Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Military occupation redux

"The question is, however, if illegal annexation is considered as military occupation."

The occupation was executed by military (over 400,000 not including forces already stationed on Baltic territory) and maintained by military presence. Are you implying any occupation must be "military," that means, militarily administered? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If your question is general, then the answer can be found in the above quote: military occupation is "effective control by some foreign power" that "does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory". The amount of troops has no relation to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that converting military occupation into permanent conquest combined with massive human rights violations is a war crime and has no legal effect. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Where this article and discussion get into problems is discussion/application of sources which do not specifically deal with the Baltic states. It's enough work to fairly and accurately represent legalities and perceptions without adding perspectives that are not directly applicable.
@Paul, you now appear to advocate that any occupation maintaining foreign power in place of sovereign authority is a military occupation ipso facto, except if the invading power claims sovereignty. Asre you implying that such claim of permanent sovereignty dissolves occupation? Such an implication
  • is not relevant to the Baltic case; and
  • frankly, it would be a throwback to the 19th century.
So, let's commit to stick to sources explicitly discussing the case of the Baltic states. This is not the first time I've made this observation or asked that we strictly observe this simple ground rule. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Vecrumba, I do not advocate anything, I just follow what reliable sources say. I provided several sources, top quality reliable sources, that totally support this my statement that claim of permanent sovereignty dissolves occupation. With regard to the Baltic states, I provided a source written by a leading expert in the field which claims the same in the context of the Baltic states specifically. By contrast, you provided no sources that question validity of the sources provided by me, so your suggestion to "stick to sources" is just a filibustering.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Paul, do you, or do you not, commit to discuss and create content based only on sources which specifically deal with the period in question regarding the Baltic states? A simple yes or no will do.
As for advocacy, you would not cite sources unless you advocate those sources are relevant to article content here and you have some idea of what that content might look like based on your choice(s) of aforesaid source(s), would you? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
And I must observe that other than appropriate inclusion among viewpoints, the notion that annexation terminates occupation died in the 19th century. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Re " the notion that annexation terminates occupation died in the 19th century. " Source? I have several sources telling the opposite, therefore, your unsubstantiated statement is a soapboxing. I can agree with the notion that illegal annexation terminates occupation probably died in the 1949 (although different opinia exist on that account, and annexation of Goa is the opposite example).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Annexation as the act of an invading power legally assuming sovereign control (that is, annexation terminates occupation) died at the end of the 19th century in international law. Annexation subsequently confers no rights and therefore does not change fact of occupation, where the rightful sovereign authority is prevented from functioning. This has all been discussed in painful detail in the past with multitudes of sources on international law. Please read through all the past archive discussions before resurrecting old arguments. Finding a new source that says "X" does not invalidate prior discussion, causing it to start all over again. In that context, my recapping results of past discussions is not "soapboxing"--I'm not stating anything new.
Regarding article organization, I've indicated that different types of source regarding the occupation of the Baltic states should not be conflated. My editorial assessment is that (this is my understanding of your proposal...) your notion of presenting all viewpoints (legal, historical, social anthropologists, legalities, impressions, contentions,...) in a single section will reduce the article to a useless self-contradictory mish-mosh ultimately stating nothing at all. If anything, everything in the article from "Aftermath" likely needs finer granularity (more sections, not less) than now. I'd be glad to assist you and other editors with that to properly position reliable sources with respect to the issue of occupation.
Regarding Goa, do you have scholarship which compares it to Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania? That would be an interesting addition to the article--that is, application or not of the precedent of the occupation of the Baltic states in international law to subsequent occupations. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not remember that during our past discussions we came to the conclusion you cite. Please, provide sources, otherwise your opinion will be ignored.
Re Goa, the sources is Quincy Wright. The Goa Incident. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1962), pp. 617-632. A source which compares it to the BS is Malksoo. He concluded that the precedent value of this case was limited. By the way, Malksoo cites O.M. Uhler. (Der völkerrechtliche Schutz der Bevölkerung eines besetzten Gebiets gegen Maßnahmen der Okkupationsmacht (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Genfer Zivilkonvention vom 12. August 1949). Zürich: Polygraphischer Verlag, 1950, pp. 34–5), who expresses the opinion that even few years after the WWII the annexation did terminate occupation, and the transfer of occupied territory was still possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for Goa et al. following. Note I indicated past discussion, not necessarily discussion where you were directly involved, so go easy on the dismissiveness. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I brought new arguments. If those arguments had already been addressed during past discussions, please, provide needed links to the relevant pages. It is your burden to provide needed evidences to address my legitimate concern.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not know who is really at fault here, but that long dispute about wording (and you are going in circles) looks very much as WP:DE or WP:TE (see the case of Brews ohare).My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You should have noticed that the subject of the discussion has changed: we do not discuss the wording, we discuss the change of the article's structure (as I proposed). I do not insist on the change of the title any more, provided that those changes will be implemented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The underlying motives

