Talk:German occupation of the Baltic states during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV fork?[edit]

this article is a POV fork of Occupation of Baltic states--Termer 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

- A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article. also Termer 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The article Occupation of Baltic states deals mostly with Soviet "occupation" of the Baltics and this is a separate topic and deserves a separate article.--Dojarca 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I also think the page should stay; it's linked as a main article on the Occupation of Baltic states page, and there's enough that could be said on the subject.
On the other hand it still needs a lot of work before it has NPOV.
What does anyone else think? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


There's nothing here about the occupation of Lithuania; is there a reason for that? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


I returned the article to an original location before it was moved. The rationale of the original author, as I see it, was that by the time of the Nazi invasions, the Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania having been overrun by the USSR in 1940 were annexed and attached to the country as Soviet republics. Whoever disagrees with the title, please start the move discussion. One cannot just move the article and then demand the WP:RM to return the article to an original location. --Irpen 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you should pop out of the blue in support of your compatriot, did he send you an email? Following your logic, the Soviet liberation of Czechoslovakia was really the Soviet occupation of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, since it was attached to Greater Germany in 1939, no? The original title was Nazi occupation of the Baltics when the article was created, btw. Martintg (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, keep your speculations to yourself. The article was on my watchlist. And your "support of your compatriot" stuff is offensive.

Your comparison is wrong. If we talked about separate entities, we would use ...of Latvia, ...of Estonia in the title, similar to Czechoslovakia. Here, these countries were grouped and we have to use the proper name for this group at the time of the event. --Irpen 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, Wikipedia is not the venue to promote your personal POV of what the proper name should be, Wikipedia has to reflect what the published sources say. Encyclopedia Britannica carries more weight than your opinion here. If you can find references supporting that "Baltic republics" is more commonly used than "Baltic states" in the context of German occupation, then please do. Martintg (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. By the time of the Nazi invasion (1941), Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania having been overrun by the USSR in 1940 were annexed and attached to the country as Soviet republics. This is what Nazis occupied. Naming the entities, one can say Nazi occupation of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. If some wants to bundle up these separate occupation for whatever reason, one should use the correct term. --Irpen 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were overrun by Nazis as well and incorporated into Ostland. So in case Nazis occupied Soviet Republics in 1940, it would be fair to say: did the Soviets occupy Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, meaning Nazi Ostland in 1944? The fact is during the Soviet and Nazi occupations existed the legal bodies of Baltic states as well until the restoration of independences in 1991. Therefore, sure the Soviets had their claims to these territories, so did the Nazis and so did the Sovereign Baltic states that had their diplomatic missions still active in London and New York. Why exactly is the Soviet claim the most superior and important in your opinion Irpen is something that I'm missing here. -- (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Otherwise I really wouldn't prefer one version to another but from the explanations given here I understand that the main reason for using Baltic republics here is to present Soviet POV. If Soviet Union occupied Estonia etc then Nazi Germany also occupied Estonia etc and not Soviet Union, one replaced another. Besides, Baltic states is a perfectly neutral frase to bundle up the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. As the list below proves it is also preferred in the literature. Oth (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I think I caused all the fuss when I moved it couple months back. I did this to be consistent with the main article on the Baltic states. I take phrase to be more of geographical than political issue. Renata (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I should also probably clarify that I don't particularly care -- certainly not enough to edit war about it. I just though it would be a good idea to be consistent and it never occurred to me that it would be something controversial. Renata (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    The region had different periods in its history. Once there were Baltic states and other time there were the republics. If to be consistent with other articles, why we should keep consistent only with Baltic states and not with Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR for example?--Dojarca (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Should be "Baltic states". Irpen, we already argued this long ago. You steal my land. Then Renata3 comes and steals my land. Renata3 did not come and steal YOUR land. Ergo, the Baltics were not occupied Soviet republics, which is what the use of "republic" indicates. The Nazi occupation was another occupation of the Baltic states by another party. Why are we dredging up ancient spats? I would have thought membership in a conflict resolution working group would have broadened your perspective. Apparently not. —PētersV (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I’d support a change of title to Baltic States. It’s more a more neutral phrase; Republic either implies Soviet Republic, or independent Republic, either of which will offend someone: Either way it's not NPOV. It would also be consistent with other usage on WP. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
PS In reference to this discussion; I’m more bothered by the article itself. (see "Improvement needed" below). Xyl 54 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "state" anyway implies independent country. It is not a case like in the Unites States where states are constituent parts of the country.--Dojarca (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - hey, even the 1936 Soviet Constitution (art. 15) says that "each Union Republic exercises state authority independently". Seriously, though: "Baltic states" is the common, neutral, geographic term and has been for about 90 years, regardless of whether they happened to be under occupation at a particular point. Plus, while in (say) 1975 the occupation was pretty stable and not about to go away any time soon (or so it seemed), the situation in 1941 was very much in flux and it seems rather pedantic to call them "states" one day and "republics" the next, particularly as not one of those states agreed to disappear, in contrast to what the occupying power was claiming. Biruitorul (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Internationally reckognised states that were occupied by Soviet Union. The fact that Soviet Union used term republics is known but should be mentioned in the text not as lead, which could be seen as accepting Soviet POV.--Molobo (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The only reason to move is to push the contemporary Baltic POV and anti-Soviet poropaganda. The states did not exist at the moment the German invasion began. Moving them to the "baltic states" position clearly violates the neutrality rules. Anyway the arguments are invalid as shown below in Irpen's response. Also the proposed title is not more neutral than existing. The name Baltic states clearly implies state independence and used only by anti-Soviet and revisionist political forces when speaking of the period of WWII (although it is legitimate term for the now independent states). We have articles on Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR and Estonian SSR and everybody can check when they were established. --Dojarca (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing wrong with "republics" (could refer to independent states or SSRs), whereas "states" brings in potential POV issues about political status that don't need to be brought it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word "republic" is more informative. "States" will raise neutrality questions, since the indepedence status of these republics at that time is disputed. If necessary we could move the article to Occupation of the Baltic region by Nazi Germany. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you explain what you mean by informative? "Republic" in the advocated context (Baltics were SSRs and not occupied) is no more neutral than "States." Thank you. —PētersV (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Dojarca, please avoid votestacking. It seems that you have invited Alex Bakharev expecting an additional opposing vote. Bakharev has never edited this article, but you are aware of his pro-Russian bias.
Or, if you do vote-stack, please do so by e-mail in order to avoid being caught red-handed. Biruitorul (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Sadly ... very sensible advice, though as you know email canvassing doesn't always work out. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If done with someone one knows and trusts, the results can be very beneficial indeed; at worst no action will be taken either way. If done randomly, one may chance upon a vicious character with nary a shred of humanity left in him, and of course it's the latter who must be guarded against. Biruitorul (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There were Baltic states before World War II. In the course of the war they were initially occupied by Soviets. These are the facts. Should we use prewar names, or temporary names which were assigned during the war, or afterwar names? The most neutral way would be using geographic names, naming this article as "Occupation of the Baltics by Nazi Germany". In fact the initial title of this article was Nazi occupation of the Baltics. --Greggerr (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Occupation of the Baltics by Nazi Germany" should keep everyone happy, no? —PētersV (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with this. Will it be acceptable with those pushing their fringe POV is another question. Martintg (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Fringe POVer here. ;) When did "Baltic" become a noun that could be pluralized? Unless this has happened, "Occupation of the Baltics" is just bad English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please type "the Baltics" in Google, or in Google Books before accusing somebody else of bad English. You seem to be not familiar with the region. --Greggerr (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I see it is used, and can even be found in the respectable googles. But it still sounds like bad English to me, Baltic being primarily an adjective. Sounds like Occupation of the Meditteraneans.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
English not your first language? "The Baltics" is a common idiom in english. Martintg (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And I love you too, Martin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought it a reasonable question, seems that those with the most difficulty understanding WP:COMMONNAME appear to be from non-english speaking backgrounds. Were you or your parents from the former Soviet Union? Martintg (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The NYT has used "the Baltics" over 600 times in the last couple of decades. For those who would make hay out of "states" (as if there aren't more pressing matters to attend to), this seems a fine solution. Biruitorul (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for one by constitution of both the interbellum and Soviet governments, officially the three countries were republics. Thus I see no reason why the title is not informative. One could choose a better wording such as the Nazi Occupation of the Baltics, but the present title is IMO ok. --Kuban Cossack 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The point of WP:COMMONNAME is that articles should follow names in common usage, rather than what may be academically correct. Martintg (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support At the time of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states no one recognized them as republics. In the eyes of the world they were and remained Baltic states. I understand this is the prevailing usage in the historiographic literature, so the move will make sense. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please support your claim that this is prevailing usage in historiographic literatire with sources.--Dojarca (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Biruitorul has provided conclusive evidence from historical sources here [1]. This is confirmed by a search of Time Magazine, where for the period between from June 1, 1941 to September 22, 1944, "Baltic states" has 40 references[2], and "Baltic republics" only has 2 references[3], both being quotes of Soviet officials. Martintg (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This only shows the position of The New York Times' editorial staff, nothing more. The claim was about thw whole historiographic literatuire (and as understand, not limited to only English language)--Dojarca (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME is not about what the scholarly historiographical literature may say, but what terms are in common usage among common people. New York Times editorial staff write in terms in common usage so that common people can understand what they are writing about, in order to sell more newspapers. Martintg (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Pravda" also writes in terms of common people, don't you agree?--Dojarca (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not for the english speaking world. Martintg (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't you know that Wikipedia should reflect worldwide view?--Dojarca (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, in the body of the article according to the principles of WP:NPOV, but the article title should reflect common english usage. Martintg (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well start a debate in those articles is you believe this should be done. I've not seen that "Russia" is used more commonly that "USSR" in the context of the USSR, so good luck. Martintg (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way. I want to point out that the anti-Soviet goverments of the republics in question were govenments in excile at the time at best or Nazi collaborator regimes. So Nazi Germany could not occupy the states as the leaders of those shadow governments fully supported German invasion. For example, Estonian statesmen called to support German war effort. So if you consider these regimes legitimate, we should rename the article to Nazi liberation of the Baltic states. Please, be consistent with your logic. Please note also that Germany used Bolshvization of the Baltics as a pretext for the war with the USSR in its note to the Soviet government with the war declaration. Please do not make half-steps in your revisionist rage, let's fully revise the whole history of WWII.--Dojarca (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is OR speculation. Martintg (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What exactly? Do you contest that the shadow goverments supported Nazi war effort? How one can occupy a country which government supports the incoming troops?--Dojarca (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I contest that "Baltic republics" is a term more commonly used than "Baltic states". Martintg (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Russia for the USSR was also more common. Should we move the USSR to Russia? I also think that "Latvian SSR" or "Ukrainian SSR" were completely uncommon in English-speaking media. Etc, etc, etc. Not to say that the article name should be neutral. If someone commonly says Hitler was evil mass murderer, this does not mean the article should be named so. But my point was that you cannot occupy a country that supports your troops. Accepting these regimes as legitimate leads to conclusion that there was liberation rather than occupation (by the way, why not to cite Third Reich media, which clearly said it was liberation?)--Dojarca (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your personal point of view of whether the Nazi presence in the Baltics was liberation or occupation is totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. What is relevant are the points of view and the common english language usage as expressed in the appropriate published sources. Martintg (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Latvian Legation had nothing good to say about the Nazis. You can read their summary of the Nazi occupation during one year of the occupation, 1943, here. As early as 1949, Švābe's Story of Latvia already recorded the Nazis had killed 88,000 Jews. There was no love lost between the Baltics and Nazi Germany. It's not just what sources say (you purport that Pravda and Soviet--euphemistically referred to as "non-English" sources--are reliable). When it comes to the Soviet version of the history of Eastern Europe, one must also apply the litmus test of what can actually be substantiated as having ever even happened, let alone being an accurate account of events that did occur. We already dutifully record the "Soviet version" (irrespective of its "accuracy") in these various sorts of articles. —PētersV (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


