Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

pov tag insertion / renaming of article

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14]
15. [15]
16. [16]
17. [17]
18. [18]
19. [19]
20. [20]
21. [21]
22. [22]
23. [23]
24. [24]
25. [25]
26. [26]
27. [27]
28. [28]
29. [29]
30. [30]
31. [31]
32. [32]
33. [33]

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36] (last 3 within 14 hours on 17 June 2012)

For reference - I suggest that this looks like an attempt at a long term edit war, but an admin might wish to look independently. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

To that, I would like to add this, removal of the tag (by you) under the absolutely false pretext: no clear consensus has been achieved on the talk page on that account. Yes, Igny is sometimes more bold than I do, however, that does not mean his edits are not supported.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I can give more than 10,000 words of prior discussion if you like Paul - the fact that Igny has inserted the same edit so many times is a bit of a clue that no one else was doing so, and the talk page discussions concur on it. And I did not even include the edits changing "occupation" to "liberation" which I suggest is so Fringe as to be apparent to anyone with 20/800 vision or better <g>. Collect (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The 1940 article title mentions annexation, "annexation" is not appropriate here. Nor is "annexation" a substitute or alternate for "occupation" any more than the colloquial "became part of" et al. So unless you or Igny can produce a source that supports that the Baltics joined legally (i.e., also voluntarily and in keeping with their constitutions) according to international law, there's nothing to dispute here, and any allegations of dispute or lack of consensus are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No. This article is about the whole period of the Baltic states' history, during which they were de facto parts of the USSR. Therefore, despite they are retrospectively seen as occupied, the title where the word "annexation" is missing is incomplete and somewhat misleading. It would be more accurate to add the word "annexation" per Malksoo's explanation of his viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since we are not talking about deletion, the reference to this essay is totally irrelevant, and, importantly, false. We have two parties, (i) few, usually two editors (who, as we all know, share the same strong POV) plus few ones who sporadically come to this talk page, and (ii) two other users whose interests are generally different, and coincide only partially, plus few others who also come to this page from time to time. In other words, we have a kind of permanent POV dispute, so any references about consensus achieved here are totally false.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrospectively? Well of course, that's rather stating the obvious when it comes to any scholarship regarding history. More to the point, at the time.

Neither the Soviet nor Baltic/western accounts of history consider the scenario of long-term forcible occupation and administrative annexation somehow making other than an occupation as choices #1 (occupation) or #2 (legal accession). Including Malksoo, who makes it quite clear that while "annexation" adds precision (and which appears in the appropriate title for 1940 only), annexation does not belong in the title here as annexation changed nothing regarding occupation being occupation. To quote your Latin, tertium non datur. 19:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your idea about tertiul non datur (in this particular context) is an "idea for which no reliable, published sources exists", i.e. it is your own original research. Btw, the same policy define WP:SYN as combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." However, my position is based on the opinion of a non-fringe scholar, Malksoo, who explains his viewpoint (expressed in his monograph) as follows:

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

Therefore, not only your allegations are baseless, you yourself have been engaged in original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And we have annexation for the 1940 title, annexation does not apply to something describing the entire period. Your inclusion of annexation implies less of an occupation, which Malksoo also indicates is not the case (and that one should be careful to avoid--note that Malksoo's support of inclusion of annexation is guarded and conditional). Regarding your characterization of editors, let's not make self-serving allegations of camps and alignment/nonalignment of editorial interests.

Malksoo is quite clear, the USSR "crushed and occupied" the Baltics. Annexation is not appropriate as a modifier/addition to the title here. There is no "synthesis" to my contention that there are only two alternatives: occupation or legal joining, as neither Soviet nor Baltic/western accounts provide for ex iniuria ius oritur. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We do not need to discuss what does one or another Malksoo's statement mean in a situation when he himself explained that for us. The article describes the period after the Baltic states had been annexed, this step (annexation) created a very unusual situation and to speak about occupation solely (not in terms of the present days' status of the Baltic states, but in terms of contemporary political realities) would be incorrect (and Malksoo explained that in his e-mail).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, the article describes the period after the Baltic states had been illegally incorporated, which that period is commonly called "occupation" (Not retrospectively either, since there are a stream of sources from since the 1940s that call it "occupation"). We already have an article about the 1940 illegal incorporation called Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). Did I not just explain to you several times above the primacy of Wikipedia policy such as WP:COMMONNAME and the requirement that article names be derived from multiple sources? So why do you continue to insist we name this article on the basis of a single email from one author in clear contravention to policy? --Nug (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It more than that. Malksoo's alleged support for Paul Siebert's inclusion of annexation in the title (a) pertained to the Soviet period only, and was also (b) highly conditional, Malksoo expressing grave concerns regarding inaccurate implications. I suspect Malksoo was not aware that he was corresponding with someone who, per past contentions of "more of an intervention" and similar, disagreed with Malksoo's clear and unequivocal statement that the Soviet Union "crushed and occupied" the Baltics. Regardless, even Paul Siebert does agree that the act of annexation granted no rights--therefore it did not modify the invasion and subsequent situation of illegal occupation in any manner.

It is also more than that in Paul Siebert's contention regarding "in retrospect." That is a euphemism for the position that Soviet occupation is a politically motivated post-Soviet myth constructed for purely political purposes to defame Russia's history and to oppress the Russian minority outside Russia, a position which is most popular in official Russia and in the circle of its sycophants regarding the portrayal of Soviet history.

For these reasons, Paul Siebert's editorial contentions are not a fair and accurate representation of Malksoo's intentions or of mainstream scholarship in general. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No "alleged support". He clearly wrote he supports the title's change. Regarding the rest, I would like to abstain from commenting on that. I have just one question: you have used the word "sycophants". In connection to that, I would like to know, whom concretely you meant, and what relation does it have to the subject of our dispute?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Malksoo's grave concerns were to be addressed in the article body as he himself recommended to do, IIRC. The title however remains to be biased, and Malksoo's usage of "annexation occupation" (occupation sui generis) for the period after 1945 directly supported "annexation" in the title even before he explicitly and unambigiously explained that ignoring annexation as it never occurred is a mistake. Not to mention a multitide of other sources (including those without any Soviet/Russian bias, such as US Congress) or numerous sources cited in the article, they all support "annexation" in the title. (Igny (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

The 1940 article, Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940), dealing only with the initial Soviet occupation and act of annexation includes "and annexation" in the title. Your concerns are addressed in the appropriate title of the appropriate article. Your concerns do not apply to the non-exclusively Soviet-related article here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, my concerns were not about that article. My concerns about this article were not addressed at all. This article is presented as an overview article of historic events in Baltic states between 1939 and 1990, see Template:Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar. In these series of events there were background, phases, aftermath, consequences, policical and otherwise interpretations, other stuff you could think of. You can not name the historic overview article by this biased title, simply can't without violating basic Wikipedia rules. One of the reasons, this title means completely ignoring the fact that annexation occurred, it is misleading to the readers and as POV as it can get. I am sure Malksoo would agree with me here. (Igny (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

The title appropriately communicates a multi-regime state of occupation. There are many "ands" that go along with that, all to be included in the article. Malksoo never stated that "and annexation" pertained to a title regarding the three occupations together, that is your personal contention. He only stated "and annexation" is more precise for the Soviet presence if and only if the article makes it absolutely clear that no rights were associated with that annexation. Personally, I don't think he was aware that his precision would be misapplied by the editor communicating with him who has contended the Soviet occupation was "more of an intervention," while Malksoo has articulated that the Soviet Union "crushed and occupied" (his words) the Baltics.

As a completely separate point, "annexation" has been used in the past to downplay "occupation"--which (IMO) is Malksoo's very clearly expressed concern. So, there is absolutely nothing misleading in the title here or the associated topic box, which similar to the pertinent article, includes "and annexation" for the Soviet occupation of 1940. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Some notes about admission to the USSR

The admissions to the USSR were done according the appeals of the local governments which were previously elected in the presence of Soviet military.

This is what say the Estonian authors Romuald J. Misiunas and Rein Taagepera in "The Baltic States, Years of Dependence, 1940-1990":

Officially the results were to the Kremlin satisfaction: in Lithuania 95.5 per cent of the electorate allegedly voted and gave 99.2 per cent of its vote to the League; in Latvia the figures were 94.7 and 97.6 per cent ; in Estonia 81.6 and 92.2 per cent. Privately, several leading members of the Lithuanian administration were quoted as having claimed a real total turnout no higher than 32 per cent. Archives left behind by the Soviets during their retreat in 1941 indicate that Estonia's Central Electorate Committee forged 35.119 votes.

It seems that the only evidence to support the claim that the elections were compromised is the archives which were allegedly discovered by the Nazis. Even then the alleged number of forged votes is quite limited and does not affect the overall result.--UUNC (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Um -- do you really think the huge percentages pass the "laugh test"? Cheers - but your posts undermine your ostensible position. Collect (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what is "laugh test" but it seems the authors were unable to put forward better evidence to support the claim.--UUNC (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

For the laugh test, see Great Soviet Encyclopedia. I have ordered the book you referenced. I'm pretty sure an award winning political scientist who spent his working career in California didn't intend to justify military conquest of his homeland by quoting bogus Soviet election results. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course he attempts to claim the incorporation in the USSR was illegal. This is not surprising. But he admits that the Soviets made efforts to make the change constitutional according the local laws. The author though claims that only in Estonia the formalities were observed.--UUNC (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am also conserned with your non-neutral statements

- That spending working carrier in California somehow guarantees professional level (I do not contest his level, I just think being in the USA does not make you a professional automatically)

- That the elections were bogus. As I already showed there is little evidence that the elections were somehow compromised. And given the example of Poland under Germany it is quite logical to assume the peoples of the states preferred a pro-Soviet government to the possibility of being occupied by Germany which was at the time at war with France and Britain. Note that they were not asked about incorporation in the USSR, but only elected the legislature.