With or without change in the topic (from title to structural changes), I'm still baffled by the byzantine depth of the discussion, plus all the archived versions of it (often with the same contenders, and even with the same or parallel arguments).

I really have to wonder about the underlying motivations. Paul, why do you care so much about this particular topic? Why not the occupation of Goa, or the Austrian Anschluss, or the theory of occupation in general (see relevant articles)? You have spent so much time here that it is difficult not to think that you are motivated by reasons other than simply helping improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. Like Vecrumba, you seem to have emotions invested in it as well. Is that so? And, for all clarity, shouldn't both sides disclose what their motivations are? (Vecrumba does quite a good job on this topic in his user page.) --Pereru (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammar corrections needed

I note certain parts of the article need attention from native speakers. The following paragraph:

Industrialization and immigration

The Soviets made large capital investments for energy resources and a manufacture of industrial and agricultural products. The purpose was to integrate the Baltic economies into the larger Soviet economic sphere.[36] In all three republics, manufacturing industry was developed at the expense of other sectors, notably agriculture and housing. The rural economy suffered from the lack of investments and the collectivization.[37] Baltic urban areas damaged during wartime and it took ten years to reachieved housing losses. New constructions were often poor quality and ethnic Russians immigrants were favored in housing.[38] Estonia and Latvia received large-scale immigration of industrial workers for other parts of the Soviet Union and changed the demographics changes dramatically. Lithuania also received immigration but in a smaller scale.[36]

contains several mistakes with articles ("a manufacture of", "manufacturing industry"), instances of missing verbs ("Baltic urban areas damaged during wartime and it took ten years to reachived housing losses."). I suspect there are other such paragraphs in the text. Perhaps someone should thoroughly re-read it? --Pereru (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I previously did some copyediting of this and some other Latvian articles, but eventually was put off by the continuous edit warring on this topic - and there's lots of other material that I can work on in my own backyard - South Australia. Bahudhara (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has been protected owing to edit warring over tagging. Once it's available to edit again, I'll do some clean up, it wasn't worth doing anything earlier. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

A number of grammar corrections are required. Rather than request those piecemeal, is the article protection permanent or is it set to expire some time soon? If the latter, changes can simply wait, they are not critical. Otherwise I'll begin submitting. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a thirty-day full prot commencing 19 June 2012, so there's a little under two weeks for it to run. With that in mind, I've deactivated the {{editprotected}} - if this needs attention sooner, please change |answered=yes to |answered=no --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, we can wait until expiration. Best, Peters VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing should be noted:

As far as I know, the Russian Federation between 1989 (when the secret protocols of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact were recognized by Moscow) and 2000 didn’t have the policy of claiming that the Baltics voluntarily joined the Soviet Union. This policy of accusing the Baltic nations of “Falsification of History” began when Vladimir Putin became leader of Russia.--201.81.237.228 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't cite the source right now, but Boris Meissner has discussed the Russian views on the issue in 1990s (in the article Die russische Politik gegenüber der baltischen Region als Prüfstein für das Verhältnis Russlands zu Europa). Kozyrev et al repeatedly claimed that the Baltic states voluntarily joined the USSR. There hasn't been much change in this respect. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Independent States/Soviet-German treaties?

Why is there no mention of the creation of the new states through the defeat of the Russian Empire, revolution, German occupation, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk etc. At the moment the article does not, as far as I can see, mention that the "independent" states were created, and lost their independence 20 years later, through Soviet-German treaties.176.1.212.131 (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a quite common misconcept (BTW, either conciously or not, shared by Vladimir Putin as heard here). Both Germany and Soviet Russia were opposed to the Estonian Declaration of Independence and the nationalist movements in Latvia and Lithuania. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not create any republics but simply seceded the Baltic territories to Germany. The latter created the United Baltic Duchy in April 1918, which Germany abolished due to the Armistice with Germany in November 1918. After that, the German troops withdrew without any recognition to the Baltic republics and the Soviet Russia broke into wars with them. How can anyone say these republics were created by a German-Russian treaty? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Jaan is correct. While the Great Powers were defeating Germany on Germany's western front, they were also enlisting Germany as their proxy against Russia on Germany's eastern front. There's no such animal as German-Russian treaties which initially giveth independence and then (purportedly merely restoring the status quo) taketh it away. That is a post-Soviet Russian-originated utter fiction. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Representation of Baltic birth places