The current title is not consistent with the sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. While no doubt there can be infinite permutations in the search terms used, the current list of terms below gives a ballpark estimate of the relative proportions of usage, which remain consistent across the various permutations, thus it is a good indicator of the likely trend. This trend is confirmed by the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a reliable tertiary source, and thus is a reliable summary of secondary and primary sources, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to it as a German occupation of the Baltic states [4]

Analysis of Google books reveal the common phrase is "occupation of the Baltic states", regardless of whether it was by the Soviets or the Nazis:

"German occupation of the Baltic states" 16 hits [5]; "German Occupation of the Baltic republics" 1 hit [6]
"Nazi Occupation of the baltic states" 7 hits [7]; "Nazi Occupation of the baltic republics" 0 hits [8]
"Occupation of the baltic states" 565 hits [9]; "Occupation of the baltic republics" 57 hits [10]

Note that of the 57 hits for "republic" above, almost half referred to the Soviet occupation:

"Soviet Occupation of the baltic republics" 25 hits [11]

Google scholar reveals a similar situation:

"German Occupation of the baltic states" 8 hits [12]; "German Occupation of the Baltic Republics" 1 hit [13]
"Nazi Occupation of the baltic states" 5 hits [14]; "Nazi Occupation of the baltic republics" 0 hits [15]
"Occupation of the baltic states" 187 hits [16]; "Occupation of the baltic republics" 14 hits [17]

Again of the 14 hits for "republic", almost half referred to the Soviet occupation:

"Soviet Occupation of the baltic republics" 6 hits [18]

--Martintg (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question, could you explain what "Baltic states" are you talking about in 1941? --Irpen 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the best way is to read all the sources these searches returned. Nonetheless, they seem to show that using Baltic states is much more common in this context. Oth (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Analyzing Martin's results shows why Google searches of any kind has to be taken with caution. Martin says: ""German occupation of the Baltic states" 16 hits [19];". Let's parse it.

First I see only 13 book hits:[20]

Then there is a duplicate (a book "The SS, Alibi of a Nation, 1922-1945", [1956]) shows up twice)

One book ("Through Terror to Freedom...", Stella Zoe Whishaw Meyendorff) was published in 1929 (!!!).

In two more books (one of which is even in German (!)) the phrase is found in the reference lists as a title of another work (author's can't alter titles of their references) with the work being "Source Materials of the German Occupation of the Baltic States, 1941-1944: Problems and Possibilities.").

One more book is of an unknown year, unknown publisher and no quotes or even snippets, and two more are over 30 years old.

So, we have 4 (not 16) and even counting the old ones, we would have 6.

Next, out of "per Martin: "Nazi Occupation of the baltic states" 7 hits [21]", only three books a valid at all, as in four others the combination is again only in citations to the title of the same external work.

Hopefully, this demonstrates the reliability of hodge-podge googlework to those less familiar with such "debates". Martin, please get serious. --Irpen 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for your published sources that indicate "Baltic republics" is more commonly used than "Baltic states", rather than your rhetorical arguments. Martintg (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, Googlework is spurious here. Why did not you bother to analyze what you were presenting here? Or where you deliberately omitting the obvious information? Also, google would simply miss a lot, eg. "Baltic republics were occupied at", "Germans overrun the Baltic Republics within...", etc.

Most importantly. We are not arguing "Baltic republics" vs "Baltic states" here per se. Those are both established terms used depending on the contexts.

But this is about "Occupation of ....". Occupation of... is not a term-based title of the article, but a descriptive title. Try to find a combination "Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946)" (the article you voted keep under this title) in Google Books hint or Google Scholar another hint.