- That Great Soviet Encyclopedia makes you laughing.

--UUNC (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Soviets made efforts to make the change constitutional according the local laws"? "As I already showed there is little evidence that the elections were somehow compromised."?

Regarding your latest fact-free contentions, the parliaments were illegally installed:

1. accounts of single list of candidates, risking being shot if you didn't vote, are well-documented;
2. the elections were not only rigged, per the above, the results themselves were fabricated, as proven by the fact that results were published in London before the elections;
3. the illegal parliament(s) then illegally petitioned to join the USSR (note, this possibility of "joining" the USSR was vehemently denied all through the bogus elections);
   1. in Latvia, for example, the constitution requires a plebiscite for any contemplated territorial (sovereignty) change, so local law was completely ignored and violated.

There was no legitimacy to any Baltic pre-"accession" election or the subsequent actions by the Soviet-installed puppet parliaments. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my alleged WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but on the basis of ever more ludicrous contentions, it seems to me this thread has degenerated into little more than provocative pro-Soviet trolling to get a rise out of opposing editors, upon which the "invited" UUNC can express "concern" that opposing editors are not "neutral." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I have to read more on that. I thought a real amount of votes was much less then 32%. Whereas I agree that consensus exists in literature about massive falsifications, the amount of supporters of the USSR appeared to be greater than nationalists say. Definitely, all events connected with Soviet occupations/annexations in early 1940s had some traits of civil war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And the "32%" is based upon which source? Specifically with regard to the elections in Estonia, the constitution also required a referendum for any change in sovereignty, and any bill had to be ratified by the upper house before become law. Neither a referendum nor upper house ratification took place. Certainly the view that the events of 1940 had some traits of a civil war is a fringe view, I have not read that in any reliable source I have come across. --Nug (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well actually there was at least a significant Russian-speaking minority in the respective countries, about 12% before the war. Also according the same Estonian author as cited above,

"The declared purpose of the invasion and of political changes was merely to remove the "fascist" politicians from office. Vyshinskii, in addition to address from the balcony of the Soviet Legation in Riga, rebuked overzealous pro-Soviet demonstrators demanding the incorporation of Latvia into the USSR. He even finished his speech in Latvian: "Long live free Latvia! Long live the unbreakable friendship between Latvia and the Soviet Union!" Lithuanian minister of the interrior Gedvilas, one of the Communists in the new cabinet, declared on 21 June: "The essential fundamentals of our country have not been changed. No one threatens rightful private property or wealth. The Red Army came to our country not to change our way of life, but only to protect us from the dangers of war and to help us to manintain independence"

I think it is quite obvious that the main thesis of the pro-Communist propaganda of the time was that the USSR promised to keep the republic from the ongoing war in Europe. This appealed to the feelings not only Communists and Russians but to everyone who did not want his country being involved in European war.--UUNC (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no scholarly support for any widespread appeal of communist propaganda except in more communist propaganda, as with...

"Definitely, all events connected with Soviet occupations/annexations in early 1940s had some traits of civil war," which is just another flavor of the same propaganda: Ulmanis conducting bloody repressions of the working class, the populace rising to throw off the fascist yoke, and so on, pitting the noble proletariat against the oppressive fascist regime and its supporters, Latvian against Latvian, Estonian against Estonian, and all.

This is all seems just more concocted history. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Peters, that is ridiculous. Of course, in 1930s, Communist ideas were popular among a significant fraction of European population, and the Baltic states were not an exception. It is a nationalistic myth that just few Baltic individuals supported Communists. However, the idea that the elections had significant traits of legality is definitely fringe (at least I saw no reliable contemporary scholarly sources saying otherwise). Annexation was forceful and illegal, and I doubt UUNC will be able to prove the opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to refer to this article [37] titled "Occupation doctrine in Baltic states: content and legal aspects" by Renald Simonyan, doctor of social sciences, director of the Russian-Baltic center of Institute of Sociology of Russian Academy of Sciences, participant of the joint Russian-Latvian historical commission. He writes: решение о вступлении в СССР приняли в 1940 г. легитимные органы власти – парламенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии, избранные на основе действовавших в этих странах законов which translates the decision about admission into the USSR was taken in 1940 by legitimate bodies of state power - the legislatures of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which were elected according the effective at the time laws. I just wonder why Estonian historians are referred to as authoritative in this article while the Russian ones ignored.--UUNC (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are three points of view.

• The mainstream in the West: the annexation was illegal/coerced/forged but it happened and the countries were included in the USSR
• The Baltic: There was occupation all the time from 1945 to 1990, all people were controlled by the military, Soviet citizenship is void, all Russians are occupiers etc
• The Russian: All the story was completely legal. Even if the elections were undemocratic by modern measure, they satisfied the democracy standard of the epoch.

It is wrong to imply all Russians think that way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I never implied all Russians as well as all Westerners and all Latvians. There are plenty of Russians who admire Hitler, for example, but this seems to be the point of view of the Russian government.--UUNC (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently the article is written in the tone of the second one.

--UUNC (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the term "occupation" he wrote: А если строго юридически, – а именно так и только так следует подходить к термину, если он используется для формирования государственной правовой системы, то здесь следует опираться на те общепризнанные международные правовые акты, которые действовали в тот период. Был ли такой документ в тот сторический период? Такой документ был, и можно быть уверенным, что авторы оккупационной концепции знали о его существовании. IV Гаагская конвенция от 18 октября 1907 г., одписанная 44 странами, рассматривает оккупацию как последствие международного военного конфликта, т.е. оккупации должны предшествовать военные действия между государствами. Оккупированной считается территория противника, занятая в ходе войны или военного конфликта. Именно так оккупацию определяет ст. 42 в разд. III “О военной власти на территории неприятельского государства”. Так же трактует понятие “оккупация” и более поздний международный документ – Женевская конвенция “О защите населения во время войны” от12 августа 1949 г. which translates Strictly legally - the way the term should be approached if it is used to form the state legal system, the international legal acts which were in force at the time should be based upon. Was there such document in force at the time? Yes, there was such document, and it is sure that the authors of the occupation doctrine knew about it. The IV Hague convention of 18 October 1907 signed by 44 countries considers occupation as a consequence of an international military conflict, i.e. the occupation should be preceded by armed hostilities between the states. A territory of the enemy considered occupied if it was taken in the course of a war or armed conflict. This is how occupation is defined in article 42 of section III "About military authority over the territory of the hostile state"[38]. Similarly defines occupation the later international document - Geneva convention about Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949

--UUNC (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We already discussed this author a couple of years ago, and came to a conclusion that he expresses minority/fringe views. However, if you disagree, please provide the evidence that he is widely cited in international scholarly literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

He writes in Russian so he may be not widely cited in English-language literature. But he is of course not fringe, he is employed at an academic institution and a participant to a state-level comission, which would not be the case if he was non-professional. There are other historians that share the same point of view on the occupation doctrine, two of them (Dukov, Semindei) has been banned from entry Latvia and European Union this March by the Latvian government because of their views. This led to a protest by the Russian foreign ministry.--UUNC (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What you discuss is nothing new, we discussed this last year. Unlike the consensus in Western scholarship, Russian historiography seems to be divided into the liberal-democratic (либерально-демократическое) camp and the patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) camp. The liberal-democratic camp is essentially aligned with the Western consensus view that the Baltic states were occupied and forcibly and illegally incorporated into the USSR, while patriotic-nationalist camp contends that the Baltic states voluntarily accepted Soviet troops and joined to the USSR via the free will of the Baltic peoples. If you claim to know Russian literature on the topic, please name the authors of both camps. --Nug (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, possibly. This is quite correct although I would call the letter camp as "patriotic-left". I also want to point out that those historians that accept the forcible incorporation do not necessarily agree that the period from 1945 to 1991 is to be termed "occupation" as the Baltic camp seems to insist.--UUNC (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nug, I think, to save our time, the best way to do is to advise UUNC to go to WP:RSN and ask two questions about Simonyan: (i) are the books authored by him reliable secondary sources, and (ii) are they mainstream, minority or fringe? I am pretty certain about the results, however, to dispel all doubts I suggest you, Vercrumba, Collect, and I to abstain from commenting on the RSN: let uninvolved users to express their opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Real leftists are internationalists, so the term "patriotic" is more pertinent to rightists.