Hello,

The issue we discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles has been discovered by WP:HOCKEY. Unfortunately, the argument there is rather technical and has few historical and legal considerations. I think the discussion could use the help of some of the editors involved on this page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, unfortunately that seems to have become a feeding frenzy of fresh meat for "the Baltics were (regardless of illegitimacy) part of the USSR" POV school of WP. Editors who are as unfamiliar with Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian history as they are familiar with player stats certainly are an inviting target for persuasion since some already accept "part of" as simple fact and denounce editorial opposition as nationalists. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You haven't explained how what you're doing is not nationalistic revisionism. Most ordinary Wikipedia readers want to know the facts on the ground: what sovereign power actually controlled the territory, rather than what was the separatist fantasy that took 51 years to materialize. What did their passports say, rather than what did they believe in their hearts (although I'm sure a fair amount of Baltic people weren't so unhappy about being associated with world superpower). Shrigley (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Why should he prove his deeds are not 'nationalistic revisionism'? The presumption of innocence no longer holds? And as for 'rather than what was the separatist fantasy that took 51 years to materialize', do you have any source for such an assumption (preferably other than Dyukov)?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
@Shrigley, why isn't it Russian revisionism when the Duma declares Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law? Really, you can do better than arrive brandishing your anti-nationalist dagger. My parents' Latvian passports issued in the 1950's said Latvia. By your logic, we should change the birthplace of everyone born in Czechoslovakia after the Nazi German occupation to "Germany." Those were the facts on the ground. You fail to consider the unintended consequences of your position. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. You incorrectly conflate sovereign and control. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, to your request for an explanation, the Russian Duma maintains the Baltics joined legally according to international law. Soviet or Russian, the mantra is that Estonia, Latvia, and lithuania joined willingly and the Soviet Union couldn't occupy what belonged to it. What you call nationalistic revisionism is only setting the record straight after half a century of Soviet lies, followed by a little bit of Russian truth (treaty signed by the Russian republic with Lithuania recognizing the USSR violated its sovereignty, this prior to the collapse of the USSR), followed by Russian retrenchment into Soviet lies and restoring its most sinister figures, for example, restoring and returning the bust of Dzherzinsky, founder of the notorious Cheka, to the courtyard of the Moscow police (2005 I think it was). If Germany restored a monument of Himmler in the center of Berlin, there would be international outrage. The equivalent in Russia? Just another day. The "revisionist" paintbrush applies, but to today's official Russia attempting to proselytize an utterly fake version of history and passing laws that those who don't stick to that version can get tossed into jail. Hope this helps. When you truck out the "nationalist" label as you did, you're not likely to get a friendly reception. You've got a lot to learn about history. This is an encyclopedia, your contention that readers don't care about anything other than appearances at the surface disrespects both encyclopedia and readers. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
@Shrigley, you haven't explained how your apparent view isn't indistinguishable from the Russian patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) discourse and why it should be given more weight than due a minority POV. --Nug (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As I recall we mention that in the article. The accusation of nationalist (Baltic) revisionism blaspheming the Soviet Union is all too common, even so long after the USSR is dead and buried. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well apparently defence of the actions of the Soviet Union has been wrapped up in Russian nationalism, just recently Putin defended the Soviet attack on Finland as "correcting mistakes"[1]. There is a strong element of amnesia within Russian nationalist discourse, so it follows that anything contrary to that POV is viewed as "revisionism". --Nug (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Checked the original in Russian. Scary, to say the least. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Occupation?

