Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 1

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

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

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

Disambiguation of Occupations

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

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

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

Improvements to the Article

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

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

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

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

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

Doc15071969 15:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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

Occupation of Baltic Republics → Occupation of Baltic States

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

Survey

See #Vote fraud alert. --Irpen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote fraud alert

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Add any additional comments

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

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

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

History of the occupation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you have removed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Marting:

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Xil & Martin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doc15071969 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Just some thoughts/questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And/Or

I didn't summarily undo Dojarca's edit, but the "occupation" refers to the Soviet + Nazi + Soviet = one continuous period of being occupied. Using "OR" in there implies incorrectly there was some period when the Baltics were NOT occupied after the Soviet Union started that ball rolling. I'll leave this for comments for a day or two.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Baltic states

Section one

Thank you for your comment. Can you please consider the following argument. Occupation is by definition can only be of a foreign territory. If a territory already annexed, it can not be called "occupation". For example, Israel ocupies Gaza. If it declares annexation of the territory, it at the moment discontinues to be occupation. No country can "occupy" its own territory.--Dojarca 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you provided an example. Whether or not Israel annexes Gaza, it still occupies Gaza. Annexation cannot terminate occupation. The reason it's still an occupation--Gaza or the Baltics--is because of the legal principle "ex iniuria ius no oritur" — right can not grow out of injustice.

    Additionally, as mentioned, the Baltic States all took steps to insure their de jure continuity regardless of territorial events. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. You're right saying that if the annexation or acception is not recognized by somebody as de jure valid, he continues to see the things as occupation. You correctly pointed out that there were made efforts to insure continuity between their pre-Soviet governments and their representatives in the West and even some Western countries did not recognize their incorporation into Soviet Union. But the fact is that this is only one point of view and incorporation of the countries into SU was also widely recognized by many other countries.--Dojarca 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying.

    The principle of ex iniuria ius no oritur precludes an illegal annexation from ever being considered legal whether or not a third party decides it may or may not be convenient to functionally recognize it as legal for its own purposes. Using your example, Israel "formally" annexes occupied Gaza. The U.S. declares it recognizes Israel's incorporation of Gaza as Israel now having de jure sovereignty over Gaza. The U.S. declaration does not make the annexation legal nor terminate the Israeli occupation. Occupation continues as long as the de jure sovereign authority is prevented from functioning. In the case of the Gaza strip, that is (most likely, the Gaza strip is a mess, having also been under Egyptian administration) the Palestinian Authority. An internationally organized plebescite might be appropriate in the particular case of Gaza, which does not currently reside within the borders of any sovereign nation.

    Also, that countries recognized the post-WWII borders of the Soviet Union does not mean that countries recognized the annexation of the Baltics as de jure legal, another argument that has been made on Wikipedia. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this in not the Wikipedia's business to decide what was legal and what was not, dont you agree? Even if the elections were falsified, it was widely recognized that the states became part of the USSR and as such they ware not occupied (at least for them who recognized the borders of the USSR). And it seems you use the principle you're citing very broadly. For example, American war for independence was illegal, but it is widely recognized now that the US is an independent state.--Dojarca 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, being "part of" does not mean "not occupied". And you are confusing recognition of borders with recognition of sovereignty. The two are simply not the same. You are leaping from the acknowledgement of a de facto (not de jure) incorporation to that they were no longer occupied. No one is disputing that the Soviet Union had de facto control of the Baltics.

    I'm not using the principle of ex iniuria ius no oritur broadly at all (or applying it to suit purposes of original research), it is one of the fundamental legal concepts applied to all questions of territorial sovereignty, for example, from the breakup of the Soviet Union to current discussions involving territorial sovereignty (Kosovo, Gaza, et al.).

    Your example of the American war of independence--and in fact, any conflict prior to the 20th century--does not apply in general as war was considered a legal means for settling disputes. But, to be specific, what made America de jure independent and sovereign was the Treaty of Peace of 1783 in which the de jure sovereign authority, England, formally and explicitly ceded sovereignty to America. Prior to that, America was a de facto independent state.

    Consider that none of the circumstances from the first Soviet occupation to the second Soviet occupation changed.

    You maintain Wikipedia should not be deciding what is, or isn't legal. I'm the one that is stating the facts while, I'm sorry to say, you are making the case that the occupation ceased on the basis of your personal interpretation of events and examples which you feel support your position--but even your own example of American sovereignty is completely consistent with supporting the Baltic position. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I will briefly comment on just one point since I've said it all on the rest in another talk page. Claiming the "continuity" of the post-independence government to the pre-war one through invoking the exiled gov is plain ridiculous. I can see some point in the original government being evacuated and reassembled in exile making claims to be a legitimate government for some time (like Polish government in London during the WW2), but doing so for 50 years simply makes no sense. The claims of those people's being a government that represented the country were not backed by election results, neither there was a valid hereditary claim (like that of an exiled monarch). In fact, even before Latvia became annexed by the Soviets, the Ulmanis' claims of legitimacy could be questioned as he came to power through an illegal coup. Was he an occupier? Usurper? Possibly the latter but from the historic point of view he was a Latvian leader. And so were the 1st secretaries, like Pelse and Pugo, not those guys in London and Washington who claimed to represent the country whose people did not even know about the existence of those "leaders". --Irpen 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be dismissive, but we're trotting out the "occupation can't possibly last 50 years" argument once again. And your basis for this argument would be? The first secretaries of the Latvian S.S.R. were totally illegitimate. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And can you tell who, in your opinion, was legitimate in say, 1970, and why so? --Irpen 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For Latvia, the arrangement made was the London legation was in charge with powers of state also vested in the U.S. legation. Edgars Dunsdorfs (historian/author) remarks that in 1967 he traveled from Australia to Europe and back on a passport issued by the Latvian Embassy in London, including applying for and receiving visas for Italy, France, (West) Germany, and the Netherlands.

    As for the Latvian S.S.R., any hopes Latvians in Latvia had of effecting a change from within to their circumstances had been crushed in purges. Subsequent leadership sounded like it was Latvian but there were individuals from Russia who didn't speak Latvian who didn't consider themselves Latvian and whose only qualification was their Latvian surname. Aside from the total illegitimacy of the S.S.R. government in the first place.

    Finally, many Latvians in Latvia were quite aware of who was who in the diaspora. And all exiled Latvians knew who their sovereign Latvian representatives were. On what do you base your statement no one knew who they were? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Pelše even banned the Latvian summer solstice festival Jāņi. "Latvian" leader? More like the Latvian anti-Christ. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not request a verbose answer. You claim that someone in UK or US was a legitimate head of the Latvian state all that time. I am asking for the name of the person who according to your POV was a head of the Latvian state in 1970s and the basis of the legitimacy of such claim. I do not care who and how traveled where and on what passport. People may have traveled also on Sealand passports for what I care and some countries require everyone who wishes to enter just to pay a "visa fee" at the border and once the fee is paid, they stamp a visa anywhere you like, even in your phonebook. So, please answer my question and spare the details of Dunsdorfs' travels for his article's talk page. --Irpen 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Those invested with plenipotentiary powers on behalf of the sovereign Latvia were:

1. Kārlis Zariņš, 1940 to 1963 (U.K.)
2. Arnolds Spekke, 1963 to 1970 (U.S.)
3. Anatols Dinbergs, 1970 to 1991 (U.S.)

The Latvian government formally invested these powers initially in the person of Zariņš prior to the Soviet occupation.

