimes of the Soviet Union. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the stable and perfectly neutral version of the article, as it was before the Soviet nationalist POV pushing, is reinstated. As a general principle, also note that political Soviet sources in the field of history[9] are worthless in every other regard than proving what the position of the Soviet Union or some Soviet institution/group/person was - much like Nazi sources - because they lack academic credibility and are not considered scholarly, but political, sources, within history as an academic discipline. The fact that some semi-official Soviet publication described the occupation as a liberation during the Cold War doesn't prove it was a liberation, it only proves that a totalitarian state, a state where all historical research was politically motivated and unscholarly, at the time described it as a "liberation". Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. You may forget the idea that it ever be implemented. (Igny (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Speak for yourself. You don't own the article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you call neutral stable version, I call a completely not neutral version in a frozen state of conflicts waiting to happen. By marginally increasing visibility of an opposite POV, I've reduced the chance of future edit wars. If you call for the return for POV version of the article, I would insist on rewriting the article to reflect Soviet/ Russian POV. Why don't you see that the current version is a compromise between two extreme POVs is beyond me.(Igny (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

A "compromise" between the Flat Earth theory and the mainstream theory in the article on Earth would be a bad solution, because it gives a discredited theory undue prominence. The article should also be compared to articles covering policies of Nazi Germany, which are not written as a "compromise" between the official Nazi POV and the POV of most other states. When the Nazi POV is dealt with, it's presented as the Nazi POV. Similarly, this article should of course describe the Soviet POV, but only as the Soviet POV, not as the truth. The Soviet POV needs to be given less prominence than the mainstream view of scholars and official view of most democratic states including all the affected states and international organisations and courts of law (the countries were occupied), and it needs to be dealt with in a critical way, as a politically extreme, not generally accepted point of view. Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Insisting on rewriting articles on European history from Soviet POV violates a bunch of policies (notably the policy on neutrality, the one on fringe theories and several others) and is similar to insisting on rewriting the article on Earth from Flat Earth POV. It would get you nowhere. Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, eliminating a valid POV (even if you call it flat Earth theory it isn't), violate NPOV. That is why the current version is good enough compromise, which adheres to NPOV more than any other version. (Igny (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

No, describing the Soviet occupation as a "liberation", as it was a fact, merely citing a political Cold War-era Soviet source, which has no scholarly value, is not NPOV. Igny, please stop revert-warring[10] your Soviet nationalist and fringe theory POV into the article. Numerous users have asked you to stop pushing Soviet nationalist POV in this article and your edits have been reverted by several users. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my attention the team tagging issue, but it is not surprising to me, nor it is the first time this happened. This is actually precisely the reason why I regret that User:Piotrus was blocked and topic banned. He saw the middle ground when he looked at it. (Igny (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

There is no team issue, I wasn't even aware of this article or any of its other contributors until yesterday. There may be a team issue of some users pushing extreme Soviet POV on multiple articles and often cooperating with the goal of distorting widely accepted historical facts, though - like attacking the article on Occupation of the Baltic states, which was seemingly a quite neutral and encyclopedic article for a long time in order to enforce Soviet POV. I don't know Piotrus, so I don't have any opinion of him. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Team tagging is not just about canvassing, it is also about edit-warring as a team. From WP:TEAM:

Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus."

Sounds familiar? (Igny (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Your additions to the article are both politically extreme fringe theories, insulting and POV. You should NOT be surprised that MANY users will disagree with you, as they indeed have. I don't know any of the other contributors here. I'm just opposing your attempt to push an extremist POV like the claim that the Baltic countries were "liberated" in the article, and some other articles, like the article on the Cold War, where you tried to change the description of the fraudulent Polish legislative election, 1947 to "first Polish elections". Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my contributions extremist again. If you do not drop this offensive rhetoric, I will stop taking your arguments seriously. (Igny (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

I reserve the right to describe the POV that the Baltic countries were "liberated" by Joseph Stalin, when they were in fact occupied in 1939 and again in 1944 and the peoples of those countries severely persecuted, as extremist. I think most people including most scholars would agree with that view. It's similar to claiming that France was liberated by Nazi Germany. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, most people do not care about this events at all. And among those who care, there are about the same number of supporters of both POVs. (Igny (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Outside of Russia, I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who thinks Stalin was anything but a criminal and the biggest mass murderer of the century. I.e., the predominant view is that Stalin was a criminal and a mass murderer, and his policies were criminal and genocidal. His policies towards the Baltic countries constituted crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes, and have been ruled illegal by international courts and other bodies as well as the countries in question. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument, and a fallacy. I am not talking about Stalin here. (Igny (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Then who are you talking about? The Baltic countries were occupied in 1939 and 1944 by Stalin's regime, and the Baltic peoples severely persecuted by Stalin. You claim Stalin's armies "liberated" them. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very easy and at the same time very hard to argue with the straw man. Any outside observer would clearly see the logical fallacy in your argument, and yet to prove it to you may take quite some time. But to summarize what I am actually insisting on adding to the article, it was the different and well sourced perspective from POV of many Russians that they liberated the Eastern Europe, Baltic countries included, from Nazism in 1944-45. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

If you have a reliable source showing that "many Russians" "felt" that they "liberated" the Baltic countries in (1939 and?) 1944 (I'm sure most Germans felt the same way when they "liberated" the Baltic countries as well), there would be no problem including a sentence on how the "many Russians" viewed it somewhere. There is a separate section on how this is viewed by Russia. That is something totally different from revert-warring "The Soviet Union liberated the Baltic states" as it was a neutral fact into the main history section (section "End of German occupation"), backed up only by a Soviet source in Russian, which appears to be some official Soviet report from 1984, i.e. with no scholarly value whatsoever. The source doesn't prove the countries were liberated. The source only proves that a totalitarian state in 1984 claimed that the countries were liberated. It's similar to claiming that Germany liberated the Baltic countries in 1941, backed up with a Nazi-era German official source. It could easily be argued that most Germans and many Balts "felt" it that way.

• The Soviet Union invaded and occupied the Baltic countries in 1939 under the provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: Neutral fact
  • Only Stalinists and National Socialists recognize the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
• Germany invaded and occupied the then Soviet-controlled territories of the Baltic countries in 1941: Neutral fact
• Germany claimed that their invasion was a liberation (and many Balts, especially Latvians, considered the Germans as liberators, especially early in the war): Neutral fact
• The Soviet Union invaded and re-occupied the then German-controlled territories of the Baltic countries in 1944: Neutral fact
• The Soviet Union claimed that their invasion was a liberation: Neutral fact
• The Baltic countries officially consider the Soviet Union and Germany as occupying powers, and neither of them as liberators: Neutral fact

To sum it up, the Baltic countries were invaded and occupied by two different countries which both claimed they were liberators, a claim that is rejected by the Baltic countries. The first country that, unprovoked, invaded and occupied the Baltic countries, and the country which occupied them for the longest period by far and was responsible for severe persecution of Balts including deportation of large numbers of people to Gulag concentration camps, was the Soviet Union. The Soviet occupation is considered to be an illegal occupation by all the governments of the Baltic countries, and additionally by the European Parliament, international courts, the United Nations, the United States, in short, everyone who matters in today's world. Its symbols (flag, anthem etc.) are even considered criminal occupation symbols in Lithuania and other countries and banned by law as extremist. Virgil Lasis (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. Wording and emphasis is vital on how the neutrality is conveyed throughout the article. Still, the Baltics were "liberated" from Nazism - even though the guys who "liberated" them only left in 1994. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You know Soviet army left Germany in 1989 as well. Do you contest it was liberated from Nazism in 1945?--Dojarca (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberated? Hardly. All areas that came under Soviet control remained unfree, where people where murdered and oppressed and countless crimes against humanity and war crimes were committed, people were oppressed, persecuted and denied basic human rights for decades, until the liberation, which took place only in 1990, when freedom and democracy was restored. The fact that western Germany became a free country had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, on the contrary. West Germany had to use enormous amounts of its national budget to defend itself against the Soviet Union from the 1950s to 1989-1991. It remained a free country throughout the (cold) war due to the enormous efforts of the West Germans and its allies and friends, the United States in particular.

The word liberation is only used in political propaganda to describe a situation when a state regains control over its own territory that had been temporarily under the control of a different country (occupied). Germany was hardly occupied by anyone before 1945. The same is the case in the Baltic countries, they were free, independent states, and didn't need any "liberation" in 1939. They were in a constant state of occupation by the two signatories of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (=the Soviet Union and Germany) from 1939 to 1991. They were liberated, in the correct (non-stalinist) sense of the word, in 1991. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Soviets left East Germany in 1989, but all of Germany was liberated from Nazism in 1945. Most western european countries were liberated from Nazism, but did not have totalitarian regimes installed, even though authoritarian thinking parties were still allowed. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 23:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not correct to use the word "liberation" in this context, specifically not in regard to the Soviet invasion of the Baltic countries, or Germany, because "liberation" is in the context of invasions and territorial conquests only used to describe a situation when a country regains control over its own territory. Neither the Baltic countries nor Germany are Soviet territory. The political (ab)use of the word "liberation" in a more loose sense is irrelevant here. Stalinism was no better than Nazism. Areas invaded by the Soviet Union did not become free. In many areas, conditions became worse for most people. Being occupied is the exact opposite of being liberated, strictly speaking. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So, what do you call what the Allies did to Nazism in Europe in 1945 in neutral terms? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 23:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

They defeated (and occupied) Germany and its allies. NPOV is not that complicated, really. An encyclopedia should use the formally correct terms, not unprecise, politically charged rhetoric. Terms like surrender or occupation have precice and undisputed legal meanings, the word "liberation" doesn't have a precice or legal meaning, but is political rhetoric. Also, states, not political movements, can engage each other in war. What is relevant as far as this article is concerned, though, is the alleged "liberation" of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1939/1944 - an outrageous claim as these countries weren't Soviet territory, but were occupied since 1939. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So they did - defeated Germany and its allies. Yes, that is neutral point of view - what took you so long? :) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Took me so long? I have never asserted anything else. Point is, the word liberation doesn't add anything of value to the article as it doesn't have a precice definition, it's never a neutral fact, it's a political term, and if used in the article, it should be presented like "the Soviet government claimed that they liberated the Baltic countries" or something in that direction. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, excuse my tongue in cheek comment above, but many discussions can be cut short by describing what things are, instead of describing what they are not. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So as I predicted you do not consider defeating Nazism liberation. Should Liberation of Paris be renamed in this case? Maybe it should be moved to Occupation of France (1945-2009) just because the legitimate collaborationist French government was overturned by the Allies and the power still has not be returned to its successors?--Dojarca (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

These comments do not deserve an answer. Virgil Lasis (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "occupation". Indeed it is a legal term, referring to exercising military control over foreign territory. Using the term "occupation" in this article means Wikipedia takes sides with those who contests territorial integrity of the USSR in 1940-1991.--Dojarca (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not using the term occupation means taking side with a totalitarian state and contesting the territorial integrity of the Baltic countries. If we were to accept Sovet annexation of the Baltic countries, then all Nazi German wartime annexations must be treated in the same way (they are obviously not). A fundamental change of policy, in other words. Other articles are based on what is the mainstream view of scholars, democratic states, international courts of law and other international institutions. The view of the countries in question (the Baltic countries), major democratic countries like the United States, important international bodies like the European Union, the United Nations and international courts of law, carry more weight than the POV of a former, totalitarian state like the Soviet Union, IMHO. Virgil Lasis (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, Wikipedia does not promote point of view of democratic powers, the only rule is neutrality, not the benefit of democracy. Please tell me what Wikipedia's rule says Wikipedia should represent point of view of the United States? Should in this case we depict Kosovo as an independent country? By the way, 'democracy' is an ambiguious term. For example, I am sure so-called countries of people's democracy never disputed that the Baltic republics were incorporated in the USSR. Regarding international organizations, United Nations never recognized independent Baltic states before 1990s and accepted them in the UN only as successors to the respective Soviet republics. Regarding courts, I know that European Court of Human Rights in the Kononov vs. Latvia case ruled that Kononov should be judged according the Soviet law which was in force in Latvia in 1943. When Baltic states demanded Germany to pay them reparations for the war, a German court ruled that all reparations to the USSR already paid, so the Baltic states being parts of the USSR at the time have no right to receive any further reparations.--Dojarca (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding scolars, Dietrich Loeber (a proponent of the occupation theory) in his article in Baltic Yearbook of International Law, Volume 3 (2003) admits that there is no scholarly consensus on the issue and outlines 12 differnt points of view of his opponents published in major journals on legal science in USA, Great Britain, France, Russia, and Germany. Among those who does not support the theory of the legal continuity of Baltic states he cites numerous opponents, including Martti Koskenniemi, Marja Letho, Ruiz Farbi, Rein Muellerson, Shaw, Oliver Doerr, Ebenroth, Stern, Beauchense, Eisemann, Torrequadrada, Richard Visek, Tarja Langstrom, Stem, Hermanis, Albats, Himmer, Herad, Turp, Cassese, Grashoff, Hafner, Boizel, Lech Antonowicz, Czaplinski, Saxer, Tichy, Crawford, Weyer, Duursma, Grant, Stanislav Chernichenko.--Dojarca (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia doesn't automatically need to accept the American point of view. The point is, the countries themselves and their democratically elected, legimate governments, consider the Soviet Union and Germany as occupying powers. Most of the international community, the United States was only an example because it's the world's most important country, accept the view of the Baltic states today. The question of whether an annexation was accepted by democratic countries does seem to be an issue in other cases. Insisting that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (including the Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries) was legitimate is not a mainstream view in Europe - that would obviously also mean accepting the German claims under the provisions of the pact, like German annexations of parts of Poland. We can describe the points of view of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but not present them as the truth. Virgil Lasis (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether the countries are democratic plays no role in Wikipedia. There are 13 different points of view in academic community and only one of these 13 supports idea of legal continuity of Baltic states. Why only one of these 13 is represented as as fact here? There are numrerous jurists who contest the official position of Baltic states for various reasons.--Dojarca (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even I know the answer to that question: The different points of views are not represented since noone introduced them as verifiable sources. Or did I miss something? Lettonica (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

the theory of the legal continuity of Baltic states? this is a misunderstanding at best. The "legal continuity" of Baltic states is not a theory but the doctrine held by all the Baltic states. At the same time anybody is free of course to question how and when any third state should celebrate its birthday. But like you already were kind enough Dojarca to provide the source clearly spelling it out on page 36 "The majority of states are in accordance with the position of the Baltic states relating to their international status". So it seems the Baltic states should be free to celebrate their independence days like they used to.--Termer (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Kononov vs. Latvia: the text is here]. I can spot nothing on the Soviet law being in force in Latvia. Instead, the European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States have repeatedly concluded that an illegal occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union took place in 1940 and: "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991" [11]. This is about the closest to NPOV as it gets under the circumstances. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In the instant case, the parties and the third party intervener agreed that the applicable domestic criminal legislation applicable to the events of 27 May 1944 was the Criminal Code of Soviet Russia, which was adopted in 1926 and became applicable to the Latvian territory by virtue of the decree of 6 November 1940.[12]--Dojarca (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote does contradict the European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States but it does not override them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Igny, your conduct replacing content sourced from the European Court of Human Rights with something sourced from Mr. Putin is way out of line. Putin is not a historian and his opinion will never replace the conclusions of the Court of Human Rights on Wikipedia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "liberated" as in "liberated from Nazism" as in "became free of Nazism" was well sourced and neutral term put in the right context (end of German occupation). The circumstances of how the occupation ended should be put in the right perspective and the Russian / Soviet POV is justified in this section and liberation from Nazism should be pointed out as a fact and not as a mere opinion. The western POV is discussed elsewhere, it was not erased from the article. And stop readding Western POV into a section on Russian POV. (Igny (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Your claims are completely preposterous. The Soviet invasion of the Baltic countries was not a liberation any more than the German invasion of the Baltic countries. If the Soviet invasion is described as a liberation, the German invasion must be described as a liberation too. After all, it was a liberation from stalinism.

But frankly, I don't think the word "liberation" has anything to do in the article at all. "Liberation from nazism" and "liberation from stalinism" are political rhetoric (propaganda) that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article (except maybe in the description of Soviet and German propaganda, respectively), and that has nothing to do with the correct terminology as far as territorial conquests are concerned. Neutral words with actual, undisputed (and partially legal) meanings include invasion, occupation, conquest. Several other neutral words exist that can describe the fact that one country took control over a territory. "Liberation" doesn't have any meaning at all, it's pure propaganda (in this case, the propaganda of the regime of Joseph Stalin, widely considered to be criminal today). Please stop adding your own point of view to the article and please stop adding worthless Soviet sources that don't add anything of value to the article and don't prove any of your outrageous claims as I explained to you above. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you realize that every time you use the words "worthless" or extremist with respect to reliable sources, your arguments lose any value. (Igny (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

I must point out once again, Igny, that you did not respond to the issues raised. That leaves an impression that you are not capable of doing so - or not willing to discuss the problems.

While I disagree with Virgil Lasis in his use of rhetoric, he does raise a valid point. We have Nazi sources describing how they "liberated" Baltics from Soviets and Soviet sources describing how they "liberated" Baltics from Nazis. So what exactly is the difference between those two "liberations" and why exactly should we treat them differently from each-other? As a result, Baltic states remained occupied in both cases.

--Sander Säde 09:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Igny, please answer a straight question by simply 'yes' or 'no': Did the Baltic nations become free in the result of the Baltic Offensive? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they became free of Nazism. That is what the article says SU liberated them from Nazism, with sources. (Igny (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Are you saying, the Soviet Union did not control the Baltics since 1944? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A 1984 Soviet political source is not a "reliable source" in any other aspect than proving what the position of the Soviet Union, a former totalitarian country that is totally discredited today and condemned by most of the world, was in 1984. It does not prove that the Baltic countries were "liberated" any more than Nazi-era German sources describing their invasion as a liberation prove that the Germans liberated those countries. The description as extremist and worthless in a scholarly context of course refers to the fact that the source was published by the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union and has no academic credibility (it's not a reliable source and it does not corroborate your claims in any way), I think most people today consider totalitarian ideologies to be extremist - a Nazi source would be extremist in exactly the same way (Wikimedia Commons even has a disclaimer that file descriptions from a German archive that dates from the Nazi era might be "politically extreme" - the same of course would apply to anything published in the Soviet Union. When I used that word, I did it in the same, legitimate sense as Wikimedia Commons does, merely pointing out that it was (old) political propaganda published by the Soviet Union, not a scholarly, reliable, neutral, relevant or mainstream source). Virgil Lasis (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberation by Nazis (arbitrary break)

The issue of "liberation by Nazis" was raised here. The difference between these claims was the outcome of the war, who ended up victorious in that war mattered. Surely, if Nazism won, all the textbooks ended up claiming that Nazis liberated the world from Stalinism. Unfortunately for the Nazism, as a direct result of the Nuremberg trials, they did not liberate anybody from anything. Just ask 90+ percent of the Baltic Jews. As Soviet Union got their victory, they also got the right to the "liberation claims". Of course, as the Cold war erupted, the Soviet claims came under scrutiny in the West. And after Soviet Union dissolution, the Baltic historians joined the chorus, rewriting the past. That is what called historical revisionism. (Igny (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

"As Soviet Union got their victory, they also got the right to the "liberation claims""...??? Says who? That's really completely irrelevant. Besides, the Soviet Union lost the last and most important war, the cold one. As a consequence, all the Baltic countries officially consider the Soviet occupation as an illegal, criminal occupation. That's the only thing that should matter by your logic. It's not relevant to ask only a small percentage of the population of the countries, ask the Balts whether they were "liberated" by the Soviet Union. No, the mainstream view in democratic countries, that has been established by international courts of law, the European Union, bodies of the United Nations, and the United States, is not "historical revisionism". The claim that Stalin "liberated" anyone, specifically those he persecuted and murdered, is definitely historical revisionism. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Baltic states did not win the Cold war. They did not liberate Soviet Union in 1990. Soviet Union liberated them (set them free) in 1990. And again I am not talking about Stalin here. (Igny (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

