Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Pauls Seibert's edits

Paul Seibert appears to be edit warring over the article tag[1],[2], yet he seems unable to continue the discussion on talk above. It is unacceptable that he should avoid this article while maintaining the tag, stating that he is busy with something else: "I think we probably should finish with Holodomor first. And, for a while, all tags should stay." Either he continues here or that tag should go if he can't proceed. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say, removal of the POV tag (in a tag team fashion) without obtaining consensus has more traits of an edit war. The state continuity issue is not the only issue we disagree about. You preferred simply to ignore some of my concerns, for instance, the post I made on 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC). The dispute over the last lede paragraph is one of several issues we need to resolve before the POV tag cam be removed, and I see no progress so far. Therefore, I respectfully request you to immediately restore the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I have not actively participated in the discussion here due to the RL reasons, I have followed it closely, and I fail to see any consensus to drop the tags. (Igny (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Pribaltika nationalities among the Soviet forces

The people of the relevant countries were not unanimously opposed to the Soviet system and did not overwhelmingly welcome the invading Germans. Data suggests that those fighting against the Soviet system were in fact outnumbered by those that fought on its behalf.

Large numbers of people belonging to Baltic nationalities served in the Soviet Army:

In 1941-42, the Soviets raised an Estonian and Latvian rifle corps and a Lithuanian division...The 201st Latvian Rifle Division...went first into battle in Decemer 1941...the 308th Latvian Rifle Division was awarded a Red Banner Order for the fights in Riga i the fall of 1944. The 16th Soviet Lithuanian Rifle Division was praised for its actions in the battle of Kursk. By March 1945, 99,974 Lithuanians were drafted into the Red Army - almost three times as many as those who served in the German-sponsored police battalions. About 25,000 Estonians, 5000 Latvians, and 20,000 Lithuanians diedin the ranks of the Red Army and labor battlions.

Prominence is attached to the eviction of some numbers of people in the countries, but nothing is mentioned about the reported atrocities committed by the anti-Soviet forces in the immediate post-war years, which influenced Soviet policies on coercion and security.

"In Latvia, from 1944 to 1952 "Forest Brothers" made more than 3 thousand subversive and terrorist acts that killed 1,562 council representatives Komsomol activists, 50 soldiers of the Soviet Army, 64 MVD and the MGB, 386 fighters destruction battalions as well as many members of their families"

This article and the one linked to it reduce the entire 50+ year existence of the Pribaltika SSRs to paranoid claims about Russification and immigration seeking to inflict harm on the local population. But this is highly disputed, as historians Soviet policies promoted the culture and languages of nationalities rather than trying to suppress them. Historians argue that the large, compact communities of nationalities in the USSR faced little chance of assimilating into Russian culture, while those living away from such communities often did assimilate or get into mixed marriages.

In the Pribaltika, there was concrete socioeconomic and political progress in all areas of life, as the abundance of historical literature and works of journalism argue. This needs to be elaborated on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.169.69 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC) In 1941-42, the Soviets raised an Estonian and Latvian rifle corps and a Lithuanian division...The 201st Latvian Rifle Division...went first into battle in Decemer 1941...the 308th Latvian Rifle Division was awarded a Red Banner Order for the fights in Riga in the fall of 1944. The 16th Soviet Lithuanian Rifle Division was praised for its actions in the battle of Kursk. By March 1945, 99,974 Lithuanians were drafted into the Red Army - almost three times as many as those who served in the German-sponsored police battalions. About 25,000 Estonians, 5000 Latvians, and 20,000 Lithuanians diedin the ranks of the Red Army and labor battlions.

Surely, as the Soviets were the first occupation regime to conduct a general mobilisation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"In Latvia, from 1944 to 1952 "Forest Brothers" made more than 3 thousand subversive and terrorist acts that killed 1,562 council representatives Komsomol activists, 50 soldiers of the Soviet Army, 64 MVD and the MGB, 386 fighters destruction battalions as well as many members of their families"

This is correct, the Forest brothers fought for the independence of the Baltic states (this is the name in English, as opposed to Pribaltika) and against the occupation regime. You are welcome to add the numbers to the articel. However, normally we don't treat guerillas or partisans as terrorists. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This article aims to represent the mainstream scholarly view, as opposed to the Soviet and Russian official point of view. If you have sources we are missing, you are welcome to bring them forward. The prosperity of cultures and nationalities sounds like an excerpt from a Soviet textbook. Considering the social and economic progress in the Baltic states, the population grew only due to immigration, while the indigenous population remained the same. The development of industry is generally regarded as colonial, mainly subcontracting for the Soviet military industry while the local supply of civilian goods was insufficient. The agriculture was developed in a similar way, aimed at the Soviet market while the local food supply was scarce. And I am talking about the 1970s and 1980s as well, when a lack of food is hardly a sign of 'socioeconomic and political progress'. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not turn the Talk Page into a battleground. Here you are making controversial, politically-motivated claims about how "Forest Brothers" fought for "independence" when in fact others argue the opposite and refer to the reported war crimes committed by them, as shown in the cited works above. You belittle opposing opinions merely as "Russian official point of view". But who else is going to have a point of view on the subject? Almost all information about the region comes from primary and secondary sources published in Russia or the Pribaltika states. Yet, you single out the Russians for not being credible.

You make a brief statement about the war period, but you apparently have not researched the issue because large numbers of Pribaltika nationalities actually volunteered to serve in the Army and partisan forces. So why comment on the issue if you have not researched it?

Your denial of the fact of concrete progress in the economic and social spheres would have to be described as fringe, as it totally conflicts mainstream literature on the issue.

Your claim about colonialism is inaccurate according to specialists, as Fomenko argues in the International Affairs journal:

The Baltic infrastructure was developing at a fast pace on the federal budget money, that is, at the expense of the Russian territories. Till the very end of the Soviet Union, on the eve of its "second independence," the Baltic republics were still getting money from the Center. Under the 1986 and 1987 budget laws of the U.S.S.R., Lithuania received money from the federal budget: 48,052 thousand rubles in 1986, and 230,225 thousand rubles in 1987. 24 In 1988, the republic got no money yet the republican budget retained 98.2 percent of sales tax (the main tax proceeds) and 100 percent of income tax. The R.S.F.S.R. could count only on 50 percent.]

You mention immigration and population growth. But observers point out that immigration was a response to the low population growth in Estonia and Latvia, whose economies could not cope with a labor shortage. Lithuania, by contrast, had healthy birth rates and therefore did not receive immigration. Likewise, you ignore the fact that large numbers of Pribaltika nationalities migrated to Russia in the last 100 years: 1926 Soviet census shows over 295k Estonians and Latvians living in Russia and its neighboring republics, who by the xenophobic logic of certain nationalist activists would be classified as "occupiers" undeserving of the rights coming with citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you take a closer look, this article looks only at the political context of the occupation, not social, economic, or cultural. If you are that eager to get your material published in the Wikipedia, bring it to the Talk:Baltic states in the Soviet Union (1944–1991) and equip it with something more solid than Russian news reports. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the Baltic volunteers among the Red Army, I would be happy to see the figures. Although how can these be great under a general mobilisation, when every fit man is compulsed to join the army anyway...?

Regarding Forest Brothers war crimes and terrorism then killing one's enemy in a war is not a war crime. The Forest Brothers were Baltic citizens who fought against the Communist regime, so active Communists were their enemies. Soviet partisans made subversive attacks againsst Nazis and killed them, I couldn't believe it if you called that a war crime or terrorism. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Soviets illegaly conscripted the peoples of the Baltics just as the Nazis illegally conscripted them. Individuals wound up fighting against brothers, or for both sides in succession. Baltic Soviet units were so unreliable (they would not kill their own) that they had to be deployed elsewhere along the Eastern Front. As for population growth, mass deportations would have an effect, no? Let's not pretend that the mass influx of resettled immigrants during post war occupation was anything except the stamping out of nationalism. And let's not forget the purges of Baltic communist nationalists. @75.51.170.140, that you cannot even call the Baltics by their proper name, preferring the transliterated Russian, rather betrays your POV here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim about the Soviet side "illegally" conscripting Pribaltika peoples is obviously controversial. And did you read anything stated above? Because your claim about the Pribaltika peoples being "unreliable" in the Soviet forces is at odds with the research on this subject. Statiev cites convincing data to prove that the Pribaltika peoples made impressive contributions to the Soviet war effort. Anyway, my point is that this information needs to be included in the article because the current version gives the impression that these people were unanimously anti-Soviet when in fact the vast majority were even either pro-Soviet or politically passive. Regarding immigration, there is plenty of literature that challenges the nationalist paranoia about "colonization".