When titling articles with descriptive names, the best sensible name should be found that would reflect the article's content. Google hodge-podge is meaningless, as demonstrated above. --Irpen 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Still more rhetoric and no presentation of alternative sources to support your view as requested? While no doubt there can be infinite permutations in the search terms used, the current list of terms gives a ballpark estimate of the relative proportions of usage, which remain consistent across the various permutations, thus it is a good indicator of the likely trend. This trend is confirmed by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which as a reliable tertiary source, it is a reliable summary of secondary and primary sources. Britannica refers to the German occupation of the Baltic states[22]. Martintg (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Martin, please stop this insulting calling your opponent's good-faithed arguments as "rhetoric". I presented a cohesive argument above. You may not like it, you don't have to agree with it. But you did not answer a single question and your googlework here is very weak and clearly misleading even if simply because you did not bother to take the due care. I hope this would not turn into a usual circus of common voters forming the usual blocks. I've heard already where you would like articles to be. For whatever reason you disregarded the very obvious faults in your google results and presented them in a misleading way. I showed that. I am interested to hear more sensible argument from different people. We are discussing here which title would be better as neither is totally wrong. Please reconsider your attitude. --Irpen 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
??? According to Wikipedia's own article, Rhetoric is "the art of harnessing reason, emotions and authority, through language, with a view to persuade an audience and, by persuading, to convince this audience to act, to pass judgment or to identify with given values". It is an ancient and honourable skill, with whole university departments devoted to the study of rhetoric. So I don't understand why you believe it to be an insult. Are you not attempting to persuade us with your arguments alone? If Wikipedia was a venue for original research, then presentation of cohesive arguments is appropriate. However, Wikipedia policy requires that material is backed by published sources. I merely asked you to find some sources to back your arguments, rather than rely on argument alone. Martintg (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Britannica is a POW source. Why not to refer to Great Soviet Encyclopedia instead? Anyway the version you're insisting on is no doubt POW.--Dojarca (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody, please calm down and stop this silly edit-warring, everything doesn't have to be so political, the real question here and now is - which phrase is more descriptive and more suitable for encyclopedia. Right now it doesn't even look like clash of the soviet and anti-soviet POV (I hope Dojarca made an honest mistake and the whole situation has not gone so far that we really should starting to talk about POW's ;) ), only different personal preferences. Both pre-occupation and post-occupation entities can equally be referred as states or as republics, trying to deliberately distort either ones actual meaning is not going to lead anywhere. I personally would prefer 'Baltic states' - purely on the fact that I have encountered this notation more often myself and it seems more general, hence more suitable. But if there's good reason, why there should be 'republics' - OK, no real harm done. Unfortunately, so far I haven't seen any good arguments pro 'republics', please, if there is any, present them. Thank you :) Ptrt (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ptrt! I'm disappointed that editors who have been embroiled in the legitimacy of Soviet rule in the Baltics have opened an opportunity to rehash old positions on the Baltics. This road has been traveled down many times, however perhaps we'll pick up some new editors and it will be an opportunity to educate new participants. (It's been suggested I allow the communal Wiki-wisdom work its magic.) —PētersV (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)/ revised PētersV (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I know all the 'players' here, and recognize their favorite tactics too, but one can always hope that maybe this time our respected opposition is able to play by the rules and keep in their mind that it's not political playground, it's encyclopedia. Remember, WP:AGF, no matter how ridiculous it seems here and now ;) And by 'honest mistake' I was referring only to Dojarca's mistake with abbreviation - POW (prisoner of war) vs POV (point of view), I don't think I'd be able to assume that for his whole action. Well.. let's hope for the best. Ptrt (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not Britannica is POV source (which is a matter of opinion) it's having an article called Baltic states (a totally valid topic) necessitates the choice of terms it uses in the particular article. No evidence shown that it uses the term elsewhere in the WW2 context. --Irpen 05:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go for the use of BR in WW2 context by Britannica:

  • German-Soviet-Nonaggression-Pact. Quote: "The Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were annexed by the Soviet Union and were organized as Soviet republics in August 1940. The Nonaggression Pact became a dead letter on June 22, 1941, when Nazi Germany, after having invaded much of western and central Europe, attacked the Soviet Union without warning in Operation Barbarossa."
  • history of Europe:The blast of World War II. Quote: Stalin had long made clear that he sought to recover the three Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as the part of Poland that the Poles had seized after Versailles.

Note, the context of the usage. --Irpen 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I already presented 25 references to the "Soviet occupation of the Baltic Republics" [23], you have just added two more. Thanks. These 27 references refer to the lawful states established in 1918, which were also republics (as opposed to, say, a constitutional monarchy). If we were simply arguing about whether the Baltic countries are more commonly referred to as "Baltic republics" or "Baltic states" during most of the 20th century, rather than attempt to find single line quotes buried within the content of some book, let's list the number of books that has "Baltic states" in the title, and the number of books with "Baltic republics" in the title. That should be a reasonable measure of which is more common.
A similar order of magnitude of difference as my previous searches, confirming that "Baltic states" is more common than "Baltic republics", regardless of the period within the 20th Century, whether it be pre, during or post-WW2. Martintg (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see that at all from the conversation. Could you point me to the place where you demonstrated that? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What part of 925 versus 75 book titles and the term "common usage" do you not understand? Martintg (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In scholarly enterprises we don't count heads. Can you present some information about context and notability of sources, please? In particular for the "regardless" part, in light of Irpen's objections? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage" from WP:COMMONNAME. You don't think a name used an order of magnitude more often in book titles is sufficient evidence of common usage? Martintg (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not if the books discuss overall periods and not common usage with respect to this particular period. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to what? I've already presented evidence on which term is more common, how about you present evidence to the contrary. If "Baltic republic" was in more common usage, evidence should be easy to find since you claim it is, well, more common. Martintg (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't presented evidence on which is more common with reference to this particular historical period, I'm afraid. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. In any case, I've just had a brainwave - why not merely name them? --Relata refero (disp.) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Name all 925 books make reference to that particular period as the Nazis occupying the Baltic states? Come now, if "Baltic republics" was more commonly used, surely you could provide some evidence, your evasiveness on this point leads me to believe that this designation is noy so commonly used as you suggest. Martintg (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you see a !vote from me? So why not stop getting me to substantiate something I haven't said? I'm merely pointing out that the evidence you brought to the table - a google search, of all the scholarly methods - does not discriminate between periods, and Irpen has pointed out that that is a relevant issue. Until you update your argument to deal with that, it is not something the closing admin is likely to consider. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is you who should provide evidence for the move. --Dojarca (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) "States" is used across all periods. "Republics" is the lesser, but still, used. To look for discrimination in the use of terms referring to the Baltics at the time they were occupied by the Soviets and to infer that the use of the word "republic" means sources recognized that the Baltics were SSRs is pure synthesis. Advocating "republic" here is (as Dojarca has clearly stated herein in the exact words) to mean the Baltics were de jure republic constituents of the U.S.S.R. Therefore "republic" is the POV term here. —PētersV (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain how its synthesis in the sense we use it on Wikipedia? Note that "infer(ring) that the use of the word "republic" means sources recognized that the Baltics were SSRs" is precisely what we are not doing. You, apparently, are. I at least am merely concerned that the most common name used currently for these entities during this time period is the title of the article. I am not interested in what the implications might be for international law or justice or whatever. Is there some policy-based reason I should be? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Relata refero. If you read through Dojarca's contentions, that is exactly what his objection is to the rename from "republic" to "state"--his synthesis that "republic" means "SSR" and that's what they were and that's how they were being referred to any time the word "republic" is used to refer to the Baltics post-Soviet occupation. However, anywhere outside the Soviet Union the Baltics were considered occupied territories (whether the Soviets or Nazis) and were still referred to as occupied states, or if referred to as republics, still meant as states (not SSRs). By asking "how specifically were the Baltics referred to at this time (while occupied by the Nazis)" plays to Dojarca's synthesis. You will not find any Western sources that refer to the Baltics being Nazi-occupied Soviet territory. "States" is the predominant form to "republic", as I've mentioned, from encyclopedias from the 1920's through to current scholarship; while sources discussing the SSRs specifically refer to them as such. The general discussion of "states" versus "republics" has already been settled as demonstrated by the titles of all the other articles on WP having to do with the Baltic states.
   You're looking to find/validate any chronological distinction in the usage of the terms "states" and "republics" regarding the Baltics for the period of the Nazi occupation; however, you will only find such distinction, that is, "republic as SSR," as opposed to their prior existance as "bourgeoisie fascist states," in Soviet literature, ergo, "republic" being the POV term with regard to the Baltics under Soviet occupation generally, and in particular while under Nazi occupation after the Nazis drove out the occupying Soviet forces.
   I hope this clarifies without seeming to just be more repetition. —PētersV (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In case this interests anyone, I searched The New York Times for June 1, 1941 to April 1, 1944 and "Baltic states" yielded 377 results while "Baltic republics" gave 23. Some examples of the former: June 24, 1941 - "Three Baltic States in Revolt...Estonia, third of the little Baltic States absorbed by Russia last Summer, was expected by Baltic political exiles to revolt with the approach of Nazi armies". November 18, 1941 - "Nazis Set Up Rule in Occupied Russia. Dr. Alfred Rosenberg Named Minister for East - Baltic States Are Included...Under the subdivision of the occupied Russian territory into the 'Ostland' and Ukraine, the three Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will be included". March 31, 1943 - "Strong anti-German activity was reported tonight in occupied Lithuania, where it was said to be causing grave concern to Nazi authorities in view of the proximity of Russian troops to the Baltic States". February 14, 1944 - "London military observers said the Germans might be starting a general withdrawal into the Baltic States, hoping to find a new line along which to stem the Soviet tide".
I'll give a couple of "Baltic republics" quotes for balance. June 7, 1942 - "Soviet Russia's post-war claims to the Baltic republics and to portions of Poland and Rumania as a means of protecting her long, exposed Western frontier are 'reasonable - if not moderate', [declares Commonweal]". February 23, 1943 - "On the northern front the Germans [are] preparing to evacuate Estonia, northernmost of the Baltic republics".
Interestingly, the score for July 1, 1940 to June 1, 1941 is 142 to 14, so even when they were SSRs, the Times overwhelmingly called them "states". Biruitorul (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think this conclusively and unquestionably confirms that "Baltic states" is the common name for that region for that period in question. Martintg (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    In the New York Times. You omitted an important detail.--Dojarca (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
a) Well, naturally Pravda called them something else. b) I think we can safely extrapolate to other major English-language papers, not to mention the US and possibly other Allied governments. Or, let's put it this way: would you care to bring contrary (and preferably non-Soviet) evidence? Let's say, the Chicago Tribune backing "Baltic republics"? Biruitorul (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Google results might be sloppy and should not be completely trusted (we all should know its limits), but so far there was not a single proof presented that "Baltic republics" would make a better choice other than user's ORish opinion. Renata (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Analyzing Britannica: it does not have an article devoted to the Nazi occupation; it has however an article on the Baltic states. The link that Martintg refers to is a section in that article. Therefore naturally it will be named "Baltic states: Nazi occupation" in line with other sections about economy or geography. Therefore it is not a proof that "states" is more appropriate term for that specific period. Renata (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Strong opposition"[edit]