The Baltic states were liberated from communism, to use wordings similar to the ones you prefer, in 1991. The Soviet Union didn't liberate anyone in its history, it fell apart. The Soviet invasions of the Baltic countries obviously had a lot to do with Stalin, the undisputed dictator of the Soviet Union - much like "Hitler invaded Poland" is a common expression, one can certainly say that Stalin invaded various countries including Poland and the Baltic countries. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just read User_talk:Igny/Annexation_of_Baltic_states_by_Soviet_Union. User:Illythr has valid arguments that he tries to explain to you in a polite way. You, on the other hand, are pushing some conspiracy theory that the Baltic countries are not really independent today because they are NATO and EU members. It should be clear to everyone that such theories have nothing to do in an encyclopedia. As Ilythr puts it: "As I said, complaining about things will not help anything at all. Everyone makes their own choices and Wikipedia is definitely not the place to chide about it" Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was a polite debate (in contrast to this one). And it was not a conspircy theory it was my personal opinion based on what I have read in the past. I am entitled to disclose my personal opinion at the talk pages without the need to provide sources, right? (Igny (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

You are also pushing your personal opinion in the article, without backing it up with reliable sources, only providing irrelevant Soviet sources. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not, so stop trying to offend me with you baseless accusations. (Igny (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Then stop offending other editors by edit warring. Now back to the issue at hand. You are saying, the Baltic states were liberated from communism in 1991 which means, they were not set free of communism in 1944. Therefore the term "liberate" is wrong for 1944. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The year and the context (section on "end of German occupation") are correct for getting rid of Nazism. (Igny (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Did you read the discussion carefully? I said that the Baltic states were liberated from communism in 1991, when using the same sort of expressions as Igny who is edit-warring the POV statement "The Soviet Union liberated the Baltic states from Nazism" into the article. I don't really think we should use unencyclopedic POV propaganda like that in the article at all. But if he persists with his edit-warring, we should also change the description of the German invasion to "Germany liberated the Baltic countries from Stalinism in 1941" in order to maintain neutrality. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Now it is reductio ad absurdum, the logical fallacies in your arguments just annoy me, but they do not mean you are right. (Igny (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Even after getting rid of Nazism, the Baltics were not free. Therefore it is incorrect to use the term 'liberate'. However, the Soviets could get credited using other words. How about: The Soviet Union disposed the Nazi regime and resumed its occupation... for a compromise? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with use of disposed Nazi regime. Resuming occupation is discussed the very next section, there is no need to point it out in a section discussing the Soviet achievement. (Igny (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

'Resumed its occupation' is unacceptable because it means taking sides by Wikipedia. I suggest 'restored as part of the USSR' if you do not like 'liberation'--Dojarca (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I still do not get your drift. If the United Nations representing every capable country in the world including Russia and the European Court of Human Rights including members from every European country including Russia represent the Western POV then are you saying no NPOV can exist? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is true in general. Practically, any statement is a POV in some way. We just attempt to combine the statements in a neutral way. (Igny (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

United Nations does not represent the so-called 'Western POV'. United Nations never recognized the Baltic States before the USSR did.--Dojarca (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Except we are not required to give equal standing to fringe views, see WP:FRINGE. And "liberation" definitely is a fringe view, as can be seen from a lack of modern scientific sources supporting it (0 so far). Just because there are creationist nutcases out there, that is not a reason to give equal validity to creationism in Evolution article. --Sander Säde 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How the dominant view in the world [13] can be a fringe view????--Dojarca (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I second Sander Säde. I have indeed been pointing out repeatedly that "liberation" is a politically extreme fringe view that should not be given undue prominence. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just keep "occupied", it's neutral, correct and encyclopedic, and is the official view of the countries in question and the rest of the world except Putin's Russia. "Disposed Nazi regime" is not a very encyclopedic wording, it sounds rather odd. In that case, I would want to use a similar wording for the 1941 German invasion, arguably, it disposed the Stalinist regime and should by the same logic be credited with that. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: NPOV: This the policy: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." A quote from the Soviet historiography or from Putin can be regarded as a POV but not as a reliable source itself. Instead, the UN and the European Court of Human Rights represent the NPOV on political matters. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is also not true. European court of human rights does not represent NPOV. It represent itself. The same is with the UN. By the way, UN never recognized the Baltic States before the USSR did and accepted the states as successors to the respective Soviet republics.--Dojarca (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Every capable organisation and scholar represents itself while if their analyses are correct from a NPOV, they represent that as well. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And 'Resumed its occupation' is unacceptable in an article titled Occupation of the Baltic States which says the "Red Army troops occupied the three Baltic nations" in 1940? How schizophrenic is that? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Any occupation if existed ended when the states were incorporated in the USSR: no country can occupy its own territory. Just as Allied occupation of Germany ended with the creation of GDR and West Germany.--Dojarca (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your hypothesis could make sense were it ever shared by a reliable historical analysis. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is common definition of occupation.--Dojarca (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-Soviet, non-Putinist source for the case of the Baltics 1944, please. Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On "Any occupation if existed ended...no country can occupy its own territory" interesting logic this "you can't occupy what's already yours" something we've heard here many times. The way I'm getting this: if you steel something it becomes yours after you've put it into your pocket; or once a stolen item is in your pocket it's no longer steeling?--Termer (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not as simple as someone tries to represent. Occupation means that the territory is controlled by a hostile army and is ruled by some occupation law (separate form an occupant's domestic law). The Baltic states were converted into Soviet republics (with same degree of autonomy as other republic had), and their population was treated as the Soviet Union's citizens. Their position in the USSR was indistinguishable from that of other republics, so I see no signs of conventional occupation here. Of course the annexation of these states (performed de facto via initial military occupation) was hardly legal (and is considered illegal by many states), therefore, these states can be considered "illegally annexed". However, this relates more to the way these states become the USSR's members, not to their status there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. The sources in support of my post:

"Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have been subjected to an intensive campaign aimed at integrating them into the Soviet Union. The Communists have reorganizedth e economy,d eportedt heir opponentsa, nd tried to re-educate the Baltic peoples in a spirit of devotion to the USSR. Since the death of Stalin they have let up somewhat, allowing a greater degree of personal freedom; but there is no indication that they would ever willingly give the Baltic nations their freedom. Despite their almost hopeless position, the Baltic peoples have continuedt o clingt o their old national ideals and to hope for liberation"

"ALTHOUGH the three Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia had previously existed as independent states for only two decades, their annexation in 1940 by the Soviet Union remains an international issue. While the USSR has steadfastly maintained that they entered into the Soviet Union of their own free will and has bitterly attacked any challenge to the legitimacy of their incorporation, the United States has refused to recognize this action and continues to grant diplomatic status to representatives of the former national regimes"(The Sovietization of the Baltic States Author(s): Alfred Erich Senn Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 317, The Satellites in Eastern Europe (May, 1958), pp. 123-129)

"BROADLY speaking, one might justifiably conclude that the Soviet Baltic republics, with the highest standard of living and the highest ratings in respect of almost all socio- and cultural-economic indicators' have not been victimized with regard to the general allocation of resources among republics in the Soviet Union. That is, one could not readily make a case for Russian or centralized-state imperialism or colonialism. Although the high levels of industrialization (especially of the technology-intensive type) and modernized agriculture are the underpinnings of the Baltic republics' high standard of living, there have been repeated accusations, both in the West and in the Soviet Baltic, that the rapid and intensive industrialization of the region has led to large-scale immigration, primarily of Russians. This population influx has in turn raised the spectre of russification and given rise to outbursts of political nationalism. Thus, in the Baltic case, one's concern needs to be focused on the possible latent functions of the over-allocation of developmental resources." (Population Processes and the Nationality Issue in the Soviet Baltic Author(s): Tonu Parming Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 398-414)

Krystyna Marek (Krystyna Marek Reviewed work(s):Baltic States: A Study of their Origin and National Development; Their Seizure and Incorporation into the USSR. by Igor I. Kavass ; Adolph Sprudzs Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 586-588) as well as the book she reviewed also speak about destruction of Baltic states "by their incorporation into the Soviet Union". In other words, by 1973 (the date the review has been written) these states had already been incorporated into the USSR. Therefore, I believe neutral sources confirm the major Dojarca's point: you cannot occupy the country you already annexed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

SYNTH and infobox

The infobox perfectly illustrates the synthesis of several different and easily distinguishable events into one article, events that share just one common characteristic, that some scholars applied one particular term to the events, which is the occupation of the Baltic states.

• Soviet invasion and annexation of Baltic in 1940 (Baltic vs. USSR)
• German invasion (Germany vs. USSR)
• The infobox does not mention the Holocaust (collaboration of the Baltic and German nationalists in extermination of the Jews), even though it should
• Soviet advance of 1944-45 (Germany and some Baltic nationals vs. Soviet Union and some other Baltic nationals)
• Resistance to the Soviet rule after war (Baltic vs. USSR) which is portrayed as part of the Cold war without references

Currently the infobox portrays the events as fighting between 3 belligerents as if the actions the Baltic nations were independent of the decisions and actions of Germany and USSR, and moreover it directly implies that the fighting with the Baltic countries resulted in the USSR collapse (I wonder why not the collapse of the Third Reich?).

Is there a possibility to divide the infobox into several parts describing the different phases of the "occupation"? (Igny (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

How should the infobox mention the Holocaust? By including the Jews as the fourth belligerent? That would be pretty WP:OR as Eastern Front (World War II) and analogous infoboxes list nothing of the sort.

It is unnecessary to cite the obvious fact of the occupation of the Baltic states being part of Cold war its main article discusses the Singing Revolution and the Occupation of the Baltic states article cites three sources mentioning the Cold war.

Here is what the Template:Infobox military conflict has to say about the belligerents: "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles." In other words, it is not standard to present even a third combatant party, furthermore fourth or fifth ones. In the events you have listed above, I can still spot only three distinct parties as already listed in the infobox. Or did I miss one?

Regarding 'collapse of the Soviet Union' - It does look a bit far out (although I sincerely do not see the connection with the collapse of the Third Reich) while entirely relevant. The essence of the collapse of the Soviet Union was its breakup into independent states, was it not, and the Baltics were the forerunners there. You are, however, welcome to propose an alternative expression of the outcome. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I may suggest Dissolution of the Soviet Union which ought to be split from the current location. The Baltic states may have been the first, but they were not the cause of the dissolution, as one historian put that, Baltic states did not liberate the USSR, the USSR liberated them (let them go) in 1991. Why territorial gain of Vilnius isn't mentioned in infobox? Is there a map comparing territories of the Baltic states in 1938, 1946 and 1991? (Igny (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

I do also think that the infobox in the current form doesn't make much sense. On the 'collapse of the Soviet Union', as if the result of the occupation of the Baltic states was the collapse of the USSR? It reads like the USSR collapsed because it occupied the Baltic states.--Termer (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility for the result could be Independence of the Baltic states or some such. You are so pre-occupied with mourning over your sad past that you forgot to create an article about your glorious present. (Igny (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks Igny for the idea. Just that the reason I haven't made an article about my glorious present on wikipedia has nothing to do with forgetting or being pre-occupied with mourning, you got that all wrong. I'm simply not too sure if an article about Termers glorious present would comply with WP:Notability guideline.--Termer (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Infobox: could you be more concrete, what does not make sense?

Re: Independence of Baltic States as the Result: Exactly the opposite is true. The three states were already independent before the occupation which resulted in the loss of independence of Baltic states for fifty years.

Re: glorious present: The independence of nations is not something glorious to highlight but their normal condition. Or how would Independence of Russia sound? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Infobox: could you be more concrete, what does not make sense?

It has to be split into parts to cover the different phases of the "occupation" with different combatants, different time intervals, different results. Imagine to combine two different battles with different results with different combatants into one infobox, even if the battles belong to the same war, it does not make sense. Here it is not even a war of the Baltic states, who were just pawns in a bigger game. To summarize, the current infobox shows the POV of a pawn in a chess match of several games between different opponents with different outcomes for the said pawn. And the infobox tries to portray the role of a pawn as if it were very important in the outcome of the games. (Igny (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

RE: split: Which fields should be split or are you talking about adding several infoboxes? Either way this leads directly to the question why should there be one article for the different periods of occupation anyway? Because if there is one occupation, it should be possible to describe it in one infobox. Even the Eastern Front (World War II) and World War II articles, which deal with much more complicated conflicts, have a single infobox each, with a single field for strengths, casualties, outcomes etc. for each belligerent party. The infobox merely summarises the article. If the infobox is SYNTH then so is the whole article and that is what we should discuss. It is normal to list different strenghts for different moments in time (if it absolutely necessary, you are welcome to introduce such numbers) and to indicate belligerents that switched sides (which is not the case here). Beyond that, it is just undermining the integrity of the article.

RE: pawns: Sure, the Baltics were pawns in the WWII, which does not stop us from having articles on what happened with those pawns during the tradeoffs. The importance of a conflict is exactly what an article and its infobox should present. Sure there were intermediate outcomes (just like Operation Barbarossa had an entirely different outcome than the Battle of Berlin), which still lead to a single outcome.

Re: not even a war of the Baltic States: I get the feeling that you are in a wrong talk page. This is not Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Baltic States but Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States which is about the military control of the Baltics by foreing powers. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "not even a war of the Baltic States". Correct. In connection to that, it is unclear for me the reason for the "belligerents" section here. Moreover, I cannot understand why is the infobox organized in a military campaign's style.

Re: "which is about the military control of the Baltics by foreing powers." I am not sure it is correct. The Baltic states were not under the "military control by foreign power" in 1945-91. That would mean that this territory was ruled under a separate occupation law, and it was legally separated from metropolia. In actuality, the same rights were granted to the Baltic citizens as to other Soviet citizens, and the republics as whole had the same legal status as other Soviet republics did. This was in a big contrast with the legal status of the Baltic states under Nazi (that fits all criteria of military occupation). Therefore, although it is probably correct to speak about illegal annexation, of Baltic states by the USSR, the statement that they were under military control of a foreign power in 1945-91 is misleading and reflects some national POV. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so 1945-91 was "illegal annexation" and 25+ international and scientific sources above calling it occupation are all "national POV"? Just give it up already and accept that your post-Soviet POV will always remain fringe views. --Sander Säde 20:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, 1945-91 was not a period of "illegal annexation". Illegal annexation took place in 1940, so during post WWII period these states were the annexed ("forcibly", "illegally", whatever) states. I hope you are able to see a difference between the status of, e.g. Estonia in the USSR and, e.g. Moravia in Nazi Germany. I believe the sources presented by me in the previous section may serve as a proof for my "fringe" views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see 25+ sources ranging from 1945 to modern day here. And majority of these are solid sources - peer-reviewed scientific magazines, monographies and so forth - not Soviet sources from the height of the Cold War (I consider any such sources to be worthless for Wikipedia, as they are propaganda rags when it comes to history). There is no doubt that majority of the historians in the world see both 1940 and 1945-1991 as Soviet occupations. And as for the just criminally wrong "cannot occupy the country you already annexed" meme, consider this: a thief steals a watch. Another thief fancies the watch and grabs it for himself. First thief notices it and steals the watch back. Is the thief now the lawful owner of the watch, as you cannot steal something that already belonged to you? --Sander Säde 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the sources provided by me were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, so they are at least equally reliable.

Secondly, we probably discuss two quite different issues: the way the countries were incorporated into the USSR and their status there. Of course, initially the Baltic states were annexed peacefully de jure and forcibly de facto. I believe the analogy with occupation of Czech republic by Nazi Germany would be more or less valid. In 1944, the territory of these states (although not necessarily the states themselves, because the Baltic stated hardly existed by that moment) was militarily occupied by the USSR. The sources meticulously collected by you perfectly confirm that, and I do not question, and I have no desire to question these obvious facts.
However, my point was quite different. According to the Webster dictionary, The word "occupation" has four different meaning, one of them is relevant to our case. "Occupation" means "The control of a country by military forces of a foreign power", in other words, it implies a presence of military administration that acts under some occupation law. Did that take place in the Baltic states in 1940 and in 1944? Probably, "yes" in 1940 and definitely "yes" in 1944. Did that situation last until 1991? Definitely not. The states were converted into Soviet republics and the same rights were granted to their citizens as to all other Soviet citizens.
In other words, your sources confirm that the military occupation took place in 1940s, however, these sources do not confirm that that situation lasted until 1991. Therefore, they cannot serve as a support for your claims.
The anecdote on thief and the watch (or a wallet) has already been presented here at least twice, however, I propose to use more relevant analogy. Consider the Roman Empire. Obviously, a major part of her territory was occupied by Rome, but can you tell me how long this occupation lasted? Until the split of the Roman Empire? Until dissolution of the Western Roman Empire? Until Turkish conquest of Istanbul? No. The Roman provinces were occupied territory until ius civile had been granted to the occupied territories. By doing this, Roman authorities granted Roman citizen rights to the population of new territories, so they became Roman citizens, and the territories, accordingly, got a status of annexed territories.
I believe the 1945-91 status of the Baltic state can be much better illustrated by this analogy rather than by the funny, but fully amateurish considerations about a thief and the wallet.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. After looking again at the list provided by you I found that three sources (Hiden, Verschik and Rebas) do speak about the period of 1940-1991 as the period of "occupation", so they can formally be used as a support for the ideas you are pushing. However, Verschik seems to write about Yiddishism, she publish her article in the linguistic journal, so she, as a non-specialist simply didn't pay a due attention to usage of correct terminology. Other two scholars also seem to use "occupation" as a colloquial name for the period that started with Soviet occupation of the Baltic state and lead to their forcible incorporation into the USSR. Noone of there scholars wrote openly and clearly that during 1950s-80s the Baltic states were under a control of the Soviet Army (or some other form of foreign military administration). I believe, the article in its present form deserves the OR tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but latest of your three sources is from 1980. The lack of even remotely modern sources is a very clear indicator of fringe views. And as a Soviet army left Baltic states in 1991, then military occupation did end then. Compare it to post World War II Austria - occupation by allies officially ended in 1955 when their troops left. That despite the fact Austria had elected its own government in 1945, which had far more liberties then "governments" of Soviet republics.

Sources I linked above were to illustrate that a lot of scientists see 1945 events as a start of the second occupation (or continuation the first occupation). All of those sources describe it so. I did not look for more sources beyond the first twenty (and later pre-1950 ones demanded by Igny), but it should be easy to find hundreds of sources from solely scientific journals, highest quality source that Wikipedia can have. As an icing on the cake, did you know that the Council of Europe passed resolutions denouncing the Soviet occupation of Estonia in 1960, 1963, 1983 and 1986 [14]?

And yes, the thief story was amateurish. I planned to added sentence saying that I am ashamed for humanity, because I have to to as low as using children's stories to adult people, who should grasp realities of the world without them, but decided it would push borders of civil behavior. However, your Rome-related musings are completely off-mark. Rome considered occupied territories to be annexed and happily joined the Roman empire, exactly the same way Soviet historiography describes how Baltic states happily joined Soviet Union. In reality, "happy" annexed territories had one revolt after another, constant Roman military presence was required to keep them as a part of the empire. See Jewish–Roman wars for a very well-known example. In the same way there was a constant resistance in Baltic countries. How long would have Soviet puppet governments lasted if not for constant Soviet military presence? Another fun tidbit, butchers of Operation Priboi got Order of the Great Patriotic War in 1949! Armed resistance continued well into the fifties, last of the forest brothers was killed in 1978.

Unless someone can come up with modern sources showing that "annexation theory" has a wide support among scientists (especially historians and scientists of law and political science), it will remain a fringe theory. In the same way creationism is, despite their claims of wide support of creationism among scientists (see Project Steve).

--Sander Säde 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, citing old woks does not constitute adherence to fringe theories per se. For instance, many Wikipedians extensively cite and quote Robert Conquest's works, however it is not a reason to accuse them in fringe theorisation. Please, familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:FRINGE for details.

Secondly, your sources confirm that in 1944 the Baltic states had been occupied by the USSR, however, it is unclear from these sources how long this military occupation lasted. You analogy with Austria does not work. American troops are still being stationed in, e.g., the FRG, however this does not mean that Germany is still an occupied country. Similarly, the fact that the US has military bases in many European countries does not mean that the Europe is occupied by the US. You seem to mix two things: the presence of the foreign military troops on some country's territory and governance of some country by foreign military administration. These are two quite different things.

Thirdly, politicians' opinion should be used with cautions. I believe you perfectly know that politicians' opinion can be politically motivated (e.g. Churchill's de facto approval of Soviet occupation of Poland). Let's stick with reliable secondary sources.

Fourthly, the fact that some guerilla warfare takes place in some territory does not mean this land is under military occupation. Are Basque country or Northern Ireland occupied, and were they occupied during 1950-90?