You are misreading the Alexander Statiev source. He states that there were three types of people who joined for the Red Army: (1) loyalist Balts who had evacuated with the Red Army, (2) Balts who permanently resided in the Soviet Union (presumably those Balts who had emigrated into other parts of the Russian empire/Soviet Russia before 1920), and (3) conscripted labour battalions formed during the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about Baltic nationalities living in Russia forming the bulk of participants in the Soviet war effort. Statiev states that ca. 100,000 Lithuanians were in the Red Army. The 1939 census only shows that 32,624 Lithuanians lived in the USSR, meaning that the vast majority of Lithuanians on the Soviet side came from Lithuanian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of Lithuanians were conscripted into the Red Army, Statiev states: "By March 1945, 99,974 Lithuanians were drafted into the Red Army". Since Soviet sovereignty wasn't recognised over the Baltic states back in 1945 (some argue the 1975 Helsinki Accords afforded recognition, but even if we accept that for argument's sake, such recognition isn't retrospective under international law), conscription was illegal. --Nug (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's original research on your part. Other legal analysts and scholars affirm the legality of the joining to the Soviet Union. Since this conflict exists, the drivel of the White Book cannot be cited without clear attribution and the consideration of alternative arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The 75.51.170.140 editor, as well as this guy 99.96.6.245 (who are obviously the same person) both appear to be socks of indefinetly banned user JacobPeters. The edits made by these socks should be reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Title Bias

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

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

Latest additions

This addition is controversial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Marek that this IP is a sock puppet. He[3] has made similar tendentious edits to the articles August Uprising, Rape during the occupation of Germany as 76.191.230.178, who is a confirmed[4] sock puppet of User:Orijentolog . --Nug (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Comment

Hi!

I was invited to comment on this article.

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

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

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

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

Your objections are flawed and dated, starting with your contention that this is "Baltic POV" as opposed to "not official Russian POV". All western scholarship agrees with the account presented here.

Your contention of "strikingly resembling those the initial Nazi legislation against Jews" is polarizing and uninformed vitriol.

On citizenship, you fail to account for:

• The majority of "bezpilsoņi" Russophones, if you take them as a group (applies to Estonia and Latvia), have gotten citizenship; they are not considered "occupants"; for example, they were able to claim property which did NOT belong to them but which they acquired "legally" during the occupation; governments provided compensation to those who lost pre-WWII family property in this manner (in many cases that compensation was worthless "certificates" that were sold for pennies on the dollar; but if you had thousands of them you could cheaply buy your way into privatized enterprise; this concentrated any enterprises remaining viable after independence in the hands of the former administration's apparatchiki)
• Many remain in "bezpilsoņi" status because they pretty much have all the same rights and privileges (except voting and certain government positions) AND they get preferential treatment by Russia (formerly this also included being exempt from military service when military service was mandatory)
• If they do not wish to subscribe to their homeland's version of history and instead subscribe to official Russia's version of history, that is their choice
• I should mention that citizenship requirements for the Russian Federation are far more draconian than anything the Baltic states have concocted

Your contention that there is a caste system is without merit. One only has to visit Riga and listen to the language being spoken by the the well-heeled drivers of late model Mercedes. Losing the artificial privileges during Soviet occupation is not discrimination, it is equality.

Since you arrived to denounce the article as Baltic nationalist claptrap and occupation as a Baltic-only "theory", I can only respond that your contentions here are, at best, misinformed, at worst, reek of the Official Russia party line ("40% occupants" et al.) -- VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And invited off-wiki to sign up to Wikipedia only to denounce the Baltic myth of Soviet occupation. This just gets better and better. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Peters here. It would be correct if UUNC explained us about this invitation: who concretely did invite him? In addition, taking into account zero edit history of UUNC I doubt his opinion can have significant weight. We expect UUNC to edit Wikipedia a little bit to make sure that they are not an WP:SPA.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment noted and thank you. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Less yourself, myself, and (surely not) Nug, Sander, or Collect, we're left with Igny or some agitator interjecting from the sidelines (the latter regardless of invited or not invited). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"I was invited to comment on this article." Sounds a bit WP:MEATy to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Likely a sock of someone recently banned, I'd say. --Nug (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who edited this area and was recently banned? The UUNC's arguments seem to be fresh, so I am inclined to agree with Lothar here. However, I think we have not much information about UUNC to speak seriously about that. Let's wait.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"and annexation" - another failed attempt to produce constructive discussion

I am going to restart the main topic of this discussion in order to let my opponents focus on one main concern, not some other tangential topics, such as discussing "occupation" (we are not discussing removal of that term from the title here) or my or Paul's personal qualities, that may stop now (move it to another section if you want to keep discussing that).

There were some references to some policy which would be broken by changing the title. I would like to ask Martin what specific letter of that policy applies here and how.

Second thing I would like to know why and in what context the period 1940-1990 was referred to in mainstream (with wide acceptance) as occupation. More specifically I would like to know the sources which explain why it was an occupation. I would like you to focus on sources which discuss this "occupation" outside the debate on Baltic state continuty and/or current status of Russophones and/or Russophobic "Russia is evil". You see if they use the occupation argument in debates on national identity, or to justify certain treatment of Russian speaking minority, or to plainly attack Russia, that is one thing. I want to see the sources which discuss this "occupation" from the point of view of international law rather than the current political situation.

The most interesting sources would be the ones which do not mention "annexation" at all or state explicitly that "annexation" did not happen.

Hopefully such sources would explain the POV of my opponents here, and I would finally have something concrete to address/refute. (Igny (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Discussed at length in the past. Titles are expected to be concise and not be something like "Baltic states, their collaboration with Nazis and rescue by the Soviets who annexed them, though some Western ideologues called it an occupation" or the like. WP:CONSENSUS for the current title has been iterated in the past, and seems quite likely to be unchanged now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Igny, per Collect, and per WP policy rehashing of past discussions when nothing has changed is disruptive behavior. Please produce sources other than Russia Duma pronouncements that Latvia et al. joined the USSR legally according to international law. In the absence of legal joining we have illegal occupation, it's as simple as that.

The current agitation over contemporary "Russophobia" has been, unfortunately, invented and fomented by official Russia itself. Scholarship on that is readily accessible--but a topic for a different discussion at a different article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Collect, your title left out the initial Soviet occupation, so I'm afraid an appropriately descriptive title would be even longer. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"and annexation" - 2nd failed attempt to get constructive discussion going

I am going to restart the main topic of this discussion in order to let my opponents focus on one main concern, not some other tangential topics, such as discussing "occupation" (we are not discussing removal of that term from the title here) or my or Paul's personal qualities, that may stop now (move it to another section if you want to keep discussing that).

There were some references to some policy which would be broken by changing the title. I would like to ask Martin what specific letter of that policy applies here and how.

Second thing I would like to know why and in what context the period 1940-1990 was referred to in mainstream (with wide acceptance) as occupation. More specifically I would like to know the sources which explain why it was an occupation. I would like you to focus on sources which discuss this "occupation" outside the debate on Baltic state continuty and/or current status of Russophones and/or Russophobic "Russia is evil". You see if they use the occupation argument in debates on national identity, or to justify certain treatment of Russian speaking minority, or to plainly attack Russia, that is one thing. I want to see the sources which discuss this "occupation" from the point of view of international law rather than the current political situation.

The most interesting sources would be the ones which do not mention "annexation" at all or state explicitly that "annexation" did not happen.

Hopefully such sources would explain the POV of my opponents here, and I would finally have something concrete to address/refute.