Some points regarding the above.

The only reason to move is to push the contemporary Baltic POV and anti-Soviet propaganda.
The Baltic POV regarding Soviet presence has been immutable, nothing to do with contemporary POVs or anti-Sovietism.
The states did not exist at the moment the German invasion began.
The sovereign authorities of the Baltics existed outside of territorial events (Soviet occupation, Nazi occupation, Soviet re-occupation/liberation), therefore it is factual to refer to the territory legitimately under that sovereignty as having been occupied and re-occupied.
The name Baltic states clearly implies state independence and used only by anti-Soviet and revisionist political forces when speaking of the period of WWII
This contention mixes apples and oranges. "States" signifies Baltic sovereignty as the de jure authority. Whether one considers them occupied, destroyed, annexed, no longer independent, etc. at the time of Nazi invasion is at best a discussion of how to portray the Soviet position. From the standpoint of the legitimate authority over the Baltics being interfered with and prevented from functioning (definition of occupation), it is the "states" that are being occupied.
The jure they were under Soviet jurisdiction as they were incorporated in the USSR in 1940.--Dojarca (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
this is simply factually incorrect. the soviet incorporation of Baltic States never was recognized de jure by the SU allies in WWII. De facto it only happened in Jalta, that was in 1945. Since Estonia Latvia Lithuania were incorporated into Nazi Ostland during WWII it's absurd to say that they were under Soviet jurisdiction as they were incorporated in the USSR in 1940. -- (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, is correct. Soviet takeover of Baltic states in 1940 was not recognized internationally. Soviet Union was clearly viewed as an aggressor, and was dismissed from the League of Nations in 1939 for Soviet attack on Finland. De jure Baltic states still existed during World War II, with acting embassies across the world, etc. --Greggerr (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Having embassies in foreign countries does not make you legitimate. For example, Kosovo has embasies in a number of states.--Dojarca (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is totally absurd I think. Even common sense says that countries where you have embassies take you as a legitimate country. That it doesn't make it legitimate in your opinion is another story. Just that wasn't an encyclopedia about citing facts instead of editorial opinions?-- (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We have articles on Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR and Estonian SSR and everybody can check when they were established.
This contention, too, mixes apples and oranges. What a de facto controlling authority chooses to name a territory it controls, and when that control started and ended, has nothing to do with the illegitimate displacement of legitimate sovereignty, which is what the term "occupation" refers to. —PētersV (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It is only your POWV that the attachment was illegitimate. Wheather it was made lawfully or with some flaws in the procedure does not change anything as they were parts of the USSR at the time. I can provide you sources that they were annexed or incorporated in the USSR (do you contest it?). That the incorporation was not recognised by some foreign powers does not mean anything: for example, Kosovo is recognized by some powers, but it is de jure part of Serbia.--Dojarca (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is simply absurd. Since the Baltic states or republics or whatever were occupied by Germany and incorporated into Ostland during WWII, how is it possible to claim that they were parts of the USSR at the time. -- (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the German invasion, of course.--Dojarca (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the German invasion no country other than Germany itself had recognized de facto or de jure Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania as a part of the USSR.-- (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sweden for example.--Dojarca (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My dear Dojarca, it's not "my POV" that Soviet occupation/annexation of the Baltics was illegitimate. The Russian Duma has still to produce a shred of evidence to support its post-Soviet era proclamation that Latvia joined the USSR "legally according to international law." Then there's the rather unfortunate (for the Russian position) matter of the treaty Russia signed with Lithuania prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union which acknowledged in writing that the Soviet Union failed to respect Lithuania's sovereignty (that is, admitting occupation without explicitly using the "O" word). No one outside the Russian foreign ministry today suggests that the Baltics were not seized illegally. (And even Lavrov knows the truth, he was negotiating on behalf of the central Soviet to acknowledge the Baltic occupation at the time the USSR broke up, this is from people I know who were sitting across the table from him, that is, first hand accounts.) But didn't you turn around and stop arguing that "republic means 'SSR'" and you were only seeking the most common term? Or this means you're back to your original position regarding opposition to the move? —PētersV (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all as I stated before, even if the countries were occupied, they could be occupied only before incorporating in the USSR. Once they became parts of the USSR they could not be occupied any more as nobody can occupy its iwn territory. Anyway, if you reject existance of the baltic soviet republics, why not to simply redirect Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR and Estonian SSR to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia respectively? If there all the way were only "baltic states", why we need all these articles?--Dojarca (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I too have read Russian generals' pronouncements that "You can't occupy what belongs to you." With all due respect to the Russian position, we've already recorded that POV on Wikipedia. As I already mentioned, there is absolutely no evidence to support that position, and Russia even signed a treaty admitting the USSR occupied Lithuania. The Baltics were controlled and administered by the Soviets (and by preventing the rightful sovereign authority from functioning, thereby were an occupation), the Baltics did not "belong" to the Soviet Union or legally or willingly yield their sovereignty to become "part" of the Soviet Union. There is no impediment to considering the Baltic states to have been occupied by the Soviets, by the Nazis, and then reoccupied by the Soviets--that is, in fact, the view of any historians that care to use verifiable facts to back their position. As for your bit of rhetoric on why not just redirect the SSR articles, I don't reject that the SSRs existed as administrative units of the USSR. No different than the Nazi's Reichskommissariat Ostland, only with an attempted (and failed) improvement in window-dressing (fake elections whose results, alas, were published 24 hours before the polls closed, etc.). The SSRs represent part of the history of the Baltic territories and deserve to be examined fully regarding the impact of Soviet actions on the peoples of the Baltic states. —PētersV (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Technically should be Baltic States (capital "S") as states, small s, signifies part of a union, as recently noted. —PētersV (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dorjarca also believes Encyclopedia Britannica is a POV source. I guess he also believes the authors of the 925 books about the Baltic states are all part of the "anti-Soviet and revisionist political forces" bent on propagating "Baltic POV and anti-Soviet propaganda". These small Baltic nations must have perfected mind control and reached their tentacles into the minds of Britannica authors, it seems. Martintg (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This would appear to summarize Dojarca's position that it did not matter how the Baltics "joined" the USSR, once they did, they could not be occupied by the Soviet Union--the logical follow-on being that the subsequent Nazi invasion occupied Soviet republics, not Baltic states. —PētersV (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would venture that a majority of references referring to Baltic "republics" mean it in the sense of "states", not SSRs. All the references I've seen that deal with the SSRs refer to them as such. The argument here isn't which, "state" or "republic," is more prevalent, the argument here in opposition to the move is that all uses of "republic" with respect to WWII and occupation of the Baltics explicitly denote "SSR". Given that "state" and "republic" were interchangeable (as the states were republics in their form of government), the argument opposing the move misconstrues all uses of republic meant as "state" as indicating republic meant as "SSR." The position that all sources which refer to Baltic "republics" with reference to WWII explicitly denote "SSRs" is a personal synthesis. —PētersV (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So the term "republic" is more neutral as it can be used in both meanings - to refer to the independent states and the constituent republics of the USSR. The term also more widely used in the context of the WWII. No reason to move the article to the explicitely non-neutral term.--Dojarca (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You argue to use "republic" because they were SSRs. "States" is the far more prevalent term otherwise. You can't have it both ways, advocating using "republic" to support your position of "SSR" at the time and turn around and at the same time say you're picking "republic" because it is more neutral. By your own advocacy it is not.
   I appreciate some of the responses that say "they were republics" before the war, therefore "republic" is more informative, but that was not the prevalent use either then or now. Neither would anyone argue that the SSRs were truly a republican form of government--so the use of "republic" in fact obscures, not clarifies. Encyclopedia articles from the 20's (properly) call Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland "Baltic States" (capital "S") as most were the Baltic provinces prior to independence. Books on the history of the Baltic states written by today's preeminent scholars (and not of Baltic heritage), such as Prof. John Hiden, use "States" with reference to the Baltics. References are completely consistent with regard to the use of "S/states". —PētersV (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You have not proven the term republics is more widely used in the context of WW2. You have not even provided any sources to back this. The view that "states" is POV is in itself fringe POV, as is your view that Britannica is POV equivalent to the Soviet Encyclopedias. Some of the sources refer to the states established in 1918 as "republics", Irpen even unwittingly illustrates this point with two references than mention the Soviets occupying the Baltic republics, which technically they were ofcourse, in contrast to, say, Australia, which is a constitutional monarchy. My point is that while "republic" and "state" denote the same legal entity from 1918 to the present, "state" is ten time more common in usage. Wikipedia is clear on this, article titles must follow common usage. It is pretty clear that the opposers fail to understand this point in attempting to push the fringe POV that the Baltic states were legally and voluntarily a part of the Soviet Union when the Germans attacked, hence their opposition to a reasonable move based upon wikipedia guidelines. The opposers have demonstrated here that the intent of this article is promote this fringe POV, AfD may have to be revisited. Martintg (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, Martin. That's WAY over the top, don't you think? WHat was the Rhe- word? Gosh, you really can't let those feelings go. --Irpen 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That is American or British editor? Then nothing strange with it. They probably also call Kosovo "state". Note that the official position of any state influences what terms use historians living in this country.--Dojarca (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrap up[edit]