Wrong side of the bed this morning? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your question but I presume it is irrelevant. Now, say, Dinbergs, what exactly was his claim's legitimacy? Who, when and how elected him or otherwise what exactly makes him a legitimate leader of Latvia in your view?--Irpen 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dinbergs' claims for legitimacy, however unpretentious, were still infinitely stronger than those of any pro-Soviet "leaders" of Latvia in 1940-1989. One can debate about the exact legal definition of "occupation", but it remains a fact that the Soviet military presence in Latvia was neither initiated nor ever supported by the majority of Latvia's population, nor were there any free elections or referendums held in the country during the period that would have rendered even minimal legitimacy for the pro-Soviet administration. Cheers, --3 Löwi 05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you seemed rather annoyed. "Getting up on the wrong side of the bed" is an English expression for just being in a bad mood all day.

     Dinberg's legitimacy is the de jure investing of power of state of the Latvian Republic. Once those powers of state were again invested in sovereign authority on Latvian soil, Dinbergs continued in his (prior concurrent) position of ambassador to the U.S. His legitimacy is/was not a "claim." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, while I am not a native speaker, I know what the "wrong side of bad" is. I am not particularly annoyed, not any more than any other time I see the aggressive POV-pushing here. You did not answer my question. Who and how elected Dinbergs to justify the claim that he was a legitimate ruler of Latvia. --Irpen 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You and I both know quite well Dinbergs wasn't elected and did not "rule" Latvia. Stop trying to push your POV (Latvia could not be occupied for 50 years) with baited questions. Most of the legitimate Latvian government was deported to Siberia/killed by the Soviets--you wish for me to point to a public official duly elected during the first twenty years of the Latvian Republic who was still alive in 1970 and could be considered simply an ousted leader in exile just waiting for the Soviets to vacate Latvia so they could resume their rightful role? Please!

     The illegitimate occupying authority over the territory of Latvia in 1970 was the Soviet Union. The legitimate vessel of Latvian sovereign authority at that time was Dinbergs.

     When Latvian sovereign authority was reestablished on Latvian territory, Dinbergs ceded his powers and continued as ambassador to the United States.

     I'm sorry, Irpen, but I fail to see how your (at best) WP:OR contentions that no occupation could possibly last 50 years is objective and neutral while my sticking completely to undisputable and documented facts is "aggresive POV pushing."

     Finally, your completely unsubstantiated and baseless contention below that Dinbergs was "bogus" is intellectually insulting. (I'm making it clear it's an insulting argument, not that I am insulted by your contention.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Is it legitimate enough for you that Dinbergs was also Latvia's first ambassador to the United Nations? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please do not turn the talk pages of the specific articles into a gallery of your trains of thoughts. The issue at hand is a narrow one, you claimed that the existence of some people who lived in the US and UK they were the legitimate heads of the Latvian state is relevant to this debate. My point is that it is no more relevant than the possible claim of Victor Emmanuel (IV) to be the head of Italy. I am not trying to whitewash the Soviet crimes and nowhere do you find me denying the atrocities of the Stalin's regime. But the claim that someone in the legitimate ruler of Latvia in 1970 was Dinbergs is baseless as such claim is not backed by anything normally associated with the notion of legitimacy of the state's head. Leadership is normally based on either of the two, the election (often rigged but still, no one doubted the legitimacy of Saddam or Kim Jong-il despite their election is obviously a fake) or hereditary, like that of the monarchs or their descendants. No matter what fancy weasel terms you put here like "legitimate vessel of Latvian sovereign authority" does not change that. "Ceeded his powers"... What powers? Dinbergs may have been a good guy and I have nothing against him, but to claim that he was a legitimate leader of the sovereign Latvia is a big stretch and cannot be used as an argument for anything. I am fascinated by all the info about him you put above, but here it is out of place. Feel free to start Anatols Dinbergs for that and please keep this page on topic. --Irpen 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I take it from lack of response, for a week that you will from now stop invoking the argument of the diaspora government as relevant to so many other issue. Of course, the government and its members would still make valid encyclopedic entries but we are not going to go around this anymore in the "occupation" debates, hopefully. --Irpen 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You are intentionally twisting what I say to make it sound silly. Dinbergs was the individual vested with Latvian sovereign authority. There was no Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil to be a "leader" of. There was a formal transition from Dinbergs' role "before" and Dinbergs' role "after" the return of sovereignty to Latvian soil. Your claims of Latvian S.S.R. first secretaries of the time being the true leaders of Latvia are laughable WP:OR. Even dyed-in-the-wool Latvian communists smuggled a letter of complaint out of Latvia to be published complaining about the abject incompetence of the entire installed Latvian S.S.R. "leadership." Please show me someone other than the Russians who insist the Latvia was liberated, Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally, Latvia was not occupied.

     You ask questions demanding details then you deride my response based on your own conclusions that "XYZ can't possibly...". You've produced nothing, reputable or otherwise, to show Latvia and the Baltics were not occupied for the full Soviet tenure. I'm tired of your endless pot shots while you yourself have contributed not one whit of information.

     The Soviets invaded the Baltics without provocation. They were driven out temporarily only because of the Nazi offensive. The Soviets returned and resumed right where they left off. Occupation from start to finish. That you personally would not have the patience to wait out a 50-year occupation reflects poorly on your character, not on mine. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Again the endless train of thought. I asked a very simple question. What is the basis to justify the claim pointing to Dinbergs. Election? No. Hereditary? No. In what way is it different from some off-spring of Romanovs now making a similar claim? --Irpen 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sovereign Latvia to Zariņš to Spekke to Dinbergs (and back to sovereign Latvia). Basis = de jure transfer/vesting of powers of state. I'm sorry you don't like the answer. It won't change.