Fifthly, I do not push the "annexation theory". Conversely, you are pushing a theory according to which military occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR lasted until the USSR's dissolution. Please provide the sources that clearly and unequivocally confirm that, namely, that during 1950-91 the Baltic states were run by some Soviet military administration, and this rule was being performed based on the legislation separate from that in other Soviet republics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I believe Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia better fits the criteria of occupation: the USSR militarily invaded the country (without attempting to annex it), established a new administration and stationed military troops there. However, even in that case noone claims occupation lasted until the "velvet revolution": soon after invasion of Czechoslovakia a new domestic civilian administration had been established there. Although one can argue that that administration was a puppet regime, it was a their own civil, not foreign military administration, so CzSSR didn't have an occupied state's status.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

here we go again, -Paul Siebert: "The control of a country by military forces of a foreign power", in other words, it implies a presence of military administration that acts under some occupation law. It doesn't imply anything like you suggest. And your original theory about "civilian administration taking over-occupation finished" is completely flawed. First of all, how long would have those puppet civilian administrations lasted if they didn't rely on the Soviet military? 1 day perhaps? Or another way to put it, if the Soviet occupation ended after the civilian administration was set up, so would have Nazi occupation ended after the civilian governments started working during nazi occupation, no matter if in the Baltic states or Norway etc. Civilian Quislings only rule because they control a country by military forces of a foreign power.--Termer (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Re:First of all, how long would have those puppet civilian administrations lasted if they didn't rely on the Soviet military? 1 day perhaps? It should not be too hard to find an RS supporting such an obvious statement with an explanation why the Baltic administrations were considered puppet, and why existence of such evil governments proves the act of occupation. (Igny (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

I'd suggest to everyone concerned about this article to read on the differences between annexation and military occupation. (Igny (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Exactly. The question is whether the Baltic states were ruled by some military administration that treated them as foreign territories, or they were de jure incorporated into the USSR? The answer was obvious: according the Soviet domestic law made no difference between, e.g., Estonia and, e.g. Belorussia, in other words, this territories were not militarily occupied. The fact that this annexation (or, according to other sources, incorporation) was a result of military occupation is recognized by majority (if not all) western governments, however, that does not mean that the colloquially used term "Soviet occupation" can be applied to the whole period of 1945-91.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Indeed, the fact that the Baltic states consider themselves "occupied states during the Soviet period" [15] is indisputable. It should be mentioned in the article, however it would be a local POW pushing to build the entire article based on that concept. I would say that the most correct would be to speak about forcible military occupation and subsequent annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union. By the way, that is almost exactly what reliable sources say (se, e.g. Kavass, Igor I. (1972). Baltic States. W. S. Hein. http://books.google.com/books?id=_LRAAAAAIAAJ&q=Baltic+states&pgis=1#search_anchor.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting simply ridiculous. There are literally dozens of sources from all over the world, describing Baltic states as occupied until 1991. Opponents of that view have not been able to come up even a single peer-reviewed modern source with the "happy annexation" view. So what do they do? Word games and demanding more sources for occupation?! How dumb can this get? Again, I am reminded how creationists demand transitional forms and when they are given more and more evidence, they cover eyes and chant "la-la-la-I-do-not-see-this!"

Let's get facts straight:

• There are more than twenty sources above from scientific journals and monographies describic Baltic states as occupied until 1991, including interpreting 1945 events as second Soviet occupation or reoccupation. Finding more sources is not a problem.
• There is not a single modern peer-reviewed source that describes the opposite.
• Therefore, describing it as anything else but occupation is a violation of core Wikipedia principles and constitutes POV-pushing and simply vandalism.
• Alternate, fringe viewpoints are already present in the article. Trying to present them as majority viewpoints is unacceptable in light of multitude of sources opposing those viewpoints.

--Sander Säde 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "There are more than twenty sources". Overwhelming majority of sources presented by you do not confirm that the regime of military occupation lasted until 1991. The majority western sources speak about forcible military occupation and subsequent annexation (or incorporation) of Baltic states into the USSR, although consider that act illegal.

Re: "There is not a single modern peer-reviewed source that describes the opposite." Parrott, Bruce (1995). "Reversing Soviet Military Occupation". State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 112: "Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all understand themselves to have been, above all else, occupied states during the Soviet period." "Though the annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized by Western powers..." In other words, this contemporary source (that was introduced into the article not by me) clearly states that (i) the Baltic states were occupied; (ii) they were annexed, although the Western powers did not recognized this annexation as legal; (iii) the Baltic states themselves consider themselves as occupied until 1991. That is exactly what I am saying.

Re: "Therefore, describing it as anything else but occupation is a violation of core Wikipedia principles..." If you see any signs of vandalism, please report to WP:ANI, because all vandals must be blocked.

Re Fringe. Sources, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So when did the "military occupation" end? The Austrian example above (which you conveniently misinterpreted) had military occupation officially until the Allied troops left, despite the existence of freely elected government for majority of that time. And let me remind you that Baltic republics had puppet Soviet governments installed already in 1940 - and these governments existed in exile all through the war. According to your logic, 1945 events couldn't have been an occupation - and yet a multitude of peer-reviewed sources (including law magazines!) treat 1945 as return of Soviet occupation. It seems that claiming "happy annexation" in face of dozens opposing sources is simply original research/POV-pushing and nothing more.

And finally, a source! Fifteen-years old as modern... okay, at least it is a source, finally. However, it doesn't actually support your claims. The next two paragraphs after "Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all understand themselves to have been, above all else, occupied states during the Soviet period." are author's text, describing occupation of Baltic states. And "the Western powers did not recognized this annexation as legal" - yes, because they were considering it to be an occupation. There is a list of countries in the article who did not recognize Soviet incorporation of Baltic states into the Soviet Union - and list of those who did. Guess which list is far, far longer? Many legal entities (such as Council of Europe, European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council) treat the period 1945-1991 as Soviet occupation, what non-Soviet and non-Russian legal entities consider the incorporation legal? Other that the anecdotal evidence from 1950's Belgium marital court, that is.

I missed Igny's request for sources about puppet governments. Perhaps he could have done a simple Google Scholar and Books searches on the topic, but to help him get started on research, here are some searches with dozens of sources (I see no point to list every source; we would go down the road of "Human hand has five fingers"): [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. And just so it couldn't be claimed they are all about 1940, here is one extra source, "..were persuaded to become members of Zhdanov's Soviet puppet government in 1945."

Finally, fringe. Quoting WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence." Well, how about the fact that you are unable to provide decent scientific and legal sources supporting your views, while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for other views?

--Sander Säde 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A quote by John Laughland with regard to the fringe theories.

This theory of occupation is, quite simply, a lie. Occupation is a specific situation in international relations when one country dominates another by installing troops on its territory. The laws of occupation are laid out at length in the Hague Conventions of 1907. When a country is occupied, political and military power lies with the occupying authority. The citizenry remains legally powerless: it remains a separate legal category from the occupier. By contrast, when a country is incorporated into another state, its citizens become citizens of the incorporating state.

This is what happened to the Balts. They were Soviet citizens throughout the period 1944-1991. No doubt many of them resented this status and wanted to change it: this is what national liberation movements are about. But it is much a lie to say that these countries were occupied as it would be to say that Flanders is currently “occupied” by Belgium.

Taken from his blog (Igny (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

I deleted the text I wrote as a reply before posting. It would have been just uncivil. However, I think your cause might be served better, if you don't quote a blog by John Laughland to support your views. If you didn't know him before (I did), you may want to read up on him a bit. --Sander Säde 13:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand how his views are pissing you off, but I would take his word over yours on many issues in politics and international law. (Igny (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Sure. Just let me point out that unlike what he blogged, Hague Conventions 1907 doesn't have anything about citizenship. And I really don't think that anyone can deny the fact that 1940-91, in Baltic states "political and military power lied with the occupying authority". --Sander Säde 15:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No one argues that in 1944 the territory of Baltic States was militarily occupied, and that, for some period, the regime of military occupation existed there. I don't think also if someone can believe that new civil authorities were formed following internationally recognized legal procedure. Since the new authorities were established under auspices of military administration, and de facto were a result of the latter, some sources colloquially extend the term "military occupation" to the whole Soviet period. However, that is not what the serious sources, that paid significant attention to the analysis of the subject, do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Let me re-iterate the major thesis. The present dispute is about the difference between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation. The international laws clearly distinguish between these two since the end of the Napoleonic war, so I simply cannot understand why the article (that in actuality, covers both military occupation of Baltics by Germany or USSR and (much longer) period annexation by the USSR) mixes these two quite clearly different categories. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Paul, but what "serious sources"? The 1995 book that doesn't actually support your POV? Let's face it, international scientific peer-reviewed law journals call it occupation without any issues, international legal entities call it occupation, scientific monographies call it occupation - I think we can safely say that majority view is that Baltic states were occupied from first Soviet invasion up to 1991. We have loads of sources supporting that view.

And what is with the fixation with Webster definition? Last time I checked, Webster doesn't have any authority in the world of jurisprudence. But if you insist on dictionary definitions, see Random House Dictionary - and notice that all 3-7 apply. However, you want an actual definition, let's use the real law - Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Hague, October 18, 1907. "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Nothing about civilian government. Nothing about incorporation. Nothing about status of the citizens.

It is undeniable that Soviet forces were in control of Estonia - "authority has been established and can be exercised". Existence of civilian government is completely irrelevant - in the same way that it was irrelevant during the military occupation of Austria, which you so studiously ignore. Legal status of citizens is irrelevant. What matters is that Baltic states were under Soviet control, which was enforced by military. Hence, occupation.

--Sander Säde 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Random House Dictionary - and notice that all 3-7 apply." Let's see.

"3. possession, settlement, or use of land or property." Obviously, refers to possession by a person, not a state. Does not apply

"4. the act of occupying." I never argued that in 1944 the act of occupation took place. My major point is that that occupation was followed by almost immediate annexation or incorporation into the USSR.

"5. the state of being occupied." see above.

"6. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory" Of course, the control of the Baltic states was seized by force. How does it contradict to what I am saying?

"7.the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces" Again, that is exactly what I am saying: occupation of the Baltic states lasted only until they were under a control of the Red Army, and ended with annexation when civilian administration had been established there.

Re: "Article 42" The article clearly tells about "the authority of the hostile army", and explicitly states that the occupation lasts only until such a control lasts. You correctly noted that the article says nothing about civilian administration. That means that we cannot speak about any occupation of some territory/country when it is being governed by civilian administration. In connection to that, please provide a source that confirms that during a whole period of 1940-91 the Baltic states were (unlike the USSR proper) placed under the authority of theRed Army.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lauri Mälksoo, whom I would trust as the prime expert on the matter, says "Estonia was occupied by and annexed to the Soviet Union" throughout his works. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is almost exactly what I mean. More precisely, "occupied and then annexed". Since you cannot militarily occupy the annexed territory (annexation means that that territory is not considered foreign any more, therefore we cannot speak about the "the authority of the hostile army" there), the period of military occupation ended with annexation (or, according to other sources "forcible incorporation").--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The 1995 book that doesn't actually support your POV?" Please, compare what the source states and what I say, and show me a difference. With regards to 1995, please, explain what new facts became available since those times that changed our understanding of the issue. Finally, if you feel the source is not reliable, feel free to post to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, please, at least read your own sources. You quoted a sentence from the 1995 book, but ignored the fact that the very next two paragraphs discuss the Soviet era in Baltics as occupation - and the next section named "Reversing the Soviet Military Occupation", which discusses 1991-92 events, clearly labeling Soviet military as occupation forces. This is author's text and her opinion, clearly holding the view that Baltic states were occupied. It does sometimes help to read further, when you quote-mine, y'know. Creationists often step into the same trap, too.

And as for Mälksoo, his paper "Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportations in the Baltic States and International Law." (Lauri Mälksoo, 2001, Leiden Journal of International Law (2001), 14 : 757-787 Cambridge University Press - very respected scientific journal and publisher) has a section named "Repressive policies during the second Soviet occupation (1944–1991)", discussing 1994-1991 as occupation. And I would like to point out that the journal specializes in "international legal theory and international dispute settlement", so the peer reviewer(s) of the article would most certainly not allowed the article to be published if there would be a gross mistake about occupation.

"theRed Army" didn't exist beyond 1946, like Termer pointed out below, so I presume you mean the Soviet army. And you've got to be kidding. Governments of the Soviet republics did not have neither de jure nor de facto control of the military. The opposite was true, head of the government jumped when army told them to - army could demand any land for themselves, was not bound by law etc etc etc. If you have any sources stating the opposite, feel free to provide them.

"annexation means that that territory is not considered foreign any more" - and herein lies the key. Western world did not recognize the annexation (per your source, remember?) and therefore it remained a foreign territory for the Soviet Union. To recap, Soviet viewpoint, "happily joined our big family", did not consider them as a foreign territory, while Western world saw Baltic states de jure as independent countries occupied by Soviet Union. This also means that Article 42 of the Hague convention applies.

I see very little point to continue this conversation. You are unable to support your POV with sources. You are ignoring a multitude of sources opposing your view. You are ignoring facts presented to you.

--Sander Säde 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "but ignored the fact that the very next two paragraphs discuss the Soviet era in Baltics as occupation" I wouldn't say so. Although the source does not clearly says that the occupation ended with incorporation of the Baltic states in the USSR, it mentions that the USSR did that ("Though the annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized by Western powers...") In other words, the annexation did take place, although it was illegal from the western point of view. Again, frankly, I think this source can be be interpreted in two ways, so it cannot be used as an unequivocal support of either my or your POV. Similarly, with regards to the next subchapter, it is not clear what is meant under "vestiges of military occupation". The source does not clearly tell when the state of military occupation ended.

With regards to the Mälksoo's article, let me point out that the article pays no attention to the discussion of the legal status of the Baltic states. It tells about Stalinists' crimes there. And, by the way, it uses both "occupation" and "annexation" terms. Below is the verbatim quote from this article that demonstrates my point:

"The novelty of Courtois’ work is that he, rather than restricting himself to the moral condemnation of the Soviet mass “liquidations,” applies the categories of international crimes to Stalin’s policies. He recites the Soviet aggressions (e.g., the occupation and annexation of Eastern European states and territories following the Hitler-Stalin Pact), but especially crimes against humanity and what he provocatively calls “class genocide” (e.g., the liquidation of kulaks and the deliberate organizing of the Ukrainian famine in 1932–1933)." (page 758).

Let me also point out that Mälksoo is an Estonian researcher. Since the Baltic scholars generally consider their states to be occupied by the USSR during the whole Soviet period, it is not surprising that he uses this term. That reflects the national POV, and, taking into account that the article's subject is only tangentially related to the legal status of the Baltic states, it is not surprising that the journal's editors paid no attention to this minor terminological error.

The fact that annexation and occupation are interchangeable in general articles about the legacy of the Soviet rule in the Baltics (see, e.g., J. Shkolnik, "Grappling with the Legacy of Soviet Rule: Citizenship and Human Rights in the Baltic States" University of Toronto Faculty of Law Reviews, 1996, v. 54. She clearly speaks about the "period of annexation") does not mean that be have a sufficient ground to speak about the Baltic states as militarily occupied".

The fact that the Soviet army was present there, does not mean it played a role of occupation authorities. Yes, the army had a considerable free hand in the Baltics, however, the same was true for rest of the USSR, however, noone can speak about the USSR as the territory occupied by the Soviet army. Again, the only argument that can convince me is the source that clearly states that during the period of 1954-91 the Baltic states were placed under the authority of the Soviet Army. Since you are intended to add the material on the occupation of the Baltics the burden of proof rests with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Random break 2

Definitely some progress here, as you admit that your source does not actually support your POV. However, "Reversing the..." is clearly dealing with Soviet army in Baltic states after regaining the independence - and discussing it as occupation army. Not much ambiguity there. And as for Mälksoo, note that he uses Eastern Europe, not Baltic states when mentioning annexation, while specifically stating in headline that Baltic states were occupied. As for "Baltic researcher", let me remind you for the 1000th time, that various international legal bodies (list given several times above) treated and condemned occupation of Baltic states repeatedly both during and after the occupation. Various non-Baltic scholars discuss occupation of Baltic states in their peer-reviewed publications. There is no ambiguity in those court cases, condemnations etc etc - they unequivocally consider Baltic states to be occupied. Should we just disregard the opinion of some of the world's most important establishments, esp. as there are no comparable opposing cases?

From the introduction of Joanne Shkolnik's article: "Under Soviet occupation, the demographics of Latvia and Estonia were drastically altered and Russian-speakers were privileged in many facets of life at the expense of the local population." It is clear she means whole 1944-1991 period, not 1940 or few years after the war (major influx of russophones continued until mid-eighties). Since she uses occupation and annexation interchangeably, it is clear she has no problems treating it as occupation. It seems that many other scientists treat also illegal annexation and occupation of Baltic states as one and the same thing occasionally. What right do we have for original research here? We go the way sources go. Since ****load of sources are using occupation, what right do we have to go against the flow of the majority?

"Since you are intended to add the material on the occupation of the Baltics..." - sorry, but your sentence makes no sense. Could you clarify what you meant, please?

--Sander Säde 14:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "Could you clarify what you meant, please?" You want the statement that the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR during the whole Soviet period to be introduced into the article. Per WP:BURDEN the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Therefore, I expect you to provide the source that clearly states that the Baltic states were placed under the authority of the Soviet Army. You provided no such sources so far. The majority of sources tell about occupation and subsequent illegal annexation. Since a territory cannot be simultaneously occupied and annexed, these sources do not support your claim. The sources that simultaneously use both these terms to describe Soviet rule are hardly accurate enough to use them as a support of your claim. The policy says that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source", and, obviously, the opposite is equally through.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thankfully we have a source describing Soviet army as an occupying force - thank you for providing it. Section "Reversing the Soviet Military Occupation", Elaine M. Holoboff. 1995. Either she uses some other meaning of occupation or we have the reference you asked, easy. We have yet to find any source denying it.

Re: "Since a territory cannot be simultaneously occupied and annexed" - you know, when it is your opinion vs several scholars, I tend to trust them and not you.

Quite frankly, what are you aiming at here in this whole discussion? We have now a multitude sources describing Baltic states as occupied up to 1991. Scholars, courts, European Parliament, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council... you name it, we have it. Are they all wrong and you are right, because you believe you are right? You have no peer-reviewed modern sources nor court cases nor parliament resolutions denying the occupation and supporting the annexation. At best, you have some scholars who use annexation and occupation interchangeably. So what is the deal with pushing this viewpoint?

--Sander Säde 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "what are you aiming at here in this whole discussion?" My aim is quite simple: to separate occupation from annexation. What in actuality happened in Baltics was occupation, followed by annexation. When the territory is militarily occupied, the hostile military forces are treated as a foreign army by both sides, this army is involved into routine administration of the territory, and the population is not considered as the hostile power's citizens. None of that took place in the Baltics: the Soviet Army was involved into the governance not more then in other Soviet republics, the Soviet citizenship was granted (although forcibly) to all Baltic citizens, and legal status of, e.g. Estonian SSR was indistinguishable from that of, e.g. Belorussian SSR. To prove that all what I am saying is wrong you must present some source that explicitly state the opposite. I believe you have to do that per WP:BURDEN.

With regards to "Scholars, courts, European Parliament, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council", please, provide concrete quotes (it would be better if these quotes will be big enough to make sure that the words were not taken out of context). Please, keep in mind that the sources that mix "occupation" and "annexation" are a priory not acceptable as a proof for your claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And here we go again. I do believe you have the burden of proving that there is any support to your view - so far you have not been able to come up with absolutely anything besides original research. However, we can reiterate some of the sources again (I simply have better things to do then prove that the Earth is round), but I sincerely hope this is the last of this discussion.