Biruitorul has provided conclusive evidence from a historical source as discussed here [24]. This is confirmed by a search of Time Magazine, where articles from the period between from June 1, 1941 to September 22, 1944, "Baltic states" has 40 references[25], and "Baltic republics" only has 2 references[26], both being quotes of Soviet officials. This, plus the other evidence provided from the Google book searches, clearly shows that "Baltic states" is overwhelmingly the most common designation for that region, both during the Nazi occupation and also in recent studies of the nazi occupation. Martintg (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not to search through "Pravda"?--Dojarca (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is english language Wikipedia, we use what is common in english. What you want to use in russian language Wikipedia is not my concern. Martintg (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this article, November 26, 1939, from Pravda, which states "Why Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have concluded with the Soviet government treaties which secure them independence, peace and quiet work, but the Finnish government wrecked the negotiations and now hold their people in a condition of anxious uncertainty?" Notice guarantees of independence and peace. The article lampoons the Finnish prime minister as a buffoon, this would presumably be why Stalin attacked Finland, having no tolerance for buffoons on his doorstep and seeking to resolve the Finns' anxious uncertainty. (Of course the Soviets first accused the Finns of attacking, declared the Finns' fortifications an affront to Soviet peaceful intentions, and so the Red Army was therefore obligated to attempt to obliterate the affronting Finns by force, but another story.)
   Dojacra, you might consider that the more you strive to defend your editorial position the less tenable it becomes, as it is a house built on even less than sand. —PētersV (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, in general, it appears Russian usage slightly favors Прибалтийские республики (republics) versus Прибалтийские государства (states). Truth be told, "Baltic countries (страны)" is the most popular usage in Russian. Regardless, Russian usage and preferences of idiom are not applicable to an English language encyclopedia. —PētersV (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Is there any further objection to Occupation of the Baltics by Nazi Germany? It seems this suggestion might have been buried amongst all the discussion, and may be the best title to keep both "sides" happy. JPG-GR (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While I'm sure some will argue I'm emotionally partisan here, I don't believe that a conclusive editorial argument has been made that there is a need in the case of this article only to depart from general convention (and as used everywhere else in Wikipedia, that is the slightly incorrect small "s" in Baltic States). The interchangeable use of "states", "republics" and "countries" concerning the Baltics (except as "Soviet republics," in which case they are explicitly referred to as such) appears to be more happenstance than anything else. And the editor most vociferously in favor of "republics" supported it to further a fringe--outside of Russia and currently the official Russian position--POV. While I considered it earlier in this forum, I do not currently editorially support titling according to (fringe + non-fringe)/2 = title as a compromise of convenience.
       And since "republics" was originally pushed as representing "Soviet republics," I should mention that none of the advocates for legitimate Soviet republics have produced reputable scholarly evidence in support of that position, nor for the proclamations to that effect by the post-Soviet Russian Duma. This has been a long-standing hot-bed of editoral contention and will likely continue to be so until the official Russian position changes. —PētersV (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