    Rather than continue on your endless WP:OR litany that it is all bogus, go find an official Russian source which documents why it's all bogus. We could then at least have some alleged facts to discuss. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't do OR. That's your speculations that are OR. "Basis = de jure transfer/vesting of powers of state" is OR. My liking/not liking your answer makes no difference. There is no answer to the question above save fancy weaselizing with terminology. Dinbergs, against who I have nothing to say, had no authority to claim any "powers of state". Much less than any exiled decedent's of the royal tree who looses relevance as his land functions for years without monarchy. In fact, even less since the throne pretender's claim is at least based on the hereditary rights. The claims of the group of people who live abroad and pretend to be a legal exiled government may all be valuable to raise the patriotism in school textbooks but has neither relevance nor any validity. And you have not shown any basis of his claims either despite I was repeatedly asking you. --Irpen 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please. The Latvian government's foreign ministry documents and confirms all of this, but it's nothing that has not been written about elsewhere--and in no way disputed except by your unsubstantiated personal ridicule that it can't possibly be true and is totally bogus. None of this is [[WP::OR]] speculation of my own making. I'm not saying anything that is not published. It is you who are making a mockery of this asking what bloodline Dinbergs descends from that might give him some tenuous claim to the Latvian throne. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the Latvian foreign ministry was not an academic institution. Any scholar claiming that the non-elected people who comfortably lived in the US and UK were in 1970s a legal exiled government of Latvia? --Irpen 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dainus Žalimis, University of Vilnius : "The most important thing is that according to the principle ex injuria non oritur jus, even though all the territory of Lithuania was occupied by the USSR, the Republic of Lithuania continued to exist as a subject of international law. This continuity was recognized by the major Western powers and other democratic states and was maintained by the Lithuanian legations in foreign states. The representatives of Lithuania were considered to be the representatives of the Republic of Lithuania appointed by the last government prior to the occupation of the country. Lithuanian passports and other official documents issued by the operating Lithuanian embassies and consular agencies were considered as valid by some countries. Therefore, the continuity of the Republic of Lithuania was an obvious fact. It is clear that it would be absurd to recognize operating embassies and consular agencies as well as the citizenship and passports of a non-existing state. Thus, the Republic of Lithuania was treated as an occupied State; the rights and obligations of which were not impaired by the foreign occupation. Lithuania preserved all of its sovereign rights including the legal title to its territory although it could not exercise these rights until independence was restored in 1990." [4]--Pēteris Cedriņš 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice, finally we get links to the scholarly work instead of Wikipedian own speculations fancied with "vested with" and "vessel of sovereign authority" phrasing. Very well, the link above shows the POV of the particular baltic scholar. No indication, though, that this is the preponderant view of the mainstream scholarship (I am talking about the narrow issue of the diaspora organizations styling themselves as legitimate governmental authorities of their respective countries.) To be sure, I checked the main encyclopedia, EB and Columbia. Both have articles on Latvian and Lithuanian histories. None found either the "exiled government" or their leaders noteworthy to even mention them. EB's Latvia article, though mentions Pelse, Voss and Pugo. Same for the Lithuanian articles. --Irpen 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, there are hundreds of links that have been posted that are relevant to this argument -- not to mention books, the old kind that took trees or rags, that have been recommended. Read them? --Pēteris Cedriņš 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Please note that the subject of this article is the occupation of Baltic countries, not the legitimacy of the Baltic governments-in-exile. The existence of the governments-in-exile (or non-existence, if Stalin had succeeded in eliminating not the majority, but all Baltic political leaders) makes little difference in the fact of Soviet military presence in the Baltic countries in 1940-1941 / 1944-1991, and has very little, if any, bearing on which terms should be used to describe that military presence. Cheers, --3 Löwi 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Point is that Vecrumba makes a point that the mere fact that certain group of people of the diaspora claimed to be the respective governments, somehow affects the debate. My point is that firstly, it does not, secondly, their claims were bogus. --Irpen 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For Estonia, an answer to Irpen's question can be found at http://www.president.ee/en/estonia/heads.php . Note that while the vast majority of the democratic nations of the world never formally recognized the annexation of Estonia into USSR (see, e.g. the 1983 resolution of the European Parliament, referenced in the article), many of them never took any actions for formal state-level recognition (or, for that matter, non-recognition) of the Estonian diplomatic representatives and/or the Estonian government in exile. Post-1940 issue Estonian passports, of course, were rather widely used as international travel documents, but one would be right to claim that this alone does not amount to state-level recognition. Cheers, --3 Löwi 06:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet presence in Baltics can be called "occupation" only by those who does not recognize the Soviet borders at that time, because no country canoccupy its own territory. Occupation can be only of foreign territory by definition. And Soviet borders after the WWII were widely (though not universally) recognized. As such calling Soviet presence in Baltics "occupation" represents only one, non-neutral point of view (of those who did not recognize Soviet post-war borders).--Dojarca 08:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this view derived from your own original research, or can you provide a published source that supports this thesis? If we follow your logic to its conclusion, you could also argue that the Nazis never occupied the Baltics either, since they considered the Baltics formed a part of the German territory called Ostland. By your logic, no country can occupy its own territory, even though the borders of Ostland was not widely recognised, it was certainly recognised by the Axis members. Martintg 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Look in a dictionary, www.bartleby.com: Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. I find no evidence that the territories were ever annexed by Germans. Germans saw them rather as colonies. And administration over Austria which was annexed, was not seen by Axis as occupation.--Dojarca 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Germany never had an opportunity to annex any eastern occupied territory, as they were defeated. However, the act of annexing occupied territory does not extinguish the occupation, I suggest you do a Google search on the legal maxim Ex iniuria ius non oritur - Right can not grow out of ``injustice. In any case, can you cite a reliable source that supports your thesis? Referring to a dictionary as you have done is considered WP:OR. Martintg 12:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to a reliable, reputable source. Do we need any other link to use English words by their own meaning?--Dojarca 13:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the Bartleby's American Heritage® Dictionary is a reliable source, however you are drawing additional conclusions from it that is not pesent in this original source, I see no mention in the dictionary entry of the Baltic context. Therefore it is WP:OR. The dictionary gives several definitions of "occupation", the third one you cite concerns the military aspect 3a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. b. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory, however the second definition is more general: 2a. The act or process of holding or possessing a place. b. The state of being held or possessed. Martintg 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Austria, mentioned by Dojarca above: "International lawyers and historians have debated whether - from a legal perspective - Austria’s 'Anschluss' to the German Reich should be considered an annexation or rather an occupation. [...] Today the theory of occupation is the prevailing view and generally accepted." [5]Dainius Žalimas in "Legal and Political Issues on the Continuity of the Republic of Lithuania" also mentions Austria's status [6], as does Domas Krivickas [7]. --Pēteris Cedriņš 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And it shows that annexation is incompatible with occupation in one point of view. One views it as occupation and another as an annexation. Just as in the case of Baltics.--Dojarca 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It shows that the prevailing, generally accepted view is that of occupation. Just as in the case of the Baltics. --Pēteris Cedriņš 03:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be in the case of Baltics since most countries recognized post-was borders of the USSR. And from point of view of the Axis Austria was annexed rather than occupied. Saying Baltics were not annexed is pure nonsence and extremist POV. Only for those who recognized emigrant "government" as legitimate it was occupation. And it was tiny minority of countries who did so.--Dojarca 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, just wait now to get some lengthy post claiming that Helsinki Accords are irrelevant. I see it coming... --Irpen 04:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're clairvoyant today, Irpen? The Helsinki Accords were not irrelevant, but they certainly did not give de jure recognition to the annexation. In fact, they wouldn't have been signed if they had. Consider the Dutch position, for example:

The prospect of extending formal recognition of the Soviet Union’s borders by the Western powers prompted the question of whether the Netherlands had ever formally recognized the Baltic states’ incorporation into the Soviet Union. By failing to make a reservation regarding the annexation of the Baltic countries, the Netherlands was in a different position from most other European countries, and if this amounted to a de jure recognition of the annexation, it might compromise the signing of the Helsinki Accords. The question was considered by the Ministry’s legal department, who at that time fortunately found an escape clause, if a rather obscure one. As stated in a memorandum of the Ministry’s legal department from January 1975: “With regard to the de jure non-recognition of the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union, Boris Meissner (“Die Sowjetunion, die baltischen Staaten and das Völkerrecht”, 1956, p. 304) mentions a resolution of the National Congress of American-Lithuanians dated 30th November 1945, giving a list of 45 countries who, in the Lithuanian opinion, have never recognized the annexation of the Baltic countries. This resolution, which also expressed the gratitude of the Baltic countries for this attitude, was submitted by the Lithuanian representation in Washington to all the listed countries — probably including the Netherlands, and has never been contradicted. It can therefore be assumed that none of the Western European states has recognized the Russian annexation of these three countries de jure.” So the Netherlands concluded that, just as the other Western powers, it had never recognized [the Baltic states'] annexation de jure, and could thus safely sign the Helsinki Accords. [8] (Emphases mine). --Pēteris Cedriņš 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And what part constitute 45 countries of all countries in the world? Note that the all other countries clearly recognized the borders of the USSR and those 45 either did not recognize or did not state their position.--Dojarca 04:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Helsinki Accords were signed by only 35 countries, Dojarca -- most of Europe, Canada, and the US. Most of the signatories explicitly withheld de jure recognition of the annexation (of those that didn't, almost all were satellites of the USSR), and the above quote notes that for these countries this was a prerequisite for signing the Accords. The European Union, the US, Canada and even the International Olympic Committee restored relations with the Baltic States. Other relevant documents on non-recognition are linked to throughout the pages where this sordid debate is taking place. One doesn't determine legality by taking a poll; it's primarily a question of international law, not popularity or the rationalizations of totalitarian states.