• European Court of Human Rights. Kolk v. Estonia (23052/04), Kislyiy v. Estonia (24018/04): Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity: After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991. [24]. Other cases have expressed the same view (Penart v Estonia, 14685/04, [25])
• U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Communist Aggression (aka Kersten Committee) (Third Interim Report of the Select Committee on Communist Aggression, 1954, p. 8.). "That the continued military and political occupation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia by the USSR is a major cause of the dangerous world tensions which now beset mankind and therefore constitutes a serious threat to the peace."
• Statement by U.S. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey for Baltic Freedom Day June 12, 1966. "Despite alien occupation, oppression and mass deportation, the love of liberty burns strongly in Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian hearts." [26]
• United Nations, Human Rights Council, Mission to Estonia. 17 March 2008. "The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 assigned Estonia to the Soviet sphere of influence, prompting the beginning of the first Soviet occupation in 1940. After the German defeat in 1944, the second Soviet occupation started and Estonia became a Soviet republic."
• European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities C 42/78. "Condemning the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov-Rippentropp Pact and continues;"[27]
• European Parliament "21.5.2007. "Whereas Estonia, as an independent Member State of the EU and NATO, has the sovereign right to assess its recent tragic past, starting with the loss of independence as a result of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 and including three years under Hitler’s occupation and terror, as well as 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror"

"keep in mind that the sources that mix "occupation" and "annexation" are a priory not acceptable as a proof for your claim" - uhm, I think you had some mental hiccup in logic there. Souces that mix occupation and annexation are not acceptable for your claim. If a source mixes annexation and occupation when speaking of events up to 1991, it means they do not distinguish between occupation and illegal annexation, not that they deny occupation. However, when a souce uses occupation and annexation interchangeably, then it cannot be a proof of your annexation theory.

--Sander Säde 09:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the last bit further, note the difference between "occupation and illegal annexation" and "occupation, followed by annexation /which ended the occupation/". --Sander Säde 12:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

European Parliament resolution

In reply to the following quote

whereas Estonia, as an independent Member State of the EU and NATO, has the sovereign right to assess its recent tragic past, starting with the loss of independence as a result of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 and including three years under Hitler’s occupation and terror, as well as 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror,

You probably meant this version of the resolution tabled by Inese Vaidere, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Guntars Krasts, Roberts Zīle, Konrad Szymański, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Ryszard Czarnecki, Gintaras Didžiokas, Adam Bielan, Michał Tomasz Kamiński and Mieczysław Edmund Janowski. Whereas the adopted version says

whereas Estonia, as an independent Member State of the EU and NATO, has the sovereign right to assess its recent tragic past, starting with the loss of independence resulting from the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 and ending only in 1991,

whereas the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was never recognised as legal by the Western democracies,

and says nothing of 48 years of occupation. I noticed that Paul did ask you not to take quotes out of context. I think that this correction in the resolution is a clear indication that position of the European parliament in fact differs from the position of the Baltic nations with regard to whether calling the Soviet annexation as an occupation. (Igny (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

I think you are making the same mistake as Paul did. "Occupation and annexation" is not the same as "occupation followed by an annexation, which ended the occupation". However, yes, I did not see the final resolution, I used the version linked from the article. --Sander Säde 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I think you are making the same mistake as Paul did." I concede that either you or I made a mistake. Since you already described what my mistake (in your opinion) consists in, let me again do the same. In my opinion, your sole and major mistake is that you assume that the same territory can be simultaneously occupied and annexed. To be perfectly honest, that is not only your mistake: some reliable (with respect to other issues) sources do the same mistake. The most funny is the passage on " the continued military and political occupation". Could you please explain me what does "political occupation" mean? I have no idea on that account because only military occupation is defined bt the Hague convention.
Therefore, two interpretations of the sources telling about "occupation and annexation": either these sources imply these events to occur consecutively (one after another, and the former ended after the latter started), or these sources simply do not pay a due attention to usage of correct terminology.
Please, explain me if you saw anywhere a clear statement that some territory that has been already annexed by some state can be under its military occupation? Remember, the fact that some territory is under military occupation means that it is under some martial law. Did that really take place in the Baltics in 1950-91?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are using OR again, can you finally find a source or few to support any of your ideas? Otherwise it is rather pointless to provide sources one after another that show the opposite for your claims - or continue this discussion. As for the political occupation, I found the term interesting and googled it before - and for my surprise, the term is used widely, especially in scientific journals, also about Baltic states. It seems your knowledge isn't as complete as you thought. --Sander Säde 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "it is rather pointless to provide sources one after another that show the opposite for your claims". I would say the opposite to occur: the source used by you (the EP resolution) seems to demonstrate the opposite for your claim, namely, that the idea of "48 years of Soviet occupation and terror" is not supported by EP. I expect that detailed examination of the "articles in scientific journals" you refer to will probably demonstrate the same, namely, that you misunderstand them. Do you really believe it will be possible to find a reliable source that states that during 1950-91 the Baltic state were under control of the Soviet Army, which performed routine administration based martial laws, and that the Baltic citizens had a status different from the status of other Soviet citizens? (That is what occupation means)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please not change arguments constantly? At first it was "civilian government" - and as it came out, Hague convention doesn't have anything about it. Then it was "occupation army" - and we have a source naming Soviet army so. Now it is "martial law" - which is again not mentioned anywhere in the Hague convention in relation to the occupation. And where did the years 1950-1991 suddenly come from, a completely new set of years? It is impossible to discuss anything as you change your arguments as soon as it becomes obvious the old one doesn't hold water.

Once again, can you please support any of your arguments by any source whatsoever? This is getting ridiculous, you are clearly unable to provide sources to support your views - and yet you continually demand sources from me. I think I am done playing this game, put up or shut up.

And we can call the whole occupation thing proven and done after European Court of Human Rights called it an occupation in no ambivalent terms. If one of the foremost legal structures in the world very clearly states "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991.", then what is even the point of continuing arguments? Or do you think your legal knowledge is somehow better and more important then theirs? Or are they just wrong and you are right, because you are right?

Oh, and finally - as you had no comments about political occupation, I trust you used Google yourself, too. Another interesting term I found was "territorial occupation". Seems like there are more interpretations of occupation in scientific community then your rigid "military occupation".

--Sander Säde 08:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that ECHR is not a homogeneous structure and its statements are not always the final verdict. You just cited a statement of a few particular judges in a particular case. In another particular case, for example, they used "The ensuing annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union..." in no ambiguous way. Thus even in ECHR the term of occupation is not used universally. But what is more important is the fact that Baltic POV has got much better representation in European structures and they did try to use that fact to make their POV prevalent in the Western world, as their EP motion of resolution and the corrected final version showed. In particular your claims of Soviet "fringe theories" are just that, your claims. So not only occupation and annexation theories have to be split or renamed in an NPOV way, but all such claims are to be properly attributed without making any final conclusion with regard to validity of any of these POVs. (as in "according to such and such ruling of ECHR..."; "according to John Laughland..." etc) placing them all on equal footing. (Igny (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

To Sander Säde. I do not change my arguments, I am just trying to demonstrate my point. If you think my arguments are changing, you simply do not understand them. "Military occupation" occurs when a hostile army occupies the opponent's territory and no steps are made to annex this land. For instance, after WWII the territory of Germany was militarily occupied: when the German government was disbanded, the Allied armies took a control over this terriotry and during the whole period of occupation treated it as a foreign territory: they considered themselves as a (temporary) substitute of the domestic government, they acted based on temporary martial laws, they treated German citizens as foreign (not Soviet, British or American) citizens, and Germany as a foreing territory. That is exactly how the Hague convention defines a military occupation, and that is directly opposite to what the USSR did in the Baltics: the Red/Soviet army didn't play a role of occupation authorities there (I mean 1950-91), and, accordingly, no separate martial law existed there, domestic governments were established there soon (of course, these government, as well as the governments of other Soviet republics, was under a strict control of the central govermnent, but no difference existed between a situation if Lithuania and Belarus), the Baltic citizens were treated as other Soviet citizens (based on some sources I can conclude that the regime was even more liberal in the Baltics than in other parts of the USSR), and the USSR considered the territory of the Baltic states as a part of its own territory.

Re: "as you had no comments about political occupation..." I admit my knowledge may be incomplete, an some other forms of occupation exist, e.g. "political occupation", "non-military occupation", etc. However, I failed to find any definition of such terms, so if you believe they really exist, please give me a reference to the sources where these terms have been defined. With regards to "territorial occupation", this term is a pure tautology, since "occupation" already implies "occupation of some territory", I cannot imagine if a "non-territorial" occupation is possible.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I trust you used Google yourself, too" I prefer scholar.google.com. And, as soon as you mentioned the databeses, let's see what term is used more frequently.

I. google scholar (scholar.google.com): "occupation of the Baltic states" [28] 253 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([29] 253 hits
"annexation of the Baltic states" ([30]) 365 hits
""annexation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([31]) 362 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT annexation [32] 161 hit
"annexation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT occupation [33] 116 hits.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

first of all the Annexation of the Baltic States is a completely different subject. It only refers to the events in August 1940 when the Baltic states were formally annexed with the Soviet Union. However, what's missing here above is the fact that only the territories of the Baltic states and thus de facto were annexed with the USSR. The Baltic states didn't go anywhere. Follow the money, lets say the assets of the central banks of the Baltic states: in the US the Executive Order 8389 froze all financial assets of occupied European countries including the Baltic states. In Europe the Baltic assets in an international organization of central banks in Switzerland the Bank for International Settlements remained intact...and needless to say those assets of the Baltic central banks in Switzerland and in the US were only returned after the occupation authorities had lost the power to legal governments. So this "Annexation of the Baltic States" has no another meaning than what happened in Moscow in August 1940.

Other than that, lets keep it simple: unlike the EU and the US, Russia denies the Soviet Union ever occupied the Baltic states because according to the international law, since Russia is the successor state of the USSR, you'd need to pay contributions for damages in case you occupied anybody. So it's only about the money, connected to the fact that Russia has declared itself the successor state of the USSR, that's all there is to it.--Termer (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not an answer. If we assume that the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR (illegally, according to majority of Western governments' opinion), can they be considered as occupied or illegally annexed? Note, they cannot be simultaneously occupied and annexed, because the latter means that they become a part of the Soviet territory, and the USSR cannot militarily occupy its own territory during 48 years.

I thought paying contribution for damages is not a strict requirement according to the international law. Otherwise, the US would have to pay a contribution ot Germany for damages they inflicted during the period of occupation after WWII. In addition, I believe, had Russia recognized that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal (of forceful), that would have the same consequences, namely, the Baltic states would get a right to request for compensations for damage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The formal annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR occurred in August 1940, which was not recognized (like you put it: illegal, according to majority of Western governments). And it wasn't Russia that recognized the annexation of the Baltic states as illegal but it was the Soviet union, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in 1989. So you tell me, since the Soviet Union declared the 1940 annexation of the Baltic stats to be illegal, was it "its own territory during 48 years"?--Termer (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. According to the Soviet point of view, the annexation was legal and voluntary. However, independent on how legal/illegal it was, the USSR didn't treat the territory of the Baltic states as a hostile territory, it didn't keep special occupation army there that played a role of military occupation authorities, it never treated the local population as foreign citizens, so they had the same rights as other Soviet citizens did; all of that fits the definition of annexation, not occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you just pointed out how "Russia recognized that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal'. I corrected you, it was the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in 1989 that did it. In case the Soviet Union recognized the August 1940 annexation was illegal, according to which Soviet POV exactly "the annexation was legal and voluntary"? The Soviet POV up to 1989, meaning the Soviet POV prior to Perestroika and Glasnost? but all this you're talking about is already well spelled out in the article, please see Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Soviet_sources_prior_to_Perestroika.--Termer (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As Paul is unable to present any sources supporting his views and arguments, I think we can now safely ignore those.

If "occupation and annexation" means "first occupied and then annexed", then "annexation and occupation" means first annexed and then occupied, right? The second phrase is used in following peer-reviewed scientific journals and books: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] (giving up after 20).

These are not meant as sources for anything, but just to show it is not possible to use "occupation and annexation" to support the POV of the occupation of the Baltic states being somehow magically changed into annexation at some unspecified point of time. It is clear from a multitude of sources that occupation and annexation can be concurrent in the eyes of many (most?) scientists.

--Sander Säde 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re It is clear from a multitude of sources that occupation and annexation can be concurrent in the eyes of many (most?) scientists. You are just providing more and more reasons to rename the article into Occupation and annexation.... (Igny (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

And like I said below, I would support the rename if the reason was to use more accurate terminology. However, your nomination made it clear it isn't about better terminology, it is about giving Russian POV equal validity despite the lack of sources supporting said POV. --Sander Säde 09:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "As Paul is unable to present any sources supporting his views and arguments, I think we can now safely ignore those." Firstly, I don't think google result to reflect the scholars' community opinion. Google scholar is much more relevant because it includes only scientific publications (mostly from the sources wetted by scientific community). It gives:

(i) for ("annexation and occupation" AND Baltic states) [54] 32 articles.

(ii) for ("occupation and annexation" AND Baltic states) [55] 174 articles.

(iii) In addition, I looked for ("forcible incorporation" AND Baltic states) [56], 137 results.

Clearly, the latter two are much more abundant. In addition to that, since I (by contrast to you) disclose a full procedure of the search, no manipulation with the search results is possible here.

Re: "If "occupation and annexation" means "first occupied and then annexed", then "annexation and occupation" means first annexed and then occupied, right?" This conclusion sounds quite correct, however, it is only your conclusion. In addition, some alternative explanation is possible, e.g. that the sources telling about "annexation and occupation" simply didn't analyse the subject in details, or simply didn't pay a due attention to a correct wording. One way or the another, these your words are just an interpretation of the sources that is not allowed by WP policy. Please, provide a source that unambiguously state that occupation and annexation can be concurrent.

To Termer. You correctly wrote that the late USSR post factum recognized the annexation of the Baltic states illegal. However, I doubt that that automatically implies the change of the Baltic states' status in past. Let me demonstrate that point using the example you provided below.
You write "the civil administration Reichskommissariat Ostland was set up during the German occupation". Yes, however, was that administration similar to the administration of the Germany proper? Was the legal status of the local population similar to that of the German citizens? No. If you think (probably, correctly) that that was not a pure military occupation, it was not the annexation either. The status of these territories better fits the criteria of a colony (like British India or Palestine). One way or the another, did anything of that happen under the Soviets? Was Supreme Council of ESSR different from that of Belorussian SSR? Had Estonian citizens different passports or civil rights? Had Estonia smaller amount of representatives in the Council of Nationalities (one of the chambers of the Soviet parliament, where all republics had the same number of representatives). By all these criteria Estonia was an absolutely full member of the USSR (of course, I agree that it was not what the majority of the Estonians wanted to, however, the question we discuss in not their desire, but the legal status of the Baltic states in the USSR).
Again, I fully agree that incorporation of the Baltic states was made illegally, and against their citizens' will, however, that was a full incorporation, not occupation or colonization, and these states were the full (although unwilling) members of the USSR.
And, finally, let me remind you that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was condemned by Supreme Council of the USSR where the Baltic citizens were represented, and the procedure of condemnation was initiated the Baltic citizens themselves. Had Estonia been occupied that would be absolutely impossible, because the population of the occupied territory cannot be presented in the occupant's parliament.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PS With regards to lawful/unlawful annexation, these details are hardly relevant to the discussion's subject. Yes, the USSR pretended the annexation to be lawful, although it failed to prove that. However, the fact that the annexation was unlawful according to majority western powers' opinion, does not make it the occupation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you found Google Scholar. Can you now come up with a source stating that annexation ended the occupation? If not, then I only must reiterate that your claims have no support whatsoever. --Sander Säde 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to add the words about "annexation that ended the occupation" into the main article. I used these words only for the talk page discussion. What should be written in the article (in my opinion) is that the Baltic states were annexed by the Soviet Union, that, according to many sources, the annexation was in actuality a forcible incorporation, and that other sources call that event an "occupation". I believe you realize that that my statement summarizes what all reliable sources tell on that subject.
By contrast, you insist on presenting the 1940-91 events as if occupation and annexation were the concurrent events, and that consensus exists on that account. Since per WP policy I do not have to provide a source that proves you are wrong, I expect you to present a source that explicitly states that occupation and annexation can be de jure concurrent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I am glad we have a multitude of sources that mix annexation and occupation. This should be a proof enough for them being concurrent in the eyes of the scientists. You, on the other hand, have been unable to bring a source showing that they cannot be concurrent. You have the burden of proof here, I have plenty of sources treating them as concurrent whereas you have yet to come up a single source showing the opposite. Really, is it so hard, Paul? One measly modern scientific source (well, several would be better) is all I ask. And I must note I have been asking it about dozen times now - so far no source. What is the problem? --Sander Säde 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry Jaan but the infobox you've added simply doesn't make any sense. I even don't know from where to start. Belligerents Baltic Entente? Commanders Johan Laidoner, Kārlis Ulmanis, Antanas Smetona together with 'Strength Autumn 1944'? Laidoner, Ulmanis nor Smetona were no commanders of anything by 1944. etc. An the Baltic Entente never was a belligerent of anything. So what's going on? I honestly don't know how to fix it, but in case you want to keep it and have some ideas how to make it work, please do. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Which one is it - was there a conflict at first place or was the occupation peaceful? In the later case, the Infobox Military Conflict must be removed. If the former is true, it should be possible to outline the sides of the conflict. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these two. No matter how peaceful the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR was, the occupation ended after civilian administration (not subordinated to Soviet military/NKVD) had been established in these forcibly incorporated territories, and these new Soviet republics got the rights equal to those of other Soviet Union's members.

One more serious issue: the present infobox lists all population losses (724,000) in the Baltic section, implying that they were a result of either Nazi or Soviet activity. However, 228,000 of these killed civilians were Jews, and the fact that Baltic citizens voluntarily participated in extermination of Jews under Nazi is well known. Therefore, I think the way the figures are presented is highly misleading. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jaan Pärn even though the 1940 occupation was a Silent Submission/unconditional surrender there was a conflict and the occupation wasn't peaceful. It doesn't mean it was a military conflict since all Baltic states had signed and followed the Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. So all resistance to the occupying powers was civilian, starting with Forest Brothers ending with the Baltic embassies/consulates abroad.--Termer (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Baltic citizens voluntarily participated in extermination of Jews under Nazi is well known". This is very bold provocation. I'd suggest you to remove such politically charged personal opinion from this talk page. There are Baltic citizens whose voluntary work has been honored with Righteous among the Nations. So such inflammatory and generalizing remarks on "Baltic citizens" like you such made by spicing it up with "well known" has no place on Wikipedia talk pages.--Termer (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to replace it to is well known among those who studied the subject. Will it fix your concerns? (Igny (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Re: "This is very bold provocation." Arajs Kommando, "spontaneous" (although secretly supported by Nazi) pogroms in Kowno, Vilnus, Riga, etc. Attempts to neglect these facts are on the brink of the Holocaust denial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Baltic Holocaust deaths are a direct result of the Nazi occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is replacing it with is well known to whom has followed Kremlin's propaganda. Arajs Kommando represents Baltic citizens suddenly? Few posts ago it was claimed that after the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR all Baltic peoples became Soviet citizens. So please keep it consistent, either you have "Baltic citizens" of the occupied Baltic states during WWII or you have Soviet citizens, like the Russian/Soviet citizens voluntarily joined the Kaminski Brigade and other Schutzmannschaft units during nazi occupation. So what's your point with this Arajs Kommandoand "Baltic citizens"? Other than it's a card played by Kremlin who likes to point out Arajs Kommando but keeps forgetting about the Kaminski Brigade etc at the same time. Lets see: Arajs Kommando had about 1,500 members, the Kaminski Brigade however in the amount of 10-12 thousands.--Termer (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem to list the Holocaust victims along with other population losses. However, the way it has been done is highly misleading. It combines three (in actuality, even four or five) different periods: initial Soviet pseudo-voluntary annexation (when large number of civilians perished as a result of Stalin purges), German occupation (which result in numerous Holocaust deaths as a result of joint Nazi and Latvian and Lithuanian volunteers' activity), Soviet-German war (Narva offencive and Courland pocket, when the Baltic citizens fought mostly on the German side), Soviet re-occupation (that resulted in anti-partisan warfare and mass arrests of Nazi actual and alleged collaborators) and the long period when civil administration was established in the Baltic states, and the latter (especially under Khruschev and Brezhnev) had the rights similar to those of other Soviet citizens. I would say, the regime there was more liberal than in the rest of the USSR.
Do you really think it is correct to combine all of that together in the military conflict type infobox?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is correct to combine all of that in an article, it goes as well for an infobox. You are welcome to suggest another type of infobox, though. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it is correct to combine all of that in this article, because this is a story not about a single occupation period lasted from 1940 to 1991, but about (i) forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR (that was not an occupation, since international laws clearly distinguish between occupation and annexation); (ii) a period of Nazi occupation (that fit all criteria of occupation, although for local population, except Jews, this occupation regime was milder than the Stalin's one); (iii) a period of Nazi-Soviet warfare (that belongs more to the history of the USSR and Germany); (iv) a period of brutal post-war Stalin's regime, and, finally, (v) a comparatively mild Khruschev's and Brezhnev's times. I don't think "occupation" is the best word to characterize all of that. I think the only way to neutrally name the article about the whole 1940-91 period is to call it "History of the Baltic states (1940-91)", or "Loss and restoration of independence by Baltic states".
One way or the another, it is quite incorrect to present this whole period as a single military conflict in which the Baltic state were a party, therefore a military style infobox should be replaced with something else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if no sources will be provided that the Baltic states were under control of the Red Army (not the USSR) until 1991, I'll move the end date into the footnote and supplement it with the quote specifying that that date reflects mostly the opinion of the Baltic states themselves; I also will remove a Belligerents, Commanders and losses section. I propose move population losses into the Results, or Aftermath section and to split them onto separate periods: 1940 (Soviet) 1941-44 (German) and 1944-??? (probably 45, depending on what was the date of formation of civilian administration there).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