As I said, we already went through this a long time ago and settled that issue. —PētersV (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Peters, you should have waited for the move to play itself out. Please respect the community process and consensus building. If it was settled a long time ago, it will settle itself this time around too. No need to rush and potentially escalate things. Renata (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, then let me highlight the salient points for those that may be new to this discussion/topic:
  • The Soviets illegally invaded and occupied the Baltic states and illegally annexed them.
  • The Nazis illegally invaded and occupied the Baltic states and was planning to illegally annex them.
  • The Soviets reinvaded and resumed their prior illegal occupation and annexation where they left off.
  • The Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics, entities of the USSR, did exist. They have their own articles. I have even done some editorial contributions to accounts of that era.
  • HOWEVER, for the Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics to have been occupied by the Nazis, they/the Soviets had to have been the legal legitimate sovereign authority over those territories. The SSRs/the USSR were not. Contending that the "republics" were occupied is WP:UNDUE support of Soviet propaganda that the Baltics (a) ceded their sovereignty (at all) and that (b) they did so willingly and legally. It has been incontrovertibly established they did not. —PētersV (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know these arguments. I read them quite a few times on different articles. But they have nothing to do with the WP:RM process and the fact that the move should be left alone to play itself out. Renata (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, all of them are irrelevant to establishing a WP:COMMONNAME move. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Postulations herein that the arguments are relevant (in opposition to the move) aside, I hope some of the other discussion here and Biru's NYT search for the time period in question have made some progress in support of the use of "State" versus "republic"--that there was no real difference in terminology prior to WWII and after the occupations (regardless of occupier or whether regarded as occupier), and that the general preference of "states" over "republics" should continue to prevail in the title here, in line with other WP articles on the Baltic States.
   As to the "irrelevant" part of the argument here, I would ask editors who are new to this discussion to consider that while "pro-" Baltic editors have been Wiki-accused of being "nationalists" (as a dirty word), there is half a century of scholarship, based on reputably verifiable facts, that exists to counter the Soviet propaganda position and "historical account" that the Baltics "joined" the USSR willingly and legally. Don't take motivation and assume it means "POV." It's not "POV" when it's backed up by incontrovertible facts which can only be reputably interpreted one way. Consider which "side" has brought substantiated facts to the table and which "side" has brought only unsubstantiated contentions. —PētersV (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically, is that all what it takes: Its enough to have one unreasonable guy out there who is obsessed with the word "Republic" and there is a situation here that should be left alone to play itself out. Not that I'm getting it how can something that's left alone play itself out? But the way I'm getting it, lets say in case I'd be obsessed with "Baltic countries" instead and would just go ahead and rename the article accordingly without bothering to back it up with any sources, the crowd here should just tolerate this and leave me and my Baltic countries renaming alone? That's just exactly what Renata is saying for my eyes.-- (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it would seem that a dead horse can always be flogged to life. I won't speak to motivations or discuss similarities to past behaviors since any such action could be decried as a personal attack. —PētersV (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvement needed[edit]

In reference to the discussion above, about the article title; I’m more bothered by the article itself.
When it was proposed for deletion there was concern that it merely repeats what is already on the "Occupation of the Baltic States" page. I thought in January there was enough that could be said on the subject of the Nazi occupation alone to justify a separate page, but since then (in fact, since the deletion discussion last July) very little has been done to improve it.
Arguments about what the title of the page are, I think, secondary to improving the article, to avoid it being deleted altogether.
It still needs a section on Lithuania, for example, to justify the title; Also, it needs to look at the factors that were common to the three states overall, such as:-

  • The ambivalence towards the German occupation, and the reasons why,
  • Collaboration, and war service with the Axis armed forces,
  • Resistance and partisan activity, and who it was aimed at,
  • The Holocaust, as it affected the states; the experience of the Jews and the participation of other nationals.

And it needs to say more than what already exists elsewhere.
Xyl 54 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are problems with the Holocaust in Lithuania article, so no simple solutions to improving the article here even in summary. —PētersV (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately in the wider zone of the Baltics and central and eastern Europe, this sort of flurry-of-activity conflict is common. That leaves many deserving articles starved for attention other than in fits and spurts. I had sworn off Wiki-conflicts for 2008 (and managed to add a full series of pictures for the Freedom Monument article and to write Anatol Dinbergs' biography), but that's as far as I got. I'm hoping the action here concludes soon, it's coming up on three weeks of discussion post-Dojarca's revert to "republics". —PētersV (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a decision here?[edit]

It would appear that everyone has made their case and those that have a preference have states it. Can we proceed to a decision here? A clear case has been made for states. A muddy case at best has been made for republics. There has been no evidence presented that the majority use nomenclature used everwhere else in WP ("States") does not also apply in this case. —PētersV (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba's use of terms "clear" and "muddy" indicates his preferences and, perhaps, fairness. But his claiming that he is right one more time does not help that to be the case. --Irpen 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a silly debate. Republics has been the way s.c. "Pribaltika" has always been called in Russia. Baltic states is the most common way to call the region in Western countries. Therefore the current "Baltic republics" reflects the Russian POV at the time when "Baltic states" would reflect the Western viewpoint. Since the EU has 3 times more population + USA twice as much = 5X more than in Russia, "Baltic states" would be the most common usage. Minority viewpoints such as Russian here are of course welcome but NPOV policies say what those could be used for. Another aspect is political of course. Only Russian or Soviet POV could claim that Baltic Soviet republics were occupied by Nazis. The western including Baltic viewpoint is clear about it, on occupation, meaning Soviet was just replaced with Nazi occupation, then again with Soviet occupation until the restoration of sovereignties of the states or republics or whatever. As a conclusion, the minority POV has taken over here and it is tolerated for some reason despite what the NPOV policies say about situations like that.-- (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the better posts on the topic, I must say. Renata (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Irpen. As I see it:
  • once you strip away opposition to rename based on POV (that the SSRs were not simply occupied territory and were "republics" of the USSR when the Nazis occupied),
  • stick to Relata Refero's "what was used at the time" (still "states", the NYT search as a sample, not finding any preference for "republic" during that period)
I believe there is enough evidence to indicate that there is no exception to common usage with regard to the time during which Nazi Germany occupied the Baltics. Retaining "republics" as "more informative" I believe is a minority view, and comments in support of that view have not indicated in what way "republics" is truly more informative: pre-SSR republican governments and SSR "republics" are two different animals, so using "republic" outside of most common usage of "states" is more confusing than clarifying.
Bottom line, it's been quiet here for a couple of days now, we should move on to a conclusion whatever that is so we come to closure (not that anything is ever really "closed"!) and move on to other matters. —PētersV (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Will Irpen ever concede that "Baltic States" is more common in English usage, despite all the evidence from the New York Times and Time magazine archives of the period of the Nazi occupation, or will he put WP:NPOV policy and WP:COMMONNAME guideline on the back seat in preference to his own view point that it should be "Baltic Republics"? That is the question, will he answer it? Martintg (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say the NYT search is interesting, indicating a split in how these terms were used. The EB references pointing in the other direction are still powerful in my eyes, though. I urge any closing admin to ignore all the claims that one word is inherently POV, as of that I remain unconvinced. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
?? The EB references are consistent with both the NYT search and the Times Magazine search, which in turn is consistent with the Google book title search, i.e: "Baltic States" is the most common in English, hands down. In the Russian language "Republic" seems marginally more common than "State", while "Country" is most common in Russian, but this is English Wikipedia... Martintg (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The EB references that Irpen provides. I find it particularly interesting that while, overall, they appear to use Baltic states, in this context they use Baltic republics. About the general point, I believe that I have already stated it is irrelevant to the name of this article, in my opinion, so it does not bear extensive repeating. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke? First you contend that the term shouldn't be based on recent usage but what was common usage at that time. Then when searches of NYT and Time magazine for articles from the 1941 to 1944 period shows that "Baltic States" is way more common, you seem to back pedal from that position and now claim Irpen's search of EB, written recently, is more "powerful". The irony is that the first EB article Irpen quotes has "Baltic states" twice as often as "Baltic Republics", while the second article has "Baltic republics" in the context of Stalin's viewpoint, obviuosly he would view them as republics. Martintg (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not "at that time" but "about that time". The other points you make have already been discussed. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Relata, I would like to understand your objection, if it is one, here. "About that time" versus "at that time" -- well, that sense does include about the Baltics as SSRs as "republics" versus not. If you say that's not part of making the case, current usage still primarily refers to Baltic "states", about the Baltics, regardless of time, so we're still at states over republics. Unless you are saying "republic" is now preferred, in which case you are implicitly advocating the renaming of every Baltic states article for consistency.
   All of this boils down to a simple point having nothing to do whether I'm right or wrong in my various postulations here: this article's title either conforms to all other titles regarding the Baltic states, or, if left as a non-conforming title, it effectively pushes Dojarca's fringe POV--whether you personally support Dojarca's contentions or not, whether you indicate (for you) Dojarca's contentions apply or not. —PētersV (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think so, I respect that: that's for the closing admin to decide. My own position is simply, that if common usage about the period of this article significantly prefers one term to another, that's the term we go with. The case has been effectively made that overall throughout the twentieth century form B is preferred to form A; whether for this period form A is preferred to form B is the only question. Consistency of the sort you suggest doesn't come into it; most articles about St. Petersburg reflect that name - but not Siege of Leningrad. I choose this as an example close to hand, but there are others I can think of. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming your concern is only usage. To your example, references regarding the SSRs always refer to them as such, so "Latvian republic" is never used to refer to the organizational entity "Latvian SSR" (outside of Soviet sources). Just to clarify with a couple of more examples (I use "invasion" instead of "occupation" to clarify the sense), there are three choices:
  1. Nazi invasion of the Baltic states
  2. Nazi invasion of the Baltic republics
  3. Nazi invasion of the Baltic SSRs
As I see it,
  • numbers 1 and 2 are equivalent and I contend common usage should prevail, because...
  • there's been no conclusive demonstration that "republic" applies more during the time of the Nazi occupation; the onus is on supporters of "republic" to prove the historical differentiation as it departs from common usage
  • number 3 is Soviet historiography/Russian official position, the minority/outlier view
  • most importantly, Dojarca, the original editor objecting, has pushed number 2 as meaning number 3 and we have agreed that his contention is his personal POV only and not pertinent to the editorial discussion here regarding the title of the article
We'll have to wait now to see what happens. I trust this will be closed and the decision made/stated in a non-partisan fashion (with regard to both "for" rename and "oppose" rename) by a non-partisan admin. —PētersV (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I invite anyone who would like to advocate a different preference/editorial interpretation regarding #1, #2, and #3 to do so (and indicate why) for the closing admin and that we try to avoid further debate--realistically, we've all said anything that needs to be said on the topic and largely more than once. My purpose in the above response is not to have the last word. (After all, if I have confidence in my position, I should feel no need to have the last word.) —PētersV (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern here (as well as much of the overall) is Martin's and Vecrumba's vicious conduct in this and other similar discussions. Whenever there is anything "Soviet" around here , we have this No Holds Barred attitude from these two individuals. That makes me minimize my involvement in certain topics, which by itself may be not so much of a problem to these users and the Wikipedia overall. But the further contribution to this poisonous climate in EE topics damages the whole project greatly.