Regarding your second thesis, I agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the left wing usually opposes the rehabilitation of Nazism and revision of WWII outcomes. This point of view is shared by many patriots, this is what I meant by talking about "partriotic-left".--UUNC (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:RSN I asked the question just out of curiosity but it seems the rules are clear in this case: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. The article I cited above is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal "Государство и право" ("State and law") [39].--UUNC (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a question of reliability but WP:DUE. Given that Russian scholarship is split between the liberal-democratic (либерально-демократическое) and the patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) camps, what proportion of weight should be attributed to both. --Nug (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind that Soviet historical journals are not reliable sources. A Russian historical or legal journal that contains the same deliberate misinformation would not be either. This goes back to the fact that Gorbachev believed, in good faith, based on what he was taught at university and told by Soviet experts, that the Baltic states willingly joined the Soviet Union. Thus he was confident that there would be support in the Baltic states, at least among the national Communist Party leadership, for the Soviet Union. In fact, there was hardly any, and never was. A scholarly community controlled by a political dictatorship, where simply having food or a place to live depends on conforming your opinion to that of your political minders, is not a reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I cannot fully agree with you. There are some formal criteria according to which reliability of one or another source is determined, and one cannot unilaterally label the journals published in some particular country as non reliable. Thus, many western authors widely cite and use the works published in late Soviet journals. Similarly, we cannot decide by ourselves which information is "misinformation", and which is not. (I myself have no concrete opinion of Simonyan, however, I deeply disagree with the idea of blanket rejection of the whole range of sources simply based on their national origin).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is applying racist criteria to the reliability of sources. Soviet historical sources are not reliable; current Russian (as originating in the legal successor of the USSR) scholarship which continues to espouse Soviet accounts of history are equally unreliable. This is nothing new or a surprise in any way. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, that is not true. A simple example: David Glantz, a renowned American historian cites Soviet sources widely and frequently. He is skeptical about some of them, however, he does not question validity of others. Thus, in his article Soviet "Military Strategy during the Second Period of War (November 1942-December 1943): A Reappraisal" (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 115-150) he cites such Soviet journals as Sbornik voenno-istoricheskikh materialov Velikoi Otechestvennoi voiny [Collection of military-historical materials of the Great Patriotic War], vol. 15 (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1955), such books as V plameni srazhenii: boevoi put' 13-i armii [In the flames of battle: the combat path of the 13th Army] (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1973), 84-88; A. Sharipov, Cherniakhovskii [Cherniakovskyl (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1971), 185-95; and K. Sa. Moskalenko, Na iugo-zapadnom napravlenii, T. 2 [On the southwestern direction, vol. 21 (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka," 1969), 397-451, Shtemenko, The Soviet General Staff at War, 1941-1945 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), 154, etc. If all these historical books and journals are just a collection of Communist propaganda, then Glantz is its re-translator. However, for some reason, he is regarded as a leading expert in the Eastern Front history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Military matters are one thing, and Glantz and other Western scholars have done some good research using Soviet sources. But can you name one single Western author corroborating the accuracy of Soviet (and now official Russian) accounts of the validity of the Baltic elections (results accidently published by eager comrades the day before the elections!) and the subsequent legality of the accession of the Baltic states into the SU? --Nug (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My objection was caused by this Vecrumba's statement: "Soviet historical sources are not reliable; current Russian (as originating in the legal successor of the USSR) scholarship which continues to espouse Soviet accounts of history are equally unreliable." By writing that he managed to discredit a whole range of historical sources, which is obviously wrong, and he must admit that.

Your argument that no confirmation of Soviet accounts of the validity of the Baltic elections exists seems quite valid (I mean its form, with regard to its essence, I can tell frankly: I don't know; you may be equally right or wrong). Yes, we have to speak about validity/non-validity of such sources in each case separately. However, to claim that some source is not reliable simply because it was a Soviet historical secondary source is totally incorrect. Note, the first information about Katyn massacre came from Nazi; the information about Majdanek came from Soviet historical sources. Does it mean we have to reject them on that ground?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are excellent sources regarding the unreliability of Soviet media and scholarly disciplines with respect to information with political implications. Setting forth the positions of the Soviet and Russian governments is one thing, drinking the kool aid quite another. NPOV does not include straight-faced presentation of misinformation and propaganda as historical fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If such sources exist (and I have no reason to doubt in that), please, provide them. If they state that whole Soviet scholarly disciplines are not reliable (and that conclusion reflects mainstream views) then we can speak about unreliability of those concrete disciplines. However, to declare that all Soviet historical sources (and Russian sources that continue their line) are unreliable is too broad generalisation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We have an article, Historiography in the Soviet Union, which, I assume, cites sources. I'll keep looking. However, keep in mind that it is the person who advances information that must demonstrate that it comes from a reliable source if it is to remain in our articles. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That article has in it one of the best examples of how bad information can lead to tragic consequences: "In the late 1920s Stalinists began limiting individualist approaches to history, culminating in the publication of Stalin and other's "Short Course" History of the Soviet Communist Party." Mao read that book and relied on it in formulating policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Taboo specifically addresses treatment of occupation of the Baltics by Russian historians in the context of publication of a translation of a history of Second World War produced by a Western scholar. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Boris Vadimovich Sokolov gives an overview of the various Russian viewpoints in an English language paper titled "The Baltic States in 1939–1945, in Russian Historiography: Counter-nationalism" beginning on page 93[40] Sokolov's views in regard to Russian historiography can be verified by other sources. For example David Mendeloff[41] and Thomas Sherlock's "History and Myth in the Soviet Empire and the Russian Republic" on page 233 provides an overview of the coverage of the Baltic states in Russian textbooks, showing the split within Russian historiography and how it varies compared to the general historical consensus[42]. We have attempted to give quite lengthy coverage of these viewpoints in the article at Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Soviet_and_Russian_historiography--Nug (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have significant doubts about reliability of Sokolov. The reason is as follows. This author advocates an idea that military losses of the USSR during WWII were more than 40 million. This thesis is in sharp contradiction with the data of such prominent Western scholars as Maksudov and Ellman (the former is a brilliant mathematician and demographer), and with mainstream views in general. Following Vecrumba's logic, an author who advocates totally false ideas is hardly reliable.

@ Fred. I've read the Soviet Taboo article. This article is about one particular translation of one western history book. It says that some important facts had been removed from this book during translation, however, it does not say that Soviet historiography in general is a lie. BTW, I found a notion in this article about a secret meeting between Molotov and Ribbentrop in Kirovograd in 1943. I didn't know about that, and I'll try to find independent confirmation of this fact. Thank you for the reference.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not say authors who advocate false "ideas" are not reliable, I said authors who advocate for documented-as-lies as historical fact--that is, advocate for a version of history which is verifiably factually false--are not reliable. There is a difference. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not comment on Simonyan

@Paul, I am puzzled as to why you would suggest we refrain from retreading whether fringe scholarship is reliable, as this particular issue has already been settled:

So, for example, Simonyan's blatantly and incontrovertibly false statement that the decision to "join" the Soviet Union was made by the "legitimate" governments of the Baltics, the parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which had been elected on the basis and in accordance with state law in those countries ("а решение о вступлении в СССР приняли в 1940 году легитимные органы власти - парламенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии, избранные на основе существующих в этих странах государственных законов") can at best be presented as an opinion given it is an outright documented lie. Nothing more. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You went to argue that contentions of false statements were my opinion only, that even if false I was not in a position to deem a source unreliable, etc., etc., etc. I don't see anything constructive coming out of this. Simonyan is reliable for the opinion he espouses, not for history. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you do not understand veiled hints, let me explain that openly. In my opinion, the result of the RSN discussion will be somewhere in between "reliable, but minority views" and "marginally reliable and fringe". With regard to my suggestion to refrain from commenting, I believed that result would be more convincing if some uninvolved user made such a verdict.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Simonyan is a reliable source for that opinion, one which is not supported by historical fact. There's nothing else to decide here regarding reliability, so what is the purpose? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Article_by_Russian_historian_Renald_Simonyan contains responses by two people; most of which is by one person who was unaware of our discussion here. Every editor has the responsibility to use on reliable sources and to be familiar with the type of sources they are using. Soviet material may be used, but are subject to evaluation regarding the degree to which they simply parrot government policy. The published work of the biologist Lysenko is not a reliable source regarding the validity of Lysenkoism, only of its nature. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not unilateral

You have piqued my "haven't heard this line of propaganda before" bone. Please explain "Also as I know the decisions about the admission were not unilateral." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for details and sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Three points of view

I would like to point everyone's attention to the post by UUNC 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC). For your convenience, I reproduce it below

There are three points of view.

• The mainstream in the West: the annexation was illegal/coerced/forged but it happened and the countries were included in the USSR
• The Baltic: There was occupation all the time from 1945 to 1990, all people were controlled by the military, Soviet citizenship is void, all Russians are occupiers etc
• The Russian: All the story was completely legal. Even if the elections were undemocratic by modern measure, they satisfied the democracy standard of the epoch.

I almost agree with that. To that, I would like to add the following. It is not fully correct to speak about the "Baltic" and "Russian" viewpoints, because in both case we can speak about opinia spectrum. As Nug correctly says, many "liberal" Russian authors (e.g. Khudoley) fully share the "Baltic" point of view, and, accordingly, some Baltic authors (e.g. Malksoo) are closer of the mainstream viewpoint. However, the general idea is totally correct: we should speak not about mainstream vs Russian viewpoints controversy, but about mainstream vs Baltic vs Russian viewpoints. Obviously, that is an oversimplification, because some non-Baltic authors (both in the West and in Russia) accept the Baltic viewpoint, however, that does not change the main fact: there are two national viewpoints (Russian vs Baltic), and one mainstream viewpoint, which is much closer to the Baltic point of view but does not fully coincide with it. That is why the word "annexation" should be added to the article's title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I found a good overview of recent Russian sources on that account here: Karsten Brüggemann. Russia and the Baltic Countries Recent Russian-Language Literature. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 10, Number 4, Fall 2009 (New Series), pp. 935-956 (Article). This article is critical towards many statements of Russian authors, however it clearly says about the Balts’ “conception of ‘Soviet occupation.’ (”As is well known, in today’s Russia the history of the “Great Patriotic War” has been reduced to only one version of final “truth.” This “truth” is challenged, however, by the Balts’ “conception of ‘Soviet occupation.’”). In other words, it clearly says about two competing national viewpoints. I haven't read this article in full yet, so I'll return to this issue later. Meanwhile I recommend everyone to read this source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I can't access much of it that seems interesting. I think the "mainstream western" view quoted above is probably not right, Western thought tends to focus on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and to be quite cynical, dismissing Soviet attempts at justification and equating Soviet conquests with Nazi conquests. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, we do have an article, Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, are you sure that was not your post? Your signature (User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)) is under it. If that was not your post, and you just wedged your comment into the post made by others, I respectfully request not to do that in future, because it may lead to confusion.