The article should be re-named Soviet Annextion of the Baltic states, as they were 3 of 15 Soviet republics. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What do the inhabitants of those areas refer to it as? We likely should give substantial weight to their opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We should make sure that historical revisionism isn't at play, here. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
IOW you are certain that the people there considered it an "occupation" and you wish to ignore their own judgements about it because of what, precisely? Sorry -- it looks like you do not wish to follow simple logic on this one. Collect (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't here, to right the wrongs done to people. Pushing a Baltic nationalist PoV, isn't acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
As I am not remotely Baltic, nor a Baltic nationalist, nor "pushing a Baltic nationalist POV" I fear you are on the wrong planet on this one. I am suggesting the rational approach, and all you do is attack me for being something I am not, for doing something I am not doing, and for actually trying to follow Wikipedia policies. I think you well ought to apologize to me at this point. Collect (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not calling you a Baltic nationalist nor accusing you of pushing such a PoV. The article itself already has a Baltic nationalist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah -- so you are saying that only Baltic nationalists could consider the Soviet treatment as being an "occupation"? And since we can not play into the hands of those "Batic nationalists" the only proper thing is to call it an "annexation"? Collect (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is so 'messed up' on other fronts, it's not worth the bother. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Curiously, the whole world apart [2] from present Russian government seem to be 'Baltic nationalists' then... It would help, if one familiarised himself with the topic he tries to treat first, not just seek new and new articles to have a vendetta against a couple of users he had a dispute with.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That Baltic revisionism is being pushed/accepted here & gradually on other articles, isn't surprising. Wikipedia is riddled with personal preferences across linguistics, politics & history topics. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep. The Balts must have a HUGE conspiracy going on for years: they've even bribed mainstream scholars to support their views. Scary.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourselves to the archives of this article. This discussion has been repeated there couple of times. --Whiskey (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. I was just trying to ridicule Occupation deniers, no serious intent to engage with such people.. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are clearly looking for a topic ban to add to your other topic bans, as I don't see anything except stalking and stirring pots discussed long ago with zero demonstration that you've read any prior discussion, nor have you indicated any interest in any historical detail, which to me indicates you're just here to egg on other editors. Give it a rest. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Waffen-SS

I don't know whether this question has been asked already, but why this article doesn't mention that considerable number of population of Baltic states served in Nazi's Waffen-SS divisions, particularly in 1st Latvian, 2nd Latvian and 1st Estonian divisions. It's a known fact, and the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states. There is only not-so-closely-related sentence about it in "Russian historiography in the post-Soviet era section", and even than it's just a quote. And at the same time it mentions Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces. But Baltic nationals were also within the Nazi Germany forces! And not a tiny mention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.217.17 (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There were no Lithuanians in the Waffen SS, while some 20,000 Estonians and 55,000 Latvians were conscripted into the Waffen SS, out of a population of approximately 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 respectively, which represents around ~0.025% of the population, so your premise "that considerable number of population of Baltic states served in Nazi's Waffen-SS divisions" is disproved. As for the claim "It's a known fact, and the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states.", is not only nonsense, it also could be construed as an expression of Anti-Estonian sentiment. That said, you are welcomed to add mention Baltic nationals also being in German forces to the article. --Nug (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


Quote:There were no Lithuanians in the Waffen SS

There were collaborators: Lithuanian_collaboration_during_World_War_II#Lithuania and Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force

Quote: while some 20,000 Estonians and 55,000 Latvians were conscripted into the Waffen SS, out of a population of approximately 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 respectively, which represents around ~0.025% of the population, so your premise "that considerable number of population of Baltic states served in Nazi's Waffen-SS divisions" is disproved.

First, I didn’t say most, I sad considerable. 20,000 and 55,000 are considerable numbers. I assume 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 figures are the numbers of males that could have been conscripted (That they exclude women, children and old persons). 20,000 of 1,000,000 is actually 2% and 55,000 of 2,000,000 is 2.75%. But the numbers are higher if we count all people that served in German forces. For Estonia they are 38,000 men or even 70,000. For Latvia - 100,000 men. Efraim Zuroff claims that there were 140,000 men. Anyhow these facts deserve to be mentioned in this article. If you still think that it’s a small number than yoг should remove this line from the article: “The estimated death toll among Lithuanian deportees between 1945 and 1958 was 20,000, including 5,000 children.[79]” since it is just “~0.025% of the population” according to your math.

Quote: As for the claim "It's a known fact, and the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states.", is not only nonsense, it also could be construed as an expression of Anti-Estonian sentiment.

Since you made such a strong accusation I will post several links to reliable sources and quotes from them. I had to make this message this big to prove my point of view, and that I’m not lying.