Please address my question here, if you want to make personal attacks or repeat other unrelated arguments, see the section above. (Igny (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Re-arguing the past when nothing has changed is disruptive behavior. Please bring sources which indicate the Baltic states joined any of the occupying regimes legally if you wish to contend "occupation" is not the proper term for the duration of the period in question. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, per your argument, since nothing has changed there is no reason to remove the POV tag, removal of the POV tag would mean that the dispute has been resolved. This is clearly not the case here.(Igny (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Consensus was reached. It is fatuous to insist on a "pov" tag when consensus is that the title does not violate NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I would recommend you to familiarize yourself with WP:EEML before making any conclusion about some "consensus" here. (Igny (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

I read the case. And later decisions. And note that it is not remotely applicable to your tendentious re-opening of the title discussion here. What you do when you make such attacks is not helping your position on this issue much at all. In fact, it likely makes me view this as an ongoing tendentious crusade on your part. Unless, of course, you wish to assert that I am on any mailing list of some sort? Or that such a mailing list exists? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I just pointed out the case where this tactic of "there is a consensus", when there was none was actively exploited. (Igny (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

"Tactic"? Sheesh! Look at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_13#POV_tag. with discussions covering thousands of words - and where your position failed. Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_8#POV_title where you tried as well. Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_9#Title_and_first_paragraph more. Gee whiz - archives 3 onward all seem to have renewed claims by you - and you seem to have failed on WP:CONSENSUS each and every time LOL! Let's count the number of times you aded the tag: more than 35 times. I think most people would consider adding the same tag more than 35 times to be "pushing the envelope" by a mile! Collect (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of Newton's laws of motion#Newton's third law? Removing the tag by the tag teams and WP:SPA and WP:SOCK 35 times is pushing envelope no less. (Igny (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

On international law, I highly recommend William Hough's "The Annexation of the Baltic States and its Effect on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory" published in the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1985 Winter edition. It is widely cited regarding the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to look for this article next week. (Igny (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

I am not aware of any substantive dispute requiring a POV tag. Again, speaking of the Soviet Union, please provide sources countering occupation, that is, supporting the position of legal "Pribaltika accession" (to translate the Russian). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

See, that is where we disagree. (Igny (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

We disagree on there being a dispute or we disagree that there is no scholarly support for "Pribaltika accession"? If there is no scholarly support for such accession, by definition there is no dispute regarding the alternate, i.s., occupation. We've already exhaustively dealt with euphemistic names for the Soviet era, none of those are pertinent to the state of occupation. So, what is left to dispute? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute is in the title of this section. The article discusses occupation as well as annexation (two different phenomena). It argues that annexation was illegal, and that occupation lasted until 1990. I explicitly claimed and still claim now that by dropping "and annexation" from the title of the article, it became biased, and tagged the article appropriately. There is a dispute, it might be that you did not understand what the dispute was about. (Igny (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Titles do not include the entire content of the article. They are there for readers to find the article. Period. That you wish the title to be long and quite likely useless does not help - you are being well past tendentious here now, and I suggest you redact some of your attacks on editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My only "personal attack" here was pointing out (with evidence) violations of WP policies by my opponents here, ironically, including personal attacks on me and Paul. Titles do not include eniter articles, no. But just dropping one word from the title can easily result in a bias. (Igny (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

THIRTY FIVE TIMES is a lot of times to re-insert that same "pov tag" -- yet you seem here to accuse me of "personal attacks"?? Trally? Does WP:DEADHORSE mean anything at all? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"To repair the economy destroyed by a war, one has to destroy it first, and that is why a war is needed" Re-insertion of the POV tag would be impossible if someone hadn't removed it first. Someone seems to believe that unilateral removal of the tag is tantamount to resolution of the POV dispute, which is not the case. Instead of removal of the tag one should bring at least one fresh counter-argument, because references to alleged consensus are not an argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Um -- one editor adding a tag THIRTY FIVE times, reverted by a substantial number of other editors -- the word "annexation" is in the title of one subarticle, so there is no question that the term is mentioned as appropriate - to that subsection. The topic has been discussed many times and never with support for the tag being in place. Literally dozens of times the exact same claims were made - and never found to be valid here. Yet you balme the numerous other editors for disagreeing ewith Igny and the one other editor who stopped editing at the same time Igny started here? Nope Paul - it is he who is the problem at this point, not "everybody else." Collect (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re :it is he who is the problem at this point. You asked me whether I accused of a PA above. Well if you read my comment more closely, you would notice that I did not accuse you of a PA personally. I accused you of violating WP:TEAM and abuse of WP:CONSENSUS and since you admitted that you did not forget WP:EEML, and since you have been involved in numerous cases involving the WP:EEML members, you violated these rules knowingly so, that is on purpose and not by a mistake. And now with this particular comment you crossed the line and I can accuse you personally of making a personal attack on me. I would recommend you redact your comment above. (Igny (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

That is one of the single strangest posts in the history of Wikipedia. You invoke TEAM, EEML and SOCK in posts to me and insist that you did not attack me? ROFL! And you posted the same POV tag THURTY FIVE TIMES - and somehow blame everyone else? Nope - does not wash. Collect (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure Igny mentioned WP:SOCK in his post. However, I would recommend Igny to take a break. Obviously, Collect's posts neither address our arguments nor contain new thoughts, they are just the (inappropriate) references to general policy rules or repetitions of the arguments from the posts made by others. Collect's posts do not require immediate answers, so I recommend you Igny not to try to address each of them, or, at least, not to do that immediately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead horse would be applicable (perhaps) if all my arguments have been properly addressed and I were the only one who thinks that "annexation" should be added to the title. (Igny (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

If you wish to avoid another topic ban you will not level personal attacks invoking EEML again. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is rich. A baseless accusation in disrupation of WP is coming from a person known for his disruption of WP in the past. Just do you know, a dispute on the talk page can not be considered a disruption by any WP policy. Your baseless "is a dusruptive behaviour" is just a personal attack usually aimed at editors new to WP, who easily give up when facing such attack. I am not new. I am aware that I am not in violation of any WP policy. I am aware of one WP policy which you are all in violation, that is edit warring and team tagging. I also pointed out to a WP case where it all was discussed in detail, including (a) personal attacks on opponents (b) empty threats of prosecution (c) baseless accusations (d)owning the articles. That was not a personal attack, even though I do not find it a concidence that the editor who disrupted the WP before, is doing the same again now. (Igny (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Clearly you're here to discuss anything except the content, as you've produced not a single source which indicates the Soviet Union (there's no debate on Nazi Germany at least) did not occupy the Baltic states for the duration--that being the legally acceded, according to the Soviet now Russian, account. Repeating the same dispute over and over IS disruptive and you are well aware of that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are not hearing what I am saying. Why would I bother with such requests, when it is just a straw man argument? I am going to repeat it again. I am not arguing for removal of "occupation" from the title. (Igny (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Agreed. See also my responce to VєсrumЬа in the previous section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding annexation for the reasons I mention below and which have been mentioned many times before is equally unsupported. And, as for reasons for tag insertion, just look at the opportunity we've had here to waste time as nothing has changed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

UN point of view

This in a United Nations map of the world by 1945. The map is modern (issued in 2010). It indicates the Baltics to be part of the USSR. Other occupied countries (i.e. Germany) are not shown as part of the occupying power :

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world45.pdf

U.S. map from 1970 showing the same:

http://www.emersonkent.com/images/world_1970.jpg

Modern Britannica, showing the same:

http://kids.britannica.com/elementary/art-55228/During-the-Cold-War-that-developed-after-World-War-II

--UUNC (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Which means essentially zilch here. China under Mao issued a stamp showing Taiwan as not part of China. Argentina and Chile have each issued stamps showing vast chunks of Antarctica under their territory. Wikipedia, for some odd reason, does not regard "maps" as evidence of anything at all - which rather means thie pretty pictures do not have any value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be right or wrong, however, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about the USSR, authored by four leading scholars, John C. Dewdney, Richard E. Pipes, Robert Conquest, and Martin McCauley, says:

(the Soviet Union) was "former northern Eurasian empire (1917/22–1991) stretching from the Baltic and Black seas to the Pacific Ocean and, in its final years, consisting of 15 SovietSocialist Republics (S.S.R.’s)–Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia,Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The capital was Moscow, then and now the capital of Russia."

How did the Baltic states become a part of the USSR? EB explains that:

"In the foreign sphere the Baltic states were annexed in the summer of 1940. At the same time the U.S.S.R. secured Bessarabia and the northern Bukovina after Romania gave in to an ultimatum on this issue. "

No separate reservations about the status of the Baltic states within the USSR as of the occupied territories have been made in EB. That is weird that two best enencyclopaedias, Wikipedia and EB present this part of the Soviet history so differently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

lol. Paul Siebert at WP:RSN on 13 February 2012: "I think EB, being a tertiary source, should be avoided when possible". --Nug (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoided (as a source), yes, but not ignored. We have an opinion of Robert Conquest: the Baltic states were the part of the USSR. It is a correct summary of many secondary reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of your latest contentions are:

1. Encyclopedia Britannica speaks of "annexation," no mention of occupation
2. Robert Conquest states the Baltic states were "part of the USSR," no mention of occupation

therefore "occupation" is at best a secondary description of the Soviet presence for the duration.