In any event, if I confused, and this summary was made not by Fred but by UUNC, the latter user seems to describe a situation quite adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The mainstream view is the Baltic view, occupied for the duration. De facto explicit or implicit expression no more accorded rights as the act of annexation. Postulating de facto as a third for-all-intents-and-purposes ex facto ius oritur is just another means of pushing "more of an intervention" and all the other statements making the occupation out to be less so. It is WP:SYNTHESIS that de facto implicit or explicit recognition during the period of occupation modifies it in any manner from the other two competing viewpoints, or is some viable third alternative to the Soviet presence: (a) legal or (b) not legal. There's no middle ground, de facto is not a "door number three." More WP:SYNTHESIS mixing of apples and oranges. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UUNC's summary is not correct. I don't think the idea of prolonged occupation is a concept that originated from the Baltics, but certainly the idea that "occupation" is a baltic concept seems to be the belief of many Russian writers. The idea of prolonged occupation is Western, probably best articulated by the British academic David J. Smith who titles a chapter in his monograpgh The Long Second World War: Estonia Under Occupation 1940-91 and also the 2012 monograph by Richard Mole I mentioned above, just off the top of my head. Even the idea "state continuity" (as exemplified by Baltic authors like Mälksoo) cannot fully be attributable to the Baltic, since Western authors like Krystina Marek were already discussing state continuity back in 1968, the idea that the state continues to exist despite the prolonged occupation. The controversy with respect to citizenship alluded to by UUNC in his first post derives from the consequences of continuity, not the idea of occupation occurred. --Nug (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is an answer on the last Fred's post. The reason why I believe it is not sufficient is described by Malksoo (see his e-mail). In addition, Brüggemann (op.cit) says:

"Although Zubkova masterfully maintains a scholarly tone in her narrative, one of her main statements will nonetheless stir emotions in both Russia and the Baltic states. In her discussion of the events in the summer of 1940 she argues that the term “occupation” may be used only for the first weeks of the Soviet actions in the still independent Baltic republics—that is, before formal incorporation, since Stalin did not intend ever to leave. In her usage “occupation” means a temporary military seizure of a territory. Thus, in her opinion, what happened to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was worse than any form of “occupation” ever could have been, because it brought a “communist regime of the Soviet type” to rule forever (100–1). This thesis will not really make happy those in Russia who still see these events of 1940 in terms of “socialist revolutions,” but it will encourage even less those in the Baltics who see in Zubkova’s argument only a Russian word game to hide the verdict of “occupation” and who are not willing to accept that “incorporation” may actually imply something worse."

Moreover, upon reading the Brüggemann's article I conclude that the "pro Baltic users" (I believe they forgive me for usage of this conditional terms for brevity) significantly misinterpret Russian views. Although some "patriots" (e.g. Bugai) still maintain that the Baltic states legally joined the USSR, other authors maintain that occupation did occur and the incorporation was illegal, but they refuse to apply the term occupation to the whole period from 1940-1991. I do not understand why this position should be ignored and the main article should be written from the Baltic nationalistic point of view.

BTW, one of the sources Brüggemann discusses was published in Lithuania: Algemintas Kasparavichius [KasparaviČius], Cheslovas Laurinavichius [Česlovas LaurinaviČius], and Nataliia Lebedeva, eds., SSSR i Litva v gody Vtoroi mirovoi voiny. 1: SSSR i Litovskaia respublika (mart 1939–avgust 1940 gg.): Sbornik dokumentov [The USSR and Lithuania during World War II. 1: The USSR and the Lithuanian Republic (March 1939–August 1949): A Collection of Documents]. 776 pp. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2006. ISBN 9986780810.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, your contention that this article is written from "the Baltic nationalistic point of view" is simply untrue, I've pointed out above the Western scholars Smith and Mole who write about prolonged occupation. The Russian viewpoint has been given significant coverage in the section Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Soviet_and_Russian_historiography --Nug (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read my posts carefully. I wrote: "we should speak not about mainstream vs Russian viewpoints controversy, but about mainstream vs Baltic vs Russian viewpoints. Obviously, that is an oversimplification, because some non-Baltic authors (both in the West and in Russia) accept the Baltic viewpoint, however, that does not change the main fact: there are two national viewpoints (Russian vs Baltic), and one mainstream viewpoint, which is much closer to the Baltic point of view but does not fully coincide with it." In that situation, I cannot understand why greater weight should be given to Marek's viewpoint than to Zubkova's views, especially taking into account that they agree that the Baltic states were occupied and forcefully incorporated into the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This: "[Zubkova] argues that the term “occupation” may be used only for the first weeks of the Soviet actions in the still independent Baltic republics—that is, before formal incorporation, since Stalin did not intend ever to leave. In her usage “occupation” means a temporary military seizure of a territory." is not acceptable because military occupation is defined in international law.

From Sumner Wells' declaration of July 23, 1940, that we would not recognize the occupation, the United States acted with a consistency and a tenacity of which we can all be proud. We housed the exiled Baltic diplomatic delegations. We accredited their diplomats. We flew their flags in the State Department's Hall of Flags. We never recognized in deed or word or symbol the illegal occupation of their lands.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not right. The sources #1-5 in the article military occupation tell about an intrinsically temporary character of occupation (btw, all those sources were added by me, and I have read all of them). Moreover, Edelstein (source #5 clearly says: "The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland.")

In addition, you cannot decide if Zubkova is right or wrong. The only thing we can do is to decide if she is reliable/unreliable and mainstream/fringe. From the context, I do not see that Brüggemann (a Baltic author, by the way) contests Zubkova's point, he simply describe it without any criticism (we can see that Brüggemann can be critical in his comments judging by what he writes about Bugai's views).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

PS You cite Geneva convention of 1949. This convention is hardly applicable to 1940 events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Now you're citing your own work... Ok, If "Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state's homeland." there must be legal acquisition for legal annexation to occur. There is a body of international law. If you have edited our article military occupation so that it deviates from the law of belligerency which has developed over centuries, we have a problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not my work, Wikipedia has no authorship. That is the WP article you cited. Re legal acquisition, you are not completely right. Had you been right, a term "illegal annexation" would never exist: you must agree that "illegal legal acquisition" is an oxymoron. In addition, don't forget that we are talking about pre 1949 events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you mentioned that Khudolei accepts the Baltic POV. According to his interview [43] when asked about occupation he replies "not occupation, but Sovietization, one could call it "occupation" only if the Baltic states resisted the Soviet Union or if somebody from the leadership at least ordered resistance. But the elite behavied super-loyal to the USSR"--UUNC (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There were tens of thousands killed and interred and armed resistance into the 1950s. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Does it mean that the territory where any guerilla war started immediately becomes "occupied"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you UUNC, I didn't know that. Taking into account that Nug cites Khudoley frequently, I believe he has to comment on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

David J. Smith's views are certainly not mainstream because he argues that WWII continued up until 1991. This is a very fringe claim to say mildly.--UUNC (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A perfectly mainstream position in conformity with international law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources. BTW, do you know what does debellatio mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul states: "we should speak not about mainstream vs Russian viewpoints controversy, but about mainstream vs Baltic vs Russian viewpoints", I disagree with this attempt to turn this into some kind of ethnic clash. We give Marek more weight than Zubkova because Marek's monograph has been cited 166 times in scholarly literature. The fact is the Baltic view aligns with predominant Western view which existed since 1940 is one of occupation, and I have preveously cited Western scholars that state "it is the predominent Western view". Most of the sources cited are Western. As to "one could call it "occupation" only if the Baltic states resisted the Soviet Union", well Operation Priboi in 1949 was aimed at breaking that resistance. With regard to "the elite behavied super-loyal to the USSR", the top elite were imported ethnic Balts from the Soviet Union, many of them couldn't even speak the local native language, while the middle elite had the choice between imprisonment, deportation and death, or collaboration. --Nug (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nug, it was not me but Brüggemann, van Elsuwege and other writers who introdused this terminology. I just follow it. Moreover, I already explained that such terminology is an oversimplification (see above), so for everyone who reads my posts carefully it should be clear that you simply did not understand me. A good example of that is your lovely Khudoley, who, being a Russian author, shares a Western (but not nationalist Baltic viewpoint).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll pardon my being dense, what terminology is that, again, since no one is understanding you? There is no three way Western versus Baltic versus Russian--your contention conveniently marginalizes both the so-called Baltic and I think we can agree official Russian positions, and you've already decried the stench of any "nationalist" position and played the "XYZ is a Baltic author by the way" card, so it's quite clear to me, at least, where you are heading with this, again. I have to admire your persistence, at least. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that you simply do not want to understand. Or you insist that Khudoley or Zubkova express official Russian viewpoint?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Call me dense too, because if we speak of "Baltic" or "Russian" viewpoints then we mean official viewpoints of the respective governments. You seem to be suggesting we should categorise viewpoints based upon ethnicity when you ask "Or you insist that Khudoley or Zubkova express official Russian viewpoint?". --Nug (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, "Russian", "Baltic" and "Western" are just umbrella terms. However, if you are uncomfortable with that, let's use another terminology. BTW, do you imply that the mainstream scholars share the official Baltic viewpoint?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that the official Baltic viewpoint is derived from mainstream scholarship, which existed long before "offical Baltic viewpoints" were re-established in 1991. As I said previously with regard to van Elsuwege, he too holds the view of long occupation but what he describes as the "Baltic thesis" is their conception of state continuity and its application and consequences on the citizenry. --Nug (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, state officials do not build their viewpoints based on scholarships (time of ancient Greek polices, where philosophers were invited to write laws, and of Marxist states, which built their strategy, allegedly, based on philosophical doctrines had gone). Official Baltic viewpoint is a viewpoints of democratically elected officials, and this viewpoint reflects the opinion of majority of the Baltic nations.