...if no sources will be provided that the Baltic states were under control of the Red Army (not the USSR) until 1991? Was that a joke? Something called Red Army existed only from 1918-1946.--Termer (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't expect someone to notice that inaccuracy. You are absolutely right, although the Red Army is colloquially used for the RKKA/Soviet Army, in actuality that name was used only during the period of 1918-46. Of course, I meant Red/Soviet Army.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Naturally the Baltic states were not under the control of the Soviet Army during the Soviet occupation exactly like the countries were not under the control of the German Army during the nazi occupation. So in case there is any logic in saying "once the civil administrations were set up by the Soviets the occupation ended", that would mean once the civil administration Reichskommissariat Ostland was set up during the German occupation, the occupation ended? Usually occupied territories do not get controlled by regular ground forces like the Soviet or German Army, there are other units for the purpose in order to maintain control over occupied territories. The Germans had Gestapo, RSHA; the Soviets NKVD/KGB, the MVD troops etc.--Termer (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See my response above. Reichskommissariat Ostland was an administration quite different from the domestic administration of the Germany proper.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

End date

Paul, what is this silliness with that? Why do you keep deleting it from the lead while keeping it in the infobox? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaan, I don't believe it is silliness. The sources state about occupation followed by forcible incorporation (or annexation) of the Baltic states into the USSR. Therefore, the occupation ended when civilian administration had been established there. Of course, the Baltic states remained illegally annexed or incorporated, but there were no military administration there (like in the USSR proper), no separate status for the Batic citizens (they had the same rights as other Soviet citizens did), therefore, it is incorrect to speak about some military occupation (and I am not aware of the terms like non-military occupation). In addition, the sources say that the Baltic people saw themselves as occupied by the USSR, whereas the Soviet authorities maintained that the "annexation" was legal and voluntary. All of that should be (and is) in the lede.
With regards to the end date, I removed the date both form the lede and the infobox, however, it was re-introduced into the infobox by someone.
I also think that real silliness is to build the infobox in the military campaign style. That leads to confusion and seems to fit SYNTH criteria. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I did not completely remove the end date from the lede. It is still there ("Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania understand themselves to have been the occupied states during the whole Soviet period that ended in 21 August 1991."). I just re-worded the text to what the source says in actuality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole infobox should be removed as not relevant. none of the wikipedia "occupation of..." articles use such an infobox like military conflict in the first place. In case really seen as a necessity, a new format "infobox occupation" of something should be created, and it should be made so that it would make sense in the context, unlike the current one.--Termer (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe, the top part of it (start date, results, aftermath) can stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Termer, I wish you were not agressive in your ignorance. See Occupation of Constantinople, Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, Occupation of German Samoa, and the list goes on. You are welcome to create a new infobox template, though. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My ignorance? Did you ever take a look at your examples how the infobox has been used on Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany? or the other 2 examples? Perhaps the use has been so limited because it doesn't really make sense to have such an infobox like "military conflict" on "occupation of..." articles. And the reason why it doesn't make sense is simple really, "occupation of" most usually is that follows/comes after a military conflict. It should be self explanatory, an occupation can only start once a conflict is over, or another way to put it: until there is a conflict, who exactly occupies the territories? I'd say the infobox needs to go, unless it's used like in one of the examples for displaying an image only. In case "start date, results, aftermath" in the infobox make the article better, fine. I don't see any major problems with the upper part other than only the territorial changes of Estonia have been laid out. How about Abrene district of Latvia and the Vilnius region of Lithuania?--Termer (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, did I understand correct that by removal of the "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties" sections the issue will be resolved? In other words, do you support my above proposal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties" do not make sense for sure. As those are "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties" of the military conflicts that led to the occupation. Only exception would be the partisans perhaps, but overall all the info in the box is too broken to get it fixed. And since I don't see any ways how to fix it, feel free to remove it. You can keep the upper part if you like but I'd remove it too. For example what exactly is the "result" suppose to mean "Forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union"? The Baltic citizens abroad were able to get native passports from the embassies/consulates that remained open during the entire occupation, and travel with such documents, (not to Eastern block of cource) So how were for example the Baltic embassies as institutions of Baltic states forcibly incorporated into anything, not to mention the assets of the Baltic central banks that were not annexed anywhere etc. The bottom line, if anything the "result" would be "the territories of the Baltic states were incorporated with the Soviet Union as Soviet Baltic republics". Also, for example the Baltic citizens were not recognized as Soviets in the occupation zones of western allies.etc. Therefore this "Forcible incorporation" only applies to the territories and citizens within the Soviet control, and therefore the current "result" is misleading.--Termer (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, so you propose "Forcible incorporation of the Baltic states' territory into the Soviet Union"? I agree that that would be more correct. And do I understand correct that, besides "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties", you have no other objections?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Termer (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ps. In case "Territorial changes" remain, it should point out relevant to Latvia and Lithuania as well.--Termer (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pytalovo is Abrene (talk about ignorance) and Lithuania acquired Vilnius region already in the occupation of Poland, three quarters of a year before the Soviet occupation of Lithuania. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The belligerents and related sections make perfect sense. Simply enough, there were three belligerent parties involved in the occupation and annexation and the fact is best outlined in an infobox with strengths at the key moment in time and casualties suffered in the involved operations. What is unclear about it? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania acquired Vilnius region already in the occupation of Poland? No kidding? Lithuania acquired Vilnius on October 28, 1939 after the country had accepted the Soviet ultimatum on October 10, 1939. So you're basically arguing the ultimatum after which Lithuania acquired Vilnius has no connection to the occupation? Pytalovo is Abrene, fine, my mistake. But it just another example how the infox has been put together making no sense. You use Pytalovo together with Estonian Ingria and Petseri County? If its Pytalovo shouldn't it be consistent and say parts of Pskov Oblast and Leningrad oblast for the rest? Or vice versa if you use Estonian Ingria and Petseri County the name Abrene district should be used.--Termer (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC) PS. On the rest, you write Date "14 June 1940 – 21 August 1991" and list "belligerent parties involved in the occupation and annexation" Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin? And Strength is dated to Autumn 1944 at the time when the annexation you just mentioned occurred in August 1940. So what is this infobox exactly trying to say?--Termer (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pytalovo - the infobox lists historical regions that have wiki articles or paragraphs. Abrene links to Pytalovo. Should the infobox say "parts of Leningrad and Pskov Oblasts", it would be unclear, which parts.

Re: Vilnius region: it seems incorrect to list territorial changes well before the start of the occupation.

Re: the rest: Hitler and Stalin were the commanders of German and Soviet forces. What is your question?

It would be easily possible to list the Baltic and Soviet strengths for the summer of 1940. However, German forces were not involved at the moment. The time of comparison has to be when all three belligerents were involved in the Baltics. It is either the summer of 1941 or the autumn of 1944. The latter was the decisive battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate does not go anywhere, unless...

we demonstrate the concrete things which are wrong in this article and set up constructive suggestions on how to proceed with this article. The main problem in this version of the article is the POV title and a significant advance of the Baltic POV at expense of the Russian POV (violation of the NPOV policy). Admittedly the Baltic POV is more widespread in the Western literature but it is only due to its better representation in Europe in particular and anti-Soviet and anti-Russian sentiments in the West, in general. A particular POV which is being advanced here is the undue comparison of the Soviet and Nazi actions in the Baltic during and in aftermath of WW2.

Suggestions: there is already an article on Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany, so we can move most of the content in the section on the Nazi occupation there. Then proceed with renaming the article to Occupation and annexation of Baltic States by Soviet Union, a title which better describes the event in a more neutral way and no less widespread than occupation alone. And then we can proceed adding sources debating whether the annexation or occupation was illegal, whether occupation was followed or was ended by the annexation or vice versa and list all controversies and relevant opinions. The interruption of the Soviet rule by the Nazis may be relevant, but should be shortened since most of content should be in the main article on the subject. (Igny (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Occupation of the Baltic states → Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union — a better and NPOV title, per all the discussion above.(Igny (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Support per Mälksoo and other sources and more accuracy in a complicated matter. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union is a chapter of this article: Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Soviet_invasion_and_occupation, it covers the time frame from June 1940 to August 1940. A main article for the time period can be created as a stand alone piece once the section in this article dictates it.--Termer (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am actually glad that you do not oppose the move, it would be nice to have a real unanimous consensus once in a while. (Igny (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world, it serves no purpose to reflect this POV in the name of English Wikipedia. Making the name of the article longer serves no purpose whatsoever, besides making it more confusing and harder to find for readers (which, admittedly, can be a purpose, too). If someone honestly believes that many readers will come to the article through the longer name, then creating an appropriate redirect is the way to go. --Sander Säde 07:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world, "Annexation of the baltic states" vs. "occupation of the baltic states" is 600k v. 1800k. Google hits. ( on scholar it is 9.6k v. 38k without quotes and 365 v. 253 with quotes). Hardly nonexistent. And you are right, whether one looks for occupation or for annexation both could be directed here through appropriate redirection pages. What part of WP:ENGLISH is relevant here? I believe I was using English terminology in my suggestion. (Igny (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Re:Russian POV: This is ridiculous, Mälksoo represents no more Russian POV than Sander Säde. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that a lot of sources see the illegal annexation and occupation as concurrent events, not consecutive. Soviet and Russian sources deny the occupation altogether. That is the difference between Western and Russian sources. I was hoping to write about this above before more nonsense is said about it, sadly I was not fast enough. --Sander Säde 08:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:annexation and occupation as concurrent events, not consecutive. That is all in eye of beholder. Let our readers decide what they see in the title, not you or me.

Re:before more nonsense is said about it, This is not an argument this is an awkward attempt to insult your fellow editors. (Igny (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

(ec)Here.

I might have supported the rename if the reasoning would have been to include both terms into the article name (like Mälksoo and other researches occasionally do), while making it clear that it means concurrent occupation and annexation. However, as Igny chooses to talk about "anti-Russian sentiments in the West", naming Western viewpoint as "Baltic POV" and "undue comparison of the Soviet and Nazi actions in the Baltic", it is clear he is only interested to push a fringe viewpoint into article as a mainstream view. I cannot support such action (and I must say, for me the nomination feels just ultra-nationalist. I've always thought that Igny is above such behavior and I am truly sad to see it isn't so). --Sander Säde 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Any sources calling "annexation of the baltic states" fringe theories? I tried to google for them and could not find any. Your sadness about my behaviour is noted, I suggest you'd take a wiki-break, you are taking your content disputes with others too close to heart. (Igny (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Except you wish to promote view "occupation became annexation" view as equal to the "annexation and occupation lasted until 1991". Would it be possible to find any sources to support the first? I've been asking for such sources over and over, so far we haven't seen any peer-reviewed modern sources stating so. If there is no sources besides opinion columns in newspapers and such, I think we can safely say per WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." (my underline) --Sander Säde 09:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that 600k google hits and 9k hits in Google scholar for "annexation of Baltic states" refute your "departing significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" claims as baseless. (Igny (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Yes, and strangely enough, you are still not able to come up with a single source claiming the occupation ended and annexation begun, the POV you want to insert to the article. I wonder why is that? Perhaps because despite Google matches, such source does not exist? Anonymous Google matches really aren't neither sources nor arguments. --Sander Säde 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "annexation of Baltic states" gives 3 matches in Google Scholar, [here]. --Sander Säde 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, state a search phrase correctly: "annexation of the Baltic states" [57] gives 365 results (as oppose to "occupation" [58], 253 results). BTW, careful reading of my previous posts would help to avoid such a mistake.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I used Igny's phrase. --Sander Säde 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To get the number of 9.6k results on Google scholar I did not use quotes. (Igny (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose present title is not to clumsy as proposed one, therefore better on this aspect. Complains that particular POV is neglected because it is better represented in certain sources is irrelevant, a long side such generalizations are on the OR edge. M.K. (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The current title deserves the {POV-title} tag, what would you prefer a clumsier but more neutral and more accurate title or the current POV-title? Another less clumsy suggestion could be Annexation of the baltic states a very widespread in both Russian and Western literature term. I am sure there will be an outcry among Baltic editors against the "Annexation of..." as a POV title. I claim that mixing the terms annexation and military occupation under article on "Occupation of..." is no less POV than using the title "Annexation of..." (Igny (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Of course, you are free to disagree with my opinion. M.K. (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So do you have any objections to Annexation of the Baltic States by Soviet Union? (Igny (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

• Support. Since many (majority, per google scholar) sources call this event "annexation", and since no sources have been provided so far that confirm that annexation and occupation are not mutually exclusive events, the present title is simply factually incorrect, and, importantly, non-neutral. Since per policy the neutrality principle "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus", this poll's result is a priori null and void.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to play the Google game, let's see which sources use the terms exclusively. Annexation: 118. Occupation: 161. I see such Google games as absolutely worthless. --Sander Säde 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you for repeating the search that I already made (in the "European Parliament resolution" section). However, occupation does not exclude subsequent annexation. Moreover, as a rule the former is a prerequisite for the latter, so the search results proved nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It definitely proved that contrary to Sander's claims this view is not fringe in English literature. (Igny (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Re: "I see such Google games as absolutely worthless" A logical development of this claim would be: "I see the sources that do not confirm my POV absolutely worthless."
Speaking seriously, by contrast to google, which reflects everything it fount on the Internet, Google Scholar shows just scholarly publications that have been wetted by scientific community (I repeat this again because Sander Säde seems not to read my posts carefully.) That is why google scholars' results are a good reflection of the global scholars community's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. How wrong conclusions it is possible to draw? Such Google e-peen fights are useless unless they include the intent of the author and content of the article - which all those searches obviously didn't do. Like somewhere far, far above there are searches from Scholar about Soviet liberation of the Baltic states - where half of the sources had "liberation" in scare quotes. And as for Scholar vs web search, let me point out to you once again, that those were Igny's searches and not mine. I don't think there has been even one Google web search from me on this page. --Sander Säde 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Take for example Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) - should we transform it into a disambiguation page and divide its contents to 2 articles, being Occupation and annexation of Poland by the Soviet Union and Occupation and annexation of Poland by the Nazi Germany? Currently there is the more comprehensive single article, plus two additional ones: Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. I find the single and comprehensive article better and also necessary. Plus, we already have our own additional ones: Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany and Estonian SSR (same for Latvia and Lithuania). I find the Polish and Baltic articles quite comparable in this situation..H2ppyme (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The example is not completely correct. The Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) article reflects a consensus that this country was occupied in 1939, and that that occupation ended in 1945. By contrast, no commonly accepted terminology exists that describes what happened in the Baltic states in 1945-91. Some sources call that "occupation", other use the word "annexation" or "forcible incorporation", some others mix these terms. Therefore, as I already wrote, the present name reflects only a part (not a major part) of the existing sources, so, per WP policy that situation must be fixed regardless on whether we get a consensus on that account or not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you got mistaken. This is not a debate over splitting the article, it is a debate over renaming the article to a more neutral title. Also you forgot to mention that there is already an article on Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. But look at the scope of the current article. About 90 percent of the article is devoted to debates of Russian versus Baltic POVs over whether to call it occupation or annexation by the Soviet Union and how legal it was and how recognized it was. So there is no even need to split anything since a section on the Nazi invasion is certainly needed as it is relevant to the Soviet Union's occupation and annexation of the Baltic states. All I am suggesting at the moment is a rename to a more neutral title and possibly (but not necessary) shortening of the section on the Nazi invasion by moving parts of it into the main article, which already exists. (Igny (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

a more neutral title? and the proposed title is "more neutral' exactly why and how? The proposed title refers to a different time frame: June 1940-August 1940. Whats more neutral about that than having an article that covers the whole era of "Baltic states: Years of Dependence, 1940-91", and that's the only "more neutral" title covering the subject I'm aware of. The only thing, it covers a bit broader subject, not only the occupation but like it's stated on the book published by the University of California Press: It's about "how the Baltic nations survived fifty years of social disruption, language discrimination, and Russian colonialism".--Termer (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your citing Baltic authors only confirms existence of the Baltic POV in the title. (Igny (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive

Below is an extended quote from the David M. Edelstein's article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" (International Security, Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91. doi:10.1162/0162288041762913, MIT press)

"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. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission. Although colonial powers may insist that they are on a civilizng mission to foster the eventual independence of a colonized territory, they are frequently willing to stay indeanitely to achieve these goals. This distinction is what makes successful occupation so difficult: in an occupation, both sides—the occupying power and the occupied population—feel pressure to end an occupation quickly, but creating enough stability for the occupation to end is a great challenge. Occupations are also distinct from short-term interventions in which the occupying power exerts little political control over the territory in which it has intervened."

In other words, the source provided by me outlines several important distinctive features between occupation, colonialism and annexation, that make them mutually exclusive. I believe I sustained my burden of evidence, so the article should be changed to conform to the sources and to the common sense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Finally a source, I only had to ask about half a dozen times. Not sure why there is a separate section for it, but oh well. We can exclude the loopholes of occupation becoming annexation only if it is de jure recognized by other countries (recognition of annexation didn't happen in case of Baltic states) - and annexation being only a permanent loss of independence (obviously, Soviet Union intended it as permanent, but thankfully didn't happen), as apparently this particular author doesn't recognize those (well, I don't have access to said article, so I cannot be sure). Now we have to find a source tying this theory to Baltic states - do I have to ask for that as well five more times?

In hopes that you will find such source, a of citation for you:

“ Most Western governments had never de jure recognised the annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR, which made the Baltic case a lawful struggle against occupation by a foreign power. ” — Germany and the Baltic problem after the Cold War: the development of a new Ostpolitik, 1989-2000. Kristina Spohr Readman. Routledge, 2004.

--Sander Säde 09:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Finally a source, I only had to ask about half a dozen times. Please familiarize yourself with WP:DEADLINE. (Igny (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Which, by the way, is an essay and not a guideline. View four also explains why there is a deadline. --Sander Säde 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if it's a guideline or an essay, it does not matter what view 4 is, what matters here is what view is Paul's. (Igny (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

That does not make any sense whatsoever. Paul's views are somehow extraordinary compared to others? --Sander Säde 11:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "and annexation being only a permanent loss of independence" Not so simple. Colonialism is also a permanent loss of independence. The difference between annexation and occupation is of two kinds: firstly, occupation is a temporary presence of the hostile army on the opponent's territory; secondly, during occupation the local population is being treated as foreign. (Frankly, I found that, according to Fourth Geneva Convention any annexation of occupied territories is illegal, so we cannot speak about legality of the annexation of the Baltic States at all, had it taken place after 1948. Look, I do not hide the facts that can help you to gain points in our dispute.)
However, the issue is somewhat different. Illegal annexation is not an occupation, because these two differ in the way the local population is treated. The fact that most countries (except, probably, Australia and some others) never recognized the annexation as legal, and that the USSR later also condemned the annexation, does not cancel the fact that during whole Soviet period the local population of the Baltic states had the same rights as other Soviet citizens did, and that the Baltic republics were de jure and de facto full members of the USSR. Under no circumstances these facts fit "occupation" criteria.
The case of the Baltic states is controversial, and, accordingly, should be treated as such. Namely, that the Baltic states were forcibly annexed, that that annexation was never recognized as legal by majority western powers, and that, according to the Baltic sources, and many Western ones, that was an occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the Fourth Geneva Convention some time ago and figured it doesn't apply to the current conversation, as it was formed in 1948 - and Soviet Union ratified it in 1960, if I remember correctly. I do not think that anyone thinks the annexation was legal - although, as I was searching for a source, I happened to visit Russian English web forum and the opinions there were scary (in style "You balts had nothing but empty land before we came and brought you culture and freedom", "Latvians were treated as subhuman by Hitler and he was right, we should just have sent you all to Siberia", "Balticum is a Russian land and always will be. We'll just let you live there for a while - but the reckoning day is coming"). Pages and pages of it. I did not realize such hatred exists in Russia in such extent, and those were the English-speaking people with access to different opinions and free media. It actually made me wish I hadn't changed my Wikipedia username to my real name (and sorry about getting sidetracked here). --Sander Säde 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I did not realize such hatred exists in Russia in such extent" Each forum has its own audience, so I believe that particular forum reflects the opinion of only a minor part of Russians. Similarly, many forums are plagued with nationalistic bullshit, and that doesn't necessarily reflects the point of view of the whole nation. I personally think majority of Russians simply are not interested/unaware of the Baltic issues.
With regards to sources, which type of source were your looking for?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted just to see if the same David M. Edelstein's article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" is somewhere available on the net - after I left the university, I have no easy access to most publications. I think partial sentence from the quote was a (false) match in the forum.