Please indicate if I need to change anything in my understanding to replay your position to your satisfaction. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, EB as whole (other articles, not the article authored by Conquest) does mention occupation. However, that has been done in such a way that "occupation" is not the sole term, and it is clear from the language that the Baltic states became the parts of the USSR, not a kind of subordinated territory.

In other words, in a context of the post-Soviet realities and state continuity of the Baltic states it is correct to speak about occupation (the Baltic states were restored as if they were merely occupied, with no (or almost no) legal consequences). However, it terms of those times political realities, it is correct to speak about these states as parts of the USSR. In other words, the situation is closer to the Anschluss of Austria then to occupation of the East Bank of Jordan or of the Gaza strip. As you probably know, both Austrian citizens and the Baltic citizen became the citizens of the annexing power (frequently, against their will), and no separate administration was established there, which was different from the administration of the empire as whole. In contrast, the Gaza strip (as well as its population) always had a legal status which was different from the status of metropolia.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No one has claimed that "occupation" is the sole term. It is, however, the proper term. While you can speak of civil administration of territory, the Baltic states were still subjugated by a massive military presence; their "membership" in the USSR was maintained by force; when the Soviet Union began to disintegrate, force was used, yet again, in an attempt to prevent the reestablishment of independence.

That inhabitants of the Baltics "became citizens" of the USSR is a syllogism. As occupation granted no rights, any "citizenship" is therefore bogus, as the USSR was not granted any sovereign authority over Baltic subjects. While as "Soviet citizen" my parents would have been shot as traitors who defected, they continued, in fact, to continue to be citizens of the sovereign Latvian state. This is merely a rehash of your earlier arguments that the Baltic peoples enjoyed all the rights and privileges of the "rest of" the citizens of the USSR.

Speaking of the example of Latvia, recurring programs of mass deportation and political purges at the sign of any rise in Latvian nationalism demonstrated a specific policy and program conducted over a lengthy period of time to stamp out opposition to Soviet occupation. Such policies and actions demonstrate that the Baltic states did, in fact, receive special treatment detrimental to its sovereign citizens. It is misleading, at best, to advocate for the simplistic and therefore incorrect characterization that the Baltic states were "part of" the Soviet Union as that denies the separateness of the occupational regime as compared to Soviet administration in "other" republics. You cannot use the fact of administration via the same channels to WP:SYNTHESIS contend that said administration and concomitant goals and effect were also the same. The "realities" of Soviet occupation testify to the fallacy of that synthesis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Massive military forces" were directed primarily against NATO, not against internal insurgence. More military forces were stationed in Ukraine or Belorussia, however, we do not speak about their occupation.

Your mention of military force usage is nonsense: following your logic, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia were occupied by Ukraine and Belorussia: force was used in the first four republics, but not in the last two.

I agree that it would be misleading to write that the Baltic states were the parts of the USSR (without additional reservations), and, if you for some reason will stop edit Wikipedia, and someone will advocate such wording, I will object. However, it is equally misleading to write that they were just occupied, and were not the part of the USSR. I agree that situation was complex, but your vision is also an oversimplification. In actuality, as I already explained, the Baltic states were (i) de facto occupied (although formally the Soviet troops did not interfere into their internal affairs), tthen (ii) illegally (and forcefully, taking into account the military presence) annexed, then (iii) conquered by Germany, then (iv) re-conquered by the USSR, who considered them as its territory, then (v) stayed under the control of the USSR, who considered them as a part of its territory, not as occupied territory, (vi) after dissolution of the USSR they got independence as if they were simply occupied. That is what I concluded from the sources I read, and that is why "occupation" cannot be used as a sole term.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all your personal WP:SYNTHESIS Paul. A new 2012 source, a book published by Routledge called The Baltic States: From Soviet Union to European Union by Richard Mole, which has a chapter named "The years of Soviet occupation: independence lost and won" which Mole states analyses "the two periods of Soviet occupation (1940-1 and 1944-91)". That should finally settle this naming issue. --Nug (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am finally convinced, thank you Martin. I would no longer argue to remove "occupation" from the title of this article, your source settled this part of the naming issue. (Igny (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

That is disingenuous, you never argueddemanded removal of the term "occupation" from the title but the addition of "annexation" to the title of an article about a period between 1940 to 1991. WP:TITLE policy requires succinct titles based upon common English usage and speaking about a period of "annexation" is just plain bad English. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You correctly recognized Igny's sarcasm. Regarding "succinct title" I cannot understand why the Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) is succinct, but "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states" is not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As you correctly point out above "annexation" refers to an event while "occupation" refers to a period. No one, atleast native English speakers, say "period of annexation" but instead "period of occupation", that is just plain common English language usage as exemplified by Richard Mole's monograph on the topic. --Nug (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[5]--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your search on "period of annexation" returns 144 hits while "period of occupation" returns 7330 hits. Thanks for confirming what I say. --Nug (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your initial statement was " No one, atleast native English speakers, say "period of annexation" but instead "period of occupation"". I provided the examples of the opposite, thereby refuting your thesis. Regarding your search results, you forgot that occupation is more common event than annexation (more military occupations took place in history than annexations that ended with succession). In addition, since "occupation" has many meaning, "period of occupation" may refer to many things, including, e.g. " the probable nutrient accumulation which would have resulted from a period of occupation by Tswana Iron Age people " (result [ http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2845378 #8] on the first page).

Going back to the main issue, I think that "The Baltic states under foreign dominance (1940-1991)" would be the best solution, which, I believe, can satisfy all involved parties.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin, you are wrong, see User:Igny/Annexation of Baltic states by Soviet Union. When I raised my concerns first, and suggested a new title I was facing so much resistance from your group (back then I did not realize there was a group), it was unbelievable. With regard to period versus instant, it would be very easy to resolve. Just contact you closest US senator and ask him to correct the grammar in S. CON. RES. 35. Once you do that, let us know, that would convince me once and for all. (Igny (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

Of course there cannot be period of annexation because annexation is a one-time event while occupation is always prolonged. This does not mean of course that any period a territory was part of a country can be called "occupation".--UUNC (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not as simple as you think. Of course, annexation is deemed intrinsically permanent, whereas occupation is temporary. Of course, one cannot speak about any occupation after some territory has been annexed. However, what can we do in a situation when one side (the annexing power) declares the territory has been annexed, whereas another side does not recognise this fact as legal? That collision is a source of a majour controversy around the Baltic states, which does not allow us to use a single term to describe it. In addition, the US Senate resolution Igny refers to clearly says about "condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania", and obviously, under "annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991" is meant the period of time when those states had been the parts of the USSR (i.e. annexed by the USSR).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this usage while occurs sometimes, is not really grammatically correct. In most cases other grammar constructions used to convey the meaning, such as "the period the territory was part of ... country" and the like.--UUNC (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul asks "However, what can we do in a situation when one side (the annexing power) declares the territory has been annexed, whereas another side does not recognise this fact as legal?". In this case, as many scholars have argued, the presumption always falls on the side of the existing state that was annexed:

• Van Elsuwege: "international law practice also reveals a strong presumption in favour of the continuity of established states."
• Crawford: "generally, the presumption - in practice a strong one - is in favour of the continuance, and against extinction, of an established state"
• Gérard Kreijen: "That there is a general presumption in modern international law in favour of the continuity of an existing State"

While representatives of the annexed state and the international community continue to object to the actions of the annexing state, annexation cannot be deemed permanent since the possibility of restoration remains, and therefore control by the annexing state remains temporary, i.e. it is deemed an occupation. --Nug (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The above relates back to third party perceptions and as to whether:

• ex iniuria ius non oritur applies, in which case continuous and therefore occupied for the duration--and we have overwhelming scholarship that occupation did not grant the USSR any rights, which scholarship is not in dispute here (or is it?), or
• ex factis jus oritur applies to Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, if so, discontinuous.

The former is the position of the reestablished states on the one part (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)--illegally "occupied", continuous. The former, however, is not the competing position, on the other part, of the Russian Federation, legal successor by choice to the USSR, the occupying power—that position being the myth of "Pribaltika accession," i.e., the voluntary and legal surrendering of sovereignty to the USSR, hence discontinuous.