However, if you believe that by 1991 the mainstream scholarly viewpoint was that the Baltic states were under military occupation, please provide such sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No source is needed, although I can probably find a contemporary journalistic account, "SOVIET CRACKDOWN: Lithuania; The Crushing of Lithuania's Independence Drive: A Precise Script Is Detected". When the Soviet Union quit using military force on Lithuania it was again an independent country in fact, as well as in law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Sunday The army's coordinated assault on the television studios and broadcasting tower began at about 1:30 A.M. The attacking forces ran over unarmed civilians with tanks and fired on crowds that stood in the way." From the NYT's report of January 16, 1991. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Per our policy, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source. With regard to your quotation, journalist reports are not scholarly sources. Journalists frequently make mistakes. To demonstrate that, I can provide quotes from early 1990s scholarly sources.

"political and economic reforms have in some cases been accompanied by demands for secession or at least for recognition of a right to secede, in the Baltic States, in Yugoslavia, in the Ukraine, and in Soviet Georgia and Armenia. " (Allen Buchanan. Toward a Theory of Secession. Ethics, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Jan., 1991), pp. 322-342Published by: The University of Chicago Press)

"In all, fourteen of the fifteen Soviet republics have asserted their sovereignty in one form or another. Citizens of the Baltic states and several other Soviet republics overwhelmingly support independence. The most highly publicized secession movements have occurred in the Baltic states, and secessionist pressures have placed the future of the Soviet Union in serious doubt." (Cass R. Sunstein. Constitutionalism and Secession. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, Approaching Democracy: A New Legal Order for Eastern Europe (Spring, 1991), pp. 633-670. Published by: The University of Chicago Law Review)

You can see that both sources speak about secession of the Baltic republics in the same terms as about secession of other parts of the USSR and Yugoslavia.

And, again, the fact of insurgence or guerilla war is not per se an evidence of occupation. In contrast, per some sources, the rebel forces are deemed foreign in that case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Malksoo states "crushed and occupied". Let's not rehash contentions that it wasn't a military regime running the country hence not occupied or that the occupation was not maintained by a massive military presence, enforced through mass deportation, etc., etc. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Such opinion also exists. However, the sources quoted by me say that the period of occupation was short and that annexation (sovetization) ended occupation. You must agree that the sources provided by me are not "Russian official/nationalist/patriotic" sources, and that some Baltic authors do not contest (at very least) what they say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cited a reliable source above, the New York Times article that shows that military force was still in use in 1991 to enforce the occupation of Lithuania. You are quite mistaken that New York Times articles can simply be dismissed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. Newspaper articles are not among the most reliable sources. In contrast, the sources quoted by me are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, it seems to me that you are missing the major point: whereas I suggest to present all significant viewpoints in the article (including the views of the authors I quoted), another party insists that only one viewpoint should be presented. Do you see a difference?

This intrinsic difference between your and my theses makes your task much more difficult that my one. Since I do not demand the thesis about occupation to be removed from the article, the only thing I need is to demonstrate that reliable non-fringe sources exist that tell about annexation of the Baltic states do not support the idea of their prolonged military occupation. I provided the sources, which are not Russian national-patriotic or official sources, and these sources do support this my thesis. In contrast, Nug, Peters, and, probably, you (if I understood your position correctly) maintain that "occupation" is the sole appropriate term, and the Baltic states were under military occupation during the whole period from 1940 to 91. However, I doubt you may prove that, because, to do that you need to prove that all my sources are either unreliable or fringe.

In other words, since your viewpoint ("it was a prolonged military occupation") rejects my thesis, and my viewpoint combines your thesis and my thesis ("some sources say that it was a military occupation, some sources tell about incorporation, and fringe Russian nationalist views tell about voluntary joining"), for your point to prevail you must refute all my sources, whereas I do not need to refute yours. The only thing I need is to demonstrate that my sources are also reliable and non-fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you believe that the NYT is more (or at least equally) reliable as the sources provided by me, ask a question on the RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a judicial view, surely that would be more reliable that a mere peer-review by scholars given that the court would have weighed the arguments of was it "a military occupation", was it "incorporation" or was it "voluntary joining". Penart vs Estonia in the ECHR:

"The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. After the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons went into hiding in the forests to avoid repression by the Soviet authorities; part of those in hiding actively resisted the occupation regime. According to the data of the security organs, about 1,500 persons were killed and almost 10,000 arrested in the course of the resistance movement of 1944-1953. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941-1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991. Accordingly, Estonia as a state was temporarily prevented from fulfilling its international commitments."[44]

I hope that you will not argue the court was staffed by "Baltic nationalists". --Nug (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What is especially good about that source is that it uses "occupation" in accordance with its meaning in international law, not in some loose sense. Not only history but law is involved here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember Nug quoted this or similar source, however, I still cannot understand one thing. You are pushing at an open door in attempts to demonstrate that your viewpoint is supported by reliable sources, but who argues with that? Alternative opinion has been presented by me, one of the authors who expresses this opinion is a leading expert in this area, therefore, if you do not want this opinion to be duly represented in the article, you must demonstrate my source(s) are insignificant minority or fringe views. Have you proven that? No.

In addition, ECHR is not a scholarly source, the judges are not historians, and their decision has no binding effect on scholars, whose opinion may be different. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't on one hand claim that international laws like the Geneva convention of 1949 doesn't apply then on the other hand dismiss real world judicial opinions. However if you want historians, how about a piece authored by Norman Davies in The Oxford companion to World War II which states on page 85 "There were three successive periods of occupation: the first Soviet occupation, 1940-1; the Nazi occupation from 1941 to 1944-5; and the second Soviet occupation starting in 1944." --Nug (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A month ago I and Vecrumba had a dispute on the WWII talk page over one issue (which had some relation to the current discussion), and I cited Davies and Hemi to support my thesis. Vecrumba was not satisfied, and I went to WP:RSN and asked a question about these two sources. The answer was [45]: "Davis (1998) is minimally reliable for established facts". Upon reading this verdict I, following Vecrumba's request, excluded Davies from my Baltic related sources, although that significantly weakened my arguments. I believe, for consistency, we should do the same in this case also.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states is an established fact. According to David Glantz (a historian you apparently respect) states in the preface to Oleg Aleksandrovich Rzheshevski's book Stalin and the Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940: "the Red Army invasion of, and ensuing war with, Finland fits into a far broader pattern of belligerent Soviet behaviour during the initial period of the Second World War. This broader pattern included Soviet participation with Germany in the dismemberment of Poland in September 1939; its military occupation of the Baltic States in October 1939"[46]. --Nug (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is an established fact then you van use another source then Davies.

In addition, your argument is (again) a straw man fallacy: we do not discuss the 1940 events, because most sources do agree that occupation did take place. The question is if the whole period of 1940-91 can be considered as military occupation. This thesis is not an established fact, and different opinia exist on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Some quotes from Karsten Brüggemann

According to Kritika, Karsten Brüggemann is Professor of Estonian and General History at the Institute of History, University of Tallinn. His work on Russian/Soviet and especially Baltic history centers on the Civil War years 1917-20, the cultural history of Stalinism, and post-Soviet Baltic historiographical narratives. His publications include Die Gründung der Republik Estland und das Ende des "Einen und Unteilbaren Russland": Die Petrograder Front des Russischen Bürgerkriegs 1918-1920 (The Establishment of the Republic of Estonia and the End of "United and Indivisible Russia": The Petrograd Front in the Russian Civil War, 1918-20 [2002]); and Von Krieg zu Krieg, von Sieg zu Sieg: Motive des sowjetischen Mythos im Massenlied der 1930er Jahre (From War to War, from Victory to Victory: Motifs of the Soviet Myth in Mass Songs of the 1930s [2002]), a sourcebook. He is currently working on a study of the image of the Baltic region in Russian political culture in the 19th and 20th centuries, supported by the German iResearch Foundation, and is co-editor of a three-volume history of the Baltic States financed by the VW-Foundation.
Below are some quotes from his article "Russia and the Baltic Countries Recent Russian-Language Literature" in Kritika (a full citation has been provided in the previous section).
This quote is a direct reference to two conflicting national viewpoint, each of which is not fully supported by this author:

"In Moscow's reaction to the Baltic "conception of occupation" we may in fact hear a distant echo from the late 1860s when Dorpat history professor Carl Schirren claimed the Baltic German nobility to be the "guardian of the provinces" and urged them "to stand fast" and "to hold out" against all attempts to characterize their rule as medieval and inhumane.47 The idea of "ungrateful" Estonians and Latvians was prominent once again in Baltic German circles after 1917–18 and was abandoned only after World War II, when in emigration they found a common enemy in the Soviets.48 Today, for the Russian side it would be rather wise to contemplate why precisely the majority of (not only) Baltic peoples in the summer of 1941 saw the invading Nazi troops as "liberators." Maybe then the Balts, for their part, could agree that at least for a quite important historic moment in the autumn of 1944 the Red Army indeed liberated them from German rule."