We get a misleading analysis of Google books results, we get the misleading presentation of Britannica results (does not matter whether deliberate or not in either case) and editors who disagree have to get all sorts of crap thrown at them. This has been on and on for too long. Time for a change. --Irpen 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Irpen - Above, I invited all participating editors to present their own editorial conclusions regarding the three examples I provided for the benefit of the closing admin, specifically stating I would not counter or debate as everything that can be said has been said. You respond to my completely good faith offer not with a summary of your editorial position and rationale, but with an attack on my "vicious" conduct. I would prefer you respond to my offer rather than seek to settle editorial disagreement by defaming my character. —PētersV (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Irpen, please restrain your personal attacks and gross assumptions of bad faith here, which does more to poison this debate here than anything else. I presented the initial google searches in good faith to get an indication of the usage distribution of the two terms. There were legitimate criticism of that search. I then added a Google book title search to get an indication of the usage in book titles, and also a search of Time Magazine archives, both which confirmed the initial search. You may not like the results, but please do not accuse me of bad faith or attack me with accusations of "vicious conduct" in an attempt to sway the closing admin. Play the ball, not the person. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, Vecrumba, none of what I said is anywhere near personal attack. And I am not assuming anything here regarding faith. And I have no liking and disliking of the results, as long as they are presented without distortion. --Irpen 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, I am genuinely perplexed why your accusation of "vicious" conduct on my part in this particular forum, with no examples from this particular forum, should not be construed as a personal attack upon myself. If that is nowhere near a personal attack, then you use "vicious" far more frivolously than you should. I was gracious enough in our last discussion on the topic to acknowledge that "attack" is in the eye of the beholder. You might consider acknowledging the same as we work together--it's highly unlikely that our interests in the Eastern European sphere can be cleft in such a way as to not overlap.
   Again, please place my three examples into what you editorially believe is the correct context and summarize your rationale for the closing admin for the choice of states versus republic versus (if you are so inclined) SSR. I've already stated that the purpose is not to debate further, only for those for, or opposing, the move to "states" to (reasonably succinctly, which I believe I did) summarize their position for admin. —PētersV (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Examples? What was this? Or this? Or this clear/muddy stuff? Muddy? I really have seen that attitude around from you for a long time. I almost withdrew from the whole set of topics. I edit much less overall (and feel much better too). --Irpen 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And as for summarizing, this is happening for a while in form of demanding the answers until one likes them. I summarized what I see above and not once. So, did several other editors. You disagree, that's fine. But don't you dare claim anything I say is "muddy". --Irpen 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, above you claim you are not assuming anything here regarding faith, then in the very next sentence you imply the results were willfully distorted, i.e. presented in bad faith! Vecrumba makes a reasonable call for editors to summarise their position in light of the evidence and discussion, and you respond with accusations of "vicious conduct" and bring your grievences of the past to the table, this from someone who is on record as stating they have a thick skin! An observer may forgiven for thinking this is an attempt to derail the closing dicussion that is going against them. Martintg (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did I imply that? Also, "attempt to derail" is a lot of AGF, Martin. --Irpen 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I always attempt to AGF, but I cannot account for what an observer of this discussion may think. It all depends on whether one wants to play the ball or the person. Unfortunately you prematurely added a poll and voted right at the beginning of the discussion, WP:RM guideline indicates this may be divisive, and we do not know if your view has changed in light of the evidence presented subsequently. So please place Vecrumba's three examples into what you editorially believe is the correct context and summarize your rationale for the closing admin for the choice of states versus republic versus SSR. Martintg (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, we've already discussed my comments elsewhere, and I thought we had had concluded that discussion. For my part, I committed to not judge any interchange between us based on any past conflicts. But since you bring them up,...

  • Regarding the first diff, you have written (my emphasis) "Soviets occupied in 1940. They then annexed and the country became the part of the USSR. In 1944 they reclaimed their pre-war borders. Latvia was part of the USSR and treated as such, unlike, say, Afghanistan. You cannot "occupy" your own territory...."
  • Regarding the second diff, my expression of disappointment is exactly that, and it is genuine disappointment. I express frustration and to you it is a vicious attack. Dojarca expresses frustration (not at you, but elsewhere) and you advise him... (my emphasis) "Dojarca, I think you need to calm down a little. Actually, not a little but a lot. Here is a simple trick. Before replying to a talk page entry that angered you, give it a couple of hours not to. Such messages can always wait even much longer. Same applies to reverts. Mother Russia won't collapse from some Wikipedia's article's being at the version which seems "wrong" to you for some extended time."" on his talk page. You appear (to me) to deal with editors differently depending on whether you consider them to be in editorial opposition to you or not. Whom you choose to counsel or accuse is, of course, your prerogative.
  • Finally, as for "muddy", it is hardly a comment on you personally, it is a comment that a survey of all sources produced in the discussion regarding the use of "republic" do not, to my mind, paint a clear picture of preferred usage that uniformly supports going against usual convention ("states") in the title, hence "muddy." It is not a comment directed at you. If I have something to say about something you contend editorially, I will address it directly. (I did not say, "the evidence presented regarding EB was muddy," nor "the case made for republic citing EB was muddy," nor that you personally or intellectually were "muddy.")