James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge: The Baltic states were separate states during the inter-war period and were members of the League of Nations. They were however occupied and illegally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 in circumstances involving the use of force and duress. There was little express recognition on the part of third states of the extinction of the Baltic states, and this was a relevant factor when those states sought to regain their independence in the changed circumstances of the Soviet Union after 1990. [9] (Emphasis mine.) --Pēteris Cedriņš 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The countries were occupied and later annexed. When the annexation performed, the state cannot be described as occupation as occupation can be only of a foreign state. And calculate please what persentage constitute 45 countries (at best), who did not recognize the territorial integrity of the USSR, of all countries in the world. The fact that the annexation was not recognized in the US and its satellites does not give right to claim it is the only correct opinion.--Dojarca 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The countries were illegally annexed, and there is a considerable difference between de facto and de jure; if I steal your car and then forge the title, it may be "my car" in that I drive it, register it, paint it hot pink and invite my relatives to live in it, but a Wikipedia article on the matter would probably best be entitled "Theft of Dojarca's car." The article on O.J. Simpson's murder case at Wikipedia is entitled O. J. Simpson murder case. Calculating numbers of countries is tangential to the legal aspect, as explained above -- basically, most free countries that had relations renewed relations, never having recognized the legality of the forcible annexation. Many countries did not have relations prior to the occupation, because many were not sovereign back then (e.g., India was part of the British Empire, etc. -- a list is available here [10]). I have nothing against including information on who did and who didn't recognize the annexation within the article, and the article should include information on the "lameness" of continuity, too. But if you would emerge from the innards of this debate a bit -- a person interested in the occupation (or even the argument that there was no occupation) would generally expect an article like this, with a title like this. It's a frequent search term. One includes denial in the Holocaust entry, and there are separate entries on Holocaust denial and even Criticism of Holocaust denial -- but this does not mean that we agree with Holocaust denial, does it? The occupation of the Baltic States is not universally agreed upon, no -- but not too many things are universally agreed upon. Presenting the prevailing view and serious alternate views is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. You write: Saying Baltics were not annexed is pure nonsence and extremist POV. Nobody here said that the Baltics weren't annexed -- what some here are saying is that they were illegally annexed whilst under occupation, and that is indeed the prevailing view. Please follow the links I gave. That some are in denial really does not matter. Start an article on "Denial of the occupation of the Baltic States" if you like. --Pēteris Cedriņš 09:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again. Whether they were annexed illegally is not the matter of Wikipedia to decide. Anyway one can dispute the legitimacy of the elections held after Red Army entered the states, but the procedure of accepting them into the SU was entirely correct. There were many elections claimed to be illegal by many in human history, for example the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the elections held in Iraq after US invasion. There were also numerous annexations which one can say "illegal", for example, annexation of Texas by the United States, but nobody would say US occupies Texas as Texas is now recognized part of the US. You say that the view that the Baltic States were occupied is prevailing. This point of view is based on un-recognition of Soviet post-war borders, which point was held at best by 45 states (as says the Baltic nationalist source). This is significant number but not the majority.--Dojarca 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The first partially free elections in Soviet clock took place in Poland 1989. Soviet type elections aren't elections. You don't use the word "iron" when you write about water.

It's not the matter of Wikipedia to decide - exactly. It means that two POWs exist and they should be quoted with their context - that the opponents were deported to Siberia, so they weren't allowed to "elect". They were replaced by Soviet people.Xx236 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Dojarca. Borders were recognized at Helsinki -- the forcible annexation was not. You don't decide the legality of annexation by polling every country in the world -- you decide it by legal precedent, diplomatic relations, treaties, recognition, declarations, legal scholars' opinions, political reality, etc. Indeed, it is not a matter for Wikipedia to decide -- but it is a subject readers of Wikipedia should have an article about. There is an article on Flat Earth -- Wikipedia has not decided that the earth is flat, has it? --Pēteris Cedriņš 09:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not going to bother working this out for you, but in 1945, 45 states were doubtless the majority of sovereign states; 50 countries signed the United Nations Charter, so 45 is a slight majority, no? As to "Baltic nationalist source" -- you betray your bias and bigotry, sorry, just as you do when you write "the US and its satellites." Once again -- this isn't a poll of countries, Dojarca. The law stays the same whether most people agree with it or not. In international law, the prevailing view of the occupation of the Baltic States is that the Baltic States were occupied and illegally annexed. Even if that were not so, the subject is worthy of a separate article under a title that refers to the subject as it ordinarily does -- 812 000 Google results, 9980 if you use the quotes. --Pēteris Cedriņš 10:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

International law is based on international recognition. There cannot be "prevailing view" in law. One party recognizes something and another does not. Claiming that view of one country or a group of countries is an international law is not neutral until there is no countries who claim the opposite.--Dojarca 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And? What exactly are you trying to say? Until all dissenters are liquidated, there can't be an article on the subject? That's "neutrality"? There is always a prevailing view in law -- most decisions have dissents. The "truth" isn't usually based upon a vote except within a structure -- see, for example, the recent ECHR decision on Tatjana Ždanoka. But even so you are missing the point -- even if you could argue that the annexation was legal (and you obviously cannot), it still deserves an article, and this title is the most appropriate for this subject. International law is in of itself an amalgam. To go further, you seek to deny the fact that most of the countries that did recognize the annexation were not democratic, were not subject to the rule of law or were devoted to perverting international law, and/or were, in fact, anti-democratic. The Russian Federation, which is among the very few states to try to deny the occupation, is now a member of the bodies that refer to it in legal decisions -- the CoE, the ECHR, etc. --Pēteris Cedriņš 11:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that Moscow defines the meaning of words liberation, annexation, democracy, colonization, imperialism in Eastern Europe or becomes frustrated when it cannot define. Is it rational to discuss the problem rationally?Xx236 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I got used to the irrational part of this argument long ago -- now I'm merely trying to address the irrational hangover some desire to suffer from. The fact is that the Baltic States were occupied, this is an article about the occupation, hundreds of sources have been cited, this is the common way of referring to this period, etc. -- and yet some here persist in tagging, needling, griping, etc. I think it is time to move on. Those who can't deal with historical fact or the political reality should be digging about for additions to the articles, not trying to dispute the existence of the articles. --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody dispute the existence here? In fact the Baltic states were occupied and later annexed. The fact is also that many view the annexation illegal and some do not recognize the annexation at all. The later do call the entire period until 1991 "occupation". Before 1991 they were a tiny minority and now they became powerful. Any way the fact also that the territorial integrity of the USSR was recognized by many other countries and as such they do not consider the period as occupation.--Dojarca 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking of nonsense that signators of Helsinki Declaration did not recognize the territorial integrity of the USSR, we can just check the text:[11]

The participating States,.. Declare their determination to respect and put into practice, each of them in its relations with all other participating States,.. the following principles, which all are of primary significance, guiding their mutual relations:

IV. Territorial integrity of States

The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States. Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State,

We all can read well. --Irpen 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To Irpen, Dojarca, Pēteris Cedriņš and Xx236, please note the banner at the top of this talk page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupation of Baltic states article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Martintg 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that some people still question the very existence of the article. --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any request for deletion here. The article is well referenced. What I don't understand why the Occupation of Latvia article remains unedited for almost a month. Martintg 00:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

to liberate the "Soviet Baltic peoples"

• Is the word liberated quoted?
• The paragraph doesn't inform about Baltic defence.Xx236 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quoted in the article: Preparations, Conduct of 1944 Baltic Operation Described, Military History Journal (USSR Report, Military affairs), 1984-9, pp. 22-28, which was written on the "40th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Soviet Baltic". I hope you can see the distinction that the Soviets liberated the "Soviet Baltic", the illegally annexed states, not independant Baltic states that existed before the Soviets occupied them in 1940. Martintg 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean the Soviet re-occupation paragraph. If the phrase is quoted, it should be written as "to liberate the Soviet Baltic peoples".