In this quote, the author (Brüggemann) uses the term "incorporation and sovetisation", not "occupation".

" Lebedeva convincingly stresses that the Soviet leadership definitively changed course toward incorporation and Sovietization only at the end of May 1940, but as early as 1939 some Soviet diplomats had difficulty restraining their emotions. 54 According to Lithuanian documentation, the Soviet chargé d'affaires in Kaunas, Nikolai Pozdniakov, was already claiming in September 1939 that the Baltic states were the "property of the USSR" (SSRS nuosavybė / sobstvennost´ SSSR [Doc. 29])."

This quote demonstrates that Brüggemann considers Zubkova as a neutral and unbiased scholar devoid of nationalistic stereotypes.

"The tense narrative of these mainly diplomatic documents (covering the spring of 1939 to the summer of 1940) certainly captures the reader's attention. Some of the 257 documents (plus one more as an appendix)55are already widely known, but most have never been published before. This volume is a gift for anyone interested in Soviet foreign policy and the fate of the Baltic states. The same can be said about Elena Zubkova's study. Her book on the Baltic states and the Kremlin, 1940–53, fills a gap in Russian historiography of the USSR and has received attention in the media. Maybe the best thing one can say about a book analyzing these crucial years is that the author does not take part in any of the political disputes of the day."

And, finally, in this quote Brüggemann describes Zubkova views without any criticizm:

"Although Zubkova masterfully maintains a scholarly tone in her narrative, one of her main statements will nonetheless stir emotions in both Russia and the Baltic states. In her discussion of the events in the summer of 1940 she argues that the term "occupation" may be used only for the first weeks of the Soviet actions in the still independent Baltic republics—that is, before formal incorporation, since Stalin did not intend ever to leave. In her usage "occupation" means a temporary military seizure of a territory. Thus, in her opinion, what happened to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was worse than any form of "occupation" ever could have been, because it brought a "communist regime of the Soviet type" to rule forever (100–1). This thesis will not really make happy those in Russia who still see these events of 1940 in terms of "socialist revolutions," but it will encourage even less those in the Baltics who see in Zubkova's argument only a Russian word game to hide the verdict of "occupation" and who are not willing to accept that "incorporation" may actually imply something worse."

Just to demonstrate how critical Brüggemann can be, below is his opinion on another author, Bugai:

"Absurd suggestions like this only prove how weak the author's grounding in his own topic actually is. Even if the reader is likely to link these unqualified emotions to heated current debates, one cannot fail to note that Bugai obviously prefers his NKVD documents as reliable sources over secondary literature on the interwar Baltic republics and the Nazi occupation. At times, however, Bugai goes even further than his "special" informants; for example, in the published memorandum on which Bugai relies there is no hint of the author's assertion that the Estonian self-defense units (omakaitse) in 1941 were subjugated to the SS"

In summary, I request Zubkova's views to be duly represented in the article, and not as the "Russian" viewpoint, but as an opinion of a reputable scholar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this cite, it is a treasure trove of new information. I will reply in detail later after I review it in depth, but meanwhile this interesting quote caught my eye, Brüggemann cites Furman in "Opyt baltiiskikh stran i ego znachenie dlia Rossii":

"Due to the potentially explosive situation in the Baltic region, Sovetskaia Pribaltika retained a special status within the Union, from its incorporation in 1940 until the Soviet collapse"

this somewhat undermines your earlier argument that the status of the Baltic states was no different to any other Soviet republic within the USSR. --Nug (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The occupational policy of "incorporation and sovetisation" set apart special treatment of the Baltic states as opposed to the sovereign territory of the USSR. "Incorporation and sovietisation" as policies do not modify the state of occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you, but that is not important for this concrete case. We have a source (a reliable scholarly source) that says that occupation lasted for just few months, and that annexation had ended the period of occupation. According to Brüggemann, the author of this source "does not take part in any of the political disputes of the day", and the author's statement is not contested by Brüggemann. I think I sustained my burden of proof.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, the thesis about "incorporation and sovetisation" as about an occupational policy is your own original research: not only the cited sources do not tell that, they tell directly opposite, namely, that incorporation had ended occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that occupation "ended" at all. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I also point your attention at the first quote, which you preferred to ignore. The author (Brüggemann himself) expresses the opinion that both sides ought to adjust their positions, and that 1944 events were, in some sense a liberation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you mistake description of a viewpoint with an advocacy for that viewpoint. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I think you may be drawing a long bow here. Brüggemann is merely describing Zubkova's viewpoint, which we can certainly add coverage with a sentence or two. To attribute some kind of viewpoint to Brüggemann which you think may contradict the mainsteam is going too far. Sure, the Soviets liberated the Baltics from Nazi rule, but they forgot to go home after the war and effectively replaced one dictatorial regime with another, just ask all those Baltic women and children sent to Siberia in 1949 if they felt "liberated". The context the quote regarding the special status of the Baltic states within the USSR is that you long argued that there was no different treatment of these states compared to other Soviet republics and thus there can not be any talk of an "occupation regime". Clearly this quote suggests otherwise. --Nug (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to describing Zubkova's viewpoint Brüggemann characterises her as a "leading expert" in the field, so this is not just a description. Regarding "liberation", Brüggemann writes that:

"Today, for the Russian side it would be rather wise to contemplate why precisely the majority of (not only) Baltic peoples in the summer of 1941 saw the invading Nazi troops as "liberators." Maybe then the Balts, for their part, could agree that at least for a quite important historic moment in the autumn of 1944 the Red Army indeed liberated them from German rule.""

Note, this is Brüggemann's opinion, not the opinion of some of the authors he cites.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll need to read the source myself at some point.

If the Soviets were the first invading power and so evil (mass deportations a week before the German invasion) that the Nazis were considered liberators, regardless what happened under the Nazis, why on earth would anyone consider a re-invading Soviet army to be "liberators?" One would expect the peoples of the Baltics to reject both occupiers. Recall the Estonians fighting the Germans and Russians on two fronts. "Liberation" only works once. Had Stalin not occupied the Baltics first, the Red Army would have been hailed as liberators, per the Nazi example. I'm frankly gobsmacked at the naivete of such a contention (by an Estonian historian, no less). Re-occupation by a brutal occupier is never going to be considered "liberation" under any circumstance. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You may try to write a responce on the Brüggemann's article and submit it to Kritika. If it will be published, I will have no choice but to describe your views along with Brüggemann's ones. However, since I found no reliable sources that criticise this Brüggemann's statement, I assume that you have not published your views yet. Therefore, it is premature to discuss them. No soapboxing, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would love to, but if published I would have to recuse myself from the discussion here as potential WP:COI.

As for the potential that Estonians, might or should have viewed the Soviets as liberating them from the Nazis, well, we already know that history, that is, the Estonians fought both powers on two fronts, and when the Red Army liberated Tallinn it was the Estonian, not German, flag which was taken down. If Brüggemann is personally surprised by Estonian reaction, that is his personal opinion, not a statement that the Estonians should have welcomed the Soviets as liberators. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I provide a reliable source, and you respond with just speculations. No soapboxing, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Found the article. So far I've made it up to Brüggemann and Zubkova. Interesting perspective (Zubkova, as related by Brüggemann), that long term occupation (the period following annexation) was worse than plain occupation. Her usage of terms suits the points of her narrative; this is different from disputing that there was a permanent state of occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding opinion:

"Today, for the Russian side it would be rather wise to contemplate why precisely the majority of (not only) Baltic peoples in the summer of 1941 saw the invading Nazi troops as 'liberators.' Maybe then the Baits, for their part, could agree that at least for a quite important historic moment in the autumn of 1944 the Red Army indeed liberated them from German rule."

In the context of the entire article and what comes before and after, this is clearly an observation that only when Russia admits to occupying the Baltics (this would be why the Nazi troops were seen as liberators) will the people of the Baltics be able to consider their "liberation" from the Nazis, even if just for a moment. That moment passing and being replaced by re-occupation. Now that I have Brüggemann's article, I can see that we come away with clearly different impressions and interpretations. This is not surprising as here we are discussing our impressions of Brüggemann's impressions of authors' impressions of history.

(Technically the Estonians liberated themselves, but a separate discussion.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) And I noticed this tidbit, "For one author who legitimizes Soviet rule, see A. P. Diukov, Mif o genotside: Repressii Sovetskikh vlastei v Estonii (1940-1953) (Moscow: Aleksei Iakovlev, 2007)." that is, Dykov's Миф о геноциде: Репрессии советских властей в Эстонии (1940–1953), the myth that the Soviet authorities committed genocide against or repressed (the word for deported) Estonians. Not sure that we can use "cited" as "stamp of approval", though. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On Khudoley

I recall Nug repeatedly cited the opinion of a Russian historian Khudoley who, as he asserted, fully supported the thesis about continuous military occupation. Thanks to UUNC, we have an interview with Khudoley, who explains his views as follows:

"Самый удачный термин, которым можно было бы обозначить события 1940 года, - "советизация" балтийских республик. Была ли эта "советизация" насилием над балтийскими народами? Безусловно. Были ли нарушены нормы международного права? Вне всяких сомнений. Но назвать "советизацию" оккупацией можно было бы в том случае, если бы страны Балтии оказали сопротивление советским войскам или кто-то из тогдашних руководителей этих республик отдал бы приказ национальным силам сопротивляться. Пусть даже этого никто в итоге и не сделал бы! Но в 1930-е годы элита балтийских государств вела себя по отношению к Советскому Союзу суперлояльно." [ http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2005/03/02/l_061.html?r=9]

In other words, as far as I understand, his position is that "sovetization" did occur, and it was totally illegal, however, Khudoley refuses to call the period from 1940 to 1991 "military occupation". Since Nug seems to value Khudoley's opinion, I expect him to modify his viewpoint.