So, unless editors have scholarship supporting the legal accession by the Baltic states to the USSR, we are done here, as "annexation" was an administrative action granting no rights. It's fine to include "and annexation" in the 1940 title as that article pertains to invasion, occupation, and the initial act of annexation; however, speaking of the duration of the Soviet presence, only "occupation" applies. The competing "not occupied" is a politically expedient view for Russia (and held by about 40% of those surveyed in Russia, based on years of propaganda; an equal part do believe the USSR occupied the Baltics) which is unsupported by any scholarship whatsoever.

That some editors have advocated for "and annexation" on the basis of (IMO) something between "occupied" and "not occupied", viz., Paul Siebert's "more of an intervention," or now propose milquetoast ("foreign domination", no mention of occupation at all in any title regarding Soviet, Nazi, and again Soviet crimes against the Baltic states and its citizens) is utterly unsupported personal WP:POV WP:SYNTHESIS. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. "Foreign domination" would be prior to the 20th century, when invading warring foreign powers ruled over the territory of today's Baltic states and such wars for territorial control (and their results) were legal. Sorry, Paul, you're (now that we're in the 21st century), two centuries late. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

POV tag again

I noticed the POV tag has been removed [6] by user Estlandia. I was explained by Igny that that user cannot be considered as uninvolved, because he is in actuality a user Miacek, who, for the reasons we all aware of has a close relation to EE topics. In other words, this involved user joined an edit war without explaining his position. My request to self-revert has been ignored. In this situation, I ask all involved parties if anyone can point at any signs of progress in our discussion. I myself see no progress so far, and, if no examples will be provided within a couple of days that can be considered as an indication of possible compromise, I'll restore the POV tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that such would be unwise utterly. The word "annexation" is in the title of the only subarticle to which it rationally could apply -- and the rest of the tens of thousands of words on this has not shown there to be any consensus that any POV in the title of the main article exists. Cheers - but I have the list of reverts ready to post <g> as you should not above. Collect (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What you just said was some utter nonsense. Familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. We really do not need consensus to establish lack of consensus that the title was NPOV. I guess I gave Miacek ample opportunity to revert himself, I am going to revert him now and he would have a WP:3RR violation on his record. (Igny (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

The POV tag is not justified.

Of course, supporters of the USSR think that the phrase "Occupation of the Baltic states" is a POV phrase. These people also regard as POV claims that the USSR was responsible for mass murder. We do not have to go along with these people. They have a fringe view. They want to censor information.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we are discusing a view widely accepted in the mainstream and provided multiple independent and neutral sources in support of such view. With regards to "censoring information" you got it the other way around. I would suggest you to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the words fringe theory and censorship. (Igny (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

@Toddy1. Could you please elaborate on your post? Whom concretely did you mean under "they"? If you imply that some participants of this discussion have been engaged in whitewashing of Stalin's crimes, please, tell that openly. If you do not mean any concrete person, what is the purpose of your post? I respectfully request for clarification, because otherwise your post is tantamount to personal attack against some of the participants of this discussion.

To facilitate your task, let me explain you that the idea I and Igny support is not to remove the word "occupation", but to add the word "annexation", which has been recommended by such a non-fringe author as Lauri Malksoo (and used in such official documents as the res. No 35 of the US Congress (2005)). Alternatively, I proposed a totally new title "The Baltic states under foreign dominance (1940-1991)" which, in my opinion, adequately describes political reality during that period of the history of the Baltic states.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not just in US resolution, it is in European resolution as well. (Igny (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

There is life outside Wikipedia. Supporters of the USSR push the POV of the USSR in real life too. Please do not confuse the issues here by making false accusations of "personal attacks" (Paul Siebert) and "tag teams" (Igny).--Toddy1 (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

People educated in the Soviet Union believed, in good faith, that incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union had a legitimate basis in the desire of the working class in the Baltics to be part of the Soviet Union. Michael Gorbachev obviously held this view, and, in fact, relied on it when he encouraged glasnost and democracy in the Baltics with disastrous results; I saw him on TV at the time talking, I think to the Latvians, naively encouraging them to freely express their views; they soon did. However, I'm not sure someone who believes that today could be said to be anything more than simply ignorant. Such views, if they are widely held are notable, but not with respect to the title of the article or the bulk of its content. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well indeed Wasserman argues that the elections before the incorporation of Latvia into the USSR were the first really universal and free elections after decades of dictatorship. There are others who thinks that even if the peoples of the republics did not want to join the USSR for ever, they at least made a choice between Germany (who was already at war) and the USSR in hope that it would safe them from the peculiarities of the war. Anyway, this is not what is disputed in this article. Whether the unification was voluntary, forced or coerced, the dispute is whether the article should say that the states were occupied all the time from 1945 to 1991 or just incorporated in the USSR. It has critical importance for determining the status of ethnic Russians in Latvia and Estonia who are currently restricted in their rights as "occupiers" (even those who were born there). --UUNC (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Annexation" is a way of evading international law: "During World War II the use of annexation deprived whole populations of the safeguards provided by international laws governing military occupations. The authors of the Geneva Convention IV made a point of "giving these rules an absolute character", thus making it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation." User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That text says "the text in question is of an essentially humanitarian character; its object is to safeguard human beings and not to protect the political institutions and government machinery of the State as such. The main point, according to the Convention, is that changes made in the internal organization of the State must not lead to protected persons being deprived of the rights and safeguards provided for them." So this convention only deals with the protection of civilians during a war. It cannot affect constitutional status of the territories. It is also only valid during a war, not in peacetime, because it is a convention on the rules of conducting a war.--UUNC (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The war continued long after the end of the Second World War. The last Lithuanian rebels were only cleared out in 1956; there was no peace treaty; thus a state of belligerency continued until the Baltic states were able to throw off Soviet domination. Thousands of Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians were interred although they were not called prisoners of war or accorded the rights due them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, there was no state of war declared between these states and the USSR of course. The claim that the incorporation of the states in the USSR was illegal was only based on the accusation that the elections in 1940 were forged. But given that there were no elections at all before the Soviets came (there were authoritarian dictatorships) there is no ground for any other group to claim that they are the more legitimate government. And of course it is fringe point of view that there were some states engaged with the USSR in 1945-1990 at those territories. All sources indicate that the territory belonged to the USSR.--UUNC (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

An invasion obviates the need for a declaration of war. Dictatorship by nationals of a state does not justify invasion or void a nation's sovereignty. Prewar Baltic governments were pitiful excuses for self-government but that didn't make them fair game for military and political conquest. I have every sympathy if you and your family are ethnic Russians and are caught up in this nightmare. It is true that acquisition of territory by conquest was not illegal under international law prior to 1948, but that does not mean conquest before that time was valid. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The USSR entered their military following the consent of the respective governments. It is possible that the consents were coerced but the entry was no doubt peaceful. There is no ground for a claim that the USSR was at state of war with respective states. Note also that currently many governments are overthrown by foreign powers, say, in Iraq and in Libya. This does not mean that the respective countries are still at state of war with the United States and that their pre-war governments or their representatives are still legitimate. Anyway I see the arguments about the legality of anything by Wikipedia's editors off-topic if Wikipedia wants to provide point of view based on external sources rather than users' opinions.--UUNC (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The section "Soviet and Russian historiography" should satisfy anyone that a good faith attempt has been made to include Russian nationalist views, and in much greater detail and respectfulness than is necessary or appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not only "Russian nationalist" point of view that the states were incorporated in the USSR. It is a historical fact, that is reflected by the UN maps for example. There is also a UN database of occupied and dependent territories.--UUNC (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Maps are not legal opinions. You will need an Israeli visa to visit the Golan Heights. A map tells you that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Golan Heights are listed as an occupied territory by UN. I know no map or encyclopedy to claim the territory to be Israelian. With the USSR the case is opposite, the region according to the majority of sources (graphical or not) was included in the USSR.--UUNC (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Naive reliance on the acts of a corrupt, indeed, criminal, government leads to tragic consequences for the innocent, see Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). Authority that can be trusted is rare. Not that the legal status of Russians now resident in the Baltics excuses abusive behavior. However, one cannot expect to reside in another nation's national homeland without accepting the host nation's legitimate demands, or one's status as a resident alien. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I do not think that stripping up to 40% of population of citizenship, economic and voting rights conditional to their origin and political views is a legitimate demand. It is their homeland as well, especially if they were born there.--UUNC (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Great nations such as Russia or the United States can afford to be generous regarding such matters; small, embattled, and historically abused nations cannot; being overrun or dominated by another people is an existential threat, see Illegal immigration from Africa to Israel. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Greatness of Russia does not help the ethnic Russians who had misfortune to be born in Latvia or Estonia. As I know the United States vigorously protects not only the rights of their citizens but also of citizens of other, distant countries if they allegedly abused. Anyway, the attitude of Russia towards the rights of Russians abroad does not matter for this article, I believe. It should explain facts and opinions of historians in a neutral manner.--UUNC (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, you mentioned some "Russian nationalist viewpoint", which is shared by some users. If I understand you correctly, I suspect you mean my humble person inter alios. In connection to that, let me remind you that I never use Russian nationalistic sources (and very infrequently use Russian sources at all) for my edits. Since "Russian nationalistic" views are supposed to be present is "Russian nationalistic sources", the only way for me to advocate "Russian nationalistic" views is to selectively use sources to advance some position, which is a violation of WP policy. In other words, in your last posts you implicitly accused me in breaching our policy. If that is was your intention, please, support your accusation with examples. If you have done that unintentionally (and I strongly believe in that), please, do not do it in future.