I promised Renata not to dwell on the past. So, again, putting our past interactions behind us, if you wouldn't mind addressing the three alternatives I mention as to a summary of your position opposing the rename, I sincerely believe it would be of benefit to the closing admin. —PētersV (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

May by use Nazi Occupations of Baltic Countries?[edit]

I would personally prefer Nazi Occupation of Baltic Countries rather than states or republics. Whether independent Baltic States existed in 1941 is a question of POV, the name republics has a hint of a Soviet Socialist Republic that is unexeptable to many participants. Besides if there independent states existed tey may be monarchies or despoties, who knows. There is no doubt that Baltic Countries as territories existed in 1941 or 1942 or 1946 or even 1880 for that matter. At any rate I do not think the question is important enough to such a number of fine editors to spend so much time arguing here. It is fine with me all three variants Baltic Countries, Baltic States or Baltic Republics Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If the proposal was Occupation of the independent Baltic States by Nazi Germany, then you may have a point. However the fact that you need to qualify "Baltic States" with "independent" indicates to me there is nothing inherently POV about "Baltic States", just as there is nothing inherently POV about "Australian states". States can be either independent states or constituent states, that's why we need a qualifier as you demonstrated. The second point is that the pre-war independent states, the post-war dependent states and post-Soviet "re-independent" states are all constitutionally republics in contrast to, say, Australia which is technically a constitutional monarchy. When "states" and "republics" can reasonably refer to any period, then the principle of common usage must apply. To recap, total usage in book titles reveals:
Usage during the period of Nazi occupation from 1941 to 1944, as indicated in both Time Magazine and New York Times digitalarchives, also show a similar usage pattern. Encyclopedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia and MSN Encarta refer to the Baltic states. In fact Encarta states "Baltic States, independent republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea." While "Baltic republics" can be used in any period, it is not common english language usage, nor is it consistent with usage elsewhere in Wikipedia. If there is a "hint" of a Soviet Socialist Republic in the term "Baltic republic", it is because Dojarca has explicitly stated this as the reason for keeping the current title, that the Nazis occupied Soviet republics and reference to "Baltic states" is somehow construed as "anti-Soviet propaganda". For Dojarca even considers Britannica a POV source, for heaven sakes! Now his view is POV, fringe POV at that. Let's attempt to be encyclopedic here and adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, rather than be held hostage by those holding fringe or extremist viewpoints. Given that both "Baltic states" and "Baltic republics" can and does refer to both Soviet and non-soviet states, then we must rely upon the common name as required by policy Martintg (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nazi Occupation of Baltic Countries" ? Please let me remind you that "Nazi" by itself means "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" or "an advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism". The article should be about "occupation by Nazi Germany", meaning Germany that was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Therefore first of all the title should include "Nazi Germany" , not just "Nazi" that has slightly different meaning. The second, the use of "Baltic countries" would be much more controversial than "states" or "republics". Correct me if I'm wrong but a country in the context would mean in English that we're talking about sovereign states. Therefore saying that "Baltic countries" existed even in 1880 would open up a question of Occupation of Baltic countries by Russian Empire etc.
Just that before the end of WWI a country like Latvia didn't exist for example. Instead there were Livonia and Curonia, and the meaning of "Estonia" was just the northern part of the current Estonia. etc.
Like Martintg has pointed out a state in English can mean either sovereign or constituent state. The use of "Baltic republics" in English would suggest that the article is talking about an occupation of states or countries that are not led by a hereditary monarch. -- (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to go back to "states"[edit]

Every other article uses the common usage "Baltic states." There is no requirement here to do otherwise. Fortunately we now have additional means for checking usage, such as Google's ngram viewer, as, for example, here, showing the use of the terms Baltic states and Baltic republics (a) parallel each other—meaning, there is no indication that "republics" was preferred to "states" by publications during the period of occupation by Nazi Germany, and (b) the VAST preponderance of usage is states, not republics. "Baltic countries" also trails "Baltic states" significantly. I can't speak to the motivations of editors who felt a burning desire to flaunt the vastly predominant convention just for this article, but, clearly, there is—conclusively—no need for this article to ignore convention. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 19:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

By the "the vastly predominant convention" you mean you own personal contention. (Igny (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC))
Why is it, exactly, that every other article on WP refers to the Baltic "states" per common convention while a small assortment of editors including yourself insists on "republics" specifically for the period of occupation by Nazi Germany, as in, for example, the "Republics of the USSR"? As you can see here, based on sources and year published, "Baltic states" trumps "Baltic republics" by a vastly overwhelming margin including the multi-year period of occupation by Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised at how you twist the "common convention". The common convention is to use the term contemporary to the event, not the term contemporary to you. (Igny (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC))
Perhaps you misunderstood the graph, that is by year of source, so for the period of occupation by Nazi Germany it shows results for that period contemporary to the event. The overwhelming dominance of "Baltic states" over "Baltic republics" is completely consistent. I'm discouraged that you accuse me of twisting simple facts. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 02:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it more obvious, here is 1940 through 1945 (no smoothing, year-by-year usage). PЄTЄRS J V TALK 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Vecrumba, Google ngrams irrefutably shows "Baltic (s|S)tates" to be the more common term used during the period 1940-1945. --Martin (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
PS, if there is no further objection within a couple of days, I'll move the article. --Martin (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You may try to move, it will only be moved back. Your arguments are not sufficient enough. At the time of German occupation there were no Baltic states, there had been Baltic states before the Soviet annexation and that what the graphs may be all about, but German occupied Soviet republic at the moment. (Igny (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC))
P.S. You may contend all you want that annexation did not happen, Baltic republics never happened, that won't change actual history. (Igny (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC))
Igny, do you have a source that backs up this view, or is this your personal synthesis? --Martin (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not need one because your argument is absurd. If you want to see how absurd it sounds, try this
As you can see Google ngrams irrefutably shows that "Baltic states" is not a common name, so we should rename them to "Soviet Union".
You can try the same exercise with apples and oranges. (Igny (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC))
That is not a childish trick. As soon as the Baltic states became part of USSR, scholars just used the term Soviet Union to describe whatever happened in any of the Soviet republics, Soviet Baltic republics included (see [28] for example). So you may forget about your silly comparison graph, as it proves nothing. (Igny (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC))
That search is irrelevant to the topic of this article. This search[29] is more relevant in both the topic and period of usage. --Martin (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Igny: the overwhelming statistics do not support your irrelevant Google search which returns scientific papers published in Tallinn. All your example proves, by way of neat little microcosm, is that the Soviet Union contended Estonia belonged to it. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
All you have to do is to bring it to an RM. Might as well try to rename Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, and Lithuanian SSR, while you are at it. (Igny (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
(edit conflict) @Igny: by your latest NGRAM logic, one would be equally compelled by the results of this that "Peters" is a hugely more common term than "moron", and therefore all morons should be renamed to Peters. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to use that argument at the RM. (Igny (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
Igny, if we expand the scope of the ngram search to the period 1940-1980[30] the term "occupation of the Baltic s(S)tates" still dominates. If you are arguing that the usage of term shown in the ngram result is not related to the German occupation, then you must be implying that this ngram result instead applies to the Soviet period. Which occupation is it? --Martin (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
@Igny. It's not my graph, this is YOUR graph - I copy-pasted it. Of course you always have more refs to a big notable country X than to a small non-notable country Y (like USA versus Barbados). It does not mean that one should use name "US" instead of "Barbados". Frankly, I have seen many arguments, but never something quite like that. That's why I paid attention.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that Baltic states might also trump Baltic republics in Russian as well. No? PЄTЄRS J V TALK 03:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I think that settles it then. --Martin (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)