In summary, we have two Russian scholars whose works are in a stark disagreement with Russian official and nationalistic viewpoint, but who disagree with the Baltic views either. Therefore, I respectfully request Nug and Vecrumba to retract their thesis about two viewpoints: Baltic (aka world mainstream) viewpoint and "Russian Nationalist" views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is what Khudoley writes in the book The Baltic Question During the Cold War:

"When, in autumn 1939, the Soviet Union forced the Baltic governments to sign the Treaties on Bases that allowed Soviet troops onto their territories, Stalin announced that he did not intend to establish Soviet rule in the Baltic states. In reality, he was simply biding his time. By June 1940, the time was ripe. The great powers, shocked by Germany's defeat of France, had their attention focused on Western Europe. No one was able to oppose Soviet policy towards the Baltic states. It is likely that Stalin wanted to occupy the Baltic states and Bessarabia (including Bucovina, which was not mentioned in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) as quickly as possible. It is assumed that he was afraid of the rising power of Germany (nobody in Moscow expected France to fall so quickly) and the possibility that Germany might renegotiate the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact in its favour.

On 15-16 June 1940, the Soviet Union demanded that more of its troops be allowed onto the territories of the Baltic states and that the governments of the three countries be changed. This demand was met, and power over domestic affairs duly transferred to Soviet emissaries Andrey Zhdanov (Estonia), Audrey Vyshinskiy (Latvia) and Vladimir Dekanozov (Lithuania). New elections were quickly organised according to the 'one candidate-one seat' system. Opposition forces could not participate. The elections were neither free nor fair, and thus the decisions of the newly elected parliaments to join the Soviet Union cannot be considered legitimate. These decisions were not approved by the upper chambers of the parliaments of the Baltic states, even though such approval was required by the countries' constitutions. These decisions were nothing more than evidence of Soviet dictatorship.

In seeking to justify the occupation of the Baltic states, Soviet and many Russian historians have utilised the argument of military advisability, which was presented during Second World War by Stalin to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Yet the occupation of the Baltic states made the Soviet Union neither weaker nor stronger in the face of possible German aggression. The occupation bolstered anti-Soviet public opinion in the USA and United Kingdom - potential Soviet allies in case of German aggression — as well as engendering resistance in the Baltic states themselves. Nationalisation of industry and services, imposition of communist dogmas in cultural life, declining living standards and, most especially, mass deportations all created a backdrop for mass hatred of the Soviet Union, and led some circles to express sympathy for Germany and the Nazi regime. The subsequent guerrilla movement in the Baltic republics after the Second World War created domestic problems for the Soviet Union, using up already limited military and economic resources during the 1940s and 1950s."

Unequivocally an occupation. The text you cite is from the news outlet Chas Daily, while the text I cite is published by Routledge. Which is the more reliable, a 2005 interview in a newspaper or a 2008 scholarly paper published in an academic monograph? --Nug (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is some contradiction between these two sources. However, the Khudoley's quotes do not say about a prolonged period of military occupation. What he says is the "occupation as an event".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) re: Chas, once again, because the Baltic peoples chose to avoid being wiped out by overwhelming invading Soviet forces, not to mention all those already stationed on their territories--I recall major cities in Latvia being occupied from the west, not east--does not make it not an invasion, not an occupation. Contentions that invasion was not an invasion and an occupation was not an occupation are WP:FRINGE.

Since Malksoo is being used (inappropriately, as I have explained) to hammer for "and annexation" in the title, I will hammer (appropriately) yet again Malksoo's description of events, that the Soviet Union

"crushed and occupied"

the Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Edit summary should have said that avoiding extermination in the face of overwhelming force "wasn't a welcome mat".

Malksoo himself had explained his views for us specifically, and I see no need to repeat that. In addition, you seem to misinterpret him. He writes that annexation can be considered as occupatio sui generis, however, he does not state that we can speak about "prolonged military occupation"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Malksoo expected his precision to be (IMO) misapplied. It's occupation however you attempt to slice it. And no matter how you slice it, it is not less than an occupation, "less than" meaning any rights were granted to the USSR, including that it exercised any authority over Baltic nationals except as an occupying regime. And we have also clarified that the Baltics were singled out for special treatment. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And I repeat my reminder regarding Malksoo's Email ("... In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. ..."): "Pseudo-debate" means there is no debate of occupation versus annexation or occupation becoming annexation precisely because the illegal annexation did not confer any rights to the USSR regarding the sovereign Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, illegal annexation does not confer any rights to the annexing power. The question is, however, if illegal annexation is considered as military occupation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Acts done to the citizens of an occupied nation under the guise of sovereignty gained though illegal annexation, such as killing civilians hiding in the woods, may be war crimes. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a circular argument: if we assume that the illegal annexation is merely an occupation, then killing of civilians hiding in the woods is a crime of the occupation regime, which proves the fact of occupation. However, that is a logical fallacy.

Re "killing civilians", you may be interested to read this: Stanley Vardys. The Partisan Movement in Postwar Lithuania. Slavic Review, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sep., 1963), pp. 499-522). The source speaks about "the Lithuanian partisan resistance to the Soviet regime", and "partisans" are hardly merely "civilians", at least not more civilians than Afghan Mojahedins or present-days Syria rebels.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Killing armed partisans might not be war crimes. The occupying power has the right to use force to prevent loss of control of the territory; assuming the occupation itself was legal. In the case of a war of conquest such as occupation of the Baltic states, that would not be true. There is no circular reasoning: first military occupation, then gross deviance from the legal requirements of a lawful occupying power, then crimes against humanity. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity and occupation are totally unrelated things: history know the examples of crimes against humanity committed against own people, and the examples of occupations not accompanied by crimes against humanity. BTW, do you see any significant difference between the guerrilla wars in Lithuania and West Ukraine? In the first case, many sources speak about occupation, but I saw just few sources telling that West Ukraine was under Soviet military occupation. In both cases we can speak about crimes against humanity. To summarise, noone denies the fact of crimes against humanity, but this argument is totally irrelevant to this concrete discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Raising interesting, but irrelevant, issues seems to be a common failing. It is quite wonderful to encounter someone who is passionate about these nearly-forgotten issues. I think the difference is that a substantial part of the annexed lands had a Ukrainian, but westernized, population. Generally, Ukraine was considered to be a legitimate part of the Soviet Union. Events turned out otherwise, of course. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is interesting, however, I, taking into account that it is irrelevant I suggest to stop this part of a discussion (crimes against humanity in a context of occupation vs annexation vs sovetization).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Statiev refers to the two soviet occupations of the Baltic states in his book The Soviet counterinsurgency in the western borderlands in a chapter called "Escalation of Unathorized Violence from the First to the Second Soviet Occupation" --Nug (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, that adds more weight to your viewpoint, but does not disprove mine one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I'm just presenting what is published in reliable sources. The viewpoint you describe is a minority viewpoint which is already given in the article. It is not clear what you are after, a title like Occupation (considered by a minority to have ended after incorporation into the USSR and considered by a fringe to have freely joined) of the Baltic states? Title names ate determined by the WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. what is in common usage. --Nug (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that due weight is given in the article to the viewpoint I describe. However, I can remove my objecvtions against this title provided that some changed will be made to the article's text. The first change I request is a removal of the notion of military occupation from the first sentence of the lede. If the title "Occupation of the Baltic states" will stay, the first sentence should be modified. The sentence should be make more descriptive.
My second requirement is the removal of separate section regarding Russian historiography. As recent discussion demonstrated, most Russian authors are reputable scholars, and they should not be ghettoized in a separate section. Alternatively, if you want to split authors according to their national origin, be consistent, and create separate sections for Baltic and Western historiography. The first option is more preferable for me.
My third requirement is creation of separate sections for official views. If we discuss Russian official views, the Baltic official views, and the views of EU should be discussed in separate sections. We have plenty sources that discuss Baltic vs Russian official views, and the views of some Baltic (or Western) scholars do not always coincide with those views. I have some additional requirements, however, let's finish with these three first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Paul's first demand, the wikilinked article on "military occupation" defines military occupation in a way very different from what happened in the Baltic States. However I am not convinced that the definition of "military occupation" given in that article in correct. It looks like a piece of original research. One online dictionary[47] defined it as "Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily..." This would be consistent with what happened in the Baltic States; it would also be consistent with the Argentine Republic's usage of the term as reported in the English newspaper, the Daily Telegraph.[48]--Toddy1 (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We have had a long discussion on the military occupation talk page, and I provided all needed sources. The online dictionary is far less reliable source then, e.g. the Edelstein's scholarly article. Look at the quotes provided there, and, if you believe the lede of the military occupation article is a piece of original research, feel free to start discussion at NORN.