For your convenience, I explain my viewpoint below.

The Baltic states neither joined the USSR voluntarily, nor their annexation was legal. We can speak about occupation, followed by illegal annexation. However, upon annexation they became de facto parts of the USSR (which was recognized by majority world states), although de jure the annexation was not recognized by most states except few ones. Such a metastable and equivocal state of things lasted until the dissolution of the USSR, when the world community faced a dilemma: to recognise the Baltic states as newly created states that seceded from the USSR, or to speak about restoration of old pre-WWII Baltic states. Taking into account the illegal character of annexation (and taking into account political realities) the second option was chosen, and, for state continuity purposes, the Baltic states are considered as temporary occupied territories now. However, that does not change the fact that by the moment of annexation the acquisition of the Baltic states was deemed as permanent by the USSR, and that no separate military occupation regime was established there (in contrast, for example, to the occupied Palestinian territories). That is why I support the position of such authoritative author as Lauri Malksoo who advised us to add the word "annexation" to the title, because that would reflect the actual state of things more correctly.

I see no "Russian nationalism" in all of that, and I respectfully request you to modify your views. If you need more information/sources, they will be provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I am quite sure that at least the UN recognized the states as seceding from the USSR. This was done following the protocols submitted by the Gerbachev's government to the United Nations. The declarations of the state continuity of these states by their legislatures (and followed stripping of portions on the populations of citizenship) happened much later after they gained independence.--UUNC (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Only actions taken after occupation ended have legal validity; unilateral acts by the occupying power prior to abandoning territory gained through conquest would not change the legal status of the occupied nation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What is legal is usually decided by a court or by legal scientists, and not by Wikipedians. Wikipedia should neutrally reflect their points of view. Also as I know the decisions about the admission were not unilateral.--UUNC (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I was unaware of your edits or position; no personal rebuke is intended. I do not ordinarily edit this article or monitor it. By all means, please provide such views and include them in the article if they represent a significant viewpoint. I wonder if there is a neutral title you might suggest. Annexation gives a misleading impression also. In general, applying defining labels, particularly in titles is a problem. Military and internal security was in force throughout the history of the Soviet Union; it is hard to see the relevance of failure to create a separate command for each Baltic state; actually, I think there were regional commands and departments as well as puppet administrations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that correctly interpreted your intentions.

The sole word "annexation" is definitely as misleading as the word "occupation". The title we proposed was "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states", the wording recommended by Lauri Malksoo, an Estonian author of the monograph specifically devoted to the legal aspects of the annexation of the Baltic states. The same wording is used in many official documents, such as the US Congress resolution quoted earlier.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"And annexation" appears in the 1940-related Soviet-only-related article title. This article pertains to the period of Soviet + Nazi + Soviet presences, therefore "and annexation" is completely inappropriate for the title, aside from all the other considerations which have been discussed. And splitting is not appropriate as the period of occupation by originally cooperating powers was continuous. A central historical theme of this article is that continuity of occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

When Germany occupied the Baltic states, they were de facto the parts of the USSR, so I see no contradiction here. Re "completely inappropriate", the sources state otherwise...--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A new 2012 source, a book published by Routledge called The Baltic States: From Soviet Union to European Union by Richard Mole, titles a chapter "The years of Soviet occupation: independence lost and won" which Mole states covers "the two periods of Soviet occupation (1940-1 and 1944-91)". As been pointed out above and agreed to by both Paul Siebert and UUNC that "annexation" refers to an event in 1940 while "occupation" refers to a period. That is exemplified by Richard Mole's usage of the terms in his monograph, he also uses the term "annexation" in the context of the event. It is not clear how adding the term "annexation" to the title would make it less POV, these terms don't represent competing viewpoints, just different aspects, one an event another referring to the period, and we already have an article about the annexation event Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940), this article is about the period 1940-1991. --Nug (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Russians in the Baltics

UUNC, I think you should take your issue to Russians in Latvia, Russians in Lithuania, and Russians in Estonia. Ethnic Russians do have a right to be treated fairly and there are doubtless legitimate issues that you could develop information about. This is a dead end that actually harms your cause. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, Ethnic Russians in post-Soviet states which could use considerable further development. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

POV title tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your arguments have been thoroughly refuted. As I observed in a previous thread[7], you seem to have a tendency to abandon a thread when your argument fails and return some months later to repeat it all over again. You claim you have provided reliable sources to support your arguments, in the last instance it was van Elsuwege, when I pointed out that he also agreed that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years you disappeared from that discussion!! And here you are, claiming "I don't remember my arguments had been refuted so far", well no wonder, you keep running away when ever some inconsistency in your argument is highlighted. What a joke. --Nug (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dishonest?!

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

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

" The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec)

So, Paul, let's see...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peters, that is a misinterpretation of my words.

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

I fell like I'm watching a train wreck in slow motion.

1. Truman more evil than Stalin. What other possible purpose could someone divine from your comparison that Truman killed more innocents (of an enemy, by the way) than Stalin (of a neutral country the Soviet Union invaded based on lies and on incidents it staged in order to give itself an excuse, by the way).
   What can we conclude? Fewer Balts than Japanese (in a single act) dead by the hands of Allied leaders (and rather implies the Baltic peoples are the enemy, consistent with your chiding the Baltic peoples for combating the Red Army instead of the fascist enemy).
2. Semi-Aryans and now Hitler, who saw them as semi-Arians, treated them more mildly, hence their greater will to cooperate. Treated them more mildly than what? Killing and cremating Jews or having them dig their own mass graves prior to being shot?
   What can we conclude? Not being exterminated outright by the second power to invade your homeland elicits Nazi volunterism and willing--meaning positive desire to do so--cooperation because you are higher on Hitler's racial scale as opposed to "cooperating" out of fear for your life having already survived one occupant who rained down murder and mass deportation? That's rich.
3. You dismissed Stalin's actions against the Baltic peoples as irrelevant to anything since Stalin killed plenty of his own citizens in the same manner. What else you state regarding occupation or not is not the main concern per your latest response, this is not about violations of conventions.
   What can we conclude? The Baltics had nothing to complain about since Stalin's infliction of mass extermination was egalitarian.

I am happy to debate you on sources. It gives me no pleasure to point out the Baltophobic essence of your contentions. I'm in no position to comment on your ideas or motivations. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1. That is lie: I never claimed that Truman killed more people than Stalin did, and I never made comparison between Stalin and Truman in that context. My thesis is clear for any good faith person: to make a conclusion about the global role of the USSR in the WWII as whole based on the events in the Baltic states is as ahistorical as to make a conclusion about American role in WWII based on the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In other words, for almost every single example (e.g., for repression of Baltic nationals) can be found a counterexample, and this comparison proves nothing except the flaws of your approach. With regard to the Baltic citizens as enemies, you should decide: either they were conscripted against their will, and were just the victims, or they were heroes, who fought bravely against Bolshevist hordes as de-facto the allies of Nazi Germany. I will support any of these two theses, however, I cannot support both of them simultaneously per tertium non datur.
2. Treated more mildly then Belorussians, Russians, Jews, and other EE nations. I believe you will agree that the German occupation regime was much less painful for the Latvian population than the preceding Soviet rule, and they greeted Germans as liberators. As a result, many Latvians actively collaborated with Nazi (including collaboration in extermination of Jews). Anticipating your accusations, I declare that I am ready to provide needed source upon request.
3. No. I fully agree with many authors who see an outburst of anti-Jewish violence in 1941 as a result of Stalin's repressions during 1939-41. I also agree that active participation of Latvians in Waffen-SS was also dictated by a desire to prevent re-taking of Latvia by the USSR. However, I disagree with your quite illogical statement that repressions was an indication of the existence of occupational regime in Latvia.