Baltic units in German uniforms fought against the Red Army. The defence should be mentioned here.Xx236 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get around to expanding this section and mention the defence. Martintg 10:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a combination of German and Latvian forces held the Courland pocket. Latvians had also been concripted into the Red Army but refused to engage other Latvians, with the result they were shipped off to other fronts. German military estimates are that the Red Army lost 400,000 taking Courland as Stalin sent in division after division to their slaughter, intent on taking Latvia at any cost. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An article for your reading

Hi,

I’ve just found at the gigantic Time magazine web archive an article written in 1947 about the annexation of the Baltic countries by the USSR: The Steel Curtain.

Here’s an excerpt:

“(…)For centuries, Baltic peasants have labored for their feudal lords—Swedes, Russians, Poles, Germans. Today, the Baltic peasant serves an old master under a new form of serfdom. He serves Communist Russia.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were forced, at the point of Red Army guns, to join the Soviet Union in 1940. Ever since then, Russia's westward window on the Baltic Sea has been tightly shuttered. Said one Lithuanian recently: ‘We don't speak of the Iron Curtain, as that is not a strong enough expression. Our country lies behind the Steel Curtain.’ From refugees' reports, letters, rumors and official Soviet decrees, a picture of life behind the Steel Curtain can be pieced together.”

If you think that something in the article could be put as source or reference to this Wikipedia article, feel free to do that.--MaGioZal 18:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

"Russia continues to maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legal and that the Soviet Union liberated the countries from the Nazis, ignoring the fact that it had already occupied the Baltics according to the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Hitler and Stalin."

Well, this can not be a neutral point of view. Besides, "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." (From the Military occupation article). No resistance = no hostility = no occupation, I guess.

Estonia compelled to accept Soviet military bases.

Latvia compelled to accept Soviet bases.

Lithuania compelled to accept Soviet bases.

You know, when some country accepts american bases, we do not call it "occupation". Lantios 00:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you're trying to do WP:OR on the subject of what is occupation and what is not. This is outside the scope of Wikipedia; Wikipedia will be satisfied with the existence of reliable sources calling the process an occupation. Digwuren 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

True, it's not a general practice of US government to place 200k soldiers at neighbors' borders and _then_ ask for bases. Baltic states were forced to choose between bases or invasion. Finland, for example, took the other option - Winter war. 213.35.238.94 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No person in their right mind would deny occupation of Finland. But peaceful submission is much different. Lantios 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No person in their right mind would call Winter War an occupation - Finland maintained their statehood, albeit within smaller borders. Baltic states were completely overrun. 213.35.238.94 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a hostile foreign army on the territory of Finland, see? That is called "occupation". Lantios 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Red Army was never in total control of Finland. Anyway, does military coup by foreign power qualify as start of occupation by your standards? Bases treaty opened up (still independent) Estonia to soviet troops. Next elections, soviet-friendly candidates won overwhelmingly. Due to de facto military occupation by then, standing as non-communist candidate was akin to signing 'Please torture me and deport my family to Siberia' statement. In you quest to push the article into a tight definition of 'military occupation' you seem to forget that - let's call it 'administrative occupation' - is quite real as well. 213.35.238.94 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, «Soviet presence in the Baltics from 1945 until the re-establishment of their independence» can not qualify as an occupation of Baltic states in any case, it is most obvious. Call it annexation if you will, but occupation? Like it or not, there were no Baltic states at that time. Lantios 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about that - after Nazis abandoned Tallinn, Otto Tief re-established Estonian government (see 1, 2). So, technically Soviets invaded an independent country with force and occupied it. Just as a footnote, all members of Otto Tief's government were murdered by Soviets. DLX 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some further details are here. DLX 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So, there were Nazi on one side, Communists on the other side, and in the middle there was Otto Tief and his government which, as far as I can see, existed for 4 days and did not govern anything. Does not look like a state to me ("A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area.") And even if we call this thing "a state", it still ended its short existence on 22 September 1944, and no occupation was possible from that moment, because there was nothing to occupy. Lantios 14:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a government-from-nothing, but a continuation of pre-occupation government in accordance with Estonian constitution. 213.35.238.94 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not say that it was a government-from-nothing. Lantios 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lantios, please come up with something better then "they were small and therefore they had no right to be independent". Read the sources in the article, please. All sources (except Russian, of course) agree that it was an occupation. Read the discussion on this talk page, there are lots of talk about this topic. And when you can come up with a real reason of POV, other then "I want it to be like that", then give your reasoning here, in-depth please - and also give us some ideas how you would improve this article. Or else, remove the POV tag yourself, before the admins have to be involved, like several times before with "occupation by SU"-related articles. DLX 14:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"The occupation was never recognized by most Western countries" — your own source. Lantios 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, you misunderstood that one - it means, that most Western countries officially treated Baltics as still independent countries, nothing more. US had flags of Baltics flying in front of the White House, for example. DLX 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only thing that could be unrecognized is the legality of annexation. How stupid would they have to be to treat Baltics as independent countries, while Baltics were totally controlled by USSR? And besides, "Baltic states were not given seats in the United Nations", so they were not recognized by UN after all. Lantios 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

_{(indent reduction)}"How stupid would they have to be" - well, obviously pretty stupid, according to you, as they did exactly that. I am going to remove POV tag, as you fail to have any sensible arguments and keep pushing your POV. If you reinstate that again without any further reasons, we'll have to bother administrators with this. DLX 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sensible arguments? No seats for Baltic states in the UN, therefore — no true international recognition of those states, therefore — term "occupation" is merely a POV, since you can not occupy a state that does not exist. That's an argument that nobody answered. Lantios 15:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Like 213.35.238.94 said, "continuation of pre-occupation government in accordance with Estonian constitution". So, according to both Estonian and international laws, Estonia was an independent state. In any case, will file this thing to Mediation cabal now. DLX 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Was Estonian government legal according its constitution after 1934 coup?--Dojarca 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1934 there was no coup, see League of Liberators. New constitution came on 28 July 1937, new parliament elections on 1938. DLX 13:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article clearly says about coup. Pats made a coup and then (in several years) invented new constitution. Communists also invented their constitution. So communist government of Estonia nothing more illegal then prevous one.--Dojarca 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, regardless, still an Estonian government. The Soviets pretended that Estonia ceded its sovereignty to the USSR. Two different animals. More of your WP:OR. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian communist government was nothing less Estonian than Pats' one. And they were nothing less legal. And they asked the USSR to accept Estonia.--Dojarca 20:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lantios, no one is saying the initial stationing of Soviet troops was an occupation. What was an occupation was the subsequent unprovoked invasion and its aftermath. Considering in Latvia, for example, there were nearly twice as many Soviet troops stationed under the "mutual assistance" pacts as the standing army of Latvia--and more invaded--resistance would have meant slaughter for the Latvians (and other Baltic states). Lack of resistance does not indicate no occupation.
    All three Baltic governments took steps to insure their legal continuity in exile. The fact that it they continued in that state for half a century before Baltic sovereignty returned to Baltic soil is a testament to Baltic patience, not proof the Baltics weren't occupied.
    The re-taking of the Baltics was reoccupation, not liberation. (As mentioned, in Estonia, the Nazis had already left. There was nothing to "liberate.") Liberation from Nazis = all Stalinist propaganda.
    As with all "they weren't occupied" arguments, yours are all along the lines of the notion that no territory can be occupied for so long, they didn't resist, etc.. Unfortunately, the demise of the USSR cut short negotiations which would have resulted in the Soviet Union acknowledging the illegal annexation and occupation of the Baltics. That is from people involved directly in those negotiations. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nazis left Estonia only because of Red Army offensive.--Dojarca 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not "only" so. Nazis left Estonia because Finland and Russia made an armistice, which meant that Russia could reduce its presence on the Finnish border, and thus was expected to try to take Baltics again (which it did). Nazis at the time facing severe resource shortages found this a battle not worth fighting and thus, left in advance. Digwuren 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway thank to Red Army.--Dojarca 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