Some excerpts from the articles:

Annual Ceremony Divides Latvia: Waffen SS Veterans March Through Riga

  • Latvian veterans of Hitler's Waffen SS marched through Riga on Monday, defying a ban by officials. The annual march divides the country.
  • The march takes place each year…
  • On Monday, some 1,200 people gathered at the Freedom Monument…
  • The March 16 event has caused tensions every year since the veterans began to mark it soon after Latvia regained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.
  • On March 16, 1944, Latvian Waffen SS fighters fought the Red Army at the Velikaya river. In 1998 the Latvian parliament declared the day an official day of commemoration, but the holiday was scrapped two years later. Veterans still treat March 16 as an informal holiday, however.
  • Latvia says many of the 100,000 men who fought in the ranks of the Latvian Legion were conscripted…

Nazi SS veterans march through Riga in event attended by right-wing party linked to Tories

  • Veterans of the dreaded Nazi Waffen SS marched in freezing temperatures in the Latvian capital Riga today cheered by locals who view them as heroes.
  • men who once wore the double S-flashes of the Nazi party's elite combat unit were honoured among the 2,000 who took part as freedom fighters from Communism.
  • Efraim Zuroff, the world’s foremost Nazi hunter who was also in Riga for a Holocaust conference, pleaded for Latvians not to honour the memory of the 140,000 men who joined the Latvian Legion in 1943 to fight for the Third Reich.
  • But history is never so simple: included in the ranks of these young conscripts were at least 500 men who had participated in the liquidation of the 40,000 Jews of the Riga ghetto.
  • Supporters vastly outnumbered the handful of anti-legion protesters …

Latvian memorial sees Waffen SS as freedom fighters

  • Latvian memorial sees Waffen SS as freedom fighters
  • "There have been attempts again and again to glorify former SS soldiers," said Efraim Zurof, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem, who believes Latvia is trying to disguise its role in the Holocaust. "Not a single collaborator has ever been hunted down or punished," he says. Latvia is regularly criticised in the centre's annual report for failing to hold any Holocaust perpetrators accountable, primarily due to what it argues is a lack of the requisite political will.
  • Historian Karlis Kangeris does not dispute that many people living in the Baltic states were happy when the Wehrmacht drove back the Red Army in 1941 and were also eager to sign up to the military.
  • This view is shared in neighbouring Estonia…
  • The authorities in Riga argue that the more than 100,000 volunteers in the Latvian Legion of the Waffen-SS fought only the Soviet Union which had previously occupied and annexed Latvia, and was not responsible for Holocaust. However, the Latvian security police were also involved while many Latvians also assisted in the mass murder of Jews, who were considered as co-conspirators and made scapegoats for Soviet crimes.

The Nazi Resurgence in Europe: The Waffen-SS Marches Again

  • Numerous political parties and social movements have sprung up that support former and current Nazis and Nazi causes.
  • This March 16 will see the emergence of the worst of this onto the world stage. Since the mid-'90s, in Latvia, there have been organized and growing demonstrations celebrating the Latvians who served in German Waffen-SS legions.
  • On March 16, In Riga, there will be another set of demonstrations and marches by SS veterans, with supporters from Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania and elsewhere.

Latvian court allows march honouring Waffen SS forces

  • They plan to commemorate the some 140,000 Latvian men who fought against the Russians with the German military.
  • Hundreds of people met in the Latvian capital of Riga on Wednesday to remember World War II veterans who fought with Nazi Germany in the Waffen SS, after a court overturned a ban on the controversial annual gathering.

20th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Estonian)#Modern_controversy

  • Most living veterans of the division belong to the 20th Estonian Waffen Grenadier Division Veterans Union. It was founded in 2000 and gatherings of veterans of the division are organised by the union on the anniversaries of the battle of the Tannenberg Line in the Sinimäed hills.
  • On 28 July 2007, a gathering of some 300 veterans of the 20th Waffen-Grenadier-Division and of other units of the Wehrmacht, including a few Waffen SS veterans from Austria and Norway, took place in Sinimäe, where the battle between the German and Soviet armies had been particularly fierce.
  • This gathering takes place every year and has seen veterans from Estonia, Norway, Denmark, Austria and Germany attending.[22]