Re Baltophobic, please, stop that. We are talking about Latvia, not about Estonia (whose representatives didn't participate in the Holocaust). Let me point out that I never called you a Russophob, or any other "-phob".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Really, this is getting a bit silly, no?

1. You clearly stated Truman killed more Japanese innocents that Stalin killed Balts. The context of your comparison is immaterial. Your comparison itself is ipso facto most unfortunate. As for conscripted victims versus heroic fighters against Soviet occupation, it is only your personal contention that there is a choice of one or the other but not both. In the face of Soviet and Nazi and Soviet invasions, the one constant is victims. By your logic, you contend that fighting against Soviet re-occupation absolves the Soviets of victimizing the Latvians since they can no longer be victims if we call them heroes. Your tertium non datur is fundamentally biased and misconceived, as the Latvian Legion were both victims and heroes.
2. You ignore that a week after Stalin's mass deportations the Devil incarnate would have been welcomed as a liberator. Stalin's use of Jews to replace Latvians in clerical posts put them in the cross-hairs of anyone whose family or relative disappeared without a trace. I do not condone vengeance, however, the dynamic at work where collaboration was concerned was not, as is contended, centuries old anti-Semitism waiting for an opportunity to kill neighbors. Another conversation for another time. To the topic at hand: your central thesis is that the Nazis weren't as bad, ergo cooperation including let's go out and murder Jews. If you have a source making this (outlandish) claim, please start a new discussion section. My response is that the Nazis were just as willing to shoot you as the Soviets, ergo cooperation. It's easy to judge others and ascribe imagined motives based on one's own prejudices when you yourself haven't already spent a year going to work every day with a rifle pointed at your head, being told what to do--and I don't mean that as a figure of speech.
   Perhaps you can clarify this apparent double standard for me: someone with a gun pointed to their head who cooperates with Russians is an OK person but the same person with a gun pointed to their head who cooperates in exactly the same way with the Germans is a Nazi collaborator?
3. You now prattle on about things completely unrelated. I originally stated that the Soviet occupation victimized Baltic innocents, to which you responded that Stalin treated everyone equally badly, so what? Bad treatment does not an occupation make.

As for labels for your contentions, as I said, I have no insight to your motivations so I can't call you a Baltophobe or characterize you as being anti-Latvian. I can only tell you the repugnant net effect of your contentions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not talking about the choice for the conscripts. I am talking about the choice for you and for other users who edit Latvia related articles: you either are talking about forceful conscripts (so simply had no choice but to fight for Nazi Germany. Noone can blame them, or more precisely, those of them who committed no war crimes, in that), or you are talking about the "defenders of Latvian independence". In the latter case, we are talking about Nazi co-belligerents, whose activity postponed the end of WWII and lead to additional victims among the Allies. In other words, no glorification - no questions, however, if you want to present them as freedom fighters, let's also explain about direct and indirect consequences of this fight.
2. I don't ignore that, and I perfectly know that in any EE society the first reaction on any political disaster is to to accuse Jews in that. However, you your self forget that after Ulmanis coup d'etat massive discrimination of non-Latvian, and especially Jewish population started, which included massive economic repressions against Jewish population. Therefore, some of Soviet actions should be considered as restoration of justice (for source see Bella Zisere, THE MEMORY OF THE SHOAH IN THE POST‐SOVIET LATVIA. East European Jewish Affairs, 2005, 155-165). You also forget that not only notorious Arajs brigade but far-right group Perkonkrusts, established before German occupation, also volunteered to help Germans to kill Jews (ibid). Therefore, to put all responsibility for genocide of Jews on the consequences of Stalin's regime is somewhat misleading.
3. Re your "Bad treatment does not an occupation make," I totally agree. What I do not understand, however, is what did you want to say when you put forward the argument #3?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, we all know that if Stalin hadn't collaborated with Hitler in the first place between 1939 to 1941 and contributed to the start of WW2 via the MR pact and his territorial ambitions, the loss of 80 million people may have been avoided in the first place. In any case this article talk page is for improving the article, not general debate. --Nug (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. However, if you want to play the "what if" game, let's be consistent. If Britain, France, Latvia and Estonia had collaborated with the USSR, the tripartite pact could be signed, and MRP would never be signed. Instead of that, Latvia and Estonia openly demonstrated hostility towards the USSR, and made reverences towards Germany. Of course, I do not blame these two small states in unleashing of the WWII, however, it is obvious that all participants of that story behaved dishonestly and simply stupidly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul's amnesia

Paul, we have discussed thia many times before, back in March 2011[8] and September 2011[9] It seems extraordinary that you think Wikipedia policies are dishonest, because while Dr. Mälksoo provides a valuable opinion, at the end of the day we must comply with policy. In case you have "forgotten" between the time you clicked my links above and this point in the text, I will re-iterate: "reliance solely on Dr. Mälksoo's opinion is contrary to WP:TITLE policy, which instructs us not to rely on a single source, but a whole range of sources when determining an article name per WP:COMMONNAME." --Nug (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Your Google search result "word math" has been extensively discussed and disproven. Don't make me dig out my last "XOR" analysis of your contentions. If you make all the same arguments again you will get the same results. Returning to argue the same position over and over when you have not gained consensus in the past is disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Did something happen that you've suddenly dusted off all the stale anti-Baltic crap complete with a fresh dash of Nazi-sympathizers across a front of several articles ranging from Soviet occupation of the Baltics to the Waffen SS and Latvian Legion, and to World War II in general? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Discussed", yes, but "disproven"??? The sources use "occupation" and "annexation" interchangeably, and your attempts to eradicate one of two term look at least odd, especially taken into account Matrin's WP:COMMONNAME argument. His reference to WP:COMMONNAME works against him, haven't you noticed that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We established that the common name for the Soviet occupation of the Baltics was "occupation." We also established that various euphemisms for the occupational presence or associated administrative acts (incorporated, absorbed, became part of, were taken over by, were annexed, the Pribaltika acceded--umm, that would be the only other bona fide (per the official Soviet account) contention regarding what actually happened, not of the words you offer as alternatives) do not change the occupational nature of, nor are they suitable alternatives for describing, the Soviet occupation. As we also cover the Pribaltika acceded account still popular in some Russian circles and amongst the sycophants of Soviet supremacy of yore, Soviet occupation versus voluntary Baltic accession completely and conclusively covers both interpretations of history. All the other terms you bring up are historically irrelevant. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed this has been all discussed before. In addition using both terms "Occupation" and "Annexation" together would violate policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming: "Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged." Given the evidence of the wide usage of "occupation" presented in the last move request and many other places, there is no need to add an additional term which would break policy in any case. To our Russian Patriotic Nationalist friends who still think "occupation" is POV, policy WP:POVTITLE allows POV titles it the term is in common usage as has been demonstrated. Since no new argument about POV issues have been presented the tag should be removed. --Nug (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the points stressed in the policy that you linked here applies to this particular dispute. "Break policy"? You must be kidding. (Igny (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

Yes it does. --Nug (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since I cannot be considered as a "Russian Patriotic Nationalist", I have a right to disregard the last post, which seems to be addressed not to me. Let me point out, however, that "occupation" and "annexation" are hardly alternative names, although some sources used them interchangeably. However, the distinction between these terms does exist, and it is significant. As Malksoo demonstrated, illegality of annexation of the Baltic states and its forceful nature allows us to speak about some traits of occupation, and, therefore, about state continuity of the Baltic states. However, he explains (specifically for us) that it would be more correct to add the word "annexation" to the title, because that would describe the essence of the events more precisely. Therefore, we are talking not about two alternative names (despite some sources use them interchangeably), and the cited guidelines are not applicable to this case. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I not just explain to you the primacy of Wikipedia policy and the requirement that article names be derived from multiple sources? So why do you continue to insist we name this article on the basis of a single email from one author in clear contravention to policy? How you can continue to misrepresent Malksoo after it has been explained to you multiple times is astounding. As stated before "annexation" refers an event and "occupation" refers to a period. You don't seem to quite understand the semantic difference between the two terms, but it has been explained to you several times already. Malksoo does not appear to have difficulty understanding the difference, on page 193 of Illegal Annexation and State Continuity he states:

"Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 lacked any ground in international law, and a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval of Soviet conquest, the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic states implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991."