For driving the Nazis out, not for "overstaying" 47 years. Likewise, there is a breed of Germans who'd want Estonians to thank the German army for driving the Soviets away in 1941, yet not to be reminded or their "overstay". Poor Estonians, they owe so much thanks for regimes always willing to trough a freindly hand...:Dc76 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, you can do better than going so quickly to mediation after just one day of discussion on the talk page. We have provided many references that support occupation. Lantios, you don't edit Wikipedia on the basis of debate, that is considered WP:OR, you have to provide references new or existing WP:RS that support your alternate POV. Martintg 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that somebody can deny illegality of the Soviet annexation of the Baltics. It is obvious that the Baltic States could either choose to surrender to the USSR or face the Red Army. ish_warsaw 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, probably, face German army.--Dojarca 13:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Stalin and Hitler were allies. If you distrust western sources, if you need to know more about the arrangement, you can always read the 1939 open letter to the U.S. Communist party by the Trotskyists. here. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironically Trotskyists were often accused in collaboration with fascist Germany during 1930s in the USSR.--Dojarca 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not ironic at all, typical Stalinist tactic is accuse others of what you're doing yourself, more generally, denounce anyone as an enemy of the people who do not agree. Trotskyists obviously weren't agreeing with Stalin.

    Or perhaps are you suggesting that Stalinist accusations against the Trotskytists were actually founded in any sort of actual fact? In any case, discussion for a Wiki page elsewhere...  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Position of Russian government

See Putin's view on occupation: [12] Lebatsnok 10:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Putin basically claims that Russia lost Estonia to Germany with the The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918 when Russia stepped out from the World War I and then with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact just got it back. This is not only just an interesting POV but factually incorrect as first of all: the USSR that was fonded only in 1924 and later occupied Estonia in 1940 thanks to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But it was the Soviet Russia that lost Estonia to Estonians with the Treaty of Tartu after the Estonian War of Independence in 1920. So even if Putin thinks that the Soviet Russia that recognized the independence of Estonia and the USSR are the same country, he still misses a chapter from History, the Estonian War of Independence and the Treaty of Tartu.

Lets face it what this is all about. The discussion about the occupation-no occupation. the denial of occupation by the current Russian government is to avoid responsibility. If Russia would admit, the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic countries it would mean contributions and responsibilities for colonizing and repopulating the Baltic states during the occupation. Therefore Russia would never admit occupying anybody, it's not in their interest. Thats OK I think, but those of you with such a political agenda, please at least leave the Baltic history in peace. There is no need to bring the new Cold War to Wikipedia. Thanks!

--Termer 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we might get a transcript (Russian and translated?) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• See [13]. Sheer idiocy. decided to withdraw from the USSR as if they were free to do so... This position certainly must be represented here. Colchicum 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [14] Colchicum 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC [15]Colchicum 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Presidential aide Yastrzhembsky: "Soviet troops had entered the Baltics in 1940 in accordance with the agreements" is factually incorrect since the agreements included limited amounts of troops in Baltic countries, Estonia 25.000 etc. until the end of the War. But after the Soviet ultimatum in 1940 additional troops entered the countries across the borders NOT according to the original agreements. Also, the agreements included not to mix into internal affairs of the Baltic countries. that deal was broken after the soviet troops orchestrated communist coups in each Baltic country. Also, the Soviet ultimatums were directly addressing the internal affairs of the Baltic countries. The second "was not waging any combat activities on the territory". Not true. One of the Estonian army units stationed in Tallinn on street of Raua for some reason didn't get the order, the decision of the government for avoiding bloodshed not to resist the invasion after the ultimatum, therefor there was a battle there. --Termer 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Troop levels

The original troops under the pacts of mutual assistance already outnumbered the standing armies of the Baltics, for example, Latvia's peacetime army (and remember it was neutral in the war) was around 16,000--it's incorrect to say that only with the invasion that the Baltic armies were outnumbered. The "sense" should be re-edited to return to the original. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it looks like the Soviet Union didn't feel that way. That 30000 Soviet troops stationed in Latvia could overwhelm or outnumber the Latvian 16000 and felt it necessary to invade with additional forces. According to the source on the Estonian Occupation page, about 90000 additional troops crossed the Estonian border after the ultimatum. Therefore I personally can't see any reasons to argue against those facts and claim here that the stationed soviet forces outnumbered Baltic forces since the soviets didn't feel that way. Also we'd need to consider that civil defense units, like Kaitseliit in Estonia was a considerable military force, the first that was disarmed by the soviets after the invasion in 1940. There were similar units in Latvia and Lithuania--Termer 10:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good sources

[16]Colchicum 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on the use of the term "occupation" by some POV authors

Please be aware that the term "occupation" is a legal term and could be used appropriately only within boundaries of international law.

• Thank you for lecturing! According to the European Union, USA, NATO member states, Switzerland and Australia and last but not least according to the Baltic states they were occupied by the USSR in 1940.--Termer 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

laughing out loud... Please give me the reference for NATO official document about that recognition. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please contact the embassies of the listed countries in case you'd need to confirm the facts.--Termer 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The current use of this term in the article itself is illiterate (at least contraversial), because term "occupation" refers to illegal (unlawful) and involuntary (violent) taking hold of the territory of another state. Here in case which concerns Baltics we have treaties made between Baltic States and Soviet Union according to which Baltic States agreed that military units of the Soviet Union should be placed on the territory of Baltic States.

• Thank you for your opinion. The treaties agreed to limited military units until the end of the European War.--Termer 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The treaties are made freely. If someone was coerced into international treaty, then this treaty is invalid. If these treaties are invalid, Lithuania should transfer Western Lithuania and Vilnus to Belarus. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is :The treaties were not made freely. The Baltic countries were threaten with war by USSR if not replied. As Finland refused similar treaty and chose to resist, USSR started Winter War against Finland. USSR was thrown out from the league of nations as the result.--Termer 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

However Baltic States in their aspiration of cooperation with Nazi germany violated these treaties.

• This is a false statement.In fact The Baltic states were neutral, the only one that cooperated with nazis beck then was the USSR by occupying Poland.--Termer 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? In Latvia Arajs Commando, in Estonia Ain-Ervin Mere, in Lithuania Lithuanian Security Police, Lithuanian Activist Front...

Please note that you're referring to nazi collaborates during the German occupation in the Baltic countries between 1941-1944 but the article is discussing the Soviet Occupation in 1940. --Termer 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover during prewar time Baltic States (in particular Lithuania) were dictatorships (in Lithuania dictator was - Antanas Smetonas). On July 1940 Soviet Republic of Lithuania was proclaimed by Lithuanians who desired to get rid of dictatorship.