In addition, we have a source written by a leading expert in the Baltic history (Zubkova), who applies the same idea to the Baltic states specifically, namely, that the annexation, despite being illegal, terminated the state of occupation of the Baltic states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For your convenience, I reproduce one useful quote from that talk page:

"a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’. Edelstein adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future" (Source: Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Socio-psychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59; A Journal of Peace research is a SAGE publication, it is ranked 12 out of 78 in International Relations and 22 out of 141 in Political Science)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, please let me know if the source discusses the Baltic states. Just checking before shelling out $25 to purchase access online. VєсrumЬа ►TALK

Save your money, I checked and Paul's cited paper doesn't mention the Baltic states at all. It is synthesis to apply a paper about Israel on the Baltic states.

@Paul, I don't see a problem with the first sentence. Are you now now disagreeing that the Baltic states were militarily occupied on June 14th, 1940? You have not cited any scholar who contends there was no occupation at all in June 1940, just a couple that state occupation ended upon the forcible incorporation. Even your "leading expert on Baltic history" Zubkova agrees that the Baltic states were occupied in 1940. As for your second demand, "Soviet/Russian historiography" with respect to the Baltic states is a concrete sub-topic backed by reliable sources as has been demonstrated previously on this talk page. --Nug (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nug, I expect you to read my posts carefully. The source you read tells about the definition of occupation in general, and it would be ridiculous to request a separate definition of military occupation for the Baltic states (I recall we had already had such dispute in past, so you undermine my belief in your good faith). Therefore, the next step is to add 2 and 2, and apply this definition to the situation in the Baltic states, and Toddy1 has already done that: if the definition is not my original research, then military occupation is very different from what happened in the Baltic States. You may argue that that would be original research, however, that would be incorrect: as I already explained, Zubkova, a leading expert in the Baltic history, says exactly the same about the situation in the Baltic states specifically. Therefore, we cannot speak neither about fringe sources nor about original research, so my thesis is in full compliance with both WP:V and WP:NOR. The sources I use are by no means fringe, so I, per WP:NPOV request this thesis to be duly represented in the article.

Re your "Are you now now disagreeing that the Baltic states were militarily occupied on June 14th, 1940?", I have to repeat that you are pushing at the open door: since my thesis was that annexation ended occupation, it would be ridiculous to reject the fact of occupation. Frankly speaking, I don't remember what my initial vision was, but I am sure that during last two years my point was that the Baltic states were occupied, and then annexed (to avoid endless arguments, let me add to that that the annexation was illegal, and, based on that fact, now it is believed the Baltic states just regained its independence as if they were simply occupied). Is it clear enough?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "Soviet/Russian historiography", I disagree. Such authors as Lebedeva, Zubkova, Khudoley, are scholars, and their views should be discussed in the sections devoted to scholarly views of their western and Baltic peers. The discussion of "Official Soviet historiography" can be moved to a separate subsection, and, if you want to discuss natrional-patriotic views (which serve mostly to the goals of national mythology, not science, I suggest to combine all nationalists myths together, and provide a comparative description of Baltic and Russian national mythologies regarding occupation and subsequent events. (If the discussion will demonstrate that the Baltic nations are almost free from nationalistic stereotypes, I will not mind if a lion share of this section will be devoted to Russian nationalistic views.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally we are making some progress Paul. We can finally agree that the Baltic states were occupied in June 1940. And we can agree that the Baltic states were illegally annexed. But if these two points are accepted then I don't think your thesis of "annexation ended occupation" holds, because according to Sbi-Saab, Professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, states

"illegal annexation of occupied territory is legally inoperative both in general international law and in the specific context of humanitarian law; from both standpoints, it continues to be considered as belligerent occupation"

Moreover, as Yael Ronen states in his paper Status of settlers implanted by illegal territorial regimes published in the British Year Book of International Law 2008:

"An important element in the policies of the Baltic states and common to all three was their self-perception as having emerged from an illegal regime of occupation to restore their pre-1940 independence. This position was generally accepted by other States and organisations"

Now while you may be able to present an author such as Zubkova who asserts that "annexation ended occupation", it remains a minority view for which we cannot give equal WP:VALIDity as the generally held view which Yael Ronen mentions. The best we can do is to "describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." And that context is Russian historiography. --Nug (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nug, you misinterpret my words again: I never contested the fact of initial occupation (although I, probably, wasn't clear enough on that account), so there in no progress in that context.

Re Ronen, you are right. That is a correct description of the official position of the Baltic states and international organisations. However, Ronen writes nothing about a position of the scholarly community, which may be different. That is an additional reason for creation separate sections for official and scholarly opinia.

Re Sbi-Saab, that is a good argument. I need some time to read it by myself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, We have read your posts carefully but find your demands unreasonable. What we have here is a failed attempt to conquer and hold territory in the context of massive sustained resistance by the nations themselves and general disapproval, even disgust, by the international community. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, even if we assume that we can speak about an attempt "to conquer and hold territory ", your thesis about a failed attempt is wrong. The attempt was successful, the partisan war had, by and large, ended in 1950s and totally ended in 1960s. The Baltic states re-gained independence as a results of internal processes in the USSR itself, which had no relation to the Baltic national movement. BTW, the sources provided by me demonstrate that in late 1980s the western scholars spoke about secession of the Baltic states, along with other Soviet republics, so these territories were considered by scholars as de facto parts of the USSR.

In addition, my demand to combine Russian historians, along with their Baltic and western peers into the same section, to devote separate section to the official positions of Russia, of the Baltic states and of international organisations, and to combine all nationalistic views (Russian and Baltic) in the special section (probably, with subcestions), has no relation to the "conquest" issue. What unreasonable do you find there?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your combining can be taken to purport (these would be in terms of allegedly predominant views) that Baltic is different from Western is different from Russian (that is: occupied, de facto or occupied but counter to Baltic, and legal or at least not occupation per se). Combining also implies the purportedly all dissimilar "three" views have equal weight. They do not. Sections are:

• Occupation
• Perspectives

This also prevents inappropriate mixing of legal versus "tastes like chicken" scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to respond, since no serious arguments have been provided.

Martin, you have been engaged in selective quotation. The full quote really says about the Geneva Convention (1949): '"...for not only such an annexation violates secular and fundamental rule of international law and as such is sanctioned by an obligation of non-recogntion; but more more significantly for our subject it produces no legal effect in the context of Geneva Convention. In other words illegal annexation of occupied territory is legally inoperative both in general international law and in the specific context of humanitarian law; from both standpoints, it continues to be considered as belligerent occupation "

In other words, as I expected, Sbi-Saab correctly described a present days vision of this subject. We all perfectly know, and Malksoo explains that in details, that in light of Geneva Convention, any illegal annexation is merely an occupation. However, we are talking about pre-1949 events, and you should have remembered that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

While active military resistance may have finally been crushed some ten years after the conclusion of WW2, Baltic non-violent civil resistance continued and was ultimately one of the key factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. As documented in the book Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action states:

"The Balts pioneered the sovereignty frame that eventually gutted the Soviet state in 1990 and 1991, as group after group (and even some cities and islands) declared their sovereignty vis-a-vis the Soviet government"[49]

Thus while Soviet Union may have swallowed the Baltic states, it eventually choked and died.

Moreover, Paul's proposed scheme to combine scholarship of Russian, along with Baltic and their western peers into the same section does not accord with the reality of the debate, with the Russian discourse being internal and mainly isolated from the western discourse which is predominately settled. This Russian discourse itself is subject to scholarly study. WP:VALID requires us to place such minority viewpoints into their proper context, not elevate them to be on par with mainstream viewpoints.

Yes, while it is true that the 1940 occupation pre-dated the 1949 convention, the convention still applied to the consequences of that occupation. As Van Elsuwege states:

"The basic option of not extending national citizenship to Russian-speaking immigrants could not be tackled because it is considered to be in accordance with international law and the generally accepted position on the legal status of the Baltic republics"

The 1949 convention explicitly deals with the status of settlers. --Nug (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The USSR died as a result of secession of Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine. Baltic nationalism is being discussed in the same terms as Georgian or Armenian nationalisms in the sources provided by me above. And all of that has no relation to the occupation issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but the Baltic role in planting that seed of these Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian secessionist movements is acknowledged. As Politburo member Vadim Medvedev warned the Soviet leadership at the time: "To make Russia sovereign is the golden daydream of the Balts". Yeltsin took the bait and the rest is history. --Nug (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would add that Baltic nationalism is also described separately from that of longer term Soviet republics in sources I've read. The Baltic influence even reached to Moldova.

There is no possible objective rationale I can divine which concludes that the article should be reorganized to inappropriately conflate legal foundations, contemporary reactions and accounts, retrospective analysis, and chinks in the armor of crumbling Soviet propaganda still clung to by official Russia in the post-Soviet era. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a distraction from the major point of our discussion. I expect to get clear explanation of why the changes proposed by me do not make the article more neutral. Please, provide them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've provided them Paul. --Nug (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the Russian discourse, in contrast to the Baltic one is internal. Please, explain what is your statement is based on.

I agree that the western discourse is predominantly settled. The verdict is: there are two conflicting views, the Baltic and the Russian, with Baltic views having much greater support from international organisations and scholarly community. However, I do not understand how that disproves my point.

That the Russian discource is a subject of scholarly study does not change the fact that many Russian authors have the same weight as their western peers.

In other words, I see no arguments from your side that may serve as a ground to reject my proposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've previously cited a number of monographs on Russian historiography as published in Russian school textbooks, one source calling the Russian viewpoint the "Myth of 1940". Upon what basis do you claim Russian authors have the same weight as their western peers? One measure of the weight of a particular scholar is how often their papers are cited. Is there some kind of equivalent measure of the weight of Russian scholars? --Nug (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)