And yes - all social and ethnic groups have their fair share of misfits, morons and hate-mongers, it was just the blind hatred apparently shared by so many that put me off. I have read occasionally Pravda.ru English forums before - also somewhat similar tone, but not quite that direct in their posts (might be because Pravda forums are moderated) and quite often there is an opposition to their views, trying to explain and point to other sources and views. But this was just page after page of "Estonians are Nazis".

--Sander Säde 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "those were the English-speaking people with access to different opinions and free media" The editors from the Baltic states also have access to free media, however not all of them are free from strong nationalistic POV. Note, I do not blame everyone, moreover, the editors working on this and similar articles are much more educated, reasonable, polite and tolerant than those from, e.g. Holodomor article, however...
In addition, although I do not constantly monitor how Russian mass-media represent the Baltic states, imo, the bursts of anti-Baltic hysteria in Russia usually coincide with some events like ex-WaffenSS marches, thereby making a hypothesis of some casual linkage very plausible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Pravda.ru. There are three things that one must clearly distinguish: official Russian propaganda, various web-resources and public opinion. These three may differ dramatically. I personally follow the prof. Preobrazhenski's advice and do not read Soviet newspapers before lunch, and I don't see how such a marginal web resource as pravda.ru can be helpful for you.

Re David M. Edelstein's article. He tells nothing specifically about the Baltic states. He mentions Soviet occupation in the following footnote (I reproduce it in full:

"As always, there are some borderline cases. For example, I include the U.S. occupation of the Philippines, though the presence of the United States in the Philippines might be considered colonialism by some. U.S. leaders intensely debated whether or not to annex the Philippines after the Spanish-American War of 1898. Following the conoict with Filipino insurgents shortly after the occupation began, the United States became increasingly reluctant to stay in the Philippines. By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt observed, “The Philippine Islands form our heel of Achilles.” Quoted in E. Berkeley Tompkins, Anti-Imperialism in the United States: The Great Debate, 1890–1920 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970). On the other hand, I have excluded the French mandates in Syria and Lebanon immediately after World War I. In these cases, the evidence suggests that the French viewed their presence in the Middle East as more permanent than temporary. Summarizing the League of Nations mandates in the Middle East, David Fromkin concludes, “But France, in particular, regarded the pledge of independence as window-dressing, and approached Syria and Lebanon in an annexationist spirit.” Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 1989), p. 411. 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."

He tells nothing about the Baltic states, and this events is not listed as occupation in his final table "Appendix 1. Military Occupations, 1815–2003".

Anyway, the more I read on the subject the more I realize that majority of scholars writing about the Baltic states do not care about precise wording, so my formula (see above "illegal annexation that is considered occupation by many sources")) seems to be the most adequate (and neutral) reflection of what various sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Estonians are Nazis" Frankly, although I do not share this point of view, the way the articles like the Battle of Narva are being edited suggests that the editors who do that believe the co-belligerence of the Estonians and the Germans was a glorious page of Estonian history... --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting in any way on the "glorious page", but there is one Estonian editor whose edits I am forced to monitor and occasionally revert. I must say I wish he wouldn't edit Wikipedia. --Sander Säde 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ru:аннексия has a link to russian translation of Мялксоо Л. Советская аннексия и государственный континуитет: международно-правовой статус Эстонии, Латвии и Литвы в 1940—1991 гг. и после 1991 г. — Tartu, Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2005. On pages 205- occupation is compared to the annexation. It may also be helpful to read the references provided in that article. For example, does anyone have access to Roberts. What Is a Military Occupation? // BYIL, 1984? (ru:Присоединение Прибалтики к СССР and references there are also an interesting to read, note for example, use of the word annexation on p. 8 of Conclusions // Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity) (Igny (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Thank you, Igny, that is a very interesting text - and also first in-depth analysis I've seen of this case. I was only able to find Estonian version of the book (p 177?) and don't have time right now to analyze what he wrote. I am going to read the whole book this weekend, if possible. --Sander Säde 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Both Edelstein (see the above quote) and Malksoo stress the importance of the occupying party's actions. If the occupant views its presence as permanent ("In these cases, the evidence suggests that the French viewed their presence in the Middle East as more permanent than temporary" Edelstein; "military occupation ends after legal incorporation of the territory of the occupied state"(Malksoo, page 42)) we cannot speak about military occupation. Moreover, Malksoo clearly speaks about "illegal aggression, occupation and subsequent annexation" of the Baltic states:

"Поскольку советская агрессия нарушила действующие дву- и многосторонние договоры между этими странами, то оккупация Красной Армией Эстонии, Латвии и Литвы 17 июня 1940 года, последовавшее за этим установление коммунистического режима и аннексия стран Балтии Советским Союзом в августе 1940 года должны расцениваться как незаконные акты и, следовательно, юридически недействительны ab initio." (p. 74)

"Kuna nõukogude agressioon rikkus nende riikide vahel kehtivaid kahe- ja mitmepoolseid leppeid, tuleb Eesti, Läti ja Leedu okupeerimist punaarmee poolt 17. juunil 1940, sellele järgnenud kommunistide võimuleaitamist ning Balti riikide annekteerimist Nõukogude Liidu poolt augustis 1940 pidada õigusvastasteks tegudeks ning seega ab initio õigustühisteks."(p. 68)

Although these sources confirm my point of view (occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive), upon reading various sources I realized that the issue is really complex, and that no common opinion exists on that account. Therefore, I believe it would be more correct to say that the Baltic states were forcibly annexed, and, according to many sources this is considered occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think more interesting and relevant is the conclusion of the occupation and annexation chapter.

“ Seetõttu on Christopher Greenwoodil õigus, kui ta märgib, et kaasaegse rahvusvahelise õiguse järgi ei suuda okupeeriva riigi püüd okupeeritud territooriumi annekteerida muuta selle territooriumi või selle elanike õiguslikku staatust, ning nendele jääb kehtima sõjalist okupatsiooni puudutav õigus. Kuid kui vaadata vahetult II maailmasõjale järgnenud aastaid, muutub see küsimus vaieldavamaks. Vähemalt mõned varasemad autorid on eeldanud, et okupeeritud territooriumi annekteerimine lõpetab okupatsioonirežiimi ja/või muudab territooriumi suveräänsust. ”

“ Therefore, Christopher Greenwood is correct, when he states that according to the modern international justice, an attempt of the occupier to annect the territories does not change the legal status of the territory and its residents, and a military occupation justice will apply. But if we look at the years immediately following World War II, this question is more debatable. At least few earlier authors have presumed that the annexation of the occupied territory ends the occupation and/or changes the sovereignty of the territory ” — p 183, my translation

Also, the same p. 68 Paul cited, concludes "Therefore Soviet Union never had a sovereign control ^{(probably bad translation)} over Baltic states and remained only occupier, until de jure existing independence of Baltic states was restored in 1991 de facto as well." ("Seetõttu ei saanud Nõukogude Liit kunagi suveräänset valdusõigust Balti riikide üle ning jäi nõnda üksnes okupeerivaks riigiks, kuni Balti riikide de iure olemas olnud iseseisvus aastal 1991 ka de facto taastati.")

--Sander Säde 09:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive? Wikipedia is not a place for such debates. So please stop it.--Termer (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Care to cite the policy which we are violating here? Some big "not a place for such debates" rule, which I somehow missed? Thanks for giving polite orders though. (Igny (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

Please see the very top of this talk page. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sander Säde, please, keep in mind that the quote provided by you was taken from the paragraph which starts with the words

"Balti riikide seisukoha järgi pani Nõukogude Liit 1940. a juunis Eesti, Läti ja Leedu vabariikide vastu toime agressiooniaktid.", or

"Согласно выдвинутой странами Балтии точке зрения, в 1940 году Советский Союз совершил акты агрессии против Эстонской, Латвийской и Литовской Республик."

("According to the Baltic states' point of view ...")

Therefore, the words quoted by you reflects the Baltic point of view and should be presented as such. That is in full accordance with my previous edits made to the lede, as well as with what the ref #5 in the main article tells.
Moreover, the footnote #3 (Malksoo) states:

"Enn Sarv on väitnud, et termini “dissidentlus” kasutamine Balti juhtumi puhul pole kohane, sest isikud, kes võitlevad vabaduse eest okupeeritud riigis, ei võitle “oma” riigis valitseva režiimi vastu ning seega ei saa neid nimetada “dissidentideks” ehk “teisitimõtlejateks”. Vt E. Sarv, Õiguse vastu ei saa ükski, Tartu, 1997, lk 75. Semantiline dilemma “dissidendi” ja “vabadusvõitleja (või vastupanuvõitleja)” vahel iseloomustab raskusi, mis tekivad õigusvastaselt tekitatud ja pikaajalise perioodi, nagu Nõukogude võim Balti riikides seda oli, adekvaatsel kirjeldamisel."

In other words, the illegal situation created during the prolonged period of the Soviet domination is really hard to characterize by single simple definition. Note, the other parts of the book use the term "occupation" (in the Baltic context) very infrequently. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

At least in the Estonian version it is clear that after the first sentence, it is author's text discussing the legal consequences if 1940 events were an illegal aggression. I tried to find an English version, but it seems Mälksoo uses Russian and Estonian version in his courses, but English version is only available commercially. --Sander Säde 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get your point. My impression form the Mälksoo's book is that he does not discuss the "occupation vs annexation" issue. The major subject he discusses is a phenomenon of state continuity after so long period of the loss of independence by the Baltic states. He concludes that one of the major reasons that allow us to speak about continuity, not re-creation, is the illegal nature of the 1940 annexation, that was a result of the Soviet aggression. (Interestingly, he notes that, although these events cannot be unequivocally described as an aggression based on those times' international laws, they were an aggression according to the treaties signed between the Baltic states and the USSR; these treaties were much more liberal and progressive than in the rest of the world.) One way or the another, Mälksoo prefers to discuss the legal bases for the Baltic states' continuity after illegal Soviet annexation, not occupation, although he didn't state clearly that the occupation ended after these states were annexed.
Again, after reading more on the subject I realized that different scholars use different terminology, and sometimes simply do not care about precise wording. In addition, the situation with the Baltic states is too unusual to characterize it in simple legal terms. Nevertheless, the terms "illegal annexation" or "forcible incorporation" are used more frequently in the sources that pay a due attention do the analysis of the subject. Therefore the formula "illegal annexation, which is seen as occupation by Baltic and some Western sources" seems to be the most neutral and adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Naturally Mälksoo's does not discuss the "occupation vs annexation" issue since there is no "occupation vs annexation" issue. Like already pointed out, also Mälksoo refers to "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" (chapter 3 p. 96) and to "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)" (Chapter 4, p 169). This article is about "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)" not about "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940". This has been pointed out about 4 times by now. In case you like the subject of "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" why don't you start up an article about it.--Termer (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. And Malksoo is also very clear about how the illegal annexation and occupation are connected to eachother: using the aid of google translate it says on page 192

“ "Since the annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union in 1940 occurred without any justification under international law and a significant part of the international community did not give the Soviet conquest a formal recognition, the USSR could not get a legal right of possession of the Baltic States, from which it follows automatically according to the international law, meaning that the occupation regime lasted until Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regained independence in 1991." ”

.--Termer (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only does he discuss this issue in detail, he raises a number of questions such as

“ Корректно ли использовать понятие “оккупация” для правовой оценки советского периода в странах Балтии? Какие следствия будет иметь утверждение, что страны Балтии были оккупированы в 1940–1991 годах, особенно в свете того факта, что они были аннексированы Советским Союзом в августе 1940 года? В первую очередь возникает вопрос о том, прекращает ли аннексия правовой режим оккупации независимо от ее незаконности. ”

So please stop saying nonsense and cherry pick terms used in the paper. With regard to a new article with a different title, one of these articles would become a WP:POVFORK of the other. This issue can not be resolved by creating two articles on the same subject. (Igny (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Sorry Igny my Greek is kind of rusty, so perhaps you'd like to use the language of the English wikipedia to make yourself understandable?--Termer (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Anybody who takes time to open the book can see that you have accused me wrongly of "cherry pick terms used in the paper" But that "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" (chapter 3 p. 96) and "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)" are 2 separate chapters in the book ISBN 9041121773, and thanks to Paul for providing the full version of the book that's available online.--Termer (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't apologize for your Greek illiteracy. Now I can see however the source of your misunderstandings of the sources. It suffices for you to read what I said in plain English here. The quote was not necessary, I just provided for everyone with knowledge of Russian or Estonian (see the link to the Estonian translation above) that you do not know what Malksoo is talking about. (Igny (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Sorry Igny, me as a wikipedia editor doesn't need to know what Malksoo is talking about. The only thing I need to know here, since malksoo separates the soviet annexation in 1940 and occupation (1940-1991) into 2 separate chapters there is no any reason to WP:SYNTHesize those together on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "Naturally Mälksoo's does not discuss the "occupation vs annexation" issue since there is no "occupation vs annexation" issue." He devoted the whole chapter(a chapter 4: "Occupation" of the Baltic countries (1940-1991); please, note that the word occupation is placed in quotation marks.). I fully agree with Sander Säde who characterized this book as the most comprehensive analysis of the issue. BTW I also fully agree with Mälksoo's, who concluded that the annexation of the Baltic states, due to its illegality, retained some features of occupation, and therefore was the occupation sui generis. However, the primary term used by him to describe the period of the Soviet domination is "annexation", not "occupation", and the article must be modified to reflect this fact.
Let me also point out that per WP:V "the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Mälksoo's book presents a comprehensive analysis of the issue, so the priority should be given to this and similar sources, not to numerous books where the subject has been mentioned only briefly and tangentially.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: ""Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" (chapter 3 p. 96) and "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)"" Firstly, please, don't limit yourself with reading the chapters' titles. The first chapter you mention discusses the "process" of occupation in 1940, so it has no relation to our discussion. The second title has been quoted incorrectly: it reality it is "Occupation" of Baltic states (1940–1991) (note the quotation marks). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually do look at the sources and there are no quotation marks on the word occupation in chapter title 4 p 169 'Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)' that ends with a conclusion already pointed out:

“ "Since the annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union in 1940 occurred without any justification under international law and a significant part of the international community did not give the Soviet conquest a formal recognition, the USSR could not get a legal right of possession of the Baltic States, from which it follows automatically according to the international law, meaning that the occupation regime lasted until Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regained independence in 1991." ”

So thanks again for providing the source!--Termer (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the whole chapter, especially the author's conclusions on the "occupation sui generis" and "Annexionsbesetzung", as well as the conclusion that that period cannot be considered as legally void. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The details do not change the bottom line. In case you're into it, feel free to add any relevant details to the article.--Termer (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the details do not change the bottom line. The question remains, however, what that bottom line is. Mälksoo's writes primarily about the consequences of annexation, he, as well as other authors he cites put "occupation" in quotation marks ("occupation sui generis"). Therefore, it is quite incorrect that the article uses mostly the term "occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that although Mälksoo occasionally uses the single term occupation to denote the Soviet period, he generally uses a combination of the terms occupation and annexation for that purpose. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not. Mälksoo generally uses the term "annexation", not "occupation" (even in the book's title). He speaks about "unlawful annexation", and sometimes put the word "occupation" in quotation marks, implying that, although Soviet domination had some signs of occupation it was not an occupation in its classical form ("occupation sui generis"). Therefore, the primary term to describe the whole period of Soviet domination should be "annexation", not "occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That one was just an outright lie. Mälksoo uses the terms "annexation", and "occupation" in different contexts, this has been pointed out about 10 times by now: according to malksoo illegal annexation occurred in August 1940 that's covered in chapter 3; occupation lasted (1940-1990) covered with chapter 4. In any case Annexation - the de jure incorporation of some territory into another can only refer to an event when an annexation happened, again legal or not, something that in the context occurred only in August 1940. You can't nor does Malksoo speak about "the whole period of Soviet domination as an annexation" meaning "The annexation of Baltic states 1940-1990"; instead Malksoo has a chapter on Occupation of Baltic states (1940-1990), without any quotation marks, and that's what this article is about. Please, feel free to get the book and read it, it should be available in your nearby library--Termer (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re That one was just an outright lie. That was an outright insult. Care to retract? I can see the problem as a matter of interpretation of the sources, but in any case insulting your opponents is not the right way to debate. (Igny (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

(edit conflict)Re: "according to malksoo illegal annexation occurred in August 1940 that's covered in chapter 3; occupation lasted (1940-1990) covered with chapter 4. " Rather funny interpretation. Firstly, in the chapter 3 Mälksoo discusses legality of both occupation and annexation, concludes that both of them were illegal. Secondly, the chapter 4 is devoted to the discussion if the period of Soviet domination can be considered as "occupation". Note the question marks in the chapter's title and quotation marks in the Russian version. (Balti riikide okupatsioon (1940–1991)? and “Оккупация” стран Балтии (1940–1991 гг.)?) He points out that many western authors also put the word "occupation" in quotation marks, and he himself describes the situation as "occupation sui generis".

Below are some quotes demonstrating my point. I have no English version of his book, so taking into account that you do not understand Russian ("Greek", as you dubbed it; BTW, what did you mean by comparing Russian with Greek? That both these languages are ancient and that they both are the integral parts of world culture?), I give the quotes from the Estonian version:

"Seega on reaktsioonid väitele, et Balti riigid olid aastatel 1940–1991 sõjalise okupatsiooni all, olnud õiguskirjanduses mõnevõrra ettevaatlikud. Tihtipeale püüavad Balti riikide tolleaegsest staatusest kirjutavad autorid ennast distantseerida okupatsiooni teooriast sel teel, et asetavad viited okupatsioonile jutumärkidesse (Nõukogude “okupatsioon”). Lisaks on Vene autorid jõuliselt eitanud Balti riikide okupatsiooni teooriat. Stanislav Tšernitšenko on rõhutanud: “Aga terminit ‘okupatsioon’ ei saa kasutada selle olukorra puhul, mis kujunes Balti riikides pärast nende liitumist NSV Liiduga, isegi kui tunnistada, et nad ühendati NSV Liiduga sunniviisiliselt (annekteeriti selle poolt). Erandiks on ainult Saksa okupatsiooni periood.”"

"Kas “okupatsiooni” kontseptsiooni kasutamine on Balti riikide nõukogude perioodi puhul korrektne või mitte? Millised järeldused tuleneks sellest, kui öelda, et Balti riigid olid aastatel 1940–1991 okupeeritud, eriti kui arvestada, et need riigid annekteeriti Nõukogude Liidu poolt 1940. aasta augustis? Esmajoones tekitab see küsimuse, kas anneksioon, olgugi õigusvastane, välistab õiguslikus mõttes okupatsiooni."

Note, the last sentence ("first of all, the question emerges if annexation terminates the state of occupation") is a direct repercussion of this (talk page) section's title.

Three last paragraphs of the chapter 4 tell that:

"Balti riikide olukorraga seotud faktid sunnivad tegema järeldust, et väide, nagu oleks Balti riigid aastatel 1940–1991 edasi eksisteerinud, sisaldab teatud õigusliku fiktsiooni elementi. Mõned riigid, mis ei andnud NSV Liidu vallutusele de iure tunnustust, ei olnud samas ka eriti sõnakad oma mittetunnustamise rõhutamisel. On vaieldav, mil määral sellised “kõhklevad” riigid seostasid oma mittetunnustamist teesiga, et Balti riigid kestavad õigussubjektina edasi. Teatud määral nõustusid need riigid sellise jätkuva eksistentsi fiktsiooniga tagantjärele, ex post."