• Thank you for speaking for Lithuanians!--Termer 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, but here I "write according to the sources" and not "according to Lithuanians", because it is kind of encyclopedia, you know. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore entrance of Soviet troops before dictatorship overthrow - was legal - according to the treaty. And entry of Soviet troops after dictatorship overthrow and joining the Soviet Union was also legal.

• Thank you for your opinion. The governments of the Baltic and Western countries don't share your's--Termer 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So you acknowledge here that you just pushing your propaganda/POV here? Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the authors, who tend to the POV of Soviet occupation illiterately use term occupation of Poland by Soviet Union. They pretend "to be unaware" that in 1921 Poland occupied territories of Western Belarus, Western Lithuania and Western Ukraine. The ownership of these territories by Poland itself was illegal throughout all this time.

• Thank you for your opinion. The bolshevist Russia that signed the Peace of Riga in 1921 with Poland didn't share this with you.--Termer 08:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You are unaware of the simple fact that Russia unilaterally invalidated Peace of Riga concluded with Kaiser Germany? Many countries after the World War II also invalidated treaties made between them and Germany, like France for example. And what? Moreover, you are unaware that Belarusian People Republic claimed its independence in 1919, in the borders including Western Belarus, Belostok and even Vilnus. Lithuanian state hadn't even existed at this moment. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Poland has created concentration camps like Biaroza-Kartuzska Detention Camp Bereza Kartuska on the territory of Western Belarus to oppress Belarusian population. Thanks to Mr. Piotrus and his friends (who is and are Poles, unsurprisingly) the article currently names this concentration camp as detention camp. Considering that in 1939, Belarus was already Soviet, one cannot name it occupation. Vlad fedorov 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it was bolshevist government in Russia that first invented concentration camps after the October coup in Russia. But as it seems they had followers--Termer 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, what you believe and what is reality are different. Suchcamp was set up by Polish pioneers. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh... And I forgot, by the way, to mention that no one had forced Baltic States into making the treaties with Soviet Union.

• I personally consider this a direct insult!--Termer 08:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may complain!!! I also consider it a personal assault when someone mentions that USA exists despite the fact that these lands belong to native Indians living there. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please present the evidence. Because Lithuania in return for signing the treaty received its western territories and its now capital city of Vilnus. Before that, Vilnus was actually Belarusian town, not Lithuanian. If Lithuanians dispute treaties and claim occupation, the next logical step is the return by Lithuania of its Western territories and Vilnus to Belarus. To my astonishment, all articles on Baltic states shamefully hide the facts of territorial gains due to Soviet Union by Baltic States.

• thank you for your info, Vilnius has been Lithuanian city since 1253 --Termer 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lithuania was formed as an independent state only by Bolsheviks if you like. Please, could you tell me how Lithuanian state was called in 1253? Teutonic orden? Your lands were called Zhemoitia at these times and they were German. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I, even don't mention that modern Lithuania uses old Belarusian coat of arms (Pursuit - pagonya) which is not Lithuanian. The old Lithuanian (or Zhemoitia - its old name) coat of arms is the bear on the shield, and not knight pursuit. Why nobody mentioned that fact in English Wikipedia? Why nobody mentioned the fact that after Lithuania received Vilnus from Soviet Union all Poles and Belarusian were expelled by Lithuanians from the city. It is could be clearly traced by using Polish and Belarusian metrics. So, if Soviet Union is occupation, than current holding of Vilnus and Western territories by Lithuania is occupation also. Vlad fedorov 03:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• please stop pushing the Sovit/Russian imperialist POV in this article. don't add more POV tags here as even previously both sides, the Western versus Russian were cited. Please read the whole articles in the future before start making claims. Unless you're her to declare an edit war, you're going to get it! Thanks!--Termer 08:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please acknowledge yourself with WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Next time I would report your rudeness at Administrator's Noticeboard. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to respond with the exact same words. I haven't encountered such ignorant and brutal Russian imperialist POV in reality before. Not to mention direct insults that I didn't respond to accordingly..--Termer 10:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How could you reconcile it with the fact that I am not Russian and I don't live in Russia? Leaving this apart I never met such a brutal Lithuanian imperialist POV in reality before I met you. Vlad fedorov 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vlad fedorov, I have no business with personally your or anybody else's national, ethnic, racial etc. identity or geographical location but I have pointed out that your opinions here have been promoting a political agenda common only to sources of the former Soviet Union and current Russian government. Therefore tagging the article with POV by you did take it out of balance as both antagonistic sources and references are cited there.
Please feel free to start a new article regarding the historical events if you think it's necessary. I'd suggest “Liberation of Baltic countries from their independence and sovereignty in 1940 according to the sources of formerly existed Soviet Union and current Russian government”. Please remember to cite also opposing interpretation of the facts. Thank you!--Termer 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't need to create another article. What I argue here - is the inclusion of opposing interpretations in that article. According to which there was no any occupation of Baltics and which you censor out of this article constantly. Vlad fedorov 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• All you need to do is provide a reputable scholarly reference which examines/supports the official Russian position that the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally under international law. All the rest of the reasons "why not occupation" are WP:OR personal interpretations at best. If and only if the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally under international law would they at that point qualify as no longer occupied. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Vlad fedorov take your case to encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica , World Book Encyclopedia etc. Once you have convinced editors there that Occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR never happened and that they should remove such entrances, please let me know. I might reconsider my position.--Termer 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
PS. At the same time please feel free to promote the POV of the current Russian government or the former USSR that conflicts with the sources like the above mentioned encyclopedias etc. at the section that discusses such matters. The Russian government... Altering the facts that have been laid out according to the original sources, like you attempted to manipulate those here, unfortunately can't be tolerated. --Termer 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia, not a court room. It is only important how this term was applied in scholarly sources that we cite in the article. Please also see Occupation of Iraq and List of military occupations for examples of using "occupation" term in WP.Biophys 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nazi occupation

Is it necessary to have Nazi occupation in this article as there already exist an article on Nazi occupation of the Baltics?--Dojarca 13:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before in the mediation cabal...

• One of the central themes to the history of the Baltics is their having been at the crossroads of power struggles between east and west: Sweden vs. Russia, Lithuania-Poland vs. Russia, Germany vs. Russia. Stalin's deal with Hitler is one in a long line of bids for supremacy over the Baltics--with devastating results for the Baltics yet again. The occupation of the Baltics is the story of how two--not just one or the other---genocidal maniacs--sometimes as allies, sometimes as enemies--ravaged the Baltics and their inhabitants. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The above comment addresses the question of "equating", it does not imply the story of the occupation ends with Hitler and Stalin. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary article on the occupation. Unfortunately most of the current discussion centers around the still-as-yet-to-have-any-reputable-scholarly-source-confirm contention that the Soviets were not occupiers. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Nazi occupation article then is the "detailed" one... —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no purpose in mixing up the things. Soviet period is very different from the Nazi one and there is already an article on Nazi occupation.--Dojarca 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no mixing up here, in one sense, the Nazi occupation can be seen as an interruption of the Soviet period. Martintg 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should clarify that it deals with Soviet period and Nazi occupation is only an interruption.--Dojarca 09:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The dynamics of the occupations and both Nazis and Soviets propagandizing against each other needs to be dealt with as well at this level. Having the two occupations together is not arbitrarily mixing two separate things. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nazi occupation of Baltics article can in the future be developed like Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, or be merged with Reichskommissariat Ostland. But Soviet and Nazi occupation were not two independent developments: they went hand in hand, steemed from the same sourse, and succeded one another once and again.:Dc76 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From which "the same" source?--Dojarca 09:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nazi occupation of the Baltics already exist? As far as I can see, it was created yesterday by you. First of all, it's not correct really to use a term "Baltics" in an Encyclopedia. Please Dojarca in the future use either Baltic states or Baltic countries etc. In case you'd like to create articles about Baltic people, please note that Estonians for example are not part of Baltic peoples but Finno-Ugric peoples.--Termer 07:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Baltic states is a POV caption. The countries were Soviet republics at that time.--Dojarca 09:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, please stop this edit warring. Both sources and community consensus are clearly against you. DLX 09:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You need sources tha the countries were Soviet republics? I can give you a lot. And remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy, respect other points of view.--Dojarca 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Baltic states is a POV caption? whats your point? Baltic States were Soviet republics during 1941 and from 1944-1991. And even then they were called Baltic states 'Bribaltiiskije Strana' in Russian. So what is your agenda here exactly? Do you want to claim that using the common term the way those places were referred to even during the Soviet time by the soviet people is a POV?--Termer 10:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they were not called "baltiyskiye strany" in Russian, of course.--Dojarca 10:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine sources