As you can see by the context of usage, "annexation" refers to an event in 1940 while "occupation" refers to the duration of a state that existed for a period of time up until 1991. We already have an article about the annexation event Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940), this article is about the regimes of Nazi and Soviet occupation that existed up until 1991. --Nug (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, from the point of view of international law the Baltic states' continuity is not a matter of serious debates in the West. However, that does not change the fact that the Baltic states were annexed and were de facto a part of the USSR, the fact recognized by most states. By ignoring that fact, you mislead a reader, and I have already explained why. For the same reason, Malksoo, whom you cite, explicitly recommended to add the word "annexation". You are talking about my amnesia and dishonesty, however, you reject the opinion of the author you yourself cite. I refuse to understand that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) @Paul, regarding my "choice"

I am talking about the choice for you and for other users who edit Latvia related articles: you either are talking about forceful conscripts (so simply had no choice but to fight for Nazi Germany. Noone can blame them, or more precisely, those of them who committed no war crimes, in that), or you are talking about the "defenders of Latvian independence".

alas, commenting on editors as if we were meatpuppets and didn't have historical facts on our side. I've read neutral accounts of WWII indicating that action in the Courland Pocket did, arguably, delay Hitler's defeat. Did the Latvians force Stalin to throw in division after division into Courland to their slaughter in an attempt to take it to stamp out the possibility of a Latvian bridgehead to restore independence? Odd how despite Stalin's continued assurances to Churchill and FDR that the Courland Pocket would shortly be exterminated, it's just a wart in the post-war Soviet account of the war--owing to the abject failure of the Red Army to move the Courland front more than a few kilometers over seven months. Don't blame the Latvians for defending their homeland. Still victims, still conscripts, still heroes. Your syllogistic "either or" scenario POV-denies that the Soviets were the first aggressors in attacking Latvia. And, oddly in view of your past contentions, you corroborate that the Soviet account of the Courland Pocket conflict is a load of crap.

Lastly, need I remind you of Stalin's very words to Munters that as far as Hitler was concerned, Stalin could invade Latvia "tomorrow."

At any rate, this changes nothing about occupation. Please at least keep your anti-Latvian Legion agitation on the appropriate articles' talk pages. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that conscripts were the victims of German regime, who forced them to fight in a war that had no relation to them themselves. However, if we assume that they were freedom fighters and heroes, that means they had common interests with Germany: to stop Russians. In that case, Germany appeared to force them to act in their own interests, and that means they were not victims, but co-belligerents. Were the Finns victims of the USSR during 1941-44? I doubt.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: and I completely missed your reprehensible contention that in any EE society the first instinct in any political disaster is to blame Jews. What I stated is that Stalin (and this was surely not by chance) put Jews into the role of Soviet collaborators when all anyone was trying to do was to stay alive during that first Soviet occupation. What a vile, wretched, and hateful twisting of what I stated.

I thought that your rhetoric had just gotten sharper from collaborating essentially unopposed for a year with more extremist editors. It appears now that your passion is not objectivity but prejudice. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not my contention, that is a fact. Considerable part of ordinary people in Europe was profoundly antisemitic, and the idea of Jewish conspiracy was quite common. Soviet steps during first days after absorption of the Baltic states were directed against the economically dominating part of population (due to Ulmanis' dictatorship high and middle class were almost purely Latvian), and, as a result, the Jews benefited more than other groups from that. Partially, that can be considered as restoration of social justice (a reaction of extreme Ulmanis' nationalism).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's only because I've respected your editorial conduct in the past that I suggest you bow out gracefully from discussing WWII and its legacy regarding the Baltics. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What problems with my editorial conduct to you see currently?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your conduct regarding representations of "facts" is crystal clear just from the discussion here. "Upper and middle class almost purely Latvian"? This, on Latvian society between the wars, is just another in your stream of utterly bogus contentions. And your "profoundly anti-Semitic" smacks of the fringe position that all the peoples between Germany and Russia were just waiting to slaughter their Jewish neighbors, having somehow completely not taken the opportunity to do so over the many centuries past. (I can't even count up how many sources I've read that advocate for your (centuries old) "profound anti-Semitism" on the basis not of societal studies or scholarship but that the Holocaust could have wiped out the Jewish community so completely only with widespread active collaboration which only could exist if the Jews has always been viscerally hated beneath a microscopically thin veneer of civility--but another discussion.) WP is not a forum for your polemical advocacy.

If you wish for me to spend time on diffs of your escalating rhetoric, I won't be providing that on article talk. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We have no "escalating rhetoric" from my side. In contrast, your arguments really escalating a tension. My "contentions" about the Latvian middle class are based on what reliable source say. Thus, the source already cited by me says:

"During these years, the official political slogan was “Latvia to Latvians,” which resulted in economic repression of the Jewish population along with other minorities. Today, there is a strong tendency within Latvian population to idealize the periods of the First Republic and the Dictatorship and to view them with a certain nostalgia."

obviously, your last posts are the example of such idealisation and nostalgia.

Re "thin veneer", if you have sources that identify the "microscopically thin veneer", please, drop a reference, please. That is in sharp contrast with what I read.

I don't want you to spend more time for search diffs, but I suggest you to spend more time to read sources, preferably non-nationalistic ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your quote does not support your WP:SYNTHESIS regarding upper and middle class nearly exclusively Latvian--not in source. Or your prior "semi-cooperation" because Latvians were "semi-Aryan"--not in the source.

You, who contended Truman killed more innocents in one blow than Stalin in all the Baltics, which in the context of that specific discussion could only be taken as contending Truman was more murderous than Stalin, have the gall to lecture me on sources and accuse me of escalating rhetoric? That's rich. Lastly, don't engage in disparaging personal attacks alleging I only read nationalist sources. You have no clue what I have on my bookshelf.

I recall you once indicating that you go on the pro-Soviet anti-nationalist offensive to "balance" the nationalists. Since you feel free to slander my editorial viewpoint regarding my contentions and sources, it seems to me you've just dusted off that POV behavior again.

With regard to the discussion regarding this article, I see no issues. I've requested Igny provide reputable scholarly sources supporting legal Baltic accession, which is the only alternative to occupation. As has been extensively discussed, other terms may be alternatives for how one might refer to the period of Soviet presence, but it is your WP:SYNTHESIS that they are appropriate alternatives to describe the situation of Soviet occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1. "Semi-cooperation" because Latvians were "semi-Aryan"" is a misinterpretation of my words. My original statement was " I (partially) understand their semi-voluntary collaboration with Hitler, who saw them as "Semi-Aryans" and treated them much better then Polish, Russian or Belorussian population", and you misinterpreted my major idea: I never discusses racial origin of the Latvians, my point was that Hitler saw them "Semi-Aryans" (according to the weird Nazi scale), and treated accordingly. Your attempt to ascribe racist ideas to me are the gross violation of WP rules, especially, taking into account that I have already explained your mistake to you, I request you retract this statement and apologize. If you will continue in this way, I'll report you.
2. Stalin vs Truman. That is also a misinterpretation of my words. I explained your mistake to you, however, you didn't stop.

Both ## 1 and 2 are the arguments from the WWII talk page, and they have no relation to the present discussion. If you want to renew the discussion of the thesis #2, feel free to do that on the WWII talk page. If you want to continue discussion of the thesis #1, be prepared to answer on the AE page.

"Economic repressions of Jews and other minorities" means that economical life was dominated by Latvians. If you believe that had no affect on the wealth distribution, please, explain why.

Regarding "legal Baltic accession, which is the only alternative to occupation", you are not right. In mid XX century, the situation was more complex: such phenomenae as colonies, protectorates, dependent territories, etc were quite common. In addition, most countries recognized the fact of de facto incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR, which implies the factual state of things there could not be considered as "occupation". That does not mean that retrospectively the legal status of those states is not seen as a legal status of occupied territories. However, that is more a reflection of present-days political realities.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is your assumption that economic and societal domination by Latvians was achieved. That is your synthesis of the source you provide. You need to find sources which actually document that such domination was achieved.

We have done the de iure/de facto dance many times. As I've mentioned, that is not the locus of dispute between the Baltic states and Russia/Soviet versions of history. That conversation is more suited for state continuity. And, once again, it is your synthesis (not in a source) that de facto obviates a state of occupation.

Your harping on "retrospectively" is immaterial, the Baltic states were considered occupied for the duration during that duration. Again, your "retrospectively" contends that "Soviet occupation" is a post-Soviet construct. It is not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)