There are, of course more sources, but I chose those one that you can’t accuse of bias towards one side under any circumstances. Now I expect to hear your apologies for accusing me of a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.199.37 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You claimed "the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states", yet none of the links mentioned anything about about "wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on", in fact photos in the respective sources show old geriatric men in civilian clothes, so that claim is a lie. Nor is there anything about "they are officially recognized by those states" in the sources either. People all over the world commemorate their war dead, the Baltic states are no exception, that some people choose to politicise this for their own agenda is a fact. However a talk page is for discussion about improving the article, not engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. So unless you have some concrete improvements to discuss, it is pointless to continue. --Nug (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"You claimed the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states, yet none of the links mentioned anything about about "wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on", in fact photos in the respective sources show old geriatric men in civilian clothes, so that claim is a lie. "

The Latvian Legion (Latvian: Latviešu leģions) was a formation of the Waffen-SS during World War II created in 1943 and consisting primarily of ethnic Latvian conscripts. Honoring of Latvian Legion’s symbol Veterans: Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4, Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8, Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11

"Nor is there anything about they are officially recognized by those states in the sources either. "

There was a mention:

  • In 1998 the Latvian parliament declared the day an official day of commemoration, but the holiday was scrapped two years later. Veterans still treat March 16 as an informal holiday, however.

Besides, here’s what Wikipedia state: Latvian Legion Day

  • In 1993, MP Juris Dobelis of LNNK invited his colleagues to commemorate the anniversary of the Legion, supported by the Chairman of the Parliament, Anatolijs Gorbunovs.[1] It was set as an official remembrance day in 1998.[2] In 1998 the procession to lay flowers at the base of the Freedom Monument drew the attention of foreign media… In 2000 the Latvian government abolished the day as an official commemoration day due to the EU objections, however the day is still observed unofficially and has since evolved into a political fight between opposing to this date and Latvian nationalists.

Here’s the report of The Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance, in which it condemns Latvia’s Waffen SS Parades: [ECRI Report on Latvia (fourth monitoring cycle]

  • All attempts to commemorate persons who fought in the Waffen SS and collaborated with the Nazis, should be condemned. Any gathering or march legitimising in any way Nazism should be banned. (p. 9)
  • 86. Further, ECRI expresses concern as regards the authorisation of certain public events to commemorate two incidents and the authorities’ reaction in this connection. As concerns the first incident, every year, on 16 March, a gathering commemorating soldiers who fought in a Latvian unit of the Waffen SS is held in the centre of Riga. In this connection, ECRI regrets that, in spring 2010, an administrative district court overruled a decision of the Riga City Council prohibiting this march.
  • Moreover, ECRI is concerned that the speaker of the Latvian Parliament allegedly publicly expressed regret for the formal prohibition of this event and that certain MPs have voted for the restoration of March 16 as day of remembrance
  • Further, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs did not condemn the march, stating, on the contrary, that there was nothing wrong with former soldiers gathering together privately to remember their fallen comrades-in-arms and that any attempt to characterise this commemoration as the glorification of Nazism is unacceptable. ECRI understands that part of Latvian public opinion considers that: the legion did not fight for Nazism but to restore Latvian sovereignty (further to Soviet occupation); they did not commit atrocities against Jews; and that, although many individuals joined the legion willingly, many others were conscripted. However, ECRI cannot but express concern about any attempt to justify fighting in the Waffen SS and collaborating with the Nazis, as it risks fuelling racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance
  • As regards the second incident, ECRI, on the one hand, expresses its dismay at the authorisation by the competent courts of an event set to celebrate the Nazi occupation of Riga (on 1 July).

"However a talk page is for discussion about improving the article, not engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. So unless you have some concrete improvements to discuss, it is pointless to continue. "

Right, I made some suggestions, but you started to tell that my arguments are nonsense, mentioned that they are Anti-Estonian sentiment, to which I replied. Now you’ve come up with another accusation of WP:ADVOCACY, which is nowhere to be found in my messages. So I will start again, my suggestions:

  • This article has the section “Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces” but doesn’t has “Baltic nationals within the Nazi forces”;
  • This new section should mention Waffen-SS, the number of Baltic nationals serving in Waffen-SS divisions, German security police, German battalions and German army;
  • It should also mention battles, in which they took part;
  • It should mention operations committed against Jews, Russians and other nationalities (for example Operation Winterzauber);
  • It should mention Baltic collaborationism;
  • It should mention casualties in the ranks of German army;
  • It should mention sentiments of locals when Germany entered Baltic states;
  • Article should have Modern controversy section, which describes annual marches, there is enough info in my above posted links. Or at least it should be expanded in other articles regarding Baltic legionaries. The ECRI Report on Latvia must also be mentioned here or in Latvian legionaries article;