Time magazine has put online all of their issues, there is some interesting material dating from 1940's, for those who think the term "occupation" was a Cold War construct read this from the Monday, Jul. 01, 1940 edition: Russia's Sphere. Russia was preoccupied with consolidating her own position to the east of Hitler's Europe. On the heels of her occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, those three countries set up left-wing Governments that looked like steppingstones to complete sovietization. Hotly Russia's official news agency Tass denied that her Baltic grab was aimed against Germany. Tass said only 18 or 20 divisions, not the 100 reported from London, had moved into the Baltic States. Germany took the occupation calmly. Germany's calm was doubtless real, since last year's deals gave Russia a free hand in the Baltic as well as Bessarabia. [17] Martintg 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not rv this by Dojarka, maybe it is worth discussing. I don't know.:Dc76 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martintg, it's an incredible source. I found a reference that says the Soviet Union and among others also Baltic countries had defined 'Aggression' with signing a pact. The most important point there is regarding this article: There shall be recognized as an aggressor,—invasion by armed forces of the territory of another State even without a declaration of war. gonna post it ASAP--Termer 05:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research in article

In timeline section some people keep reinserting original research on the leaving of Lithuania by Antanas Smetona. I refer to the particular undisguised phrase "so that he couldn't be used to legalize occupation". Vlad fedorov 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Vlad fedorov in case opinionated things are claimed, those should be referenced and clearly stated "who said so". Please feel free to add 'citation needed' tag to this and in case not replied at least within 2 weeks, please remove it or have it rephrased according to available sources.--Termer 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-occupaqtion

Re-occupaqtion is a controversial POV term reflecting only one side's point of view.--Dojarca 09:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add facts according to the alternative sources available. Even though it is a minority opinion, the fact is that the current Russian government has a different take on the events than the Western sources provide. So please, go ahead and state the facts the way the Russian government is interpreting the history. Please just keep it clear from where the cited source come from, like it's done regarding the occupation in 1940. Thanks!--Termer 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First the controversial caption should be changed.--Dojarca 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Dojarca make it a bit more clear, what is it exactly what you want?--Termer 10:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article in chronological order and the position of the current Russian government should also stand out better right after Reoccupation section...in case there are any other sources available that have a third take on the events, please let everybody know. Those would be gladly added. --Termer 10:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV/POV

Please do not feed the trolls

for once and for all, to avoid future edit warrings and useless political debates. This article is formatted according to NPOV . It's been split up into Western versus Soviet/Russian sources according to WP NPOV policies regarding conflicting verifiable perspectives. please familiarize yourself with the following

• The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources.

• As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints

• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

• POV forks: 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

According to those policies, any altering or manipulative rephrasing of the text in the article that is a citation from a reliable sources is Wikipedia vandalism and is going to be reverted ASAP. There is only one way to present viewpoints, according to the Western sources and/ or sources of the Russian government or /and etc. Any attempt to create a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in the text, if determined is a POV fork shall be listed for deletion ASAP.--Termer 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see where "mediation agreed" (to Dojarca's comment on one of his edits) that both the occupation and non-occupation views must be represented "equally." And I see people specifically ignoring comments and requests on the mediation cabal page which

• request a reputable scholarly source discussing the Russian position and supporting it;
• explain exactly why the Soviet and Nazi occupations do both need to appear together in a summary article, which this is;

and instead simply changing section titles, removing entire sections, etc. Based on the reputable scholarly sources discussing and supporting the Russian position which have been produced to date--zero--the article is already more than generous enough regarding the "opposition." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martintg, I know you mean well by pointing out that the Soviet viewpoint and opinion of the current Russian government is a minority view in the world community and therefore splitting the article into Western and Soviet sources accordingly might give the minority equal weight. But since we have such an active minority here that insists with their viewpoint, I'd suggest keeping the article formatted the way it was updated so that the different sources are clearly separated. And I think you shouldn't feel that the minority views become equal in any way since the minority has always been less detailed and there is nothing much more to it than "USSR never occupied the Baltic countries". Therefore the minority viewpoint is and always going to be in proportion to the prominence of each.

Please have it reverted. It's much more important to have as clear split as possible between the majority and minority viewpoints and the sources to maintain NPOV on as strong foundation as possible than worrying that the minority viewpoint might gain equal weight I think. Thanks!--Termer 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Termer, but I don't agree that sources can be divided into Western and non-Western, after all the article The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States published in the journal Russian Review in 1955, (Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 36-49) was written by a Russian author Irina Saburova. I respect all the great work you have done so far, but I don't think splitting the article in this fashion is the way to handle NPOV, because it also weakens the majority viewpoint by labelling it "Western", thus opening up the argument that it is some kind of "Western propaganda" created during the Cold War. Martintg 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You got a point there Martintg regarding calling it "Russian sources" is a bad idea. Since it's only the current Russian government that has been up to this. I also found an interesting Soviet source, published by Russian historians Pavel Petrov Viktor Stepakov, Dmitry Frolov . It's from Soviet archives, an order for Soviet military blockade of Estonia, dated on 12. june 1940. After this a Finnish airliner that was carrying diplomatic mail was shot down on 14. june 1940 by soviets. The thing is the source referring to the order is in Finnish on the Finnish Defense forces home page. The book where the order has been publishe is in Russian --Termer 04:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) PS. I'm open to suggestions how to keep a clear split between the separate sources with conflicting verifiable perspectives.--Termer 04:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

At best we could call it "Official Soviet historiography". But we cannot say that the position of the current Russian administration is the same as the historical Soviet position as we have yet to see any detail cited upon which the current Russian position ("joined legally according to international law" ergo no occupation) is based. So the Russian position will need to continue to be stated separately unless and until someone can produce a reputable source which verifies the Soviet and Russian positions are, in fact, the same based on the same (alleged) circumstances.

     "Soviet historiography" as a title alone does not work, as that implies any and all historiography of Soviet origin versus the official government line. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it ended up being called 'Historic, pre-Perestroika Soviet sources'. A bit clumsy it is but since the soviet history that denied the existence of the Soviet-Nazi pact and the occupation of the Baltic countries, the viewpoint existed only until the times of Perestroika in USSR. So that's the best title for the viewpoint I could come up with for now. --Termer 07:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Treaties

Since Vlad Fedorov saw fit to change what I had entered for the Atlantic Charter into something both watered-down and inaccurate (here), I replaced what was agreed to by the parties with a direct quote from the referenced source (you will note only cosmetic additions, no phrases I had already entered needed to be changed in any way). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Someone more competent should include in the timeline also the incident with the Polish submarine in Tallinn, what Russia used as an justification to its actions. Orzeł incident

Okay, I've added it. Martintg 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)