(Note the words on "fiction of state's continuity revived ex post")

"Ometi ei viita viimaste aegade riikide praktika üldjuhul, et Balti riikide samasust tunnustanud riigid oleks mõtelnud vastuolulisele ja poliitikast ajendatud seosele “samasus ilma järjepidevuseta”. Balti riikide väide on alati rõhutanud riikide järjepidevust, ning kolmandad riigid, mis on tunnustanud Balti riikide samasuse ideed, on nähtavasti tunnustanud ka Balti riikide väidet pikaajalisest nõukogude okupatsioonist.

Nõukogude okupatsiooni ja anneksiooni õigusvastasus, nõukogude anneksiooni mittetunnustamine lääneriikide poolt, Balti rahvaste vastupanu nõukogude režiimile ning riigiorganite jäänuste katkematu eksistents eksiilis sunnivad langetama lõpliku otsuse, et Balti riikide järjepidevus kestis läbi kogu nõukogude anneksiooniperioodi. Lääneriikide mittetunnustamine üksnes rõhutas selle anneksiooni õigusvastasust. Selle õigusvastasuse tõttu, mida kinnitas mittetunnustamine, ei omandanud NSV Liit ka suveräänõiguseid. Kui just ei väideta, et Balti riikidest sai terrae nullius, mis oleks ilmselgelt absurdne, siis jäi nende riikide suveräänne valdusõigus õigusvastaselt okupeeritud Balti riikide eksiilorganite kätte."

Note, although Mälksoo does use the term "occupation" (although with some reservations: "Vaatamata anneksiooni faktile, jäi NSV Liidu kohalolu Balti riikides rahvusvahelise õiguse järgi okupatsiooniks sui generis kuni nende riikide iseseisvuse taastamiseni.") somewhere else, the only term he uses in the concluding chapter's paragraphs is "annexation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I (as well as other editors) will appreciate if you Termer used the colon character correctly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

More outright lies and misrepresentations of sources above. I don't mind citing the bottom line by Malksoo on the question of illegal annexation and occupation as many times as needed:

Malksoo raises the question on p 172:

“ Is the concept of "occupation" of the Baltic States for the Soviet period, correct or not? ”

and gives an answer on page p191-192

“ "Since the annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union in 1940 occurred without any justification under international law and a significant part of the international community did not give the Soviet conquest a formal recognition, the USSR could not get a legal right of possession of the Baltic States, from which it follows automatically according to the international law, meaning that the occupation regime lasted until Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regained independence in 1991." ”

and a conclusion on p. 193

“ In conclusion, it can be affirmed that the illegal annexation of the Baltic States in the context of the theory, in principle supports the occupation. However, it must be realistically narrowed. Despite the fact of annexation the presence of the Soviet Union in the Baltic countries until the restoration of their independence constitues as an occupation sui generis according to the international law. ”

So Malksoo theoretical approach concludes that it was a form of occupation sui generis. So do you want to rename this article Occupation sui generis of the Baltic states because of it? I don't think so. Common name Occupation of Baltic states is just fine.--Termer (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. It's not the first time on Wikipedia Paul misreads the sources and turns it into something compleatly different. Like for example Paul claiming once that "the Baltic states had a major impact on the outbreak of WWII" at the time when the source said "it is possible that the Baltics had an impact..." [59]. Please be more careful Paul not publishing Original Ideas on wikipedia, also on talk pages, this has been a problem and continues to be so thus far. Please at least try to follow more carefully where the current author uses quotation marks, where not and why. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure if I misread the sources, however, I am sure you do not read my posts. The Malksoo's point on the "occupation sui generis" has been reiterated by me several times on this talk page, so I simply cannot understand what new facts your post is supposed to present.

Secondly, since I already have a Russian version of the book, I see no reason to try to get an access to the English version. Therefore, to avoid accusations in incorrect translation back to English, I would like you just to post the whole paragraph you quoted so selectively (p. 191-192). I believe the full quote will clearly demonstrate who takes the words out of a context.

Obviously "occupation sui generis" is not an occupation in its classical form; that is why Malksoo speaks about a "prolonged period of annexation" (sic!) almost everywhere in his book. He argues that the Baltic case is very complicated and cannot be interpreted in simple terms. Moreover, the case of the Baltic states is an important precedent that may lead to modification of the norms of the international law. All said above demonstrates that your point of view is a superficial interpretation of what serious sources say.
I believe you fully realize that your position is flawed: you insist on using the term "occupation" and you refuse to admit that the "annexation" (although, according to most contemporary sources, unlawful) is a better (although not fully adequate) term to describe these events. By contrast, I insist that, according to reputable sources, the period of Soviet domination was unlawful annexation that had some traits of occupation. Obviously, my position is closer both to what the sources say and to what WP calls NPOV, and you perfectly understand that. That is why you are trying to insult me. As I already wrote, I am absolutely tolerant to such insults, I am not going to report to any noticeboard, moreover, if somebody else will try to report on your behaviour, I will oppose to any sanctions. However, I beg you to keep in mind that by insulting me you make your own position weaker, and you discredit the point of view you are trying to defend. I don't think that is what you want to achieve.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Recognition and non-recognition of annexation and occupation

IMO, this section does not go into nuances of recognition—non-recognition. A better description of the issue is provided in the Malksoo's book Estonian version of the book, where four different categories have been outlined: the states which didn't recognize the annexation de jure, the states which didn't recognized it de jure but recognized de facto, the states that did recognize the annexation de jure and the states that abstained from any steps that could be understood as recognition or non-recognition. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I believe "and occupation" is redundant, because the only issue was legality of annexation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that such an extensive list should be significantly shortened to just the nations explicitly rejecting the annexation, not simply ignoring the issue. Alternatively, the list may be more inclusive to include USSR's satellites which did recognize the annexation. (Igny (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Anything on Wikipedai should be based on the sources. there is no need nor any justification to start manipulating it or change what do they say. The current list is based on a reliable secondary published sources. In case you can come up with any other WP:RS that look into this, feel free to add relevant facts to the article.--Termer (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States

European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States has a number of issues (such as POV-title and synthesis). Are there any suggestions on how to fix them? At the moment, I can only suggest splitting the article into individual cases. (Igny (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

It is a pure COAT. In actuality the article discusses the legal status of the Baltic States in the USSR and should be renamed accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

There are some edits recently introduced that mislead the reader. Fr example "In the United Kingdom, for example, the Baltic embassies ceased operations in the 1970s" is taken out of context and is misleading for following reasons. since after the occupation all Baltic diplomats retained their diplomatic privileges for life according to the policies of the UK, and most of the Baltic diplomats had been passed away by the 1970 and therefore the Estonian and Latvian embassies ceased operations in the 1970.
the case of Lithuania however was different: Vincas Balickas assumed the role of charge d'affaires of the Lithuanian embassy to UK on January 22 1968 and hold this position until December 11 1991, after which he became the ambassador of Lithuania. Please read Diplomats Without a Country FFI By James T. McHugh, James S. Pacy , p 223 ISBN 0313318786 FFI. So therefore factually correct would be something like this "In the United Kingdom, for example, the Baltic embassies except Lithuanian ceased operations in the 1970s".

The second Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania understand themselves to have been the occupied states..." first of all is a poor use of language, the countries "understand themselves", what is that? Also " However, the moral approach of the European countries to non-recognition was quite narrow and theoretical" needs to point out who says so next to the '1960 resolution of the Assembly of Western European Union on Situation after 20 years of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states' and the '1983 European Parliament's resolution on occupied Baltic States'. etc.--Termer (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:all Baltic diplomats retained their diplomatic privileges for life according to the policies of the UK, according to one of the sources taken from this article, the UK excluded the Baltic diplomats from the Diplomatic List. So please stop misleading us. (Igny (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

Re: "Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania understand themselves to have been the occupied states..." first of all is a poor use of language, the countries "understand themselves", what is that?" Since these words are an almost verbatim quote from the Holoboff's book (see the ref) your words should be re-directed to this author.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

POV title tag

I have placed a POV-title tag per all my arguments above. To summarize, the current title is heavily slanted toward the Baltic nationalistic POV of describing the whole period of 1940-1991 as an occupation. While such POV is certainly notable and deserves a thorough discussion, it is difficult to defend the facts that annexation =/= occupation and Soviet occupation =/= Nazi occupation in the article under such title, even though several serious scholars and historians and politicians raised and discussed these issues.

The article also gives an undue weight to comparison of Soviet and Nazi activities in the area. While the Nazi invasion is relevant enough to discuss in the article on Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic states, when these events are combined in an article under such a POV-title, it implicitly implies that these events were equivalent or equally evil, although it is clearly and demonstrably far from the truth. Absence of the term annexation from the title is primarily aimed at advancing the similarities and at the same time hiding the differences between Nazi and Soviet activities.

The very fact that 90 percent of the article discusses occupation and annexation of Baltic States by Soviet Union should be a sufficient reason for the move to a more adequate title. It should not have been controversial at all, and in fact I expected that more reasonable people would join the discussion, and a consensus on such a trivial matter would be reached. Oh well, it was a wasted opportunity to fix a serious flaw in this article.

I admit that I may need a consensus to make a move to a different title (even if it is better in my opinion). Thankfully, I don't need a majority approval for placing the tag pointing at the obvious defect. (Igny (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I though Malksoo was the Baltic author. Therefore, I don't think the statement on the "Baltic POV" is fully correct. Let me also remind you that the principles of neutrality cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. Therefore, I believe no consensus is needed for changing a non-neutral article's name. I propose to discuss the issue on the WP:POVN--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I don't think that "annexation ≠ occupation, and Soviet occupation ≠ Nazi occupation" is a Russian POV. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Annexation vs. occupation is discussable subject; but claiming that Soviet occupation was less harmful than Nazi occupation is... Anyway, I asked third party opinion of Neutral point of view. Peltimikko (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't get the point. The discussion is not about a consequences of Nazi and Soviet domination, but about the legal issues. Whereas in 1941-44 the Baltic states were under Nazi occupation, it is not completely correct to state that these states were under Soviet occupation during 1945-91. Majority sources use the term annexation, and a number of states did recognize that annexation either de jure or de facto. Therefore it would be POV to use only the term "occupation" to describe the period of 1945-91.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Who were worse forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re:but claiming that Soviet occupation was less harmful than Nazi occupation is... Don't you think it is childish to say "Ok, we admit that Nazis and their collaborators killed a lot of Jews, but look at what Soviets did, they rigged elections!!!" Essentially that is the tone of this article, which in my opinion can easily be fixed by renaming. (Igny (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)) Uh, was that supposed to be a really really bad joke? While I am not familiar with specifics of Latvia and Lithuania, in Estonia, 1940-41 Soviets killed (or "went missing") roughly 10 000 civilians. About 7800 citizens were killed during the German occupation. I am not sure of the number of killed during the second Soviet occupation, but I seem to remember nine thousand deaths. --Sander Säde 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Re: thousands killed by Soviets. Care to provide sources? How many of those killed were suspected of collaboration with Nazis? Of other anti-Soviet activities, such as participation in Operation Jungle? (Igny (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)) Re:About 7800 citizens were killed during the German occupation.Do you mean that 26000 Jews killed by Arajs Kommando alone do not count as citizens? (Igny (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)) Igny, if I understand correctly, Sander Säde speaks about Estonia, whereas Arajs Kommando was formed and acted mostly in Latvia. In addition, the point is not the number of victims: Stalinist authorities killed even more people in Russian Federation, however we cannot speak about RFSFR as the occupied state in 1917-91.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (ec)And Arajs Kommando was active in Estonia during years...? It is perfectly OK to murder someone if they are "suspected"... that speaks for itself of your mindset, Igny. Do I really have to point out that during the first Soviet occupation, Soviets and Nazis were allies - and there were no Nazi collaborators, too? Sources - really easy to find, but a nice compiled table can be found here. --Sander Säde 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Also, off-topic, but since you mention Arajs Kommando so often, you might want to read about Vasili Blokhin, probably the most "prolific" executioner of innocent people who has ever existed. His body count alone is more than Arajs Kommando (and no, I am not trying to say that Arajs Kommando were the good guys or anything like that). --Sander Säde 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC) This is really off-topic, however, let me remind you that Arajs Kommandos were volunteers who alone killed more innocent people than the Soviets did during the Katyn massacre. Re: "during the first Soviet occupation, Soviets and Nazis were allies " Although such a statement can be found in some sources that tangentially mention this issue, no reliable source, that paid a due attention to the detailed analysis of the subject state that. The USSR and the Nazi Germany had never been the allies (although, during the end of September 1939 they can be considered co-belligerents). Let me remind you also that Hitler was displeased with Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, and even used this occupation as a pretext to start Barbarossa. One way or the another, this discussion has no relation to the thread's subject: the scale of a damage inflicted to the Baltic states by Nazi and the Soviets is not per se an argument to equate a legal status of the Soviet and Nazi in the Baltics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) PS. "It is perfectly OK to murder someone if they are "suspected"... " Remember that the events you refer to (execution of real and alleged Nazi supporters) took place during the war, and this war was the most brutal and bloody war in history. Obviosly, real and alleged Nazi supporters were tried and executed according to martial laws, and that was normal for those times. Remember, even Nuremberg trial was performed with violations of what we now call "international laws".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC) How is the status of Arajs Kommandos relevant? Or legality - or brutality of wars? Murder is a murder. Murder of civilians has no justification, period. Trying to say it is alright to kill someone without trial - or just Soviet show trial - if the person collaborated with Nazis, or was suspected in collaboration, doesn't justify the murder. It is still a murder. And if anyone will claim that a murder of an Estonian and a Jew are different in any way, then they are racists, flat and simple. --Sander Säde 15:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Re: "How is the status of Arajs Kommandos relevant?" No more and no less relevant than Blokhin's "prolificacy". It was not me who started this discussion. My only point was that whereas Blokhin was the NKVD officer, and, therefore, he had to obey orders, the members of Arajs Kommando were volunteers who could leave this unit at any moment. In addition, this was not the only example of voluntary participation of the Latvians and Lithuanians (to be perfectly honest, I know nothing about the Estonians) in Holocaust. In addition, even if we leave other cases of Baltic Holocaust beyond the scope, 26,000 Jews killed by Arajs Kommando alone is a really big number. Remember, execution of ca 20,000 Poles is still poisoning Russo-Polish relations. Re: "Trying to say it is alright to kill someone without trial - or just Soviet show trial - if the person collaborated with Nazis, or was suspected in collaboration, doesn't justify the murder." Execution without trial is a crime. However, it is natural to expect that war time prosecution in the areas liberated from Nazi would be performed via military tribunals, not civil courts. Therefore, execution according to martial laws (via military tribunals) can hardly be considered illegal. Re: "And if anyone will claim that a murder of an Estonian and a Jew are different in any way, then they are racists". Correct. However, this principle works only if it is applied universally. In relative numbers, no more Estonians were the victims of Stalinism than, e.g. Russians. Therefore, your point is not completely clear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) PS "His body count alone is more than Arajs Kommando" Blokhin killed ca 7,000 Poles (of course, the word "just" is inappropriate here). His other victims have no direct relevance to the thread. BTW, remember that his last victim was he himself, and, although I don't think that was an adequate expiation, however...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 7000 Poles was just only one protracted execution. Overall his body count is considered to be even up to 50 000 people. --Sander Säde 17:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Totally, about 1 million people (excluding GULAG camp execution) were executed by Stalin authorities, and, frankly, I don't think the number of victims per executioner is relevant to this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC) This has become a gross violation of wp:forum. May I encourage you to think of ways to address the matter at hand - how to make the title more neutral. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Good point Jaan. There are two ways to resolve the problem: to bring the article's name in accordance with the article's content or vise versa. If majority of the editors prefer to discuss mostly military aspects (1940-45 events), I see no problems with this title (and with the military style infobox). However, if we decided that the article covers the whole period of foreign domonation in the Baltics (1940-91), the name should be changed to conform with what the majority sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for NPOV title: Geopolitics of the Baltic states 1939—1991. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways to resolve the problem: to bring the article's name in accordance with the article's content or vise versa. If majority of the editors prefer to discuss mostly military aspects (1940-45 events), I see no problems with this title (and with the military style infobox). However, if we decided that the article covers the whole period of foreign domonation in the Baltics (1940-91), the name should be changed to conform with what the majority sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Geopolitics of...: does not read like a standard title of a historical event.

Re: Two ways to resolve the problem: Technically, to bring the title to correspond to the content is easier. I still strongly propose to rename it to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states, which is a common term to denote the foreign control of the region (94,200 Google hits for the exact expression). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite closing the request to move as no-consensus, I haven't heard yet a sensible argument against such move. Per WP:BOLD I am proceed with the move to force a progress on the stalled discussion. (Igny (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

Since the old title was not neutral you didn't have to wait for a consensus for the name change. Neutrality requirements cannot be superseded by the editor's consensus. I personally don't think the new title is optimal, however it is definitely a progress.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently we have seen every possible iteration of the terms on the table already or have we? What would be optimal then? Do you support renaming it to Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and removing the material on the German occupation from this article? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this title is that it pretends to simultaneously describe several too different periods of the Baltic state's history. As a result, it sounds ambiguously: for instance, one can interpret it as: "Occupation and subsequent annexation..." In actuality, the article tells about "forcible annexation" (by the USSR), "military occupation" by Nazi Germany, one more "military occupation" (by the USSR), and finally about the long and relatively quiet period when the Baltic states were full members of the USSR (although against their will). The common term to describe all these periods is "foreign domination", so if we decide to combine all these events in a single article, the best title (IMHO) would probably be "The Baltic states under foreign domination".

Re: "Do you support renaming it to Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and removing the material on the German occupation from this article?" As I already wrote, during this discussion (and after reading sources) I changed my initial opinion. Now I think that although the term "annexation" is the most appropriate, it nevertheless does not fully adequately describe the situation in the Baltic states in 1944-91. Therefore, it would be incorrect to use only this term in the title. In addition "annexation" is the process, not a state: the article with such a title is supposed to tell only about the process of illegal annexation (i.e. 1940, and, probably 1944-45 events), not the full period of 1945-91. With regards to German occupation, if majority of editors will decide that moving these events to a separate article will make the text clearer, I have no objections. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Annexation vs occupation

Hi, I've come here via Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states. I'm not quite sure how adding "annexation" to the title makes the article any more neutral, the official POV (which seems to be already expressed in the article) of the Soviet Union and Russia is that they didn't annex anyone, that the Baltic states willingly joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics just like the Baltic states willingly joined the European Union. No one speaks of the EU annexing its member states.

Nor am I sure that the participants here fully understand the relationship between "occupation" and "annexation". I'll try to explain with an analogy. They are not mutually exclusive terms nor is one term is more NPOV than the other, they are just different aspects of the same events, much like for example "fertility" and "conception". Just as conception requires fertility as a prerequisite, so annexation requires occupation as a precondition in most cases. Sometimes conception is not successful, just as annexation may not be generally recognized, but fertility remains as does occupation.

In the diplomatic realm a handful of states certainly offered de facto or even de jure recognition of the annexation, but even more states refused recognition and viewed the period as occupation (see for example the series of Council of Europe resolutions of 1960, 1964, 1980 and 1983). Therefore no general international recognition had been given.

In the academic realm, unlike the question of whether the Ukrainian famine was man-made or natural and we can actually name the scholars who hold the various viewpoints, there simply is no comparable debate with regard to the Baltic occupation question, as far as I can tell. The views of the Estonian scholar Lauri Mälksoo seems to have been discussed extensively on talk, but there are also exists the views of the Swedish scholar Anu Mai Kõll, who regards the period as occupation in her book The Baltic countries under occupation: Soviet and Nazi rule 1939-1991, and the British scholar David James Smith in his book Estonia: independence and European integration. Smith basically supports Mälksoo's view when he asserts, in a nut shell, that "the international community condemned this illegal annexation and never gave legal recognition to the Soviet rule over the Baltic states. This policy of non-recognition gave rise to the principle of legal continuity, which held that de jure, Estonia remained an independent state under illegal occupation throughout the period 1940-91".