I can try to implement some of my suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.124.233.223 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you just suggest the text you want to add here on the talk page? Thank you! Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, there are a couple of points you seem to be missing. Your comments suggest the Baltic nationals within the Waffen SS were volunteers, which is false. Mentioning the battles they took part and the suffered losses would be fine - probably Battle of Narva (1944), Tartu Offensive, Riga offensive, and Tallinn Offensive articles have the best description of that. Regarding collaborationism, Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II has good overviews. Just bear in mind the definition of collaborationism being 'cooperation with enemy forces against one's country' that most counter-Soviet cooperation with the German authorities cannot be deemed as collaborationism as it was not directed against their own country. Modern controversies can well be a part of this article, as long as either sourced to mainstream scholarly research or, otherwise, attributing quotes. Good luck! Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you just suggest the text you want to add here on the talk page? Originally I just wanted to clarify why Baltic Waffen-SS divisions weren't mentioned in this article since it's a known fact (I didn't know whether this question had been answered, because there were more than a dozen pages of discussion, and I didn't have time to read them all). That's why I don't have a text to suggest. But during the discussion some suggestion came to my mind. So I posted them, and maybe someone can address them, mention it in the article. As I suggested maybe even I would implement some of them.Your comments suggest the Baltic nationals within the Waffen SS were volunteers, which is false. Articles in wikipedia and several above links I posted state that there were volunteers and conscripts. Besides, most members of Baltic SS divisions state, that they battled against the USSR intentionally. Nazi Germany had also been fighting the USSR, so in terms of fighting the Soviet Union the Baltic SS members' agenda and Nazi agenda were the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.124.233.223 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, none of the images you posted show veterans wearing Nazi uniforms. They are in fact wearing either the current Estonian or Latvian military uniform, or some other non-nazi military style outfit. As for insignia, they seem to be either Estonian or Latvian national insignia, for example this image shows insignia based upon the Cross of Liberty (Estonia) created in 1919, which is the same one used in the War of Independence Victory Column. Check out the insignia used today by the Finnish Satakunta Air Command. Finland also battled against the USSR intentionally, so you suggesting that the Finnish agenda was the same as Nazi agenda, and therefore when Finland commemorates their war dead they are in fact glorifying Nazism? Nonsense. Secondly, you stated "they are officially recognized by those states", however only Latvia officially recognised them for a couple of years before repealing that recognition over ten years ago, while Estonia and Lithuania never officially recognised them. As to your question why Baltic Waffen-SS divisions weren't mentioned in this article, no conspiracy, it's just a plain and simple oversight, feel free to add a "“Baltic nationals within the German forces”" section. --Nug (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
They are in fact wearing either the current Estonian or Latvian military uniform, or some other non-nazi military style outfit. How do the current uniforms look like? I've searched to no avail. As for insignia, they seem to be either Estonian or Latvian national insignia, for example this image... The wearing of SS runes on the collar was forbidden, and these formations began wearing national insignia instead. That was probably the same with Latvian SS divisions. Just to clarify, what are those insignias on his collar, shoulders and head wear image? Where can I read about them? And where I can read about those awards image? Really curious. Finland also battled against the USSR intentionally, so you suggesting that the Finnish agenda was the same as Nazi agenda, and therefore when Finland commemorates their war dead they are in fact glorifying Nazism? I don't know what the celebrate, but Finland was an ally of the Germany. ECRI views Latvian commemorations as Nazi commemoration. As for agenda, probably not the most appropriate word, sounds to global. The members of the Baltic SS divisions stated, that they had been fighting Bolshevism. Nazi Germany and its subdue forces had also been fighting Bolshevism among the other things. Waffen-SS division were subdued to Germany. Members of the Baltic legions willingly fought against the USSR (They state it). Waffen-SS division, in which Baltic nationals had been serving, were ordered to fight the Soviets. So there is no conflict between the Baltic national's idea of fighting the Soviets (Bolshevism) and Nazi's orders to fight them. Secondly, you stated "they are officially recognized by those states", however only Latvia officially recognised them for a couple of years before repealing that recognition over ten years ago, while Estonia and Lithuania never officially recognised them. Numerous officials (Presidents, minsters, etc.) endorsed them. One of the examples is in the ECRI report on Latvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.230.185 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Nazi Germany and Finland were not allies. They were co-belligerent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-belligerence 150.227.15.253 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)David

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_17&oldid=1207696651"