So I am not sure where this idea that the word "occupation" is a POV term has come from, since no one has identified a scholar who asserts a contrary view. The point that Smith, Kõll and Mälksoo's make is that an annexation requires general recognition of its legality before it can be said that annexation has ended occupation, but general recognition was denied and hence it remained an occupation. No other scholar has been identified who opposes that view, thus academic consensus on this exists by default. See Britannica's good definition that discusses "annexation" in context of "occupation" [60]. So to sum up, the term "occupation" has a solid scholarly basis and can be considered NPOV as no competing scholarly source refuting that viewpoint has been found. If the concern is the juxtaposition of Soviet and Nazi occupations in the one article, then the obvious solution is to split the article Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and Nazi occupation of the Baltic states.

I hope the above is helpful in resolving this issue. Good luck. 124.180.196.163 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:"So I am not sure where this idea that the word "occupation" is a POV term has come from" Please, read the whole threads devoted to this issue. The full explanation (with quotes and sources) can be found there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How about Soviet occupation and incorporation of the Baltic States and Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany (which already exists)? (Igny (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Unilateral move by Igny

Igny, please do not move the article without reaching a consensus first. Your move proposition very clearly did not pass, so why did you decide to unilaterally move the article? Please don't behave like that, achieve consensus. --Sander Säde 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sander Säde, the move was not unilateral. It was supported by some other editors. In addition, let me remind you that neutrality policy cannot be superseded by a consensus. If I understand that rule correct, no consensus in needed to change a non-neutral content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it was also opposed by more editors. Reviewing administrator closed the case as "no consensus" - and yet Igny decides to go forth and move the article to a name he prefers without any discussion - hence, unilateral. And as for neutrality, that is exactly the reason for WP:RM - if there is a clear support for a name, then the move happens. If there isn't support, then obviously many editors see no issues with the current title. See Requesting potentially controversial moves. Igny is free to start another RM request - hopefully with a more neutral reason then his last one. --Sander Säde 16:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think new RM is needed, it is sufficient to re-examine the current (archived) RM discussion. Let me briefly summarized it.

The editors who supported the move were Igny, Jaan Pärn and I. The editors who opposed to it were you, H2ppyme and M.K., so, if we treat the RM's as a poll, the result should be "no consensus". However, WP is not a democracy, so not the number of votes matter but the strength of the arguments. What arguments were put forward by move's opponents? Let's see.

1. Your argument was that the proposed title reflects a Russian POV that "has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world". This thesis has been completely debunked (with sources) by other editors.

2. M.K.'s argument on "generalizations on the OR edge" is not an argument in favour of the present title. Igny demonstrated that persuasively, so M.K. abstained from further discussion.

3. H2ppyme argument was based on a wrong analogy between Poland and the Baltic states.

Summarising all said above, and taking into account that the arguments that were put forward by the move's proponents were more detailed, logically consistent and were based on reliable sources, I believe the RP closure was premature. RM is not a simple poll where both well substantiated and unsupported opinions have equal weights.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If I moved without the request to move, Sander or others would revert it citing "move without discussion", so I requested the move to generate discussion. As the RM was closed after only 6 people (3v3) showed some opinion, I proceeded with the POV-tag to generate further discussion. After that discussion was largely ignored by the proponents of the old title, I proceeded to move to make a progress on the stalled discussion. So instead of generating further discussion by providing some fresh arguments I see the moving war based on the nonsensical argument of no-consensus at a recent poll where 6 or 7 people showed up. (Igny (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Paul, "this thesis has been completely debunked (with sources)" - uhm, so far zero sources outside of newspaper opinion columns in third-rate newspapers or Soviet propaganda outlets. Since you support the move, could you please come up with a reasonable modern peer-reviewed source supporting Russian POV (official POV, that is - independent Russian historians refuse to support it for some reason). And - it is up to closing admin to decide which side has better arguments, not one side to decide "ours are better" and move it without reaching consensus. Admin weighed the arguments for both sides and obviously found arguments supporting the move not stronger then those against it. --Sander Säde 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

An adopted resolution of European parliament is not enough for you? (Igny (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't believe I've seen such resolution confirming that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily and legally. --Sander Säde 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sander Säde, please, re-read the discussion. Numerous western sources have been cited there. Google.scholar's result testify that "annexation" is used more widely (e.g. 'The annexation of the Baltic states and its effect on the development of law prohibiting forcible seizure of territory', New York Law SchoolJournal of International and Comparative Law 6: 2 (Winter 1985), pp. 301-433.)

With regards to your last post, let me remind you that mixing "annexation" (that may be forceful, illegal etc) with "voluntary annexation" is a straw man fallacy. In addition, your last words suggests that you haven't read the Malksoo's monograph yet.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Sander, who is happy with the status quo, is just stalling the progress here, if he does not provide some fresh arguments by tomorrow, I will move again. (Igny (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

I prefer to assume a good faith, so I believe he simply haven't read the sources carefully. Anyway, to finish with that, let me come back to his major point.
If I am not wrong, the only serious argument against the article's renaming was that the proposed name reflected the Russian POV ("This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world, it serves no purpose to reflect this POV in the name of English Wikipedia.") To demonstrate that it is not the case it is sufficient to provide the western reliable sources that use the term "annexation" in a context of the Baltic states. Let's start.

Firstly, the google.scholar.com results (I reproduce them here again) testify that the term "annexation" is more abundant than "occupation":

"occupation of the Baltic states" [61] 253 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([62] 253 hits
"annexation of the Baltic states" ([63]) 365 hits
""annexation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([64]) 362 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT annexation [65] 161 hit
"annexation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT occupation [66] 116 hits.

Therefore, the statement "This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world" seems to be completely unsupported.

Secondly, not only the number of sources but their quality matters. Let's check the sources more carefully.

(i) Malksoo book's title is "Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR : a study of the tension between normativity and power in international law".

(ii) G Ginsburgs - Journal of Baltic Studies, 1990. p. 11 "he measure was far less stringent than a version discussed earlier, which would have required applicants to prove that they or their ancestors lived in Lithuania before the republic's annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940"

(iii) Øyvind Jæger, SECURITIZING RUSSIA: DISCURSIVE PRACTICES OF THE BALTIC STATES Peace and Conflict Studies, Volume 7, Number 2, November 2000: "In both Estonia and Latvia only those who were legal residents of the pre-war republics on the date of 17 June 1940 (the date of Soviet annexation) and their descendants were granted citizenship, a regulation leaving 90% of the Russian minority in Estonia and 70% in Latvia without citizenship and subject to naturalisation in order to get a Baltic one (Stamers 1996: 192)."

(iv) S. James Anaya The Capacity of International Law to Advance Ethnic or Nationality Rights Claims. Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 403-411"Int he situation of the Baltic republics, for instance, a quite persuasive case has been made that their forced annexation into the Soviet Union in 1940 was an illegal usurpation of the republics' status as independent sovereign states, both under contemporary norms as well as under the norms of international law applicable at that time."

I can continue, however, I don't have to do that. Since I am not intended to eradicate the word "occupation" from the article my task is a priori easier than Sander's: I need just to demonstrate that the term "annexation" is being widely used by western sources (at least equally frequently as "occupation"), so it is incorrect to make an emphasis on the last term. I believed I was able to prove my point.
Dixi.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I offered my opinion above as to the meaning of "annexation" within the context of "occupation". You yourself admit that "annexation" is a process and "occupation" is a state, and that this process of annexation occured within the context of the state of occupation. I also pointed out that the Russian/Soviet POV is that they didn't annex anyone, so I am struggling to understand how adding "annexation" to the title actually makes it more neutral. What is the point of adding additional process terms to the title? Why not Occupation, annexation and sovietization of the Baltic states, how does it make the title more neutral than it already is?

As for Google scholar searches, well they don't really prove anything. With the correct selection of terms I can show "occupation" is five times more prevalent than the term "annexation", which in turn is less common that the term "sovietization":

• "soviet annexation" + "baltic states" 450 hits
• "sovietization" + "baltic states" 766 hits
• "soviet occupation" + "baltic states" 2300 hits

I suggest a more fruitful way forward is to do a literature search and tabulate the results here in terms of author, title and summary of the central idea. Hope that helps. Good luck again. 58.165.52.165 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure "Soviet annexation" to be an proper term. "Annexation" and "Baltic states" gives 3,030 hits [67]. You also forgot about "incorporation" and "Baltic states" (4,900 hits) [68] (Obviously, most of these sources discuss the annexation by the Soviets.) Please, remember that you cannot do the same search for "occupation" and "Baltic states": mentions of occupation of the Baltic states by Germany will inevitably be here. Anyway, I do not propose to get rid of the word "occupation" so it is unclear for me what is your point.

Re: "I suggest a more fruitful way forward is to do a literature search ..." Sorry, but that is somewhat non-polite. The participants of current discussion already made a serious literature search, so if you are intended to join this discussion, please, comment on the sources already presented here, and explain, please, why concretely these sources are not adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Interestingly, the same search made in legal opinions and journals gave:

"Soviet annexation" "baltic states" 63 hits [69]

"annexation by the Soviet" 19 hits [70]

"incorporation" "Soviet" "baltic states" 354 hits [71]

"annexation" "Soviet" "baltic states" 306 hits [72]

"occupation" "Soviet" "baltic states" 632 hits (less then "annexation"+"incorporation" (660 hits totally) [73]

(since occupation was followed by occupation, it is interesting to do a cross-search)

"occupation" "Soviet" "baltic states" -annexation 417 hits [74]

"occupation" "Soviet" "baltic states" -annexation -incorporation 333 hits [75]

And, finally, "annexation Soviet incorporation "baltic states" -occupation" gives 183 hits [76]

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I think you should read more carefully what you yourself and others write. Igny wanted to move the article to include more Soviet/official Russian viewpoint. You said "Your argument was that the proposed title reflects a Russian POV that "has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world". This thesis has been completely debunked (with sources) by other editors.". Russian official viewpoint is that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily and legally. So where is the "complete debunking (with sources)" supporting that viewpoint? So far there is zero support for legal incorporation.

Anon has an excellent new point. Annexation was an one-time event, which occurred when Soviet Union forcefully de facto incorporated Baltic states into its territory. Occupation was an ongoing status for the Baltic states. Since article deals with the whole occupation period 1940-1991, the name of the article should reflect the whole period, not one-time event which occurred during the said period. Currently the article is well balanced, with plenty of discussion about different viewpoints, including Soviet and Russian official POV. I see no reason whatsoever to imbalance the article by renaming it, unless a far more notable portion of the article will deal with the event of annexation. Otherwise we will end up with the familiar scenario - "claim the article is POV and SYNTH, throw out portions that don't fit your views, since article now has no content, put it up for deletion - and voilà, the article that I didn't like is now gone".

--Sander Säde 09:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion was to move to Occupation and annexation..., not to occupation and legal incorporation... nor occupation and legal annexation... (Igny (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Igny, your RM description had "The main problem in this version of the article is the POV title and a significant advance of the Baltic POV at expense of the Russian POV (violation of the NPOV policy)." We're discussing that RM here. Pay attention to details a bit. --Sander Säde 14:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From Sander's straw men, let me steer us back to the actual question at hand: does the title Occupation of the Baltic states represent a POV or the NPOV? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the question is rhetoric. The sources demonstrate unequivocally that the term "annexation", or "incorporation", (in the Baltic context) are being widely used in the English-speaking world. That is quite sufficient to claim that the usage of these terms is not a Russian/Soviet POV, and, conversely, omitting the term "annexation" is a POV (and, btw, not even a Baltic POV, because some serious Baltic authors disagree with that). With regards to the anon's point, we come back to the question of a possibility to militarily occupy already annexed territory (see Malksoo and other sources already discussed here in details).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is not rhetoric. I raised it to confirm that a move is necessary. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And Mälksoo concluded that according to the modern legal views it was an occupation. From above, "Therefore, Christopher Greenwood is correct, when he states that according to the modern international justice, an attempt of the occupier to annect the territories does not change the legal status of the territory and its residents, and a military occupation justice will apply."

And again, why do we need to mix event and status in the article name? If we would have an article Annexation of the Baltic states, it would discuss event of the forceful incorporation of Baltic states into the Soviet Union (per Britannica: "a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition."). Is a significant portion of the current article dedicated to this? No. Is the act of annexation important in the article? Definitely, but not to the extent of including it to the title of the article. The article is about period 1940-1991, not focused on legality and consequences of the illegal annexation.

--Sander Säde 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re why do we need to mix event and status in the article name? The current title mixes these things more than you think. "Occupied" means an event "A occupied B on date C" as well as status, "B remained occupied by A until date D". (Igny (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Dear Jaan, your question was rhetoric, because the answer is obvious: yes the title Sander is pushing is a POV, not NPOV.

Dear Sander Säde, you seem to misinterpret Mälksoo's point. According to him, the Soviet rule had some traits of occupation, so despite the Baltic state were annexed the term "occupation" is nevertheless applicable to the period of the Soviet rule with some reservations. Mälksoo uses the term "occupation sui generis" to reflect the uniqueness of the Baltic states' case. Please, keep in mind also that the same author uses primarily the term "annexation" to describe the period of Soviet rule. Therefore I conclude your arguments (and the reversal you made) are baseless.
One way or the another, we need to finish that. I propose the following: to rename the article to something more neutral (e.g. "Occupation and annexation...") and to redirect "Occupation of the Baltic states" to there. The present situation, when more neutral title is redirected to the article with POV title is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mälksoo very clearly supports the occupation. Like all definitions state, annexation is an act of annexing - not continuous state of the territory. --Sander Säde 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No. In Russian version, the word "occupation" was placed in quotation marks (""Occupation" of the Baltic states?"). Although the Estonian version has no quotation marks (and I know nothing about the English version), the question mark is present both in Estonian and Russian translations. Mälksoo clearly supports the idea that, according to some criteria the Baltic states remained occupied, however, he clearly warns against oversimplifications. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved again

Please discuss instead of move-warring. (Igny (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Vandalism reverted. Editor warned. --Sander Säde 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Igny. Please understand that you are breaking Wikipedia rules. In case of a contested move, the correct procedure is to achieve support for the suggested name in Requested Moves. Discussion happens before the move and not after. I see no difference between a random vandal and your behavior. --Sander Säde 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a page protection. Hopefully Igny will realize he has to follow rules same as everybody else. --Sander Säde 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sander Säde, the person violating the rules are you. The dispute where one side refuses to accept the other party's arguments is not a dispute. When a reasonable men join some discussion he obviously expect to convince others, however he always is prepared to be convinced (if the opponent's arguments appeared to be stronger). For example, during this discussion I changed my position: the sources and the arguments of other editors (including yours) forced me to concede that the period of Soviet rule had some traits of occupation, therefore this term cannot be fully omitted fron the article. By contrast, you appeared to be not ready to accept the arguments of others: you insist that only the term "occupation" should be used in the article's title and in the article itself, although a vast number of sources demonstrate unequivocally and persuasively that that is not correct. This behaviour is disruptive.
I thought you were a reasonable and sober editor, who takes the opponent's arguments seriously and who deserves his arguments to be taken equally seriously. Please, don't disappoint me.
With respect,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopened request to move

Occupation of the Baltic states → Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states — The previous request to move (to a slightly different longer title) was closed prematurely in my opinion per all the arguments above in this talk page. I have reopened request to move to a much more adequate title (shortened to address the concern of clumsiness of the title), which is certainly more NPOV that the current one. (Igny (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

I see no reason to reiterate the same arguments: the last RM was closed recently and prematurely, so it would be sufficient to reexamine the editors opinions presented there. However, it is quite necessary to weight the arguments' strength, not just to count votes because a bare "oppose" (or "oppose" under a laughable pretext) means nothing. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the simple vote count is explicitly prohibited by the policy, so the RM's results are void.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, for several reasons. Annexation is an act of forceful incorporation, while occupation is a status. As the article deals with the whole period of occupation 1940-1991, including the single event of annexation (forceful illegal incorporation) to the article name seems unprecedented and unnecessary. Furthermore, as we've seen, it is considered an occupation - all by historians, legal experts, scientists and courts. Article is currently very well balanced, discussing all viewpoints. Making the name longer serves no purpose that I can see whatsoever. --Sander Säde 07:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support for a neutral title supported by the major scholarly works. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, legal or not, but the Baltic states were, at least a period 1944/1956-1991, part of the Soviet Union. Peltimikko (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The sources presented on this talk page demonstrate unequivocally and persuasively that the term "annexation" is widely used. Moreover, some sources explicitly state that the occupation of the Baltic states was not an occupation in a classical form. The present title hardly "encourages multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing" so per WP:NPOV it must be changed, with or without consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose After reviewing the discussions for and against, in my view adding the term "annexation" makes the title less WP:NPOV. It makes it less POV because the international community never recognised the situation in the Baltics as an annexation. In fact the Soviet Union and now Russia also does not recognise that the Baltic states were annexed, they assert these countries freely joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in a way not that disimilar to countries joining the European Union today.

Under international law, occupation is considered to have ended upon the act of annexation, on the condition that the annexation is deemed legal or de jure via general international recognition. Obviously in the case of the Baltic states this did not happen. That act of annexation was never generally recognized as legal or de jure, therefore legally the territory remains in a state of occupation as if annexation never occurred. This is a basic principle of international law. Such territory is considered as remaining in a state of occupation even if the territory is governed through the civil rather than military laws of the state that has incorporated the occupied territory. This is affirmed by the British scholar David Smith when he states on page xi of the preface to his book: "In terms of international law the term ("former Soviet republic") is indeed a misnomer, for throught 1940-91, Estonia was deemed a de jure independent republic under illegal occupation by the USSR" and by Lauri Mälksoo when he states "Since the annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union in 1940 occurred without any justification under international law and a significant part of the international community did not give the Soviet conquest a formal recognition, the USSR could not get a legal right of possession of the Baltic States, from which it follows automatically according to the international law, meaning that the occupation regime lasted until Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regained independence in 1991."

In conclusion, the current title is the most neutral, since nobody disputes that the Baltic states were subject to occupation at some point, while on one hand the Soviet Union/Russia assert they never annexed these states claiming they joined freely, and on the other hand the international community never recognised a de-jure act of annexation as having occured, i.e. these states never became de jure "annexed territory" but remained de jure "occupied territory". ISerovian (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• This material may be useful. While it discuss Lithuania's law on occupation damage compensation it touches many aspects of this problem. Source: Baltic Yearbook of International Law, Vol 3, 2003 ISBN 9004137467. M.K. (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bringing in a related article - what would be your opinion on renaming Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany to Occupation of the Baltic states by Nazi Germany? Oth (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea as the Baltic states is a much wider used term than Baltic republics. I would keep the discussion on the relevant talk page, though. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• To Sander Säde. Your argument is wrong. "Occupation" had some traits that were absent in the situation we discuss: no military administration, no separate status for the Baltic citizens. In addition, "annexation" may refer both to the act and to the state: although the "annexation" took place in 1940 (or 1944-45), the countries remained annexed (with some traits of "occupation") until 1991. More importantly, since the vast number of sources use the term "annexation" or "incorporation" (and some of them even do not mention occupation at all), omitting "annexation" would be a gross violation of NPOV. Since the Sander's opinion is in a direct contradiction with WP:NPOV, his vote cannot be counted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, this is not voting. If you think an argument is wrong, then it is your opinion. Let the closing administration decide. Also, from the constitunional law dictionary, "Annexation: violent acquiring of an area, which belonged to another state." --Sander Säde 12:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the dictionary, I think this definition by no mean can serve as a support of your point: the annexation of the Baltic states was violent (unlawful), and, according to pre-1947 international laws annexation terminated occupation. The only things that do not allow us to remove the word "occupation" from the title (and to significantly decrease its usage in the main article) are (i) that the sources use the term "occupation" (in the Baltic states' context) very frequently (as frequent as the words "annexation" and "incorporation"), and (ii) that the annexation was treated as illegal by many western states, so the Soviet domination retained some traits of occupation.
One way or the another, since the question is not in replacement of the word "occupation" with the word "annexation", but in complementing the former with the latter (that is in absolute agreement with what majority sources state), I have absolutely no idea what your stubborn opposition is based on, and on how such a position conforms with the principles of neutrality and verifiability.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting Mälksoo's argument. He is not saying it is an annexation with the charactestistcs of an occupation, but an occupation that never achieved full de jure annexation. ISerovian (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)